This seems topical, since we have several Objectivists floating around.

Ayn Rand took government assistance while decrying others who did t...


Noted speed freak, serial-killer fangirl, and Tea Party hero Ayn Rand was also a kleptoparasite, sneakily gobbling up taxpayer funds under an assumed name [note: it might have been her legal name] to pay for her medical treatments after she got lung cancer.

tea-party-john-galt.jpgAn interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).

As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so.


I like the part under the 'serial-killer fangirl' link.  Her concept of a real man is great.

Views: 583

Replies to This Discussion

You are again assuming that friends and family are in any position to help.


Well, sorry reality necessitates that life takes work. The truly disabled will be taken care of by those who care or they won't. It still doesn't make theft right.

Do you know who makes up the majority of the homeless population?  The mentally ill.  Why?  because mental health facilities are closing left and right.  So basically, you are saying that if you can't take care of yourself "sucks to be you"


From Wikipedia: 

This power is considered by many to be essential to the administering of government. As argued under the Articles, the lack of a power to tax renders government ineffectual. Typically, the power is used to raise revenues for the support of government.

Taxation is not theft.  That's exactly the sort of dogma I'm talking about.  The entire Libertarian position is based upon moral absolutes and does nothing to take into account results.  I don't give a damn about your moral absolutes, if the society they end up creating is complete shit.
Forced taxation is theft. Seriously, be reasonable. Taking money from someone against their will at the threat of incarceration is theft.
Taxation is a form of theft.  I need a new office.  Can I go around collecting money from people in my neighborhood through threat of imprisonment or death?  I think I'd be hitting the slammer if I did.  Why is it different when the "state" does it then when a citizen does it.  I'm willing and able to pay taxes, but not for things I don't agree with.  I do it because the IRS will come to my house with guns if I don't.  They've got a lot more people and guns then I do.  I can't show up at someone's house with a gun to get the things I need.  Well without going to prison for armed robbery.  
Once again you can't discuss a topic without resorting to name calling.
@John D
  • When did this site get bombed by Utopian dingbats?  It makes me ill.

It's atheism in general.  My local group has a bit of an infestation problem.  We've fragmented into two groups, because of it.  The Libertarians can't seem to restrain themselves from turning any message board topic into a reason to preach about Libertarianism.

Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.  It's an obligation of a responsible citizen.  But the taxation must be equitable - those who derive the greatest financial benefits from the society should have the greater taxation burden.

Well, that's where the Socialist system is better than the Libertarian one.  Rich people benefit from our society, so they can damned well contribute to help out society as a whole.  Once they're rich, they're able to manipulate the system and keep themselves on top, and we need something to help prevent them from screwing over the society that helped them get to the top of the heap.


If you can't see that, then I don't know how to reach you.  I just have to fall back on being grateful that you guys are too insignificant a percentage of the population to gain control.

A system where individual rights are not upheld is not a just or moral one.  I should not be forced to subsidize someone elses stupidity, individual or business.  The idea that an individual or business is so valuable to the system that we would subsidize their life style or business goes against the very free market system.  That's the same nonsense they sold us to bail out wall street.  If a business is too big to fail, we need to enforce antitrust and monopoly legislation.


I think a government that protects individual liberty will protect the people.  The whole issue is that our government is influenced by the rich because they aren't in the business of just protecting individual liberty.  If they were, the rich would be able to exert a lot less influence on the government.  The root here is campaign finance and the view that a corporation or business is an individual.  Once we get away from that absurd notion, we will start to move in a positive direction.


Even if I hated society and wanted it to fail, as long as I don't directly harm another, it is immoral for you to force me to do anything. We humans are smart and can prosper without bullying someone for assitance. It really is a matter of whether you have pride and confidence in the indominable 'spirit' of humans or you think we are weak little sheep that need help. A society based on need is pathetic. A society based on hard work and self-sufficiency is noble. Either way, government should keep those who violate another's rights in check.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service