blank

Anti-Capitalists Complain Ayn Rand Collected Social Security…

Anti-capitalists complain Ayn Rand collected social security.

What they fail to mention is that Ayn Rand was physically forced to pay Social Security taxes throughout her long working career. She just wanted to get some of the money back (around $11,000) that was forcibly taken from her paycheck by the government. This is entirely consistent with her philosophy.

What her dishonest critics should be complaining about is the billions of dollars Limousine Democrats — who oppose tax cuts — are holding on to in the form of tax cuts. They are the real hypocrites.

  • http://profiles.google.com/grant.d.williams G W

    Criticizing Ayn Rand for this is, from their perspective, like criticizing all of the liberals who are “forced” to buy from big corporations because the government hasn’t stepped in and nationalized them yet. Why the double standard?

    • MolonLabe64

      Huh?????

      Forced? Really? So that is what the DHS has been up to.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bruce.roeder Bruce Roeder

    Then why didn’t she collect it openly instead of having her secretary collect it under her married name?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Vegard-Martinsen/597010939 Vegard Martinsen

      Ayn Rand O`Connor was her legal name, and I guess she was to busy to collect it herself.

      • Dave

        The problem with the ‘O’Connor was her legal name’ argument is that she changed her FIRST name as well (to Ann). No excuse for doing that unless she intended to hide what she knew was against her supposed principles.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=719505078 Cass Michael

          Her real name was Alisa Rosenbaum.

        • John Lloyd

          Firstly, why in the world should ones dealing with their insurance, let alone their medical treatments- be anyone else’s business? All the more reason to have private companies that can promise confidentiality. How’s about this for a rational principle, DAVE – if it were possible- I put a nickel into some government program and later take out $100,000 anonymously… Just to make the freking point that if the government is giving away free money I should get what I can just like any other citizen would -And if absurd amounts are being handed out to anyone, anywhere – take what you can, so to ‘help’ the government realize it can no longer afford such nonsense… Agree or disagree – my principles are doing just fine!

  • SWalkerTTU

    She had to pay in the money, and was thus entitled to benefits. It was in her rational self-interest to take them.

    • Dave

      Exactly. The system she spent her life attacking ended up keeping her alive for the last decade of her life. Ironic.

      • John Lloyd

        More like Moronic – as Rand who left a million dollar estate in ’82 could no doubt could afford any medical treatment she wanted, anywhere in the world she would have wanted. It makes sense then that she would use whatever money (that had not been confiscated from her by the government) only in cases where the ‘mandated programs for seniors’ did not kick in….perhaps by simply getting a massage, a manicure and her hair done at the best salon money could buy.
        If I was putting into a privately run plan that I decided on of my own volition (be it a retirement pension that pays annuities or a form of healthcare insurance)- I would not be looking to break even or take a loss– I would expect and (to the extent legally possible) demand a maximum return for my $$$..this principle holds true even more so when the program is forced on me and it was never my choice to begin with.

        • Dave

          Where is the evidence that Rand left a million dollar estate in ’82? Seems unlikely since the vast majority of her books have been sold after she died & she spent a lot on amphetamines. According to the interview with the social worker that brought to light her SS payments (that’s social worker, not a maid or butler) she took SS reluctantly because she had no choice. And it’s not like she had an axe to grind; she knew Rand better than anyone and was a close friend.

          • John Lloyd

            Where’s the evidence that Rand was poor and had no choice (but to fall on hard economic times) unless she took a small part of the money taken from her back? Or the drug smear (which might even be slander if she was living)?

            Since she employed a secretary to help her pay her bills, a housekeeper and a cook and she left $10,000 to her cook Eloise Huggins in appreciation for her work and was able to pay for heart surgery for her brother-in-law from Russia…we can share evidence when you make your case.

            Just fyi this Joan Pryor worked for the law firm of Ernst, Crane Gitlin & Winick which handled all legal matters for Rand. She was a “copyright/trademark specialist” and a specialist in business systems that “did bond financing on Wall Street.” She was NOT Ayn Rand’s social worker! Social workers don’t get obituaries published by Variety, the entertainment newspaper.

          • Dave

            The evidence she was poor comes from the testimony of Pryor, who was a social worker AS WELL as working at a law firm. You’re still a long way from proving she was a millionaire when she died. The $10000 she left her cook probably came from the sale of assets in her estate. The evidence of her 30 year amphetamine habit is in every objective biography of her.

          • John Lloyd

            Ohh I think I am plenty close to showing she was quite ‘well to do’, as it is a matter of fact, but for argument’s sake – sure, she planned to spend every cent she made before she died..taking into account her return on ‘contributions’ to government programs (which was due back to her).
            I read this testimony and it sounds like Pryor was doing most of the talking (i.e. she was telling someone else, what she had told Rand,- bit odd) Whatever her Phd. degree was in, at the time when dealing with Rand, Ms. Pryor did not have active case files for any ‘social help organization’ and certainly her dealing with Rand were not ‘social welfare’ visits.

      • IronMaidenaregods

        Nope. The system did not keep her alive.

        You conveniently ignore the loot expropriated from Ayn Rand by taxes and inflation and pretend she received a free lunch from the state.

  • Jerry Jackson

    She stated that one is morally justified in taking advantage of government redistribution schemes if and only if one is morally opposed to such schemes and one acts/votes to abolish such schemes. Her receipt of Social Security benefits was simply an act of taking back that which was stolen. Would any of you claim that it is immoral, irrational, or hypocritical to legally reclaim your stolen property?

    • Dave

      Two people who would claim that Rand was hypocritical would be Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson. Regarded by the Cato Institute as two of the three founders of American libertarianism (with Rand being the third), they both declined Social Security on Principle. If you believe she was reclaiming what was stolen from her then you also have to believe she calculated what she paid in and would have stopped once she reached this point. Not a rational assumption.

      • Mike Pomatto

        Would, or did? Those are two different scenarios. Your argument further implies that because she did not actively engage in a protest that she must support the policy. That’s a false dichotomy.

        • Dave

          You have no idea what you’re commenting on. Given Paterson & Wilder Lane both died in the 60′s you should be able to figure out that they ‘would’ have. And it was Rand herself who said that it is OK to take welfare as long as you are morally opposed to it. The quote is in ‘A Question of Scholarships’.

  • John Lloyd

    Firstly, why the hell should ones dealing with their insurance, let alone their medical treatments- be anyone else’s business? All the more reason to have private companies that can promise confidentiality. How’s about this for a rational principle, DAVE – if it were possible- I put a nickel into some government program and later take out $100,000 anonymously… Just to make the f’ing point that if the government is giving away free money I should get what I can just like any other citizen would -And if absurd amounts are being handed out to anyone, anywhere – take what you can, so to ‘help’ the government realize it can no longer afford such nonsense… Agree or disagree – my principles are doing just fine!

    • Dave

      Stealing from your fellow taxpayer is not a rational principle. Rand would have called you a parasite.

      • John Lloyd

        Stealing from who? Who is the owner? You ? Your type of fellows or my type of fellows?
        If the government is throwing money out the window to anyone who wants it and can catch it (take the mortage tax deduction, for example) ..Grab as much as you can-then grab some more- then keep grabbing until the government realises it is broke…c’mon DAVE this is right out of Atlas Shrugged (d’Anconia Copper)
        And if you knew one iota about Rand you would know that she would have called me Ragnar Danneskjöld.

        • Dave

          That is Ayn Rand’s 3rd perspective on welfare that I’ve heard so far. At the very least you have to admit she failed as an absolutist.

          • John Lloyd

            Did she ever once utter the words ‘do not take social security, medicare, scholarships, etc’?

            In fact the 1966 Rand’s Objectivist Newsletter said that *not* collecting from programs that one is forced to finance would be wrong.
            “”
            the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.
            “”

          • Dave

            There are plenty of quotes where she unequivocally lambasted recipients of welfare as leeches, parasites etc. If it was consistent with her principles why didn’t she proudly announce she was recovering the money that had been taken from her? Instead she kept everything quiet by collecting under ‘Ann O’Conner’. What possible reason did she have for changing her first name if not to hide her SS payments?

          • John Lloyd

            Those other people she lambasted were always going to be leeches and parasites anyway – whether public welfare existed or not. And they were never once lambasted for taking money out of programs that were available to anyone.

            Regarding ‘keeping everything quiet’ seems her only mistake was picking Pryor (i.e. the Goverment is not releasing this information, neither under the name O’Connor, nor Rosenbaum, nor Rand, )…nothing wrong with trying to keep it hush-hush, not every evil has to be dealt with directly, face on, in a public forum (especially when she knows they are so many nitwits out there) …why waste valuable time, and precious ink and paper in your golden years?

            Moreover, it seems logical she got her money out under the name she registered under (in the ’30s) and had been paying under – given that is usually how it has to work.

  • Shrugging Atlas

    It’s a red herring. It is not logical to attack the concepts of Objectivism based on someone’s personal actions. Do you think that any of the Enlightenment philosophers stuck to their philosophies 100% of the time?

    Liberals have no legitimate criticisms of Objectivism, so they attack the personal actions of Ms Rand. That is what I call “pseudo-intellectualism”.