When Ayn Rand Collected Social Security and Medicare, After Years of Opposition
openculture.com
openculture.com
She answered this question regarding accepting public scholarships but the principle is the same. The money was taken from her by force so she had every right to recoup her losses.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scho...
Basically things that Ayn Rand hates are bad--except when Ayn Rand does them and then it's because the things are unreasonable, not Ayn Rand.
Like if she was in a forced labour concentration camp, her philosophy wouldn't require her to refuse to eat the food she was offered.
In particular, Rand supported US foreign aid to Israel in her later years despite strongly denouncing the concept of foreign aid in its entirety prior.
(note: I obviously believe neither of you are hypocrites. I'm just trying to make a point.)
If you threaten to kidnap people and put them in a cage, you can't go around saying you have their "consent" when they give in to your threats.
She became a wealthy woman from her successful books, so she paid far more in than she ever took out. Her estate was valued at about a million dollars when she died in 1982. Her total receipts from social security $14,000.
Do you by any chance have the numbers ?
Of course I am repeating a common talking point of the critics of Social Security. I am ok with her having received more than she contributed, monetarily.
burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
> I am ok with her having received more than she contributed, monetarily.
Its not relevant what your personal opinion on the matter is. You made a specific claim, ask is for you to back it up.
If trends continue, the program will eventually turn into pure welfare.
FICA is essentially just an automated savings program, it's not particularly complex.
If Rand wanted to prove a point, she should have sued for her money instead of collecting it in a tidy monthly check. The former would be completely frivolous, but also necessarily consistent with her ideology. As it was, collecting social security and then confabulating the reasons reeks of intellectual bankruptcy.
This is a fully consistent argument.
It is morally OK to steal money from thieves who took your money.
Since Tragedy of the Commons and the reality of human nature, libertarianism is a dog-whistle for utopian anarchism ("rugged individualism"), a nearly polar-opposite over-reaction to another failed utopian system: communism. The proven (still flawed, and often recalibrating) workable middle-ground, balancing competing tyrannies is something approaching democratic socialism... America though is currently much more on the libertarian side for poor people and welfare state for the rich due to the undue, corrupting influences of billionaires' lobbyists and their money (tax code, corporate welfare, etc.) In countries like the UK, France and other parts of Europe there is guaranteed healthcare... In America, if you are dying in an ER and broke without Obamacare, you will likely be forced into bankruptcy from hospital bills.
Edit: apparently I need to have a supporting argument for why this is "anti-intellectual shit" or else I face a ban or something. The reason: Ayn fought to change the US into something that fit her vision of a properly organized society. She failed to make that change, and the US continued to be organized in a manner that she very much disagreed with. The fact that she participated in the legal framework that she was subjected to doesn't make her a hypocrite, nor does it imply that she changed her opinion of welfare states at the end of her life. The fact that the author of this article comes to this conclusion, or the fact that he even thinks its noteworthy to rub in her face her failures to insight the changes wished for, is anti-intellectual shit.
This is the kind of thing the HN guidelines refer to as name-calling and ask you to edit out: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Indeed if you did edit it all out, this comment would arguably be reduced to nothing. Please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN.
The problem is, demographics have changed and so it became a welfare program. To make matters worse, it became unsustainable without significant cuts, which makes the payroll tax not a required investment but a regressive penalty.