Ayn Rand received government aid

[A Laughing Baby]

Didn't see a thread on this yet, though I thought it would be interesting since this is a name that gets brought up quite frequently here.

Some select quotes for those too busy to read the whole article:

An interview recently surfaced that was conducted in 1998 by the Ayn Rand Institute with a social worker who says she helped Rand and her husband, Frank O’Connor, sign up for Social Security and Medicare in 1974.

Federal records obtained through a Freedom of Information act request confirm the Social Security benefits. A similar FOI request was unable to either prove or disprove the Medicare claim.

The Medicare claim is still shaky, in other words.

Between December 1974 and her death in March 1982, Rand collected a total of $11,002 in monthly Social Security payments. O’Connor received $2,943 between December 1974 and his death in November 1979.

In the interview, Pryor recounts working as a consultant for Rand’s attorneys, who asked her to speak with Rand about applying for Social Security and Medicare. The two women ended up becoming friends, meeting regularly to play Scrabble and argue politics. While they had philosophical differences, Pryor’s respect and affection for Rand is clear.

“She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn’t like, which was Medicare and Social Security,” Pryor told McConnell. “I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political discussions. From there on – with gusto – we argued all the time.

“The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”

Rand often spoke of moral absolutism, saying “There can be no compromise on basic principles,” but the realities of aging and illness seem to have softened her stance. Social Security, and perhaps Medicare, allowed Rand and her husband to maintain their quality of life, remain in their apartment and live out their final years with dignity.

Interesting. Does this diminish the tenets of her philosophy or not? It surely is not an undignified thing to receive government aid (in my opinion), but does it speak to the feasibility of Objectivism?

 

[Spindrift]

Interesting. Does this diminish the tenets of her philosophy or not? It surely is not an undignified thing to receive government aid (in my opinion), but does it speak to the feasibility of Objectivism?

Do you mean further diminish?

 

[headscratcher4]

As we now know from the debate over health care that Medicare and Social Security are not government programs....

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Do you mean further diminish?

I didn't want to editorialize more than I already did in the OP. As much fun as inflammatory threads are, I genuinely wonder how this information will be taken by people for/against her philosophy.

 

[RobRoy]

Interesting. Does this diminish the tenets of her philosophy or not? It surely is not an undignified thing to receive government aid (in my opinion), but does it speak to the feasibility of Objectivism?

Do you mean further diminish?

This. Objectivism is an interesting concept, a nice pipe-dream, but ultimately unrealistic. Feasibility doesn't even enter into the concept. Objectivism is completely unfeasible, except on a very small scale. I'm a fan of Rand and her concepts, but they're unworkable in the really-real world.

On the other hand, I don't see what that has to do with Rand accepting Social Security. On the one hand, in order to receive it, she had to pay into it. On that level, she was reclaiming what was hers. On the other, just because an idealist, philosopher, or whatever fails to live up to their own standards hardly removes makes the standards any less desirable.

If Dawkins were to suddenly convert to full-on born again Christian status, would that remove the logic and feasibility of his previous arguments?

 

[A Laughing Baby]

On the other, just because an idealist, philosopher, or whatever fails to live up to their own standards hardly removes makes the standards any less desirable.

If Dawkins were to suddenly convert to full-on born again Christian status, would that remove the logic and feasibility of his previous arguments?

This is how my hardcore Objectivist friends responded to the news, and I feel it is the strongest counter-argument. Separating the ideals from the idealists is, if you'll allow a poorly-constructed analogy, similar to forming a corporation to remove liability, insofar as if the idealist is flawed (and what idealist isn't?), the ideal remains intact.

 

[RobRoy]

This is how my hardcore Objectivist friends responded to the news, and I feel it is the strongest counter-argument. Separating the ideals from the idealists is, if you'll allow a poorly-constructed analogy, similar to forming a corporation to remove liability, insofar as if the idealist is flawed (and what idealist isn't?), the ideal remains intact.

Pretty much, although I think the Social Security is getting your money back is a decent argument as well. Honestly, I wouldn't even care that Rand had panhandled her way through The Fountainhead. There are plenty of other authors, idealists, philosophers, and hacks out there who have done far worse than sign up for a government run aid program.

 

[theprestige]

I didn't want to editorialize more than I already did in the OP. As much fun as inflammatory threads are, I genuinely wonder how this information will be taken by people for/against her philosophy.

I'm neither for or against her philosophy (pretty much everything I know about it I learned from Forum 2000, back in the day).

But it seems to me that someone who despised the idea of government handouts would be quite consistent to demand government services commensurate with the personal wealth taken from them by the government.

If I could opt-out of Social Security taxes, and did so, and then applied for Social Security benefits, that would be pretty hypocritical.

If, on the other hand, I'm forced by the government to pay into a benefits system, then at the very least I should require the government to give me good value for the money it's taken away from me over the years. I'd rather not have such a relationship at all, of course, but since I have no choice in the matter, it'd be a pretty stupid principle that insisted the government should be the only party to benefit from the relationship.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Interesting. Does this diminish the tenets of her philosophy or not? It surely is not an undignified thing to receive government aid (in my opinion), but does it speak to the feasibility of Objectivism?

Both Medicare and Social Security are programs one pays into like insurance. I don't think this is the same as finding out she got Food Stamps early on in her career.

However, a biography of Ayn Rand, "Ayn Rand and the World She Made", claims relatives helped her get here from Russia and helped support her while she went to school and looked for work in NY. They also helped her get to LA and sent her money until she started earning her own. These relatives say when Rand got rich, she never offered them one dime in pay back.

 

[HansMustermann]

You seem to imply that Rand would have genuine moral problems with it, as opposed to maybe just have trouble rationalizing it to someone.

Thing is, Rand was already very used to getting help and then denying it. Rand for example was taken out of the USSR by some relatives and they also pretty much are the reason why she didn't end up in some ghetto like so many immigrants. They housed her, fed her, gave her money and let her see hundreds of movies for free, as she was trying to become a screenwriter. Yet some time later she would claim that nobody ever helped her.

But really, most of her public statements were severely at odds with her private life, even when the former were about the latter.

I have no doubt that if she were a less public figure she'd have just pocketed the Medicare money and claim she never got that help either (in fact, implicitly that kinda is what she did), or like so many of her admirers would have just stuck with being rabidly free-market until then and then pretend she was always a leftist when she starts getting money from that darned state.

 

[BenBurch]

Brittle ideologues often are hypocrites.

 

[drkitten]

This is how my hardcore Objectivist friends responded to the news, and I feel it is the strongest counter-argument. Separating the ideals from the idealists is, if you'll allow a poorly-constructed analogy, similar to forming a corporation to remove liability, insofar as if the idealist is flawed (and what idealist isn't?), the ideal remains intact.

I think that depends on what the argument that this is a counter-argument to is. Basically, why did you find Dawkins' arguments against religion plausible in the first place, and (assuming a hypothetical conversion), what argument is he making for his abandoning this stance?

If the reason he abandons the stance today is the same reason that apologists were suggesting his arguments were flawed five years ago, it sounds to me like a validation of the apologists.

One of the reason that is usually raised against Objectivism is that it doesn't work, and specifically that it doesn't provide an adequate social safety net for the needy. A person can be wiped out by a medical crisis regardless of her moral stature.

When Ayn became needy herself, she learned that a person can be wiped out by a medical crisis regardless of her moral stature, and threw herself into the arms of the anti-Objectivist, government-provided safety net.

That sounds to me like a validation of the anti-Objectivist postion.

 

[WildCat]

Brittle ideologues often are hypocrites.

I don't see this as hypocritical. Now, if she accepted welfare it would be but this is just receiving benefits she was vested in because she had paid into it. It's not like you can opt out of SS, unless you work for the government.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is how my hardcore Objectivist friends responded to the news, and I feel it is the strongest counter-argument. Separating the ideals from the idealists is, if you'll allow a poorly-constructed analogy, similar to forming a corporation to remove liability, insofar as if the idealist is flawed (and what idealist isn't?), the ideal remains intact.

There are two problems with that definition of 'ideal Objectivism', and they somewhat overlap. An ideal economic system is not like the ideal math and physics models of light in a vacuum. Humans are part of the equation and you can't just pretend that variable doesn't vary.

And, Objectivists leave all sorts of other data out of their fantasy view of the world. For example, what happens to the less skilled/less intelligent/less well off people that should be left to their own devices? They resort to crime and revolution. And what about the ghetto child that would succeed but doesn't have the relatives or loved ones with the resources to help the child reach that potential? Or what about the unemployed man who doesn't have a rich wife to support him?

So not only do Objectivists ignore human nature in their fantasy economy, they fail to consider all the data. They consider the individual as the only unit ignoring the group (unit) which individuals are all part of. One might find an explanation for this flawed version of reality in the effects of contemplating while high on amphetamines.

 

[theprestige]

I don't see this as hypocritical. Now, if she accepted welfare it would be but this is just receiving benefits she was vested in because she had paid into it. It's not like you can opt out of SS, unless you work for the government.

^^
This. Where, exactly, is the hypocrisy in expecting to receive a return on one's investment?

 

[Alt+F4]

This is how my hardcore Objectivist friends responded to the news,....

Wow, there are really hardcore Objectivists out there?

 

[A Laughing Baby]

There are two problems with that definition of 'ideal Objectivism', and they somewhat overlap. An ideal economic system is not like the ideal math and physics models of light in a vacuum. Humans are part of the equation and you can't just pretend that variable doesn't vary.

And, Objectivists leave all sorts of other data out of their fantasy view of the world. For example, what happens to the less skilled/less intelligent/less well off people that should be left to their own devices? They resort to crime and revolution. And what about the ghetto child that would succeed but doesn't have the relatives or loved ones with the resources to help the child reach that potential? Or what about the unemployed man who doesn't have a rich wife to support him?

So not only do Objectivists ignore human nature in their fantasy economy, they fail to consider all the data. They consider the individual as the only unit ignoring the group (unit) which individuals are all part of.

ETA:

I think Objectivism is one of the most ill-conceived philosophies in history, especially if used as an economic system. I just hate the current trend of "I hate _______, therefore I will spin _______ as much as possible in my thread title/OP to better fit my purposes and direct the argument," so I tried to make the thread pretty neutral--at least as much as possible considering the content--so that I could get more honest and less confrontational responses, which seems to be working so far. Don't tell anyone, okay?

Wow, there are really hardcore Objectivists out there?

1) Find your nearest college.
2) At that college, find a male with a ponytail, preferably in a starbucks or local coffee shop.
3) Ask him what political philosophy he adheres to.
4) Repeat until you find a hardcore Objectivist. It shouldn't take more than a day.

 

[BenBurch]

I don't see this as hypocritical. Now, if she accepted welfare it would be but this is just receiving benefits she was vested in because she had paid into it. It's not like you can opt out of SS, unless you work for the government.

Well, now, I've read almost everything she wrote, including bound volumes of The Objectivist Review, and she would see the SS and Medicaid taxes as looting. Now since people taking out of the system can and do take out more than they were required to put in, that makes YOU complicit in the looting.

From memory;

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live my life for another, require another to live their life for me."

That's the Objectivist Oath, I hope I haven't mangled it too badly in my 30 years faded memory.

 

[HansMustermann]

I don't see this as hypocritical. Now, if she accepted welfare it would be but this is just receiving benefits she was vested in because she had paid into it. It's not like you can opt out of SS, unless you work for the government.

Well, I dunno about hypocritical, but I'll say it does put a dampener on her claim of having some especially Objective view of the world. Keeping on maintaining her 'Objectivist' position long after seeing for herself what would happen without it, is pretty stupid. At that point she pretty much had her nose shoved into it, that even she, who considered herself a great living example of those imaginary shallow characters of hers, would not afford healthcare without such insurance and would die a horrible death.

A real philosopher would have taken that as a signal to go look again at her own premises and logic. The perfectly selfish world she envisioned as her ideal would have left her to die of cancer. Is that such an Objectively better world to strive for?

Heck, not even "a real philosopher", but the kind of fallacy poster girl who used to ask people "tell me your premises" and then build some convoluted personal failure out of anything they answered, would kinda be expected to have the honesty of looking at her own premises critically. Though even expecting "real philosopher" is not wrong from someone who placed herself as one of the only 3 philosophers worth reading in all history. Shouldn't she live up to that claim?

Shouldn't she address that new data that she had?

But she never does that kind of thing, does she?

E.g., she knew full well what someone like Hickman does when they don't give two craps about the rest of society, because she obsessed about him... but that doesn't stop her from presenting several idealized versions of him as some kind of hero.

E.g., in the same time when she was screwing around and doing huge fuss about some guy not worshipping her, she was giving stupid statements in which a woman's natural state is some kind of hero-worship of men. Now I'm not saying that the former is wrong per se, and at any rate the really wrong part is the latter... but how does one reconcile the latter with being herself a living example of anything but that?

I don't know if she's hypocritical, full of it, or just had her own head so far up her own ass, but something doesn't quite add up to great philosopher there. To say the least.

 

[theprestige]

Well, now, I've read almost everything she wrote, including bound volumes of The Objectivist Review, and she would see the SS and Medicaid taxes as looting. Now since people taking out of the system can and do take out more than they were required to put in, that makes YOU complicit in the looting.

From memory;

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live my life for another, require another to live their life for me."

That's the Objectivist Oath, I hope I haven't mangled it too badly in my 30 years faded memory.

In the case of Social Security, the Objectivist has no say in the matter: The government requires others to live their lives for the Objectivist whether they will or no. And the government taxes the Objectivist for the same purpose, whether they will or no. What should the Objectivist do? What, in your opinion, would be the most Objectivistically-consistent response to being forced to pay into the Social Security system?