Ayn Rand received government aid

[I Am The Scum]

Yes, and?

Actually, it's as close as you can get in a real society. You can't rig things to hand feed people success or prosperity, and when you do your society ends up falling apart and everyone tries to leave to go to the place that promises only opportunity and not well-being.

So, is it the case that child labor tends to lead to prosperity more so than a childhood education?

 

[EGarrett]

So, is it the case that child labor tends to lead to prosperity more so than a childhood education?

It certainly can lead to more prosperity, if the child works in an area of interest with upward mobility...instead of being forced to sit quietly all day and listen to rote recitations of information that he won't remember. There is an endless list of brilliantly talented people who failed their classes while building incredible levels of ability in their personal area of interest in their spare time.

It also can if the economic situation of a country is such that people need to provide for themselves as much as they can, such as in developing countries.

In either of these situations, the child is better off being allowed to work instead of attending schooling. Which can only occur if the OPPORTUNITY is presented, meaning choices can be made by individuals or on a much smaller scale, rather than sweeping life-planning by a nanny state that only ends up causing people to starve or run away from the country by the millions.

Look at all the happy, healthy, wealthy people in that worker's paradise called Somalia. No minimum wage or crazy government regulations getting between anyone and their success.

You have no understanding, whatsoever, of the topic being discussed.

 

[I Am The Scum]

It certainly can lead to more prosperity, if the child works in an area of interest with upward mobility...instead of being forced to sit quietly all day and listen to rote recitations of information that he won't remember. There is an endless list of brilliantly talented people who failed their classes while building incredible levels of ability in their personal area of interest in their spare time.

It also can if the economic situation of a country is such that people need to provide for themselves as much as they can, such as in developing countries.

In either of these situations, the child is better off being allowed to work instead of attending schooling. Which can only occur if the OPPORTUNITY is presented, meaning choices can be made by individuals or on a much smaller scale, rather than sweeping life-planning by a nanny state that only ends up causing people to starve or run away from the country by the millions.

All of this denies the fact that what you call an opportunity is for many a necessity. Being required to work in a mine at the age of ten because the alternative is starving to death is not an opportunity. Being deprived of an education is not an opportunity. These are things that rob someone of their opportunities.

Where do we find child labor to be most prevalent? Is this also where we find prosperity?

You have no understanding, whatsoever, of the topic being discussed.

Oh, damn. Stellar argument.

 

[Mycroft]

If you're an empathetic person, sure. If you're Ayn Rand, you help people because you personally will benefit from the relationship and for no other reason. Allowing anyone else to access your resources (whether you earned them or inherited them) is a morally wrong. In the Ayn Rand world, leaving a child to die without medical attention because its parents are poor is a virtue.

This is the kind of criticism I hear about Rand, but I don't get that from having read a couple of her books. While I've never studied objectivism as a philosophy, I haven't seen anything in the books I've read that stops people from having normal emotions and caring about other people. Her heroes do give to charity, they do want to contribute to society. They just don't want society, meaning government, to take away what they build.

She doesn't seem to be a big fan of inherited wealth either. In her novels, those that inherit wealth and don't know what to do with it tend to squander it uselessly.

"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."

But isn't that by coercion? Wouldn't Rand also say that if living your life for others, or a cause, or charity made you happy, to go ahead? Shes against taking your labor and your wealth by force, nothing stops you from giving away if it makes you happy to do so.

 

[Withnail1969]

On a childlike, half-considered level of thinking (which is where most of us operate in regard to new ideas that we haven't taken a personal interest in), Ayn Rand's ideas sound evil and scary. She talks about "selfishness" and the evils of altruism. Which makes it sound like she's against sharing and being good to each other. People then don't bother to investigate whether this is actually the case, they just look for some random factoids or quotes to back up this initial reaction and then present it as their educated opinion.

For what it's worth, Rand herself absolutely hated these types of people. She said she spent her whole life looking for someone to honorably hear and challenge her ideas, but eventually gave up the search.

Ayn Rand idolised a bank robber and murderer William Eedward Hickman, and thought he was an example of a perfect human being:

In December of 1927, Hickman, nineteen years old, showed up at a Los Angeles public school and managed to get custody of a twelve-year-old girl, Marian (sometimes Marion) Parker. He was able to convince Marian's teacher that the girl's father, a well-known banker, had been seriously injured in a car accident and that the girl had to go to the hospital immediately. The story was a lie. Hickman disappeared with Marian, and over the next few days Mr. and Mrs. Parker received a series of ransom notes. The notes were cruel and taunting and were sometimes signed "Death" or "Fate." The sum of $1,500 was demanded for the child's safe release. (Hickman needed this sum, he later claimed, because he wanted to go to Bible college!) The father raised the payment in gold certificates and delivered it to Hickman. As told by the article "Fate, Death and the Fox" in crimelibrary.com,

"At the rendezvous, Mr. Parker handed over the money to a young man who was waiting for him in a parked car. When Mr. Parker paid the ransom, he could see his daughter, Marion, sitting in the passenger seat next to the suspect. As soon as the money was exchanged, the suspect drove off with the victim still in the car. At the end of the street, Marion's corpse was dumped onto the pavement. She was dead. Her legs had been chopped off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area."

 

[mumblethrax]

Wouldn't Rand also say that if living your life for others, or a cause, or charity made you happy, to go ahead?

The idea that living for others can be conditioned on your own happiness is...somewhat paradoxical.

Rand did unprincipled egoism all wrong. She projected the false image of a hard-nosed egoist to the world while living off of collectivist scraps in private. Everyone knows the real money is in appearing to be a squishy empath, getting elected, and then taking the public fisc for all it's worth.

No wonder she died a pauper.

 

[EGarrett]

All of this denies the fact that what you call an opportunity is for many a necessity.

Yes, it is a necessity. A necessity that the government, through its own idiotic long-distance attempts at life control, can deny you and cause you to die. Which is where the term "opportunity" comes in.

Being required to work in a mine at the age of ten because the alternative is starving to death is not an opportunity.

Yes it is, compared to the government forcing you to spend your time sitting in a classroom earning no money when you're starving at home. This is actually quite common in nanny and communist societies...the government tells millions of people what they SHOULD be doing instead of getting food for themselves, forces them to do it...and those millions of people die. It's happened before.

(and no, government welfare is not an alternative in this case, in third world and non-developed countries, there's no spare money to throw your way)

Being deprived of an education is not an opportunity. These are things that rob someone of their opportunities.

Education is a luxury. Some people literally CANNOT afford to spare that time. And if you try to force them to do it, they will die. Period. This is not a game.

Where do we find child labor to be most prevalent? Is this also where we find prosperity?

This is correlation, not causation. I could also point out that people in primitive agricultural societies get the most exercise, which would be similarly specious.

Child labor occurs as a symptom of a bad situation, but if you try to force that symptom away without dealing with improving the actual infrastructure, you only make things worse.

Oh, damn. Stellar argument.

It's a horribly lazy and cliched strawman that can be disproven by ANY basic research into the requirements for a Free Market. It's like, if you have any knowledge of the evolution/creation nonsense, dealing with the 4th person to come up to you in one day and rudely ask you how man could come from a monkey if there are still monkeys. It can only come from someone who not only has done zero research, but isn't interested in learning anything.

 

[EGarrett]

Ayn Rand idolised a bank robber and murderer William Eedward Hickman, and thought he was an example of a perfect human being:

In December of 1927, Hickman, nineteen years old, showed up at a Los Angeles public school and managed to get custody of a twelve-year-old girl, Marian (sometimes Marion) Parker. He was able to convince Marian's teacher that the girl's father, a well-known banker, had been seriously injured in a car accident and that the girl had to go to the hospital immediately. The story was a lie. Hickman disappeared with Marian, and over the next few days Mr. and Mrs. Parker received a series of ransom notes. The notes were cruel and taunting and were sometimes signed "Death" or "Fate." The sum of $1,500 was demanded for the child's safe release. (Hickman needed this sum, he later claimed, because he wanted to go to Bible college!) The father raised the payment in gold certificates and delivered it to Hickman. As told by the article "Fate, Death and the Fox" in crimelibrary.com,

"At the rendezvous, Mr. Parker handed over the money to a young man who was waiting for him in a parked car. When Mr. Parker paid the ransom, he could see his daughter, Marion, sitting in the passenger seat next to the suspect. As soon as the money was exchanged, the suspect drove off with the victim still in the car. At the end of the street, Marion's corpse was dumped onto the pavement. She was dead. Her legs had been chopped off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area."

I see, and where is Ayn Rand's QUOTE where she advocates theft, child molestation and murder? Not what you CLAIM she said, not what you HEARD from your friend that she said, not what you THINK she said when listening with half an ear, but what she ACTUALLY said? Quote.

 

[EGarrett]

If you're an empathetic person, sure. If you're Ayn Rand, you help people because you personally will benefit from the relationship and for no other reason.

No, as I personally linked to and transcribed, if you're Ayn Rand, you help people because you WANT TO and you think it is a WORTHY CAUSE. But not because you're forced to do so.

Allowing anyone else to access your resources (whether you earned them or inherited them) is a morally wrong.

Involuntarily. If someone else accesses your resources without your consent in order to give them to another individual, it is morally wrong.

In the Ayn Rand world, leaving a child to die without medical attention because its parents are poor is a virtue.

This is why I quoted Rand, to counteract irresponsible nonsense like this.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I see, and where is Ayn Rand's QUOTE where she advocates theft, child molestation and murder? Not what you CLAIM she said, not what you HEARD from your friend that she said, not what you THINK she said when listening with half an ear, but what she ACTUALLY said? Quote.

Ask and yes shall receive. Yep, let's look at what she wrote in her journals about the guy who took a child apart... alive:

"is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should."

About the people condemning Hickman, she writes

"The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal..."

(As she makes it clear a bit later, the "worse crimes and sins" were just being boring average people who didn't challenge society like Hickman did.)

Or,

"This is not just the case of a terrible crime. It is not the crime alone that has raised the fury of public hatred. It is the case of a daring challenge to society. It is the fact that a crime has been committed by one man, alone; that this man knew it was against all laws of humanity and intended that way; that he does not want to recognize it as a crime and that he feels superior to all. It is the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul.""

Before slipping back into her usual gushing admiration of the murderer, you get a glimpse into that sick mind of hers where people don't really hate Hickman for cutting a girls limbs alive, but just, you know, for being some kind of wonderful non-conformist.

When she grudgingly admits that Hickman had been turned into a monster (note: had been turned, not just _was_ a monster) she blames the same boring conformists for, basically, not giving Hickman something more exciting to do (than taking apart a live child):

"And when we look at the other side of it -- there is a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy turned into a purposeless monster. By whom? By what? Is it not by that very society that is now yelling so virtuously in its role of innocent victim? He had a brilliant mind, a romantic, adventurous, impatient soul and a straight, uncompromising, proud character. What had society to offer him? A wretched, insane family as the ideal home, a Y.M.C.A. club as social honor, and a bank-page job as ambition and career...

"If he had any desires and ambitions -- what was the way before him? A long, slow, soul-eating, heart-wrecking toil and struggle; the degrading, ignoble road of silent pain and loud compromises....

"A strong man can eventually trample society under his feet. That boy was not strong enough. But is that his crime? Is it his crime that he was too impatient, fiery and proud to go that slow way? That he was not able to serve, when he felt worthy to rule; to obey, when he wanted to command?...

"He was given [nothing with which] to fill his life. What was he offered to fill his soul? The petty, narrow, inconsistent, hypocritical ideology of present-day humanity. All the criminal, ludicrous, tragic nonsense of Christianity and its morals, virtues, and consequences. Is it any wonder that he didn't accept it?"

Basically the only weakness she's granting him is that he wasn't strong enough to trample the whole society, and just settled for killing a schoolgirl. Any kind of just taking part in society instead of one or the other, well, you see for yourself what she wrote about that.

And that kind of gushing admiration occasionally almost escaped in the wild too. The first version of her novel "We The Living" has the heroine proclaim, "What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?"

 

[EGarrett]

I see that she refers to what he did as "a terrible crime" and that he became "a purposeless monster." No advocation of theft, child molestation or murder whatsoever. The rest of it appears to be a commentary on other things revolving around the man, but it's hard to discern the context of the rest of it because you have chopped it to shreds, making no citation that can be double-checked, removing the subject of sentences and inserting your own, spinning references, and adding another sentence from an early draft of a novel that is completely unrelated and completely free of all context.

Let me repeat myself. I don't care what YOU think she said. I want to see what she ACTUALLY said. Not your heavily annotated and cut-and-pasted version.

See my quote above, there is no editorializing or chopping, I just transcribed her exact words, which matched what I attributed to her.

EDIT: BTW, I can see already from some basic research that the very first thing you quoted from Rand was wrong. She wasn't referring to Hickman, she was referring to a character she created based on some things Hickman suggested to her.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Why do I have the feeling that it's like trying to nail Jello to the wall? Everything that doesn't fit your preconceived notion is somehow distorted or editorialized or doesn't have enough context.

But ok, here's an exact quote:

The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of the whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the "virtuous" indignation and mass-hatred of the "majority." One always feels the stuffy, bloodthirsty emotion of a mob in any great public feeling of a large number of humans. It is repulsive to see all those beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal, proud and secure in their number, yelling furiously in defense of society.​

You'll notice that all that had been "editorialized" out in the previous version is some extra invectives at those people condemning her hero. I'm sorry if you expected it to be some profound philosophy that makes it all sound better, but it isn't. It's still the same deranged chick, only with more invectives in between the parts that were relevant.

Or

Adela Rogers St.-Johns cleverly noted that Hickman is an extremist, a type that can either be very good or very bad. This is true and the idea of the "extremist" is splendid. We should have more extremists—then life wouldn't be what it is. But she says that "an extremist is always dangerous" and we all should be just in between, the "golden mean," the balanced average. This is a wonderful expression of the view exactly opposite from mine. What I want to show in my book is just the horror of that middle: the illogical, inconsistent, weak, tolerant, mediocre, loathsome middle. For if men were extremists they would follow each idea and feeling to its end, they would be faithful to their purposes and to themselves, they would be clear, straight, and absolute in everything. And they wouldn't tolerate a lot of what is tolerated now. This is just what we need.
She says that Hickman could be either a very great man or a very great criminal. Well, it only shows that he is always great and the one thing impossible to him is pettiness and mediocrity. For this reason I admire Hickman and every extremist.​

Or

This is what I think of the case. I am afraid that I idealize Hickman and that he might not be this at all. In fact, he probably isn't. But it does not make any difference. If he isn't, he could be, and that's enough. The reaction of society would be the same, if not worse, toward the Hickman I have in mind. This case showed me how society can wreck an exceptional being, and then murder him for being the wreck that it itself has created. This will be the story of the boy in my book.​

 

[varwoche]

Let me repeat myself. I don't care what YOU think she said. I want to see what she ACTUALLY said.

That is certainly a whimsical take on things, given that you've been entirely pwn'ed by Rand's own words.

 

[Walter Ego]

Let me repeat myself. I don't care what YOU think she said. I want to see what she ACTUALLY said. Not your heavily annotated and cut-and-pasted version.

Go to Google Books Journals of Ayn Rand and do a search for "Hickman." Read especially the section entitled "The Hickman Case."

http://books.google.com/books?id=2G...&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Rand quotes are not being taken out of context. For further enlightenment read this commentary by writer Michael Prescott.

http://www.michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

 

[RobRoy]

It still seems to me like she's focusing on the people, not just on government agencies. Unless you're telling me that those government agencies are their own sole proponents.

She does. There are moochers who are the general recipients of the looters spoils, but instead of taking it at the point of a gun, they deal in guilt. Hank Rearden's brother (sorry, can't recall his name right now) was one, as was Lillian Rearden, Hank's wife, and his mother. Rearden was surrounded by moochers on all sides.

One of the criticisms that I make about Rand is that she deals in absolutes. If the government takes money from your check in the form of taxes (or whatever other means) then they're evil looters. If you receive funds from the government (or other agencies) that you haven't worked for, then you're an evil moocher. She allows for no circumstances whatsoever, but simply relegates people into these categories, and, as you showed above, regards them all as morally corrupt or morally bankrupt.

Well that's a horrible definition. Aren't we then all "looting" from the inventor of the computer right now?

Read it again. Unless you took your computer by going to this "inventor of the computer" (not certain who exactly that would be, but this is rhetorical so, I'll go with it) and forced her, through legal means, to give it to you, then no, you're not a looter.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Read it again. Unless you took your computer by going to this "inventor of the computer" (not certain who exactly that would be, but this is rhetorical so, I'll go with it) and forced her, through legal means, to give it to you, then no, you're not a looter.

It's actually quite simple.

My understanding was that Rand considered "looters" to be anyone who took, that is looted, from the success of others, up to and including the government via taxes.

Are we benefiting from the work of the computer inventor? Obviously, we are. What have we done for this inventor? I haven't payed him any money. I don't even know who he is.

If someone else accesses your resources without your consent in order to give them to another individual, it is morally wrong.

Why? If I take money from a millionaire, in order to feed a ten-year-old who would otherwise be forced to work in a coal mine, how is that morally wrong?

Does this apply to all taxation, as well? Is it wrong for the government to tax my income and build schools?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

She does. There are moochers who are the general recipients of the looters spoils, but instead of taking it at the point of a gun, they deal in guilt. Hank Rearden's brother (sorry, can't recall his name right now) was one, as was Lillian Rearden, Hank's wife, and his mother. Rearden was surrounded by moochers on all sides.

One of the criticisms that I make about Rand is that she deals in absolutes. If the government takes money from your check in the form of taxes (or whatever other means) then they're evil looters. If you receive funds from the government (or other agencies) that you haven't worked for, then you're an evil moocher. She allows for no circumstances whatsoever, but simply relegates people into these categories, and, as you showed above, regards them all as morally corrupt or morally bankrupt.

But that brings me back to my objection that started this exchange. Precisely that kind of dealing in absolutes and not even considering nuances or exceptions, seems to me like it would make her too a moocher/looter/whatever-invective. She doesn't excuse other people on account that they pay their part when they're employed, or anything.

 

[EGarrett]

Why do I have the feeling that it's like trying to nail Jello to the wall?

Or more like you trying to nail a painting to the wall using a hammer made of jello.

Everything that doesn't fit your preconceived notion is somehow distorted or editorialized or doesn't have enough context.

My "preconceived notion" is that Ayn Rand wasn't a cartoon supervillain and didn't support murder, theft and robbery.

But ok, here's an exact quote:

The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of the whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the "virtuous" indignation and mass-hatred of the "majority." One always feels the stuffy, bloodthirsty emotion of a mob in any great public feeling of a large number of humans. It is repulsive to see all those beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal, proud and secure in their number, yelling furiously in defense of society.​

Okay, great. How does this support or encourage Hickman robbing, stealing and murdering from people?

You'll notice that all that had been "editorialized" out in the previous version is some extra invectives at those people condemning her hero.

Not true at all. In my very first seach I found that you claimed she referred to Hickman as a "wonderful, free, light consciousness" when in fact that portion is from ANOTHER section of the journal entirely where she is describing Danny Renahan a character in a story she is considering writing and describes also as "very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me.'"

Read that closely.

And by the way, that quote is from an article that you appear to have lifted your entire post from...since the same page also contains the totally out-of-context handpicked sentence from her early draft We the Living.

I seem to recall telling you that I wasn't interested in what you heard from somebody else that she said...any more than I'm interested in your half-eared lax interpretation.

I'm sorry if you expected it to be some profound philosophy that makes it all sound better, but it isn't.

It's from her personal journal. Not even a philosophy book. I'm willing to bet if you comb through the writings of any prolific person, let alone the personal ones, you'll find some crazy sounding things. But when you pay closer attention, instead of haphazard cherry-picking, things become much more clear.

BTW, I've never yet said that she was correct or a great philosopher, I haven't had much opportunity to discuss that topic because almost no one seems willing or able to even understand the basics of what she said. It gets bogged down in picking apart childish strawmen. I really would probably have to go to an objectivist to even have an informed discussion, which is sad because then I'd be speaking to the choir. It's a shame that something that takes some effort to honestly consider or challenge ends up with zero people who can consider or challenge it.

Adela Rogers St.-Johns cleverly noted that Hickman is an extremist, a type that can either be very good or very bad. This is true and the idea of the "extremist" is splendid. We should have more extremists—then life wouldn't be what it is. But she says that "an extremist is always dangerous" and we all should be just in between, the "golden mean," the balanced average. This is a wonderful expression of the view exactly opposite from mine. What I want to show in my book is just the horror of that middle: the illogical, inconsistent, weak, tolerant, mediocre, loathsome middle. For if men were extremists they would follow each idea and feeling to its end, they would be faithful to their purposes and to themselves, they would be clear, straight, and absolute in everything. And they wouldn't tolerate a lot of what is tolerated now. This is just what we need.
She says that Hickman could be either a very great man or a very great criminal. Well, it only shows that he is always great and the one thing impossible to him is pettiness and mediocrity. For this reason I admire Hickman and every extremist.​

Well, given that Ayn Rand has already said that she is the arch-enemy of using physical force on other people, and referred to Hickman's deeds as terrible crimes and to what Hickman became as a "purposeless monster," it's safe to assume that the phrase "great criminal" does not mean that his criminality was heroic or to be emulated. Instead, it obviously means the other definition of great, very far in degree."

With that in mind, she said that if everyone disregarded what they were taught by society and went to extremes in their own thought and self-definition, you'd end up with a lot of very powerful individual thinkers and a lot of men who are very far gone as miscreants or criminals. Which is true, and she thinks society would be better-off. Ultimately that may be the case, I don't know if I agree, but this is, again, not an endorsement of theft, murder or child molestation.

This is what I think of the case. I am afraid that I idealize Hickman and that he might not be this at all. In fact, he probably isn't. But it does not make any difference. If he isn't, he could be, and that's enough. The reaction of society would be the same, if not worse, toward the Hickman I have in mind. This case showed me how society can wreck an exceptional being, and then murder him for being the wreck that it itself has created. This will be the story of the boy in my book.​

There you have it. She has now referred to the Hickman situation with the terms "terrible crime," "purposeless monster" and a "wreck" created by society. Again, I'm still searching for her endorsement of robbery, murder or child molestation.

That is certainly a whimsical take on things, given that you've been entirely pwn'ed by Rand's own words.

Standing off and cheerleading someone else's quoting of another person's article which mischaracterizes and cherry-picks what Rand said in order to endorse things she has publicly and explicitly denounced in no uncertain terms. If this is your idea of participation in a discussion, I'd say you're in no position to judge who gets "pwned."

Go to Google Books Journals of Ayn Rand and do a search for "Hickman." Read especially the section entitled "The Hickman Case."

http://books.google.com/books?id=2G...&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Rand quotes are not being taken out of context. For further enlightenment read this commentary by writer Michael Prescott.

http://www.michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

Yes, I found that page, and I explained exactly how the very first quote I investigated was grossly mischaracterized. See above and by all means tell me how I am wrong.

 

[RobRoy]

It's actually quite simple.

My understanding was that Rand considered "looters" to be anyone who took, that is looted, from the success of others, up to and including the government via taxes.

Are we benefiting from the work of the computer inventor? Obviously, we are. What have we done for this inventor? I haven't payed him any money. I don't even know who he is.

I'm afraid that I don't understand your confusion. You have, paid for the computer, correct? You did not take it by legal force, correct? The previous being true, you and I are not looters.Part of your confusion might be the use of computer as the commodity. Since there is no one person who "invented" the computer (George Stibitz will forgive me), but centuries of advancements in various machines that have arrived at the personal computer that you are now communicating to us through, there is no "inventor" for your specific computer. However, in paying for your computer, you have paid any number of people/companies for their goods and services.

According to Rand, there are no looters in this scenario.

But that brings me back to my objection that started this exchange. Precisely that kind of dealing in absolutes and not even considering nuances or exceptions, seems to me like it would make her too a moocher/looter/whatever-invective. She doesn't excuse other people on account that they pay their part when they're employed, or anything.

Of course, if you can prove, as I argued previously, that Rand received more in Social Security, etc., than she originally paid into the system via the government taxes on her earnings. If not, then she was just taking back from the looters what they had originally looted from her.

You should understand, as I stated in my very first response, that while I find Rand's concepts interesting and intriguing, I in no way believe they are practical. But her receipt of Social Security funds is defensible under the tenets of Objectivism.

 

[Merko]

This is relevant because Rand preached a specifically moral teaching.

If it turned out that Dawkins is secretly a devout Christian, that would have no impact on his philosophical works. He is arguing that gods do not exist, he is not arguing that there would be some moral obligation not to believe in gods. All his arguments would remain as valid.

Rand, however, argued not just that social security should be abolished, but also that it was morally wrong to receive it. That makes her a hypocrite, demanding of others what she was clearly not willing to do herself.

If she had merely demanded that social security should be abolished, there would be no hypocrisy, although it would still show how out of touch with reality she was. But it is logically consistent so say that well, people who fall upon hard times should be forced to starve, but given that help is available, there is nothing wrong with receiving it. But that was not Rand's position.