Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
dollardoctrinaire

Rand-bashing article

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

What does this mean for following Miss Rand as an idol?

Ayn Rand took government assistance while decrying others who did the same

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 to pay for her medical treatments after she got lung cancer.

tea-party-john-galt.jpg

An 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.

Ayn Rand and the VIP-DIPers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does this mean for following Miss Rand as an idol?

Nothing. For admiring as a role model...also no change. They should check their facts about what she recommended one do about government handouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does this mean for following Miss Rand as an idol?

Well first off, you shouldn't be doing that anyways (idolizing).

Second, I question the objectivity of a reporter whose descriptors of Rand consist of "speed-freak," and "serial-killer fangirl," and who refers to her husband's last name as an "assumed name."

Thirdly, she herself wrote an article about when accepting government assistance is proper, and when it is not, making her position quite clear. If someone who was actually educated about her viewpoint wanted to make an argument that she violated it, I'd be interested in that discussion. However, when some journalist, who clearly has no idea that she considered it proper under certain circumstances, calls her a hypocrite regardless, he clearly has some axe to grind. The statement that, "she did [accept government assistance] and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so," clearly illustrates his ignorance on the matter.

Edited by Dante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Am I the only one who thinks OP was trolling? I mean, basically he's posting a smear article, thinly veiled as a question. Even the question is loaded and a smear in itself.

[edit] Maybe I'm totally wrong. I don't know.

Edited by musenji

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Am I the only one who thinks OP was trolling? I mean, basically he's posting a smear article, thinly veiled as a question. Even the question is loaded and a smear in itself.

You're not the only one to whom it occurred, and if the thread devolved into Rand-bashing we would certainly cut that off. That said, articles like this are posted now and again to the site. It's good to know what's being said out there about Rand, even if the OP didn't have such a positive motivation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP has 88 posts, so he may not be trolling.

In any case, I agree that Rand was bristlingly clear about when people can accept help. Besides, wouldn't it be immoral of her to not accept the help when by not doing so she would be acting in such a manner as to not preserve her life (i.e., her highest value)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I copied this from this comment section related to a similar article:

http://dangerousintersection.org/2011/01/29/ayn-rands-real-world-position-regarding-government-benefits/

Rand wrote this in 1966:

“The recipient of a public scholarshi­p is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitutio­n and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarshi­ps, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradict­ions of welfare statism, not in its victims."

“The same moral principles and considerat­ions apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployme­nt insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifical­ly, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers­. But 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.”

From this article above: 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.

Who are they quoting? She was very outspoken and vocal about what she believed. Quit putting words in her mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you write a topic tittle that says what the thread is actually about? This way when people want to find the thread in the future they will search for the actual topic, instead of trying to remember what clever tittle x poster used. It's really hard to find them when people decide to do this.

Edited by 0096 2251 2110 8105

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you write a topic tittle that says what the thread is actually about? This way when people want to find the thread in the future they will search for the actual topic, instead of trying to remember what clever tittle x poster used. It's really hard to find them when people decide to do this.

Done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for him.

Just this week I got a commenter railing against Rand at TechCrunch, and he used that as one of his "criticisms."

Yes. The paucity of substance to their shrill, little attacks, denotes a level of desperation.

(What did Rand say about desiring one, worthy opponent?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does this mean for following Miss Rand as an idol?

I have to say, I really like the typeface+color combo of "Shrugging."

Well, you see, OBVIOUSLY you're only allowed to buy into and use government programs if you're in favor of big GOVERNMENT

In a freer society she would have had more acclaim and probably wouldn't need the assistence. She could still write with lung cancer, granted she probably couldn't speak. She may have been in too(hey) much pain to work and it's wretched that if this is the case, the social democrats would say "No." to a person that they designed the program for! An author, as she depicts in her novel Atlas Shrugged deserves handouts and "everyone deserves subsistence" EXCEPT YOU. She was attacked in much the same way that she depicted heroes attacked in her novels.

Yes. The paucity of substance to their shrill, little attacks, denotes a level of desperation.

(What did Rand say about desiring one, worthy opponent?)

She was talking about, say if another author appear spouting the same message as she, they would compete. I truely doubt she would want anyone to live the opposite of her values. She was talking about when Hank Rearden says Dagney is going to take the shirt off his back [in business transaction(s)] in the valley, or for an absolute example, Pat Conway(?) of the Pheonix Durango where the respect is there and what's left is a game in which he with most cunning wins. She would never espouse vile tactics such as logical fallacy and lying, manipulation and the subsequent use of force those bring...It's more like this:

Galt and Dagney have a "Civil Engineering" problem to solve. They can put the tracks through the mountain, above it, around it ect. Galt says over it, Dagney says "around." They both have to make theirs work and the better of the two wins and will be used (or is used and thus wins...hahaha, wait, not funny. ). Rand said (I believe) that both would enjoy this competition and thus be fulfilled and the only true way to do that is have someone after the same thing, as good (better) as (than) you also vying for completion of the goal, whatever it may be. I'll add my one cent here and say that people can't judge their own ability and magnificence as well as they can see it in another. But to go head to head with someone you admire? That's something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for him.

Just this week I got a commenter railing against Rand at TechCrunch, and he used that as one of his "criticisms."

Hey, that's kind of like when Roark is discredited because the Wynand papers were "plugging" him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for him.

Just this week I got a commenter railing against Rand at TechCrunch, and he used that as one of his "criticisms."

In fact, it's using a kind of inverted claim against pathos. It's basically "So-and-so likes this so it's no good.".

I will call it "Appeal to Outcome" and may or may not be a logical fallacy. After determining "Appeal to Outcome" has been used we then look at the logos of the Outcome's response, as pathos should only be used in determining whether to use an expert because it is not possible to, or too time consuming to analyze all information from the ground up such as a doctor. A doctor says you need ___. and you need it now. You can either take the time to prove to yourself that you do in fact logically need whatever it is they say or you can instead look at their credibility.

Edited by My 99 are free

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP has 88 posts, so he may not be trolling.

In any case, I agree that Rand was bristlingly clear about when people can accept help. Besides, wouldn't it be immoral of her to not accept the help when by not doing so she would be acting in such a manner as to not preserve her life (i.e., her highest value)?

It would be anti-altruism if she didn't accept it..She had fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does this mean for following Miss Rand as an idol?

I think it's silly to say "Atlas is Shrugging" or whatever that sign says. Atlas is not a collective. Atlas is the individual with the most achievement power. To be most specific, the most capability to give actual life. I have zero idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not Rand lived up to her own ideals is completely irrelevant to their validity.  This is not to say that the social security scandal (?) has any merit to it, but rather that it's an utterly moot point.  It's only brought up in order to attack Rand's ideas by proxy.

 

If one were to simply say: "who cares?" then suddenly her antagonists must face those dreaded intangibles if they wish to press the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harrison,

I tend to agree with you. Rand's work and her convictions will be judged by her critic, and most severely by her worst critics. Unless someone is well-read in the complete context of Rand's full body of work, and assuming the reader has relatively stable conceptual faculties, that someone could not make a credible comment on her life. The advocates of collectivism could take any number of "perceived contradictions" related to Rand, and make it into a condemnation of Objectivism.

 

It's been my experience that most of the more recent curiosity-seekers exploring Rand and her ideas have been motivated by recent politics. Mainly, the media "conservatives" using her as an inspiration for their own validation; (I had her that Rush Limbaugh invoked her name; true or false?) Anyway, people are talking about her, and if aspersions are cast on her ideas by "the Left," it doesn't matter, because they hate any entity that condemns their precious entitlements. It does bother when I see "conservatives" using her concepts out of context without being able to fully understand and argue Rand's views properly. It disseminates information that only muddles public perception. Those people foisting the placards on the top the OP, I have to wonder if they actually read Atlas Shrugged, or whether they merely talked to someone who had. Positive misrepresentation of Objectivism can be as destructive, or more so, than negative criticisms.

 

In any case, I think we can expect opposition and misinformation from collectivists for the foreseeable future, and on to infinity. It's the guys who think they "got it" that worry me more.

Edited by Repairman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had her that Rush Limbaugh invoked her name; true or false?

Doubtful.  I listen to his show and several years ago I heard someone ask him directly what he thought of Ayn Rand's ideas.  He replied cautiously that he was familiar with her work and thought that a few of her ideas were very good ones.

I would be rather surprised if he had gone on to invoke her name.

 

Positive misrepresentation of Objectivism can be as destructive, or more so, than negative criticisms.

I am not sure if I agree.  I'm chewing on an idea at the moment and the questions which occur to me are "destructive to whom and by what method?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harrison,

I view Objectivism as an answer to those who seek a solution to not only their own personal contradictions and conundrums, but as an ideology possibly integrated into wider swaths of American life. On the rare occasion that I have encountered people who have heard of Ayn Rand, or have read some of her works, the message seems skewered. They might agree with the minimalist government, which she supports, but the "whole philosophy thing" is rejected, usually because it is viewed as "anti-Christian." While I have never met anyone who has read as much of the works of Ayn Rand as I have, the few people who have a passing interest are usually those with strong Christian convictions. I suppose I'm exposing the fact that I'm not circulating in the best of company, but this has been my experience. As soon as the guy reading Atlas Shrugged learns that Rand was atheist, the remainder of the philosophical message is dismissed.

As far as my statement about destruction, let me try to put it into context. I've seen these placards espousing "I am John Galt," and so on, carried by some folks identifying themselves as Tea Party members. While I might agree with some of what the Tea Party advocates, much of their rhetoric is confusing and conflicted. Associating "John Galt" or Ayn Rand with this quilt-work ideology is not doing much good for her legacy, and quite possibly doing it some damage by association.

As mentioned in the earlier post, "The Left" have a popular advantage when targeting Rand. Altruism is the central theme of American politics. The Tea Party people seem to claim altruism as their motivation every bit as much as the Occupy Wall Street guys. What do you suppose Rand would say to any of them if she had the chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tea Party people seem to claim altruism as their motivation every bit as much as the Occupy Wall Street guys. What do you suppose Rand would say to any of them if she had the chance?

I don't believe she would have much to say to them, at all.  If some people have crippled their own minds beyond repair then for what purpose should one deal with them, any more than is absolutely necessary?

It's like that scene in the Fountainhead, where Dominique asks Roark what he thinks of Toohey, to which he laughs:

'Why on Earth should anyone think of Ellsworth Toohey?' (or something along such lines).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×