Ayn Rand destroys Socialist philosophy

Then why did she fight against social security and medicare during her lifetime?

 

"Note their utter inability to address policy or philosophical positions in kind. They are nothing but repetitive advertisements. Even their objections to Rand are rehearsed as in a committee of groupthink."

Q.E.D.

Yeah, Sowell is a "major league crackpot." What a stellar, thoughtful assessment. Not surprised given the source.

 

What a dodge. When people take advantage of involuntary government programs that they paid for, but disagree with, it doesn't make them hypocrites. Claiming otherwise is transparently puerile.

 

She never did specifically.

In general she opposed the welfare state because it does not work. But when it is forced on you as all such programs are it is not a violation of her principles to take back some of what was stolen

 

If I can quote her...will you admit you are wrong?

 

Then why did she refuse it at first and had to be begged by a nurse to take it?

 

Will you admit you are as has been proven?

 

She was not you keep lying.

She was advised by her accountants and lawyers to take it and once again it was not a violation of her principles which is what you are trying to claim and you have been massively proven wrong.

 

Ayn Rand was featherweight intellect who dabbled in many different philosophies. She was a Hollywood screenwriter and considered a joke.. High school seniors might be impressed..

 

She was also a Communist sympathizer.

 

Who knows? Who cares? The fact remains that objecting to government programs that one is forced to pay for, yet later benefits from, is not hypocrisy. Objecting to high taxes yet using whatever public services they pay for, is NOT hypocrisy.

There are SPLOST sales tax votes across the country every year. Some people vote for them, some against. If they are passed, using whatever they fund... that one is forced to pay for... is not hypocrisy. This particularly DUMB complaint about Rand needs to be laid to rest once and for all. Maybe discuss or disagree with her actual ideas instead of silly ad hominem?

 

It was actually a social worker. Would you like to see the quote?

 

Was that a yes or no?

 

Would you like to admit how wrong you have been proven?

 

You first

 

I don't even know what you are talking about? How was I proven wrong? Did you cite some evidence and I missed it?

 

Yes you have.

Social security is involuntarily collected through pay role taxes.

Therefore even if one opposes such theft collecting back from it is not hypocrisy as it was stolen in the first place.

Your entire argument is an IDIOTIC failure and a straw man

 

Then why didn't she take it when she was first eligible?

 

It is irrelevant why

 

Why is it irrelevant? If its yours take it. That was her philosophy. Why did a social worker have to connvince her to take medicare? I still have the quote. Would you like to see it?

 

It is irrelevant because nothing changes the fact that it was hers taken from her an recovering some of what is stolen from you is not a violation of the principle.

The timing is completely irrelevant and does not support your stupid argument in any way shape or form

Your done and beaten as usual

 

Hmmm. She did not seem to think so. She certainly had to be convinced. And she was against those programs her whole life....except when she was dying of lung cancer. LOL

 

Yes she was against such programs but that does not mean she was against reclaiming what was stolen.

Sorry but that fact is the constant one which completely debunks and destroys your completely stupid argument.

Critics of her work always resort to that but are always proven foolish with it. It is in fact a self defeating straw man and you do know that.

Childish people still have to keep repeating such things when they have been pwned as you have been

 

But she WAS against reclaiming what was "stolen". She had to be connvinced. She railed against people who took those programs....and then she took them. That is a fact. You seem very upset.

 

No she was not period.

She was not against peo-le taking back what was their's she was against such things being taken in the first place.

You are now simply lying because you lost the argument and you know it.

When one opposes theft it is not a violation of principle to take BACK what is stolen.

That little fact is the one constant you evade run from and dance around and it crushes you