4 ms·

<A different principle and different considerations are involved in the case of public (i.e., governmental) scholarships. The right to accept them rests on the

by dmfdmf 10y ago

<A different principle and different considerations are involved in the case of public (i.e., governmental) scholarships. The right to accept them rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force.> 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_scholarships.html#order_3 http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scho...

good_gnu 10y ago
>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. 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.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  Rand was extremely influential to me, but you're absolutely right on this. I stopped calling myself an Objectivist long ago because I kept getting into arguments with others who took the label over things that Rand did that are blatantly against her first principles, but that Rand held a contradictory position. 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.
- ajss 10y ago
  Ayn Rand didn't use force to take anyone's money. That's what she hated. When those who took her money offered her a small portion back, her philosophy didn't require her to refuse it. 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.
wavefunction 10y ago
It wasn't taken by force but instead by Rand's personal complicity and implicit consent by living within a society that has decided to enact the Social Security and Medicare programs and levy fees and taxes associated with those programs. And given that she received more than she put in, there was no principle for her to stand behind.
- dominotw 10y ago
  >given that she received more than she put in Do you by any chance have the numbers ?
  - wavefunction 10y ago
    Do you have numbers that prove me otherwise? 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.
    - dominotw 10y ago
      >Do you have numbers that prove me otherwise? 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.
- kolbe 10y ago
  If that's the case, then I hope you will be just as eager to take personal responsibility for the US's war crimes, if the day of reckoning ever comes. But I have a feeling you will instead try to focus on your personal efforts to end US wars, rather than get sucked into the implication that being a US citizen made you a de facto supporter of the war crimes.
  - wavefunction 10y ago
    I would be the first person you might ask to admit my complicity in war crimes perpetrated by my government. I am involved in anti-war and pro-human movements but I readily admit that my quality of life is built on the backs of many innocent lives and deaths.

by dmfdmf 10y ago

good_gnu 10y ago

>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. 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.

LyndsySimon 10y ago
Rand was extremely influential to me, but you're absolutely right on this. I stopped calling myself an Objectivist long ago because I kept getting into arguments with others who took the label over things that Rand did that are blatantly against her first principles, but that Rand held a contradictory position. 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.
ajss 10y ago
Ayn Rand didn't use force to take anyone's money. That's what she hated. When those who took her money offered her a small portion back, her philosophy didn't require her to refuse it. 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.

wavefunction 10y ago

It wasn't taken by force but instead by Rand's personal complicity and implicit consent by living within a society that has decided to enact the Social Security and Medicare programs and levy fees and taxes associated with those programs. And given that she received more than she put in, there was no principle for her to stand behind.

dominotw 10y ago
>given that she received more than she put in Do you by any chance have the numbers ?
- wavefunction 10y ago
  Do you have numbers that prove me otherwise? 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.
  - dominotw 10y ago
    >Do you have numbers that prove me otherwise? 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.
kolbe 10y ago
If that's the case, then I hope you will be just as eager to take personal responsibility for the US's war crimes, if the day of reckoning ever comes. But I have a feeling you will instead try to focus on your personal efforts to end US wars, rather than get sucked into the implication that being a US citizen made you a de facto supporter of the war crimes.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  I would be the first person you might ask to admit my complicity in war crimes perpetrated by my government. I am involved in anti-war and pro-human movements but I readily admit that my quality of life is built on the backs of many innocent lives and deaths.