4 ms·

She was on welfare in America. She wasn’t even interested in trying her philosophy out on her self. Why should I try it out?

manfredo 8y ago
Her estate was estimated to be around $500,000, about a million in today's money. By comparison, her total social security collections were 11,000 dollars. She collected social security but was in no way dependent on it. She advocated everyone to collect it regardless of whether they needed it or not [1] > Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others — the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it. TL;DR: people might as well get back some of the money the government collected from them. 1. https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1966/01/01/the-question-of-scholarships https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1966/01/01/the-question-of-...
throwaway37585 8y ago
> She was on welfare in America. “In 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter and, despite her initial objections, she allowed Evva Pryor, an employee of her attorney, to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare.” Medicare provides health insurance for older Americans who have worked and paid into the system through the payroll tax. Social Security is also funded by payroll taxes. Did Rand “take out more than she put in”, so to speak?

manfredo 8y ago

Her estate was estimated to be around $500,000, about a million in today's money. By comparison, her total social security collections were 11,000 dollars. She collected social security but was in no way dependent on it. She advocated everyone to collect it regardless of whether they needed it or not [1] > Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others — the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it. TL;DR: people might as well get back some of the money the government collected from them. 1. https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1966/01/01/the-question-of-scholarships https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1966/01/01/the-question-of-...

throwaway37585 8y ago

> She was on welfare in America. “In 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter and, despite her initial objections, she allowed Evva Pryor, an employee of her attorney, to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare.” Medicare provides health insurance for older Americans who have worked and paid into the system through the payroll tax. Social Security is also funded by payroll taxes. Did Rand “take out more than she put in”, so to speak?