3 ms·

Aynd Rand criticized the welfare state and then went on welfare. She was a complete fraud.

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
In this critical scenario, are you saying welfare shouldn’t exist or that only believe who are unquestioning of a system are allowed to use it? I don’t think you are making the point you think you are.
- iillIIllii 3y ago
  Not the original commenter, but I agree with them. To me, it shows that the entire basis of Ayn Rand's philosophy was wrong. She goes on about how amazing capitalism is and the dangers of welfare states, yet the fact that she had to crawl back to the government for that very same welfare shows how necessary it is. It is simply hypocrisy, and I find it infects many of similar libertarian beliefs. This idea that it shouldn't be your responsibility or duty to help others and that everyone should fend for themselves, yet when it is THEM that are disadvantaged, or struggling, suddenly they see how important help can be? It is always rooted in selfishness and egoism. And just because Ayn Rand was a proud egoist doesn't make it right or impressive. Her very life proved her ideology wrong. I don't think there's anything more beautiful than that, really.
  - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
    How does “it’s dangerous” mean it is never necessary? Or that “I don’t like a government program” mean “I’m not allowed to use it if needed”? Why wouldn’t I think that that Rand considered it volume problem? You are confusing the art for the artist. Don’t do that, you’ll be better for it.
rightbyte 3y ago
Payingt tax for welfare and then using it is not hypocrisy though. (I don't know who Aynd Rand was really. People just seems to name-drop her alot so I guess she was some famous 'thinker')
_yb2s 3y ago
I think that actually makes total sense in the context of her philosophy. Her objection to welfare comes from the "non-aggression principle," e.g. that she felt it was immoral to use any type of force, violence, or aggression to make other people participate in something they don't agree with. To her, any type of taxes backed by legal penalties was "aggression." In her view, it would actually be helping right the wrong to accept welfare, especially if you had ever had to pay taxes in the past against your will. To be clear, I am not trying to argue for, or convince you of her position, but to argue that I believe she faithfully lived by the principles she espoused. In fact, I think much of the problems in her personal life make a pretty strong argument against her philosophy.

In this critical scenario, are you saying welfare shouldn’t exist or that only believe who are unquestioning of a system are allowed to use it? I don’t think you are making the point you think you are.

iillIIllii 3y ago
Not the original commenter, but I agree with them. To me, it shows that the entire basis of Ayn Rand's philosophy was wrong. She goes on about how amazing capitalism is and the dangers of welfare states, yet the fact that she had to crawl back to the government for that very same welfare shows how necessary it is. It is simply hypocrisy, and I find it infects many of similar libertarian beliefs. This idea that it shouldn't be your responsibility or duty to help others and that everyone should fend for themselves, yet when it is THEM that are disadvantaged, or struggling, suddenly they see how important help can be? It is always rooted in selfishness and egoism. And just because Ayn Rand was a proud egoist doesn't make it right or impressive. Her very life proved her ideology wrong. I don't think there's anything more beautiful than that, really.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  How does “it’s dangerous” mean it is never necessary? Or that “I don’t like a government program” mean “I’m not allowed to use it if needed”? Why wouldn’t I think that that Rand considered it volume problem? You are confusing the art for the artist. Don’t do that, you’ll be better for it.

rightbyte 3y ago

Payingt tax for welfare and then using it is not hypocrisy though. (I don't know who Aynd Rand was really. People just seems to name-drop her alot so I guess she was some famous 'thinker')

_yb2s 3y ago

I think that actually makes total sense in the context of her philosophy. Her objection to welfare comes from the "non-aggression principle," e.g. that she felt it was immoral to use any type of force, violence, or aggression to make other people participate in something they don't agree with. To her, any type of taxes backed by legal penalties was "aggression." In her view, it would actually be helping right the wrong to accept welfare, especially if you had ever had to pay taxes in the past against your will. To be clear, I am not trying to argue for, or convince you of her position, but to argue that I believe she faithfully lived by the principles she espoused. In fact, I think much of the problems in her personal life make a pretty strong argument against her philosophy.