“Critics of Social Security and Medicare frequently invoke the words and ideals of author and philosopher Ayn Rand, one of the fiercest critics of federal insurance programs. But a little-known fact is that Ayn Rand herself collected Social Security. She may also have received Medicare benefits.
An interview recently surfaced that was conducted in 1998 by the Ayn Rand Institute with a social worker who says she helped Rand and her husband, Frank O’Connor, sign up for Social Security and Medicare in 1974.
Federal records obtained through a Freedom of Information act request confirm the Social Security benefits.”
21 responses so far ↓
1 Oxon. // Jan 28, 2011 at 6:58 pm
So she wanted some of her tax back; I know I’ll scrounge every penny I can when I’m that age, because I’ll have paid double the value in tax.
2 luispedro // Jan 28, 2011 at 7:32 pm
This is almost as shocking as discovering that Ayn Rand paid her taxes.
3 Gene Berman // Jan 28, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Ditto and ditto.
4 Sean // Jan 28, 2011 at 8:38 pm
my truth is no ordinary truth it is “the” truth it is a special truth”
Marx and Rand sort of followed the same aristotelian, claim to science linage, not that the “left” would understandable that.
So too the muslim brotherhood who sat in Alexandria looking at events in Europe in the first part of the 2oth century and copied the same script too.
And then that “truth” tells them that prices are wholly knowable, thus you can believe in fixed prices, and managed economies.
All very, very sad and the root of a great deal of evil.
5 Unity // Jan 28, 2011 at 11:09 pm
Marx and Rand sort of followed the same aristotelian, claim to science linage, not that the “left” would understandable that.
Actually, Sean, the point at which Marx and Rand share a common philosophical heritage is much more recent that Aristotle.
The claim to science, in both cases, is rooted in Positivism and, particularly the works of Comte and Saint-Simon, both of whom are also, incidentally, intellectual ‘ancestors’ of the Austrian School – largely through Hayek, who freely acknowledged his indebtedness to Mach, Schlick and, later, Karl Popper, all of whom were members of the Vienna Circle.
If there’s a dividing line in understanding here, its not between ‘left’ and ‘right’ but between those who have a good working knowledge of post-enlightenment philosophy and those who don’t.
Neither left or right is particular short of the latter, in my experience.
6 Dave Evans // Jan 28, 2011 at 11:43 pm
Some trivial googling bring up
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.
– Ayn Rand
http://www.patiastephens.com/2010/12/05/ayn-rand-received-social-security-medicare/
7 Dave Evans // Jan 28, 2011 at 11:59 pm
A slightly longer quote comes from the Ayn Rand Lexicon
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scholarships.html
It’s so easy to get to the source, thanks to the Internet. I’m sure Rand would approve of it.
8 Martin // Jan 29, 2011 at 12:30 am
Atlas Looted, anyone?
9 Martin // Jan 29, 2011 at 12:54 am
Let’s take an heuristic, Socratic approach to this problem –
Q – Is there any normative difference between Ayn Rand claiming benefits and people who don’t like supermarkets using Tesco?
A – But what would Schlick have to say about it?
Q – And why do many libertarians seem to be skint?
10 Pat // Jan 29, 2011 at 10:23 am
If the State makes stupid laws I will say so- but as long as those laws are in force I will not waive any benefit they bring me, as I cannot waive the dis-benefits.
I assume I am not alone in this, indeed it would appear that I have Ayn Rand for company
11 Thornavis. // Jan 29, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Pat:
I can see your point but isn’t it rather like those Greens who are always denouncing air travel whilst using it regularly themselves ?
12 Herbie // Jan 29, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Thornavis:
Short answer: No.
Can you not see the difference? Greens aren’t deciding to make use of services they’ve already had to pay for. They are being hypocritical in CHOOSING to use a method of transport they are free to not use and actively argue against.
13 Thornavis. // Jan 29, 2011 at 4:48 pm
If you take a purely financial view of it yes but don’t both the Greens and Rand take a moral view as well ?
14 BenSix // Jan 29, 2011 at 6:05 pm
As with all humourless things, objectivism is hilarious…
http://www.savethehumans.com/instantgrat/thelist/objectivist_sex/index.shtml
15 dearieme // Jan 29, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Ayn Rand – does anyone but a few Yanks give a hoot?
16 DocBud // Jan 30, 2011 at 9:35 am
Thornavis,
To paraphrase Daffy Duck, I resent the government stealing my hard-earned money to give to some poor, unworthy slob. It is not a moral issue, I simply want to choose what I do with the money I have earnt and hence I will take any opportunity there is to put some of the stolen money back in my pocket.
For the Greens it is a different issue, they genuinely believe (wrongly) that flying significantly harms the planet and therefore that we have a moral duty to eliminate all unnecessary air travel. They satisfy themselves that they are not hypocrites because all travel of non-Greens is unnecessary and should be eliminated whereas all travel by Greens is necessary and therefor exempt.
17 Ross // Jan 30, 2011 at 3:50 pm
I reckon that the “mindless troll”, Sally, is Sally Bercow. Think about it- the mindless partisanship, the stupidity, the attention seeking wtc.
18 Adam Bell // Jan 31, 2011 at 11:39 am
@the Randroids making with the quotes:
What she says in that quote is not what she did. She didn’t have enough money to afford medical care, so she was forced to take money from the state over and above the amount she contributed in taxes. That makes her a ‘looter’. If she’d been morally justified in doing so – at least in her own eyes – she wouldn’t have had to use the name ‘Ann O’Connor’ to do it.
19 DocBud // Feb 1, 2011 at 1:07 am
“She didn’t have enough money to afford medical care, so she was forced to take money from the state over and above the amount she contributed in taxes.”
Just curious, do you have figures to support that?
“she wouldn’t have had to use the name ‘Ann O’Connor’ to do it.”
She used her married name, how terrible.
20 Dennis the Peasant // Feb 1, 2011 at 1:04 pm
“Ayn Rand – does anyone but a few Yanks give a hoot?”
I hope not. The few Yanks that are yammering on about Rand as annoying as Hell. Ayn Rand was a bad novelist and a fool.
21 Johnathan Pearce // Feb 2, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Dennis, she was no fool, even if she was wrong about certain issues, such as intellectual property rights. She got the central facts of our times right: the dangerous growth of state power.
And she wrote novels in English, that were not her first language, and they have sold millions. How many have you sold?
BTW, anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard lived in a rent-controlled NY appartment. It is not easy being ideologically pure unless you choose to go totally “off the grid”.
Leave a Comment