Quote Originally Posted by Warriorbird View Post
Your bizaare Social Security non sequitur suggests you have nary a clue about what is being talked about. There has been no introduction of the poor "paying for" the benefits of Social Security.

The point (which you fail to get, because you're either purposefully obtuse or an idiot) is that Ayn Rand woul've starved without Social Security. It makes her opposition ridiculous, similar to how Paul Ryan would've never been the success that he is without Social Security benefiting his family.

The logic here is that the social safety net works. It's work well enough that even the biggest critics of it have needed it, taken advantage of it and benefited. Rand and her husband both relied on it which is totally fine. They paid in, and they should get the benefit. It just shows that her ideas fail.

As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so. Apart from the strong implication that those who take the help are morally weak, it is also a philosophic point that such help dulls the will to work, to save and government assistance is said to dull the entrepreneurial spirit.

In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.