“Freedom (n.): To ask nothing. To expect nothing. To depend on nothing
― Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead
tags: independence 508 people liked it
The Tea Party Needs To Kidnap Mittens!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
“Freedom (n.): To ask nothing. To expect nothing. To depend on nothing
― Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead
tags: independence 508 people liked it
Why are those poor people so lazy? Look at me, I'm rich, white, and I have no mental handicaps, all because of what I've accomplished.
icedancer2theend
Verified User
Facts are hard for liberals to live by.
The article claimed "Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor." O'Connor was her married name but her given name was Alice not Ann, but then facts are not important to the smearbund.
The author quotes Michael Ford of the "Center for the Study of the American Dream," saying, "In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest." (I suggest "own self-interest" is redundant. What other kind of self-interest is there?)
I found this odd since Rand had commented that people who are forced to fund government programs are NOT immoral for taking the benefits for which they paid. For instance, it is not wrong for people to attend government schools, which are funded with their tax monies, whether they like it or not. They have to start with a false premise: that Rand said receiving Social Security, that one is forced to pay for, was wrong. Without that false claim they have no charge of hypocrisy. They pretend she took a position she never took and then accuse her of violating the position she didn't take.
in 1966 Rand's Objectivist Newsletter said that not collecting from programs that one is forced to finance would be wrong. It said:
...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.
The AlterNet smear also claimed that Rand said that the link between smoking and cancer was a hoax. She actually never said that. She said she was not convinced that the case had been made, and at the time it hadn't been fully made. She never said it was a hoax and she stopped smoking instantly when her physician showed her a dark spot on her own lung's x-ray.
According to AlterNet one Evva Joan Pryor, "who had been a social worker in New Yorker" said that "I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory." What job was that? Well, if you believe AlterNet she was "social worker" during this period. The implication being that Rand had to seek out a social worker to help her. Some smear-mongers of Rand have argued with me that she died penniless as the result of the evils of capitalism and that was why she sought out this social worker.
Pryor was NOT a social worker. She worked for the law firm of Ernst, Crane Gitlin & Winick which handled all legal matters for Rand. Nor was Rand penniless or in need. She was penniless when she arrived in America but during this period she had cash reserves of a few hundred thousand dollars and a steady income from book royalties.
read article
The article claimed "Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor." O'Connor was her married name but her given name was Alice not Ann, but then facts are not important to the smearbund.
The author quotes Michael Ford of the "Center for the Study of the American Dream," saying, "In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest." (I suggest "own self-interest" is redundant. What other kind of self-interest is there?)
I found this odd since Rand had commented that people who are forced to fund government programs are NOT immoral for taking the benefits for which they paid. For instance, it is not wrong for people to attend government schools, which are funded with their tax monies, whether they like it or not. They have to start with a false premise: that Rand said receiving Social Security, that one is forced to pay for, was wrong. Without that false claim they have no charge of hypocrisy. They pretend she took a position she never took and then accuse her of violating the position she didn't take.
in 1966 Rand's Objectivist Newsletter said that not collecting from programs that one is forced to finance would be wrong. It said:
...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.
The AlterNet smear also claimed that Rand said that the link between smoking and cancer was a hoax. She actually never said that. She said she was not convinced that the case had been made, and at the time it hadn't been fully made. She never said it was a hoax and she stopped smoking instantly when her physician showed her a dark spot on her own lung's x-ray.
According to AlterNet one Evva Joan Pryor, "who had been a social worker in New Yorker" said that "I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory." What job was that? Well, if you believe AlterNet she was "social worker" during this period. The implication being that Rand had to seek out a social worker to help her. Some smear-mongers of Rand have argued with me that she died penniless as the result of the evils of capitalism and that was why she sought out this social worker.
Pryor was NOT a social worker. She worked for the law firm of Ernst, Crane Gitlin & Winick which handled all legal matters for Rand. Nor was Rand penniless or in need. She was penniless when she arrived in America but during this period she had cash reserves of a few hundred thousand dollars and a steady income from book royalties.
read article
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you're taking her words out of context. it is like saying that the money she recieved from her books was a dependence. SS is not welfare.
cawacko
Well-known member
Would you be ok with making S.S. a voluntary program so that those who want to contribute receive benefits later in life and those who don't want to contribute won't?
She wrote in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness” that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.”.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
once again, you're misrepresenting what she said....
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well Runey-pie, please do tell me why it would be any different for me to use your democrat tactic of... "oh, but it would have been so much worse?"
Let's be clear on the chronology of tax relief. Ronald Reagan significantly reduced the top marginal rates, this sparked the longest period of peace-time prosperity in our history. In fact, much of the prosperity from that reduction, was realized under Bill Clinton, in spite of Bush Sr. spending 4 years dismantling much of what Reagan did. Even after Bush and Clinton increased Reagan's top marginal rates back up, the prosperity continued for about another decade. Under Bush II, the rates were again lowered, but rates were lowered across the board for all taxpayers, reducing the level of effect from increased investments because Bush's tax cuts were spread out over a broader base. Still, the net result of giving people back more of their own money, was good for the economy through Bush's first term, and most of the second. By the end of the second term, and through Obama's term, the remnants of Reagan's Revolution were played out, and the stifling effect of Obamacare and a plethora of liberal regulatory mandates on commerce, and we are now in the poor boat.
The "idiot" here is you. Apparently, you think that Americans have been in some kind of drunken stupor for 4 years. This isn't 2008. Blaming Bush will not work!
apple0154
MEOW
The problem with Conservatives is their undying love of Capitalism which brought us to the brink of financial collapse. Watch " The Warning". http://video.pbs.org/video/1302794657/
The " Invisible Hand" was the error Greenspan finally admitted adhering to. His philosophy was faulty. He told Congress his idea of "how the world worked", as he put it, was wrong.
While Romney is, more or less, a moderate one can not disassociate him from his party. There are still the Cheneys and the Gingriches and, God forbid, the Santorums. If Romney was more "set in his ways" he might have been a good bet but we all know him. He'll fold under the weight of the Conservative back room power brokers. We've seen his waffling. He's not strong enough to lead. He will be lead.
cawacko
Well-known member
America became the economic superpower because of what model? Yes, capitalism. So hate on capitalism all you want apple but the proof is in the pudding.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i think apple's philosofty....is that capitalism may have made america strong, but, will not save america or the planet. that in order for us all to survive, we must embrace a much strong socialist government.
is that about right apple?
apple0154
MEOW
Indeed, the proof is in the pudding. The bail-outs, the loss of jobs, the civil unrest and let's not forget the world is changing. Before countries like China and India and Pakistan entered the industrial age the demand for oil was low so energy was cheap.
There is a difference between using a method to accomplish something and using it to maintain what has been accomplished. In other words capitalistic greed is fine if there are few contestants. That has changed. From the price of energy to companies moving overseas even the blind can see what is happening.
apple0154
MEOW
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
That's exactly correct.
You are a fucking brain-dead idiot. Socialism is responsible for more death and oppression than any form of government ever devised by man.
Morons like you, have no comprehension or understanding of capitalism, or how it works. Capitalism is FREEDOM. Through capitalist free-market free enterprise, individuals can achieve immeasurable success in life, without ANY help from government. You don't like that because you WANT people to depend on government, and YOU want to control government! Ergo, we all depend on YOU to take care of us and give us what we need. You have a GOD complex. I don't need you, Apple! I don't need your government! I have the Constitution, and the FREEDOM that my forefathers fought and died for, and you're not going to take that away without a fight....a really BIG fight.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
OMG! If it was going to be just a fight, but a really BIG fight, you know what that means! Hair-pulling! You better put on a helmet Apple! You've got a cybertard all worked up!
cawacko
Well-known member
So if capitalism doesn't work with too many people/countries involved what economic system best allocates must needed resources in your opinion?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No even close Dixie. Colonialism by far holds that record.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Tell it to the Scandinavians.
cawacko
Well-known member
Does that still make his statement incorrect?
christiefan915
Catalyst
"Socialism is responsible for more death and oppression than any form of government ever devised by man."
Sounds like an opinion, not a fact, and opinions can be factually incorrect. He didn't give any example to back up his statement. I'd think dictators and totalitarians would be responsible for more oppression than socialism.