Tea Party Hero Ayn Rand Accepted Government Assistance

So someone who is for freedom using a government program that exists for that purpose is hypocrisy? Isn't that exactly the same as saying that if you hate corporations you shouldn't use your iPhone, which is also an extremely stupid thing to say?

I think It is hypocritical to say that people shouldn't take assistance from the government and then do it yourself under an assumed name.

No. I am sorry but I did not miss your point. The point is irrelevant. So Ayn Rand suffered from a human failure. She was neither an elected or appointed federal government official. She had no power, authority, or responsibility to anyone but herself concerning her philosophy, assuming that it even was her philosophy. Even if she claimed it as her philosophy she was free to abide or not to abide by that philosophy to whatever extent she chose. As any other citizen, Ayn Rand was free to benefit from a government provided program, under whatever the rules of the program were at the time. As it happens, Ayn Rand studied philosophy and said herself that she had no interest in writing of philosophy, but rather that philosophy was important only in that it aided her in her writing her fiction. Look it up, its true.



As long as those programs exist, people have a right to take advantage of them, regardless of whether the program itself is worthwhile, appropriate, constitutional, or extra-constitutional. As citizens, it is our responsibility to require our Government and our legislators to abide by the US Constitution, or to change it through the Constitutionally provided process for Amendment of the Constitution. It seems to me that many people prefer to pick and choose those clauses of the Constitution they wish to uphold. But so long as we fail to uphold any clause of the Constitution, we fail to uphold all parts of the Constitution. The law of the land is the law. We have a duty to uphold it or to change it through legal process.



My point is, that if a majority of American citizens believe that every American has a right, and entitlement, to receive a chocolate covered Jalapeño chili peppers once every other Thursday and they are successful in passing a Constitutional Amendment requiring the Government to provide that to every American, then that becomes the law and our Government should abide by that law. Until such time as the Constitution provides for that right, for that entitlement, then our federal Government has no power or authority to provide it. This is true whether we are talking about chocolate covered Jalapeño chili peppers or health care.



It seems to me that those of you who are so upset that Ayn Rand used a government program that appears to be contrary to what you believe was her philosophy should spend your time, attention, and energy in either upholding the law as it exists today or changing the law, through legal process, to suit your preferences.



Not that I assume any of you are Christian, but for those who are, even Jesus Christ failed to live up to his teaching. Even Jesus Christ, while on the cross failed, calling out "Father, why hast thou forsaken me?" If I can accept; if we as Christians can accept that Christ failed, how can we expect more from a mere philosopher like Ayn Rand, no matter how much we might admire the philosophy she illustrated in her writing.

Straw man ... your refutation is all over your face. Not wipin it off don' mean it didn' happen.



Troll on.

Lickitisplit,I think you miss the point. Any Rand's life circumstances punctured a hole in a philosophy that places those in need of assistance as "other," undeserving, lazy.



I'm glad to see that you include corporate welfare and farm aid in the things that you don't think government should do. Pleases don't assume that liberals are incapable of sifting through issues and forming nuanced opinions. That is lazy whether it is coming from the right or the left.



There are those who come from a consistent philosophy in the tea party, such as Ron Paul. And there are a lot who have a selective view of what small government means. Constituents on both sides of the aisle need to wake up to how much policy and legislation is being driven by corporate $ and interests at this point in history.

Let me just say that I happen to be a huge fan of Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged was a monumental influence on me when I read it. Does that mean that I am an absolutist in my beliefs and personal political philosophy? Of course not. Does that mean that in 59 years of life, approximately 45 of which have occurred since I first read Atlas shrugged, that my thinking and beliefs have not evolved and grown based on my personal experiences? Not at all. But then, having nuanced beliefs that were influenced by a wide range of conservative and libertarian philosophers I suppose is beyond the intellectual ability of extreme liberals and progressives to understand, based upon the gleeful and rabid comments I find here.



To throw one of your arguments back into your face -- what about all of the liberal Democrats who refused to go along with Republican Amendments to the ObamaCare legislation that would have required all federal employees, including US Senators and US Representatives, to fall under the coverage provided by that legislation and would have ended special medical coverage for those in positions of power? Democrats refused en-mass.



There is no great shortage of hypocrisy in this world on the part of any particular person, group, party, or philosophy. Few of us claim to be perfect. Few of us are capable of living up to our ideals. Whether or not Ayn Rand was able to live up to her philosophy of objectivism when faced with terminal cancer is immaterial to me. The novel illustrates her philosophy; it was not however ever intended by her to be her personal equivalent of the "Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei," or "Mein Kamf."



Few members of the Tea Party Movement are anarchists. Speaking for myself, I believe in a federal Government -- one strictly limited to only those powers granted to it by the US Constitution and its Amendments. That does not mean I believe in no social safety net for those who are truly in need of government assistance -- it means that I believe today, the way in which we define that group is far to broad and includes far too many who are capable of helping themselves or obtaining help by other means. The US Federal Government should be the refuge of last resort and only for those who are incapable due to illness, age, or infirmity, of providing for themselves. I do not believe in corporate welfare. I do not believe in farm-aid for massive corporate agribusinesses. I do not believe in special credits for the favored investment houses of those in power.



I do my best to live up to my own standards and beliefs. Sometimes I succeed and sometimes I fail -- but I try.

And yet there has not been one refutation of assigning the PERSONAL life of a FICTION writer and the tenets of a NOVEL to the TEA Party... The slimmest of threads... Was Sam Clemons a racist? Until you can separate fact from fiction, you're just grasping some of the lamest arguments to attack the conservative perspective. Bill in Va.

p.s. This counter perspective will once again just be ignored or glossed over because it's irrefutable!

Wow, Hlpflwthat, you are good! And it is pretty provocative to start a post saying one wants to be constructive unlike the other "trolls" posting. What an oxymoron of a statement!

And now that I look at this a lil closer ... how utterly incredible that you would log in on your first day at EP at exactly 8:09pm .... read through this story and the posts here ... an then post 3 paragraphs of your own at ... wait for it ... 8:09pm. You're not only very 'independent' - you're very fast.



Incredible. God I love screen shots. Troll on brotha.

I've given this an afternoon an evenin's thought now. I gotta speak.



Dlet says ... "I would like to be a little more constructive than some of the trolls I have read here."



In what way would you propose to do that Delt? By callin others 'trolls'? Who? Me? Would you like to tell us who - in your wisdom - you feel is a troll? After goin back over the posts here, I don' see which of em is troll-like. No astoundin proclamations ... jus simple anectdotes that hold water, in my opinion.



So you're opposite of willie ... yet you ain' a liberal ... and you ain' a libertarian. You don' think anyone should take exception to you callin em trolls - or sayin that you "can't find any references to this story from objective or right leaning organizations." in order to attack the author's point, as well as that of other posters here.



More I think bout it ... more I think you ARE willie. Troll.



Debunked.

Thank you for that research, Hlpflwthat. It has been a while since I posted this, but at the time I found multiple sources for the story, and the interview cited.



Drdelt, thank you for your comments. Although I can't embrace libertarianism because I don't trust corporations to regulate themselves, and don't actually see that as the purpose of a corporation. One might speculate that in the interest of long-term stability and profits that they would regulate themselves, but the primary focus tends to be on short-term profits rather than long-term. Although I don't agree with all of his views, I do admire Ron Paul for the consistency of his views (his son is another story). But that is not what dominates the tea party.

Delt ... you said " That said, the conservatives here have a damn good point. I can't find any references to this story from objective or right leaning organizations and (as much as I don't want to due to my personal philosophy) I am forced to ignore these allegations until they can be confirmed."



I don' think you looked much harder than willlie. My google of 'evva pryor ayn rand' produced dozens an dozens of pages. Are the top entries primarily liberal sites? Certainly.



But the idea that this would somehow discredit the story is a lil like questionin the accuracy of priest ********** ... cause it ain' covered by American Catholic or Catholic News.



Truth is, both stories ARE covered by both 'sides' of the issue. One 'side' jus doesn' find the story so appealin. 'Less hits = lower rankin' - in googleland. Head in to page 20 or 30 ... the alternate viewpoint is there. Here is one reference from a less liberal site ...



http://themoderatevoice.com/99669/hypocrisy-ayn-rand-and-the-tea-party/



Let's put an end to the 'birther' style treatment of Eve's post here. The interview happened.



Why do I think that? Because it is printed for any human to see, in Scott McConnell's recent book "100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand". It was McConnell who interviewed Evva Pryor - along with 99 other folk who were part of Ayn Rand an Frank O'Connor's lives, for anywhere from a half-hour to decades long relationships.



Lest anyone assume that McConnell is - naturally? - one of Ms Rand's detractors, please read on. Mr McConnell is Oral Historian, Archives Researcher an lecturer for the Ayn Rand Institute ... Yeah.



As I noted earlier here, I was also enamored of Rand's philosophy in my youth. That Alan Grennspan also felt this way cannot be argued. Here are his own words, should you care to read them, from his own work 'The Age of Turbulence'. And again, from a 'non-liberal' site.



http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/turbulence.html



Unfortunately for Ms Rand, Mr Greenspan, and I'm afraid the rest of us - for Mr Greenspan's theories have now wrought havoc on this country - there simply IS no 'Rational Selfishness' in the world of Capitalism ... other than corporate law perhaps. It's jus fantasy. We could jus as easily live by the Golden Rule ... but that needs enforcement an regulation as well.



Welcome - sincerely - to EP, Delt. Sorry for our first interaction to go like this, but I reckon you're a big boy. So far as findin appropriate groups/experiences for your questions an posts round here, the site has one of the better google Custom self search features at the top of every page. Pump in any word an you'll get results for groups an other stories. Appropriateness an wanderin from topic are decided by the author of each post - the author can delete any remark he or she chooses - it's their story. Eve is plenty tolerant, IMO.



Peace.

Willie,



Thank you for the bow etc..., I truly think the best approach to a debate is the introduction of reason. I have no followers, in fact, that was my first post and it the acknowledgment is definitely encouraging!



I'm still learning the system so please forgive me if I'm not fast to post or if I'm not fully informed of a user's opinion. I did follow you (Willie) a little and I see we stand on opposite sides on some issues. I think that is good! The best thing for both sides is to reasonably debate issues and point out the flaws in each-others arguments. I also believe that being objective, pragmatic, and respectful are critical to any constructive debate. Even if I had followers, I wouldn't have minded losing them if they were willing to leave over my last two posts.



For the record I am not a liberal, but I don't take offense at the reference. Believe it or not, I like a lot of what libertarians have to say but it seems to me the 'libertarian' movement in America has been hijacked by the conservative right. To me, 'libertarians' today lose a lot of credibility when they rant about government being monolithic and intrusive while (out of the other side of their mouths) they tell us that homosexual marriages should be illegal, drug use needs to be federally regulated, abortion rights need to be restricted, etc etc etc etc... There are so many contradictions that it is difficult to take them seriously.



To me, the modern 'libertarian' only seems libertarian in their economic views while completely rejecting their own philosophy towards social issues. I would love a reasoned, well explained, response to this topic(and I LOVE sources, so feel free to embed links!).



- Delt



P.S.



If im posting a new topic in the wrong place, please message and let me know what to do. I am truly an experienceproject novice. Thanks.

DD.. please acknowledge a gracious bow ... It gets tiresome to hear the same rants time after time after time from pretty much the same source. I appreciate your perspective and your sound points. I'll have to check on your other posts because you seem to be one of the few liberals that take their positions based upon personal research rather than the spoon fed pablum others spout adnauseum. (my sp ck is failing on that on).. Tks sir. Bill in Va.

p.s. I'm betting you lost a ton of followers on here for speaking from a position of reason.

As a slight aside to some other comments, saying Rands own personal decisions shouldn't affect the credibility of her publicly stated beliefs is nonsense. If a philosophy is so rigid that its inventor cannot even adhere to its tenants then what does that say about its real-world application? IMO Rands philosophy is nice on paper, but about as awesome as communism is when applied in the real world.



Still doubting? Flip the situation and think about it. If it came out that Howard Zinn had invested heavily with DOD contractors to supplement his income or pay for his wife's medical care, would the left be justified in saying his personal actions weren't relevant; that is was his beliefs, not his actions that were important?

I would like to be a little more constructive than some of the trolls I have read here. For full disclosure, I am left leaning and am a registered democrat. I also do my best for form objective opinions on issues based on reports that come from multiple, reliable, and unbiased sources. I will accept biased sources as well, but they don't hold much water until I can verify the facts with other groups.



That said, the conservatives here have a damn good point. I can't find any references to this story from objective or right leaning organizations and (as much as I don't want to due to my personal philosophy) I am forced to ignore these allegations until they can be confirmed.

Go conservatives for calling the left out when they overreach! BS should be ferreted out everywhere its found!



Lefties, if any if you can link a reliable source that isnt left leaning, do so in a reply... I really would like to see it, seriously... I would really, really like that. And don't get mad at the naysayers, do you buy the birther allegations? Would you be more likely to do so if the AP, NPR, and ABC reported on it instead of just the right?

I doubt you mis-read anything, PFG ... things have a way of gettin off track when the debunker shows up.



My point with the Greenspan quote is that he was a disciple of Rand's ... who happened to have a huge part in economic policy for the nation ... particularly with regard to deregulation of banks an corporations.

Sorry Bill - no go. You already debunked me into debunkificationism.



Therefore you've actually debunked yourself!



Yep. Double-debunked.

Hlp.. this might be the first time I've ever agreed with ya! My post debunked them all! Tks for stepping up to the plate... Take care.. Bill in VA.

Debunked. Debunked. Debunked.



All of you. =)

NGIH... So you're saying the contents of a novel are basically a personal philosophy? So I guess I have to attribute some really negative connotations to one of America's greatest authors! Sam Clemons is the guy I'm referring to.. He musta been the biggest racist ever to walk this planet according to your thought process... (BTW... a lil civic pride here... grew up in a small town in Upstate NY.... he married a local girl there, penned the following books:

A Tramp Abroad

Life on the Mississippi

The Adventures of Tom Sawyer

Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

The Prince and the Pauper

A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

(link) http://www.cityofelmira.net/history/mark_twain.html



Now on to the lastest BS.. BP Oil Spill? 5,000 ft deep, 41 miles off shore... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill

Why? Freaking liberals consume the product but don't want to see it being sought, and force the exploration of it to the most dangerous sites. They'd rather have Cuba drilling in the Gulf of Mexico without ANY oversight like US companies have. They'd rather have this administration invest in Brazil billions in deepwell drilling off their coast... Sorta like NIMBY... They'd rather have Teddy block wind generators off the coast of Mass.. under the guise it would be a danger to shipping even though no commercial shipping goes near there.. although he did used to like sailing there... they'd rather block solar farms in NM because a couple of turtles were found.. they'd rather block a raft of other alternate energy sources by blocking the transmission lines ... So let's talk about bullshit philosophies.. NGIH...

in reflection.. responding to the bs you posted was a freaking waste of time... Bill in Va.

Its theabsolutism of her creed..."free men do it all on their own! Anything else is tyranny!" So ridiculous just on the face of it.

I think the connection between the hypocrisy and the Tea Party is this -- Ayn's inability to get proper medical care proved her bullshit free-market theories don't work. She ignored all evidence to the contrary and still insisted that they did (even though she knew first hand they didn't)



Tea Partiers also know first hand that the free market doesn't work (see the BP Oil Spill and the Mortgage Crisis for a couple of obvious examples).



It proves that idiots are drawn to bullshit philosophies.

I didn't realize that Alan Greenspan knew Ayn Rand. the whole idea of attributing greed is interesting. One narrative says that it is naive to think that social programs won't be taken advantage of by the "lazy." But I think that belief in the free market to just take care of everything without regulation is incredibly naive. Is the idea that corporations will do what is right for society as a whole because it is in their self-interest to do so? Being primarily self-interested very often goes with a myopic short-term vision of things. Even the idea that people having access to health care is a public health issue seems hard for people to grasp.

Let's remember that Mr Greenspan is one of Ms Rand's disciples. He met and spent time with her. He knew her personally and not just through a book. Mr Greenspan's remarks are interesting.

I have never read Ms Rand's novels and never will. Even though they appear on the lists of influence of so many young people now. Years ago, I saw archived interviews and my revulsion of her philiosphy was pretty immediate. The woman was just plain wrong. Period. As she apparently found out in her old age, too bad she didn't have the integrity to write about it.

Eve,,, I didn't say there weren't stories on the topic.. my debate was "what the hell does that have to do with the Tea Party" other than they admire the "philosophical" tenets of the NOVEL... Her personal convictions aren't the focus.

IAB... I am now at 2,700 comments left by me... I've yet to have ONE of my sources challenged as even possibly being a bit biased. I cite wikipedia, Rasmussen, Zogby, Gallup etc. I've yet to yank something from MRC, Drudge or the PERCEIVED Fox News bias.

The left here on EP seem to get the bulk of their talking points from one of four sources......DK, MM, Move-on, Huff... 3 of which have a direct link to one of the most liberal Billionaires in the US if not the world. Speaking of him, isn't his wealth attributed to all that you protest on here? Making money off the sweat of others?

Now there is true hypocrisy.... Link to Soros: EP Link



Bill in Va.

I thought he made some very sensible suggestions. Sigh. I didn't feel too hopeful about them being pursued.

An at least he is havin it.



"There's one in every crowd." No - there ain'. There are thousands today - the crowd is big. We need effective regulation in all walks of public life today. There are thousands in the crowd.



Key word bein 'effective'. I'll even go so far as to say that don' necessarily mean 'big'. Wonder if that's what O was gettin at the other night .... closin some Departments while still closin some loopholes. Could it actually be done at the same time?



What would be next? Cuttin spendin while rasin taxes to pay off the Golden Agers' debt?



Nahh ... way too sensible.

LOL, hlpflwthat. Yes, to it taking a personal tragedy for Ayn Rand to realize that the idea behind having a social net is for those in great need, not greed.



It is interesting, the reluctant awakening that Alan Greenspan seems to be having post-economic crash.