Ayn Rand and William Edward Hickman

Originally posted by CliffLandin
Ill researched, Scott McConnell founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute? Well, then it was an inside job. Are you saying that she didn't take Social Security or Medicare? The main point being that even though she demonized people taking help from anyone, especially the government, she did it herself proving that it is easier to extol beliefs rather than to live by them.

She did not demonize people taking back from gummint what had been taken from them.

You are justified in doing so. Might get a bit tricky when you go into OD but with her book sales I would imagine she was well in credit.

Originally posted by Wajoma
She did not demonize people taking back from gummint what had been taken from them.

You are justified in doing so. Might get a bit tricky when you go into OD but with her book sales I would imagine she was well in credit.

So, because you were not financially successful, then it is okay to sacrifice your values. Tell that to Howard Roark. He would have thrown you into the street.

EDIT: And she totally demonized those that suckled at the teat of the government. They were portray as weak and worthless.

Originally posted by CliffLandin
So, because you were not financially successful, then it is okay to sacrifice your values. Tell that to Howard Roark. He would have thrown you into the street.

EDIT: And she totally demonized those that suckled at the teat of the government. They were portray as weak and worthless.

Care to elucidate, you're begining to spiral into rant mode.

If you mean is it ok to take more than what you have contributed, then the answer is no. Still no contradiction or hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Care to elucidate, you're begining to spiral into rant mode.

If you mean is it ok to take more than what you have contributed, then the answer is no. Still no contradiction or hypocrisy.

I have not yet begun to rant.

There is nothing I can say to you that will convince you of the facts. You are a true believer. It is like convincing a Christian that Jesus was just a guy. It won't happen.

If you do a modicum of research you will see how Rand felt about Social Security and Medicare. Just Google it.

Originally posted by CliffLandin
I have not yet begun to rant.

There is nothing I can say to you that will convince you of the facts. You are a true believer. It is like convincing a Christian that Jesus was just a guy. It won't happen.

If you do a modicum of research you will see how Rand felt about Social Security and Medicare. Just Google it.

Yes and I feel the same way but that does not amount to hypocrisy for taking back that which has been taken from you.

At least show some integrity and admit your use of the word was incorrect.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Yes and I feel the same way but that does not amount to hypocrisy for taking back that which has been taken from you.

At least show some integrity and admit your use of the word was incorrect.

Nope. It is hypocrisy to decry something in public and then take advantage of it in private.

Hypocrisy is defined as "insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have". I think that pretty much fits the bill. At least show some integrity and admit that I am right.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=hypocrisy

Noun
S: (n) hypocrisy, lip service (an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction)
S: (n) hypocrisy (insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have)

Originally posted by CliffLandin
Nope. It is hypocrisy to decry something in public and then take advantage of it in private.

Hypocrisy is defined as "insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have". I think that pretty much fits the bill. At least show some integrity and admit that I am right.

You're not right because as been pointed out in very plain language she is justified in taking back that which has been taken from her, we all are. Not only justified but obligated. You think libertarians and objectivists should pay for roads, hospitals, pension plans and then not claim on them? It would only be hypocritical if she were free to opt out of it then after opting out made a claim against it. Or if she'd spent a life on the unemployment benefit, or if she had somehow avoided paying tax and then made a claim against all those that had paid tax. Those would be examples of hypocrisy, what you have given here is not hypocrisy but an entirely justified action. A course of action I would recommend to all those that rail against public health care or social security.

Your post post edit has done nothing to help your case.

Originally posted by CliffLandin
Ill researched, Scott McConnell founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute? Well, then it was an inside job. Are you saying that she didn't take Social Security or Medicare? The main point being that even though she demonized people taking help from anyone, especially the government, she did it herself proving that it is easier to extol be ...[text shortened]... d it was a failure of her philosophy to live up to the standards set by reality. AYN RAND FAIL.

Scott McConnell is not the author of the hack job you posted a link to.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Yes and I feel the same way but that does not amount to hypocrisy for taking back that which has been taken from you.

At least show some integrity and admit your use of the word was incorrect.

It would be helpful to the defense that he was not hypocritical if there was a record of her publicly acknowledging that she was taking advantage of public assistance and some accounting showing it was really her money she was taking back. Is there a record??

Originally posted by JS357
It would be helpful to the defense that he was not hypocritical if there was a record of her publicly acknowledging that she was taking advantage of public assistance and some accounting showing it was really her money she was taking back. Is there a record??

Edit: "...she was not hypocritical..."

Originally posted by Wajoma
Scott McConnell is not the author of the hack job you posted a link to.

No, but he is the author of "Oral History of Ayn Rand" which is where the information came from. You should have probably read the article before you attacked it.

"However, it was revealed in the recent "Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute) that in the end Ayn was a vip-dipper as well. An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor)."

Originally posted by CliffLandin
No, but he is the author of "Oral History of Ayn Rand" which is where the information came from. You should have probably read the article before you attacked it.

"However, it was revealed in the recent "Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute) that in the end Ayn was a vip-dipper as well ...[text shortened]... payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor)."

I am a little surprised you'd keep this one alive Cliff, sometimes it's better to help threads fade away as quickly as possible by staying away from them, you know, try to save some face.

I said: "...ill researched hack job." in reference to the article you posted, the link you posted, natually enough eh. I did read the article and it was not written by Scott McConnell. So what words would you like to put in Scott McConnells mouth, did he refer to Rand as a 'vip-dipper'? did he call her a hypocrite? what exactly is his contribution here. Why would you post Micheal Fords hack job and then want to discuss what McConnell had written?

Ford has picked up a catchy but mean title 'vip-dipper' and thought 'How can I use this.' His application of that title has been proven to be as incorrect as your application of the word hypocrite. Rand had much to say about social welfare schemes but she never said you should not take that which is due, that is important Cliff, you should re-read it: ...never take that which is not due.

So you don't have to research far to find other examples of ill research in Fords hack job. Rand was not making the claims under some kind of subterfuge by using another name, she used her name, not her pen name. Rand did not die from lung cancer and she did not choose her pen name from her Rand typewriter.

Here's another beauty, a quote from the social worker Pryror: "...she didn't feel that an individual should take help." Oh dear, Ford sure is calling in the heavy weight critics now, unfortunately Rand never said that an individual should not take help. She did have plenty to say about sacrifice and she did have plenty to say about that 'help' being forced.

So here we have it again, metaphorically you blokes are the paparazzi fishing in the Ms Rands trash can, "Find anything good in there guys?" "Nope, didn't think so." rather than making a visit to the bookshop to find out what she actually published.

A kudos to no1 for starting this thread, thumbs up, no1.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Makes you wonder what would have happened in Rand's development, had Ms. Parker been armed with a gun with which to thwart Mr. Hickman's attempt at self-realization.

Rand is not with us to defend her arguments. I found Atlas Shrugged to be just as Wajoma described. Moving to Fountainhead, a lot seemed conflcting and contradictory. One must recognize that both these are fiction, and the characters therein are imaginary representations of heroic or villainous ideas and notions.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Laissez faire capitalism tends to concentrate wealth and power into a small, aristocratic elite. Perhaps that's what she wanted to move back towards, being a former member of that class. Fond childhood memories, maybe.

"Laissez faire capitalism tends to concentrate wealth and power into a small, aristocratic elite."

Not any more so than other governmental and economic systems. Like the "workers paradise of the Bolsheviks, or the way the wealth is spread around under the Monarchies, or Olagarchies.

Elites seem to get rich regardless, of capitalism or the lack of it. At least under capitalism the poor tend not to be so miserable.