Happy birthday, Ayn Rand! Thanks for writing great books.

"Self help cult" implies I associated with other like-minded people (I didn't and haven't) and that there was some downside to reading her books. I figure buttholes were gonna hate me anyway, so you can't even blame that on reading Rand. What's the basis for your charge?

She was threatened with bankruptcy due to her and her husband's medical bills and a friend (who later became a social worker) convinced her to access the social safety net.

She was a hypocrite, anon.

So you're going to fault her for not living up to her ideals? Does anyone? How are you doing on that metric?

>IT'S NOT HER FAULT SHE MADE POOR LIFE DECISIONS AND (BEGRUDGINGLY) ACCEPTED BEING SAVED BY A SOCIAL SAFTEY NET SHE SPENT HER LIFE ARGUING AGAINST!
Delicious cope. You should have went with "IT DOESN'T MEAN HER IDEAS WERE WRONG" as it makes it harder to point out how your reaction indicates protecting your cult leader.
[...]
Randianism is a self-help cult though. You can look at how ARI operates (e.g. "closed system") and the fact Nathaniel Brandon eventually went on to produce academic work relating to the subject.

It's just a complete misunderstanding of the actual events. She received Social Security, but in comparison to the amount she was making from book royalties and speaking gigs that money was completely inconsequential. She was paying at least 3x as much in taxes as she was getting in Social Security, and you are a lying homosexual.

Saved by a social safety net that only needed to be in place because of government involvement driving up the price of medicine by regulating production and a doctors union, checkmate

It really just sounds like a smear tactic too, lefties are just making themselves look bad trying to take it so seriously. Then again looking bad is just the left wing life, they must not notice it anymore.

They'll never accept it, anon. These "individuals" are so lacking in self-awareness that they don't even realize their own emotionally rooted reaction to criticism against their leader.

Randianism is a really simplistic worldview and Randtards mistake their denial of complexity for clarity of "thought."

What even is your argument lmao mr. you will never be a ms. self awareness? That every single person will go on welfare? That welfare is an unavoidable fact of life for everyone? Seems more like you are justifying your own failure in life than anything else.

>What even is your argument
Ayn Rand was a hypocrite. Objectivism is a self-help cult. Randtards are idiots.

Exactly...I could probably meet more Objectivists by being a joiner, but I've never been a joiner.
>Romantic Manifesto
No, just "Fountainhead", "Atlas Shrugged", "Anthem", and "We The Living".
[...]
I called you a collectivist because you keep assuming people that read Rand want to join an organization and be surrounded by like-minded individuals. I could care less about that. But you're such a dyed-in-the-wool joiner that you can't even conceive of not wanting to join.
[...]
I don't consider Ayn Rand to be any sort of leader. Again, you betray your "joiner" mindset, and mindlessly project it onto others.

>I called you a collectivist because
...you're an idiot who has self-indoctrinated into a self-help cult that teaches you to deflect criticism by predefining those that offer it according to simplistic (and predictable) caricatures.
>I don't consider Ayn Rand to be any sort of leader
Yet you can't take it when she's criticized by a stranger on the internet. Curious.

You're grossly overstating the amount of passion I'm putting into this discussion. Again, you're projecting your own seething. I'm fine with you not wanting to take advantage of her wisdom. You do you. I'm comfortable with my decisions.

>Joiner
You do realize that business requires the combined efforts of many people to succeed, right? If you insist on a solo business, you'll never succeed in any meaningful way, you'll never expand and grow. Human beings are group orientated, it's a fundamental aspect of our existence, to eschew it is just bizarre and counterproductive.

Never said I was a businessperson. Why are you assuming I have any pretentions in that direction?

>"Fountainhead", "Atlas Shrugged", "Anthem", and "We The Living".
Good stuff, man! You should check out some of the unpublished fiction works that have been released posthumously. I enjoyed "Ideal" quite a bit.

I'm reading other stuff at the moment, but I will consider it.

>How is a railroad company meant to operate without workers to lay tracks or conduct the trains?

Black person what do you even think you're saying here. Employing people or being an employee is contradictory to Objectivist principles? Excuse me? How are you this fricking dumb?

I've read her books, so I know she never once advocated for isolating yourself from society. In fact, she explicitly states on multiple occasions that it would not be in your rational self-interest to do so. Are you actually familiar with the principles of Objectivism?

You missed the entire point of the book if this is what you took from it. God DAMN are you dumb.

They left to create something new because what was there was too far gone. It's not too hard to figure out, and it doesn't mean that "isolating yourself from society" was ever something she held as being in someone's interest to do.

He probably hasn't read the book. This is just parroting the typical "I watched that one John Oliver bit" r/philosophy user's understanding of her work. He's moronic.

>The vast majority of your "arguments" is that it doesn't live up to a standard of divine perfection.
No one is arguing that you absolute moron. The fact is that Randianism is diametrically opposed to social safety nets but Rand herself was saved by one. Randtards are upset by this fact because she's actually a cult leader who seduced them into her laughably simplistic worldview by way of self-help and Cold War era sci-fi. Randtards are idiots.

More babble based on nothing. I'm sorry that you lost an argument online, but you don't need to compensate for it so much.

>I cannot meet your arguments
I accept your concession.

"Randianism" is a strawman that you made up just to knock it over, and has little or nothing to do with Rand's philosophy. I'm not sure why you think her philosophy is diametrically opposed to social safety nets; I seem to remember her not being thrilled with parasites, but those two positions are not equivalent.
Saying "Randtards" implies a legion of mindless followers who'll do anything she says, which in my experience is not borne out by anything in the real world.
And now, the 5th time I've asked you this...so you're going to fault her for not living up to her ideals? Does anyone? How are you personally doing on that metric?

Randianism is what I call "Objectivism." It irritates Randtards who are too dumb to recognize "Objectivism" is already pretty fricking hilarious. Scientology was already taken....
>And now, the 5th time I've asked you this
You're speaking to more than one person, moron. I haven't read the other guy's posts but I answered this already. If you spend your life advocating against something only to be saved by it, try to obscure the fact you did by using a different name, and the "institution" you helped set up with your "intellectual heir" lie about it... Yeah, moron. I'd say you should pay more attention to where you're getting "your" ideas from.

No, there's only one flaming seether in this thread. And you still didn't answer the question; you simply deflected, assuming that anyone that doesn't live up to their ideals 100% must be condemned 100%. Life isn't as black and white as you claim, and you don't live up to your own ideals either.

>you're allowed to help people you care about
No shit. What you're too dumb to realize is that Rand's notion of "self-interest" is nebulous to the point that you can associate anything "good" with it and anything "bad" as opposed to it. Don't project the simplistic ideation you've internalized onto others, moron.

The point you're ignoring is that Rand was saved by a social safety net functioning as a social safety net. Simple as. Rand was lucky it exists and all anyone can say is "RAND DIDN'T LIVE IN REAL CAPITALISM" while ignoring the fact that: 1) she not only made but advocated poor life decisions that lead to her poor health, 2) she didn't want to accept social security/medicaid and had to be talked into it, 3) she tried to hide this by using a different name and ARI lied about it, 4) she was saved by the very thing she spent her life trying to take out.
[...]
Lol, you're such a homosexual it's almost unbelievable.

>ad hominem attack
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

>And you still didn't answer the question
I gave you reasons why Rand's conduct is troubling and weakens the credibility of her project (i.e. building a self-help cult, lol).
>assuming that anyone that doesn't live up to their ideals 100% must be condemned 100%.
No one argued that you absolute moron.
>Life isn't as black and white as you claim
Projection. Why can't you admit that Rand's conduct was hypocritical (she herself knew it was so as per the fact she didn't want to accept the money and had to be talked into it)? The fact is so damaging, Rand was saved by a social safety net, ARI lied about the fact she accepted the money and then came out with editorials justifying it when a journalist found documentation that proved she received welfare.

>Like I said: it's nebulous.
How?
>Yeah, that's why she had to be talked into it (by a future social worker), used a different name on the applications, ARI lied about it, and people (who totally aren't in a self-help cult) can directly address it without seeming like morons.
https://freestudents.blogspot.com/2011/10/lying-about-ayn-rand-and-social.html
https://freestudents.blogspot.com/2010/03/smearing-ayn-rand-nietzsche-and.html
https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights/the-myth-about-ayn-rand-and-social-security/
Read homie read

>How?
"The term “interests” is a wide abstraction that covers the entire field of ethics..." You seriously can't reflect and pick up on it? I don't think giving you an example is going to help. Randtards are automatically filtered by anything that criticizes the simplistic worldview they've internalized.

>and you don't live up to your own ideals either.
He has none. He is yet another morally dead moron who doesn't even have the capability to discuss ideals, which is why he's falling back on this dishonest nonsense. It's completely typical, and that's why it's sad.

>He has none.
Says the moronic homosexual who self-indoctrinated into a Cold War era self-help cult. At least it's cheaper than Scientology.

>I'm too stupid to extrapolate
It's nebulous because you can literally attribute any "good" to adhering to the system and any "bad" to going against the system. Can you think of something that can't be reformulated into Randian terminology? You can't because that's not the way the cult is designed, moron. What it Objectivism does is shoehorn everything according to simplistic caricatures (e.g. "collectivists") representative of the Cold War sensibilities in which Rand worked. Objectivism isn't that much different from Scientology and other self-help cults that arose around the same period.

>no you
I know the conversation is above your intelligence but projecting gets you nowhere.

>You assume her project is building a self-help cult, which is a strawman argument
It's not a strawman, moron. I'll point out that you're crying about nonexistent informal fallacies instead of arguing against this idea, or any of the points raised for that matter.
>then you posit that her government-assistance-accepting conduct weakens the credibility of that totally invented project
I pointed out that being saved by a social safety net undermines the idea that social safety nets are, how would Rand hyperbolically put it, "anti-life." Lol.
>thereby jumping to conclusions
Failing to address arguments because you're a filtered moron who can't understand criticism of his homosexual self-help cult can't be brushed off by asserting I'm jumping to conclusions, moron.
>You're completely deranged, and can't figure it out..
You're projecting, anon. Stopped reading there.

Imagine plagiarizing a shit movie like American Beauty and thinking it's a mic drop. Lol, never change Randtards.

How do you type this much without actually addressing anything? All you do is type around shit and regurgitate the same lies that have already been shown to be lies earlier on in the thread. Stop panicking.

>How do you type this much without actually addressing anything?
Again, I've made several points and you continuously fail to address them. This is because you're a moron who is automatically filtered by any criticism of your homosexual self-help cult.
>All you do is type around shit and regurgitate the same lies that have already been shown to be lies earlier on in the thread
Which lies? The best you morons have offered is uncritically posting excerpts from a blogpost which I was nice enough to address point by point.

I've been calling him a moron and I'm very sure of my facts.

>What's it about
Kevin Spacy pretending he's not a homosexual while failing to bang the good girl broad from American Beauty because he finds out she's a virgin.
>'continuously spew the word "moron" during their "arguments"
If you could address arguments I wouldn't have to continuously point out you're moronic. The insults are for entertainment value.

She wrote it in 1966, which destroys your claim that she "retconned it as consistent with Objectivism" after the fact. You are a fricking dunce who's panicking about getting raped in a IQfy argument to the point where you can barely even read what's being posted.

>which destroys your claim that she "retconned it as consistent with Objectivism"
I said that ARI retconned their position that she never accepted social security and Medicaid (not her). I also pointed out that Rand didn't want to accept it but had to do so because he and her husband had extensive medical bills that were only going to grow. As an aside, I brought up how Randianism attempts to rationalize according to the idea of a "closed system" and how this exemplifies such.

Now, look at pic-related and go back to

Since you can't read I'm just gonna start copy pasting:

>A woman who worked for her publisher's law firm and became a personal friend of the Rands. She's the one who drew up the applications.
"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.

Pryor argued with Rand because Ayn did not want Social Security, nor did Rand go out and seek it, or Medicare, even though doing so was entirely consistent with her own ethics. What Pryor said was that she tried to convince Rand to sign up and they argued. Pryor says Rand "was never involved other than to sign the power of attorney. I did the rest." Beyond that Pryor said nothing else. There is no indication whether Pryor used the power of attorney to apply for benefits, or whether Rand knew about it. There is no indication that such benefits were ever used. There is simply no evidence to show Rand "Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them."

Pryor's full interview in 100 Voices: Oral History of Ayn Rand, indicates the opposite. It shows Rand fighting with her attorneys and telling them that she didn't want to do this. She signed a power of attorney and Pryor said that she acted "whether [Ayn] agreed or not." Pryor never actually says what actions she (Pryor) took in spite of whether Ayn "agreed or not." What we have is the rabid Left jumping to numerous conclusions not warranted by the evidence."

>When you wrote a rambling paragraph about "Randianism" being a strawman. Too bad you didn't take the time to acknowledge ARI.
That wasn't me, and he was talking about your conception of what Objectivism is. No one in this thread gives a frick about the label.
>You went from strawmanning the argument as being about not living up to perfect ideals (instead of addressing the facts presented) to some really pathetic mental gymnastics trying to square the circle of Rand being saved by a social safety net without acknowledging she was saved by a social safety net.
Again, you are just wrong about it being a hypocrisy, AND you are wrong about her "being saved" by SS. How is your brain this broken?
>Not an argument.
LOL
>She applied under that name to obfuscate the fact Ayn Rand was applying for welfare
Dumbass her real name was never "Ayn Rand" what the frick. Do you think George Orwell signed official documents with that name? NO BECAUSE IT WASN'T HIS REAL NAME.
>ARI used the fact Rand's name couldn't be found in documentation to lie about it
Source: Your ass

(i.e. the moron who can't think for himself copy/pasting). Notice how the excerpts don't actually address the context of the interview and rely on the idea of vagaries? Notice how it brushes over the idea of "power of attorney" as if this person wouldn't know Rand's financial situation? This was one argument I made that you homosexuals were able to address. Go ahead and cherry-pick just like the shitty blog post you morons put forward instead of thinking for yourselves. Some individuals you are! Lol

Probably should have underlined this part too. Again, the point is that she didn't want to take it and did so out of necessity (i.e. she acknowledged the moral hazard and the social safety net functioned as a social safety net).

Why didn't Rand plan adequately for her financial future? Also, Rand made the personal choice to smoke and developed lung cancer (she actually advocated smoking in her writing and, I have to check but I'm pretty sure, spoke out against research that linked smoking to respiratory disease). It seems as though Rand made some bad choices, for which she bears personal responsibility, and was saved by a social safety net functioning as a social safety net.

>slides about American Beauty
I didn't think you were so dumb that you'd be completely distracted by a shitpost. This is why I should keep repeating you're moronic.

>I said that ARI retconned their position that she never accepted social security and Medicaid (not her).
meanwhile...
>She argued because it wasn't consistent with Objectivism. Again, ARI originally denied Rand accepted social security/Medicaid and then retconned this in order to make it acceptable within Objectivism. (I brought up "closed system" earlier...you see Randtards do this a lot).
The obvious implication of this is that it wasn't "consistent with Objectivism" and that it being philosophically consistent somehow needed to be "retconned." That article she wrote prior to any of what we're talking about thoroughly debunks that.
>I also pointed out that Rand didn't want to accept it but had to do so because he and her husband had extensive medical bills that were only going to grow.
2 grand a year in retirement benefits covering "extensive medical bills" is interesting. Also why'd she have so much money when she died again? Still no answer? Alright
>As an aside, I brought up how Randianism attempts to rationalize according to the idea of a "closed system" and how this exemplifies such.
Objectivism is a closed system and taking public subsidies being acceptable under the previously outlined conditions is a part of that system, as is proven by that excerpt I posted.
>Notice how the excerpts don't actually address the context of the interview and rely on the idea of vagaries? Notice how it brushes over the idea of "power of attorney" as if this person wouldn't know Rand's financial situation?
This person thought Ayn Rand should accept SS because of medical bills that may be high sometime in the future. That situation ended up not coming to fruition, hence rand not needing to rely on SS. You're talking around the actual facts of how much money she had because you're desperately clinging to this as a point of contention on the philosophy itself, because discussing ideals is too hard for you.

>meanwhile...
Yes, anon. I specifically said that ARI retconned their position that Rand had never accepted social security and Medicaid. I pointed out that they recharacterized it as entitlement for having paid into it (and referenced the "closed system" cult shit as an aside). Ayn Rand herself never addressed it. Perhaps she was leaving it up to "Anne O'Conner" (i.e. the name which helped obfuscate the fact Rand had applied for and received benefits)
>The obvious implication of this is that it wasn't "consistent with Objectivism"
My argument was that Rand didn't want to take social security and Medicaid. This was clearly stated by the woman to whom Rand signed over her power of attorney (see picture

https://i.imgur.com/nFEZz6c.jpg

>What's it about
Kevin Spacy pretending he's not a homosexual while failing to bang the good girl broad from American Beauty because he finds out she's a virgin.
>'continuously spew the word "moron" during their "arguments"
If you could address arguments I wouldn't have to continuously point out you're moronic. The insults are for entertainment value.
[...]
>which destroys your claim that she "retconned it as consistent with Objectivism"
I said that ARI retconned their position that she never accepted social security and Medicaid (not her). I also pointed out that Rand didn't want to accept it but had to do so because he and her husband had extensive medical bills that were only going to grow. As an aside, I brought up how Randianism attempts to rationalize according to the idea of a "closed system" and how this exemplifies such.

Now, look at pic-related and go back to [...] (i.e. the moron who can't think for himself copy/pasting). Notice how the excerpts don't actually address the context of the interview and rely on the idea of vagaries? Notice how it brushes over the idea of "power of attorney" as if this person wouldn't know Rand's financial situation? This was one argument I made that you homosexuals were able to address. Go ahead and cherry-pick just like the shitty blog post you morons put forward instead of thinking for yourselves. Some individuals you are! Lol

). Pryor also states that Rand saw the "necessity" of taking the money while indicating she "didn't agree with it."
>2 grand a year in retirement benefits covering "extensive medical bills"
That's the social security, moron. I know you're a moron but I didn't think I'd have to point out MEDIC-AID is what covers medical bills.
>Also why'd she have so much money when she died again?
Why did the person who had power of attorney, you know the person with full knowledge of their financials, say that Rand and her husband needed Medicaid out of financial necessity? Still can't address this fact? Ok.
>Objectivism is a closed system and taking public subsidies being acceptable
It's funny to me that you're too dumb to make the connection between how ARI quotes Rand's writings like scripture and cult-like ideation.
>This person thought Ayn Rand should accept SS because of medical bills that may be high sometime in the future.
You mean the person with power of attorney and full knowledge of Rand's finances? The one who specifically said that "it didn't matter if Rand agreed" because she "recognized the necessity?" Are you seriously trying to argue that "might need it due to future necessity" is that difference in the current context than "does need it?" Frick you're an idiot, lol. Besides, we don't know what Rand's medical bills were but seeing as she had terminal lung cancer for like 6 years and her husband died of his illness after a couple years my guess is that they were pretty high.

>still sperging about American Beauty
I've addressed every single point directed toward me while clearly reiterating my actual arguments when they've been mischaracterized by other anons. This is a fact, moron.

How do you type this much without actually addressing anything? All you do is type around shit and regurgitate the same lies that have already been shown to be lies earlier on in the thread. Stop panicking.

>inconsistent
So? You think that just because I enjoyed reading Rand that I somehow buy into every last thing she thought and feel the need to defend it against all detractors? I can't even imagine being that much of a follower. Once again, you're projecting your willingness to join and conform, making your "arguments" pointless for anyone without your sheep mentality.

Not at all. I just don't ascribe some sort of divine perfection to it. The vast majority of your "arguments" is that it doesn't live up to a standard of divine perfection. Neither does any of mankind's work. So what exactly is your point? And now, the 4th time I've asked you this...so you're going to fault her for not living up to her ideals? Does anyone? How are you personally doing on that metric?

"Randianism" is a strawman that you made up just to knock it over, and has little or nothing to do with Rand's philosophy. I'm not sure why you think her philosophy is diametrically opposed to social safety nets; I seem to remember her not being thrilled with parasites, but those two positions are not equivalent.
Saying "Randtards" implies a legion of mindless followers who'll do anything she says, which in my experience is not borne out by anything in the real world.
And now, the 5th time I've asked you this...so you're going to fault her for not living up to her ideals? Does anyone? How are you personally doing on that metric?

Well, YOU understand that, but I was hoping to guide the seether to a place of increased awareness and knowledge using the Socratic method, or, failing that, get him to realize it was in his interest to stop acting out in public.

>Rand's notion of "self-interest" is nebulous to the point that you can associate anything "good" with it and anything "bad" as opposed to it.

"The term “interests” is a wide abstraction that covers the entire field of ethics. It includes the issues of: man’s values, his desires, his goals and their actual achievement in reality. A man’s “interests” depend on the kind of goals he chooses to pursue, his choice of goals depends on his desires, his desires depend on his values—and, for a rational man, his values depend on the judgment of his mind.

Desires (or feelings or emotions or wishes or whims) are not tools of cognition; they are not a valid standard of value, nor a valid criterion of man’s interests. The mere fact that a man desires something does not constitute a proof that the object of his desire is good, nor that its achievement is actually to his interest.

To claim that a man’s interests are sacrificed whenever a desire of his is frustrated—is to hold a subjectivist view of man’s values and interests. Which means: to believe that it is proper, moral and possible for man to achieve his goals, regardless of whether they contradict the facts of reality or not. Which means: to hold an irrational or mystical view of existence. Which means: to deserve no further consideration."

>The point you're ignoring is that Rand was saved by a social safety net functioning as a social safety net
She wasn't. Simple as.

>Like I said: it's nebulous.
How?
>Yeah, that's why she had to be talked into it (by a future social worker), used a different name on the applications, ARI lied about it, and people (who totally aren't in a self-help cult) can directly address it without seeming like morons.
https://freestudents.blogspot.com/2011/10/lying-about-ayn-rand-and-social.html
https://freestudents.blogspot.com/2010/03/smearing-ayn-rand-nietzsche-and.html
https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights/the-myth-about-ayn-rand-and-social-security/
Read homie read

Society is a joint operation, a synergistic endeavor where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If you have too many selfish greedy misers who insist on taking for themselves and never contributing to the whole, your society breaks down and everyone is worse off. Rand seems to ignore the fact that railroad tycoons require workers to lay track and conduct the trains, and they need citizens to populate the marketplace to keep the whole thing going. You can't isolate yourself or your industry from the rest of the populace, it's a recipe for disaster and ultimately culminates in bitter old women who die in the street. Only through the principles of common good was she saved from the proper outcome that she deserved on her own worldview, proving her to be both a hypocrite and morally bankrupt herself.

Yes, she didn't fully live up to her ideals. Which gives her something in common with every other human being in existence. You're holding her to an impossible standard, postulating the existence of a cult surrounding her, and assuming her fans are quasi-religious. You're completely full of shit, and appear to be incapable of grasping that.

>"IT DOESN'T MEAN HER IDEAS WERE WRONG"
See, that's the better option because it doesn't betray the sense of personal attachment one finds when it comes to a cult leader.

Yes, anon. I fault a woman who spent her life arguing against the existence of social safety nets and took advantage of their existence because she made poor life decision. I also fault the institution she helped create for lying about it and then retconing the lie into "she paid into it" when journalists brought forth documentation.

For those that don't know the story, there was an interview with the woman who convinced Rand to apply for and accept social security and medicaid. ARI covered it up and denied it. A journalist got documentation relating to the social security application and payments (which Rand took under a different name). ARI erased the stuff about it being untrue from their website and replaced it with "she was just taking back what was hers." You'll notice Randtards will regurgitate this fairly often).

Also, for context, I have some pretty well off family members and ALL OF THEM collect social security and medicare. These are not things that poor people use due to lack of options, they are simply retirement benefits.

>"IT DOESN'T MEAN HER IDEAS WERE WRONG"
See, that's the better option because it doesn't betray the sense of personal attachment one finds when it comes to a cult leader.

Yes, anon. I fault a woman who spent her life arguing against the existence of social safety nets and took advantage of their existence because she made poor life decision. I also fault the institution she helped create for lying about it and then retconing the lie into "she paid into it" when journalists brought forth documentation.

For those that don't know the story, there was an interview with the woman who convinced Rand to apply for and accept social security and medicaid. ARI covered it up and denied it. A journalist got documentation relating to the social security application and payments (which Rand took under a different name). ARI erased the stuff about it being untrue from their website and replaced it with "she was just taking back what was hers." You'll notice Randtards will regurgitate this fairly often).

is a disingenuous homosexual and he knows it. Ayn Rand retained a law firm, fully staffed living quarters complete with live-in maid and secretary, and an absolutely fricking massive inheritance, some of which was left to that maid because she liked her so much.

Why lie, anon? Here's what actually happened:
>after writing essays literally characterizing smoking as a symbol of freedom, Rand gets lung cancer
>her husband is also very sick at the time
>Rand over extended her self-help cult and didn't have liquidity needed to cover medical payments and keep herself afloat
>facing bankruptcy, a woman who worked for her publisher and befriended her convinced her to apply for social security and medicaid
>Rand knew this was against the principles she spent her life espousing but realized the situation and accepted
>Rand had the woman apply for access to the social safety net on her and her husband's behalf (using a different name)
>years later the woman, who went on to become a social worker (lol) was interviewed for a book for ARI
>she said the above
>ARI attempted to bury the interview and denied it when it was brought up
>when a journalist got records that proved Rand and her husband had applied for and received the money ARI shifted to "SHE PAID TAXES AND WAS JUST GETTING HER MONEY BACK"
>(note this sidesteps the issues that Rand and her husband were saved by a social safety net)

Complete shit.

>Why are you so mad?
Alright I'll give you credit. Nice b8.

I mean I get that you're trolling right now, but you're barely even trying to address the points being made. Not very good at arguing, it seems.

>I've directly addressed everything you've said while all you've been able to do is deny fact
Staffed house, secretary, live-in maid, massive estate, frickhuge inheritance of which the maid received a substantial amount.

https://i.imgur.com/xgkKRWh.jpg

Friendly reminder that her lawyer literally stated she was going to be wiped out by medical bills unless she took government assistance because doctors charge a lot of money, more money than book sales brought in. She was going to live penniless on the street without government help; the ultimate refutation of her life's doctrine.

$14,000 over the course of a decade in the 70s and 80s does not correspond to this, and it doesn't account for how well she lived. To claim that such a small amount of money over the course of a decade "saved her from being penniless and on the street" is absolutely fricking absurd and you're a moron for parroting it.

Not to mention the fact that the quote from the lawyer is describing financial planning that took place BEFORE her husbands treatment. "She COULD be totally wiped out by medical bills IF she doesn't watch it." It's interesting that someone on IQfy has such shit reading comprehension, though I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised.
😛

They'll never accept it, anon. These "individuals" are so lacking in self-awareness that they don't even realize their own emotionally rooted reaction to criticism against their leader.

Also the number of posters didn't change when you made this post, so nice replying to yourself, dummy.

Not true that we don't know. The amount Rand AND her husband took in total is $14,000. Also, good job trying to avoid any facts brought up that don't fit within your narrative, moron.

>Facts? You've just made some tepid assertions
>Proceeds to make nothing but tepid assertions
Nice try, but those were the facts of her living situation at the time of her death. You are the one making baseless assertions that basically amount to urban legend. You even deliberately fabricated the the context for that quote from her lawyer, so again, you are a disingenuous homosexual who should commit seppuku posthaste.

Also, I drive on public roads and receive mail from a public post office. Doesn't make me a hypocrite in thinking those things shouldn't exist.

>He's right, anon. You're just too indoctrinated to figure it out. Good thing you're moronic and probably won't have to deal with the realization you bought into being a ubermensch individualist by way of a self-help cult. Cry more, John Salt. Lol.
This was meant for

>Facts? You've just made some tepid assertions
>Proceeds to make nothing but tepid assertions
Nice try, but those were the facts of her living situation at the time of her death. You are the one making baseless assertions that basically amount to urban legend. You even deliberately fabricated the the context for that quote from her lawyer, so again, you are a disingenuous homosexual who should commit seppuku posthaste.

Also, I drive on public roads and receive mail from a public post office. Doesn't make me a hypocrite in thinking those things shouldn't exist.

.

[...]

The number of posters in the thread still has not changed, and you're still just asserting shit which I have already addressed.

>You haven't addressed it at all. Rand and her husband were going to be wiped out by medical bills
No they were not. Again, the context of that quote from the lawyer is something you fabricated. Ayn Rand was making a whole lotta frickin money from speaking deals and book/movie royalties. You are a moron.
>You haven't addressed it at all. Rand and her husband were going to be wiped out by medical bills
Yes I do. She had a frickton of cash as well as assets at the time of her death.
>her books weren't bringing in enough revenue and she tried to expand her self-help cult and failed
Again, doesn't line up with how she was living and what she was able to leave behind money-wise. You are basing this shit off of nothing. Cry more.

homie they were simply not going bankrupt. The estate had a substantial sum of cash at the time of Rand's death. Her lawyer was concerned that health costs could bankrupt them, and that concern turned out to be unfounded. Rand continued to make a very substantial income from her movies, books, speeches, and law firm until the day she died, and you don't have a lick of evidence to the contrary.

https://freestudents.blogspot.com/2011/10/lying-about-ayn-rand-and-social.htmlhttps://freestudents.blogspot.com/2010/03/smearing-ayn-rand-nietzsche-and.html
Read and fricking weep, you homosexual.

>I cannot meet your arguments
I accept your concession.
[...]
Randianism is what I call "Objectivism." It irritates Randtards who are too dumb to recognize "Objectivism" is already pretty fricking hilarious. Scientology was already taken....
>And now, the 5th time I've asked you this
You're speaking to more than one person, moron. I haven't read the other guy's posts but I answered this already. If you spend your life advocating against something only to be saved by it, try to obscure the fact you did by using a different name, and the "institution" you helped set up with your "intellectual heir" lie about it... Yeah, moron. I'd say you should pay more attention to where you're getting "your" ideas from.

>I accept your concession.
Pathetic flailing

>homie they were simply not going bankrupt.
They were though. You're just denying reality, anon. I accept you're a moron.

>Randianism is what I call "Objectivism." It irritates Randtards who are too dumb to recognize "Objectivism" is already pretty fricking hilarious.
It irritates literally no one, which is why no one has pointed it out to you.
> If you spend your life advocating against something only to be saved by it, try to obscure the fact you did by using a different name, and the "institution" you helped set up with your "intellectual heir" lie about it... Yeah, moron. I'd say you should pay more attention to where you're getting "your" ideas from.
She literally encouraged people to take advantage of government programs all throughout her life. She simply said they should not exist to be taken advantage of. If they do exist however, you are one of the people supporting their existence through paying taxes. You'd be stupid and irrational not to take advantage of them.

>It irritates literally no one, which is why no one has pointed it out to you.
If it didn't irritate you you wouldn't be crying about it (repeatedly as per your own admission).
>She literally encouraged people to take advantage of government programs all throughout her life.
Imaging trying to shift the goalposts while and scoring an own goal. Frick you're stupid. She had to be talked into accepting social security and Medicaid by a woman who worked for her publisher's law firm. She did so under a fake name and ARI later lied about it. When the truth came out they shifted to "it was morally acceptable because she paid taxes."

These are the facts you absolute moron.

>Source:
A woman who worked for her publisher's law firm and became a personal friend of the Rands. She's the one who drew up the applications.
>When was I upset at the label "Randian"?
When you wrote a rambling paragraph about "Randianism" being a strawman. Too bad you didn't take the time to acknowledge ARI.
>I'm not even shifting the goalposts.
You went from strawmanning the argument as being about not living up to perfect ideals (instead of addressing the facts presented) to some really pathetic mental gymnastics trying to square the circle of Rand being saved by a social safety net without acknowledging she was saved by a social safety net.
>You are just wrong about both things.
Not an argument.
>Ogey
As per the woman who filed the documents, Ayn Rand didn't want to accept social security and Medicaid and had to be talked into doing so. This reality is pretty inconvenient for your position.
>She didn't. Alice O'Conner was her married name
She applied under that name to obfuscate the fact Ayn Rand was applying for welfare. ARI used the fact Rand's name couldn't be found in documentation to lie about it before they shifted to the "she paid into it" argument.
>https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights/the-myth-about-ayn-rand-and-social-security/
Yes, this is when ARI changed their tac from denial to justification.

>Pryor was NOT a social worker
I said she later became a social worker, moron. She did.
>Nor was Rand penniless or in need
Never argued she was "penniless." She was "in need" as per the law firm.
> she had cash reserves of a few hundred thousand dollars and a steady income from book royalties
Again, not according to the publisher's law firm and the person who filled out the applications for her.
>Pryor argued with Rand because Ayn did not want Social Security, nor did Rand go out and seek it, or Medicare, even though doing so was entirely consistent with her own ethics.
She argued because it wasn't consistent with Objectivism. Again, ARI originally denied Rand accepted social security/Medicaid and then retconned this in order to make it acceptable within Objectivism. (I brought up "closed system" earlier...you see Randtards do this a lot).
>What Pryor said was that she tried to convince Rand to sign up and they argued.
Yes. Pretty funny the blogpost you're quoting from doesn't go into detail about the context brought up within the interview and has to fall back on vagaries.
>There is no indication whether Pryor used the power of attorney to apply for benefits, or whether Rand knew about it.
They have documentation that proves both Ayn and Frank received social security. The explicit reason Pryor was given power of attorney was to apply for it as well as Medicaid.
>It shows Rand fighting with her attorneys and telling them that she didn't want to do this.
"Even though it's totally consistent with Objectivism that she did!"

Stopped reading there. Holy shit, if you can't see how full of shit the excerpts your posting are there's no way to help you, moron. Try thinking for yourself instead of indoctrinating yourself into a Cold War era self-help cult. Frick, lol.

First, I want to point out once more you're posting excerpts instead of forming your own arguments based on the article in direct reference to the context of this discussion. This indicates you're a moron who can't think for himself and benefits my argument that Randtards are cultists.
>So what? She later became a social worker.
It's funny that a close confidant to Ayn Rand transitioned into a career wherein she helps people apply for government benefits. It's also funny that she seems to have broken into this career path after helping Ayn Rand and Randtards attempt to deflect by saying "she wasn't a social worker" instead of acknowledging the above.
>There is not a single first hand source alleging that she was on the brink of bankruptcy.
The person who was given power of attorney specifically said that the reason Rand (and her husband Frank) applied for Medicare was because their medical bills would bankrupt their estate. Again, the person to whom Rand gave power of attorney, specifically to sign up for social security and Medicaid, said that they needed to access the social safety net because the estate did not have the financial ability to meet medical costs.

>It's literally all I need to do to address your points because you are blatantly lying.
About what? You're making assertions while failing to address arguments.
>It's completely irrelevant and you bringing it up like it means anything
I brought it up for the sake of irony. You were too dumb to present an argument of your own and mischaracterized my point (i.e. I never said she was a social worker when she helped Rand). Because you're an idiot who can't come up with his own ideas about anything you focused in on this and slide.
>Simply not true.
Wait for it...
>She was spoken to about the possibility of medical costs being too high for her to reasonably accommodate, and was encouraged to sign up for social security.
So the person with power of attorney (i.e. who had full understanding of Rand's finances) specifically said that Rand needed to apply for social security and Medicare because her and Frank's medical expenses could wreck her estate. How exactly is that last sentence not true?

Holy shit you're moronic.

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.

Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . .

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. 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.

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of government research grants.

The growth of the welfare state is approaching the stage where virtually the only money available for scientific research will be government money. (The disastrous effects of this situation and the disgraceful state of government-sponsored science are apparent already, but that is a different subject. We are concerned here only with the moral dilemma of scientists.) Taxation is destroying private resources, while government money is flooding and taking over the field of research.

In these conditions, a scientist is morally justified in accepting government grants—so long as he opposes all forms of welfare statism. As in the case of scholarship-recipients, a scientist does not have to add self-martyrdom to the injustices he suffers.
- Ayn Ran, “The Question of Scholarships,” The Objectivist, June, 1966, 11

>1966
READ AND WEEP homosexual

She wrote it in 1966, which destroys your claim that she "retconned it as consistent with Objectivism" after the fact. You are a fricking dunce who's panicking about getting raped in a IQfy argument to the point where you can barely even read what's being posted.

See

Why lie, anon? Here's what actually happened:
>after writing essays literally characterizing smoking as a symbol of freedom, Rand gets lung cancer
>her husband is also very sick at the time
>Rand over extended her self-help cult and didn't have liquidity needed to cover medical payments and keep herself afloat
>facing bankruptcy, a woman who worked for her publisher and befriended her convinced her to apply for social security and medicaid
>Rand knew this was against the principles she spent her life espousing but realized the situation and accepted
>Rand had the woman apply for access to the social safety net on her and her husband's behalf (using a different name)
>years later the woman, who went on to become a social worker (lol) was interviewed for a book for ARI
>she said the above
>ARI attempted to bury the interview and denied it when it was brought up
>when a journalist got records that proved Rand and her husband had applied for and received the money ARI shifted to "SHE PAID TAXES AND WAS JUST GETTING HER MONEY BACK"
>(note this sidesteps the issues that Rand and her husband were saved by a social safety net)

.

"Self help cult" implies I associated with other like-minded people (I didn't and haven't) and that there was some downside to reading her books. I figure buttholes were gonna hate me anyway, so you can't even blame that on reading Rand. What's the basis for your charge?
[...]
So you're going to fault her for not living up to her ideals? Does anyone? How are you doing on that metric?

>I’M AN INDIVIDUAL
Lol. Cool cult, bro.

Why are you so mad? Such an extreme emotional reaction indicates a pretty strong attachment to a woman who has been dead for over 40 years (i.e. loyalty to a cult leader). Everything I wrote is true, anon. Cope.
[...]
>IT'S THE SYSTEM'S FAULT!
Sure there, moron. Too bad she had to be convinced into accepting it by a social worker. It's almost like she knew what she was doing was hypocritical...
[...]
>blogpost by a Randtard
Too bad your cult doesn't only tricks you into believing you think for yourself.
[...]
>lefties
Teachable moment: part of the way Randianism works is by teaching it's adherents to sublimate their confusion when confronted with inconvenient facts. One aspect of this is otherizing their opponent according to a simplistic preset and arguing against that (i.e. someone pointing out Rand was a hypocrite and Objectivism is a self-help cult is a "leftist" or a "collectivist").

>desperate deflection
I like how you assume that Rand's fans are somehow organized. That's such a collectivist mindset. I've never joined any Rand-oriented organization, nor will I ever. Do you even realize how much you're projecting here?

Exactly...I could probably meet more Objectivists by being a joiner, but I've never been a joiner.
>Romantic Manifesto
No, just "Fountainhead", "Atlas Shrugged", "Anthem", and "We The Living".

>you're barely even trying to address the points being made
You think this because you're filtered by the fact Ayn Rand was a hypocrite and Objectivism is a self-help cult. I've directly addressed everything you've said while all you've been able to do is deny fact.[...]
>I like how you assume that Rand's fans are somehow organized.
ARI.
>That's such a collectivist mindset.
Go back and reread what I wrote about how Randtards attempt to sidestep debate by predefining anyone who criticizes Randianism as "collectivist." You're a moron, anon.

I called you a collectivist because you keep assuming people that read Rand want to join an organization and be surrounded by like-minded individuals. I could care less about that. But you're such a dyed-in-the-wool joiner that you can't even conceive of not wanting to join.

They'll never accept it, anon. These "individuals" are so lacking in self-awareness that they don't even realize their own emotionally rooted reaction to criticism against their leader.

I don't consider Ayn Rand to be any sort of leader. Again, you betray your "joiner" mindset, and mindlessly project it onto others.

>"Fountainhead", "Atlas Shrugged", "Anthem", and "We The Living".
Good stuff, man! You should check out some of the unpublished fiction works that have been released posthumously. I enjoyed "Ideal" quite a bit.

>ARI IS RIGHT THOUGH
>THE SYSTEM IS CLOSED!
Remember when David Harriman wrote a book saying that Rand had solved the problem of induction? He had to say what he wrote was already in Ayn Rand's writing because of the whole "closed system" bullshit. Anyway, it ended up causing a huge stink because a Stanford professor associated with ARI gave the book a cautiously positive review--ARI made him an apostate and all the cult shit came to the fore.

>Do you seriously not know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid?
I'm not a poorgay so I honestly didn't. It's not important because either way it was social welfare.
>That doesn't make sense considering her beliefs were contrary to that way of thinking,
Well, its a fact as per a personal friend of Rand who was given power of attorney over her person and finances.
>the article she wrote for her magazine years before
ARI brought out that article after originally denying Rand received welfare. As per the person who had power of attorney (i.e. was familiar with Rand's finances) and filed the applications for welfare, extensive philosophical conversations regarding the implications of Rand accepting welfare took place. Rand's rationale for taking the welfare was not the thesis of that essay but rather due to financial necessity. Rand took the money in spite of her philosophy while ARI first lied about it then shifted to citing an essay from decades prior to Rand taking welfare payments. Again, there is evidence that Rand took the money out of financial necessity and against her beliefs as per a confidante who had power of attorney. ARI reconned a lie by appealing to a tangentially related essay of which there's no evidence it factored into Rand's decision. Rand argued with Pryor in multiple conversations over a period of time. Pryor said Rand was still against the idea and only took the money because she "saw the [financial] necessity" of doing so.
>So she was in such a desperate situation with medical expenses that she kept all her wildly expensive property
Neither of us know the details of Rand's financial situation in the late 1970s but do you know who did? The person who had power of attorney over her estate at that time. The person who had power of attorney over Rand's estate said that it was out of necessity. Can you refute this statement as untrue? No, you can't even address it.
>It quite literally is what happened
>"she was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn't like, which was Medicare and Social Security."
Read the rest, moron. You're cherry-picking and out of context. Rand was against accepting the welfare but she did so begrudgingly after extensive philosophical debate at the behest of Pryor. If her rationale was based on the essay from the 60s why was it even a problem? You can't answer that question.
>Pryor then convinced her to take it because it could save her headache
No, it specifically says in that excerpt you yourself quoted (out of context) that Rand took the money out of financial necessity. A person with power of attorney is aware of the finances of the estate they're managing and Rand herself is stated to have taken the welfare against principle and due to necessity.
1/

>You're just a moron if you didn't know that
At the risk of you retreating to nationalism because you're BTFO, I'm not American and have no reason to distinguish between Medicare and Medicaid. They're both forms of welfare and Rand applied for and received Medicare due to financial necessity. Are you losing so badly that you really want to slide over this nitpick?
>I like how you ignore the content of the article entirely because it's impossible for you to address
This is projection, anon. Why wouldn't a trusted friend who acted with power of attorney not have a better understanding of Rand's finances than some homosexual on the internet (i.e. you) making shit up? You can't directly address the fact someone with power of attorney over Rand's estate specifically said that she needed to apply for welfare out of financial necessity.
>No they didn't, it was published in the magazine in 1966.
They did. I'm not going to skip ahead but I'm going to hazard a guess that you're not going to give a valid argument in response to the fact that the thesis of this essay played no demonstrable part in Rand's decision. All you can do is assert it did, because ARI referenced it after initially lying, and not answer to the following: Pryor specifically said she and Rand discussed the philosophical implications of Rand applying for and accepting welfare extensively multiple times and that Rand decided to take the welfare in spite of her supposed principles because she saw the necessity of doing do.
>She said she was going to sign her up for it whether she approved or not.
So which is it, anon? Did Rand have nothing to do with it or was it justified? You can't have your cake and eat it too you fricking moron, lol.

Why are you mischaracterizing shit when anyone can look at it? "Whether she agreed or not is not the issue, she saw the necessity for both her and Frank." This isn't saying that she was going to do it no matter what but that Rand saw the financial necessity of accepting welfare, despite her philosophical principles, and signed power of attorney. Again, they discussed her philosophy in relation to her acceptance of welfare extensively and you continue to just ignore it.
>Leonard Peikoff, who said she was quite wealthy.
Her "intellectual heir" and head of ARI (i.e. the guy who originally said she didn't accept welfare). Did you know his wife said she saw the social security checks? Lol. Again, why is someone with power of attorney who was also a confidante and friend of Rand somehow not familiar with her finances? You can't answer this question. Neither of us know Rand's financial state. We have someone from ARI defensively projecting speculation back onto something that happened in the 70s versus the statement of someone who took part in the event and literally controlled her finances. You're an idiot.
1/

>original distinction
It isn't important because Rand didn't want to apply for it yet did so out of financial necessity according to the person who took part and had power of attorney over her estate.
>deliberately misinterpreting what she said
You're ignoring what she said according to the person who was there. Again, the person with power of attorney explicitly said Rand's finances required her to apply and Rand didn't want to do so because it conflicted with her beliefs.
>The thesis of this essay which principally addresses issues
Yet Rand didn't want to apply as per the extended philosophical conversations she had with Pryor who, again, was literally the one who participated in the event. You cannot address this fact because it proves you wrong. Also, ARI originally said she didn't take welfare. They dug up the essay decades after the event in order to protect Rand's image. You cannot address this fact either. All you can do is insist I accept the essay over what was said by Pryor while providing no actual argument as to the thesis playing into Rand's decision.
>Both?
You can't say she justified it via Objectivism and also had nothing to do with it, moron. We know she didn't justify it through Objectivism because of Pryor. The essay is a post-hoc justification that ARI presented when the facts came out. However, we know Rand took the money out of necessity and against her beliefs as per Pryor (who again was there and filled out the paperwork). Rand participated in philosophical conversations as to the implications of accepting welfare and still didn't want to do it. Does participating in these conversations constitute the fact she had something to do with what was going on? Yes. Do these conversations indicate that Rand thought her actions were justified? Absolutely not, she was arguing against taking the money you absolute moron.
>I get that basic inferences
The person with power of attorney knows Rand's finances. She said she needed to take the money out of NECESSITY and that Rand accepted the outcome based on this. You, a random homosexual on the internet over 40 years later, don't have the understanding of the situation that the person in control of Rand's finances did. You're making shit up and ignoring power of attorney, moron.
>Read above
You can't actually address why the person with power of attorney said Rand needed the money. All you can do is assert you know more about Rand's financial situation than the person with power of attorney, lol.
>She didn't
Rand had surgery for lung cancer in 1974 and eventually died from cardiopulmonary disease (which is related to lung function and smoking, moron). Just like your bullshit about "Alice O'Connor" you're lying about facts instead of addressing them.
>Barbara Brandon
This has nothing to do with the fact Rand and O'Connor were both sick and needed money because of it, moron.

>Yeah. Ayn Rand was extremely wealthy in the 70s and 80s.
Again, you keep asserting this but the person who was in control of her finances specifically said that she needed to take welfare due to financial necessity. Tell me why the person in control of her finances who participated in the event in question isn't reliable. You can't.
>Because like she said in the article that you didn't even read
Again, what evidence do you have that this factored into her decision. Absolutely none. I've addressed this point multiple times by pointing out that the rationale presented by Pryor doesn't line up with what was put out by ARI. I've also informed you that ARI originally lied about Rand accepting welfare and I'll now say that they have a vested interest in protecting their cult leader.
>No, it says that Pryor said things could at some point turn out a certain way
>There was no present financial crisis at the time
Rand had terminal lung cancer and her husband was declining rapidly from dementia. The fact is: PRYOR SAID RAND SPECIFICALLY NEEDED THE MONEY AND THAT RAND TOOK IT AGAINST HER OWN PRINCIPLES FOR THIS REASON. Why do you keep mischaracterizing and lying while failing to actually address the facts at hand? Because you're a stupid loser who indoctrinated into a self-help cult from the Cold War.
>You didn't know I was wrong about it because you ignored it,
Yes I did. Hence why I corrected you on it when you brought it up again.
>since Pryor had power of attorney, she would have been the one to file that application
Yes. But Rand signed over power of attorney after extensive debate about the philosophical implications of accepting welfare and Pryor says she accepted the necessity of taking welfare.
>It wasn't. It was published in 1966 in the magazine, as well as deliberately given its own section in the lexicon in fricking 1988.
Again, you're not addressing the fact that Pryor's interview states the reasoning behind Rand taking welfare whereas the essay is a post-hoc justification from a bias actor with vested interest to maintain the image of their cult leader. You didn't address the fact that the thesis of the essay played no part in the decision as Rand did not want to accept the money. You're trying to argue Rand played no part at the same time you argue it was justified--it's really pathetic to see you flail like this instead of just accepting reality. You can't answer to the fact the thesis isn't implied in anyway by Pryor (who was actually there).
>I think it's safe to come to the conclusion that you have looked at zero of the firsthand sources yourself and are just parroting a mix of bullshit
Pure projection. You literally copy/pasted someone else's retorts and failed to address my counterarguments in regard to them you absolute moron.
>Ayn Rand was a human with flaws
Nice platitude, homosexual. No wonder you were duped into joining a self-help cult by a dead hypocrite.

>Are you losing so badly that you really want to slide over this nitpick?
You refused to acknowledge it before I called you on ignoring my original distinction. Maybe you just can't read, that's a possibility too.
>This is projection, anon. Why wouldn't a trusted friend who acted with power of attorney not have a better understanding of Rand's finances than some homosexual on the internet
At what point did I not say that was the case, moron? You are deliberately misinterpreting what she said to make it fit your agenda. She said that Ayn Rand was getting old, and would soon be receiving social security as all people of that age do. She said that doctors bills could potentially be damaging to her financial situation in the future, and that those benefits could be a help with that. Not that Rand was destitute and needed the money. Anything else is just speculation on your part, and it's speculation that directly contradicts what is known about her lifestyle during that period, but more on that later.
>the fact that the thesis of this essay played no demonstrable part in Rand's decision.
The thesis of this essay which principally addresses issues of this exact nature through an Objectivist lens? That has no bearing on whether or not she thought it was consistent with Objectivism to take SS benefits? Lmao alright then. You're clearly avoiding the 1966 essay and its implications because it sinks your entire thing here. You're so transparent in how much of a worm you are that it's honestly kinda sad.
>So which is it, anon? Did Rand have nothing to do with it or was it justified?
Both? Why would it have to be one? I already explained to you why it needed convincing as well.
>Neither of us know Rand's financial state.
I get that basic inferences might be a bit too advanced for you to comprehend, but we sorta do. Judging by what is known about her during that period, her MONTHLY expenditures of travel, paying employees, lawyers, housing staff, publishers, editors, etc. is not at all representative of someone who is hurting for cash. Not to mention the payments she had to have been making on the unbelievably expensive houses she owned. Do you know how the IRS tracks unreported income a lot of the time? By observing spending that doesn't make sense in comparison to what that person has stated to be their income. You're saying she's broke, but then why is she spending like a rich person? Doesn't make a whole lotta sense.
>Again, you keep asserting this but the person who was in control of her finances specifically said that she needed to take welfare due to financial necessity.
Read above you bloviating tard.

>Yeah. Ayn Rand was extremely wealthy in the 70s and 80s.
Again, you keep asserting this but the person who was in control of her finances specifically said that she needed to take welfare due to financial necessity. Tell me why the person in control of her finances who participated in the event in question isn't reliable. You can't.
>Because like she said in the article that you didn't even read
Again, what evidence do you have that this factored into her decision. Absolutely none. I've addressed this point multiple times by pointing out that the rationale presented by Pryor doesn't line up with what was put out by ARI. I've also informed you that ARI originally lied about Rand accepting welfare and I'll now say that they have a vested interest in protecting their cult leader.
>No, it says that Pryor said things could at some point turn out a certain way
>There was no present financial crisis at the time
Rand had terminal lung cancer and her husband was declining rapidly from dementia. The fact is: PRYOR SAID RAND SPECIFICALLY NEEDED THE MONEY AND THAT RAND TOOK IT AGAINST HER OWN PRINCIPLES FOR THIS REASON. Why do you keep mischaracterizing and lying while failing to actually address the facts at hand? Because you're a stupid loser who indoctrinated into a self-help cult from the Cold War.
>You didn't know I was wrong about it because you ignored it,
Yes I did. Hence why I corrected you on it when you brought it up again.
>since Pryor had power of attorney, she would have been the one to file that application
Yes. But Rand signed over power of attorney after extensive debate about the philosophical implications of accepting welfare and Pryor says she accepted the necessity of taking welfare.
>It wasn't. It was published in 1966 in the magazine, as well as deliberately given its own section in the lexicon in fricking 1988.
Again, you're not addressing the fact that Pryor's interview states the reasoning behind Rand taking welfare whereas the essay is a post-hoc justification from a bias actor with vested interest to maintain the image of their cult leader. You didn't address the fact that the thesis of the essay played no part in the decision as Rand did not want to accept the money. You're trying to argue Rand played no part at the same time you argue it was justified--it's really pathetic to see you flail like this instead of just accepting reality. You can't answer to the fact the thesis isn't implied in anyway by Pryor (who was actually there).
>I think it's safe to come to the conclusion that you have looked at zero of the firsthand sources yourself and are just parroting a mix of bullshit
Pure projection. You literally copy/pasted someone else's retorts and failed to address my counterarguments in regard to them you absolute moron.
>Ayn Rand was a human with flaws
Nice platitude, homosexual. No wonder you were duped into joining a self-help cult by a dead hypocrite.

>You're just a moron if you didn't know that
At the risk of you retreating to nationalism because you're BTFO, I'm not American and have no reason to distinguish between Medicare and Medicaid. They're both forms of welfare and Rand applied for and received Medicare due to financial necessity. Are you losing so badly that you really want to slide over this nitpick?
>I like how you ignore the content of the article entirely because it's impossible for you to address
This is projection, anon. Why wouldn't a trusted friend who acted with power of attorney not have a better understanding of Rand's finances than some homosexual on the internet (i.e. you) making shit up? You can't directly address the fact someone with power of attorney over Rand's estate specifically said that she needed to apply for welfare out of financial necessity.
>No they didn't, it was published in the magazine in 1966.
They did. I'm not going to skip ahead but I'm going to hazard a guess that you're not going to give a valid argument in response to the fact that the thesis of this essay played no demonstrable part in Rand's decision. All you can do is assert it did, because ARI referenced it after initially lying, and not answer to the following: Pryor specifically said she and Rand discussed the philosophical implications of Rand applying for and accepting welfare extensively multiple times and that Rand decided to take the welfare in spite of her supposed principles because she saw the necessity of doing do.
>She said she was going to sign her up for it whether she approved or not.
So which is it, anon? Did Rand have nothing to do with it or was it justified? You can't have your cake and eat it too you fricking moron, lol.

Why are you mischaracterizing shit when anyone can look at it? "Whether she agreed or not is not the issue, she saw the necessity for both her and Frank." This isn't saying that she was going to do it no matter what but that Rand saw the financial necessity of accepting welfare, despite her philosophical principles, and signed power of attorney. Again, they discussed her philosophy in relation to her acceptance of welfare extensively and you continue to just ignore it.
>Leonard Peikoff, who said she was quite wealthy.
Her "intellectual heir" and head of ARI (i.e. the guy who originally said she didn't accept welfare). Did you know his wife said she saw the social security checks? Lol. Again, why is someone with power of attorney who was also a confidante and friend of Rand somehow not familiar with her finances? You can't answer this question. Neither of us know Rand's financial state. We have someone from ARI defensively projecting speculation back onto something that happened in the 70s versus the statement of someone who took part in the event and literally controlled her finances. You're an idiot.
1/

>Nice platitude, homosexual.
You know I guess that would be a platitude if you removed it from its context, which is exactly what happened there. It's indicative of your larger mindset that you would rather pull that from its context for the sake of getting a quick jab than address the larger point it was building up to. That to some extent is what you've been doing throughout this entire argument. Just remove something from its context to make it easier to respond to, and leave everything else on the kitchen floor like no one's gonna notice. You're all tactics and no brains and it's transparent as frick. Read some Ayn Rand if you want to have this much of an opinion on her, but all you have right now is a few quotes missing their context and your moronic speculation on them. Stop trying to save your pride and frick off, idiot. You're only hurting your own cause.

Let's recap again.
This moron is
>Lying about Ayn Rand being sick (she wasn't)
>Lying about the 1966 article which outlines why taking benefits is consistent with objectivism being published after the fact (it was published numerous times before in major releases)
>Lying about Ayn Rands financial situation, having no reasoning to back up the assertion that she was poor.
>Lying about the message of Atlas Shrugged being "isolate yourself"
>Lying about her husbands health
>intentionally omitting shit I said from his responses because it makes him look dumb.
What a complete waste of a person.

>Do you seriously not know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid?
I'm not a poorgay so I honestly didn't. It's not important because either way it was social welfare.
>That doesn't make sense considering her beliefs were contrary to that way of thinking,
Well, its a fact as per a personal friend of Rand who was given power of attorney over her person and finances.
>the article she wrote for her magazine years before
ARI brought out that article after originally denying Rand received welfare. As per the person who had power of attorney (i.e. was familiar with Rand's finances) and filed the applications for welfare, extensive philosophical conversations regarding the implications of Rand accepting welfare took place. Rand's rationale for taking the welfare was not the thesis of that essay but rather due to financial necessity. Rand took the money in spite of her philosophy while ARI first lied about it then shifted to citing an essay from decades prior to Rand taking welfare payments. Again, there is evidence that Rand took the money out of financial necessity and against her beliefs as per a confidante who had power of attorney. ARI reconned a lie by appealing to a tangentially related essay of which there's no evidence it factored into Rand's decision. Rand argued with Pryor in multiple conversations over a period of time. Pryor said Rand was still against the idea and only took the money because she "saw the [financial] necessity" of doing so.
>So she was in such a desperate situation with medical expenses that she kept all her wildly expensive property
Neither of us know the details of Rand's financial situation in the late 1970s but do you know who did? The person who had power of attorney over her estate at that time. The person who had power of attorney over Rand's estate said that it was out of necessity. Can you refute this statement as untrue? No, you can't even address it.
>It quite literally is what happened
>"she was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn't like, which was Medicare and Social Security."
Read the rest, moron. You're cherry-picking and out of context. Rand was against accepting the welfare but she did so begrudgingly after extensive philosophical debate at the behest of Pryor. If her rationale was based on the essay from the 60s why was it even a problem? You can't answer that question.
>Pryor then convinced her to take it because it could save her headache
No, it specifically says in that excerpt you yourself quoted (out of context) that Rand took the money out of financial necessity. A person with power of attorney is aware of the finances of the estate they're managing and Rand herself is stated to have taken the welfare against principle and due to necessity.
1/

>At what point was the name thing a central part of the argument?
I knew you were wrong about it but you're an idiot so I dropped it. You tried to reintroduce it as a gotcha, and seeing as you're a disingenuous idiot would have likely brought it up repeatedly, so I slammed you on it. You've lost this argument in every possible way, anon.
>I did and you provided very little that's new for me to address.
No you didn't. For example, you've said nothing about the counterargument in regard to Rand's rationale for taking the money not being based on a paper ARI pulled out of their ass but explicitly, as per the person with power of attorney who was there and filed the documents, due to financial "necessity." Necessity is a direct quote you absolute moron. That's just one example.
>You are disingenuous on purpose as well as incredibly stupid
"N-n-no you!" Kek, you're an idiot, anon. Hopefully this beatdown with teach you not to follow idols like a weak and pathetic loser who can't take charge of their own life.

/end