Skip to content

The Left’s Endless Smears Against Ayn Rand

April 19, 2011

I believe that the most vilified, smeared, defamed personality of the past century is none other than Ayn Rand. This bestselling Russian-born American author and philosopher is utterly hated by the Left because of her unassailable

Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand

arguments against altruism, self-sacrifice, mysticism, communism, and all forms of totalitarian ideologies. Ayn Rand was an uncompromising advocate of reason, individualism, and free market capitalism.

There’s only one admirable attribute of the left, and it is their ability to concoct very creative, emotional and sensational propaganda and lies to deceive the gullible and the non-critical thinker. Evidence or proof is not important to these half-wit creatures. To them, facts are negligible for the simple reason that reality is their number one enemy. When the left fabricate and publicize propaganda and smear campaigns, expect to see and hear emotional information and creatively packaged materials that appeal to emotion and people’s gullibility.

Ad hominem attack is one of the best weapons of the left, while their defense mechanism consists of context-dropping, misrepresentation and strawman arguments. Take for example their current smear campaign against Ayn Rand. Since they cannot properly and intellectually refute Ayn Rand’s views without resorting to context-dropping, misrepresentation and strawman arguments, the left employ logical fallacies to smear her person and reputation.

The following are just some of the recently discovered ad hominem attacks being used by the totalitarian left against Ayn Rand:

  • Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism is a cult;
  • Ayn Rand promotes fascism;
  • Ayn Rand promotes corporatism;
  • Ayn Rand was a fan of a child serial killer named William Hickman;
  • Ayn Rand lived on welfare while advocating against it;
  • Ayn Rand was a sociopath and psychopath;
  • Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan and the Illuminati plotted to rule the world;

With all these newly discovered smear mechanisms against Rand, I suspect that if they were able link Rand to Hitler they would have perfectly done it. I strongly believe that historically, it was the left who created the anti-concept of “conspiracy theory” as a defense mechanism against their propaganda and political agenda. However, it clearly appears that it is the left who have mastered the art of fabricating conspiracy theories. One of the things I learned from Ayn Rand is the virtue of honesty. According to her:

“Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud—that an attempt to gain a value by deceiving the mind of others is an act of raising your victims to a position higher than reality, where you become a pawn of their blindness, a slave of their non-thinking and their evasions, while their intelligence, their rationality, their perceptiveness become the enemies you have to dread and flee—that you do not care to live as a dependent, least of all a dependent on the stupidity of others, or as a fool whose source of values is the fools he succeeds in fooling—that honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others.”

In effect, she taught me not to rely on and use baseless and unfounded accusations against anybody. She taught me to seek evidence and proof first before making a moral judgment. Any smear or accusation not founded on concrete, solid evidence is a zero; it’s nothing but an anti-intellectual, anti-self mechanism designed to smear and discredit any person or entity. If you blackened the reputation of anybody by using baseless, unfounded claims and assertions, it is only your own self that you had betrayed. What does a dishonest person get from spreading false, ill-founded stories? The answer is artificial happiness or satisfaction, thus smearing is a cunning way to deceive one’s self and to fake reality.

In my study of Objectivism, the following are the rules I learned when dealing with any issue and critics:

1. Rationality above else!

Ayn Rand, in The Virtue of Selfishness (p. 440), regards rationality as man’s basic virtue- “the source of all his virtues.” She said: “Man’s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know. Irrationality is the rejection of man’s means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life.” The phrase “the refusal to know” should be seriously and properly taken into account, for there’s a big difference between “refusal” and “failure.” When one refuses to know, one suspends his consciousness and the validity of his mind. Irrationality is anti-mind and anti-life because rationality is the only guide to man’s actions.

The left love to smear their ideological enemies, as they embraced an irrational, anti-intellectual, anti-mind, anti-man philosophy or ideology. The source of irrationality of the left is Karl Marx’s repudiation or denial of logic and reason. This is best understood by the recent founding leaders of free market capitalism,namely, Rand, Henry Hazlitt and Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises. In his book Socialism, Mises wrote: “They could attack logic and reason and substitute mystical intuition for ratiocination. It was the historical role of Karl Marx to propose this solution. On the basis of Hegel’s dialectic mysticism, he blithely arrogated to himself the ability to predict the future.” In fact, Marx said, “Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form.”

The anti-reason, anti-logic ideology of the left is what motivates them to disregard and not to value facts and real-world evidence whenever they smear their enemy. They can tarnish or stigmatize, but they can’t destroy. There is big difference between the words “smear” and “destroy.” Smearing is an act of vilification or revilement without any factual basis or evidence. Destruction is an act of fact-based and evidential repudiation or defeating of an issue or someone else’s proposition, assumption, or position through the use of logic and reason. The first is the attack mechanism of the left, while the second is what defeats them. Who are fond of spreading conspiracy theories and lies? The leftists, of course.

True, some leftists know what they’re doing, while many are motivated by sheer ignorance, lack of knowledge, and stupidity. Consider the case of statist Rep. Edcel Lagman who believed in the “undeniable link between overpopulation and poverty” and employed this fallacy to justify the passage of his fascistic Reproductive Health bill. This statist politician is the victim of his own ignorance, as his unaware that the source of poverty is not overpopulation, but the continued disregard of individual freedom, particularly economic freedom.

2. Egoism or rational selfishness as a virtue.

Ayn Rand’s ethics of egoism or rational selfishness challenges the more than 2,000 years of  Judea/Christian/subjectivist/Kantian/Marxist ethics. This is the main reason why Rand is hated by both the far-left and the far-right. She championed selfishness as a virtue.

She wrote: “The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness—which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man—which means: the values required for human survival—not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the “aspirations,” the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.” Philosophically and philologically speaking, there is a big difference between egoism and egotism. Egoism simply means the belief that it is rational to act in one’s self-interest. This is best explained by Rand when she defined her ethics in the following manner: “Man-every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.” This challenges Rand critics who try their best to equate her philosophy with that of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, who was philosophically a mystic and an irrationalist.

True, Nietzsche’s philosophy rejects altruism, however, his cardinal flaw is that he believed in the sacrifice of oneself to others by the sacrifice of others to oneself. In her book For the New Intellectual, Ayn rand said of Nietzsche: “He proclaimed that the ideal man is moved, not by reason, but by his “blood,” by his innate instincts, feelings and will to power—that he is predestined by birth to rule others and sacrifice them to himself, while they are predestined by birth to be his victims and slaves—that reason, logic, principles are futile and debilitating, that morality is useless, that the “superman” is “beyond good and evil,” that he is a “beast of prey” whose ultimate standard is nothing but his own whim. Thus Nietzsche’s rejection of the Witch Doctor consisted of elevating Attila into a moral ideal—which meant: a double surrender of morality to the Witch Doctor.” On the other hand, egotism is  ‘characterized by an exaggerated estimate of one’s intellect, ability, importance, appearance, wit, or other valued personal characteristics’.

An egotist is someone who is selfless, and in the word of Rand, a second-hander. By second-hander I mean one who is dependent, as a parasite is, on the service of people, on the dictates of others, on the gullibility of the public, on the propaganda and opinions of the others. A second-hander has no “ego” and without a concept of self. The left champion altruism and selflessness. Since they are without ‘self’, what’s important to them is other people’s opinion or appreciation or admiration.

Ever wonder why most, if not all, leftists love to brag about their school, their family lineage, their educational attainment, their so-called intellectual prowess? These are the kind of people who love to display their diploma at home and to brag about how they care for the poor, the weak, and the victims of social inequality and injustice. They crave for social appreciation; they seek admiration from others. It is others’ adoration or veneration that completes them. It is their selflessness that motivates them to smear and to malign their ideologyical enemies. They lie and slander for an ideological cause. That which motivates them is lack of selflessness.

Observe a person who loves to spread lies and manufactured dissent. There’s something wrong with his mentality. Why does a person have to spread lies? It’s because of his inability to properly argue and to back his arguments with evidence through the use of logic and reason. Before making slanderous utterances or spreading baseless, unfounded accusations or assertions, that person knows that he’s dishonest, thus he’s selfless. Dishonesty is a form of psychological and intellectual weakness. Before one utters a lie, he knows that he’s guilty of lying or fabrication. This makes lying or dishonesty an immoral act.

When the leftists lie, it is their own “selves” and the validity of their mind and consciousness that they first destroy. Take for example the case of a Filipino Freethinker named Karlo Espiritu who had to commit an act of plagiarism in order to spread his lies about Ayn Rand. A person who commits plagiarism knows of his intellectual weakness. This Freefarting plagiarist Espiritu resorted to plagiarism in order to gain admiration from his fellow Freefarters and to defend his anti-reason collective, the Filipino Freethinkers.

3. Do not deal with any issue without studying it first.

Ayn Rand taught me the cardinal value of honesty- first honesty with one’s self, and second honesty with others. This is consistent with her virtue of selfishness. A person who is not honest with his own self cannot be honest with others. Before one takes on any issue, one has to take upon himself to study the matters involved. One has to have an adequate knowledge of an issue before one can make his own moral or intellectual judgment. This is the reason why I only deal with issues that I am very much familiar with. Familiarity with or having sufficient knowledge of any issue or matter saves one’s self from committing any act of dishonesty or betrayal of one’s self, such as lying, plagiarism, smearing, and the like.

When it comes to making propaganda, the leftists believe in the mantra of ‘ideology first before truth’. Since truth or reality is their enemy, the left seek to destroy it with their propaganda and smear campaign. But a big lie has no power to distort the truth and reality. It is powerless. It can deceive the gullible and the unthinking people, but it cannot distort truth and reality. Like Ayn Rand said, reality is objective; it exists apart from and independent of any man’s consciousness. Since reality is indestructible, it is people’s consciousness that the left seek to destroy.

Man’s consciousness can be defeated, destroyed, poisoned with socialist lies and propaganda. This is what they did in Russia, China, Cuba and all socialist slave pens wherein the totalitarian regimes spent millions of looted people’s money to fuel their propaganda machine. Propaganda is the best ally of any scheming socialist scumbag!

4. Deal with your enemy using logic and reason.

The enemy I’m referring to here are those who seek to destroy freedom and man’s rights. We are all engaged in an intellectual and philosophical battle. It is true that many people (like the Filipino Freefarters) regard philosophy as unscientific and immaterial, but it is these people who need it most urgently, as they are most helplessly in its power. Those who declare themselves as “science geeks” or “scientists” or “students of science” should understand that science is the by-product of philosophy.

The science geek’s knowledge of physics, mathematics, geology, or any branch of natural sciences- if they are disinterested in politics- can be very powerless when confronted with the ideological lies and propaganda of the left. In all socialist states, the scientists worked as slaves. They were needed by the dictatorship to fuel the society’s technological defense against dissent, rebellion, or any form of social unrest and discontent. Since the leftists have forgone logic and reason, the only way to destroy people’s view of reality is to resort to lying and propaganda. Their first victims – apart from themselves – are the most gullible, the uncritical thinker, the disinterested in politics, and those who refused to think.

Great men cannot be ruled. No amount of indoctrination or propaganda campaign can ever destroy the consciousness of the men of self-esteem- the egoists- and the individualists. In the Philippines, those who are most vulnerable to leftist indoctrination are those enrolled in public universities, particularly the University of the Philippines. Observe the psychology of some UP students and graduates. Some of them love to brag about the alleged greatness of their school, which is eternally funded by taxpayers’ money. Some of them believe they are “intellectual elites” by virtue of their school card. These are the kind of people who are most exposed to- and dissuaded by- leftist teach-ins and indoctrination. Thus, the only tool to expose the left’s lies, dishonesty, hypocrisy and utter idiocy is logic and reason.

Now let us deal with the lies and smear campaigns of the left against Ayn Rand. The most popular smear-material being currently used against the philosopher is the accusation of “cultism.” This lie, which was originated by anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard, had long been debunked by Jim Peron. I stated in a previous post the following: “This “cult” accusation was originated by an alleged Ayn Rand associated named Murray Rothbard, who had to resort to name-calling and dishonest strategy in order to defend himself against accusations of plagiarism.

The book Rothbard wrote, The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult, became very popular to Rand critics who were mostly leftists and anarcho-Libertarians. This “cult” mantra is now being used by liberals, libertarians and conservatives against Ayn Rand to discredit her without properly identifying which part of her philosophy is cultish. Perhaps “cultism” to them simply means agreeing with the idea or ideology of someone else. To me “cultism” means taking something or someone on faith. A good example of cultists are Conservatives who dogmatically believe in the Cult of Christ, and the socialists, communists and liberals who take the ideology of aristocrats Karl Marx and F. Engels on faith.”

In his article Is Objectivism a Cult? Rothbard Unmasked, Peron wrote:

Most of Rothbard’s account is a litany of name-calling. He says Objectivism was “a totalitarian Cult.” He compares his own Circle Bastiat with Rand’s group of friends. His group was a “high-spirited” informal gathering of friends who “combined learned discourse, high wit, song composing, joint moviegoing, and fiercely competitive board games. It all added up to a helluva lot of fun.” On the other hand Rand’s friends were “robotic” and “humorless.” They were “ignoramuses” who trumpeted “their own greatness.” He says that he and his friends “came to look at all these trumped-up jackasses as figures of ridicule.” Branden, in particular, is the target for much of Rothbard’s venom. He refers to him as a “pompous ass,” a “strutting poseur and mountebank” and a victim of “his own enormously excessive self-esteem.” Throughout his article Rothbard spends a considerable amount of time in similar name-calling.

In another article titled Is Objectivism a Cult? Shermer’s Delusions, Peron debunked the lies of Michael Shermer:

Shermer’s analysis is plagued by several errors. While he has read Objectivist material and Rand’s work he doesn’t “know” the subject. This allows him to make obvious errors. He says, for instance, that Rand’s first two novels were failures. This is not true. We the Living sold out of its first printing but the publisher hadn’t expected it and had destroyed the plates. Anthem wasn’t published in the US but in the UK where it sold steadily for some time. They weren’t best sellers but they certainly weren’t failures. And, contrary to Shermer, John Galt never said he would stop the “ideological” motor of the world. This is completely out of context. Shermer also charges that Rand was guilty of a “moral inconsistency” because of the affair with Branden. This must mean that she violated her own morality. This is an interesting charge but I don’t know exactly which Objectivist moral principle he is saying she violated. And Shermer never actually tells us.

As to the accusation that Ayn Rand’s philosophy advocates fascism and corporatism, one has to read her books, particularly Atlas Shrugged to make a valid judgment. Atlas Shrugged tells the critical reader that corporatism or the cronies can be as much dangerous as the government. The real villains in Atlas are the politically connected cronies like James Taggart and Orren Boyle, who corner government subsidies and get rich through political connection and protection. As to the accusation that Ayn Rand “worshiped” a serial killer named William Hickman, here’s what I also stated in a previous post:

Objective facts have no value to liberals and leftists. This is because they consider objective, unimpeachable facts as their enemy. To destroy Ayn Rand, liberal and even libertarian critics try their best to resurrect a highly dishonest, baseless urban legend that the author was a fan of a serial killer named William Hickman. Here’s an except of a left-wing review written by uber-liberal Mark Ames:

One reason most countries don’t find the time to embrace Ayn Rand’s thinking is that she is a textbook sociopath. In her notebooks Ayn Rand worshiped a notorious serial murderer-dismemberer, and used this killer as an early model for the type of  ”ideal man” she promoted in her more famous books. These ideas were later picked up on and put into play by major right-wing figures of the past half decade, including the key architects of America’s most recent economic catastrophe — former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan and SEC Commissioner Chris Cox — along with other notable right-wing Republicans such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.

So when someone in the past wrote that Ayn Rand had this “interest” in a serial killer, the liberals jumped to the conclusion that Rand’s philosophy is all about murder or sociopathy. This is actually one of the most favorite materials being used by liberals and some Libertarians to discredit Rand. What did the author-philosopher actually say about Hickman? In The Journals of Ayn Rand, she is clearly quoted: “[My hero is] very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me.” The fact is, Rand’s interest in Hickman was his unconventional attitude and the public’s reaction to it. Anyone who read her books would understand that the philosopher is against any kind of force, whether it be private force or legalized force. She was morally against the crime Hickman committed and throughout her life, she advocated for individual freedom over collective force. But of course, brain dead liberals and leftist don’t understand this concept, as their ideology is all about legalized government force against unarmed individuals.

The leftists have also just discovered a new smear mechanism against Ayn Rand. They’ve been claiming that the philosopher was a hypocrite because she lived on government welfare while denouncing it. The left are now spreading all over the net that Ayn Rand was a “hypocrite”. Hypocrisy is defined as “an unconscious self-contradiction: a state of incongruence between one’s professed beliefs and feelings and one’s actual beliefs and feelings, or an application of a criticism to others that one does not apply to oneself.” According to an article published on BoingBoing, Rand “was also a kleptoparasite, sneakily gobbling up taxpayer funds under an assumed name [note: it might have been her legal name] to pay for her medical treatments after she got lung cancer.” Is there any truth to this leftist claim? None! As to the claim that she “sneakily” gobbled up “taxpayer funds under an assumed name”, the fact is that she used her legal (married) name Ayn O’Connor. In fact, the Ayn Rand Institute lists “Ayn  O’Connor” as Rand’s legal name.

As to the claim that she was a “hypocrite” for receiving taxpayer funds while denouncing welfare, let us determine whether there is “an unconscious self-contradiction”, or a state of incongruence between Rand’s professed beliefs and feelings and her actual beliefs and feelings. Here’s what Rand said about the morality of accepting Social Security, unemployment insurance or similar payments in a 1966 (or several years before she received the so-called welfare) article for The Objectivist newsletter:

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.

Rand, a bestselling author of top-sell books and Hollywood screenwriter, started paying taxes since she landed her first job in the 1920s. She sold millions of books, delivered most-sought after lectures, was paid a great amount of money for the movie version of The Fountainhead, and wrote screenplays for Hollywood movies before her death. It is obvious that she gave more than she received. Her statement is very clear: “Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty”, while “the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money.” Is there any hypocrisy here? Take note that she wrote this article many years before she refunded her forced contributions to the state. Ayn Rand also wrote the following in “The Question of Scholarshi­ps,” The Objectivis­t, June 1966.

“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. “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.”

Of course, the left can always rationalize their claims, but the fact remains that Ayn Rand was not a hypocrite and that she lived according to her philosophy and convictions.

The left love to call Ayn Rand “sociopath” or “psychopath” simply because she’s advocating a code of ethics that runs counter to the 2,000 years religious/totalitarian altruist ethics. Like religion, the morality of the left and all totalitarian ideologies is altruism or self-sacrifice. According to its main proponent Auguste Compte, altruism means selfless concern for the welfare of others. He stated that it is the moral duty or obligation of individuals to serve the good and welfare of others and put their interests above their own. This code of morality is the foundation of all totalitarian regimes on earth, past and present. During the rule of the Vatican City in the medieval age, the Pope preached the virtue of self-sacrifice in the name of an unknowable supernatural entity.

Lenin and Stalin institutionalized altruism and self-sacrifice in Russia for the sake of what is called the greater good or common good. Adolf Hitler also called for social sacrifice in the name of a greater and dominant Aryan race. The leftists who deny the evils of altruism should look at the result of their ideology. Only a few years after Mao Tse Tung’s implementation of his “Great Leap Forward” program in China designed to institutionalize collective farming to achieve economic progress, more than 70 million people died of mass starvation. Stalin also ordered the slaughter of millions of Russian soldier for the sake of preserving his dictatorship. Hitler sent the entire German nation to war for the sake of global dominance and purging the entire Jewish race. Are these not a good example of sociopathy and psychopathy? Is this what Ayn Rand advocated? Her ethics is very clear: “Man-every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.” Did she ever call or advocate for the sacrifice of others to a leader, a businessman or the state?

In a free society there should be no social sacrifices. Everybody should be equal under the law. Businessmen should not be made to sacrifice in the name of the poor, while the poor should not be enslaved to serve the interests of the oligarchy. Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged details why cronies or politically connected businessmen are as dangerous as- or even more dangerous than- the the politicians. In the United States, it is the cronyism of the James Taggarts and the Orren Boyles and the political collusion of the Wesley Mouchs and Thompsons that is destroying the great nation’s economy and individual freedom.

If the left had any brains, they would understand that Karl Marx’s ideology is all about altruism and social sacrifice. Marx’s altruist credo is as follows: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” It is very clear that this social creed speaks of social sacrifices and victims. Those who have the ability will be sacrificed to those who have more needs. This is the social system that caused the death of more than 200 million innocent, gullible, unarmed people in China, Soviet Russia and Germany combined. So who’s the real sociopath or psychopath?

Reality tells us that it’s the left! Let me reiterate a statement I made several months ago: “So far, I have not found a single honest critic who was able to expose “the mythology about the philosophy of Ayn Rand.”

Like I stated in my blog entitled ‘Ayn Rand: The Greatest Philosopher On Earth,’ “I’ve encountered a lot of people who denounced Ayn Rand but never read any of her works. These neo-Ayn Rand critics simply echo the old canard manufactured by her dishonest fabulist and/or equivocators who were simply good at myth-making and unscrupulous propaganda campaign.  There are some who even claimed they clearly understood her philosophy, yet uttered nothing but downright lie and/or distortions of her works and ideas. Like I said to a blog critic of mine, “If there’s a philosopher of the past century who was a victim of grave injustice, ignorance, and leftist-conservative propaganda, it would be Ayn Rand.”

55 Comments leave one →
  1. April 19, 2011 3:38

    I was reading a blog post condemning Rand, and the author made it clear that subscribing to an unnamed libertarian magazine “for a time” was “about as much exposure to Randian bullshit” as he had ever had.

    The brazen anti-intellectualism of Rand’s left-liberal critics amazes me sometimes.

    • April 19, 2011 3:38

      By the way, I updated this blog… Thanks for the comment. I appreciate it.

  2. david permalink
    April 19, 2011 3:38

    There are many flaws behind the veneer of your screed here. I’ll not waste my time going through them with one so profoundly convinced of his/her superior opinion over others, besides to say that it is intellectually inferior to demonize a political side of the left/right paradigm, indeed even resorting name-calling and mudslinging, without acknowledging the same “disadvantages” of your preferred side. There is a bottom line here, and it is that Rand’s premise for her philosophy is wrong. Man’s true search for meaning cannot be reduced to his/her own self-interest. The only universal thing that all can agree is the desired “end”, outside those lost in a delusional disassociation with their true nature, is simply to be happy. It really is that simple. If such a survey were possible, you would find that the people you and your heroess describe as parasites, are far more happy, despite their hardships, than people who seek only their own selfish ends. A life lived selfishly can never attain true happiness. In fact, it can only lead to misery, as Ayn Rand was, and you likely are. I hope you can find your way through your self-imposed intellectual emptiness.

    • April 19, 2011 3:38

      Well, I’d believe you if you can cite those “FLAWS”. Don’t ever use your leftist tactic on me because I nearly became a leftist in the past. I know how you people STUPIDLY think.

      • david permalink
        April 19, 2011 3:38

        hah. You choose to align yourself with a political “side”. How self-determined of you. How intellectually independent one must be to frame one’s thoughts and opinions based on a false paradigm. And how contradictory of one I can only assume is a Rand fanatic. I’m neither left nor right, thank you very much. I retain my independence from your childish world-view. I seek happiness. I hope you can do the same.

      • April 19, 2011 3:38

        It’s not my style to make unfounded claims, leftie… Here’s the proper way to argue… Tell me the flaws of my blog and then give your rebuttal. That’s only it.

        Well, people can always claim they’re not leftists while they still support leftist programs… That’s reality.

    • April 19, 2011 3:38

      Well, I read The Communist Manifesto when I was 16 and I attended teach-in sessions (indoctrination meetings) in our campus and I was amazed by Marx’s teachings on social inequality, redistribution of wealth, the evils of capitalism and corporations, the ability of the state to deliver the common good, and every leftist thing. In the Philippines, most first-year college students in public universities are exposed to Karl Marx views. Marx is very much popular to teens in my country. Why not? He preached equality and the need to take care of the poor, etc? So he’s a hot sell.


      There are two books that sell like hotcakes in my country: one is Harry Potter, and the other is Communist Manifesto… Now that I’m grown-up I realized that Marx is only for gullible minors and people who can hardly grasp basic concepts. Why not? His ideology is like a FAIRY TALE STORY…

    • April 20, 2011 3:38

      There is a bottom line here, and it is that Rand’s premise for her philosophy is wrong. Man’s true search for meaning cannot be reduced to his/her own self-interest. The only universal thing that all can agree is the desired “end”, outside those lost in a delusional disassociation with their true nature, is simply to be happy.

      I cannot imagine you have read any of Rand’s non-fiction work, including her major essay “The Objectivist Ethics.” She agreed that the purpose of life is happiness, but that one’s ultimate value, an end in itself, is one’s own life. As happiness does not come about blindly, she said in that essay:

      The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. To hold one’s own life as one’s ultimate value, and one’s own happiness as one’s highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement. Existentially, the activity of pursuing rational goals is the activity of maintaining one’s life; psychologically, its result, reward and concomitant is an emotional state of happiness. It is by experiencing happiness that one lives one’s life, in any hour, year or the whole of it. And when one experiences the kind of pure happiness that is an end in itself—the kind that makes one think: “This is worth living for”—what one is greeting and affirming in emotional terms is the metaphysical fact that life is an end in itself.

      But the relationship of cause to effect cannot be reversed. It is only by accepting “man’s life” as one’s primary and by pursuing the rational values it requires that one can achieve happiness—not by taking “happiness” as some undefined, irreducible primary and then attempting to live by its guidance. If you achieve that which is the good by a rational standard of value, it will necessarily make you happy; but that which makes you happy, by some undefined emotional standard, is not necessarily the good. To take “whatever makes one happy” as a guide to action means: to be guided by nothing but one’s emotional whims. Emotions are not tools of cognition; to be guided by whims—by desires whose source, nature and meaning one does not know—is to turn oneself into a blind robot, operated by unknowable demons (by one’s stale evasions), a robot knocking its stagnant brains out against the walls of reality which it refuses to see.

  3. April 26, 2011 3:38

    You were wholly ineffective in rebutting any of the claims, and Ayn Rand was a meth addicted sociopathic cunt.

    • joe permalink
      June 1, 2011 3:38

      Just an example of the brain-dead logic people use to bash Ayn Rand.

  4. April 26, 2011 3:38

    I find your claims that it is the “left” alone who have problems with Rand’s works rather simplistic and erroneous. There are many strands of what are termed “right” wing schools of thought that have equal if not more reason to have ago at her. Fascism with its guiding principle of obedience to the Nation state to the point where the women is entrenched in reproduction, and the worker is drafted into an economic army would find her views heretical. One nation thought usually held by Conservative parties holds the view that if any group within the nations borders becomes distant from the rest societal breakdown follows, thus it is the sworn duty of the government to make sure all groups are closely linked.

    Then of course there is the moral traditionalist groups who wouldn’t be too happy listening to here views on family structure and sexuality.

    “Ayn Rand was an uncompromising advocate of reason, individualism, and free market capitalism.” Thats not really true is it, are you forgetting all those state subsidies she excepted the very same measures that prop up mixed economies and strangle the

    And then of course there is the simple fact that “objectivism” like all advocates of market capitalism do not really enshrine individualism since none of them have any way of dealing with monopolies, in fact quite a few theoreticians champion them. And thats really the problem, a state after all is just a monopoly on certain relations and actions, usually the right to violence and decide relations with outside groups.

    With an unrestricted economy the better to free the entrepreneurial spirit private monopolies of the “uber creative” arise. This is a very severe problem for the claims market capitalism champions freedom and individuality since all it in effect does is change the membership of a new Oligarchy in relation to the rest of society. After all that is what that word means a small group in control of the affairs of everyone else.

    And present events clearly show private entities can be just as repressive as States can, Private militaries, police, prisons, judiciary all exist at this very moment and the consensus amongst those who’ve been on the receiving end of both is that the private ones are even worse.

    And then there’s the problem of future generations. How do especially gifted beings who were born in the lower strata rise and useless fools born to the upper tiers fall? the gulf in the accumulation of wealth and connections that would exist between them makes this switching of places unlikely and like the old noble houses paves the way for stagnation at the top and resentment from below.

    There’s a reason the Liberals dropped these ideas after the 19th century ended, they realised Laissez-faire economics didn’t achieve any of there lofty gaols and I’ve seen nothing from any modern day “neo-liberal” Market cheerleader including Rand to convince me that they’ve found a way to make it deliver.

    • April 26, 2011 3:38

      Red Mike said: “I find your claims that it is the “left” alone who have problems with Rand’s works rather simplistic and erroneous.”

      I didn’t say that at all and I’m aware that there are so-called rightist groups who hate her. If you read the blog, you’d see this statement: “The book Rothbard wrote, The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult, became very popular to Rand critics who were mostly leftists and anarcho-Libertarians. This “cult” mantra is now being used by liberals, libertarians and conservatives against Ayn Rand to discredit her without properly identifying which part of her philosophy is cultish.”

      I’m aware that some Libertarians and conservatives hate her. I’m aware of Rothbard’s lies against her. I’m aware of William F. Buckley’s media tirades against her. However, it is the left who are more prone to lies and dishonest claims.

      Kindly expound on this one so that I can better refute it? :”Thats not really true is it, are you forgetting all those state subsidies she excepted the very same measures that prop up mixed economies and strangle the”

      All the rest of your statement proves you know nothing about her advocacy and free market capitalism. Before you comment, better read this blog first and read her works. Ok?

    • Jethro Tull permalink
      January 1, 2014 3:38

      Fascism is a form of socialism and, in Germany’s case, national socialism.

      It is therefore false to say that it is right wing.

      “Thats not really true is it, are you forgetting all those state subsidies she excepted ” – don’t you mean accepted? As it is, Rand did not get any state subsidies so you are exposed as a liar.

  5. Jake Murrin permalink
    May 5, 2012 3:38

    The comments on this page are wonderful. They perfectly illustrate the fact that nobody who has read Rand’s works has ever been able to construct an argument against her ideas; indeed, few of her critics understand the most basic principles of the Objectivist ethics. They just make up straw men, use personal attacks, and ask all sorts of questions Rand addressed in her work. It is pure, irrational subjectivism–people who know absolutely nothing about Rand choosing to believe bad things about her because they want them to be true for some personal reason.

    It’s sad to note that it is almost impossible to engage a leftist in a rational debate without them automatically looking down on you as inferior, as morally corrupt, or as stupid. They live in the fantasy world of intellectual totalitarians like Noam Chomsky, they smear their opponents with blood libel, they spread conspiracy theories on blogs and try to edit Wikipedia to mold reality to their will, they indoctrinate students in public schools, they use biased journalism to manipulate the public, and they appeal to emotion and use demagoguery. I was once a leftist. I used to admire Chomsky and Marx. I used to listen to Sean Hannity say that “we shouldn’t demonize corporations” and laugh, seething with contempt for him, convinced that he was either ignorant or corrupt. I used to accuse Israel of apartheid and genocide. I believed every bad thing about America that I could find on the internet, regardless of evidence or logic.

    When I could not think rationally and wanted to be different, I embraced far-left ideas. But it seemed like every day, I found evidence against them. I was constantly struggling against reality, embracing outlandish conspiracy theories, trying to hate conservatives. I know all leftist arguments like the back of my hand. I can tell you that when I was on the left, I never seriously considered other ideas; I constantly looked for ways to attack right-wingers ad hominem, I relentlessly devoured conspiracy theories and viewed everyone who disagreed with sheer contempt. There is no doubt that the people who remain committed to “intellectuals” like Chomsky are deeply irrational, intellectually lazy, totally devoid of any capacity for intellectual honesty or self-reflection, and deliberately self-deceptive. Paul Bogdanor, Christopher Hitchens, and National Review helped me see more and more cracks in the foundation of left-wing thought.

    When I discovered Ayn Rand, she gave me a new way of looking at the world that helped me to see everything in a different light. Her work helped me to see through mountains of logical fallacies and irrational ideas, to realize that the emperor truly had no clothes on–that almost everything the government did lacked a proper moral justification. I see the proof of her philosophy all around me every day. Nobody has ever even tried to argue against it on rational grounds. As a former leftist turned Objectivist, I wish to warn American conservatives that they have no idea how excessively moderate they are, and how little they grasp the scale of the left-wing conspiracy that will destroy them.

    Why do leftists say that Rand is intellectually indefensible? Is Marx intellectually defensible? Is Chomsky a cult leader? Why do they try to discredit her with personal attacks? If I pointed out that Chomsky got most of his money and prestige from the Defense Department, despite his denunciation of America, would this be sufficient to dismiss his ideas? Why has Rand been subjected to more personal attacks than just about any American author of the past century?

    • May 5, 2012 3:38

      Great comment,Jake! Thanks so much!

  6. Joe Miller permalink
    June 22, 2012 3:38

    1. Marx plagiarized:

    Acts 2:44-45
    44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

    Acts 4:32-35
    that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

    2. Anton LeVey freely admitted Rand inspired his Satanic Bible.

    3. You cannot serve both Jesus Christ and Ayn Rand. Rand is the woman of Revelation 17.

    4. A circle of hell is reserved for those who follow Rand.

    • June 22, 2012 3:38

      Joe Miller,

      You said: “Anton LeVey freely admitted Rand inspired his Satanic Bible.”

      Who is this Anton LeVey? Who is he to “admit” something? Can I also ADMIT that jesus Christ was purely a fictional creation? You know what I mean?

      You said: “You cannot serve both Jesus Christ and Ayn Rand. Rand is the woman of Revelation 17.”

      What are you talking about? Did Ayn Rand ever ask to be served? I don’t even have any intention to serve her because her philosophy actually seeks to repudiate service, faith or blind belief of anything. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. All you have is unfounded assumptions.

      You said: “A circle of hell is reserved for those who follow Rand.”

      LOL!!! See what religion can do to unthinking people? God is a myth. It does not exist. Oh yeah! Serve your mythical god all you can. Do not impose your faith on me or anyone. We have all the right to go to hell, right?

      Your reply simply proves Jesus Christ is the first Marxist, if he ever existed.

  7. Brewskie permalink
    August 11, 2012 3:38

    Blah blah blah blah… You say so much without accomplishing anything. How much did you comprehend reading her books? It was blatantly obvious years ago she loved child killer William HIckman dearly.

    P.S. – The queen of objectivism eventually caved into Medicare when lung cancer caught up with her. Where’s the critique against this?

    • August 11, 2012 3:38

      Another moron commenting without reading the entire blog. You think you know better about that issue than I do? It’s also your pitiful self that you’re trying to fool and delude. If you really read a page of her books you wouldn’t be a stupid moron parroting lies perpetrated by the stupid left.

  8. Jeff permalink
    February 17, 2013 3:38

    If Rand truly believed collecting Medicare was consistent with her principles she would have proudly declared this at the time. Instead this fact was kept hidden for 25+ years, partially because she collected under the name O’Conner. And you can’t seriously believe it is a coincidence that she used the Surname ‘Rand’ her whole working life then suddenly changed it when it was time to collect welfare. Goes to show that being objective and being a Rand fanatic are two mutually exclusive things.

    • February 17, 2013 3:38

      That had been debunked repeatedly… She was forced to paid into the system, therefore, she had the right to collect it. By the way, it was her lawyer that collected her, and Ayn Rand didn’t approve of it. Get your facts correct before exposing yourself as an incurable MORON. You’re indeed a MORON. What hidden are you talking about? What assumed name. O’Connor is her MARRIED NAME, IDIOT! That was her real name, MORON. And she didn’t hide it, STUPID.

      • Jeff permalink
        February 17, 2013 3:38

        The US govt has for decades spent all tax revenue each year. In other words, Rand’s tax dollars were spent each year on all the govt services she utilised. Therefore the welfare money she collected wasn’t a refund it was OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. Rand knew this which was why she didn’t approve of it. The fact she didn’t approve of it completely contradicts your defense of her!

        Finally she collected welfare from the early 70’s until her death, and this fact has only come to light in the last 5 years or so despite all the interest in her.
        The only rational conclusion is that Rand and her followers tried to keep it hidden, which explains why she used her married name for the first and only time.

      • February 18, 2013 3:38

        What are you talking about, moron? We’re talking about SS contributions or money, idiot! You’re indeed a brain-dead liberal. What a stupid idiot creature.

      • GabbyD permalink
        February 18, 2013 3:38

        from http://www.patiastephens.com/2010/12/05/ayn-rand-received-social-security-medicare/

        In the interview, Pryor recounts working as a consultant for Rand’s attorneys, who asked her to speak with Rand about applying for Social Security and Medicare. The two women ended up becoming friends, meeting regularly to play Scrabble and argue politics. While they had philosophical differences, Pryor’s respect and affection for Rand is clear.

        “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,” Pryor told McConnell. “I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political discussions. From there on – with gusto – we argued all the time.

        “The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”

        McConnell asked: “And did she agree with you about Medicare and Social Security?”

        Pryor replied: “After several meetings and arguments, she gave me her power of attorney to deal with all matters having to do with health and Social Security. Whether she agreed or not is not the issue, she saw the necessity for both her and Frank. She was never involved other than to sign the power of attorney; I did the rest.”

      • February 18, 2013 3:38

        That blogger intentionally distorted the facts. Get the facts correct.

        In the first place, Ayn Rand was forced to pay into the system. Read my blog, IDIOT!

        http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2011/10/lying-about-ayn-rand-and-social.html

  9. GabbyD permalink
    February 18, 2013 3:38

    “Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes”

    • February 18, 2013 3:38

      Read my reply below, idiot. Did you actually go to college to remain stupid? We’re talking of basic facts. Actually you’re the stupidest commenter I’ve ever had. I mean it.

      • GabbyD permalink
        February 18, 2013 3:38

        let me simply repeat: “The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. “…

        but rand did not. why?

      • Jeff permalink
        February 18, 2013 3:38

        The logic doesn’t make sense because it is simply Ayn Rand being forced to backtrack on the absolutist stance on welfare she held for most of her life. She wasn’t much of a thinker so this was the best she could come up with.

      • GabbyD permalink
        February 18, 2013 3:38

        @jeff

        if u are replying to me below i agree; as written, it makes no sense. i wonder what her theory of social change is. or of change, in general?

        if you dont like something, do you go along with it, and just scream — “i dont agree”. ?

        or do u try to change it, leveraging whatever asset u have to that end? alfred hirshman was an economist who wrote about social change, and he said exit and voice are two ways in which this change occurs.

        exit — if u dont like it; leave.
        voice — if u dont like it; argue and fight it, but dont leave.

        rand favors… what?

      • February 19, 2013 3:38

        Well, I think it’s a waste of time- useless- to argue with anti-conceptual morons.

        Ms. Rand was not the only radical capitalist who held such a view. Many radical capitalists, including Libertarians, hold such a view– that if you’re forced to pay into a welfare system, which you oppose, you have the moral ‘right’ to collect the money that you contributed in the form of services. It would be MORE WRONG or EVIL if you decide not to collect them.

        The principle is: Do not advocate welfare programs. But if the government forced you to pay into a government program, which you oppose- and if your refusal to pay meant a violation of a law- then, you have the right to collect your contributions in the form of services.

        Take for example the ObamaCare, MORONS. The Supreme Court said the ObamaCare is a tax. This means that any American who refuses to pay into the system would be punished by law. Why is it hypocritical for someone who opposed the ObamaCare to collect the money he/she paid into the system? He/she was robbed by the government! If he/she’s not forced to contribute to the ObamaCare, he/she would have the choice to invest his/her money. He/she would have the choice to pick a private healthcare insurance. It is a must for him/her to collect her contributions than to let it go to any welfare-moochers.

        Of course, you don’t understand these basic principles because both of you are MORONS.

      • GabbyD permalink
        February 19, 2013 3:38

        again…let me simply repeat: “The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. “…
        but rand did not. why?

      • February 20, 2013 3:38

        LOL! So what if they rejected? In the US, anyone who works is required by law to pay into the system.That whether you like it or not– or whether you need or want SS or not– you are obliged by law to contribute. Your stupid, moronic arguments actually reveal the content of your brain, Mr. Gabby Domingo. You were never educated; you were schooled.

        Read Rand’s statement, you moron! I’ve explained it a number of times. It seems that you have an undeveloped brain. A perceptual brain– like that of a chimpanzee.

        What she said is pretty clear: “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 question is: WHY CAN’T RAND RECOVER OR REFUND THE MONEY THAT SHE WAS FORCED TO PAY INTO THE SYSTEM? It did not make her richer if she did, because obviously, the government actually confiscated MORE money from her against her will. She was a millionaire. Her novels were earning millions in royalties since 1957. Plus, she was a hollywood scriptwriter and her The Fountainhead was made into a feature film.

        So what if Paterson and others rejected SS by not working? In America, people had to work. And if they worked, they were obliged to pay SS. Are you saying America was for looters, moochers and braindead socialists, stupid-moron?

      • GabbyD permalink
        February 20, 2013 3:38

        interesting,

        so in your view, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson were losers and stupid for rejecting social security.

        interesting. so, how does social change occur then?

        if u reject something, u can participate– if so, how can you change the system?

      • February 20, 2013 3:38

        I didn’t say that. I said you’re stupid for not having the right, proper, logical argument. How did they reject SS? You said that Lane “once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes.” See? You have to quit your job if you want to avoid paying SS. That’s their choice. But even if you’re not an employee- say, you’re a book author- you can’t avoid not paying SS. If you refuse to pay your SS contributions, you’d get penalized. You mean to say that’s the only way to live on earth?

        But Rand made her principle very much clear for rational people to understand and for MORONS, like you, to equivocate: If the government forced you to pay into a system which you reject or oppose, you have the right to refund or to collect your forced contributions (or a portion of it) in the form of services. Not collecting/or refunding your extorted money would mean you’re sanctioning the use of government force and helping your own extorters.

        Now tell me: Why is it hypocritical for someone who opposes welfare to collect the money taken from him by force by the government? Am I right to say that you assume that every SS service is given to you by the government without you paying for it in the form of forced contribution? If that’s what you think, you’re indeed a MORON!

  10. February 18, 2013 3:38

    To the two stupid-morons here (Jeff and GabbyD), read the blog again…

    If you’re saying she’s a hypocrite for ALLEGEDLY receiving SS benefits, which she was FORCED to pay for, then, you, guys, are indeed incurable IDIOTS. What did she actually say about being forced to pay into a government system?

    But here are the facts to debunk the LIES of the Left, which you are stupidly buying:

    1. Ayn Rand did not used an assumed name. O’Connor was her married name. Her legal name.

    2. The leftist site of braindeadness Alternet claims Evva Joan Pryor was a social worker. She was not. She worked for the law firm of Ernst, Crane Gitlin & Winick which handled all legal matters for Rand.

    3. The leftists claim Rand was penniless before her death. WTF! She was a millionaire. In fact, six years after the publication of Atlas Shrugged in 1957, the book sold more than 1.2 million copies. The Fountainhead also sold more than 2 million copies. A feat or achievement no liberal or leftists was able to equal or match during those years.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.”

    6. 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.”

    The fact is, she had the right to receive those so-called benefits, if she actually did. She was FORCED to pay into the system. And stupid Jeff, it’s not just taxes, IDIOT. It’s SS contribution. It would have been MORE WRONG if she did not receive a portion of her contribution. That’s what she said. That’s what I also believe.

    Ayn Rand wrote the following in “The Question of Scholarshi­ps,” The Objectivis­t, June 1966.

    “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. “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.”

    • GabbyD permalink
      February 18, 2013 3:38

      the logic of this is weird: “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. ”

      so, if u oppose something, u can use it. if you dont oppose it, you “shouldnt” use it, but of course, you WILL use it.

      so how can change occur if opposing something allows u to explicitly/implicitly support it?

      say you oppose public scholarships. how can u change society and end public scholarships when u enjoy them?

      • February 19, 2013 3:38

        You, guys, simply prove the points raised in this blog.

        I don’t think you’ve got the brain to understand that quotation. You’ll remain a schooled moron, Mr. Gabby Domingo.

      • Jeff permalink
        February 19, 2013 3:38

        Froi, I don’t think you have a brain to understand basic logic or philosophy; I bet you’re not even aware that no reputable university in the world takes Ayn Rand seriously

      • February 20, 2013 3:38

        ” I bet you’re not even aware that no reputable university in the world takes Ayn Rand seriously…”

        You bet. Most liberal arts professors are braindead liberals and socialists. The kind that crippled your empty mind. LOL! Is that what you call logic. You don’t even know what SS is. What taxes are you talking about, moron?

  11. GabbyD permalink
    February 20, 2013 3:38

    “See? You have to quit your job if you want to avoid paying SS. That’s their choice.”

    exactly. what do you think about that choice? was it good or bad?

    many many people would say it is good, assuming u believe that SS is a bad idea.

    its a bad idea because of how people achieve social change. so, if u believe things that rand does, how does social change occur?

    my sense now is that there is no theory of social change. you just complain without offering a realistic plan moving forward to change things. like when i asked before on specifics about decreasing the size of govt — no numbers at all from your side to show its feasible, or to show its effects on people.

    i’m open to alot of what ur saying, but to be convincing, you have to show a way to effect that change moving forward.

    if u disagree with things, but go along with everything anyway, then nothing will happen.

    so– theory of social change?

    • February 20, 2013 3:38

      That means the government can do anything. It can even tax you to death and you, stupid-moron, still call it a “realistic plan”. It can even force you to pay for the needs and services of others at gun point.

      But that’s not Ayn Rand believed. That’s the difference. Rand was not Paterson or whatever. She was Ayn Rand. If something was taken from you by force, you have the right to get it back, either in money or in the form of services. That’s what she said. I also share the same view. I don’t care what others did or believed.

      “you just complain without offering a realistic plan moving forward to change things.”

      What an incurable stupidity! SS a realistic plan? LOL! Where have you been? You belong to an IDIOTland. The realistic plan is let people choose and pay for their own healthcare, MORON. Just like buying foods and services. Let people make independent choices. SS services or any form of government services are NOT free, MORON. Whether you like it or not, you pay for those services.

      You are indeed a moron. No use dealing with a moron like you. You are the very proof that schooling makes people stupid.

      • GabbyD permalink
        February 20, 2013 3:38

        fantastic! give us numbers on how that works. show how medical care actually recieved by people will change based on your plan.

        its doesnt have to be complete, but u have to start somewhere.

        “That means the government can do anything. It can even tax you to death and you, stupid-moron, still call it a “realistic plan”.” — huh? where did this come from.

        has anyone ever been taxed to death? name one person.

      • February 20, 2013 3:38

        You’re indeed a hopeless moron. That’s all I can say.

      • GabbyD permalink
        February 20, 2013 3:38

        “You’re indeed a hopeless moron. That’s all I can say.”

        No numbers/realistic plan then? i was hopeful, but cant say i’m surprised. you are quite predictable.

    • Jeff permalink
      February 20, 2013 3:38

      The irony is SS & Medicare WORKED for Ayn Rand. It’s a system we all pay into so that when people are down on their luck they are covered. If we had the dog eat dog system Rand advocated she most likely would have died a decade earlier.

      • February 20, 2013 3:38

        The funny thing is your hatred of Ayn Rand is disturbing. You’re even willing to invent your own facts and scramble to absorb every anti-Rand claims online to smear her. I find that both alarming and amusing. That’s what stupid like you people do.

      • GabbyD permalink
        February 20, 2013 3:38

        ““The irony is SS & Medicare WORKED for Ayn Rand.”
        According to who? ” — according to pryor. has you forgotten so quickly?

        “Pryor replied: “After several meetings and arguments, she gave me her power of attorney to deal with all matters having to do with health and Social Security. Whether she agreed or not is not the issue, she saw the NECESSITY for both her and Frank. She was never involved other than to sign the power of attorney; I did the rest.”” [caps mine]

      • February 20, 2013 3:38

        But that doesn’t prove a thing, MORON. That doesn’t prove that it did work for her. But so what, MORONS and IDIOTS? lol!

      • GabbyD permalink
        February 20, 2013 3:38

        ah, so rand NEEDED IT but it DID NOT WORK for her.

        great logic! i guess if you NEED to eat, dont — it might not “work” for you.🙂

    • February 20, 2013 3:38

      “The irony is SS & Medicare WORKED for Ayn Rand.”

      According to who? Do you know the facts, MORON? There’s no proof she personally claimed those SS services. The leftists are simply relying on the propaganda made by a blogger. But even if she obtain any SS service, she was entitled to it. She was forced to pay it, MORON. Do you understand that?

      What you mean to say is:

      1. You can oppose SS but you cannot get away with it.
      2. If you try to avoid paying your SS contribution, the government would PENALIZE you.
      3. But if you try to refund your contribution in the form of SS services, you’re a hypocrite.

      What a stupid logic. You’re only showing your own stupidity and hypocrisy.

      Dog-eat-dog system? Do you even know what you’re talking about? FYI moron, SS and the ObamaCare tax extinguish market competition and that causes the price of healthcare to increase. That’s now the result of ObamaCare tax.

      Why can’t you buy your own healthcare? SS is bankrupt and has cost more taxpayers’ money. You don’t even know anything about economics.

      • Jeff permalink
        February 21, 2013 3:38

        “Why can’t you buy your own healthcare?” Good question. Why didn’t Rand personally pay for her own stupid decision to be a heavy smoker and amphetamine addict? Especially since the Medicare deductions only came in about halfway through her working life. No wonder she tried to keep her hypocritical parasitical behaviour hidden!

Trackbacks

  1. An Advice to a Dimwit « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. A Professor Strawman’s Hilarious Attack on Ayn Rand’s Ethics « THE VINCENTON POST
  3. The Evil of Open-Mindedness « THE VINCENTON POST

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: