Word has it that Paul Ryan, the respondent to the SOTU address, is a major fan of hack philosopher and confuser of undergraduatesÂ Ayn Rand such that he distributes copies of her works to staffers and credits her work withÂ his desire to go into public service.
With Ryan and Rand Paul and everything, Ayn Rand, the original, has undergone somewhat of a renaissance lately.Â This is really sad, as there seriously have to be more worthy versions of libertarianism on which to base one’s opposition to Obama’s extremely socialist agenda.
With renewed interest there will naturally be renewed scrutiny (and reawkened revulsion).Â Along these lines someone has discovered (or made up I’m not sure which) that Ayn Rand and her husband received Social Security benefits.Â This is supposed to be some kind of hilarious contradiction.Â It’s not really.Â You pay in to SS and get money out.Â That’s the way it works.Â You’re entitled to it because it’s yours.Â They even keep track of it.Â Now some might get more than they pay in, and whether Rand did is open and somewhat uninteresting question, but that’s another matter.
What is hilarious, I think, is what issues forth by way of justification for participation in public benefits.Â Via someone’s attempt to support Rand’s view, here’s what she had to say about public scholarships (which has to be on the minds of all of those young Randians who get them, who attend public colleges, etc.):
A different principle and different considerations are involved in the case of public (i.e., governmental) scholarships. The right to accept them rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force.
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 othersâ€”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 .Â .Â .Â .
Again, in the case ofÂ Social SecurityÂ (andÂ medicare) this makesÂ sense (though it remains a ridiculous justification–thereÂ is no way an average elderly person could possibly pay the privateÂ cost ofÂ medical insurance or health care nowadays)–but in the case of money simply gifted to you (or provided you in the form of deeplyÂ subsidized federal loans) it doesn’t.Â Being morally opposed to receiving others’ stolen money, yet takingÂ it anyway, thinking your moral opposition to itÂ absolves you of hypocrisy makes you a double hypocrite: you’re a hypocrite for violating your own principles and you’re a hypocrite forÂ thinking your moral oppositionÂ to an action you engage in and profit from makes you not aÂ hypocrite.