MovieChat Forums > The Passion of Ayn Rand (1999) Discussion > Social Security / Native Americans

Social Security / Native Americans

posted 11 years ago by shempXIV
4 replies | jump to latest

Did this movie address the contradictions of Ms. Rand's opposition to "government handouts" -- ie, Social Security, Medicaid, etc. -- yet she accepted the selfsame HERSELF when it was "her time," ie, in her senior years?

Also, Ms. Rand had interesting things to say about the plight of the Native Americans back-when:

"They didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent."

-Q and A session following her address to the graduating class of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974 - found in Endgame: Resistance, by Derrick Jensen, Seven Stories Press, 2006, pg 220, can be found on Wikiquote.

Yup, she was an advanced thinker, all right...it sounds like "Might makes Right" & "Look Out for #1."

[–] LesterFester 10 years ago

by shempXIV...Did this movie address the contradictions of Ms. Rand's opposition to "government handouts" -- ie, Social Security, Medicaid, etc. -- yet she accepted the selfsame HERSELF when it was "her time," ie, in her senior years?

(I'm not sure if I responded to a similar question elsewhere) Let me say first that I do not and cannot even pretend to speak for Ayn Rand or her philosophy OBJECTIVISM. And the opinion below if flawed is mine and mine alone.

You think you have found "contradictions" between Ayn Rand's opposition to government handouts and her own actions of accepting the same handouts in her "senior years"(I have no knowledge whether this is true or not. But my opinion expressed is based on the assumption that she had)

I think it is totally within OBJECTIVIST PHILOSOPHY to be against the government expropriating money from individuals (Social Security tax) and to accept Social Security when one reaches the required age. As you are aware a person over the course of his lifetime knows exactly the amount he has contributed (or what has been taken) to the "system". As such, he would be totally within his rights to accept money from the government equal to this amount (plus interest). BUT NOT A PENNY MORE OR A PENNY LESS.

' Fighting A Never Ending Battle For Truth, Justice & The American Way '

[–] jaynsand 8 years ago

In that case, how do you reconcile her accepting Medicare (a brand new entitlement that she had NOT previously financed in taxes) as well as Medicaid to treat her illnesses, which included lung cancer likely brought on by her persistent smoking, which she urged on all her followers as a life-affirming habit? Isn't that a little more than "a penny more"?

[–] RamonCota1 8 years ago

It's a *beep* more. There is also the fact that Social Security is not a refund of your taxes: your money has been paid out and you collect contributions from the younger generation. This is why prominent libertarians have refused to collect SS.

[–] marktayloruk (2378) 2 years ago

Should we have left.America.to the Indians? I would really like to know.