[mapontosevenths]

I think this is an astute observation. Taking any extreme position will inevitably put someone in the position where they find it difficult or impossible to live up to their own ideals. At the far ends of the spectrum everything starts to look alike.

Ayn Rand herself died while collecting Social Security and Medicare.

[Ray20]

I don’t see any contradiction or failure to follow own ideals here.

It's like blaming a slave who believes that slavery shouldn't exist, for eating his master's food.

[cmrdporcupine]

I mean, I dislike Rand's outlook passionately but I would not hold it against her to withdraw from a system she paid into or from living in the framework of society she lived in, even if she resented it.

[stevenAthompson]

She wanted to let the disabled starve or beg on street corners so she'd have a tiny fraction more wealth to fritter away. We don't owe her the benefit of the doubt.

[olalonde]

I think that’s a misrepresentation of her views. She opposed self-sacrifice but she wasn’t against charity. She supported it when it came from a genuine personal desire to help others (as opposed to a moral duty).

[InsideOutSanta]

>She wanted to let the disabled starve or beg on street corners so she'd have a tiny fraction more wealth

>She opposed self-sacrifice but she wasn’t against charity. She supported it when it came from a genuine personal desire to help others (as opposed to a moral duty).

These do not seem like contradictory statements. They are just different ways of phrasing the same concept: There is no moral duty to help others, and if people can't get somebody to desire to help them, they deserve to die.

[olalonde]

Phrasing is important though.

"She wanted to let kids die from accidental drownings so she'd be able to have a pool."

vs

"She wanted pools to be legal."

[stevenAthompson]

When you say that those unable to work "have to rely on voluntary charity" it is functionally equivalent to saying that people should be left to starve when others don't have extra money (IE - During a recession). She was either a short-sighted simpleton who couldn't see that, or evil enough to see it and ignore it.

I suspect that it was the latter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM4HqlqQYwo

[stevenAthompson]

You are half-right. She did say that it should be left to charity, but that of course implies that when nobody gives the street corner beggar money they will starve.

[kbelder]

The question then becomes, whose money are you going to take against their will and give to the beggar?

And you may believe that this would be a greater good, and a proper role of government... different people may think differently about that, and discussions can be held. Don't gloss over the fact, though, that the only alternatives to voluntary charity are either no charity or involuntary charity.

[thiagoharry]

Money and property do not exist by themselves. You can grab, use, and carry things — and at other times, you may not be holding or using anything. Beyond this, concepts like "my money" or "my property" are social constructs; they exist only because society creates and enforces them.

The same society that upholds these constructs can also create others — such as human rights and the idea that everyone deserves dignity. In early societies with limited resources, survival often took precedence, and it was sometimes accepted that the old or disabled be left behind. Today, however, we have an abundance of resources — so much so that, in theory, hunger shouldn't even exist.

Yet we live under an individualistic and selfish ideology, where some argue for a return to a brutal indifference toward those in need, despite society's capacity to care for everyone. All this in the name of a self-centered ideology.