> Hehe, so true, and all the more hypocritical since she herself drew welfare benefits in the United States for years.

Her logic, and I agree, was that she was forced to pay in, she should get it out.

So the system she despised was functioning to her benefit as intended.

That seems like an even more damning indictment of her philosophy than simple hypocrisy.

That's the opposite way to read it

Oh? You prefer that she was just a hypocrite after all?

She was against the use of force to take money. She was forced to give money. She took it back through that same use of force. Government is not a charity and there is no basis under which you should give government a gift of your entire working history.

What do you think a younger, healthier Rand would have said if a disabled person had put that argument to her? Would she have said, yes, you've paid your meager taxes your whole life, so you're entitled to a share of my tax money? Or would she have called them a corrupt, immoral parasite, and wished them cut off and left to struggle and starve?

If Rand had lived in her ideal world, unburdened by taxes and the "parasites" that fed off them, she would have had a little more spending money over the course of her life, and then most likely died in misery, unable to pay for food or medical treatment. Instead, she was saved by the system she despised.

Do you have any evidence that she received more than she paid in, or that she would have died in misery, unable to pay for food, etc

I don't know that for certain. But it seems the most probable of the outcomes, given what we know. But maybe you can convince me otherwise. Do you claim that she lived modestly and frugally, saving as much as possible, and only her lifelong tax burden prevented her from being able to save enough to support herself in her old age?

More to the point, do you have an answer to my first question? Ayn Rand thought it only just that she take from the public coffers she paid into once she needed it. Do you think she would have happily extended the same privilege to anyone besides herself and her husband?

According to some articles online, her lawyer dealt with it and he basically forced her into it. There was no explicit need or desire for it.

Everything I've read said her lawyer talked her into it. He actually sent a consultant to visit her over several days, discuss her objections, and convince her to reconsider. Neither lawyer nor consultant had any authority to force her to do anything, and Ayn Rand of all people was not prone to intimidation. I don't think she'd appreciate the implication that she was that weak-willed.

You've avoided my first question twice now.

So the point is that it wasn't something she sought out. I don't wish to continue down this, you obviously have a predetermined answer.

> So the point is that it wasn't something she sought out.

I never claimed it was. It remains something she chose of her own free will. No one forced her or bullied her; they simply described the pros and cons and let her choose. You've still refused to answer my question, so I have to assume you agree that she would have denied that choice to others.

That makes her a hypocrite. That's all I'm saying.

It does no credit to Objectivist philosophy to refuse to face facts.