When one speaks of man’s right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others. Such an assumption is a confession of their own belief that to injure, enslave, rob or murder others is in man’s self-interest—which he must selflessly renounce.
This is a critique of social security as a program it says nothing about what someone who has already paid into the system should do. They were already “robbed”. Taking money you’re entitled to is rational self interested. That’s just what those words mean.
Go enjoy your successful defense of Ayn Rand and her ideology
Like how I called her dumb immoral and wrong over and over again? And you think you’re trying to have an honest conversation?
I’m fucking done with you.
I wonder what you think this means. You seem to struggle with what words mean
You don’t have to try so hard anymore, you’ve already defended her ideology. We’re done here, I’ve already tagged you as “defends Ayn Rand” so in the future I’d know who I’m talking to.
Please let me know where I defended her ideology? And you’re going to be very confused by that tag if you see me in that lmao. I explicitly have condemned her ideology over and over. Hypocrisy does not equate to moral. You can be hypocritical in a moral way. You clearly just don’t know what that word means
She considers wealth redistribution as something that causes people to sacrifice their wealth. She also considers rational self-interest as something that can’t happen if others sacrificing anything. Thus voluntarily participating in an act of wealth redistribution, which getting social security is, contradicts rational self-interest because it’s causing others to sacrifice their wealth. Her doing that either means she’s a hypocrite who doesn’t actually believe in her own work, which you disagree with and defend (as evident from the very first comment you made), or her work is ideologically inconsistent, which you also disagree with and defend (the comments where you argue it’s in her self-interest because she’s paid into it).
It doesn’t matter to me which way you’re going to try to twist this, you’re going to end up defending her or her ideology because you’ve already done both of those things. I’m not going to continue arguing over those points because I’ve already established my surrender. You won the defense of Ayn Rand, hence the tag.
She considers wealth redistribution as something that causes people to sacrifice their wealth.
Yeah got that. Not disagreeing nor have I ever disagree with that.
Thus voluntarily participating in an act of wealth redistribution
No. You do not voluntarily participate in social security. It is taken out of your income by law. Not taking the money doesn’t mean you haven’t participated in it if you’ve already paid in.
going to end up defending her or her ideology
Again, show me one instance of me defending her ideology because I can show you me consistently condemning it every(?) comment I’ve made. You clearly believe hypocrisy and immorality are the same concept but they’re not. You can be hypocritical and moral and you can not be hypocritical and immoral. They’re correlated but not the same thing. These are different words. I don’t know why that’s so hard for you to understand
This is a critique of social security as a program it says nothing about what someone who has already paid into the system should do. They were already “robbed”. Taking money you’re entitled to is rational self interested. That’s just what those words mean.
Like how I called her dumb immoral and wrong over and over again? And you think you’re trying to have an honest conversation?
I wonder what you think this means. You seem to struggle with what words mean
You don’t have to try so hard anymore, you’ve already defended her ideology. We’re done here, I’ve already tagged you as “defends Ayn Rand” so in the future I’d know who I’m talking to.
Please let me know where I defended her ideology? And you’re going to be very confused by that tag if you see me in that lmao. I explicitly have condemned her ideology over and over. Hypocrisy does not equate to moral. You can be hypocritical in a moral way. You clearly just don’t know what that word means
She considers wealth redistribution as something that causes people to sacrifice their wealth. She also considers rational self-interest as something that can’t happen if others sacrificing anything. Thus voluntarily participating in an act of wealth redistribution, which getting social security is, contradicts rational self-interest because it’s causing others to sacrifice their wealth. Her doing that either means she’s a hypocrite who doesn’t actually believe in her own work, which you disagree with and defend (as evident from the very first comment you made), or her work is ideologically inconsistent, which you also disagree with and defend (the comments where you argue it’s in her self-interest because she’s paid into it).
It doesn’t matter to me which way you’re going to try to twist this, you’re going to end up defending her or her ideology because you’ve already done both of those things. I’m not going to continue arguing over those points because I’ve already established my surrender. You won the defense of Ayn Rand, hence the tag.
Yeah got that. Not disagreeing nor have I ever disagree with that.
No. You do not voluntarily participate in social security. It is taken out of your income by law. Not taking the money doesn’t mean you haven’t participated in it if you’ve already paid in.
Again, show me one instance of me defending her ideology because I can show you me consistently condemning it every(?) comment I’ve made. You clearly believe hypocrisy and immorality are the same concept but they’re not. You can be hypocritical and moral and you can not be hypocritical and immoral. They’re correlated but not the same thing. These are different words. I don’t know why that’s so hard for you to understand