Objectivism

[mediamogul]

I recently watched one of the worst movies I have seen in some time: Atlas Shrugged. It was the new version created and marketed towards the Tea Party crowd. It did get me thinking about Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, and its popularity within the right wing. I have heard her referred to as the "Karl Marx of the Tea Party."

Objectivism can be broken into few categories according to the claims it makes regarding the world and human beings. I won't bore you with the metaphysics which serves as the grounding for her claims about perception. I am mainly interested in discussing her philosophy as it relates to contemporary political and social philosophy. The important claims are roughly as follows:

Ethics: Rational Egoism. In terms of their action humans are bound ethically by rational self interest. In other words they are compelled to act in such a way that maximizes their own benefit. Egoism is a form of consequentialist ethics in that only the result matters. If an action maximized benefit to the person committing the action then it was "ethical". Rand rejected especially altruism and cites it's detrimental effects on society. In John Galt's words "I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Embodies in the "Hero" ideal are values of extreme individualism and self-determination. This ethical foundation provides the basis for her political and social philosophy.

Politics: Laissez-faire Capitalism. Rand believed that government should be extremely limited to the function of protecting the rights of self-determination for each individual. This is primarily upheld through the use of civil law and through "negative" protection by the police and military (negative in the sense that they do not compell citizens to act in a certain way but instead merely protect others from criminals and foreign threats) Economically Rand argues that laissez-faire capitalism is the only economic system that promotes individual freedom in a way that fosters a dynamic society in which the "best" among us can rationally pursue their own interests and be utterly responsible for their own success and happiness. Rand believed that as a byproduct of these pursuits society would prosper on both a personal and national level.

Now this all strikes me as inherently similar to the Libertarian view of government and it's role in protecting freedom as opposed to compelling action. Overall, the philosophy is practically a negative image of Marxism in it's rejections of collectivism and altruism. My thought is the Tea Partiers like it so much because it provides the ideological basis for unregulated pursuit of capital within the marketplace. Rand believed that the masses were parasitic upon the talents and intelligence of the few, mostly identified as captains of industry and commerce. The uber-rich and powerful who direct society by pursuing their own self-interest which then "trickles down" to the rest of society. Marx argued exactly the opposite, that the few were parasitic off of the value producing labor of the many, who were then alienated from the products of their labor, and those who owned the means of production "stole" the profit produced by the workers alienated labor.

In a nutshell, my inclination is that the right loves Ayn Rand because she provide the ideological basis for them being greedy and pursuing profit without regulation. It utterly justifies the use of business to pursue its own ends self-interestedly without regard for people, evironment, or ethics (non-egoist ethics).

Thoughts?

[Epimethean]

Unlike Rand, Marx actually had some merit as a philosopher.

[mediamogul]

Unlike Rand, Marx actually had some merit as a philosopher.

I suppose what is shocking to me is that Rand's philosophy has been adopted by a right wing political group who uses Objectivism as one of it's foundational ideologies. Especially on a traditionally anti-intellectual wing of the American political spectrum.

Another dissonance with this particular party is that they are overwhelming Christian but Rand was an outspoken atheist. She lumped government and religion into the same category as agents that limit the individualism and self-determination she viewed as neccessary to personal freedom.

[genkaus]

I recently watched one of the worst movies I have seen in some time: Atlas Shrugged. It was the new version created and marketed towards the Tea Party crowd. It did get me thinking about Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, and its popularity within the right wing. I have heard her referred to as the "Karl Marx of the Tea Party."

I did not find the movie to be too bad. However, I do see that it did not do justice to the book.

Objectivism can be broken into few categories according to the claims it makes regarding the world and human beings. I won't bore you with the metaphysics which serves as the grounding for her claims about perception. I am mainly interested in discussing her philosophy as it relates to contemporary political and social philosophy. The important claims are roughly as follows:

You should go into her metaphysics and epistemology. The justifications for the other fields are found in those.

Ethics: Rational Egoism. In terms of their action humans are bound ethically by rational self interest. In other words they are compelled to act in such a way that maximizes their own benefit. Egoism is a form of consequentialist ethics in that only the result matters. If an action maximized benefit to the person committing the action then it was "ethical". Rand rejected especially altruism and cites it's detrimental effects on society. In John Galt's words "I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Embodies in the "Hero" ideal are values of extreme individualism and self-determination. This ethical foundation provides the basis for her political and social philosophy.

Politics: Laissez-faire Capitalism. Rand believed that government should be extremely limited to the function of protecting the rights of self-determination for each individual. This is primarily upheld through the use of civil law and through "negative" protection by the police and military (negative in the sense that they do not compell citizens to act in a certain way but instead merely protect others from criminals and foreign threats) Economically Rand argues that laissez-faire capitalism is the only economic system that promotes individual freedom in a way that fosters a dynamic society in which the "best" among us can rationally pursue their own interests and be utterly responsible for their own success and happiness. Rand believed that as a byproduct of these pursuits society would prosper on both a personal and national level.

More or less correct.

Now this all strikes me as inherently similar to the Libertarian view of government and it's role in protecting freedom as opposed to compelling action. Overall, the philosophy is practically a negative image of Marxism in it's rejections of collectivism and altruism. My thought is the Tea Partiers like it so much because it provides the ideological basis for unregulated pursuit of capital within the marketplace. Rand believed that the masses were parasitic upon the talents and intelligence of the few, mostly identified as captains of industry and commerce. The uber-rich and powerful who direct society by pursuing their own self-interest which then "trickles down" to the rest of society. Marx argued exactly the opposite, that the few were parasitic off of the value producing labor of the many, who were then alienated from the products of their labor, and those who owned the means of production "stole" the profit produced by the workers alienated labor.

Yes, this is how her views are commonly mischaracterized. Rand did not differentiate between the uber-rich and the masses - she differentiated between the productive and the parasites. If you actually read her books, you'd see that she gave ample examples of the productive from all classes as she did of the parasites. A point that was most gravely missing from the movie. For example, in Dagny's railroad, any worker from a managerial position to the railroad track who believed in doing his work as best he could was shown as a valued employee. Similarly, the workers at Rearden mills stood with him till the end. On the other hand, there were many among the uber-rich who made their money through government regulations and other such methods while claiming to be altruistic.

Here's how Rand viewed the masses - or rather, any common man, since she didn't agree with the idea of one characterisitc being blindly applied to the whole group. She viewed man as a creature with tendency to be rational and the desire to live. And she believed that given these two qualities together, men would be naturally given to be productive - irrespective of the scale - and would only deal with each-other freely and voluntarily. She also believed that quite a few of aberrant philosophies - propagated by men who wanted to enslave others - have led the masses astray. People have been taught that their nature is sinful (Christianity) and the justification they could give for living was to live for someone else (altruism). According to her, almost all of the world has accepted this vacuous ethical doctrine as a given and once they do, it doesn't matter if they are uber-rich or a laborer, their lives are going to be miserable.

The uber-rich in her story are not heroes because they happened to be captains of industry or simply because of their intellect (though that did play a part). They were heroes because they asked the important question of "why" and upon getting no answer, said, "Screw that". According to her, it takes extraordinary minds to break free of the societal conditioning and such extraordinary minds would be the captains of industry.

In a nutshell, my inclination is that the right loves Ayn Rand because she provide the ideological basis for them being greedy and pursuing profit without regulation. It utterly justifies the use of business to pursue its own ends self-interestedly without regard for people, evironment, or ethics (non-egoist ethics).

You wanna guess what Ayn Rand would've thought of the right wing? You don't have to. She despised them. She repeatedly insisted that her political stand should not be accepted and could not be justified without first accepting the other parts of her philosophy - parts that also made her an atheist, pro-choice, anti-religion, pro-homosexual marriage and probably a non-interventionalist (though I often find her views on foreign policy to be inconsistent with the rest of her philosophy). So, trust me on this. If Rand was alive today and knew how her philosophy was being used to propagate the right-wing agenda - she'd be the first in line to condemn them. Knowing her, I guess she'd claim her philosophy as her intellectual property and sue the tea-baggers for its corrupted use.

---

I suppose what is shocking to me is that Rand's philosophy has been adopted by a right wing political group who uses Objectivism as one of it's foundational ideologies. Especially on a traditionally anti-intellectual wing of the American political spectrum.

Another dissonance with this particular party is that they are overwhelming Christian but Rand was an outspoken atheist. She lumped government and religion into the same category as agents that limit the individualism and self-determination she viewed as neccessary to personal freedom.

As you said, your right-wing isn't known to be very intellectual. I guess they just saw the words "capitalism" and "good" and decided to adopt it. What I find more interesting is that her philosophy is much more popular among the middle-class, the people you might refer to as the masses. The very people - as her critics claim - she wrote against.

And your statement about Rand's view about religion is too kind. Rand thought that an over-reaching government was bad, but the government itself was necessary. Religion, on the other hand, had to go. She didn't just see it as a roadblock to individual freedom, she saw it as something that insulted and degraded the very concept of being a man.

[Epimethean]

Rand has had little real effect on the serious philosophical world. Her stuff is eaten up by those who do not necessarily understand her underlying thrust, and I don't think she ever did much to distance herself from hangers-on even when she was something interesting.

I like Vidal on her back in the day:

http://www.esquire.com/features/gore-vid...mment-0761

[mediamogul]

I recently watched one of the worst movies I have seen in some time: Atlas Shrugged. It was the new version created and marketed towards the Tea Party crowd. It did get me thinking about Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, and its popularity within the right wing. I have heard her referred to as the "Karl Marx of the Tea Party."

I did not find the movie to be too bad. However, I do see that it did not do justice to the book.

Objectivism can be broken into few categories according to the claims it makes regarding the world and human beings. I won't bore you with the metaphysics which serves as the grounding for her claims about perception. I am mainly interested in discussing her philosophy as it relates to contemporary political and social philosophy. The important claims are roughly as follows:

You should go into her metaphysics and epistemology. The justifications for the other fields are found in those.

Ethics: Rational Egoism. In terms of their action humans are bound ethically by rational self interest. In other words they are compelled to act in such a way that maximizes their own benefit. Egoism is a form of consequentialist ethics in that only the result matters. If an action maximized benefit to the person committing the action then it was "ethical". Rand rejected especially altruism and cites it's detrimental effects on society. In John Galt's words "I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Embodies in the "Hero" ideal are values of extreme individualism and self-determination. This ethical foundation provides the basis for her political and social philosophy.

Politics: Laissez-faire Capitalism. Rand believed that government should be extremely limited to the function of protecting the rights of self-determination for each individual. This is primarily upheld through the use of civil law and through "negative" protection by the police and military (negative in the sense that they do not compell citizens to act in a certain way but instead merely protect others from criminals and foreign threats) Economically Rand argues that laissez-faire capitalism is the only economic system that promotes individual freedom in a way that fosters a dynamic society in which the "best" among us can rationally pursue their own interests and be utterly responsible for their own success and happiness. Rand believed that as a byproduct of these pursuits society would prosper on both a personal and national level.

More or less correct.

Now this all strikes me as inherently similar to the Libertarian view of government and it's role in protecting freedom as opposed to compelling action. Overall, the philosophy is practically a negative image of Marxism in it's rejections of collectivism and altruism. My thought is the Tea Partiers like it so much because it provides the ideological basis for unregulated pursuit of capital within the marketplace. Rand believed that the masses were parasitic upon the talents and intelligence of the few, mostly identified as captains of industry and commerce. The uber-rich and powerful who direct society by pursuing their own self-interest which then "trickles down" to the rest of society. Marx argued exactly the opposite, that the few were parasitic off of the value producing labor of the many, who were then alienated from the products of their labor, and those who owned the means of production "stole" the profit produced by the workers alienated labor.

Yes, this is how her views are commonly mischaracterized. Rand did not differentiate between the uber-rich and the masses - she differentiated between the productive and the parasites. If you actually read her books, you'd see that she gave ample examples of the productive from all classes as she did of the parasites. A point that was most gravely missing from the movie. For example, in Dagny's railroad, any worker from a managerial position to the railroad track who believed in doing his work as best he could was shown as a valued employee. Similarly, the workers at Rearden mills stood with him till the end. On the other hand, there were many among the uber-rich who made their money through government regulations and other such methods while claiming to be altruistic.

Here's how Rand viewed the masses - or rather, any common man, since she didn't agree with the idea of one characterisitc being blindly applied to the whole group. She viewed man as a creature with tendency to be rational and the desire to live. And she believed that given these two qualities together, men would be naturally given to be productive - irrespective of the scale - and would only deal with each-other freely and voluntarily. She also believed that quite a few of aberrant philosophies - propagated by men who wanted to enslave others - have led the masses astray. People have been taught that their nature is sinful (Christianity) and the justification they could give for living was to live for someone else (altruism). According to her, almost all of the world has accepted this vacuous ethical doctrine as a given and once they do, it doesn't matter if they are uber-rich or a laborer, their lives are going to be miserable.

The uber-rich in her story are not heroes because they happened to be captains of industry or simply because of their intellect (though that did play a part). They were heroes because they asked the important question of "why" and upon getting no answer, said, "Screw that". According to her, it takes extraordinary minds to break free of the societal conditioning and such extraordinary minds would be the captains of industry.

In a nutshell, my inclination is that the right loves Ayn Rand because she provide the ideological basis for them being greedy and pursuing profit without regulation. It utterly justifies the use of business to pursue its own ends self-interestedly without regard for people, evironment, or ethics (non-egoist ethics).

You wanna guess what Ayn Rand would've thought of the right wing? You don't have to. She despised them. She repeatedly insisted that her political stand should not be accepted and could not be justified without first accepting the other parts of her philosophy - parts that also made her an atheist, pro-choice, anti-religion, pro-homosexual marriage and probably a non-interventionalist (though I often find her views on foreign policy to be inconsistent with the rest of her philosophy). So, trust me on this. If Rand was alive today and knew how her philosophy was being used to propagate the right-wing agenda - she'd be the first in line to condemn them. Knowing her, I guess she'd claim her philosophy as her intellectual property and sue the tea-baggers for its corrupted use.

---

I suppose what is shocking to me is that Rand's philosophy has been adopted by a right wing political group who uses Objectivism as one of it's foundational ideologies. Especially on a traditionally anti-intellectual wing of the American political spectrum.

Another dissonance with this particular party is that they are overwhelming Christian but Rand was an outspoken atheist. She lumped government and religion into the same category as agents that limit the individualism and self-determination she viewed as neccessary to personal freedom.

As you said, your right-wing isn't known to be very intellectual. I guess they just saw the words "capitalism" and "good" and decided to adopt it. What I find more interesting is that her philosophy is much more popular among the middle-class, the people you might refer to as the masses. The very people - as her critics claim - she wrote against.

And your statement about Rand's view about religion is too kind. Rand thought that an over-reaching government was bad, but the government itself was necessary. Religion, on the other hand, had to go. She didn't just see it as a roadblock to individual freedom, she saw it as something that insulted and degraded the very concept of being a man.

Very interesting. Thank you for the well thought out answer.

That view is a bit more nuanced than perhaps the Tea Partiers are capable of enunciating. I am convinced that they are simply using it however they need to to justify their own economic interests.

Couple thoughts:

If industry is guided by rational self-interest in a laissez faire environment how does Rand propose dealing with monopolies? I assume that she was opposed to anti-trust laws of any kind. Does she simply believe in the invisible hand of the market place as the regulating principle? If rational egoism is the principle compelling human productive activity then it is clear that a laissez-faire marketplace clearly benefits those who already have money and who own the means of production, as they will primarily be the ones free to associate while the subordinate working class will be at the whim of the interests of CEOs and other corporate officers.

It also appears that impoverished people are limited in their freedom and opprtunities for self determination because they are slaves to their position in society. Couldn't the social safety net type programs be construed as increasing an individual's opportunity for freedom from indentured servant type positions. Economic need and lack of basic material goods can seriously impinge on a persons ability to develop themselves and their community.

I have never read Atlas Shrugged but I actually own it. I have heard the dialogue is tedious and it is a loooooong read. So I am always weighing the option whenever it's turn comes up and have decided against it. Maybe I will give it a shot.

Also, I heard Rand HATED Ronnie Reagan and tried to distance herself and forcefully as she could from the Republicans of that era.

[genkaus]

If industry is guided by rational self-interest in a laissez faire environment how does Rand propose dealing with monopolies? I assume that she was opposed to anti-trust laws of any kind. Does she simply believe in the invisible hand of the market place as the regulating principle?

Rand did not completely address the issue of monopolies, but she was against anti-trust laws. You could say that she believed in the invisible hand, but she'd refer to it as the logical outcome. She did not address the problem of limited resources, which might be one of the points where I disagree with her.

If rational egoism is the principle compelling human productive activity then it is clear that a laissez-faire marketplace clearly benefits those who already have money and who own the means of production, as they will primarily be the ones free to associate while the subordinate working class will be at the whim of the interests of CEOs and other corporate officers.

Not according to Rand. If the guiding principle is rational egoism then the CEOs and other corporate officers would not act on whims in business matters. It'd be in their self-interest to pay their productive employees well and keep them well-satisfied so as to achieve maximum benefit form them. Rand's view was that forceful and exploitive methods destroy a man's mind and it's dangerous to have such a mindless person working for you.

It also appears that impoverished people are limited in their freedom and opprtunities for self determination because they are slaves to their position in society.

She'd disagree that their was any limitation on the freedom. Rand was of the position that for a man of productive worth, opportunities would not be hard to find.

The one opportunity I can think of which might be considered critical would be education for children and Rand did not say anything on the subject. Regarding others, Rand was of the view that if a person had capacity, someone somewhere would find it in his interest to capitalize on it, thus providing the impoverished with the necessary opportunity. If you look at her characters, this becomes apparent. Hank Rearden was a self-made millionaire. Fransisco was born rich, but proved that he would have become a millionaire even without the family fortune.

Couldn't the social safety net type programs be construed as increasing an individual's opportunity for freedom from indentured servant type positions. Economic need and lack of basic material goods can seriously impinge on a persons ability to develop themselves and their community.

The problem with such programs is that they require taking earned money form others to pay for them - money they didn't voluntarily donate. Basically, it makes you responsible for someone else's welfare - a responsibility you did not choose. I guess her position would be like - "Yes, he is poor and that's unfortunate and yes, I see that he needs money to start off, but what gives you the right to take my money to give it to him." She'd have asked you to show how it'd be in her best interest to help that person. Something like showing her that this person could be productive member whose returns would be well-worth the cost here. But if the person in question has no desire to work, only wants the money to fulfill his short-term needs and go back to starving (as many on the welfare do), she wouldn't help him. In the end, she wanted any charity work to be done voluntarily - not forcefully through government.

If I had to find one mistake Rand made, I'd say that she had a too idealistic a view of human nature. No, she wasn't blind to the widespread irrationality, but she believed that once people are freed from the influence of corrupt doctrines such as altruism, they'd automatically move towards being rational.

[mediamogul]

If industry is guided by rational self-interest in a laissez faire environment how does Rand propose dealing with monopolies? I assume that she was opposed to anti-trust laws of any kind. Does she simply believe in the invisible hand of the market place as the regulating principle?

Rand did not completely address the issue of monopolies, but she was against anti-trust laws. You could say that she believed in the invisible hand, but she'd refer to it as the logical outcome. She did not address the problem of limited resources, which might be one of the points where I disagree with her.

If rational egoism is the principle compelling human productive activity then it is clear that a laissez-faire marketplace clearly benefits those who already have money and who own the means of production, as they will primarily be the ones free to associate while the subordinate working class will be at the whim of the interests of CEOs and other corporate officers.

Not according to Rand. If the guiding principle is rational egoism then the CEOs and other corporate officers would not act on whims in business matters. It'd be in their self-interest to pay their productive employees well and keep them well-satisfied so as to achieve maximum benefit form them. Rand's view was that forceful and exploitive methods destroy a man's mind and it's dangerous to have such a mindless person working for you.

It also appears that impoverished people are limited in their freedom and opprtunities for self determination because they are slaves to their position in society.

She'd disagree that their was any limitation on the freedom. Rand was of the position that for a man of productive worth, opportunities would not be hard to find.

The one opportunity I can think of which might be considered critical would be education for children and Rand did not say anything on the subject. Regarding others, Rand was of the view that if a person had capacity, someone somewhere would find it in his interest to capitalize on it, thus providing the impoverished with the necessary opportunity. If you look at her characters, this becomes apparent. Hank Rearden was a self-made millionaire. Fransisco was born rich, but proved that he would have become a millionaire even without the family fortune.

Couldn't the social safety net type programs be construed as increasing an individual's opportunity for freedom from indentured servant type positions. Economic need and lack of basic material goods can seriously impinge on a persons ability to develop themselves and their community.

The problem with such programs is that they require taking earned money form others to pay for them - money they didn't voluntarily donate. Basically, it makes you responsible for someone else's welfare - a responsibility you did not choose. I guess her position would be like - "Yes, he is poor and that's unfortunate and yes, I see that he needs money to start off, but what gives you the right to take my money to give it to him." She'd have asked you to show how it'd be in her best interest to help that person. Something like showing her that this person could be productive member whose returns would be well-worth the cost here. But if the person in question has no desire to work, only wants the money to fulfill his short-term needs and go back to starving (as many on the welfare do), she wouldn't help him. In the end, she wanted any charity work to be done voluntarily - not forcefully through government.

If I had to find one mistake Rand made, I'd say that she had a too idealistic a view of human nature. No, she wasn't blind to the widespread irrationality, but she believed that once people are freed from the influence of corrupt doctrines such as altruism, they'd automatically move towards being rational.

Rand's most obvious fallacy is her use of rational egoism as the foundational principle guiding the totality of human conduct and productive activity. When we talk of rational self-interest we can only talk in terms of consequences and doing that which rationally would confer the greatest benefit to the acting person. This is of course regardless of the effects that any action would have on another person, with specific implications that a person can be used as a mere means to an end. In other words, particularly for powerful people driven by profit in a laissez faire environment, this means destruction of the environment, running the competition out of business, driving up prices of commodities in any way consistent with their own interest, and outsourcing labor to get the best profit margin possible.

Also, why would a true egoist give to charity? Obviously it would not be out of a genuine desire to help someone elseor reduce another person suffering? Would it be to demonstrate their position of power? To appear as though they were a philanthropist? It would have to confer them some benefit. Didn't Rand herself go on Medicare at the end of her life to have surgery related to her years of chain smoking? It seems as though ideologically noone wants to pay into the safety net programs but then when they need them people always use them.

[genkaus]

Rand's most obvious fallacy is her use of rational egoism as the foundational principle guiding the totality of human conduct and productive activity.

She saw it as the principle guiding all productive activity - but not all human conduct. She argued that it should guide human conduct, not that it did.

When we talk of rational self-interest we can only talk in terms of consequences and doing that which rationally would confer the greatest benefit to the acting person. This is of course regardless of the effects that any action would have on another person, with specific implications that a person can be used as a mere means to an end. In other words, particularly for powerful people driven by profit in a laissez faire environment, this means destruction of the environment, running the competition out of business, driving up prices of commodities in any way consistent with their own interest, and outsourcing labor to get the best profit margin possible.

This is exactly why it is important to consider her philosophy as a whole. Consideration of just one part such as rational egoism, out of context of the whole leads to incorrect conclusions, like it did here.

Rand was pretty specific about what the premises of rational egoism were. Rand's premise was "No man is a means to an end for another man". The conclusion drawn form this statement is that it is proper for a man to consider himself the means to his own ends - but he cannot consider anyone else as means to his ends. So, according to her philosophy, any acts which make a man means to someone else's ends, like they do in the given examples - would be unethical and not consistent with objectivism (consistency with rational egoism might be a different matter. It was not originally Rand's concept and it held a different meaning to her).

Also, why would a true egoist give to charity? Obviously it would not be out of a genuine desire to help someone elseor reduce another person suffering? Would it be to demonstrate their position of power? To appear as though they were a philanthropist? It would have to confer them some benefit.

Rand saw kindness, compassion and good-will as secondary consequences of egoism. She did not hold that people should not consider lives of others to be without any value - only that they should not value it more than their own. She also held that people should have a preiritized value structure which would help them make these decisions. To take the example of charity - suppose I have a lot of money - more money than I could possibly spend on my needs throughout my life - and by my value structure - the pleasure any reduction in suffering of the poor would be greater that pleasure of buying a new yacht - then I should most certainly donate that money to charity.

Didn't Rand herself go on Medicare at the end of her life to have surgery related to her years of chain smoking? It seems as though ideologically noone wants to pay into the safety net programs but then when they need them people always use them.

That would be the other way around. Rand did not want to pay for the safety-net program and she considered the she was forced to pay into supporting it as hers to the end. Her claim was therefore reclaiming what was hers to begin with. In her own words -

"It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration."

[Epimethean]

Rand was a hypocrite in the way she ostracized anyone from her inner circle for challenging either her thinking or her desires. Her "vision" of the ideal man was limited to which men were kissing (or fucking) her ass at a given time.