So Ayn Rand using Medicare and social security is not a case of hypocrisy because... ? 

It is still hypocrisy and this also shows how easy it is for Randians to justify anything they do, whether it fits with their
stated principles or not.

She could also say it is in her best interest to be a hypocrite. It is alright to have others pay for her to get medical care
etc. while she rails on against having to pay anything to help others herself. Just like it is okay for Palin to attack such
things as socialized medicine while admitting that she and her family used to travel across the border to get services
at the expense of Canadian tax payers. 

The great thing about Rands philosophy, as well as Straussian neoconservatism, is that one doesn't have
to follow oneself the religious and other dogmas that one demands of those one rules over.
Lies and hypocrisy are justified when dealing with lower and weaker people if it enhances oneself.     

B forcefully takes from A.  B willingly gives to C.  It is possible to fault B, but not C.

Belief that a service should not be provided through force does not equal a condoning of the act of acceptance itself.  Those doing the taking in order to provide the service, (B) and those willingly receiving (C) are two parties engaged in two separate actions.  Belonging to the latter party while condemning the former does not necessarily make one a hypocrite.  It USUALLY leads one to hypocrisy because one tends to support policies which perpetuate the handout, thus supporting the initial action that one supposedly was against.

For example, let us suppose drunk driving laws really make the highways safer.  And let us suppose that I, a non-driver with an ideological stance opposed to such laws, but with nothing to lose from such laws myself, am regularly a passenger on those highways.  Every time I get into the car, I am willingly accepting the benefit of a law I am ideologically opposed to.  This does not make me a hypocrite.  What WOULD make me a hypocrite would be the realization that the law is benefiting me personally, and a resultant shift to supporting the law, even though it goes against my underlying principles.

Accepting social security would not make Rand a hypocrite.  Switching her viewpoint and suddenly saying, "oh, well, actually we SHOULD pay social security taxes," in order to perpetuate the system and benefit herself, even though such a saying was inconsistent with her philosophy, would be hypocritical.

Those few individuals who consistently advocate against the very programs they benefit from, knowing full well the cost should they succeed, are not the hypocrites.  They are the few people with a demonstrated ability to resist the forces that lead to hypocritical behavior.

You could still argue that Rand was against the very act of accepting a service at below cost, and was thus a hypocrite. (not an easy contention to prove) But that hasn't been the argument implied so far.

I hope not to see you bow out over this Portnoy, as I consider this primarily a discussion on logic and the nature of hypocrisy, rather than Rand's ideas.

Ayn Rand had force initiated against her. She was forced to pay into medicare and social security. Once force has been initiated against you, you have the moral right to both defend yourself and punish, or be justly compensated by, the aggressor.

And if you read Atlas Shrugged, the fall of the country to be re-built by those who actually produce was a major point.

There are many in the libertarian community that believe that pushing the government over the cliff sooner is the better strategy as opposed to the long slow crash. Letting the socialist movement take its course leads to the same thing each time, it is up to us to prepare for that fall so that we may come out on top afterwards.

I, for one, do not support sitting back as liberals and socialists steal from the productive and distribute it among themselves. I am all for getting as much of that stolen loot into the hands of libertarians who will then go on to use that money to fight the very theft that is occurring. To sit idly by and allow the looters to prosper and grow at the expense of the productive is akin to the extermination of productivity.

Bitcoin provides one small piece in fighting the thieves. Those who use FRNs are getting wealth stolen every day, most people do not even realize it. A few services that are transparently showing you the fees that you are charged is nothing compared to what the Federal Reserve does. And you have the choice of using those services or not.

Again, how often did Karl Marx purchase a product at a free market rate? Did he pay more for a sandwich because the owner's child needed money for the hospital? Did he distribute the money he earned equally to those who needed it the most? Did he live every day of his life strictly confined to the principles of his communist manifesto? Or was he a hypocrite? Or is it not hypocritical to work toward an ideal while still dealing with the imperfect world you are fighting against?

It is never hypocrisy to live in the real world, while trying to change it.

I agree with that, and you can probably tell from my name I have sympathy for anarchists ideas, but I don't think the right action is (to paraphrase something written earlier) to push government over the cliff as soon as possible.  Portnoy is right, I think, to point out that that would do a tremendous amount of harm to a enormous number of people.

I think, as a society, we should march toward greater individual responsibility and liberty, but that has to be balanced along the way, and it will always be a messy balancing act.  Maybe 1000 years on our collective level of intelligence and sense of right social behavior will be advanced enough to practically dispense with government as we know it - if anything, I think the technological advances of today our pointing us in that direction.  Nevertheless, it would immoral to try to bring that future about prematurely for simple practical reasons.

My current view is essentially that some type of anarchism is ultimately how we ought to live, but that the only way to ethically achieve that end is by education and by slowly and carefully auditing ourselves along the way.

There's my two bitcents.

I would agree with that if with discernment and reflection one can recognize
ones errors and can bring themselves to revise their principles when it becomes
clear they are at odds with how they actually come to live their lives.  Somewhat
like proudon's 'auditing ourselves along the way' or R.A. Wilson's 'not getting trapped
in our own reality tunnels'...   

Yes, I think that revolutionary and violent anarchism is, in many ways, to misunderstand philosophical anarchism.  As I said, I think technology can help facilitate a smoothish transition along humanity's long path to anarchist society.  I don't see anything very close to a practical anarchist society being a reality for a long time to come, but I don't think it's implausible.  And, actually, with all their flaws, I think a lot of democratic societies are a good way there.  I don't think things are quite so grim as lots of people make them out to be.  There's certainly an enormous amount of room for improvement, but by and large it's absolutely incredible the amount of progress that's been made in the past 200 years or so toward better and more peaceful society.

Lives WILL be harmed. The only choice is whether it'll be soon, and quick, or a while from now, and drawn out. Greece is an example of innocent lives being harmed by continuing the socialist policies. There's still harm.





What I find extremely ironic is that you are insulting Ayn Rand, while at the same time saying you are for the EXACT SAME THING Atlas Shrugged and her ideas were about. She, and the characters in her book, were not for joining the government and destroying it from within, or even for fighting it. Her whole point in the book was to just stop supporting it and make it irrelevant. The characters didn't fight, and didn't impose their views on others, they simply casually avoided it and allowed it to rot from within.

Also and I can't speak for any companies but ours but I doubt many bitcoin startups are taking money OUT at this point.  Those fees and margins are simply being used to expand the company, strengthen the balance sheet, and unlock bigger doors.