Does Ayn Rand Taking Social Security Make Her a Hypocrite?

This silly claim gets brought up now and then. I heard it again recently, so I thought it was worth commenting on.

Presumably, Rand was compelled to pay into Social Security. She was forced to buy a financial product she didn't necessarily want. She didn't have the option of saying "No thanks" and keeping her contributions. So is it problematic from a libertarian point of view if she then accepts payments from Social Security? Not really. I'd consider it problematic if she applied for welfare. It's much harder to simply "opt in" to welfare, but it's almost a default that people opt in to Social Security. If she went out of her way to make herself the beneficiary of government largesse, that would impugn her character. Or if Social Security is a really good deal. Suppose it earns a return on contributions much, much higher than the market rate. Those inflated earnings are being subsidized by young workers, who won't earn as much when it's their turn. Claiming benefits from such a program might be un-libertarian and hypocritical, even if most people do it.

An analogy: I'm forced to buy more health insurance than I otherwise would because of bad federal policy (mainly the ACA, but also mandates that predate the ACA). But given that I've bought this financial product, I might as well use it when I have some kind of medical expense. It's not hypocritical for me to make a claim against my absurdly over-priced health insurance. Someone compelled me to buy it. I complied with that law. That's where we are today. I have more coverage than a rational person would buy in a libertarian market for health insurance, but given that I paid for it I'm going to make use of it.

A better example of a prominent libertarian flouting libertarian principles is Robert Nozick suing his landlord. His apartment was supposed to be rent controlled, but his landlord raised the rent on him for several years in a row. Nozick figured this out and sued, despite his landlord confronting him directly with his libertarian philosophy (supposedly shoving a copy of Anarchy, State, and Utopia in Nozick's face).

But does any of this matter? So what if some prominent libertarians fail a purity test or can't resist the treasures that the state dangles in front of it? Nozick could have totally nailed the case for libertarianism, but then had a failure of personal character. The arguments stand on their own. It's pure ad hominem to say that libertariansim is compromised as a system of values because Rand and Nozick couldn't live up to their principles. This is just like people claiming that Al Gore's personal energy consumption makes him a hypocrite on environmental issues. Of course it doesn't. You are supposed to evaluate the argument, not the person.

The following shouldn't need to be said, but unfortunately it does. Even if someone like Rand or Nozick were so blatantly hypocritical that we could infer they didn't believe their own arguments, there are other serious people making similar arguments or perhaps building on their work. That work isn't impugned by someone else's hypocrisy or weak character, either.