Another argument, that I think is better than "It's my money to begin with," is that we have to live in the real world where the rules are created by others whether we agree with them or not. Since I am forced to participate in the funding of Soc Sec it is only reasonable that I participate in the payout at the other end.

I used a similar argument with a progressive journalist who used to be a Representative at the state level (called the General Assembly in CT). We were discussing my libertarian views and he criticized me for driving on government roads. My answer was that I live in the world and government roads are all that is available. The only possible way to leave my property and go to work is on public roadways.

He was completely satisfied with that answer.

I introduced similar reasoning when our state Libertarian Party, of which I was on the SCC for many years, was discussing whether or not Libertarian candidates should take public matching funds. It's perfectly reasonable to say, "No, that violates libertarian principles so I won't accept public funds." Always eager to be the contrarian I offered, "Libertarian candidates are playing a game where the rules were created by others. If we insist on playing by different rules, essentially saying we're playing our own game, then we may never get elected. A principled Libertarian may refuse public funds, but a Libertarian who accepts them is only recognizing that to win the game we have to be playing the same one as our opponents."

The SCC left it that we would not object if LP candidates accepted public matching funds. To date the choice has been academic because no candidate in our state has ever qualified. My state's LP has also advocated for complete repeal of public funding. As you could predict, those currently in power simply laugh. Why would they ever shut off the money-spigot?

Without regard to Ayn Rand specifically, it isn't correct to say that Social Security is the recipient's money to begin with. First, it's well known to be a Ponzi scheme where current workers are funding current retirees; none of your contributions are put in an account just for you.

Nevertheless, most people do contribute money so it's not unreasonable to consider that money "yours" and be perfectly happy to have it returned to you. What most people don't realize is that they will receive their own contributions back after a very short time and all subsequent payments are other people's money. Even if you were to tack on interest equivalent to what you could have earned from US Treasurys during your working years you'd recover your own money after a short while.

"Bunch of ignoramuses."
Yes. I think we should just ignore this claim.

The problem is not in the "terms" but the wealth of ignorance displayed by people who do not understand language, definitions and context.

One example is religion. I can practice the Piano religiously. I can treat auto mechanics like a religion. Pilot are religious with their checklists.

Miriam-Webster shows different definitions.:
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...

People do not pay any attention to the "Rational" part of self-interest.

The fault for this is the collectivist state run education system.

She really should have invented her own term instead of trying to redefine one that had a very fixed and accepted definition throughout the world as a vice - not a virtue. I know what her objective was (pun intended), but she had to have known that all she was going to do was encounter opposition and turn people off - not to mention translation issues.