(Don't remember anything about deleting it).
No automobile insurance. No automobile.(Epilep-
sy, can't drive).
No fire insurance.
--As to any others, I had some medical and life
insurance, but they are gone, because they
were through the job, which I don't have any
more.

I hate to sound patronizing, but it seems you have a perfect storm going here and you need to take a step back. You have and are doing what ever you can to survive. There is no shame here. Sometimes you have to swallow your pride and set your beliefs aside for a bit. Hang in there. try to assess you assets and make the best of them. I wish I could be of more help.

A couple of weeks is one thing. I was on unem-
ployment until it ran out. (About 6 months). And I
still couldn't get a job, so I went on Social Securi-
ty. (And I can't live on it, even with the SNAP food
card. I'm trying to get out of that place; I thought
I would get a notice about the lease, but was
told it had renewed itself, but that was last
year. Maybe I can get into public housing soon.
I never intended to live this way. I am still try-
ing to get a job. But I don't know if I will ever be
able to).

Refining my ideas is typically what I struggle with most now. Socratic questioning, besides being frustrating, are helpful in that regard.

Most likely, it was your money to begin with.

I have heard, several times, critics of Ayn Rand mention that she took some sort of government assistance late in life (Medicare or something). These people just don't get it.

She did, but she included how and why under what circumstances. Without that it would not have answered the question. Discovering what is in one's self interest and why is an achievement. She wasn't a hedonist.

See the link elsewhere on this page: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

You're very much on the right track. Keep thinking, refining and clarifying in your own mind.

It is moral to impose as great a burden on the government as possible in order to hasten its demise. If one were striking as AS suggests, collecting welfare benefits fro the corrupt govt would therefore be ethical. Remember Ragnar!

I'll admit that my comment was perhaps not well worded. I meant, "This shouldn't exist," when I said, "no right to take it."
When I said, "hate every moment of it," I meant mostly the situation, and not actually getting the money, as you elaborated on. Thank you for clarifying.

I don't know... I've never collected it, as somehow it seems like I wasn't earning it. Nor Food stamps, nor any of the other "social fairness" programs... Some of the jobs I had weren't particularly fun, or interesting, or paid well, some were pretty menial... but I earned my keep, someone else didn't have to pay to support me.

Hell, I was even like that during my leftist years.

The opposite of the entitlement mentality is not "no right to take it". Ayn Rand explained why under the proper premises you do have a right to take it. When you do, you don't "hate every moment of it" other than the way you "hate every moment" of having to defend yourself against a criminal assault. It's the situation that you are trapped in and those responsible for it and the fact that you have to deal with them at all that you despise, not keeping or getting back your own money. To not recognize that leads to unearned guilt.

You can't avoid "dealing with the government". You are already put into this situation by law and are already "dealing" with it with the taxes you pay. The question is what does a rational individual do who is already ensnared in the system. You have to live in the world you were born into. There is not duty to suicidally martyr yourself. Do the advocates of a duty to martyrdom also say to refuse to pay taxes?

This is the article describing the principles "The Question of Scholarships" https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1966...

Ayn Rand didn't have "reservations" when she explained why the only people morally entitled to accept government scholarships are those who oppose the government interference. That was a qualification not a reservation.

In the case of unemployment insurance, the money has generally already been taken from the employer to fund unemployment claims. That money would have otherwise been available for salaries in accordance with the market, just like Social Security and Medicare taxes. Why let it go anywhere else to make a martyr out of yourself? This is much more direct than the question of scholarships versus future taxes you know you will have to pay.

As a student and a future scientist, I've struggled with the same dilemma as RushFan and I've come to agree with Rand's conclusions.

I would agree in most cases it's desirable to avoid dealing with a corrupt government. In my mind, the rightness of accepting government money has more to do with the mindset you are in. The action of collecting unemployment is the same between a lazy collectivist that has no intention of working and a hardworking individualist that is trying desperately to find a job. The first advocates for benefits and believes it is his right. The latter hates every moment of it, because he believes it is wrong to take it. The latter is the only one that deserves to receive unemployment; as long as he vehemently opposes the welfare state, he deserves to take that money and recirculate it into the market, where it can't be used to harm others like him. It is a mindset issue whether or not RushFan is sanctioning the government; in both cases the action is the same, but it is his convictions that determine the morality of it.

Me, too, UOC...but A==A... someone proposed a law; probably suggested or requested by their constituents (at this point, that doesn't matter...) and the bill was passed and put into effect.
The system is in place; people and companies (are forced to pay into) it and if it's legally available to you, you are not breaking any laws by accepting it.
Anyone can refuse the money if it's a moral, ethical or religious issue for Themselves, and asking us for approval is a cover for not answering those questions for yourself.
A friend of mine, an extreme conservative with libertarian leanings, works something like three months of the year as a Government Employee, making him eligible for paid insurance, retirement plans, and all other kinds of perqs.
I asked him how he could reconcile accepting all those benefits as a conservative/libertarian. His answer: the law says they're all available to me. Should I be foolish enough to NOT accept all those benefits? No.
Ironic thing is: he works those three or four months of the year as an IRS Auditor. Ironic enough for ya?

Ayn Rand was WRONG. The money is NOT "yours." Unemployment compensation is from "insurance premiums" collected -- by force, of course -- from employers.
It is always better to have no dealings with minions of governments, for so many reasons, including the giving them the sanction.
I would and will not condemn or even criticize anyone for taking money from a government because one might be feeling desperate, might have hungry children -- most likely hungry because some (censored) government has so skewed the economy jobs are scarce -- or some pressing financial problem.
But basically and generally, it is always better to avoid dealing with governments.

Thank you Sarah. That is a load off my mind.