Ayn Rand calls Libertarians "monstrous, disgusting bunch of people"

[Carehn]

Michael Badnarik: I've never been associated with an organization as hostile and self-destructive as the Libertarian Party. Most of what passes for conversation at Libertarian events is rumor, gossip, and vicious personal attacks.


Source:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...y-Fighting-Each-Other-to-Fight-the-Real-Enemy

Shows what you know, Ass. this thread is about the destruction of Rands personal views via gossip, vicious attacks and rumors. Why don't you post something relevant to the thread?

 

[Agorism]

Post-Modernism\Deconstructionism has nothing to do with hippies. Rational and scientific persons acknowledge it not just hippies, and I certainly consider myself a post-modernist.

 

[Carehn]

Post-Modernism\Deconstructionism has nothing to do with hippies. Rational and scientific persons acknowledge it not just hippies, and I certainly consider myself a post-modernist.

Sounds like something a hippie would say.

 

[One Last Battle!]

In the context she provides, how is this any different than Walter Block's example of man #1 not only forcefully removing a watch from man #2's wrist, but having the libertarian right to do so because man #2 had stolen it? In the same sense, Walter Blocks says you have a right to steal library books from the library, and a Martian has a right to use our roads because they were all acquired through the violation of another's rights. How is this libertarian stance any different than Ayn's?

Because states are not individuals, which is quite a big distinguishing difference. If a man steals my watch, I am within my rights to retaliate and, depending on the circumstances, using whatever means necessary to retrieve it. On the other hand, if a man picks my pocket in a crowded city street, I am NOT within my rights to whip out an assault rifle and blast wildly into the crowd with the hope that at least one of my shots hits the assailant. The Objectivist stance leads to collateral damage and in many cases actually strengthens the "slave pen" it seeks to destroy (Look at Cuba: the Cuban system is utterly incompetent and the Cubans live in rather terrible conditions, but the US embargo, if anything, has given the Cuban government a big excuse for everything going wrong. If there was no embargo, their primary excuse would be gone and they would probably have ended up toppling in the end anyway due to the feasibility of their economic system)

EDIT: Also, treating states as individuals really, REALLY begins to make no sense the farther you take analogies. Germany, for example, has some legitimate claims to Alsace-Lorraine, which France took (first quite a while back from the mostly-German Burgundians, then back from proto-German Prussia, and then from the Nazis). Seeing as how a nation is represented by its land mass, this is like France ripping out Germany's arm and eating it/attaching itself, making it a cannibal/serial killer/what have you. In terms of individuals, if a man ripped out your arm and ate it or had it sewn to himself, you would be well within your rights if you killed him when spotted a while later. However, in terms of STATES, that would involve completely wiping France from the map, killing every individual Frenchman for the crimes of his government, and doing the same to any countries that assisted it in any way. Suddenly, comparing states and individuals doesn't make so much sense.

Sounds like something a hippie would say.

Is there anything necessarily bad about hippies?

 

[FrankRep]

Michael Badnarik: I've never been associated with an organization as hostile and self-destructive as the Libertarian Party. Most of what passes for conversation at Libertarian events is rumor, gossip, and vicious personal attacks.


Source:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...y-Fighting-Each-Other-to-Fight-the-Real-Enemy

Shows what you know, Ass. this thread is about the destruction of Rands personal views via gossip, vicious attacks and rumors. Why don't you post something relevant to the thread?

:collins:

 

[Agorism]

Most of Rand's novel is attacking Post-Modernism.

But Post-Modernism and anarcho-capitalism\Agorism are perfectly compatible whereas Rand wants a giant military and the giant state that it gives birth to, and it has to be her way or of course...the person she is arguing with is an idiot by definition.

 

[Agorism]

Libertarianism and ‘Sex, Drugs, & Rock 'n' Roll'

by Walter Block

(PS- I don't promote drug use or think it's a good thing either, but I don't get worked up about it either)

To push my argument further, libertarian thought, with its fluid cultural matrix, offers a better response to some of the knottiest problems of society. It is, especially when contrasted with the conservative cultural matrix, a postmodern attitude. In fact, it is precisely this postmodernism that enrages conservatives who are uncomfortable with a radical acceptance that, in turn, promotes change and unfamiliarity. Yet no matter how scary (or irritating), libertarian tolerance provides a more efficient mechanism in dealing with those places where economics, politics and culture clash so intimatelly.

While I of course appreciate this business of "better response to some of the knottiest problems of society," calling libertarian thought, a "fluid cultural matrix" is not so much objectionable, as it is meaningless. Further, Lee must just about be the first person who has ever characterized libertarianism as "postmodern."

Although libertarians tend toward an annoying optimism, no reasonable observer would venture a prediction on the winner of the conservative-libertarian debate. The outcome depends crucially on where societies ultimately fix the locus of coercion between liberty and authority for politics, and between tolerance and conformity for culture. One can imagine, though, how discouraged F.A. Hayek must have felt in 1944 when he sat down to write The Road to Serfdom. Now, few doubt that Hayek has won and that the economic argument has been settled in favor of free markets. What remains is the battle over politics and culture. One down, two to go.

Why are we libertarians "annoyingly optimistic?" This is sophomoric; any student of mine who wrote such bilge would feel my editorial wrath. Dear Miss Lee: If you are going to criticize a political philosophy, any of them, try to be specific.

She is also very much mistaken about Hayek's book. This is hardly the bastion of free markets it is widely thought to be. Rather, it "leaks" all over the place, making compromise after compromise with the socialism of its day (See on this Block, Walter. 1996. "Hayek's Road to Serfdom," Journal of Libertarian Studies: An Interdisciplinary Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, Fall, pp. 327—350.

Were this written by a student of mine, I would have emphasized the positive more than I have done so here. But this is an adult journalist, from whom we readers have a right to expect more, and better. Nevertheless, she did do a reasonably good job, despite all these errors. After all, the usual mainstream journalistic description of libertarianism is to dismiss it as a variant of Nazism. At least this authoress did not sink to that level. I stand by my B- evaluation.

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans.

 

[Carehn]

Most of Rand's novel is attacking Post-Modernism.

But Post-Modernism and anarcho-capitalism\Agorism are perfectly compatible whereas Rand wants a giant military and the giant state that it gives birth to, and it has to be her way or of course...the person she is arguing with is an idiot by definition.

I was just joking around with my other post because im drunk and board but i do want to know more about the modernism stuff. could you give me a link or 2 to save me the time of google.

also i could be wrong but i don't think Rand wants a giant military or giant state. I don't think thats what the philosophy i read about would lead to. Any way maybe you could post some out of context quotes to sooth my soul

 

[low preference guy]

I was just joking around with my other post because im drunk and board but i do want to know more about the modernism stuff. could you give me a link or 2 to save me the time of google.

Post-modernism is pure crap. It denies we can know anything, and overall it's just a mix of skepticism and nihilism.

 

[Indy Vidual]

I was just joking around with my other post because im drunk and board....l

Drunk and bored?
Why on Earth would you come to a political forum?

Well, prove it. Show us where Ron Paul is against a standing army.

Ron Paul supports the Constitution.
Some interpretations of the Constitution forbid standing armies.
In this case the proof depends upon your interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[low preference guy]

also i could be wrong but i don't think Rand wants a giant military or giant state. I don't think thats what the philosophy i read about would lead to. Any way maybe you could post some out of context quotes to sooth my soul

If you take the philosophy presented in her work, it can't lead to a giant state. If you take some of Ayn's words in spontaneous conversation, some of the things she advocated are inconsistent with the objectives of the philosophy. For example, advocating embargos against communist countries. But that just means that she made a mistake in the application of the philosophy, not that the philosophy is wrong. When she talked about principles, I can't recall any instance where she was wrong.

 

[Lothario]

Because states are not individuals, which is quite a big distinguishing difference. If a man steals my watch, I am within my rights to retaliate and, depending on the circumstances, using whatever means necessary to retrieve it. On the other hand, if a man picks my pocket in a crowded city street, I am NOT within my rights to whip out an assault rifle and blast wildly into the crowd with the hope that at least one of my shots hits the assailant. The Objectivist stance leads to collateral damage and in many cases actually strengthens the "slave pen" it seeks to destroy (Look at Cuba: the Cuban system is utterly incompetent and the Cubans live in rather terrible conditions, but the US embargo, if anything, has given the Cuban government a big excuse for everything going wrong. If there was no embargo, their primary excuse would be gone and they would probably have ended up toppling in the end anyway due to the feasibility of their economic system)

I just don't see it - at least in the provided text. We're talking about ownership and property rights here - as Walter Block said, the Martian can rightly use our roads, even while not being a member of our society, because they were produced through illegitimate means. Following the same logic, America would have a right to use Soviet streets, as they are not properly owned by anyone. She never mentioned bombing or retaliation - I'm not sure what the implication of "invade" is, but I suppose it doesn't necessarily mean bombing.

Ultimately however, the cornerstone of her belief is voluntary transactions among men, whereby the rights of no man can be violated through coercion, violence, or any other means. You're understanding of what she said in the interview would explicitly violate this cornerstone of her belief...therefore there must be something wrong with the premises.

 

[Lothario]

If you take the philosophy presented in her work, it can't lead to a giant state. If you take some of Ayn's words in spontaneous conversation, some of the things she advocated are inconsistent with the objectives of the philosophy. For example, advocating embargos against communist countries. But that just means that she made a mistake in the application of the philosophy, not that the philosophy is wrong. When she talked about principles, I can't recall any instance where she was wrong.

Exactly.

 

[One Last Battle!]

Post-modernism is pure crap. It denies we can know anything, and overall it's just a mix of skepticism and nihilism.

Eh, in practical terms, it IS possible we don't know everything. Your senses could manipulated. This could all be a dream, or virtual, or what have you. Really, the only thing it is impossible to deny is your own existence (If you don't exist, then who is thinking about how you don't exist)?

I just don't see it - at least in the provided text. We're talking about ownership and property rights here - as Walter Block said, the Martian can rightly use our roads, even while not being a member of our society, because they were produced through illegitimate means. Following the same logic, America would have a right to use Soviet streets, as they are not properly owned by anyone. She never mentioned bombing or retaliation - I'm not sure what the implication of "invade" is, but I suppose it doesn't necessarily mean bombing.

Ultimately however, the cornerstone of her belief is voluntary transactions among men, whereby the rights of no man can be violated through coercion, violence, or any other means. You're understanding of what she said in the interview would explicitly violate this cornerstone of her belief...therefore there must be something wrong with the premises.

You're not sure what the implication of "invade" is? Really? I guess she really means to imply that peaceful Objectivists will stroll across the border and use the power of LOGIC to make the "slave pen" cease to exist. After all, in the context of "invading/embargoing" "slave pens", there sure is a lot of ambiguity.

Come on. Don't resort to semantics and issue-dodging, it is something distinictly un-Objectivistic.

Yes, there are premises here that are false: specifically, that Ayn Rand's philosophy actually held up to examination, and that entire points stressed go straight out the window the instant the scale of the issue presented changes.

Once again: stop dodging my actual points. I am not arguing about the legitimacy of using roads. I am using Ayn Rand's ACTUAL STATEMENTS to demonstrate her ACTUAL BELIEFS, rather than some kind of Platonic "ideal" of Objectivism. Treating states as individuals is a worthless comparison, like comparing humans to cats (therefore, I should eat mice) or houses to trenches (therefore, I should be in great danger whenever I am in my house or, worse, leave my house)

 

[Carehn]

Post-modernism is pure crap. It denies we can know anything, and overall it's just a mix of skepticism and nihilism.

I will look it up but if your right about denies knowledge then it is crap. Does the world not have enough of this. Every new aged hippie mysticism that springs forth from the publishers starts off by telling me i know jack shit.

I was hopping it would be something fun to read at least. Just another caned philosophy based on the Three wise monkeys

 

[Agorism]

The best example I can think of what Post-modernism is at its core is deconstructionism. The Tibetian Buddists have been doing it for thousands of years, but it's really really hard to explain. i wrote a paper comparing Tibetian Buddism to the language deconstructionism movement in France, which was the beginning of the post-modernism movement, and basically they were all doing the same thing. Tibetan Buddists deconstruct language as well as part of their religion in the sense that the whole has the no essential properties only they didn't really use proofs like the French were doing.

But Post-modernism has applications everywhere esp in music and art. For instance it's the blurring of categories in music.

You mash country music with jazz and you ended up with rock and roll and the Elvis. It further evolved to Rock and modern Rock with the Beatles.

Punk rock mixes certain things too.

Hip Hop is the ultimate post modern music so far in that it's just a bunch of mixing and constant evolution. There is no "Cannon."

I like to think of it as Post-Modernism being open minded about cultural things as well.

And for the record I'm not a big L&S person as I think those classes were mostly a waste of time and money, but almost every core L&S class now relates to the post-modern movement so it's impossible not to versed in it.

If none of that made sense think about Post-modernism as the blurring of of the lines of categories.

The wikipedia description isn't that bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

Postmodernism is a movement away from the viewpoint of modernism. More specifically it is a tendency in contemporary culture characterized by the problem of objective truth and inherent suspicion towards global cultural narrative or meta-narrative. It involves the belief that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs, as they are subject to change inherent to time and place. It emphasizes the role of language, power relations, and motivations; in particular it attacks the use of sharp classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial. Rather, it holds realities to be plural and relative, and dependent on who the interested parties are and what their interests consist in. It attempts to problematise modernist overconfidence, by drawing into sharp contrast the difference between how confident speakers are of their positions versus how confident they need to be to serve their supposed purposes. Postmodernism has influenced many cultural fields, including literary criticism, sociology, linguistics, architecture, visual arts, and music.
Postmodernist thought is an intentional departure from modernist approaches that had previously been dominant. The term "postmodernism" comes from its critique of the "modernist" scientific mentality of objectivity and progress associated with the Enlightenment.
These movements, modernism and postmodernism, are understood as cultural projects or as a set of perspectives. "Postmodernism" is used in critical theory to refer to a point of departure for works of literature, drama, architecture, cinema, journalism, and design, as well as in marketing and business and in the interpretation of law, culture, and religion in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.[1] Indeed, postmodernism, particularly as an academic movement, can be understood as a reaction to modernism in the Humanities. Whereas modernism was primarily concerned with principles such as identity, unity, authority, and certainty, postmodernism is often associated with difference, plurality, textuality, and skepticism.
Literary critic Fredric Jameson describes postmodernism as the "dominant cultural logic of late capitalism." "Late capitalism" refers to the phase of capitalism after World War II, as described by economist Ernest Mandel; the term refers to the same period sometimes described by "globalization", "multinational capitalism", or "consumer capitalism". Jameson's work studies the postmodern in contexts of aesthetics, politics, philosophy, and economics.[2

I think my paper is better though...I might have it in my attic somewhere.

 

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul supports the Constitution.
Some interpretations of the Constitution forbid standing armies.
In this case the proof depends upon your interpretation of the Constitution.

The Constitution seems to allow standing Armies.


U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8:


Congress has the power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;​

 

[Agorism]

The Constitution only allows for a standing Navy actually.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Armies have to be raised from the militas.

 

[FrankRep]

The Constitution only allows for a standing Navy actually.

Constitution: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;​

As long as congress keeps passing the "Appropriation of Money" to the Army every two years, we'll have a Standing Army.

Armies have to be raised from the militas.

They were at some point, but Congress keeps voting to keep the Army going.

 

[Lothario]

Once again: stop dodging my actual points. I am not arguing about the legitimacy of using roads. I am using Ayn Rand's ACTUAL STATEMENTS to demonstrate her ACTUAL BELIEFS, rather than some kind of Platonic "ideal" of Objectivism. Treating states as individuals is a worthless comparison, like comparing humans to cats (therefore, I should eat mice) or houses to trenches (therefore, I should be in great danger whenever I am in my house or, worse, leave my house)

Except that a state is nothing but a collection of humans - not cats.

Back to what I said: the cornerstone of her belief is voluntary transactions among men, whereby the rights of no man can be violated through coercion, violence, or any other means.

That sounds distinctly libertarian to me. As 'low preference guy' said above, could she have said things that contradicted her own philosophy? Sure. Did she do things that contradicted her own philosophy? Sure. Can the same be said for libertarians? Sure - which is fuel Democrats and Republicans have used against libertarianism. But has Ayn Rand written things with her own pen that contradict libertarianism? Not that I've read in The Fountainhead, or in Atlas Shrugged, or in The Virtue of Selfishness, or in Capitalism The Unknown Ideal.