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

[Agorism]

The Constitution forbids congress from funding it for longer than 2 years so even if they fund it, that should be unconstitutional.

As with everything though, its only used if it fits the political agenda. I've never been under the the illusion that the Constitution has much of an effect on them in the long run.

 

[FrankRep]

The Constitution forbids congress from funding it for longer than 2 years so even if they fund it, that should be unconstitutional.

Every two years Congress will need to re-appropriate the money to support the army. The Constitution doesn't say they can't maintain a standing army.

 

[Agorism]

Guess you're right on that...I think.

But the Air Force is unconstitutional right or are they in the penumbra?

 

[One Last Battle!]

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.

Yes, a state is just a collection of humans; that does not make it proper to compare it to a single human. A human is a collection of cells; it doesn't make sense to treat a human as a single cell.

You still aren't dealing with what she said. If you are only going for Objectivism by what the books say, rather than what its proponents advocate, then you aren't any better then the Communists who say Communism is perfect and infallible because its end result is anarchism (Which hasn't been reached yet, therefore Communism has not been disproven) when you go by what Das Kapital and so on say will happen. Those books did not write themselves; a person wrote them, and that person proceeded to justify things that are incompatible with libertarianism. The person's beliefs and the book's beliefs are not two entirely seperate concepts that you can distill for your own interpretation; they are one and the same, but simply cover the concept from different angles.

 

[FrankRep]

Guess you're right on that...I think.

But the Air Force is unconstitutional right or are they in the penumbra?

The Air Force isn't in the Constitution, but the Air Force was initially apart of the United States Army until 1947. The National Security Act of 1947 made the Air Force a separate military branch.

 

[low preference guy]

If you are only going for Objectivism by what the books say, rather than what its proponents advocate, then you aren't any better then the Communists who say Communism is perfect and infallible because its end result is anarchism (Which hasn't been reached yet, therefore Communism has not been disproven)

LOL. That's absolutely ridiculous. Even in paper communism advocates theft and infringements if not abolition of private property. You don't see anything like that in Objectivism. Yes, communism has been disproven, because the process to achieve an end can and should be taken into consideration.

An idea or a philosophy is not judged by some mistake that the creator made, but by its principles, logical structure, and relationship with reality.

 

[low preference guy]

The person's beliefs and the book's beliefs are not two entirely seperate concepts that you can distill for your own interpretation; they are one and the same, but simply cover the concept from different angles.

Ok, so what you are saying is basically, if a mathematician proved a theorem, and then used it to prove something else, but misapplied the theorem, then it follows that the original theorem was wrong, because he misused it to conclude something that is false. Again, that's absolutely ridiculous.

The original theorem and the conclusion obtained by misusing the theorem are one and the same, but simply cover the concept from different angles.

 

[One Last Battle!]

Ok, so what you are saying is basically, if a mathematician proved a theorem, and then used it to prove something else, but misapplied the theorem, then it follows that the original theorem was wrong, because he misused it to conclude something that is false. Again, that's absolutely ridiculous.

The original theorem and the conclusion obtained by misusing the theorem are one and the same, but simply cover the concept from different angles.

No, I am saying that if a mathematician REDISCOVERED a theorem, modified it to his own purposes, and THEN used it incorrectly based on his own modifications, the one he created is wrong.

What you are trying to do is twist Objectivism into Libertarianism by picking and choosing. What DEFINES Objectivism? Ayn Rand, the creator, does, and her books, written by her, exist for the purpose of reaffirming that. If you DON'T agree with what Rand says, then you aren't an Objectivist, just like a Marxist cannot be a Marxist if he doesn't agree with Marx, or a Maoist cannot be a Maoist if he disagrees with Mao.

Objectivism is NOT a broad school of thought, like "Conservatism", "Liberalism", or "Libertarianism". It is a VERY narrow school of thought, based on VERY specific philosophical beliefs, specifically the ones that Rand espoused. She didn't ever backtrack and say she was wrong in the books; she clearly considered the issue to be part of the entire Objectivist experience.

But hey, if you think you are a better Objectivist then Ayn Rand, you can go ahead and think so.

 

[low preference guy]

No, I am saying that if a mathematician REDISCOVERED a theorem, modified it to his own purposes, and THEN used it incorrectly based on his own modifications, the one he created is wrong.

LOL. What a joke. This quote alone shows that you know way too little about Objectivism to even pretend to criticize it intelligently.

 

[Agorism]

So if the CIA started out the the army, but then broke off that would make the organization constitutional.?

 

[FrankRep]

...

 

[Agorism]

bump

 

[One Last Battle!]

LOL. What a joke. This quote alone shows that you know way too little about Objectivism to even pretend to criticize it intelligently.

Again: Do you think you know Objectivism than Ayn Rand herself?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

So if the CIA started out the the army, but then broke off that would make the organization constitutional.?

You're being too logical! Stop it! You're ruining everything! lol

 

[abolitionist]

From the OP:

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists.

There you have it. When Ayn Rand distanced herself from libertarians, she was talking about collectivists, and the collectivists who pretend to be anarchists (we have those still to this day.)

Thus Ayn Rand didn't oppose libertarianism.

Thus the whole point of this thread is ignorant (at best, and as far as I'm concerned, dishonest) Ayn Rand bashing.

If you want to keep Ron Paul supporters away from Ayn Rand, then you are not someone who supports the cause of Libertarianism.

Note also, that in doing so, you're serving the purpose of anti-intellectualism. If you want to make a libertarian argument against objectivism-- please, feel free to do so! I cannot see how any such attempt could be anything other than hilarious!

But bashing the author of the philosophy of liberty is pretty sad.

Again: Do you think you know Objectivism than Ayn Rand herself?

If you had read Atlas Shrugged or knew anything about objectivism, you'd realize how asinine that question is. (And of course, you're repeating it, because you don't care how asinine it is, right?)

bump

Right, so if a thread whose sole purpose is to bash Ayn Rand, and keep Ron Paul supporters from a philosophy of liberty, somehow isn't on the top page, it needs to be bumped?

Isn't that trolling?

Ayn Rand was a mean, spiteful person. I get the impression... Pretty sad, if she had been more tolerant her ideas wouldn't repel people.

I might agree with you, if all the people "repelled" seemed to know anything about her ideas.

Instead, you find a constant stream of hatred and dishonest attacks at her and her ideas by people whose goal is to clearly keep others from being exposed to her ideas.

You don't see objectivists on this forum denouncing libertarian ideas when they don't have a solid philosophical backing... but you sure see a lot of leftists on this forum denouncing Ayn Rand. (Why do I say leftists? The only people who have anything to fear from Ayn Rand's ideas are collectivists. Thus only leftists or people parroting leftists would denounce her.)

But hey, if you want to live your life based on your "impressions" gathered from ideologues who oppose your personal liberty... be my guest!

 

[abolitionist]

(consolidated responses when I realized I responded multiple times in the same thread, then discovered I can't delete posts.)

 

[abolitionist]

(consolidated responses when I realized I responded multiple times in the same thread, then discovered I can't delete posts.)

 

[abolitionist]

(consolidated responses when I realized I responded multiple times in the same thread, then discovered I can't delete posts.)

 

[Agorism]

There are "Libertarians" on Hotair that demand all Libertarians vote Bush\republican because "otherwise the Democrats will win" and they also hate anarchists and antiwar hippies.

This was the type of "libertarain" Ayn Rand was. They despise voluntarists\anarchist Libertarians and seek to redefine the term Libertarian to mean party loyalist.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I wish Rand was still around... I'd be more than happy to dish out some Rand vitriol and call her ass out for using observations from other people to conclude her own opinions and communicating those opinions with plagarized symbols.