ayn rand -- i think my head is about to explode

[Dustancostine]

Because I am curious.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Because I am curious.

You know, she condemned libertarianism. Actually, she said its worse than both liberalism and conservatism. Kind of weird for a free marketeer to condemn the party/political philosophy for free markets.

 

[Dustancostine]

Have you read anything L. Ron Hubbard has written? Read Dianetics and then get back to me. LOL

No, I have not. Is her book available at the public library. Ha the irony@! I do have some Amazon certificates I haven't used, I wonder if I can combine two $5 gift certificates I am fiscally responsible with my own money...maybe too much

No not yet, but I will see if I can get it from ebay.

And yes you should be able to get "Atlas Shrugged" from either the library or amazon.

It has been reported that it has been rated the 2nd most influential book behind the Bible in the 20th century.

 

[libertarianguy]

test

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

don't waste your time with this malevolent, fascist megalomaniac. Why not spend your money instead on hans-hermann hoppe's 'democracy: the god that failed'? I'm at the moment watching a nice speech of his:

http://mises.org:88/ss06-Hoppe

hmmm lol. She sure doesn't sound like a libertarian when you describe her.

 

[Dustancostine]

You know, she condemned libertarianism. Actually, she said its worse than both liberalism and conservatism.

Yes I know. But it was the anarchism that she detested. Here it is in her own words;

Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to "do something". By "ideological" I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.G., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the "libertarian" hippies, who subordinate reason to whiims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help defeat your ideas and the victory of your enemies.

And from Harry Binswanger:

The "libertarians"...plagiarize Ayn Rand's principle that no man may initiate the use of physical force, and treat it as a mystically revealed, out-of-context absolute.
In the philosophical battle for a free society, the one crucial connection to be upheld is that between capitalism and reason. The religious conservatives are seeking to tie capitalism to mysticism; the "libertarians" are tying capitalism to whim-worshippng subjectivism and chaos of anarchy. To cooperate with either group is to betray capitalism, reason and one's own future.

 

[libertarianguy]

test

 

[libertarianguy]

test

 

[Dustancostine]

Ayn Rand on :

Freedom:

Freedom, in a political context, has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion

Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man's survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don't. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his won rational judgement. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man's mind.

If one upholds freedom, one must uphold man's individual rights; if one upholds man's individual rights, one must uphold his right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness- which means: one must uphold a political system that guarantees and protects these rights-which means: the politico-economic system of capitalism

Capitalism:

Capitalisim is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned
The recognition of property rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalistic society, no man or group may initiate the use of force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man's rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force : the government acts as the agent of man's right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retalitory use of force under objective control

When I say "capitalism", I mean full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism-with a sperattion of state and economics in the same way and for the same reasons as the seperation of state and church.

Conservatism:

Objectivist are not "conservatives". We are radicals for capitalism, we are fighting for the philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to persih....

Founding Fathers of the United States:

The basic premise of the Founding Fathers was man's right to his own life, to his own liberty, and to the pursuit of his own happiness-which means, man's right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to other nor sacrificing other s to himself; and that the political implementation of this right is a society where men deal with one another as traders, by voluntary exchange to mutual benefit.

The genius of the Founding Fathers was their ability not only to grasp the revolutionary ideas of the period, but to devise a means of implementing those ideas in practice, a means of translating them from the realm of the philosophic, abastraction into that of sociopolitical reality. By dfining in detail the division of powers within the government and the ruling procedures, including the brilliant mechanism of checks and balances, they established a system whose operation and integrity were independent., so far as possible, of the moral character of any of its temporary officials-a system impervious, so far as possible, to suberversion by aspiring dictators or by the public mood of the moment.
The heroism of the Founding Fathers was that they recognized an unprecedented opportunity, the chance to create a county of individual liberty for the first time in history-and that they staked everything on their judgement: the new nation and their own "livers, fortunes, and sacred honor".

Free Market:

In a free economy, where no man or group of men can use physical coercion against anyone, economic power can by achieved only by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement of all those who participate in the process of production and trade.

America:

I can say- not as a patriotic bromid, but with full knowledge of the necessary metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and esthetic roots-that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world.

Morality:

The purpose of morality is to teach you, not suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.



What does she say that does not line up with RP or Libertarian beliefs?

-Dustan

 

[Dustancostine]

well, she was an ardent statist and practiced a cult-like capitalist worship. Contrary to popular belief, love for liberty doesn't necessitate love for 'capitalism'. Commerce is just a wonderful natural phenomenon resulting from a free and peaceful society. Rand thought it great that the glorious state could tax me to pay for legal apparatus to resolve corporate disputes, and that corporations were poor victims of society. That is the definition of fascism! She was one of those 'imperial libertarians', too

I have no idea where you go this from but it is entirely incorrect and you should be ashamed for have posting this especially without any factual quotes.

So I will give you one:

Ayn Rand on Statism:

A statist system- whether communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or "welfare" type-is based on the governments unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The difference among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.
Nothing can ever justify so monstrously evil a theory. Nothing can justify the horror, the brutality, the plunder, the destruction, the starvation, the slave-labor camps, the torture chambers, the wholesale slaughter of statist dictatorships.

Ayn Rand on Taxation:

In a fully free society, taxation-or to be exact, payment for government services- would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government-the police, teh armed forces, the law courts-are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interest directly, the citizens would and should be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.

 

[libertarianguy]

test

 

[Dustancostine]

yes... yet she advocates the state and theft by the state to arbitrate disputes regarding corporations engaged in the capitalism that she worships, and she dispises those 'weaklings' who are not egoistic pschycos like her?

Look at the post above these two, your statement is incorrect. (Except that she does dispise weaklings, but that is personal not philosophical/political.)

 

[libertarianguy]

test

 

[Dustancostine]

Except that she still feels the need to shove her imperial law down my throat

Which imperial law?

 

[libertarianguy]

test

 

[Dustancostine]

okay... different meaning of statism here. I was referring to the state's monopoly on force that she apparently believes in

She does not believe that the state has a monopoly on force. Only that the state acts as an individual's agent of force. If the state is not responsible as the agent the individual has the right to revoke that responsibility. Also this does not mean that as the agent the individual loses his right to defense.

 

[Dustancostine]

her opposition to anarchy and thus secessionist communities would not tolerate independant courts. This goes hand-in-hand with her beligerant ethics philosophies (hating those not holding hers, wishing death on them)... id est, the 'imperial libertarian'

You must read here, she is not opposed to secessionist communities:

Ayn Rand on secession:

Some people ask whether some local groups or provinces have the right to secede from the country of which they are part. The answer is: on ethnic grounds, no. Ethnicity is not valid consideration morally or politically, and does not endow nayone with any special rights. As to other than ethnic grounds, remember that rights belong only to the individuals and that there is no such thing as "group rights". If a province wants to secede from a dictatorship, or even from a mixed economy, in order to establish a free country-it has the right to do so. But if a local gang, ethnic or otherwise, wants to secede in order to establish its own government controls, it does not have that right. No group has the right to violate the rights of the individuals who happen to live in the same locality. A wish-individual or collective-is not a right

Any Rand on anarchism:

Anarchism, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction... a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreement among men that necessitates the establishment of government.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

yes... yet she advocates the state and theft by the state to arbitrate disputes regarding corporations engaged in the capitalism that she worships, and she dispises those 'weaklings' who are not egoistic pschycos like her?

She mentions corporations? The word itself? That's funny because CORPORATIONS as we know it are sanctioned and organized by the state itself corporations are not natural elements in free markets. If she supported corporations then she was most definitely not a free marketeer. We need to make the distinction between companies and corporations more often.

 

[libertarianguy]

test

 

[libertarianguy]

test