Ayn Rand Was NOT a Libertarian

[dillo]

libertarians are not anarchists

 

[Odin]

Here's a intro for you to read. http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

So here is the section on murder: "Murder
of course, one of the most basic stipulations in any contractual
relationship—whether entering a mall or living in a neighborhood
co-op—would be strong prohibitions on murder. In other words
all contracts of this type would have a clause saying, “If I am
found guilty of murder I agree to pay $y million to the estate of
the deceased.” naturally, no one would sign such a contract unless
he were sure that the trial procedures used to determine his guilt or
innocence had a strong presumption of innocence; nobody would
want to be found guilty of a murder he didn’t commit. But on
the other hand, the procedures would have to be designed so that
there were still a good chance that guilty people would actually be
convicted, since people don’t want to shop in malls where murder
goes unpunished.
and, because all contracts of this sort (except possibly in very
eccentric areas frequented by people who liked to live dangerously)
would contain such clauses, one could say that “murder is illegal”
in the whole anarchist society, even though the evidentiary rules and
penalties might differ from area to area. But this is no different from "

Obvious question is what happens if I refuse to sign a contract with an "arbitration agency" that could prosecute me? Am I free to murder people?

The previous section on "Contracts" doesn't address how everyone would sign a contract. It only says that employers would make their employees sign a contract before hiring them, but what if I am the employer? Or what if I don't have, want, or need a job?

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

libertarians are not anarchists

Bullshit. Any libertarian worth a damn has taken the correct position on the abolition of the state regardless of the opinions of the likes of small-minded people like you.

 

[acptulsa]

he wishes him to hell because he thought his language wasn't simple/simplistic enough?
wow. my respect for this man.

Mr. Mencken had a sense of humor. And endeavoring to explain something simple in two thousand words or more is indeed a particluar type of torture. Especially if it appears in a textbook and people are coerced into reading it.

Bullshit. Any libertarian worth a damn has taken the correct position on the abolition of the state regardless of the opinions of the likes of small-minded people like you.

Actually, most libertarians will suffer the state to exist if only it will sit quietly in the corner and not growl at or bite the hand that feeds it.

 

[Odin]

Bullshit. Any libertarian worth a damn has taken the correct position on the abolition of the state regardless of the opinions of the likes of small-minded people like you.

I think most libertarians probably believe that the best way to protect Freedom is through a Republican form of government based on the correct principles of liberty. I would not entrust the protection of my freedom to a corporation. So I guess I would be on my own in your version of libertarianism.

 

[FindLiberty]

...Any libertarian worth a damn has taken the correct position on the abolition of the state...

Yes, I'm 100% with you there!

+++
-----
+++

Ayn Rand has passed on. ...So now, what about those roads??? (just kidding)

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

I think most libertarians probably believe that the best way to protect Freedom is through a Republican form of government based on the correct principles of liberty. I would not entrust the protection of my freedom to a corporation. So I guess I would be on my own in your version of libertarianism.

It is rather pathetic that you feel the need for the government to hold your hand and keep you safe. It is this confused line of thinking that allows for the state to persist and victimize all of mankind. Shame on you.

Actually, most libertarians will suffer the state to exist if only it will sit quietly in the corner and not growl at or bite the hand that feeds it.

The notion that the state can be controlled by 'we the people' is a very foolish one. As long as the state is around, it will be murdering, kidnapping, robbing and enslaving people which is why it needs to be abolished post haste.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I think the problems with Ayn Rand go further than her political positions. Some people here embrace Ayn Rand because she has similar opinions on the issues, but if you really delve into it, it is a dangerous and sick philosophy imo. Also the literature is poor but that's just my opinion.

If you want to form a solid understanding of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, the best philosopher is probably David Hume. To make you skeptical of all philosophy and also just to have a fun time reading something brilliant, Nietzsche is the best imo.

A lot of what Ayn Rand has written and believed in is just very juvenile imo, and I think most people who have studied philosophy would notice enormous flaws with her ideas about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

I have studied philosophy, and I do not think that Rand's work is "juvenile" or "sick." Your condemnations smack strongly of personal prejudice. My own experience is that she has very many useful, insightful and povocatively interesting things to say. even when she is wrong - even when she is absurdly wrong. I think she took far too much credit for herself and crippled her work with her extreme insularity and her refusal to usefully engage the wider philosophical ouvre (except to harp on how awful she thought it all was). That she so obviously regarded herself as the Second Coming of Aristotle does not help.

Nietzsche is very interesting - and quite probably one of the most abused & misunderstood philosophers in history. He's invigorating & stimulating, but an ultimately subjective experience (which, I think, is exactly why he's been so abused by so many). His aphoristic style certainly didn't help, either. (Rand was a huge Nietzsche fan in her youth, by the way.)

In the end, I'd take Hume (for his empircism), Spinoza (for his rationalism) or Aristotle ('cause, hell, he's Aristotle) over Nietzsche, any day.

 

[vienna]

Mr. Mencken had a sense of humor. And endeavoring to explain something simple in two thousand words or more is indeed a particluar type of torture. Especially if it appears in a textbook and people are coerced into reading it.

no. sometimes it's necessary to explain simple things with 2000 words.
and nobody i know is coerced into reading kant.
bertrand russell layed out in this book ...

... that 1 + 1 = 2

sometimes to be precise you can't be simple. i make contracts for building contracts every week. it's just about building houses. but they are very complex and complicated. .... and long. that's because reality is a lot more complex than you might think.
way too often people become simplistic in order to make themselves easily accessible.
anyway ... our world needs a lot more people like kant and a lot less people who will through around meaningless phrases and empty words.

freedom liberty constitution small government founding fathers ... all empty words.

 

[acptulsa]

The notion that the state can be controlled by 'we the people' is a very foolish one. As long as the state is around, it will be murdering, kidnapping, robbing and enslaving people which is why it needs to be abolished post haste.

Well, like I say, Galt's Gulch was by invitation only. Now, the nation Thomas Jefferson presided over beginning in 1803, now, that was a pretty good setup. Some of the counties were out of control, but all the federal government did was make sure the British would leave you alone so you could concentrate on keeping your county government honest. Few from any era have had it better than that.

'We just as well become reconciled to the fact that the old politician is with us "even unto death".'Will Rogers

way too often people become simplistic in order to make themselves easily accessible.
anyway ... our world needs a lot more people like kant and a lot less people who will through around meaningless phrases and empty words.

freedom liberty constitution small government founding fathers ... all empty words.

Well, the law is the law, so to ensure freedom, liberty, limited government, and such you do need attention to detail at that level. Maybe the Constitution could use some beefing up, those it seems like they'll choose to ignore it eventually anyway if we let them. But to prevent that, we have to ensure that these aren't empty words to any and every red blooded American, because if they're more than empty words then people will work to preserve them. And that doesn't require a million words worth of proof and loophole-closing.

In other words, don't knock simplification for access. It's one of the highest art forms humanity has.

 

[Odin]

It is rather pathetic that you feel the need for the government to hold your hand and keep you safe. It is this confused line of thinking that allows for the state to persist and victimize all of mankind. Shame on you.


The notion that the state can be controlled by 'we the people' is a very foolish one. As long as the state is around, it will be murdering, kidnapping, robbing and enslaving people which is why it needs to be abolished post haste.

No I don't need the government to hold my hand, I need the government to ensure that people meet the obligations which they consent to. That's why I think the government has to be changed, but not abolished. Abolishing the state completely would put us in a worse situation in regard to our freedom than we are in now.

 

[LibertyEagle]

It is rather pathetic that you feel the need for the government to hold your hand and keep you safe. It is this confused line of thinking that allows for the state to persist and victimize all of mankind. Shame on you.

The notion that the state can be controlled by 'we the people' is a very foolish one. As long as the state is around, it will be murdering, kidnapping, robbing and enslaving people which is why it needs to be abolished post haste.

Don't worry, your dream that our own government will be gone will be accomplished soon enough. Problem is, it will be replaced with world government.

 

[Odin]

Well, like I say, Galt's Gulch was by invitation only. Now, the nation Thomas Jefferson presided over beginning in 1803, now, that was a pretty good setup. Some of the counties were out of control, but all the federal government did was make sure the British would leave you alone so you could concentrate on keeping your county government honest. Few from any era have had it better than that.

Unless you were a slave or a native American.

But yes for white people at that time it was the best government for the protection of individual freedom that had existed up to that point imo.

 

[Occam's Banana]

he wishes him to hell because he thought his language wasn't simple/simplistic enough?
wow. my respect for this man.

One of the hardest papers I wrote in college was one in which I had to compare & contast Hume & Kant in light of Hume's arousal of Kant from his "dogmatic slumber."

Hume is a pleasure to read. When it comes to Kant, word count is *not* the problem. The problem is a tortuous verbosity twisted into granny knots of clauses & sub-clauses & sub-sub-clauses.

If anything, Mencken was being charitable.

 

[July]

I think most libertarians probably believe that the best way to protect Freedom is through a Republican form of government based on the correct principles of liberty. I would not entrust the protection of my freedom to a corporation. So I guess I would be on my own in your version of libertarianism.

What makes people running a corporation fundamentally different from people running a government?

 

[erowe1]

What makes people running a corporation fundamentally different from people running a government?

And wouldn't it be correct to refer the mechanisms of running that corporation its government?

 

[Odin]

I have studied philosophy, and I do not think that Rand's work is "juvenile" or "sick." Your condemnations smack strongly of personal prejudice. My own experience is that she has very many useful, insightful and povocatively interesting things to say. even when she is wrong - even when she is absurdly wrong. I think she took far too much credit for herself and crippled her work with her extreme insularity and her refusal to usefully engage the wider philosophical ouvre (except to harp on how awful she thought it all was). That she so obviously regarded herself as the Second Coming of Aristotle does not help.

Nietzsche is very interesting - and quite probably one of the most abused & misunderstood philosophers in history. He's invigorating & stimulating, but an ultimately subjective experience (which, I think, is exactly why he's been so abused by so many). His aphoristic style certainly didn't help, either. (Rand was a huge Nietzsche fan in her youth, by the way.)

In the end, I'd take Hume (for his empircism), Spinoza (for his rationalism) or Aristotle ('cause, hell, he's Aristotle) over Nietzsche, any day.

What I find juvenile is the notion that one's metaphysical and epistemological beliefs are derived from axioms (existence, identity, and consciousness iirc). An axiom, or 'tautology', does not provide information, it is something true by definition. Just because I disagree with a perspective about what we can know, for instance, does not mean that I am denying an axiom. Second, each of those terms are problematic - what 'identity' and 'consciousness' consist of are very contentious matters, and even the nature of existence is debatable (does something 'exist' mind-independently or does its existence depend on the mind's application of the concept of existence to the thing itself?).

What I find kind of sick is the notion of 'rational self-interest' being the basis of morality. I don't really want to get into explaining that but I don't mind discussing it. Even so, what people in this country and anywhere really do not need to be told is to be more selfish - "require no further reinforcement" as Christopher Hitchens said.

I think Nietzsche is one of the most important philosophers to read though, simply because of the demolition of a lot of the bullshit that had been proposed before him. And also because it is just amazing reading even though as you say a lot of it can be open to interpretation. I don't think that Nietzsche was trying to propose his own 'philosophy', I think he was criticizing what he saw in the present time, which is still relevant today. That is my 'interpretation' though. Still think Hume's ideas are the most sensible overall though.

 

[vienna]

One of the hardest papers I wrote in college was one in which I had to compare & contast Hume & Kant in light of Hume's arousal of Kant from his "dogmatic slumber."

Hume is a pleasure to read. When it comes to Kant, word count is *not* the problem. The problem is a tortuous verbosity twisted into granny knots of clauses & sub-clauses & sub-sub-clauses.

If anything, Mencken was being charitable.

is it now about how easy you find a book to read or about the quality and precision of the argument?
anyway .. we're off topic.

 

[Odin]

What makes people running a corporation fundamentally different from people running a government?

Well that is a complicated point of discussion, but one difference would be that those running the government would have to swear to honestly uphold the principles upon which the Republic is founded. That may not mean much today, but that's why we have to change some things. A corporation does not have to be based on principles of freedom, although the idea in a Republican form of government is that all corporations would have to operate in accordance with them because the government would enforce them.

Second just because I believe the government is bad does not mean I have to believe that all corporations are good. I do not. I think most are bad. I would rather try to reform the government than put my freedom in the hands of corporations. I think that is extremely dangerous and I would never voluntarily agree to hand over my freedom and the freedom of my family to a corporation.

Ultimately a good government can only be achieved if the people are good. But if the people on the whole are bad then we will have a bad society whether it has a government or not.

 

[vienna]

you can hand over your freedom to a corporation.
would like to see what happens if the chinese government buys this corporation then.