I think he is saying Rand is a godless heathen. Not sure though.
Well, we are all heathens, but not all godless. You see, I make a point not to go around bible-thumping godless heathens. With atheists and people who don't believe the gospel I take a more delicate and accomodating approach so I can plant the seeds more effectively.
But with professing Christians I have no problem putting 10 bibles in a burlap sack and beating them mercilessly with it if they are in the wrong.
What does Rand say about his belief in Christ:
I'm a Christian, a husband and a father. I'm faithful to my wife and my family. I try to be good at all those things, though, of course, we all fall short of perfection in our lives. I try to adhere to the tenets of God's word in the New Testament. I take seriously my oath to defend the Constitution. And I try to fight for truth and my values regardless of the political outcome, regardless of how popular or unpopular they may be.
My faith has never been easy for me, never been easy to talk about and never been without obstacles. I do not and cannot wear my religion on my sleeve. I am a Christian but not always a good one. I'm not completely free of doubts. I struggle to understand man's inhumanity to man. I struggle to understand the horrible tragedies that war inflicts on our young men and women.
Source: Speech at 2012 Values Voters Summit , Sep 14, 2012
You see, some of us mundane sheople who aren't great philosophizing renaissance men would not even vote for a public official that doesn't believe in Christ. When someone says, "I am a Christian" that creates trust in other Christians towards that person. And God, as it says many times in the bible, holds those who profess his Sons name MORE ACCOUNTABLE. And if God has given you a pedestal of power you are EVEN MORE ACCOUNTABLE. But lukewarm Christians think that just by professing His name they are LESS ACCOUNTABLE when it's precisely the opposite!!! LOL!!!
So yes I will call Rand out on this. And I HOPE he reads it.
If anyone has the delusion that you can claim to be a Christian and simultaneously say that it's "a personal thing" you need to get out of it. The Word is not a "personal" thing that you get to make into your own image. It's an immutable truth that you must conform to or face negative repurcussions.
Gay marriage is already legal and it has been since Lawrence v. Texas. Anyone who tells you otherwise is most likely liberal, a liar, uninformed or some combination of all three. The cause of the inequality is all of the stuff the government adds to marriage that frankly is outside the scope of what the government is supposed to be doing in the first place.
Gay marriage is not the law of the land until the SCOTUS says it is. There are still some states fighting it including mine. The only reason it's "legal" in states that don't want it is because the federal judges are forcing them to allow it even though appeals are pending.
Judicial fiat is not law. Gay marriage is not "legal". I say this and I am not a liberal, a liar, or uninformed. I have said it's a fait accompli but that doesn't mean it's law yet. It just means that society has pretty much decided it isn't going to do anything to stop it.
Christians CAUSED gay marriage with their complicity and negligence.
Awesome. Let's grease the skids for every immorality thing with libertarian crap.
Abortion - cool
prostitution - awesome
bribery - fine by me
blackmail - don't see any problem there
bestiality - not before breakfast!
Lying - indispensable really
adultery - super sweet
Collect taxes to pay for any service not directly related to me - I will resist this evil with all my might until I die and they have to pry my gun from my cold dead hands.
I dont think you understand what libertarianism is all about. Hint, its all about property rights, contracts and NAP
Abortion? we already have it
Prostitution? Not legal yet but its legal if I film it and call it a porno.
Bribery? As long as no fraud is being committed. I mean, Costco got a better bribe from mastercard and capitalone to drop American express as their preferred credit card. Doesn't bother me either way, they can do what the hell they want with their business.
Blackmail? I have asked this question a million times now, What is so wrong about blackmail? I bet Ray Rice would have wished that it wasn't illegal so the hotel would offer him an out instead of going to TMZ immediately because blackmail is illegal.
Beastiality? not for me but its none of my business. The Hindus would object to you killing all those sacred cows we kill but they can do anything about. Also animal rights have a problem with killing and skinning animals for their hide and medical testing with animals all of which are far worse than beastiality. Again, non of your business.
Lying? not illegal
Adultery Still not illegal
Collect taxes to pay for any service not directly related to me
seeing as you haven't done anything when the govt used your tax money to kill innocent people at wedding parties, I doubt you will do anything when they start giving wedding benefits to gay couples. I say this assuming that you are a decent person who believes that using your tax money to kill innocent people is far worse than govt allowing gay unions,
Here's one of those renaissance men now!
You see, old sport, I specifically picked those things because I too know how libertarians rationalize their support for these issues. I haven't been here for 8 years exclusively talking about gay marriage. So all you did there was prove my point. Your moral position is based on Rothbardian ethics which means that you should have no problem with your daughter being a lying, adulterous, abortion-addicted prostitue who has sex with animals. You may not be happy about it but you have no argumentative grounds to tell her that she is immoral.
Believe it or not, I don't even need Google to figure out what the NAP is. If you want to wave dicks I also know how Murray Rothbard envisions the moral code of a libertarian society. I know how he denies the Tolstoyan position (which is actually the dominant position of this movement) and supports retributive punishment which goes beyond even an "eye for an eye" (which he states literally). I've researched Bitcoin, Ripple, Mises, Henry George, Hayek's idea of competing currencies, and a host of other things in order to take a stab at bypassing the Federal Reserve (something no one seems to even care about anymore).
But all this knowledge, like all knowledge, is crap. If there's nowhere to apply it it's crap. Ultimately I'm not even interested in it anymore as an endeavor because I believe the time is short.
What about abortion though? You didn't say you condone it, you said, "we already have it". So do nothing then? If you don't support abortion then you don't support Rothbard's moral position. We also "already have" wars that are technically legal. Why not brush that aside like abortion? Will you just be like Rand and say, "well I don't want to do anything about abortion BUT IT DOES OFFEND ME!" Abortion, like gay marriage, is wrong and it should be fought against whether or not it's "legal" especially by professing Christians.
Now, even though you have brushed aside those innocent babies, you sarcastically imply that I'm more enraged about gay marriage than I am about murder. I'm all talk and since I do nothing about stopping murder like you are, I certainly won't do anything when gays are marrying. No, it's just that by the grace of God you libertarians do have a correct opinion about murder so no need to hammer on it.
You see the quintessential delusion of men when it comes to morality is that they think anything goes as long as, by and large, they are a "force for good".
You condone and ignore all these "minor moral issues" because you are working on fighting the government and saving the world. You and all the other renaissance men out there. But to God, "that world out there" is His making, not mans. And when he's finished using it for His purpose He will destroy it. God doesn't care about what you did in the world. Any power in the world comes from Him. He cares about the "minor moral issues". He cares about your personal well-being not the prideful and vain self-image that we've constructed for ourselves that says we are a "force for good". Even Jesus didn't allow himself to be called good but 90% of people on the earth will apply that label to themselves without blinking.
I'm more along the lines of a Tolstoyan anarchist if you want to peg me. I reject Murray "Wrath"bards retributive punishment which includes eye for an eye mutilation and slave camps among other things.
To educate the readers as to where Rothbard makes his leap of faith and falsely rationalizes retributive punishment, here it is: Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 12, first sentence.
If every man has the absolute right to his justly-held property it then follows that he has the right to keep that property-to defend it by violence against violent invasion. - Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 12, first sentence.
Rothbard says, "since it's morally wrong to steal, it's morally right ("it follows" says the master) to beat them and throw them into a slave camp not only for restitution but for punishment as well".
I've read the book from front to back. Nowhere does he philosophically back this "if follows" statement. The whole point of the book is to show the reader through reasoning how his idea of retributive punishment is ethical but at the primary juncture he just says, "it follows". He then bases his entire theory of "proportional punishment" on this axiom/assertion that he masquerades as "proven".
Wrathbard supports economically based morality and violence to correct evil. It's the very definition of the state. He's a second rate philosopher and his book tells me nothing but that he's a sadist.
"If follows" indeed. These sacred cows you all worship are poison and you carry them around like a lucky rabbits foot.
Everyone talks about NAP, but no one talks about Rothbards solution to those who violate the NAP. It's blatantly un-Christian. He should be disowned.
A guy breaks in your house and robs you, takes your money and buys crack with it, the obvious solution is to ban crack, not ban robbery, am I right?
I would answer this but I'm not exactly sure what you're are saying so I don't want to go in the wrong direction. Can you rephrase or were you just being sarcastic?
