Ron Paul said in book he doesn't agree with Ayn Rand philosophically

[0zzy]

The leaders of the objectivist movement also hate Ron Paul. They call him an isolationist who doesn't understand Islamofacist.

 

[Kludge]

The leaders of the objectivist movement also hate Ron Paul. They call him an isolationist who doesn't understand Islamofacist.

Leaders of the objectivist movement??? And who are they? Leonard Peikoff? Guy's loonier then McCain. I know a few objectivists and while they disagree with Dr. Paul on a lot of stuff - I can't imagine they'd back anyone else.

 

[Kludge]

Neither was Ayn Rand, she detested anarchist.

She promoted anarcho-capitalism when she formed "Radicals for Capitalism".

 

[Truth Warrior]

She promoted anarcho-capitalism when she formed "Radicals for Capitalism".

Murray Rothbard just might beg to differ there.

 

[Kludge]

Murray Rothbard just might beg to differ there.

*shrug* Murray was part of the Objectivist movement for a short while.

 

[IRO-bot]

Are most of you in your 30's to 60's or just extremely well read on a whole lot of minute details. I can't decide.

 

[crazyfingers]

I’m admittedly ignorant on the tenants of objectivism, but as far as I could tell from my reading of “Atlas Shrugged” all those years ago, objectivists seem to detest charity – even if it’s a wholly private matter (no coercion involved). Whereas most libertarians (well me at least) don’t have a problem with charity – and see that it is sometimes necessary – but prefer that it be dispersed locally among willing individuals. In short, objectivists seem to take the notion of “survival of the fittest” to its extreme conclusion.

 

[Kludge]

Are most of you in your 30's to 60's or just extremely well read on a whole lot of minute details. I can't decide.

I've done a few essays on Rand and Rothbard and quoted the pair over and over and over in my papers.

 

[Kalifornia]

Ron Paul is not an anarchist - it's arguable that he isn't even a minarchist on the local and state level. Instead, he wants government intervention - but NOT on the federal level, because he feels that will allow greater control over government. IIRC, he also wants to increase defense spending - but a libertarian would argue the dangers of a government monopoly on force.

Fairly accurate, but I think you can argue that a Paul administration would end up cutting the DoD overall, mostly because he would relimit the mission to defense, and likely retool the Navy from one capable of large scale invasions to one capable of defense and surgical ground strike capacity. Im sure that the remaining programs would be expanded, but I doubt it would offset the costs of those areas that are cut (offensive capacities)

 

[chowdy]

This makes me mad that neocons blackened the term "conservative" so much >:|

 

[DriftWood]

The little i read up about Ayn Rand and objectivism..

Rand says she was against initiation of force but also said she was against withdrawal from Vietnam because it would embolden the communists and Soviet, she also picked sides with the Israelis in the Arab-Israeli War, because she thought Israelis where free and the Arabs where primitive. The self interest principle trumps the none-aggression principle when it comes down to it. That seems to go further than just self defense towards justifying preemption. I wonder what she would have thought about the neo-con idea about spreading democracy by force.

The fact that she kicked people out of her little cult if they dared to ally or debate with libertarians shows that she did not really respect freedom. Its my way or the highway. Freedom by force.

(She labeled libertarians as anarchists, even though most (?) libertarians are minarchists.)

Cheers

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Ron Paul is not an anarchist - it's arguable that he isn't even a minarchist on the local and state level. Instead, he wants government intervention - but NOT on the federal level, because he feels that will allow greater control over government. IIRC, he also wants to increase defense spending - but a libertarian would argue the dangers of a government monopoly on force.

Ayn Rand was clearly not an anarchist. Just watch her two interviews on youtube. She said there should be a state, but there should be the separation of state and economy.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The little i read up about Ayn Rand and objectivism..

Rand says she was against initiation of force but also said she was against withdrawal from Vietnam because it would embolden the communists and Soviet, she also picked sides with the Israelis in the Arab-Israeli War, because she thought Israelis where free and the Arabs where primitive. The self interest principle trumps the none-aggression principle when it comes down to it. That seems to go further than just self defense towards justifying preemption. I wonder what she would have thought about the neo-con idea about spreading democracy by force.

The fact that she kicked people out of her little cult if they dared to ally or debate with libertarians shows that she did not really respect freedom. Its my way or the highway. Freedom by force.

(She labeled libertarians as anarchists, even though most (?) libertarians are minarchists.)

Cheers

I thought she favored Israel because Israel was invaded?

 

[DriftWood]

I thought she favored Israel because Israel was invaded?

I picked that info up on wikipedia.. however i found a better reference, straight from the horses mouth.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_america_at_war_israeli_arab_conflict

"
Ayn Rand on Israel (Ford Hall Forum lecture, 1974)

Q: What should the United Sates do about the [1973] Arab-Israeli War?

AR: Give all the help possible to Israel. Consider what is at stake. It is not the moral duty of any country to send men to die helping another country. The help Israel needs is technology and military weapons—and they need them desperately. Why should we help Israel? Israel is fighting not just the Arabs but Soviet Russia, who is sending the Arabs armaments. Russia is after control of the Mediterranean and oil.

Further, why are the Arabs against Israel? (This is the main reason I support Israel.) The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are. Israel is a mixed economy inclined toward socialism. But when it comes to the power of the mind—the development of industry in that wasted desert continent—versus savages who don't want to use their minds, then if one cares about the future of civilization, don't wait for the government to do something. Give whatever you can. This is the first time I've contributed to a public cause: helping Israel in an emergency.
"

Edit: Sounds like the neocon argument; They hate us because we are free. They are just jealous.

Cheers

 

[danberkeley]

Ayn Rand was an ethnic Jew, so I would not be surprised that if she had to chose a side between Isreal and someone else, she would chose Isreal.

 

[Mini-Me]

An objectivist is a libertarian who is an asshole.

Quoted for truth (Except for their apparent aggressive neocon streak, the assholishness of which is completely outside the realm of libertarianism)

 

[nickcoons]

Edit: Sounds like the neocon argument; They hate us because we are free. They are just jealous.

Perhaps, but it sounds as if the approach is totally different. What she is trying to do is persuade individuals to help Israel, not convince our government to do so. Voluntary assistance of individuals to other individuals or their country is very Libertarian, and persuasion is a legitimate weapon in a Libertarian's arsenal.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Rand was militantly anti-communist and believed in intervention to sort out backwards-ass collectivists and other neanderthals.

 

[nickcoons]

There really isn't much difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism. At its best, Libertarianism is the political implementation of Objectivist ideas. Objectivism is a moral philosophy on how one should live one's life. Other moral philosophies generally come from religion (i.e. God determines what is right and wrong), but Objectivism is derived from reason and observed reality. And Objectivism is the only moral philosophy that places the individual as paramount. All others (as far as I know) allow that society may sacrifice an individual for the good of others (i.e. Socialism).

The problem that many Objectivists have with Libertarians, and the reason Ayn Rand didn't like Libertarians, is because Libertarians usually arrive at their conclusions for utilitarian reasons. For instance, an Objectivist would say that the income tax must be abolished because it's wrong to steal. A Libertarian may say that the income tax must be abolished because we need to decrease the amount of revenue that government receives so we can decrease spending, because it's better for the economy, or for any number of other reasons. But all of these reasons are based on the result of getting rid of the income tax (it's better for society to not have it than to have it). Objectivists have a problem with this because the Libertarian that believes this will change his mind if he is convinced that the result of having the income tax is better than not having it, whereas the Objectivist will still be against it because it's morally wrong, independent of whatever result it may have.

In short, Objectivists see Libertarians as having many of their same political beliefs, but no moral foundation supporting those beliefs. For those that are Libertarians, but were former Republicans or Democrats and became Libertarians because they see it as simply an alternative, or they see the waste in government, these are the ones that Objectivists disapprove of, because these people are prone to sway back and forth. They have no innate belief that initiation of force is simply wrong, and will approve of the initiation of force (not to be confused with retaliatory force, which is perfectly acceptable to Objectivists and philosophically-based Libertarians) if they belief the result of that force will make an overall improvement.

Ayn Rand is by no means a perfect person, but the Objectivist philosophy is logically sound. I would highly recommend learning more about for those that aren't familiar. And for those that are religious, I understand that it can be extremely difficult to accept the idea that there is no god, even with a mountain of evidence pointing to that conclusion.

For a better understanding of the ideas, you can get a brief introduction from this series of videos. It's not specifically about Objectivism, but about Collectivism vs. Individualism, so it talks about the differences more than promoting them (but it does seem to be slanted in favor of Individualism):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJqSsrFDiSA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXOrJtn1h2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOUS6OalV2I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AgcVNzObWE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKPPe78pX5w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5_N86Pblj0

And of course, there's the classic "Philosophy of Liberty":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

BTW, we're not really assholes.. I think a better word to describe many of us would be arrogant, or at least we have the appearance of arrogance. But that's because we have a solid philosophical foundation on which to base arguments. If you put a bunch of us in a room together, that arrogance tends to go away since we're all pretty much on a level playing field.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I picked that info up on wikipedia.. however i found a better reference, straight from the horses mouth.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_america_at_war_israeli_arab_conflict

"
Ayn Rand on Israel (Ford Hall Forum lecture, 1974)

Q: What should the United Sates do about the [1973] Arab-Israeli War?

AR: Give all the help possible to Israel. Consider what is at stake. It is not the moral duty of any country to send men to die helping another country. The help Israel needs is technology and military weapons—and they need them desperately. Why should we help Israel? Israel is fighting not just the Arabs but Soviet Russia, who is sending the Arabs armaments. Russia is after control of the Mediterranean and oil.

Further, why are the Arabs against Israel? (This is the main reason I support Israel.) The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are. Israel is a mixed economy inclined toward socialism. But when it comes to the power of the mind—the development of industry in that wasted desert continent—versus savages who don't want to use their minds, then if one cares about the future of civilization, don't wait for the government to do something. Give whatever you can. This is the first time I've contributed to a public cause: helping Israel in an emergency.
"

Edit: Sounds like the neocon argument; They hate us because we are free. They are just jealous.

Cheers

So always aid the guys with the better technology? LOL. What if they're murdering the natives, should we still aid them in their efforts?