The Ayn Rand Institute vs. Ron Paul

[heavenlyboy34]

The Randians are basically neocon Zionists who are trying to co-opt the libertarian movement, just as a group of hardcore Zionist Jews co-opted the Republican Party and turned it into the Neocon Party. Their goal is the same as it's always been: to promote US wars for Israel and a general "clash of civilizations" between the West and the Islamic world.

Rand herself was quite anti-arab, and the Objectivist foreign policy was virtually the same as the neocons', as I understand it.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Didn't Rothbard once say that if someone became a Randian there was no hope for them?

Edit: I found it. He did and I agree.

 

[MarkoH]

The point of the starting post of this thread has been lost.

Yaron Brook and the other frauds at the so-called Ayn Rand Institute do not speak for Ayn Rand. If Ayn Rand were alive today, she herself would support Ron Paul just as she supported Goldwater in the election of 1964.

The Ayn Rand Institute vs. Ron Paul
.......................................................

 

[nbruno322]

Here is a debate between Doug Casey and Yaron Brook in which Yaron Brook basically defends having a policeman on every corner. It is well worth you time to listen to.

Brook is NOT, I repeat NOT someone we can trust or should look up to

 

[Dogsoldier]

Ayn Rand not a libertarian?Things I've seen of her on youtube strongly suggest libertarian.

 

[nbruno322]

Rand herself was quite anti-arab, and the Objectivist foreign policy was virtually the same as the neocons', as I understand it.

Correct....see below

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ayn Rand in one word narcissistic. She was never a proponent of Classical-Liberalism - Libertarianism. In fact, she quite stated her disgust of that long tradition on many occasions. Of course her and other objectivists do not advocate for the same ideals we do. They are as others eluded to staunch advocates of the police-warfare State with all the antecedent Corporate-State machinations. They are not friends of the market or of liberty. Now, can we diverse their political methodology with personal egoism? It has nearly no symbiosis.

The author also makes the common mistake to believe one is mutually exclusive of the other. We love natural rights and individual liberty, therefore we dislike Government because Government is by definition the negation of those rights. Yaron has the IQ of about five it seems. Anyways, who needs the ARI when we all ready have Mises?

 

[Occam's Banana]

That is just sad.

It's a perfect example of the sort of racism and collectivism (in the form of assigning collective guilt) that Ayn Rand so harshly (and rightly) denounced when exhibited by *other* people.

AR would have been a much more effective messenger if she had only been able to live up to her message.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Randians have always been statists and warmongers.

Unsubstantiated bullshit (and collectivist thinking). You might have had a point had you said Objectivists. In that case, we could at least discuss particulars. Objectivism is not a "big tent" philosophy but it has a diverse group of people. It is more Catholic than Protestant in that it is guided by central figures. You might as well state "all Catholics are X" because of some Papal decree. You would be just as wrong then as you are now.

By the way, where is your published statement against the Vietnam war?:

“It [the Vietnam War] was a shameful war ... shameful because it was a war which the U.S. had no selfish reason to fight, because it served no national interest, because we had nothing to gain from it, because the lives and the heroism of thousands of American soldiers (and billions of American wealth) were sacrificed ...” Ayn Rand

She opposed the draft and Korean war. She wasn't perfect wrt foreign policy, but there is zero evidence she was a neocon (e.g., she is not a socialist like most of them). Somebody's BS link merely lists her as an "early influece" of a neocon. A baseless accusation.

Objectivism is the doctrine of the lazy individualist pseudo-intellectual who can't tell the difference between works of fiction and the real world.

What do you believe and why? I am somewhat of an ex-Objectivist because of the IP issue (IP = force in its current implementation). Where is your evidence that these people "can't tell the difference between works of fiction and the real world"? Give us substantial evidence that if you were take the average Objectivist (not just a "fan") and give them a group of books and see if they can or cannot sort them into piles of fiction and nonfiction.

As a hardworking intellecutal, I know this request might drag you away from more important matters. However, I need your genius to establish just how poorly Objectivists would perform if sorting books at a library. Likely, you have the research at your fingertips an simply need to post it. Right? You wouldn't write "pseudo-intellectual" without the chops to back it up!

 

[The Free Hornet]

Ayn Rand in one word narcissistic [fuck you too]. She was never a proponent of Classical-Liberalism - Libertarianism.

Here is a timeline:

Classical Liberalism (1800s) --> Ayn Rand (born 1905) --> Libertarianism (1950s)

In fairness, Ayn Rand was a proponent of Objectivism, her own philosophy. You might as well bitch about how the Pope was never a Baptist or didn't advocate Latter-Day-Saintism or some other non-Catholic BS. Sometimes there are different things for no other reason than different groups and individuals are operating individually (big fucking surprise - huh?). I don't know if it is appropriate for you to conflate Classical Liberalism with Libertarianism. They are related but distinct in time. Not distinct in definition per se***. There are imprecisions in describing either. The one distinction is that both Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism can be discussed as arising in different times and with a multitude of influences. If Ayn Rand stands alone, it is because she earned it. Her name and her opinion is out there and will never be forgotten. She stood for something.

*** One HUGE ASS distinction regarding Classical Liberalism is the utilitarian influence which is very distinct from the natural rights influence. I could be wrong, but more of us are likely guided by natural rights than utilitarianism. I.e., more like Ayn Rand, less like the Classical Liberalism.

If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. (p. 986, 1959 paperback)

http://www.atlassociety.org/natural-rights

Why do so many people have to be haters when Ayn Rand is mentioned? Way to build that coalition.

 

[Marky]

The point of the starting post of this thread has been lost.

Yaron Brook and the other frauds at the so-called Ayn Rand Institute do not speak for Ayn Rand. If Ayn Rand were alive today, she herself would support Ron Paul just as she supported Goldwater in the election of 1964.

The Ayn Rand Institute vs. Ron Paul
.......................................................

And you’re basing this on what exactly? Rand despised the Austrian School Libertarians and was an apologist for Israeli state violence, blinded by her personal hatred for Arabs.

Goldwater and Ron Paul are not the same people. Ron Paul is on a whole different level of awareness than Goldwater ever was. When did you hear Goldwater break down the entire fraud of the Federal Reserve system? When did he ever criticize the Military Industrial Complex and it’s relationship to the Fed? I’m telling you…it’s these 2 issue that separate those the establishment can accept (Goldwater), and those that they cannot (Paul).

 

[nbruno322]

And you’re basing this on what exactly? Rand despised the Austrian School Libertarians and was an apologist for Israeli state violence, blinded by her personal hatred for Arabs.

Goldwater and Ron Paul are not the same people. Ron Paul is on a whole different level of awareness than Goldwater ever was. When did you hear Goldwater break down the entire fraud of the Federal Reserve system? When did he ever criticize the Military Industrial Complex and it’s relationship to the Fed? I’m telling you…it’s these 2 issue that separate those the establishment can accept (Goldwater), and those that they cannot (Paul).

Well said

 

[MarkoH]

Actually Ayn Rand thought that von Mises (co-founder of the Austrian school of economics) was one of the better economists. She disagreed with him in that she thought he tried to replace philosophy with economics, whereas she thought the right philosophy, especially ethics, was necessary before one could correctly argue economics.

Goldwater and Ron Paul are not the same, indeed from the point of view of Ayn Rand's ideas Ron Paul is much better than Goldwater. See the end of The Ayn Rand Institute vs. Ron Paul. Keep in mind that the former is the so-called "Ayn Rand" Institute, for it betrays and twists her philosophy.

 

[Cyberbrain]

Saying the views of the ARI (and Yaron Brook) represent the views of all or most objectivists and objectivist philosophy is like saying the Cato Institute and Reason represent the views of all or most libertarians. Ayn Rand would of endorsed Ron Paul. I can't stand Yaron Brook...

 

[kuckfeynes]

Really the big difference between Objectivists and libertarians is one of a priori or a posteriori knowledge. Philosophically a very significant difference, but in practice not so much. Unfortunately the people that bore her name as their banner after her death chose to take a personal shortcoming and use it to justify military adventurism. Sure she had her biases, but I highly doubt Rand would approve of what the ARI advocates today. Such is the weakness of Objectivism though. Dealing with all the metaphysical questions first leaves a lot of room for rationalization that should otherwise be black and white if the NAP is self-apparent.

Some good background reading on the subject...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/stromberg4.html

Probably said it best...

"She was an utterly intolerant and dogmatic person who did a great deal of good."

 

[MarkoH]

Ayn Rand furnished more reasons for her positions than anyone writing in her lifetime, so she cannot in truth be called dogmatic. As for intolerant, of course she was. Intolerance and discrimination are virtues if what you won't stand for is socialism and fascism.

Setting aside Rothbard’s intellectual work, which I gather is a mixture of good and bad, there are his personal criticisms of Rand and her circle. The latter contain some truth but he cannot be relied on for details. For example, no one was ever ostracized because their spouse's religion. Some of his details are outright lies. He is a vicious personality even though I’ve been told some of his intellectual work is worth reading.

Anyway, that was half a century ago. The so-called Ayn Rand Institute and their opposition to Ron Paul is what concerns me now.

 

[kuckfeynes]

Yes, if we are only talking about the ARI, they are not allies in the fight for liberty, they are a special interest group.
Do you have evidence that Rothbard lied, or are you just going by hearsay?
It's not really fair to cast his entire critique of the philosophy as not intellectual because of his sharp tone or one maybe spurious/maybe not attack.

 

[MarkoH]

I'm not here to discuss Rothbard's mendacity. The point is that the so-called Ayn Rand Institute is not always for Ayn Rand's ideas and frequently their opposite, and their trashing of Ron Paul is one indication of it. Protests to the contrary, the people at the Ayn Rand Institute have more in common with neoconservatives than with Ayn Rand.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I'm not here to discuss Rothbard's [alleged] mendacity.

Well, apparently you are ...

Setting aside Rothbard’s intellectual work, which I gather is a mixture of good and bad, there are his personal criticisms of Rand and her circle. The latter contain some truth but he cannot be relied on for details. For example, no one was ever ostracized because their spouse's religion. Some of his details are outright lies. He is a vicious personality even though I’ve been told some of his intellectual work is worth reading.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

I'm not here to discuss Rothbard's mendacity. The point is that the so-called Ayn Rand Institute is not always for Ayn Rand's ideas and frequently their opposite, and their trashing of Ron Paul is one indication of it. Protests to the contrary, the people at the Ayn Rand Institute have more in common with neoconservatives than with Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand on Arabs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU

Also, Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the federal reserve itself, isn't a neoconservative? He was certainly part of Ayn Rand's inner circle.

Ayn Rand is a perfect example of a neoconservative since she is a phony.