Where did Ayn Rand disagree with "libertarians" ??

[JuicyG]

Yeah well didn't Ayn Rand end up collecting social security? I'll bet there's a good excuse for that right?

There's a group ( maybe it should be written in the past tense) who refused to "collect" social security when they hit that age. Wasn't Dr Sennholz in that group? ( how many here even know who that is without "searching the internet"? )

Since state steals money through taxes what`s wrong with getting some back? I bet she paid more to state in taxes than she ever got back via social security.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

This. A lot of the people here sound like Marxists in their criticism of corporations.

It is my understanding that a lot of left libertarians appreciate Marx. Essentially they would have a society with no state, no private property-but everything shared collectively in anarchy.

 

[JuicyG]

Who's side we should be on...

Yes, I`ve seen that a while ago.

Not once in that video did she say she supports giving foreign aid to Israel.

She just said US shouldn`t take the part of Palestinians. She goes on to say Israel is the more civilized country. When she said US should support Israel, I`m pretty sure she didn`t have in mind giving Israel free money and block Israel from acting according to its political agenda, thus taking away its sovereignty.

However, saying she`d support giving handouts to countries is quite a stretch. She was against the very idea of handouts.

 

[klamath]

Yes, I`ve seen that a while ago.

Not once in that video does she say she supports giving foreign aid to Israel.

She just said US shouldn`t take the part of Palestinians. She goes on to say Israel is the more civilized country. When she said US should support Israel, I`m pretty sure she didn`t have in mind giving Israel free money and block Israel from acting according to its political agenda, thus taking away its sovereignty.

However, saying she`d support handouts quite a stretch. She was against the idea of handouts.

I never said she was for handouts. I said she probably wouldn't have voted for RP because he doesn't hold Israel above the muslim nations. It is very common for libertarians to support RP on everything except israel and his lack of hate for muslims.

 

[Xenophage]

Morality cannot be determined as truth from an individual standpoint. You are saying everyone should know what morality is and what right and wrong is, but you are forgetting that there is no universal standard for this unless it comes from God. What's moral to one person might be amoral to another if they are simply left to determine morality for thesmelves. Therefore, it is fundamentally flawed to say that every individual should follow a moral framework, when you don't even know what moral framework they believe in. What you are assuming is that your idea of morality is automatically the best understanding of good and evil because your understanding is "normal" and has a set of principles that you believe are right. Many others may have a moral framework that does not include those principles. There is no way to tell which one is objectively right unless there is an absolute authority that makes one framework binding on everyone. Individual understanding can never do this. This is one of the things wrong with Rand's philosophy as well as your understanding of it.

Now you want to make it a religious argument! God has nothing to with my morality, which is entirely rational and based on simply recognizing the facts of reality, understanding my nature as a human being and identifying the principles that support my ultimate values.

As a human being I value life and happiness. I can see quite clearly the things that lead to death and misery are evil, and the things that lead to life and happiness are good. I understand the logic of a moral code that says, "Thou shalt not kill," but I do not accept moral commandments, which is a sort of anti-concept. Morality only deals with choices. It is predicated upon freewill. I choose to be moral, because I choose life and happiness.

The base values and moral codes that lead to life and happiness for me are really the same for everyone, because we're all human beings. We all share the same needs. It is just as irrational for you to engage in murder and theft and other forms of violence as it is for me. Morality is objective, and it can be objectively identified by logic.

Furthermore, even if I believed in God, I wouldn't accept his moral commandments on unquestioning faith. I'd need to understand why his commandments were good. God surely should have no problem formulating a simple logical argument. If he wants me not to think for myself, then perhaps his commandments aren't so good. Perhaps I'm a slave! I'd rather burn in hell.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/01/20/roderick-long/the-winnowing-of-ayn-rand/

Roderick Long on Ayn Rand

 

[KingRobbStark]

Rand was horrible as a person, but people shouldn't lump it with her philosophy/

 

[MrTudo]

Since state steals money through taxes what`s wrong with getting some back? I bet she paid more to state in taxes than she ever got back via social security.

It will never end with that way of thinking imo ( howz it goin so far? ). I know people who in there 40's started collecting social security and have had multiple heart operations on medicare/medicaid ( I get confused between the programs ). One justified it that he paid into it for so long he's only getting it back. The other of course "just needs help".

The wheel goes round.

 

[Xenophage]

It will never end with that way of thinking imo ( howz it goin so far? ). I know people who in there 40's started collecting social security and have had multiple heart operations on medicare/medicaid ( I get confused between the programs ). One justified it that he paid into it for so long he's only getting it back. The other of course "just needs help".

The wheel goes round.

But it's true. I get my stolen money back when I can. I took UI for six months while I looked for a new job. Any other option is just martyring yourself. The insidious thing about a welfare state is that it oftentimes forces you to participate. If I didn't take the UI, I'd been on the street. The Welfare state doesn't care if you don't take your share, either.

Better to take the money, while publicly advocating against the institution. It's not hypocritical to participate as long as you don't demonize others who participate, as well. Attack the system, don't blame the victims.

Besides, participating in the welfare state is the surest and quickest way to witness its demise. It's a self-defeating system.

 

[Jtorsella]

Yeah Rand had many character flaws, but her philosophy was incredible.

 

[low preference guy]

..

 

[matt0611]

Yeah well didn't Ayn Rand end up collecting social security? I'll bet there's a good excuse for that right?

There's a group ( maybe it should be written in the past tense) who refused to "collect" social security when they hit that age. Wasn't Dr Sennholz in that group? ( how many here even know who that is without "searching the internet"? )

I was forced to pay into Social Security all my life. You bet I'm going to take my money back thank you.

I bet Ayn Rand used roads right? What a hypocrite right?

 

[NidStyles]

They argued against cronyism, mercantilism, corporatism, whatever you want to call it - not against the idea of corporations themselves. The State should not have the power to play favorites in the economy.

Corporations are innately Cronyistic, Mercantilist, and Corporatist. All of those concepts evolved from the existence of Corporations in the first place. You really need to start looking up where these words you are throwing around actually came from, because you are a grossly misusing some of them. That's not uncommon these days though.

The single most distinguishing characteristic of a corporation is limited liability. When a corporation fails, shareholders lose their investments, but they are not liable to pay back the banks for any debts the corporation took on. Banks agree to lend money to corporations with this understanding, and it is a calculated risk that they take. Limited liability encourages investment, and discourages debt. This is a double benefit!

Corporations also typically set up an organizational structure quite unlike a trust. They're a distinct sort of entity.

That's not Limited Liability. Limited Liability means that the participants and the customers can't sue you for improper issuance of shares or investment property. Limited Liability is what you have with a Trust or an LLC. An LLC is a misnomer, as it's not really a Corporation. There's no Charter or founding legal document required to form an LLC, just a payment to the local or Federal Government for the licensing.

A Trust is honest, because it keeps the people responsible for their actions while isolating their financial situation from their idiocy. It's almost the direct opposite of a Corporation.

You didn't even read what I wrote. I said corporations are amoral, and will use government to their advantage when they can. But without a willing government, corporations cannot use force.

Yes, I read what you wrote, but you are wrong. Corporations will use their own ability to project force even without a Government. You really need to go out study on the effects of the Corporation in Third World nations where there is little to no Government in the first place. De Beers would be a good example.

That's called grovelling. Pat my back, I'll pat yours, except only one party actually has *power*. That's the government, who has guns and tanks and the mob. Governments don't need corporations and governments can destroy the corporations.

"Money is Power", was a saying in the 80's. Politicians do not get re-elected without buying those positions, they have to make deals in order to get that money. The Corporations are the ones with the Money. Who has the power again?

LMAO!! The last time a Government tried destroying a Corporation int he US we had a Stock Market crash and Recession that was greater than all of the previous ones, that was 1907. The only one that ever truly superseded it was the crash of 1921. Governments can destroy Corporations LOL! Corporations are the largest organized institutions on the planet. There are some of them whose own Revenue flow rivals that of entire nations. Just check out Wal-Mart, or any of the JPM holdings. These are institutions that bail out countries, and they buy out other Corporations regularly.

Ethics is the study of morality, so you're spouting gibberish again. Good and evil are not 'flawed concepts.' If you know your values, you can determine rationally and objectively whether or not something is going to be good or evil. Politics is directly derived from ethics in philosophy. If you're an ethical nihilist and you don't believe in good or evil, that drives your politics just as much as someone who's an absolutist.

Wrong, the word Ethics was derived in Greece roughly 1800 years before the concept of Morality was created by the Catholic Church. Ethics is a the study of Principled action. Morality is the study of Right and Wrong.

There is nothing rational about determining "Good" and "Evil". They are both completely subjective and asinine terms that lead to nothing but Statism and war.

Politics is derived from Philosophical discussion between Individuals on how they want something done... It has nothing to do with Ethics or Morality. That's what got us into this mess in the first place, placing morality upon a damn pedestal and trying to serve some sort of twisted idealism of State.

I've gotten the Dr. Paul on this more than once every time he comes here to AZ. Every time he tells me that he knows the difference, but he's so used to calling it Morality, and most people do not understand the difference so he sticks to calling it Morality.

Like I said, corporations will use the gun of the government if it is available to be used. Their activities will reflect the legal and moral framework of the state. The state will use them when it suits their purpose, and crush them when that suits their purpose. I only wish more CEO's understood the double-edged nature of government.

They use the Governments gun, because it's easier and cheaper than them using their own. If you truly believe what you are stating here then I have to ask you to go read up on the Corporations that built the Railroads in this country were established and how they operated. I'm serious, go read up on it. You'll find exactly what i have told you here, in the absence of Government guns the Corporation will bring it's own. Statism is Statism, no matter the shape or form.

I'm not arguing for a utopia. I'm pointing out the simple logic of clearly delineating the role of government to one of a passive protector of property rights.

You are not using logic though. Logic would mean that you use precise language with properly worded statements where the etymology and the applied meaning correlate properly without contradiction. To put it politely, you haven't even come close to that here.

Finally, someone who gets it!

However, I think you give too much credit to the corporations themselves. The elites that control the money supply and the policy are more than just people who got rich from business. The framework for this nation and the people who currently control its policy have been around for a long time through generations. This isn't something all the corporations got together to decide yesterday, and they are not the only ones who had a strong hand getting people elected.

What you said about morality was spot on, though!

I've been writing about this topic for years. Morality was argued about by Hayek, and eventually Rothbard won out due to him still being alive. Event he origin of the word Morality can be traced to meaning a subjective measure of Good and Bad, as Morality was being determined by the Pope. The whole idea to use such a methodology is insane.

This. A lot of the people here sound like Marxists in their criticism of corporations.

It's so easy to stand back and use labels when a person says something you might not understand or do not like, because you do not understand it. Marx was all for Corporations, but in his form of Socialism they were called Co-op, or Co-operative and Communes. In the American form of Socialism, they are called Corporations.

 

[low preference guy]

There is nothing rational about determining "Good" and "Evil". They are both completely subjective and asinine terms that lead to nothing but Statism and war.

Then there is nothing wrong with opposing the State. If evil is an useless concept, then Statism isn't evil, so there is no reason to oppose it.