Politians can really be Dumb

[Zoebird]

I totally agree that A.Rand is a poor novelist. I don't know how people can wade through those works. LOL I did give it the old college try (back in college even), and just couldn't get through it.

And, since I'm no expert in Rand (or that brand of libertarianism per se), but I have no idea what in these policies would lead to genocide either.

Largely because all forms of libertarian policy (as far as I can tell) focus on inalienable rights that would be protected by government (and largely ungoverned otherwise -- as per bill of rights).

That being said, the authoritarian theocon agenda could lead that way in it's most extreme forms (i don't think the parties or government would allow it to go to it's most extreme forms). So perhaps peggy was confusing libertarians and theocons?

[Yossarian]

*** ONE MORE MOD COMMENT***



Yes peggy, I would. I do see that a word in your original post was indeed changed in the quote. I missed that earlier, my bad. In the name of fairness people, if you're going to quote someone, please just quote what they actually said. Grabbing sound bites is one thing, but changing other's words isn't what we're about.

Holy cow, is this everyone's first trip to the intenet? Hello? Yes one word was changed- that was exactly the point! That's why it said the text was EDITED [note- edited means changed]. Ordinarily when you do that, which is fair game in forum discussions, you use the strikethough but here we don't have that so you have to use a manual override and say "edited" or the like. If you have a quibble about where to put that fine, near the text, in the comments where ever, but really you have lost the forrest for the trees.

All this faux outrage and name calling is simply a smoke screen. If someone had posted the exact same thing but said it about liberals instead of libertarians, we would be flooded with insane rants and incoherent babbling diatribes about mouth breathing low information voters and how stupid the people are that say someone is un-American merely because they hold a different political view . And you know what, I would agree, that's wrong, and people who have the bad manners to say something wrong should have the courage to apologize or admit they were wrong. Do you really think anyone here thought peggy was calling liberals traiters? Of course not, it was obvious what was changed and no one tried to misattribute words to anyone, just plain obvious to anyone who isn't one of those beloved mouth breathers we keep hearing about or trying to deflect attention from the fact they did something inappropriate. Someone is losing an election tonight but for god's sake let's not lose our grip on common sense.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I totally agree that A.Rand is a poor novelist. I don't know how people can wade through those works. LOL I did give it the old college try (back in college even), and just couldn't get through it.

I don't know, when the left goes into this they fall into some kind of belief in "forbidden thoughts", like you must never actually like a badly written novel, or read a bad philosopher or even an amateur popular one, or something. I'm not at ease with this, as I'm compelled to think all forbidden thoughts anyway, to like trashy art now and then. Just as I am. My karma ran over your taboo, it had to, it must. Thoughts want to be free.

But bad ideas can lead to bad policy? For sure they can, fight the policy, and fight the bad ideas with better ones (for instance most people benefit more from a safety net than they ever will from any likely implementation of objectivism - especially given the actual political system).

And, since I'm no expert in Rand (or that brand of libertarianism per se), but I have no idea what in these policies would lead to genocide either.

possibly some ranting about native Americans (I'm not sure she ranted about the Palestinians but her followers surely do, hey if the Indians have no rights to their land ....)

"I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. " supposedly a quote from Ayn Rand

That WAS genocide. But it's a genocide already done and in the past. Now even that position of Rands doesn't necessarily follow from the most basic and central libertarian beliefs in objectivism, however Rand also believed that Reason was equivalent to whatever she believed and her preferences. SERIOUSLY, even though absurd, that was the actual position she took even if she never put it in those words. Thus all inner circles of objectivism if not entirely cult-like (cults use very specific forms of manipulation, so I'm careful with that term) were people willingly and paradoxically giving up their individuality (which is emotional not just rational) and even their ability to *THINK* on many manners to believe whatever Ayn Rand or her disciples believed is true!

Largely because all forms of libertarian policy (as far as I can tell) focus on inalienable rights that would be protected by government (and largely ungoverned otherwise -- as per bill of rights).

That being said, the authoritarian theocon agenda could lead that way in it's most extreme forms (i don't think the parties or government would allow it to go to it's most extreme forms). So perhaps peggy was confusing libertarians and theocons?

I really don't analyze strictly that way - as in what ideologies might lead to something purely based on their principles. Because pure ideological principle is nothing that gets implemented in the real world. What gets implemented in the real world, especially in something as corrupt and money drenched as the U.S. political system, are INTERESTS. Not ideologies, interests. And so I then reason what kind of world certain interests will ultimately lead to .... not to mention what kind of world ACTUAL LAWS will lead to.

For instance if no regulation is being preached today and libertarianism forms the ideological argument, it's not ultimately what is going to matter. The same business interest that doesn't want to be regulated today and is pushing that with a libertarian veneer, will take hand outs (bail outs) tommorow. We KNOW this. We see the very game being played. We see ourselves played. They were never libertarians to begin with, they were just interests, out for their own interest, money without principle (the natural nature of corporations).

[Zoebird]

No clue what that first bit about the book is. I tried to read her books. I couldn't get through them/didn't like them. I feel that way about a lot of books/novels/poems/movies/albums/photography exhibits/policy papers/etc. No big deal. It's not a judgment on content per se, just that I couldn't manage to wade through.

i agree re: interests. That's why, for me, this is largely an intellectual exercise of trying to do the best we -- as average citizens can. What can we do? Well, we can think about this, try to find people who would actually represent us, and do the best we can locally. Otherwise, what else?

Live life as if it doesn't exist is another viable options, and there is the option of just being upset about it all the time, too. There are probably others.

[iris lily]

I miss the strikethrough features. Just sayin'

[peggy]

*** ONE MORE MOD COMMENT***



Yes peggy, I would. I do see that a word in your original post was indeed changed in the quote. I missed that earlier, my bad. In the name of fairness people, if you're going to quote someone, please just quote what they actually said. Grabbing sound bites is one thing, but changing other's words isn't what we're about.

Thank you Gregg.
Yossarian, and everyone, I do apologise for sounding so harsh over a seemingly minor point, but in the end all we own is our word(s), and for someone to change someones words without specifically saying 'I changed her words around to make my point", and remove the quotes is dishonest. In essence it's trying to frame someone with their words.

[peggy]

Neither is Ayn Rand. She's just a very poor novelist.

I can't imagine what in libertarian philosophy supports Peggy's assertion that Rand would have U.S. citizens commit genocide against those who disagree with the state.

Survival of the strongest. In Ayn Rands world, the strong will survive and thrive. Obviously genocide is an extreme example of that, but every man for himself kind of comes with that slippery slope in play.

[creaker]

Survival of the strongest. In Ayn Rands world, the strong will survive and thrive. Obviously genocide is an extreme example of that, but every man for himself kind of comes with that slippery slope in play.

Although I disagree with a lot of what Rand put forward, I thought she was pretty spot on with the looters and moochers in government. The only difference being they now wave flags saying patriotism and capitalism.

[Gregg]

I miss the strikethrough features. Just sayin'

Me, too. Alan, will the forum software support a strikethrough feature without inflicting huge amounts of brain damage on anyone (mostly meaning you)?

[peggy]

Alan can do anything!

By the way Gregg, I just love that quote at the bottom of your posts. It's a hoot!