Home | Community | Message Board

Mycohaus
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale, Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Libertarians? [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8657846 - 07/20/08 06:28 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

scavenger type:

Quote:


Aggressive marketing would be when consumers become psychologically coerced to buy your products when they have no use for them. But I love how you liberatarians make posts decrying (as violence) infringment on a company's right to saturate a drug market with propiganda and misleading messages about pharmaseudicals, but when it comes to standing up to the rights of citizens you just say "they can sue". I think this is the fundamental get off point of my sojurn of discussing libertarianism since it is not likely to help those currently aggressed aginst by corrupt government or big buisness.






What is wrong with sueing?


The government must sue to recover damages for the consumer, the only difference is that libertarians want the standing to lie with the agrieved party- not the government.  I don't understand your objection to this.


I have no problem with strong consumer protection laws that provide increased recovery for wrongs.

But those wrongs are fraud and lies, and perhaps violation of disclosure laws, not selling something someone shouldn't buy.


People have the responsiblity to decide what they want.


If I want something for my cold or whatever, you have no right to tell me I can't buy it or a company can''t sell it to me, irregardless of whether you'd make the same decision as I.


Quote:


Are you slow? The point is that natural gene-pools get polluted. Even a liberatarian should know that a natural gene-pool is not the property of the land owner when it inevitably migrates. If you studied anything related to agricultural policy you would be hard pressed not to stumble onto this issue.




Source?

And how is this wrong to pollute natural gene pools?  What is a natural gene pool?  Only cloned genomes are unnatural or are selectivly bred gene pools natural?

And I see no conflict.  FOlks can sue for damages.

So what they don't own the genome?  They own the crop, so if the crop is damaged through the wrong of another, they can sue.  If enough crops are damaged the buisness will not be able to sell products in such a manner as would damage crops.


Quote:



You've yet again failed to tell me how this magical court system will actually function to bring anyone to justice or protect people aggressed against. You just say they have a "case". Well then would you care to explain how libertarian court systems will empower the underprivileged against their oppressors in this situation? Will the government help them with their legal fees? will they receive competent council? will the companies legal expenses be restricted in order to keep a fair trial? Somehow I doubt it.

Anyway you've made it clear that the libertarian solution to the tragedy of the commons is to eliminate all common areas as much as is possible. So you might as well just forget the issue. Ownership was more relevant in your eyes than actually being effected like for instance the lake example I used where nobody lives but many people fish.

When I listed that list of problems that companies cause both legal and illegal I was asking you how libertarianism's lack of regulating was going to help the case. You have yet to answer with more than the notion that a lawsuit could result. On top of that you are placing the onus of protecting the resources on individuals who are equally if not more bribeable than government officials. And you have yet to really show that these owners have any interest in not polluting their land or that they would recognize this interest if it bit them in the ass. Actually in a world where everything is private property nothing is really free you couldn't so much as legally piss in the woods without permission of the owner.

Remember I am claiming with the original poster that the economic policy of libertarians is nothing more than stepping back into an Orwellian oligarchy. You have done little to challenge this assertion as well.





What is the difference between a private and public plaintiff?

I don't get your criticism of lawsuits.  THrough equitable private enforcement a company will be harmed if they harm others and will not be able to further continue harming folks.


What is the difference whether the plaintiff is private or public?

I wonder if you don't have some misconceptions about how regulation works... Its still a suit in effect.  Perhaps at first their is just an enforcment action, but the defendnat has the right to contests it, as he must consistant with due process.


How is what some beurocrat says any more reliable that what can be proved to a jury or judge?

I think the public nature of a court proceeding, as well as the purity of the motives of a plaintiff who is actually harmed, unlike a government who may have political motivations, speaks highly for the private enforcement of wrongs.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Libertarians? [Re: cake is a lie]
    #8657855 - 07/20/08 06:36 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

cake is a lie said:
libertarian society does have things that look good but all in all its a horrible way of government. pure capitalism is what we employed when we first started this country and it was highly corrupt because there was no intervention by the gov in businesses ie.. people working 18 hours a day 7 days a week no holidays in very very dangerous environments in factories.  government intervention in itself is corrupt but people who vote for politicians can and has corrected many social problems this is of course assuming that the politician does keep to there promise which if it was one of the things that defined their campainge they will unless they want to comit political suicide. pure capitalism doesnt work because it is corrupt and unstable. the great depression would not have been nearly as bad if our gov wasnt pure capital.





No.


The problem with the oft-quoted abuses was not libertarianism it was corpratism.


Laws and judges that refused to grant private plaintiffs equal right with buisness.  This was maintained with law and a culture that the buisness was more important than the consumer.


We need laws that provide standing to the harmed.

When a buisness broke a contract, that buisness recieved compensation.  When a private person was agrieved, the court's would rule for the buisenss instead. 


This is the problem, not libertarianism.

Libertarianism respects private rights, including your right to damages. 

Take a look at the currently criticised industries:  energy, banking, consumer goods and healthcare.


All of these are among the most-regulated of all industries, yet they are among the most-criticized.

I don't think this is a coincidence.

Itis the govenrment that takes your right to sue and gives it to an unelected oligarchy who decides what rights you have and if they will enforce them for you.


This is wrong.  Simply return things to where private plaintiffs have standing to enforce their own rights and you make things equitale.  Don't let companies sell light cigerettes that claim they are safer, just cuz the govenrment decided that was ok (actual case).

Don't let people lie to their customers just cuz the standing was placed with a regulator that doesn't care or a regulator who decided the lie was correct (contains no fat- even though it does).


Regulation inherently takes rights from people.  THis is wrong.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecake is a lie
pwner with a bwner
Male


Registered: 03/25/08
Posts: 108
Loc: Mn
Last seen: 13 years, 4 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: fivepointer]
    #8661668 - 07/21/08 02:00 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

State capitalism is what we have today.  Business interests use the State to gain monopoly, prevent competition, ect..

I don't know where you get the idea that road ownership in libertarian society is in front of your house.  As communities are built roads would probably be owned cooperatively by those in the area.  The problem is the State now owns the roads.  These could be privatized by creating a corporation and give away shares to those in the area.

Fire protection and security are services like any other services.  Just as some pay for a home security system and others do not, it is up to the individual to decide how much security is right for them. 

As for people freezing to death and starving no one has a right to another person's property / labor, no matter what the justification.  You have to entirely abolish the concept of individual rights to justify that one individual has a "right" to forcefully steal another person's property for a good enough reason.




I cannot think of one person who would want to work 18 hours a day 7 days a week for their whole life.  this is of course not a choice im implying. im implying that if gov didnt set minimum wage and laws dealing with over time that the poor and lower middle class would be stuck working redicouls shifts for little to no money and also child labor laws so that children arnt forced into working at 8 years old and having to drop out of school so that they can eat that night.

(As communities are built roads would probably be owned cooperatively by those in the area) the government isnt trustworthy but coporations sure as hell are not even close to trustworthy either.  this isnt even libertarian this is a little similiar to socialist/lord system (worded that kinda badly), where a family and the lord (CEO and board of directors) makes all the desisions while the peasants (shareholders) use it and pay for it.

(Just as some pay for a home security system and others do not, it is up to the individual to decide how much security is right for them.) in a perfect world sure this is a very good idea. however you have to take into account poverty.  police and firefighters are supposed to (not always happens) protect you and your property and supposidly will even if you cant pay them. a corporation will not lift a finger if your house is burning to the ground with half your family still inside until you pay up, "what you cant aford it? o well tuff luck" im sure rich people wouldnt have much of a problem with this purposal however.

for the last bit. your right no one has the right to another mans property however every man woman and child has a right to live.  even if they are a complete bastard.  also id like to think that most people wouldnt mind giving up 100 bucks a year out of there hard work to make sure people arnt litteraly dying on the side of the road in their town, i mean comeon its fucking money man, there are bigger things in the world than money.

Edited by cake is a lie (07/21/08 02:13 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: cake is a lie]
    #8663341 - 07/21/08 01:44 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

The problem with the oft-quoted abuses was not libertarianism it was corpratism.




I'm sure these abuses wouldn't be so oft-quoted if libertarianism didn't empower the corperate sector in such a brutal way.


The main problem I had with suing is that believe it or not if you have nothing your legal defense can be difficult but the corporation can formulate a substantial legal defense with it's assets. Without regulation to restrain the corporation from harming people there would be a substantial increase in these cases but you say there is nothing your ideology says you should do about it. Even if you think the "corporate oligarchy" that regulate industry is bad they still have a power to change things that the individual does not. You said "We need laws that provide standing to the harmed," but aren't those laws basically regulations that protect the consumer only after they are harmed?


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Libertarians? [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8663984 - 07/21/08 05:07 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Yes they are only providing benifit after the harm.


I don't have a problem with that as the harmed consumer will suffer more loss than the buisness normally would gain by their wrong, so the suit will hurt the buisness if the consumer wins.  I also have no problem with things like treble, punitive damages, and attorney's fees/ costs.


These are all fine and help make the injured party whole.

There is no need for someone to actually physically be harmed, however; to sue, only they be financially harmed.  They bought a car with airbags and it didn't have any... that's a breech of contract, fraud- maybe, and false advertising.




And your other objection may be handled nicely by the attorney's fees provisions being mandatory, so the court must award them.  Then the attorney knows a meritous claim will be compensated, as does the corporation.

THings such as discovery abuses and the like can  be curtailed with specific legislation, but since the attorney's fees always are racking up, it would seem to be against the interest of the company to protract the proceedings in the usual case if the case has merit.


I think this is a good system.



And no, generally regulation doesn't give the person standing, it gives the state.  Take a look at the "light ciggerettes" case I  mentioned earlier.  The guys suing who got cancer at the same rate as people smoking regular cig's (or emphysema whatever) were denied recovery for false advertising/fraud, cuz the FDA or whomever approved the labeling.  Bullshit.  False advertising is an issue of contract law.  The state should have no right to interfere with the profer of goods or services to a private party by indemnifying untruthful statements.


THis is a common way in which regulation hurts the consumer.


There are additionally provisions in the Fair Credit Reporting Act that indemnify companies that submit fraudulent credit reports to the bureaus to extort money from people they claim owe them money.  For some of these, only the FTC or the state attorneys general can bring suit, not the person that was harmed.  Regulation takes away rights from those that are harmed and gives standing to the state to decide by whatever reasoning they choose whether they care to enforce the law in your case.... you can literally do nothing but whine about it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: johnm214]
    #8672987 - 07/23/08 06:09 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Here's a good question to look at how viable this is, can you think of how often letting markets run unregulated has lead to consumer protection? It only works in the less often occurrences where consumer protection is a part of the product being sold.
And sorry but I don't see how compensation after the fact in the event of a win will ensure victory for the aggrieved party. It doesn't work all the time now and it wouldn't work even more in a libertarian legal establishment.

BTW light cigarettes is a weak argument. WTF does light mean? and what context is it according to? It's really pretty vague. If it were an individual sewing over the nicotine content of light cigarette or otherwise I doubt even in a libertarian society there would be 1 victory. Kinda a shame since it is a pretty clear scam on the part of the tobacco companies.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Edited by ScavengerType (07/23/08 06:14 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: Libertarians? [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8673102 - 07/23/08 06:33 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

How often has any market ever been left truly unregulated?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Libertine]
    #8673613 - 07/23/08 08:41 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Libertine said:
I like the social policies they support...like the elimination of most every drug laws, lol.






it's negated by wanting to give amnesty to illegal immigrants,
I'd rather live without drugs if I could also not have to hear
"press 2 for spanish" with every phone call I have to make, and
dont have to hear about "no child left behind" while witnessing
children of citizens being refused admittance to pre-k because
of a stupid quota that requires the children of illegals
admittance to the public schools I'm paying for

fuck the stupid liberatarian party

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLibertine
Tarzan...King of Mars
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/14/07
Posts: 161
Loc: New England
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #8674447 - 07/23/08 11:52 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

Libertine said:
I like the social policies they support...like the elimination of most every drug laws, lol.






it's negated by wanting to give amnesty to illegal immigrants,
I'd rather live without drugs if I could also not have to hear
"press 2 for spanish" with every phone call I have to make, and
dont have to hear about "no child left behind" while witnessing
children of citizens being refused admittance to pre-k because
of a stupid quota that requires the children of illegals
admittance to the public schools I'm paying for

fuck the stupid liberatarian party




I view the Libertarian Party as partly right...on social issues and civil liberties I FULLY agree with them.  But their ideal that ultimately the 'rights of the individual' is of ultimate importance, when applied to specifically to economics, limits the vast majority of everybody else's 'individual' rights by increasing a small minority's rights based on how much wealth they possess.


--------------------
A mind is a terrible thing to taste...hehehe.

Edited by Libertine (07/23/08 11:59 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Libertine]
    #8674580 - 07/24/08 12:34 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

But their ideal that ultimately the 'rights of the individual' is of ultimate importance, when applied to specifically to economics, limits the vast majority of everybody else's 'individual' rights by increasing a small minority's rights based on how much wealth they possess.




Really? Allowing people to keep the money they earned through honest effort would result in the majority's rights being violated? How does that follow, exactly?

Please explain to the audience how a Libertarian government allowing Brad Pitt  to buy ten Ferraris would limit in any way shape or form your right to buy a Toyota or my right to buy an Integra. Please explain how if Brad Pitt were never to have existed you would obtain your Toyota with one hour's less effort. Please explain - precisely and specifically - which of your rights you believe would be violated by allowing Mr. Pitt to keep the money people paid him to act in their movies.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Phred]
    #8674662 - 07/24/08 12:58 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

> Please explain - precisely and specifically - which of your rights you believe would be violated by allowing Mr. Pitt to keep the money people paid him to act in their movies.

If Pitt keeps his money, then who is going to pay my welfare check?  It isn't my fault the guy is rich.  If he doesn't want to pay his unfair share, then he shouldn't have made so much money!  That's what he gets for not being a lazy bum.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Seuss]
    #8674898 - 07/24/08 01:49 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

It's my fault I'm the guy who watched fight club at every opportunity therefore I must buy you a toy-Yoda.

Anyway Spock said it best "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: Libertarians? [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8675517 - 07/24/08 08:17 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Spock isn't exactly an authoritative source on political theory.

So, is twenty homeless people raid your house and eat all your food and steal your belongings, it is ok because it fulfilled the needs of a greater number of people than just yourself?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
Re: Libertarians? [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8675527 - 07/24/08 08:25 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

> Anyway Spock said it best "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

You are advocating a return to slavery?  The needs of the majority outweigh the needs of the minority?


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Seuss]
    #8676222 - 07/24/08 12:27 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

I was half joking

What I don't get is why phred chose this as an example, currently there is no Ferrari purchasing limit legislation. Why is it suddenly a matter of debate? In fact there's little if any legislation restricting purchases outside of narco/pharma/porn.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Libertarians? [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8676457 - 07/24/08 01:55 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Libertarianism fails when it comes to neighborhood effects and similar violations of fair exchange.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: Libertarians? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #8676468 - 07/24/08 01:58 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

That sounds like quite a bit of speculation for such a surely put assertion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Redstorm]
    #8676493 - 07/24/08 02:05 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

What speculation, exactly? How does libertarianism protect fair exchange in cases such as neighborhood effects?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDaishi
Prime Mover

Registered: 04/07/08
Posts: 89
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Libertine]
    #8677041 - 07/24/08 04:27 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Ayn Rand on:

Quote:

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “A Nation’s Unity,” 1972]

AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers. But this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for President—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.

Q: What is your position on the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Censorship: Local and Express,” 1973]

AR: I don’t want to waste too much time on it. It’s a cheap attempt at publicity, which Libertarians won’t get. Today’s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they cannot rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issue is so serious today, that to form a new party based in part on half-baked ideas, and in part on borrowed ideas—I won’t say from whom—is irresponsible, and in today’s context, nearly immoral.

Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Egalitarianism and Inflation,” 1974]

AR:They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

Q: Have you ever heard of [Libertarian presidential candidate] Roger MacBride? [FHF: “?” 1976]

AR: My answer should be, “I haven’t.” There’s nothing to hear. I have been maintaining in everything I have said and written, that the trouble in the world today is philosophical; that only the right philosophy can save us. Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; I’m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency.

Q: Do you think Libertarians communicate the ideas of freedom and capitalism effectively? [Q&A following LP’s “Objective Communication,” Lecture 1, 1980]

AR: I don’t think plagiarists are effective. I’ve read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given. I didn’t know whether I should be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable.

Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981]

AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.

Q: The Libertarians are providing intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don’t you support them?  [Ibid., 1981]

AR: Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout all history: by means of people who understand and teach it to others. Further, it should be clear that I do not endorse the filthy slogan, “The end justifies the means.”  That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by Communists and Nazis.  The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, the Libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism.




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


--------------------
Man has to be man--by choice; he has to hold his life as a value--by choice; he has to learn to sustain it--by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—-by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.”-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Daishi]
    #8677111 - 07/24/08 04:53 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Libertarianism is one of the few topics I disagree with Rand on. Maybe it's just my unfamiliarity of the LP back in those days, but I believe she paints them with too broad of a brush stroke.

I espouse many libertarian (little L) theories and see little conflict with objectivism.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale, Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 34 Libertarian arguments debunked silversoul7 2,603 7 05/09/03 05:06 AM
by Phred
* A Libertarian's Message Phred 1,249 12 11/03/08 12:50 PM
by buckwheat
* Libertarians & War
( 1 2 all )
silversoul7 3,539 25 10/13/04 01:21 AM
by hound
* Badnarik and Libertarians "Sickos"? JesusChrist 2,412 14 09/10/04 01:20 PM
by Ancalagon
* I cant stand Libertarians....
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
vader34 8,901 160 12/27/12 11:49 AM
by Gilgamesh18
* Obama backs away from McCain's debate challenge
( 1 2 3 4 all )
lonestar2004 6,184 68 08/12/08 10:48 PM
by MrSinister
* Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat...
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
46 and 2 5,783 96 11/19/12 07:48 PM
by 46 and 2
* Libertarian: Ron Paul
( 1 2 all )
Bridgeburner 3,905 32 11/29/07 12:37 AM
by pooppoop

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
14,597 topic views. 0 members, 8 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.035 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.