Libertarian ....=....Ayn Rand.

[count markovalley]

The libertarians are ideological allies with the objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand .

[RAND] Paul may be a good clue.

Ayn ,according to her own expressed beliefs would not lift a finger to help a crippled child if it were drowning ,if it meant that it might put her own well being at risk,or if she had more important matters to attend.

Ayn ,it is now known, was a soviet double agent that fled to the west where she was granted asylum and where she got a better deal. If she came out in favor of unfettered capitalism ,the media moguls would pay her millions and guarantee her safety.

This is the degenerate parasite that now influences so many of our gullible students in every campus across the country. WHAT A JOKE!

[meatwadisprez]

Originally Posted by count markovalley

The libertarians are ideological allies with the objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand .

[RAND] Paul may be a good clue.

Ayn ,according to her own expressed beliefs would not lift a finger to help a crippled child if it were drowning ,if it meant that it might put her own well being at risk,or if she had more important matters to attend.

Ayn ,it is now known, was a soviet double agent that fled to the west where she was granted asylum and where she got a better deal. If she came out in favor of unfettered capitalism ,the media moguls would pay her millions and guarantee her safety.

This is the degenerate parasite that now influences so many of our gullible students in every campus across the country. WHAT A JOKE!

So, lemme get this straight. I identify myself as a libertarian more so than anything else. Since Objectivisim has libertarian ideals, I am an Objectivist. Therefore, I am against helping drowning handicapped children. Am I getting this right?

I know this may sound inappropriate or plain out stupid, but I'm not sure where you're going with this. Is every Republican and Democrat the same? How about every liberal? Conservative?

[CharlieK]

Originally Posted by meatwadisprez

I know this may sound inappropriate or plain out stupid, but I'm not sure where you're going with this. Is every Republican and Democrat the same? How about every liberal? Conservative?

I'll tell you what is going on here. We had this thing happen before at the forum I own. Occasionally someone, or something, will join a bunch of forums, and then make up a thread/threads, which will be posted on all those member forums. It almost always contains a subject that is highly controversial, and appears to make no logical sense at all to most of us.

I still haven't figured out the whys of this. Hell, maybe they are trying to recruit like minded Kooks, or just get a rise when most people attack them. I don't know. But they do accomplish one thing: they increase traffic, and that's about it.

They don't contribute intellectually to the discussion, and just take up valuable space. Oh, wait a minute: this could also mean Ron Burgandy too.

The best thing to do IMO is to just ignore this..........whatever, and he/she/it will eventually leave. Either that or the admin could send this account a message and give them 24 hours to answer the inquiry, and if they don't then just deactivate the account. No more Kook, until the next one.

[meatwadisprez]

Originally Posted by CharlieK

I'll tell you what is going on here. We had this thing happen before at the forum I own. Occasionally someone, or something, will join a bunch of forums, and then make up a thread/threads, which will be posted on all those member forums. It almost always contains a subject that is highly controversial, and appears to make no logical sense at all to most of us.

I still haven't figured out the whys of this. Hell, maybe they are trying to recruit like minded Kooks, or just get a rise when most people attack them. I don't know. But they do accomplish one thing: they increase traffic, and that's about it.

They don't contribute intellectually to the discussion, and just take up valuable space. Oh, wait a minute: this could also mean Ron Burgandy too.

The best thing to do IMO is to just ignore this..........whatever, and he/she/it will eventually leave. Either that or the admin could send this account a message and give them 24 hours to answer the inquiry, and if they don't then just deactivate the account. No more Kook, until the next one.

Yeah, good point. And I think Ron is there solely for news. He's been here for as long as I can remember. Look through the stuff, some good articles come up. But he's not going away, if that's what your hope is.

[CharlieK]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Objectivists and libertarians are philosophically distinct. That is to say that libertarians have no philosophy whereas Objectivism is a rather complete philosophical package.

I'm certain that there will be some differences, such as the "in your face militant atheism" of the Ayn Rand crowd. But other than that, what are the differences, excepting that most LP members anyway, are dominated by the L.H.Rockwell/MurrayRothbard wing of AnarchoLibertarians. The majority are pretty much Independents who usually vote Republican, even though they may hold their noses.

We Classic Liberals are more structured, but still squarely within the Individualist Right Wing. But all of us believe in 'limited government', 'Rule of Law', 'Responsible Individualism', and 'Free Trade'.

[Davy Cock'it]

Originally Posted by count markovalley

The libertarians are ideological allies with the objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand .

[RAND] Paul may be a good clue.

Ayn ,according to her own expressed beliefs would not lift a finger to help a crippled child if it were drowning ,if it meant that it might put her own well being at risk,or if she had more important matters to attend.

Ayn ,it is now known, was a soviet double agent that fled to the west where she was granted asylum and where she got a better deal. If she came out in favor of unfettered capitalism ,the media moguls would pay her millions and guarantee her safety.

This is the degenerate parasite that now influences so many of our gullible students in every campus across the country. WHAT A JOKE!

lololololol, dude. You're full of nonsense. You're your own joke.

[wanna be drummer]

Rand was an interesting philosopher but she was indeed a terrible person. That being said, she does not equate to libertarianism nor does objectivism. They have similar ideals but one is a personal philosophy and the other is political. Very important difference

[count markovalley]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Objectivists and libertarians are philosophically distinct. That is to say that libertarians have no philosophy whereas Objectivism is a rather complete philosophical package.

Philosophical to the extent of destroying nations and human culture.

[meatwadisprez]

Originally Posted by count markovalley

Philosophical to the extent of destroying nations and human culture.

Any basis for this claim?

[Mi-u-ku]

Ayn Rand is not really a Libertarian. For instance she loves Central Banking and that criminal Alan Greenspan. Libertarians are strongly opposed to Central Banks.

[CharlieK]

Which rock in Central Park do you guys come out from under? Someone needs to place cement over it. Especially when you just keep coming back under a new name.

[CharlieK]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

For one, libertarians can fall anywhere between socialism and capitalism. That fact alone tells us that libertarianism does not necessitate any particular socioeconomic philosophy. Indeed, the term was originally used to refer to a person that is an anarcho-communist, and there is presently a growing movement of libertarian socialism, which can be of anarchistic or minarchistic varieties.

Even if we accept the the more popular version of libertarianism as it's espoused by the Libertarian Party here in America, there are still some issues. Some guys might lean toward freshwater economics, e.g., Friedman, while others might lean toward Austrian economics, e.g., Mises. These are two completely different approaches to economics, despite often being in political agreement, i.e., they agree on policy but not philosophy. Freshwater is neoplatonic. Austrian is rational. Freshwater is Keynesian. Austrian is Hayekian.


Randian Objectivism, on the other hand, is a complete and cohesive philosophical package deal. It doesn't require one to subscribe to it to acknowledge that trait as a mere matter of fact.


edit--
Oh, and I moved the discussion about Ron Burgundy.

As you can see by my avatar, I am a Hayekian. But the Mises/Rothbard wing will dispute the good von Hayek being the principal Austrian. As for your "Freshwater" part, never heard of it before. Also, you left out the Wanniski "Supply-Siders". Regardless, all of this is Classical Economics, with the exception of the "Demand-Side" Keynesians(Monetarism is officially dead)

And to be perfectly honest with you, this is the reason why I really don't care all that much for using the word "Libertarian", but choose to go with the more accurate designation of "Liberal", used in it's true sense. If you know what classic Liberalism really represents, you can tell what my opinions will be, with 95% accuracy, at the very least.

I have several primary goals in life. First and foremost, is the utter defeat, and banishment, of Collectivism in all it's various heresy. And second is the repudiation of the FDR myth, in that he led us out of the Great Depression, and that he stole the word 'Liberal', and cloaked it around his Progressivism. There are others, but these are my primary scholastic goals. Oh, also I will continue to help others learn more about Classic Economics, so they will not believe all this class envy Keynesian manure, that helps fortify Collectivist ideology.

[CharlieK]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Wanniski subscribed to freshwater economics. Freshwater refers primarily to the Chicago school of economics, which has come to be known for modern conservative economics, e.g., Reaganomics, the Laffer Curve, supply-side economics. I would imagine that Friedman was probably the most worthwhile economist of this variety.

Teddy Roosevelt was the first president to really make a push for progressivism. But it does make sense to go after the legacy of FDR because it's more popular.

Were it not for the fact that Woodrow Wilson has already been so exposed for his tyrannical nature, Progressive ideology, and his hatred for the Constitution, I would be after him too. But he has already been taken apart rather nicely. Dr. John J. Ray does an excellent job, of crossing the "t"s and dotting the "i"s on him. Here's a nice little expose on American Progressivism/Fascism.

Incidentally, I don't believe I ever seen him smile in a picture, other than once or twice, in all the photos of him. I always had the impression he was a very angry man.

And as for FDR, his time is well overdue, but coming in a big way. In fact it's already begun, and it's about time too.

[Mr. Amazing]

Originally Posted by Davy Cock'it

lololololol, dude. You're full of nonsense. You're your own joke.

Hey, you stole my picture.

[stolz25]

This thread made me lol.

[wanna be drummer]

I second that notion

[Davy Cock'it]

Originally Posted by Mr. Amazing

Hey, you stole my picture.

No I didn't

[gipper]

Originally Posted by CharlieK

Were it not for the fact that Woodrow Wilson has already been so exposed for his tyrannical nature, Progressive ideology, and his hatred for the Constitution, I would be after him too. But he has already been taken apart rather nicely. Dr. John J. Ray does an excellent job, of crossing the "t"s and dotting the "i"s on him. Here's a nice little expose on American Progressivism/Fascism.

Incidentally, I don't believe I ever seen him smile in a picture, other than once or twice, in all the photos of him. I always had the impression he was a very angry man.

And as for FDR, his time is well overdue, but coming in a big way. In fact it's already begun, and it's about time too.

Wilson was an elitist professor from Princeton. He has much in common with the guy in the WH now.

They both fundamentally do not believe man can govern himself. As such, they do not believe in the American experiment of self government. They believe man is a sheep that must be lead by left wing elites...