libertarian autistics

Post Reply New Topic

Having read and studied Rand too, I think she was a sociopath and quite possibly the most dangerous woman to ever live. She stole and twisted basically everything she ever wrote from Nietzsche, then claimed credit for it. She created a generation of psychopaths who are free from blame because "at least they're not parasites." The only self-proclaimed Objectivist I ever knew actually shot a 10 year old in the knee for coming onto his lawn one too many times, or as the Objectivist put it, "violating his property rights." That kid ended up having to have his leg amputated, and after a load of psychological problems, is on SSDI. That same Objectivist now hates the kid because he's a "parasite, living off the government," completely blind to the fact that HE and his venomous ideology is what made the kid lose his leg in the first place. Needless to say, I avoid any self-proclaimed Objectivist like they are human anthrax.

Though it pretend to be I wouldn't consider Objectivism a philosophy of reason.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/2012/10/05/ayn-rand-on-human-nature/

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/29/10_insane_things_i_learned_about_the_world_reading_ayn_rands_atlas_shrugged_partner/

http://www.rotman.uwo.ca/the-system-that-wasnt-there-ayn-rands-failed-philosophy-and-why-it-matters/

I said I think it is a bit of a bandwagon, which I think is especially true recently. If you want to take that personally that is your problem.

I made a point which is self interest what were already doing anyway.

Libertarian not really to do with Conservatism.

Peelites moved old Conservatism away from its roots, and adopted some of the (classical) Liberal policies, that it now associated with.

If you meant to say something like "Objectivism seems to be more popular nowadays," okay, I suppose it is. Or at least it's getting more mentions in the media. Your statement came across more like "You're just jumping on a bandwagon to look cool," which is wrong for at least three reasons.

And I see people every single day who clearly are not acting in their own rational interest. It's not as simple as you suggest and it certainly isn't universal.

As for the usual irrelevancies and over-the-top strawmen, above: the more hysterical the denunciations, the more that honest people will want to look into the subject for themselves. I usually recommend that people start with The Fountainhead.

Libertarian here!

Well, I read Atlas Shrugged. Though it was difficult, getting through all those author filibusters that amounted to "greed is good, altruism is bad".

Nope, after reading it I still find Objectivism... objectionable.

I'm a deontological Austro-Minarchist who is disdainfully skeptical of the so-called "beltway libertarians" (friedmanite aficionados of the discredited utilitarian Chicago School e.g. Cato, Reason, the Kochtopus etc) who defend unlibertarian uber-statist approaches like monetarism, fractional reserve banking, supranationalism (IMF, World Bank, WTO, UN etc), fiat currency, "free trade" agreements, open borders, corporate welfare, foreign interventionism, multiculturalism, "state's rights" (decentralized collectivism) and anti-discrimination laws within the private sector (the imposition of the infringement on voluntary association). I adjudge myself as a Misean when it comes to the threshold of government, and a Rothbardian when it comes to monetary policy. I find it really aversive when people erroneously conflate minarchists as the laudable adherents of the Randian camp as I do not support the pseudo-philosophy of Objectivism.

Last edited by TheRedPedant93 on 02 Apr 2015, 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

I respect that!

How could such a setup even work? You're saying that we would have laws, but the method of enforcement would be up to anyone at all who wanted the job. So a mass-murderer could become a policeman investigating murders, and if they assaulted someone they would be 'guilty', but who would put them in prison? Their psychopathic friend could ensure they evaded a term in jail if they happened to 'volunteer' to be the presiding judge.

No, we need governments. If you think I am wrong, then just check out those nations that, at some stage in their history, didn't have them for extended periods of time (ex. Somalia, Afghanistan). Your assumption here that people are basically reasonable is laughable; the vast majority are not (ex. Why do gamblers have the erroneous notion that if they just stay with one machine that eventually it will 'pay out'? It just doesn't work this way).

Not really, I'd say communism...is closer to my political leanings, not the failed crap that came to be in the Soviet Union or any other pseudo-communist societies, but the classless society in which resources are shared among the population in such a way there is no vast chasm between the very wealthy and very poor, because there would be no such thing as either.

Though for practical purposes, I guess I'd be more of a socialist....though I realize the incompetency of the current government.

I agree there is no substitute for governance, the question of is how and what to degree, and the primary role of government. Is it really the role of government to define relationship status such as marriage, for example? I think not. I don't think any aspect of personal life where there is no harm to others should be subject to laws. Nor do I think government should concern themselves with statuses and schemes to legal compartmentalize the population.

People are afraid of electoral reform, both the parties and the electorate are very short-termist, and stuck in a rut of manifesto politic, they often dislike the current political system, but don't have time for reforming it.

One of the political gimmicks is "direct democracy". This is something that logistically infeasible at any scale. It is something you can do every now an then, and has its role, but is also pretty expensive each time. Someone has to set the questions, which is an executive role anyway.

My personal opinion is political parties are too easy influenced by non-citizens, corporations that are above and beyond, and there is not enough transparency. The irony is they are only above and beyond, becuase government left and right need quick solution to jobs, so they want to allow companies, that can only exist as a legal construct, favorable conditions (protectionism), in order to regenerate an area, or supposedly support the economy. These companies are not strong on their own. They are strong under the legal jurisdiction and status given to them. Yet they can pick and choose and play each jurisdiction off one-another.

When people talk about "globalization" they are often talking about this. Mussolini could have only have dreamt the level collision we have in the world, he would wonder now "What was all the fuss about? You did it better than me, in my time."

There is another form of global trade, which is much better approach. Where you don't give special status or collude with certain companies for short term goals.

Forced stability is not more stable than than markets subject to chaos.

I'm not a proponent of "naturalistic" economics just that diverse markets with more competition would offer more stability, becuase there insulation in choice. Having few banks, for example means the effect on the economy when one collapses is far greater.

I am libertarian, however in the sense of anarchist. I may be in one aspect slightly left in one aspect and slightly right in the other. And pezar: Even with a state, in many countries the strong still crush the weak. It is even the state that will take the position of the strong in strong vs weak.

if you have any libertarian candidates in upcoming elections in your state, there's a list here: http://www.lp.org/candidates-15

they have this year's candidates on this link, which updates very often as it isn't november yet: http://www.lp.org/candidates-16

I do consider myself to be a libertarian.