How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

[TemplarKormac]

I don't see how you are offended by his question.

I'm not offended by the question, but the terms "evil", "loathsome", "bold cockroaches", or "slime balls" are hardly apt descriptors. They are childish insults. That's what's offensive. It takes away from the substance of the question. It makes me not want to take the question, or the person who asked it, seriously.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You already labelled yourself as a libertarian.

"Describe" would be a better way to put that. I don't like labels, I don't like labeling myself. It so happens my views coincide with being a libertarian. I started assuming these views long before I researched libertarianism in depth.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't see how you are offended by his question.

I'm not offended by the question, but the terms "evil", "loathsome" or "bold cockroaches" are hardly apt descriptors. That's what's offensive. It takes away from the substance of the question when people use such metaphors. It makes me not want to take the question, or the person who asked it, seriously.

Now, I don't like to try to speak for other people, and I could be incorrect - but if I am remembering correctly, Jim is a religious man, and I assume his issue with objectivism (and why he calls it "evil") is due objectivism's complete and utter rejection of religion in general, and Christian values of charity and compassion specifically.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Rand Objectivism causes chaos everywhere it is found. Party infighting, fake delegates, fraudulent assertions of loyalty, blatant violations of the electoral laws and hatred for our police are just a few ways this comes out from them when they have enough power in a congressional district to step out from under the refrigerators and into the light like bold cockroaches.

First, you haven't the slightest idea what "Rand Objectivism" is. And If I'm a "bold cockroach", them I'm of the hissing variety. I have the utmost respect for law enforcement. There are bad apples out there who give them a bad name, and they should be punished, not every police officer everywhere.

Second, instead of bandying about terms to which you have no clue to their definition, a Rand Objectivist aspires to:

Follow reason, not whims or faith.
Work hard to achieve a life of purpose and productiveness.
Earn genuine self-esteem.
Pursue one's own happiness as his or her highest moral aim.
Prosper by treating others as individuals, trading value for value.

For the record, I have not read "Atlas Shrugged" nor do I intend to. But I agree with with Rand Objectivism to a point.

Third, I'm also a little "l" minarchist libertarian, or at least that's what my views are closest to. I don't favor complete anarchy. Anarchy can lead to unfettered aggression by one individual against another. There needs to be governance. So a minimal state presence is required in my opinion, not an extensive one.

Perhaps instead of calling us evil or loathsome, maybe you could engage one of us in a civilized debate. I don't really adhere strictly to one of those philosophies or the other. I take the best of them and meld them together to form a unique view for myself.

If you are not a 'L'ibertarian, then my comments were not directed at you.

 

[Rustic]

I have long been acquainted with Libertarians and used to find them kind of adorable in a yapping lapdog kind of way, bitching about the Federal governments over reach, the rise in taxes and why doesnt the GOP have more Libertarians in it?

Well now we have a blend of conservative and Libertarian that many people confuse with 'true' conservatism, but it is NOT conservatism. It is the putrid purge from the mind of an evil avowed atheist escapee from the Soviet Union who had no use for love or charity or God. All Ayn Rand wanted was for people to hate the government and be willing to kill each other to keep their toys. The deepest thought she produced was a complex system of excuses to let your neighbor starve in the street as was common in many parts of the Soviet Union of her time.

William F Buckley Jr and Whitaker Chambers both exposed Rand for the loveless bitch she was deep in her soul. Both observed that 'Atlas Shrugged' was a fantasy shpeel of a world devoid of God, Christian mercy and charity and any semblance of community. They were quite right to denounce her work, her novels and her values system as alien to the body of Conservative American thought.

But fast forward to today's corporate America and we find Rand rehabilitated and flourishing under the guise of conservatism again, a.k.a. 'Conservatarians' and it is rotting Conservatism from the inside, like a cancer.

The take over of the Conservative movement by 'Conservatarians' or Rand Objectivists is a real disaster for the Conservative movement as we enter a new Digital Age in which jobs will be scarce and the party that offers to help other Americans through their adjustment to it will be the majority party for the distant future. Conservatarians cant even put the words together about how to care for other Americans, because deep in their hearts they truly just dont give a shit about anyone but themselves and maybe a few friends.

Which means that either Conservatism will shed itself of these useless evil parasites that are a pimple on Conservatism's ass or the Conservative movement will die the well deserved death of wicked heresies.

Libertarians are not control freaks like progressives... Lol

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't see how you are offended by his question.

I'm not offended by the question, but the terms "evil", "loathsome" or "bold cockroaches" are hardly apt descriptors. That's what's offensive. It takes away from the substance of the question when people use such metaphors. It makes me not want to take the question, or the person who asked it, seriously.

Now, I don't like to try to speak for other people, and I could be incorrect - but if I am remembering correctly, Jim is a religious man, and I assume his issue with objectivism (and why he calls it "evil") is due objectivism's complete and utter rejection of religion in general, and Christian values of charity and compassion specifically.

Very perceptive of you, Doc.

Why can you read my posts right but my target audience of not-fully-Conservatarians cannot?

Guess I have to just sort through the best I can, but I appreciate your help.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I have long been acquainted with Libertarians and used to find them kind of adorable in a yapping lapdog kind of way, bitching about the Federal governments over reach, the rise in taxes and why doesnt the GOP have more Libertarians in it?

Well now we have a blend of conservative and Libertarian that many people confuse with 'true' conservatism, but it is NOT conservatism. It is the putrid purge from the mind of an evil avowed atheist escapee from the Soviet Union who had no use for love or charity or God. All Ayn Rand wanted was for people to hate the government and be willing to kill each other to keep their toys. The deepest thought she produced was a complex system of excuses to let your neighbor starve in the street as was common in many parts of the Soviet Union of her time.

William F Buckley Jr and Whitaker Chambers both exposed Rand for the loveless bitch she was deep in her soul. Both observed that 'Atlas Shrugged' was a fantasy shpeel of a world devoid of God, Christian mercy and charity and any semblance of community. They were quite right to denounce her work, her novels and her values system as alien to the body of Conservative American thought.

But fast forward to today's corporate America and we find Rand rehabilitated and flourishing under the guise of conservatism again, a.k.a. 'Conservatarians' and it is rotting Conservatism from the inside, like a cancer.

The take over of the Conservative movement by 'Conservatarians' or Rand Objectivists is a real disaster for the Conservative movement as we enter a new Digital Age in which jobs will be scarce and the party that offers to help other Americans through their adjustment to it will be the majority party for the distant future. Conservatarians cant even put the words together about how to care for other Americans, because deep in their hearts they truly just dont give a shit about anyone but themselves and maybe a few friends.

Which means that either Conservatism will shed itself of these useless evil parasites that are a pimple on Conservatism's ass or the Conservative movement will die the well deserved death of wicked heresies.

Libertarians are not control freaks like progressives... Lol

Ayn Rand was.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't see how you are offended by his question.

I'm not offended by the question, but the terms "evil", "loathsome", "bold cockroaches", or "slime balls" are hardly apt descriptors. They are childish insults. That's what's offensive. It takes away from the substance of the question. It makes me not want to take the question, or the person who asked it, seriously.

I was being descriptive of people who pose as m oral but in fact are devoid of any serious moral values system in most cases.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't see how you are offended by his question.

I'm not offended by the question, but the terms "evil", "loathsome" or "bold cockroaches" are hardly apt descriptors. That's what's offensive. It takes away from the substance of the question when people use such metaphors. It makes me not want to take the question, or the person who asked it, seriously.

Now, I don't like to try to speak for other people, and I could be incorrect - but if I am remembering correctly, Jim is a religious man, and I assume his issue with objectivism (and why he calls it "evil") is due objectivism's complete and utter rejection of religion in general, and Christian values of charity and compassion specifically.

I see. But what I see are generalizations, not objectivity.

So is there something wrong with objectivity?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't see how you are offended by his question.

I'm not offended by the question, but the terms "evil", "loathsome" or "bold cockroaches" are hardly apt descriptors. That's what's offensive. It takes away from the substance of the question when people use such metaphors. It makes me not want to take the question, or the person who asked it, seriously.

Now, I don't like to try to speak for other people, and I could be incorrect - but if I am remembering correctly, Jim is a religious man, and I assume his issue with objectivism (and why he calls it "evil") is due objectivism's complete and utter rejection of religion in general, and Christian values of charity and compassion specifically.

I see. But what I see are generalizations, not objectivity.

So is there something wrong with objectivity?

"Objectivity" and "objectivism" are not the same thing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Rand Objectivism causes chaos everywhere it is found. Party infighting, fake delegates, fraudulent assertions of loyalty, blatant violations of the electoral laws and hatred for our police are just a few ways this comes out from them when they have enough power in a congressional district to step out from under the refrigerators and into the light like bold cockroaches.

First, you haven't the slightest idea what "Rand Objectivism" is. And If I'm a "bold cockroach", them I'm of the hissing variety. I have the utmost respect for law enforcement. There are bad apples out there who give them a bad name, and they should be punished, not every police officer everywhere.

Second, instead of bandying about terms to which you have no clue to their definition, a Rand Objectivist aspires to:

Follow reason, not whims or faith.
Work hard to achieve a life of purpose and productiveness.
Earn genuine self-esteem.
Pursue one's own happiness as his or her highest moral aim.
Prosper by treating others as individuals, trading value for value.

For the record, I have not read "Atlas Shrugged" nor do I intend to. But I agree with with Rand Objectivism to a point.

Third, I'm also a little "l" minarchist libertarian, or at least that's what my views are closest to. I don't favor complete anarchy. Anarchy can lead to unfettered aggression by one individual against another. There needs to be governance. So a minimal state presence is required in my opinion, not an extensive one.

Perhaps instead of calling us evil or loathsome, maybe you could engage one of us in a civilized debate. I don't really adhere strictly to one of those philosophies or the other. I take the best of them and meld them together to form a unique view for myself.

If you are not a 'L'ibertarian, then my comments were not directed at you.

No offense taken then.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't see how you are offended by his question.

I'm not offended by the question, but the terms "evil", "loathsome" or "bold cockroaches" are hardly apt descriptors. That's what's offensive. It takes away from the substance of the question when people use such metaphors. It makes me not want to take the question, or the person who asked it, seriously.

Now, I don't like to try to speak for other people, and I could be incorrect - but if I am remembering correctly, Jim is a religious man, and I assume his issue with objectivism (and why he calls it "evil") is due objectivism's complete and utter rejection of religion in general, and Christian values of charity and compassion specifically.

I see. But what I see are generalizations, not objectivity.

So is there something wrong with objectivity?

"Objectivity" and "objectivism" are not the same thing.

Well pardon me for going by this definition.

Objectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't see how you are offended by his question.

I'm not offended by the question, but the terms "evil", "loathsome" or "bold cockroaches" are hardly apt descriptors. That's what's offensive. It takes away from the substance of the question when people use such metaphors. It makes me not want to take the question, or the person who asked it, seriously.

Now, I don't like to try to speak for other people, and I could be incorrect - but if I am remembering correctly, Jim is a religious man, and I assume his issue with objectivism (and why he calls it "evil") is due objectivism's complete and utter rejection of religion in general, and Christian values of charity and compassion specifically.

I see. But what I see are generalizations, not objectivity.

So is there something wrong with objectivity?

"Objectivity" and "objectivism" are not the same thing.

Well pardon me for going by this definition.

Objectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the definition that Jim and I are talking about:

Objectivism (Ayn Rand) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Billy000]

I have long been acquainted with Libertarians and used to find them kind of adorable in a yapping lapdog kind of way, bitching about the Federal governments over reach, the rise in taxes and why doesnt the GOP have more Libertarians in it?

Well now we have a blend of conservative and Libertarian that many people confuse with 'true' conservatism, but it is NOT conservatism. It is the putrid purge from the mind of an evil avowed atheist escapee from the Soviet Union who had no use for love or charity or God. All Ayn Rand wanted was for people to hate the government and be willing to kill each other to keep their toys. The deepest thought she produced was a complex system of excuses to let your neighbor starve in the street as was common in many parts of the Soviet Union of her time.

William F Buckley Jr and Whitaker Chambers both exposed Rand for the loveless bitch she was deep in her soul. Both observed that 'Atlas Shrugged' was a fantasy shpeel of a world devoid of God, Christian mercy and charity and any semblance of community. They were quite right to denounce her work, her novels and her values system as alien to the body of Conservative American thought.

But fast forward to today's corporate America and we find Rand rehabilitated and flourishing under the guise of conservatism again, a.k.a. 'Conservatarians' and it is rotting Conservatism from the inside, like a cancer.

The take over of the Conservative movement by 'Conservatarians' or Rand Objectivists is a real disaster for the Conservative movement as we enter a new Digital Age in which jobs will be scarce and the party that offers to help other Americans through their adjustment to it will be the majority party for the distant future. Conservatarians cant even put the words together about how to care for other Americans, because deep in their hearts they truly just dont give a shit about anyone but themselves and maybe a few friends.

Which means that either Conservatism will shed itself of these useless evil parasites that are a pimple on Conservatism's ass or the Conservative movement will die the well deserved death of wicked heresies.

Libertarianism is not at all practical on an administrative level. It's simply an emotional, self-serving ideology. It that has no place in government capacity.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm not offended by the question, but the terms "evil", "loathsome" or "bold cockroaches" are hardly apt descriptors. That's what's offensive. It takes away from the substance of the question when people use such metaphors. It makes me not want to take the question, or the person who asked it, seriously.

Now, I don't like to try to speak for other people, and I could be incorrect - but if I am remembering correctly, Jim is a religious man, and I assume his issue with objectivism (and why he calls it "evil") is due objectivism's complete and utter rejection of religion in general, and Christian values of charity and compassion specifically.

I see. But what I see are generalizations, not objectivity.

So is there something wrong with objectivity?

"Objectivity" and "objectivism" are not the same thing.

Well pardon me for going by this definition.

Objectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the definition that Jim and I are talking about:

Objectivism (Ayn Rand) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see. They sound more like secularists, far leftists, not Libertarians.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Now, I don't like to try to speak for other people, and I could be incorrect - but if I am remembering correctly, Jim is a religious man, and I assume his issue with objectivism (and why he calls it "evil") is due objectivism's complete and utter rejection of religion in general, and Christian values of charity and compassion specifically.

I see. But what I see are generalizations, not objectivity.

So is there something wrong with objectivity?

"Objectivity" and "objectivism" are not the same thing.

Well pardon me for going by this definition.

Objectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the definition that Jim and I are talking about:

Objectivism (Ayn Rand) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see. They sound more like secularists, far leftists, not Libertarians.

How do Objectivists sound like "far leftists" to you?

I don't think you'll find many people who'll agree with your assessment of Rand and Objectivism.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Here's a little more on the topic from wikipedia:

Libertarianism and Objectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TemplarKormac]

I see. But what I see are generalizations, not objectivity.

So is there something wrong with objectivity?

"Objectivity" and "objectivism" are not the same thing.

Well pardon me for going by this definition.

Objectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the definition that Jim and I are talking about:

Objectivism (Ayn Rand) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see. They sound more like secularists, far leftists, not Libertarians.

How do Objectivists sound like "far leftists" to you?

I don't think you'll find many people who'll agree with your assessment of Rand and Objectivism.

Rand was an atheist. Her brand of objectivism is secular it seems.

"Follow reason, not whim or faith."

"Pursue one's own happiness as his or her highest moral aim."

I hear that from more secular liberals these days. And it doesn't jibe with the religious underpinnings of conservatism, suprisingly enough.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Objectivity" and "objectivism" are not the same thing.

Well pardon me for going by this definition.

Objectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the definition that Jim and I are talking about:

Objectivism (Ayn Rand) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see. They sound more like secularists, far leftists, not Libertarians.

How do Objectivists sound like "far leftists" to you?

I don't think you'll find many people who'll agree with your assessment of Rand and Objectivism.

Rand was an atheist. Her brand of objectivism is secular it seems.

"Follow reason, not whim or faith."

"Pursue one's own happiness as his or her highest moral aim."

I hear that from more secular liberals these days. And it doesn't jibe with the religious underpinnings of conservatism, suprisingly enough.

Rand was an atheist, but atheist doesn't equal "liberal" or "left".

As for it not jibing with the religious underpinnings of conservatism - I think if you go back to the beginning of this thread and re-read Jim's posts, you'll see that was his point all along.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well pardon me for going by this definition.

Objectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the definition that Jim and I are talking about:

Objectivism (Ayn Rand) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see. They sound more like secularists, far leftists, not Libertarians.

How do Objectivists sound like "far leftists" to you?

I don't think you'll find many people who'll agree with your assessment of Rand and Objectivism.

Rand was an atheist. Her brand of objectivism is secular it seems.

"Follow reason, not whim or faith."

"Pursue one's own happiness as his or her highest moral aim."

I hear that from more secular liberals these days. And it doesn't jibe with the religious underpinnings of conservatism, suprisingly enough.

Rand was an atheist, but atheist doesn't equal "liberal" or "left".

As for it not jibing with the religious underpinnings of conservatism - I think if you go back to the beginning of this thread and re-read Jim's posts, you'll see that was his point all along.

I did, and I would agree with him. It is a contradiction even to "L"ibertarianism. Because leaving people to their business means not suggesting what morals or beliefs they should aspire.