Options

Why Are So Many "Nerds" Libertarians?

1235722

Posts

  • Options
    Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited September 2007
    He's not. That's why threw up the second book. It was published in 2005, and Ben fucking Bernanke was the editor.

    Wait a minute. This Ben fucking Bernanke? Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben fucking Bernanke? That dude?

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Jobs that add no utilty do nothing for the economy in the long run.
    Yeah, because the Tennessee Valley Authority had no utility what so ever. :roll:

    /rimshot

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited September 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    I wouldn't miss the Department of labor.

    I mean, what has government regulation of employment discrimination, workplace safety, provision of training programs, benefits and procurement of overall labor data ever done for me?

    They've only held you back, Shinto. You would be a magnificent success if it weren't for their parasitism.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    I wouldn't miss the Department of labor.

    I mean, what has government regulation of employment discrimination, workplace safety, provision of training programs, benefits and procurement of overall labor data ever done for me?

    They've only held you back, Shinto. You would be a magnificent success if it weren't for their parasitism.
    Atlas is a friend of the parasite. Don't be a friend of Atlas. :P

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    ThaumaturgistThaumaturgist Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    I wouldn't miss the Department of labor.

    I mean, what has government regulation of employment discrimination, workplace safety, provision of training programs, benefits and procurement of overall labor data ever done for me?

    They've only held you back, Shinto. You would be a magnificent success if it weren't for their parasitism.
    Atlas is a friend of the parasite. Don't be a friend of Atlas. :P

    Andrew Ryan asked you a simple question: are you a man or a slave?

    Thaumaturgist on
    XBL: Abiff PSN: Thaumaturgist
    http://www.suboptimist.com
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Katholic wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Heh, I always like watching libertarians talk about smoking. They never get how much they come off as hypocrites.
    This is just me being ignorant, but can you elaborate on this?

    Supposedly, one of the tenets of libertarianism is "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" - that is, your right to action is free until it affects me. Smoking, as anyone dealing with someone who smokes knows, is incredibly invasive and irritating. One would think that this would fall under that, and libertarians would be very strongly against smokers who think nothing of lighting up around other people.

    Yet, they adamantly defend the rights of smokers to smoke wherever they damn well please. They say that other people who don't like the smoke can just leave. They seem to not comprehend how this basically goes against their tenets.

    Really, I have always followed the school of thought that public places should not allow smokers to light up, but privately owned places like bars or homes should make the decision to allow smoking or not.

    So, should the government turn a blind eye to a business owner that discriminates based on race or gender?

    It's like the old joke about the guy who asks a woman if she'll sleep with him for a million bucks, then asks if she'll sleep with him for $50. Either the government has no regulatory authority, and needs to but out completely, or it does, and we need to figure out where the line is. And unfortunately, the arguments about not allowing smoking tend to be more compelling than those allowing it.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    Che GuevaraChe Guevara __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Canada provided an interesting example with how they instituted the payroll for the new Afghani police departments.

    Traditionally, money was handed out in lump sums to individuals, who would each take their 'cut' before passing it on down the chain. Through successive generations of transfers, the final amount that makes it into the pockets of those with families to feed would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

    To circumvent these kinds of abuses, the Canadian military saw to the installation of ATMs in various locations, allowing for a direct payment system.

    Definitely an improvement over the old system.

    This eliminated corrupt 'governing body' simply by computerizing it.
    My point is that perhaps "Nerds" are Libertarians because we believe it's possible to eliminate outmoded forms of bureaucracy to create more efficent forms of governance that can prevent the abuses of power that currently take place.

    This computerized payroll is a prime example.
    I'm not seeing how paying government employees through computers instead of other government employees, and making government more efficient are uniquely Libertarian ideas.
    I never said uniquely...

    But if it were possible to completely eliminate the entire bureaucratic structure through automated computerized systems (ala AI, not touchtone phones and call waiting), geeks and nerds would be at the forefront of the revolution. They'd have to be... no one else would be able to design such a beast.

    And the final product of this kind of social revolution would probably look extremely close to the current ideals espoused by Libertarians.
    Well, yeah, either that, or...

    terminator_004.jpg

    At least he's smiling.

    Che Guevara on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    So, should the government turn a blind eye to a business owner that discriminates based on race or gender?

    It's like the old joke about the guy who asks a woman if she'll sleep with him for a million bucks, then asks if she'll sleep with him for $50. Either the government has no regulatory authority, and needs to but out completely, or it does, and we need to figure out where the line is. And unfortunately, the arguments about not allowing smoking tend to be more compelling than those allowing it.

    This may need splitting off into a new smoking thread because I don't find the arguments against allowing smoking to be more compelling by any means, and didn't before I started smoking myself either. Unless you also support a ban on bars having parking-lots.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    So, should the government turn a blind eye to a business owner that discriminates based on race or gender?

    It's like the old joke about the guy who asks a woman if she'll sleep with him for a million bucks, then asks if she'll sleep with him for $50. Either the government has no regulatory authority, and needs to but out completely, or it does, and we need to figure out where the line is. And unfortunately, the arguments about not allowing smoking tend to be more compelling than those allowing it.

    This may need splitting off into a new smoking thread because I don't find the arguments against allowing smoking to be more compelling by any means, and didn't before I started smoking myself either. Unless you also support a ban on bars having parking-lots.

    So, a portion of the populace should be restricted from portions of their community (sometimes substantial portions) all because you made a voluntary decision? Don't you see how that's wrong?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    So, should the government turn a blind eye to a business owner that discriminates based on race or gender?

    It's like the old joke about the guy who asks a woman if she'll sleep with him for a million bucks, then asks if she'll sleep with him for $50. Either the government has no regulatory authority, and needs to but out completely, or it does, and we need to figure out where the line is. And unfortunately, the arguments about not allowing smoking tend to be more compelling than those allowing it.

    This may need splitting off into a new smoking thread because I don't find the arguments against allowing smoking to be more compelling by any means, and didn't before I started smoking myself either. Unless you also support a ban on bars having parking-lots.

    So, a portion of the populace should be restricted from portions of their community (sometimes substantial portions) all because you made a voluntary decision? Don't you see how that's wrong?

    I've said it before, I'll say it again; any rational argument regarding public smoking bans should probably begin with employee protections rather than worrying about the health/comfort of the general public. Because nobody has to go to a bar, but everybody (in theory) has to work.

    Outdoor bans, despite the riveting testimony I've heard here (perhaps from the Cat?) regarding how somebody with extreme IBS can be brought to their knees after passing a smoker on the sidewalk, are pretty much a non-starter.

    Either way I think this particular issue is probably worthy of a separate thread. Come on, VC, I know you want to start it.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Outdoor bans, despite the riveting testimony I've heard here (perhaps from the Cat?) regarding how somebody with extreme IBS can be brought to their knees after passing a smoker on the sidewalk, are pretty much a non-starter.

    It was Krysanthemum.
    And like most smoking threads, it was a bloody train wreck of a thread.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Outdoor bans, despite the riveting testimony I've heard here (perhaps from the Cat?) regarding how somebody with extreme IBS can be brought to their knees after passing a smoker on the sidewalk, are pretty much a non-starter.

    It was Krysanthemum.
    And like most smoking threads, it was a bloody train wreck of a thread.

    Ah yes. My bad. And I remember that one being worse that most, which is really saying something.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Outdoor bans, despite the riveting testimony I've heard here (perhaps from the Cat?) regarding how somebody with extreme IBS can be brought to their knees after passing a smoker on the sidewalk, are pretty much a non-starter.

    It was Krysanthemum.
    And like most smoking threads, it was a bloody train wreck of a thread.

    Ah yes. My bad. And I remember that one being worse that most, which is really saying something.

    Well, any really controversial thread here really goes downhill rapidly. I still liked when someone tried to make a new abortion thread that as basically the same as the one we had previously, and Elk's response ("No, we are NOT doing this again.")

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    So, should the government turn a blind eye to a business owner that discriminates based on race or gender?

    It's like the old joke about the guy who asks a woman if she'll sleep with him for a million bucks, then asks if she'll sleep with him for $50. Either the government has no regulatory authority, and needs to but out completely, or it does, and we need to figure out where the line is. And unfortunately, the arguments about not allowing smoking tend to be more compelling than those allowing it.

    This may need splitting off into a new smoking thread because I don't find the arguments against allowing smoking to be more compelling by any means, and didn't before I started smoking myself either. Unless you also support a ban on bars having parking-lots.

    So, a portion of the populace should be restricted from portions of their community (sometimes substantial portions) all because you made a voluntary decision? Don't you see how that's wrong?

    Don't you get it? Your right to stand there ends when I swing my fist.

    Geez.

    shryke on
  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Something that bugs me about libertarians:

    Most of them have a "tax is theft" sort of motto. Most of them also think the state should be restricted to bare essentials like defense. How exactly are they planning on paying for all that without taxes?

    Phoenix-D on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Something that bugs me about libertarians:

    Most of them have a "tax is theft" sort of motto. Most of them also think the state should be restricted to bare essentials like defense. How exactly are they planning on paying for all that without taxes?

    They never get that far?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    EriosErios Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Something that bugs me about libertarians:

    Most of them have a "tax is theft" sort of motto. Most of them also think the state should be restricted to bare essentials like defense. How exactly are they planning on paying for all that without taxes?

    Plus, as anyone who has studied trade, in-depth can tell you: once you start making exceptions for government spending inclusions, you eventually will develop a large-scale government spending umbrella (at least we have Keynes arguing that can be a good thing).

    Erios on
    Steam: erios23, Live: Coconut Flavor, Origin: erios2386.
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Something that bugs me about libertarians:

    Most of them have a "tax is theft" sort of motto. Most of them also think the state should be restricted to bare essentials like defense. How exactly are they planning on paying for all that without taxes?

    Most of the time they recognize that taxation is a necessary evil; and therefore they tolerate it only at the minimum level needed to operate the necessary functions of government.

    It's not a logically inconsistent position. I feel pretty much the same, I just have a far more expansive definition of what constitutes the necessary functions of government.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Either way I think this particular issue is probably worthy of a separate thread. Come on, VC, I know you want to start it.

    No I don't, what I want is for ace here to stop pretending that opposing a ban on smoking is some kind of empirical evidence of how stupid libertarians are. That line of reasoning doesn't make any sense at all. His inability to form a coherent argument in favor of banning smoking in bars and, as I mentioned as my original example, tobacconist shops is completely irrelevant and I think red herrings taste like shit no matter how you cook them.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Either way I think this particular issue is probably worthy of a separate thread. Come on, VC, I know you want to start it.

    No I don't, what I want is for ace here to stop pretending that opposing a ban on smoking is some kind of empirical evidence of how stupid libertarians are. That line of reasoning doesn't make any sense at all. His inability to form a coherent argument in favor of banning smoking in bars and, as I mentioned as my original example, tobacconist shops is completely irrelevant and I think red herrings taste like shit no matter how you cook them.

    Ah, true. I forgot the context in which this is being brought up. Newsflash: libertarians feel that a property owner should be able to allow whatever the fuck they want on their property. This would include smoking. They certainly wouldn't give two shits about the patrons who choose freely to be there, and they're generally not too keen on worker protections and would argue that employees that don't like it can just take their labor elsewhere.

    There is absolutely no hypocrisy between libertarianism and opposing smoking bans. To them you have no right to patronize any given privately owned business, nor do you have any particular right to work there either. Hell, I'm inclined to agree with the former.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Yeah, can we please not go into the smoking thing in here?

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    StrollingeggStrollingegg Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Most debates on the subject of the Great Depression are irrelevant, and legislation undertaken during the period exacerbated the problem. The New Deal was, at best, ineffectual, and at worst destructive. WW2 did little except give a bunch of young men something to do. In economic terms they might as well been paid to sit in Europe. Economic growth was only restored when the Federal bank began an easy money policy.

    Really? The new deal AND world war 2 had nothing to do with ending the great depression? Can you see why people say you tend to oversimplify things? I don't know if you know this, but unemployment doesn't exactly help economy. To say that putting money into more peoples hands doesn't stimulate economy is just ignorant. I know the conservative economists will say otherwise with their trickle down "I'm peeing on you" economics, but the fact is that if no one has money to spend on your business, economy fails. you cant exactly say that has absolutely no affect on economy.



    Feral wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Something that bugs me about libertarians:

    Most of them have a "tax is theft" sort of motto. Most of them also think the state should be restricted to bare essentials like defense. How exactly are they planning on paying for all that without taxes?

    Most of the time they recognize that taxation is a necessary evil; and therefore they tolerate it only at the minimum level needed to operate the necessary functions of government.

    It's not a logically inconsistent position. I feel pretty much the same, I just have a far more expansive definition of what constitutes the necessary functions of government.

    Exactly, this is where most arguments against other political standpoints go wrong. Everyone says taxes are essential at some point, its just how much and for what purpose. I tend to agree that we need enough to cover functions, and that basic functions cover a lot more then what libertarians think is needed. Though there is that whole republican aspect of just spending without the proper amount of taxes, but I'm not really sure that counts in this argument.

    Strollingegg on
  • Options
    deadlyrhetoricdeadlyrhetoric "We could be two straight lines in a crooked world."__BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    This is an interesting thread. However, it seems to me that (with the exception of Feral, Mithrandir, and a few others) few of you actually understand the differences between not only Objectivism and Libertarianism, but also the two parties of the United States (Democrat and Republican) government, as well as the difference between economy, government, and natural rights.

    Allow me:
    Objectivism vs. Libertarian
    Democratic Party vs. Republican Party
    Democracy vs. Communism
    Natural Rights

    I'm not going to get into the argument, because I'll just get angry. I would like to point out that Ayn Rand's work is a work of literature, and similar to other literary works that are tied to a specific ethos, exists to portray the world as it is versus the world that she sees fit. Every character and plot device exists to convey a point, and to make the point as obvious as possible, the juxtaposition between the two ideals must be as great as possible. So, let's not go overboard with this "objectivism-won't-work-today" shit, because I won't throw you a life-vest. And you're right, it most likely won't. However, that doesn't mean that it's not something that other people can't believe in.

    Many of you accuse Libertarians as being self-aggrandizing, haughty, conceited "nerds," when you're doing the same thing by putting them down. I prefer Libertarian ideals (then again, I do have "Who is John Galt?" tattooed on my side), but I concede that, in the United States, the scales are too tipped in a specific, homogeneous direction, and that before a serious Libertarian movement could even be considered, serious change must be made.

    deadlyrhetoric on
  • Options
    DoratheExplorerDoratheExplorer Registered User new member
    edited September 2007
    Actually, many libertarians favor several specific tax reform plans such as the Fair Tax... I'm no expert, but I do know that true libertarians aren't just uppity teenage nerds. Libertarianism might be better understood if you could compare it to well known historical figures' views. Thomas Jefferson might be a libertarian today, for example.

    DoratheExplorer on
    "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one's self in the ranks of the insane."
    -Marcus Aurelius
  • Options
    Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Okay, folks. First- Friedman was right about the depression being partly due to tight monetary policy.

    However, there were other contributing factors that our libertarian friend here ignores, and most importantly, dismissing the impact of the New Deal or WW2 is flat-out monocausal.

    Monocausality makes historians cry.
    Thomas Jefferson might be a libertarian today, for example.

    Doubtful.

    Professor Phobos on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Actually, many libertarians favor several specific tax reform plans such as the Fair Tax...
    Which, every fucking time it gets brought up, gets exposed for the garbage it is. Seriously, it's to the point that saying "I support the FairTax" is the same as saying "I'm clueless, please ignore me."
    I'm no expert, but I do know that true libertarians aren't just uppity teenage nerds.
    They just tend to evolve from them.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    I'm no expert, but I do know that true libertarians aren't just uppity teenage nerds.
    They just tend to evolve from them.

    He's right, though.

    We can't just write off the crackpot survivalist element.

    Senjutsu on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    I'm no expert, but I do know that true libertarians aren't just uppity teenage nerds.
    They just tend to evolve from them.

    He's right, though.

    We can't just write off the crackpot survivalist element.

    You mean the Ron Paul branch? :P

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    DoratheExplorerDoratheExplorer Registered User new member
    edited September 2007
    Thomas Jefferson was one of the most outspoken opponents to the Virginia Plan and big government. He envisioned government much more focused on states' rights and very limited federal government. He is actually a prime example of a true libertarian.

    DoratheExplorer on
    "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one's self in the ranks of the insane."
    -Marcus Aurelius
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Thomas Jefferson was one of the most outspoken opponents to the Virginia Plan and big government. He envisioned government much more focused on states' rights and very limited federal government. He is actually a prime example of a true libertarian.

    First, that's debatable. He envisioned strong state governments, which is arguably contrary to libertarian principles. Shifting power to the states is a federalist position, not a libertarian one, as mentioned previously in the thread.

    Second, he was entirely opposed to the notion of corporations and viewed the consolidation of wealth as a threat to individual liberty. He was outspoken against the creation of the Bank of the United States with comments that indicated that it was not merely a federal bank that he opposed, but large banks in general. I think he would have recognized that the state needs to keep today's large corporations and wealth-holders closely in check.

    Third, his foreign policy was very non-Libertarian. He supported strong, closed borders with tightly controlled immigration and supported the Embargo Act. The typical Libertarian positions are open borders and free trade.

    Fourth, he kept in line with the dominant thought of the era regarding sexuality. He supported very strong laws against sodomy. I don't know if he'd agree with today's Libertarian stance that what goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults is their business.

    Fifth, who cares? Even if he had been a Libertarian, as I mentioned before, the world was very different in 1800 than it is today. What might have made sense then does not necessarily make sense now.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Thomas Jefferson was one of the most outspoken opponents to the Virginia Plan and big government. He envisioned government much more focused on states' rights and very limited federal government. He is actually a prime example of a true libertarian.

    He opposed federal government, but was cool with strong state governments- which is just as anathema to Libertarians.

    The essence of libertarian philosophy is that the government should not provide for the people what the people can (in theory) provide for themselves. That means it does three, and only three, things: National Defense, Rule of Law, and Public Goods. (Armies, Cops, and Roads, basically)

    Really radical libertarians even envision private police forces and justice systems, but that's probably impractical.

    Ultimately the philosophy falls down, in my view, because it has woefully obsolete conceptions of what a
    "public good" is. I consider the FDA, for example, to provide a public good- safety regulations on food and medicines, information about their contents, etc. The FDA is anathema to Libertarians because they think that somehow the public can provide that for themselves, or at least companies would suffer if they didn't obey basic safety.

    Which is obviously fraught with peril. Most normal people do not have the time to investigate everything they eat, and without laws compelling revelation they'd get nowhere with companies either. Most normal people aren't epidemiologists or doctors and might never discover the source of their illness. And, god forbid, if Corporation A put, say, strychnine in their guacamole and this was discovered by some intrepid citizen...news of it could be suppressed because, as it so happens, Corporation A is owned by Conglomerate B, which happens to own Popular News Agency C...

    Ultimately I believe government should do for the people (read also: individuals, society, etc) what individuals can not do for themselves. And that is a whole laundry list of services.

    Professor Phobos on
  • Options
    AgemAgem Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    This is an interesting thread. However, it seems to me that (with the exception of Feral, Mithrandir, and a few others) few of you actually understand the differences between not only Objectivism and Libertarianism, but also the two parties of the United States (Democrat and Republican) government, as well as the difference between economy, government, and natural rights.

    Allow me:
    Objectivism vs. Libertarian
    With Objectivism and libertarianism, the reason they are so closely associated, at least in the states, is that simply put, Ayn Rand was one of the most influential pop philosophers in the states in a long time. Even with people that aren't libertarians, you find people who cite Ayn Rand as inspiration for how they live their lives, and so on. As a result, libertarians in the states - who generally have visions of the way things should be similar to those of Objectivists - tend to end up using Objectivist arguments, even they themselves do not call themselves Objectivists, or in fact are sometimes not even aware that that "Objectivism" refers to Ayn Rand's ideas.

    That, and that Objectivism is generally a really extreme sort of libertarianism, and that, as usual, the people on the fringe are going to shout louder and be heard more.
    I would like to point out that Ayn Rand's work is a work of literature, and similar to other literary works that are tied to a specific ethos, exists to portray the world as it is versus the world that she sees fit. Every character and plot device exists to convey a point, and to make the point as obvious as possible, the juxtaposition between the two ideals must be as great as possible. So, let's not go overboard with this "objectivism-won't-work-today" shit, because I won't throw you a life-vest. And you're right, it most likely won't. However, that doesn't mean that it's not something that other people can't believe in.
    Ayn Rand's books, are, quite frankly, not very well-written. They're closer to propaganda than anything else. Trust me, no one isn't getting how her characters are designed to prove a point. Her books are likely among the least subtle ever written.

    I'm not sure about what you intended the last three sentences there to mean, though.

    Agem on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    No, I totally think Jefferson would be a Libertarian today, because Jefferson was bat-shit fucking crazy. He'd fit right in with the Libertarian movement.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    I'm not going to get into the argument, because I'll just get angry. I would like to point out that Ayn Rand's work is a work of literature, and similar to other literary works that are tied to a specific ethos, exists to portray the world as it is versus the world that she sees fit. Every character and plot device exists to convey a point, and to make the point as obvious as possible, the juxtaposition between the two ideals must be as great as possible. So, let's not go overboard with this "objectivism-won't-work-today" shit, because I won't throw you a life-vest. And you're right, it most likely won't. However, that doesn't mean that it's not something that other people can't believe in.
    Not every work of literature is written to browbeat you with a parable of why everything the author believes in is the ultimate good, and that anyone who disagrees with the author is supporting the greatest evil the world has ever known.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Because nerds are generally intelligent.

    Yar on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    Because nerds are generally intelligent.

    HAHAHAHAHA. Have you ever looked at a flame war involving Microsoft, Apple, Sony, piracy, etc.?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited September 2007
    Okay, folks. First- Friedman was right about the depression being partly due to tight monetary policy.

    However, there were other contributing factors that our libertarian friend here ignores, and most importantly, dismissing the impact of the New Deal or WW2 is flat-out monocausal.

    Isn't a mainstay of mainstream libertarian thought that federal economic management is outside the scope of government and "tight" monetary policy (or even returns to the gold standard lol) is the only legitimate monetary policy?

    I'm pretty sure that Ron Paul was taking that position.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Ron Paul is strongly pro-Gold Standard. The Government has no right to devalue your savings a blloo bloo bloo

    Senjutsu on
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Ron Paul is strongly pro-Gold Standard. The Government has no right to devalue your savings a blloo bloo bloo
    He probably thinks Alan Greenspan was the devil.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    The Gold Standard is all because of Ayn Rand's overactive distrust of goverment which fueled a wholly irrational belief in the "objective" value of gold as superior to a floating exchange rate and federal reserve system. She preached it heavy, and so Objectivists everywhere buy into it full steam, even though it is a fundamental misunderstanding of money.
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Ron Paul is strongly pro-Gold Standard. The Government has no right to devalue your savings a blloo bloo bloo
    He probably thinks Alan Greenspan was the devil.
    Which is all tripley ironic because Greenspan is like one of the biggest Rand fanbois evar.

    Yar on
Sign In or Register to comment.