Posted on 10/01/2009 6:07:20 PM PDT by RobinMasters
A follow-up to my post last weekend about what a disgraceful, denialist crank this guy is. Let me go in chronological order, as there’s so much here that’s either dumb or dishonest that I’ll overlook something if I don’t.
1. Who are the mysterious “neocons” who forced poor Barack Obama to disclose the secret Qom site, which Paul would have you believe he didn’t want to do even though he’s been preparing to do it for months? Or have I misunderstood and he’s actually suggesting that Obama’s been duped and that there’s no secret Qom site at all, even though other western intel services have been keeping tabs on it for years? Give us the names of this nefarious Jewish — sorry, I mean “neocon” — cabal, please.
2. According to The Only Man Who Can Save America, Iran actually disclosed the existence of the Qom site to the IAEA before Obama disclosed it, ergo it’s not actually a secret. True. What he doesn’t mention: They only disclosed it a week ago, in the vaguest possible terms, after having kept it a secret for at least three years, and only because they realized that the west knew about it and was about to blow their cover. Nuance, Ron Paul style.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Ping.
In before the Ron Paul praise crowd.
Anyone read End the Fed?
Is it worth it?
I’m just getting started and I’m not impressed and I don’t have the time to waste on a crap book.
So you think The Fed is a good thing?
It was worth it to me.
Not that I’m much of a fan of Ron Paul. In fact, it’s a sad commentary on politics in America today that we have to rely on folks like him to take a principled stand in this country, when he’s so far wrong on several questions.
I really don’t like Allahpundit.
Does anything Paul have to say really matter.
Libertarians:
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
This gives me the idea that Libertarians really don’t care about their fellow humans. And don’t tell me it’s about taxes. I want to know if Libertarians believe in charitable orgs.
IMHO libertarians are little kids who never grew out of the “its all about me” stage. They read Atlas Shrugged and it gets worse because now the little kids can quote Ayn while playing Dagny-Ragnar dress up games. Unfortunately, they have taken over the GOP. Main reason why GOP has become the party of the wealthy and big business.
parsy, who prays conservatives will purge their party of these goobers
The irony of that is that Ayn hated libertarians.
I didn’t know that.
parsy, who says tell me more, please
As a Libertarian, I can tell you that you are patently wrong.
a friend of the lib who ranted yesterday,
Not only is Alan Grayson a Left Wing loon
and proudly calls himself a Progressive but,
Grayson has teamed up with another loon, Ron Paul
with his Fed bill and associated with the fascist
Alex Jones.
A few sites for Ron Paul I checked out has comments from Paul’s lemmings supporting Alan Grayson, the Progressive
and his hate filled rant
Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to 'do something.' By 'ideological' (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the 'libertarian' hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and (hand) the victory to your enemies.
For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called 'hippies of the right,' who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs. - Ayn Rand
I have a LOT more, but just to warn you, the Paul sycophants will claim she was not talking about American Libertarians but some obscure British anarchist group, even though, in many of these quotes she names, names and this quote was to West Point grads which made no sense if it were about the British 'libertines'.
see post 14
that should answer your question.
His book = doorstop
IMO, what libertarianism and communism/socialism have in common is a denial of the true nature of human nature. In this, I see no difference between Lenin and Ayn Rand.
More |
|---|
|
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. |
Thank you. That explains the gov’t nihilist slant of the GOP. Its the anaorcho-capitalists. I may have to re-evaluate my latest views of Ayn.
parsy, who tries to get it right
Every group tries to claim ties to her (besides the Communists obviously), but the fact is that Objectivism is philosophical, not political, and by nature, would be the antithesis of political labels. The Libertarians (big L) have been the worst about riding her coat-tails.
Isn’t Ron Paul’s audit the Fed bill one co-sponsor short of a filibuster proof majority in the House? In addition to Grayson, I’m sure there are other sponsors you find much more palatable.
Reading comprehension is really slipping on this site.
Where do I say anything like that?
No, I don’t. I want it audited and then abolished and I want our currency returned to something with real backing.
I was talking about his book. I haven’t heard any rave reviews about it and so far it sucks. I have 4000 books in my library and have about half of them to finish reading. And I don’t want to waste time on Paul’s book if the entire thing sucks.
OK, thanks. Guess I’ll plow through it.
If you haven’t read Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island, you ought to take a look at it. After reading that, everything on the Fed that I’ve read pales in comparison.
How can you know it sucks if you don’t read it? I have not but I give him credit in pushing for an audit of the Fed. It is a totally illegal NGO.
My point, Paul’s allies take in this POS.
This is so typical. Cindy Sheehan and other left wing
loons have allied with the same bunch.
They all have in common, anti war
Being wrong on one thing =/= being wrong on a different thing.
I haven’t read much at all about the Fed nor Austrian economics. I figured that, since he’s trying to reach a broad audience, Ron Paul’s book would be a good primer and wouldn’t go too far over my head. I’m too ignorant on the subject of fiat money and how it affects politics to agree or disagree with him, but he makes some intriguing arguments. That’s what I’d hoped to get out of the book, and that’s what I got.
I’ll take your advice and put The Creature from Jekyll Island on my reading list.
Add to that Ron Paul has refused to return donations from and repudiate endorsements from the Stormfront types.
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.
The woman was a patriot.
Give it at least two month’s reading and studying time.
I guarantee it will fully mature much of what you suspected and believed, as well as open your eyes very wide regarding financial matters in this country.
Von Mises also has a decent history of the Fed.
I thought Ron Paul was a Republican...
“Main reason why GOP has become the party of the wealthy and big business.”
Main reason the GOP became a party of that group is because that is who has the most money, by far.
Yeah he switched Parties. He kept running as a Libertarian...kept losing...so he switch to Republican and then won. He is a RINO.
Allahpundit most recently jumped the shark by bashing Palin upon her resignation:
Breaking: Palin to resign within weeks? Update: Is her career over?
....Update: Says Ace, “It’s over. You can’t resign from a governorship and then run for higher office.” I agree. Placing your ambition over your commitment to the state looks shady, especially for someone who won’t have a single full term as governor under her belt for the primaries.
For the skinny on allahpundit, see these:
Predictably, Allahpundit is an officer of the PC Police. Palin bashing is fine, but don't be mean to Mrs. Obama!
Well both were atheist. But Rand was against Big Brother.
Some people overlook her atheism to embrace her glorification of the I.
Ron Paul voted against condemning Ahmadinejad.
His long list of anti war, having much the same views of Rev. Wright re 9/11, and other views and talking points of the Code Pinkos.
I have followed politics for several decades. worked in Reagan’s first campaign when he ran for gov.
Have also seen the damage Third Party malcontents do
to this country.
Have gone face to face many times with Code Pinkos and Paulites. Just too many issues with the same talking points.
Exactly, Stormfront, Rockwell, Jones, and the list goes on.
As far as I know, he ran as a Libertarian Presidential candidate back in 88’. He’s been a Republican for quite a while now. His voting record indicates to me that he seems to side with the Constitution no matter which party is in power at the time. Wish we had more “RINO’s” like Ron Paul...
For what it’s worth....
..........................
In the 1988 presidential election, Paul defeated American Indian activist Russell Means to win the Libertarian Party nomination for president.[6] Paul criticized Ronald Reagan as a failure and cited high deficits as exhibit A.[16] On the ballot in 46 states and the District of Columbia,[24] Paul placed third in the popular vote with 432,179 votes (0.5%),[25] behind Republican winner George H. W. Bush and Democrat Michael Dukakis.[26] Paul was kept off the ballot in Missouri, and received votes there only when written in, due to what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch called a “technicality”.[27]
As the “Libertarian standard bearer”,[28][29] Paul gained supporters who agreed with his positions on gun rights, fiscal conservatism, homeschooling, and abortion, and won approval from many who thought the federal government was misdirected. This nationwide support base encouraged and donated to his later campaigns.[9] Kent Snyder, Paul’s 2008 campaign chair, first worked for Paul on the 1988 campaign.[30][31]
According to Paul, his presidential run was about more than reaching office; he sought to spread his libertarian ideas, often to school and university groups regardless of vote eligibility. He said, “We’re just as interested in the future generation as this election. These kids will vote eventually, and maybe, just maybe, they’ll go home and talk to their parents.”[24] He traveled the country for a year speaking about issues such as free market economics and the rising government deficits:[28] “That’s why we talk to a lot of young people. They’re the ones who are paying these bills, they’re the ones who are inheriting this debt, so it’s most likely these young people who will move into this next generation in government.”[32]
After the election, Paul continued his medical practice until he returned to Congress.[6][33] He also co-owned a coin dealership, Ron Paul Coins, for twelve years with Burt Blumert, who continued to operate it after Paul returned to office.[34][35] He spoke multiple times at the American Numismatic Association’s 1988 convention.[34] He worked with FREE on such projects as establishing the National Endowment for Liberty, producing the At Issue public policy series that aired on Discovery Channel and CNBC,[18] and continuing publication of Dr. Ron Paul’s Freedom Report.
Ron Paul & Associates (RP&A), Inc. was founded in 1984 by Ron Paul who served as President, Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr. served as Vice President, Ron Paul’s wife Carol served as Secretary and Lori Pyeatt as Treasurer. The corporation was dissolved in 2001.[36][37][38][39]
In 1985 Ron Paul & Associates began publishing The Ron Paul Investment Letter[40] and The Ron Paul Survival Report;[9][41] it added the more controversial Ron Paul Political Report in 1987.[42] Articles were largely unbylined but often invoked Paul’s name or persona. In 1992, RP&A earned $940,000 and employed Paul’s family as well as Lew Rockwell (its vice-president[43] and sometime editor)[44] and seven other workers. Murray Rothbard and other libertarians believed Rockwell ghostwrote the newsletters for Paul;[43] Rockwell later acknowledged involvement in writing subscription letters, but attributed the newsletters to “seven or eight freelancers”.[45]
Paul considered running for President in 1992,[46] but instead chose to support Pat Buchanan that year, and served as an advisor to his Republican presidential campaign against incumbent President George H. W. Bush.[47]
Well noted—(and well selected, i.e., “The Moratorium on Brains”...)
How is advocating capitalism an instance of riding her coat-tails?
The answer is in post #18.
Read your profile. As a business man I have found lawyers to be many of my best friends. Everyone I use is honest, direct and get’s the job done.
Doctors though I have found to be dishonest scumbags who in all of mine and my wifes health needs just suck the cash from our bank accounts and to date has never solved a single health issue.
No, I have never sued one and don’t intend to. I just hope that before I pass away there may be one who we can trust.
OTOH are the self evident truths of the Declaration of Independence which invokes a deity who created humans and their nature, and also bestows upon them certain inalienable rights. The Founding Fathers recognized the truth regarding human nature, including the fact that human nature needs both the freedom of limited government, and the boundaries of the rule of law. Human nature needs a balance between responsibility, and the freedom to create. The rule of law fosters personal responsibility, which gives rise to a stable society, and within the context of stability, order, and morality is the fertile soil upon which a human being can exercise his inalienable rights.
Ayn Rand's glorification of the “I” gave rise to an amoral, disordered life. Since her concept of human nature was faulty, she pursued what was in reality a faulty concept of happiness. The glorification of a finite and fallible object, whether it's the state/collective, or the "I," imprisons human nature and thwarts its fulfillment, and therefore does not lead to happiness.
The GOP has NOT become the party of the libertarians. They have opposed bailouts and spending which the GOP in no way can lay claim to.
I don't think so. Rand merely says things like this:
I don’t think plagiarists are effective.
Question begging. The question that needs to be answered is whether anyone is, in fact, a plagiarist. She asserts it, but doesn't prove it. If so, what work, and who plagiarized it? So far, this is nothing but vague accusation.
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.
Which Libertarians? What did she read? And what does she mean by "the early years"?
According to an excellent series of articles at the Cato Institute website, there were three "founding mothers" of modern American libertarianism: Isabel Paterson, Rose Wilder Lane, and Ayn Rand. Rand, in fact, learned much from Paterson (and she broke with her long-time friend and mentor because Paterson refused to renounce her belief in God). They all wrote and advocated ideas of self-reliance, individualism, and capitalism -- this was early on, in the 30s and 40s. These were certainly "the early days." Is Rand asserting that Lane and Paterson plagiarized ideas from her? If so, which ideas? And while one can plagiarize someone's writing, how does one plagiarize another's ideas? What if two or more people -- both concerned, for example, with the encroachment of individual rights by the state -- come up with the same, or very similar, ideas about ethics or politics...(this even happens in science and math: Newton and Leibnitz knew nothing of each other's work yet they independently invented calculus. There was no plagiarism).
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.
A colorfully subjective rant on how she personally felt about another group of people. So what.
Since Rand herself won't answer my question -- which was: WHAT, SPECIFICALLY, CONCRETELY, WAS PLAGIARIZED FROM RAND BY LIBERTARIANS, AND WHO, EXACTLY, WERE THE LIBERTARIANS INVOLVED? -- that means someone else will have to do it.
Your turn.
It is interesting how you pull quoted the vaguest quotes yet left the ones that answered your questions.. lol..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.