Posted on 10/01/2009 6:07:20 PM PDT by RobinMasters
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..
by the way, you are confusing small ‘l’ libertarinism with capital “L” libertarinism, the former a philosophy, the latter a political movment. By the fact that Rand names names and specifically discusses the political players and actions, it is safe to assume she is referring to that versus what CATO refers to which is libertarian philosophy.
As William F. Buckley said, “There is very little “libertarian” about the Libertarian party.
She mentions John Hospers as being funnier than the Marx Brothers and Bob Hope. Does she claim that John Hospers plagiarized her ideas? If so, which ideas specifically, and in which book by Hospers are her ideas supposedly plagiarized? Show me precisely -- with quotes and emphasis, please -- where Rand "names names" and "discusses the political players and actions." I don't see it in post #18. Show me.
As for Paul, he is a nutjob Buchananite paleo with the usual vices of that set. Everything remotely sane in him you can find in von Mises minus the crazy. Cut out the middleman.
That's because medicine in this country is an art, not a science.
When you go to a doctor, despite the white lab coats, they are just dippy artists TRYING to figure out your problem.
You are right, Mises is great. I would just give one word of warning, get Mises’ actual books. Don’t rely on web resources. There are some really bad resources on Mises out there (like the Mises Institute which is really just a Lew Rockwell blog) that twist a lot of what he said.
The Fed is totally corrupt. You are being disingenuous trying to compare the 1st and 2nd Banks to the illegal Fed.
Quote from Lauren BaRecall...bares repeating:
“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.”
As I said, for what it’s worth.
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.