Skip to comments.Libertarians may run Senate candidate in Ky.
Posted on 05/27/2010 8:06:18 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) -- The Libertarian Party is considering running a candidate in Kentucky's U.S. Senate race, saying GOP nominee Rand Paul -- the son of a former Libertarian presidential candidate -- has betrayed the party's values.
Party Vice Chairman Joshua Koch said Wednesday that Paul has been a black eye for Libertarians because of stands he's taken on issues, including his criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Koch said Paul is not a Libertarian. He called Paul and his Democratic opponent, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, "faces of the same bad coin."
(Excerpt) Read more at gopusa.com ...
And this is why the LP will never get more than 1% of the vote. Because they make the GOP actually look smart sometimes.
The Libertarian Party is considering running a candidate in Kentucky’s U.S. Senate race because they are just that *ucking stupid.
Joshua Koch is a very noble shill :-)
Hey, maybe they can get Ross Perot to run, too...
Legalize weed. That’s Koch’s hot button.
Party Vice Chairman Joshua Koch said
I wish some one in KY would kick the a-hole in the shorts and make him see the light. F’ing moron.
Koch had strong criticism for Paul, who won the Republican Senate nomination last week by trouncing the GOP establishment candidate, Secretary of State Trey Grayson.He must not have been looking very heard, then. Most "outsider" politicians undergo that metamorphosis -- in many cases, the time required is closer to nine days than to nine months.
"He had gone from being an outsider candidate to a tea party candidate to an establishment candidate in the past nine months," Koch said. "It's a complete identity crisis. I've never seen anything like it."
So Rand Paul isn’t a liberaltarian? And here I thought being a disciple of Ayn Rand automatically made you one.
They are doing it on purpose in this case.
Losertarians about to fratricide their own. Then smugly claim it wasn’t their fault.
And you are far, far too kind.
The National LP took a hard Left turn into kook-ville and never looked back.
Sad, because libertarianism itself isn't a bad political philosophy and meshes quite well with the Constitution despite it's detractors constant attempts to malign it.
The Libertarian Party Platform calls for anarchy.
It has no connection with the Founding Fathers.
Sorry, Rand Paul, not Ron Paul. (Learn to proofread ASB!)
So the LP in Kentucky does not believe in the ‘right to association’? They believe in the Federal government dictating to private businesses who they must associate with?
Are these idiots on crack??!! They've finally got a libertarian-ish guy running on one of the two major tickets and they're doing the best they can to make sure he doesn't' get elected! D'oh! Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
In response to my own question:
I just looked at their website and they are not really libertarians at all. They are progressives. They not only believe that the Federal government should dictate to private business who they could associate with in regards to race but also that all business should be forced to accept peoples non-traditional behavior (perversions). This group is not at all for individual liberty but is instead for the fascist agenda of having government force a perverted morality upon its citizens. Pathetic.
That’s what I was wondering. It would seem that Paul’s criticism of the Civil Rights act fits right in with the libertarian philosophy.
So the Libertarians are trashing Paul because he's too...libertarian, and then claiming he's become an establishment candidate. OK, then. Has anyone told them that despite the "KY", they're not supposed to eat KY Jelly just cause they're from Kentucky?
i think that Joshua Kook needs a refresher course in Libertarian thought, especially the idea of free association.
Asshats like this are an embarrassment to the Party.
i don't look for anything to come of it, except that Joshua Kook gets a private spanking from the leadership of the Party.
Have to be careful handing those out. This guy might interpret it as a commendation. Maybe decree "NO private spankings TILL you grasp freedom of association."
Goodie. A left-winger and two Libertarians in the general, but no mainstream Conservative.
Ayn Rand was an objectivist, not a libertarian. She pretty much despised libertarians, as do her philosophical heirs.
And who would be her "philosophical heirs"? Murray Rothbard? Lew Rockwell? Ron Paul? Let's start early, how about Frédéric Bastiat, how would Ayn Rand felt about Frederic Bastiat?
"Her theory of Objectivism has much in common with Libertarian philosophy, though she wanted nothing to do with the Libertarian Party."
Ayn Rand was a known adulterer and intentionally chose a child-free marriage. Rand was pro-abortion and an atheist. A born Russian Jew, she abhorred altruism, one of the basic tenets of Judeo-Christian faith. She didn't believe in the morality of charity and don't even mention the handicapped and the poor. She thought selfishness was good virtue. "Rights," in Ayn Rand's words, "do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born."
Big deal, she's the little "l" in libertarianism.
I’m not saying either of them are better than the others. I am neither an objectivist or a libertarian. I do know, however, that there is a lot of enmity between them.
I think her arguments against altruism are bizarre.
I’m reading up on the differences between Libertarianism and Objectivism...HEAVY reading man.
“Ayn Rand was a known adulterer and intentionally chose a child-free marriage.”
No children and she had an affair?
Well then her philosophy certainly couldn’t be valid! /s
“Big deal, she’s the little “l” in libertarianism.”
That’s an obfuscation, but probably not intentional, because you probably don’t choose to recognize the difference between libertarianism and objectivism.
Maybe making a distinction doesn’t serve your purpose?
Make the distinction please. (You might tell the pro-Rand libertarians the differences as well, as many of them follow the pro-baby killing, adulterous atheist around like she’s some kind of godess).
The beautiful thing about atheism (being your own "god") is this: When you reject Gods standard, and thus God Himself, the door is wide open to any sort of behavior. As Dostoyevsky wrote, if there is no God, everything is permissible.
I’m not sure I see how atheism equates to being your own God. That would actually be a contradiction. If you don’t believe in God, then you can’t believe that you are your own God, because then you would be believing in God, i.e. your self, which contradicts the idea of atheism. And so your idea cannot be true, because it contradicts itself.
On your second point, ask yourself this question:
If there were no God, how would I behave?
Once you’ve answer that, then answer this:
Why would you behave the way you said you would behave if there were no God? In other words, how *should* I behave?
And what would be the basis of that behavior, in terms of your philosophical base?
How you answer those questions determines a lot of things.
Jesus Christ had no children.
Was his philosophy invalid as a result?
Jesus wasn't an atheist, nor did you have an adulterous affair with a woman, nor did he advocate the murder of the innocent unborn. Here are the nutcases you're defending:
"If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous."
"Those who embrace libertarianism (or Objectivism), believe that there is no ultimate authority to which men and their civil society must answer other than themselves and the words of their own constitutions and laws. Men are "free," and there should be as few restrictions on "freedom" as possible."
Everyone is "governed" by something; when you only have to answer to yourself, you are in essence your own "god".
On your second point, ask yourself this question: If there were no God, how would I behave?
You have to answer that question, as my behavior is based on the laws of God. What doctrine do you follow for your "moral behavior"? (I can't wait to hear the "where my fist ends and your nose begins" rant for the millionth time).
Be careful, as many of your behavior patterns and belief systems when it comes to morality are already documented somewhere (wink wink).
I wasn’t defending anything.
Specifically, I was asking how a person not having children rendered their philosophy invalid, which is the concept that your post stated.
Note that it was just a part of Ayn Rand. Her atheist beliefs and actions negates her free market philosophy. In order for the free market to work, you MUST have Christian Judeo ethics involved.
” “Those who embrace libertarianism (or Objectivism), believe that there is no ultimate authority to which men and their civil society must answer other than themselves and the words of their own constitutions and laws. Men are “free,” and there should be as few restrictions on “freedom” as possible.” “
That quote does not answer the question, it just restates your former assertion, but does not answer the question of the contradiction inherent in the idea that an atheist is “his own God.” If an atheist does not believe in God, then it is not possible for him to be his own God. That’s simple reason.
“Everyone is “governed” by something”
That is a true statement.
“when you only have to answer to yourself, you are in essence your own “god” “
That statement is only true if you accept the premise that if you don’t have to answer to God, then you only have to answer to yourself.
However, this premise if false. If you don’t have to answer to God, it does not necessarily follow that the only thing you have to answer to is yourself. So therefore your statement is lacking a logical base. It is drawing a cause and effect relationship that does not exist.
“On your second point, ask yourself this question: If there were no God, how would I behave?”
“You have to answer that question”
No I don’t. It’s a question that I asked you. If you choose not to answer it, that’s fine, but you are choosing to ignore a reasonable line of inquiry in order to assert your own point again.
“as my behavior is based on the laws of God.”
“What doctrine do you follow for your “moral behavior”? (I can’t wait to hear the “where my fist ends and your nose begins” rant for the millionth time).”
Well you must wait. If you are not interested in answering my questions, I’m not interested in answering yours.
“Be careful, as many of your behavior patterns and belief systems when it comes to morality are already documented somewhere (wink wink)”
Do you want to debate ideas, or do you want to talk about documenting my behavior patterns? You’ve spent a lot of time dodging my questions, and now you are changing the subject to my behavior patterns. If you are unwilling to debate ideas, just be honest that you find my questions too disturbing to answer, and we can break off the debate.
“Specifically, I was asking how a person not having children rendered their philosophy invalid, which is the concept that your post stated.”
“Note that it was just a part of Ayn Rand. . . . In order for the free market to work, you MUST have Christian Judeo ethics involved.”
So are you confirming that you are going to dodge this question?
“Her atheist beliefs and actions negates her free market philosophy.”
No they don’t. There you go again drawing causal relationships where none exist.
Your question was taken out of context: (and now, for the rest of the quote)
"Ayn Rand was a known adulterer and intentionally chose a child-free marriage. Rand was pro-abortion and an atheist. A born Russian Jew, she abhorred altruism, one of the basic tenets of Judeo-Christian faith. She didn't believe in the morality of charity and don't even mention the handicapped and the poor. She thought selfishness was good virtue. "Rights," in Ayn Rand's words, "do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born."
So tell me NYCslicker, how can the free market operate efficiently without the moral guidance of Christian/Judeo ethics? If you don't have Christian/Judeo ethics, you have things like trade with the butchers of Communist China (something that the libertarians at the pro Ayn Rand stink tank, the Cato Institute have no problems with).
Without Christian/Judeo ethics involved in the free market, you'll need MORE government to oversee it so that people aren't always cheated (they'll only put up with so much "buyer beware").
But doesn't mesh at all with the laws in the states at the time or the vision of the framers. They had a word for libertarianism: Jacobinism. "Democrat" was also used (before Jefferson's faction finally stopped hiding behind the republican label and admitted they were in favor of ochlarchy).
It was not taken out of context, it was asked specifically in the context that you posted it, and it was clearly posted directly after your question, right in the context that you stated it.
But like I said before, if you do not want to answer it, that is your choice. But its hard to say that you truly want to debate the issue, if you refuse to answer the question. But again, your choice.
“So tell me NYCslicker, how can the free market operate efficiently without the moral guidance of Christian/Judeo ethics? If you don’t have Christian/Judeo ethics, you have things like trade with the butchers of Communist China (something that the libertarians at the pro Ayn Rand stink tank, the Cato Institute have no problems with).”
And how is trade with China inefficient? It may not be ethical, but its not “inefficient” as you’ve stated.
“Without Christian/Judeo ethics involved in the free market, you’ll need MORE government to oversee it”
Not really. Its apples and oranges. It the market lacks ethics, government won’t fix it. More government is one answer that people try to use for a lack of ethics, but it is not a true substitute for a lack of ethics. More government is a false substitute for ethics, but not one that works. Ethics are ethics and laws are laws. The have different functions in society.
However, there are examples of free markets that work just fine without *Judeo-Christian* ethics. Free markets need ethics, but the ethics do not have to be Judeo-Christian in order for the free market to work.
There is a free market in India, in China, Japan, in Europe. None of these people have primarily Judeo-Christian relgions as a whole. Now before you go saying that one or more of these places is not a completely free market, I would say that’s true, but neither is this country.
Modern China, Singaport, Honk Kong, Tokyo, all have free markets to some degree, and they have some Jews and Christians there, but they are by no means the majority.
So your argument doesn’t really hold up to reasonable inquiry.
You’re trying to hard to be an intellectual NYCslicker. A friend wrote the following words regarding your “disease”:
“The reason I condemn intellectual pride is because intellectualism is the emotional motivation of Humanism. After the Evolutionists planted the scientific lie that God is not needed for existence and the Bible is false, young seminarians and even veteran ministers left the pulpit en masse. It was no longer intelligent to be religious. Hence, atheists are bright, and religion must be destroyed. (http://www.freewill-predestination.com/atheists.html) It does not seem to be an effective reply that we are bright too. I rather advocate that intellectual pride is contemptible. (1Co 4:7, 1Co13:4)
So no NYCslicker, I’m not really interesting in debating your atheistic ideas, as I live in the “real world”.
“Youre trying to hard to be an intellectual NYCslicker.”
I’m making a logical argument against your ideas. That’s all. If that’s being an intellectual, then I guess I’m being an intellectual.
” A friend wrote the following words regarding your disease:
The reason I condemn intellectual pride is because intellectualism is the emotional motivation of Humanism. After the Evolutionists planted the scientific lie that God is not needed for existence and the Bible is false, young seminarians and even veteran ministers left the pulpit en masse. It was no longer intelligent to be religious. Hence, atheists are bright, and religion must be destroyed. (http://www.freewill-predestination.com/atheists.html) It does not seem to be an effective reply that we are bright too. I rather advocate that intellectual pride is contemptible. (1Co 4:7, 1Co13:4)”
You seem to be making the point that I think that atheists are “bright” and that non-atheists are “not bright.” However, I did not put forth that idea. You did. I actually think that reason and logic are a big part of any religion, and that religious people on the whole are a lot brighter than atheists.
“So no NYCslicker, Im not really interesting in debating your atheistic ideas, as I live in the real world.”
That’s true. You are not interested in debating ideas. Have a nice day.
My gawd, you are an ignorant one.
Junk from China
We have heard much lately about dangerous Chinese products that have come to our shores, from the lead paint-laden toys to the poisoned food and toxic toothpaste. And it seems that most anything you buy nowadays has a “Made in China” label on the back. But I ask you, do we really need this junk?
You see, I’ve observed that it isn’t just the toxic products that make the news that are the problem; it seems to me that Chinese goods are shoddily made in general. For instance, there’s a certain brand of Chinese-made telephone headsets that I and two people I know had the misfortune of purchasing, a very common brand. I’m not exaggerating when I say that in every case the equipment malfunctioned (to the point where one couldn’t use it) within a few months of acquisition. The trash only has a 90-day warranty, too, which is not surprising since it seems to be loaded with a self-destruct mechanism that activates after about 90 days. To place this in further perspective, among the three of us we probably had about 10 of these headsets (owing partially to the fact that a few malfunctioned within the 90-day period and the fact that one or two kindly retailers were willing to replace them even beyond that short time frame), and, again, every one malfunctioned. It’s staggering.
In my mind, this is just another reason why I can do without “free trade.” How does it really benefit us? While we are enjoying cheaper goods over the short term, our manufacturing base has been destroyed; we’re filling the coffers of despotic, anti-American regimes; and we’ve introduced dangerous products into our market. As for the last point, when we buy produce grown abroad — in Mexico, South America or elsewhere — do we really know what chemicals it’s treated with? If the product is packaged food, do we know how hygienic these Third World factories are? Does anyone in government really care? We should remember that these Third World nations don’t have the regulations or standards we do and are rife with disease and corruption. If their packaging plants were infested with rats (a good bet, I’d say), would their governments really care?
I don’t propose that we eliminate foreign trade, but I do support the institution of high tariffs, a practice that accords with American tradition. So, no, I don’t believe in free trade — except within these 50 states.
Getting back to these shoddy products, I find it disheartening that modern Americans so readily accept low standards. Not that long ago, people had the expectation that a product might last a lifetime. Now, when you buy an appliance, the salesman will inquire as to whether you want an extended service warranty to cover the product after, let’s say, a year’s time. If you don’t have confidence that an expensive item you carry will last for at least a few years without breakdown, why are you selling it to me?
This is just another example of the complete breakdown in standards in the West. But, hey, in the same way that people get the government they deserve, I suppose they get the products and services they deserve, too. And there really is a connection there, as our products and politicians seem to decline at the same rate.
But wait, there’s (so much) more!
“China never fails to top itself when it comes to human rights violations. Even as Michael Moore attempts to defend communist regimes, world-wide media networks continue to report on the harsh practices of the Communist Chinese government, most recently forced sterilizations of Puning County parents and the torture of Falun Gong practitioners.
Times online reports that China intends to sterilize nearly 10,000 parents in Puning County who have violated the one-child rule. Puning County, with a population of 2.2 million, is the most populated county in the country. Jane Macartney of The Times claims that the sterilization campaign was launched on April 7 and is expected to last 20 days.
A Daba village doctor reported that he and his team would be in charge of completing the sterilizations, beginning at 8 am every morning and lasting until approximately 4 a.m. the next day.
Under current regulations, families in Puning County who break the one-child rule are already punished in a variety of ways. They are not permitted to buy homes, and the illegal children are not permitted to receive residency registration, which in turn denies them healthcare and education as well. Macartney writes, Authorities have discovered, however, that those methods have less success than rounding up relatives.
Zhang Lizhao knows something about this favored method. He and his wife were forced to rush home to undergo sterilization in order for Lizhaos brother to be freed from detention. While in detention, detainees are exposed to government rhetoric on the necessity of adhering to family-size laws. Currently, 1,300 people are held in detention as a means to force families to succumb to sterilization. Thousands of Puning County residents have undergone this treatment by authorities.
While Chinese government officials claim to be investigating this matter, asserting that authorities are not permitted to punish families without authorization, or detain residents as pressure tactics, the strict one couple, one child government policy has led to a variety of human rights violations, though the number of incidents have reputedly decreased in recent years. These include forced late-term abortions, and the murder of newborn babies.
Its likely that the officials promises of investigation are false, as an official from the Puning Population and Family Planning Bureau has admitted to Macartney, Its not uncommon for family planning authorities to adopt some tough tactics.
Until now, Puning was a refuge of sorts for families who have more than one child, since it is rural and generally outside of government surveillance. Unfortunately, the increased number of large families in the county has prompted Puning officials to adopt such harsh measures in order to remain eligible for their bid for promotion to a second-tier county. One of the measurements for this desirable status is whether the county meets the government limit for family size.
Despite the shocking nature of these abuses, policies like these are reminiscent of American eugenics supporter Margaret Sanger. Her decision to open Planned Parenthood was motivated by principles similar to that of the Puning authorities. Yet, Sangers motivations and the Puning sterilizations have remained relatively unreported in the American mainstream media.
Of course, human rights violations in China are nothing new. For 20 years, the religious group known as the Falun Gong has undergone suppression, even torture, at the hands of the Chinese government, who claim that Falun Gong is a cult in order to justify the governments crackdown on the organization. (The American mainstream media have taken at least a paragraph from the same playbook, painting the Tea Party movement as extremists, likely with the same intent of silencing the group.)
In truth, the Chinese government is aware that Falun Gong is not a cult, but the governmentis threatened by the large number of Falun Gong practitioners, as it is the only group whose membership outnumbers that of the Communist Party in China, according to a 1999 U.S. News and World Report. In addition to the overwhelming size of the organization, the Communist Chinese government has a reputation for religious intolerance. The Globe and Mail wrote, Any group that does not come under the control of the Party is a threat.
To counter this threat, the government resorted to psychiatric torture of Falun Gong members, using nerve-damaging chemicals. They have utilized starvation of imprisoned practitioners, forced abortions, and other physical abuses like burning with irons. The Washington Post, in a 2001 article written by John Pomfret and Philip Pan, exposed torture of Falun Gong members.
The United Nations Human Rights Council and the Falun Gong Human Rights Working Group are working together with the Conscience Foundation to stop the torture of the Falun Gong practitioners. The success of this alliance remains to be seen.
The Chinese government continues to commit human rights abuses regularly. Yet Michael Moore has not been inspired to create a documentary criticizing the Communist Chinese government. He continues to assert capitalism is evil. Go figure!
You really don’t want to come and play with me NYCslicker; I’m told that I don’t “play fair”.
Violent means of maintaining control of the populace? Thomas Jefferson?are you insane? Or have you been drinking heavily tonight?