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 ...
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 people’s 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?
http://bastiat.net/en/about/influence.html
"Her theory of Objectivism has much in common with Libertarian philosophy, though she wanted nothing to do with the Libertarian Party."
http://www.lpedia.org/Ayn_Rand
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.
http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/26/rp_26_4.pdf
“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).
lol
The beautiful thing about atheism (being your own "god") is this: When you reject God’s 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."
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5351
"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.
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.