Libertarian Rand

January 29, 2001

Fram iel Branden's site:

" In any event, today libertarianism is part of our language and is

commonly understood to mean the advocacy of minimal

government. Ayn Rand is commonly referred to as " a libertarian

philosopher. " Folks, we are all libertarians now. Might as well

get used to it. "

January 31, 2001

Many Libertarians are based on Rand, not vice versa. And what is your

problem with her anyway? You are a Lenin fan, I take it? Lenin's a loser.

..

Libertarian Rand

> Fram iel Branden's site:

>

> " In any event, today libertarianism is part of our language and is

> commonly understood to mean the advocacy of minimal

> government. Ayn Rand is commonly referred to as " a libertarian

> philosopher. " Folks, we are all libertarians now. Might as well

> get used to it. "

>

January 31, 2001

Many Libertarians are based on Rand, not vice versa. And what is your

problem with her anyway? You are a Lenin fan, I take it? Lenin's a loser.

..

Libertarian Rand

> Fram iel Branden's site:

>

> " In any event, today libertarianism is part of our language and is

> commonly understood to mean the advocacy of minimal

> government. Ayn Rand is commonly referred to as " a libertarian

> philosopher. " Folks, we are all libertarians now. Might as well

> get used to it. "

>

January 31, 2001

Many Libertarians are based on Rand, not vice versa. And what is your

problem with her anyway? You are a Lenin fan, I take it? Lenin's a loser.

..

Libertarian Rand

> Fram iel Branden's site:

>

> " In any event, today libertarianism is part of our language and is

> commonly understood to mean the advocacy of minimal

> government. Ayn Rand is commonly referred to as " a libertarian

> philosopher. " Folks, we are all libertarians now. Might as well

> get used to it. "

>

January 31, 2001

> Many Libertarians are based on Rand, not vice versa. And what is

your

> problem with her anyway? You are a Lenin fan, I take it? Lenin's a

loser.

I have both explicitly and implicitly said what I dislike about Rand.

The fact that you should draw the ludicrous non-sequitir above is

ample evidence for why an attempt at reasoned discussion with you on

the topic is a wste of time.

February 1, 2001

In a message dated 1/29/01 8:44:44 PM Pacific Standard Time,

watts_pete@... writes:

<< Fram iel Branden's site:

" In any event, today libertarianism is part of our language and is

commonly understood to mean the advocacy of minimal

government. Ayn Rand is commonly referred to as " a libertarian

philosopher. " Folks, we are all libertarians now. Might as well

get used to it. "

>>

Oh please. Piper.

February 1, 2001

In a message dated 1/29/01 8:44:44 PM Pacific Standard Time,

watts_pete@... writes:

<< Fram iel Branden's site:

" In any event, today libertarianism is part of our language and is

commonly understood to mean the advocacy of minimal

government. Ayn Rand is commonly referred to as " a libertarian

philosopher. " Folks, we are all libertarians now. Might as well

get used to it. "

>>

Oh please. Piper.

February 1, 2001

In a message dated 1/29/01 8:44:44 PM Pacific Standard Time,

watts_pete@... writes:

<< Fram iel Branden's site:

" In any event, today libertarianism is part of our language and is

commonly understood to mean the advocacy of minimal

government. Ayn Rand is commonly referred to as " a libertarian

philosopher. " Folks, we are all libertarians now. Might as well

get used to it. "

>>

Oh please. Piper.

February 1, 2001

In a message dated 1/31/01 3:14:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,

francisca@... writes:

<< Many Libertarians are based on Rand, not vice versa. And what is your

problem with her anyway? You are a Lenin fan, I take it? Lenin's a loser.

. >>

The problem: ?????? Rand is stupid. What a farce of a model for any

philosophy. Anyone who would think within the stilted confines of what

" Rand " does might try out for a Dick cartoon but not much else that I

can see. Sorry for the vitriolic tone. Piper.

February 2, 2001

> . >>

> The problem: ?????? Rand is stupid. What a farce of a model

for any

> philosophy. Anyone who would think within the stilted confines of

what

> " Rand " does might try out for a Dick cartoon but not much else

that I

> can see. Sorry for the vitriolic tone. Piper.

I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this. Heck, anything endorsed by my

Step Nazi sponsor has to be nuts! I read a review of the film " The

Fountainjead " the other day and I might type it in. The reviewer said

it sounds so like a Nazi propoganda film it would be embarassing to do

a remake of it.

P.

February 2, 2001

> Pete

>

> Why do you have a Step Nazi sponsor? What does he do?

I HAD a Step Nazi sponsor. He runs a 12-step rehab!

February 2, 2001

> No, Pete, you're not alone :-) Actually I was a Rand fan when I was

>about 13

> years old. Ayn Rand's alternate-reality version of capitalism, where

> engineers and artists wind up with the loot, seemed appealing.

Did she really think that artits would get the loot? Well I guess if

youre a superstar it's true - most starve.

> What is scary is how many Rand fans are still around. Clarence

> you might have guessed. But Alan Greenspan? He was a member of

>the Rand Inner Sanctum once upon a time, and as far as I know he has

>never claimed to have grown up.

Perhps the most scary of all is that iel Branden is still a

Libertarian, when he himself write about how Whacko he now realizes

Rand was. I don't think I've ever met a Libertarian Brit except for

two who both read Rand. Never in a million years would any

Brit politician have even a ghost of a chance expressing the views of

the American ultra-conseratives. Even Thatcher never went that far,

and when she strted to get close, her own party got rid of her. That

someone should seriously suggest that there is something wrong with

democratic colective provision of welfare, or that simple prevention

of violence and fraud are the only collective regulatory measures

appropriate in human affairs I find absolutely amazing. Tell me, did

she think it " looting " to raise taxes to fund Fire Departments? Was

it up to every Laissex-Faire capitalist to make their own provision

for fire control so that the tragic deaths of young women at the

Triangle Shirt Waist company was merely their own fault for working

for the wrong capitalists? Are ppl's souls spoiled by " coercive "

methods to keep more of them inside their bodies? If not, did she

think it " looting " to raise taxes to fund emergency ambulance crews,

or are fire crews supposed to carry out asphyxiated ppl so they can

die in the street if the local denizens didnt feel like paying for

them? And if not, is it " looting " to raise taxes to pay for hospitals

so said ambulance crews have simewhere to drive these ppl to to

recuperate if they cant afford or neglected medical insurance?

February 2, 2001

> The Nazis were socialists, and Rand was

> no socialist. I haven't read _The_Fountainhead_ or seen the

> movie, but I have trouble believing Rand published anything

> even vaguely Nazi-like.

While the Nazis indeed called themselves socialists, to describe them

as socialists is similar to on the basis of their name describing

Zhirinowsky's Liberal Democrats as liberals and democrats, or to

say that as Republicans oppose Democrats, they arent democrats, etc.

etc.

Nazi-ism was supremacist, drawing on a primitive pseudo-Darwinism.

Aryans were supposedly superior as a result of laissez-faire

competition, if you like. Rand appears to have only been concerned

about the individual rather than a group, and interestingly, was

extremely skeptical about Darwinism, according to Branden. Rand didnt

seem to care about science very much; he says she valued little any

scientific discovery since Newton!

However the idea of a " Superman " above ordinary mortals was part of

Nazi thinking and it is this aspect that resembles Rand's rampant

individualism.

P.

February 2, 2001

> The Nazis were socialists, and Rand was

> no socialist. I haven't read _The_Fountainhead_ or seen the

> movie, but I have trouble believing Rand published anything

> even vaguely Nazi-like.

While the Nazis indeed called themselves socialists, to describe them

as socialists is similar to on the basis of their name describing

Zhirinowsky's Liberal Democrats as liberals and democrats, or to

say that as Republicans oppose Democrats, they arent democrats, etc.

etc.

Nazi-ism was supremacist, drawing on a primitive pseudo-Darwinism.

Aryans were supposedly superior as a result of laissez-faire

competition, if you like. Rand appears to have only been concerned

about the individual rather than a group, and interestingly, was

extremely skeptical about Darwinism, according to Branden. Rand didnt

seem to care about science very much; he says she valued little any

scientific discovery since Newton!

However the idea of a " Superman " above ordinary mortals was part of

Nazi thinking and it is this aspect that resembles Rand's rampant

individualism.

P.

February 2, 2001

> The Nazis were socialists, and Rand was

> no socialist. I haven't read _The_Fountainhead_ or seen the

> movie, but I have trouble believing Rand published anything

> even vaguely Nazi-like.

While the Nazis indeed called themselves socialists, to describe them

as socialists is similar to on the basis of their name describing

Zhirinowsky's Liberal Democrats as liberals and democrats, or to

say that as Republicans oppose Democrats, they arent democrats, etc.

etc.

Nazi-ism was supremacist, drawing on a primitive pseudo-Darwinism.

Aryans were supposedly superior as a result of laissez-faire

competition, if you like. Rand appears to have only been concerned

about the individual rather than a group, and interestingly, was

extremely skeptical about Darwinism, according to Branden. Rand didnt

seem to care about science very much; he says she valued little any

scientific discovery since Newton!

However the idea of a " Superman " above ordinary mortals was part of

Nazi thinking and it is this aspect that resembles Rand's rampant

individualism.

P.

February 2, 2001

The writer was obviously, like Pete, not a fan of Ayn Rand, and used the

worst insult he could find to describe her. Of course he was a dimwit,

which explains his absurd " Nazi " statement and why he didn't like the movie!

Pete's not alone in his thinkng indeed. He is far from alone; he is but one

among the faceless, brainless masses that overshadow and outvoice common

sense, respectability and decency in our world.

Re: Re: Libertarian Rand

> At 07:32 PM 2/2/01 +0000, you wrote:

> >I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this. Heck, anything endorsed by my

> >Step Nazi sponsor has to be nuts! I read a review of the film " The

> >Fountainjead " the other day and I might type it in. The reviewer said

> >it sounds so like a Nazi propoganda film it would be embarassing to do

> >a remake of it.

>

> That seems bizarre. The Nazis were socialists, and Rand was

> no socialist. I haven't read _The_Fountainhead_ or seen the

> movie, but I have trouble believing Rand published anything

> even vaguely Nazi-like.

>

February 2, 2001

The writer was obviously, like Pete, not a fan of Ayn Rand, and used the

worst insult he could find to describe her. Of course he was a dimwit,

which explains his absurd " Nazi " statement and why he didn't like the movie!

Pete's not alone in his thinkng indeed. He is far from alone; he is but one

among the faceless, brainless masses that overshadow and outvoice common

sense, respectability and decency in our world.

Re: Re: Libertarian Rand

> At 07:32 PM 2/2/01 +0000, you wrote:

> >I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this. Heck, anything endorsed by my

> >Step Nazi sponsor has to be nuts! I read a review of the film " The

> >Fountainjead " the other day and I might type it in. The reviewer said

> >it sounds so like a Nazi propoganda film it would be embarassing to do

> >a remake of it.

>

> That seems bizarre. The Nazis were socialists, and Rand was

> no socialist. I haven't read _The_Fountainhead_ or seen the

> movie, but I have trouble believing Rand published anything

> even vaguely Nazi-like.

>

February 2, 2001

That explains a lot, like being dropped off the roof onto your head as an

infant.

Re: Libertarian Rand

>

> > Pete

> >

> > Why do you have a Step Nazi sponsor? What does he do?

>

> I HAD a Step Nazi sponsor. He runs a 12-step rehab!

>

February 2, 2001

That explains a lot, like being dropped off the roof onto your head as an

infant.

Re: Libertarian Rand

>

> > Pete

> >

> > Why do you have a Step Nazi sponsor? What does he do?

>

> I HAD a Step Nazi sponsor. He runs a 12-step rehab!

>

February 2, 2001

That explains a lot, like being dropped off the roof onto your head as an

infant.

Re: Libertarian Rand

>

> > Pete

> >

> > Why do you have a Step Nazi sponsor? What does he do?

>

> I HAD a Step Nazi sponsor. He runs a 12-step rehab!

>

February 2, 2001

Ever hear the term " antisocial personality disorder " ?

--eric

In a message dated 2/3/2001 12:38:06 AM Central Standard Time,

francisca@... writes:

>

> oh I am sorry I offended you. When you need help and I am there and watch

> you drown because you stole from me, I won't feel sad. Oh you say thats

not

> right, thats not Christian, thats bad. Or thats not human. Only a

> Christian or otherwise insane person could be so twisted to feel sadness

> when his oppressor dies. Those girls may not have been oppressors, but I

> owe them nothing, I certainly wasn't oppressing them. I don't even owe

them

> sadness, that was taught by religion and social epectations. And just

> because I don't support your fire codes and altruism you think its not

> funny. Well I don't support the fire codes if they stole the money from me

> to make them.

> But I don't know what your problem is. You act like its someone else's

> job to feed you and to employ you. If you go into a place and it looks

> unsafe, why would you stay there? They had a choice, they chose badly, its

> not my fault, Pete. I guess its your fault. Too bad you can't earn a dime

> to pay for their fire codes and too bad you can't employ anyone because you

> are too busy demanding that others feed and employ you. You are useless,

> but you expect to be fed, and you steal your food from those who would

> employ you, commie fuck. Why should you work for them, there are enough of

> you little useless commie thieves to just steal from them instead, until

> they kill some of you off (ever notice how there are wars pretty

> frequently?) And Rita talks about personal responsibility. in the other

> thread. Commies don't care about that - its the rich guy's responsibility.

>

~~~eric

" We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the

depth of our answers " .

--Carl Sagan

February 2, 2001