Guaranteed Income in the news...

[Revoltingest]

It's non-standard in America, but America is not the world. Most actual civilized and intelligent societies can understand it (i.e. outside of America, lol). If "half of the world" is socially libertarian, who cares? Numbers are irrelevant to the conversation.

At least now you know why we disagree on this.

I said I don't give a damn about your pet right-wing party and what they think about anything.

Except that it's hardly "pet" nor "right wing".
It's odd that one would claim to be libertarian, eschew other libertarians, but tell us what we're all about, & with such hostility.

The Democratic Party is also more right-wing than most Conservative Parties around the world. American understanding of political ideologies is just really screwed, but our educational system is extremely screwed in the first place.

We aren't wrong because we disagree with other people around the world.
We have our own standards, including our own language....in which "libertarian" does
not include those who want to impose socialism or any such authoritarian system upon us.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But people who dislike rugged individualism or atheism often won't recognize her being one.

Or her promotion of what is basically psychopathy.

if they favor government prohibition of capitalism, are liberals

That's not liberalism. Liberalism is capitalist, generally. It's an ideology that formed during the Enlightenment. See Thomas Paine and such.

But if they advocate voluntary communism/socialism (eg, communes), then they're libertarians.

Which I do. Libertarian socialism and communism is in contrast to authoritarian socialism and communism (Marxism, especially Marxist-Leninism). It really came into modern form in the 19th century.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

At least now you know why we disagree on this.

Except that it's hardly "pet" nor "right wing".

Yes, it is right-wing, according to generally accepted standards. What, do you think that laissez-faire capitalism is a left-wing or centrist idea?

We aren't wrong because we disagree with other people around the world.
We have our own standards, including our own language....in which "libertarian" does
not include those who want to impose socialism or any such authoritarian system upon us.

You and your fellow fanclub members opinions on it really only matter to yourselves, then. It's a form of political framing (rhetoric), not an academic categorization.

And no one is proposing "imposing" anything on you. Not me, at least. I'm not @Laika.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or her promotion of what is basically psychopathy.

Do you know what "psychopathy" means?
How do you justify the claim?
Or is it just an insult because you dislike her.....& why dislike her so much?

That's not liberalism. Liberalism is capitalist, generally. It's an ideology that formed during the Enlightenment. See Thomas Paine and such.

I edited the above quoted part of the post.....brain malfunction.

Which I do.

That is simply "libertarian", because we all advocate voluntary socialism/communism.
And it can only be voluntary if there's another option, which capitalism provides.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I do.
She beats most of'm.
But people who dislike rugged individualism or atheism often won't recognize her being one.

Actually, a ton of philosophers do not consider her a real philosopher. It has nothing to do with her positions, but rather her lack of engagement in the field.

She has been a big influence upon many of us real libertarians,
even if we find her a little bonkers & verbose.

Which is what I said initially, and you initially posted that she wasn't a Libertarian.
And, BTW, I already posted the first paragraph of the Wiki article on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but in this post it is in regards to "real" libertarians.

With good reason.....& another good reason to avoid any prefix to "libertarian".
One either is or one ain't.

Yes, one either is or isn't, but nevertheless there are many different approaches towards Libertarianism. Just because you've not heard much about them doesn't make them any less real.

Those lefties, if they favor government prohibition of capitalism, are economic authoritarians, allowing only social liberty.
But if they advocate voluntary communism/socialism (eg, communes), then they're libertarians.

Does you wanting prohibitions and restrictions on bartering and mercantilism make you an economic authoritarian?

It's odd that one would claim to be libertarian, eschew other libertarians, but tell us what we're all about, & with such hostility.

It's odd that you would claim only certain types can be Libertarians, when the authors you invoke don't even agree on what should be.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, it is right-wing, according to generally accepted standards.

There again, I don't think you're speaking American English.
Check "right wing" in dictionary.com to see why.

What, do you think that laissez-faire capitalism is a left-wing or centrist idea?

It's neither.
It's not really located on a one dimensional political spectrum.

You and your fellow fanclub....

"Fanclub"?
You really do not understand what a political party is all about....either that you're just throwing a verbal tantrum.

And no one is proposing "imposing" anything on you. Not me, at least. I'm not @Laika.

If one favors a government which allows economic liberty, ie, capitalism, then one is a libertarian, without any prefix.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Do you know what "psychopathy" means?
How do you justify the claim?
Or is it just an insult because you dislike her.....& why dislike her so much?

I only call people things when it's warranted. When it comes to mental health stuff, which is a very important issue to me, I don't say things like that lightly. I, myself, suffer from mental health issues so I'm hardly going to use those things as an insult. Some would say that I have ASPD traits, as well.

Anyway, a psychopath or a sociopath is really just a person who has a severe poverty of emotion. They do not experience emotions like guilt, remorse, love or even hate, really. They're rather vapid and one-dimensional. They don't view others as persons. Other people and even non-human animals are just objects to them that they may use to obtain whatever goals they have. They're experts at mimicry, which they use to get by unnoticed in society. But when the mask falls, there's really nothing there. Nothing we'd think of as "human", anyway. They may or may not be violent. Most aren't. They're not insane, either. They tend to be very rational, actually. They think in terms of cold rationality (meaning they think in a mechanistic sort of way, not "rational" in terms of logic).

As for Rand, her entire ideology is entirely self-serving, praises extreme greed, selfishness and even encourages the disregard of the rights of and the well-being of others. She idolized and praised William Hickman, a serial killer and general criminal who kidnapped, murdered and dismembered a 12 year old girl. Rand wrote a lot about him and viewed him as her "ideal man". He was her hero, really. He was her hero because his maxim was "what is good for me is right". He had no regard for other people and didn't even view other human beings as people. He only lived for himself. That is what Rand promoted and how she herself felt. That's the basis of her entire "philosophy", this extreme, callous "might is right" view.

http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/romancing-the-stone-cold.html
http://www.cwporter.com/psychorand2.htm
https://www.sott.net/article/297552...-Shrugged-10-lessons-in-psychopathic-thinking

I dislike her because I find her ideology thoroughly disgusting, irrational and unhinged. She was a very nasty person with very nasty ideas, on the whole. Whatever good things she has to say about individualism and the Promethean will can be found elsewhere and in a better form. (I prefer Stirner and Nietzsche, myself.)

And it can only be voluntary if there's another option, which capitalism provides.

Anarchism believes in free association. You go join or create a capitalist commune. Good luck.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, a ton of philosophers do not consider her a real philosopher. It has nothing to do with her positions, but rather her lack of engagement in the field.

Then I disagree with a ton of these unnamed philosophers.
This isn't the first time.

Which is what I said initially, and you initially posted that she wasn't a Libertarian.

She influenced many who belong to parties she didn't like.
Interesting, eh.

And, BTW, I already posted the first paragraph of the Wiki article on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but in this post it is in regards to "real" libertarians.

Yeah......being who I am, I claim greater facility in wielding that one.

Yes, one either is or isn't, but nevertheless there are many different approaches towards Libertarianism. Just because you've not heard much about them doesn't make them any less real.

Real libertarians can differ on policies & other things.

Does you wanting prohibitions and restrictions on bartering and mercantilism make you an economic authoritarian?

Tis about the extent of the restriction.
If imposed upon a group with voluntary membership (eg, trade organization, union, commune), there's no problem.
If imposed by government upon all, they should be minimal, allowing as much liberty as possible, eg, rampant capitalism.

It's odd that you would claim only certain types can be Libertarians, when the authors you invoke don't even agree on what should be.

Only types which favor both social & economic liberty are real libertarians.
Authoritarianism in one area or another is a disqualifier.

 

[Revoltingest]

To save some time, I'll address part of your post....

She idolized and praised William Hickman....

This is a fiction pushed by charlatans like Alternet.
Yes, I've looked into the Hickman claims.
If your other views on her are based upon similar misunderstandings, I can see why you call her a psychopath.
But read what she wrote about him, rather than what her foes wrote about her writing about him.
Did it ever raise your suspicions that Rand, who strongly advocated the rights
of the individual, would advocate one person killing another innocent person?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There again, I don't think you're speaking American English.
Check "right wing" in dictionary.com to see why.

You go to dictionaries to see how words are generally used, not to learn about political ideologies.

It's neither.
It's not really located on a one dimensional political spectrum.

It's socially liberal and economically conservative. Depending on how complete the person wants the economy to be deregulated, it can range from moderately capitalist to far-right, "might is right, screw everyone but me" social stratification.

"Fanclub"?

Political party.

You really do not understand what a political party is all about....either that you're just throwing a verbal tantrum.

Sure, I do. That's why I'm not part of one and don't care for them.

If one favors a government which allows economic liberty, ie, capitalism, then one is a libertarian, without any prefix.

Clarity sure does help.

To save some time, I'll address part of your post....

This is a fiction pushed by charlatans like Alternet.
Yes, I've looked into the Hickman claims.
If your other views on her are based upon similar misunderstandings, I can see why you call her a psychopath.
But read what she wrote about him, rather than what her foes wrote about her writing about him.

Enlighten us, then. How has poor Ayn been so slandered?!

 

[Revoltingest]

You go to dictionaries to see how words are generally used, not to learn about political ideologies.

This is true.
But if you use the wrong name for an ideology, it creates confusion & dysfunction.

It's socially liberal and economically conservative.

"Conservative" economics differs from libertarian economics.
Example:
Conservatives generally oppose prostitution, organ sale, etc.
But libertarians are much more permissive about things.
We own our bodies, & may do as we please so long as no one else's rights are abridged.

Enlighten us, then. How has poor Ayn been so slandered?!

She never idolized or worshiped him, as Alternet & several leftish posters here claimed.
She was interested in writing about a character hated by society.
You might as well say that Thomas Harris idolized Hannibal Lecter, & approved of his exploits.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm experiencing a weird corruption when I quote anyone.
I might have problems responding.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This is true.
But if you use the wrong name for an ideology, it creates confusion & dysfunction.

I'm not using any wrong names. I'm a leftist libertarian but I prefer to clarify further by calling myself an anarcho-communism and an individualist anarchist because it clears up a lot of things.

"Conservative" economics differs from libertarian economics.
Example:
Conservatives generally oppose prostitution, organ sale, etc.
But libertarians are much more permissive about things.
We own our bodies, & may do as we please so long as no one else's rights are abridged.

Conservatives are generally capitalists, though, social mores aside. So we have some things in common and you and them have some things in common. And so it goes.

She never idolized or worshiped him, as Alternet & several leftish posters here claimed.
She was interested in writing about a character hated by society.
You might as well say that Thomas Harris idolized Hannibal Lecter, & approved of his exploits.

So were the quotes from her all made up, then? She didn't view him as her "ideal man" and praise him?

Oh, and your comparison only works if Harris praised Lector's personality and behavior as a good thing. To my knowledge, he hasn't.

 

[Revoltingest]

So were the quotes from her all made up, then? She didn't view him as her "ideal man" and praise him?

You haven't offered any quotes yet.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You haven't offered any quotes yet.

They're in the links I posted.

 

[Revoltingest]

They're in the links I posted.

You still provide no quotes from her to support your claim.
And it's not my job to read your links for you to find some which do so.
(Who knows where the quote you like might lurk.)
Here's an earlier thread wherein I debunked this falsehood.....
http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...wage-in-35-states.153023/page-13#post-3497998
See post #256.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

She influenced many who belong to parties she didn't like.
Interesting, eh.

Which renders your point of her not being a libertarian moot.

Yeah......being who I am, I claim greater facility in wielding that one.

Not necessarily. You can speak on your views of libertarianism, but you this isn't giving you greater facility over libertarianism as a whole.

Real libertarians can differ on policies & other things.

That's no different than a Christian going on about how "no true/real Christian would go to war or support the Inquisition or Crusades."

If imposed by government upon all, they should be minimal, allowing as much liberty as possible, eg, rampant capitalism.

Mixed economies in a society probably wouldn't last long. There would be too much turmoil and too many disputes. And Capitalism is more-or-less forced upon us, with nationalized banks, nationalized capitalist currencies, and the inability to take part in the markets of society without capitalist money.

Only types which favor both social & economic liberty are real libertarians.
Authoritarianism in one area or another is a disqualifier.

This goes back to the "no True Scotsman." Your version of libertarianism advocates economic liberty through free-market capitalism, while left-Libertarians seek economic liberty through greatly restricting or abolishing capitalism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Which renders your point of her not being a libertarian moot.

I never intended it to be non-moot.

Not necessarily. You can speak on your views of libertarianism, but you this isn't giving you greater facility over libertarianism as a whole.

You missed the joke.

That's no different than a Christian going on about how "no true/real Christian would go to war or support the Inquisition or Crusades."

No, it's more like your saying there are Xians who don't believe Jesus is their savior.

Mixed economies in a society probably wouldn't last long. There would be too much turmoil and too many disputes. And Capitalism is more-or-less forced upon us, with nationalized banks, nationalized capitalist currencies, and the inability to take part in the markets of society without capitalist money.

Do you propose eliminating capitalism?
How?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You still provide no quotes from her to support your claim.
And it's not my job to read your links for you to find some which do so.
(Who knows where the quote you like might lurk.)
Here's an earlier thread wherein I debunked this falsehood.....
http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...wage-in-35-states.153023/page-13#post-3497998
See post #256.

Yeah, that's not a debunking.

There's plenty of quotes here: http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/romancing-the-stone-cold.html

I don't care enough to post pretty much the entire article. The quotes are cited. So if you want to defend your hero, have at it. Phil even posted that in the thread you link to, so you've seen it before. I personally don't care that much about it and have been given no reason to think that those quotes are fabricated or misrepresented.

Even the quotes from her journal that Rand apologists like to point to in order to some how show how the "leftist scum" are lying about her, are actually her defending Hickman as some sort of tragic hero that society ruined and murdered! "Oh, he was such a brilliant boy. He murdered and dismembered a little girl, but anyway, he was awesome and society ruined him."

See failed defense here: http://ultimatephilosopher.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-ayn-rand-idolized-child-killer-meme.html

You, yourself used some of those quotes in your (also) failed defense of her. Just face it - she had a love affair with a serial killer, albeit in her own mind. Whatever. A lot of people have a thing for psychopaths and serial killers. That was only a part of why I think she was likely a psychopath or least promoted traits associated with the personality disorder in the first place.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, it's more like your saying there are Xians who don't believe Jesus is their savior.

There are some atheist Christians. I don't know how exactly that works out, but who am I to question them?

Do you propose eliminating capitalism?
How?

Implementing socialism is gradual increments until capitalism is no more. And, hopefully we'll do this before a major disaster and we have to transition suddenly rather than gradually, as a sudden transition will cause widespread instability.