"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
26 - Jim Carruthers
Hey Al, I never used any curse words. If I did use a curse, you'd have rectal warts (of course, if you already have rectal warts, well, my wishes can take some credit). I said Bullshit, which like light is a great disinfectant.
Randism and other forms of so-called libertarianism are just the justifications for social cancer. You mistake short term ends for progress, you make bad neighbours and you are a blight on public discourse. And you get all shirty when somebody calls Bullshit on your slash and burn philosophy.
If it looks and smells like bullshit, then it probably is bullshit.
At least we can be thankful you are not an acolyte of Camille Paglia.
27 - Mac Diva
Stop lying, Barger. Precht's remark is available for all to see on that thread. He said Ms. Parks may have deserved to be assaulted after expressing opposition to the civil rights movement.
(Suffice it to say that spelling isn't the man's strong point, either.)
Why the contempt for Ms. Parks, which Precht also expressed by referring to the elderly woman as 'Rosa'? According to Precht, millions of African-Americans should have abandoned their homes to move North instead of fighting to change a vicious system. Some people pointed out that de facto segregation was almost as bad a problem as de Jure segregation. However, the point flew right over Precht's rather empty head. It is this kind of dunderheadedness that causes reasonable people to be skeptical of the 'libertarian' label.
Precht has run for the Senate as a libertarian candidate.
Good description, Tim Hall. Most libertarians seem to be interested in the rights of exactly one individual -- themselves.
28 - Chris
I am always amazed by the reaction people have to Ayn Rand. Polarizing would be to weak a word.
Here's how I take Rand -- good to read between the ages of 18-25, exposes you to an extreme reaction to the totaltarian regime from which she escaped. Teaches valuable lessons about the limits of collectivism and individualism.
Should not be re-read past the age of 25, or therebouts, as will probably induce a case of "Man, I used to think this was good."
Her essays are much more readable and interesting later in life than the novels she wrote.
The one thing I always liked though was her description of smoking a cigarette from Atlas Shrugged: (paraphrasing) Man had advanced so far as to be able to hold fire between his fingertips and not be burned.
29 - Jim Carruthers
And of course it gives you cancer (I'm talking about smoking, Al) just like her ideology gives society cancer. Instead of looking at the writings of ideologues, why don't we look at their lives? Ayn Rand, crazy old lady who used a cult of personality to punish people or justify really unsocial behavior -- well actually justification for being an utter asshole.
30 - Al Barger
Notice Diva that even the words you're quoting in comment #27 don't support the claim you are making in that comment, which in itself is quite different and watered down from the original claim you made in #20.
Do you think that simply a strongly worded accusation from you does or should persuade anyone that your statement is correct? They are so often so far from any connection with objective reality on the ground as to reduce any sentient being to laughter.
For some reasons of personal pathology that I do not claim to understand, you seem to think that you saying that night is day makes it so. I assure you that it does not.
And yet again, every possible topic under the sun comes back to your personal racial hangups. Again, anyone who does not totally share your racial pathology is a RACISTNEOCONFEDERATESLAVER and blah, blah, blah.
You need some new material.
31 - Mac Diva
It is obvious to smarter people, stupid. Why is the phrase "deservedly or not" there in regard to Ms. Parks being assaulted? There is no way she could deserve it. And, that remark is of a piece with Precht's others. He unwittingly flaunted his bigotry for all to see.
However, my criticism of libertarians is not limited to racism. Their entire outlook on what it means to be a citizen in a free society is warped.
32 - Phillip Winn
Please, everybody, try to restrain the personal insults and name-calling. It is generally unbecoming and unconvincing.
Thanks.
33 - Mike Holt
I'll try to defend Ayn Rand's review of Skinner here even though I haven't read it in a while. Though Ayn Rand wasn't a scholar or an academic, she was an intellectual. She was someone who was very intelligent and who thought for a living.
She considered it reasonible to use the review of Skinner's work instead of actually reading it herself. Why? Because she had better things to do than read "Beyond Freedom and Dignity." She assumed that the reviewer, who had read the book and who's job it was to offer an accurate analysis of it, had given her an honest portrayal of the intellectual content of the book. This is called "specialization" in economic terms and seems to me to be a reasonable assumption to make if one is too busy to do the reading. Also, it seems to me that philosophers (and other academics) purposely make their writings unweildly, difficult to read and understand in order to obfuscate their true meaning or lack thereof. Do I really need to read Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" to understand it's meaning when thousands of people have read and written about it before me? No.
As an engineer I encounter this all the time with math people. I frequently use formulas that I wouldn't be able to prove. That's what math people are for. Does this make me less of an intellectual? No, because by the same token, they couldn't do what I do.
Ayn Rand was primarily a novelist and secondarily a philosopher. Just because she didn't live up to the academic's standard of "rigor", nor behave the way you think she should have is of no relevance to the content of her ideas.
She was a "pratical" philosopher. If she had written in the manner of Skinner or Kant we wouldn't be having this discussion because few of us would have been able to read her. It's difficult enough to get through "Atlas Shrugged" without it being written for a purely academic audience.
34 - Jim Carruthers
I would forgive Barger many things, but this, the third track on his album, the so-called "killer power ballad" just sucks and blows. Big floppy donkey cocks, that bad. Night Ranger bad.
35 - Jim Carruthers
hah HA, I just realized people googling for "al barger" "ayn rand" and "big floppy donkey cocks" will likely land here. And so far, they would be right.
36 - Mac Diva
Jim, I echo your opinion in less colorful language.
Barger, during the last two months, has been particularly unpleasant. At first I credited his behavior, which suggests depression, with the holiday season. Many people become blue during that time. I cut him a lot of slack. But, the holidays are over. It is time for Barger to go to a doctor and find out why he is so dyspeptic.
One thing Barger could do is to save himself from continual debunking, is do some research. Having read Rand and Mencken is not sufficient support for most discussions, if any.
37 - Jim Carruthers
"less colorful language"
why, why, why, you -- racist! What have you got against people who use language of colour?
And it's spelled "colourful"
Al needs all the support he can get, being challenged and all. If he wants to be a dumb-ass with no taste, we should do all we can to support him. I know he is probably crying right now, snuggling up to his K-Tel "Superhitz of the Eighties" tape. And _you_ made him cry. So you should feel sorry.
I don't feel sorry because, well, I'm a mean bastard.
38 - Shawn
Libertarians do not ever advocate assualt. Libertarians do not worhip power or violence. Quite the opposite. Libertatrians advocate a system in which no person wields power over any other, or ever intites force against another.
Libertarians believe that the initiation of force or fraud by one person or group against any other person or group is always morally wrong.
That all adult interaction should be voluntary.
That individuals are the rightful owners of their own lives and therefore have inherent freedoms and responsibilities.
That the proper purpose of government is to protect such freedoms but not to assume such responsibilities.
Libertarians stand for individual freedom and choice,personal responsibility, and the protection of the life, liberty and property of each and every citizen.
Libertarians support:
Constitutionaly limited government.
The rule of law.
The primacy of property rights over the authority of the state.
Individual freedom.
A free and open society.
An open immigration system that welcomes all regardless of race.
A free market economy.
A libertarian is a person who believes in the non-inititation of force principle, and that all adult interaction should be voluntary. Thats it. Anyone who accepts those principles is a libertarian. Anyone who does not, is not a libertarian, whether they call themselves one or not.
Any person who advocates that Rosa Parks deserved to be assualted because of her role in the civl rights movement is not a libertarian. To attack libertariansim because of the silly remarks of one person is intellectual dishonesty as much as calling yourself one and then advocating assualt.
A libertarian cannot be racist and also be a consistent libertarian. Libertarians advocate individual freedom and equality under the law. Libertarians believe that all people should be free and have exactly the same rights regardless of race.
Because libertarianism is the philosphy of individual liberty, no true libertarian could advocate slavery. The Confederates were not libertarians. As both a libertarian and a southerner, I would have fought on the side of the Union in order to uphold the libertarian principle of freedom for all.
The LewRockwell web site is not a libertarian web site, it is an Anarchist web site that advocates a stateless society. Libertarians only advocate limited government.
I am all in favour of rational critiques of libertarian ideas, but in none of the above posts do I see one. Instead what I see are people holding up caricatures, distortions and ourtright falshoods as "libertarianism" and then attacking those. This is a shallow, cowardly, and decietful way to engage in debate.
To paraphrase one of the best libertarian magazines in the world:
"Libertarians uphold each individual's sovereignty over his own life â€" i.e., his right to sustain his life and pursue his happiness as he chooses. We maintain that he possesses this right not by permission from God, society or the government, but by virtue of his nature as a self-aware, thinking, choosing being. Therefore, we advocate the elimination of compulsion and force from human affairs. We promote the belief that all adult interaction, in all spheres of life, should be voluntary. We defend the free market, not just in the realm of commerce, but universally. We are neither left wing nor right wing. We are as opposed to the censoring of personal, intellectual, cultural and moral values, traditionally favoured by the right, as we are to the regulation of economic activity extolled by the left. We believe that the only act which may properly be banned in a free society is the initiation of force or fraud by one party against another; that the only laws which may properly be imposed are those which ban the use of force or fraud â€" e.g., laws against assault, murder, rape or theft; and that the sole legitimate function of government is to define and enforce such laws, and to protect and defend the life, liberty and property of each and every citizen."
http://www.freeradical.co.nz/
39 - Tim Hall
Shawn,
The trouble with Libertarianism is that many of us non-libertarians tend to judge it by the words and actions of those that claim to be Libertarians. For instance, a certain Blogcritic who's name I won't mention claims to be a Libertarian, but comes over in many of his political posts as more of a fascist.
40 - Al Barger
Shawn- Please elucidate on this claim: "comes over in many of his political posts as more of a fascist."
It seems that basically anyone who doesn't eagerly grant the basic premises of socialism and the welfare state is a "fascist" according to some people here. The exact opposite would actually be closer. This is because in fact socialism and fascism are pretty closely related theoretically and obviously in practice.
And Shawn, don't be roped in by Diva's continuing malicious dishonesty- NO ONE here even hinted at sympathy for abusing Ms Parks. That's more of her typical lying. Black thugs in her own neighborhood abused her, and then Diva blames the white guy from Indiana for noticing that it was black folks rather than the Klan that hurt her.
41 - BB
"It resembles the Christian doctrine of the elect. In the doctrine, those who are naturally deserving have been chosen by God. In Objectivisim, they have been chosen by nature. In both, the proof of superiority is the possession of material goods and power."
To echo Phillip's treatise - really MD, your misguided attempt at Christian doctrine is absurd. Please read (and understand) your bible before deciding to preach - 'nuff said. Sorry for digressing from the topic folks.
42 - Roland
I finished Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things" recently. To my surprise, one of the chapters in his book was devoted to objectivists and their philosophy. Shermer's contention is that to be an objectivist one has to uncritically accept Rand's version of reality, under penalty of some sort of excommunication from the group.
43 - christina
Barry,
Try reading Ayn Rand's works again. You have clearly misunderstood.
Here's a hint:
Everyone is potentially "smart people" - it's your choice...
44 - Rodney Rawlings
Ayn Rand is truly coming into her own, if she can provoke such an apoplectic intellectual mess of a denunciation as that posted by Barry Stoller.
Folks, we are experiencing the first death-throes of the pre-Randian intellectual era. I for one am enjoying it.
The way is clear for a renaissance of man's mind. R.I.P., Ayn Rand.
45 - Al Barger
Rodney, you can see how Mr Stoller was thrashing about desperately for a way to discredit her, and you can see how empty he was coming up. No one takes Ayn Rand seriously nowadays.
Really? Then why are we all still talking about her near 50 years after Atlas, and why does her work continue raising hackles so effectively?
46 - Mohjho
Kant was right. nuff said.
47 - Abraham Lincoln
Al Burger is an intellectual pygmy!
48 - Abraham Lincoln
Al Barger is fine. I meant to say that Barry Stooger is an intellectual pygmy. He is uneducated and is a genuine derelict!