[tpaine]

If I recall correctly, the last few pages of Rand's turgid opus, 'Atlas Shrugged' deal with a re-writing of the Constitution along lines more amenable to her philosophy. So if you're one of those objectivist libertarian types for whom 'Atlas Shrugged' is holy writ, --

Rest easy my boy, -- I'm not.
-- And I don't support re-writing our Constitution. [except for repeal of the income tax]

Insofar as my comment on dismal libertarian electoral performance is concerned, I was pointing out--albeit in a roundabout way--that in our type of government, the value of political philosophies is measured by the vote; the vote is the coin of the realm.

Yep, thats how 'majority rule' people think. Thanks for sharing.

Er, yes, I'm one of those majority rule people. Blame it on that pesky Constitution you invoke with such faux piety.

Communitarian 'majority rule' dogma is not based on our Constitution. -- You people ignore our rights to life, liberty, & property in your 'rules'.

And what, by the way, do you mean by the term 'communitarian'? As in commune, as in somehow socialist?

Read much? Enforcing community standards that ignore individual rights is indeed a socialistic type violation of Constitutional principles.

Is that particular term some form of Rand-speak invective, sort of like Scientology's use of the term 'Agents of Chaos' to describe its enemies? It's common among cult members, I suppose, to invent their own semantic shorthand for concepts perhaps alien to the public at large.

Ergo, libertarianism--as a party, as a platform, as an ideology--is pathetically penniless. I'd use the term 'bankrupt', but that would imply that at some point in the past, the libertarians actually had something worthwhile to say.

They still do. They support our constitution & individual liberties. -- However, I do not support the 'party'. -- I support our Constitution.
I, - like most libertarians, welcome debate. Its infantile bashing, like yours, that initiates flame wars.

No flame war here, and certainly nothing infantile--

You boldly say I have a "faux piety" for our Constitution and infer that "cult members" oppose majority rule. That's infantile trolling.

my arguments against the objectivist libertarian fringe are as carefully structured and clearly written as I can make them, given the brief response time allowed by a news board format.

Brief? -- You can make your arguments any length you want..

I simply won't let skewed logic pass, particularly when it comes from Ayn Rand acolytes attempting to disguise themselves as political conservatives.

There you go again with the petty pejoratives. Childish.

[Rembrandt_fan]

Using the term 'cult members' when describing proponents of Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy is not a 'petty pejorative'. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck: you folks have a fearless leader who serves as a 'fountainhead' of indisputable truth, you make up your own specialized terminology to capture concepts peculiar to your, er, philosophy; e.g., 'communitarians', you shrilly cry foul when forced to argue that philosophy on its merits, and--just as Scientology, for example, claims legitimacy by describing itself a religion--Ayn Rand acolytes claim legitimacy by framing themselves as Constitutional conservatives.

As an aside, your piling on of previous posts with every response is getting rather tiresome. Is wearing your opponents down with sheer repetition a a debating tactic encouraged by the high command at Objectivist Central?