Posted on 01/15/2019 8:48:31 PM PST by huckfillary
If people did not indulge in such abject evasions as the claim that some contemptible liar “means well”—that a mooching bum “can’t help it”—that a juvenile delinquent “needs love”—that a criminal “doesn’t know any better”—that a power-seeking politician is moved by patriotic concern for “the public good”—that communists are merely “agrarian reformers”—the history of the past few decades, or centuries, would have been much different.
Yeah, I’m really eager to hear the early acolytes of the free love movement expound their moral theories.
Libertarianism went really weird and abandoned the belief that it was one’s personal responsibility to care for and properly raise the children one begat after it became contaminated by her. Now people asserting they hold libertarian ideal tend to fall in line with planned parenthood.
They ain’t my grandfather’s libertarians.
I left the LP because of abortion and weak on national, defense. I am fan of Ryan on objectivity and individual responsibility and being as free from government regulation as possible.
Rand
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/argument_from_intimidation.html
“I am fan of Ryan on objectivity and individual responsibility and being as free from government regulation as possible.”
—
Not a slam on her, but didn’t she end up broke and living on Social Security payments?
can you distinguish ideas from behavior. No one said she was perfect. But I believe she live up to her theories to some extent. Also she was virulent anti-communist.
Getting morality lesson from a woman who equated an abortion to an appendectomy was where I got off the objectivism train - this woman was a sociopath.
Most so-called libertarians today are merely libertines.
“can you distinguish ideas from behavior.”
—
The problem is lies in when the two are in contradiction, you have someone who’s incongruous and can be called out for not “practicing what they preach”.
I’m not a Rand fan or a detractor, just never got into her stuff that much to be either.
I am a libertarian with this philosophy:
The Constitution means what it says and is subject to no interpretation outside of original intent.
Outside of the “very few” constitutional laws that supersede the individual states all law is the function of the individual states provided it does not violate the very few superseding federal laws.
The interstate commerce law is an abomination against The Constitution.
let me know when you find perfect humans
“let me know when you find perfect humans”
—
That’s the thing, I’m not much on being a fanboy for guru-types in general. So I don’t look for one at all. But I just think it’s a wise idea if a person’s walk aligns with their talk.
bmp
can you distinguish ideas from behavior.
It is easy to distinguish swamp ideas form their behavior.
“When those who produce must seek permission to produce from those who produce nothing, your society is in decline. When the laws that are meant to protect you from the powerful protect the powerful from you, your society is in decline’’.
I prefer God.
My 9 year old daughter asked me this weekend what my favorite book was. I told her Atlas Shrugged. I admire Ayn Rand’s intellect. Her view of the future is pretty darn eerie, especially considering what we endured from 2008-2016.
She ended up dependent upon the State.
No conflict here. Will somebody please state the conflict?
It is the same dumb argument if a person speaks out against Big Gov’t, and they also take Social Security, then they should also be further humiliated by robbing him further.
The socialist accusers just wish to steal even more of that person's money. Socialists have no bound for their theft.
The libertarian just acknowledges dependency is bad. He also, in a rate moment of keenness, will estimate how much money the State actually stole from him.
Something a socialist could never calculate in their broad ignorance. Something even most astute Freepers could also nether do.
Social Security was FORCED upon my paycheck my entire working career. I am not now nor was I ever a fan of Social Security as it is simply nothing more than government ownership of the elderly. It needs to be ended. Ending it would take sacrifices from those currently receiving it, those who are stuck expecting it, and those who would have to give up the idea of ever receiving it. This is a multi-generational problem with a multi-generational solution.
I have a workable solution. All three parties above sacrifice something but in the end the program disappears from the face of the earth. Tell me your approximate age and I will tell you what your sacrifice is. The major burden facing Social Security is the retiring baby boomer generation. They have to be dealt with in a fashion that they can buy into. They have already sacrificed their entire working lives having to pay into a system that bought the votes of their parents and grandparents.
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.