Politics

Is The Tea Party Devoted to "a Philandering, Russian Atheist" (Ayn Rand) and, If So, Is that a Bad Thing?

|

Via Hot Air comes this Daily Caller piece about right-wing and left-wing Christians trashing the libertarians. On November 2, representatives of Southern Baptists and the liberal Christian mag Sojourners got together at the National Press Club to chat about various things.

As often happens when you get social cons and liberals together, libertarians come up in conversation, either as a non-relevant factor or as the poster-child for all that is wrong and rotten in the world. And as the great Jerry Tuccille once wrote (in one of the great political memoirs of all time), it usually begins with Ayn Rand. Read on, Macduff!

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and Rev. Jim Wallis, a spiritual adviser to President Barack Obama and president and CEO of the "justice and peace" organization Sojourners, discussed an array of issues including the need for immigration reform, the irrelevance of GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney's Mormon faith and the virtues of foreign aid.

Land digs the Tea Party, of which he says he is not a part. And of which he says libertarians (those annoying small-government, stop-the-spending, smoke-the-doobage zealots!) comprise a tiny bit too:

"The tea party is overwhelmingly socially conservative," Land said explaining the tea party is actually made up of a great number of people of faith. "They are in the 85 percent range in terms of people that are pro-life. The libertarian wing of the tea party is very small. They are by and large previously unactivated parts of social conservatives in America — Catholic and Evangelical."

As it happens, Land is wrong about the makeup of the Tea Party. In the last Reason-Rupe survey (released on September 1), Emily Ekins found that 41 percent of Tea Partiers are "libertarian-leaning" while 59 percent were "social conservatives." That characterization is based on respondents' answer to the question of whether government "should not favor any particular set of values." And I should note too that very religious social conservatives can be both conservative and libertarian to the extent they don't think the government should be an instrument of involuntary moral coercion. Land is mistaken to oppose the categories of libertarian and conservative.

For his part, Wallis announced displeasure with a Tea Party that is, in his view, fully Randian in its total bastardacity (not a word, but should be):

"I distrust a movement that lifts up a philandering Russian atheist who said she hated Jesus — Ayn Rand — as their philosophical guide," he said.

In Wallis' view, Rand's libertarian principles are in direct conflict with the tenets of Christianity.

"I think extreme libertarian politics may be, in my mind, the least Christian option out there. 'Just leave me alone I don't care about anybody else,' is not a Christian way of life," he said. "We are our brother's keeper and that is how we are."

Read the whole story here.

For the record, let's be clear: About 99.9 percent of libertarians in my experience are totally in favor of acts of charity and philanthropy; indeed, all I've encountered truly believe that a classical liberal system is the best way to feed the naked and clothe the hungry. At the various Tea Party rallies I've covered, I never encountered anybody who wanted to throw poor people in sacks and drown them in a creek like kittens. Quite the opposite: They think the government is spending so much money and taking so much from them than more effective private works of charity suffer.

But to get back specifically to Wallis' jibe at Rand: What kind of world have we become when a man who talks the talk of the Man from Galillee is putting someone down not just for being an atheist but a Russkie to boot? Wallis further wandered off into the desert by further saying:

Wallis added that tea party activists should be consistent: If they are protesting concentrations of power in Washington, D.C., they should also — like the Occupy movement – protest concentrations of economic power on Wall Street.

Somehow, he must have missed the part in the Tea Party saga about how it was activated by TARP and other bailouts of politcally connected firms and industries, enacted first by George W. Bush and then by Barack Obama.

Ah well. In a strange way, the evening's detour into eliminationist rhetoric against the relevance of libertarians to a movement whose only significant point is stopping government spending and the demonization of a refugee from the Soviet Union for being insufficiently American is a sign that libertarians and Rand must have some kind of mojo going on.

In 2009, Reason.tv took the measure of Rand's long shelf life in American culture:

For more Rand-related vids check out this playlist.

Advertisement

NEXT: Reason Morning Links: Jobless Rate Drops to 9 Percent, Obama Drone-Murders Two Innocent Pakistani Teenagers, Regulator Overseeing MF Global Was Jon Corzine's Buddy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That characterization is based on respondents’ answer to the question of whether government “should not favor any particular set of values.”

    That’s actually a bad way to pose the question, since an Objectivist would happily announce that he expects government to favor a particular set of values.

    It’s a little amusing that in an article about how those darn social conservatives don’t want anything to do with Ayn Rand, you’d quote a poll that uses a definition of libertarianism that effectively excludes Ayn Rand.

    Joez Law strikes again.

    1. This is a good point. That question didn’t seem like a good way to find social conservatives to me either. The point about Randians is particularly important as the main difference between a libertarian and a Randian objectivist (as I see it) is that the objectivist will tell you how you should live your life.

      1. I am a former Objectivist and before becoming an Objectivist I was a Christian of the Born Again variety. Part of what attracted me to her philosophy was the uncompromising nature of it. It had a “hard edge” that in some ways reminded me of the variety of Christianity I was accustomed to. There is another similarity. The more conservative [in a religious sense)have a kind of disdain for society as a whole. “The world is full of sin and corruption.” So too, do the objectivists. “The world is full of people with bad philosophy.”

        1. Ayn Rand: “If you’re not a born again Atheist you are going to Hell!”

          1. Hell, hell, hell, it’s a wonderful place.

            The Bastard Fairies-We’re All Going To Hell (Official Video)
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTOffYj5TxU

      2. is that the objectivist will tell you how you should live your life.

        And never expect the government to enforce it. I’m pretty sure most libertarians have some ideas or advice on how others should live their lives.

    2. Ayn Rand wasn’t a libertarian.

      She hated Libertarians.

      She loved government granted monopolies.

      Her critiques of the status quo – especially as informed by her experiences living in the Soviet Union – provide insights useful to advocates of libertarianism.

      But the Objectivists’ total disdain for the non-aggression principle makes their philosophy a fundamentally non-libertarian one.

      1. She loved government granted monopolies.

        Wow, thank you White Indian. Do you support “monopolies” on your land because I cannot “gambol”?

        Reasonable people can disagree about intellectual property – except, apparently, if you are a Rockwellian like tarran.

      2. But the Objectivists’ total disdain for the non-aggression principle makes their philosophy a fundamentally non-libertarian one.

        Whatever you say, tarran:

        a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality

        Atlas Shrugged

        1. 🙂

          Dude, she felt that Patents of Monopoly were the core centerpiece of property rights.

          And how do these Patents of Monopoly get enforced? By some entity coming in and attacking people who try to arrange/manipulate their property in ways that the monopoly disapproves. So out goes the NAP.

          It’s possible that you are right. Ayn Rand could be a third-rate thinker who didn’t understand the implications of her philosophy and I’m being really mean to her.

          1. It’s possible that you are right. Ayn Rand could be a third-rate thinker who didn’t understand the implications of her philosophy and I’m being really mean to her.

            She understood it just fine. Like every libertarian ever, she struggled with the anarchist/miniarchist dichotomy in libertarian thought. Did she spit hot fire at anarchists? Yes, but you all, frankly, have it coming half the time. That said, if you want to actually bother to discuss the woman (assuming of course, and this is a big assumption, that you have actually bothered to read her) fine.

            I am also fine with a Objectivist/Yokeltarian fistfight too. Shall we open our books to Mises Chapter 4 and sing “GLORY BE UNTO DR. PAUL”?

            1. Like every libertarian ever, she struggled with the anarchist/miniarchist dichotomy in libertarian thought.

              I dont, G?del solved this problem for me.

              She had access to his work too, its here own damn fault for relying on Aristotle instead.

              1. Wait, G?del solved it for you? You need to explain that one a bit more, robc.

                1. G?del showed that any complete logical system (which a political philosophy would be) contains contradictions.

                  That is a very simplified version, but good enough for one sentence.

                  1. Okay, second incompleteness. I figured that’s where you were going, but wanted to make sure.

          2. And how do these Patents of Monopoly get enforced? By some entity coming in and attacking people who try to arrange/manipulate their property in ways that the monopoly disapproves. So out goes the NAP.

            Like WI likes to say, how do you think land monopolies are enforced? By saying “pretty please no gamboling”?

            1. Which is why I can support a single land tax.

          3. I’m pro-IP, just not pro-crazy-IP. We have crazy IP right now.

            I think you can be a libertarian and accept limited IP monopolies. If not, I’ll turn in my card.

            1. Im anti-IP, but not crazy-anti-IP (see what I did there?).

              I can “accept” limited IP monopolies, but I would prefer to get rid of them.

              1. And, I guess, if we are going to grant IP monopolies, they can fall under the single land tax too.

            2. ProL, you forgot that moderation of anything is prohibited here. It’s either perfectly good or perfectly evil.

              For the record, I agree with you about IP- I too am pro-IP, but some stuff (like the DMCA) is just psychotic.

              1. Just the idea of criminal infringement should give one pause.

            3. I am pro-TP. (Tangible Property). Which means I’m anti-I”P”. (yes, thats a scare quote around part of an abbreviation, damn I’m awesome).

              Until we get rid of the IRS and the designated hitter though, I don’t want to revoke anybodies decoder rings, monocles or top hats, and will be perfectly happy to make utilitarian compromises to lessen the harm contained in the current inventor/writer theft-reward-system.

          4. Effectively, you are employing the leftist argument that crimes against property aren’t “violence”, so when the state uses violence against people who steal property, it’s “initiating” force.

            Your dispute here with Rand is over what constitutes a valid property claim. Not about the non-aggression principle.

            1. I disagree. See my post below (and damn these threaded comments!)

          5. Ayn Rand saw herself as an artist before anything else. Of course she thought that IP was the alpha and omega of property rights and that an architect should be able to blow up a building that someone else built and owned if it didn’t match his vision.

            Her philosophy is fundamentally nothing but narcissistic self justification.

            1. an architect should be able to blow up a building that someone else built and owned if it didn’t match his vision he didn’t receive payment for his design. FIFY

            2. Real property rights, btw, seem immensely more difficult to justify to me than IP rights.

              IP pretty much is the alpha and omega of property rights. If I didn’t believe in IP, I doubt I’d believe in any of the rest of it.

              1. Then you shouldn’t have any problem with the government taking everything that you own that did not originate in your imagination.

                1. I didn’t say it was the only valid form of property.

                  I just said it seems more straightforward to justify, morally, than real property.

                  To me property is a moral relationship. If I invent something and you don’t, it’s morally obvious to me that I own it and you don’t.

                  In the same way and for the same reasons that the labor I will do today belongs to me and not to you.

                  Real property is so much harder. You can go the Adam Smith route and say that we’re “mixing” our labor with land when we improve it – but there’s a whole lot of unimproved land out there under private ownership. And it also leaves you vulnerable to squatter’s claims, raises the question of why your rights don’t lapse when you let land lay fallow, etc.

                  IP is just so much cleaner. I did it, you didn’t. If you take it from me without my permission, you are stealing from me. Very straightforward.

                  “I would have thought of that someday,” doesn’t impress me. Neither does, “I haven’t taken anything tangible from you!”

              2. Really?

                So, your mom owns every flower you ever picked, because she was the one who taught you to pick a flower? 😉

          6. Dude, she felt that Patents of Monopoly were the core centerpiece of property rights.

            And she’s right.

      3. Ayn Rand wasn’t a libertarian.

        She hated Libertarians.

        Fine.

        But if the question is designed to identify the percentage of social conservatives in the Tea Party, as The Jacket is saying, it’s still not the right question to ask.

        Or is it your position that since Ayn Rand didn’t like the Rothbardians, they means she was a religious conservative?

        1. My position is that Objectivists aren’t libertarian because a society organized according to their philosophy would posess a powerful state that enforces a regime of ‘property’ rights built around grants of patents of monopoly. Such an arrangement would require the regular violation the NAP, which is the razor that separates ‘libertarian’ philosophies from non-libertarian ones.

          No, Objectivists aren’t social conservatives. But they ain’t libertarian either.

          1. So what you’re saying is that anybody who believes in property isn’t a libertarian?

            Then I suppose the entire article is even more off-base, because I would say there are very nearly ZERO libertarians in the Tea Party if that’s the case. Not only would the 41% number provided by the lovely and talented Ms. Ekins be wrong, but even the 85% number Land is supplying would be outrageously low.

            1. No what you’re saying is that anybody who believes in property isn’t a libertarian?

              No, that’s not what I’m saying, and I think you know that. I’m too busy to debate this so I’m going to copy and paste from an old debate Ihad on mises.org on the subject:

              A property right is the moral right to be the sole controler of something. For example, let’s say that there is a rock that we both are interested in. I think the rock is the perfect shape for skipping accross the water, and I want to use it for that purpose. Obviously, once the rock has lost sufficient velocity, it willl slip beneath the surface and be lost forever. You think it is beautiful and want to admire it in perpetuity. Obviously we cannot both enjoy the use of this rock. The property right over the rock, the moral claim to control it, is what determines who may, morally, decide to what use the rock gets put. The rock is scarce; there is only a limited supply and thus there is the potential for conflict over its use.

              A patent or a copyright is a claim to control a pattern, the manner in which physical objects are arranged. Perhaps it is the pattern with which ink is drawn upon a page. Perhaps it is the relationship between bits of metal that allows them to function as a piston. Patterns are not scarce and are therefore not property! If one person makes a piston out of one bit of metal, he is not depriving another person of the ability to make an identical piston out of another bit of metal. The property right resides solely in the materials used in manufacture, not in the pattern in and of itself.

              Now, it is possible that you invent a new way of working metal so that it makes a very good piston, and I cannot figure out how to do it. You then allow me to benefit from your past action (the act of inventing) by selling me the piston on the condition that I a) don’t take it appart an make my own, b) don’t show its innards to anyone else, or transfer my title to the object to someone else unless they sign a similar agreement.

              Notice, there is no need for protection. If you want to prevent copying of your idea, then you can try to get people to voluntarily to commit to prevent copying it in exchange for you allowing them to purchase the object, or providing them access to plans. If someone hears about your invention, and sits down and reverse engineers it without anyone breaking an agreement that they made with you, you have not been the victim of some violation of your property.

              You can continue to sell your pistons, or sell copies of the plans. Now, of course you might command a lower price than you otherwise would, or you may have trouble finding any buyer at all, but that is not because you have somehow been agressed against.

              1. Dude, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion we’re having.

                Either you think that the state can use force against people who steal property or you don’t.

                Define property however you like. Leave out IP if you like. With the definition of property that’s left, the definition chosen by you, can the state use force against people who steal it?

                Because if so, to reiterate my pretty simple and obvious point from above, you’re not arguing about the state’s use of force – you’re arguing about what constitutes justifiable property.

                1. Either you think that the state can use force against people who steal property or you don’t.

                  Nope, I am arguing something different: that if your system of property requires a state to work at all, then you have a nonlibertarian system.

                  If I have a patent on a particular type of plow, the only way I can enforce that right is by going on suspected plow users’ property and seizing any plow that I didn’t approve of them making/buying. This is intrinsically aggressive.

                  1. And if I own a real, physical plow, and while I am sleeping my neighbor steals it, the only way to enforce my property right is to go on my neighbor’s property and seize the plow. Or have a state do it for me.

                    if your system of property requires a state to work at all, then you have a nonlibertarian system.

                    In which case, there are close to zero libertarians in the Tea Party. So we’re back to my original point, namely, that the Ekins question doesn’t let us know how many libertarians and how many social conservatives are in the Tea Party. Since according to you the only libertarians are anarchists, and there are close to zero anarchists in the Tea Party, the question they really SHOULD have asked was, “Are you an anarchist?”

                  2. if your system of property requires a state to work at all, then you have a nonlibertarian system.

                    No, you have a non-anarchic system. Libertarian encompasses minarchy, so that the presence of state action does not invalidate the libertarian nature of the system.

                    Further, no system of “property” requires a state to enforce it. Even IP.

                    Say you have a design for a piston in which you claim property rights. Someone else starts using “your” design.

                    In a minarchy/libertarian system, the state provides a forum for defining and enforcing your claim. In an anarchic system, your claim is whatever you say it is, and you enforce it however you can.

                    And this is true regardless of whether “your” property is a piston design or a piston. So, if the anarchic system doesn’t work for IP, it doesn’t work for more tangible forms of property.

                    1. No, you have a non-anarchic system. Libertarian encompasses minarchy, so that the presence of state action does not invalidate the libertarian nature of the system.

                      I’m not arguing that.

                      I’m arguing that a system that epends on the existence of a state as a precondition for its existence must violate the NAP.

                      Just because states enforce physical proeprty rights in no way makes a system of property rights unlibertarian.

                      But please enlighten me as to how you “protect” a patent of monopoly without a state? Remember, the “owner” of a patent of monopoly is saying I own the right to make X exclusively, no one else is allowed to make it!

                      How do you impose the scarcity that is inherent to physical objects and is not inherent to ideas to them?

                    2. Aaah! I somehwo deleted a critical sentence before I hit post:

                      The third paragraph I wrote should have said:
                      Just because states enforce physical property rights in no way makes a system of property rights unlibertarian. Physical property rights are enforced all the time without the state getting involved, by locking your door, for example.

  2. I’ll pile on with disagreement about that question. From my sideline association with the Tea Party crowd in Houston, there are a lot of social cons. 59% strikes me as low. However, most of them are far more concerned (right now) with fiscal issues than social issues.

    And as always, Bastiat is eternally relevant to this discussion. Dman, but the statist fucks will never understand that when we say we don’t want the .gov to do charity, that doesn’t mean we we’ll prohibit private citizens from doing it.

    1. As are Objectivists.

      Am I free to gambol about plain and forest?

      MARX: NO!
      RAND: NO!
      ROTHBARD: NO!
      MISES: NO!
      LENIN: NO!
      BUSH: NO!
      OBAMA: NO!

      ^^Statist Fucks^^ each and every one.

      White Indian only Non-Statist Fucker here.

      P.S. Why is fucking such a bad name to call anyway? Got Capito-Calvinism religio-economic dogma still going? Do I have to get a haircut too? Hair is sinful for hard working CULT-ure members?

      NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES
      http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper…..ieties.pdf

      1. “Am I free to gambol about plain and forest?”

        If you either own the forest or have the consent of the person or people who do, sure, why not.

        1. wouldn’t it just be easier if WI confirmed her desire for anarchy, and spared us the multiple screen names and straw men?

        2. He’s a poser. He’s not interested in living the way he advocates. I know, I tried offering him use of a large piece of land in western Canada.

          I thought he might care to talk about the cabin, the streams, the lake, the fish, the wildlife, the seeds and berries, safety what-ifs, how to make it through a Canadian winter. He wasn’t interested in training or assistance in getting there. He immediately attacked the idea as insufficient, and specifically attacked the third of the land which would serve him best, very much to my amusement. No discussion but gripe, piss, bitch, whine, moan about what a filthysonofabitch I am for not offering him the whole damned world.

          1. It is completely unreasonable (drink?), and should be treated as such, Diet.

            You were way too kind to it.

            1. Yeah, but it would have been worth it to see his shock at living like Gilligan’s Island (“No phones, no lights, no motor cars”) for the few days he’d make it before the distress call came.

              1. I’d pay $3.50 to see that!

          2. I tried offering them use of a large piece of land called Somalia.

            REGULATION VACATION CELEBRATION!
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

            Lest we be accused of misrepresenting their views, actual Libertarians have been kicking around this take on Somalia with a straight face for some time now. No shit:
            mises.org/story/2066

            A more nuanced completely insane view is that Somalia has been awesome-ized by Anarchism, not Libertarianism.
            reason.com/blog/show/117519.html

            1. “I tried offering them use of a large piece of land called Somalia.”

              Why not take it yourself to gambol on hypocrite?

              1. Or just places that you agricultural city-STATISTS haven’t invaded and occupied?

                1. AGAIN,

                  you’re not in Somalia WHY? You can gambol there all you like, yet you’re not there. WHY?

                  Feel free to attempt to change the subject away from your hypocrisy again.

                  1. You couldn’t be the same douchebag socialist that was repeatedly telling me I supported an anarchist system such as Somalia the other day, could you???

            2. “I tried offering them use of a large piece of land called Somalia.”

              But then I sent in the CIA and U.S. Military in with drones and spooks to destroy what the local people tried to build on their own. They I bribed the governments of neighboring countries to invade and destroy the local society even more. Aren’t I generous?

              1. White Idiot does not own Somalia, therefore it is unable to “offer” it.

                What a dumbshIT.

      2. I love it when the madness peeks out.

        You go girl!

      3. White Indian.

        Have you given up toilet paper yet?

          1. Can’t answer the question without proving you’re a liar?

          2. Most place do not allow significant private road systems. In Virginia private ownership of a bridge over a river is illegal. I know of no such prohibition to alternatives to toilet paper.

            1. It likely uses public roads, given that it does not live the hunter-gatherer lifestyle it bitches about ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

      4. White Indian,
        Stop taking your angst out on us about your own hypocrisy and inability to overcome industrialized and agricultural society and go live out in the woods hunting and gathering for food. Civilization is only a prison if you have no real property rights, because then your property can be taken from you and given to the corporations, the wealthy, the poor, etc.

        Even in psuedo-capitalist America, little is stopping you and your fellow anarchoprimitivists from pooling your money, buying large swaths of fallow land, forming tribes and rewilding. Hippie colonies do it all the time, and libertarians find nothing wrong with that.

        Also, libertarians wouldn’t stop you if you want to roam the national parks or fallow “state” property. The State will, and we don’t advocate that. For instance, I have no problem with the Occupy movement living permanently in tents in city parks, as long as they are on public property or have permission to be on private property.

        I’m convinced you have no way to turn your ideas into practice for all of society, and this frustrates you endlessly. Sadly, instead of seeing libertarians as your closest allies, you decide to distort everything we believe and affiliate us with dead authoritarian pricks who believed the opposite of everything we believe.

        1. Ultimately WI is being disingenious, she doesn’t really want every one to return to an anarchoprimitive way of life. What she wants is the goverment to force people to live that lifestyle, while she gets to be one of the ‘enforcers’ and thus enjoying the special ‘priviliges’ of civilization. In her mind everyone wins. Fewer resources are used, global warming is solved because of the massive die off of human beings, and she still gets to look at her peanut butter midget porn.

          1. Ultimately k2000 is being disingenious, because WI is against ALL city-STATE government.

            Can’t ya read too well?

        2. Libertarian,

          Stop taking your angst out on us about your own hypocrisy and inability to overcome Statist society and go live out in Somalia.

          REGULATION VACATION CELEBRATION!
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

          Lest we be accused of misrepresenting their views, actual Libertarians have been kicking around this take on Somalia with a straight face for some time now. No shit:
          mises.org/story/2066

          A more nuanced completely insane view is that Somalia has been awesome-ized by Anarchism, not Libertarianism.
          reason.com/blog/show/117519.html.

          1. AGAIN,

            you’re not in Somalia WHY? You can gambol there all you like, yet you’re not there. WHY?

            Feel free to attempt to change the subject away from your hypocrisy again.

          2. The difference is that libertarian philosophy has an actual policy we can enact to get what we want: cut government. Thus we actually make efforts to change government in the places where we live.

            Leading anarchoprimitivist John Zerzan admits: “It’s a huge challenge. You’ve got these great grandiose ideas, but the rubber has to hit the road somewhere, and we know that. I don’t know how that’s going to work.? [W]e are a long way from connecting with that reality and we have to face that. You start off with questioning things and trying to enlarge the space where people can have dialogue and raise the questions that are not being raised anywhere else. But we don’t have blueprints as to what people should do.”

            Primitivists admit that they have no real world mechanism to force a return to natural utopian tribalism without enacting extremely statist policies, like destroying/stealing property and forcing people into rewilding brainwash schools.

            If primitivism is truly voluntary and desirable, you should be a libertarian, where you and your fellow primitivists can do as you please on your own property without government or outside agent interference. If your lifestyle is superior to urban community living, more people will naturally join you.

      5. WELL HOWDY MISS RECTAL! IT SURE IS A PRETTY DAY TODAY, ALMOST AS PRETTY AS U! SAY, I FOUND THIS HERE PIGEON SKELETON UNDERNEATH MOMMAS TRAILER AND I WANT YOU TO HAVE IT. SEEIN HOW YOU LIKE ANIMALS AND ALL. OK MISS RECTAL YOU HAVE A NICE DAY NOW

      6. Am I free to live on this earth?

        PRIMITIVIST: NO! YOUR PRESENCE VIOLATES THE PLANET’S CARRYING CAPACITY FOR MYTHOLOGICAL PRIMITIVE SOCIETIES. THEREFORE YOU AND 98% OF HUMANITY MUST DIE.

        ^^Psychopaths^^ each and every one.

        1. “The free market means that those without money to buy what they need do not have the right to live.”
          – John McMurtry

          Capitalists are psychopaths, each and every one.

          P.S. Capitalism did the Trail of Tears. Tell me when you know of any primitive Non-State bands or tribes committing genocide. Really.

          1. “Capitalists love mass murder

            “The free market means that those without money to buy what they need do not have the right to live.”
            – John McMurtry

            Interestingly, you’re either too stupid to use a relevant quote or you don’t realize that on has nothing to do with any kind of murder at all.

            And I love how you’re so pissed and upset at us laughing at you that you just went straight for the cursing and insults.

            Just waive the white flag already.

            1. …in the capitalist worldwide Empire of Pax Americana, and it isn’t murder? Who knew?

              Ever read Confessions of an Economic Hitman?

              1. What does any of that have to do with your gross inability to read your own posts for relevance before posting them?

                Again, you’re either too stupid to use a relevant quote or you don’t realize that on has nothing to do with any kind of murder at all.

                And I love how you’re so pissed and upset at us laughing at you that you just went straight for the cursing and insults.

                Just waive the white flag already.

                1. …your desire to surrender? You keep bringing up this White Flag thingy.

              2. and it isn’t murder?

                Nope. Cry about it, but it won’t make it murder.

              3. The only people I see starving are those in countries where the state holds a repressive grip on the food supply and manipulate it for political control. If that’s what you’re criticizing, I’m fully in agreement.

                But that has nothing to do with free markets. In fact, it is distinctly the opposite of free markets. Countries with approximations of free markets have such bounty that starvation must be almost voluntary to occur (ex. the homeless guy who doesn’t seek any help or go to a food kitchen).

              4. I have. John Perkins is right that Western governments have used foreign aid to manipulate the third world, for better or worse, and have funneled vast amounts of taxpayer dollars or printed money into corrupt politicians’ and corporations’ pockets via the World Bank. Libertarians are virulently opposed to state corporatism, so you’re off-target yet again.

          2. Who murdered me?

            Did those people also commit genocide?

            Do you really care when your self-hating philosophy is built on idealized and mythological dream societies?

            PS: I’m not a capitalist.

            1. …making any valid points either.

            2. mythological dream societies

              Actually, the last several decades of anthropology, ethnology, and archeology have shown that what you think is mythology about a golden past, the garden of eden, etc. is based on hard fact.

              The Original Affluent Society
              Marshall Sahlins
              http://www.primitivism.com/original-affluent.htm

              1. “Actually, the last several decades of anthropology, ethnology, and archeology have shown that what you think is mythology about a golden past, the garden of eden, etc. is based on hard fact.”

                I love how you try to attach yourself to decades of research, which by the way proves you’re lying, and THEN post ONE link that says NOTHING about your claims.

                It’s like your stupid “mass murder” quote that wasn’t about murder, you’re so stupid that you don’t actually understand what you’re reading.

                1. …is about the Non-State sociopolitial typology in which 99% of human history consists, and you and the young-earth creationists consider to be mythology.

                  1. 31 [FLAVORS OF CRAZY]!

                    Grab a [CONE] today!

                2. PoC,
                  WI, like Tony, is supposedly well-read yet very basic concepts fail him and many of his academic inspirations completely. They are filled with rampant confirmation bias when filling in the factual gaps in paleoanthropological records. The only truly provable overarching paleoanthropological theory is that most hunter-gathering societies eventually decided that civilization, agriculture and development were preferable, and the fact that many but not every indigenous tribe came to that conclusion at the same time over the course of 10,000 years speaks more to geographic and cultural isolation from outside influence than a fierce voluntary desire to avoid civilization. That doesn’t excuse military imperialism, which was compulsive civilization on steroids. But this is something libertarians are diametrically opposed to.

            3. “Who murdered me?”

              Why are you assuming it was murder when it could have been self defense? The evidence doesn’t support your conclusion anymore than mine.

              1. Apparently you’ve never heard of Confessions of an Economic Hitman.

                A Hitman kills people with direct force.

                An Economic Hitman kills people by taking away resources.

                Libertarianism whitewashes killing people by taking away resources.

                1. Libertarianism whitewashes killing people by taking away resources.

                  Um, isn’t “libertarianism” an idology practiced by PEOPLE? So, the PEOPLE kill OTHER PEOPLE by taking away resources.

                  As if Libertarianism was the cause of that…

                  And why can’t the deprived simply exercise their wills?

                  Oh right, they can, which makes your attempt at a point even more retarded.

                  Essentially you said, “people who believe in one thing, through SHEER POWER OF THEIR IDEOLOGY, are able to funnel resources to themselves, while totally preventing any kind of retaliation from those who have had their resources taken.”

                  Just so I’m clear, what function of Libertarianism prevents individuals from taking up their own defense?

                2. Again, Confessions of an Economic Hitman is a criticism of state corporatism and governmental imperialism, neither of which reflects libertarianism in the remotest.

              2. My body is the hardest fact existing capable of informing us of primitive societies. And you have no idea what it says.

                Primitivism’s “hard facts” are mostly inferences based largely on studies of contemporary societies. Extrapolating debatable conclusions (from a statistically insignificant sample size) into prehistory is hardly indisputable science. Rather, they are inextricably intertwined with the researchers’ pre-existing biases. Your quoted papers and scholarship present interesting possibilities, but belong on the fiction shelf.

                1. …unless you’re a Libertarian Zombie. Is your body telling you different? LOL

                  Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior
                  Christopher Boehm
                  Harvard University Press

                2. Not to mention that anthropologists are highly prone to confirmation bias when they are filling in the gaping holes where facts and historical records don’t exist. I won’t say tribalism is inherently better or worse than civilization, although the fact that most people chose against it indicates the latter. I just see nothing inherently contradictory between free market civilizations, primitivism and voluntary communalism from a libertarian/laissez-faire perspective as long as property rights are protected.

          3. The State enacted the Trail of Tears, not the market, you fool. At most, you can implicate fascists who encouraged the State to do this for private gain, but those are amongst libertarians’ most hated villains and not representative of a free market where the state has very minimal power and should be doing the exact opposite.

            You’re not serious. You’re just a troll.

      7. linking to a religious university?

        1. …of a summary of a quite secular freshman anthropology text.

          Is that over your head?

          1. “…of a summary of a quite secular freshman anthropology text that hasn’t been current for decades, and is based entirely on observations made of people in Latin America and the Caribbean, so representing it as accurate is disingenuous

            FTFY

            I love that you quoted a text you never actually read. Even better, when it is cited, like at SMU, it’s cited as evidence of CULTURAL BIAS IN AUTHORSHIP.

            You quoted a text that is DELIBERATELY BEING USED TO DEMONSTRATE CULTURAL BIAS and you were too ignorant to know it.

            Stop pretending google is a substitute for an education in the subject.

  3. The thing that impresses me about the Sojourners is that they preach something diametrically opposed to what Jesus taught:

    When Satan tempted Jesus out in the desert, one of the offers was dominion over all the nations of the Earth, literally to have the political power to force people to live godly lives and to do good things.

    Jesus rejected that temptation. The Sojourners have embraced it and condemn anyone who thinks that Jesus’ approach to this issue is the correct one.

    1. Could it be?

    2. “Jesus rejected that temptation. The Sojourners have embraced it and condemn anyone who thinks that Jesus’ approach to this issue is the correct one.”

      Very good point. He also said “My kingdom is not of this world.”

    3. The thing that impresses me about the Sojourners is that they preach something diametrically opposed to what Jesus taught

      Jesus is kind of like 2008 Obama – people will project their own biases onto a blank screen and say “see, Jesus agrees with me!” There is just as much biblical interpretation that would support that Jesus is a big communist.

      1. There is just as much biblical interpretation that would support that Jesus is a big communist.

        No there isnt.

        1. Liberation Theology, robc. I won’t say anything about the correctness of the interpretation, but Liberation Theology (from everything I’ve ever read) is Marxism justified by Jesus.

          1. I won’t say anything about the correctness of the interpretation

            Well, the correctness of the interpretation is exactly what Im talking about. I mean, yeah, there are “interpretations” that would support anything, but if they arent valid, they arent really interpretations.

            1. I avoid the interpretation arguments. I know what the bible says, but arguing about what it means is a fools game. Generally, people interpret the Bible in a way that lets them justify what they wanted to do in the first place. Given that, you ain’t gonna win the argument, no matter how correct you might be.

              1. “I avoid the interpretation arguments.”

                You shouldn’t. The majority of the stupidity coming from leftists these days depends upon loose and sometimes glaringly flawed interpretations.

          2. To each according to his ability. ~Jesus, Matthew 25

            Distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. ~Acts 4

            To each according to his need. ~popularized by Marx

            1. Marxism = Christianity

              Yeah! Including that whole [GULAG SYSTEM] that Jesus insisted upon.

              Excellent work Rectal!

        2. Did you miss the “interpretation” part? Your interpretation may not support that, but there most certainly are others that do. Have you ever heard of this little organization called “the Catholic Church”?

          1. Vaguely. Are they christian?

            [asks the southern baptist]

            1. Q. Do you know why Baptists won’t make love standing up?

              A. They’re afraid somebody will think they’re dancing.

              1. Q. Why should you never take two baptists fishing?

                A. They will spend the entire time preaching at you for drinking beer.

                Q. Why should you never take one baptist fishing?

                A. He will drink all your beer.

        3. Off the top of the old religious education, Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 4, 32-35, in part,
          “All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.”
          “And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.”

          Not Jesus per se, but the Apostles. And God struck down the husband and wife who defied this. “Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.”

          1. voluntary sharing isnt communism. And Ananias and Sophiras (named from top of head, so sp? that) were struck down for LYING about it.

            1. Right, good point about the lying, although that whole story still really bothers me.

            2. Ananias and Sophiras were murder victims of a Godtalker Shakedown meant to put FEAR into people.

              Acts 5:11 And great FEAR came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

              Tyrants operate on instilling FEAR.

          2. This is for the church community, not for government. In the early church, it was expected that people livid without excess stuff, and that any extra stuff they had went to helping the less fortunate amongst them. Additionally, it was voluntary.

            I have to say though, I’ve never quite known what to make of the couple who were struck down for not giving enough. That passage seems contradictory to pretty much everything else on the subject.

            1. Ananias and Sophiras were summarily executed by the Godtalkers.

              Tyrants do that sort of stuff, murder people to put the fear of hierarchy in them.

              Acts 5:11 And great FEAR came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

              1. I like to put objects in my dirty places.

              2. You can’t take one passage out of a great text, and assume that it means something completely contradictory to what is taught everywhere else. I admit I have issues with that passage, and that I don’t think I understand the message as intended. However, I’m certain that the point isn’t that we should give to the poor in fear of execution.

    4. I dont know who the Sojourners are but I agree with you about Jesus teaching. Its how I can be a Christian and a Libertarian at the same time.

  4. “Somehow, he must have missed the part in the Tea Party saga about how it was activated by TARP and other bailouts of politcally connected firms and industries, enacted first by George W. Bush and then by Barack Obama.”

    There’s a natural tendency among some people to assume that things didn’t really exist, somehow, until they started paying attention to them. …and then when they start paying attention, they only see what they want to see–confirming their biases.

    There’s a term I use for indulging that natural tendency in public like Land did. It’s called “being an ignoramus”.

  5. Give a man a pair of pants, he eats for a day, teach a man to make his own pants, he eats for a lifetime! “indeed, all I’ve encountered truly believe that a classical liberal system is the best way to feed the naked and clothe the hungry.”

    1. Yeah, I noticed that too… hahahaha

  6. I’m not really sure why I should care what these douchbags think. Same with all of the articles that start out with “Paul Krugman said…”.

    1. It’s useful to know that the people running the world are still filling their subjects’ heads with lies, I guess.

  7. “As often happens when you get social cons and liberals together, libertarians come up in conversation, either as a non-relevant factor or as the poster-child for all that is wrong and rotten in the world.”

    And they hate on us for the exact opposite reasons than you’d think too!

    The cons don’t hate us for being liberal on civil rights issues–they hate us because we’re more conservative than they are on fiscal policy and taxes. The liberals don’t really hate us for our stance on economic issues–they hate us because we’re more liberal than they are on civil rights issues.

    For both the cons and the liberals, we’re their conscience. And people who are so obsessed with using the coercive power of government to force everyone else to do what they want to do–hate their consciences.

    1. This.

      Another example, the anti-war protestors during the Bush regime hate us for remaining anti-war during the Obama regime.

      1. Code Pink > Tebow

      2. it is true i have seen this.

        It seems like politics is more about teams then ideas.

    2. The cons don’t hate us for being liberal on civil rights issues–they hate us because we’re more conservative than they are on fiscal policy and taxes.

      Nope,

      I know a lot of neo-cons and so-cons and both would agree with most libertarian economic positions.

      But.

      The neo-cons are truly deranged war mongers that think empire is the only reason that the US should exist.

  8. At the various Tea Party rallies I’ve covered, I never encountered anybody who wanted to throw poor people in sacks and drown them in a creek like kittens.

    I’d bet most of them don’t even want to do that to kittens.

    1. [looks around, edges toward door]

  9. “What kind of world have we become when a man who talks the talk of the Man from Galillee is putting someone down not just for being an atheist but a Russkie to boot?”

    Indeed, she came to the United States because she OPPOSED the Soviet system. He seems to be trying to play to any remaining elderly anti-Russian bigots there may be out there.

  10. right-wing and left-wing Christians trashing the libertarians

    Dog bites man.

    So-cons and god-bothering lefties hate on those who want to deprive them of the statist cattle prod they want to use to drive the flock? Shocking

  11. Good news, the libertarian christians like you all.

    So you got that going for ya.

  12. “”I think extreme libertarian politics may be, in my mind, the least Christian option out there. ‘Just leave me alone I don’t care about anybody else,’ is not a Christian way of life,” he said. “We are our brother’s keeper and that is how we are.””

    And let me be clear about the “Christian way of life.” Exactly where did Christ urge his followers to seize property from the “the rich” and give it to those in need? Seems to me that the Son of God called upon each of us to give of OUR OWN property, no matter how little we have. He never even suggested that one lives a “Christian life” by forcing others to give of their property.

    And as I recall, Christ drew a clear distinction between the laws of Caesar and the laws of God…and left little doubt that He cared little about the former. Exactly where in Christ’s teachings did he urge that Caesar’s power be used to redistribute income?

    It irks me when idiots like Wallis try to re-create Christ as a New Dealer.

    1. Wallis is a feeble minded joke. I’ve seen his pronouncements many times before, and they are as arbitrary and inconsistent as the rules little girls apply to skipping games.

      1. Well said!

        Wallis is to faith as Krugman is to economics.

        1. Wallis is anything but a Christian, he is an activist who wears Christian clothing. Out of some morbid curiousity I read God’s Politics. Save yourself the time, it was horrible and his subtitle should have been changed. Love the Krugman comparison

    2. Plus there’s that pesky little list called the ten commandments which are not subsumed by any of Jesus’ teachings. Thou shalt not steal?

    3. Well said. It’s funny, cause I have a few friends who are left leaning Christians. Their fall back argument is that we (the Church), have failed to eliminate poverty, so we (society), must step into the gap, and do it instead. I’m frankly baffled by this line of thinking. No where in the Bible have I found anything that teaches that we should build governments to force people to care for the poor. Additionally, charity is much more than giving resources to the poor. It’s nearly as much about personal sacrifice, and the lessons that giving teaches you, as it is about helping the poor. Charity through coercion, squashes half the good of real charity right off the bat, and squanders most of the rest of it in its impersonal approach, and inefficiency.

  13. 14 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags* of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag,[a] each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.

    19 “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’

    21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

    22 “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’

    23 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

    24 “Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’

    26 “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

    28 “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29 For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ — Matthew 25:14-30, NIV

    *Greek talent = 20 years of wages for a day laborer

    I think there is a 1% joke somewhere in there.

    1. This is also a lesson about how to treat your stockbroker if he fails to double your money. It least, that is my interpretation.

    2. There is a joke in the talents parable, if you know the anthropology of the day.

      Look for wry peasant humor and Like a good three-part joke, we now come to the punch line: The third slave is about to explain his (in)action in Ched Myers exegesis below entitled “Talent parable anti-Capitalist.”

  14. It’s not that Jesus advocated the State to redistribute. (Nice strawman there.) However, the disparity between rich and poor is IMMORAL.

    So it’s not a big step for some people to have the state reduce immorality. Libertarians are all for it themselves, within their Scroogist version of morality.

    “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus…” ~Luke 16

    Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. ~Mt. 19

    1. the disparity between rich and poor is IMMORAL.

      ???

      Which is why the master took the 1 talent from the 3rd guy and gave it to the first guy in the parable of the talents.

      AFAICT, Jesus didnt give a damn (heh) about the gini coefficient.

      1. Bruce Malina in The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology has shown that in traditional Mediterranean society, the ideal was stability, not self-advancement. Anyone trying to accumulate inordinate wealth imperiled the equilibrium of society and was thus understood to be dishonorable. Greed was widely believed to characterize the rich, who extorted and defrauded other members of the community through lucrative trading, tax collecting, and lending money at interest. In fact, usury was understood in antiquity to be responsible for the destructive cycle of indebtedness and poverty, while profiting from commodity trading was explicitly condemned by no less a sage than Aristotle.

        The biblically literate, moreover, would recall the warning against stored surplus in Exodus 16:16-20, the prohibition against usury and profiteering off the poor in Leviticus 25:36ff, or Isaiah’s condemnation of those who “join house to house and field to field” in their real-estate dealings (Isa. 5:8). Yet Herzog thinks it is precisely such unscrupulous business dealings that are implied by each slave’s doubling his master’s investment. [In the 1st Century AD, without the availability of today’s electronic financial instruments, securities exchanges and stock markets, hedge funds, arbitrage, trading on margin, etc., to double such a vast fortune in currency within a journey’s time was unthinkable, and impossible through honest “work”.

        […]

        Like a good three-part joke, we now come to the punch line: The third slave is about to explain his (in)action (25:24-25). That he buried the money in the ground seems strange at first glance. But considering that many in Jesus’ audience were farmers, there may be some wry peasant humor here. Those who work the land know that all true wealth comes from God, the source of rain, sunshine, seed, and soil. But this silver talent, when “sown,” produced no fruit!

        Here is the clash between two economic worldviews: the traditional agrarian notion of “use-value” and the elite’s currency-based system of “exchange-value.” Money cannot grow the natural way like seed, only unnaturally, through usury and swindling. Is this symbolic act of “planting” the talent a case of prophetic tricksterism to reveal that money is not fertile?

        The third slave now begins to speak truth to power. “I knew you were a harsh man” (the Greek is skleros, a word associated with old Pharaoh’s disease of hardheartedness). “You reap where you did not sow, and gather where you did not scatter seed” (25:24).

        With these words the third slave becomes what Herzog calls a “whistle-blower,” having unmasked the fact that the master’s wealth is derived entirely from the toil of others. He profits from the backbreaking labor of those who work the land. Unwilling to participate in this exploitation, this third slave took the money out of circulation, where it could no longer be used to dispossess another family farmer.

        excerpts from:
        “Towering Trees and Talented Slaves” written by Ched Myers
        http://lwwdc.org/Talents.htm

        1. Wow, that’s a lot of rationalizing which somehow misses the point entirely.

          Unless Jesus was telling a parable about how not do things. So, was he telling a story approving, or condemning, what he describes? Unless there’s something missing, it seems to be a story approving it.

        2. I notice you are copying and pasting the views of others.

          Do you understand these views enough to defend them?

          Or if I were to point out a flaw in them would you respond with another copied and pasted reply? I have seen this many times before in previous threads.

          1. How is it that usury is condemned throughout the Bible, and then all the sudden, Jesus presents a parable promoting usury?

            I prayed to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and he approved this plateful of copypasta. May you be touched by his noodley appendage.

            1. Because he wan’t defending usury. He was advocating for investment.

              And the point of the parable, which you seem to have missed is that you should not cloister yourself and your god given talents but engage them. AKA proselytizing and / or trade.

              This was a common theme throughout the gospels

              1. Because he wan’t defending usury. He was advocating for investment.

                That’s the Calvinist-Capiltalist talking point, but it is wrong.

                Jesus was challenging greedy usury, in accordance with many other Biblical injunctions against usury and greedy investors.

                1. Investment is not usury.

                  Work is not usury.

                  Markets do not require usury.

                  The concept of usury meant something different before the advent of fiat money that it does now.

                  1. For those listening to Jesus as He gave the parable, such a return on investment would have been deplored because it could only have occurred through the most predatory of means: extortion, fraud, tax collecting, and lending money at illegal rates of interest. Today’s acceptance of usury shows how the parable is coming to pass, as Jesus told it in response to the Disciples’ question: “What will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?” (Matt. 24:3)] Even large landowners made loans to peasant small holders based on speculations of future crop production. With high interest rates and vulnerability to lean years and famine, farmers often were unable to make their payments, and faced foreclosure. After gaining control of the land, the new owner could continue to make a killing by hiring laborers to farm cash crops.

                    ~Ched Myers

                    1. such a return on investment would have been deplored because it could only have occurred through the most predatory of means: extortion, fraud, tax collecting, and lending money at illegal rates of interest.

                      Why? Why couldn’t the money have been used to buy land and tools that were used to make more money? Ched seems to be confusing profit with theft.

            2. If you compare the Torah (Old Testament) to the New Testament you will find many things deliberately inverted.

              Take The Beatitudes for example (Matthew 5:3-12). They are a deliberate inversion of the usual proverb that praised the very opposite things.

              Take also the parable of the Good Samaratin. Who were the Samaratins? They were a group of Jewish people who were considered outcasts because they had beliefs somewhat different from most Jewish people. The Good Samaratin broke many of the “religous rules” in order to help someone in need. That was the larger part of the story.

              Take also the tale of the Prodigal Son who did many things that broke Jewish law including working with pigs! And yet he was welcomed back home with open arms.

              1. For the love of money is the root of all evil.

                Deal with it.

                1. Money is a means, not an end. The confusion of means and ends can lead to evil. What part of this confuses you?

                  1. …since he didn’t say that. Have God send me an email if he meant what you said. He knows it, I’m sure, being omniscient.

                    1. I find it amusing that when that passage is quoted by those on the left it is as though the “For the love of” part is missing. Sometimes it is literally missing and the passage is deliberately a misquote.

                    2. “God must have been confused

                      …since he didn’t say that.”

                      “For the love of money is the root of all evil.”

                      YOU did, though, so you’re either too stupid to understand what you wrote or a liar.

                    3. 1 Timothy 6:10
                      Young’s Literal Translation:

                      “for a root of all the evils is the love of money, which certain longing for did go astray from the faith, and themselves did pierce through with many sorrows;”

                      Do you have a better translation? Or are you fluent in Ancient Greek?

        3. The talents parable is about how God, the master, gives each of us certain abilities. Some of us he gives more advantages than others–by accident of birth even.

          The parable means that we’re supposed to do what we can with our God given advantages–and increase them. That not doing so is a sin!

          …which doesn’t sound very anti-capitalist to me.

          If you want to look at a parable that MIGHT have been interpreted as anti-capitalist, look at the Workers in the Vineyard.

          http://www.biblegateway.com/pa…..ersion=KJV

          The farmer hires some people to start working for him early in the morning–so they labor all day. Then he hires some more people at noon–so they work half a day. Then he hires some people in the late afternoon–so they work a quarter of a day.

          When the day is over and they line up to get paid–they all get paid the same flat fee! The people who only worked a quarter of the day got paid the same flat fee as the people who worked all day.

          That isn’t anti-capitalist though. Because what he’s saying is that everybody gets the same reward (immortality in heaven) for doing God’s work. It doesn’t matter if you were doing God’s work from the day you were born, or if you only converted the moment before you died–like the thief on the cross. Everybody gets the immortality…

          That’s hardly anti-capitalist. It’s talking about life in a post-scarcity heaven. Not how people should be paid here on earth.

          1. The talents parable is about how God, the master, gives each of us certain abilities.

            No, it isn’t, but you’d like it to be.

            1. No, it isn’t, but you’d like it to be.

              Yes, it is, but you wish it wasn’t.

              1. Argument clinic.

          2. The talents parable is about how God, the master, gives each of us certain abilities.

            While this is true, I think it is a 2nd or 3rd order point of the parable. Most parables have many levels of depth to them. I think part of the problem is the word “talent”.

            The 1st order, primary point, is about money. While I think your point is absolutely, 100% valid, I think too many teachers/preachers skip to it and leave out the money management lesson that is the primary point.

            To too many christians, talking about money is icky.

            1. To too many christians, talking about money is icky

              Ya think? Except for the randroids who have hardened their heart to slurp up Francisco’s Money Shot?

              For the love of money [POLIS‘ property values] is the root of all evil [POLICe brutality.]

              1 Timothy 6:10 [updated]

              1. MISS RECTAL? IF YOU ARE SO ALL FIRED UP ABOUT JESUS, WHY WON’T YOU COME TO CHRUCH WITH COOTER NO MORE? MOMMA MISSES YOU!

                1. White Idiot should occupy a hole in the ground, and make sure the contents of the litter boxes we empty into that hole are evenly distributed around him.

                1. CREEPERY.

                  Fuck you, I got mine.

                  That’s creepy.

                  1. “You got yours, now give up seventy-five percent of it.”

                    Now, THAT’S creepy.

            2. I’m afraid you’re wrong about that, robc. Our use of the word “talent” (to mean ‘gift’, ‘ability’ etc.) comes directly from this parable. If I weren’t such a dunce at html, I’d give you the link to the online etymology dictionary whence comes my proof.

              Just go to etymonline. com and search “talent.”

              1. The Parable of the talents or minas, is also known as the Parable of Talents and/or The Parable of the Pounds. (wiki)

                The mina (also mna, Ancient Greek ???) is an ancient Near Eastern unit of weight equivalent to 60 (50) shekels. (wiki)

                Now, let’s have a 10 minute hate on wikitruthiness.

                1. Fuck’s sake, I know what that sense of “talent” means. That’s the original, non-metaphorical, sense. The “talents” of the parable are metaphors for God-given abilities, as stated above. That’s where our use of the word in the sense of “abilities” comes from. It refers to the PARABLE.

                  Damn.

                  1. The “talents” of the parable are metaphors for God-given abilities, as stated above.

                    That’s pure “Krapitalist Jesus” bullshit you’re parroting. You want the money to be metaphors for your abilities.

                    Jesus was talking about money, and a servant who thumbed his nose at investing money.

                    1. Aaaaaaand we’re done.

                      You simply have nothing to offer, WI.

                    2. All you have to offer is common bullshit parroted from today’s City-STATIST bootlicking pulpits. So be done, and good riddance, FMT.

              2. Our use of the word “talent” (to mean ‘gift’, ‘ability’ etc.) comes directly from this parable.

                Somehow that doesnt surprise me. However, while it doesnt change my primary/secondary interpretations, it doesnt explain why the primary is skipped over. Have to go with my other explanation: Money is icky.

                1. Guess it read YOU the riot act, FMT.

                  You gonna be okay? Not gonna slit your wrists, are ya? I mean, after a White Idiot onslaught like that, even Katie Couric would lose her Perky.

        4. Riight…..

          It’s a parable….

          If you actually pay attention to context, it was a parable about the second coming. The whole point of it was in line with the parables surrounding it. Be prepared, because you don’t know when the master will return, and use your time wisely. Additionally, the money in this parable, was representative of increasing the Kingdom…not finances.

          Seriously, some people need to learn to read.

    2. Jesus did not wish to use force in any way to correct this. He wanted to use the power of persuation. To change people’s hearts. But he also understood this would be done in different ways for each person.

      “And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the jar and poured it over his head. But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, “Why was the ointment thus wasted? For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor.” And they reproached her. But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me. She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burying. And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.”

      MARK 14:3-9.

      1. And as ROBC pints out of above I do not think it was disparity qua disparity that was the problem. Grinding poverty (by the standards of his time) yes, was.

        This brings up another point however. What was considered “poor” in Jesus’s time? It certainly wasn’t a lack of indoor plumbing or not having an automobile. Probably “poor” was true hunger, hunger so sever it cannot be found in the United States.

      2. Funny how Jesus mentions the gospel before Mark wrote it.

        1. Perhaps referring to the Torah???

        2. gospel means “good word”, it was being preached while he was alive, doesnt necessarily refer to a written document.

          1. “good news” of course, not “good word”. But its understandable how I screwed that up.

            THWG

        3. “Gospel” in this context is not the written account you are reading, but rather the news that Jesus had come to Earth to redeem mankind.

          1. stupid lack of refresh grumble

      3. Except that “persuasion” included telling people who didn’t literally worship him they would burn in hell forever.

        You will find that in the Gospels Christ said, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Hell.” That was said to people who did not like His preaching. It is not really to my mind quite the best tone, and there are a great many of these things about Hell. There is, of course, the familiar text about the sin against the Holy Ghost: “Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this World nor in the world to come.” That text has caused an unspeakable amount of misery in the world, for all sorts of people have imagined that they have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, and thought that it would not be forgiven them either in this world or in the world to come. I really do not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would have put fears and terrors of that sort into the world. -Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not A Christian.

        As Russell points out, compare the intolerance of Jesus to Socrates’ attitude towards those who didn’t like his teaching. The intolerance is built in.

        1. “As Russell points out, compare the intolerance of Jesus to Socrates’ attitude towards those who didn’t like his teaching. The intolerance is built in.”

          Socrates’ sympathies were with the The Council of Thirty–with an occupation force from Sparta that was massively oppressive.

          If the views Plato attributes to Socrates in The Republic are in any way indicative of what Socrates was about, then Socrates would have strangled democracy in the cradle.

          The philosopher kings and form of government that Socrates wanted never would have tolerated Socrates going about questioning the wisdom of superiors and encouraging the youth to do likewise.

          The jury of Athens ultimately didn’t tolerate Socrates, but they were more tolerant of Socrates’ behavior than any other Greek city state would been–certainly more so than Sparta would have been, whose government Socrates sought to emulate.

          The jury may have ultimately been intolerant of Socrates’ behavior, but they were a lot more tolerant than Socrates would have been of them if he had been their philosopher king–and make no mistake, that’s what he imagined he should have been.

          When I compare that to Jesus’ “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”? There’s no way I’d say Socrates was more tolerant than Jesus.

          When I read Jesus say things like Love those that hate you–even as God himself makes the sun and the rain fall on the righteous and the evil alike?

          There’s no freakin’ way I’d say that Socrates was more tolerant than Jesus.

          1. It’s pretty clear from the stark dichotomies between the content of the Republic and that of many other dialogues that the “philosopher-king” stuff (as well as the “Forms” stuff) reflects later work by Plato that Plato was sticking into his famous teacher’s mouth.

            Every word you wrote here is true, but only if you find-and-replace every instance of “Socrates” with “Plato”.

            No biggie, IF Stone forgot this, too.

            1. I’m sure there were no words stuck into Jesus’s mouth by his religious disciples.

              1. Great book. It’s all make believe.

            2. Doesn’t it go without saying that we are talking about the mythical Socrates as presented by Plato just as we are talking about the mythical Jesus as present by his disciples? Personally, I prefer the mythical Socrates even if I don’t agree at all with his idea of an ideal state. At least he wouldn’t condemn me to eternal hellfire for that.

            3. In Plato’s apology, which Xenophon’s account more or less confirms, Socrates feels it necessary at one point to mention one single occasion when he went against the Thirty.

              There’s no reason to do that other than to try to counter the understanding that his sympathies were with the occupation army/Thirty who had just recently been oppressing them.

              Oh no, I didn’t always sympathize with our democracy hating overlords–one time I didn’t do their bidding!

              There’s a tendency to make saints out of martyrs, but not every martyr is a saint. Osama bin Laden and Pol Pot died for doing what they believed in too–and those men were not saints.

              We can stand up for the right of people to say what they believe in–without being forced to drink hemlock by the tyranny of the majority–and still keep our eyes wide open while we’re doing it.

              Just because I stand up for my free expression rights when they’re threatened by the religious fundamentalists–doesn’t mean I have to pretend that what Larry Flynt does isn’t disgusting. I can stand up for the right of neo-nazis to march in Skolkie, Ill., but that doesn’t mean I can’t condemn them for their beliefs and their actions.

              Socrates shouldn’t have been convicted or sentenced to death just for saying what he believed in–but that doesn’t mean he was tolerant. I don’t have to pretend he wasn’t an authoritarian.

              Actually, if Plato’s attribution of Noble Lies to Socrates is in any way accurate, then I’d say that Socrates wasn’t just an authoritarian–if he wanted to control what people think in addition to what they do? Then he was a totalitarian.

              And I won’t pretend otherwise just because he was unjustly convicted and sentenced to death for saying what he believed to be true.

              1. There are certain things we know about Socrates from non-Platonic sources: his class origins, his vagabond lifestyle, and his passion for logically demolishing the positions of those who thought they knew what the truth was.

                Added to that I think we need to consider aporeia and the extreme skepticism of the Protagoras and other “method” dialogues as well.

                Those fragments don’t add up an an authoritarian.

                Then we have the Republic, of course.

                But we also have Plato, who we know was an aristocrat and an ally of many of the oligarchical figures who collaborated with the Spartans.

                And who just happened to write the documents that have passed down to us to tell us about Socrates’ philosophy.

                It’s always perilous to try to declare who wrote what in such a situation, but to me it seems a pretty safe bet that the “No one knows what virtue is; and oh yeah, I’m going to largely eschew political participation and just hang out and be a gadfly over here” stuff is the actual Socrates and the “Yay! Let’s have an authoritarian government led by born aristocrats who have learned some philosophy!” stuff is Plato.

                1. Supreme Generalissimo Fluffy, yeah that makes sense. So that would be all Plato in Laws–lets spend 600 pages discussing the nuts and bolts of my authoritarian hell utopia.

              2. Ken, I totally agree, Socrates (or Plato, let’s just agree on Socrates) seems to have been totally pro-totalitarian, again, apparently in reaction to the self-destructive events he witnessed in Athens.

                As an atheist I don’t see why Socrates’ Noble Lie isn’t at least more noble than Christ’s lies about immortality, heaven and hell, etc. Socrates felt an underlying myth would be helpful as an underpinning to what he thought was an ideal State. Jesus’ lies had a lot of self-aggrandizement–believe in me or you shall burn for eternity–is there anything more totalitarian than that?

                1. “As an atheist I don’t see why Socrates’ Noble Lie isn’t at least more noble than Christ’s lies about immortality, heaven and hell, etc.”

                  I’m sensitive because we’ve been hoodwinked with Plato’s noble lies–and recently.

                  Leo Strauss was big on the idea of Plato’s noble lies–and his acolytes used them to great effect in the run up to the Iraq War.

                  …and I resent the hell out of it. It doesn’t matter if the photos of mobile WMD labs are bogus. It doesn’t matter if the yellocake story out of Niger is a hoax–what matters is that the American people believe in what their leaders are doing?

                  Is it really better if people believe in what their leaders say–regardless of whether it’s true?

                  That’s the rationale behind every totalitarian regime throughout history! I’m of the opinion that it’s generally better when people are skeptical of what their leaders are doing.

                  I’m not defending the way people have used Christianity over the centuries–I think of religion as basically adaptive though. It may be a social adaptation, like language, etc., but it’s still an adaptation nonetheless.

                  If a lot of people still find it useful, then criticizing their general use of it is a bit like criticizing the general use of their opposable thumbs.

                  Using Christianity negatively, on the other hand, well, I’ll criticize the negative use of anything whether it’s religion or anything else.

                  If we’re gonna pick a religion, too, one that’s centered on some pretty harmless stuff–like treating other people they way you would want to be treated–isn’t the worst available choice.

                  And I guess I don’t see the essence of Christianity as a lie. There isn’t anything against science or reason in the Sermon on the Mount. There’s actually very little about biochemistry anywhere in Jesus’ teaching–if that’s what you’re talking about when you’re talking about Christianity.

                  The political philosophy of Socrates/Plato, on the other hand, where power is concentrated in the hands of a small cadre of supposedly wise men to make decisions on my behalf–who should feel obligated to lie to me in order to assure my complacence and support for whatever they want to do with me and my society?

                  That’s a no-brainer!

                  Christianity and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth have been horribly misappropriated for all sorts of terrible ends–but the essence of his actual teaching isn’t so bad. The political and intellectual foundation for Plato’s/Socrates’ totalitarianism, on the other hand, was rotten at its core from the very beginning.

                  Jesus taught us that we’re all free to choose for ourselves no matter what the religious laws or authorities say. Plato taught us that we’re all better of if we do what we’re told.

                  No brainer for this libertarian.

                  1. I don’t think the essence of the Socratic ideal was about a fascistic dystopia he proposed but about questioning one’s assumptions and about intellectual honesty. In that regard I would argue that the intellectual foundation was more solid for Socrates/Plato than for Jesus. As you argue that Jesus’s true message was about free will, I believe the core of Socrates’ insight lay in self-examination and intellectual honesty.

          2. Yes, Socrates’ “utopia” was a totally fascist dystopia (assuming he wasn’t being subtly ironic, which I’ve decided he wasn’t despite some strange hints otherwise).

            But while Jesus said lots of hippie-dippie things like turn the other cheek, etc., he repeatedly said that those who disagreed with him, who didn’t accept him, who dissed the Holy Ghost would burn in Hell for eternity. That strikes me as a pretty fascistic thing to say.

            Plato or Socrates or both believed that democracy had failed miserably thanks to the Peloponnesian War, the execution of Socrates, and other things probably. However, Socrates was always tolerant and urbane with those who disagreed with him. Jesus wasn’t.

            1. “But while Jesus said lots of hippie-dippie things like turn the other cheek, etc., he repeatedly said that those who disagreed with him, who didn’t accept him, who dissed the Holy Ghost would burn in Hell for eternity. That strikes me as a pretty fascistic thing to say.”

              I grew up in a tradition that doesn’t believe in eternal hellfire–but when I got older I converted to Narcissism.

              …anyway, the whole point of Christianity, especially as revealed in the three temptations (as perfectly interpreted by Dostoyevsky in the “The Grand Inquisitor”) is that everything is a function of choice.

              Jesus is telling us that the law doesn’t determine our ultimate fate–our choices do. The idea is that existence is a gift from God, and that people who cannot peacefully coexist with other free peaceful individuals are choosing oblivion–non existence.

              The three temptations reveal that according to Jesus, God is so preoccupied with our freedom to choose, that he is unwilling to protect us from harm or make good things happen to us–for fear that it might affect our willingness to make a free choice…

              Satan says, “Give the people bread [what they want], and they’ll follow you instead of me.”

              Jesus replies, “Man does not live by bread [greed] alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” In other words, they get to choose.

              I’m not going to have them choose God’s way because they think it will gain them money or anything like that. I’m not going to have them choose God’s way because they think that if they don’t, I’m going to make something terrible happen to them.

              God makes the rain fall and the sun shine on the good and the evil alike…

              So, anyway, the destruction you’re talking about is actually taught as the ultimate consequences of human aggression. Eventually, in Revelation, mankind decides to destroy itself. The Second Coming happens when God comes to save us from destroying ourselves–when it’s too late to choose to save ourselves.

              And then everybody’s fate is the fate they’ve chosen for themselves. If they’ve chosen to make themselves unfit for cohabitation with free, just and peaceful people, then that was their choice, and they’ve chosen oblivion.

              So, anyway, there isn’t anything about that story that’s anti-choice to my ear. The story Jesus is telling is all about how we all have a choice. And Jesus’ take is that the people who choose oblivion? Are choosing it for themselves.

              P.S. The most concise self-explanatory expression of libertarianism I can think of is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” If everyone chose to live like that tomorrow?

              Instant Libertopia.

              1. I’m with you regarding the Golden Rule and libertarianism. The Golden Rule’s underlying principle is reciprocity.

                Unfortunately, most Christians seem to have more in common with the Pharisees than they do Jesus when it comes to actually practicing the Golden Rule.

                Jesus also said to seek the truth and the truth will set you free. I was taught that this “Truth” was that Jesus was the Son of God and believing that would free me from sin and an eternity in hell. But lately I’ve come to the conclusion that what he meant was to seek the material truth of things in the world. That frees us from the superstition that God was/is the cause of everything. IOW, Jesus was saying that as the God of the Gaps is filled in with better explanations, we have to free ourselves from the old beliefs and any morality that came from that old belief.

              2. The free choice argument is quite interesting, and does dovetail nicely into libertarianism in that we are all responsible for our own actions, even if there will be many cases where our fellow man will help us out and we ought to help others out in turn.

                That Jesus’ damnations are really just a reference to the ultimate consequences of wrong choices makes for an interesting interpretation–an interpretation that assumes that believing in an invisible dude in the sky is a correct choice, mind you–but interesting nonetheless.

                I’ll give you all that it’s a pretty solid position, even if I totally disagree with it. I also think, though, that if I’d spent a lifetime reading about Socrates with people who worshiped him I’d be able to come up with some very plausible arguments in his favor.

      4. And Jesus went into the temple of God,
        and [1] cast out all them that sold and bought
        in the temple,
        and [2] overthrew the tables of the moneychangers,
        and the seats of [3] them that sold doves.

        Verse 16
        Chapter 12
        The JEFFERSON BIBLE

        Sold. Bought. Moneychangers. Sold.

        Pacifist Jesus my ass.
        Capitalist HayZeus my ass.

        #OCCUPYWALLSTREET
        http://occupywallst.org/

        1. Even Jesus could be summoned to anger, but it was righteous anger according to the tale. Jesus was pissed, not because they were changing money or trading, but because they were doing so in a place that was supposed to only be used as a house of worship.

          1. White Idiot pretends to be an Occutard. Now it’s just grasping for anything it can get its paws on to justify its shoulder-chippery.

          2. For the HayZeus up above is looking down in love.

            So be careful little banksters what you steal.

            1. You should take your religious crap back to church. Or back to the OBAMA 2012 reelection HQ where you came from.

              1. May you be touched by the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s noodley appendage.

                1. The Church of Redistributionism will NOT be mocked!

                  1. Trail of Tears.

                    Higher, righter, tighter hands.

                    1. It’s bringing up shit from over a hundred years ago, like it’s still fucking relevant. Like it just happened yesterday.

                      It needs to get the fuck over itself.

    3. It’s hard to believe, but Jesus was so magnanimous, that he would actually stoop to spend time with a tax collector.

      A filthy, dirty, disgusting tax collector.

      He also had a lot to say about the Kingdom Government of God being a heavenly kingdom government. He made it very clear to his disciples that obtaining political power was NOT his solution.

      …over and over again.

      He didn’t think people should be stoned for adultery…so I doubt he would have condoned throwing uncharitable people in prison. He rejected the offer of political power when he was being tempted in the desert.

      “The Kingdom [Government] of God is within you.” If that means anything at all, it means that the state is not an appropriate means to achieve God’s will.

      Anybody who wants to volunteer in a homeless shelter or soup kitchen is encouraged to do so. “If you’ve done so unto the least of these, you’ve done so unto me.” I certainly don’t see Jesus telling us that the solution to poverty was voting for one candidate over another.

      1. Anybody who wants to volunteer in a homeless shelter or soup kitchen is encouraged to do so.

        Not just encouraged…

        …Then feed my sheep — John 21:17

      2. I think one thing to keep in mind is that in the Roman East tax collectors weren’t government employees.

        The Roman government sold the right to collect taxes at auction to private tax-farming firms.

        The local tax collector would have been a guy who was trying to conduct arbitrage between what the Romans expected in taxes and what he thought he could extract or extort from the subject populace.

        He also would have made money by extorting more than people could pay, and lending them the difference at interest, so he could gradually grind them down into debt slavery.

        Basically he would have been the first century equivalent of Goldman Sachs.

        1. Tax collecter was a really shitty job. The Romans expected you to collect as much as possible. If they thought you were going too easy on the population, you ended up in a salt mine or rowing a galley. At the same time, you had to tax people you lived with. If you taxed them too much, you ended up hanging from a tree or your house mysteriously burning down.

          I would rather be Goldman Sachs.

        2. He was more than just a tax collector–he was a willing collaborator with their oppressive occupiers.

          And his name was Zacchaeus.

          Point was that Jesus was willing to associate with just about anybody. …even prostitutes. …even tax collectors.

          But he wasn’t condoning prostitution. And he wasn’t condoning tax collecting. If Jesus had wanted to advocate using the coercive power of government to alleviate the suffering of the poor, he would have done so.

          He didn’t. In fact, he repeatedly repudiated using the government to achieve God’s goals.

          1. Agrees with everything Ken Shultz ^^wrote^^ above, for once! Hurrah!

          2. Not just Zacchaeus. Matthew was also a tax collector.

      3. He didn’t think people should be stoned for adultery…so I doubt he would have condoned throwing uncharitable people in prison.

        Well, maybe:

        [The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53?8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]

    4. “Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. ~Mt. 19”

      Thank you for making my point. Christ is telling YOU to sell YOUR possessions and give the proceeds to the poor — not to use the force of government to seize the possessions of others and give them away.

      This is not a “strawman” argument. Wallis is attacking libertarianism, which addresses the relationship of individuals to the government (i.e., Caesar). He is suggesting that those who support individual liberty and limited government are somehow rejecting the teachings of a religious figure who Himself drew a very clear distinction between government and religion, and that is utter nonsense.

      1. I like to think that my original assertion of Jesus as a blank slate onto which others project their own biases has, in fact, been confirmed in light of this 100+ post monster debate on the talents and other parables.

  15. bastardacity (not a word, but should be)

    As in: “The Bastardacity of Hope”.

    1. Actually, any word is a word if used as such.

      Just ask E. E. Cummings.

      1. Shouldn’t that be e.e. cummings?

        1. No. In English, we capitalize the first letter of proper names. E. E. Cummings is free to write his name as he wishes, but the rest of us can follow the regular rules of English.

  16. What a surprise — another idiot conflating libertarianism and objectivism.

    What — was there no op-ed in the Times this morning, or some witty column in The New Yorker?

    This is the best you could do?

    1. Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism has been and continues to be a major influence towards the libertarian movement. Many libertarians justify their political views upon aspects of Objectivism. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Libertarianism_and_Objectivism

      Embrace the suck.

      1. HEY MISS RECTAL ITS COOTER. YOU KNOW THE DANCE IS COMING UP SOON, I WAS HOPING WE MIGHT GO TOGETHER.

      2. There are some aspects that all political ideas share, how that logically makes them the same is beyond me.

        Here are some of the things from reading some old Ayn Rand essays she supported: NASA, military intervention, public education. Also she was anti religion, anti horror movies (serious), anti porn. These are just a few things she was believed in, clearly not very libertarian, is it ?

        1. She didn’t support NASA.

          She just thought the contrast between the crowds drawn to the moon shot launches and the Woodstock crowd was useful for illustrating the superiority of science and reason over hippie mysticism.

          And she didn’t believe in government sanction against horror movies or porn – she just thought it was possible to devise a philosophy of aesthetics were it was possible to say that some art forms were superior to others. That was one of her biggest misfires, to be sure – but not a statist or non-libertarian one. If I say your art sucks, but that you should be totally free to create it, how am I not a libertarian?

          1. Atlas Shrugged was a shitty boring book. There I said it…

            1. GASP!

              Now you can never be a libertarian, because you revealed that you prefer some books to others!

              I bet that means you’re about to ban porn.

            2. And White Idiot’s post above was a shitty and boring paragraph.

            3. “A sermon with a cast.”

              I forget who said it, but it’s still the definitive description of Atlas Shrugged.

  17. In the gospels, tax collectors are considered the moral equivalent of prostitutes.

    1. I’d rather deal with the prostitute.

      1. Jesus dealt with both.

        1. Well there’s no accounting for taste.

  18. “They are in the 85 percent range in terms of people that are pro-life.”

    Massive fail. You can be a libertarian or even an atheist and still be pro life. To say otherwise is to imply there are no rational arguments against abortion beyond “God says it is wrong”. What a clown.

    1. I don;t get it. With your logic, a Libertarian can’t be against murder – “To say otherwise is to imply there are no rational arguments against murder beyond “God says it is wrong”.”

      By the third trimester, we are talking about a human capable of breathing on his/her own. The only thing distinguishing him from other people is location.

      Why are people in a womb outside the law?

      1. Walter Block has a argument for 3rd trimester abortion is lawful (in the sense of Bastiat’s law) but it is a Block-headed argument.

        1. for = that

      2. By the third trimester, we are talking about a human that is sometimes capable of breathing on his/her own. The only thing distinguishing him from other people is location, which happens to be inside another person, upon whom, said fetus is reliant

        1. “Why are people in a womb outside the law?”

          In all seriousness, yours is one of the most disingenuous arguments I’ve seen attempted here.

          1. Why?

            Is a human inside a womb not a person? Where is it that you would confer personhood? What is it that would make you think that arguing that a child in the womb is a person is disingenuous?

            1. “What is it that would make you think that arguing that a child in the womb is a person is disingenuous?”

              Nothing, and I didn’t.

              Try reading again until you actually understand.

            2. To be even more clear, and because you seem to be fanatical and moronic, it’s because it’s not a “womb” it’s ANOTHER PERSON’S FUCKING BODY.

              The failure to admit that, and the included ethical problems it creates for your “person IN a womb is EXACTLY EQUAL TO person OUT of as womb” is what is, in fact, highly disingenuous.

              1. I’m fanatical and moronic? Based on asking a couple questions? Wow, such judgementalism. Kinda ironic don’t you think? I’m the Christian. Aren’t I supposed to be judgemental?

                I didn’t even take a stance. I was simply asking for clarification on how you could be so adamant that your opinion was correct, and the opposing position so completely dismissible.

                I believe that the correct position is that a baby, whether in or out of the womb is a person. I choose this belief because I don’t see how a lack of umbilical connection, or residence in a womb would remove personhood. This is especially the case when it is entirely possible that the baby would survive just fine without that connection and womb.

                However I’ll readily admit that the whole thing is a grey area. It’s difficult to define.

                Were I to have an opportunity to write the law on the matter, I’d choose to compromise. Abortion is legal up until the point where life outside the womb is reasonably likely, something like 27 weeks. However, I’d want to encourage people to choose to carry their babies through to birth, regardless, because I don’t think we should be killing the unborn.

                So, yeah, I admit it. I’m fanatical and moronic 🙂

                1. oops…”a lack of umbilical connection” = “an umbilical connection”

              2. So provide C-Sections on demand.

                It’s like saying I can kill a man (not in self-defense) inside my house but not outside. I’m not even using all-caps to yell back at you.

                I am certainly not fanatical as I do not have a problem with the law allowing abortions for any reason during the first 6-months of a pregnancy.

                1. I’m replying to Editor not Aelhues who seems to have the same fanatical moronic opinion as I do.

    2. I’m about as pro-legal-abortion (and generally pro-choice, but I refuse to apply that term unmodified to a single issue) as one can be and I can see that.

    3. As a libertarain atheist (admittedly soft atheist ^see handle^) who is pro-life I concur. The prolife group at my college was led at the time by an atheist and a Catholic.

  19. It’s funny how readily people forget that the Tea Party sentiment started on Bush’s watch, not Obama’s. It only got the name “Tea Party” after that guy ranted on national TV.

  20. Wanting to keep more of your hard earned money is, at root, a selfish desire, and hence very unchristian.

    1. Before you can call something “unchristian” you first must define what you mean by “Christian”.

      By Christian do you mean like peaceful but anachronistic Amish? Or the violent Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda? Do you mean like the Quakers or the Seventh Day Adventists? Do you mean like the Roman Catholics or the Coptic Christians of Egypt?

      There are so many different kinds ….

      1. Just like all Libertarians do, economically speaking.

        The “Voluntary City” and many other contradictory yearnings are very much like believing in an undead corpse rising.

        Libertarianism (including Objectivism) is trying to conjure mankind’s salvation from the hell-on-earth that the agricultural city-STATE has made of our home planet, much like Christians wanting to escape “the world” and go to a more pleasant heaven.

        1. MISS RECTAL, DID YOU DECIDE YET WHO YOU WAS GOING TO THE DANCE WITH?

        2. “Libertarianism (including Objectivism)”

          Fish (including porpoises and lobsters) …

          “is trying to conjure mankind’s salvation from the hell-on-earth that the agricultural city-STATE has made of our home planet, much like Christians wanting to escape “the world” and go to a more pleasant heaven.”

          I would be perfectly happy living here on Earth. I just want the state’s boot off my neck.

          1. Define the state properly, within the whole cultural package of agricultural city-State (civilization,) and I and Mother Earth agree with you.

            1. So you want me to define the word “fish” in such a way as it includes animals that are not fish.

              1. No, PIRS. The State is the necessary organizing/dominating component of the agricultural city-State (civilization.)

                Real simple, when humans organize in Mass Society above our evolutionary neuro-biological limit called Dunbar’s Number, it takes the heavy hand of hierarchy, or as it is called, the State or Government.

                It’s real simple to understand, but it goes against your

                undead corpse
                voluntary city
                benevolent state

                contradictions in your religio-economic dogma of libertarianism.

                1. You have mentioned Dunbar’s Number before but (if the theory is correct) it only limits the number of people who you can know in a personal way. It does not limit the number of people who can possibly live near you.

                  1. “The span of control limits how many subordinates a single hierarch can control through the same neurological limitations from which we derive Dunbar’s number (~150). Because of that span of control, hierarchy must create more levels to accomodate larger populations.

                    Thesis #11: Hierarchy is an unnecessary evil.
                    by Jason Godesky | 21 October 2005
                    http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/

                    That’s government, PIRS: more levels of hierarchy to accomodate larger city-ized populations.

                    That’s why City-State = Civilization.

                    There is no City without the State.

                    1. More copy and paste appeals to authority. You copy and paste from books in a way that reminds me of some conservative (in the religious sense) Christians copy and paste passages from the Bible. If what you are debating *IS* the Bible quoting from the Bible actually makes sense. But if what you are debating is Darwin’s theory of evolution quoting from the Bible is not very convincing except to biblical literalists.

                    2. Copy and paste anything from a scientific anthropology, ethnology, or evolutionary neurobiology scholarly source that refutes my post above.

                      (Try getting a Xian to say that. LOL!)

                    3. “Copy and paste anything from a scientific anthropology, ethnology, or evolutionary neurobiology scholarly source that refutes my post above.”

                      Here you go:
                      “In a series of papers on informant accuracy in social network data, Bernard, Killworth, and more
                      recently, Sailer, have concluded that “what people say, despite their presumed good intentions,
                      bears no useful resemblance to their behavior”

                      http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~kfa…..n_1982.pdf

                    4. you forgot that part

                    5. “that refutes my post above you forgot that part”

                      No, I didn’t. Did you actually read what is in the paper?

              2. Don’t drag me into the “definitions” thing.

                PS – Rectal…take your meds!

            2. GOSH MISS RECTAL I DIDN’T MEAN TO GET YOUR DANDER UP. IT SURE HURTS MY FEELINS WHEN YOU ONLY TALK TO OTHER SUITORS LIKE THAT.

        3. are very much like believing in an undead corpse rising.

          I believe this and have proof….Rectal self resurrects each and every thread.

            1. RECTAL = RECTAL

              A tautology.

    2. “Wanting to keep more of your hard earned money is, at root, a selfish desire, and hence very unchristian.”

      Perhaps, but using the coercive power of government to force people to be charitable is unchristian too.

      1. Perhaps, but you yourself like coercive power of government to force people.

  21. All you anti-Life, anti-empathy hell-fire! (or parasite moocher!) Calvinist Capitalist have misinterpreted the Talents parable.

    The talent’s parable is anti-Capitalist. (see post above)

    1. Sure, everyone should give up their stuff pick up the cross and follow the way of Jesus. There is three things you ignore. First, we are all sinners and can’t ever live up to that ideal. That is why Jesus died for us. And second, we have to choose to do it. Having the government force someone to do it doesn’t nothing to save their soul. Third, we are fallen away from God. That means that we are sinful at heart. So we can’t create paradise on earth. All we can do is have faith in God and try to save ourselves and those around us. The harder we try to force others to do good and create paradise on earth, the more evil we become. The road to hell really is paved with good intentions. And the grand the intention, the more evil will be done in its name.

      Think about history, the most horrible things have been done in the name of the greatest ideals, be that world salvation in the name of Christ or world justice and fairness done in the name of Marx. As fallen creature, we simply do not have the knowledge or ability to create God’s kingdom on earth. That is why Christ must return. In the mean time, all we can do is live our lives by Christ’s example and do our best to convince others to do the same.

      Sorry son, but you have become an agent of Satan.

      1. Well, isn’t that SPE-CIAL?!”, “How con-VEEN-ient!”

  22. “The tea party is overwhelmingly socially conservative,” Land said
    —————————–
    which is almost as relevant as saying the TP is primarily people who eat meat several times a week. The TP was NOT formed out social concerns; it sprang from fiscal issues. Period. Sounds like the right rev Land wishes to co-opt it.

  23. “For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultanteously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.”

  24. I have a friend who comments occasionally on the Sojourners blog and forces me to read it. Wallis and his followers are pretty insufferable. They come across as the worst kind of statists, contorting scripture to fit their idea of state enforced social justice.

    1. As bad as the religious right can be, the religious left is worse. The really are the worst of both sides rolled into one. And they combine liberal smugness with evengelical smugness for a kind of smugness squared.

      1. As bad as the religious left can be, the religious right is worse.

        1. No they are not you half wit.

        2. No, I think John is definitely right here. I’ve dealt with both, and the smugness of the religious left is indeed orders of magnitude higher. That + they really have no objection to the state controlling absolutely everything.

  25. “In the philosophical battle for a free society, the one crucial connection to be upheld is that between capitalism and reason. The religious conservatives are seeking to tie capitalism to mysticism; the “libertarians” are tying capitalism to the whim-worshipping subjectivism and chaos of anarchy. To cooperate with either group is to betray capitalism, reason, and one’s own future.”

  26. “I distrust a movement that lifts up a philandering Russian atheist who said she hated Jesus ? Ayn Rand ? as their philosophical guide.”

    Well, I distrust a movement whose leader relies upon ad hominem argument.

    1. Sweep aside those parasites! (Ayn Rand)
      Leader relies upon ad hominem argument.
      Sweep aside those parasites! (Ayn Rand)
      Leader relies upon ad hominem argument.
      Sweep aside those parasites! (Ayn Rand)
      Leader relies upon ad hominem argument.

      LULZ KITTEH strikes again.

      1. Was he a Randroid?

        ? Rand wanted to restart civilization.
        ? Pol Pot wanted to restart civilization.

        ? Rand wanted to eliminate liberal influences in the new civilization.
        ? Pol Pot wanted to eliminate liberal influences in the new civilization.

        Aren’t these civilization reformers grand?

        1. Are alligators really cuddly puppies?

          ? Cuddly puppies have tails.
          ? Alligators have tails.

          ? Cuddly puppies are carnivores.
          ? Alligators are carnivores.

          Aren’t these meaningless comparisons grand?

          1. I don’t find your comparisons meaningless, unless all comparisons of the similar are meaningless.

            1. Miss Havisham here is a true Rand scholar, but somehow skipped the Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

              1. Yep, that she skipped.

            2. Then you think a full grown live alligator would make an appropriate birthday gift for a small child?

              1. Nope. Neither was I saying Khmer Rouge was as cultistic as Rand’s Collective.

                1. “Nope. Neither was I saying Khmer Rouge was as cultistic as Rand’s Collective.”

                  Without providing any actual evidence.

                  I and many other libertarians have had legitimate criticisms of Rand. Having been a libertarian in the past I can see some of the flaws of the philosophy more clearly than someone who has never held those beliefs.

                  Do you know the origin of the word “cult”? It is from the Latin word cultus meaning a religious group or sect. Today some Christians use it as a word meaning “people who have beliefs I disagree with” while others use the term to refer to a group that is dangerous or controlling. Was Rand’s group dangerous or controlling? Not really, those who disagreed with her were free to leave. She had some quirky ideals and kicked people out of her inner circle for odd reasons but that is not the same thing as being “controlling”. She certainly never kept someone in a prison.

                  If there IS a religious group today that is a cult in the sense of a group that is dangerous and controlling that would have to be the Church of Scientology – but that is a topic for another thread.

                  1. In the first full paragraph above it should read “having been an objectivist in the past” I still am a libertarian.

                  2. CULTURE = Motherfuckin’ crazy Soil Tillers.

                    AGRIculture = Motherfuckin’ crazy Soil Tillers of big fields.

                    It turns out that these [hunter-gatherer] people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors. For instance, the average time devoted each week to obtaining food is only 12 to 19 hours for one group of Bushmen, 14 hours or less for the Hadza nomads of Tanzania. One Bushman, when asked why he hadn’t emulated neighboring tribes by adopting agriculture, replied, “Why should we, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?”

                    ~Jared Diamond, “The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race,” Discover Magazine, May 1987, pp. 64-66.

                    1. I saw the film “the God’s must be crazy” when I was a kid. Fun movie, fun idea. Is anyone stopping you from buying a plot of land and planting mongongo nuts?

                    2. Jared Diamond; the worst mistake in the history of the human race.

                      FTFY

  27. …right up your rear end. Because God will not tolerate, He will not tolerate anything else.

    Suzanne Hinn – Holy Ghost Enema
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jhw_5ye8Qo

    1. Although Hinn is a little more Objective.

      1. Remember, John Galt loves you, and has a Plan of Salvation for your life.

        1. HI MISS RECTAL, DID YOU LIKE THE POSEYS I PICKED FOR YOU? I LEFT ‘EM ON YOUR DOORSTEP. YOU KNEW THEY WAS FOR ME, RIGHT?

        2. I really don’t think anyone would ever claim that John Galt loves you.

          Rand was pretty upfront about the fact that the man who loves reason and justice will have a heart full to the brim with spite.

          Atlas Shrugged is a 1000 page love letter to spite.

          1. For Ayn Rand so loved the world that she gave her only begotten John, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everblasting life.

            And if you reject it, you’re going to hell. Even Eddie Willers. You have to be perfect.

            1. Actually, I think Rand would say that people who reject reason are creating a Hell on Earth. It is not that you are “going” there it is that you “are” there.

  28. Better the philandering atheist than the delusional, apocalyptic cultist who told everyone his daddy would make everything OK by slaughtering everyone who had ever picked on his son.

    Well, my work here is done.

    1. Do you mean Ayn Rand? LOL!

      Atlas these days reads almost like a Peak Oil survivalist fantasy. Rand apparently accepted a form of Malthusianism which held that we have too many philosophically undesirable people in the world. Just withdraw the energy supplies (Galt’s motor, Ellis Wyatt’s shale oil, Ken Dannager’s coal) that sustain them, and the resulting die off will restore Earth to its Objectivist carrying capacity.

      ~Mark Plus (comments section)
      http://aynrandcontrahumannatur…..amber.html

      1. Copy-and-pasting blog comments. Awesome.

        Rand apparently accepted a form of Malthusianism…

        I think what she actually accepted is that ideas have consequences.

        Anyone else get the sense that old Miss Havisham here got dumped by some dude after he read Fountainhead?

        1. Agriculture has consequences:

          Conquest, War, Famine, and Death.

          That’s pretty much the history of agricultural city-State (civilization) through history.

          They’ll be comin’ round the mountain, again, when she comes.

          1. AGAIN,

            you’re not in Somalia WHY? You can gambol there all you like, yet you’re not there. WHY?

            Feel free to attempt to change the subject away from your hypocrisy again.

            1. …instead of the marginal lands not invaded and occupied by agricultural city-STATISTS?

              Are you against freedom here? I guess so.

              I’m for freedom. Right here.

              1. I’ll answer yours when you answer mine.

                AGAIN,

                you’re not in Somalia WHY? You can gambol there all you like, yet you’re not there. WHY?

                Feel free to attempt to change the subject away from your hypocrisy again.

            2. I hereby invoke Harris’ Law: It’s just like Godwin’s Law, only you replace “Hitler” with “Somalia.”

          2. Agriculture has consequences:

            Conquest, War, Famine, and Death.

            That’s pretty much the history of non-agricultural groups through history.

            http://www.troynovant.com/Fran…..ation.html

            1. Keely falsely (or ignorantly) uses societies involved in domestication/agriculture to represent all of pre-history.

              Anthropologists know that domestication/agriculture greatly increases violence, sacrifice, war.

              Keely’s work has been picked up by Steven Pinker too.

              They judge it as knowingly misleading.

              Steven Pinker’s Stinker on the Origins of War
              Did Steven Pinker knowingly mislead his audience at TED?
              Published on March 29, 2011
              http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/s…..rigins-war

              1. “Keely falsely (or ignorantly) uses societies involved in domestication/agriculture to represent all of pre-history.”

                Citation unsurprisingly absent.

                “Anthropologists know that domestication/agriculture greatly increases violence, sacrifice, war.”

                Keely is an anthropologist, so you’re lying. So am I , so you’re lying twice.

                1. “Keely Lies PsychologyToday sez”

                  They never said that, and that is an EDITORIAL BLOG, not a cited paper.

                  Are you incapable of discerning the difference?

      2. I’d give you a +1 for effort, but I don’t subscribe to the labor theory of value, so: -6.

  29. It’s not hypocrisy to agree with someone on one thing but disagree with them on others.

    What Ayn Rand understood about American Christians is that they are in large measure fundamentally American rather than fundamentally Christian. And that means primarily motivated to achieve self-sufficiency and unembarrassed about being ambitious or building personal wealth.

    It’s easy for us as Americans to forget that in many countries an ambitious and individualist attitude is far less common, and often discouraged. The Tea Party is an expression of this American attitude, and the reason so many conservative Christians show deference to Ayn Rand on such issues is that she enunciated this fundamentally American attitude in a clearer and more concrete fashion than any American native ever had; perhaps in a way that only someone fleeing a culture destroyed by collectivism ever could.

    They can’t discredit Rand’s ideas on the merits so they try to discredit her ideas by associating them with her moral failings. And as any Christian can tell you, everybody has moral failings. The left is not going to terminate Christian fiscal conservatives’ fondness for Rand with stories of pill-popping or bed-hopping.

    1. It’s quite easy to discredit Rand’s ideas on their merits.

      1. That the individual owns his own body and the fruits of his own labor? Go ahead – knock yourself out.

        1. You’ve just stepped on the toes of Team Red AND Team Blue, Rob.

          Good man. We need people like you.

        2. …individuality and an individuals property for hundreds of thousands of years, Rob.

          If that is all Rand preached, it would be great. But that’s just her Bait.

          And then the Switch comes.

          1. Even if that were true – and it’s not – we don’t live in bands or tribes. And it’s beside the point because no one is claiming Rand invented the concept of individual liberty. You’re poking at your own strawmen – careful you don’t get Farmer’s Lung.

            As for “the Switch” – she’s been dead for going on 30 years. She’s not doing any baiting or switching. What I focus on after reading a book, Rand’s or another author’s, are the concepts that are useful to me – whether that’s how to make more money, get along better with people or improve my framework for understanding the world. That’s pragmatism, and subjective, and of course Rand would disapprove; so what? My goal is to thrive on my own terms, not measure my Objectivist purity to the nanometer. Reading Ayn Rand changed my life, but I paid for the books. Thus endeth my obligation to Ayn Rand, and Rand would probably agree with that part, if she wasn’t so inconveniently deceased.

            Rand’s first principle was that the individual belongs to himself, and I don’t need to agree with every extrapolation she made from that base concept to admire and re-purpose her explanation and defense of it. Further: every attempt I’ve ever read to refute that base concept fails as a result circular logic or internal contradiction.

            1. …was mass murder and genocide are morally acceptable for the advancement of the city-STATE.

              “[The Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land .. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent.”

              ~Ayn Rand, United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974

              1. AGAIN,

                you’re not in Somalia WHY? You can gambol there all you like, yet you’re not there. WHY?

                Feel free to attempt to change the subject away from your hypocrisy again.

                1. …instead of the marginal lands not invaded and occupied by agricultural city-STATISTS?

                  Are you against freedom here? I guess so.

                  I’m for freedom. Right here.

                  1. I’ll answer yours when you answer mine.

                    AGAIN,

                    you’re not in Somalia WHY? You can gambol there all you like, yet you’re not there. WHY?

                    Feel free to attempt to change the subject away from your hypocrisy again.

                    1. I’ll answer yours when you answer mine.

                      AGAIN,

                      you’re not in Somalia WHY? You can gambol there all you like, yet you’re not there. WHY?

                      Feel free to attempt to change the subject away from your hypocrisy again.

              2. I suppose we shouldn’t expect coherent arguments from a person who can’t properly fill out the “Name” field on the comment form.

                Troll somewhere else.

          2. The Iceman shot in the back by one of his non [CITY-STATE] neighbors…..for gamboling on the glacier.

            OOH!

            1. Oh, the irony.

      2. It’s quite easy to discredit Rand’s ideas on their merits.

        If I had a [inflation-adjusted] nickel…

        Chin up, though. Maybe you can copy and paste from someone else who thinks they discredited Rand’s ideas on their merits.

        1. …was mass murder and genocide are morally acceptable for the advancement of the city-STATE.

          “[The Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land .. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent.”

          ~Ayn Rand, United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974

          Looks like she discredits herself.

    2. Very well said!

      You write as well as the director of the original Twilight Zone series (which Ayn Rand herself admired for its romanticism).

  30. If Rand wasn’t terminally snotty and translated it into the demand for perfection in her one-size-fits-all worldview I’d reconsider Objectivism. It’s informed me but it’s personally unembracable because it doesn’t embrace the reality that not everyone can be an artist or engineer or physicist.
    She had some good stuff to offer but the demand for perfection is numinal and not based on the nature of the individual; it’s a rather conservative worldview to me.

    1. ” it doesn’t embrace the reality that not everyone can be an artist or engineer or physicist.”

      Or that’s my impression anyway. The philosophy itself (and I’ve met Objectivists who are fab people, don’t get me wrong) seems to completely disregard the right side of the brain/emotions/what have you. Can’t work.

      1. I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged (again?) where you will find many admirable characters – from Eddie Willers to less mentioned ones – who take pride in “ordinary” jobs and are
        appreciated by Dagny Taggart, Hank Rearden and the other strikers.

        1. and that fits the Objectivist mold.

          “Fuck you, I got mine.”

        2. There is something to what hazeeran says, though.

          I don’t think it’s primarily a matter of demanding that everyone be super-talented and creative, though. I think that’s a misunderstanding.

          But it’s still a harsh ethos.

          The lefties complain about how harsh it is to the poor, but taken literally and embraced comprehensively it’s extraordinarily harsh on the practitioner.

          It’s tough when everything, or nearly so, is a moral issue.

          Giving a dollar to a bum = immoral.

          Being attracted sexually to the wrong people = immoral.

          Liking the wrong music = immoral.

          Preferring leisure to productive work – even when you’re paying for that leisure out of your own savings = immoral.

          Letting your kid believe in Santa Claus for a few years = immoral.

          This is why every time Objectivism gets any momentum, it eventually falls apart in endless cycles of interpersonal recrimination and self-recrimination. No one can stand the continual strain of never getting to have an off day and never being able to not sweat the small stuff.

          1. There is something to what Fluffy says.

          2. No one can stand the continual strain of never getting to have an off day and never being able to not sweat the small stuff.

            ONE MAN CAN!

            1. On second thought, he is the prime example of somebody who took Spite to a whole new level and sweats every tiny detail.

  31. I thought Obama’s spiritual advisor (what kind of schmuck has a “spiritual advisor” anyway?) was Rev. GDA.

    Both sides seem to have a simplistic view here.

    Just because I think that people ought to do certain things doesn’t meant that I think the government should be forcing people to do those things. Nor does my view that people ought to refrain from certain things mean that I think government should prevent others from doing those things.

    The front matter to the Lord of the Flies contains a statement along the lines of, “The faults of society come from the faults of the individual.” Certainly, the faults in our society and in our government come from such faults.

    So, as long as people believe that it is morally right for them to use the power of government to live by the confiscated product of their neighbor’s labor, then there will be socialism and cronyism in government. A prerequisite for a free nation is that its citizens look at living off the government dole as embarrassing, immoral, and unacceptable. Only then will you have a rejection of socialism and cronyism.

    The same concept extends to other areas of government reach.

    The desire among clergy to theocratize seems to be rooted in the failure of these churches to persuade people to freely adopt their moral codes. The desire among politicians, of course, comes from the desire to lock-in the votes of the bible-thumpers.

    I don’t just agree with most of the moral code of religious conservatives, I think many of them are too wimpy. However, I don’t think that these are ideas to be enforced by government. Instead, these are ideas to be communicated and championed by private citizens and organizations. The adoption of these ideas is to occur by free will only.

    If people were less reliant on government, they would be more responsible. Upon recognizing their new-found responsibilities and the consequences of failing in those responsibilities, I think we would see a greater interest in what is morally right and what is morally wrong. I think socialism strips away such concepts and leaves us with a parasitic, amoral society. Furthermore, a government which purports to define every aspect of what is right and wrong is a government which purports to be God.

    1. So, as long as people believe that it is morally right for them to use the power of government to live by the confiscated…

      You mean Capitalists? Ever hear of the Trail of Tears?

      Capitalism is forced redistribution of Mother Earth’s bounty.

      Our system of private property in land forces landless men to work for others; to work in factories, stores, and offices, whether they like it or not. wherever access to land is free, men work only to provide what they actually need or desire…Disestablishment from land, like slavery, is a form of duress. The white man, where slavery cannot be practiced, has found that he must first disestablish the savages from their land before he can force them to work steadily for him. Once they are disestablished, they are in effect starved into working for him and into working as he directs.
      ~Dr. Ralph Borsodi
      This Ugly Civilization
      Simon and Schuster | New York
      1 9 2 9
      http://soilandhealth.org/03sov…..i.toc.html

      1. AGAIN,

        you’re not in Somalia WHY? You can gambol there all you like, yet you’re not there. WHY?

        Feel free to attempt to change the subject away from your hypocrisy again.

        1. …instead of the marginal lands not invaded and occupied by agricultural city-STATISTS?

          Are you against freedom here? I guess so.

          I’m for freedom. Right here.

          1. I’ll answer yours when you answer mine.

            AGAIN,

            you’re not in Somalia WHY? You can gambol there all you like, yet you’re not there. WHY?

            Feel free to attempt to change the subject away from your hypocrisy again.

      2. I desire a Ferrari 458.

  32. C’mon, squirrelz. Man up and drop the banhammer.

    How much pixelated diarrhea is going to have be be smeared on your blog before you say enough is enough?

    1. Or do you masturbate to his stuff, R.C. Dean?

      Or is it that you just don’t like a sharp mind that exposes your intellectual evasion?

      Trying to blank me out?

      Their magic tool is the blank-out. ~John Galt

      1. AGAIN,

        you’re not in Somalia WHY? You can gambol there all you like, yet you’re not there. WHY?

        Feel free to attempt to change the subject away from your hypocrisy again.

        1. …instead of the marginal lands not invaded and occupied by you agricultural city-STATISTS?

          Are you against freedom here? I guess so.

          I’m for freedom. Right here.

          1. I’ll answer yours when you answer mine.

            AGAIN,

            you’re not in Somalia WHY? You can gambol there all you like, yet you’re not there. WHY?

            Feel free to attempt to change the subject away from your hypocrisy again.

              1. I’ll answer yours when you answer mine.

                AGAIN,

                you’re not in Somalia WHY? You can gambol there all you like, yet you’re not there. WHY?

                Feel free to attempt to change the subject away from your hypocrisy again.

    2. Seriously, this is rigoddamnediculous. BANHAMMER.

  33. It’s my first time on the Internet.

    I’ll clear up all the misunderstanding.

    Sorry about that, but this inspired Scripture thing really turned into a holy fucking debacle.

    1. Please make a note of it.

      We’re tossing out all the other stuff, and starting fresh.

      It’s about time. Harold Camping was my last straw.

    2. I liked Douglas Adams’ take on God’s message to the universe:

      Sorry for the inconvenience.

      1. LOL! I do too! Douglas Adams is good stuff!

        1. Let us smoke a while.

  34. 2 Corinthians 9:7 New International Version (NIV)

    7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

  35. My favorite Bible passages – that I read off the Christian Lefties:

    1 Samuel 8 – A 3,000 year-old Libertarian rant against a bunch of rubes asking for bigger government.
    http://www.usccb.org/bible/1samuel/8/

    And Exodus 20:17 – Don’t covet your neighbor’s stuff.
    http://www.usccb.org/bible/exodus/20

  36. my roomate’s sister-in-law makes $81/hr on the internet. She has been fired from work for 7 months but last month her income was $8779 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read about it on this site NuttyRich dotcom

  37. Russian Athiest, That’s the best you have? The First Amendment gives an individual the Right to be an Atheist. Are you challenging the right at this time?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.