Rawn Pawl is not a libertarian. He is a fascist vanguard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

Objectivism is a philosophy created by Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905–1982).

Objectivism holds that the proper functions of a government are "the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objectively defined laws," the executive, and legislatures.[SUP][79][/SUP] Furthermore, in protecting individual rights, the government is acting as an agent of its citizens and "has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens"[SUP][80][/SUP] and it must act in an impartial manner according to specific, objectively defined laws.[SUP][81][/SUP] Prominent Objectivists Leonard Peikoff and Yaron Brook have since expressed support for other government functions.[SUP][82][/SUP][SUP][83][/SUP]


also known as minarchism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a libertarian capitalist political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] Such states are generally called night-watchman states.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free market anarchism,[SUP][1][/SUP] market anarchism,[SUP][2][/SUP] private-property anarchism[SUP][3][/SUP] libertarian anarchism,[SUP][4][/SUP] and voluntaryism) is a libertarian political philosophy that advocates anarchy in the sense of the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by privately run law rather than through politics.




It is true that most anarcho capitlist came to this philosophy from objectivism or minarchism, this is how it came to me, when I came to some very specific personal revelations.

1) A government is inherently evil for various reasons such as generally only those with nefarious/malintent would join such a group and A small government cannot be restrained it will always eventually grow into the very thing objectivism/classic libertarianism opposes, self defeating.
2) The state is not needed for anything and it only serves to do harm
3) The state is a direct violation of the non-aggression principle, not just that its the primary cause of violence period.
4) The state just doesn't work, it can't possibly work, and in all of human history it never really has in the long term.


So there you have it, not only is Ayn Rand an objectivist/minarchist which is NOT free market anarchism,[SUP][1][/SUP] market anarchism,[SUP][2][/SUP] private-property anarchism[SUP][3][/SUP] libertarian anarchism,[SUP][4][/SUP] and voluntaryism. Wikipedia, in addition to my encylopedia, say that she CREATED IT. While they are similar I honestly can't even count how many AYN RAND quotes are directly counter to Voluntarism, it has to be 100's.

Finally to go back on topic. Ron Paul, disagrees with Ayn Rand on quite a few topics even though he is pretty much an objectvist, although I think he is truly ancap at heart, that he just doesn't admit it, it directly contradicts his supposed faith in a small government to get it right. The 14th amendment being one such disagreement between Ayn Rand and Ron Paul.

So yes, in a way Ron Paul is sort of covert, I wouldn't describe him as a vanguard but he is essentially an ancap spy lol, which by definition, thank you Mr Rothbard, is libertarian.

To call Ron Paul, NOT A LIBERTARIAN, or AYN RAND an Anarcho-capiltilist.....well to quote the dude "That's just your opinion..man..", these statements are simply not factual no matter what Rothbard nor Chomsky calls them. A libertarian is clearly any philosophy which ecompases an entire 25% of the political spectrum and Ron Paul definitly falls under this portion, he is certainly NOT an authoritarian, a liberal, or a conservative. This is a typical "Chomskyism" to twist the very definition of words such as right wing, state capitlism, and libertarian. `I guees they don't calls him a linguest for nuffin eh?` lolsauce

Canna Sylvan, you say Chomsky is a fool. While that may be your opinion and a completely subjective commentary, how about a basis for it? Tell me where he is wrong or foolish....

Chomsky is wrong because he identifies free markets as state capitalism

deprave said:

Chomsky is wrong because he identifies free markets as state capitalism

Click to expand...

deprave said:

It is important to understand the realities of ideologies. State Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Democracy; These are all livestock management approaches. They all fail eventually because treating Humans as cattle is simply immoral and irrational.
These ideologies are NOT based on a philosophy, nor does it originate from historical evidence or rational principles, is a false justication for human ownership, an exscuse for violence.

Click to expand...

A true free market is something that has never existed for it cannot exist with the existence of a state. Chomsky understands State Capitalism as Free Market when the two things are not even so much as compatible. Understandbly so, not many people can see the difference as free market is not even a reality, I only came to find the difference myself by questioning objectivism vs anarcho capitalism vigorously.

It is extreamly important to recognize that the two things are not only incompatible but very different, apples and oranges different.

abandonconflict said:

orly?

[video=youtube;fq9Qe67QUmA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq9Qe67QUmA[/video]

Click to expand...

funny, she didnt say "anarcho-capitalism" at any point.

it's amazing how much you talk, but how little you say.

abandonconflict said:

You wonder why I jump right into ad hom; are you even capable of honesty?

Click to expand...

i believe the salient question is: "Are YOU capable of honesty?"

after many turns around the wheel with you i STILL have never received an adequate description of your claimed "Libertarian Socialist" phiulosophy, since all you provide to explain what you purport to be YOUR views is a short video of naom chomsky saying he is one too, and it's not an oxymoron.

even my own delving into the issue turned up NO breakdown of positions, explanation of philosophy, or even discussion of platform or principles, just endless shitty early 90's style geo-cities pages which declare "it's not an oxymoron"

the astute observer therefore MUST conclude that your "philosophy" is deliberately couched in vague and nebulous terms so it can never be examined save by the Genius High Priest Noam Chomsky and his approved acolytes.

"Libertarian Socialism" is still shrouded in mystery.
despite your repeated claims of having a core set of principles (which you have never provided), your endless assertions of the moral and ethical superiority of your position (a position which shifts like the sand) and your repeated attempts to argue the failings of every philosophical and political form in history, and the inescapable conclusion that your philosophy's superiority is simply "Self Evident" , NOBODY KNOWS WHAT YOUR PHILOSOPHY IS SUPPOSED TO BE!

you have asserted that "personal property rights" are sacred, but the "Means of Production" must be collectivized (not socialized, thats different...) and then you go on to claim the entire universe as the "Means of Production" even down to a lowly seed.

yeah, in your perfect Frutopia, you say i can own anything that's not a "Means of Production" but EVERYTHING is a "Means of Production" so i can own nothing.

Dr Kynes said:

funny, she didnt say "anarcho-capitalism" at any point.

it's amazing how much you talk, but how little you say.





i believe the salient question is: "Are YOU capable of honesty?"

after many turns around the wheel with you i STILL have never received an adequate description of your claimed "Libertarian Socialist" phiulosophy, since all you provide to explain what you purport to be YOUR views is a short video of naom chomsky saying he is one too, and it's not an oxymoron.

even my own delving into the issue turned up NO breakdown of positions, explanation of philosophy, or even discussion of platform or principles, just endless shitty early 90's style geo-cities pages which declare "it's not an oxymoron"

the astute observer therefore MUST conclude that your "philosophy" is deliberately couched in vague and nebulous terms so it can never be examined save by the Genius High Priest Noam Chomsky and his approved acolytes.

"Libertarian Socialism" is still shrouded in mystery.
despite your repeated claims of having a core set of principles (which you have never provided), your endless assertions of the moral and ethical superiority of your position (a position which shifts like the sand) and your repeated attempts to argue the failings of every philosophical and political form in history, and the inescapable conclusion that your philosophy's superiority is simply "Self Evident" , NOBODY KNOWS WHAT YOUR PHILOSOPHY IS SUPPOSED TO BE!

you have asserted that "personal property rights" are sacred, but the "Means of Production" must be collectivized (not socialized, thats different...) and then you go on to claim the entire universe as the "Means of Production" even down to a lowly seed.

yeah, in your perfect Frutopia, you say i can own anything that's not a "Means of Production" but EVERYTHING is a "Means of Production" so i can own nothing.

Click to expand...

Nailed it, omg I can't stop laughing.

From what I can figure out, you either believe:

A) Government has no place in society except to prevent people from having a monopoly on the means of production. You support the business plan, not government control, of common ownership of the means of production. People should collectively invest in capital.

B) Government should own all means of production through taxation. The workers share profit.

lifegoesonbrah said:

From what I can figure out, you either believe:

A) Government has no place in society except to prevent people from having a monopoly on the means of production. You support the business plan, not government control, of common ownership of the means of production. People should collectively invest in capital.

B) Government should own all means of production through taxation. The workers share profit.

Click to expand...

but the means of production encompasses EVERYTHING so the government owns everything.

what serves a man to share in the profits if he can purchase nothing with those profits?

abandonconflict is either a closet utopian communist who lies about his position, or he has no idea what the fuck he thinks, and he's waiting for the next chomsky video to tell him what he is.

abandonconflict said:

I voted Obama in 08 because he promised to end the Iraq war. Please stop attributing to me that which I do not condone or support. You have been doing this all day because you're butt hurt that I called you a republican. I called you a republican because you worship Rawn Pawl, who is a vanguard of fascism while not a fascist himself. Just like Lenin was Marxist.

Click to expand...

Your name calling and language give you away. unless "butthurt" is the new way to win an argument on the Internet.

Ron Paul was in Congress speaking out against your Iraq war long before Obama was a politician, and probably long before you knew what a libertarian was. Unlike Obama, he doesn't pay the antiwar crowd lip service to get votes.

He has been speaking out against foreign wars and the trampling of our civil liberties for decades. Have you read any of his books? Have you read Bastiat, Hayek or von Mises? No, you have not. Austrian Economics, ring a bell? Give the man a little respect.

Dr Kynes said:

but the means of production encompasses EVERYTHING so the government owns everything.

what serves a man to share in the profits if he can purchase nothing with those profits?

abandonconflict is either a closet utopian communist who lies about his position, or he has no idea what the fuck he thinks, and he's waiting for the next chomsky video to tell him what he is.

Click to expand...

Everyone gets one acre of land, one hammer, one screwdriver, one set of overalls, and one state cow. When your parents die you must turn in their overalls so that you don't have an overall monopoly.

Dr Kynes said:

but the means of production encompasses EVERYTHING so the government owns everything.

what serves a man to share in the profits if he can purchase nothing with those profits?

abandonconflict is either a closet utopian communist who lies about his position, or he has no idea what the fuck he thinks, and he's waiting for the next chomsky video to tell him what he is.

Click to expand...

how else could these means of "vital nfinite naturual resources" (to quote chomsky/adabdonconflict) be divided out? By some prestigious committee which would by some miracle be uniformly indifferent in the absence of a free market, oh wait what thats called when it rules over all of society with no accountability for the same ethics it policies? The government....this is clearly either communism or some sort of business plan we are talking about here and not philosophy, maybe even it gets its own title, I will call it 'vagueism' , defined as the art of being deceptively vague in an effort to establish a cult base of worshiphers to convert to communism.

bassclef said:

Your name calling and language give you away. unless "butthurt" is the new way to win an argument on the Internet.

Ron Paul was in Congress speaking out against your Iraq war long before Obama was a politician, and probably long before you knew what a libertarian was. Unlike Obama, he doesn't pay the antiwar crowd lip service to get votes.

He has been speaking out against foreign wars and the trampling of our civil liberties for decades. Have you read any of his books? Have you read Bastiat, Hayek or von Mises? No, you have not. Austrian Economics, ring a bell? Give the man a little respect.

Click to expand...

but on the Daily Kos some anonymous poster said Ron Paul wasnt even a real doctor so neener neener neener!

Yeah you cant handle the REAL im dishing up can you?

Yeah! an anonymous poster on a fringe left messae board making unsubstantiuated claims and wild accusations? ANSWER THOSE CHARGES!!!

now imma declare victory, and never even link you to the asshole anonymous poster on the fringe left message board who made the outrageous claims, cuz with charges that inflammatory, who needs sourcing?

bam!

U got Pwn3d!

deprave said:

how else could these means of "vital nfinite naturual resources" (to quote chomsky/adabdonconflict) be divided out? By some prestigious committee which would by some miracle be uniformly indifferent in the absence of a free market, oh wait what thats called when it rules over all of society with no accountability for the same ethics it policies? The government....this is clearly either communism or some sort of business plan we are talking about here and not philosophy, maybe even it gets its own title, I will call it 'vagueism' , defined as the art of being deceptively vague in an effort to establish a cult base of worshiphers to convert to communism.

Click to expand...

can we call it Anarcho-Nebulism?

it's got that new hotness thats so popular with today's youth, but still harks back to the classic vagueness of yesteryear when imprecise language and implied superiority were all a man needed to sell a wagon full of snake oil based patent medicine.

Dr Kynes said:

can we call it Anarcho-Nebulism?

it's got that new hotness thats so popular with today's youth, but still harks back to the classic vagueness of yesteryear when imprecise language and implied superiority were all a man needed to sell a wagon full of snake oil based patent medicine.

Click to expand...

I like vagueism better, that way when someone asks you what political philosophy you think would work best you can just claim, "I am a vagueist" and when they ask you what that means you can declare that "Ron Paul is a fascist vanguard" or "Feudalism exists in Free Markets" and then to your advantage no questions will be asked because it would be understood that your being intentionally vague because that is your belief system and there would be no need to elaborate with further with additional vague and cleverly redefined deceptive catch phrases and you will never look like a dumbass who is repetitively reciting the same deceptively vague catch phrases like a baby smacking his high chair demanding ice cream and it might be perceived that your argument actually has some base in rational thought.

GrowinDad said:

Canna Sylvan, you say Chomsky is a fool. While that may be your opinion and a completely subjective commentary, how about a basis for it? Tell me where he is wrong or foolish....

Click to expand...

Look below your post. Chomsky is a socialist who thinks capitalism is all bad. Capitalism isn't bad, it just looks that way when you involve government. Corporations can't exist without government. Chomsky uses socialist corporatism as his bullshit reason why capitalism is bad. That's why he's a fool.

Canna Sylvan said:

Look below your post. Chomsky is a socialist who thinks capitalism is all bad. Capitalism isn't bad, it just looks that way when you involve government. Corporations can't exist without government. Chomsky uses socialist corporatism as his bullshit reason why capitalism is bad. That's why he's a fool.

Click to expand...

Yes, to put it short. As I wrote, what it comes down to is that he doesn't differentiate between state capitalism and free market, the two are like apples and oranges. If this simple distinction was realized then these types of philosophies wouldn't even exist, and you know what. I partially blame objectvistism for this deception because they preach that it can work as a defensive optimism it wrongly concludes that free market can exist in the presence of a state.

You would have to be a fucking moron to think that State Capitalism is awesome, think about that next time you watch a michael moore or noam chomsky video and the piano is elequently playing as it shows pictures of Wal-Mart and FOX news. I mean, no shit these things are bad.... no fucking shit Michael Moore, why do these things exist Mr Moore? Did we have FOX NEWS before state capitalism? Did we have goldman sachs?

So who would protect private property in laissez faire capitalism? Either the state, or private armies.

deprave said:

I like vagueism better, that way when someone asks you what political philosophy you think would work best you can just claim, "I am a vagueist" and when they ask you what that means you can declare that "Ron Paul is a fascist vanguard" or "Feudalism exists in Free Markets" and then to your advantage no questions will be asked because it would be understood that your being intentionally vague because that is your belief system and there would be no need to elaborate with further with additional vague and cleverly redefined deceptive catch phrases and you will never look like a dumbass who is repetitively reciting the same deceptively vague catch phrases like a baby smacking his high chair demanding ice cream and it might be perceived that your argument actually has some base in rational thought.

Click to expand...

So you are butt hurt...

I'm not here to push a philosophy. I'm here to destroy yours. Your right wing social darwinist fucking dog eat dog rat race you call capitalism is the mother of government. Government exists because of capitalism.

abandonconflict said:

So who would protect private property in laissez faire capitalism? Either the state, or private armies.

Click to expand...

deflecting back to what you perceive as inadequacy in other ideas does not answer the funadamental question "What exaclty is the "Libertarian Socialist" theory and how do you propose it would operate?"

a question which thus far has not been answered, not even by chomsky, save to reassure us that it is not in fact an oxymoron. and we can take that to the bank...