My Ascent From the Tar Pit of Amoral Libertarianism

[g5000]

However, the cultural Marxism I am referring to is that of the West and its inheritance from the Frankfurt school.

Another Nazi favorite: The Frankfurt School. Den of Jews.

 

[g5000]

Thanks for that OP, JB.

Yes, the Whitaker Chambers piece on Atlas Shrugged is one of the best takedowns of Libertarianism ever written.

I read Atlas Shrugged many years ago, and found it could have been written in 50 pages or less. The reason it is such a massive tome is to pound its propaganda into the heads of the malleable through unrelenting repetition. It is literary brainwashing of the dullest kind.

I think Ayn Rand's true nature is revealed in the train tunnel scene where she justifies the death of every living soul on board, right down to the tiniest child. She was one sick bitch. I completely understand her venomous reaction to her native Soviet Union, but she let her emotions run away from her while pretending "objectivism".

Nevertheless, I have a bit of a libertarian (small "l") streak myself. It can't be helped if you are a natural born conservative who was a member of the Young Americans for Freedom who met Ronald Reagan in 1977 like myself. Reagan had his own libertarian streak. After all, he was a great friend of Bill Buckley (who I also met that same year).

But I have found hardcore Libertarians to have no sense of human nature whatsoever. Their naivete knows no bounds.

There are Libertarians who are practically indistinguishable from Green party members. These must be the ones you encountered. But there are also Libertarians who are practically indistinguishable from White Nationalists (Nazis).

Most, though, are the kind who want to End the Fed™, legalize all drugs, end all federal regulation of business, and isolationists who want to shrink our military down to the size of a cub scout troop.

I've always admired the steadfastness of principle Ron Paul demonstrated. Right or wrong (and he was frequently right), he did not bend.

Of course you lie......you put white nationalist next to nazi in order to fool the uninformed....nazi means national socialist...yes...they were left wing, not right wing and they were socialists, not capitalists....

But keep lying........I know you can't help yourself.

Yes, I dont understand the 'white nationalists' = Nazi theme.

I white nationalist is simply the group of all white people that want to represent themselves as white people in our Identity Politics political system.

Dont they have the right to do that without being deemed Nazis? Sure, some of them ARE Nazis, but that does not prove that they all are.

Jared Taylor for example isnot a Nazi, and Joseph Sobran and Craig Paul Roberts are popular columnists among them, so I dont see where the Nazi come is.

Ask Don Black. He formed the WN movement. The KKK and the Nazis memberships were on the decline, and so he joined those two forces together into the WN movement.

It is not a coincidence that wherever WNs are, there is the familiar red, white, and black color scheme; the 88 tattoos; the same racialism; the Hitler worship; the Nazi symbolism in the avatars; the holocaust denials; and the vilification of Jews.

Your own avatar is a photo of a Nazi refusing to salute as all the other Nazis around him are saluting! So you clearly understand what the WN movement is all about. You avatar suggests you have some doubts about the movement.


White Nationalist is Nazism with a transparent coat of paint.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I can't read through a self-absorbed, narcissistic rant like the O/P's. I take this board literally that's it called the US MESSAGE board, not soapbox. But some of the follow-up comments are good.

Well except for post #58.

That's not a comment about your blather.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I can't read through a self-absorbed, narcissistic rant like the O/P's. I take this board literally that's it called the US MESSAGE board, not soapbox. But some of the follow-up comments are good.

Well except for post #58.

That's not a comment about your blather.

self-absorbed, narcissistic rant like the O/P's. <- a comment about my blather, idiot

 

[flacaltenn]

When you say culturally marxist, are you referring to Ayn Rand?

Ayn Rand was raised in the Soviet Union and her beef with the Soviets was economic and political, so I do believe that she would have been a cultural Marxist.

However, the cultural Marxism I am referring to is that of the West and its inheritance from the Frankfurt school.

Oh HELL NO.. She watched the Marxists confiscate her daddy's pharmacy and leave him helpless. THAT was her motivation for most everything. There is NO freaking relationship to any Marxist principles or views in her opinions or work...

 

[Agit8r]

When you say culturally marxist, are you referring to Ayn Rand?

Ayn Rand was raised in the Soviet Union and her beef with the Soviets was economic and political, so I do believe that she would have been a cultural Marxist.

However, the cultural Marxism I am referring to is that of the West and its inheritance from the Frankfurt school.

Oh HELL NO.. She watched the Marxists confiscate her daddy's pharmacy and leave him helpless. THAT was her motivation for most everything. There is NO freaking relationship to any Marxist principles or views in her opinions or work...

In all fairness, she did receive a Marxist-Leninist education.

 

[JimBowie1958]

When you say culturally marxist, are you referring to Ayn Rand?

Ayn Rand was raised in the Soviet Union and her beef with the Soviets was economic and political, so I do believe that she would have been a cultural Marxist.

However, the cultural Marxism I am referring to is that of the West and its inheritance from the Frankfurt school.

Oh HELL NO.. She watched the Marxists confiscate her daddy's pharmacy and leave him helpless. THAT was her motivation for most everything. There is NO freaking relationship to any Marxist principles or views in her opinions or work...

I am not saying that Ayn Rand had Social Marxist Principles as we know them, but she was RAISED BY MARXISTS in the educational system and so she seems to have consumed her social Marxism by a sort of social osmosis; it was what she had been immersed in from child birth.

Do you think she went through some great investigation of the existence of God and found the evidence lacking? Of course not, she simply assumed it like almost every other atheist alive today does. And so it was witht he rest of her morality system; all was built, save for capitalism and democracy, on a foundation that she absorbed from her peers.

 

[flacaltenn]

When you say culturally marxist, are you referring to Ayn Rand?

Ayn Rand was raised in the Soviet Union and her beef with the Soviets was economic and political, so I do believe that she would have been a cultural Marxist.

However, the cultural Marxism I am referring to is that of the West and its inheritance from the Frankfurt school.

Oh HELL NO.. She watched the Marxists confiscate her daddy's pharmacy and leave him helpless. THAT was her motivation for most everything. There is NO freaking relationship to any Marxist principles or views in her opinions or work...

In all fairness, she did receive a Marxist-Leninist education.

Yeah -- guess the brain-washing had a serious OPPOSITE effect. Should be a memo to all those in favor of "indoctrination" instead of objective facts.. If ANYONE is qualified to advocate for individual sovereignty and freedom -- it would be someone who was IMMUNE to Marxist Leninist education..

 

[kaz]

And the right of the minority to oppress a majority is better?

Proof you don't even know what a libertarian is. We are about the rights of individuals. That you would say this shows you're either lying to us that you were a libertarian or you're lying to yourself. That is the most basic concept in libertarianism.

And you're still O fer on moving from sweeping statements about libertarians and moving on to issues you changed your view on

roflmao,, as if what you think defines a damned thing.

Get over yourself. I think the OP has been successful despite what you might try to think about it.

You still haven't listed a single issue you used to agree with libertarians on that you no longer do. You were never a libertarian, hell, you were never a conservative. You're a vanilla socialist who thinks that the majority is entitled to fuck the minority. There is zero libertarian about you

 

[kaz]

Ted Cruz is a liar. No doubt about it. He's the kind of liar who knows he lying, but thinks the public are too stupid to know he is lying.

Unfortunately, his base has proven his assumptions correct.

If elected, Ted Cruz is not going to "abolish the IRS". He isn't, and he knows he isn't. But he gets a big round of applause with his base every time he says it.

You'll notice you don't hear him saying that as much now that the national spotlight is really focused on him.

LOL, yeah, Hillary doesn't lie, that's why you're voting for her. Sucker

Hey, dumbfuck. First, starting your post with a tu quoque fallacy is a bad start. Then when you double down your retardation with a straw man fallacy, well, you've already shot yourself in the head.

I've said many times on this forum I support Kasich. I've also said if Cruz ends up the nominee, I may vote for him because he has one of the better tax plans even though he is lying out his ass about abolishing the IRS, and I've said if Trump is the nominee, I will leave the top of my ballot blank.

So shove a stick up your ass and call yourself a popsicle for me, mm-kay?

Thanks for being a standard bearer of everything that is wrong with Libertarians.

That makes no sense. The point wasn't about Hillary, moron, it was about your double standard. You won't vote for Cruz, he lies. So you're voting for Hillary, who lies too. It was about you. To be a tu quoque fallacy my point would have had to have been about Hillary. God you're stupid

 

[g5000]

Ted Cruz is a liar. No doubt about it. He's the kind of liar who knows he lying, but thinks the public are too stupid to know he is lying.

Unfortunately, his base has proven his assumptions correct.

If elected, Ted Cruz is not going to "abolish the IRS". He isn't, and he knows he isn't. But he gets a big round of applause with his base every time he says it.

You'll notice you don't hear him saying that as much now that the national spotlight is really focused on him.

LOL, yeah, Hillary doesn't lie, that's why you're voting for her. Sucker

Hey, dumbfuck. First, starting your post with a tu quoque fallacy is a bad start. Then when you double down your retardation with a straw man fallacy, well, you've already shot yourself in the head.

I've said many times on this forum I support Kasich. I've also said if Cruz ends up the nominee, I may vote for him because he has one of the better tax plans even though he is lying out his ass about abolishing the IRS, and I've said if Trump is the nominee, I will leave the top of my ballot blank.

So shove a stick up your ass and call yourself a popsicle for me, mm-kay?

Thanks for being a standard bearer of everything that is wrong with Libertarians.

That makes no sense. The point wasn't about Hillary, moron, it was about your double standard. You won't vote for Cruz, he lies. So you're voting for Hillary, who lies too. It was about you. To be a tu quoque fallacy my point would have had to have been about Hillary. God you're stupid

I say again, dumbfuck. I am not voting for Hillary. Under any circumstances.

Wow. You are really stuck on your straw man, eh? Your entire argument collapses under its false premises.

You are making Libertarians look more and more retarded every day.

 

[kaz]

Ted Cruz is a liar. No doubt about it. He's the kind of liar who knows he lying, but thinks the public are too stupid to know he is lying.

Unfortunately, his base has proven his assumptions correct.

If elected, Ted Cruz is not going to "abolish the IRS". He isn't, and he knows he isn't. But he gets a big round of applause with his base every time he says it.

You'll notice you don't hear him saying that as much now that the national spotlight is really focused on him.

LOL, yeah, Hillary doesn't lie, that's why you're voting for her. Sucker

Hey, dumbfuck. First, starting your post with a tu quoque fallacy is a bad start. Then when you double down your retardation with a straw man fallacy, well, you've already shot yourself in the head.

I've said many times on this forum I support Kasich. I've also said if Cruz ends up the nominee, I may vote for him because he has one of the better tax plans even though he is lying out his ass about abolishing the IRS, and I've said if Trump is the nominee, I will leave the top of my ballot blank.

So shove a stick up your ass and call yourself a popsicle for me, mm-kay?

Thanks for being a standard bearer of everything that is wrong with Libertarians.

That makes no sense. The point wasn't about Hillary, moron, it was about your double standard. You won't vote for Cruz, he lies. So you're voting for Hillary, who lies too. It was about you. To be a tu quoque fallacy my point would have had to have been about Hillary. God you're stupid

I say again, dumbfuck. I am not voting for Hillary. Under any circumstances.

Wow. You are really stuck on your straw man, eh? Your entire argument collapses under its false premises.

You are making Libertarians look more and more retarded every day.

While you make liberals look like rocket scientists. Your posts are far, far more in line with Hillary than any other candidate. Why deny you're voting for her?

 

[FA_Q2]

Wow, for a rant against libertarians you sure have no concept whatsoever of what libertarians stand for or base their political views on. Either that or you are openly lying about them but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

I am not surprised that you rejected a philosophy that you have not bothered to learn a single thing about.

I dont have time to pretend that I can plausibly live my life without entanglements with other human beings to which I have obligations and who have obligations toward me.

Take this common meme today of "No one Owes yo anything!" Well, yes, actually, they do. The government owes me Social Security, tax refunds and eligibility to Medicare when/if I ever decide to use it....I think. I have not checked into Medicare that much. My bank owes me the money I store there. etc

We all owe each other obligations; that is what the binds are that build our society together. Libertarians pretend that those bonds do not exist.

Nor do libertarians. I have no idea where you get this asinine idea that libertarians do not believe in social interactions, obligations and/or social groups. The philosophy is actually built around that to some degree. Some of the more extreme elements certainly advocate for a more 'isolationist' view to military involvement but even the vast majority of those are not isolationists in any real sense of the word as there is no barring international trade or the free association of the US and those outside the US.


The rest of your post was nothing more than continuing the lie that libertarians do not see or accept community. That is absolutely baseless.

 

[2aguy]

Thanks for that OP, JB.

Yes, the Whitaker Chambers piece on Atlas Shrugged is one of the best takedowns of Libertarianism ever written.

I read Atlas Shrugged many years ago, and found it could have been written in 50 pages or less. The reason it is such a massive tome is to pound its propaganda into the heads of the malleable through unrelenting repetition. It is literary brainwashing of the dullest kind.

I think Ayn Rand's true nature is revealed in the train tunnel scene where she justifies the death of every living soul on board, right down to the tiniest child. She was one sick bitch. I completely understand her venomous reaction to her native Soviet Union, but she let her emotions run away from her while pretending "objectivism".

Nevertheless, I have a bit of a libertarian (small "l") streak myself. It can't be helped if you are a natural born conservative who was a member of the Young Americans for Freedom who met Ronald Reagan in 1977 like myself. Reagan had his own libertarian streak. After all, he was a great friend of Bill Buckley (who I also met that same year).

But I have found hardcore Libertarians to have no sense of human nature whatsoever. Their naivete knows no bounds.

There are Libertarians who are practically indistinguishable from Green party members. These must be the ones you encountered. But there are also Libertarians who are practically indistinguishable from White Nationalists (Nazis).

Most, though, are the kind who want to End the Fed™, legalize all drugs, end all federal regulation of business, and isolationists who want to shrink our military down to the size of a cub scout troop.

I've always admired the steadfastness of principle Ron Paul demonstrated. Right or wrong (and he was frequently right), he did not bend.

Of course you lie......you put white nationalist next to nazi in order to fool the uninformed....nazi means national socialist...yes...they were left wing, not right wing and they were socialists, not capitalists....

But keep lying........I know you can't help yourself.

Nazis are right wing, dipshit. No matter how much of Glenn Beck's piss you drink, it does not change that fact.

And White Nationalists are just a morphing of the KKK and Nazis into one brand by Don Black.

Fucking retards. "Duuuuhhhhhhhh...Nazis are left wing 'because socialism!'" BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

You are so retarded you don't even know to be embarrassed for thinking Nazis are left wing.

Heil Diversity!

National socialists are true socialists.......twit.......you left wing regressive so want to hide that fact but the internet makes that impossible now.....in the past you could lie...and blame the socialists on the right...and there would be no way to show the truth....now......no matter how often you lie, the truth that nazis are left wing socialists gets out......Hayek, Von Mises....two economists in Germany at the time the socialists under hitter came to power documented their true socialism......you can't lie anymore...it won't work...

 

[2aguy]

Thanks for that OP, JB.

Yes, the Whitaker Chambers piece on Atlas Shrugged is one of the best takedowns of Libertarianism ever written.

I read Atlas Shrugged many years ago, and found it could have been written in 50 pages or less. The reason it is such a massive tome is to pound its propaganda into the heads of the malleable through unrelenting repetition. It is literary brainwashing of the dullest kind.

I think Ayn Rand's true nature is revealed in the train tunnel scene where she justifies the death of every living soul on board, right down to the tiniest child. She was one sick bitch. I completely understand her venomous reaction to her native Soviet Union, but she let her emotions run away from her while pretending "objectivism".

Nevertheless, I have a bit of a libertarian (small "l") streak myself. It can't be helped if you are a natural born conservative who was a member of the Young Americans for Freedom who met Ronald Reagan in 1977 like myself. Reagan had his own libertarian streak. After all, he was a great friend of Bill Buckley (who I also met that same year).

But I have found hardcore Libertarians to have no sense of human nature whatsoever. Their naivete knows no bounds.

There are Libertarians who are practically indistinguishable from Green party members. These must be the ones you encountered. But there are also Libertarians who are practically indistinguishable from White Nationalists (Nazis).

Most, though, are the kind who want to End the Fed™, legalize all drugs, end all federal regulation of business, and isolationists who want to shrink our military down to the size of a cub scout troop.

I've always admired the steadfastness of principle Ron Paul demonstrated. Right or wrong (and he was frequently right), he did not bend.

Of course you lie......you put white nationalist next to nazi in order to fool the uninformed....nazi means national socialist...yes...they were left wing, not right wing and they were socialists, not capitalists....

But keep lying........I know you can't help yourself.

Yes, I dont understand the 'white nationalists' = Nazi theme.

I white nationalist is simply the group of all white people that want to represent themselves as white people in our Identity Politics political system.

Dont they have the right to do that without being deemed Nazis? Sure, some of them ARE Nazis, but that does not prove that they all are.

Jared Taylor for example isnot a Nazi, and Joseph Sobran and Craig Paul Roberts are popular columnists among them, so I dont see where the Nazi come is.

It's easy to figure out...he has to hide the fact the nazis were actual socialists, and at the same time smear his enemies as racists..to hide the actual racism of the left...and the democrats....

 

[FA_Q2]

The only difference between Marxist socialism and democratic socialism is the path, not the end result.

That is simply and demonstrably false. The democratic socialism that we had and still have to some extent has been enormously successul and we have had no 'Killing Fields' or Death Camps' or Gulags.

You are either a liar or you dont know what the hell you are talking about.

That may be true is we were a 'democratic socialist' nation but we are not - at least not yet - and we are nowhere near becoming one at this juncture. We are a republic, represented by democratically elected representatives with rights protected by a constitution with a capitalist economy and some socialist safety nets.

The existence of a few socialist programs does not change the fact that the economy here is predominantly capitalist as any 'pure' system is no more than wild fantasy. ALL functional systems fall somewhere on the spectrum rather than adhering to any pure form.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"culturally Marxist with Libertarian politics" means nothing because there is no such philosophy.

Jim, you are dishonest in the you hide your Christian domionism, your desire for a theo-democracy.

You are no better than those you criticize.

 

[dblack]

Just wanted to share my personal experiences here. These personal experiences do not empirically prove anything, but some readers might find some resonance with their own experiences with ideological libertarianism and might share theirs as well.

I read Atlas Shrugged way back in high school, 9th grade. I was truly enamored with the story and the characters and I was outraged that such things could happen to a person at the hands of indifferent bureaucrats. I knew that the story was fiction, but that it was deemed believable by enough people that the novel sold well was itself damning.

My union officer grandfather, who had passed away in 68, had been my political mentor for years. And I tried to grasp the books events and themes with his voice and guidance in mind. He would have pointed out the great harms that the government had prevented would have far outweighed the harm it caused less frequently in regulating industry and that corruption was inevitable in any system. He would have told me that the Founding Fathers had a libertarian streak to their philosophy and statecraft, but that the demands of the urban modern age made much of that obsolete. But still it couldnt salve the outrage I felt, an outrage I had not felt since I read 'Uncle Toms Cabin'.

I spoke with the librarian at my high school about what I could read that would be a rhetorical response to Rands libertarian philosophy, and she mentioned a number of articles and books, which I read. Most of them were using arguments I was already familiar with. But I read one from National Review, by Whitacker Chambers who said that Rands philosophy was Godless, amoral and silly. He tempered my slow slide into Libertarianism and allowed me to pull myself out of its moral quick sand years later.

Most of my friends were libertarians of one variety or another. The Great Deracination of White Southerners was ongoing at the time and most of them felt a need to latch on to something that could replace the values of their Southern upbringing, and Rand made a very compelling and glib alternative to anything that hinted of conservatism and its familiarity with the racism of Jim Crow. We discussed Rand quite a bit though I can only remember bits and pieces of it all now.

But one thing I do remember was the insistence of my friends that one can have a moral philosophy even if an atheist, even if one had no religious institutions to guide ones moral formation. I would counter that while it is possible that children abandoned to grow up in the wild could survive and end up as civilized as the next man, but feral children have never done so without the help of their fellow man. We are a social creature, not a mere collection of independent Philosopher Kings.

Well that went on for decades with different people I would meet. From discussions with the Libertarian Party booth 'venders' at country fairs to young programmers fresh out of college spitting out the same old slogans as if no one had ever heard them before, I really enjoyed these conversations. "Everything should be allowed unless it is violent or fraudulent" was the most frequently heard Libertarian bumper sticker slogan I heard during all that time. But close to that was "The common good is no excuse for stealing a persons property to give it to those who did not earn it and do not deserve it." was another. Those are not direct quotes but a composite of the many times I have heard this from enthusiastic freshly scrubbed Libertarian acolytes.

I considered myself to be a Constitutional Christian Libertarian, by and large from the time I left the Army till this year. It was all about hypothetical utopian dreaming while Libertarians had no chance of ever getting any real political power which made it fun, but it still rubbed off on my thinking. Libertarianism was too 'pure' for actually winning an election for many reasons, from the legalization of drugs and prostitution to the deregulation of commerce. But that was OK, it only made it more fun as we would build these fantasy castles out of Dreamers Sand.


That all changed with Ron Paul's run for the Presidency in 2012. For the first time, Dr Paul was having real impact on the Republican Party, though not at the voting booth. Dr Paul was slipping in his people as delegates in states across the country, with the intention of having them vote for him on subsequent rounds if the convention turned into an open convention.

"But wait, isnt that fraud to pose as a Romney supporter while your full intent is to vote for Paul instead?" I would ask them.

"Well, yes, but it is what we have to do to change things for the better." They would respond in utterly unRandian terms.

"Isnt that what every ideological despotism justified itself with?" I would counter to silence or a change in subject.

And so I began to see that Libertarianism is as morphable as any other ideological system and Libertarians along with it all. Its principles are only as good as the next election and the needs of its promoters to win.

Then this election was the double knock out Death Punch Spinning Roundhouse Kick of Doom. Libertarians have actually welded themselves to the Preachers Kid Ted Cruz. Growing up, 'PK' was a dismissive way of referring to a preachers child that was unruly, contemptuous and a bit of a hooligan. And Ted Cruz is a PK, in spades, as he has all the ear marks to include smooth rhetorical delivery while espousing things that are just blatant lies or irrational nonsense.

Cruz can calmly sit in front of a camera interview and say that Trump has little chance of getting the nomination since 60% of the GOP has been voting against Trump and Trump still has to win 65% of the remaining delegates...even though the same logic, if applied to Cruz means that Cruz has even less chance of winning. But no, somehow the previous logic does not apply to Cruz and he has the inside track to win. The Baghdad Bob school of political rhetoric is now the reigning spin method used by all 'Die Standing Never Trump' zealots.

But the current fraud that Cruz's libertarian supporters is using to pose as Trump supporters to get on a slate of delegates while fully intending to vote for Cruz on the first open ballot is just irredeemable fully knowing that we are likely to have a brokered convention. Fraud is one of only two prohibitions for people in Libertarian philosophy, and this is fraud that not only do these people admit to, but they gleefully wallow in. They are proud that they are defrauding Trump supporters, because these people DESERVE it for not being as smart as the Cruz people and thus fraud has become a competitive tool, somehow OK if it is to beat the bad guys.

But this is not the only nonsense that I have encountered in this election from Libertarians. Most of the younger ones have completely absorbed all the Establishment anti-white racism that colleges today spew out. I have heard these morons repeat the biggest bunch of nonsense, everything from 'White privilege' to 'immigration restrictions are racism' to 'everything white people have was stolen from someone else'. And no, they wont discuss it, unlike everything else. A libertarian friend I have known for 12 years now, just told me a few weeks ago that there is no basis for wanting secure borders other than racism. Nothing more than purely racism. He tells me this even though he and I both know he has been posing as a conservative for the whole time I have known him. These 'Conservative Libertarians' are closet amoral Ends Justifies The Means slime, just like the Nazis, the Stalinists, the Maoists and every other totalitarian group that I and other Libertarians have condemned with complete moral superiority for decades. Today's Libertarians are not Conservative Libertarians, they are Marxist Libertarians; culturally Marxist with Libertarian politics.

Again, Principle does not outweigh need, and the need to avoid correcting racist ideological nonsense among today's youth is a trade off that Libertarians are making.

It is all for the common good, you see?

It sounds like all your experiences were with Republicans.

 

[FA_Q2]

I read Atlas Shrugged many years ago, and found it could have been written in 50 pages or less. The reason it is such a massive tome is to pound its propaganda into the heads of the malleable through unrelenting repetition. It is literary brainwashing of the dullest kind.

I don't know, I enjoyed the read. I like long books though. One of my favorite series of books was The Wheel of Time that ran 14 books at around 400 pages each. Good series. Atlas Shrugged was over the top in how far it tried to apply the concepts that she was pushing.

The only real problem I had with the book is how she tried to apply her philosophical views to personal relationships. The relationships between Taggart, Rearden and Galt were just asinine in their robotic nature.

I think Ayn Rand's true nature is revealed in the train tunnel scene where she justifies the death of every living soul on board, right down to the tiniest child. She was one sick bitch. I completely understand her venomous reaction to her native Soviet Union, but she let her emotions run away from her while pretending "objectivism".

I do not seem to remember that scene in the way that you describe it. There was no 'justification' that I remember. Just the result of abject incontinence, extreme dependence and inefficient bureaucracy. I will admit that it has been a very long time since I read the book though.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is a common feature of Libertarians that they can no longer distinguish between various Marxist Socialisms and democratic Socialism. Most Christians recognize the socialist nature of the early church, and in fact it was based on the First Century Church that the earliest forms of socialist communal societies were patterned after.

Of course, most atheistic Libertarians dont grasp that either.

The case that I see is a lot of socialists demanding that the horrors that have befallen some previous socialistic societies are irrelevant because they espouse a different socialism. I really do not care what name you slap on it or that you try and define a different 'ideal.' All those dreamy socialistic ideas are rather inane anyway as they are not anymore real than pure capitalism.

Libertarianism is a lie, a fraud to cover the dissolution of the United States of America by attacking those social bonds that bind us together as a nation.

More bullshit.

Libertarianism does not purport to do anything of the kind. Are you really that afraid of people being generally free?

And you dont define what is libertarian and what isnt, so I really dont care if you think I was a libertarian.

Nor do you as you have utterly failed to apply anything to libertarians correctly.