Ann Rand had no use for Libertarians.

"[Libertarians] are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers..."

'Publicity seeker', that's about my opinion of Rand Paul at the moment. And I had hopes for the guy.

 

Ayn Rand Was NOT a Libertarian (actual title of OP)

The Rand cult was concerned not with every man’s individuality, but only with Rand’s individuality, not with everyone’s right reason but only with Rand’s reason. The only individuality that flowered to the extent of blotting out all others, was Ayn Rand’s herself; everyone else was to become a cipher subject to Rand’s mind and will.

***

The guiding spirit of the Randian movement was not individual liberty – as it seemed to many young members – but rather personal power for Ayn Rand and her leading disciples. For power within the movement could be secured by totalitarian isolation and control of the minds and lives of every member; but such tactics could scarcely work outside the movement, where power could only hopefully be achieved by cozying up the President and his inner circles of dominion.

Thus, power not liberty or reason, was the central thrust of the Randian movement. The major lesson of the history of the movement to libertarians is that It Can Happen Here, that libertarians, despite explicit devotion to reason and individuality, are not exempt from the mystical and totalitarian cultism that pervades other ideological as well as religious movements. Hopefully, libertarians, once bitten by the virus, may now prove immune.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/11/ayn-rand-was-not-a-libertarian.html

Thanks for posting this CMG I never thought about the democratic and republican parties as cults before but now that you bring it to my attention they do both seem to share a lot of the same cultish mechanisms of control over their members as the "Randians".

Great find! :thumbs:

 

He's a linguini spine. I liked him too.

BTW, did you ever meet his dad ? I did. I had him sign my manifesto. He is not a very likable guy in person. He's small, tense, and whines when he talks. In America, where politics and pop culture now mesh together, it's hard for a guy like him to get his message out.

 

It doesn't help when both parties and the media run a demonization campaign against you in favor of the establishment (corporate sponsored) politicians.

The fact that they had to run such a campaign is proof that RP's "message" threatened the (corporate sponsored) status quo.

Image is everything and the image of a well dressed well spoken (corporate sponsored, corporate supported) sociopath wearing your team colors is more appealing to the masses than say a constitutional republic and individual liberty.

 

Rand was perhaps the ultimate narcissist, right up there with Obama. That being said, though I have a "very very small" libertarian streak, I have always believed it is not even a giant step from the libertarianism of people like Rand Paul to anarchy!

 

I voted for his dad every chance I got in the primaries.

 

The political spectrum . . .

Total Government < - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - > Anarchy.

X is where we started in 1787/88. X is where we're at now in 2015.

Anarchy is a long long way to the right. We could elect 5 libertarians in a row and we still wouldn't get back to where we started. Your "fears" are unfounded and they're pushing us ever closer to total government.

Thank you very much.

 

And yet y'all still manage to keep electing statists, authoritarians and warmongers.

 

I would not say anarchy is a very long way to the right at all. I would put it on the far, far left, Marxism out of control. You know like the French Revolution and the guillotine!

 

Yes. It is a giant step... a Grand Canyon leap.

None of the current candidates propose to go nearly far enough or fast enough in undoing 100+ years of virtually unopposed advancement of Progressivism.

Progressivism like its ideological cousins socialism, communism, and fascism necessarily result in war, dominance, erosion/confiscation of individual rights/freedoms, oppression, and eventually the destruction of the host.

The "church" has allowed and sometimes cheered as Progressive policies have displaced the church from its rightful role in society and replaced it with gov't bureaucracies built on secular humanist ideals.


The fact that so many people seem to think that Cruz and Paul are "extremists" is truly disturbing. We have almost completely lost the founding ideals.

 

Who's Ann Rand?

Because Ayn Rand is an entirely different situation...her system is entirely unChristian and, oddly, hypocritically authoritarian.

 

Part of the problem is the acceptance of a two dimensional model for political belief.

A 3 dimensional model works much better. At the extremes would be total individual freedom in economic and/or social issues. At the other would be total state control of those things.

Total freedom in both might but would not necessarily result in anarchy. Common religion, culture, paradigms, values, needs, etc often act MORE effectively than gov't in controlling a society. "Just Say No" was an effective anti-drug campaign that statists/progressives laughed at. It worked because people were asked to buy into something that made sense and benefited them personally and their communities.

Anything approaching the other extreme WILL always result in oppression. We are MUCH closer to a collapse into oppressive statism than we are to anarchy.

 

She had a few good ideas. In isolation, some of her views on individual freedom are worthy. She raises some important questions. Overall though she approaches the world from an unChristian and unbiblical perspective.

 

Then progressivism is really reactionary is it not. They long for a monarch they can worship or a dictator who feeds them.

Paul is a fruit cake. Cruz may have some libertarian beliefs as I do but his political philosophy is different than that of Paul. i