OHSNAP. Atlas Shrugged Trailer -

[dalebert]

A lot of folks apparently define a statist as someone who believes in a large, intrusive state.  Isn't that a contrived definition?  A theist isn't someone who believes in a large, intrusive god.

[John Shaw]

Whether Objectivists are "libertarian" enough for your tastes, AS is certainly libertarian in that it promotes anarchism and denounces government. "Galt's Gulch" is about as libertarian a place as it gets!

Apart from the end where what's his face is writing a new constitution and stuff...

I'm just sayin'

And the military and police thing. Rand had a wet-on for military and police assholes. She was against conscription, which is in her favor, of course.

I kinda hate the ancap/minarchist war, but Rand was, by definition, a statist. She believed that government should have a monopoly on inventionary force and used those exact words.

Some dirty statist crap from Philosophy: Who Needs It?

You have chosen to risk your lives for the defense of this country. I will not insult you by saying that you are dedicated to selfless service — it is not a virtue in my morality. In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue. Some of you may not be consciously aware of it. I want to help you to realize it.

The army of a free country has a great responsibility: the right to use force, but not as an instrument of compulsion and brute conquest — as the armies of other countries have done in their histories — only as an instrument of a free nation's self-defense, which means: the defense of a man's individual rights. The principle of using force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use, is the principle of subordinating might to right. The highest integrity and sense of honor are required for such a task. No other army in the world has achieved it. You have.

West Point has given America a long line of heroes, known and unknown. You, this year's graduates, have a glorious tradition to carry on — which I admire profoundly, not because it is a tradition, but because it is glorious.

http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/pwni.html

The heraclitean flux it takes to shit talk taxation and statism and yet support nationalism and military monopolies on violence must have near melted her brain.

[dalebert]

I kinda hate the ancap/minarchist war, but Rand was, by definition, a statist. She believed that government should have a monopoly on inventionary force and used those exact words.

"Hey, why the fuck you callin' me a statist?  Just because I support the state?  I'll have you know I'm WAY less statist than those other statists!"

[John Shaw]

I kinda hate the ancap/minarchist war, but Rand was, by definition, a statist. She believed that government should have a monopoly on inventionary force and used those exact words.

"Hey, why the fuck you callin' me a statist?  Just because I support the state?  I'll have you know I'm WAY less statist than those other statists!"

I loves me some Ayn Rand. She was just wrong about some shit. No one else has done as much brain work on the philosophy of liberty as she did in centuries, imho.

But she sure was a bitch. And kinda a dirty statist. Poor gal.

EDIT - <<<Still 95% Objectivist. Minus the dirty statism. Objectivism still allows one guy to be right while the other one is wrong. That shit is a major missing part of the liberty community - The ability to say shit like "Nah, you're fucking wrong." Too many verbal wussies in the liberty community. Makes me sad. The only thing that bugs me worse than a person who can't tell someone else that they're wrong, is admitting the same about themselves.

Be brave enough to say "Fuck ya, you don't know shit about shit."

Be humble enough to admit it when someone does it to you and proves you wrong.

[Cognitive Dissident]

I kinda hate the ancap/minarchist war, but Rand was, by definition, a statist. She believed that government should have a monopoly on inventionary force and used those exact words.

"Hey, why the fuck you callin' me a statist?  Just because I support the state?  I'll have you know I'm WAY less statist than those other statists!"

I loves me some Ayn Rand. She was just wrong about some shit. No one else has done as much brain work on the philosophy of liberty as she did in centuries, imho.

But she sure was a bitch. And kinda a dirty statist. Poor gal.

<<<Still 95% Objectivist. Minus the dirty statism.

Doesn't that pretty much amount to Rothbardian Libertarian? (minus his weirdness about children)

[John Shaw]

Doesn't that pretty much amount to Rothbardian Libertarian? (minus his weirdness about children)

Nah, he never got into the philosophy thing. (Not for real anyway) Rothbard couldn't get into the metaphysics and epistemology of it all. Most of his arguments are based on practical economic assessments, and what is most efficient, which is great, and he was correct about all of his shit, but he couldn't explain jack shit about the nature of reality and why he knew what he knew.

Rand's work in epistemology and concept formation is the shizznit.

Her failures are even gold, really. Almost all of the stuff that Successors like Molyneux and I guess Roderick Long and a couple other cats have come up with are mostly refinements on her mistakes.

Particularly Molyneux. Rand's ethics were kinda for shit. The Molyneux stuff is basically Objectivism with a better grasp of ethics. He admits to that openly.


Rand's ethical system had a lot of "Bad people hate good people for being good, so if bad people hate you you're doing something right."

Which is circular logic, because I can run down the street pissing on legs like a giant douche and people will hate me too.

Her other big point was "There's no difference between the moral and the practical." which is pretty good but still wide of the mark.

If I recall correctly she was also big on the golden rule, which is as busted as fuck. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." doesn't bode well for the world when there are misanthropes with suicidal self hatred in existence.

Most of Rothbard's ethical arguments are off the shelf natural rights stuff. Nothing bad about it, just... He dabbled in ethics rather than focused on it.

[dalebert]

If I recall correctly she was also big on the golden rule, which is as busted as fuck.

Someone quoted The Golden Rule on a BDSM site.  I wondered if he goes around spanking people and electrocuting their testicles.

[BonerJoe]

TL;DR: Ayn Rand was an arrogant cunt.

[Cognitive Dissident]

If I recall correctly she was also big on the golden rule, which is as busted as fuck.

Someone quoted The Golden Rule on a BDSM site.  I wondered if he goes around spanking people and electrocuting their testicles.

I presume only if they want him to.

<-- also hates the golden rule.  I would restate it as something more like "Do unto others only if, and as you both agree."

[cavalier973]

O'Rouke's take on the movie:

http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/04/06/atlas-shrugged-and-so-did-i/

[LTKoblinsky]

TL;DR: Ayn Rand was an arrogant cunt.

I have to agree with Shaw on this one. Except the part about pissing off bad people. Angering people wasn't a criteria for morality, simply a bonus. According to Rand, a moral act was any in one's self interest that didn't impose upon or coerce others.

And, Dale, I don't mean to sound like Ian on this, but the connotation of 'statist' is a supporter of large, intrusive government. It is often used insultingly on this forum, and I think that its understandable if minarchists and Objectivists do not want to associate with the term.  So, in your words, is a statist anyone who would support or likes or could tolerate the idea of any type of governing body?  If so, I think this term would cover a vast majority of people within the liberty loving community.

[dalebert]

So, in your words, is a statist anyone who would support or likes or could tolerate the idea of any type of governing body?

No, not any kind of governing body.  Only a state, i.e. an authoritarian monopoly on violence.  Support for governing bodies that act within a free market of governing bodies would not be statism.

If so, I think this term would cover a vast majority of people within the liberty loving community.

Yes, I think so if you mean the broad liberty community across the world.  It's not my anecdotal experience that that's the case in NH, but then that's very possibly a sampling error.  It's very possible that I just gravitate toward and mix primarily with people who I tend to agree with.

It's not intended to be an insult.  Unfortunately, I can't really help how they perceive it.  It doesn't mean I think they're bad people or that I can't be friends with them or work with them when we do agree on a more specific goal or that it's not a good thing that some of them prefer a smaller, less intrusive State and are very vocal about that preference.  (Hell, I like unicorns.  I hope someone wouldn't insult me over it.)  It just means I disagree with their philosophy in a fundamental area which I find to be critical.    I don't understand interpreting the word to mean anything other than belief in and support for a State.

[dalebert]

In the interest of full disclosure, I have been inclined to use it as an insult to describe people who truly love the State and want to expand it's power.  Most of the population is statist but I don't go around insulting them for it.  It's usually some bureaucrat, politician, cop, etc. doing something worthy of insult before I would single out that particular characteristic to describe them.

I used to poke a lot of fun at (not exactly "insult", but I admit it's a fine line) the minarchist form of statist but I don't have much passion for it anymore.  Like the Shaw, arguing over that particular subject has grown tiresome and rarely feels productive.  It just seems like a matter of time before they come around on their own anyway.  They're almost there.  Insulting people doesn't seem to be a very effective form of persuasion.

[Turd Ferguson]

In the interest of full disclosure, I have been inclined to use it as an insult to describe people who truly love the State and want to expand it's power.  Most of the population is statist but I don't go around insulting them for it.  It's usually some bureaucrat, politician, cop, etc. doing something worthy of insult before I would single out that particular characteristic to describe them.

I used to poke a lot of fun at (not exactly "insult", but I admit it's a fine line) the minarchist form of statist but I don't have much passion for it anymore.  Like the Shaw, arguing over that particular subject has grown tiresome and rarely feels productive.  It just seems like a matter of time before they come around on their own anyway.  They're almost there.  Insulting people doesn't seem to be very effective persuasive.

Yup



Unless someone is full on "Yeah, I think the government needs to control everything to keep things fair" I usually dont bother trying to convince them of anything. I figure they will eventually "get it" on their own. If they dont eventually get it on their own, there was really no point in wasting my time convincing someone with words, when real life examples, right in front of their face couldn't do it. Those people are as hopeless as the willing statist.


Misguided usually fixes itself. Stupid cant be helped.

[dalebert]

I'm on FTL tonight.  I wish someone would call in on this subject.  So much of communication gets lost in text on a dead screen.