The issue being the racism and other alleged troublesome content of the various newsletters published under his name, and his response to confrontation. A pretty good summary of the issue here:
I’m trying to imagine Howard Roarke saying “I didn’t write them, I didn’t read them”.
If Ron Paul cannot exemplify the qualities Rand prized (and I would argue he’s missing by a mile) does that call any of the basic tenets of the philosophy of libertarianism into doubt? Should it?
Yes. This completely and utterly refutes not only Libertarianism, but everything Ayn Rand ever wrote wrt Objectivism. Good catch!
small-l libertarianism isn’t based on Ayn Rands objectivism. Big-L Libertarianism isn’t based on anything. Aside from demonstrating hypocrisy and dishonesty on his part, I don’t see how this reflects on the broader political philosophy and ideology.
I’m a left of center Democrat so maybe I’m not qualified to speak on this, but I would say that it’s more or less the opposite. Rather than calling the tenets of Libertarianism into doubt, it calls Ron Pauls adherence to those tenets into doubt.
Maybe you guys could humor me a little more and flesh it out? Perhaps, first, I should used the label “objectivism”, and secondly, it’s been a while since I read the books, so I don’t claim a breadth of knowledge here.
I was under the impression that one of the underpinnings was a fairly strong belief in the importance of individual integrity, and in some ways it seemed to be a necessary condition for the philosophical structure to stand. Roark seemed the natural embodiment of that ideal.
I’m really not trying to do a simple ‘gotcha’ here, but there does seem to be an incongruence between Paul’s choices and libertarian’s reliance upon 'individuals should be responsible for their choices". What am I missing or oversimplifying?
davidm - well, if enough of those who proclaim/carry the standard demonstrate frequently enough their inability to live by its precepts, whether it’s my OP or “Family Values” pols having affairs, at some point does that demonstrate that their theories of human values/behavior demonstrate a high value for what my kids would call “fail”?
(Going shopping for bit, check in later. Thanks for your responses)
All ideas stand on their own, not on the behaviors of any would-be adherents. How could you think otherwise? If someone fails to uphold his beliefs, that’s an indictment of the person, not the beliefs.
I think John Mace has the definitive answer.
Missed the edit window…
First off, it has to be established that RP actually wrote or approved of the content in question. That has not been done. Even your own article says it’s most likely that content was written by someone else.
Secondly, I can’t see that a person not living up to the standards of a fictional, idealized character has any bearing whatsoever on the issue.
Thirdly, I don’t even know that HR, the fictional character, would have said anything much differently, if it’s true.
Fourthly, I think we need to see more of a record of racism (than what we have here) in someone to say that person is a racist. Has Ron Paul said or done anything over the years that would justify that accusation against him?
That might be considered pandering, depending on who the audience was, but he has a principalled stance against drug laws, and I don’t see a problem emphasizing the disproportionate impact those laws have on minorities.
It’s like asking if Fred Phelps refutes Christianity.
Nope: it only exposes Phelps (and, per the OP, Ron Paul) as deviators from the theology/philosophy they publicly claim to support.
Show me any significant body of thought that hasn’t attracted one or two (or more!) heretics.
FYI, Rand despised libertarians
Libertarians tend not to mention this.
OTH, if Michele Bachman’s husband falls out of the closet, and all of his therapeutic claims of ‘straightening out’ gay clients are found to be frauds, and 100 conservative congresscritters are outed every year, doesn’t that begin at some point to become an indictment of their ideas about homosexuality being a choice? (Just the clearest example I could think of at the moment).
Here’s a Reuters article that includes a link to a PDF of a direct mailing with Paul’s signature, and a reference to “my training as a physician”, which talks about a coming race war, along with a lot of other crazy, crazy nonsense.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/23/us-usa-campaign-paul-plots-idUSTRE7BM03320111223
At some point, you have to be responsible for material that bears your name, has your signature, and references yourself and your medical training in the first person. Don’t you?
A few outliers clearly don’t constitute negation of an idea, but isn’t there a tipping point? Doesn’t Fred Phelps’ example lead us to conclusions, not about the whole of Christian belief, but about the validity of his particular beliefs? If the implementation of ideas in the real world and their outcomes don’t reflect upon the validity of beliefs, what does? What does ‘beliefs stand on their own’ mean? I mean, I’d live in Lennon’s “Imagine” if I could, but it is a fantasy, if a pretty one. Aren’t Cuba, and the USSR, and China, a basis to consider the soundness of Marx’s ideas?
I read the PDF earlier. There’s no detail as to why he thinks there will be race war. For all we know, he thinks that blacks are being suppressed and that will lead to a race war. Not seeing that as inherently racist, especially in light of the video posed by WllFanaby.
To me, this speaks of his nuttiness. It’s sort of a survivalist mentality that sees any non-Libertarian type government as on the slippery slope to Stalinism.
Well, sure. Think of it like “statistical significance.”
Exactly. Pointing to, say, Albania, and without any other data, we wouldn’t have enough to go on. But when the gigantic majority of communist nations are either basket cases or have modified Marxism beyond recognition, then…yeah.
Now, many of us happen to believe that this tipping point has, in fact, been passed with regard to the libertarian philosophy. Lots of old threads on the topic. Many people (me, for instance) believe that Ron Paul’s nuttiness is typical of the libertarian idea, rather than atypical. Sane libertarians seem to be in a minority.
(Just as any decent body of thought will inevitably attract one or two nut-cases, so, alas, many rotten ideas will, in a quirky way, attract a few good people. I once knew a very nice, friendly, genteel, well-spoken Holocaust denier! His reasoning was that the German people are so warm and friendly and hospitable, they simply couldn’t have done anything that mean!)
John Mace, I’d be interested in your expanding upon the ‘all ideas stand on their own’ idea. Specifically, (from anybody who’d like to take a crack at it, of course) what ideas from Objectivism or Libertarianism do you find particularly compelling to you, and upon what basis did you evaluate them? I’m especially interested in a brief synopsis of what these philosophies believe about human nature. That’s really the exploration I was trying to start with my OP.
One of issues I think I have with Libertarianism, as I understand it, is that I have a rather mistrustful view of human nature in some ways, so I am frequently in favor of oversight and regulation, because I know humans can be venal, greedy, and damaging to the common good for their own gain. Libertarians seem to be generally quite opposed to regulation, and seem to think it is unneccessary, either because they believe there is some other mechanism that will suffice rather than regulation, or for other reasons I cannot fathom. I see mostly bad things occuring in the absence of checks and balances.
I tried to utilize HR in my OP because he was, indeed, an idealized representation from Rand. Wasn’t she trying to say something about her beliefs about human nature in HR? Am I mistaken in trying to make her writings somehow relevent to the issue I’m trying to understand?
Why would we? Do liberals tend not to mention what John Ringo thinks of them? And he’s not even dead!
Whereas we are in favour of not granting politicians excessive control over the lives of others, because we also know humans can be venal, greedy and damaging to the common good for their own gain, and extraordinary powers grant extraordinary capacity to do harm. We agree that some oversight and regulation is necessary, but things like the TSA, where a government agent is permitted to use threats to coerce random people into succumbing to sexual assault, are obscene.