I’m sick of the “he didn’t really write it” excuse. The newsletter bore his fucking name. He has editorial responsibility. For years he published racist drivel and nobody ever pointed it out to him? He never thought to think “Gee, maybe I better publish a denial of the stuff that I don’t endorse and have someone review articles for objectionable material.” No, he never did that so one has to assume that to some degree, these incendiary sentiments reflected his own views.
Does he refute libertarianism? No, but he doesn’t need to. Libertarianism is an intellectually and morally bankrupt philosophy and is self-refuting. You don’t necessarily have to be a moron and an asshole to be a libertarian, but it sure as hell helps.
Sure. If you want to regard this as separate from the content of the newsletters, which were more explicit in regards to their racism.
So, in summary, the things that just had his name on them - explicitly racist. The thing with his signature - questionably racist. I can see why you’d be dubious about acknowledging racist beliefs on his part.
While I find the arguments in favor of individual liberty to be very compelling, I think that both Libertarianism and Objectivism* misunderstand the nature of human beings-- we don’t value liberty above all other things at all times. Rand treated “man” as if he had sprung forth from the brow of Jupiter, fully formed and with no evolutionary history.
The fact is, we are social animals. Always have been. Denying that aspect of our nature is simply unscientific. And as a scientist, I look first to science for answers about the real world. Rand would claim to be doing the same thing, but it’s like she had never known about the science of evolution. Still, I think her idea of selfishness is largely correct, although one needn’t see evil in every act of altruism in the world.
I do think humans, living in a modern society, place a very high value on personal liberty, and so I hold Libertarianism up as a starting point. A sort of default position from which our government should stray only when there is a compelling interest to do so. I’d always prefer the more Libertarian approach to problem solving unless it is shown to be completely unworkable. For instance, I prefer mandatory 401k accounts to a system like our Social Security, even if we need to keep a Social Security type system for those who are truly needy. That is, don’t nationalize the whole system because some small percent can’t handle their own affairs.
*And as much as Rand would claim the two are very different, any real differences they have is minor
I think it impeaches his integrity either way. “I didn’t write it/know about it/have anything to do with it/just cashed the checks, readers weren’t getting Ron Paul product” = dishonesty.
“I wrote it and now I’m denying it” = obvious problems…
John, thanks for your answer. It seems reasonable middle ground.
How about just believing that people should be allowed to say stupid, offensive things, even if they are stupid and offensive? That would be perfectly in line with his politics, wouldn’t it?
If Ron Paul isn’t living upto to Libertarian standards, it weakens his personal advocacy for it, but not necissarily the case for Libertatarianism its self. Just as Rand Paul’s bigotry on gay marriage demonstrates him to be an evil, surpressive, jackass, no better than Jim Crow bigots. Ron Paul’s son cares not for liberty. Just as ronnie failed miserablh at personal responability in this case.
Supporting blatently oppressive things shows an individual is not actually arguing for liberty, but trying to use the concept to make their personal list of unliked things sound nicer. Also if Ronnie can’t take personal responsability, and monitor things publish in his name with his consent, what does that say for the rest of us?
However every creed has its hypocrites, doesn’t mean the creed is bad, but a sufficant number does demonstrate it unworkable.
Maybe I’m being too tolerant, but I can generally forgive people over a certain age for not understanding the nature of homosexuality. They grew up in age when science told them it was a mental disorder.
Having said that, I would not forgive anyone, regardless of his age, for being a racist. I can’t put my finger on it, but somehow I don’t think those two are the same.
However… Ron Paul isn’t just any old someone. He’s a medical doctor, and he should be able to update his understanding of homosexuality based on the latest science. It’s not like it’s cutting edge or anything, being at least 3 decades old now. His inability to accept homosexuality as “normal” speaks to a willingness to subvert reason to emotion. Not very Libertarian of him, and especially not very Objectivist of him.
The man doesn’t even believe in evolution. So much for respecting and using reason. And he is a “right-to-lifer.” So much for keeping the government out of people’s personal lives.
Using a female’s body against her will is a libertarian position?
If he can justify invasive goverment meddling in one’s own body, why are tax dollars so much more sacred?
I am not a libertarian, and I hate the philosophy of Ayn Rand. However, I think Ron Paul’s example only discredits libertarianism because because he lacks the courage and the honesty to acknowledge opinions that he does hold, and which he expressed when he did not think he would become a national politician.
Ayn Rand was opposed to the civil rights movement and the civil rights legislation. Libertarianism sees the concept of “freedom” through the eyes of business owners, employers, and investors. It is indifferent to anyone else. The civil rights legislation required restaurant, motel, and hotel owners to serve blacks, even when they did not want to. This was a violation of private property rights, so a libertarian would oppose it.
I doubt that many national Republican politicians genuinely disbelieve in evolution. Those who pretend that they do are pandering to the Republican base.
Exactly. There are very good reasons not to mention it since libertarianism claims to be based on Ayn Rand’s writings and her philosophy of Objectivism. I recall watching the Libertarian Party candidate back in -must have been '92 or '96- giving a speech shown on CSPAN going on about Rand’s use of Aristotle’s A is A identity axiom as one of the fundamental parts of Objectivism and couldn’t help but chuckle knowing what she thought of them, some more of her comments on them:
Ayn would be rolling over in her grave if she knew how successful Libertarians have been at co-opting her, such that the philosophies are often conflated, witness the OP:
You shouldn’t be looking for it exemplifying any qualities Rand prized or seeing it come out of Howard Roarke’s mouth; Rand categorically rejected Libertarianism as a bastardization of her philosophy mixed with ideals the very antithesis of what she stood for.
Not exactly true. She would have objected to any laws that discriminated against racial groups. But yes, AR and most Libertarians object to coercing individuals into serving customers that they don’t want to serve, for whatever reason.
I’m certain you’re wrong about that. Refusal to accept evolution as fact is very common in the US.