But she used “libertarian” as an adjective in a sentence which has an object of “hippies” meaning she doesn’t approve of so-called “libertarian” anarchist hippies.
That’s not an indictment of libertarianism.
Posters on this board tend to conflate libertarianism with anarchy, though, so it’s no wonder there’s the confusion.
I thought that at least here - in the Heaven of Reason & Doubt - we can settle the question of Ron Paul being racist.
#1 He claims he did not write it and I hope we’ll all agree it is very difficulty to prove it one way or the other. Therefore, reasonable person would look into other ways of proving or disproving it. Or, at least, building a case for it. So, as much as I can see I simply cannot provide any other form of behaviour or tendencies that could be even remotely construed as racist. What I’m saying is that a person of that mindset would slip so to speak, at last once, somewhere to someone and that someone would come forward and speak of it with credibility. There’s none.
#2 Guilty by association. I’ll only remind the Dope of Obama’s Rev. Wright “association” in the church he was sitting for what, 20 years or so never to make any form of protest on things Rev. Wright was preaching. And just like Obama, after furious hunt by Fox News, he finally rejected Rev. Wright. why can’t Ron Paul be given same benefit of doubt? BTW - I know there will be plenty of those pointing how Ron Paul case is soooo much more horrible but that’s not the point. The point is, in the absence of proof, look beyond your emotional reaction to a Republican Libertarian (as we all sensed that attacks pon Obama were mostly driven by partisanship).
It seems that you do not understand what this means. It is not, for example, GBA if you publish a newsletter under your own name and endorse its contents.
First, this is epistemological weaksauce. We also can’t prove whether or not we’re all brains floating in jars, but it doesn’t matter. Second, it really doesn’t matter since Paul is on record as endorsing the racism in his newsletters.
I’m shocked he’s an episcopalian… I am no longer a Christian but I grew up in an AME (African Methodist Epsicopalian) family, and it’s such a mild form of Christianity it doesn’t leave much room for crazyness. Basic Jesus saved, be good etc. I have never met a creationist Episcopalian in my entire life. Episcopalians can be either pro-choice or pro-life as far as I know.
BTW I am not even a doctor, former congressman, or presidential nominee, and if I had ANYONE writing something under my name you’re damn sure I’d read it and sign off on EVERY article before I would allow it to be published in my newsletter. Just in the NEWSLETTER, much less UNDER MY BYLINE.
I’d really like a Ron Paul fan to explain to me how, if the man cannot even keep disgusting racist hysteria from being published in HIS own newspaper under HIS name, how he would be a competent delegator as the President of the united states? That is a much larger responsibility than some shitty little newsletter.
But they can’t because he wrote them or signed off on them because he is a bigot like most libertarians.
I’m nto a fan, so I’m not going to try and defend him. But your last statement about libertarians is so out there that I’m going to have to ask for a cite. Got one? If not, I’d say there’s more than a bit of irony in your post.
Really? Asking for a cite for whether or not most libertarians are bigots? Do you honestly think that there is some sort of scientific/objective definition for bigot that such a study could adhere to? Or would you only be happy if a survey asked directly if the participant was a bigot and found that 50% responded with “yes”?
Obviously, when someone makes the claim “most libertarians are bigots” they are not making a factual or objective claim, as there is no objective measure for bigotry. So asking for a cite for this is like asking for a cite when someone says, “Most republicans are batshit insane.”
No, she was describing libertarians as “hippies” which she also didn’t like. See also post 39 for her views on libertarians. She despised them. Additional comments of Ayn’s view of libertarians here, for ex. :
No, I don’t think there is a cite. Just like there would be no cite to prove the statement that most blacks are lazy. Hence my comment about the irony inherent in the statement.
That’s quite revealing. So what kind of statement is not intended to be “factual or objective,” and by what means would you persuade someone of its truth?
Gallup June 20, 2008
Republicans, Democrats Differ on Creationism Republicans much more likely than Democrats to believe humans created as-is 10,000 years ago
by Frank NewportPRINCETON, NJ – There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats.
Some racists probably find Libertarianism attractive since it allow racism in the economic sphere. But there is nothing inherently racist about Libertarianism, and anyone trying to enforce racist legislation is not abiding by Libertarian principles.