) place if individuals respected each others' liberty more.It would make those who write such pamphlets psychopathic, yes. If you put the logical consistency of your ideology over the suffering and even death of a fellow human being, you need psychological help.Seneca wrote: The Sierra Club and Earth First! published pamphlets and "Battle Books" that detailed how to sabotage trees and off road use trails in a way that intentionally harmed and killed people who did not agree with their version of environmentalism. And real world people were injured by their actions.
Does that mean environmentalism is "psychopathic", or that broadly defending environmentalism is defending people who wish to injure/kill loggers, lumber mill workers and dirt bike riders?
I like to think of this not in terms of liberty but in terms of compassion. It's a different framework. But I agree with the intention behind that statement.I think the world would be a far less psychopathic (feels like I'm typing this a lot
Not sure what to say to this... I can think of numerous examples where it is logical, and moral, to kill.Felix wrote:If you put the logical consistency of your ideology over the suffering and even death of a fellow human being, you need psychological help.
Rand was NOT libertarian, her philosophy is "objectivist". In fact Rand was, and the ARI is, vehement in their not being libertarian. So of course nobody is suggesting she is the spokesperson for libertarians, except those who might dislike her and libertarians.Felix wrote:
It would make those who write such pamphlets psychopathic, yes. If you put the logical consistency of your ideology over the suffering and even death of a fellow human being, you need psychological help.
Psychopathic fanatics exist on both sides of the ideological spectum. Those on one side don't justify those on the other side.
I obviously don't support libertarian politics. That's a separate thing that we've been over more than I would have liked.
...
If you want to have a spokesperson for libertarian politics, I would suggest sticking to Robert Nozick. I am not aware of such nonsense from him.
... like JohnnyH?Those who conflate the two again yields insights in to the beliefs of the person making the mistake.
You can quarrel with him about such semantics.2. Got it... Libertarian philosophers and economists are psychopaths for being wary of governments that have demonstratively killed/maimed countless millions in the name of some alleged well intentioned morality.
We didn't have 2008 because someone was moving the interest rate up or down. People took loans they shouldn't have and people gave out loans they shouldn't have. Neither of those have to be because of the interest rate and the people in the first reason probably were clueless on what the interest rate was anyway.Seneca wrote: It is also amusing the Rand-Greenspan linkage the "haters" love to bring up, particularly as the debacle Greenspan brought upon us was based on interventionist money/interest rate policy...this bunch of bullshit merely serves to keep people reading and talking about Shrugged despite being mediocre.
I guess it's just a thread about Atlas Shrugged...I was thinking the same thing as my mouse hovered over the submit button. Then I just said, "Screw it."Seneca wrote:To derail or not to derail?
You can give up the liberal/libertarian debate now--you're all being reclassified as anachists.Chad wrote:I was thinking the same thing as my mouse hovered over the submit button. Then I just said, "Screw it."Seneca wrote:To derail or not to derail?
Just something I forgot to say. Things got sidetracked very fast as usual.