Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to vzw emp
Re: more said by vzw emp :said by Mr Matt:  I guess Ayn would want all roads to be privately owned toll roads and all water/sewer systems to be privately owned so that consumers can be bled dry. Um, I freely (and proudly) admit that when it comes to Ayn Rand, I don't know a damn thing. Ayn Rand extolled a belief system called "Objectivism," which hard-core Right Wingers claim to be the basis of Conservativism. And, Libertarians (founded in the early '70s by largely disaffected hard-core Right Wingers) claim as the basis of their political party.
The basic principle of Ayn Rand's belief is the "non-coercion" principle. In all matters there should be consent among individuals. That a group (society) can't validate the use of coercive force just because a majority take a vote to approve it.
Therefore, the OP's premise is that unless 100% of current (and future) residents consent to a government-run infrastructure or service (like police, fire, trash, sewer, water, library, fairgrounds, etc.) then it is "coercion."
Taking their belief system to its logical conclusion, there would be no "social contract." Every individual, on every day would be allowed to opt-out of things like national defense, air quality, animal welfare, food- and drug-quality regulation.
The real kicker is that they equate these macro issues to three thugs taking a "vote" to relieve you of your wallet in a dark alley. I.e., "forcing" people to pay for clean drinking water (when they might settle for dirtier water on a "free market" where they could "choose") has the same moral objection as a thug shoving a .38 into your ribs and taking your wallet.
This is why the Libertarian Party garners the same fractions of support today that it did 25 years ago. And, why we continue to see hard-core Right Wingers use absolutist rhetoric to criticize moderate Republicans, as the hard-core continues to slide into irrelevancy.
It sounds good. Everyone gets goose bumply when a complex world can be reduced to such simplistic terms. But, groups of people aren't simple. The issues that arise from group dynamics aren't simplistic.
And, that's why Rand opposed the creation of the Libertarian Party in the early '70s. She knew that her views were entertainment. Like Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. She didn't want to see her views put in a position where they had to be given practical effect.
She wanted them to remain as a fringe element of Republican party. Beating moderate Republicans with high-sounding, principle-based rhetoric. Where nobody would dream of holding the fringe group to the literal meaning of their own rhetoric.
Mark |
