7/14/2006

A Birthday Card From Ayn Rand...

...of why she didn't work for Hallmark.


“Gift giving is altruistic, therefore evil. I hope your birthday is a happy one, but I will do nothing to make it so.”

More libertarian "humor."

10 comments:

Cato said...

Apparently you liked the reformthelp website I posted. I do not. They have succeded in destroying "The Party of Principle" principled stand on many of issues, as shown in their new platform. Their old platform was quite longer, went into many more issues and was a bit more anarchistic. More like my cookbook.

jpn said...

Cato:

Realisticly, libertarians are idealistic, windmill tilters of the Don Quoixte variety. Other than to bring a interesting, philosophical point of view to an internet discussion or cocktail party debate, they don't have a chance. Libertarians are the flipside of true Marxian ideology, i.e., for libertarians the goal would be to make everyone the master of his or her own universe; for Marxists the goal would be to eliminate the kings and make everyone equal with the group controlling everything.

In a way

Cato said...

Not quite quixotic JPN, as we do face real dragons. Furthermore we are not anti-Marxists (well, we don't like them naturally, but not the opposite of) since we are not anarchists. We see a need for government but it's scope should be severely limited. We are the modern day decendents of our founding fathers.

Patriots if you will.

jpn said...

You mean you are the "self-proclaimed" descendents of the Founding Fathers. In case you haven't been paying attention to car bumpers and yard signs, pretty everybody says they are "patriots" these days.

Cato said...

Yes, self proclaimed carries of the torch of liberty. But the writings of the Founders, including that amazing document, the Consitution, explain, quite clearly, that we are their legacy. Now, I understand that even them immeditaly after they wrote their document had trouble implementing it. But they aimed high even if they missed. Yes there are pragmatic concerns that stand against the libertarian cause, but I don't think they are as important as what true liberal's principles. Other people like yourself disagree, and would rather sacrifice a little liberty (for example 7.65% of your paycheck) for a little security (social security in this case) but I agree with the First American who said if you would do that, you deserve neither.

jpn said...

A couple of questions:

1. If the Constitution was so perfect, why would there have been a need for additional amendments?

2. Concenring the right to bare arms, if the Founding Fathers were talking about flintlocks why would we have the NRA crying about the Second Amendment concerning automatic weapons with cop killer bullers?

Cato said...

1. The Founding Fathers were wise to see that is an overwhelming majority of the states and an overwhelming majoirty of the people's representatives in Congress saw a need for a Constitutional change, that it could happen.

2. The ratifiers of the Bill of Rights were talking about "arms" to protect themselves from government, not to go out hunting. Yes, what they knew at the time was Kentucky Long Rifles. But the ratifiers of the Bill of Rights did not say "the right of the people to keep and bear Kentucky Long Rifles shall not be infringed." They said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Careful reading indicates that they were talking about arms not Kentucky Long Rifles.

jpn said...

Cato:

Of course we are circling around again and we are starting at 1776 again.

Good luck getting the Constitutional genie back in the bottle envisioned by our Founding Fathers. I'm all for it, but I'm not going to spend my time fighting for that. Good luck getting that 16th Amendment repealed. I can use the money.

Concerning gun control, I own some and belong to the rod and gun club. I shoot them infrequently and don't hunt. I'm not anti-hunting and I'm not don't really give a rip if you own a fully automatic AK47 or a machine gun. I know some that do and I got to shoot them into the hill a few times and it was great fun. I don't know what practical value you they are, but that stuffs all in the eye of the beholder.

Like you comrades at OTBL, you confuse me with some one who's against "tax advocates." I don't think you can find any examples of that on this blog or in things I've written. If you boys can trim down my tax bill, go for it. Paying taxes isn't a big hardon for me like it is you guys.

I'm not an idealist. I consider myself to be a pragmatic realist. Where that falls in the thread of one's philosophical indoctrination, I don't care. You've been hanging out on this blog for nearly a month and I don't think you can seriously point your philosophical finger at us and say in all honesty that this is a "socialist blog."

Cato said...

Speaking of guns, the ATF recently raided a gun manuf.'s home, took all his weapons and did not arrest him. He remains free but cannot sell his wares since well, the government took it all. And charged him with no crime. Did I mentiomn he didn't commit a crime, or was even charged with "a crime"?

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/06/16/news/state/50-dillon-guns.txt
http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2006/06/16/newsdillon/hjjdjdidjjhhjg.txt

IMO, a state can regulate guns (but shouldn't), but the Federal government being involved in anything to do with civilians owning arms as it is illegal for them to say boo about it. Yet there they are... raiding people's houses, taking their means of self defense against the government, and then not even explaining why. Or charging them with a crime.

Cato said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.