352
Libertarian Who Says We Should Rely Less on Government Is Strangely Reliant on Government
(theshovel.com.au)
this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
352 points (97.3% liked)
The Onion
4502 readers
638 users here now
The Onion
A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.
Great Satire Writing:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wrong on both counts.
She was the queen of AnCap style libertarianism and she was on welfare herself.
She hated libertarians. Ancaps are against wars and IP, two things she was heavily into. Ayn Rand's views couldn't work without a government.
You either don't know anything about Ayn Rand's "philosophy", or don't know shit about libertarian ideologies. I have a feeling it's a little of both.
I know enough about both to have a good laugh about them.
I mean, you're not necessarily wrong. If you have your facts off you might be laughing at yourself, tho.
I'm not gonna get super no true scottsmanny, but ideologies do have definitions other than self-id. Rand was a loon that couldn't follow her own axioms. Libertarianism is a pretty big umbrella.
She hated libertarians because they weren't pure enough for her. Also, being against IP isn't something that emerges in libertarian thought until the 90s Internet. They were for stronger IP protection until then.
I mean she wasn't pure enough for them either. She tried to build some bullshit around uber mensch, but couldn't just stop being auth long enough. If you actually care about individual liberties you end up in a different place.
There are a lot of jokes about starting with Rand, but almost nobody ends up an objectivist.
Rumor had it that she very rarely bathed and smelled quite foul as well.
I don't much care about that either way. What matters is that her opinions were foul but somehow remain popular amongst frauds like her namesake Rand Paul and idiots like the people who vote for him and others like him.
Depends on what you mean: her philosophy was very libertarian, but she loathed the libertarian party with a passion. So by "a libertarian" do you mean member of the party or believer in the philosophy?
I have no idea what you mean by "on welfare" - that's a particularly nuanced claim given who we're talking about. She enjoyed protection by US copyright law, certainly, which her own philosophy would argue amounted to welfare but logic like that is an arbitrarily deep rabbit hole.
In her time the libertarian party wasn't an empty husk puppeted by privileged fash friendly ancap. Left libertarians, actual libertarians were the reason she despised the party.
Only after the red scare propaganda of the 1950s and on had basically hollowed out all left leaning groups in the US. Were randian acolytes like Friedman able to usurp the party's corpse laying the groundwork for the false libertarians Americans know today. Just before her death.
While she was technically never a member. She's the totem most fake libertarians identify with. And is basically what a modern western libertarian is today.
No it isn't a nuanced claim. Rand accepted/relied on social security. Making her a hypocrite like all right wing libertarians.
That's roughly as hypocritical as a communist who goes to work.
One lives in society(tm). Receiving some tens of Ks of social security in the last few years of your life when you paid much more in taxes that you believe were wrongly collected... seems to track with the philosophy.
I guess she should've built a Galt's Gulch for herself but it's pretty obvious why that didn't happen: because most of her "philosophy" was speculative science fiction.
You seem to have missed a memo - the current libertarian party hasn't got any left or right libertarians in it nowadays. Instead, it's all the GOPers so insane they can't even get along with the GOP, which is saying something. I can't remember the last time I found any kind of libertarian in a libertarian online group except for the Facebook group Veterans for Libertarianism, and even there it's uncommon.
Those ARE right wing libertarians. Have been at least since David Koch ran as libertarian VP in 80. You aren't wrong that there's little difference between them and the Republican party. The libertarian party hasn't been remotely independent for DECADES. They've been owned the whole time by the same fascists that own the Republican party.
Right wing libertarians are more or less an oxymoron. But the libertarian party is full of em still.
Nonsense. Libertarians can be left or right of center without losing the title, provided they oppose authoritarianism.
I don't believe you. I've interacted with them many times on Reddit and Facebook, and every single one is a pro-authoritarianism GOP shill pushing for fundamentally un-libertarian nonsense like banning abortions. And since they're so far out there, they're also endemically conspiracy nuts.
Libertarianism is a left wing ideology. It wasn't till nearly the end of the century that right wing cosplayers started pretending to be libertarians. After most actual libertarians and leftists had been more or less forced into hiding. And couldn't call you out.
Right wing libertarianism isn't a self consistent ideology. You're against large overarching systems of authority. Apart from your pet system of overarching authority. Ooooooooookay.
The reason fashy Republicans seem to be all that's left in the libertarian party. Is that is what so called right libertarians have always been under it all. So concerned with their own privilege. They couldn't be bothered to actually pursue guaranteeing societal freedom. Because it's a threat to their privilege. Rather treating anyone who wasn't born with the same resources, and able to achieve similar outcomes. As if it was a moral failing on their part. And inevitably, when faced with society trying to provide others more freedom and the means to make use of it. Turn authoritarian/fascist, surprise!
I quit fucking with the party after running for state house because of the weird racists and conservative libertarians. That was like 15 years ago.
The state chair from then asked for my support and I went ahead and went to the state convention before the last presidential election. I was pleasantly surprised. We passed a resolution on bodily autonomy and a very christian old dude gave a speech in favor of keeping abortion legal here. One of the active members was the gal that ran our pro-choice rallies and some of the younger dudes offered to conceal carry and run security for the speakers during the march. Abortion is still legal here. It was the only thing I could even vote for in the primaries lol.
The old racist fucks were at a table alone, and weren't thrilled.
I've always been more progressive on social shit and my ethics fit into leftist ideologies almost completely now, but I'll still chill with them when the convention rolls around next month.
The problem with being such a small community is that it's pretty easy to get fucked over. As reddit closed the nutter conservative/alt-right subs libertarians had to retreat farther back to avoid them. We did have some more hidden away places that got less infiltration.
Sounds very much like a libertarian to me, no matter how much she loathed the label and the party.
Not welfare per se, but Social Security and Medicare, both of which she herself considered welfare and thus theft.
Ah, Lemmy. I attract downvotes while you attract upvotes as we both say the same thing as each other. What a grand place. Simply marvelous.
I'm late to the party, but I'm here to catch some of the downvotes for you.
Cause you're being pedantic and the other person isn't, hence the downvotes.
Me: "Not all apples are green." Someone else: "Some apples are red." You: "Hurrr durr, you're being pedantic."
Touch some grass.
You can choose to ignore the reality of the situation if you want my friend. I wish you the best of luck either way.