National won’t be happy until we are back in the 19th Century and people like you and me spontaneously doff our caps in deference to our betters.

Don’t be absurd.

This topic is covered in great detail in the books of Rand scholar Chris Matthew Sciabarra..

Try “Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation.”

Look up…”Objectivism and Homosexuality…again”

This issue is one I’m not really that up with as its trivial to me….Rand may straight out just not have like Homosexuality….thats cool….neither do I…it makes me quesy to think about it…not my thing…but thats my right and Rands to feel that way…just as people may find people who eat their own crap or have sex with animals repulsive and sick so it may be that Rand just hated it personally…it was “icky” to her.But she would not, nor ever did, call for Gays to be banned etc…she thought it was simply an irrational position for a human being who valued life and the living of it at its highest possible level to be at…today I think she would have been far more mellow on the issue.

“I disagree with what they do but defend to the death their right to do it…” would have been her reply to you.

Read more there and ask questions…the author is a very well versed Rand scholar and friend of mine….what I know I got mainly from him..

As to the libertarianz – this press release pretty much sums up their faux liberality. and why I think they are right wing. Their brand of libertarianism does nothing to address the inequlaities and negative social impacts of their liberalisation of the economy. Thusly their democratic prinicilples are suspect. Especially as they stand merely for representative democracy. The attitudes shown in this press release show that they are merely corporatists. As their policies do nothing to address these power structures I think I’m justified in calling them right wing. It’s the old means of production chestnut. The libertarianz have the gall to say there is too much “pro-union” legislation when in reality the state restircts unions – for the benefit of big business of course. This kind of stance from the libertarianz is completely at odds with their own talk of freedom of association. This anti-unionism is strange for a party that ostensibly stands for the free market. It’s really just freedom for the exploiters. It appears to me that they stand for the same old top down control and not the bottum up control that characterises those on the left. I note that many of the individualist anarchists from the beginning of the last century and end of the 19th century werre supporters of the emerging labour movement.

You would be better off going here and asking Peter Cresswell himself,hes libz main man when it comes to the nuts and bolts, and read his achieves where he has written much on these issues…the Libz can answer for themselves..

http://pc.blogspot.com/

As to the right wing thing read this..

http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/craccum/rightplusleft.php

You seem to be asking honest questions and thats cool….but I can see you have missed a lot of context re Libz position on issues…they are consistent and based on principle….but have them on by all means.

”

Anita….what do you mean by “altruism”? As you have not read any Rand and got the context of what she was actually saying your question is understandable.

Rand defined altruism as the philosopy that man is a sacrifcial animal….only existing by the permission of others to to the bidding of others BECAUSE they were other than yourself….ie:”unelfishness”.Indeed the coiner of the term altruism,Auguste Comte, meant it to mean just that…that the moral was to be founfd in sacrifice to others …Rand rejected that out of hand.She recognised it as in fact anti -life and therefore immoral.Rand defended mans right to live for himself…with his own life and happiness as his standard of value…neither sacficing himself to others nor others to himself (rational selfishness) She said all people were actually traders…trading values to gain by the transaction wheather it be social,economic,romantic,charitible etc..and that all trade to be moral must be consentual…ie:free market.

She reasoned that altruism as preached by both the religious and the collectist was the relationship of slaves and masters…..and the core theme running through all dictatorships and of human suffering at the hands of their fellow men.She pointed out the logical next step after accepting altruism is accepting the use of force to implement it against those who may be reluctant to throw themselves upon the sacficical altar for the “common good” etc…this is why she was a fervent supporter of Capitalism….the only moral system for man if hes to live as man.

Send me a mailing address vai email and I will send you a copy of the book “The Liberal Tide: From Tryanny to Liberty…..a prime on classic liberalism/Libertarianism I helped create a few years back.( If you want a copy as well Raven let me know here…I’tll say all this back and forth..)

As a starter I recommend Rands short novel “Anthem”….a story set in the far future where altruism has won and individuality is no more…the word “I” being long forgotten.This is the best intro for reading Rand after which Atlas Shrugged is the pinicle…if you really want to know what Rand was about and saying read this book…it will change your view of the world and man….I mean it.

To answer your altruism question more fully read “The virtue of selfishness” where Rand fully explains the difference between “altruism” and benevolance”…which she was in favour of.Rand never said she didn’t want to help others in need….it was just not with a gun pointed at her head and this being regarded as “moral and just”.

As to the libertarianz – this press release pretty much sums up their faux liberality. and why I think they are right wing. Their brand of libertarianism does nothing to address the inequlaities and negative social impacts of their liberalisation of the economy. Thusly their democratic prinicilples are suspect. Especially as they stand merely for representative democracy. The attitudes shown in this press release show that they are merely corporatists. As their policies do nothing to address these power structures I think I’m justified in calling them right wing. It’s the old means of production chestnut. The libertarianz have the gall to say there is too much “pro-union” legislation when in reality the state restircts unions – for the benefit of big business of course. This kind of stance from the libertarianz is completely at odds with their own talk of freedom of association. This anti-unionism is strange for a party that ostensibly stands for the free market. It’s really just freedom for the exploiters. It appears to me that they stand for the same old top down control and not the bottum up control that characterises those on the left. I note that many of the individualist anarchists from the beginning of the last century and end of the 19th century werre supporters of the emerging labour movement.

Now it’s your turn to say why you think they aren’t right wing.

I don’t know what kind of justification for Rand’s intolerance is that she thought it unnatural. It shouldn’t matter if it’s the free choice of consenting adults. Neither is the defence of her being a product of her time a reasonable defence. She was also very active in the sixties. There were many homosexual rights groups in the fifties and earlier. That fact that it wasn’t accepted means nothing – other libertarian ideals were not well accepted at the time or today either.

Gosh, and here was I thinking that the deprivation of liberty was decreed by a judge and ceased on the order of the Parole Board, both arms of state.

Who pens the people so sentenced can be a core function of anyone, provided the state sets standards for their care and employs agents to ensure those standards are met. Inspectorates of Prisons still inspect the private prisons and hold them to the same standards as state ones. As I’ve noted, the private prison in WA exceeds the state run ones in every respect.

I’m not suggesting we privatise the process of depriving people of their liberty, though if we ever do I’d like to pre-emptively register an interest in running “Justice-R-Us”, a handy mobile service in which I dispense summary justice from the back of a ute :-D

As to Rands attacking Homosexuality…she disliked HS because it was “irrational” ….ie:it was agaist mans nature as man.Subsequent debate has arrived at the conclusion that if Rand was aware that Homosexuality arises naturally,like albinoism or left handedness then she would have been ok with it…

Do you think that means that if Rand had also been aware that altruism is natural she would have been ok with it?

BTW I’ve never read any Rand, and I don’t have time to read a whole book of anything in the next two months. Can you recommend something brief I could read to bring myself up to speed from a Lib perspective (as opposed to an anti-Rand perspective, which I have seen some of).

That you haven’t read much Rand is obvious….you would know the statements you are making are wrong and don’t represent her views at all…quite the reverse.

And support for business to be allowed to BE business and prosper in the face of altruist hatred and socialist control is NOT advocating that business is a super elite that should be above the rest of us…

I’m glad you know more than you let on in you’re rambling earlier comments – that libertarianism understood historically is anit-captialist. Sorry for being presumtuous. I’m not confusing the term. You were confusing the term by saying libertarians are not anarchists when they may well be. You were using libertarianism in the sense which you rightly observe is a modern reversal. I can’t see how you think that the Libertarianz aren’t right wing? I really don’t. Please explain.

”

Please explain how they are…its you making the positive assertion so its you who need to front with the evidence.

As to Rands attacking Homosexuality…she disliked HS because it was “irrational” ….ie:it was agaist mans nature as man.Subsequent debate has arrived at the conclusion that if Rand was aware that Homosexuality arises naturally,like albinoism or left handedness then she would have been ok with it….remember this idea was not anywhere as accepted in the 50’s as it is today….

If there are objectivists advocating State support for big business then they aren’t objectivists at all and should be pulled up on what they are saying…but the statements of a few don’t represent the many…

If you want to know where I am coming from and to read a rael Libertarins thoughts try this piece and then check out the rest of his blog….you will learn something I assure you..

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/search/label/Marx

I have now read the WHO report – v interesting, thank you. I had not seen it although I work in the health field. But having done so, I’m not too sure that it supports your contention. The assesment categories are weighted towards fairness – nothing wrong with that but it is not what this debate is about – and do not measure quality. For example, if everyone has the same level of access to poor quality then that country will score higher. There are a number of other flaws. If the new President of the USA is able to raise the level of health care for poor Americans – and I supect that he will, with some form of Federally-funded insurance – then the US will score much, much higher, while still using the private model. The WHO report reflects the political philosophy of its then Director, which is why Norway scored 11th place, I imagine. If you asked a Canadian on a waiting list you’d get a different response.

Libertarianism (classical Liberalism)is the political school of thought that man has the rights to Life,liberty,property and to pursue his own happiness without being coerced or stolen from with the only limit being that he respects these rights in every other person by viture of the fact that they are as human as he is and therefore having the exact same rights…no more or less.That position is not reconcible with “Left Libertariaism.”

The position you describe, in the above quote, is exactly reconciable with left libertarianism. Classic liberalism is not libertarianism either the real kind or the faux Rand kind. They have their roots in classic liberalism though.

Rand had it all upside down. She thought that big business was the vicitim of the state when it is the prime benifiary of the state. If you read the second link you’ll notice that it’s written by Roderick Long who happens to be co-editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies and he’s a left-libertarian so I do hope you read it if you haven’t already. You may also wish to read this by him: Ayn Rand’s Left-Libertarian Legacy There is much interesting reading there. She attacked homosexuality – a real liberal that one!

It transpires, then, that there are in effect two Rands, or two strands in Rand: a left-libertarian, feminist, anti-militarist, anti-corporatist, benevolent, experimental strand, and a conservative, patriarchal, homophobic, flag-worshipping, boss-worshipping, dogmatic strand. Which strand represents the “true” Rand? Well, both of them; she just is precisely the person who tried to combine these two strands.

I don’t know enough about Rand to know whether or not to agree with his conclusion in the next paragraph, but clearly she was a confused individual and so it doesn’t seem to me that your statement Objectivism as the most structured and non contradictory philosopy I have encountered…. can be at all right. Objectivisits today seem to all to be apologists for big business. Certainly your derision of left libertarianism is misguided – maybe you should reread your Rand books. Holding dogmatically to any school of thought as you seem to be is dangerous and entirely opposed to your attested liberality.

I hope you’re not just advocating the same form of libertarianism you pretend not to be – the kind of faux libertarianism of libertarianz. Many objectivists to me seem to do exactly that whenever they’re in online discussions and apologists for big business and state patronage. I don’t fully ascribe to Carson’s views, but free-market fascism is exactly what these objectivists are advocating (I’m not saying you are because I don’t know enough about your views). He’s advocating an anti-capitalist free market. They’re advancing a system whereby primitive accumulation could continue unfettered leading to private tyrannies, as in corporations, which are entirely antithetical to the kind of freedom you seem to yearn for. Corporatism is anithetical to libertarianism. I don’t know enough about your views to argue on otherwise we’re just be talking over each other.

Okay i concede that socialism isn’t perfect and needs a lot of changes, but the alternatives are hardly any better. At least socialism in part inhibits the rich from obsessively collecting as much of the country’s wealth as possible then using those funds to hold the country ransom to their corporate agendas

And it has yet to happen anywhere on the planet.History so far show us theres a lot of taxing and yet lots of hunger,poverty and sickness in your utopias…sure some people enjoy a higher standard of living…usual the elite…the one that isn’t supposed to exist in the classless society…

Did you know the average Swede has a lower standard of living than the average black American? Its true…much to the chargrin of certain Swedes …;-)

Yes it does make you poorer, that is how socialist society’s function, you sacrifice monetary wealth for a higher living standard.

”

Right on Millsy! You are correct.

Ohhhh I feel light headed after saying that….;-)

Yeah….nice one enki….classic…LOL!

“If we had higher taxes we could actually afford to run this country, but with the rights continued push for lower and lower taxes it seems that this country is shaping up like post-Soviet east Europe.”

Oh please stop it….I’ll wet myself :-)

“One of the misconceptions that plagues this country is the idea that you have to have a big income to have a good quality of life, but in reality people in northern Europe where the taxes are higher have a much greater standard of living.

”

Oh God….you were serious…!!!? ;-o

Planet enki….where taking more of peoples money and wasting it on socialist wet dreams makes people better off….try reading a history of the 20th century sometime buddy….and don’t try that Scandanavian lifestyle nonsense on me either…I know people from there and its dross…indeed Sweden is moving to privitise things after they found their welfare state has made them poorer since its inception.

To a large part yes….the red tape and complience costs are killing people….but it still seems to beat a hell of a lot of other places al the same.

Our health system on the other hand is recognised as low cost and effective – as are the Canadian and UK systems (all health systems have some problems though).”

Our die while you wait health system is amougst the best of a bad bunch…? Thats comforting to those pused back to their GP’s to die as a gimick to appear to have cleared waiting lists….someone want to tell Matt that Kiwis are flying overseas to get operations thay will never get here in time to say their lives..? Oh you paid taxes to ensure you were looked after when needed..? Sucker!

The last Labour Government poured 11 billion into healthcare for NO observable improvement in patient outcomes….low cost and efficent my botty!

“James, maybe you should do some reading about what actually happens around public provision of services, privatisation and also some basic politics and spend a bit less times reading the turgid drivel of Ayn Rand.”

Usual response from someone whos never read Rand and can’t mount a real argument…

“The libertarians you are talking about are the right wing Rand freaks &c like the “Libertarianz” who have hardly any connection to actual libertarianism – as the word ought to be used and was historically used and is still often used today.

Libz are not right wing…that discription shows its YOU who is ignorant of this topic, to there credit they are cossistenly opposed to the opressive and coercive actions of both the Left and conservative right…If you want to get all historical about it Liberatrianism was originally the name given to a school of Leftist thought…it got “swapped” over much like “Liberal” was torn from its original meaning of supporting freedom, ,individual rights and free markets to socialist,progressive,restrictive thought.Don’t judge all libertarians by “Libertarianz” the party…

All Objectivists are political Libertarians…but not all Libs are Objectivists….I myself am not a member of “Libz” any longer but do subscribe to Objectivism as the most structured and non contradictory philosopy I have encountered….

As to Carsons nonsense….”Left Libertarinism…!? yeah right…freedoms that he wants mixed with controls on those he doesn’t….sort of like a virgin rapist or a free market fascist…how does that work?

Libertarianism (classical Liberalism)is the political school of thought/position that man the individual has the rights to Life,liberty,property and to pursue his own happiness without being coerced or stolen from with the only limit being that he respects these rights in every other person by viture of the fact that they are as human as he is and therefore having the exact same rights…no more or less.That position is not reconcible with “Left Libertariaism.”

Why does ACC pick up the bill for those burned by explosions in their own P Labs, when they were helping to sustain crime and violence?

I loathe P and the creators thereof, but I’m intrigued. What else would you do with such people?