Rational Mysticism?

[Burke]

Many regard Ayn Rand as a libertarian. She was, however, anything but. Basically, she despised libertarians and said so. Libertarians like Ron Paul, for example, are mostly just slightly radical religious conservatives. Others, like Charts here, are outright anarchists.

The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is a libertarian organization that has in the past put out some good stuff. I've posted links to some of their articles here myself. However, with their current editor Max Borders, they have gone completely off the cliff and overtly embraced raw mysticism.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detai...#axzz2I7aUVtZQ

When people fail to understand that reason is our only means of knowledge, as time goes by they begin to reject it more and more.

Next goes the freedom that rational men need to live and be happy.

Which is exactly what is going on here and in the rest of the country.

[wgbgator]

I didn't see much to object to when he discusses paradox, non-linearity, parable, etc.

[Burke]

Obama would agree with you completely.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Burke

Obama would agree with you completely.

As would many other highly educated people in the West I suspect, so I'm not sure why Obama was your go-to example there.

[GatorAbe7]

Originally Posted by Burke

When people fail to understand that reason is our only means of knowledge, as time goes by they begin to reject more and more.

This is an absolutely loaded statement.

Are you using reason interchangeably with logic?

Philosophical thought as modern as the (theistic & atheistic) Existenitalism exposes limits of reason, leaving gray areas in which the mind operates.

When you say "knowledge," is this the Absolute Knowledge in the Hegelian sense?

Before we go off a cliff with Hegel, let's clear that up.

[wgbgator]

I'm not sure how you could be a capitalist (or a socialist, or conservative, or liberal) without some comfort with paradox and contradiction.

[WESGATORS]

Well, as a mystic, I would agree that religious principles need not be a part of our government merely because they are religious principles. Our government should be based on policies that have practical utility. I'm not sure what contradiction necessarily exists with being both a mystic and a rational individual (to be clear, "mystic" is a label cast by others who have not experienced the same "proof" that I have and have no way of accepting my "proof" as their "proof" - still, that is not sufficient to invalidate said "proof").

I see more contradictions in aspects of life that do not involve religion.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Minister_of_Information]

Don't trust your eyes, Burke.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Burke

Many regard Ayn Rand as a libertarian. She was, however, anything but. Basically, she despised libertarians and said so. Libertarians like Ron Paul, for example, are mostly just slightly radical religious conservatives. Others, like Charts here, are outright anarchists.

It's interesting that Ayn Rand would despise libertarians and anarchists. These are people who advocate free markets, individual rights, and human liberty. If anything, you'd figure she might find common cause with them and instead focus all of her energy on the exploding power of the State. But no, she took swipes at everyone, both to her left and to her right.

Is there any chance she was an establishment gatekeeper put in place to keep people from going too far off the government worship reservation, Burke?

[wgbgator]

I think there's a better chance that she was just a disagreeable old hag who liked arguing with people, or more accurately, telling them loudly how they were wrong.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

It's interesting that Ayn Rand would despise libertarians and anarchists. These are people who advocate free markets, individual rights, and human liberty. If anything, you'd figure she might find common cause with them and instead focus all of her energy on the exploding power of the State. But no, she took swipes at everyone, both to her left and to her right.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html

Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare.

This is where Dreamliner, and perhaps yourself, would add the phrase ", also known as government."

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wgbgator]

You don't have to be a genius to understand that property rights entail some sort of government or "protection racket" (if you will) behind it.

[WESGATORS]

I think the problem is more easily understood from the anarchists perspective when criticizing the role of *any* government. The expectation that a group is going to act irrationally or without respect of another's rights is independent of whether or not they are labeled as a "government."

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

I think the problem is more easily understood from the anarchists perspective when criticizing the role of *any* government. The expectation that a group is going to act irrationally or without respect of another's rights is independent of whether or not they are labeled as a "government."

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

This is why anarchism (as I understand it) is anti-property, because that's the state's main role - protecting private property. From my POV, I've never understood the voluntarists (who get called "anarchists" too) position on how property and markets can exist without some sort of delegated force (which is basically a government). There seems to be some underlying assumptions on how people will behave that frankly seem fantastical to me.

[WESGATORS]

If one owns property, and he works together with others that own their own property to protect each other's property (included in that might be to higher others, perhaps non-owners, to help protect the property), then that would be a form of protection that exists without political delegation.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

You don't have to be a genius to understand that property rights entail some sort of government or "protection racket" (if you will) behind it.

No, rights only entail recognition and, if recognition isn't forthcoming, the defense of them.

One need not create a Mafia protection racket or legal monopoly on violence to protect rights.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

No, rights only entail recognition and, if recognition isn't forthcoming, the defense of them.

One need not create a Mafia protection racket or legal monopoly on violence to protect rights.

"defense of them" = protection racket

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

"defense of them" = protection racket

If 5 neighbors band together and agree to help each other protect their property, where is the racket?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

"defense of them" = protection racket

If a mugger attacks you in a dark alley, and you successfully fight him off with your fists, would you call that "defending yourself" or "creating a protection racket"?

Do you even know what a protection racket is?

From Wikipedia:

A protection racket is an extortion scheme whereby a criminal group or individual coerces a victim (usually a business) to pay money, supposedly for protection services against violence or property damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

If 5 neighbors band together and agree to help each other protect their property, where is the racket?

I've seen this all before. People can't attack the idea of anarchy without deliberately attempting to confuse the subject or conflate distinct concepts.

He knows what he is doing.