Showing posts with label ron paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ron paul. Show all posts

Thursday, August 09, 2012

Atlas Crapped or Objectivist Obsessions with Hard Things that Stand Upright

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

Ayn Rand is not a serious 'philosopher' and those who idolize her may not be taken seriously as responsible politicians. It is unknown how Ayn Rand's obsessive fixation with all things tall, hard and upright became confused with either philosophy or economics. Below are Rand quotes numbered and followed by my comments.
1. A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.
Our founders, by contrast, believed in a government in which 'sovereignty' resided in the people, that governments were freely elected for the sole purpose of defending and upholding those ideals. The use of 'physical force' against the population was verboten for anything short of violent crimes or insurrections and even then prohibited unless accompanied by 'probable cause' that a crime had been committed. Certainly --that principle had been abandoned by the time Govt thugs of the FBI et al attacked the Branch Davidian compound in Waco in which the leader, David Koresh, and 82 other Branch Davidians were murdered.
2. Ask yourself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be waiting for us in our graves – or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth.
That question begs a meaningless and utterly unknowable 'answer' aside from the fact that any answer provided by an 'objectivist' is, in fact, subjective and utterly un-verifiable! 'Objectivist' assertions are not objective at all, based as they are upon temperament and/or irrational inclination. The meaning of any assertion rests upon the outcome of the question: can this assertion be verified logically or empirically? If so, what is the process by which it is verified! Rand talks about being 'objective' but neglects 'verification' when, in fact, nothing is 'objective' without objective, public verfification.
3. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
Civilization has very little to do with privacy though most enlightened societies have defended the individual's right of privacy whenever it is threatened, even if that threat should issue from the government. It is for that reason that the 'right to privacy' is found to be a strong argument in favor of a) Due Process of Law b) the Constitutional guarantee that no warrants shall issue but upon 'probable cause' that a crime has been committed.
4. Do not ever say that the desire to “do good” by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives.
One wonders why people like Ron Paul seek power! One wonders why other devotees of Ayn Rand seek political power in particular. What do we know of their motives? And what of any substance has been put forward by them? Ron Paul, for example, is believed to be a laissez-faire capitalist because he is a self-avowed devotee of 'Randism'. One wonders if Paul --an otherwise intelligent person --understands how much richer the very, very, very rich would get were all restraints now limiting rapacious greed and blind ambition were relaxed!
5. From the smallest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from one attribute of man – the function of his reasoning mind.
The building of skyscrapers is 'big' in Rand-land! It was in Atlas Shrugged, as I recall, that Rand revealed her fixation with hard things that stand upright ---skyscrapers, towers, Pisa, domes.
11. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue.
Events have proven that the concentrated fortunes of America's people, concentrated as they have become in the very few hands of the ruling elites are INVERSELY proportional to the population as a whole. In other words, our fortunes, our decency as a people has deteriorated inversely as the very, very rich have gotten exponentially richer!



Ayn Rand Rambles for Mike Wallace

Monday, February 13, 2012

The Ominous Implications of Corporate-Personhood'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I do not and cannot support the Libertarian party. Primarily --if the libertarian position re: taxation had been the rule, FDR could NEVER have spent the U.S. out of the GREAT DEPRESSION. Think of how fortunate we were to have had a great President in office! Think of how disastrous our fate had a 'libertarian' been occupying the White House!

As I understand their platform, the 'Libertarian party', would have opposed Roosevelt's 'New Deal' and, most certainly, Social Security. Therefore, I would hope that Libertarians have denounced the exploitation of the 14th Amendment to rationalize 'corporate personhood', which in effect, grants to corporations 'Freedom of Speech'.

I do not believe that Exxon (for example) may enjoy 'free speech'. Exxon is not a person. If EXXON were never allowed to spew their lies and propaganda on REAL people, it would not keep me awake nights. I have freedom of speech. A 'legal abstraction' does not! I don't care what myths, lies and voodoo are subsribed to by ilk like Scalia.

But this issue is of considerable interest to anyone considering whether or not to support Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a strong supporter of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and so am I. But SCOTUS recently applied the 14th to 'legal abstractions', i.e, corporations.

IF corporations are people, then nothing can be done to prevent them becoming monopolies, enslaving 'real people' in various ways. IF corporations are people, to restrain them violates the 14TH amendment. Ron Paul's vocal support of the 14th must not cloak any support whatsoever for 'corporate personhood'?

If I were opposing Paul in a run for a nomination, I would demand he answer this question: are you for or against corporate personhood? This is, in fact, the 'cutting issue' that will define the election. With the 'possible' exception of Paul, every other Republican (prominently Mitt Romney) is in accord with the GOP 'line', i.e, the infamous Citizen-United decision in which SCOTUS bestowed upon mere legal abstraction the miracle of 'personhood'. Previously --only our 'creator' had been capable of such a miracle.

Even so, the following question must be put to every Republican seeking the nomination: If you are for the 14th but against corporate personhood, how would you propose to avoid a nation in which 'corporate-persons', in fact, legal monstrosities would exploit that unique status in ways that are yet still unknown?

If corporations were allowed 'personhood' today, nothing would prevent that 'concentration of wealth' in very, very few corporate-elite hands! Ergo: corporate personhood is a recipe for a NEW GREAT DEPRESSION. It would be the immediate onset of BIG BRO.

If corporations were allowed 'personhood' today, nothing would prevent that 'concentration of wealth' in very, very few corporate-elite hands! Ergo: corporate personhood is a recipe for a NEW GREAT DEPRESSION.

Libertarians cannot have it both ways. If 'people' are to have this brand of freedom AND if corporations are people, then what 'power' would restrain them, the government being reduced in power and status?

Rather --corporations should be restrained by a government responsible only to REAL, real people. Pin Ron Paul down on this point! It should be made clear --beyond any shades of gray or doubt --that CORPORATIONS are NOT people! It should be made clear that corporations exist at the pleasure of a government that was described by our founders --a government of REAL people, BY real people, and FOR real people!

I suspect that just such an outcome is precisely what 5 ideologues on SCOTUS had in mind. SCOTUS, certainly, does not care about R. Paul's problems. SCOTUS, kissing up to corporate 'sponsors' re-created the Frankstein monster but on paper! It's a monstrous problem for anyone but more so for anyone claiming to be a 'libertarian'.