"bigoted idiots"... what are you basing that comment on?

Sorry, but I knew some of them. A few were leftists, but the worst ones were two crooks who saw themselves as pristine Objectivists. One was working at helping me solve an embezzlement from an organization where I was treasurer. Turned out, he was the embezzler! He later went to prison on other unrelated charges, far more serious.

The other was actively engaged in stealing from Rand herself.

The sloppy thinking, the drugs, and other immorality helped me move away from the libertarians in my area. I was even offered some "really good stuff" drugs by two brilliant but flaky people who were well known among the Objectivists and Libertarians in my area, around 1968.

What Rand thought about libertarians is still important. Claiming to agree with Rand does not make one correct, and does not grant certainty of knowledge. I cannot forget how these hedonists and their hangers-on. claiming to agree with Rand's politics, were all wrong, and how Rand was, as usual, right.

Anyone that is OK with the Patriot Act and the TSA is not even an American in my book. They are some jackbooted thug in masquerade.

Khalling is right. Progressives do not believe in social freedom. They believe they should be a dictating oligarchy. Thirty to forty years ago, Maphesdus' definition regarding liberals believing in social freedom was accurate, but when was the last time you heard a liberal say that "they will defend your right to say" anything? I used to hear that commonly in the 70's and 80's. Not any more.

Some of our intellectual property is clearly not legitimately property. It is a specialized area trying to sort this out. The think about airwave "property" is that it is largely behind the technological state of the art. Its base assumptions are increasingly invalid.

I apologize, You are right. Having re-read this I took it entirely the wrong way. Though I do believe you are mixing up Conservative with the modern day RNC,

I am a small-o objectivist and a small-l libertarian. The capital versions of both have much that sucks. After the Libertarian Party ran an ex-drug czar as presidential candidate the last shreds of it being "The Party of Principle" disintegrated.

I think the conservatives see they are more likely to co-opt and get the support of libertarians than liberals do. And for good reason as today's liberals are almost always strong statists.

The entire Constitution was written based on the philosophies of the Enlightenment. The Framers were men who wanted their life and their happiness on their terms with as little government interference as possible. Sure shore up the weak spots but keep the rest, thats Conservatism in a nut shell. But the only way you are going to "fix" anything is with a moral people. To adhere to law without a moral people you need a totalitarian society.

Not in the least as theism is not compatible with the objectivist virtues.

I don't know what you are talking about but you aren't talking about anything I said coherently.

The gist of the string of quotes was to show that placing areas of rights outside of the domain of man is the only way for man to leave those rights alone. Personal code, morality, regardless of type, creates a respect for law, When people respect that law (code) and govern their conduct themselves there is no need for laws. When a society removes that respect, the "endowed by their creator" is just a grand phrase and is subject to change.Me thinks we could use more morality in this country, even if it is just being respectful self-governance.

Laissez faire capitalism does not exhaust the subject of politics unless you are an anacho-cap. :)

What do these bigoted idiots have to do with the question though. Nothing. Yes some libertarians are not consistent in their freedom usually on the basis of their "faith" warping their thinking.

I don't think that conservatism, at least as defined by most people, encompasses libertarianism. Libertarianism allows for people to make their own decisions and then be forced to live with the consequences. There were way too many so-called conservatives that agreed to the TARP bailout. Also, in general, many conservatives put their noses into way too many people's business to be close to libertarianism.

No one sane thinks that religion can substitute for sound philosophy or what usually passes for morality is a fit substitute for rational ethics. See what I mean about the imperfect understanding of those that hammered this together?

It most certainly is fair to blame it. And why not. It wasn't written by objectivists or perfect reasoners after all. Many had quite mixed premises and desires for how it would turn out. I pointed out some of its weak spots without even trying hard. Surely they should at least be fixed.

As someone who voted for Johnson, I completely agree with "the best environmental practices are due to a good economy". Look at the poor countries in the world. They cannot afford the technology invented by people like us to take otherwise "dirty" energy and chemicals production methods and make them tolerable. A clean environment is a luxury. I was someone whose business was predicated on rich environmentalists absolving themselves of guilt and endorsing their values using technology I helped develop. In exchange, I earned money that I valued. When the economy tanked in 2008, guess how many environmentalist rich came to my door - NONE!
I and a bunch of people who worked as partners with me who had all read and discussed AS decided we would each shrug, and sell our business to someone else.

JerseyBoy won't believe this, but I will not compare myself to Galt. However, one of the guys in that company who had been born in communist Poland and developed an energy technology worthy of Galt was the one who convinced us (without much effort) to sell the company. He was the first of us to go Galt on a day that we were plumbing gas cylinders from an outdoor shed into a partner's two story garage on the coldest, windiest day that winter (about 2 Celsius). I am proud to say that I worked next to him. We got a lot done in a short time, but that January, 2009 day was the moment that AS became non-fiction for me.

I agree that America needs to be clean, but completely disagree with Gov. Johnson on the onerous EPA.

It is unfair to blame the Constitution. What must be blamed are the people of the United States for the degradation of its governance. The lack of social morality - be it religion, objectivism, even atheism - is whats damning this country. Below are some quotes supporting my position, there are many more by many more people.

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
Patrick Henry

"The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now. They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty.
John Adams

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net."
John Adams

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

"Liberty can no more exist without virtue and independence than the body can live and move without a soul."
John Adams

"Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics."
John Adams

"[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."
John Adams


Unless we want people to make laws to reign in behavior a moral people is needed. The people we elect are reflections of who we are as a people. This is why we are where we are.

I think libertarian is a broader category that includes objectivism.

DaveM49's analysis is intriguing. I do not consider myself an objectivist because I disagree with Rand's reasoning (as opposed to her conclusion) toward atheism, yet I am quite sure that I would keep their driving speed in line with other traffic for safety reasons. On the other hand, I have often rebelled against what I considered ridiculously low speed limits such as 65 on open interstate across near desert or 55 on any interstate. I do see DaveM49's point. Libertarians think they know what their own limits should be and view overly restrictive laws as the infringements that they are.

Maybe. But even the WBTS was freedom oriented societies clashing and not this euro-leftism that is alien for which they created a firm foundation.

agreed. :)