56,014
edits
Document:LP News 1973 November-December 17: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Document:LP News 1973 November-December 17 (view source)
Revision as of 20:42, 17 December 2021
, 17 December 2021→HOW NOW, AYN RAND?
| Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
Well, which are they? Half-baked or borrowed? If they were only half-baked ideas (which they clearly are not), they would still be infinitely superior to the raw dough being offered by the two major parties. Curiously, Rand has never seen fit to identify which positions of the LP she disapproves of. (Presumably, we differ on the issue of whether people should accept Federal subsidies for their personal jaunts to witness Moon-shots.) I suppose that only a woman who would have the audacity to appoint an "intellectual heir" (subsequently disinherited) would feel that she has a proprietary claim on the ideas expressed by the Libertarian Party. | Well, which are they? Half-baked or borrowed? If they were only half-baked ideas (which they clearly are not), they would still be infinitely superior to the raw dough being offered by the two major parties. Curiously, Rand has never seen fit to identify which positions of the LP she disapproves of. (Presumably, we differ on the issue of whether people should accept Federal subsidies for their personal jaunts to witness Moon-shots.) I suppose that only a woman who would have the audacity to appoint an "intellectual heir" (subsequently disinherited) would feel that she has a proprietary claim on the ideas expressed by the Libertarian Party. | ||
Sure, we've "borrowed" some of the concepts used by Miss Rand. But the myth that she invented those ideas should long since have been dispelled. It is interesting to note that in one of her other answers during the question period at the Forum, she disavowed having received any intellectual assistance during her first twenty years in the United States. History indicates otherwise. The LP's "borrowing" from [[Ayn Rand]] is no les than her borrowing from [[Rose Wilder Lane]] and [[Isabel Paterson]], to name just two of the individuals who provided material and intellectual sustenance during her struggle up from obscurity. | |||
Members of the Libertarian Party disagree with (but generally respect) the idea that it is wrong for libertarians to participate in the political process. But this is not what Rand is saying. On the contrary, Rand is not opposed to politics per se, but only to libertarian politics. | |||
And who does she urge the faithful to support, now that she has given up on King Richard? The answer, incredibly, is Senator Henry Jackson: "I think the best of the possible would-be Presidential candidates is, of course, Senator Jackson--and his domestic policy is far from ideal--but at least he knows what he is doing against Russia; he has never been taken in by that. In domestic policy he is not exactly a conservative; he is just about on the level of George Meany." | |||
This statement is incredible enough in itself; Senator Jackson is not only "not exactly a conservative"--he is one of the most rabidly pro-interventionists, both domestically and in his foreign policy views, in the Senate. IN the first [[Royce Report]] ratings (see story, page 6) he came in 99th out of 100 Senators. It would be hard to find a public figure who is less committed to the idea of individual freedom, and more committed to the idea of government controls and meddling. But that's only half of the story. Rand continued "But today, George Meany, is the most reliable defender of capitalism, not in principle, but at least in fact [?!]. I would say that these two [Jackson and Meany] as public leaders are quite worthwhile." | |||
If George Meany is a defender of capitalism, so was Karl Marx. George's idea of free enterprise is to have his friends in Congress (like Henry Jackson) hold the gun while labor rips off the businessman. The only rationalization for supporting either of these two men would be as a desperation measure--and the | |||
<hr /> | <hr /> | ||