Ayn Rand's Statist, Randroid Idiots: Out of the mouths of 'Objectivists'

CovOps wrote:

What don't you get?

And what does he mean by:

Quote :: ...the merchant's "Welcome" mat became an open contract with the public.

That's what I don't get.
How can an objectivist hold such a position, when the ability to use one's mind to make discriminating judgements is central to objectivism?

Open contract? WTF?

His whole post is nonsense. Irrelevant.

He's also a member of rebirthofreason and Objectivistliving, so should know better!
http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/1721.shtml
http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12682

RandRoid retard, forgeddabbouddidd!

Despite even Rand insisting on a complete separation between the state and economics, ie. laissez faire, the lawyer-statist-RandRoid, Michael Moeller, still desires complete involvement... (and he's supposed to be one of the more knowledgeable RandRoids).

Here he is sputtering his nonsense, while criticizing fatz:

Quote :: Submitted by Michael Moeller on Fri, 2013-01-11 15:55.

...In any event, your rationalism is much easier to spot, in this case. You wrote:

"I would counter Michael's formulation with: Just as the government, in its role as protector of individual rights, must define murder, or any other involuntary relationship, so too it must *not* define marriage or any other voluntary relationship.

Really?

What about a landlord-tenant relationship?

What about a business partnership?

What about a licensor-licensee?

And on and on and on?

Rationalism rearing its ugly head, writ large. A brief glimpse at reality should have shown how false this is.

Just like these voluntary relationships, the definition and the consummation of them is written into law. By your general principle, the state is wrong to do such. Good luck with that.

And you still -- after about 5 levels of explanation -- do not understand that the point about contracts. You are pretending that two people can define anything as constituting a contract.

Newsflash #1: the government defines a valid contract. That is, the government would still be defining marriage via its definition of contract (i.e. it could STILL reject an agreement between two people as NOT being a marriage because it does not meet the state's requirements for contracts)...

http://www.solopassion.com/node/9406#comment-117731

Well, when the government is your master, I guess he's right, the state will define everything and the slaves will be obligated to obey!

That's the kind of irrationality we can expect from lawyers, and who are just the transmission-belts of evil, promoting, encouraging and cashing in on, the slavery of the state.

As they say, Kill The Lawyers First!

But this time, somebody, please start with 'molar!'

I guess this means the alleged contract that set up the govt/subject relationship in the first place isn't actually a contract at all, and might be more accurately described as dictatorship?

Pretty much!

That's why there's never really been a 'consensual' government, anywhere, at any time. One way or another, it was always imposed on others, by force, fraud or coercion.

Who in their right mind, given a choice of self-sovereignty Vs being governed by total strangers, would choose the latter?

RandRoid insanity continues...

And here's just a random sample:

Quote :: They have scattered Malian soldiers southwards, imposed strict Muslim laws on the civilian population and created a vast new haven for north African terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/france-helps-mali-fight-to-reclaim-land-20130112-2cmfe.html

The operative word: 'imposed.'

And again:

Quote :: Hollande said France had decided to act to prepare the way for the eventual deployment of an African force in Mali to reconquer territory seized by the rebels.

http://www.rferl.org/content/mali-france-islamists/24822381.html

Always the same shit!

Quote :: Submitted by Damien Grant on Mon, 2013-01-14 00:59.

Either way, I support restrictive access to guns in New Zealand...

http://www.solopassion.com/node/9332#comment-117780

Is that like restrictive self-defense?

Quote :: The real contradiction is CORPORATIONS

Submitted by Sandi on Sat, 2013-01-19 04:31.

Corporations cannot exist without the force of government, the same force of government that individuals fight against.

:Jessica moment

Backwards from Kyrel Zantonavitch

Quote :: Absurd.

If early abortion is truly murder, then justice demands that the mother and doctor be executed.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/9546

Meaning that since the doc and mother "obviously" wouldn't deserve to be executed, therefore abortion can't be murder!

Kyrel should be fed an embryo omelet...

Though perhaps he'd prefer it raw...

Since to him, it's 'just a bunch of cells'...

So after his first cannibalistic meal, perhaps he'd reconsider...

A 'mass of cells' has a message for Kyle....

Ayn Rand's Statist, Randroid Idiots: Out of the mouths of 'Objectivists' - Page 3 974151dttwofingersalute

Quote :: Threats Against Free Thought and Open Discussion

Submitted by Kyrel Zantonavitch on Wed, 2013-01-30 15:17.

Bishop Binswanger says "An objective threat of force is force."? But an objective threat of censorship and excommunication is censorship and excommunication. On his discussion forum, Binswanger is totally guilty of that. So what if he keeps out the riff-raff and uneducated? He kills free and open discussion. Solo Passion is far superior. Binswanger's a slimeball religious pseudo-Objectivist -- not a proper Objectivist or human being at all.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/9539#comment-118364

Priceless, LOL!

Quote :: Paul is a disgrace

Submitted by Doug Bandler on Tue, 2013-02-05 20:55.

He represents the worst of libertarianism and yet he is a HERO to libertarians. Which just goes to show that without Rand libertarianism, and Classical Liberalism as well, are HOPELESS and LOST.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/8635#comment-118538

Thumbs down

Quote :: Hmmmm

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Mon, 2013-02-11 05:57.

... we must recognise also the awful paradox that the church of the Inquisition, the church of the persecution of Galileo and science generally, the church of sexual repression on the one hand and child molestation on the other, the church of the glorification of suffering … this institution at the same time has managed to engage and inspire what Ayn Rand called simply "the best within." Especially as embodied in John Paul II. Somehow he projected in his demeanour the quest for the highest possible. The total passion for the total height.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/9565#comment-118724

BIZARRE!

Quote :: The Public Side of Private Love

Submitted by Ed Hudgins on Thu, 2013-02-14 19:21

..."Love" is a verb and "making love" means creating a world and a life with our beloved that only two can share.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/9579

Quote :: Submitted by Doug Bandler on Mon, 2013-02-18 05:33.

Oh, I didn't know you were an anarchist. I'm not going to open that can of worms here but you know the war that exists between minarchists/Objectivists and anarchists. I was an anarchist for about a year and then I rejected it entirely. I actually think the anarchist libertarians are even WORSE than Leftists. That's not you Sandi. You're a good person that I think took a wrong turn at Albuquerque on this issue (who can guess where I stole that from - you get extra points). But I hope some details and some speculation on how a laissez faire society would deal with regulations gets addressed in this thread. Maybe we can come up with something new. But it is such an abstract subject that is so removed from the reality of semi-socialist America that solutions are just not visible to us at this point in history.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/9581#comment-118837

Oh man

Quote :: Submitted by Doug Bandler on Tue, 2013-03-05 03:47.

...But anarchism is just dreadful. IMO, anarcho-libertarianism is the WORST and most nihilist of any of the political movements. They make Leftists look almost sane.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/9595#comment-119096

Oh dear... poor kid, as clueless as the next NOLOist...

Rand:

Quote :: a human being’s life begins at birth

Quote :: a human being’s life begins at birth

I'll agree with that...

And birth begins at conception... not when there's an address change, with a lodged mail redirection notice, at the local fallopian tube...

More crap on Figaro Fatz's site:

Quote :

http://www.solopassion.com/node/9630

Absurd all right... spinning rationalizations just ain't gonna cut it! Equivocating ain't gonna cut it either. Neither will context switching between epi and morality. Or his constant moral equivalence. (See full post) He reminds me of some anarcho-capitalists and libertarians who argue that it's perfectly moral to murder children up to 2.5 years, because they have not yet developed a fully functioning rational faculty... you see, they're still just at an animal's level of intelligence...

Quote :: In other words, new life no more comes into being at time of conception than new matter comes into existence at time of conception.

Quote :: What "comes into being" at time of conception is not new life, but a new form of life.

It's a new individual life.

Quote :: a new form of life.

What, a mosquito? Cow? Ringworm? Wha?

Should be: 'a new form of the same specie's life.'

Ayn Rand's Statist, Randroid Idiots: Out of the mouths of 'Objectivists'

Ayn Rand's Statist, Randroid Idiots: Out of the mouths of 'Objectivists'

Anarcho-Capitalist Non-Miscellaneous

According To AnCaps, The Idiot Of The Week Award Nominees Are...