Charles Johnson of LGF is an athiest. He is a proud athiest. He wrote something quite profound on Saturday, that makes me wonder just how “athiest” he actually is. What is ironic is the fact that it has taken a self-professed athiest, who is dis-heartened with the far right extremes to completely explain the problem with libertarians. They have no humanity.
“…One thing the nomination of Rand Paul has definitely achieved — it’s showing Americans just how far out of mainstream thought libertarians are. Libertarians like Rand Paul and his father Ron are absolutists, and any form of political absolutism is profoundly anti-human. hat’s why Rand Paul can say “accidents happen” about the BP disaster — because he has no empathy at all for the millions of people whose lives will be affected by it. It’s the same reason why he is an anti-abortion fanatic, despite his lip service to libertarianism — because he has no empathy for human beings. His ideology rules his world view, and human beings play a very small part in it….”
Have you read anything about the life of the patron saint of libertarianism, Ayn Rand? She was a vile, repulsive, almost evil woman who had basically no human decency and no scruples. She had no morality. She believed in a ruthless Darwinian theology of dog eat dog, survival of the fittest, and destroy anyone who got in your way. She once wrote:
“…What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means: self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”…”
The more I think about it, the more certain I am that libertarians have a very hard time practicing the teachings of Christ. A few weeks ago some idiot conservative did this blog mime saying that Christ was conservative. I guess who ever came up with that stupid idea has not actually read the teachings of Christ, which were revolutionarily liberal for the time. Then again, it helps to have a back ground in Roman history to know how revolutionary and how liberal Christ actually was.
Then again, if you are a Tea Party Patriot and rebelling against the tax man, perhaps you are rebelling against the teachings of Christ. Remember that “render unto Caesar…”? The question was about paying taxes, not paying them, and rebelling against the status quo. Christ said we pray for those who lead and opprss us. Then again, Christ took the tax man out to dinner, converted him, and turned him into a Desciple – Matthew.
I kept wondering what bothered me about the Tea Party “patriots” and libertarians. Now I know.
The Pink Flamingo is basically a cynic when it comes to people, human nature, and people doing the “right” thing. Human nature is a very dark, cruel and of-times vicious thing. So is business. Even more so for “big” business. What separates us from the animals and from the worst aspects of our nature is the goodness that comes only from the Grace of God. There is an inherent goodness in our Judeo-Christian belief that has never been duplicated in human history.
Thus Rand Paul, the libertarian poster child. His version of the world is this Dickensian miasma where people who have disabilities are confined to the outer limits of the world, to be thrown a crust of bread. There is no voice of Christian decency here. I guess Rosa Parks should have stayed in the back of the bus.
“...”I think a lot of things could be handled locally,” Paul told Siegel. “For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps…I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who’s handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions.”
The same logic applies to mining — a key industry in Kentucky — and evironmental regulation, Paul told NPR. “I think that most manufacturing and mining should be under the purview of state authorities,” he said. Paul said the EPA is a prime example of what’s gone wrong with federal regulation. “It’s kind of interesting that, you know, when the EPA was originally instituted, it wasn’t even passed by Congress. It was passed as an executive order by Nixon,” Paul said. “And I think there is some overreach in the sense that the EPA now says: You know what, if Congress doesn’t pass greenhouse emissions regulations or testing, we’ll simply do it on our own. I think that’s an arrogance of a regulatory body ran amok.”
Paul says views like these are part of what makes him a unique candidate this year — and represent the vocal right that has been dominating the Republican political debate….”
Never mind that a CONSERVATIVE SCOTUS has ruled that the EPA can only be stopped by MORE regulation, not less.
The other day something struck The Pink Flamingo. It comes from the Episcopalian Forward Day by Day for Tuesday.
“…Christians are getting various kinds of labels these days. As people feel they are losing control, repression grows. There is less and less sympathy for those who are an embarrassment to us. And so those who still have compassion and understanding for the weak are labeled “bleeding hearts.”
Christians are “bleeding hearts” because they are against the death penalty, try to rehabilitate drug abusers, want peace in the world, food for the hungry, and understanding for the alcoholic, the promiscuous, and the mentally ill. It should make us all feel better to realize that Jesus was a “bleeding heart.” In the gospel for today he heals a paralytic. Saint Paul was also a “bleeding heart,” and in our passage we see why. If your heart doesn’t bleed for others, if you are not tenderhearted and forgiving and understanding, you cannot expect God to be tender with you. If you know how the Lord Christ bled for you, bleed for others. And wear the label “bleeding heart” with pride….”
Libertarians cannot be honorable beause of their Darwinian approach to the survival of the fittest.
“...Following Ron Paul’s dismal performance in the 1988 presidential campaign as the Libertarian Party candidate, Rockwell and Rothbard “championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist ‘paleoconservatives,’ producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters” uncovered by the New Republic. Rothbard died in 1995, but in 2008 Rockwell was still at Paul’s side as a top advisor, “accompanying him to major media appearances; promoting his candidacy on the LewRockwell.com blog; publishing his books; and peddling an array of the avuncular Texas congressman’s recent writings and audio recordings.”…”
Libertarians do not approve of the Civil Right’s Act – or anything that might impose limitations on business.
“...It’s been curious to me to note that the Cato Institute, flagship institution of libertarianism in America, hasn’t had anything to say about Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act on its website, especially because their Executive Vice President David Boaz praised Paul yesterday though without specifically tackling the controversy. Brink Lindsey who works at Cato offers comments to AOL News in disagreement with Paul and I know that some other Cato staff agree with Lindsey. It seems, however, that Roger Pilon who heads up their work on legal issues, is in agreement with Paul…”