Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
not really. the only legitimate functoins of a government are those which the people determines to be, if we understand "legitimacy" to mean representative of the people. the libertarian creed is not intrinsically more valid than any other political ideology. in a democracy, it's up to the voters to decide what kind of government they want, whether it be socialism, social democracy, neo-liberalism, anarcho-sindicalism or whatever...
the problem i have with ayn rand is that being a second-rate thinker she turned philosophy into dogma. actually she wasn't as bad as her followers, who take every word ever uttered by her as some sort of divine revelation. (im not saying you're one of them by the way-- i'm talking about those ayn rand groupies i met in college)
|
ah, but you err. the people have no right to choose a government that tramples on the rights of others. you can't "choose" a theocracy, socialist dictatorship, etc. because to do so would imply that ANYONE can do ANYTHING as long as the majority approves of it. of course, for a majority to establish a theocracy would violate the minority's right not to practice religion, and for the majority to establish socialism would violate EVERYONE's right to the product of his labor. look at that doctrine on the individual level: if the majority approved of raping the pygmie women, would that negate the right of the pygmie women not to be raped?
and the problem is not with ayn rand but with those among her admirers who hold her tenets as half-digested absolutes and won't even LISTEN to the other person's arguments, think about them, and respond, but instead automatically get pissed off whenever someone voices an opinion even remotely different from her own. obviously the kind of absolutism she advocates is sort of conducive to being misconstrued by some, but to those who can handle it absolutism isn't such a bad thing.