THE GREAT AYN RAND's NAME USED TO BASH PAUL

dat article is manupid.

I think it is safe to say that the Atlas Society has been infiltrated by communal pagans of the Straussian ilk!

It's interesting as a notion the idea that fans of Ayn Rand would even give a third of a defecation to the obviously unsupported ideals of another man.

One of the curiousities of the Rand objectivist movement is that it is now being leashed by the exact ideals which she warned about so long ago. I've heard her used as God in arguements before, with the expectation that her arguments are infallible in every sense and that her statements will last as eternal truth in the minds of freethinking men.

Notice the inherent contradiction in the last sentence there?

Rand would be sickened at the use of her name on statements like the one mentioned, and rightfully so. To quote:

"Green: Ah, there’s not a movement. Not really. Compared to, say, the Green party — which is very motivated, very well structured, and increasingly effective — there’s no libertarian movement. It’s like trying to herd cats. I mean, so much of what libertarians in general believe has to do with individualism.

You know, I don’t think we’ll ever make for much of a movement. I don’t mean we’re doomed to fail. But as a movement, no — I don’t see us ever becoming a major single force."

Obviously, the Green Party is a organized troop of well thought out planners, on the fastest rise short of the popularity of the "Ah-Ha" back in the 80s. "Green's" analysis (oh the irony there) is about as clearly concise as the waters cascading from a punctured septic tank. We've all heard this absurd idea that using what the government offers for the people who pay the taxes constitutes a huge overbearing inconsistency in Ron Paul's platform, and anyone with at least the logical deduction capability of my pet cat Minx will point out that earmarks to not increase the SIZE of the budget, only the allocation. Mr. Green, boy genius, misses this point with the eloquent grace of a hippo practicing ballet. The fact that Paul then votes AGAINST the budget size misses him as well.

"It’s interesting too that when it comes to immigrants, he says, “The economic, cultural, and political situation was very different 100 years ago,” and thus open borders are no longer feasible. Yet he’s unwilling to admit that, just maybe, a high-tech, continental superpower of 300,000,000 people might require a foreign policy different from that of the fragile coastal nation of 3,000,000 farmers in George Washington’s time. In the weird world of Ron Paul, immigration policy should be permitted to change with the current political winds; but a retiring president set our foreign policy forever in stone in 1796."

An interesting point Rand continually makes is to NEVER grant the opposition the ability to set the premises they assert in stone. This idea that Paul wants to go to a foreign policy EXACTLY like the Founding Fathers had is unfounded and absurd. He also misses that the truth of the matter is, in all simple and commonsense terms, mind your own business. The man who minds the business of others more often than not can't set his own affairs in anything even resembling a line.

Eric Hoffer