Either the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart subscribes to it, or admires/used to admire another blogger he thinks subscribes/subscribed to Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarianism (the truest/purest form of Libertarianism).
| Willis Hart: On Going from an Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian Who Worshiped Ayn Rand and Who Thoroughly Despised the Progressive Left to Somebody Who Essentially Signs-Off on Every Cockamamie Leftist Notion Under the Damned Sun from Demonizing Fossil Fuels to Playing the Race-Card to Demagoguing on Income Inequality, Class Warfare, etc... That is exponentially far from normal behavior and, yes, when you throw in the whole Jersey McJones alter-ego, it's damned near psychotic. (4/19/2016 AT 5:25pm). |
OK, so Willis previously said "I am hardly an anarcho-capitalist". But I also do not recall Rational Nation (the individual Willis is referring to) voicing any support for anarcho-capitalist Libertarianism (AKA neo-feudalism on steroids). Fact is, when I linked to the WTNPH commentary on the RNUSA blog, the Rational guy said "I am not now, nor have I ever been an Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian".
So neither RN nor Willis was/is an Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian? No, I'm not buying it. Not in regards to Hart. For a few reasons. First, (as I already noted) anarcho-capitalism is the purest form of Libertarianism. And, as Noam Chomsky pointed out "the idea of free contract between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke". But it's a joke I know Willis believes. Although, instead of a joke, in a Libertarian's mind this is how the world should be - and would be a Randian utopia (because punishing the poors, whom Ayn Rand hated with a passion, is one of the primary goals of the sick ideology known as Objectivism).
Secondly, we do know that Willis Hart hates Progressives with a passion. So with this praise of who he believes Rational Nation used to be, he transfers to Nation his hatred. And (I'm theorizing) that we aren't dealing with just one instance of transference. It's everything Willis attributes to (the imaginary) past Rational Nation that really applies to him.
Which means he is the Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian. Perhaps he changed his mind? Given the fact that Hart is a person who has been getting more and more radical over time, I find it quite likely that he has "progressed" to the most insane form Libertarianism.
And Willis is likely with Rand in her hate for the poor (as well as anyone who believes in democracy and disagrees with the idea that society should be organized to benefit the plutocrats). And he most likely agrees with Ayn Rand's views concerning the less fortunate (she thought they should die. A feeling she held so strongly that she killed millions of poor "moochers" and Statists in her revenge porn* novel "atlas shrugged").
Why? Because he said Rational Nation worshipped Rand (it's transference again. Remember I said everything Hart said he used to admire in the Rational guy is, in reality, qualities he admires in himself). Willis Hart is the guy who is an Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian who worships Ayn Rand and who thoroughly despises the Progressive Left.
And he also very frequently whines constantly about "demonizing fossil fuels" (AKA acknowledging the scientific community's consensus on climate change), "playing the race-card" (acknowledging racism exists not just as a fringe issue, but as a systemic problem) and "demagoguing on income inequality" (not bowing down and worshipping at the feet of the wealthy as he does).
Conclusion? The behavior being exhibited by the Harster is exponentially far from normal and, yes, when you throw in the whole Jersey McJones alter-ego delusion (Willis believing that the blogger Jersey McJones is a sock puppet of Rational Nation), it's almost certainly a sign of psychosis.
(*Revenge of the overtaxed plutocrats).
Image: A simple depiction of why Libertarians love the psychotic anarcho-capitalism idea; it's a system under which worthless scumbag poors are forced to submit to their wealthy superiors... or die.
Interesting and correct assessment of Ayn Rand's views on the poor.
ReplyDeleteMore interesting perspective refuting Dervish's hyperbole with respect to Ayn Rand.
And as stated many times Neither Ayn Rand or I were, or are advocates or supporters of Anarcho-Capitalism Libertarianism. Rand was clear in her understanding that the natural end point of libertarianism is indeed anarchy. And she was of course correct.
Your hate for Rand is obviously overtaken your ability to look beyond the superficial far left hyperbole about her. Your right and your choice Dervish.
Rand had flaws like all of us humans. She offered viewpoints that can easily be argued for as well as against. In reality not all was good nor was all bad in regards to her Oblectivism. Just as with Marx's economic social theories. So, who has the closed mind Dervish, if anyone does?
Just reshuffling the deck.
And yes, the proprietor of Contra O'Reilly is a dunderhead and has apparently shed his ability to reason.
Re your link DID AYN RAND ADVOCATE HARSH TREATMENT OF THE POOR?... the answer is YES. Although the author lies, calling this a "whopper". It is 100 percent true, however. Doing nothing when people are suffering/dying is harsh. And Rand absolutely advocates this, as the author acknowledges. Although he uses absurd Randian framing to flip that around (it's actually taxing to help the less fortunate that is harsh - harsh re the person being taxed!!).
ReplyDeleteObjectivism = evil. I am not saying RN is evil, however, as he has said many things that indicate to me that he is not an Objectivist (if he made this claim to Rand, I am positive she would disagree). For example...
RN: Call me a benevolent capitalist if you like. Something along the lines of a Thomas Paine style capitalist, one who grasps what "the common welfare" (or good) actually meant
This isn't a statement Rand would agree with.