Her views are 100% bog standard modern “libertarian,” because her works are the most significant factor in the shaping those beliefs, but in her day libertarians were anarchists just beginning the ideological split into today’s actual libertarians and anarcho-capitalists/“libertarians”/racist and pedophilic liberals and fascists lying about their real goals to useful idiots.
Rothbard, famous racist, slave desiring, apartheid supporting, pedophile ideological founder of anarcho-capitalism, who has quite a lot of suspiciously pro-fascism quotes, technically started the process in the 40’s, but it didn’t gain steam or co-opt the term libertarian until the populatization of “libertarianism” thanks to Rand’s works.
So yes, everything you just said is technically correct, but is still deliberately misleading in modern context.
Her views are 100% bog standard modern “libertarian,”
Wrong. She praises monopolies, hierarchical systems with hereditary aristocracy, money bending rights, some people being more human than others etc. She’s rather very roughly Darwinist, with the idea that the less you try to compensate for strength disparity, the better, and at the same time she’s rather centralist. Almost fascist.
Basically she’s an inverted Bolshevik, which is not surprising considering her family history. A Bolshevik from capitalists, if you like. Not even similar to libertarianism. Her ideas have simply nothing to do with liberty. She was sufficiently honest to explain these things herself.
and anarcho-capitalists/“libertarians”/racist and pedophilic liberals and fascists lying about their real goals to useful idiots.
I’m ancap (rather distributist as in Chesterton’s views, but that’s harder to explain), so this BS you can leave to yourself.
I’d generalize this as anarchist ideologies attracting people who’d like to get rid of certain limitations most others would consider sane. Like fucking children, stealing, killing etc. This is, sadly, a real tendency, but I’ve met such leftist anarchists too.
Rothbard, famous racist, slave desiring, apartheid supporting, pedophile ideological founder of anarcho-capitalism, who has quite a lot of suspiciously pro-fascism quotes, technically started the process in the 40’s, but it didn’t gain steam or co-opt the term libertarian until the populatization of “libertarianism” thanks to Rand’s works.
You forgot to say that he also kinda liked USSR, at least in his book, “For a new liberty” or something, a very interesting person surely.
Also Rothbard’s and Rand’s followers were always very different people. I’ve never met a person who’d like both. It’s a bit like tankies think that “liberal” and “fascist” are synonyms, completely removed from the reality. If you want to have some idea about libertarians, you should talk to them and not your leftist friends.
So yes, everything you just said is technically correct, but is still deliberately misleading in modern context.
It’s especially important in modern context. Ayn Rand is basically a spoiler for libertarianism, a strawman which every leftist uses against people whose ideology has nothing in common with her. And in reality she was just, like I said earlier, for capitalism what Bolsheviks were for leftist ideologies. Rather economically misguided and too impractical.
I mean, you can just read the sources, Rothbard’s most known books, Ayn Rand’s Atlas and other stuff, and make your own opinion. The only common thing between them is disdain for state regulation and leftism. But the root of Rothbard’s ideology is simply incompatible with the root of Rand’s ideology.
The former builds on natural right and non-aggression. The latter builds on people not being equal, and some being shit under the boot of others, better and more useful. These are in direct conflict.
I mean, explaining something to a tankie is similar to trying to teach a pig fly.
I have read, much, much more of Rothbard than I like, which is why I despise him personally with an incandescent fury, the lying hypocrite and diseased builder of a rotten foundation.
His only enjoyable work was The Betrayal of the American Right, because I enjoy watching a fool recount the way the people who would become the neoliberals ate his stupid face, the way actual libertarians had warned him would happen from the start.
You know, using the word “neoliberals” just spoils your message due to this word meaning technically literally nothing. Empirically the least fuzzy description of it is “something that leftists don’t like”. It’s literally leftist slang.
I don’t think there’s anything more “actually libertarian” than Rothbard, but one can disagree with any particular thing (and I do with many). It seems you are pushing your ancoms from an unexpected orifice again.
But, of course, Chesterton’s and others’ distributism is even better, but one just can’t agree on such a thing with people without a certain cultural component.
![The Whole Fediverse is Wholesome [fixed]](https://media.kbin.social/media/75/34/7534fdd6766a8bc7f83436386577e62a42333384f5e0e25621c1ee00ac70f675.jpg){kind=link}
Her views are 100% bog standard modern “libertarian,” because her works are the most significant factor in the shaping those beliefs, but in her day libertarians were anarchists just beginning the ideological split into today’s actual libertarians and anarcho-capitalists/“libertarians”/racist and pedophilic liberals and fascists lying about their real goals to useful idiots.
Rothbard, famous racist, slave desiring, apartheid supporting, pedophile ideological founder of anarcho-capitalism, who has quite a lot of suspiciously pro-fascism quotes, technically started the process in the 40’s, but it didn’t gain steam or co-opt the term libertarian until the populatization of “libertarianism” thanks to Rand’s works.
So yes, everything you just said is technically correct, but is still deliberately misleading in modern context.
Wrong. She praises monopolies, hierarchical systems with hereditary aristocracy, money bending rights, some people being more human than others etc. She’s rather very roughly Darwinist, with the idea that the less you try to compensate for strength disparity, the better, and at the same time she’s rather centralist. Almost fascist.
Basically she’s an inverted Bolshevik, which is not surprising considering her family history. A Bolshevik from capitalists, if you like. Not even similar to libertarianism. Her ideas have simply nothing to do with liberty. She was sufficiently honest to explain these things herself.
I’m ancap (rather distributist as in Chesterton’s views, but that’s harder to explain), so this BS you can leave to yourself.
I’d generalize this as anarchist ideologies attracting people who’d like to get rid of certain limitations most others would consider sane. Like fucking children, stealing, killing etc. This is, sadly, a real tendency, but I’ve met such leftist anarchists too.
You forgot to say that he also kinda liked USSR, at least in his book, “For a new liberty” or something, a very interesting person surely.
Also Rothbard’s and Rand’s followers were always very different people. I’ve never met a person who’d like both. It’s a bit like tankies think that “liberal” and “fascist” are synonyms, completely removed from the reality. If you want to have some idea about libertarians, you should talk to them and not your leftist friends.
It’s especially important in modern context. Ayn Rand is basically a spoiler for libertarianism, a strawman which every leftist uses against people whose ideology has nothing in common with her. And in reality she was just, like I said earlier, for capitalism what Bolsheviks were for leftist ideologies. Rather economically misguided and too impractical.
LMAO- The only dignity your lies and cope deserve.
I mean, you can just read the sources, Rothbard’s most known books, Ayn Rand’s Atlas and other stuff, and make your own opinion. The only common thing between them is disdain for state regulation and leftism. But the root of Rothbard’s ideology is simply incompatible with the root of Rand’s ideology.
The former builds on natural right and non-aggression. The latter builds on people not being equal, and some being shit under the boot of others, better and more useful. These are in direct conflict.
I mean, explaining something to a tankie is similar to trying to teach a pig fly.
I have read, much, much more of Rothbard than I like, which is why I despise him personally with an incandescent fury, the lying hypocrite and diseased builder of a rotten foundation.
His only enjoyable work was The Betrayal of the American Right, because I enjoy watching a fool recount the way the people who would become the neoliberals ate his stupid face, the way actual libertarians had warned him would happen from the start.
You know, using the word “neoliberals” just spoils your message due to this word meaning technically literally nothing. Empirically the least fuzzy description of it is “something that leftists don’t like”. It’s literally leftist slang.
I don’t think there’s anything more “actually libertarian” than Rothbard, but one can disagree with any particular thing (and I do with many). It seems you are pushing your ancoms from an unexpected orifice again.
But, of course, Chesterton’s and others’ distributism is even better, but one just can’t agree on such a thing with people without a certain cultural component.
Ok brainlet