Because government should not interfere with private citizen's right to remove the rights of others. Including, presumably, the right to not be murdered.
I mean, that's what Rand is saying -- he's saying that government should have no (zero) say about the situation in which one human is violating the fundamental human rights of another human. While intellectually honest and in compliance with his Randian Libertarian philosophy, that is also morally abhorent to any of us who believe that there are certain rights that all humans have, that among those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights governments are formed from amongst us... oh wait, I'm quoting that Commie liberal Thomas Jefferson again, my bad!
-- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
OH... I thought his point was to let people bring guns into restaurants!?
ReplyDeleteHe is a wicked moron. I hope he keeps talking and continues to highlight the racist underpinnings of the so-called "Tea Party" movement.
Frankly, I was shocked at his position, but even more amazed at his cowardice to simply answer a question as "yes." He hasn't courage of his own convictions. Pathetic loser, but keep talking. The world is listening, and it's your turn at the mic Dr Paul. The future of the tea party movement is hanging on your every word.
Shame on those poor souls, or should I say, good people of Kentucky for voting for this articulate & un-American man.
I watched Rachel Maddow go after Ayn Paul repeatedly last night, trying to get him to admit he supports the right to put up signs in restaurants saying "No Niggers Allowed." Property rights are more important than overbearing government demanding that humans have right in Glibertarian-land, after all.
ReplyDeleteHe's good at ducking a straight answer, though. It boiled down to "I'm not a racist myself." I'm sure he's not. Probably a fine guy who treats people equally. He's just not going to stand in the way of real racists, because he doesn't believe the government should do that.
Yet he knows if he SAID that, it would be abhorrent to many people. So he conceals his true beliefs. That must bug him; that he can't be open about what he believes to be philosophically proper because voters would find it repulsive. If he had any REAL principles, he'd say what he thinks, and defend it. It CAN be done, without seeming Neanderthal.
But what it boils down to is that Paul's #1 principle is getting elected. So he'll keep his real ideas under wraps. Like any other politician. Sad thing is, I think he stands a good chance of winning. He's like the Palin for Glibbo intellectuals.
David Duke
ReplyDelete