Jay Leno and Chris Matthews discussed Rand last night

[emazur]

Leno asked Matthews what he thought about Rand, Matthews didn't exactly badmouth him but said that Rand was a philosopher and that philosophers shouldn't run for office.

[angelatc]

That's about as close to a compliment as we're going to get out of Chris Matthews. And it's pretty funny to hear the biggest cheerleader for the author of "The Audacity of Hope" say that philosophers shouldn't be politicians.

[TheFlashlight.org]

I disagree with Mathews, and by now, so does most of the country. What we need exactly are philosopher politicians. We need old guys with long beards who have thought about stuff in caves for 20 years and not sleazy, career oriented lawyers.

[BuddyRey]

LOL! Yeah, politicians should just be blowup dolls in suits, with nothing anchoring their heads to their shoulders except makeup and Brylcreem.

After all, the people don't think, so why should their politicians be any different?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Leno asked Matthews what he thought about Rand, Matthews didn't exactly badmouth him but said that Rand was a philosopher and that philosophers shouldn't run for office.

He's not a philosopher, he is just a libertarian republican. A philosopher would be someone like Socrates, Ayn Rand, Stefan Molyneux...

[1000-points-of-fright]

A guy on CNN today said almost the same thing, that Rand is not a sound bite politician and deals more with ideas and philosophies that need to be explored at length. He said everyone complains about sound bite politicians, but when we get someone who isn't... this is what happens.

[Bman]

He's not a philosopher, he is just a libertarian republican. A philosopher would be someone like Socrates, Ayn Rand, Stefan Molyneux...

Don't forget to add Obama to that list as previously mentioned.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Don't forget to add Obama to that list as previously mentioned.

hm. no. not even the dysfunctional karl marx was a philosopher. he was many things [a drunk, a hypocrite, wife beater, bad father] but not a philosopher. He was 2nd...3rd...4th...5th rate pseudo-intellectual that lived off his best friend's factory. maybe he felt guilty so he created the communist manifesto

[misconstrued]

I disagree with Mathews, and by now, so does most of the country. What we need exactly are philosopher politicians. We need old guys with long beards who have thought about stuff in caves for 20 years and not sleazy, career oriented lawyers.

I agree completely.

[paulitics]

No offense, but Rand is not a philosopher. He is too pragmatic to be a philosopher. He is not in the same category as Chomsky, Marx, and Molyneux that's for sure.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

No offense, but Rand is not a philosopher. He is too pragmatic to be a philosopher. He is not in the same category as Chomsky, Marx, and Molyneux that's for sure.

And Chomsky and Marx are not in the same category as Stefan Molyneux.

Noam, stick to linguistics.

Karl, please, stay dead

[Mini-Me]

No offense, but Rand is not a philosopher. He is too pragmatic to be a philosopher. He is not in the same category as Chomsky, Marx, and Molyneux that's for sure.

While this is true on an absolute scale, Rand still takes a much more philosophical approach than almost any other politician in a century, except his dad and maybe a few others. Besides, he actually has a better intuitive philosophical understanding than either Chomsky or Marx, so that has to count for something. ;)


And Chomsky and Marx are not in the same category as Stefan Molyneux.

Noam, stick to linguistics.

Karl, please, stay dead

...and Stefan Molyneux is not in the same category as Ron Paul, Mises, Spooner, Rothbard, etc.

Molyneux, please stick to your therapy cult. ;) (I'm mostly saying this because I don't like him, though; he actually does make strong arguments against the state.)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

...and Stefan Molyneux is not in the same category as Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Mises, Spooner, Rothbard, etc.

Molyneux, please stick to your therapy cult. ;)

Rothbard is ok.

Mises was ok, albeit he was still a statist

Tom Woods is a joke

Stefan Molyneux is the only libertarian that focuses on philosophy rather than your typical libertarian talking points. His community is a lot like this one, voluntary, and he is a purist, more than an loser like Tom Woods can say. That a-hole goes on Glenn Beck and he never mentions any of the juicy things. Nothing about lincoln, nothing about rothbard, just totally kissed GB's ass.

You don't like him because you're a statist. But that's ok, most on here are.

[Dreamofunity]

http://tv.popcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/my-dad-better-than-your-dad.jpg

Dad=Philosopher.

[RforRevolution]

Rothbard is ok.

Mises was ok, albeit he was still a statist

Tom Woods is a joke

Stefan Molyneux is the only libertarian that focuses on philosophy rather than your typical libertarian talking points. His community is a lot like this one, voluntary, and he is a purist, more than an loser like Tom Woods can say. That a-hole goes on Glenn Beck and he never mentions any of the juicy things. Nothing about lincoln, nothing about rothbard, just totally kissed GB's ass.

You don't like him because you're a statist. But that's ok, most on here are.

Just curious, how come you don't like Tom Woods?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Just curious, how come you don't like Tom Woods?

He goes on Glenn Beck and doesn't say anything out of the mainstream. So many missed opportunities...

[Mini-Me]

Rothbard is ok.

Mises was ok, albeit he was still a statist

Tom Woods is a joke

Stefan Molyneux is the only libertarian that focuses on philosophy rather than your typical libertarian talking points. His community is a lot like this one, voluntary, and he is a purist, more than an loser like Tom Woods can say. That a-hole goes on Glenn Beck and he never mentions any of the juicy things. Nothing about lincoln, nothing about rothbard, just totally kissed GB's ass.

You don't like him because you're a statist. But that's ok, most on here are.

LOL, you got me before I edited Tom Woods out, out of some doubt.

Apparently, you also got me before my edit clarifying that I don't like Molyneux, even though he makes strong arguments against the state. The truth is, I'm totally cool with voluntaryism and agree with it in the moral sense, even if I don't insist on it at this point in time. I just don't like Molyneux for different reasons, which I went into a bit in this post (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2538512&postcount=14). There are actually a lot of an-caps who can't stand him for similar reasons. I came across an entire forum-full once. ;)

[Tecla]

He goes on Glenn Beck and doesn't say anything out of the mainstream. So many missed opportunities...

THAT is why you don't like Tom Woods? Holy crud. He speaks out, writes books, goes on the lecture circuit, whatever he can to spread the message of a better way of doing economics and looking at history. He's not perfect (even he admits he had to "wake up" around 2000 or so), but by gosh he's doing the best he can.

What do you think would happen if he went on Glenn Beck and espoused the most "pure" examples of libertarianism? You know the answer -- he wouldn't get invited back. And he might get trashed/into a fight over it that would do more damage than good. He's raising his name ID, and he's putting out the info everywhere else, and people will be more willing to listen to what he says elsewhere as a result of his being wise with his words on Glenn Beck's show.

Joseph, in my core I'm as much a purist as you. But I also believe in a couple of things: milk before meat (for the people who don't know about libertarianism), and I believe in assuming the best of intentions of people and being forgiving, especially good hardworking guys like Tom Woods. He's doing the best he can, the best way he knows how. Give him a break.

Yes, it's true, I did imply you aren't very forgiving. Please forgive me if I am in error, and by doing so you can prove me wrong. :D

[JosephTheLibertarian]

LOL, you got me before I edited Tom Woods out, out of some doubt.

Anyway, you mistake my dislike of Molyneux; I'm totally cool with voluntaryism and agree with it in the moral sense, even if I don't insist on it at this point in time. I don't like Molyneux for different reasons, which I went into a bit in this post (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2538512&postcount=14). There are actually a lot of an-caps who can't stand him for similar reasons.

yep. they dont say its like herding cats for no reason ;) I like him. He's entertaining, interesting, makes sense, and puts everything into perspective. I enjoy everything but.... a little bigotry when I said [on his site] that I believe in ghosts. but other than that I think he's awesome.

Cult? People can peg him like that but all it is is an online community, not unlike this one. a forum, a chatroom.. but also has articles, podcasts, free books.. some people could say religions are a cult.

[Mini-Me]

Joseph, in my core I'm as much a purist as you. But I also believe in a couple of things: milk before meat (for the people who don't know about libertarianism), and I believe in assuming the best of intentions of people and being forgiving, especially good hardworking guys like Tom Woods. He's doing the best he can, the best way he knows how. Give him a break.


But I also believe in a couple of things: milk before meat (for the people who don't know about libertarianism), and I believe in assuming the best of intentions of people and being forgiving


milk before meat
...in the same meal...?

ANTI-SEMITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)

Sorry, that just made me think of kosher laws all of a sudden. :)

[Tecla]

...in the same meal...?

ANTI-SEMITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)

Sorry, that just made me think of kosher laws all of a sudden. :)

Haha, that's a pretty good catch. :) I forgot about that. I hope everyone else can forgive me for advocating any Jewish people break the law of Moses in any sense.

But, yeah, milk before meat => find some simple, easy to understand basic principles to agree with people on, and then slowly build up from there until they begin to see the whole picture and not reject the finer points of your arguments. Libertarianism is not mainstream right now, so this type of strategy is a must as far as educating others goes.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

THAT is why you don't like Tom Woods? Holy crud. He speaks out, writes books, goes on the lecture circuit, whatever he can to spread the message of a better way of doing economics and looking at history. He's not perfect (even he admits he had to "wake up" around 2000 or so), but by gosh he's doing the best he can.

What do you think would happen if he went on Glenn Beck and espoused the most "pure" examples of libertarianism? You know the answer -- he wouldn't get invited back. And he might get trashed/into a fight over it that would do more damage than good. He's raising his name ID, and he's putting out the info everywhere else, and people will be more willing to listen to what he says elsewhere as a result of his being wise with his words on Glenn Beck's show.

Joseph, in my core I'm as much a purist as you. But I also believe in a couple of things: milk before meat (for the people who don't know about libertarianism), and I believe in assuming the best of intentions of people and being forgiving, especially good hardworking guys like Tom Woods. He's doing the best he can, the best way he knows how. Give him a break.

Yes, it's true, I did imply you aren't very forgiving. Please forgive me if I am in error, and by doing so you can prove me wrong. :D

Ok. I stand corrected. He has done more for libertarianism than I ever have. I just got very frustrated seeing him not say what I wanted him to say in front of 2.5-3 million people. lol. glenn beck is forever praising lincoln on his show. i wanted tom to teach beck some truth, then maybe mention the mises institution, walter block, murray rothbard, etc.

[AdamT]

Tom Woods is a joke

:rolleyes:

[Carole]

Leno asked Matthews what he thought about Rand, Matthews didn't exactly badmouth him but said that Rand was a philosopher and that philosophers shouldn't run for office.
I suddenly got a picture in my head of the Roman senate and a bunch of philosophers hanging out. :D:D

[Tecla]

Ok. I stand corrected. He has done more for libertarianism than I ever have. I just got very frustrated seeing him not say what I wanted him to say in front of 2.5-3 million people. lol. glenn beck is forever praising lincoln on his show. i wanted tom to teach beck some truth, then maybe mention the mises institution, walter block, murray rothbard, etc.

I totally agree with that. I don't see any harm in him mentioning the Mises Institution; dropping, say, DiLorenzo's name; talking about true free-market solutions to problems, etc. But there's a balance to keep, and so he probably needs some little adjustments. Big ones...maybe not, but once he's gained some trust by hosts in the MSM, he could probably start sticking his neck out a bit more and more over time.

I'm not sure what I would do if I were in his shoes. Heck, since we're talking about Rand too, if I had been pigeon-holed into that same position Rand was by Maddow and that NPR guy, I would not have recanted, but I would have probably *exploded* at them, and thus kicked myself out of the race. Better they deal with the MSM bums than me, I say.

[1000-points-of-fright]

glenn beck is forever praising lincoln on his show. i wanted tom to teach beck some truth, then maybe mention the mises institution, walter block, murray rothbard, etc.

As far as I know, Tom Woods has only been on Beck's show WITH Beck (as opposed to when Napolitano is hosting) to talk about economics and, more specifically, the depression of 1920.

One sure way of never getting invited back on a show is to go off on a rant that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

[doctor jones]

Rothbard is ok.

Mises was ok, albeit he was still a statist

Tom Woods is a joke

Stefan Molyneux is the only libertarian that focuses on philosophy rather than your typical libertarian talking points. His community is a lot like this one, voluntary, and he is a purist, more than an loser like Tom Woods can say. That a-hole goes on Glenn Beck and he never mentions any of the juicy things. Nothing about lincoln, nothing about rothbard, just totally kissed GB's ass.

You don't like him because you're a statist. But that's ok, most on here are.

Boy talk about tact. You really won me over.

[Odin]

I disagree with Mathews, and by now, so does most of the country. What we need exactly are philosopher politicians. We need old guys with long beards who have thought about stuff in caves for 20 years and not sleazy, career oriented lawyers.

+ a million. A big problem is though that most so-called 'philosophers' today are such limp-wristed weakened idiots. The ones who crawl away to institutions and do petty theorizing are the ones I'm talking about it, and I know because philosophy and physics are my majors in college. Many of them are so full of bullshit its unbelievable. The profession has degenerated so much, most of those academics only care about impressing their colleagues now.

We do need real philosophers. Maybe not a "Philosopher King" but a "Philosopher Legislature" would be quite nice. On the other hand, a person well versed in philosophy might be dangerous. Hitler had such amazing power of persuasion probably because he'd read many excellent philosophers, particularly Nietzsche.

[jmdrake]

That's about as close to a compliment as we're going to get out of Chris Matthews. And it's pretty funny to hear the biggest cheerleader for the author of "The Audacity of Hope" say that philosophers shouldn't be politicians.

The Audacity of Hope counts as philosophy? I always thought it was a fluff piece. ;)

[Odin]

hm. no. not even the dysfunctional karl marx was a philosopher. he was many things [a drunk, a hypocrite, wife beater, bad father] but not a philosopher. He was 2nd...3rd...4th...5th rate pseudo-intellectual that lived off his best friend's factory. maybe he felt guilty so he created the communist manifesto

Ha if Karl Marx is not a philosopher Ayn Rand most certainly is not. More like bad fiction writer.

I would say neither is a philosopher though.

Good philosophers usually stayed away from politics, or at least didn't didn't focus on it too much. Hume and Kant were both quite libertarian though.

[Andrew-Austin]

He's not a philosopher, he is just a libertarian republican. A philosopher would be someone like Socrates, Ayn Rand, Stefan Molyneux...

He is a philosopher compared to someone like Matthews, who is basically a spineless blob.

For someone who is sounding like such a big fan of Molyneux (guy who says stuff like 'we are all philosophers') you are sounding pretty elitist about philosophy in this thread.

[TheState]

I mentioned this in another thread too, but didn't Matthews mention a week or two ago that he was a Goldwater supporter back in the day? Maybe he's been kind since he had some flashbacks to the attacks in 64?

[TheConstitutionLives]

Stefan Molyneux is the only libertarian

You're so pure. We should all bow down.

Just for the record, genius, Stefan does not consider himself to be a libertarian.

[jkr]

riiiigghtt, only LAWYERS are ALLOWED to run for "office"

[bighairycaveman]

Ok, so Chris Matthews has twice used this scenario where a black couple is driving down the road and and the wife has to use the bathroom, but she is denied. This is really a no-brainer. Chris Matthews is suggesting that as human beings we have a "right" to use a bathroom. This is simply not true. We have a "right" to urinate and a "right" to defecate, but we do not have a right to use a bathroom (unless you own, lease, or have permission to use that bathroom).

[sailingaway]

Ok, so Chris Matthews has twice used this scenario where a black couple is driving down the road and and the wife has to use the bathroom, but she is denied. This is really a no-brainer. Chris Matthews is suggesting that as human beings we have a "right" to use a bathroom. This is simply not true. We have a "right" to urinate and a "right" to defecate, but we do not have a right to use a bathroom (unless you own, lease, or have permission to use that bathroom).

What he is saying is that it is an unacceptable state of affairs, and I agree.

The whole point about the racism/south EXCEPTION to the libertarian purity is that libertarian principles assume a free market and Jim Crow laws meant there WAS no market for blacks. A black couple couldn't say, "up yours, I'll buy my gas at the station next door" because the station next door was the same way. It was an aberration CREATED by the govt and I think it would have taken at least another generation before it ameliorated, having studied the period. If govt screws things up, sometimes it takes govt to fix them. However, I would have gone with a Constitutional amendment for race or used the 14th amendment NOT the commerce clause for authority. The reason the civil rights case is important to the left and right NOW is it a step in expanding federal power and intrusion and we would like that to end and reverse in other areas where the exception that applies to the civil rights act DOESN'T exist, and the left is deathly afraid of that idea.

[Aratus]

the McGlaughlin Group was less critical of Rand and tried to explain libertarianism and john locke...

[yokna7]

Did the 1964 CRB dismiss my right to not serve drooling idiots in my restaurant?

[Dreamofunity]

Did the 1964 CRB dismiss my right to not serve drooling idiots in my restaurant?

Yep. The only reason left for not serving someone is if they don't have shoes or a shirt.