Gillespie off mark
Published: Sunday, Aug. 18, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Gillespie off mark
Philosopher Ayn Rand's decades-ago description of the Libertarian Party as “hippies of the right” remains apt despite Reason.com editor Nick Gillespie labeling it a “myth” in his column “5 myths about libertarianism” (Aug. 11 and TribLIVE.com).
As Ms. Rand noted, liberty and non-initiation of force are principles that are reached by a chain of reasoning that derives from an entire philosophical system, which includes distinct viewpoints on the nature of reality and the nature of man. It is only with that philosophical basis that one can properly advocate for capitalism without getting mired in contradictions, rationalizations and compromises that characterize many of today's so-called defenders of capitalism.
Moreover, and contrary to Mr. Gillespie's position, there is no “political spectrum” when it comes to liberty — either one believes man must be free to use his rational faculty in order to flourish and one therefore advocates for the inviolability of individual rights, or one does not. For Gillespie to ignore these facts and then claim Rand as a huge influence on the party is intellectually dishonest.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Privatization disastrous
- Leave ‘God’ out
- About Quinn & Rose I
- Legacy: All lose
- More overreach
- Leave economy alone
- Forgetting troops
- Christians must vote
- Zubik & Rooney
- About Quinn & Rose II
- Unconstitutional funding