The Warped Worldview of Ann Coulter

[Xray]

Unlike Ayn Rand or many other modern thinkers, Ann Coulter really does not get above or beyond or through her own traditionalist expectations.

Since Coulter obviously has failed to check her own premises, she is not even aware of the irrational mental cage she is caught in, using absurd commands of the despotic Old Testamentary God as a justification for her world view.

Edited August 10, 2011 by Xray

[PDS]

A lot of libertarians are Godless (laughs) and although I can’t say ...

I saw her books back in 2003 and was hopeful, but after a few pages, I realized that she is vacuous. Since then, having seen her on talk shows, I am all the more certain that she is a mean, evil, spiteful, hateful mouthpiece whose job it is to be ridiculous so that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck (and John Boehner) seem reasonable. She is troll.

And she looks like a troll. See her without the long blonde hair and you see a monster, which is what she is.

I think it would be a mistake to underestimate Coulter. She is a very savvy media whore who has made herself rich by spoon-feeding pablum to the infantile contingent of the conservative movement. If you watch Coulter in spontaneous debates, you will see that she is a smart cookie who obviously knows what she is doing. Coulter knows how to put on a good show, from her micro skirts on up.

Ghs

I met and dealt with Ann Coulter a fair amount in 1985 or so. I like to remind my wife that she had the hots for me back then. At least that's how I choose to recall it.

George's comments would have been accurate even back then, and they are certainly accurate now.

[Xray]

I think it would be a mistake to underestimate Coulter. She is a very savvy media whore who has made herself rich by spoon-feeding pablum to the infantile contingent of the conservative movement. If you watch Coulter in spontaneous debates, you will see that she is a smart cookie who obviously knows what she is doing. Coulter knows how to put on a good show, from her micro skirts on up. Ghs

Coulter has the typical traits of an ideologist; these people are often quite savvy in applying simple but effectful rhetorical gimmicks.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

In this clip from CPAC 2011, Coulter answers a moderator question about gays in the conservative political movement. Watch closely and listen well. She is issue-oriented, not conceptual or principled. She almost addresses key questions, but only mentions them, not answering them. She frames a gay challenge as a strawman: "What makes our sin special? Do you not have premarital sex? Do your children not have premarital sex?" And Coulter replies that this is so, but that there is no caucus called Conservatives for Premarital Sex. At that point, she changes direction. (Blank out.) Her agenda is only that liberals/Democrats target groups to make enemies of conservatism and that these groups - women, Blacks, gays - belong in the conservative camp.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1wCRCpC3w8

This is an illustrative example of the crude rhetorical tactic used by Coulter to throw sand in people's eyes.

Edited August 12, 2011 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was going through Demonic by Ann Coulter a couple of weeks ago. She had me on the theoretical part at the beginning. Then the book went on to list all the examples that illustrate her theory and I got bored since the tone was the "us against them" stuff that is part of her schtick.

But the theoretical part was perceptive as all hell.

Her contention is that collectivism is at the psychological root of the liberal mind. She calls it the "mob mentality."

Taking a cue from Glenn Beck's work on the Founding Fathers (which I did not see her own up to), she looked back to history for her philosophical grounding and documented how, for decades, the liberals (progressives) have tried to discredit some of the shining lights of reason of the past, but also tried to rewrite history about them. She focused strongly on Gustave Le Bon, especially his work The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. And why collectivism (crowd psychology) undermined the French Revolution. And many other historical goodies.

I did not expect to find this level of research and philosophical insight in a book by a political attack dog. But she outdid many academics in the field, including libertarians. (Certain libertarian scholars excepted, of course, but, still, not one of them in the mainstream.) At times, she even went to Rand's limit of holding philosophy as the root of psychology--at least when crowd psychology is a force on society.

One of the most interesting things I found about her approach is how she painted collectivism as evil in religious terms. She started the book with the story from the Bible about Jesus exorcising an evil spirit from a man. As the spirit was leaving, Jesus asked its name. From Mark 5:9:

And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.

Coulter contends that this devil is the mob, i.e., collectivism, and this story is the first case on record of the evil roots of mob mentality.

It might not be the philosophical grounding against collectivism that Ayn Rand gave, but it is one that religious people can identify with and accept.

I linked to the Amazon page for the book at the start of this post (even though I can no longer be an Amazon affiliate because of recent screwed up Illinois law) because of the reader comments. If you (the reader) are interested, go through those reviews. As of this writing, there are 230. Many people who are not Coulter fans simply gushed.

I think it's a serious mistake to write Ann Coulter off. If she keeps producing books like this one, she will end up being far more than a political media personality in our culture. She will become an influential philosopher.

I may not agree with all the details of this new emphasis on philosophy and history coming from religious people like Beck and Coulter, but I do welcome the fact that they are injecting individualism as philosophy into the mainstream--and injecting it into places where Ayn Rand would not be welcome. On the contrary, they are opening the door to such places and people for Rand's work to enter.

I know Rand would not approve. Just as she did not approve of libertarians.

But I approve.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

Her scholarship is superior. All of her books are spectacular in their depth of research. Treason and her defense of Senator McCarthy is brilliant. In her third book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, also published by Crown Forum, she reexamines the 60-year history of the Cold War—including the career of Senator Joseph McCarthy, the Whittaker Chambers–Alger Hiss affair, and Ronald Reagan’s challenge to Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall"—and argues that liberals were wrong in their Cold War political analyses and policy decisions, and that McCarthy was correct about Soviet agents working for the U.S. government. She also argues that the correct identification of Annie Lee Moss, among others, as communists was misreported by that liberal media. Treason was published in 2003, and spent 13 weeks on the Best Seller list.^[28]

Well-known for her conservative political opinions and the controversial ways in which she defends them, Coulter has described herself as a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot" and does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do."^[2]

In 1999 and 2000, Coulter considered running for Congress from Connecticut on the Libertarian Party ticket to serve as a spoiler in order to throw the seat to the Democratic candidate and see that Republican Congressman Christopher Shays failed to gain re-election, as a punishment for Shays' vote against Clinton's impeachment. The leadership of the Libertarian Party of Connecticut, after meeting with Coulter, declined to endorse her. As a result, her self-described "total sham, media-intensive, third-party Jesse Ventura campaign" did not take place.^[11][12]

Coulter has been engaged several times, but never married.^[19] She has dated Spin founder and publisher Bob Guccione, Jr.,^[11] and conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza.^[47] In October 2007, she began dating Andrew Stein, the former president of the New York City Council, a liberal Democrat. When asked about the relationship, Stein told the paper, "She's attacked a lot of my friends, but what can I say, opposites attract!"^[48] On January 7, 2008, however, Stein told the New York Post that the relationship was over, citing irreconcilable differences.^[49]

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Coulte

In this 2 1/2 hour C-span interview, Ann covers a lot of ground. This ground covers an answer to a call in about Ayn Rand. She responds with a picture of her in front of a Vail store with John Galt in the window. She explained that she liked Ayn Rand, but then she "stopped being a teenager." She then explained that she leaned more towards the Whittaker Chambers review of Atlas.

At any rate, this is a great interview and I thoroughly enjoy her discourse, her argumentation and her satirical, cutting sense of humor.

Adam

[Dennis Hardin]

I agree that Coulter should not be dismissed as a crank. She is obviously extremely sharp and often has valuable insights to offer. She also has a wonderful sense of humour. To those who call her writing anti-Christian, she says:

"I'm a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it."

If only more Objectivists could present themselves and their viewpoints with such flair, such cheerful flamboyance, and, yes, such "delightful benevolence."

[Selene]

I agree that Coulter should not be dismissed as a crank. She is obviously extremely sharp and often has valuable insights to offer. She also has a wonderful sense of humour. To those who call her writing anti-Christian, she says:

"I'm a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it."

If only more Objectivists could present themselves and their viewpoints with such flair, such cheerful flamboyance, and, yes, such "delightful benevolence."

Precisely Dennis. As long as you understand her foundational position which is as a Christian conservative who has not identified herself with a specific branch of Christianity, you can appreciate her work.

For example, she believes that Jews are unprotected Christians and she can argue her position. It is similar to debating a Jesuit. They have exceptionally keen minds.

Additionally, she has a great sense of humor which is self deprecating as well as bitingly satirical.

One of my strongest perceptions of NBI in the 60's was the absolute absence of a sense of humor. This raised sonorous alarm bells in my mind. Unfortunately, my worst fears manifested themselves.

It is why you should never become involves sexually with a picky eater because they are awful lovers.

Adam

[sjw]

Crank? No. Creep? Yes.

Shayne

[PDS]

Adam, re picky eaters--that's what Eva Braun said,...

[Selene]

Adam, re picky eaters--that's what Eva Braun said,...

smart lady...was Hitler a picky eater?

[BaalChatzaf]

Adam, re picky eaters--that's what Eva Braun said,...

smart lady...was Hitler a picky eater?

Very. He was a vegetarian.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

I agree that Coulter should not be dismissed as a crank. She is obviously extremely sharp and often has valuable insights to offer. She also has a wonderful sense of humour. To those who call her writing anti-Christian, she says:

"I'm a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it."

At least Coulter is clear as a bell about herself, one has to give her that.

One could argue though about whether the "Christian" really comes first ...

Coulter & Co interest me as an object of study; here in Europe, we don't have the type of politicians or other public figures who advocate capitalism in combination with quoting from the Bible. Imo one could call these people "capitalism evangelists".

Edited August 16, 2011 by Xray

[jriggenbach]

Coulter & Co interest me as an object of study; here in Europe, we don't have the type of politicians or other public figures who advocate capitalism in combination with quoting from the Bible. Imo one could call these people "capitalism evangelists".

Does Coulter believe in a free market in heroin? In "pornography"? Then she does not believe in a free market. And she does not "advocate capitalism."

JR

[Xray]

Coulter & Co interest me as an object of study; here in Europe, we don't have the type of politicians or other public figures who advocate capitalism in combination with quoting from the Bible. Imo one could call these people "capitalism evangelists".

Does Coulter believe in a free market in heroin? In "pornography"? Then she does not believe in a free market. And she does not "advocate capitalism."

JR

I suppose even the most die-hard advocates of free market capitalism will draw the line when other fundamental values they have are being attacked. Or is the idea of a free market that much of a holy cow to its advocates that it tops all other values?

Let's do the test on pornography: do the free market advocates really devote no thought as to the conditions which provide the basis for this flourishing market? For example, third world parents selling their daughters into prostitution and for pornography films?

If coercion is involved in the production of porn (or heroin), how do free market advocates deal with that?

How do you deal with it? What is your position? If it should clash with any NIOF/NIOC principle you advocate, what do you do? Is it still a 'free market' to you then?

Or would you accord the label 'free market' only those economic transactions where no kind of coercion in the production process is involved?

Either way, your own ethical position will factor in.

The same goes for Coulter's values.

While the "C&C" cocktail (Christian faith + Capitalism) she serves to the public may not be to your taste, that Coulter is a fervent advocate of capitalism cannot be denied.

Coulter on Geraldo:

"What we want is Capitalism"

http://www.popmodal.com/video/4118/Ann-Coulter-on-Geraldo-What-we-want-is-Capitalism

What fascinates me is that (despite the separation of state and church) the Christian religion still seems to play an important role in the US. I also get the impression that the number of religious believers in the US is considerably higher than in Western Europe. It would be interesting to look at some statistics on that.

So when Coulter & Co so eagerly quote from the Bible, it may get them quite a few votes from e. g. the Bible Belt residents.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

I suppose even the most die-hard advocates of free market capitalism will draw the line when other fundamental values they have are being attacked. Or is the idea of a free market that much of a holy cow to its advocates that it tops all other values?

Let's do the test on pornography: do the free market advocates really devote no thought as to the conditions which provide the basis for this flourishing market? For example, third world parents selling their daughters into prostitution and for pornography films?

If coercion is involved in the production of porn (or heroin), how do free market advocates deal with that?

How do you deal with it? What is your position? If it should clash with any NIOF/NIOC principle you advocate, what do you do? Is it still a 'free market' to you then?

Or would you accord the label 'free market' only those economic transactions where no kind of coercion in the production process is involved?

Either way, your own ethical position will factor in.

The same goes for Coulter's values.

While the "C&C" cocktail (Christian faith + Capitalism) she serves to the public may not be to your taste, that Coulter is a fervent advocate of capitalism cannot be denied.

Coulter on Geraldo:

"What we want is Capitalism"

http://www.popmodal.com/video/4118/Ann-Coulter-on-Geraldo-What-we-want-is-Capitalism

Straw man questions. When no such thing as a free market exists, easy to point to its imposter as the initiator/enabler of evil deeds - while the coercion of Utopianist Statism gets off scot-free.

But, yes - except for individual rights - laissez faire capitalism "tops" it all.

(Have you read "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", yet?)

Protection of individual rights by government would prevent children being sold into any sort of slavery.

I know little about Coulter, but she's probably a pragmatic capitalist (not far dissimilar to pragmatic socialists) who knows which side her bread is buttered on. As a Christian, the egoist morality behind capitalism wouldn't be of interest to her, I suspect.

Tony

Edited August 17, 2011 by whYNOT

[jriggenbach]

Coulter & Co interest me as an object of study; here in Europe, we don't have the type of politicians or other public figures who advocate capitalism in combination with quoting from the Bible. Imo one could call these people "capitalism evangelists".

Does Coulter believe in a free market in heroin? In "pornography"? Then she does not believe in a free market. And she does not "advocate capitalism."

JR

I suppose even the most die-hard advocates of free market capitalism will draw the line when other fundamental values they have are being attacked.

Then, as usual, you suppose wrong.

Let's do the test on pornography: do the free market advocates really devote no thought as to the conditions which provide the basis for this flourishing market? For example, third world parents selling their daughters into prostitution and for pornography films?

If coercion is involved in the production of porn (or heroin), how do free market advocates deal with that?

How do you deal with it? What is your position? If it should clash with any NIOF/NIOC principle you advocate, what do you do? Is it still a 'free market' to you then?

Or would you accord the label 'free market' only those economic transactions where no kind of coercion in the production process is involved?

That's correct. If some people violate others' rights in the process of manufacturing and marketing products, they can be prosecuted for those rights violations. That is a separate issue.

While the "C&C" cocktail (Christian faith + Capitalism) she serves to the public may not be to your taste, that Coulter is a fervent advocate of capitalism cannot be denied.

Yes, it can. I deny it. Ann Coulter is an ignoramus and a moron. She doesn't even understand what "capitalism" (in the Objectivist sense of completely unimpeded markets) is. Like everyone else in the political mainstream, she's a garden variety fascist.

JR

[Brant Gaede]

Coulter & Co interest me as an object of study; here in Europe, we don't have the type of politicians or other public figures who advocate capitalism in combination with quoting from the Bible. Imo one could call these people "capitalism evangelists".

Does Coulter believe in a free market in heroin? In "pornography"? Then she does not believe in a free market. And she does not "advocate capitalism."

JR

I suppose even the most die-hard advocates of free market capitalism will draw the line when other fundamental values they have are being attacked.

Then, as usual, you suppose wrong.

Let's do the test on pornography: do the free market advocates really devote no thought as to the conditions which provide the basis for this flourishing market? For example, third world parents selling their daughters into prostitution and for pornography films?

If coercion is involved in the production of porn (or heroin), how do free market advocates deal with that?

How do you deal with it? What is your position? If it should clash with any NIOF/NIOC principle you advocate, what do you do? Is it still a 'free market' to you then?

Or would you accord the label 'free market' only those economic transactions where no kind of coercion in the production process is involved?

That's correct. If some people violate others' rights in the process of manufacturing and marketing products, they can be prosecuted for those rights violations. That is a separate issue.

While the "C&C" cocktail (Christian faith + Capitalism) she serves to the public may not be to your taste, that Coulter is a fervent advocate of capitalism cannot be denied.

Yes, it can. I deny it. Ann Coulter is an ignoramus and a moron. She doesn't even understand what "capitalism" (in the Objectivist sense of completely unimpeded markets) is. Like everyone else in the political mainstream, she's a garden variety fascist.

JR

Perry, who could well win the nomination and even be elected, is the one candidate who really scares me.

--Brant

I'm talking about war, home and abroad, an acceleration of current policies and trends

[sjw]

Yes, it can. I deny it. Ann Coulter is an ignoramus and a moron.

Yes, and here's a case where it takes one to not know one.

Shayne

[Xray]

I suppose even the most die-hard advocates of free market capitalism will draw the line when other fundamental values they have are being attacked.

Then, as usual, you suppose wrong.

So they won't draw the line when other fundamental values they have are being attacked?

What does for example a die-hard advocate of of free market capitalism - but who is also an animal rights activist and opposed to rearing hens in far too small cages - do if the cage eggs sell a lot better on the market? Can you definitely say that the animals' rights will take a back seat then in this person's mind and he/she'll opt for monetary profit instead?

Or would you accord the label 'free market' only those economic transactions where no kind of coercion in the production process is involved?

That's correct. If some people violate others' rights in the process of manufacturing and marketing products, they can be prosecuted for those rights violations. That is a separate issue.

It is actually a key issue, especially from an anarchist perspective. It has always interested me in what way rights violations are dealt with in Anarchia. Do the offenders get prosecuted as well? If yes, how is it done?

While the "C&C" cocktail (Christian faith + Capitalism) she serves to the public may not be to your taste, that Coulter is a fervent advocate of capitalism cannot be denied.

Yes, it can. I deny it. Ann Coulter is an ignoramus and a moron. She doesn't even understand what "capitalism" (in the Objectivist sense of completely unimpeded markets) is.

Since Coulter is no Objectivist, there is no reason for her to adopt Rand's idea of "capitalism" in the Objectivist sense of completely unimpeded markets.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Xray

[jriggenbach]

I suppose even the most die-hard advocates of free market capitalism will draw the line when other fundamental values they have are being attacked.

Then, as usual, you suppose wrong.

So they won't draw the line when other fundamental values they have are being attacked?

What does for example a die-hard advocate of of free market capitalism - but who is also an animal rights activist and opposed to rearing hens in far too small cages - do if the cage eggs sell a lot better on the market? Can you definitely say that the animals' rights will take a back seat then in this person's mind and he/she'll opt for monetary profit instead?

Your obtuseness never fails to startle me, Xray. I'm not giving you a law of nature which will enable you to predict the behavior of particular individuals. I'm telling you that there are people who advocate completely and utterly free and unimpeded markets - what Objectivists and most other libertarians call "capitalism." Whatever personal preferences they may have (for eggs laid by free range chickens, for example, a preference I happen to share), these folks appear to understand that they have no right to force others at the point of a gun to honor those preferences.

Or would you accord the label 'free market' only those economic transactions where no kind of coercion in the production process is involved?

That's correct. If some people violate others' rights in the process of manufacturing and marketing products, they can be prosecuted for those rights violations. That is a separate issue.

It is actually a key issue, especially from an anarchist perspective. It has always interested me in what way rights violations are dealt with in Anarchia. Do the offenders get prosecuted as well? If yes, how is it done?

This is not an introductory course in Anarchism 101. Go and read the obvious sources - Friedman's Machinery of Freedom, Rothbard's For a New Liberty and Power & Market, the Tannehill's Market for Liberty, Ghs's "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market." For some fictional examples of how such a system might work, see Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. If you have questions about what you read, come back and ask them. If I'm not around, maybe Ghs or one of the other anarchists around here will step in and help out.

While the "C&C" cocktail (Christian faith + Capitalism) she serves to the public may not be to your taste, that Coulter is a fervent advocate of capitalism cannot be denied.

Yes, it can. I deny it. Ann Coulter is an ignoramus and a moron. She doesn't even understand what "capitalism" (in the Objectivist sense of completely unimpeded markets) is.

Since Coulter is no Objectivist, there is no reason for her to adopt Rand's idea of "capitalism" in the Objectivist sense of completely unimpeded markets.

If you look at it that way, then Coulter's status as an "advocate" of "capitalism" turns out to mean that she advocates whatever she advocates and she calls it "capitalism" whether it is or not. I, for example, am an advocate of socialism - not what the Marxists mean by socialism, because I'm not a Marxist; rather what I mean by socialism, which is a system in which everyone has lots of beer. Presto! I'm an "advocate" of "socialism."

Do you have any other pointless word games you'd like to waste our time with?

JR

[studiodekadent]

Angela,

I have to back Jeff up here.

"Capitalism" as most Objectivists use the term is synonymous with Free Market Economics, which refers to any economy where economic activity (production, exchange, consumption, etc etc) is conducted within the sphere of consent and contract exclusively.

Now, Leftists typically use "Capitalism" to mean a whole bunch of different things. The Marxist meaning of the term is "any economy wherein which wage labor exists." Other meanings include "Corporatism" (aka "State Capitalism," which sounds like a contradiction to classical liberals).

But when we talk about "Capitalism" we don't endorse selling products created via coercion.

I think I can pinpoint the source of your mistake;

you are separating the market from the people that make it up.

do the free market advocates really devote no thought as to the conditions which provide the basis for this flourishing market?.... If coercion is involved in the production of porn (or heroin), how do free market advocates deal with that?

The freedom of a market is not separate from the freedom of individuals in the market. A market is only as free as the individuals within it are. If individuals in any market are being coerced, forced or deceived, the market is NOT free.

It is NOT an abrogation of "the freedom of the market" to prevent coercive transactions of any kind (including transactions of products created via coercion). "The market" is not an entity in and of itself and therefore does not, strictly speaking, have freedoms or rights. Only individuals have freedoms or rights. We call any market a "free market" when the rights of all individual participants within the market are respected.

Your error is Reification (aka. Hypostasization, aka. Platonism). You are treating "the market" as a transcendent, independent entity that exists apart from individual market participants. But the market isn't independent of the participants; "the market" is the participants!

[Jonathan]

This is not an introductory course in Anarchism 101. Go and read the obvious sources - Friedman's Machinery of Freedom, Rothbard's For a New Liberty and Power & Market, the Tannehill's Market for Liberty, Ghs's "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market." For some fictional examples of how such a system might work, see Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. If you have questions about what you read, come back and ask them. If I'm not around, maybe Ghs or one of the other anarchists around here will step in and help out.

Which sources would you recommend for the strongest arguments against anarchism? Who, in your opinion, offers the best criticisms of the ideas of Friedman, Rothbard and Smith, which I might use to supplement my studies in Anarchism 101?

J

[sjw]

This is not an introductory course in Anarchism 101. Go and read the obvious sources - Friedman's Machinery of Freedom, Rothbard's For a New Liberty and Power & Market, the Tannehill's Market for Liberty, Ghs's "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market." For some fictional examples of how such a system might work, see Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. If you have questions about what you read, come back and ask them. If I'm not around, maybe Ghs or one of the other anarchists around here will step in and help out.

Which sources would you recommend for the strongest arguments against anarchism? Who, in your opinion, offers the best criticisms of the ideas of Friedman, Rothbard and Smith, which I might use to supplement my studies in Anarchism 101?

J

Here's an essay of mine on that topic: http://www.forindividualrights.com/against_anarchism

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

This is not an introductory course in Anarchism 101. Go and read the obvious sources - Friedman's Machinery of Freedom, Rothbard's For a New Liberty and Power & Market, the Tannehill's Market for Liberty, Ghs's "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market." For some fictional examples of how such a system might work, see Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. If you have questions about what you read, come back and ask them. If I'm not around, maybe Ghs or one of the other anarchists around here will step in and help out.

Which sources would you recommend for the strongest arguments against anarchism? Who, in your opinion, offers the best criticisms of the ideas of Friedman, Rothbard and Smith, which I might use to supplement my studies in Anarchism 101?

J

The world as it is is the strongest argument against anarchism. The world as it should be is the strongest argument for anarchism. The problem with the latter is spinning castles in the air. Or, as the farmer said, leaning against his fencepost upon being asked how to get to Chicago: "You can't get there from here."

What the different worlds of Rand and Rothbard have in common at the root is individual rights and the conceit of human perfectibility. Rand's view was much, much narrower and tended to dress out her human ideal in a few people only so she basically stuck with the state (minarchism) to control hoi polloi. This actually deradicalized her vision into an atheistic conservatism. Necessarily she de-emphasized individual rights and real individualism in favor of her Objectivist philosophy and cult with her as head of it all. I'd say for Rothbard, tentatively, that he was much more individualistic and that was the main source of his antagonism to Rand and Branden, not the conflict over where he got his material from--i.e., there was no room for him. Eventually there was no room for a lot of other people, especially the Brandens. In anarchism it would seem that people sans government are better overall than with government because government and the politicoes and the agents thereof cause so much distress in the world. But thuggery is extant in human being and take away the government and the thugs will put up another one. This is the prime source of the minarchist's insistence on government as a monopoly: Government is inherently bad and it's not to be gotten rid of so take it over and keep the bad guys from using it for bad things. The struggle against tyranny is perpetual and without end and has innumerable facets.

--Brant