[eDebate] ans Chand

Dheeraj Chand disciplineandpunish
Thu Sep 26 15:36:07 CDT 2002

Dear Michael -

The reason that I asked about right-wing libertarianism is because I am 
currently auditing a graduate class on Hegel's, "Philosophy of Right", 
and I was curious about the philosophical assumptions implicit in the 
political philosophy of libertarianism as understood outside the 
Hegelian framework. Under this framework, what are called simply 
"Libertarians" would most likely be what Hegelians would call "Right 
Libertarians", i.e. classical or neo-classical liberals in the British 

Nozick, I am quite familiar with. You are correct in asserting that 
"Anarchy, State, Utopia" is required reading for anyone seeking to do 
work in political philosophy. Conversely, so is Rawls' canon. Both of 
them are essential reading if nothing else because of their incredible 
influence on the field.

Heinlen is also fascinating, but he seems to have a little bit too much 
of anarcho-syndicalist, communitarian sympathy to fall into what I 
understand American Libertarianism to be about. I really enjoy his work, 
and would like someone to explain to me how his work supports American 

Regarding Rand, the reason that I requested Randians not to reply is 
because I am already intimately familiar with their political canon and 
understandings. My reseach assignment in high school for four years was 
"Objectivisim" and "AT: Objectivism", so I have all of their stuff down 
cold. And the reason that those whom you label "Leftists" dismiss Rand 
has very little to do with any form of sexism or knee-jerk reaction to 
right-wing politics. It has more to do with the method and integrity of 
her philosophical training and work (The jackass never read the entirety 
of Plato or Kant, for god's sake, and yet felt comfortable labelling 
them the two most evil people in history - and her understanding of 
Aristotle is ridiculous.), the ridiculous cult of personality that she 
built around herself, her ridiculous portrayal of the role of women in 
sexuality as rape victims waiting for the rape to occur, the plagiarism 
and pastiche of thoughts from various authors through history, etc. 
Remember that even the very haven of "liberalism", "Pinko-ism", or 
whatever it is you call academia, HARVARD, saw fit to grant ROBERT 
NOZICK their highest rank, University Professor. Nice try at argument by 
ad hominem, but from one policy debater to another, "NO LINK".

Furthermore, I resent your labelling of me as a "Tard". I asked an 
open-ended, academic question in good faith. I recieved an answer in 
good faith from Phil Kerpen and more jocular response from Matt Schiros. 
If Schiros can find it within himself to be civil, why can't you? I 
don't pretend to be brilliant, but I know that I'm no moron. I also know 
that I'm not at all similar to Kevin Sanchez, the other person whom you 
single out as worthy of receving this name. This name calling on your 
part is nothing more than the same kind of crass incivility and 
immaturity in academia which disgusts me. Way to go.

To those who responded for my call for information, thank you.


> huh? i am not sure what a "right libertarian" is. i am a libertarian 
> and i am often correct so i will make a short list of 3 libertarians 
> that have influenced my thinking: a philosopher, a 
> novelist/philosopher, and an economist/philosopher.
> 1) Robert Nozick, philosopher
> he died this February, a scion of Harvard's Philosophy Department. his 
> Anarchy, State, and Utopia is an excellent and accessible treatment of 
> Liberty. even Tards should be able to read it. here is a bit more 
> about him:
> http://libertyguide.org/libertyguide/people.php/75853.html
> understanding his work is a necessary precondition to understanding 
> ourselves and the world. the Philosopher's Cafe, for example, (at
> http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/library21.htm )lists Anarchy, State 
> and Utopia as the 11th book one should obtain in building a home 
> philosophy library. their list is an excellent one (although i 
> disagree about some of their choices, if you haven't read at least 
> half that list, you don't understand jack about taco).
> 2) Ayn Rand, novelist-philosopher
> i know Chand wrote "and Randians need not bother responding." but i 
> take it that was because Dheeraj is a dolt. Rand's thought and writing 
> are an inextricable component of the contemporary defense of liberty.
> she has always been poo-pooed by left academics. she was a woman, 
> after all, and the left has a sorry legacy of sexism. too, that she 
> dared to write plainly about what tards they were has never sat well.
> the indy film A Sense of Life is a good and accessible introduction to 
> her life and beliefs. almost every fairly contested discussion of the 
> great works of literature ranks her greatest novel, Atlas Shrugged, as 
> among the monumental products of the human mind. (the Library of 
> Congress and Book of the Month Club surveyed their readers in 1991, 
> asking what the most influential book in their lives was. the Bible 
> won. Atlas Shrugged came in 2nd. too, the Mega Society (1 in a million 
> highest IQ club IQ 164+) lists Atlas Shrugged on their One Book List, 
> you can find them here http://www.megafoundation.org/UltraHIQ/ )
> if, for whatever reason, you just refuse to read Rand, consider reading
> Leonard Peikoff (philosopher), found at: http://www.peikoff.com/
> Robert Heinlein (scifi novelist) a good discussion of his politics is 
> at http://billdennis.net/heinlein/index.htm
> 3) Ludwig von Mises, economist-philosopher
> start here: http://www.mises.org/
> you are welcome,
> Michael Korcok
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
> http://www.hotmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

More information about the Mailman mailing list