Looks like even Jerry Lee Lewis’s hair is fair game for Rand Paul -Official portrait of United States Senator (R-KY). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Others have caught Rand Paul caught numerous times plagiarizing. First in speeches, then in books, and now in an op-ed. Admittedly, the view on intellectual property ranges among libertarians. Ayn Rand, who also collected social security, believed in limited timeframes for copyrights. Roderick T. Long believes intellectual property concepts infringes on freedom of speech, free being the optimal word here. There are plenty of libertariansexpressingtheirviews. While I cannot expect to speak for libertarians on this matter, it seems the trend is to suggest intellectual property is a statist concept.
This may explain why Rand Paul freely pulls from the works of others. He simply doesn’t believe in intellectual property.
For as longest time, it has been my Christian duty to be an iconoclast. It’s just how I have fun, and for a while, my iconoclasm knew no bounds when I was a Left Libertarian. But even possessing such a nuanced position, I became disaffected, turned off by Paultardation and Paulinian Messianism, as if there was One Chosen White Man from Texas to “restore liberty.” Really, who grants these superpowers in the first place?
So, a few months ago, I kissed libertarianism goodbye. I still believe in the free market, that Keynsian economics is stupid, Obamacare was plain idiocy, and non-interventionist foreign policy is right. In fact, I would say one of the things that first attracted me to Ron Paul was his foreign policy. The USA is rather arbitrary when it comes to choosing which nations’ affairs to intervene with, and like it or not, racial bias plays a role exactly where our troops land. Somalia? Kosovo? Anyone?
That being said, the Libertarian cases against things such as FEMA and public education started to turn me off, and I realized that I did not affirm those positions. The best way to ensure freedom from tyranny is to have an educated electorate, an education accessible to everyone. Many of the America’s Founders believed.
Recently, followers on Twitter and Facebook friends have expressed disappointment in my posting and re-tweeting Ron Paul’s Newletters, a Twitter feed that quotes Ron Paul’s newsletters from the 80s and 90s, that have been scanned. Check the link for details. Imagine for a second. I am up for a job at a church, and I may not be the ideal candidate, and I have said a lot of crazy things on Political Jesus, Twitter, and Facebook, and especially Twitter. What if I said, hey, yah, that really was not me. That was all Joel. He blogged for me, and I let him under my name. Should I be held responsible? I think your answer should be yes. Just as certain celebrity politicians who pay people to write books for them are responsible for what is written, so should Ron Paul be held responsible for what he allowed and permitted Lew Rockwell to write in his name.
This is exactly RESTORING WISDOM should be about. “A good name is better than fine perfume, and the day of death better than the day of birth.” (Ecclessiastes 7:1) “A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.” (Proverbs 22:1) The mistake that Ron Paul made as a Christian was that he chose power (appealing to the basest desires and emotions of his political base) over having a good name, a reputation, when Scripture informs us that it should be the reverse. The apostle Paul wrote to his son in the faith Timothy that a Christian leader should have a good reputation with outsiders (1 Timothy 3:7), operating in Wisdom. Fact is, Ron Paul claimed to not have written these newsletters as late as 2001, putting his story into question.
“Whereas traditional conservatism emphasized duties, responsibilities, and social interconnectedness, at the core of the right-wing ideology that Rand spearheaded was a rejection of moral obligations to others.”
So begins a powerful article needed to be read by all, whether you agree with the likes of Rand and Hayek or not. What are the moral and theological foundations of your political philosophies? Is it Rand? Hayek? And if so, do you really think that good, that truth, can come from the likes of these two?
About the time Fortune was extolling Greenspan, I was putting the finishing touches on a book about finances for a major evangelical publisher. I included a chapter on Rand’s quasi-religious philosophies, and another that encouraged Wall Street to embrace a traditional Judeo-Christian ethic. I wrote, “Ayn Rand, like Karl Marx, was one more self-proclaimed prophet who denied the existence of a loving God.” I added this comment from a leading political commentator: “Libertarians have replaced Marxists as the world’s leading utopia builders.” I concluded that we would one day apologize to our children for what Rand had done to our souls, as well as to the political economy.
In 1941, Rand wrote to a friend that she would “give people a faith—a positive, clear, and consistent system of belief.” Perhaps this is what prompted Jennifer Burns, professor of history at the University of Virginia, to use the word goddess to describe her in her aforementioned book title. Clearly Rand was a false goddess. Lutheran historian Martin Marty has observed, “Every line of the Bible is challenged, countered, and dismissed by the 1,168 pages of Atlas Shrugged.” Charles Colson once noted Rand’s “inversion of biblical norms,” how she “exalts selfishness and condemns altruism.”
Too much good stuff in this article to quote…. Read the rest here: