For those morons who continue to think that I am a reflexive defender and fan of the Bush administration, there's no better argument against it in my opinion than its apparent worship of the likes of Leon Kass.

nah, you just lick up to Karl Rove

Rand,
Even tho' we all know ahead of time you'll disagree vehemtly and viciously with the thinking in this essay, you still should read just so you understand even better that which you denigrate.
Despite your knee jerk hatred of Judeo/Christian thinking, I'm a daily reader of your great blog. Why? Because I know you and I both believe in humankinds journey outwards.
Mike Daley
http://print.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0608/articles/ectstatement.html

Well, given the moronic comments from both sides, I hope that some at least will be satisfied that I'm neither a "right" or "left" winger.

I have to say that I find it quite amusing to learn that I have a "knee-jerk hatred of Judeo/Christian thinking."

I wouldn't say that you are a reflexive defender and fan of the Bush administration. But you are a reflexive basher of Democrats and liberals in general. And although you object whenever somebody labels you a "Republican" or a "conservative," it is not at all clear from this blog that you are really a libertarian, as you claim.

If one were to do a content analysis of your website by simply counting the posts where you bash Democrats or liberals, or the number of posts where you take positions that are either in agreement with the Bush administration _or_ run counter to libertarian principles, it would be obvious that you're both pro-Bush and not very libertarian.

Yeah, maybe you are an atheist and not a fan of intelligent design, and that might get you kicked out of the GOP beer blast at their next convention, but on virtually every other position your views are much more conservative than libertarian.

Libertarians are concerned with keeping the government out of the lives of citizens and want small government. Take several current or recent issues:

-homosexual marriage
-NSA monitoring of domestic phone calls
-power of the President to detain American citizens indefinitely without charging them
-the budget deficit

The libertarian position on the first three would be to oppose them, because libertarians value the individual over the state and do not trust their government to do what is right. On the fourth, libertarians would not want massive federal budgets or massive federal deficits.

Yet reading your website, you have not voiced any real concern about large budget deficits (and even went so far as to crow about a slight reduction in the projected deficit). You have not taken any position on homosexual marriage that I know of. And you have actually voiced opinions in favor of NSA wiretapping without a warrant and demonstrated no concern about limiting the power of the President to detain Americans (or to conduct torture, for that matter).

In short, on four current or recent issues, I'd say that you took a Republican position, or at the very least, did not take a libertarian position. Libertarians do not trust government, period. You are perfectly willing to allow government to wiretap or imprison, or to prevent two people of the same gender from getting married.

Overall, from reading this blog, it seems as if you have no problem with power being wielded by a Republican president, although you do have problems about Democrats--who I might point out currently do not control either the Executive or Legislative branches of government. I would also point out that on the very few occasions when you take a position in disagreement with the administration, you write much shorter posts than you do when bashing Democrats.

So, except for a few notable exceptions--your position on intelligent design and bioethics--for the most part you take Republican or conservative (and anti-Democrat) positions.

Why are so many worried about what label Rand does or does nor wear?

Who the he11 thought THAT!?! They obviously weren't paying attention.

But Barry, explain how he's doing it reflexively and not with malice aforethought. I think he's a premeditated Democrat basher not a 2nd degree Democrat basher

Gee, it couldn't possibly be, could it, that Rand bashes the Demorats these days because the Democrats these days like to paint targets on their tinfoil hats?

Why are so many worried about what label Rand does or does nor wear?

Honestly Cecil, I sometimes see the opposite question and wonder why Rand worries about what labels other improperly apply to him. He doesn't need to convince me (as it seems Steve as well) his bona fides in being a libertarian currently without a dog in either the Republican or Democrat fight for power. Yet, I've seen many recent posts with him trying to do just that.

Call me a moron who rallies against reflexive defense, but the post could simply be: Another example of Bush's religious morality taken to its logical conclusion is stated by his former bio-ethicist, Leon Kass. Volokh points out the finer points of medical science's success with the human immune system that the current administration overlooked.

Maybe this would lead to a discuss of the idiocy of Leon Kass, and by extension, his former boss, President Bush, when it comes to progressing medical science. Instead, we have a rant about how Rand is most definitely not libertarian from a commenter that's rarely, if ever, been seen before.

Going on to Leon Kass, I agree that revulsion and the mindless reactions of the human body form a poor basis for moral judgements. Various reactions and emotions have evolved to protect humans from their environment. I remember joking with someone about their revulsion to some nasty human body process: "For a walking bag of goo, you are surprisingly easy to gross out."

But from the point of view of survival, bags of goo should be upset if they are seeing their goo. It means something is wrong, perhaps very wrong. And of course, there are a number of things that it's a really bad idea to eat or do. Hence, we have the instinct of revulsion to help keep us alive. Similarly, organ rejection is a manifestation of a body's immune system. Normally, the immune system keeps us alive, but not in this case.

So what is the basis for making moral decisions based on instint and body responses? Does the fact that organs are eventually accepted by the body indicate that organ transplants are immoral only for a little while? Does the fact that people aren't repelled by the same things mean that moral systems are relative?

MikeD, while I don't see a compelling argument for or against abortion (which is the subject of your link), I am strongly in favor of life extension. At least with abortion you can point to tens of millions of aborted fetuses. The same cannot be said generically of life extension. There are vague concerns about what effects living far beyond our current age might have. But you cannot say this person or fetus will be harmed or die because you lived longer. It may turn out there are moral dilemmas in the methods of life extension that are discovered.

I am glad for Rand that he is against the descructive conservative Christian superstitions of the likes of Leon Kass. If he really is against them, that is. In this case, there is an argument that has nothing to do with religious certitude. It's illegal to pay organ donors for the same reason that it's illegal to pay 14-year-old sex donors. Obviously people are worried about blatant exploitation disguised as fair consent. That concern may or may not be well-founded, but opposing it is an easy way for a Republican plutocrat to throw a fake bone to liberals.

The larger issue is that if you take the one of the issues that Rand really cares the most about — the war on Islamic terrorism — he is to the right of Torquemada. The only way that he might be dissatisfied with Bush on this issue is that he doesn't go far enough, that he isn't George Bush squared.

But Cecil makes a fair point in asking why Rand's political alignment matters. In truth, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. But it is a convincing example of how libertarianism has been betrayed by its adherents in favor of Bush-style Republicanism.

Wow Mike, you constantly surprise me with your ability to use big words and historical concepts to craft an analogy that makes absolutely no logical sense.

...he is to the right of Torquemada.

Yes. Right. I not only favor torture to convert people to another religion, but I believe it even more so than the grand Inquisitioner.

Do you ever think before you post?

Even ignoring the fatuous stupidity of this, it once again points out the mindless meaningless of the terms "left" and "right."