Not too long ago both Rand and Ron Paul were pushing a copyright maximalist agenda. Today the chickens have come home to roost. Rand Paul's presidential announcement has been blocked by a copyright claim from Warner Music Group due to a clip of a song used in the announcement. Even more apropos of the (less and less as time goes by) libertarian-leaning Republican candidate, it wasn't a DMCA takedown raining on his parade, but the purely private ContentID system that Youtube put in place in order to appease the copyright cartel.
Here is a transcript of Rand Paul's announcement.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:11AM
Sigh...when are people gonna learn that "libertarian" is a codeword for "I'm against anything that impedes my generation of wealth by any means, no matter who it hurts".
Never, because it's not true. Libertarian straw men are some of the saddest straw men on the internet.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:42AM
Congrats on using the No True Scotsman fallacy, even though pretty much every major self anointed libertarian going all the way back to Ayn Rand and her followers have been EXACTLY this. Care to throw any other fallacies our way? I can wallpaper the page with citations if you like, its really not hard to find so called "libertarians" going against the philosophy if it affects their bottom line, just as we see here with Paul and IP, again its really not hard as they ain't giving up a single buck, beliefs or no.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:25PM
Congrats on using the No True Scotsman fallacy, even though pretty much every major self anointed libertarian going all the way back to Ayn Rand and her followers have been EXACTLY this.
Rand wasn't a self-annointed libertarian. In fact, she was opposed [aynrand.org] to libertarianism as it was then (in 1972) practiced. Take this quote:
Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, that subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. [“What Can One Do?” The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 7]
And you are simply wrong about your assertion in the first place.
I can wallpaper the page with citations if you like
Go for it. We could use the entertainment.