Ohka:
for a libertarian to say such a thing. Muffin is ridiculous.
Well we are getting of track here, but okay. Truly I am not a libertarian nor a conservative. I agree with some libertarian ideas but not all. Although I don't see how any true libertarian would argue for a dictator, it doesn't make sense because the entire platform of libertarianism is based on individual freedom.
The real issue was if something necessary can be evil. I say no. We can still argue over what is necessary but if it is in fact necessary then it must be good.
BTW.
Rand didn't hate democracy, she hated unlimited majority rule democracy. The reason she did not like this is that it would allow the majority to be just as ruthless and unjust as a dictator. The classic example is the "death of Socrates" example where he is put to death because the majority doesn't like what he has to say. This is why the USA is not a true unlimited majority rule democracy. Anyone who really wants the unlimited majority style of democracy wants it because they want to abuse it (which is probably why "democracy NOW! is called democracy NOW!). I agree with Rand on this one, and you have misstated her argument.
No, in fact she despised democracy. But let me return to this notion of dictatorship and libertarianism
No society that guarantees the rights of individuals will ever sustain a libertarian form of free market capitalism. Every country built on basic democratic principles gravitates toward the Left over the course of its history. Conservatism, as the American Right has defined it, is an unsustainable political philosophy. In fact I would go as far as to say that it's not even really a well-defined political philsophy, because it always changes. The boundaries get moved, and conservatives are dragged along. This is why the Screamers, the Tea Party folks--they're nuts. Glenn Beck says health care reform will threaten Medicare; do you see the irony in that? Thirty years ago, conservatives declared Medicare a great evil. About ten years ago, Republicans tried to gut the program to the point of eradicating it. Today, they're declaring it a Right that should not be taken away.
This is how it goes in any society By the People and For the People. Eventually, the People will get what they want, because they see government as working for them--which it does. Did you notice how many Wall Street firms went begging for government bailouts? Did you notice how many banks had their hand out? These are the poster children for free market capitalism, but when things go bad, everybody needs a hand, and the only place to go for help is the government.
The only way a libertarian government could ever sustain itself as such is for politicians to tell the beggers to screw off. But this won't happen, because we elect the politicians. They aren't going to bite the hand that puts them in office. The only way to keep the hounds at bay is for a strong central government to force them away. If it doesn't, everybody descends on the Treasury like jackals on a carcass as soon as the economy goes awry.
Rand understood this, as do many other libertarians. Democracy will always drift toward a more liberal vision. It has to; it can't help itself. In fact any country headed by a representative government of any kind will do exactly that, even a democratic republic like our own.
