Author Topic: well this is gaming sooo  (Read 21642 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Turin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 176
  • Karma: -7
  • I'm a llama!<--True.
Re: well this is gaming sooo
« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2005, 02:02:15 am »
Well lessee...

First off, I never said I love socialism. Secondly I most certainly don't endorse totalitarian regimes of any kind be they socialist or otherwise.

People have suffered under "socialist" governemnts just as thousands of people suffer under the centre-right government of the United States. I'm not a socialist but I don't consider the term an insult, as socialist policies are responsible for free health care and welfare here in the UK. Although both systems have huge flaws, they have both undoubtedly saved many lives.

Thousands suffer from Socialism. Its a concept that theifs, murders, and blindly enslaves. Its not "free", because everyone else is forced to pay for it. Forced to toil in their work, so that half of their paycheck goes to it.

How can you say you don't support Totalitarian regimes, and then go and say that you don't mind socialism? Its a form of despotism.

Quote
As a final note,  depicting a whole continent as a "socialist gulag" is reminiscent of the blunt propoganda often used by the totalitarians you hate so much to depict their enemies:
All jews are evil
All westerners are decadent slobs
All muslims are dangerous fanatics
And now all Europeans are Socialist slave-workers.

The difference between my outcry against socialism, and Hitlers outcry against Jews, is he wanted to punish them, as a collective. I want to be free of Socialism, and I would hope people want to be free themselves. I'm not advocating that Europe eliminates socialism or that Europe punishes socialism., I'm simply saying that I don't want it spreading to my country, whether the majority votes for it, or its secretly passed in by Bush and his lackeys.

Its a concept that destroys the liberty of the individual and solely places the collective's "greater good" over those rights. And that justifys me calling any country a gulag. In fact, I'll call the United States a gulag, as well. Its a fascist welfare-warfare state hellbent on becoming the next USSR.

Actually here, libertarian philosophy in a handy flash movie.

http://isil.org/downloads/introduction.swf?POSTNUKESID=42b311632c76a3b585d2db95cb99ab08

Its very good, worth a watch, even if you support state sponsored war, state sponsored death, state sponsored theft, or state sponsored capitalism.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2005, 02:06:57 am by Turin »

Offline Outboundlight

  • Renegade Anarchist Folk Hero
  • Global Moderator
  • Machinae Prime
  • *****
  • Posts: 7752
  • Karma: 152
  • Gender: Male
  • Rogue World Asylum Seeker
    • No Art Films
Re: well this is gaming sooo
« Reply #16 on: July 07, 2005, 04:29:31 am »
I cant stress enough that I don't classify myself as a socialist and I agree that ideas and policies associated with it have caused much suffering but  I guess it comes down to the age old question, liberty or equality? Well, I guess your answer is going to be liberty since your a libertarian and I'm almost sure I've had the positive/negative freedom debate with you before. I don't support extreme socialism in any way but I don't believe that anyone should be "free" to starve. The wealthy have a responsibility to care for the less fortunate. Not necessarily to make everyone "equal" but at least to stop people starving on the streets or dying from mosquito bites or other easily curable diseases. The right to life is the simplest of freedoms and those with power have a responsibility to ensure that this freedom is upheld.

Offline Torp v2.0

  • Global Moderator
  • Machinae Prime
  • *****
  • Posts: 5736
  • Karma: 143
  • Gender: Male
  • Happiness is Mandatory!
    • My homepage
Re: well this is gaming sooo
« Reply #17 on: July 07, 2005, 04:06:32 pm »
So, correct me if I'm wrong, the basic principles of Libertarianism is that noone has the right to, directly or indirectly, take the life or liberty, or the product of these two, rightfully aquired property, without the consent of the person you are about to take it from? Am I right?

I kinda like that philosophy.
...why Torp was picked over you... HE'S JUST BETTER THAN YOU IN EVERY RESPECT. -SomethingGood
<Radicz0r> Torp is well prepared for universal destruction

[03:18:49] <WereVolvo> ARCTIC
[03:18:51] <WereVolvo> not arctic

Offline Outboundlight

  • Renegade Anarchist Folk Hero
  • Global Moderator
  • Machinae Prime
  • *****
  • Posts: 7752
  • Karma: 152
  • Gender: Male
  • Rogue World Asylum Seeker
    • No Art Films
Re: well this is gaming sooo
« Reply #18 on: July 07, 2005, 06:05:40 pm »
its not bad as philosophies go but just as no battle plan survives contact with the enemy, no political philosophy survives contact with the people

Offline Torp v2.0

  • Global Moderator
  • Machinae Prime
  • *****
  • Posts: 5736
  • Karma: 143
  • Gender: Male
  • Happiness is Mandatory!
    • My homepage
Re: well this is gaming sooo
« Reply #19 on: July 07, 2005, 06:31:15 pm »
its not bad as philosophies go but just as no battle plan survives contact with the enemy, no political philosophy survives contact with the people

Well, no.

The interesting effect of the basic principles is that one, if following them, is forced to give from ones property if one wants not to break them.

A man is starving to death. You have the ability to help him (through your property - you've got more than enough food). Not giving him from your property dooms the man to death, and you're indirectly responsible for taking his life. This is a violation of the absolute basic principle of Libertarianism.

This can further be extended to liberty. A poor person will be forced to do work that he does not want to do, because not doing this will lead to loss of his life through starvation, etc. This is basically slavery, and an infringement on his liberty. A poor person has less liberty than a rich person, because the riches gives them liberty and freedom (wealth=power. Power gives freedom). Thus, a Libertarain who wants to keep true to the principles, must work towards full equality, because inequality leads to inequal liberty, as liberty is taken away from the poor and given to the rich, and that breaks the second principle of Libertarianism, that one isn't allowed to take liberty from others.

I like the idea of libertarianism the same way I like anarchism. It's a really neat idea, but it would never work in the Real World.
...why Torp was picked over you... HE'S JUST BETTER THAN YOU IN EVERY RESPECT. -SomethingGood
<Radicz0r> Torp is well prepared for universal destruction

[03:18:49] <WereVolvo> ARCTIC
[03:18:51] <WereVolvo> not arctic

Offline Turin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 176
  • Karma: -7
  • I'm a llama!<--True.
Re: well this is gaming sooo
« Reply #20 on: July 07, 2005, 09:59:24 pm »
its not bad as philosophies go but just as no battle plan survives contact with the enemy, no political philosophy survives contact with the people

Well, no.

The interesting effect of the basic principles is that one, if following them, is forced to give from ones property if one wants not to break them.

A man is starving to death. You have the ability to help him (through your property - you've got more than enough food). Not giving him from your property dooms the man to death, and you're indirectly responsible for taking his life. This is a violation of the absolute basic principle of Libertarianism.

No, that would imply you have some sort of moral obligation. That would imply you are forced to give him your property(theft). Theft to save murder is wrong. Theft to save liberty is wrong. Theft is immoral in anycase. That is why Libertarians do not believe in a tax system.

Quote
This can further be extended to liberty. A poor person will be forced to do work that he does not want to do, because not doing this will lead to loss of his life through starvation, etc. This is basically slavery, and an infringement on his liberty.

Work in a capitalist system, is always a mutual and voluntary exchange. If this poor person doesn't want to work he doesn't want to do, all he has to say is "No", but that would mean he will not get any money. If he is being forced to work by a company, or the government, that is slavery.

Quote
A poor person has less liberty than a rich person, because the riches gives them liberty and freedom (wealth=power. Power gives freedom).Thus, a Libertarain who wants to keep true to the principles, must work towards full equality, because inequality leads to inequal liberty, as liberty is taken away from the poor and given to the rich, and that breaks the second principle of Libertarianism, that one isn't allowed to take liberty from others.

Flaw in your arguement. Wealth does not mean you have power.. Since it would be illegal to strip freedom from anyone, power would not exist in the Libertarian system. No one could take liberty from each other. That would imply we are slaves to each other.


Quote
I like the idea of libertarianism the same way I like anarchism. It's a really neat idea, but it would never work in the Real World.

I think you are insane.  ::)

Offline Outboundlight

  • Renegade Anarchist Folk Hero
  • Global Moderator
  • Machinae Prime
  • *****
  • Posts: 7752
  • Karma: 152
  • Gender: Male
  • Rogue World Asylum Seeker
    • No Art Films
Re: well this is gaming sooo
« Reply #21 on: July 07, 2005, 10:46:32 pm »

Okay so can you clarify a few points for me?

do you actually believe that theft is more wrong than murder?

Do you honestly believe that one human in a position to save another humans life does not have a moral responsibility to do so?

Offline Turin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 176
  • Karma: -7
  • I'm a llama!<--True.
Re: well this is gaming sooo
« Reply #22 on: July 07, 2005, 11:01:19 pm »

Okay so can you clarify a few points for me?

do you actually believe that theft is more wrong than murder?

Both are equally as wrong.

Life is nothing without private property.

Private property is nothing without life.

Quote
Do you honestly believe that one human in a position to save another humans life does not have a moral responsibility to do so?

I believe that humans, if in this position, should be allowed to choose. Whether to be generous, or to be selfish. Both are acceptable morals.

For example, a poor person with two children, has three baskets of food, he worked 60 hours a week to get those three baskets. And his neighbor has no children and no baskets of food, he is unemployed and has never worked in his life.

Do you expect that person with the family to give away his hard earned food? Forced alturism  is the moral concept of robbers, and looters.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2005, 11:03:14 pm by Turin »

Offline Outboundlight

  • Renegade Anarchist Folk Hero
  • Global Moderator
  • Machinae Prime
  • *****
  • Posts: 7752
  • Karma: 152
  • Gender: Male
  • Rogue World Asylum Seeker
    • No Art Films
Re: well this is gaming sooo
« Reply #23 on: July 07, 2005, 11:12:33 pm »
What the hell happened to the world today?

You are actually telling me that property, objects are actually as important as human life?

Yeah, forced alturism is certainly wrong but lets not forget that in Marx's vision of true socialism there would be no state, therefore no-one forcing you to be alturistic.

Is being selfish really an acceptable moral to you? Selfish to the point where it can cause another human to loose their life? Don't get me wrong, it's natural to look after yourself first, but once you have all you need why would you just hoarde more when it could be used to help others?

"For example, a poor person with two children, has three baskets of food, he worked 60 hours a week to get those three baskets. And his neighbor has no children and no baskets of food, he is unemployed and has never worked in his life.
Do you expect that person with the family to give away his hard earned food?"

No. I expect the people who have more money than they can realisticly spend in a life time to give the first person enough to comfortable survive and to give the second person a job.


Offline Bates

  • Forum Legend
  • Community Supporter
  • Machinae Prime
  • ******
  • Posts: 5099
  • Karma: 108
  • Gender: Male
  • Bateman 2.0
Re: well this is gaming sooo
« Reply #24 on: July 07, 2005, 11:55:29 pm »
* Bateman munches popcorn.

From what I read here I'm starting to like Libertarianism, but cbfed to participate in the discussion. I may read up on the subject though.

Offline Turin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 176
  • Karma: -7
  • I'm a llama!<--True.
Re: well this is gaming sooo
« Reply #25 on: July 08, 2005, 12:37:08 am »
What the hell happened to the world today?

You are actually telling me that property, objects are actually as important as human life?

Thats certainly absurd.

What is life without money?

The greatest form of voluntary exchange, is it really that important? Yes. But this is an object.

What is life without music?

I love it, don't you? Its technically an object. Machinae Supremacy owns their music, would you say that isn't as important as owning their lives?

What is life without food?

Could you live without this "object"?

What is life without a house?

Could you have privacy? If you don't privately own this "object", you would have people breaking into it, everyday. You would have people waltzing in when you are in the middle of making love with your wife, or trying to quietly enjoy a book. Privacy is imperative for happiness.

What is life without a car?

Could you visit your friends? Could you drive to work everyday? Would you be able to take a woman out to dinner, without this "object"?

All of these things are objects that are independently owned. Private property is the progress of civilization. Was there private property when man was a tribal slave? Was there private property when the Catholic warlords were crusading across the Middle-east? Private property is NEEDED in a free society. Without it, are we are not truly free from each other.

Quote
Yeah, forced alturism is certainly wrong but lets not forget that in Marx's vision of true socialism there would be no state, therefore no-one forcing you to be alturistic.

Then what would be the point of a Stalinist communism before the destruction of the state? I believe what Marx was trying to do, was change the morals of the entire population. So that collectively, there would be no individual, and no need for a state to police the individual. He was trying to make the many to the one. That was his "dream".

Quote
Is being selfish really an acceptable moral to you?

Actually no. I actually am a generally helpful guy. I just don't want to be forced to help people. I help who I want. Whether it be my friends, or a stranger on the street. But I choose, when I help people.

Quote
Selfish to the point where it can cause another human to loose their life? Don't get me wrong, it's natural to look after yourself first, but once you have all you need why would you just hoarde more when it could be used to help others?

Because if the point of life is to be a happy individual, and if you feel "hoarding" more money is to make yourself happy. Feel free. But, if the money was achieved by immoral force(Theft, murder, fraud, slavery, ect.). You do not deserve it.

Quote
No. I expect the people who have more money than they can realisticly spend in a life time to give the first person enough to comfortable survive and to give the second person a job.

And its been evident that those who have the "power" to provide, have been generally charitable. Look at billionaires such as George Soros, and Bill Gates. They've donated millions to non-profit charity organizations.

Quote
From what I read here I'm starting to like Libertarianism, but cbfed to participate in the discussion. I may read up on the subject though.

Read some Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged is a good book by her. Brilliantly written. A friend of mine, used to be a communist, then he read that book, and claims it opened his eyes. Same with myself, up until I read it, I was a neo-conservative Republican.

Offline L'homme magique

  • Machinae Prime
  • *****
  • Posts: 5307
  • Karma: 66
  • Gender: Female
  • Stay Calm
Re: well this is gaming sooo
« Reply #26 on: July 08, 2005, 12:43:40 am »
Quote
Atlas Shrugged ... Brilliantly written
Tee hee.

And y'know, Ayn Rand hated Libertarianism.
"It's like growing up reading good books or listening to good music. One good sofa breeds another good sofa; one bad sofa breeds another bad sofa. That's how it goes."

Offline Outboundlight

  • Renegade Anarchist Folk Hero
  • Global Moderator
  • Machinae Prime
  • *****
  • Posts: 7752
  • Karma: 152
  • Gender: Male
  • Rogue World Asylum Seeker
    • No Art Films
Re: well this is gaming sooo
« Reply #27 on: July 08, 2005, 01:38:29 am »
Ok murder is worse than theft and heres why:

If someone takes something from you there is a chance that you will get it back or replace it.

If someone kills you you are dead. Forever.

I'm not actually arguing a case for socialism in this thread. Theres too many different strands of socialism, extreme and mild and far too many misconceptions caught up with it.

 There have been liberals who have argued the case for welfare and checks and balances on industry etc, stuff that I broadly agree with stuff more than I do with a lot of say Marx's or Engel's theories. However, its important to note that a lot of this thinking entered into libertarian theory as a reaction to socialist theories. Therefore what I'm saying is that socialism is not all bad.

However what I will argue to the death is that nothing is more precious than human life. I'm an Intellectual Agnostic (as H P Lovecraft calls it) and I think that this is more than likely the only shot we have at this life so the worst thing to possibly do is rob someone if it. To say that there is any crime as heinous as that just doesn't make sense to me.

Offline Torp v2.0

  • Global Moderator
  • Machinae Prime
  • *****
  • Posts: 5736
  • Karma: 143
  • Gender: Male
  • Happiness is Mandatory!
    • My homepage
Re: well this is gaming sooo
« Reply #28 on: July 08, 2005, 02:30:59 am »
What is life without money?

The greatest form of voluntary exchange, is it really that important? Yes. But this is an object.

No it's not. It's essentially worthless pieces of paper which have value just because they're worthless, and can't be used for anything else (except maybe toilet paper).

Quote
What is life without music?

I love it, don't you? Its technically an object. Machinae Supremacy owns their music, would you say that isn't as important as owning their lives?

Yes. I most certainly would. I would most certainly rather own my life than the right to some, any, object.

Quote
What is life without food?

Could you live without this "object"?

Life without food isn't life, as you'd soon be dead. I can't live without this object. I could, however, live without that extra piece of meat I ate yesterday, just because it tasted well.

Quote
What is life without a house?

Could you have privacy? If you don't privately own this "object", you would have people breaking into it, everyday. You would have people waltzing in when you are in the middle of making love with your wife, or trying to quietly enjoy a book. Privacy is imperative for happiness.

Ask the homeless...

I never implied that I'm against private property. But, as with everything else, it's not black and white. I certainly don't want anybody waltzing in on me in the process of making love to a girl, but if this person was waltzing in because if not, he would have died from the cold outside, then I'd see it as perfectly legitimate. Life is more valuable than liberty is more valuable than property.

Quote
What is life without a car?

Could you visit your friends? Could you drive to work everyday? Would you be able to take a woman out to dinner, without this "object"?

Quite fine, thank you. I've got feet.

And yes, no (I could, however, walk) and yes.

Quote
All of these things are objects that are independently owned. Private property is the progress of civilization. Was there private property when man was a tribal slave? Was there private property when the Catholic warlords were crusading across the Middle-east? Private property is NEEDED in a free society. Without it, are we are not truly free from each other.

And with it, we're not truly free from each other.

Quote
Quote
Yeah, forced alturism is certainly wrong but lets not forget that in Marx's vision of true socialism there would be no state, therefore no-one forcing you to be alturistic.

Then what would be the point of a Stalinist communism before the destruction of the state? I believe what Marx was trying to do, was change the morals of the entire population. So that collectively, there would be no individual, and no need for a state to police the individual. He was trying to make the many to the one. That was his "dream".

I think I have to agree.


Quote
And its been evident that those who have the "power" to provide, have been generally charitable. Look at billionaires such as George Soros, and Bill Gates. They've donated millions to non-profit charity organizations.

Well, it's only right that they'd give back what they've basically stolen from the poor people they give to. I'm not talking about Bill Gates here, he seems to actully be a pretty decent guy, but at those who get rich off of, say, sweatshops in souteastern asia.


Well, no.

The interesting effect of the basic principles is that one, if following them, is forced to give from ones property if one wants not to break them.

A man is starving to death. You have the ability to help him (through your property - you've got more than enough food). Not giving him from your property dooms the man to death, and you're indirectly responsible for taking his life. This is a violation of the absolute basic principle of Libertarianism.

No, that would imply you have some sort of moral obligation. That would imply you are forced to give him your property(theft). Theft to save murder is wrong. Theft to save liberty is wrong. Theft is immoral in anycase. That is why Libertarians do not believe in a tax system.

Well, it does basically mean that property is more important than life.

Quote
Quote
This can further be extended to liberty. A poor person will be forced to do work that he does not want to do, because not doing this will lead to loss of his life through starvation, etc. This is basically slavery, and an infringement on his liberty.

Work in a capitalist system, is always a mutual and voluntary exchange. If this poor person doesn't want to work he doesn't want to do, all he has to say is "No", but that would mean he will not get any money. If he is being forced to work by a company, or the government, that is slavery.

A slave can also say "no". As with the poor person, he has a binary choice. Work or die. I don't see how the illusion of choice changes anything. Apart from, of course, that the person who gives the choice can feel better about himself, because he doesn't use slaves.

Is such a binary choice really freedom? To me, it reminds more of the "free elections" of certain totalitarian regimes.

And what about those who have no choice, like everybody who dies from starvation? They have but one freedom: the freedom to die. Actually, it's not a freedom. It's a nature-imposed force.

Quote
Quote
A poor person has less liberty than a rich person, because the riches gives them liberty and freedom (wealth=power. Power gives freedom).Thus, a Libertarain who wants to keep true to the principles, must work towards full equality, because inequality leads to inequal liberty, as liberty is taken away from the poor and given to the rich, and that breaks the second principle of Libertarianism, that one isn't allowed to take liberty from others.

Flaw in your arguement. Wealth does not mean you have power.. Since it would be illegal to strip freedom from anyone, power would not exist in the Libertarian system. No one could take liberty from each other. That would imply we are slaves to each other.

Oh, but it does. Because other crave your wealth, and you can give them your wealth in exchange for services or commodities. If you're rich, you have the freedom of not having to work unless you want to. You have a much greater range of things you can do, becaue they're not denied you, because you can pay for them. It's free trade, but the poor person is denied the luxuries/property needed for survival, because he doesn't have property .

And anyway, when did "illegal" ever stop power-hungry people from doing things?

The rich person therefore have more actual choices than the poor person, and as such more liberty. This extra liberty is gained because he is rich, or have more power, or whatever. Power doesn't neccecarily equal Force.

Quote
Quote
I like the idea of libertarianism the same way I like anarchism. It's a really neat idea, but it would never work in the Real World.

I think you are insane. ::)

I might very possibly be. But in that case, so are you.

We haven't even touched the questions of whether libertarianism would actually work. If you don't have any taxes, who are going to protect your liberty? Private armies? Who are going to protect the liberty of those who cannot afford these? And who are going to assure that the leaders of the private armies doesn't use force against other people?

The greediness of humans won't let a Libertarian system work. It would become corrupt (like any society, ours included), powerhungry people would still gain power, and so on.

Even if it did work, the effects would be to concentrate wealth even more. It would, effectively, let the few enjoy themselves at the expense of the many. Lovely philosophy...it's like totalitarianism, only the slaves are free, and don't work because they're forced, but because they have to.


Somehow, I'm reminded of this quote from an Orwell book...

All animals are free, but some animals are more free than others

Oh, wait, that's not the actual quote at all...
...why Torp was picked over you... HE'S JUST BETTER THAN YOU IN EVERY RESPECT. -SomethingGood
<Radicz0r> Torp is well prepared for universal destruction

[03:18:49] <WereVolvo> ARCTIC
[03:18:51] <WereVolvo> not arctic

Offline Turin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 176
  • Karma: -7
  • I'm a llama!<--True.
Re: well this is gaming sooo
« Reply #29 on: July 08, 2005, 02:35:14 am »
Ok murder is worse than theft and heres why:

If someone takes something from you there is a chance that you will get it back or replace it.

If someone kills you you are dead. Forever.

Not really.. If someone tries to commit murder, there is a chance, you will defend yourself or somehow survive. A free capitalist society cannot function if theft is legal. Nor can it function if murder is legal. Both are equally immoral and should be equally illegalized. Which brings us back to the point of why we were argueing. Theft to save murder is immoral. And it isn't even murder!

Torp defined it as murder, if someone stands by while others starve because of their own decision of not working for money to buy food, or ect, he says that is murder.

 By his definition, he himself is commiting murder, while thousands of Africans starve daily, same with yourself. Do you really think this type of thinking is logical, and rational?

Quote
I'm not actually arguing a case for socialism in this thread. Theres too many different strands of socialism, extreme and mild and far too many misconceptions caught up with it.

Socialism is socialism. A is A. Crime is crime. Disease is disease.

Quote
There have been liberals who have argued the case for welfare and checks and balances on industry etc, stuff that I broadly agree with stuff more than I do with a lot of say Marx's or Engel's theories.

Collectivism is collectivism. Welfare is no different then 100% distribution of wealth.

Moderation and comprimise is man, saying that he will be a slave to another man by living by that man's morals.

For example, in the late 1800's in America, workers and miners became violent. They threatend the use of force, unless the government took their side and granted them the power to iniate force. Progressive income tax, limited welfare, minimum wage all came of this(And these are policies that the use of force is neccesary). They got their way, and the rich and middle class decided to accept the moderation. In a way, they accepted the forms of Marxist theory. So they defended it, by allowing it to exist and be imposed upon them.

Quote
However, its important to note that a lot of this thinking entered into libertarian theory as a reaction to socialist theories. Therefore what I'm saying is that socialism is not all bad.

Not true. The Constitution of the United States, was created as a beacon of freedom and defense of individual liberty. This was about 60 years before Marx even wrote his book. Look at the economy of the United States before the Civil War, it was pure laissez faire. Libertarian thought, has been around far longer then Socialism. Thomas Jefferson, or John Locke were known as one of the first libertarians of their time.




Quote
However what I will argue to the death is that nothing is more precious than human life. I'm an Intellectual Agnostic (as H P Lovecraft calls it) and I think that this is more than likely the only shot we have at this life so the worst thing to possibly do is rob someone if it. To say that there is any crime as heinous as that just doesn't make sense to me.

Crime is crime, no matter how much you hate one or the other.

Quote
And y'know, Ayn Rand hated Libertarianism.

There is a fine line between Objectivists and libertarians. Rand wanted society to change as much as someone like Rothbard. But she criticized the LP, because she thought they were achieving change through immoral means. I personally think Rand wanted some sort of violent revolution. But I don't know.