About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Thursday, October 4, 2007 - 4:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Amen.  I don't support either party.  The problem is that the system is so entrenched that it seems overwhelming to do anything about it.  Shy of a violent revolution, the only way to affect change within the system is to....participate within the system!  Unless you're a billionaire, it's very difficult to work within the political system independently.  The two parties offer some clout and a network of support, but unfortunately you're typically doing a deal with the devil by signing on. 
(Edited by Pete on 10/04, 9:09pm)


Post 1

Thursday, October 4, 2007 - 6:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And with this in mind, how does voting give you the government you want?

Post 2

Thursday, October 4, 2007 - 9:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert: it doesn't. 

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 6:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tri-, Quadri-, Quinti-, and Septipartisan televised and national debates and ballots -- with instant run-off voting -- might go a long way in making sure that we get the government that we want. Think of how easy it is to rig a Bipartisan system. Then, in your mind, make it Tripartisan -- and then make note of the exponential increase in difficulty in keeping that system rigged. Then, in your mind, make it Quadripartisan -- and then ... etc.

Septipartisan debates and ballots are probably impossible to rig.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/05, 6:42pm)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 9:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes we need the instant runoff voting system - something more than the "winner take all" system.  The problem is, since it would hurt both parties, they are rather united in not wanting to do that.

Post 5

Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 11:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I believe all of you here in "Ayn Rand Community"  have read, or at least have heard of  Neo Tech Philosophy.
Sometime before 2000 I read they were planning to create a new Party that would change life in USA.
Even living in Brasil, and being a Brazilian, I was exciting about the revolutionary idea.
Do any of you know about this issue?
Did they give up the idea?
Rogério O. Martins Jr.


Post 6

Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 11:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The reason we keep only 2 parties is to perpetuate the false dichotomy of "Attila" and the "Witchdoctor" -- which Rand had the hindsight and foresight to both recognize and concretize (see her book "For the New Intellectual" for details).

Ed


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 1:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Neo Tech people were not on the up and up:

Luke Setzer wrote a piece with first-hand experiece here :

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Setzer/From_Objectivism_to_Neo-Tech_and_Back.shtml


Post 8

Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 3:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's been my long understanding that Neo Tech has nothing what so ever to do with Objectivism.

Post 9

Friday, February 15, 2008 - 5:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Reply to post 7.

L. Ron Hubbard meets Ayn Rand?

Bob Kolker


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.