RoR: Forum

I wrote: "Speaking of being detached from the world, is Peikoff willing to jettison any realistic chance of implementing Objectivism's foreign policy -- not to mention avoiding economic disaster -- by turning power over to the Democrats?"

John replied,

Bill, Economic disaster? Isn't that a hyperbole? And would the Republicans honestly behave any differently economically than the Democrats?

If both the president and the congress were Democratic, I think that, as bad it is now under the Republicans, it could be substantially worse. Take the Kyoto protocol, for example. What do you think would happen with Gore as president! The man is so pro-statist, it's sKerry!

I think with the success of his "Inconvenient Truth" movie, Gore is considering another run at the presidency. I think that if he and Hillary were vying for the nomination, he might well have an edge. Do you want him or Hillary in there? Do you want national health care? At least the Republicans don't support that!

Yes, the two political parties are inclined to compromise, but to favor one over the other is to endorse its core political agenda -- unless, you think that by supporting the Democrats, we'll get gridlock with a Republican congress. And I wouldn't bet on it.

- Bill

Post 21

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - 9:57am

Vote libertarian.

If you don't want to vote for them, then vote for deadlock. Republican President? Democratic congress, or at least the house or senate. Republicans and Democrats are both very bad. I'm sorry to see so many people supporting them and thinking they are less harmful than the Democrats. They are not. They absolutely are not. Despite having a justification for war with Iraq, the administrations conduct of this war/post war has been nothing short of a disgrace. Soon Afganistan will start to look similar. Justification to do something doesn't mean that you must do it right now and certainly doesn't excuse you from doing it properly. As a former serviceman I think it's a disgrace and has done more harm to both our security and the morale of our armed forces.

Vote for gridlock so that the two parties can hack each other to pieces and leave another party to take their places.

Ethan

Post 22

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - 2:19pm

When a Protest Vote is a Principled Choice

In NY State, any party which receives at least a 5% vote remains on the ballot, without needing to regain ballot status by petition certification. Since, in New York (and especially in NYC) there is little competition for the current available seats, no vote for a Republican will have any impact. Were the race even nominally close, and the Republican candidate otherwise acceptable, I would vote for that Republican. Otherwise, if I do vote, I will either vote Libertarian, or, more likely, Independence (Ross Perot's creature), or perhaps even Green Party, so as to weaken the Democrats and or force the Republicans to consider offering a candidate who can attract Libertarian type votes.

I am only rooting against one major Republican candidate, Rick Santorum, for whom I pray a special rung of Hell's awarming.

Ted

I enjoyed the Vampire analogy, but fear that reality is a little too complex for the artistic reference to bear the comparison. But the point was nicely put.

Post 23

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - 8:06pm

Reply to Bill

Take the Kyoto protocol, for example. What do you think would happen with Gore as president! The man is so pro-statist, it's sKerry!

LOL, that is sKerry. You have a good point. Although I don't know how successful Kerry would be at trying to get Congress to pass legislation to endorse the Kyoto treaty especially if it was run by Republicans. Of course that would be just speculation but the trend at least since Clinton is that the more popular a Democrat wants to be, the more conservatively fiscally minded he becomes out of demand. Most people aren't the extreme welfare types. But even Republicans now stand for a lavish welfare state.

I think with the success of his "Inconvenient Truth" movie, Gore is considering another run at the presidency.

Ok that just sent a chill down my spine.

I think that if he and Hillary were vying for the nomination, he might well have an edge. Do you want him or Hillary in there? Do you want national health care? At least the Republicans don't support that!

Yeah but they tried to pass a national health care program under Clinton's Presidency and it failed. And Hillary has shifted more towards the center politically if such a concept of a political center exists. She has become more conservative but I don't want her as President. But the upcoming election is for congress though.

Yes, the two political parties are inclined to compromise, but to favor one over the other is to endorse its core political agenda -- unless, you think that by supporting the Democrats, we'll get gridlock with a Republican congress. And I wouldn't bet on it.

Why wouldn't you bet on that? I think that's probably the best scenario, to get these guys fighting over power instead of centralizing it so much to one political party. So who would you suggest people ought to vote for?

I think I'll put you Bill down as a write-in vote :) But wait does that mean I endorse the likely candidate to win? Too confusing. Maybe voting is just a waste of time.
(Edited by John Armaos
on 10/25, 8:09pm)

Post 24

Thursday, October 26, 2006 - 5:46am

I have voted third party every chance I have had. I do vote libertarian when I have the chance. Ultimately, I figure it's just as important to vote against a corrupt system that creates the "lesser of two evils" situation. If you keep voting for the two-party system, you will keep having the two-party system.

Post 25

Thursday, October 26, 2006 - 9:55am

Another alternative I would support strongly would be instant run-off elections. These would be tremendously beneficial. If we can just get some local elections done this way, it might create enough momentum to push it up the ladder and create some real change.

Post 26

Thursday, October 26, 2006 - 9:51am

For some reason my earlier comment here didn't appear.
Maybe it takes a while.
My reservation about Peikoff's Dem endorsement is that
for many years ARI has functioned as a branch of Israeli
Disinformation, well before Brook but greatly accelerated
since his takeover. Ayn's unlovely tradition of anti-Arab
racism as revealed in her discussions with contributors &
friends & also in Ayn Rand Answers, is the one part of her credo that has been followed to a "T" by Peikoff and
the Orthodox Randies. So when one of the Far Right
"contributors" on this thread referred to Brook's preposterous ultimatum to Persian leaders to go to their
nonexistent vacation homes in Canada, I was in stitches
for hours ! We are losing an unjust war conceived solely
on lies by Bush & Company (read Neocons) and we are
to jump into a fray over three times as big ! Lotsa of luck,
armchair warriors. Unlike Iraq, which is three separate nations hobbled by the Brits into one dubious state,
along with the even more illegitimate "Kuwait," Persia
(Iran) has existed as a nation going back thousands of years. Saddam Hussein, supported by the US, UK,
Israel, Germany, France and the USSR couldn't defeat
Iraq after eight years of trying. You think we have troubles
occupying Iraq ? You ain't seen nothing yet !
Emanuel Rahm, head of the Dem House effort, served
in the Israeli (NOT US) military during the first Bush
Gulf Massacre. You think this guy is recruiting doves
critical of AIPAC to run for Congress ? If the Dems
were really opposed to an insane invasion of Iran, that
would be the best reason to vote for them. And to undo
King George's Big Government assaults on our liberties
at home and abroad. Unfortunately the neocons may
be jumping ship back to the Dems from whence so many
of them came from (outside of Trotsky.) Many of us
still cringe at Hospers grotesque endorsement of Bush
two years ago, although it is just of many anti-libertarian
stands he's taken over the years.
So vote Demo but with your eyes open. The GOP is
a bunch of religious wackos that should be repudiated
but it could be another case of changing the safety pin
and leaving the deeply soiled diaper on the baby.

Post 27

Thursday, October 26, 2006 - 10:22am

As probably the only Objectivist living in Europe, I dare to enter my opinion to the ongoing discussion on the coming elections in the United States.

The soul searching of Objectivists whenever Election Day nears in the United States has always mystified me and been a source of wonder for, apparently, there is no other possibility available than voting Blank, Democrat, Libertarian or Republican (I mention these in alphabetical order, to avoid anyone to think that I have some personal preferences).

In my view, the solution should be much simpler and, yet, it seems that no Objectivist ever thought of it.

The search string �Ayn Rand� and �Objectivism� renders some 500.000 Websites by Google, a number that increases to 28.300.000 results for the word �Capitalism� only and goes back to about 2.700.000 for �Libertarianism�. The almost total quantity of the 500.000 Websites just mentioned are located in the United States (there are very few, if any, in Europe, Asia, etc.) and though for sure many of them are repetitions or even correspond to Webpages that only transpire poison towards Objectivism, I understand that there are still sufficient pro-Objectivism ones to sum up a very impressive quantity.

I can�t think that there is not one wealthy Objectivist ready to put up some money (and perhaps there are even less wealthy American Objectivists ready to add their own lot) to create the �American Objectivist Party�. Is there no sufficient confidence available? Is it feared that there will not be enough supporters? A poll raised �Atlas Shrugged� to the second position as most important book some years ago (OK, the Bible was first, but then it has had 2000 years of violence and pressuring to reach the top position), which, at least to me, means that there are more enthusiastic adherents to Objectivism than reach the eye (many might just not dedicate themselves to actively participate in Website chats, etc.) Even some Libertarians and, who knows, Democrats and Republicans may even toss in their vote for Objectivism on Election Day. Matter of fact, I think that the result could well be a surprise to many� and even send some representatives to Congress. This would be the start of more important things to follow.

I think that the idea of creating an �American Objectivist Party� should be considered with greater attention than what it has received up to now.

Don�t you also think so? But, of course, this is just a rambling thought from a European Objectivist�

Post 28

Thursday, October 26, 2006 - 10:25am

Jack Lord,

It's good to see you're alive and well. I had heard you had died back in 1998. Are you still living in Hawaii?

Post 29

Thursday, October 26, 2006 - 10:33am

Maybe it takes a while.

It does.

My reservation about Peikoff's Dem endorsement is that for many years ARI has functioned as a branch of Israeli Disinformation, well before Brook but greatly accelerated since his takeover.

That's actually most of the movement. I'm not sure what happened.

So when one of the Far Right "contributors" on this thread referred to Brook's preposterous ultimatum to Persian leaders to go to their nonexistent vacation homes in Canada, I was in stitches for hours !

I wish I could laugh at them. But it's just too sad.

We are losing an unjust war conceived solely on lies by Bush & Company (read Neocons) and we are to jump into a fray over three times as big!

Some people don't care that they are lies.

Lotsa of luck, armchair warriors.

The more popular term used is chicken hawks. This war has thousands of these types of supporters.

Persia (Iran) has existed as a nation going back thousands of years. Saddam Hussein, supported by the US, UK, Israel, Germany, France and the USSR couldn't defeat Iraq after eight years of trying. You think we have troubles occupying Iraq?

For the war party, fantasy is more powerful and important than reality.

Emanuel Rahm, head of the Dem House effort, served in the Israeli (NOT US) military during the first Bush Gulf Massacre. You think this guy is recruiting doves critical of AIPAC to run for Congress?

They have worked very hard to make sure that foreign policy is never an issue.

Many of us still cringe at Hospers grotesque endorsement of Bush two years ago

I'll cut him a break and just attribute it to senility.

Post 30

Thursday, October 26, 2006 - 10:39am

Another alternative I would support strongly would be instant run-off elections. These would be tremendously beneficial. If we can just get some local elections done this way, it might create enough momentum to push it up the ladder and create some real change.

I support something more like the voting done for many sports awards like the Heisman Trophy and baseball awards.

A voter would pick his first, second, and third choices. First-place votes could count for three points, second-place for two, and third-place for one. Then the candidate with the most points would win.

Post 31

Thursday, October 26, 2006 - 10:43am

Thanks, Chris, for your thoughtful comments.
Still living in Oahu. Not THAT Jack Lord but
a tremendous fan of his.

Post 32

Friday, October 27, 2006 - 11:01am

The following is a comment I made to my own article Three Books: An Atheist's Defense of Christianity to which I pointed on the Ayn Rand and religion thread. Just one point, the Peikoff opinion posted is not from ARI, but from his own web page, http://www.Peikoff.com/ .

How this staunch defender of objective reason could have become so deluded is a mystery. If Dr. Peikoff really believes the Republican party (which is nothing more than a collection of politicians with one agenda, accruing as much power to themselves as possible) has any interest in establishing anything in the way of religion (other than postmodernism--which suits their purpose) he is either extremely naive, believing the political rhetoric of those who are attempting to use "Christians" for their own political ends, or has some early form of paranoid dementia.

As far as I know there is only one truly Christian politician in Congress (and none in the senate) and that is Ron Paul, and as far as I know, there is only one politician who is uncompromising in his stand for individual liberty, limited constitutional government, opposing all state interference in business, education, and the personal lives of its citizens, that same Christian politician, Ron Paul.

I frequently post articles by Chuck Baldwin, an evangelical Christian. It is certain that Chuck Baldwin would be horrified by the idea of a "theocracy" or anything that would impose anyone's religion on anyone. That anyone could think that a Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin were more dangerous than a Hillary or Bill Clinton or any other Democrat, for that matter, cannot be living in the real world.

Mr. Peikoff makes two very bad mistakes here. First, the United States is not a, "mobocracy," it's a republic, a government of laws, not men. Not voting is a vote, but if the future of this country depends on how people vote, it is no longer a republic, and voting becomes a sanction for the wrong kind of government. The other mistake, and worse one, is that he has swallowed the lie that the purpose of Objectivism, or any philosophy is to "save the world" or "society" or at least American society. This is essentially a socialist-collectivist concept, and one promenantly dispalyed on his WEB page, by the words, "To save the world is the simplest thing in the world." In this he agrees with Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and all other world-savers.

Regi

Post 33

Friday, October 27, 2006 - 8:54pm

a government of laws, not men

I've never understood that one, who makes the laws?

Post 34

Saturday, October 28, 2006 - 7:32am

Hi Jonathan,

... a government of laws, not men ...

I've never understood that one, who makes the laws?

You're right of course, that in the end it is always a government of men, because men make the laws. It is not what this government was supposed to be, however.

The idea originates with John Locke, on whose philosophy much of our government is based. "Rights," according to Locke and most of the founders were derived from God, e.g., "all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." The law, and government itself had no other purpose than the preservation or guaranteeing of those rights. On this view, men could not arbitrarily make laws, but could only make laws that fit the criteria of "God given rights," chief among them, the right of individual liberty.

An objective approach to the same concept would be, since ethical principles are derived rationally from the nature of man and reality, and philosophical politics is the application of ethical principles in a social context, that is, to the relationships between men, a proper government should have no business but preserving those principles, and the law should reflect that and nothing else. Again, the chief principle is individual liberty, which in a social context is free enterprise, that is capitalism.

But Rand showed that the concept, without a firm philosophical base, could be turned to its very opposite intent:

"Here is the tragedy of what happens to human intentions without a clearly defined philosophical theory to guide their practical implementation. The first free society in history destroyed its freedom�in the name of freedom. The failure to differentiate between political and economic power allowed men to suppose that coercion could be a proper "balance" to production, that both were activities of the same order which could serve as a "check" on each other, that the "authority" of a businessman and the "authority" of a bureaucrat were Interchangeable rivals for the same social function. Seeking "a government of laws and not of men," the advocates of antitrust delivered the entire American economy into the power of as arbitrary a government of men as any dictatorship could hope to establish." [Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal, "3. America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business"]

Whether a government of laws not men is possible is unlikely. Although it is no doubt what Rand intended, she could not come up with one that did not initiate the use of force--nor has anyone else.

Regi

Post 35

Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 9:54am

Thanks for the American Objectivist Pary idea. I'm the one who supplied the Q. in Peikoff's article.

Here is my original email to Dr. Peikoff:

Mr. Peikoff,

In view of the constant parade of jackassery which is Washington, is there any point in voting for candidates of either entrenched party? Throwing out the incumbents �for a change� is to me an idea based on the philosophy that my head will stop hurting if I bang it on the opposite wall.

Are there any objectivists that you know of who are forming a political party?

We need real change.

Respectfully,

David Carvell

David.carvell@earth1.net

Post 36

Monday, October 30, 2006 - 1:29pm

Mr. Carvell: Thank you for your message indicating that you�ve sent a suggestion similar to mine - on creating in the United States the �American Objectivist Party� - to Mr. Peikoff. I just relayed my above comment to the Ayn Rand Institute (Att. Mr. Ralston), to add a little bit more �pressure� to your suggestion.

Unfortunately it�s a fact that the only positive comment to my suggestion came from you, with everybody else taking good care to keep a total silence. In relation with the theme involved this is a typical way of behavior among Objectivists, not just on the pages of Rebirth of Reason but on many, many other Objectivist ones I�ve leafed through while surfing Objectivist sites in the Internet. It seems that Objectivists love to talk about things Objectivist but nobody dares to enter the active political field. And, for the time being, with only very, very few Objectivists in other parts of the world, the idea of creating an Objectivist Party makes only sense in the United States. Perhaps the Ayn Rand Institute or, else, the Atlas Society, to which Mr. Bidinotto, who also writes on these pages, belongs, takes up the idea and turns it into reality.

Post 37

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 - 7:49pm

Regi, good to see you back here posting. While your email is different, I know who you are (I recognize your writing) -- and it's a pleasure to converse with you once again. You said:

Whether a government of laws not men is possible is unlikely. Although it is no doubt what Rand intended, she could not come up with one that did not initiate the use of force--nor has anyone else.

But, for 74 years -- from 1787 to 1861 (when Congress passed the "Revenue Act of 1861") -- and right here in the good ole' U S of A, we had a government of laws and not men (ie. one that did not initiate the use of force).

And 74 years is a life-time.

;-)

Ed

Post 38

Thursday, November 2, 2006 - 7:33pm

Hi Ed,

Thank you for the welcome. I'll probably not be posting very much here as I am very busy with other things.

If you do not think the US government initiates force, I guess you've never attempted to not file your income tax.

The problem is Rand's definition of government, "an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area." [Capitalism the Unknown Ideal - "Appendix: The Nature Of Government"] If you choose not to recognize that institution's "right" to regulate your social conduct, won't it have to force you to do so? If it does not, how can it prevent people from setting up another institution in the same greographical area to enforce rules of social conduct?"

Regi

Post 39

Friday, November 3, 2006 - 8:20pm