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 unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 2:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I feel more confident in my ability to ascertain those candidates which Ayn Rand wouldn't vote for, than those for which she would. Here's what I will initially say about that ...

She wouldn't "forgive" Guliani -- and she wouldn't even "think of" Hillary.

Ed




Post 1

Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 4:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff Flake-R(AZ)



Post 2

Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 4:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"She wouldn't 'forgive' Guliani"

Yet, she was willing to vote for Nixon. Is Guiliani not far better, even given what was known about Nixon prior to his disastrous presidency?

(This may be an unfair question for Ed. I'm not sure he was even alive then.)



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

Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 5:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff,

I think that the question is unfair (I was an infant then) -- but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be held to provide an answer to it in a debate. Life is often unfair, but that should not lead to a change in the rules -- because that would be egalitarianism. I'd be thought of as age-challenged, or something like that. Anyway, let's get to the bottom of this by taking a trip down memory lane ...

I was 6 months old when Rand answered, in that Ford Hall Forum, that she was delighted that Nixon had accepted Greenspan as economic advisor (referring to Greenspan as an "Objectivist").

And even though my parents played the audio cassettes to Atlas Shrugged in my crib -- and I was even starting to get a rudimentary handle on ITOE by then -- I didn't yet have the where-with-all to ascertain what could have been Rand's motivation for speaking so fondly of Nixon at the time. It then dawned on me that this was the first time that "an Objectivist" was granted any kind of political power -- and then I immediately understood, and explained Rand's motivation to my parents, using crayons and stuffed animals.

;-)

So yes, Rand did transiently appear to think fondly of Nixon (and by 1972 she said she didn't care about him) -- but that's just because she had a fox in his hen-house -- it wasn't because of any actual merit on his behalf. He wasn't, for example, a good president, or anything like that. He promoted (through policies) statist collectivism.

Bottom Line:
Rand voted against McGovern, not for Nixon.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/21, 5:37pm)




Post 4

Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 5:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rand voted against McGovern, not for Nixon.

and that was what she said.... she wasn't then a non-votor, so it was a case of the lesser evil [and McGovern was EVIL]....




Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 5:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Wow, all these votes for that goofy twerp: Ron Paul ???

 

The idea of Ayn Rand voting for Ron Paul would be insulting, if it weren’t so absurd.

 

Try as I might, I can't picture Rand voting for an appeassing moron on foreign policy, and wacko-quack utopian on domestic issues.   ROFL, forget it, no freaking way.   Sorry guys, but the Ayn Rand I've come to know, on her worst day, was never capable of a stupidity of such magnitude.

 

Having said that, I'm fairly positive she wouldn't vote for Giuliani either; there's a car-salesman phoniness to Rudy, which despite his rhetoric, comes through. Of course even a car-salesman would be better than an idiot like Paul, or the hate-filled Hillary -- so Rudy would have an outside chance at Rand's vote.

 

In all honesty, when I really think about it, my best guess is that she would not bother to vote at all. But my take is that if voting for a President during a time of war, without question, Rand would respond to whoever she believed was the most Roarkian in character. So if Rand was forced to choose, I believe, John McCain, would be her choice. Within the context of American politics as they actually exist today: McCain has the record of being moderate in his domestic positions, while strong on fighting America's enemies.

 

But most importantly, in the middle of clash of civilizations, a time when the virtue of courage becomes the foremost value, I've little doubt that Rand, being Ayn Rand, -- she would vote for the proven hero.

 

 

K

(Edited by Karyn Daniels on 10/22, 9:31am)




Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 7:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Karyn is right: Rand would have NEVER voted for Ron Paul. Not only would she have rejected his libertarianism and his foreign policy lunacy, she also would never have supported him because of his stand on abortion (remember her view of Reagan?).

I believe that at this time, Rand would have viewed foreign policy -- and the rise of Islamism -- as the predominant issue. I suspect she would have been more comfortable on that score with Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, and McCain.

However, she would have been appalled by McCain-Feingold, and thus scratched McCain on that count. She would have not trusted Romney, who appears to be a Keatingesque character, blowing with the passing winds. Between Giuliani and Thompson, I think she would have slightly sided with the more secular, socially liberal Giuliani -- while loathing his position against Michael Milken and some of his economic views. She would have admired his behavior after 9/11 and also his dissing of Yassar Arafat, both indicating the kind of guts and patriotism necessary to stand up against world opinion and the militant Islamists.






Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 7:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Karyn,

I found your post interesting. I know little about McCain, but even apart from McCain-Feingold I've always gotten the impression whenever he speaks that he's a Democrat in Republican clothing. (Though, I acknowledge he has made a tough statement or two about Iran.)

I don't have specific quotes to back that up, so maybe you could just outline some of his positions.

Of course, the only truly interesting question at this stage is not who she (or the American people) will select as the Republican candidate. Even at this early stage, Guiliani has a good lead.

The question is: can Rudy beat Hillary, who has a 5% lead in most of the polls, and has for months. Scary.




Post 8

Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 8:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Comrade Hillary - as long as she is identified that way, will lose her lead, for it would point out her premises more clearly than other means....



Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 9:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

McCain-Feingold is the Objectivists boogey-man for being anti-McCain, but its just nonsense. Among Objectivists with a penchant for close association with Christians-Conservatives, McCain Feingold its the ready made "original sin" they never overlook -- while overlooking far worse, and far more ill-intended, in the more ultra-right Republicans. Whatever the case, McCain-Feingold is no worse than Rudy’s gun-control legislation, Romney’s health care legislation, or Thompson’s Christian-Right pandering.  But if you dig beneath the surface, you'll find that its mostly far more mirage than reality.

 

Politics is a game, and these men play it within the pragmatic guidelines of their constituencies and political ambitions. For example: I don’t believe for a single moment that Rudy ever really believed in the gun-control legislation that he signed, it was just a sop to the liberal majority of his city – Rudy’s “necessary evil”.

 

With that in mind, when I look at these men, and listen to them speak and watch their faces – I ask myself, who among them is trying to play the game closest to his true heart? The answer I get, at least so far, is: John McCain.  

 

McCain, the soldier-senator; of all the candidates, I would trust him the most to lead us during war time. Of course this comes with a price, since the more principled the politician, the more determined his efforts to legistlate. But by that same token, he might be the one least likely to compromise or capitulate to our nations enemies. And lastly, it's war time, and for me: war trumps all other issues (another reason I would prefer even the anti-abortion Thompson, to a Hillary).

 

I don't believe that all these men are total hypocrites and fundamentally immoral, primarily they're just a product of their culture and its dominant philosophical influences. So you have to be willing to step outside of any utopian BS, libertarian claptrap or Objectivists orthdoxy; otherwise you'll drown in a sea of secondary minutia while missing the bigger picture. The only other alternatives I see, is either being stuck with supporting an imbecile like Ron Paul, or some hyper-intellectualized reasoning that leads to voting for Hillary in order to save us from the imaginary dangers of a pending Christian Theocracy.
 

For me, McCain appears to be the most sincere “gamer” of the lot; so for now, I prefer him over Rudy or Fred.

 

K

(Edited by Karyn Daniels on 10/22, 10:52am)




Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 4:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This whole thread really surprises me. I find it hard to believe that from what I've read and know of Ayn Rand, that she would not support Ron Paul. First off, Ron Paul isn't crazy, view a couple longer interviews with him on YouTube or read some or what he has written. He's very well versed in history, economics and politics. Second, let's compare his stance to Ayn Rand's stance on the issues:

Welfare State: Ron Paul wants to phase out Social Security, Medicare, Medicade and other government sponsored income redistribution schemes. He supports laizze faire capitalism like Ayn Rand (although not to the degree she would have preferred). Every other Republican supports the welfare state to varying degrees.

Monetary Policy: Ayn Rand believed (correctly) that when the government prints money it is stealing from you. Ron Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and the IRS, the other Republicans do not.

Foreign Policy: Objectivism is based on the trader principle that preemptive coercive force is not acceptable. Iraq did not attack the United State! Our soldiers, while having volunteered to serve were coerced into a war sold on false premises (WMD, connection to Al Queda). Ron Paul wants our troops to come home instead of being forced into their 3rd and 4th tours of duty. Every other Republican wants the war to continue. By the way, the terrorists did not attack us because we are free and rich. The best way to stop Islamic extremism is to stop giving their leaders rallying cries to radicalize, such as having bases in Saudi Arabia, overthrowing the government of Iran in 1953 and launching an aggressive invasion in Iraq. Then use our army that is now at home to protect our own country (like our borders, novel idea right).

Domestic Policy: The government shouldn't dictate which substances are legal or not. That is up to the individual to decide. An individual who bases his life on reason would not use many if any substances, but the government has no right to tell him not to. Ron Paul wants to end the War on Drugs (which is really Prohibition Part 2, how did the first one go?) and no other Republicans want to.

Philosophy: While they differ on several points, objectivism is very similar to libertarianism. They both believe our rights come from being individuals not members of groups. Ron Paul has stated this sentiment directly many times. It should also be noted that nationalism is a form of collectivism and every other Republican toutes patriotism at every chance they get. While Ron Paul is a pro-life Christian, so is every other Republican running (OK Romney's a Morman) and he has, unlike many of his opponents, never made this a central to his platform.

From what I understand of Ayn Rand and Ron Paul, I find the idea of her not supporting him almost perposterous. If you have any information to enlighten me, I would surely appreciate it.




Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 5:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew William Syrios,

Karyn already gave you all the information and evidence you will ever need. For example, refer to Post 5 where she calls Ron Paul a "goofy twerp". And refer to Post 9 where she calls Ron Paul an "imbecile". Now how could Ayn Rand ever vote for a person who is clearly labeled by Karyn as a goofy twerp imbecile? No need to get into what Ron Paul's positions actually are or why they make him a goofy twerp imbecile. Enough.

If you have yet to form a personal opinion of Ron Paul and you would like to learn more, check out his 2008 campaign website or take a look at some youtube videos of him speaking (in debates whatever). Compare what he says, what he has done, with other candidates. Then come back here thanking me and telling me he is the most intelligent straightforward consistently individualist politician you have ever met.

I went to the 2007 NH GOP presidential debates about a month and a half ago. I remember coming back amazed at how good of a talker Romney is (yet I had no respect for anything else about him), and what a warmongering unprincipled idiot Guliani was. McCain for the most part just stood up there and laughed, portrayed no intelligence nor thought out positions.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 8:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My $0.02:

The threat posed by Islam is *the* issue and Rand would have boosted Ron Paul on the basis of his pacifism and willing ignorance of Islamofascists' tyrannical intent.

She'd hold her nose and vote Giuliani because he's the toughtest on Islam.

(Also, isn't RP anti-abortion while Giuliani is pro-choice?)



Post 13

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 8:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed , Andrew and Dean,
LOL , great posts ! 
Andrew and co.,
The white noise of the Islamofacist threat is a proven tactic of those who want
no debate on the subject (as to how we procede) , includinding from our Admirals
and Generals. Do you sincerely believe that noise would shut down Ayn Rand's
capacity to notice this and keep her from listening to what our Admirals and  Generals
have to say on this subject ?
Do any of you Giuliani fan's see Ayn Rand dismissing Ron Paul's insistance on a declaration of war as "loony" or his vote to go after Osama, as "pacifist" or his overwhelming monetary contributions from those that serve in our military (more then ANY other canidate) (for a "twerp"?) as a telling weakness? Then you must want Rumsfeld for vice prez. and maybe you can even get Ann Coulter as Secretary of State.

(Edited by Gigi P Morton on 10/22, 9:03am)




Post 14

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 9:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Gigi,

I admire your passion on the issue, but this:
The white noise of the Islamofacist threat is a proven tactic of those who want
no debate on the subject (as to how we procede)

is over the top.

We've been debating the subject here (as on many other sites), and no one I've read on any point of the spectrum has suggested we stop.

If you sincerely think that the jihadists are not a threat (just "white noise"), I can't imagine how you explain away the felling of the World Trade Center, the shoe bomber, Padilla, the many cells planning attacks, etc. (Is the latter just some propaganda from the administration, about phantoms in your view? This conspiracy-theory view would have to involve both state and Federal authorities on a wide scale, with the willing cooperation of the mainstream media, etc. That wouldn't stop some, but I think you have more sense than that.)



Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 9:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Islamofascists are so frightening they have me soiling my undies (especially that little Persian guy who intends to conquer the world).  I need a big, strong, tough-talking president who makes me feel safe by sending our troops out to fight against all of those scary -isms out there.  After all, bombs and bullets are the best defenses against bad ideas. Innocent women and children in "bad" nations really aren't all that innocent since it's their fault that they tolerate such tyrants in power and that my undies are always dirty. 

If a few of them lose their lives "by accident" it should be comforting to their families that they died for the sake of more noble ideas (american life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness).  Angry relatives bent on revenge should not attack me or my family over here because we're americans and are not responsible for decisions made by our democratically elected officials.  If they do try to attack me here they won't succeed.  My big strong President will protect me, my wife, my kids, and my dog scruffy.  But in order for him to do this effectively, I need to be patriotic and not citicize his methods. I should turn my gun over to police (so I don't hurt myself) and allow my phone conversations to be monitored in case my brother in France mentions he went out last night and got "bombed" (or some other keyword).  If I have to spend a few days (or decades) in jail in order to give the President enough time to acertain that my brother's use of the word was actually benign and that I'm not really a "conspirator", then so be it.  Sometimes you have to give up life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in order to protect life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.




Post 16

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 10:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff,
No,  I know there is a huge Islamofacist threat, huge. Far bigger than Iraqi and even Iran.
I can't imagine what I've said that could be construed otherwise.
The methods we use to proceed in dismantling and dis-arming this threat is my point of contention
(as well as the point of contention of those on the ground),among other very important points, w/ Giuliani.
Prepare and Declare war using the expertise of our Admirals and Generals on the ground and in the gulf.
 Not Rumsfeldian war games that have sucked on ice.
What is Putin up to? I think it would be a good idea to have more allies right now.
You know that thats where I'm coming from. I ,too, respect your passion and position as it
appears to have come from much internal debate using fact rather then the hyperbole of the times
, Jeff.
Thanks for that, Gigi

(Edited by Gigi P Morton on 10/22, 10:54am)




Post 17

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 10:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Gigi,

I thought maybe I was misunderstanding you, based on your previous posts. But, then, what do you mean by "white noise?"

If you're referring chiefly to the methods used to deal with the jihadists and their intellectual supporters, how is anything being said drowning out what anyone else is saying? I read a wide diversity of opinions every day about how to deal with them.

And, you didn't address the point about "stopping debate."



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 11:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff,
I mean the kind of noise that leaves out details (except one, Fear) and methods(except one, the Presidents)
and who's aim is to conjure mindless support using trash talk and bluster instead of the kind of debate usually found here. Stopping debate : When name calling is the exchange rather than ideas/facts , I tend to shut off all possible respect to the opinion of a debater using those methods. I won't argue with anyone who shows that lack of intellectual
maturity. When I say "white noise" , I mean a droning that repels debate and attracts emotionalism.
I think we would see a large increase in our voluntary military if it were not for these representations of "support".
It's disrespectful to everyone. I hope I answered your questions Jeff.
                                                              Gigi

(Edited by Gigi P Morton on 10/22, 11:46am)




Post 19

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 1:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I support Guiliani in this presidential campaign, but I don't think Rand would have voted for anybody in this field.

Jim




Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.