RoR: Forum

This is a fundamental issue in Objectivism and the original analysis was correct: politics depends on ethics, which is founded on epistemology, which is derived from metaphysics. The dominant philosophy of our culture -- our global society -- must change before any subsidiary improvements are possible. While it is always nice to read about some township that repealed a tax or a regulation, such wins are temporary at best, as they were in the 19th century. In our own generation, the fair weather of the "Reagan Revolution" is now only a memory of a better time.

Consider the many problems associated with the Libertarian Party, launched as a result of the popularity of Objectivism in the 1960s campus groups -- "Ayn Rand Study Clubs" and "Radicals for Capitalism."

Objectivist political theory -- if there is such a thing -- is not just incomplete, it barely exists.

Go back to the so-called "Anti-Federalist" papers of the 1770s and 1780s. It had been suggested that the President of the United States should be elected by the governors of the states. Is there a philosophical principle against which to measure that proposal? John Locke suggested three branches of government: legislative, executive, and diplomatic. The courts were accepted as so tightly woven into the fabric of local society, that courts were not seen as a branch of government, but as a check against state power. Is there a philosophical principle against which to evaluate that idea? Should we elect the secretary of state, say to a five-year term, independently of the executive branch? Again, there is no discussion and certainly no consensus among qualified scholars of Objectivism.

Conservatives, including Objectivists, oppose the income tax -- and not without reason. However, consider that merchants fought for the right to have their taxes considered as their permission to vote. The theory was that only those with a stake in society should vote -- and in all previous times, that stake was measured in land. Even today, we call it real estate, because traditionally, land -- not tools, or books, or incorporeal "ideas" -- was the only real property. However, merchants do not own land: they own other property. In the information age, it is possible to generate a huge stake in society from ideas alone. An inventor can hold huge wealth in patents. An author can be rich from copyrights. (The issue of objectively defined patents and copyrights is also complex and not settled.) A receipt for income tax could be the pass to vote. Arguable as that is -- and it is -- my question is "Why not?"

Why should every citizen over 18 have the right to vote? Is there an objective principle to explain this? And, the ultimate question here is: Can -- "can" not just "does, but "can" -- the Objectivist Party have any position on such a proposal in the absence of a developed (objective) political theory? The present Constitution sets age limits for officeholders: 25 for House; 30 for Senate; 35 for President. Why not set the same age limits for electors to these offices? Is there an objective standard -- derived from objective ethics -- that settles such a question?

Presently, the war on terrorism and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are supported by private contractors, i.e., by mercenaries. I certainly like the way that feels -- but are my anarchist feelings any standard of objective political theory? There was a time not long ago, when governments operated arsenals to construct their weapons. Then, we went over to contractors for armaments, and now for manpower. Basically, Blackwater (and they are not the only manpower contractor) operates a private army. If defense is a monopoly of the state, are such private armies proper, according to objective political theory?

What does the so-called "Objectivist Party" have to say on this or any other issue? How do we differentiate such a party from the plethora of "anti-tax" and "true federalism" political activists on the conservative right?

Post 1

Sunday, July 20, 2008 - 9:46am

Michael,

I understand that your politcal beliefs support anarchy. But it doesn't seem appropriate for you to throw mud at Objectivism (particularly on this forum) because it doesn't suit your desires in the political arena.

You say,

"Objectivist political theory -- if there is such a thing -- is not just incomplete, it barely exists."

But in fact it is well defined in basic principles with a degree of consistency and rationality no other system has shown - traceable from metaphysics through epistemology into ethics as the proper foundation for a government designed to protect individual rights and no more. It's not that complicated.

You start asking about administrative details designed to serve particular purposes. Government in all of its manifestations must be finite - choices of this way or that to handle a sub-purpose are going to vary. The political principles you ask for were clearly described by the founding fathers and by Rand: as checks on the abusive powers of the government. Your requests for anything more detailed is just a strawman attack.

You say,

"The issue of objectively defined patents and copyrights is also complex and not settled."

The issue of intellectual property rights is settled for Objectivists. It is the anarchists that are eager to deny a man the product of his efforts when those efforts are intellectual. Why must the rest of us keep having these kinds of arguments - they aren't really honest, are they? Like the creationists who argue for equal time claiming that it is just fair, and that intelligent design is also a scientific theory - nonsense, they are fighting for their sacred scripture - and the those other arguments are dishonest.

After asking questions about fairly trivial implimentations, like the precise age to vote, you say,

"Is there an objective standard -- derived from objective ethics -- that settles such a question?"

Let me ask you, "Is there an objective standard -- derived from area of Objectivism (or anarchy) -- that explains why you or I have doubled up on dashes in our sentences?" No, but it doesn't matter does it - we only need to understand the meaning. These trivia are strawmen set up as if they were the heart or essence of a political theory.

You ask,

"...but are my anarchist feelings any standard of objective political theory?"

If you want an honest answer from this reader, "No."

Finally, you say,

"If defense is a monopoly of the state, are such private armies proper, according to objective political theory?"

The state's job is defense. Hiring contractors is proper or improper to the degree it helps or doesn't in executing that defense. They aren't competing private armies so the issue of monopoly isn't broached. Hired employees versus contracted employees - that's not an argument on the level of politcal theory.

Again, I don't think you're really being honest in the thrust of your post. You appear to want to argue for anarchy but instead take unwarranted pot shots at Objectivism and ask silly questions about administrative details not principles.

Post 2

Sunday, July 20, 2008 - 10:05am

Michael, one last point, you said,

The dominant philosophy of our culture -- our global society -- must change before any subsidiary improvements are possible.

Actually, I would say it more like this: Our electorate's understanding in an area of political theory has to improve before improvements could be made that would be likely to remain in place. I phrased it differently for several reasons:

Because making a favorable change in our government does not require changing a global society's philosophy - just our electorates.
Because educational changes can be in stages and political improvements can be in stages. There is no requirement that we achieve a perfect understanding in all areas of politics and philosophy before it brings political improvements.
If you insist on changing all of the dominant philosophy of our culture all at once, you can't get there from here.

Post 3

Sunday, July 20, 2008 - 10:50am

Very good retort, Steve.

I've often wrestled with Mike's rants as if it was necessary to wrestle with them. I didn't think to take a step back to question not just the content at which he aims his argument, but the mode BY WHICH his argument "operates."

Thanks.

Ed

Post 4

Sunday, July 20, 2008 - 11:23am

"If you insist on changing all of the dominant philosophy of our culture all at once, you can't get there from here."

Well, that's the dirty little secret of the left, isn't it? Attacks on personal liberty (e.g., bans on foodstuffs and toilets that flush) and bizarre movements toward some utopia divorced from reality (gay marriage and rights for orangutans) can proceed as fast as our chubby little minds can imagine. But real solutions to real problems (allowing drilling in ANWR, slogging it out with the terror states) are forbidden because in reality such things take time to implement and to show results. The left doesn't want anything that will actually work and hence will actually need time to work. It wants the immediate satisfaction of forbidding, of fiats, of a false sense of ethical superiority. Never actually wanting to arrive anywhere, the left pretends it can close its eyes and click its heels, and not wishing to get there from here it need never expend the effort to depart.

Post 5

Sunday, July 20, 2008 - 5:49pm

"Well, that's the dirty little secret of the left, isn't it? Attacks on personal liberty (e.g., bans on foodstuffs and toilets that flush) and bizarre movements toward some utopia divorced from reality (gay marriage and rights for orangutans) can proceed as fast as our chubby little minds can imagine. But real solutions to real problems (allowing drilling in ANWR, slogging it out with the terror states) are forbidden because in reality such things take time to implement and to show results. The left doesn't want anything that will actually work and hence will actually need time to work. It wants the immediate satisfaction of forbidding, of fiats, of a false sense of ethical superiority. Never actually wanting to arrive anywhere, the left pretends it can close its eyes and click its heels, and not wishing to get there from here it need never expend the effort to depart."

Ted, I was thinking about this a week ago, trying to formulate it in my head. The only difference was that I was thinking about it in terms of jealousy; how the left CAN get their things passed while we have to wait and wait and be patient, and how that can be frustrating for Objectivists. Thanks for summing it up succinctly.

Post 6

Monday, July 21, 2008 - 5:02am

Steve, Ed, Ted and Joe --

For the purpose of this discussion, I began with acceptance of the general Objectivist principles because, I, too am an objectivist. My points ("strawmen") my points were just a few of extremely many that can be raised.

Take patents and copyrights. The state has a mandate to protect intellectual property by granting monopolies on patents and copyrights. How should that principle be realized.? Read the history of patents and copyrights. Should a patent be granted for 14 years or for 17 years? Copyrights were extended to the life of the author, then to the life of the author plus 25 years. Now, if I am correct, it is the life of the author plus 75 years. What is the obective standard? Were the extensions recognition that lifetimes are longer? If so, fine. But I believe that the extensions were merely political. Disney did not want to lose control of Mickey Mouse. They got the law they needed. Is that objective? Originally, a patent had to be only an idea. For some years, the patent office -- located in the State Department (is that objective?) -- gave up reviewing patents and accepted any application. Then, the Patent Office passed judgement: you had to have a working model of an actual thing. Then, they did not. The problem with software patents was that mathematical theories could not be patented because they were considered natural, physical laws of the universe. Then software became patentable. If I am correct, it is not now. My point is that if there were an Objectivist "position" on how the governmnet can best protect intellectual property, an Objectivist Political Party would have that statement as a platform plank.

If it does not matter whether or not the governors choose the President or if the Secretary of State is elected to a five year term, then what principle of Objectivism is being applied. If the matter is as you say here, a minor detail not worth discussing, then what principle of Objectivism requires that we not care? I ask because we Objectivists accept as a premise that the present Constitution has "contradictions" within it that need to be corrected for objective law to obtain. Aside from the Narragansett Clause that government make no law abridging freedom of trade, are there any others, or no others? What about the direct election of senators? Is there an objective principle to be applied?

Again, if Objectivist political theory were well-developed these questions would be settled.

Read the platform of the Objectivist Party. It is no different from the anti-tax, "true federalism" calls from other conservative politicians.

The Objectivist Party decries the philosophical subjectivism of the Libertarian Party. However, politically, one man's whim is another man's objective standard. "Your honor, the defendant purchased several Picassos over several years and we ask for the maximum sentence." You say that the King of Ruritania and the President of Freedonia are both just tinpot dictators and you get hauled before a court for relativism. In other words, does he Objectivist Party intend to make subjectivism a crime? Let's say that they do not. What, then, distinguishes them from any other limited government, "true Constitionalist" conservative political party, e.g, the Libertarian Party?

Postscript 1. -- Back when RoR was SOLO, I failed to read Lindsay Perrigo's manifesto on changing the world. Myself, I have no interest in that and said so and took flak back then. But the world does change. It changes because individuals change. New ideas are discovered or invented and people accept them. But if your primary goal is to change the world, you will find yourself defeated by the law of means and ends. And, yet, there are exceptions -- steam power, electricity, even Ayn Rand's works. And Rand's example is the one conjured up by the world-changers, ignoring the objective context of Rand as a person and the times in which she lived. I believe that a even cinemagraphic hackjob on Atlas Shrugged would still do more to "change the world" than the announcement of an Objectivist Party.

Postscript 2 -- Steve, I agree with you that incremental improvements are possible. You are a spiritually strong person. You could move into a small town of 10,000 and get them to relax zoning laws, lower taxes, engage school vouchers, etc., etc. The question remains: what happens if you move away? In order for such reforms to be permanent, the dominant culture of the town would have to be changed. That is the problem.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 7/21, 5:21am)

Post 7

Monday, July 21, 2008 - 6:53am

Michael,

I have never argued in favor of tricking people into voting the right way or winning arguments due to charisma, and I don't believe in making arguments that are only pragmatic. Winning with only pragmatic arguments has two problems: The win won't be permanent and the win won't address the underlying need of education. I have always argued in favor of change that arises from an education of ethical and practical terms.

You said,

In order for such reforms to be permanent, the dominant culture of the town would have to be changed. That is the problem.

But in your town example, I would not have to change the "dominate culture of the town" - only the relevant ethical, political, economic and practical aspects of an area in question - like zoning - need change. I don't have to provide a complete, comprehensive education that covers every aspect of metaphysics, epistemology, etc. and changes the entire dominate culture.

The incremental changes I spoke of are changes in some aspect of the political world, that arise from an education of the electorate on the following:

Why the change is ethically mandated (how that change is the individual's, by RIGHT)
The change has practical benefits and avoids problems that the alternatives create
That the change is possible, it can be done
The change can be done like this - here are the steps that get us from here to there.

Assume the Libertarian or Objectivist candidate took a position that the federal government had no right to take money away from tax payers to give to away on foriegn charities. Imagine further that the argument was put in the strongest ethical language, and that it addressed all of the damage that foriegn aid has done over the years, and that it talked about the other practical reasons for letting people choosing what charity if any they choose to support. If this position caught fire with the public, and the education was on ethical as well a practical reasons, it could bring about an incremental change in government based on sound ethical principles.

When a change IS realized because of the ethical argument, then there is a likelyhood of that ethical understanding 'bleeding' into other changes. And the electorate starts to become more energized about their efficacy. (On the other hand, if the left or the neocons win an issue based upon their 'principles,' their supporters become more energized).

Questions: What in your argument in this moves us in the direction of greater liberty - no party has the kind of detailed administrative proposals with a set of ethical explanations, so why are you throwing this mud at the Objectivist party? And, how do you reconcile being an anarchist with saying you are an Objectivist?

Post 8

Monday, July 21, 2008 - 11:34am

"Why should every citizen over 18 have the right to vote? Is there an objective principle to explain this?"

Try rephrasing this as a series of questions:

Should politicians be allowed to pick and choose which adults can vote and which can't? Would you expect that politicians, acting out of self-interest, would try to use this power to take away the right to vote from any category of voters perceived to be unfavorably inclined toward the incumbents? If the current majority party were to succeed over time in limiting the vote, via a series of disenfranchisements, to unionized government workers, would that be an acceptable outcome?

Every year I worked at the legislature, there were attempts to limit who could run for office and who could vote, and attempts to expand the class of voters. The majority Democratic party recently successfully managed to expand the vote to include dead people. Well, that's not what the bill said, but that is the logical outcome of allowing permanent absentee ballots to be mailed to anyone who requests it, with no follow up to determine at each election that the person is alive and their ballot isn't being voted by their children or whoever is living at that address.

In a remarkable coincidence, this would greatly favor the majority party.

The criteria for voting needs to be kept as simple as possible, otherwise whoever is in power will try to game things to permanently lock in their power.

Post 9

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 9:45am

I have gotten to enjoy MM's rants, they can be thought provoking even when their coherence may be in doubt. Think of them as brainstorming and then try to piece something out of it. I did not take his statement as throwing mud at all, but rather just a brainstorm session on the issues.

Post 10

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 2:00pm

Agreed Kurt, I too didn't take it as throwing mud. Ted criticized the Objectivist Party's lack of a platform on the other thread without any of the similar backlash.

Anyways, after this thread, I visited the Ayn Rand Institute and perused their bookstore for Objectivist books related to political science, with no luck. Perhaps someone else knows of some that I was unable to find.

Re intellectual property, I have never seen Mike say that he doeesn't belive in intellectual property. He simply stated that the matter was complex.

When Steve said that the matter of I.P. was "settled", then if he simply meant that Objectivists believe intellectual property should be protected by law, I would have to agree with his assessment. However, that is not enough.

Steve, in your absense, Stephan Kinsella published an article here on RoR about intellectual property... I looked for it, but was unable to find the link for you... perhaps someone else remembers.

Now, I will grant that Stephan does not support the idea of I.P, so in that respect his views are not compatible with Objectivism... nonetheless, some of the specific issues he raised with the particularities of how the I.P. system is currently implemented deserve attention, especially by I.P. supporters.

In other words, it is not enough to just state that I.P. is legitimate, there are specifics to work out.

And I think that's what Mike was getting at with his critique of the Objectivist party... I took his questions about the techinicalities to be rhetorical questions.

Post 11

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 5:53pm

JF: Anyways, after this thread, I visited the Ayn Rand Institute and perused their bookstore for Objectivist books related to political science, with no luck. Perhaps someone else knows of some that I was unable to find.

Thanks, Jonathan.

JH: Should politicians be allowed to pick and choose which adults can vote and which can't? ... limiting the vote, via a series of disenfranchisements, to unionized government workers, would that be an acceptable outcome?

Of course, not, and that is not what I said. I only pointed out that if you have to be 25 to run for Congress, then should the voters for that post not also be similarly limited? What objective standard can be applied to solve the problem?
Yes, I understand and appreciate the examples you cite, but they are only egregious examples, as would be, for instance, the application of polling rules applied against African-Americans in the South -- easy questions for White folk, hard ones for Coloreds. Such travesties aside, it is the voters of the time who decide the issue, as they did when the franchise was extended to women and then to 18-year olds. That is all.

SW: Assume ... Imagine further ... If .. could ...

That's a pretty long chain, Steve, starting with an arbitrary assumption and an active imagination to follow a proposal along just one possible outcome. Better, I think, to find people who already agree with you on the fundamental principles and then discuss the ifs and what-ifs, keeping in mind that one's own goal would always be the direct benefit to oneself.

Steve, I believe that we -- you, me, and many others here on RoR and Objectivism and Libertarianism in general, but, really, many other people as well: Richard Dawkins is a reasonable man and an independent thinker, but hardly an Objectivist -- are "searchers" who seek the truth with open minds. I believe further that we -- again the etcs and etals -- are genetic individualists, programmed to be comfortable going our own way. Every social species depends on such outsiders or drifters to prevent in-breeding. As humans are highly intelligent (versus, say, sheep or salmon), that expression comes more from intellectual pursuits than from the pursuit of fertile mates. That is why you cannot persuade the majority of people. They are not like you; and they are not in the one way that you believe matters most: independence of thought.

Moreover, Steve, even within Libertarian or Objectivist circles, you will find many followers and true believers who engage collectivist modes of behavior. They like the certainty of a defined philosophy. It feels right to them to be told what to believe. Ask a question and they reply with quotes from authorities, not to supply citation, but to surplant thought. No matter what we have disagreed on, you have always spoken for yourself. Thanks.

Post 12

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 9:34pm

Michael,

There is a reason that my statement was couched in these terms: "Assume ... Imagine further ... If .. could ..." It was a hypothetical, an example of what might be possible and it was not offered as a proof, just an illustration of what I was talking about.

My argument was that the best way to achieve a stable, rational political system is to educate the electorate on the ethical and practical sides to issues - one by one - and that step-by-step the system gets better as the electorate acquire the required understanding. You argued that it would be better

"...to find people who already agree with you on the fundamental principles and then discuss the ifs and what-ifs, keeping in mind that one's own goal would always be the direct benefit to oneself."

Here are my concerns:
1) In my example, I was talking to an audience where many share the key principle "Your money is yours and it shouldn't be given away by others, especially not to foriegn dictators." I want to give those who agree that their money should be theirs, the ethical foundations and the practical understanding that empower them in this issue.
2) If one took your statement more literally, they would only be preaching to the choir and discussing the 'ifs and what-if' of some proposed utopia that will never come to pass because they only talk to themselves. That isn't in my self-interest.
3) Speaking of direct benefit to oneself: It is more in my interest to act effectively to reduce government and advocate for the philosophy and the values that I hold than to give up altogether - unless, I believe that it cannot be done.

Point #3 above is interesting because of your next paragraph, which treats humans as 'moist robots' as Scott Adams calls us - creatures who have no free will, no agency or volition or choice. If I didn't believe persuasion were possible I wouldn't be spending time writing this now. I worked may years as therapist, so I understand the difficulties in persuading an individual to try a change. But I don't subscribe to your theory that only a small, genetically elite group of intellectuals are open to persuasion. (Actually, just based on my experience with intellectuals versus 'average folk' I'd say that the intellectuals often show themselves to be more adept at rationalization and often act as if they have a vested 'intellectual interest' in not really listening to what is being said.)

Many of today's application of genetics and evolution to the human situation fail to take into account the issue of agency. Your argument that some of us are genetically programmed to be individualists where the majority are genetically programmed to be followers fits that same fallacy. Did you choose to argue to me that I had no choice in learning to think independently and that no choice is required in the process of thinking independently and are you choosing to argue that the majority of people are never thinking independently and have no choice about that?

Because there are people who often behave as true believers isn't evidence that persuasion is hopeless or that we genetically bound to some kind of intellectual class-status.

People here have defended you in this thread, saying they don't think you are throwing mud on Objectivism. My phrasing could have been better. But your posts do unfairly blame Objectivism for not being something that it shouldn't be. It is true that Ayn Rand did not write a paragraph somewhere describing the Objectively proper age of a candidate for a given political office or any of the other millions of details that make up the adminstrative code for a political structure. She did establish the metaphysical-epistemological-ethical-political chain of principles that are needed as a base for anyone that wants to sit down and decide how to approach those details.

I enjoy your writing, your creativity, the sense of you as a free spirit, a benevolent gad-fly, someone that brings in new perspectives, but I think these wonderful traits are at times getting in your way when greater consistency is called for. And because you are likeable and have these delightful traits people sometimes aren't seeing the underlying thrust of your arguments as often as they should.

For anyone doubts that last sentence of mine, just look at this: Michael began this thread with this key statement:

The dominant philosophy of our culture -- our global society -- must change before any subsidiary improvements are possible.

And in the next to last paragraph of his last post he states that for genetic reasons people can't be persuaded, in other words the dominant philosophy of our culture is not going to change - except for some reason unrelated to reasoning, persuading, communication of ideas or anything else we believe. That is an intellectual dead end that reduces down to "The place we want to go can never be reached from here" And along the way Michael says he is an Objectivist, but somehow doesn't believe in limited government or free will.

Post 13

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 4:43pm

Rand on the Libertarian Party

This ARI link lists quotes by Rand regarding the Libertarian Party. Presumably ARI listed Rands strongest essential arguments. Rand's two main assertions are that Libertarians consort with religious conservatives on one hand and anarchists on the other. And the Libertarians "plagiarize" her while not quoting her and while picking and choosing among her ideals. Rand does not argue that one should not vote (presumably due to philosophical prematurity) but rather she argues that taking votes away from the best candidate (here Nixon) is a "sin."

She argues that politicking as a form of education is invalid. If this leads to throwing an election, she has a possible point. Yet in NY at least, a candidate can appear on the ticket of multiple parties. (Ideally, I admit I would do away with party affiliation on the ballot.) For example, Republicans typically run for office as both the Republican and as the Conservative party candidate. Votes under either ticket count as votes for the same person. If the Conservative Party nominates a different candidate than that of the Republican party then this amounts to saying that the Republican candidate is to evil to be a "lesser of two evils." In states with a similar system the Objectivist party ticket could lend support to a major party candidate while maintaining its identity as a separate entity. Faced with an election between Rick Santorum and a hawkish Democrat, or Joe Lieberman and a big government Republican, an Objectivist Party ticket could lend its support to the better choice. Courting the Objectivist Party could become an important goal as Republicans courting the Conservative Party is in NY

Post 14

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 8:45pm

Steve, I understand the fallacy of determinism. Free will is a primary. That said, people act as they do for causes. There is a thought-experiment where you predict which button someone will press, given that they know your prediction. Will they do as you predicted to humor you, or will they do the opposite to spite you, or will the choice be based on something else entirely? There is no way to know. They might not even know all the antecedants, even after an introspection. Thus, free will -- they choose because they choose.

That still leaves the fact that two people will pick up a book in a store, read the blurb and one will buy Atlas and the other will not. "That sounds interesting" is a judgment whose antecedants are complex and complicated. (Art Garfunkel's reading list is online here. He has never read anything by Ayn Rand, apparently.) You know that you can only get so far into someone else's head.

There was one time I was working as the adult systems analyst among a workplace of students and I was staring at the ceiling, drawing flowcharts in my head and as the kids walked about -- they did a lot of that -- I realized that they probably thought that I was woolgathering because they did not actually think. They learned, to be sure, remembered and repeated, but none of them to my knowledge ever critically followed an idea from its premises to its consequences. I was only worrying about data, but to them, there was nothing to think about. The system "just ran." That is the mental state of most people. They flick a switch. The lights come on. They never think about the coal cars at the powerplant. If they did, the world would be different.

Hundreds of compelling inventions, discoveries and arguments of truth are repeated every day amid a noise of pop stars and presidential candidates and the undying love of a male turtle. Most people cannot filter the signals from the noise. I would rather spend my time with you than with them.

Post 15

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 9:29pm

Ted,

I read Rand's quotes that ARI shows. I agree with most of her observations, but I still come to different conclusions. Of the parties that exist, the Liberatrian (and now the Objectivist Party) are at least talking about principles and meaning it. While the Republican and Democratic party have been broken, dishonest facades for decades. I'd rather try to grow the Libertarian and Objectivist parties, influence them to separate themselves from the nutcases and to somehow force the anarchists to make their own party. (It is particularly disgusting to have those who want to abolish government screwing up a party that is attempting to create a better government and that the anarchists are trying to use representative government's election process is disgusting - parasites!)

I still believe that you have to vote for the person that best reflects your principles (if the Libertarian Party hasn't chosen a wacko) even if it throws the election from the Republican candidate to the Democrat (or visa versa). Attempting to 'save' the nation by voting for the lesser of the evils is a form of sanctioning what comes as well as being an attempt to steer the political ship without doing the education of the proper ethical principles. It would not be a 'sin' as she claimed unless it would damage a greater value than any gain in value that might be achieved. In the world of trade-offs forced upon us by the current system, the damage to the country of electing the worse of the two evils because of a Libertarian/Objectivist candidate becoming a spoiler would be more than offset by bringing Objectivist prinicples that far into the political arena - everything that went wrong in the country from that moment forward would more likely be seen by a growing portion of the electorate as a result of choosing to vote as they did instead of Libertarian/Objectivist. Trying to stop a drunk from drinking by enabling them isn't an effective approach. In the absence of more positive trends in the broader educational arena, it may well take a major collapse of the system (like a drunk hitting bottom) to spur the need to learn about a new system. There are no guarantees.

What she said about the nutty philosophies and political ideologies speaking out as Libertarians giving Capitalism a bad name is true but the better approach is to toss the nuts out (not that I know how to do that - but it is the fight I prefer). Trying to reclaim either of the major parties leaves you with the problem not only of how, but what in the party are you trying to save (do you imagine some bright jewel being uncovered in the muck heap of today's major parties), and if you threw out all but those who shared a few major principles with us - who would be left? No one.

I agree where she said that we need to educate, but disagree with her about not using political campaigns to educate - I've said before that it is too good an opportunity to pass up. The audience is there and motivated to hear things political in nature. It is a time when we aren't speaking mostly to each other. It is a perfect time to present the ethics behind the political issues. I see education as a step-by-step process that CAN be combined with minor, step-by-step gains in politcal improvements. I suspect she would argue that it is the dominant philosophy that has to change - and I'd agree, but reply that working that in all of the different venues - especially colleges and universities - does not exclude the educational campaign.

Post 16

Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 6:12pm

I largely agree. I do think Rand is right that one has to look at the political effects of one's vote as the paramount issue. It is better to elect a Nixon over a McGovern when the issues are the Cold War and the Great Society. During the "end of history" era, 1992-2001 it was easier to vote one's conscience over choosing the lesser of two evils. And I could never in the last twenty years have imagined that I might vote for McCain. I won't, since I live in NY, a solid Obama state, and hence have the luxury of voting my conscience or abstaining. If I lived in Ohio or Florida I'd already have voted several times by absentee ballot, and would be buying false identities, bribing illegal immigrants, and registering dead relatives as fast as I could.

My impression is that Rand was conflating her personal resentment and her ideological disdain for the anarchists and nut jobs. There is a lot of ground for such disdain - look at the anti-American "we deserved it" crowing at Liberty Magazine after 9-11. But I am less and less convinced that an Objectivist party is necessarily a bad idea. If not us, who? If not now, when? Rand's caveats are contextual, not absolute. The priority of philosophy over politics is psycho-epistemological, not historical-determinative, see the heretical essay "What Went Right?" Any prospective Objectivist Party has a lot to prove. A well thought out and obtainable platform with statements of principle as well as reasonable roadmarks is a sine qua non. A slate of candidates with some charisma seems like the hard part. Again, the Objectivist Party could certainly endorse appropriate mainstream candidates as well. I could have seen Giuliani looking for such an endorsement. Perhaps a bulletin point pledge could earn the candidates of other parties an endorsement, something like Gingrich's contract for D's, R's & L's? I sure would enjoy 'pulling the Objectivist lever.'

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/24, 6:38pm)

Post 17

Friday, July 25, 2008 - 1:02pm

"JH: Should politicians be allowed to pick and choose which adults can vote and which can't? ... limiting the vote, via a series of disenfranchisements, to unionized government workers, would that be an acceptable outcome?

MM: Of course, not, and that is not what I said. I only pointed out that if you have to be 25 to run for Congress, then should the voters for that post not also be similarly limited? What objective standard can be applied to solve the problem?
Yes, I understand and appreciate the examples you cite, but they are only egregious examples, as would be, for instance, the application of polling rules applied against African-Americans in the South -- easy questions for White folk, hard ones for Coloreds. Such travesties aside, it is the voters of the time who decide the issue, as they did when the franchise was extended to women and then to 18-year olds. That is all."

Michael, I understand and agree with the intent of your statements. I was pointing out "egregious examples", variants of which have in fact been repeatedly tried to be enacted by the Hawaii State Legislature, and, presumably, virtually every other legislative body out there. To put a lid on this constant pressure to game the system, I would strongly suggest putting an (admittedly arbitrary) age limit on the right to vote, installing that in a state constitution, along with the clarification that currently incarcerated felons and non-citizens are also prohibited from voting, with everyone else meeting that age limit allowed to vote.

Leaving it out of a constitution, and subject to changes being allowed by 50.1% of the legislative body, is putting too much temptation in the way of people who are, largely, sociopaths.

Post 18

Saturday, August 2, 2008 - 3:11pm

I was following up on the so-called Objectivist Party, when I came across Diana Hsieh's post on Noodlefood here.

Her response is entirely rationalistic. She takes it as given that political change requires prior cultural change. Hence no political activity can be attempted, until cultural change has already been effected. This is the triumph of ideology over fact. Prohibition was a powerful movement in the post-Civil War era. The prohibitionist party in many places provided a substitute for the abolitionist party for those who abandoned the Republican party once it became an established interest. The prohibitionist party never elected a president. But the prohibition amendment was passed by major party representatives in response to the strength and threat of the prohibitionist party. Hsieh argues that an Objectivist party would simply be ignored by the major parties. What historical evidence is there for this? None. Issue parties have had their successes, as they did in abolition and prohibition. Why is it not just as likely that an Objectivist party might get a freedom of consumption amendment (re drugs and trans-fats) passed? Why would a flat tax system be an impossible improvement to the current income tax? If the proper issues are chosen they can garner enough public support to force one or both major parties to act in order to mollify the supporters of those issues. The blanket a priori statement of faith that politics must come after the perfection of culture is a brilliantly simple article of faith for closed-systematists. A rationalistic closed system must be a convenient and comforting thing to those rehabilitated Objectivists riding the ARI gravy train. For those without such credentials, such a self-limiting system seems to have little real-world appeal. This is not an endorsement of the current so-called Objectivist Party, which currently appears little more convincing than a campaign to elect Spuds McKenzie. But such an idea need not remain a joke.

BTW, there is mention of a former so-called Objectivist Party candidate abandoning that idea for a "Minarchist Party." I like that name, it expresses the essence of Objectivist politics in an immediately meaningful way.

Post 19

Saturday, August 2, 2008 - 8:01pm