Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
brandonk2009

2008 Presidential Candidates

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Which presidential Candidates do you think are the best?

My personal favorite I have found so far is Ron Paul. My biggest disagreement with him, however, is abortion and his opinion on LGBT issues. (The former is a major issue for me).

Are there any candidates that closely resemble Objectivist views?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum Brandon!

Which presidential Candidates do you think are the best?

We actually have a number of threads related to your question here.

My personal favorite is Rudolph Giuliani. Most importantly because:

  • He will acknowledge radical Islam as a threat and will hopefully take better actions than the current administration.

  • He speaks highly of the "free market" in general.

  • He will not further integrate religion and government. His nomination may even break the religious right away from the Republican party.

Some lesser but fairly derivative issues:

  • He suggests free market approaches to solving health care problems, including Health Savings Accounts.

  • He seems to be open to various approaches to privatizing social security.

  • He is pro-free trade.

  • He is generally pro-immigration.

  • He supports abortion rights.

  • He supports civil unions.

Rudy Giuliani certainly is not perfect when judged in accordance with Objectivist principles, but he seems significantly better than the rest.

My personal favorite I have found so far is Ron Paul. My biggest disagreement with him, however, is abortion and his opinion on LGBT issues. (The former is a major issue for me).

My biggest issue with Ron Paul is that I think he will take almost no actions against the growing threat of radical Islam. Economic reforms are unfortunately small matters in comparison to those of national defense. Rest assured it bothers me that the most pro-free market candidate is unsupportable because of his views on a more fundamental issue.

Are there any candidates that closely resemble Objectivist views?

I am afraid not yet. Objectivists generally need to still vote for the least reprehensible candidate.

Edited by DarkWaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darkwater... who are the radical islams? What threat are they to us? Does their idle threats justify preemptive action (another word for offensive action)? Do their actions justify war?

I believe in declaring war when the cost of avoiding war outweigh the cost of starting a war. I am completely against imperialism. I believe in self-defense. This is what Ron Paul has said. He never said he would never go to war.

If you can justify what you're saying please link me, I'd honestly like to know if he is so pacifist he would avoid self-defense. but I have never seen this evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe in declaring war when the cost of avoiding war outweigh the cost of starting a war. I am completely against imperialism. I believe in self-defense. This is what Ron Paul has said. He never said he would never go to war.

I would not be surprised if Ron Paul claimed that he is in favor of military action when the costs of avoiding war outweight the costs of engaging in war. However, this is just an abstract idea. I want to know what Representative Paul means by this in practice. What examples from history does Ron Paul think justified military action and why? What examples were not justified? What foreign threats do we face today, if any? Dr. Paul needs to answer all of these questions with real-world examples.

If you can justify what you're saying please link me, I'd honestly like to know if he is so pacifist he would avoid self-defense. but I have never seen this evidence.

As we both know, Ron Paul was affiliated with the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian Party's concept of "wars of self-defense" is significantly different from a foreign policy based on Objectivist principles (e.g., that described in Peter Schwartz's book or in Yaron Brook's article Just War Theory versus American Self Defense.) As far as I am concerned, the burden of proof is on Ron Paul to explain that he will engage the enemies of the United States when the time is appropriate. A derivative of this would be for Ron Paul to explain why engaging radical Islam is not appropriate.

Anyway, if you prefer, I can post typical examples of Ron Paul speaking of foreign policy without acknowledging any form of militant Islam as a threat (or even a threat from a vague, politically correct threat of terrorists.)

Darkwater... who are the radical islams? What threat are they to us? Does their idle threats justify preemptive action (another word for offensive action)? Do their actions justify war?

I will try to address this in another thread tonight. I need to do some work for school now. Please understand.

Edited by DarkWaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ron Paul hasn't specifically mentioned engaging radical Muslims because he views their radical behavior in the present as a symptom of blowback from our occupation of their countries for so long. Personally, I agree with him. His views are that we should get our noses out of other people's business (i.e. bring our troops home from around the world where they are truly unnecessary and where we are trying to police other nations and build up other nations) and focus on our own country, our own debt, our own security, our own economy. We are so busy in the world trying to "bring democracy" to the people and be the government for everyone else while our situation at home truly deserves that level of attention and indeed, far more. He sees it as absolutely ridiculous that the American people are footing the bill for other nations' security while millions of people are entering this country illegally everyday. Our welfare state expands while our government slowly erodes our liberties for the sake of "national security". If he were elected I could see him reeling in the American presence from around the world and lying low for a moment to keep from inciting any more radical responses to our irrational behavior. I don't see him not retaliating against a nation that would attack us -- he has stated several times that he fervently believes in self-defense, just not pre-emptive action. He advocates a more diplomatic solution to threats of aggression from abroad. He actually wants to communicate with people and come to non-violent resolutions to problems instead of being the big American bully.

Here are a few links that more fully articulate his views:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

http://theronpauldatabase.googlepages.com/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/rp-everything.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ron Paul is by far the best candidate. I disagree with his views on abortion, but he maintains that it is not for the federal government to decide. At the 2008 South Carolina debate, when asked what three federal programs he would eliminate, he replied, 'I'd start with the department of education, the department of energy, and the department of homeland security..'. His voting record indicates that he's pretty consistent with his views, and appears to be the candidate most likely to protect the rights of individuals.

Edited by West

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our welfare state expands while our government slowly erodes our liberties for the sake of "national security". If he were elected I could see him reeling in the American presence from around the world and lying low for a moment to keep from inciting any more radical responses to our irrational behavior. I don't see him not retaliating against a nation that would attack us -- he has stated several times that he fervently believes in self-defense, just not pre-emptive action.

This is why I chose Ron Paul. As evil as the radical Muslims are, they are not a significant threat. They make a lot of noise, and occasionally manage to kill some of us, but they are disorganized and ultimately ineffective. They can win symbolic victories like 9/11, and scare a lot of people, but they do not have the power to truly alter or destroy our way of life. The real threat is the loss of our economic and personal freedoms at home, and Ron Paul is the most principled candidate on those issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is why I chose Ron Paul. As evil as the radical Muslims are, they are not a significant threat. They make a lot of noise, and occasionally manage to kill some of us, but they are disorganized and ultimately ineffective. They can win symbolic victories like 9/11, and scare a lot of people, but they do not have the power to truly alter or destroy our way of life. The real threat is the loss of our economic and personal freedoms at home, and Ron Paul is the most principled candidate on those issues.

If they get their hands on a nuke, they will do a lot more than "kill some of us". Particularly if afterwards we are STILL unable to summon the will to anihilate them. At that point they can simply blackmail us into doing whatever they want, for fear they will detonate another nuke.

Such as make it illegal to criticize Muslims or Islam, or punish them for following the dictates of sharia law inside their own communities.

With immunity from punishment for following what they perceive as the will of Allah, twenty years later we'll all have sharia law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As evil as the radical Muslims are, they are not a significant threat.
Do you mean "radical Muslims" or Iranian government?

Because... when radical Muslims tried to blow up the WTC, most people soon shrugged it off. How many people died, after all? When they finally managed to bring down the WTC with plane, a lot of people complained that we'd been complacent. Now, it seems like that's been effectively forgotten too. Perhaps we need a small city to go next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to be that the Ron Paul supporters ignore the role of ideas vis-a-vis the war against Islamic totalitarianism: Islamic terrorism is not the result of "blowback," but the result of certain ideas that the Islamists hold that are antithetical to the Western values of reason, secularism, and rights.

If terrorism were simply a result of "blowback" from supposed Western meddling, then why aren't Indian Hindus blowing themselves up in Britain? Why haven't we been attacked by Serbian terrorists, or by Korean terrorists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they get their hands on a nuke, they will do a lot more than "kill some of us". Particularly if afterwards we are STILL unable to summon the will to anihilate them.
How will they deliver it? Nobody over there has a long range bomber capable of flying over here, and even if they did we would catch them long before they got to us.I'm not arguing that we need to appease, accept, or encourage Muslim extremists. Quite the opposite, I fully understand that they are evil, and should be dealt with harshly. The problem is that we as a nation don't have the will to fight such a war as it must be fought, and the debacle in Iraq has shown this clearly. When I was deployed to the Persian gulf two years ago, my ship didn't fire a single shot. We spent all our time handing out food and broadcasting music for fishermen and merchants in the area. I was disgusted with "fighting the war" in such a manner, and it was one of the major factors that led to me leaving the navy at the end of my enlistment.If given the choice between someone who will try to fix our economic problems at home, and avoid further resource draining half-assed "wars", or someone who wishes do expand government control of markets, socialist welfare programs, and run our military even further into the ground, guess who I'll pick?
Do you mean "radical Muslims" or Iranian government?
Since the Iranian government is one of, if not the, strongest backers of terrorist activity, I would consider them to be a valid target. However, I would only support a war on Iran if we went in and used the full capability of our military to reach a quick and decisive victory. We don't need another war like Iraq, based on altruism and wishful thinking and fought with our hands tied behind our backs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since the Iranian government is one of, if not the, strongest backers of terrorist activity, I would consider them to be a valid target. However, I would only support a war on Iran if we went in and used the full capability of our military to reach a quick and decisive victory. We don't need another war like Iraq, based on altruism and wishful thinking and fought with our hands tied behind our backs.

Ah, but Mr. Paul disagrees with you. He does not consider them a valid target and if he did, would probably not fight that war properly.

You forget, by the way, that terrorists could conceivably smuggle a bomb into the US overland OR might put one in a container, set to detonate when the ship reaches port here. When you are dealing with a nuke, that's all the precision you need in targeting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, but Mr. Paul disagrees with you. He does not consider them a valid target and if he did, would probably not fight that war properly.

You forget, by the way, that terrorists could conceivably smuggle a bomb into the US overland OR might put one in a container, set to detonate when the ship reaches port here. When you are dealing with a nuke, that's all the precision you need in targeting.

I highly doubt that Iran will develop a functional nuclear weapon during the tenure of our next president, but I'm reasonably sure that if it did happen, Dr. Paul would be willing to reconsider his position based on the changed situation.

In my eyes the continued expansion of government control over economic and personal freedoms at home is a greater threat than the unlikely possibility of Iran developing a usable nuke, and even less likely situation of them being able to use it against us. Bringing a nuclear weapon over here on a merchant ship would not be as simple as the fear-mongers make it sound. Our Intelligence Community and the navy work together to keep a close eye on merchant traffic, and suspicious ships are tracked constantly and frequently boarded for inspection. As a Cryptologic Technician, I was a part of that process and know firsthand that it is very effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree that Ron Paul is the best choice for 2008. Alot of his views follow the Objectivist Philosophy, just as the founding fathers of America did its its own way.

Ron Paul will return America to our Limited Government Constitutional Republic.

Today everyone says we have a Democracy, but remember that Ayn Rand said it would turn into a fascist dictatorship if the people lost their moral compass. And that is exactly what we are seeing today.

BTW, Rudolph Giuliani has been knighted by the Queen and according to the US Constitution this Exempts him from holding office. Most of you wont even know what iam talking about, but these secret orders are socialists and this stuff cannot be tolerated by our representitives.

Edited by Xare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I highly doubt that Iran will develop a functional nuclear weapon during the tenure of our next president, but I'm reasonably sure that if it did happen, Dr. Paul would be willing to reconsider his position based on the changed situation.

"Reasonably sure?" You can only safely judge a candidate by his stated positions. Assuming that he or anyone else will reconsider at a later date is wishful or hopeful thinking. It is an acknowledgement that the man has a flawed position, followed by the hope that he will someday come around to your way of thinking. It is clear that Dr. Paul does not view radical islam as a threat and likely wont until it jumps up and bites him in the ass. That is how we got hit the first time. Ron Paul seems willing to allow the errors of history to replay themselves at some future date. Despite his other pluses, this one big minus is more than enough to cost him my support. Is he better than any democrat? Yes, but that isnt saying much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Reasonably sure?" You can only safely judge a candidate by his stated positions.

He did vote in favor of the Afghanistan war, which shows that he is not the rabid pacifist that some believe him to be. As you said, all the candidates are flawed, I made my choice to support him because I believe his weak points (foreign policy) are outweighed by his strong points (economics, individual rights). If you can point me toward a reliable source that says Iran will likely have nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them to us, then I would reconsider and probably choose a candidate with a more aggressive foreign policy. As it stands now, based on my personal experience in the intelligence community, I don't feel that Iran is a more significant threat than bad economic and social policies at home, and I don't expect that to change in the next eight years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I happen to agree that Iran may not be quite the threat it is made out to be or that it wants itself to appear to be. I think Iran wants the world to believe that it is on the cusp of the nuclear age just as Saddam wanted the world to believe that he had weapons of mass destruction. Saddam, as it turns out, did not have any real WMD, and the Iranians may be using much of the same false bravado. That being said, Iran still poses a real threat to the region, is the major sponsor of terrorism, is killing American troops in Iraq, and is a threat to American national interests and, as such, needs to be dealt with. Ron Paul seems to want to do nothing. Worse yet, he wants American troops out of Iraq which will only serve to strengthen the hand of the Iranians and weaken our own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Today everyone says we have a Democracy, but remember that Ayn Rand said it would turn into a fascist dictatorship if the people lost their moral compass. And that is exactly what we are seeing today.

Is it? Are you sure the political compass isn't pointed towards...theocracy more? as per Dr. Peikoff's statements on the last election I agree that it is... I like what Rand correctly identified Democracy as being - the "tyranny of the majority".

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to agree that Ron Paul is the best choice for 2008. Alot of his views follow the Objectivist Philosophy, just as the founding fathers of America did its its own way.

Actually, I am not sure if any of Ron Paul's views follow the Objectivist Philosophy. Despite being a Republican candidate, Ron Paul is still a Libertarian in philosophy. Furthermore, his strongly disagrees with Objectivism on several key issues including foreign policy, abortion rights, immigration and religion.

Ron Paul will return America to our Limited Government Constitutional Republic.

No he will not, Congress will never cooperate.

BTW, Rudolph Giuliani has been knighted by the Queen and according to the US Constitution this [e]xempts him from holding office. Most of you wont even know what [i am] talking about, but these secret orders are socialists and this stuff cannot be tolerated by our [R]epresentitives.

This sounds like a wild conspiracy theory. If you wish to convey information, I recommend trying to clarify along with supplying valid references.

Edited by DarkWaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He did vote in favor of the Afghanistan war, which shows that he is not the rabid pacifist that some believe him to be.

I found a good supplement for this claim. Here is the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act, which Representative Paul introduced in the House in October of 2001.

Ron Paul made not be as rabid of a pacifist as Dennis Kucinich, but I still think that like the Bush Administration, he fails to identify the enemy here. The Bush Administration has stupidly label the enemy terrorism. However, terrorism is just a means. During World War II, the United States was not at war with Kamikaze pilots, stuka bombers and panzer tanks. We were at war with Nazism and Japanese Imperialism. Today, we are at war with militant Islamic Fundamentalism. Violent Islamists will use any means necessary to accumulate power whether it be terrorism, war or democratic elections.

Ron Paul's mistake is different. He seems to limit the enemy to the direct and indirect perpetrators of the September 11th attacks. This includes Osama Bin Laden and the rest of al Qaeda. He does not acknowledge the ideology that drives these individuals to a kill as a threat.

If you can point me toward a reliable source that says Iran will likely have nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them to us, then I would reconsider and probably choose a candidate with a more aggressive foreign policy.

I recommend Alireza Jafarzadeh's book The Iran Threat. The author is the Iranian native who helped expose Iran's secret nuclear program to the Western world. This is an excellent book.

Our Intelligence Community and the navy work together to keep a close eye on merchant traffic, and suspicious ships are tracked constantly and frequently boarded for inspection. As a Cryptologic Technician, I was a part of that process and know firsthand that it is very effective.

I encountered literature and academic presentations that argued the opposite, although I honestly do not think I can cite specifics from memory. This is not my area of expertise. Are you familiar with Stephen Flynn's book America the Vulnerable? If so, do you have an opinion on its content? I read it a few years ago. The book describes several plausible sounding scenarios on what the next major terrorist attack could consist of. This includes an elaborate dirty-bomb smuggling scenario. I might be able to better assess the soundness of the author's conclusions upon re-reading

Edited by DarkWaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a Conspiracy eh ?

Who told you that then ? The collectivists thats who ! You want to listen to your enemy ?

You want sources ? No problem.

CNN

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/02/13/knighthoods/

New York Times

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...751C0A9649C8B63

US Constitution:

Titles of nobility were prohibited by both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States.

Article VI: […] nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

Article I, Section 9: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

So, since Giuliani holds the title of “Sir” or “Knight” under both the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation he cannot hold “any office office of trust,” which includes the office of President.

Because these knighthoods and secret orders were created by the very Collectivists that we are engaged with. They are the Ancient mystery schools of Babylon. This is the old battle that Ayn Rand teaches us about, between Freedom and these Socialists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
US Constitution:

Titles of nobility were prohibited by both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States.

Article VI: […] nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

Article I, Section 9: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

So, since Giuliani holds the title of “Sir” or “Knight” under both the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation he cannot hold “any office office of trust,” which includes the office of President.

Because these knighthoods and secret orders were created by the very Collectivists that we are engaged with. They are the Ancient mystery schools of Babylon. This is the old battle that Ayn Rand teaches us about, between Freedom and these Socialists.

At the time, Giuliani was no longer mayor of New York. He was a private citizen. Since he was holding no "Office of Profit or Trust" at the time of his knighthood, I dont think this applies. Were he to accept such an honor while serving as president, you might have a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xare,

Are you suggesting that this knighthood reveals some secret alliance between Rudy and the Queen of England? Or is it more nefarious than that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sigh,

Never is this acceptable.

I direct you to the Speech JFK did on secret societies a few months before he was killed.

OMG SKULL AND BONES ILLUMINATI FREEMASON LIZARD MEN KILLED KENNEDY! It's all so clear now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...