Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Peikoff on upcoming election

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Right, a lot of these arguments seem to assume from the beginning that we have to vote in the first place, but I see no reason for that. At least in the context of Obama v Romney, it should be proven before the case for voting for a particular candidate proceeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a short article, not a doctoral thesis. Which assertions are you disputing, specifically?

Short articles can have citations and evidence too. I just wanted an example of why Obama is an "anti-entity".

Maybe a comparison between FDR and Obama could show why Obama is so bad, rather than just another tool in the whitehouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I read about prescriptive Objectivist voting advice, and the more I think about it, the more interesting a subject it becomes to me.

The argument for voting for Obama (or for Romney) seems to be: any vote cast for a "more appealing" third party candidate (philosophically speaking) will be a waste, because it "does not really count" in the context of the modern American political scene. We have one real choice to make: Republican or Democrat, and thus we should select the best of those two choices.

I'd like to suggest the following presentation, and particularly the second speaker, who starts at 13 minutes in, for another way of thinking about this.

You being in Oregon, IMO, or rather if I were in your place, I'd be voting for Johnson. Since I'm in Florida I feel I'm pretty well stuck with voting Romney, and I'm someone who has voted Libertarian every time for decades. Your vote for Romney really doesn't count, in that he's not counting on it to win. Further, even if the polls are totally wrong and Romney pulls such a sweep that he even takes the left coast, it would be a bad thing because he'd then claim he has a mandate. For repealing Obamacare, ok, I want him to have a mandate, but for the rest I don't expect much that's good, so let's keep DC gridlocked like it's supposed to be. I'd like to see the Senate split exactly 50/50, while retaining the Republican majority in the House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Short articles can have citations and evidence too. I just wanted an example of why Obama is an "anti-entity".

The article is on his website, for people who visit it. It wasn't emailed to you, asking for your consideration. If you look around the same website, I'm sure you'll find reasons why Obama is an anti-entity.

Maybe a comparison between FDR and Obama could show why Obama is so bad, rather than just another tool in the whitehouse.

What are you basing that on? You just finished explaining how you know nothing about Obama yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article is on his website, for people who visit it. It wasn't emailed to you, asking for your consideration. If you look around the same website, I'm sure you'll find reasons why Obama is an anti-entity.

Lacking sources/citations/mentions of real events suggests low credibility. This applies to any and all articles and op-eds. I have no idea, after reading it, how Obama is "anti-entity" any more than Romney. The whole article I did not find useful, nor would I link it to anyone else who is looking for varied thoughts on the election. No, I wasn't forced to read the article, I chose to read it to see what Peikoff is saying. And he didn't seem to be saying much at all.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lacking sources/citations/mentions of real events suggests low credibility. This applies to any and all articles and op-eds. I have no idea, after reading it, how Obama is "anti-entity" any more than Romney. The whole article I did not find useful, nor would I link it to anyone else who is looking for varied thoughts on the election. No, I wasn't forced to read the article, I chose to read it to see what Peikoff is saying. And he didn't seem to be saying much at all.

Your post is lacking sources/citations/mentions of real events. You must be lying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post is lacking sources/citations/mentions of real events. You must be lying.

Are you an asshole in real life too? Honestly this forum has real people in it, and isn't a dumping ground for your emotional problems. If you want to discuss things with people here you should be more respectful of them and not approach them in such a sarcastic, obtuse, and disrespectful way. If you refuse to interperet people's words in a sensible way, then you should go to RevLeft or Mises. Those people would suit your personality better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you an asshole in real life too? Honestly this forum has real people in it, and isn't a dumping ground for your emotional problems. If you want to discuss things with people here you should be more respectful of them and not approach them in such a sarcastic, obtuse, and disrespectful way. If you refuse to interperet people's words in a sensible way, then you should go to RevLeft or Mises. Those people would suit your personality better.

I'm sorry, I meant that his post "suggests low credibility". Because that's not exactly the same thing as insulting someone by calling them a liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I meant that his post "suggests low credibility".

I didn't say anything that required further explanation, because I mentioned a fact most people here would know (about how credibility works) and how I personally don't understand Peikoff. Presumably, I am part of his audience, so he should have explained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I meant that his post "suggests low credibility". Because that's not exactly the same thing as insulting someone by calling them a liar.

Sorry for blowing up on you.

Look can you just explain what an anti-entity is? I really can't find anything on his website. If you know what he is saying all I want is a quick little explanation of how Obama is different from some of the other bad presidents we have had.

My least favorite presidents in all of history are Woodrow Wilson and LBJ. If Obama is some how worse than those guys I can see why peikoff thinks the way he does, but honestly LBJ and Wilson were really really evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for blowing up on you.

Look can you just explain what an anti-entity is?

I don't have to, it's explained in the article. You're making it sound like he just threw out the term "anti-entity" without explanation, but he didn't.

As I have explained in The DIM Hypothesis, Obama is in essence a destroyer for the sake of destruction, a nihilist, the first such to become President. The object to be destroyed is America.

...

Many evils are in store for us if Obama wins a second term, ranging from crippling taxation and Obamacare to the war on energy and the imminence of economic collapse.

...

The political choice in November is: non-entity vs. anti-entity. Or: a man who is nothing vs. a man who wants to mass-produce nothings.

It means that he is looking to spread his ideology (which is anti-American, racist and opposed to even the last bastions of American freedom: free speech and gun rights), to plant a seed that will lead to the unavoidable growth of a racist, multiculturalist society, and a socialist economy, in the future. As far as I'm concerned, the truth value of that statement borders on obvious. It is laid out in speeches and writings Obama produced throughout his career and in the writings of leftist ideologues he has subscribed to over his career.

My only point of disagreement with Peikoff is not in how evil Obama is, it's on how much power he would have in this second term to carry out his plans. I think Peikoff overestimates his power (given a Republican Congress). I think he also underestimates the harm Romney could do (compared to a lame duck President who would accomplish almost nothing) with a Congress he can dictate to. I think new legislation and regulations would be rolling out of a Romney admin on a conveyor belt, while an Obama admin would continue at the pace of the last two years (with barely enough agreement between the parties to avoid near misses on government gridlock).

Link to comment
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...