Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.

Rate this topic

22 posts in this topic

I understand that all the choices we have are bad. None of them support non-coercive solutions to this country so voting based on policies is futile for libertarians/objectivists. I know Trump supports some statist policies and says stupid things sometimes. The reason I think libertarians and objectivists need to vote for Trump is because I feel he will shift the political dynamic in ways that will undermine political correctness, the establishment and media propaganda that serve as barriers to freedom.

Read my blog post for a more in-depth case about why I think Donald Trump is the best option. I wrote this case for my libertarian readers but this can also apply to objectivists who would like to challenge conventional wisdom and reduce government tyranny.

https://vforvoluntary.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/why-libertarians-should-vote-for-donald-trump/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This a joke? If libertarians are rallying for Trump then libertarianism is officially over.

I'm not sure of any non-statist position Trump has. As far as undermining political correctness, if that means pandering to a jingoistic, protectionist, and homophobic base, then any politically correct criticisms are largely correct.

Undermining the establishment, I get that, but it's not replacing it with anything positive. Undermining Stalin to install Hitler doesn't really appeal to me. Time to get your faith out of the political process. Also Trump supporters, especially in crowds, are extremely scary, violent, and bloodthirsty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real issue goes deeper than Trump. He's using an "empty vessel" approach, echoing and booming the frustration of his supporters. Maybe these people will get their way; but, even if he loses, the underlying facts don't go away. The angst will fester, and he may come back even stronger next time. Or, perhaps someone else will channel the anger: hopefully someone better, but it could be someone worse than Trump.

Defeating Trump is a good thing, but it is a short-term goal. What comes next, if that is achieved? As much as I'd like to see voters embrace individualism and free-market politics, this election has lowered my evaluation of the American voter. I already knew the voter was pretty ignorant of basic economic and political theory, but now the evidence is overwhelming. 

Is there a politician out there who can articulate the case for individualism and for free-markets in a hopeful way, while not being extremely religious? I actually think many middle-of-road Republicans and Democrats could take a shot at it, but they're cowed down by the conventional wisdom of the primaries. Not sure there's much hope when some people consider a guy like Sean Hannity and a few of the other Fox nut-jobs to be an intellectual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

The real issue goes deeper than Trump. He's using an "empty vessel" approach, echoing and booming the frustration of his supporters.

That's obviously one of the issues, but it's not the main problem I have with him. I think the bigger problem is that he's using the classical far right tactic of vilifying a minority (in this case, illegal immigrants), pointing them out as the main source of people's troubles, and promising to get rid of them once in power. He literally made that promise, to round up and deport twelve million people currently living and working in the US.

Obviously, he's not planning to murder them all, but he is planning to cleanse the US of them. And that would be a cleansing on a bigger scale than anything Hitler did in Europe.

And it's troubling that so many people refuse to reject him on principle, over those remarks. These are people living peacefully among Americans, just like the Jews were among Germans. People should be more upset at the suggestion of forcefully upending them all, never to be heard from again.

But it's encouraging that it's probably those statements that have caused him to hit a ceiling (despite dominating the other candidates, he can't seem to get above 35% of the votes; most other candidates who started out this dominant would be over 50% by now, and the primaries would be over), which is causing him to try and backpedal on the more extreme promises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. It seems all too easy for demagogues like Trump to stir up tribalism among their supporters. The tribalism seems to lurk just beneath the surface. This nationalistic/ethnic form of tribalism has been asserting itself in Europe, India and the US, since the 2008 Great Recession.

The left tried to make "the rich / the 1%" the villains of the story, while the GOP's hoi-polloi say that Mexicans are our biggest problem. I think the best short term band-aid is a President whose theme is essentially optimistic and unifying. (Maybe next election?)

After yesterday's polls, Cruz seems to be the only one with a shot at the nomination, though still trailing Trump. Despite disliking him, I would likely vote for him over Hillary,  in the context of a 2016 election. Even if he loses, his debates with her are likely to be more substantial than any other GOP guy. 

I'm glad Rubio changed tactics and tried to be primarily "anti Trump". I'm glad Romney asked GOP voters to make an anti-Trump stand their top priority in the primaries. It is ironic that -- following Rubio's low results" -- this might propel Cruz to "the only viable alternative". But, one has to do what it takes: anybody but Trump.

Edited by softwareNerd
Nicky likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 0:04 PM, 2046 said:

This a joke? If libertarians are rallying for Trump then libertarianism is officially over.

I'm not sure of any non-statist position Trump has. As far as undermining political correctness, if that means pandering to a jingoistic, protectionist, and homophobic base, then any politically correct criticisms are largely correct.

Undermining the establishment, I get that, but it's not replacing it with anything positive. Undermining Stalin to install Hitler doesn't really appeal to me. Time to get your faith out of the political process. Also Trump supporters, especially in crowds, are extremely scary, violent, and bloodthirsty. 

Not all libertarians are rallying for Trump. Many in fact are strongly opposed to him. Ron Paul, who I highly respect is one of them. Trump, I think is the candidate that can do the most to make Americans more open to libertarianism.

I did list a few anti-statist positions that Trump has taken in my post. You have provided no evidence that the Trump base is all you said it is. Even if this were the case, this would not undermine the reasons that I support him if that's what you're implying. I don't care about what his supporters think. Most supporters of all the major political candidates are uninformed and many support them for the wrong reasons. The reason I voted for him and the main reason I think he is so appealing he calls out the corruption of the political system and the media's propaganda.

None, of the current candidates want to change the system much less replace it with a libertarian form of government. This I understand. The bottom line however, is that one of these candidates will become president and so I have to pick the best one. As I have stated in my post, protest voting is not likely to be effective this election. And yes, I understand that undermining the political establishment is not the same as supporting liberty. Bernie Sanders for example could be described as remotely anti-establishment but I will not vote for him because he is the establishment on steroids. His rhetoric is pro-government and pro-socialism which will only send us down the same road, only faster. Trump on the other hand challenges government and its corruption as well as the media which keeps support for the government strong. Although I understand that he is not anti-government as I am, I do think his rhetoric will make people less trusting of government as opposed to more trusting of it. This is not my faith, it is simply picking the best option available based on my analysis. I do not support any of the candidates but I believe Trump is the best option out of all of them. Since one of them will become president, I voted for Trump to keep the worst of them from becoming president. You have also once again made gross generalizations about Trump supporters without providing any evidence for such sweeping claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2 said:

 I do think his rhetoric will make people less trusting of government as opposed to more trusting of it.

How? If he became president, he'd require massive government control on a scale past FDR even. The wall? Straight up new-deal style public works project, except it has xenophobic origins. Banning Muslim immigration requires massive government documentation and observation. The rest of his terrible rhetorical skill is aimed at some type of massive, all-regulating all-reaching government management. Even if he manages none of this, it sets the foundation for a "leader" with actual rhetorical skill and a real plan.

Bernie is a better bet, because I don't see him as a -threat- nor is he expanding the means for your rights to be violated. Plus he's not the same degree of a liar as Hillary or Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Trump gets elected, the concept of Capitalism will be forever tied to a crony, statist, pseudo-intellectual racist.  Of course, Bernie or Hillary may do more harm policy wise, but it may be time that the American people see the terrible consequences of statist policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2016 at 9:53 PM, Peikoff's Mullet said:

If Trump gets elected, the concept of Capitalism will be forever tied to a crony, statist, pseudo-intellectual racist.  Of course, Bernie or Hillary may do more harm policy wise, but it may be time that the American people see the terrible consequences of statist policies.

Trump wants to rip up free trade agreements with pretty much everyone in the world. Including Japan. That alone would do more harm than anything Hillary could possibly do.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nicky said:

Drumpf wants to rip up free trade agreements with pretty much everyone in the world. Including Japan. That alone would do more harm than anything Hillary could possibly do.

I'll probably have to end up casting my vote for Hillary, as she strikes me as the least competent candidate.

Edited by Peikoff's Mullet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2,

In your opening sentence, I agree. I think most here would agree the choices in this election are terrible. But, after that, your claims are supported by no reason recognizable to me. 

On 3/6/2016 at 1:28 PM, Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2 said:

 Trump on the other hand challenges government and its corruption as well as the media which keeps support for the government strong. Although I understand that he is not anti-government as I am, I do think his rhetoric will make people less trusting of government as opposed to more trusting of it.

Do you suppose Trump would never use the right of eminent domain to force owners from their property? Or abuse executive privilege in ways that even Richard Nixon never thought of? Using legal tricks to enrich one's self is one thing. Any smart businessman would do the same thing. His self-aggrandizement as a media-celebrity is relatively harmless, but don't tell me that a man that had his own reality show and seminary tour is not given to manipulating the media, mainstream or otherwise. Give him the power of the US presidency, and people will not only be less trusting of government, they will be living in fear of government. Vladimir Putin will be going to him for advise. Is this your idea of libertarianism?

On 3/6/2016 at 1:28 PM, Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2 said:

 You have also once again made gross generalizations about Trump supporters without providing any evidence for such sweeping claims.

To put the quote above into context, you were responding to 2046, who claimed that Trump supporter are "scary, violent, and bloodthirsty." While I can't say that I agree entirely with those particular adjectives, the Trump supporters will be associated with that display of enthusiasm in Chicago last night (03-11-16). I can't say I know exactly what happened, but such excitement should be expected from nativists or brown-shirts. If you're really trying to promote liberty, it's hard to tell. I am not going to read your personal blog. Your posts on this site are sufficient. Rebellion for the sake of rebellion is not the same as fighting for freedom, and you are backing the absolute worst candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Trump is the absolute worst candidate and he's clearly not the best.  He strikes me as a more charismatic and dynamic personality than anyone who has run for President since maybe Reagan but he also strikes me as a relatively middle of the road mixed economy advocate like McCain and Romney.  I think he's better (by how much I really couldn't say) than the Democrat alternative regardless of which one wins that nomination but I could be wrong and persuaded otherwise before November.  If it comes down to a choice between Clinton and Trump (that seems likely at this point) I will either vote Trump, vote Gary Johnson or not vote but I will not vote for the Democrat.  I've had enough of Obama for 8 years and I don't want more of the same for even an additional hour.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig24,

Perhaps I should have specified "absolute worst candidate" of the Republican camp. As for your defense of Trump's economic philosophy, how can you tell what that might be? He's never held public office, and therefore has never legislated or vetoed any matter of public policy. He will say anything necessary, provided it plays on the emotions of his followers. Trashing trade agreements, which he's promised, would be a reckless and ultimately disastrous act. If he manages to take the general election, I can only hope he didn't mean any of it. Given the probability of a President Trump, or President Rodham-Clinton, our only chance of avoiding either of their presidencies would be that an independent investigative committee could be convened, and if better circumstances prevail, their running-mate will take over as soon as possible. As far as his charismatic and dynamic personality, these are the same character traits that advanced the rise of Mussolini and Hitler. Personally, I would prefer a less passionate but more cerebral candidate, provided he/she supports free-market solutions. That is not likely to happen in my lifetime. On a conciliatory note, I am most likely to vote for Gary Johnson, if one of the other Republicans does not stop the madness. It is unfortunate that some of the other Republicans have lowered themselves to his level of vulgarity. Fortunately, others have not. Trump has no voting record to scrutinize, (however he does have suspicious tax records); his positions oscillate with whatever inflames his angry mob, and the only thing known about his agenda is "winning", gloating, and rest is the unknown. Eight years of Obama have been tragic, but we knew what to expect. We know what to expect with Rodham-Clinton, and if the Clinton Restoration begins, it begins without my approval. And the American people get the government they deserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Repairman: Perhaps I should have specified "absolute worst candidate" of the Republican camp.

Fair enough.  

As for your defense of Trump's economic philosophy, how can you tell what that might be? He's never held public office, and therefore has never legislated or vetoed any matter of public policy. He will say anything necessary, provided it plays on the emotions of his followers.

On a site devoted to promoting capitalism, calling him a middle of the road, mixed economy advocate is criticism, not praise.  Without a political record, I will speculate based on what I do know.  He proposes a simple low rate income tax, lower business tax rates, a repeal of death taxes, a 7 point Health Care plan that repeals Obamacare, including the insurance mandate, and lowers many govt barriers to private health insurance and his trade policy with China, based on what I'm reading, is focused on lowering corporate tax rates (a positive), ending Chinese violations of IP laws (a positive), reducing waste, fraud and abuse in US govt spending (a positive) and ending Chinese subsidies that give Chinese businesses an unfair advantage in international trade (a positive).  None of this is perfect but most of this is preferable to any normal Democrat alternatives.  

As far as his charismatic and dynamic personality, these are the same character traits that advanced the rise of Mussolini and Hitler. Personally, I would prefer a less passionate but more cerebral candidate, provided he/she supports free-market solutions. 

 I prefer intelligent pro capitalists too, but it takes passion and charisma to win elections.  And, NO, he's NOT the next Hitler because he has passion.  

Trump has no voting record to scrutinize, (however he does have suspicious tax records); his positions oscillate with whatever inflames his angry mob, and the only thing known about his agenda is "winning", gloating, and rest is the unknown. Eight years of Obama have been tragic, but we knew what to expect. We know what to expect with Rodham-Clinton, and if the Clinton Restoration begins, it begins without my approval. And the American people get the government they deserve.

Trump is a rich businessman running for President as a Republican.  His opponents want to be suspicious of his tax records (among other things) and want everyone else to be too.  That's to be expected.  Name a Relatively wealthy, well known Republican that isn't attacked for his wealth and his ideas, especially by liberals.  It's probably a very short list.  

Repairman likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig24,

I suppose we can agree to disagree; Trump is not the best candidate, but to what degree of damage his leadership may have is not worth the risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Craig24 said:

 I prefer intelligent pro capitalists too, but it takes passion and charisma to win elections.  And, NO, he's NOT the next Hitler because he has passion. 

He has the charisma of a narcissist. He is a dangerous man, because he does it to rile up mobs. Think of it this way: he channels the energy of the mob, not his beliefs. Not only that, he's a proven hustler, the exact type of "businessman" we should condemn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one should feel like they "have" to vote for anyone. There is no duty to vote. And if all reasonable candidates do not reflect your values, and all are bad options, defensive voting is not an effective choice either. There is no reason to endorse any of the candidates, least of all Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2016 at 9:28 PM, Craig24 said:

Repairman: Perhaps I should have specified "absolute worst candidate" of the Republican camp.

Fair enough.  

As for your defense of Trump's economic philosophy, how can you tell what that might be? He's never held public office, and therefore has never legislated or vetoed any matter of public policy. He will say anything necessary, provided it plays on the emotions of his followers.

On a site devoted to promoting capitalism, calling him a middle of the road, mixed economy advocate is criticism, not praise.  Without a political record, I will speculate based on what I do know.  He proposes a simple low rate income tax, lower business tax rates, a repeal of death taxes, a 7 point Health Care plan that repeals Obamacare, including the insurance mandate, and lowers many govt barriers to private health insurance and his trade policy with China, based on what I'm reading, is focused on lowering corporate tax rates (a positive), ending Chinese violations of IP laws (a positive), reducing waste, fraud and abuse in US govt spending (a positive) and ending Chinese subsidies that give Chinese businesses an unfair advantage in international trade (a positive).  None of this is perfect but most of this is preferable to any normal Democrat alternatives.  

As far as his charismatic and dynamic personality, these are the same character traits that advanced the rise of Mussolini and Hitler. Personally, I would prefer a less passionate but more cerebral candidate, provided he/she supports free-market solutions. 

 I prefer intelligent pro capitalists too, but it takes passion and charisma to win elections.  And, NO, he's NOT the next Hitler because he has passion.  

Trump has no voting record to scrutinize, (however he does have suspicious tax records); his positions oscillate with whatever inflames his angry mob, and the only thing known about his agenda is "winning", gloating, and rest is the unknown. Eight years of Obama have been tragic, but we knew what to expect. We know what to expect with Rodham-Clinton, and if the Clinton Restoration begins, it begins without my approval. And the American people get the government they deserve.

Trump is a rich businessman running for President as a Republican.  His opponents want to be suspicious of his tax records (among other things) and want everyone else to be too.  That's to be expected.  Name a Relatively wealthy, well known Republican that isn't attacked for his wealth and his ideas, especially by liberals.  It's probably a very short list.  

You glossed over his proposal of a 14% wealth tax (and unprecedented confiscation of private property never attempted by any western democracy, or for that matter that many socialist dictatorships, either), his promise to tear up all free trade agreements, including with Japan, Canada and Mexico (thus starting a trade war that would jeopardize prosperity in all these countries, as well as the US), his promise to uproot 12 million people currently living and working in the US (again, an unprecedented blow to the US economy and society in general, not to mention the cost in human life and suffering, inflicted on the 12 million victims), his promise to ban entry to all Muslims (which would result in a response in kind from most civilized countries,essentially trapping the population of the United States within its borders), his promise to attempt to force Mexico to pay for a wall along the US-Mexico border (which would be interpreted as an act of aggression, and end all cooperation, even diplomatic relations, between the Mexican and US governments), etc., etc.

 

Repairman likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To put it bluntly, Trump, if he is being even just a little bit honest about his platform, is the US equivalent of Le Pen in France, or UKIP in the UK. Except that, Le Pen or UKIP coming to power would just be dangerous to France or Britain...even the rest of Europe would be able to weather their exit from the Eurozone and EU...and everyone outside Europe would never even feel it.

A far right populist coming to power in the US would be dangerous for the entire world. It's really not something that should be taken lightly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 3:28 PM, Craig24 said:

Repairman: Perhaps I should have specified "absolute worst candidate" of the Republican camp.

Fair enough.  

... a 7 point Health Care plan that repeals Obamacare, including the insurance mandate, and lowers many govt barriers to private health insurance...

I was liking what I read up until he stated that pharmaceutical companies were a public service and "Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products."

That's pretty much straight-up Teddy Roosevelt progressivism - You're free as long as you serve the public good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MrSeagull said:

I was liking what I read up until he stated that pharmaceutical companies were a public service and "Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products."

That's pretty much straight-up Teddy Roosevelt progressivism - You're free as long as you serve the public good.

Exactly. That phrasing doesn't fill me with confidence that ANY barriers for entry would be lifted. There's also another point on there, that calls for handing over federal money to the states, to run their own socialized medical systems with it, as they see fit...because, supposedly, the locals know best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we discard our ideals in order to "win", all we accomplish is to continue even further down the middle of the road.

 

Let's suppose that Trump would violate less rights than Sanders (which is not safe to assume, but for the sake of argument) - what happens then? He'll make things even worse, to one degree or another, and in four more years the statists will get to say: "we tried the free market solution and it failed!"

 

 

Asking us to free ourselves by voting for Trump is like inviting us to an art gallery at the price of our eyeballs.

 

If things have to get worse before they get better then let's stop dragging our heels and get this the Hell over with.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Pointed Analogy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.