Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivist Political Party

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Death by gun is not importantly different from death by knife, anymore than death by gun 1 is better or worse than death by gun 2. In assuming that there is a real difference in candidates, are you referring to an actual choice, for example Gore v. Bush, or Kerry v. Bush; or Clinton v. McCain (a prediction)?

As far as referring to acual candidates or actual choices, I haven't. Either I have been referring to elections in general, or specifically to the last election.

I'll say this: If we have two parties, like you have listed above and we were to weigh them, weighing them on every scale used to measure them with, and they weigh exactly the same...if there is no difference between them, we cannot make a choice, because none exists, in that respect. You've said something like that before. But, if on any of the many scales we use to measure the two with, if there was the very slightest of weight detected in favor of or against a particular party, your vote then could be cast, because there would be some way of picking the better of the two parties. Not only do you weigh those two parties, but do not exclude the context in which this takes place in. That weighs in, as well, as we saw in the last election. For example, the party already in power was the main reason to vote all Democrat, regardless if there were, as Dr. Peikoff said, any "good" Republicans running.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'll say this: If we have two parties, like you have listed above and we were to weigh them, weighing them on every scale used to measure them with, and they weigh exactly the same...if there is no difference between them, we cannot make a choice, because none exists, in that respect.
I agree, so I think the question comes down to specifics. If I were faced with B. Clinton / Bush, knowing what I do now, I'd vote for Clinton. Faced with McCain / H. Clinton, I'll need to do a lot of research. At present, I cannot see a difference in weight -- distribution, perhaps, but not net weight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one doesn't eventually vote, he loses an opportunity to make his country more than "reasonably" free.

For example, if the "income tax is unjust" crowd refuses to vote for anyone who supports any income tax, maybe some politicians/parties will become more anti-income tax in order to gain abstaining voters. Maybe.

OR, the politicians/parties will simply become more pro-income tax in order to gain people who are and will vote. It'd seem like a crapshoot to anticipate that not voting would encourage politicos to change their platforms.

Actually, I don't so much think not voting is condemnable, but that it seems there are (outside of voting) few acceptable options of changing government.

  • It is "improper" to join the existing political parties (due to their mishmash of ideas and supporters?)
  • Forming/joing a political group in order to push a specific issue carries the same danger (mishmash of supporters + endorsing candidates with mishmash ideas).
  • It is "not the right time" to create an ideal political party.
  • Convincing my neighbor that Objectivist political theory is correct doesn't change election results if neither of us vote.

Besides voting, other acceptable means is there to make America more than reasonably free?

Become a tenured professor of philosophy and argue for reason, reality, and freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Become a tenured professor of philosophy and argue for reason, reality, and freedom.

Or you can become a succesful businessman and speak out publicly for those very same things. That would probably do much more good than your vote does in terms of how much effect it has on the nation as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abstaining in a different election? Well, sure. It's certainly possible that can be practical and moral since casting a vote or not casting one is so very context dependent.
Okay, fair enough. I was just wondering if you were implying that not voting was a bad thing, as such.

Abstaining in the last election was impractical because it's immoral, immoral because it's impractical.
In essence, all you're saying is that the two parties are not equally bad, and that anyone who thinks they are equally bad is mistaken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Become a tenured professor of philosophy and argue for reason, reality, and freedom.
But that seems to carry the same problem as convincing one's neighbor - it doesn't change election results if neither the professor nor his students vote for reason, reality, or freedom.

Or you can become a succesful businessman and speak out publicly for those very same things. That would probably do much more good than your vote does in terms of how much effect it has on the nation as a whole.
True, but that's not particularly a matter of limited resources. Voting hardly requires anything, and, as above, speaking publicly as a successful businessman changes little (if anything) if you and the people you convince do not vote or otherwise get others to vote.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In essence, all you're saying is that the two parties are not equally bad, and that anyone who thinks they are equally bad is mistaken.

Yes, in essence.

Some people not only are mistaken for thinking that their options are equally bad in the last election, wrong in "waiting" for "worthy" candidates, and instead of seeing the worth in sending a Democratic tornado to Washington, they decided it was more practical to wait for a better option to somehow come along to them through the air and into the room they were sitting in, on election day. It never came that day. Among those abstainers, some never have realized just how impractical that was in the last election, and so they even plan on possibly doing the very same thing in next election, as well. They've already found a nice comfortable chair to sit in, in their rooms, to get ready to commit voter suicide again if they have to...

The sitters, the waiters, the abstainers should be be thankful of the voters that did vote straight Democrat, those voters that actually used what little voice they did have, what little choice they did have...to curb a trend, to end power, to end many years of such power. That's what did happen on that day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or you can become a succesful businessman and speak out publicly for those very same things. That would probably do much more good than your vote does in terms of how much effect it has on the nation as a whole.

Agreed.

But that seems to carry the same problem as convincing one's neighbor - it doesn't change election results if neither the professor nor his students vote for reason, reality, or freedom.

True, but that's not particularly a matter of limited resources. Voting hardly requires anything, and, as above, speaking publicly as a successful businessman changes little (if anything) if you and the people you convince do not vote or otherwise get others to vote.

It helps to create a population which a candidate would want to appeal to--and help to create the conditions for a successful Objectivist political party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apoligize up front, I have not read every post in this thread.....

It is "improper" to join the existing political parties (due to their mishmash of ideas and supporters?)

Forming/joing a political group in order to push a specific issue carries the same danger (mishmash of supporters + endorsing candidates with mishmash ideas).

It is "not the right time" to create an ideal political party.

Convincing my neighbor that Objectivist political theory is correct doesn't change election results if neither of us vote.

I wonder if it is possible to take advantage of the full and fundamental weakness in the Democratic Party, the weakness in course, vision, fundamentals, ideology, alternatives, and philosophy?! What I mean is IF EVERY OBJECTIVIST COULD BAND TOGETHER AND JOIN THE MOST SUSCEPTIBLE PARTY POSSIBLE, THE DEMOCRATS, COULD OBJECTIVISTS MAKE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY A MIRROR IMAGE OF OBJECTIVISM!!

If EVERY objectivist joined and began exerting opinions and pressure on the party from within, it is weak enough, and already enclined to humanities and civil freedoms enough, to morph to the party we ALL want!!

I KNOW MOST CONSERVATIVES WERE ATTRACTED TO AYN RAND FOR THE FREEDOM AND FISCAL POLICIES AND SOLID MORALITY INITIALLY AS I WAS, but SO WHAT! Isn't solidarity more important!! How many objecivist are their in the USA?

Could we shape the couse of the now weakest party?!?! If only through unity?

Something to consider.

Edited by MoralForester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A political party takes a lot of time an effort. On the other hand, political action has more immediate feedback than intellectual activism. I think the most practical approach for Objectivists who prefer political activism, is to focus on activism around one political topic, rather than trying to get people to vote for your candidate. If one focuses on laws on a single topic -- health care, education, legal-takings, property-tax, zoning, monopoly -- then one would be slightly better matched (in terms of resources) with the opposition within that limited area. Also, if one has such a focus, one might find support -- in terms of money and time -- from those who agree with the political changes you seek, even if they do not agree with your reasons.

For example, suppose one were to conduct a campaign against zoning, and focus that campaign in a single county. One might be able to target one's approach better: pamphleteering people who attend the Zoning board meetings, talking to the mayors in that county, writing in the local papers, appearing on some local talk show, getting some local builders to help drafting some changes they'd like to see in the laws, organizing meetings of local people who have been negatively affected by the zoning laws, and so on ...

If that cannot work at that scale, then how can political-action work on a larger scale?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that cannot work at that [local] scale, then how can political-action work on a larger scale?
I would agree that it can work on a small/local scale. But given that, I'd ask: if it can work at that scale, then why can't it work on a larger scale?

If one focuses on laws on a single topic -- health care, education, legal-takings, property-tax, zoning, monopoly -- then one would be slightly better matched (in terms of resources) with the opposition within that limited area.
Why do you say there aren't the resources for fullscale Objectivist political activism? Given the capacity to cobble together people on a small/local scale for individual issues, it'd seem (to me) equally possible (if slightly more difficult) to similarly organize an (local??) Objectivist-based party.

Another thing is that, while you could cobble together people to support single local issues (e.g. zoning, property tax, education), this same thing is dismissed when done under the auspices of an established (read: non-Objectivist) party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we do not have the resources to form an effective Objectivist party, then I agree we should not. However, when a person such as the topic-starter comes on attempting to put something together it seems senseless to oppose such action. It harms nothing and only creates the potential seed of a future successful Objectivist party.

Another thing is that, while you could cobble together people to support single local issues (e.g. zoning, property tax, education), this same thing is dismissed when done under the auspices of an established (read: non-Objectivist) party.

This is a very insightful remark. Given what Odden and I have said about the Libertarian Party (and libertarianism), it seems by the same logic that we should oppose ad hoc political causes as well.

Troubling.

Edit: for rhetoric.

Edited by aleph_0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

..., while you could cobble together people to support single local issues (e.g. zoning, property tax, education), this same thing is dismissed when done under the auspices of an established (read: non-Objectivist) party.
I, for one, would not dismiss this and might even support it. It depends on what it is.

Perhaps by "dismissal" you're implying the idea that one ought not vote for the Libertarian party. Firstly, that's very different from voting for a specific issue. Secondly, more personally, I do not follow a principle of never voting Libertarian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two questions.

Should we attempt to change certain specific government policies via an Objectivist political party? Absolutely.

How efficacious will an Objectivist political party be in changing for the better the dominant ideas of American culture? Very minimally.

I would not dismiss a party supporting specific Objectivist political positions. But I would not expect it to get very far, insofar as the American culture is hostile to rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Whoa, that's a massive leap in logic. Yes, there are no contradictions. The Republican and Democratic Partys' official platforms are in conflict with reality. Yet how does this imply that one ought not to vote for any particular candidate, who may or may not propose policies which protect the rights of American citizens?

[Edit: As a note, I have never voted for anybody, largely because I've never believed that a political candidate was worthy of my vote. All the same, in principle, I am not opposed to the idea of voting for a candidate of a given political party.]

Though "groupism" isn't a rigorously specified term, I doubt it simply means "getting together". I get together (in purely "Platonic" ways) with Objectivists all the time!

Now this I agree with.

Yes, changing from Pragmatism to Objectivism *IS* a massive change in logic! That's the whole point of Objectivism, of course! I assert that if you vote Democrat or Republican, you are just copying, just like Peter Keating would have spent his whole life doing. Talking about Objectivism is easy. Living by it is another thing altogether. It's what makes it interesting and worthwhile!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Whoa, that's a massive leap in logic. Yes, there are no contradictions. The Republican and Democratic Partys' official platforms are in conflict with reality. Yet how does this imply that one ought not to vote for any particular candidate, who may or may not propose policies which protect the rights of American citizens?

[Edit: As a note, I have never voted for anybody, largely because I've never believed that a political candidate was worthy of my vote. All the same, in principle, I am not opposed to the idea of voting for a candidate of a given political party.]

Though "groupism" isn't a rigorously specified term, I doubt it simply means "getting together". I get together (in purely "Platonic" ways) with Objectivists all the time!

Now this I agree with.

Yes, Objectivism is a massive leap in logic. Of course! That's the whole idea, man! Just voting Republican or Democrat because its a two party system is just copying, which of course, is not thinking! Just give up and be pragmatic instead of moral! Of course, as Peikoff has lectured the reasoning so many times, "The only way to be pragmatic is to be moral". B) Living Objectivism with integrity is hard. Playing about it in an academic environment is a limited life if you are not in academia, of which I am not. Waiting until Objectivists turn the whole university system inside out could turn out to be a long, long, long wait. Longer than I've got to live. I'm not waiting on 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi All,

You might like to visit www.olympicparty.org

Motto: "Express Your Will To Live"

The art and inspirational quality of the site is what I'd want in a political party. It's definitely new, and I must confess, my own vision of a new party. Can anyone say, "property rights are moral absolutes?"

I wouldn't dismiss a third party influenced by Objectivism, but an Objectivist political party would attract only Objectivists, and most of them likely wouldn't join for various reasons, including the idea that Objectivists shouldn't engage in "wasteful" political activity, until the cultural work is done.

I disagree that all objectivists should be philosophers, and once the philosophy departments are cleaned up, then objectivists can move to the other fields, and only then, put their toes into the political waters. Why does everyone have to turn away from political activity, if that's what you regard as most interesting, important, and where your talents lie?

Your own personal happiness should come before the party line that prohibits political activity. How many objectivist/capitalists gave up on politics but also failed to attain an academic career? Their contributions are lost. In a division of labor society, some people enjoy politics even when the climate is dark. Someone has to light a new light.

Why don't we hear that Objectivists should refrain from artistic activity for the very same reasons that they shouldn't engage in political activity? The culture has to change first before it would be "worthwhile." Objectivism can be a cage or a sword, a means of self-imposed exile or a means of achieving your potential. In today's world, I think you can be a great artist regardless of the culture, and you can be a great speaker, fundraiser, and advocate for capitalism, if you have the right words, the right passion, the maturity, and a clean and confident style.

(As a political scientist, I think 2008 is the best opportunity for a third party to emerge. We have more billionaires who could fund a party. We have the technology to quickly build a nationwide network to organize voter drives, drive messages, and reach people. We have great dissatisfaction among Republicans. We have a public that can rise to the occasion because terrorism and tyranny, domestic and foreign, is real. Lastly, and most importantly, once both parties roll out their robots and pick their final candidates by MARCH 2008, the public will want something better. A long drawn out race can only give life to 3rd party activity.)

That's what the Olympic Party does. It's based on the will to live. You should make life measure up to your health, happiness, and freedom. That's a great message and a great virtue. It reaches parents who seek virtues for their children, citizens who want terrorism taken seriously, people who value medical research, objectivists who want freedom based on moral principles, and on and on.

If we have a will to live, we need to fight Islamofascism and federal spending.

Don't miss the FOUNDER'S BLOG at www.olympicparty.org

As to the objectivist political party link, I tried out the link and didn't see anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to say it, but this does look rather amateurish. However, I like the spirit and the goal, with this one proviso: I believe an Objectivist Party, properly so-called, should be explicitly Objectivist and seek to exclude non-Objectivists. Such a party is supposed to be a party of principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
I'd like to see evidence or proper logical argument.

OK,

If you vote for Republicans, you are essentially voting for religion as the basis for the US government's laws. Jerry Fallwell is your guy. Since there is no God, then, of course, this is insane. Since the morality of Christianity has lots of problems, bad laws get passed all the time. A Republican vote is a vote for Evangelicals and fundamentalists. Enter the Middle Ages! Millions would end up dying. The total end of the concept of separation of church and state.

Now, if you vote for Democrats, you are basically voting for some hybrid mongrel cross between Socialism and Communism. Who care's the details, it is just the same thing as voting Republican as far as how bad the result would be. Enter communism! Millions would end up dying. Lose the war to the Islamists. Centralized 5 year plans. Food and health care lines a mile long. No gas.

Either way, laws get passed that are totally going against what Obejctivism would call for.

My point is, that an Objectivist Political party's goal isn't to win elections. It is to get Objectivist principles put into the structure of the country, both culturally and politically. Doing it in just academics is faulty because it in effect sanctions all the stuff that happens outside of academia. People reading Atlas Shrugged in High School would just have to go to college and become another run of the mill liberal, because there is only two parties and neither of them give a damn about what was written in Atlas Shrugged or how many copies it sells every year. Having a political party doesn't mean stop fighting inside Acedemia, no no. An Objectivist political party is also a place for Objectivists to rally. How are people going to become Objectivists if, after they do, there is no place to go and no clear activity to join? The same argument could have been made about the libertarian party and it formed anyway. The libertarian party just can't advance anywhere because it is so flawed.

Objectivists need to get a grip and start pressing all areas of social movement simultaneously. That's what I meant in one of my previous posts - that you have to push push push on every front at the same time if you have any plans to win what is obviously a war. RIght now Objectism is basically a bunch of poeple running around talking to themselves but getting nowhere because they haven't decided that they are serious about changing anything. Right now they are just happy complaining. Being a professional whiner sucks. Doing that for a living sucks even more unless you have a strategy and a goal. I assert that there is only right now a goal to make a living doing this, but not to win. Get serious! I assert that I am serious about this otherwise I wouldn't be on here.

Appologies in advance for my ranting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marky, The need for political activism is clear. However, you seem to be suggesting that a political-activist organization is not enough; that one must have a party. What is the difference between a politically-active organization like (say) "The Heritage Foundation" or "The Brookings Institute" on the one hand and the party they regularly support, like the GOP or the Democrats? The organizations can get involved in all the same political issues, campaign for those issues, present their views in public forums, etc. Being a party adds one's name to the ballot.

So, my question is: other than having a candidate on a ballot, what are the other advantages to being a party rather than being a political activist organization?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK,

If you vote for Republicans, you are essentially voting for religion as the basis for the US government's laws.

Before I read any more, please prove this. A sufficient proof would be the proof that all Republicans support a mixture of church an state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps, that the central movement guiding the core of the modern Republican party is religion, that a religious movement making its way into politics entails the encroaching power of religion over state, and that advancing any far-flung branch of the Republican party in effect strengthens the core of the party and the movement guiding it, might be sufficient.

Edited by y_feldblum
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...