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

An objectivist president

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I guess the president could fight for a purpose of his own that would better the country regardless of it's effects on "society" as long as he achieves it for himself. But how would laws be established. Could this ever work? Wouldn't half the population rise in anarchy?

Not to say that it could happen, because the "people" would never permit an objectivist to rise to power. Wait....would an objectivist ever accpet a role like that? Einstein was offered presidency of Jerusalem and he declined. This is an extremely hypothetical idea, but if this is the way life should be lived, well, let's just say that in this hypothetical idea of mine, every person alive is an objectivist and someone needs to keep order to it all. Who makes the rules. How would you decide things such as help to the homeless or poor.

maybe I'm way out of my head. I guess there's no point in fighting about "what if's" , but if you have a comment, I'd really like to see it.

-J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If half the population were hostile enough to rise in rebellion if an objectivist president every got elected into office, then there would not be a Objectivist candidate in the first place. There will be an objectivist president when an Objectivist political party will have sufficient influence, and that can't really happen until a majority of people will have returned to Reason, in which case there won't be a rebellion.

And as to your question of how would laws be establish, the answer is essentially the same way as today, except of course, with the legislator's mind always focused on the primary reason laws exist in the first place: to protect the rights of the individual. I beleive we would still have a legislative body like Congress, and an executive branch to enforce those laws, and a judiciary, etc... since it seems to be the most efficient means of both operating the government and checking its power and activities. Of course, we could invent new means of organizing the government and dividing its powers and functions, but I doubt it will differ greatly from that of today. It is really its inconsistent political philosophy and dropping historical context that allows the governmnet to undermine the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If an Objectivist were president, why do you think there would be a problem passing laws? How would it be different, in terms of the process, from the way it is now?

Granted, an Objectivist president would probably veto all the pork-lined bills that get through today, and since all of them are like that, not much would get passed (but would that really be a bad thing?). The congressmen would no doubt scream about how he's harming the nation by not letting some important piece of legislation go through, but he would simply reply that they're the ones preventing the legitimate parts from getting through by attaching all that graft to it. I think that even today, many people would find that refreshing and would strongly support such a president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
, but he would simply reply that they're the ones preventing the legitimate parts from getting through by attaching all that graft to it. I think that even today, many people would find that refreshing and would strongly support such a president. "AR

I Question to what extent this is true in today's situation (about many people supporting such a president turning down pork) Farmers might not protest when indivudal welfare is not passed , but they certainly will when their own subsidies are not passed. Nuke operators might not protest when expanses of federal land are sold, but they certainly will when their own insurance subsidy is not passed.

The lobbying industry is so big precisely because businesses have grown dependent on pork. On a more individual level, people may be living pay-check to paycheck BECAUSE of government intervention, but this has created a situation where many vote strictly to ensure their family's more immediete needs. Which leads to a situation where people are quick to dismiss "pork" when it doesn't effect them, but not so quick when it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy All,

Yikes, I hope not, If I am right about something, I'd rather it be this week's powerball numbers.

I think you are 100% spot on. I think it is hilarious when anti-capitalists point to American business practices, as negative examples of capitalism. Indeed they argue from a false premise. That is the that America has a Capitalist economy. The way I see it, capitalism died in America around 1861.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My opinion is the last Objectivist president was Thomas Jefferson  ;)

That's a bit anachronistic, but I agree with the sentiment. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if an objectivist were somehow elected ( I think he would have to be a stealth objectivist to have any vague hope) than the president would just veto every single bill that crossed his desk. He would also issue quite a few pardons, probably in the hundreds of thousands for people who were imprisoned for crimes which do not involve the initiation of force. There would also be a goodly number of executive orders to pass counter-manding previous ones. Then with any luck he would get to appoint a supreme court justice or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think if an objectivist were somehow elected ( I think he would have to be a stealth objectivist to have any vague hope) than the president would just veto every single bill that crossed his desk. He would also issue quite a few pardons, probably in the hundreds of thousands for people who were imprisoned for crimes which do not involve the initiation of force. There would also be a goodly number of executive orders to pass counter-manding previous ones. Then with any luck he would get to appoint a supreme court justice or two.

I am sure some "lone" gunman type would come crawling out of the woodwork at the first sign of Objectivist policies in any politician, let alone the president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think thats a little pessimistic. Congressman Ron Paul votes in a way that is very nearly objectivist, and he seems pretty popular at least in his district.

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...