Freedom, Political Parties and Culture

[MoralForester]

Copy of email thread I've been in:

[me]OK I got the impression that it was partly the merger you had dismay over. If freedom of speech is the issue, as I agree it also must be, then I’d leave out mention of mergers and just go for the jugular on the government’s sponsoring and allowance of its suppression. (e.g. Danish Muslim cartoons.)

The GBLA is not doing too badly considering how I, as chair, have zero time for its effort aside from email blitzing. A shame in one sense and a positive comment in the other. (a shame the chair hasn’t more time and also similar or more energy as I—though my energy lately is wholly consumed in work and family——positive in the sense that with minimal work there is exponential response, just imagine what could be achieved through greater ability and time!!!)

The issue of running bon afide LANDOWNERS politicians turned out to be fractious in the group. Some do not want to spit the vote allowing another Liberal government. Some do not want to see the Ontario PC party in with the current leader either and want to run candidates, though this will most certainly hand over seats to the Liberals. Some see the real work as cultural and that the people are not ready yet for Landowners in government so time and money and effort is better spent doing what we are already good at. But less of that is happening at the same time.

This is not unlike the splitting among Objectivists that I mingle with. I think the position of ARI (Ayn Rand Institute www.aynrand.org) is that the culture is not ready for an Objectivist politician, and when it is the Dems and Repos, The Conservs and the Libs, will take on the positions naturally. I am of this opinion. Even though the Freedom Party of Ontario is to me the most compelling, I’m not sure if it will be a net plus or minus in the efforts of Objectivism. (minuses come from problems like crackpot-ism, diluted effort, cultural rejection and entrenchment, etc.)

The politicians are thus seen as the mirror and not the cause of the culture. I think this is true.

I used to wonder if there was an argument to be made that the culture today is ahead of the political parties (this does sort of follow from the above premise.) I thought that the phenomenon was only in rural culture, that almost no one was happy with either party, and almost anyone would support a party that stood for Civil (i.e. Religious) AND Fiscal AND Political freedom (AND smallest government). Then I heard too many who were more firmly against Civil freedom instead of FOR Fiscal freedom, or against Fiscal freedom instead of FOR Civil Freedom, and almost no one FOR Political Freedom and Smallest Government.

The problem I’ve had with the Libertarian Party is the anarchism (which today may be no more then perceived anarchism though I still see some anarchists participate) as well as the undefined, or rather, the multi-defined concept of freedom, e.g. “economic freedom” or “moral freedom.”

Ayn Rand’s illustration of freedom put it best. “Intellectual Freedom cannot exist without Political Freedom, Political Freedom cannot exist without Economic Freedom. The Free Mind and the Free Market are corollaries.” I see the Freedom Party to best reflect this (their allusion to moral Objectivity in their slogan “Some Things ARE Black and White” shows this) but the culture has not yet shown mass or general sympathy to neither the Libertarian Party nor the Freedom Party so far, which substantiates Dr. Leonard Peikoff’s claim (paraphrased) “I do not think an Objectivist candidate WOULD GET BY THE FIRST PRIMARY!”

Paul Hallman

From: Andrew Phillips [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: January 12, 2007 4:29 PM

To: Greybruce Landowners

Subject: Re: Five for Eight

I agree with you in the main Paul but freedom of speech should not be blocked just because you personally don't like what someone will say. As Voltaire said,"Thought I disagree with what you say I defend to the death your right to say it" My main point is that when people try and block people from having they're say they are, in effect/ announcing that they might be on thin ice in their beliefs certainly they have problems with people who voice differences of opinion. And I'm all for laissez-faire. How are things with the Grey Bruce Landowners Association? As I wrote to Randy Hillier I am most impressed with your success stories this year and look forward to many more. Will the Landowners run anyone provincially this fall and take on the "Evil" Empire in Queens Park?

All the best

Andrew Phillips

Libertarian Party of Canada

----- Original Message -----

From: Greybruce Landowners

To: Andrew Phillips

Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 10:45 AM

Subject: RE: Five for Eight

Corporations have as much entitlement to full freedom as individuals. After all, corporations, like collective groups or masses, are made of individuals.

Here's to laissez-faire!

Paul Hallman

Chairman

Grey Bruce Landowners Association

[email protected]

(519) 372-7005

------------------------------------------------------------

I am. I think. I will.

I stand here on the summit of the mountain.

I lift my head and I spread my arms.

This, my body and spirit, this is the end

of the quest. I wished to know the meaning

of things. I am the meaning. I wished

to find a warrant for being. I need no

warrant for being, and no word of sanction

upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction.

It is my eyes which see, and the sight of

my eyes grants beauty to the earth. It is

my ears which hear, and the hearing of my

ears gives its song to the world. It is my

mind which thinks, and the judgement of

my mind is the only searchlight that can

find the truth. It is my will which chooses,

and the choice of my will is the only edict

I must respect.

Many words have been granted me,

and some are wise, and some are false,

but only three are holy: "I will it!"

Whatever road I take, the guiding star

is within me; the guiding star and the

loadstone which point the way. They point

in but one direction. They point to me.

I know not if this earth on which I stand

is the core of the universe or if it is but

a speck of dust lost in eternity. I know not

and I care not. For I know what happiness

is possible to me on earth. And my happiness

needs no higher aim to vindicate it.

My happiness is not the means to any end.

It is the end. It is its own goal.

It is its own purpose.

Neither am I the means to any end others

may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool

for their use. I am not a servant of their

needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds.

I am not a sacrifice on their altars.

I am a man. This miracle of me is mine

to own and keep, and mine to guard, and

mine to use, and mine to kneel before!

What is my joy if all hands, even the

unclean, can reach into it? What is my

wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to

me? What is my freedom, if all creatures,

even the botched and the impotent, are my

masters? What is my life, if I am but to

bow, to agree and to obey?

I am done with the monster of "We,"

the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery,

falsehood and shame.

And now I see the face of god, and I

raise this god over the earth, this god whom

men have sought since men came into being,

this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride.

This god, this one word:

"I."

-excerpted from Anthem, Ayn Rand

________________________________________

From: [email protected]

To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: Five for Eight

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 20:59:32 -0500

I'm please to announce that my letter of 09-Jan-06 on Freedom of Speech at Carleton University, or lack of it, made it into the Ottawa Sun today in only slightly truncated form. I'm now 5 for 8 on letters written to the local papers that have been published and that they mangled this one the least means I have used the excellent advice imparted to me by Jim McIntosh down in Toronto who quoted Winston Churchill, "if I had more time I would have written a shorter letter". Strangely and something I view a little ominously they deleted the line about Charter Rights and Freedoms on the issues of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of association". You'd almost think they don't want people to know they have them. Hope to see those who can make it at the meeting on Wednesday. Ray get there when you can it'll be good to see you whenever you can show up.

Today I read the CanWest has merged with Atlantic Alliance. my next letter will be on corporations lessening the healthy interaction of different ideas by restricting the avenues available to voice an opinion.

Andrew Phillips

Libertarian Party of Canada

Lanark Landowners Association

[email protected]

I also questioned in another thread (Objectivist Political Party) the opinions of others here in regard to the Freedom Party. I almost joined once, and may still. I may even run Provincially in my riding. Does anyone else find their policies in line with Objectivism? Could most in the culture be FOR freedom as opposed to AGAINST their particular point of view, instead, YET!?!

[MoralForester]

A COPY OF MY POST IN THE OTHER THREAD - STILL LOOKING FOR RESPONSES IF INTERESTED

Has anyone any thoughts on these political parties in and of themselves? I mean, aside from questions around introducing new parties as useful against the entrenched and established 2, or premature for the culture, does anyone else find these Parties' policies in and of themselves to align with Objectivism?

http://www.freedomparty.org/fppoliticalparties.htm

MF

[DavidOdden]

I can't judge, since I don't understand Canadian law and politics. For example, their support of "disentangling accounts payable and accounts receivable" presupposes something, and I dunno what. They would eliminate capital gain tax, which is good, but you don't see them saying more broadly "we will eliminate all taxes"; and their reason for eliminating capital gains tax is, well, weak or unclear. It's one of those policies where you could ask "but why?" or "why not GST?".

I didn't read the whole national party policy statement carefully, but it didn't seem to me that they were advocating any policies that are the opposite of what you would find in a hypothetical Objectivist party. It looks to me like they took big issues where they hope to get the majority of Canadians to agree, and then maybe sometime they'll address things like the hate-speech law. It's actually reminiscent of the old Republican party in the mid 60's. The main non-economic part that I saw, about multiculturalism, was elegantly sublime -- "Government efforts to prevent cultural change and diversity" indeed!

The efficacy questions would be most significant, in my mind.

[Glenn]

Copy of email thread I've been in:

I also questioned in another thread (Objectivist Political Party) the opinions of others here in regard to the Freedom Party. I almost joined once, and may still. I may even run Provincially in my riding. Does anyone else find their policies in line with Objectivism? Could most in the culture be FOR freedom as opposed to AGAINST their particular point of view, instead, YET!?!

Hi Paul,

As an objectivist and a member of Freedom Party of Ontario, I can tell you that the policies of FPO are completely consistent with Objectivism. Freedom Party is most definitely Objectivist and not Libertarian.

Freedom Party leader, Paul McKeever is an objectivist. You can listen to his thoughts on Rand vs. Libertarianism here:

....along with other video clips on the party itself and our platform.

As you probably know, there will be a provincial election this year (most likely in October). FPO is currently preparing and recruiting candidates to run. If you are interesting in running in your riding, call the headquarters in London and speak to Bob Metz 1-800-830-3301.

If you have any other questions, I will be more than happy to answer them.

Cheers,

Glenn

[MoralForester]

As an objectivist and a member of Freedom Party of Ontario, I can tell you that the policies of FPO are completely consistent with Objectivism. Freedom Party is most definitely Objectivist and not Libertarian.

Freedom Party leader, Paul McKeever is an objectivist. You can listen to his thoughts on Rand vs. Libertarianism here:

Glenn,

I have reviewed the policies many times, and was first made aware of the party on Free Dominion web site, where Paul McKeever made posts for the Freedom Party and ARI releases at the same time. I agree that FPO is objectivist.

I want others to examine this party and weigh in on this thread.

My more important question is this, is the culture possibly ready? I meet many people who dislike all the alternatives in government and political parties/candidates. I would almost expect everyone to trip over each other to support a politician like Paul McKeever. But when talking with these people more I end up concerned that they still are not for freedom, or for anything. It often sounds as though some are just against civil liberties, or against laissez-faire.

Some are more concerned with what they are for, though. Some are for freedom in business, and will overlook religious issues. Others are for abortion, for example, and will overlook economic concerns. That is, some people are focused on their freedoms and their particular issues and lives, and are not interested in controlling others around other issues. These are the people you would think would be attracted to the Freedom Party.

If they are the majority, the major political parties will change with them, but there will be a lag before they adapt. Maybe the FPO can take the day ahead of time if the people are receptive.

Does anyone think the culture might be ready yet?

MF

[Little Big Man]

My more important question is this, is the culture possibly ready?

In my view, the great majority of people have always, and will always, live their entire lives - from cradle to grave - without ever even having tried to identify the moral code according to which they make their decisions. Contrary to what Ms. Rand said, I think that that is a good thing for an objectivist political party, not a bad thing.

In fact, in terms of electoral politics, its worse: the great majority of voters never vote according to policy, and never know the policies (if any) of the party/candidate for whom they are voting. The underappreciated secret of electoral politics - a secret missed by even the most intelligent - is that people don't vote FOR parties: they vote AGAINST them. Let me explain.

If you have a limited budget and a working vehicle that is not causing you too much distress or discomfort, you are extremely unlikely to spend any time looking at new cars at car dealerships. The very same phenomenon applies in electoral politics: unless the party in power is causing a sufficient number of voters too much distress and discomfort, most voters will not bother looking at any other party than the party in power. They will just enter the polling booth, and vote for the status quo.

Here's part 2 of the secret. When a sufficient number of voters is sufficiently distressed or uncomfortable with the governing party, they will vote for another party instead. Which party? How do they choose? Well first of all, it is important to remember that their goal is not "better policies". Their ONLY GOAL is: getting rid of the thing that is causing them distress and discomfort; getting rid of the politicians that comprise the governing party. They choose a criterion for party selection that most rationally suits their goal: the PROBABILITY that, by voting for party X, they will get rid of the thing that is causing them distress and discomfort: the governing party. They do NOT look for POLICIES. They do NOT look for PHILOSOPHIES. They don't even NOTICE such things, for the most part. Like a young boy who cannot keep his eyes off of a bountiful female chest, they focus solely on the single factor: the power, the size, the probability, that the party they vote for will have sufficient popular support to displace the guy who's causing them so much stress and discomfort.

Here's part 3 of the secret: there is a caveat. If the voter knows that party X would cause them just as much stress and discomfort as the party they are trying to torpedo, they will not vote for party X...they will vote for party Y.

This - for those who are following politics in the province of Ontario, Canada - explains the election strategy of Ontario's second-place Progressive Conservatives. They have been extremely diligent in their efforts not to make any promises, and not to release anything remotely resembling policies or an election platform. They quite intentionally want to promise nothing at all. The rationale: the party that proposes nothing proposes nothing that is distressing or uncomfortable. It's as simple (and as pitifully disgusting) as that. Just watch. The PCs' party leader is ALL eraser, and no pencil: he criticizes the honesty, or leadership, or integrity of the governing party, but rarely if ever its policies...most of the time, he says that he agrees with WHAT was done, but disagrees with HOW it was done (e.g., not enough consultation with "stakeholders", too fast, too slow, too much, too little, too early, too late, etc..).

So, how MUST one deal with this phenomenon and with such an electoral strategy?

1. Recognize that little can be done to cause the governing party to falter. Let the second place party (who has media attention) attack the governing party. Let them spend their money, their effort, their time on that effort.

2. Remember the "caveat" mentioned above. If the 2nd-place party is trying to be all things to all people (by saying nothing), make sure that the public knows it, good and hard. Let the public know (a) what the 2nd place party is trying to do, ( that a man who promises nothing always delivers on those promises (i.e., he will do nothing at all), © point out that the jurisdiction is facing serious crises (it is, in the case of Ontario), and that doing nothing and promising nothing is simply a recipe for sitting idly by while things implode. In short: if you show people that crises exist, and show them that the 2nd place party is either unable or unwilling to disclose any substantive plans to deal with those problems, you will have demonstrated that the 2nd place party is either incompetent or sneaky...let the public know that, either way, the result - if the 2nd place party wins - will be: distress and discomfort for the voter. Think of it like this: you're sick of your car breaking down so you go to a car lot. You see new cars and used cars. If the salesman takes you to the used car lot and shows you a car very similar to your own, but shiny and newly painted. He never shows you the rotting floors under the rug, and doesn't tell you about how much oil the car is burning every week, you might just look at the used car's new paint job and say: thank goodness, a way to get out of my old car and into something different...you may plunk down money and unwittingly buy the junker. But if the salesman is honest, and shows you the problems, you will probably move over to the new car lot. The criterion for most buyers will be: does the new car have any PROBLEMS...will it cause me any STRESS and DISCOMFORT? There will be some concern: the result of not knowing much about the new car, or the model, or the manufacturer. However, many will take the chance SO LONG AS they know that the freshly painted car in the used car lot is pretty much just a polished version of the turd they are trying to get rid of.

All of this should make sense to you given your observation that:

But when talking with these people more I end up concerned that they still are not for freedom, or for anything.

Precisely.

And, because they are FOR nothing, and because they don't care to KNOW much about the VIRTUES of those whom they elect, the chances of a virtuous party getting elected are not really all that bad. Once one realizes that all of the perceived barriers are BS (e.g., "people don't like your policies" - they don't know them, "people don't like your candidates" - they don't know them, "people are more middle of the road politically" - they aren't even on the road, "you need to compromise" - if nobody knows what you are offering, nobody knows whether or not you have already compromised, etc.).

Now, you might worry: "But what if the 2nd place party starts attacking the virtuous party, calling its virtues vices etc..". Answer: the 2nd place party is TERRIFIED of letting the public know that IT knows that the virtuous party even exists. At all times, the 2nd place party is BITING ITS LIP, for fear of legimizing the party that is constantly torpedoing it. Thus, the virtuous party has the luxury of lobbing hand-grenades and getting absolutely NO return fire. And, should it by chance receive return fire, the public's opinion of the effectiveness and legitimacy of the virtuous party will improve...as will news coverage and the chances that it - not party X - will win seats.

In short: philosophy and policy is for those who will govern, and for that small percentage of voters who take philosophy and policy seriously. For the rest, all that matters is their knowledge that party X comes with just as much discomfort and stress than does the party in power. The rest is pretty much a jeans ad: slogans, look, feel, imagery, symbolism....for most people, supporting a political party is like buying a Venti latte from Starbucks: people buy them, in many cases, so that other people can know how hip they are.

Bottom line: the future is bright for people who stop waiting for the world's philosophy to change, and who get down to basics: electioneering. It's all that matters to most people, and it's all that ever will.

[Little Big Man]

I can't judge, since I don't understand Canadian law and politics. For example, their support of "disentangling accounts payable and accounts receivable" presupposes something, and I dunno what.

This means putting an end to the practice of subsidizing people/companies with tax policy. Collecting less tax from person A but not from person B puts onto person B's shoulders a greater percentage of the burden of paying for government expenditures (unless expenditures to A are decreased proportionately to the decrease in his tax burden). There are many ways in which tax policy is used to "pay" subsidies to people: targeted tax deductions, tax credits, progressive rates of taxation (originally recommended by Marx) etc.. Freedom Party's message, in the quoted line, means: "If the government is going to hand money out to people, it should give them a cheque, not a tax break". THAT way, we know EXACTLY how much money is being given to them, and exactly how much OTHERS are being forced to pay for services delivered, by government, to the non-payors. This policy is about establishing transparency and accountability. The party isn't suggesting that people should receive more money: this policy is just about making sure we know how much wealth is being transferred.

They would eliminate capital gain tax, which is good, but you don't see them saying more broadly "we will eliminate all taxes"; and their reason for eliminating capital gains tax is, well, weak or unclear. It's one of those policies where you could ask "but why?" or "why not GST?".

This is addressed somewhat by McKeever in this video:

Essentially: a capital gains tax is a tax on property that has already been paid for with after-tax dollars. It is what tax policy wonks call a "wealth tax". It is a tax on what you have, merely because you own it, and not because your ownership of it costs anyone anything.

Taxes on income are offensive, but taxes on wealth are even more offensive because they are taxes on things bought with after-tax income: wealth taxes are salt in the wound.

Taxes on sales are the least offensive tax for at least one reason: when a person buys or sells a product or service, a contract is formed. The state is expected to spend money on courts, court staff, judges, sherriffs offices etc. should either party to the contract breach the terms of the contract. By taxing a sale, there is at least some connection between the payment of the tax and the receipt of a government service. Moreover, there are practical reasons for preferring sales taxes, including:

1. money earned but saved is not taxed unless and until it is spent, so tax-free wealth accumulation is possible when the only tax is a sales tax.
   
2. a sales tax does not descriminate on the basis of such things as the wealth or income of the buyer/seller: a single rate applies to all purchases, regardless of the identities of the seller and purchaser.
   
3. sales taxes are imposed at the time of the sale, as part of the purchase cost. In contrast, an invoice (or demand for the payment of) income or wealth taxes can arrive in the mail: such taxes create a debt out of thin air, very suddenly, without any action on the part of the taxpayer. One day, the man sitting quietly in his back yard is debt free. The next, he is $50k in the hole. His sin: owning something or producing something.
   

Freedom Party is not for wild-eyed revolutionaries who want to eliminate every wrong done by government in about 1.5 weeks (and who, as a result, will be too frightening ever to be trusted with a seat in the legislature). The party recognizes that socialism wasn't imposed in a day, and it will take time to eliminate it. Accordingly, FP takes the approach of eliminating the most offensive taxes first, and proceeding down the list toward the lesser offensive ones. FP, in short, sets a direction with philosophy, and sets an extent/speed with political feasibility. Paul McKeever put it this way in the Foreward to the Policies of the Freedom Party of Ontario:

The policies that follow were adopted by the Freedom Party of Ontario on July 10, 2005 pursuant to Part XIII of the Constitution of the Freedom Party of Ontario (as amended on March 6, 2005). These policies are considered to be consistent with the Freedom Party of Ontario’s founding principle (FPO Constitution, section 3). They do not and are not intended to represent an exhaustive or ultimate set of policy implications resulting from the party’s founding principle: they do not describe a final destination. Rather, they set out ports of call along the way to a freer, more personally responsible Ontario society. As such, they allow Freedom Party’s leadership to determine the right direction for the governance of Ontario, and to steer accordingly.

Nor are these policies exhaustive. Ethics, not law, is the foundation of political freedom. Laws designed to protect individual freedom are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of individual freedom and personal responsibility. Changes in governance do tend to influence the dominant code of ethics, though law’s influence is limited, especially where the law is not respected. And, because a change in ethics takes place only within the mind of an individual, change in the dominant ethical code of society inevitably is gradual. Freedom Party of Ontario, being a political party, must be satisfied with its role: to attempt the restoration of the necessary legal and political framework for an ethical, hence free, society. In fulfilling that role, Freedom Party must be cognizant of the fact that pro-freedom changes to the law are likely to be transient if they are made so quickly that ethics has no chance to catch up. The policies that follow have been chosen in light of the fact that just as the erosion of freedom has been gradual, so will the restoration of freedom take time, patience, ethical growth and, with respect to changes in governance, gradual steps.

Although these policies specify ports of call, they do not specify which ports of call should be approached first, how quickly they should be approached, or what course should be charted around obstacles to their approach. Such decisions must be made in light of current events, and with wisdom concerning what is politically feasible and what will allow Freedom Party of Ontario ultimately to meet its objectives (FPO Constitution, section 6). Those decisions are the stuff not of party policy, but of the party’s election platforms.

Edited January 18, 2007 by Little Big Man

[MoralForester]

...They do NOT look for PHILOSOPHIES...

...If the voter knows that party X would cause them just as much stress and discomfort as the party they are trying to torpedo, they will not vote for party X...they will vote for party Y.

This adds up to a serious problem. Without moral guideposts or policy/philosophical understanding the average voter will regard the FPO to be more stressful causing greater discomfort the the main 3 parties, as each voter will see their particular public benefit(s) at risk, and they will feel exposed and vulnerable to big business. Since the media journalists do at least look at a party's platform the fearmongering will be played up in the news.

...who stop waiting for the world's philosophy to change, and who get down to basics: electioneering. It's all that matters to most people, and it's all that ever will.

This would suggest that the role of philosophy is far less significant then Objectivistism holds. What matters to most people explicitly and what the culture generally practicises philosophlically are two different things. The force of the latter is very strong, even if the underlying philosophy is not explicitly held in the minds of most. It is "in the air." (Though it needs to become explicit--at least in the ivory tower-- to survive.)

MF

[DavidOdden]

Collecting less tax from person A but not from person B puts onto person B's shoulders a greater percentage of the burden of paying for government expenditures (unless expenditures to A are decreased proportionately to the decrease in his tax burden).

I don't see how that would be an answer to the question I asked, which used accounting terms, but whatever. Let me assume that you mean, then, that some people end up paying less taxes than other people. I think that's good, although obviously not as good as everybody paying less taxes. That's not A's problem, it's a problem imposed on B by the government. The solution to that problem is obvious.

There are many ways in which tax policy is used to "pay" subsidies to people: targeted tax deductions, tax credits,

Uh, wait, these are not forms of subsidy. Welfare is a subsidy. Allowing people to keep their money is not a subsidy.

Freedom Party's message, in the quoted line, means: "If the government is going to hand money out to people, it should give them a cheque, not a tax break". THAT way, we know EXACTLY how much money is being given to them, and exactly how much OTHERS are being forced to pay for services delivered, by government, to the non-payors.

Ah, I see, I get it, you are just confused about what it means to "pay" or "subsidize". When the government doesn't steal all of your money, that does not mean they are "paying" you.

Anyhow, enough of this gay banter. No tax cut is ever bad. All tax cuts are good. The best tax cut is a 100% universal tax cut. Your response suggests that you think that taxation is basically good and moral, and if that is the message being conveyed by the Freedom Party, then I retract my half-hearted tolerance of them and replace it with whole-hearted condemnation as being the worst possible party for an Objectivist. The party should be clearly conveying the message that all taxation is fundamentally wrong and that no taxation is justified. Please don't take this as a personal insult, but the reasoning that you're using is twisted. Ownership of wealth never costs "the public" anything. It may cost the owner something to maintain his wealth, to keep the river from eroding it, the wind from destroying it. To suggest that ownership "costs" taxpayers is a complete perversion of the concept "cost".

[y_feldblum]

No tax cut is ever bad. All tax cuts are good. The best tax cut is a 100% universal tax cut.

Note that tax cuts are good so long as they are accompanied by spending reductions (on anything but the institutions necessary to protect individual rights). They are meaningless otherwise, since the deficit will be made up for by deficit spending: ever more taxes in the future, or inflation in the present.

[Little Big Man]

This adds up to a serious problem. Without moral guideposts or policy/philosophical understanding the average voter will regard the FPO to be more stressful causing greater discomfort the the main 3 parties, as each voter will see their particular public benefit(s) at risk, and they will feel exposed and vulnerable to big business.

That overlooks what I was saying about how people vote though: they don't go looking to find out what policies are being proposed by each party. Policy is not a consideration for most people when they vote. That's as true for FPO as it is for the Libs and PCs.

One cannot get stressed, or see ones pet benefit at risk, if one hasn't heard many negative things about the party in question. Trust me: most people haven't heard anything at all about most political parties (FPO included), much less anything stressful. When a good number of people are stressed by FPO's "lower taxes, a better life" message, that will be progress: awareness in the public mind. At that point, the (at least implicitly) moral debate can commence (e.g., should the government prevent a person from using their own money to pay for their own health care?). I have little doubt that, on a policy-by-policy basis, there is sufficient electoral support for a platform like that offerred by FPO: remember, FPO doesn't need to sell objectivism itself.

Keep in mind that people did not vote the NDP into a majority government in 1990 by reason of its election platform. The NDP got sucked into a power vacuum because the PCs still had far too negative an association to replace the Liberals. People voted NDP by default, not distinguishing socialism from capitalism, altruism from egoism, reason from faith. It may be sad, but it is true, that many people second-hand their way through the voting process. The record of voting in this country suggests that may never change. One who intends to run for office in the present has to deal with the facts that reality presents one with at this point in time. At present, the fact is that (a) yes, most folks are altruists, but ( that's irrelevant, because they don't vote according to party ideology or policy. They vote for the biggest party that is not stressful to them. FPO has never formed a government so, like the NDP in 1990, it would be difficult for the voter to hold a strong negative feeling about FPO.

This would suggest that the role of philosophy is far less significant then Objectivistism holds.

Not exactly. I agree entirely that a great many people operate on codes of ethics that they have never considered conciously. However, the fact that a voter has an implicitly or explicitly altruistic philosophy does not mean that he or she morally evaluates the policies (or the philosophies) of the parties they vote for. There is no moral evaluation of the party or its policies when ones only criterion is: "Do I hold such negative FEELINGS about this party that I will not vote for it?". That is not to say that such a voting strategy cannot itself be condemned on moral grounds...it is only to say that the strategy does not involve a moral evaluation of the party or its policies.

[Little Big Man]

...Let me assume that you mean, then, that some people end up paying less taxes than other people. I think that's good, although obviously not as good as everybody paying less taxes. That's not A's problem, it's a problem imposed on B by the government. The solution to that problem is obvious.

I think you are missing the point. Lets say that the government taxes its four taxpayers (A, B, C, and D) to provide a services to all of them. Later, the government continues to provide the same services to all of them, but ceases to tax A. Your answer: "Better for A". I agree with you to that extent. However, you are missing the inevitable: "Worse for B, C, and D". Why? Because B, C, and D will now have their tax burdens INCREASED. Why? Because the government has continued to provide services to a person who is not paying for them: A. There's no getting out of it: if a tax cut is targetted to only a subset of service recipients, then the rest of the recipients MUST pay more taxes UNLESS we change the quality or quantity of the service provided.

And, even were it the case that services were decreases sufficiently to avoid an explicit tax increase for B, C, and D, that would still be a tax increase for B, C, and D: getting less for the same price is the same as getting the same amount for more.

Moral praise for a tax cut only for A is IMPLICITLY moral praise for a tax increase for B, C, and D.

That is why an "across the board" tax cut is (with some exceptions) the only MORAL type of tax cut.

A simplified exception: reversal of a past injustice. For example. If, a year after A was the only guy to get a tax cut, the government suddenly gives the an tax cut of equal size to B, C, and D, but not to A, then the net result is that A, B, C, and D have, finally, received an "across the board" tax cut.

Uh, wait, these are not forms of subsidy. Welfare is a subsidy. Allowing people to keep their money is not a subsidy.

You are only looking at the tax side of the equation. Look at the expenditure side too: a government SERVICE is a subsidy if the recipient didn't pay for it. Consider the example above: A is given a tax cut but B, C, and D are not, yet all of A, B, C, and D continue to recieve services. That is a subsidy in the form of government SERVICES to A. That's why Milton Friedman correctly observed that a tax cut to A is actually a "subsidy" if the services received by A aren't reduced along with the cut in taxes payable by A.

Ah, I see, I get it, you are just confused about what it means to "pay" or "subsidize". When the government doesn't steal all of your money, that does not mean they are "paying" you.

I never suggested anything of the sort. Again: the subsidy takes the form of government services that continue to be received by A even after he stops paying for them. Those services are paid for by B, C, and D. Therefore, B, C, and D are subsidizing A...not with money, but with the services bought with money.

Anyhow, enough of this gay banter. No tax cut is ever bad. All tax cuts are good.

I agree. I just disagree that some of the things that called "tax cuts" are actually tax cuts. If the service provided to A is not decreased when his tax burden is decreased, that means that those services are being subsidized by B, C, and D. A tax cut only to A in such circumstances is not truly a "tax cut". It's a subsidy that is masquerading as a tax cut. Freedom Party is opposed to hiding subsidies via such tax measures...we're opposed to subsidies period, but the worst type is the type that nobody can easily identify and quantify: you have to identify something before you can condemn it, and annihilate it. FP doesn't claim that getting subsidies out of the tax system is not the be-all and end-all. It is just one step toward a freer society. Socialism wasn't imposed overnight, and freedom cannot feasibly be restored overnight. One needs to take such steps.

The best tax cut is a 100% universal tax cut.

Agreed.

Your response suggests that you think that taxation is basically good and moral

Not at all. Hopefully, I have explained to you why FPO regards some "tax cuts" as just subsidies in disguise. Subsidies are unjust and morally reprehensible.

and if that is the message being conveyed by the Freedom Party, then I retract my half-hearted tolerance of them and replace it with whole-hearted condemnation as being the worst possible party for an Objectivist.

Luckily for you, that is NOT the message being conveyed by Freedom Party.

The party should be clearly conveying the message that all taxation is fundamentally wrong and that no taxation is justified.

Freedom Party of Ontario is not promoting a philosophy. It is trying to win seats. The party is morally opposed to taxation, but that does not mean that it should be so foolish as to suggest that all immoral conduct must be eliminated at once, over night, in a revolutionary style. Rand did not suggest such a thing, and a call for revolution is not only naive and bound to fail but - were it temporarily successful - the backlash from an altruistic society would put the cause of freedom back a thousand years.

Take it easy champ. We're on your side.

[MoralForester]

That overlooks what I was saying about how people vote though: they don't go looking to find out what policies are being proposed by each party. Policy is not a consideration for most people when they vote. That's as true for FPO as it is for the Libs and PCs.

That is just what bothers me so much I think.

1) This doesn't give a mandate to make changes to policy

2) The media do look at the policies as do many professors, ceo's, university students, etc.

3) This does not contribute to long lasting life for the Party in the government.

When a good number of people are stressed by FPO's "lower taxes, a better life" message, that will be progress: awareness in the public mind. At that point, the (at least implicitly) moral debate can commence (e.g., should the government prevent a person from using their own money to pay for their own health care?). I have little doubt that, on a policy-by-policy basis, there is sufficient electoral support for a platform like that offerred by FPO: remember, FPO doesn't need to sell objectivism itself.

Like you, Ayn Rand stated that a political party cannot be a tool for education. But, I always took that to mean the educating had to be complete beforehand, you seem to see it as dispensible entirely. It is a short cut.

I do like the policies of the FPO, and I am starting to see it as being at the ready, preparing the field for when Objectivism does flood the culture.

Keep in mind that people did not vote the NDP into a majority government in 1990 by reason of its election platform. The NDP got sucked into a power vacuum because the PCs still had far too negative an association to replace the Liberals. People voted NDP by default, not distinguishing socialism from capitalism, altruism from egoism, reason from faith. It may be sad, but it is true, that many people second-hand their way through the voting process. The record of voting in this country suggests that may never change. One who intends to run for office in the present has to deal with the facts that reality presents one with at this point in time. At present, the fact is that (a) yes, most folks are altruists, but ( that's irrelevant, because they don't vote according to party ideology or policy. They vote for the biggest party that is not stressful to them. FPO has never formed a government so, like the NDP in 1990, it would be difficult for the voter to hold a strong negative feeling about FPO.

Voters were very cautious about electing the federal Alliance because they were new. Their policies were not as consistent and pricipled as the FPO, and everyone seemed frightened to death.

Voters such as you describe are loose cannons, and dangerous results such as NDP win in 1990 would be proof of the disaster unpricipled voting can bring.

Not exactly. I agree entirely that a great many people operate on codes of ethics that they have never considered conciously. However, the fact that a voter has an implicitly or explicitly altruistic philosophy does not mean that he or she morally evaluates the policies (or the philosophies) of the parties they vote for. There is no moral evaluation of the party or its policies when ones only criterion is: "Do I hold such negative FEELINGS about this party that I will not vote for it?". That is not to say that such a voting strategy cannot itself be condemned on moral grounds...it is only to say that the strategy does not involve a moral evaluation of the party or its policies.

I judge this to bring me full circle on my initial question, is the culture ready? The answer is NO. Electioneering our way into power will see us just as quickly ousted I fear.

I like my other seed of a strategic idea. Pick the weakest of the big two parties, and all Objectivists join and flock there and build it our way from within.

[DavidOdden]

However, you are missing the inevitable: "Worse for B, C, and D". Why? Because B, C, and D will now have their tax burdens INCREASED. Why? Because the government has continued to provide services to a person who is not paying for them: A. There's no getting out of it: if a tax cut is targetted to only a subset of service recipients, then the rest of the recipients MUST pay more taxes UNLESS we change the quality or quantity of the service provided.

That makes a certain level of sense to me, but that's because I have a philosophy which allows me to see what there is a connection between these two facts, and not just when you state it that way -- my philosophy allows, indeed requires me to see that connection, no matter how deeply buried it is. Since the FP doesn't seem to have a philosophy, I don't see how they can respond to the reply "I don't see why you can't do both". Does the FP philosophy allow for changes in the quantity or quality of services? For example, could they advocate cutting taxes for A and also withdraw the corresponding amount of service for A? Is there a reason why they don't advocate this, or is there a reason to believe that at some future time they will advocate it?

Moral praise for a tax cut only for A is IMPLICITLY moral praise for a tax increase for B, C, and D.

Oh good heavens, it most certainly is not. It's just praise for a tax cut for A. However:

That is why an "across the board" tax cut is (with some exceptions) the only MORAL type of tax cut.

I do agree that explicitly advocating the denial of a tax cut to B, C, D would be immoral. These letters are getting a bit abstract -- I presume that there are no such proposals on the table, for example a tax cut for Canadian citizens which would be denied to non-citizens, or a tax cut for Cree Indians that would be denied to French and Somali.

You are only looking at the tax side of the equation.

Unsurprisingly, since that's one of the most important. Governments primarily destroy lives by destroying people's wealth (via taxation), and they forcibly prevent people from acting according to their own judgment (regulating what you can say, buy, sell, or hire).

Consider the example above: A is given a tax cut but B, C, and D are not, yet all of A, B, C, and D continue to recieve services. That is a subsidy in the form of government SERVICES to A.

The fact is, this is false. Targeted tax deductions and tax credits simply are not subsidies. That isn't what "subsidy" means. The root problem here seems to be, and I am now understanding, that the FP does not actually have a philosophy, it has fragmentary position-snippets. There seems to be some implicit hope to be logical, so that you take as metaphysically given that services must be provided at the same or expanding rate, and that the very same amount of money must be stolen from people to support the services. It almost seems logical; but that leads to this redefinition of the concept of subsidy, using logic that is not unlike the logic licensing the conclusion "property is theft".

So if we step back from this redefinitionist logic, we can see that the entire program of taxation and free public services is a contradiction. Tax cuts are tax cuts and are not subsidies A is A and all. The unchecked assumption behind the FP's lost logic seems to be the presumption that there is such a thing as a free lunch, and that lunch should continue to be served in huge public troughs. That is the source of the error.

Is there any part of the FP public platform that acknowledges that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and that a reduction (ultimately to zero) of public services is an equal part of the party's program? If not, then I suggest that there is not a single reason to support the FP, and plenty of reason to oppose it. If you oppose tax cuts, and support the elimination of existing tax relief on the grounds that tax relief is a subsidy, and do not advocate reduction in the extent of government services, then I can't see how that would be any different from the position of, well, whatever constitutes the Candian equivalent of the Democratic Party (the Liberal party, I guess). Why oppose them? It doesn't seem to me that either party is rally addressing the fundamental contradiction, and that ultimately both parties will lead Canada into the same destruction, the only difference being that the disaster will be sooner with one party than with the other.

I guess what I'm looking for is evidence that you guys really are on our side. If you start by redefining freedom as slavery and tax cuts as subsidies, that is anathema to Objectivism.

[Glenn]

The root problem here seems to be, and I am now understanding, that the FP does not actually have a philosophy, it has fragmentary position-snippets. ...

There seems to be some implicit hope to be logical, so that you take as metaphysically given that services must be provided at the same or expanding rate, and that the very same amount of money must be stolen from people to support the services....

It almost seems logical; but that leads to this redefinition of the concept of subsidy, using logic that is not unlike the logic licensing the conclusion "property is theft"....

So if we step back from this redefinitionist logic, we can see that the entire program of taxation and free public services is a contradiction. ...

The unchecked assumption behind the FP's lost logic seems to be the presumption that there is such a thing as a free lunch, and that lunch should continue to be served in huge public troughs. That is the source of the error....

Is there any part of the FP public platform that acknowledges that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and that a reduction (ultimately to zero) of public services is an equal part of the party's program?...

I guess what I'm looking for is evidence that you guys really are on our side. If you start by redefining freedom as slavery and tax cuts as subsidies, that is anathema to Objectivism.

I have never once seen such sloppy thinking and total evasion by a self-proclaimed Objectivist.

When a government cuts taxes for one group of individuals and does not simultaneously reduce the services to that group paid for with those taxes, then other people who ARE paying taxes are picking up the tax tab and are therefore subsidizing the first group. The government is forcing others to pay for the first group, therefore the government is providing a subsidy in the form of services to the first group, all on the backs of others. The first group is getting a FREE LUNCH, something you accuse FPO of promoting, which is blatantly false. This is what FPO is against. I don't know why this is hard for you to understand.

Nowhere does FPO think that tax cuts SHOULDN'T be followed with a subsequent reduction in spending. That should be a given to any objectivist. A government should be reducing taxes AND spending and that is exactly what FPO advocates. Targetted tax reductions are not something that any freedom oriented party or person should be advocating just for the sake of reducing taxes. A freedom oriented party should be advocating a simultaneous reduction of government taxation AND spending across the board, not just for some segmented group of the population. That is exactly what FPO does.

You might do well to first start by browsing the Freedom Party website before making such ridiculous assumptions.

www.freedomparty.on.ca

[Little Big Man]

That is just what bothers me so much I think.

1) This doesn't give a mandate to make changes to policy

2) The media do look at the policies as do many professors, ceo's, university students, etc.

3) This does not contribute to long lasting life for the Party in the government.

My responses would be:

1) The will of the majority (i.e., a mandate) is irrelevant: the morality of the policy is what matters. Now, one might think that, without a mandate, there will be a terrible backlash. Well, that involves two assumptions: ( a ) that governments have a mandate to do most of the changes they do, and ( b ) FPO would effect changes with such a negative impact that people would rebel at the time of re-election. ( a ) is false: most of what the government does it lacks a mandate to do. This is mostly due to the fact that the majority of people have insufficient knowledge to consent to, or to reject, the policies. They don't know: they trust the party in power to know FOR them. That has always been true, and it will always be true. ( b ) is false: FP isn't proposing an overnight transformation to a capitalist economy. You will note that despite the fact that FPO proposes competition and private sector options for health care and education, it never proposes privatization of OHIP or of government-run schools. The fact - as we all know - is that such things would probably run themselves out of business in about one year...or else they would start satisfying their customers (which seems highly unlikely). Thus, the fate of those systems would be in the hands of the consumer, not in the hands of the party or of the government. The public tend not to backlash against themselves.

2) Yes, the media and professionals do look at the policies, which is why FPO issued its 2007 election platform a full two years prior to the election. It's not that you don't need policies. It's just that the broad electorate couldn't give a damn about them. One must have policies, but having them is all that the public requires. Content, to them, is irrelevant because they cannot understand it, or choose not to. They just leave it to those who want to run the government...just as the public leaves the problem of telephonic communication to others. They just use the product, they don't understand it.

3) Any criticism of FPO's longevity applies in equal measure to the Liberals and PCs. This is, again, because the public cannot tell them apart, by and large. They TRUST one party more than another, but their fears are not based upon an understanding of policy. They are based on things like a cover of Mcleans showing a picture of Stockwell day next to the word (in huge type) SCARY.

Like you, Ayn Rand stated that a political party cannot be a tool for education. But, I always took that to mean the educating had to be complete beforehand, you seem to see it as dispensible entirely. It is a short cut.

Not at all. Education must happen and, in fact, Freedom Party International's role is/will be to promote the PHILOSOPHY and its application to issues of the day. It is not an electoral party, but it holds all of the intellectual property used by its affiliated political parties: the name, the tiger, the logo, etc..

As for the idea that nobody should bother with a political party until the populace has been converted to Objectivism: that is an intellectually dishonest argument if, at the same time, one is telling people that they should vote Democrat or vote Republican. If it's too early for a political party, voting has no place in an objectivists life. If voting does have a place in an objectivist's life - and I would submit that it must, even if only as a matter of self-defence - then it is not wrong to form or support an objectivist political party...and, CERTAINLY, not wrong if it's somehow right for an objectivist to support or promote liberal or conservative political parties.

Moreover, I happen to know that even Leonard Peikoff has communicated to FP, and said that if the party can conduct itself without violating its principles, it will indeed have done a good thing.

Keep in mind that Rand was concerned about Libertarians when she spoke out against getting involved. Her reasoning, as any objectivist should know, is set out at the end of her "What is Capitalism?" speech: the biggest enemy is the man who tries to advocate capitalism on grounds OTHER THAN ethical/moral. The Libertarians are and were a party that is opposed to the adoption or promotion of any one moral defence of capitalism: libertarianism is methodically anti-philosophical, and tends to embrace and found their position on the words of Humeian skeptics and "greater good" utilitarian economists. Rand was concerned that a party so VOCAL about capitalism would entirely DESTROY attempts to promote capitalism by completely missing the only valid defence for it: ETHICS...specifically, rational egoism. Freedom Party, I think you will find, puts rationalism front and centre...just read the party leader's intro to the 2007 election platform.

Voters such as you describe are loose cannons, and dangerous results such as NDP win in 1990 would be proof of the disaster unpricipled voting can bring.

The disaster wasn't due to unprincipled voting. It was due to socialism (and the effects of a contraction in the money supply as we made the switch from Keynesianism to Monetarism in terms of central banking policy), tax increases, deficit spending, etc.. I.e., bad government was due to bad government, not due to an election.

I judge this to bring me full circle on my initial question, is the culture ready? The answer is NO. Electioneering our way into power will see us just as quickly ousted I fear.

In the face of public outrage and the threat of doctors' striks, Ontario was switched from a competitive system of health insurance to a tax-funded government monopoly in one day: October 1, 1969. The PCs, who imposed that monopoly and imposed the provincial income tax to pay for it, remained in power until 1985. A full third of the FPO election platform is: promising to reverse that decision. If an FPO government made that change in its first year, there would be no outcry 4 years later...especially because taxes would be much lower, and people would finally have a family doctor again.

I like my other seed of a strategic idea. Pick the weakest of the big two parties, and all Objectivists join and flock there and build it our way from within.

You can count the number of interested objectivists on 5 to 10 pairs of hands. Five or 10 people will NOT cause thousands of red Tory or Liberal socialists to convert their party's ideology to objectivism. People who get involved in politics are not seeking to promote a philosophy: that's not the job of a political party. The job of a poltical party is: to seize the reigns of governmental power and use them in accordance with the aims of the party. The product being sold by a political party is: a SENSE OF LIFE. Objectivists are needed to ensure that policies are at all times consistent with the philosophy, and to ensure that the right ARGUMENTS are used to defend the party's proposals...that is what the Libertarians fail to do. Beyond that, anyone can support a sense of life without having any CONSCIOUS understanding of their philosophy.

The flaw in inherent in the strategy of joining altruistic political parties and trying to change them from within is made clear by Rand's razor.

Edited February 6, 2007 by Little Big Man

[DavidOdden]

You might do well to first start by browsing the Freedom Party website before making such ridiculous assumptions.

This is typical libertarian evasion. I've read the FP website. I had my doubts as to whether they might be weakly supportable -- they seemed less wild and wooly than the US Libertarian party. But I also suspected that their positions were at root emotional and not rational, that they were not based on a philosophy but were based on the range of the moment. You've helped to clarify the situation -- the FP is possibly worse that the LP, in repudiating a philosophical base for politics, and replacing reason with Kantian word-games. Redefining freedom as tyranny is a baser evil than advocating honest, naked aggression.

Speaking of sloppy thinking, let me remind you that you actually did say "Nowhere does FPO think that tax cuts SHOULDN'T be followed with a subsequent reduction in spending." My god, is that really the best you can come up with as evidence that the FP advocates reductions in spending?! This sort of twisted "logic" is exactly the reason why Objectivists should not deal with lunatic fringe parties, and should work within the parties that might actually have an influence, to change the philosophies of those parties. Not try to create a philosophy among a bunch of nuts who are opposed to having a philosophy.

[$$$]

...exactly the reason why Objectivists should not deal with lunatic fringe parties, and should work within the parties that might actually have an influence, to change the philosophies of those parties

I'm just wondering about this idea.

If it is better to try and influence a large established party which does not have much in common with your political values, why is it not better to try and influence a smaller party that holds a good number of them?

Just to pull some numbers out of thin air, I would have to assume that even if you were able to influence the smaller party to perhaps 90% of your values, it is still better to influence the more powerful party with 1% of your values, since that 1% will have more effect?

[DavidOdden]

Just to pull some numbers out of thin air, I would have to assume that even if you were able to influence the smaller party to perhaps 90% of your values, it is still better to influence the more powerful party with 1% of your values, since that 1% will have more effect?

Yes, because 90% or nothing is nothing. Fringe parties are a waste of your life, in that their candidates will not hold office and will not implement policy. I don't think it's best to look at the issue in terms of percentage of agreement, but rather, work to get agreement on an issue. So don't try to get the real party of your choice to be 1% closer on all issues, try to get them to be at least 50% closer on one issue, such as eminent domain. Try this with two related issues, such as zoning regulations and eminent domain. These issues have a more accessible concrete connection that, say, marijuana laws and eminent domain.

[DavidOdden]

Please quote anything on Freedom Party's website that redefines freedom as tyranny.

I thought you were representing the FP's position. You have redefined reduction in coercive taxation as a tax increase (ergo tyranny). If your position is a misrepresentation of the FP's position, of course they actually deserve a lesser amount of blame for not having a clear and identifiable position.

I don't think it's worthwhile engaging you Kantian rationalist evaders any further, especially if you intend to reduce the discussion to vulgarities and personal insults. Please feel free to seek the counsel of like-minded anti-philosophical libertarians, though.

[mrocktor]

David,

I read the government plan on the FP site and, while not a direct transition to an ideal Objectivist government, all the points are good policy. Although the government plan itself does not make a philosophical argument for the policies it proposes, it does expose why current policy harms people and how the proposed policies would remove that harm. The "About" section of the site does provide some philosophical basis and principles.

While the statement of principles and the policy document certainly could be vastly improved uppon, I would by no means say it is the work of rationalists or evaders.

That said, Little Big Man's conduct in this thread is inexcusable.

[RationalBiker]

That said, Little Big Man's conduct in this thread is inexcusable.

That's been addressed. If he finds a way to communicate his ideas without being so rude and insulting perhaps we will see more of what he has to say.

[DavidOdden]

I read the government plan on the FP site and, while not a direct transition to an ideal Objectivist government, all the points are good policy. Although the government plan itself does not make a philosophical argument for the policies it proposes, it does expose why current policy harms people and how the proposed policies would remove that harm.

I know: I saw what they had on their web page, and as you can see from my first post, I thought they might be a step up from the LP. The main point that bothered me was the lack of evident philosophical basis. Remember that the US Libertarian party also pays lip service to some superficially neat-sounding ideas. I was hoping that there was some evidence that the party might be superior, in some way, to the LP. I really can't tell about the party as a whole, and I was utterly flabbergasted by the "tax cuts are the same as tax increases" posture. I can only hope that that is not actually FP policy or position. I was genuinely interested in the evidence that the FP could be an alternative worth considering, though I can't say I've seen anything to justify a sustained interest.

[mrocktor]

I was utterly flabbergasted by the "tax cuts are the same as tax increases" posture. I can only hope that that is not actually FP policy or position.

It does not seem to be their policy, though that does not mean others in the organization don't share Little Big Man's error. I fully understand and share your demand for more evidence before vouching for their moral/political integrity.

[$$$]

Yes, because 90% or nothing is nothing. Fringe parties are a waste of your life, in that their candidates will not hold office and will not implement policy. I don't think it's best to look at the issue in terms of percentage of agreement, but rather, work to get agreement on an issue. So don't try to get the real party of your choice to be 1% closer on all issues, try to get them to be at least 50% closer on one issue, such as eminent domain. Try this with two related issues, such as zoning regulations and eminent domain. These issues have a more accessible concrete connection that, say, marijuana laws and eminent domain.

Would it make sense to work with every major party then? For $10 a year I could join the NDP (pro-union party) and try to promote free markets? I guess some parties would be closed to certain ideas due to what it is they promote.