Barr wins Libertarian Nomination.

[Mammon]

http://www.ajc.com/r/content/news/stories/...rians_0526.html

Sure, why not? The only thing about this that really strikes my interest is that it wasn't Ron Paul.

[LiberTodd]

I read his wikipedia article. For a Libertarian he sure seems to have strong stances against quite a few civil liberties.

[DavidOdden]

What I'm wondering is whether conservatives who don't like Obama and are also not happy with McCain's unconservative leanings will consider this to be a viable voting option.

[LiberTodd]

I'll probably end up voting for him just because I cannot possibly imagine a successful or even non-destructive McCain or Obama presidency.

[Miles White]

I'll probably end up voting for him just because I cannot possibly imagine a successful or even non-destructive McCain or Obama presidency.

It's funny isn't it that the two-party system within this country has become so similar to each other, that now it looks as if we have to vote for a third party in order to preserve two-party politics.

[dan_edge]

I watched part of the Libertarian Convention on CSPAN over the weekend. I got to hear from each of the prospective nominees for the Libertarian ticket, and I was monumentally unimpressed. It is more clear to me why Rand and others opposed the Libertarian party. They were literally all over the political spectrum. Some of them supported government intervention in the pharma industry, some strongly opposed open immigration, and none of them had a grasp of international politics or defense. Two candidates openly eschewed applying philosophical principles to politics!

On the other hand, it was pleasant to hear politicians on television calling loudly and proudly for an end to the War on Drugs. Sometimes they would say things that gave me warm fuzzies. One guy kept saying: "The answer is always the same: get the government out of the way and turn things over to private industry!"

In short, I wish I could pull for these guys, but their inconsistency (read: lack of integrity) is tragically significant.

--Dan Edge

[Greebo]

Until the OPP (Objectivist Political Party) forms, do we have a political party thats a better alternative?

[KevinDW78]

Until the OPP (Objectivist Political Party) forms, do we have a political party thats a better alternative?

Great idea! There can now be an elephant, a donky... and a MAN lol

But in actuality, Peikoff commented on this saying he:

views education and peaceful agitation as the only proper way to move towards a more rational society. By altering the premises of our culture, and presenting a new generation of intellectuals with the ideas required to defend western civilisation, Peikoff hopes to change the world for the better. Any attempt to "jump ahead of the game", for instance by starting an objectivist political party, is doomed to failure until the required intellectual basis for such advances is in place.

Edited May 27, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Ordr]

Do you think that Peikoff would, then, advocate voting for a Libertarian candidate since their ideals, however skewed and disjointed, are still somewhat in line with those of Objectivists?

[Greebo]

Do you think that Peikoff would, then, advocate voting for a Libertarian candidate since their ideals, however skewed and disjointed, are still somewhat in line with those of Objectivists?

I'd like to know the answer to that as well.

If the choice in an election is a socialist, a fascist, a libertarian, or nobody - well, me I'm inclined to go for the libertarian to at least reinforce the message that a direction change is wanted in this country.

[Ordr]

I'd like to know the answer to that as well.

If the choice in an election is a socialist, a fascist, a libertarian, or nobody - well, me I'm inclined to go for the libertarian to at least reinforce the message that a direction change is wanted in this country.

Agreed.

They really are a mess, though.

[D'kian]

Until the OPP (Objectivist Political Party) forms, do we have a political party thats a better alternative?

This raises an interesting thought. Suppose an Objectivist reached the presidency, what would he do? What could he do?

He might set up a more rational foreign policy, especially as regards terrorism and the Middle East, but even that's iffy since he'd ahve to contend with the bureaucracies entrenched at the State Dept., the Defense Dept. and the various intelligence agencies. So more likely he might sow the beginings of a more rational foreign policy.

Domestically, I see little give from Congress to accomplish much of anything, even if he were a Republican or a Democrat (and thus had one party's nominal support). For example,a fully rational immigration policy would be to let anyone in who wants in, screening aplicants only for criminal or terrorist activities. The GOP would turn on such a proposal like a pack of rabid dogs. The Democrats would want race-based and gender-based quotas, and to pay the way for new immigrants to get here, and to subsidize them, and to shower them with welafare benefits and job training.

I'll let you imagine what would happen with Social Security and other middle-class welfare programs.

The point is that an Ojectivist president would fare no better than Dagny and Hank did with Wesley Mouch and Floyd Ferris.

[DarkWaters]

The only thing about this that really strikes my interest is that [the Libertarians did not nominate] Ron Paul.

I have no idea if Ron Paul was asked or if he pursued the Libertarian Party nomination this year. However, my suspicion is that the LP probably would have nominated Ron Paul if he was willing. I suspect that Ron Paul was not willing, since he is trying to inject Libertarian philosophy into mainstream Republican politics. Hopefully he will fail.

One guy kept saying: "The answer is always the same: get the government out of the way and turn things over to private industry!"

Unfortunately the anarcho-capitalist libertarians also give this answer when it comes to legitimate functions of government.

In short, I wish I could pull for [the Libertarian Party], but their inconsistency (read: lack of integrity) is tragically significant.

I agree. Arguably, the Libertarians are worse in many respects than Republicans or Democrats. Unlike the two major political parties, the Libertarians more heavily rely on ideas than they do on pragmatic policies. Thus, when the Libertarians embrace a wrong idea that is deadly, such as they often do when it comes to a proper foreign policy or when they support State's rights over individual rights, the Libertarians are potentially more dangerous (if they came to power) than either of the major parties.

Do you think that Peikoff would, then, advocate voting for a Libertarian candidate since their ideals, however skewed and disjointed, are still somewhat in line with those of Objectivists?

Assuming that the Libertarian Party has not changed much, I seriously doubt that Dr. Peikoff would even consider supporting them. This is for the same reasons why no Objectivist intellectual publicly or privately supported Ron Paul even though he was "seemingly in line" with a few Objectivist political principles.

It is pretty clear that this upcoming Presidential election is going to be Barack Obama versus John McCain. Both are clearly disgusting for reasons mentioned on other threads on this forum. The issue is, is either one substantially worse than the other where it warrants voting against him? I am still deciding this myself.

[LiberTodd]

Maybe if there were more libertarians actually holding office it would force the Libertarian Party to get their shit together and stop being so wishy-washy.

[khaight]

Do you think that Peikoff would, then, advocate voting for a Libertarian candidate since their ideals, however skewed and disjointed, are still somewhat in line with those of Objectivists?

No.

For a longer explanation of why, go get a copy of Peter Schwartz' essay "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" and read it.

There are also a number of threads on this forum explaining in some detail why Objectivists do not support the Libertarian party. (In brief, the "ideals" of the Libertarians are not merely 'skewed' or 'disjointed', they are somewhere between empty and absent. Without the deeper philosophical grounding which they explicitly eschew, they cannot even identify what being for 'liberty' means. Hence the spectacle of Libertarians who think preventing immigration -- or outlawing abortion, or regulating pharmaceutical companies, or refusing to defend ourselves from Islamic totalitarianism -- are examples of defending liberty. What is desperately needed in the culture today is greater respect for reason and the individual's right to live for his own happiness. Voting for, or otherwise supporting Libertarians does nothing towards that end.)

Maybe if there were more libertarians actually holding office it would force the Libertarian Party to get their shit together and stop being so wishy-washy.

This is unlikely. There was a brief period in the late 1990's in New Hampshire when there were four Libertarians in the state legislature. It didn't improve the party in any way.

The problem with Libertarians isn't that they're wishy-washy. The problem is in their ideology -- more precisely, in their lack of one.

[LiberTodd]

The problem with Libertarians isn't that they're wishy-washy. The problem is in their ideology -- more precisely, in their lack of one.

That's what I meant, they have a tendency to say stuff which boils down to "we are an organization for lactose intolerant people, but a lot of us drink milk at the meetings." I imagine there must be a lot of infighting within that party especially considering how Bob Barr is against legalized drugs and gay marriage.

[agrippa1]

It's funny isn't it that the two-party system within this country has become so similar to each other, that now it looks as if we have to vote for a third party in order to preserve two-party politics.

I've always been fascinated by the "two parties are more stable" rationale for keeping third parties out. Taking that logic its natural end, a one party system would seem to offer the most stability.

And so it does.

I think two things would do this country a great deal of good: term limits and mandatory election majorities (i.e., run off elections). The rationale for the former, if it seems a little elitist, is that the process in D.C. favors seniority for committee chairs and pork allocation, so there is a natural conflict of interest biasing voters to keep old-timers in office, regardless of what good or bad they do to the country.

[Branden]

That's what I meant, they have a tendency to say stuff which boils down to "we are an organization for lactose intolerant people, but a lot of us drink milk at the meetings." I imagine there must be a lot of infighting within that party especially considering how Bob Barr is against legalized drugs and gay marriage.

I got that sense too. Barr apparently made his career as a "War on Drugs" Republican, which seems against a lot of Libertarians. The other Libertarian who got second place was a pacifist, and didn't seem to care for Barr much at all, as she claimed she would never run on the same ticket as VP with Barr as President.

For a longer explanation of why, go get a copy of Peter Schwartz' essay "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" and read it.

I find that simply listening to the Libertarians own speeches often suffices to explain why Objectivists don't support them. I watched parts of the convention, and one of the contenders said (paraphrased, but almost exact) "Your brain doesn't matter; just follow your heart and feelings."

Statements like that, I think, highlight the differences between Objectivists and Libertarians, and show how corrupt of a philosophical base many Libertarians have (if they have one at all!).

[Greebo]

So then is the only rational answer simply not to vote?

Or should we vote for the least of three evils, and if so, which is it?

[Ordr]

So then is the only rational answer simply not to vote?

Or should we vote for the least of three evils, and if so, which is it?

Those are the exact questions that I've been trying to answer as well. I can't possibly imagine a liberal being less evil than a conservative, but in these days of "compassionate conservatism" (read: altrusim), they do seem ominously similar in some respects.

[Mammon]

Bob Barr is against legalized drugs and gay marriage.

Then what makes him any different then the Republicans?

Edited May 28, 2008 by Mammon

[Mammon]

I can't possibly imagine a liberal being less evil than a conservative

Even if that conserative things gays, atheists and all other non-Christians should be jailed or killed?

[Ordr]

Even if that conserative things gays, atheists and all other non-Christians should be jailed or killed?

Touché.

[DarkWaters]

So then is the only rational answer simply not to vote?

Or should we vote for the least of three evils, and if so, which is it?

Unless if you perceive either:

(I) there to be no significant difference between the Republican and the Democratic Presidential tickets.

(II) one of the two major parties to be significantly more evil but is almost surely going to lose anyway.

I recommend not voting for a third party. The reality is we are a de facto two party system. If we are not living under circumstances (I) or (II), any support for a third party is going to help the greater of two evils win.

[Mammon]

Unless if you perceive either:

(I) there to be no significant difference between the Republican and the Democratic Presidential tickets.

(II) one of the two major parties to be significantly more evil but is almost surely going to lose anyway.

I recommend not voting for a third party. The reality is we are a de facto two party system. If we are not living under circumstances (I) or (II), any support for a third party is going to help the greater of two evils win.

What if a really good third party candidate comes along? Like, ideal candidate.