Capitalist Chris

JASKN, Thanks for the explanation. I agree that people have to be open to being persuaded, but sometimes it's tough to figure if they are. I suppose libertarians (at least the ones I talk to) believe in definitions (just because) and apply it to other definitions (just because). I'm not sure if that even makes them a candidate for even discourse. I think I'm going to stop trying with them. It hurts my head too much. I've been thinking that I should make a website (I enjoy making them) for my local city and see how that goes. Repairman, I agree with you. My intention with the thread was to figure out whether it was worth trying with libertarians. I'm not sure if anyone else has tried or not, but I've grown tired of it.

Here is an article at Mises regarding it. It's just such a weird end that they go with it.

I hear you about how others may see the argument, but sometimes I wonder when it comes to libertarian forums and such. The starving children thing is that parents don't have to feed their children and any obligation is initiation of force. Rothbard wrote about it in 'The Ethics of Liberty'. He saw the solution to this problem is having free markets of children.

When I first learned about Objectivism, I didn't understand the general dislike of the libertarian movement. I learned over time and I even understand completely why one should not align with them. But is it worth it to drop little rational arguments in front of them, to a least instill some sort of thought. Like not taking the non-aggression principle to an extreme end (like starving a child to death). I'm starting to think the answer to that question is no. Maybe I'm just not that good at presenting ideas or I should focus on other people. Or just not even bother focusing on any of it. Thoughts?

Thanks for your comments. Changing the mind of a few voters probably is better than throwing dollars out there.

Thanks for the reply softwareNerd. The Wild Rose isn't crazy religious, but again, it's a right wing party. That seems to attract the more religious people, though that's not any plank within the party. The way the election is shaping up is that we have a virtual three way tie and I'd prefer to give a 'nudge' to the Wild Rose as they're the only party not calling for higher taxes. You're right, I want to do something because it could very easily fall to the other parties. I'm just trying to figure out the fine line with political parties. I have been looking at the activism section of the forum and it helps.

Well, it isn't a bribe. It's to help with funding election operations. I'm trying to figure out the fine line between doing what is in my best interest without 'supporting' an organization that isn't fully aligned with my views. I understand that most Objectivists will vote for the lesser evil, but is that the limit? How far can one go?

I've been reading on this forum on threads similar to the question. I understand the idea behind supporting something versus voting for the least damaging outcome. I live in Alberta and we are in the midst of an election. Right now it's a dead heat between three parties NDP (Left), Progressive Conservatives (Middle) and Wild Rose (Right). None of these parties are Objectivist (obviously), but two of these parties will raise my taxes if elected. The NDP will raise corporate taxes and introduce a progressive taxing system, as they feel the rich are getting off easy with the current flat tax in the province. The Progressive Conservatives (PC) are the party in power for decades now, they just introduced a budget to the population that shows increased taxes on the 'rich', a new health levy for people making more than $50k/year and a variety of other user fees/sin taxes (ie: increase tax on gas, increase tax on alcohol, increase cost of registering vehicle, etc). The called an election in order to get a mandate to pass this bill. The only party left is the Wild Rose, which have no plans to raise taxes. The Wild Rose Party is not perfect or aligned completely with me, but I really like the money I earn. The more I have in my pocket, the better. The question becomes how far should one go working with a non-ideal political party? And what I mean by working with would be like donating to the campaign, volunteering with the campaign, attending functions, etc. Thoughts on this would be most welcome. Edit: I apologize if this is in the wrong section.

Thanks everyone for the welcomes. I'm definitely going to check out VOS.

My name is Chris. I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead a number of years ago. I've also followed, from time to time, this forum and Objectivist discussions. I owe a lot to Ayn Rand curing my relativism. I'm currently travelling and found myself with blocks of time reading on the forum. I want to learn more. I probably will more lurk and read. A main reason for joining was to ask what of Rand's work is good for explain rights - as in where they come from, why we have them, etc? Thanks, Chris