Lemuel

No especially Objectivist themes here (that my sleep-deprived brain can muster now), but a ripping good end to a great saga. The last 45 minutes of Sith aptly make up for shortcomings in the previous two movies ... even Jar-Jar. Ooh, and that horrible two-headed sports announcer at the pod race in Ep.1, too. Blech. There was one nice political moment in Ep.3, though (warning: minor spoiler ahead!) - When Supreme Chancellor Palpatine announces that the Republic is to be reorganized into a Galactic Empire, the Senate cheers ... Senator Padme is seated with Senator Organa, and she says something like "So this is how freedom dies: to thunderous applause." I don't know if that was a pointed statement from Lucas or just a necessary component of the story. I couldn't help thinking, though, that such a comment could be applicable in America one day. Let's hope it never gets there, but if it does, count me among the ObJedi. Yes, I am indeed that kind of nerd. Deal with it.

SynthLord is a combination of my unashamed geek loves: synthesizers and Star Wars. "Dork Vader ..." "Yes, Master." "... RISE ..."

Right now, it's really hard not to listen to that little conspiracy theorist in the back of my head screaming "You see? Do you SEE!?" Un-frikkin-believable. So, when they make this mandatory for all citizens, and some decide the cause of true freedom is lost in the US and they've had enough, can moving overseas be properly defined as defection?

I disagree with your conclusion .. I agree that a film cannot completely purvey the depth of any novel "adequately", but I don't think that's the film's fault. I think a lot of it is that each one of us perceives the novel we read in a different way. A tiny example of what I'm talking about: I, too, saw Hitchhiker's Guide. I've read the books many times and love them thoroughly. I always saw - in my mind's eye - Ford Prefect played by Tom Baker of Dr. Who fame, even the hat, overcoat and scarf. I saw Mos Def in the role, and it threw me for a minute, but after seeing the film, I actually thought he was an alright Ford. We all "see" the events, actions, and even settings of a novel with a bit of our own experiences and tastes - just look at all the casting wishes for AS above! (Leonard Nimoy has to be Hugh Akston ... ) I think the goal of any film made from a novel should be to present the essence of the story - it's theme - in a way that can stand alone, but ultimately draw people into reading the novel. It can be done - it happened to me. After seeing Dune I immediately bough the novel, and have read the whole series several times. After nearly memorizing Frank's books in the series, the Sci-Fi channel produced mini-series based on the first 3 books. They were excellent! Sure, they left out a lot, but it was the same story, done better than the 1984 Lynch version, and they totally embraced the whole "Cassandra" theme of the Dune novels eloquently and stood alone as great films. I think - with the right director, the right actors (even "unknowns", which I'd prefer), a great budget, and a tight screenplay - an AS movie would not only be a successful film, but lead many people into bookstores - and possibly onto this forum! And I'll be there at the theater with complementary copies of the novel for people to take home and read. Not altruistically, mind you - but a genuine selfish desire to see some more minds awakened by Objectivism!

If you have access to Piekoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, read in Ch.1 under "Existence as Possessing Primacy over Consciousness", pp.17-23 (Meridian).

All I can say is that I hated this film. I couldn't find a single character with any sense of virtue to root for. Even if the film's theme could be "what happens when people lose sight of their values", what a terrible thing for a writer to do, killing the only person who "rediscovers what it means to be alive". The only mesage I took from that is that the hero doesn't get away with happiness. What a horrible sense of life, IMO.

I love the line Vincent gives his brother when asked how he won the race ... something like "I never saved anything for the swim back." Excellent film. And I love the production and wardrobe: classic-inspired cars, functionalist architecture, and oh how sweet it would be if people started dressing up more! {Edit - selpling erorr}

I found success in learning to express myself in concise sound-bytes, and using language that is accessible to someone who's not familiar with the terminology (and clear definitions) of Objectivism. For example, you mentioned selfishness. While we understand it, others might confuse selfishness with envious greed. Use the term rational self-interest instead - it's a bit softer, and more adequately explains where you're coming from. Come up with an appropriate - but simple - example to explain what you mean. If you open a shop and give your merchandise away, how are you going to survive, pay your bills, put braces on your kids' teeth? It's in your self-interest to profit, yet be competitive with your prices. When you get good at condensing these ideas into digestible examples, you can link them together, especially where heirarchical logical relationships can be made. Selfishness - rational self-interest - can be worked into lassez-faire capitalism easily given the right example. Again, keep it simple, and you'll "plant seeds". Get too complicated (like using the pharmeceutical industry as an example), and you open up the conversation to distractions and dead-ends. Explaining your atheism will be tougher because it's such a visceral issue for Believers. Personally, I keep it to myself most of the time, since it does me little good to wear that on my sleeve. "Live and let die" might not be the most rational way to deal with others, but I deal with all types of people and try to create trust on what we have in common. Another piece of advice - avoid extremes in introducing your ideas to people, unless you have the time to explain yourself thoroughly. Instead of saying that "socializing medicine will destroy the medical community" (which is true), state that goverment regulation is what drives the cost of medical care up, and it's less legislation that's needed, not more. If the person you're with asks for a better explanation, be prepared to give it, concisely. When the time is right, then you can take it to the "extreme", having laid a rational foundation. Don't hard-sell Objectivism, but don't pretend that it's just your opinion and that theirs is equally as valid. Let them discover that they've been wrong - telling them so outright will likely result in pushing them away from the truth, not drawing them into it.

There's a lot of "noise" talk here. However, to properly criticize music - any music - you have to first understand what music really is. Music is nothing more than sound organized in time. Traffic is noise, but if I record it, cut it up and create a rhythmic composition from it, it's now music. It may be bad music, it may be crude, but it's still music. Does music have to have "tones"? Ask a professional percussionist that. The issue that this "noise" commentary exposes is that - as in all creative endeavors - morality defines the composer's material. Music, like all other art, is a selective recreation of reality based on the composer's value-judgements (to adapt Rand). If there's a composer that wishes to express primal urges of anger or frustration, he might be Rage Against the Machine - he could be Shostakovich writing "Leningrad". If there's a composer that feels a transcendant happiness, he might be Rachmaninoff - he might be Brian Setzer leading a big band. Is a concerto more "genuine" music than swing? More harmonically and melodically complex, sure, but no less honest or sophisticated. Additionally, a musician's intent is part of the morality of composition. John Cage and other "indeterminacy" engineers (for lack of a better term - I don't dare call them artists) did not organize sound - their aim was disorganized sound, and that cannot be considered music because it takes man's mind completely out of the "creative" process. What of a jazz player who improvises, then? It sounds random to the listener who is unfamiliar with the technique, but it is indeed music (perfomance composition) because the improvisor is aware (on some level) of every note and rhythm before it is played. The deeper your understanding of music as a form of art, the more sophisticated purpose it serves in your life. But as that understanding comes, tastes change - and it's good that they do - but don't allow your gut reaction to music change your identification of it as such.

Let me get to the crux of yor questions and see if I can lead you somewhere devoid of my personal opinions of your examples. Please forgive the length of what I say, and try to take it all in. It's something I spent years trying to figure out, and may not quite be there, but let me take a stab. You asked: There is no "Objectivist" or "non-Objectivist" music. Music is sound organized in time - that's it. Composition is the artful craft of writing music. Rand loved her "tiddlywink" music, and praised Rachmaninov and Tchaikovsky passages, but that's not an endorsement, only a preference. As she stated in RM, music reaches the emotions first, the reverse of the cognitive process one uses to judge a painting or novel. Your only choices when listening to music are a positive, life-affirming response or a negative one that results from a dulling of your senses. And it's rarely easy to make that assessment at first. When you learn to listen, really actively listen, to what you're hearing, it gets easier. If one uses music as a drug, though, your judgement of how it works in your life never sharpens. For those people, music either reinforces their mood, or they use it to escape from a mood. If one is particularly frustrated after a day of getting poked and prodded by life's slings and arrows, that person might blow off some steam with System of a Down; another person might pour some wine and relax to some Sarah Maclachlan. I think this is an inappropriate and damaging way to integrate music into your life, though. Does your music control you, or inspire you? Another point about there being no "Objectivist" music: Music (tones produced by a musical instrument or voice) has no political, philosophical, or religious affiliation - only words set to music do. Does four-part harmony mean it's a Protestant Hymn? Only if the sung words are about Jesus. A hymn's melodic and harmonic structure could be imitated, then arranged for a brass quintet - is it a hymn now? It's an original composition, titled "Opus 24", and has no words; only one's association and familiarity with the traditional "sound" of hymns makes one think it might indeed be a hymn ... but it's not. With this in mind, you can enjoy a choral Mass (awesome live); the funk vamps in hip-hop; the masculine punch of a tight, chunky guitar riff; the traffic-battling rush of drum'n'bass; the playfulness of improvised jazz; the sonic cartoons of a sophisticated Zappa guitar solo; the tempting sensuality of a greasy trip-hop beat ... the list could go on and on. So where would the contradicitions lie? - If you're extolling the values and virtues of capitalism while singing (with passion and sincerety) the lyrics of Rage Against the Machine. - You desire the happiness of a sophisticated and well-lived existence, but try to reinforce it with music that appeals to baser urges. Another contradiction could lie in what you may be supporting beyond the music. After all, (most) pop music is a commodity endorsed by its performers. What they preach and what they practice could be destructive, if their entire "act" is aimed, not at creating awareness or uplifting people, but in dragging them down into the mud. It sucks to like a song and not buy the CD, but doing so anyway is one of those little moral compromises can corrode your philosophical armor. Whatever you like, there are 50 others doing the same thing, but may be saying something completely different. (Have you heard of "Christian Death Metal"?) Just like what you buy at the grocery store, your dollars at the record store support more than musicians. (No, this is not an excuse for stealing from P2P networks ... but I digress.) Music by itself speaks directly to your sense of life, and if integrated properly, it allows you to celebrate the acheivement and ecstacy you can have in your life. Music, to the simple appreciator or the most prolific composer, is spiritual - not mystical - food. Not to go too far with an analogy, but how nutritious is your musical food? Is it all burgers and Pepsi, or filet mignon and Chablis? Your music - whatever you choose for your life - does not have a genre, an costume, a style, a particular harmonic language, or set of voice-leading rules. It does not allow you to believe that a major chord is "happy" and a minor chord is "sad", or that Shostakovich is better for you than Zamfir, Master of the Pan-Flute. It moves you positively; it affects the best parts of yourself, and in some meaningful way allows you to say "Yes! This is what I am!" If this isn't what you feel when you listen to your music, or if the music you choose brings you any sense of (dare I say?) guilt about how it speaks to your sense of life: Check your premises, and find something else to listen to.

I appreciate all your responses ... they are insightful and give me plenty to think about. I especially appreciate your comments, JMeganSnow. The emotional longing is a tough thing to put into perspective, and hard thing for a guy like me to admit. I can usually snap out of it by putting my mind to something (I write music, draw, and study whatever interests me at the time, yell at Fox News a lot ). I sometimes laugh it off, remembering Charles Grodin from The Lonely Guy, a man so patheticly alone his best friend is a plant that he carries with him constantly. It got a little confusing for me, though, because I knew I wanted a personal connection and was saddened to be without one, yet when I asked myself if I was happy, all I could reply was "Yes!" There seemed a contradiction where there is none. I have a productive, challenging job in an industry that Ihave always loved. I get to be creative and disciplined, and I'm the only person at my business who does what I do, so I've got that whole uniqueness thing going for me. I'm not fabulously wealthy (yet), but who cares? I love my life, and love living it. I just want to share it.

I've read others' posts on depression and other psychological conditions, but I have yet to read any commentary or these about loneliness. This is a topic that seems somewhat untouched (by my searches so far), and I'm curious to know if anyone else deals with it, and what countermeasures they employ in defeating it. Rand stated that to understand reality fully, one must first define one's terms, so I'll do so in hopes that either I'm wrong about the condition, or that I'm experiencing a moral lapse by paying attention to its true irrational cause. If I were to define lonliness, I would say that it was the condition resulting from the lack of an accessible person with whom to identify, or the disenfranchisement that comes from being "different" from (what can seem like) everyone else. This can go for "platonic" relationships, or "romantic" ones. I understand and cherish the value of individuality, and would never compromise that value merely for companionship. I would never change the principles I hold dear just to have a best friend, or an affectionate lover. Yet the urge remains, and at times it's so strong (often painfully) I find myself having to check my premises and recite my values to myself internally just to prevent myself from making what could be a huge mistake in judgement. I'm glad I have reason and logic within me, otherwise I'm sure I'd be absolutely miserable. Regarding love, I know that the desire to be loved does not obligate another, nor justify seeking their love and admiration ... but what does one do with that desire? I'm not talking about sex per se, but the desire for a fundamental, affirming personal connection, and some sense of validation, beyond the knowledge that there are a few scattered like-minded individuals out there on the internet. (Yes, I'm very grateful there are people like me out there. I have enjoyed interacting with this community.) I can imagine that figures like Roark and Galt could have lived their entire lives just fine without their respective Dominiques, Dagnies, and Reardens ... but how much more were their accomplishments sweetened, their defeats softened, by having others there who could at least say "yes, I understand what you're experiencing." What is an ambitiously rational and logical person to do with the desire for such friends or lovers? Or is this the psychology of a second-hander to "need" friendly and loving companionship? I'll appreciate any insight or leads to appropriate reading material or other resources ... without getting too personal (okay more personal), this is a demon that, as an Objectivist/student-of-Objectivism, I need to exorcise.

Yeah, I thought "can't be too bad ... it's Pacino!" It became a good lesson in the folly of intrinsicism ... perhaps a lesson better learned in less time. I want my 2 hours back.

I have a print-out of Nick Gaetano's painting for the cover of CTUI ... ... hanging over my computer monitor at work. It's a fun and constant reminder for me, as well as an in-the-know protest against the guy on the opposite side of the buikding whose desk is cluttered with Jesus fetishes. My boss (who rarely comes by my office) has a copy of AS in his office, one of the few books on his shelf. He's a fabulously wealthy man who worked smart and worked hard for every penny he has, and seems to approach evey day like he's just getting started. I've been working for him for 10 months now, and the picture's been in my office since we moved 4 months ago. I will savor the moment he discovers it and realizes what it is.

I couldn't say what the "greatest" move I've ever seen is, but I've got some definite faves that have appeal to Objectivist themes: The Spanish Prisoner - an excellent David Mamet story about a man whose "process" could net his company billions, and those who attempt to steal the product of his mind from him. Spartan - another Mamet gem; Val Kilmer as an intransigent soldier charged with the task of finding the kidnapped daughter of the President. Heat - for the 3 people left who haven't seen this movie and keep the DVD on 24-hour repeat play, I got 3 words for you - Deniro, Pacino, Mann. This is another wonderful portrayal of characters of uncluttered character, clearly good and evil. A nice departure from films sympathizing with the criminal and crippling the hero with a "dark past". Galaxy Quest - brilliant sci-fi parody about a group of Star Trek-like actors thrown into the impossible scenario of playing their roles for real. Funny, but a good moral of conquering the most incredible challenges. Good one for the kids, too. The Bourne Identity & Supremacy, and Spy Game are good, smart hero-spy films. Code 46 - few O'ist themes, outside of controlling your own destiny despite what the gov't proscibes; nice modern look, cityscapes A Murder of Crows - brilliant, just brilliant; too much to write here, but go to WalMart and buy it ... it's buried in the $5 bin, but well worth the dig Equilibrium - if you can get beyond the embarrassingly immature and obviously derivative premise (Christian Bale is a storm trooper in a State that forces the population to take emotion-dampening drugs - sound familiar, Mr. Bradbury?), it's a good rainy-afternoon, Matrix-like antitotalitarian flick. That's all I can think of now ... tired from URL copy-pasting from IMDB ... must ... watch Episode ... 3 .. trailer ... again ... SynthLord

Minimum Advertised Price is a policy that some manufacturers impose on their retailers. Effectively the policy is that the retailer cannot publish a price for the mfr.'s products below a specific dollar value, whether in print, on the airwaves, or online. The retailer can still sell the product for whatever they want - they can give it away if they want to - but they cannot advertise below a specific price. I wonder if anyone has written on this topic, and from an Objective, capitalist, practical perspective. I'm interested in knowing how this policy has worked out in the past, and instances where it has saved an industry or caused it's doom. Perhaps there exists some rational theory of how value is manifest in pricing. <<< Bear in mind that this MAP policy is enforced by manufacturers in my industry and contractually agreed upon by their retailers. There are no requirements of state, Federal or other laws involved (... yet). The only laws that come into play are those involving breach of contract, when a dealer consistenly violates MAP in their advertising (however the quicker, cleaner way to correct the problem is for the mfr. to exercise their contractually-protected right to terminate the relationship at any time). >>> All that is to say that I'm cognizant of the issues involving antitrust and concepts of government intervention, and they're not what I'm looking for. What I seek is principled applications of capitalism, regarding pricing and the relationship between manufacturers and retailers. Can anyone point me to some good resources? I'm beginning my hunt after I sign ... right .... now! SynthLord

Okay, normally I'm not that paranoid, but I have attempted to finish this presentation 3 times, and when I got to the part right after "how the IRS will call you names and steal your lunch money" - right before (I guess) "what you can do about it" - my computer crashed each time! Freakin' freaky ... I'm tempted to peer through the blinds looking for unmarked black vans with tinted windows ... or the a silhouette of a lone man chain-smoking in the shadows ...

I understand your feelings there. I recovered from a childhood filled with lessons of self-sacrifice, forgiveness, and obedience to ghosts, and for a while (post-Fountainhead & Atlas Shrugged) I felt anger, hatred, and spite at anyone resembling a blind sheep whose mind has been left fallow. I have matured beyond that, though ... live and let die. But it's the active negativity I find so distasteful. Some of the Christians are hardcore Bible thumping Jesus freaks, yes, and they act in a manner sometimes deserving of the smug responses I see in "institutional atheism". But many others are like I was in my youth - taught that when good things happen it's God's will, when bad things happen He works in mysterious ways, so have faith and it will all work out. They're not to be hated ... or angered ... but shown the right way to think, even if it's only by example. The curious will come around, and perhaps gather the courage to break their bonds. As for That's why I said "it's the least of my worries." Yes, by religious standards I am Satan-spawn ... but I'm not going to incur the automatic distrust and anger that mystics feel for us heathens by wearing my abject disgust of their moral code on my sleeve. Many "Christians" don't know any better - why drive them further to the Dark Side by antagonizing them? I'm proud to be the thinker I am today, and work to nurture my mind and wisdom. I'm glad to be free from the mystics' code, and I celebrate that. But, the dancing on eggshells is a bit tiring sometimes; standing up with a proud voice and saying "I don't believe that!" isn't as strong or effective as saying "I know this!"

I've read the arguments on why the Libertarians are "dangerous", but the Party's young, and seems to want the right things - economic and personal freedom. While that's hardly a cohesive philosophy, it doesn't conflict with Objectivism as much as conservatism or liberalism. (Or does it? Maybe I'm not looking deep enough.) For an Objectivist to get a RP nomination - for any office of powerful influence - would be difficult, since an admitted atheist would be attempting to gain the favor of a party whose constituency is largely religious. To get a DP nomination would be tough, too, since (I assume) an Objectivist's plan would be to roll back entitlements. Lib.s are dangerous? It seems that the two major parties that have the Union in a thickening gridlock are more dangerous. I can't watch CSPAN for ten minutes without having to push back a wave of frustration at the ignorance displayed in our most hallowed halls. So why would it be dangerous for formal Objectivists to get involved in a party that is young and misguided, with the purpose of "setting it straight"? There are already a number of (informal) objectivists and "fans of Ayn Rand" there ... are our differences so great that they are to be considered a threat? Seriously, I'm asking ... I'm really trying to reconcile all this in my head, and much of the anti-Libertarian rhetoric I've read isn't without a few (perceived or unexplained) flaws.

Testify!! (I sell instruments for a living ... one of the big problems is they're broke! LOL ...) Exactly. While the least of my worries is someone else thinking I'm a materialistic sinner with no heart or compassion, that's how many react to atheist. Maybe it's just me, but the word itself sounds kind of smug. I work in sales, and I know the value of constantly displaying the positive aspects of my product, rather than focusing on the negative (ie, what it is, not what it isn't). The same principle applies here - someone who's a faithful, loving servant of Christ sees nothing wrong with their beliefs. For an associate to declare him/herself an athiest is a slap in their face ... but to provide a positive alternative, one that is descriptive but succint, is difficult, especially if the other person in the conversation is vibrantly religious, not just habitually living by what they were indoctrinated in as children. As for "antitheism" ... that sounds more active than simply not believing. I couldn't use that term because it gives me the impression you're on the offensive. Not that you are, that's just what it sounds like.

For a few reasons: I'm a musician and I work with musicians, and it is this primary interest that brings us together. I do not consider the ones for whom Christianity is paramount anything more than colleagues. Also, I live in Florida - you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a half dozen people ready to embarrass themselves in public by beating you with Chick's Bible Tracts. Sometimes, if asked about my religion, I grin and provide the Zappa response - "musician". It keeps the torch-wielders at bay, and I get on with my life. Another reason is that, while I have fundamental problems with their ideas, I recognize that they may never have been exposed to a rational form of philosophy. Before I read Ayn Rand, I was like a lot of people - raised in the church, disagreeing with a lot of it, but abiding by the moral teachings "just in case." When I rejected it, and awoke to logic and reason as the way of life, it took a great deal of time to "detoxify" myself. It was a painful process. Hell, I still find a few stains now and again ... Christians have a saying - Love the sinner, hate the sin. While not a rational way to deal with the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, it does provide a bit of a guideline for dealing with associates: Just because someone doesn't see the light may only mean that it's never been shown to them. I'm not going to push people away from me that happen to be religious - unless they offend me. If they do, let's go ... but as long as what's happening in the here and now is mutualy beneficial, I can put aside the rubbing of blue mud into their navels to appease the gods.

Mod - this thread probably belongs in another area ... move as necessary. There's a cable-access type show in my city called the Atheist Forum, where two guys sit at a table, slam on theists, then take their calls. The callers are mostly Christian, and none of them make anything resembling a logical argument. The hosts are inarticulate and indulge in a number of logical fallacies with as much emotional fervor as the callers. Fruitless. During a break, they advertised their community meetings and showed products that could be purchased from the organization. All of them - t-shirts, mugs, hats, bumber stickers - were negative in nature, written with smug atheist slogans that mock Christians. "Fuel to the fire", I thought. I have no doubt that the only thing this is effective in doing is inciting anger in the faithful. In fact, the whole idea of "organized atheism" is a bit absurd. I could see maybe a supoprt group for people who are recovering from a childhood of religious indoctrination, but that's not what I see. I see a bunch of hateful people who aren't constructing anything, just trying to destroy what other people believe. I have had many friends who were religious, one of whom is now a priest, and I've never been shy about telling them I'm an atheist ... but I always hated the word. It's just negative in nature, and I always had to go on and explain what I do hold as truth. Anymore I just tell them I'm an Objectivist, that I try to live my life by a solid code of logical and rational thought, rather than relying on whim and revelation upon which to make decisions. Invariably I suffer the "Mr. Spock" taunting, but it's been a better approach than saying I'm an atheist first. I'm just curious to know,: How do others here handle these situations? What kind of language do you use to encourage people to be curious about your way of thinking, rather than language that offends them right away?

You're absolutely right - I agree completely. I retract that statement on the premise that libertarianism does have a great degree of irrationality embedded within. I'm just annoyed that "libertarians" hijacked the name of what should be a rational, Objectivist political affiliation. Capitalism is exercised by the society at large, but what form of government protects it, or rather what political party will work to truly unleash capitalists? Republicans? Since when do they stand up for everyone's individual rights? Maybe there should be a Capitalist Party, maybe there is, but the name would cause some consternation, since liberals have done a great job of making capitalism look "evil", and conservatives are impotent to respond. I would like the Lib. Party to be - in name - the one that stands for Objectivist principles and a secular government, but the actuality of libertarianism is that it's just ideological window dressing of Rand's philosphy.

(Quick aside ..) The movie was They Live, starring "Rowdy" Roddy Piper. The South Park scene was animated, almost shot-for-shot, against that scene from the movie. Piper's character had come across some special xray-like sunglasses that exposed aliens disguised as regular humans. Trying to get a construction site coworker (played by David Kieth) to believe his story and wear the glasses, the two engage in one of the most ridiculously long alley fights in cinema. The fight scene lasts longer than Mike Myers milking a cheap joke ... hilarious. It was from this movie one of the best film lines ever came - "I'm here to kick @ss and chew bubble gum ... and I'm all out of bubble gum."

Perhaps a clarification of my first post is in order: The Libertarian Party should appropriately be the political extension of objective, rational thought. Even though there are semantic differences on some philosophical issues (which these forums chronicle), the practical political extension of individual rights and capitalism should be defined as "libertarianism." I can see a conservative, who dislikes the practises of abortion and euthenasia, voting libertarian (within the above context), valuing the sovereignty of the individual over policies which make the infirm and unborn public property. I can see a liberal, to whom environmental protection is important, voting libertarian, valuing the sanctity of property rights over corporate enslavement. [What I have trouble with is rational thinkers voting for a Republican or Democratic candidate based on which is "more likely" to re-establish Americans' freedom; both Parties' platforms are clearly collectivist and statist in nature. But I'm digressing here ...] How the Lib. Party ignores the rational and philosophical basis for its platform is discouraging. By avoiding the fundamental ideas behind property rights, individual rights, capitalism, and a government limited to the defense of everyone's material safety, the Party has left itself open to irrational philosophical influences. Religious zealoutry is given a wide berth where the Party's opinion of church-state separation is concerned: since there's no specific Constitutional provision for a completely secular government (simply one against Congress declaring a national faith) there's no real separation. It's clear to any critical thinker, though, how destructive to individual liberty religion is, if enforced by the state. The party position - if it is to be an extension of rational philosophy, and not a borrower of rhetoric - should be that laws will be decided on the basis of protecting individual and property rights, not on perceived "common religious sensabilities." This has widespread consequences, even where ideas seem to connect. Cold-blooded murder is evil, but why is it illegal? Because it violates another man's right to exist, or because God said He doesn't like it? If you don't clearly define the interests of individual rights and personal property (including one's own body), then you can't use them as the basis for making murder illegal. You have to go with the Ten Commandments reason, then, leaving a wide opening for the interpretation of "murder" to include euthenasia and abortion. Suddenly a person's right to life-support termination, or removing a fetus, is violated by the State. Now, I'm not starting an off-topic debate, here; I'm simply making an example of one of the Libertarian Party's flaws. There are many others, but the single most fundamental problem is that the LP's moral defense of libertarianism is, to me, weaker than Republicans' defense of capitalism. The LP can drift in the right direction, though, and when a candidate (like Badnarik was) shows some serious promise, I'll set aside my usual write-in option. The only practical alternatives - for me - involve greater collectivism, weakening the nation even more. Conservatives and liberals alike are fighting each other and doing so going the wrong direction entirely.