Peikoff and supporting the Democrats

[Solid_Choke]

That is the objective, of course. The question is how you get there. It is not going to happen overnight, and it is not going to happen at all until this country begins to at least move in the right direction. At this point, we should be happy with that.

Exactly my thoughts. I don't understand why people don't like Ron Paul because he has one or two statist views but will vote for Hillary who has ONLY statist views.

[DarkWaters]

I don't understand why people don't like Ron Paul because he has one or two statist views but will vote for Hillary who has ONLY statist views.

Then I suggest that you first read the extensive discussion concerning Ron Paul on this board. If you still disagree, then please address some of the points raised in that thread.

Edited August 1, 2007 by DarkWaters

[y_feldblum]

Exactly my thoughts. I don't understand why people don't like Ron Paul because he has one or two statist views but will vote for Hillary who has ONLY statist views.

Don't elect a candidate on his individual hash of unorganized, unprincipled, pragmatic views. If anything, elect him on his principles. What are Ron Paul's principles?

[Solid_Choke]

Then I suggest that you first read the extensive discussion concerning Ron Paul on this board. If you still disagree, then please address some of the points raised in that thread.

I wasn't aware of that thread until you brought it up. I'll read it before commenting again. Thanks.

[Solid_Choke]

It seems to me the main problems with Ron Paul are as follows:

1.) He is "anti-war".

2.) He is "anti-abortion".

3.) He is against amnesty for illegals.

4.) He is unprincipled.

I can't say much about his anti-war stance other than the fact that no war is better than these international police actions that are going on right now. I would argue that in the long run half-assed wars against totalitarian Islam are worse than no wars because they bring more Muslims to the cause without destroying the problem outright.

About him being anti-abortion...well he has stated repeatedly that he would not try to over-turn Roe vs. Wade but would leave this decision up to the states. For me this is not a deal breaker because my economic freedom is more important to me than having ALL states have legal abortion(it is not that hard to travel to another state for such a procedure).

Not having amnesty for illegals is all fine and dandy as long as immigration is reformed sufficiently.

I can't say much about his principles other than that they are more well defined than any of his democratic opponents and preferable to ALL of his Republican opponents when his economic positions are taken into account.

I can understand that he is not John Galt but I still disagree that he is worse than ANY of the alternatives such as Hillary or Juliani.

[DarkWaters]

It seems to me the main problems with Ron Paul are as follows:

1.) He is "anti-war".

2.) He is "anti-abortion".

3.) He is against amnesty for illegals.

4.) He is unprincipled.

I addressed your post in the Ron Paul thread.

[prosperity]

And what will that solve, exactly? In a two party system, there is really only one other place for people to go, and that is to the democrats. Weakening the republicans strenthens the opposition party. Why would any Objectivist wish to give greater power to the party whose only guiding principle is amassing power for powers' sake? The left in this country is anti-capitalism, anti-liberty, and anti-reason, they worship the unearned, denounce the earned and despise anyone who has achieved success on his own right. There is nothing that they hold dear that I place any value on.

Is there no political strategy in Objectivism? Did Ayn Rand ever outline one? It would seem not, since people here are all over the lot as to who they plan to vote for. Next November, maybe half of us will vote democrat and the other half republican. We can cancel out each others vote and make ourselves even more irrelevant to the political process than we already are. The Christians joined the republican party and changed it to suit their agenda. Perhaps that is recipe for political success that Objectivism should examine.

I have been thinking about this recently also. I could not understand for the life of me why ARI and specifically Peikoff would consider supporting the left. The more I think about it, the more it seems to be one of a few strategies that might work.

Republican or Democrat, both are out to destroy America, ultimately. The Republicans just pretend to like Capitalism is all. Remember, it was a Republican controlled congress who initiated the first antitrust laws...and today, it is the same party who "somehow" wanted to increase spending on the war yet "reduced taxes"..."somehow".

On the one hand, one might try to argue that we should not support our own destroyers - which would exempt one from voting for either political party. Will either political party really give someone who is in love with the Objectivist philosophy what they really want? On the other hand, I'm not 100% sure it really matters. Reason is the self correcting method. America and it's economy will collapse if it does not turn back to capitalistic principles - period. Most of the people here know (I think) that free markets work, and that Capitalism is right, morally.

Whether it is a political revolution or an economic one, something will happen. It has to.

Let's say that Republican's continue to dominate in the White House...let them keep spending. They will only be able to continue having the FED "print" up money for their wars for so long. They can only tighten their moral grip so far before you have a faux "code name V" type of rebellion against a legitimate theocracy.

Have you seen recent inflation figures lately? Not core inflation. REAL inflation. Inflation of core plus food and energy. The dollar will not be able to continue to sustain a beating like this forever. At some point, a politician - whomever they may be - will have to adopt an objective approach to dealing with the issue.

The same thing could happen under a Democratically controlled White House though. Substitute spending abroad for spending at home. If they want to expand social programs to the point that it bankrupts America, well...then...when the dollar collapses, someone will have to deal with it. Someone will have to return to capitalistic principles or let the USA become the next former U.S.S.R.

The third option is to try to fix America, but at this point it's not looking so good. My question is, I guess, does it really matter who we vote for?

$D$

[Fireball]

Someone will have to return to capitalistic principles or let the USA become the next former U.S.S.R. ... My question is, I guess, does it really matter who we vote for?

Liberal democrat candidates are explicitly anti-capitalist. They look to the USSR as inspiration for healthcare, education, equality, erosion of property rights, etc. Conservative republican candidates base their capitalist rhetoric in religious mysticism -- except Ron Paul. He is explicitly based in the Austrian School of Economics.

Ironically, conservative Ron Paul made his rounds today on liberal talk radio shows. Highlights of his answers to questions from left-wing hosts Ed Schultz and Stacy Taylor (filling in for Randi Rhodes):

* He stands for limited government, individual rights, individual choice and the US Constitution

* Modern conservatives have strayed from their ideological roots

* Modern conservatives or neo-cons have become the war party

* America is economically threatened by endless war & the Federal Reserve System

* Wants to abolish the Fed and return to sound currency (i.e., objective money)

* Thinks private property ownership is good and government property ownership is bad

* Thinks federal government is inept regarding social issues including education

* As an OBGYN, he's against abortion but said Constitution doesn't give the federal government power to prohibit or legalize abortion; thus he would defer issue to the states

[Pat616]

Does anyone think Fred Thompson would be a good canidate. I don't know what his chances would be, and I know that he has not even declared yet, but what I have read and heard from him seems to be pretty good. He is pro-gun, and he is pro giving more power to the states and taking away power from the federal government, which is always a good thing. Any thoughts?

[prosperity]

He also believes in Just War Theory, which is why we are in the mess that we're in. I mean I like his ideas at home (most of them) but his foreign policy has me a bit on edge.

I kinda wished there was a Democrat running as a Classical Liberal - if nothing more than to have someone who could counterpoint Dr. Paul's mistakes while still delivering the right message of individuality, reason, and free markets.

Liberal democrat candidates are explicitly anti-capitalist. They look to the USSR as inspiration for healthcare, education, equality, erosion of property rights, etc. Conservative republican candidates base their capitalist rhetoric in religious mysticism -- except Ron Paul. He is explicitly based in the Austrian School of Economics.

Ironically, conservative Ron Paul made his rounds today on liberal talk radio shows. Highlights of his answers to questions from left-wing hosts Ed Schultz and Stacy Taylor (filling in for Randi Rhodes):

* He stands for limited government, individual rights, individual choice and the US Constitution

* Modern conservatives have strayed from their ideological roots

* Modern conservatives or neo-cons have become the war party

* America is economically threatened by endless war & the Federal Reserve System

* Wants to abolish the Fed and return to sound currency (i.e., objective money)

* Thinks private property ownership is good and government property ownership is bad

* Thinks federal government is inept regarding social issues including education

* As an OBGYN, he's against abortion but said Constitution doesn't give the federal government power to prohibit or legalize abortion; thus he would defer issue to the states

Edited September 27, 2007 by prosperity

[Fireball]

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama, who attended madrasas as a child, wants to raise taxes on American producers to give that confiscated money to Muslim states that sponsor terrorism on the premise that Islamic terrorists murder because they are poor and lack opportunity.

Barack Hussein Obama is making good on this 2007 presidential campaign promise:

The White House Friday highlighted a new multi-million-dollar technology fund for Muslim nations, following a pledge made by President Barack Obama in his landmark speech to the Islamic world. The White House said the US Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) had issued a call for proposals for the fund, which will provide financing of between 25 and 150 million dollars for selected projects and funds. ... Eligible projects would advance economic opportunity and create jobs in areas like technology, education, telecoms, media, business services and clean technology, the White House said.

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CN...;show_article=1

[TLD]

To the point of whom to support:

I have thought on this subject for a long time, agreeing with some of Peikoff's arguments and disagreeing with others.

I have been an Independent for some time, troubled by many of the Rep. and Dem. views as discussed here already.

I always agreed with Rand that Conservatives are potentially more dangerous than Liberals (by today's connotation).

No longer do we have true support for Capitalism on the right; and that is primarily due to religion/altruism.

In the '08 election, I detested McCain: from his personality to his lack of pride and rational values to his inconsistent and compromising political views, I saw a man who would be an even worse representative of Capitalism than Bush.

Obama was pretty transparent: I expected what we are seeing from him and certainly could not bring myself to vote for him. But I concluded that Americans were going to have to see the true evil of Obama's Multiculturalist/Egalitarian/Statist views before we would ever turn this country back to accepting our root principles.

Thus, I voted for neither. That I believe was the most rational conclusion: we had reached the point where voting for the least harmful of the 2 candidates was no longer acceptable.

And unless a rational spokesman on the right materializes to oppose Obama in 2012, I will probably do the same. I expect by then that most people will at least deny Obama his worst Statist programs.