Did you?

[softwareNerd]

Joining a party is a concrete, as is voting. If it -- along with all it's ramifications -- serves a moral end, it is moral. Don't get overly hung up on a single concrete.

If you think that joining a party is some type of sanction, then try to concretize what that means; take it from floating abstraction to asking: what are the concrete implications (e.g. the party will think people like me support them, etc.). Then, weigh those concrete implications against the positive outcomes from joining the party (e.g. I can vote for the non-religious candidate in the primary, or I can sway some issue from within). Once you weigh those two, you can come to a conclusion. The conclusion might still be wrong, but it will be moral.

PS: And, by the way, IntellectualAmmo, your post above where you say that you will change your opinion of some people is argument from intimidation. You should spare yourself the embarrassment of finding out if your opinion matters.

Edited January 18, 2008 by softwareNerd

[KendallJ]

Kendall, this is the exact point in which our disagreement begins.

And that is exactly what I'm wondering if you could explain. The Peikoff statements do not explain this particular issue in any detail. I want to understand what party membership, in and of itself, does exactly.

With the primary, correct me if I am wrong, you have to join a party in order to vote, and in the general election you don't have to, in order to defend yourself against the greater evil.

The rules are different in each state, but in Michigan, you are wrong.

So let me understand this. If the greater evil can be defeated early on in the process, when it has not amassed momentum or resources, you'd rather forego that opportunity, and wait until that evil is a nominated party candidate with the full party backing behind it to try to defeat it. And you'd forego this opportunity all because someone might make you join a party to do it?

[themadkat]

If I were to joi... Let me try that again. If I were to joi... Sorry, I just can't say it, morally speaking. If I were to do what you did, I would have to come to terms with the practicality of it, to be able to do it. I just don't see that with this primary, only with general elections. I think I might send Dr. Peikoff an email and see if he has any advice on the coming primaries, and on primaries as such.

[edit: I just sent him one, though he actually addresses it indirectly speaking with party politics and such discussed in his podcast #5, but not directly on the subject of the coming primaries and primaries as such, but I think it's totally applicable, nonetheless]

I'm just not seeing the big deal. It's not as if I gave them money, or manned their phone banks, or really did anything at all to help the Republican Party as such. In fact, if anything I went in and voted for the candidate the party establishment probably finds the most distasteful. I would say what I did was as nearly perfect an example of subverting party process while still acting completely within its rules that I can think of.

As for the fact that I did, indeed, join the Republican party for all of four minutes, I hinted already that it made me feel like I needed to scrub myself. But my personal loathing for the Republican party is not a sufficient logical reason to avoid doing what I did. It was a feeling to be overcome in the service of what I knew I wanted to do, nothing more. Imagine this: there is a decadent house down the street which belongs to a crook, and you know all the property inside is stolen. This crook has no choice but to invite you to his house party due to some rule. So you get to essentially crash the party, eat all his food and break all his shiny stuff, all while he sits and watches helplessly. You could say that you still had to go to the crook's house, still had to talk with him and be in his space, but if you get the chance to wreck all his ill-gotten gains, isn't it worth it? I sometimes feel like this idea of "sanction" gets misunderstood and overextended in Objectivist discussions.

One more thing, and please don't take this the wrong way because it is not intended as an insult, but why are you going to contact someone else to decide what you're going to do for the election? Even though Dr. Peikoff is a brilliant man, he is not going to take action for you and he is not responsible for what you do. You need to use your own best judgment of the issue and then take ownership of the results. If you are unclear on what the issues are, just think about it. Think about what's most important to you and what you value. You don't need to follow someone else's lead.

I've never understood this presumption that all Objectivists should or would think and act in exactly the same way. This is the supremely individualistic philosophy, is it not?

[aequalsa]

. Imagine this: there is a decadent house down the street which belongs to a crook, and you know all the property inside is stolen. This crook has no choice but to invite you to his house party due to some rule. So you get to essentially crash the party, eat all his food and break all his shiny stuff, all while he sits and watches helplessly.

Man...I gotta go to your parties.

[intellectualammo]

PS: And, by the way, IntellectualAmmo, your post above where you say that you will change your opinion of some people is argument from intimidation. You should spare yourself the embarrassment of finding out if your opinion matters.

I was unaware that it was such an argument, I thought I was simply stating what may happen.

As for the fact that I did, indeed, join the Republican party for all of four minutes, I hinted already that it made me feel like I needed to scrub myself. But my personal loathing for the Republican party is not a sufficient logical reason to avoid doing what I did. It was a feeling to be overcome in the service of what I knew I wanted to do, nothing more. Imagine this: there is a decadent house down the street which belongs to a crook, and you know all the property inside is stolen. This crook has no choice but to invite you to his house party due to some rule. So you get to essentially crash the party, eat all his food and break all his shiny stuff, all while he sits and watches helplessly. You could say that you still had to go to the crook's house, still had to talk with him and be in his space, but if you get the chance to wreck all his ill-gotten gains, isn't it worth it? I sometimes feel like this idea of "sanction" gets misunderstood and overextended in Objectivist discussions.

Yes, I have thought of this, but...I wouldn't know which crooks house to go to before. But now, it looks like it would be to the GOP where Huckabee resides, and cast my vote in self-defense against such a candidate, then vote Democrat in the Presidential election. That way, if the Democrat (doesn't matter which to me) does not win the race, at least I somehow defended myself against the greatest degree of Republican evils. I only last night and this morning, have come to understand that the GOP candidates do vary enough in degree, and that degree as far as I can see, would be enough for me to look into the rules of the primaries when they come to my state. I can see the practicality in it, only now, because of Huckabee, who clearly shows this degree to me, especially heraing it in the video Professor Hsieh has up at NoodleFood. I don't think voting against of evils in the Democrat party would help any, not as much degrees of difference as there seemingly are to me, as there are in the Republican Party, and I don't even consider the Libertarian or any other party, because practicality says, "don't waste your vote in them" - in trying to defend myself against evil, I like to make hits, not swing and miss altogether.

And that is exactly what I'm wondering if you could explain. The Peikoff statements do not explain this particular issue in any detail. I want to understand what party membership, in and of itself, does exactly.

The way I look at it, Kendall, is that by having no members, voters, volunteers, backers a party has no chance, or reformation will possibly take place inner party, in order to get voters, or get voters back. I still will remain an unaffiliated voter, but I really am considering the practicality in what I might have to do in my state, to properly defend myself come Presidential Election Day.

The rules are different in each state, but in Michigan, you are wrong.

Maybe I won't have to have any affiliation in my state either to vote.

So let me understand this. If the greater evil can be defeated early on in the process, when it has not amassed momentum or resources, you'd rather forego that opportunity, and wait until that evil is a nominated party candidate with the full party backing behind it to try to defeat it. And you'd forego this opportunity all because someone might make you join a party to do it?

This is the practicality that I needed to see in it, and I did last night and this morning, but I needed to see a candidate that was evil in the highest degree (either in R or D). I found him last night. Now I just have to find the best defense to use against him, by voting one of the other candidates.

How mildly amusing is it AL...that it might be Giuliani? But regardless, I don't think I can make as big of a mistake because of the party politics involved inner parties, but at least I won't make a mistake in defending myself properly all around, even if I would have to be affliated with a particular party for a few moments. I won't barf, but I will feel great doing it, defending myself in an election I didn't see any reason to particpate in, until now. (and without Peikoff answering my email, themadkat )

Thank you guys again for your responses to me, particularly themadkat, Kendall, and sNerd.

[Mammon]

I just don't want to vote Republican, I don't want to give them my support at all. Mainly for the reasons Peikoff talks about. That's it, take it as you well.

[intellectualammo]

I just don't want to vote Republican, I don't want to give them my support at all. Mainly for the reasons Peikoff talks about. That's it, take it as you well.

That's what I was thinking for the longest time, but only now can I see the practicality in it voting in this primary, as much as I do in the general election, because I can do something about Huckabee. If that theocrat rises to power in that party, and becomes President, and I had some way of preventing that, and didn't... I ...

Mammon, I don't see it as supporting per se, just excersising what little defense I can find, in order to prevent the greatest evil rising to power in the oval office. I don't want to give them my support at all, and don't, even if I would have to be affliated with them for a few minutes. Better than 4 to 8 years of "living" under a theocratic President, backed by the relgiously affiliated political party in which he belongs too.

[edit: from Noodlefood: Huckabee the Theocrat. I also would think, imo, I would be sanctioning this theocrat in a way, if I didn't take the actions I am now so willing to take in the primary after having the knowledge that I do in this now.]

Edited January 18, 2008 by intellectualammo

[intellectualammo]

The rules are different in each state, but in Michigan, you are wrong.

Hi Kendall. I was able to find more information on voting rules in my state, and as far as I can tell I have to register to a party by March 24, 2008 for the April 22, 2008 primaries. So, in answer to your question "Did you?" or rather for me, "Will you?" - I give you a resounding, overly emphatic "YES!" Again, thank you. I indeed did err, and it was exactly in the only area I thought it was going to be in, if it were to occur. So now, after all the information and thinking that I had done, the practicality in it fully recognized, the opportunity to defend myself even more, I will not pass up on this coming primary. This voting thing, and politics in general are still rather new to me and find them very important, therefore I must learn all I can at once, and if I make errors along the way - at least I make them here on this forum, in front of my laptop screen, instead of the screen it really counts on.