Barr wins Libertarian Nomination.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

That is almost certainly what I will do. There are initiatives, etc., that must be voted on, typically against (there is one here in Colorado that just made the ballot, defining a fertilized egg (not even implanted!) as a person; I want my "Not only No, BUT HELL NO!!!" stamp for that one).

Voting on those issues then refusing to vote for any of the politicians on the ballot for any office may be my only recourse this time around.

[Greebo]

I'll have to see if MD has a "none of the above" vote.

[khaight]

I had two additional thoughts on this thread while driving in to work.

1) I don't think the country is beyond saving. But trying to save it through politics is like pushing on a string. The country cannot be saved while irrationalism and altruism retain their dominent place in the culture. As long as they do, new statist policies and politicians will keep cropping up. And supporting the Libertarian party does nothing to combat irrationalism and altruism.

2) Bob Barr is by far the least "libertarian" Presidential candidate the LP has ever nominated. What message would a significant increase in their vote total this year send to the Libertarians? What kinds of candidates would it lead to their supporting in the future?

[Greebo]

1) I don't think the country is beyond saving. But trying to save it through politics is like pushing on a string. The country cannot be saved while irrationalism and altruism retain their dominent place in the culture. As long as they do, new statist policies and politicians will keep cropping up. And supporting the Libertarian party does nothing to combat irrationalism and altruism.

Agreed, which is why I make it a point to at least say, "I don't agree" whenever I can.

2) Bob Barr is by far the least "libertarian" Presidential candidate the LP has ever nominated. What message would a significant increase in their vote total this year send to the Libertarians? What kinds of candidates would it lead to their supporting in the future?

The kind we eventually won't vote for.

[khaight]

The kind we eventually won't vote for.

My point there was that even if one were to stipulate that voting Libertarian could help advance the cause of freedom, it isn't clear that voting for Barr in this specific election would do so. Barr would stand in the same relation to the LP that McCain does to the GOP: a candidate whose success would establish bad policies as new party orthodoxy.

[Rearden_Steel]

Rather then turning our backs on the Libertarians why don't we try to influence them with Objectivism. I see a lot of good still in the LP. Many of their ideas are very closely related to Objectivism. I know there are some in the LP that don't fall into that line or are starting to deviate from it. But a injection of Objectivisim and reason could set the party straight.

It seems to me that there is still a lot of good and intelligent people in the LP, but they need a philosophical direction. Objectivist should rise up and take that helm that could steer them on to a correct course. I know there are dissenters in the LP, but every party does. I think a boost of Objectivism is just what the party needs. The name Ayn Rand still carries a lot of weight in the LP. After all this is a political party who core beliefs are supposed to be individual rights, right to property, and promotion of capitalism. No other party can say that.

I believe that the majority of the LP would go along with an Objective lead. I like to think of a day where the Objectivism and rationality will be the philosophical back bone of the LP just as socialism is the back bone of the Democrats and Christianity is the backbone of the Republicans. Let the ARI take care of influencing society and the LP take care of Politics.

That's my take anyways. I don't see why we should throw out a whole bushel just because of a few bad apples.

[sanjavalen]

Rather then turning our backs on the Libertarians why don't we try to influence them with Objectivism. I see a lot of good still in the LP. Many of their ideas are very closely related to Objectivism. I know there are some in the LP that don't fall into that line or are starting to deviate from it. But a injection of Objectivisim and reason could set the party straight.

It seems to me that there is still a lot of good and intelligent people in the LP, but they need a philosophical direction. Objectivist should rise up and take that helm that could steer them on to a correct course. I know there are dissenters in the LP, but every party does. I think a boost of Objectivism is just what the party needs. The name Ayn Rand still carries a lot of weight in the LP. After all this is a political party who core beliefs are supposed to be individual rights, right to property, and promotion of capitalism. No other party can say that.

I believe that the majority of the LP would go along with an Objective lead. I like to think of a day where the Objectivism and rationality will be the philosophical back bone of the LP just as socialism is the back bone of the Democrats and Christianity is the backbone of the Republicans. Let the ARI take care of influencing society and the LP take care of Politics.

That's my take anyways. I don't see why we should throw out a whole bushel just because of a few bad apples.

Its not "a few bad apples," its a rotten tree. A lot of this thread has demonstrated that the LP is anti-freedom in principle.

[D'kian]

Its not "a few bad apples," its a rotten tree.

Sadly that is so. I've met too many libertarians who regard as initiation of force practices such as charging money for goods or services. I've run across even mroe who are really anarchists, deeming all forms of government, however benevolent or limited, to be tyranny.

But there are a few good apples on the tree. It would be wortwhile to shake them loose.

[Rearden_Steel]

Its not "a few bad apples," its a rotten tree. A lot of this thread has demonstrated that the LP is anti-freedom in principle.

Its easy to point out a vocal minority with bad ideas. But my experience with most libertarians has been a positive one. I honestly believe that that there are more people in the LP that would go along the Objectivism than those who would not. I guess it may depend on were you live.

Also, I have found that those that do dissent are usually easily persuaded. A lot of the time I find that they have just never heard of a rational alternative explained out before. Again this goes back to their need for Philosophy and a Objectivist lead. I've sold many an Atlas Shrugged this way. Don't Give up! Fight!!

[Miles White]

Rather then turning our backs on the Libertarians why don't we try to influence them with Objectivism. I see a lot of good still in the LP. Many of their ideas are very closely related to Objectivism. I know there are some in the LP that don't fall into that line or are starting to deviate from it. But a injection of Objectivisim and reason could set the party straight.

It seems to me that there is still a lot of good and intelligent people in the LP, but they need a philosophical direction. Objectivist should rise up and take that helm that could steer them on to a correct course. I know there are dissenters in the LP, but every party does. I think a boost of Objectivism is just what the party needs. The name Ayn Rand still carries a lot of weight in the LP. After all this is a political party who core beliefs are supposed to be individual rights, right to property, and promotion of capitalism. No other party can say that.

I believe that the majority of the LP would go along with an Objective lead. I like to think of a day where the Objectivism and rationality will be the philosophical back bone of the LP just as socialism is the back bone of the Democrats and Christianity is the backbone of the Republicans. Let the ARI take care of influencing society and the LP take care of Politics.

That's my take anyways. I don't see why we should throw out a whole bushel just because of a few bad apples.

I contemplated the same thing a long time ago, until I realized that just about 99% of every Libertarian actually holds an unusual burning hatred for Objectivism and Rand. They are quick to smother Objectivists with titles such as "intolerant", "war-mongers", and "Dogmatists". All you have to do is read their comments to find that out.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/108260.html

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113996.html

Trying to convince a Libertarian to become an Objectivist is like trying to convince radical Islam that Jewish people are nice after all.

P.S. The only Libertarians that do claim to be sympathetic of Objectivism, are affiliates of The Atlas Society. Enough said.

[Rearden_Steel]

Hmm... Maybe I've just been lucky and have ran into more Objective Libertarians. One day when I have more time I would like to be more politically active and test the waters so to speak.

[khaight]

Hmm... Maybe I've just been lucky and have ran into more Objective Libertarians. One day when I have more time I would like to be more politically active and test the waters so to speak.

I don't have a problem with philosophical discussion with individual Libertarians. A useful question to ask them is "Why are you a Libertarian and not an Objectivist?" Answers can range from "Rand was a dogmatic war-mongering fascist" to "What's an Objectivist?" Someone whose answer is the former isn't likely to be a good prospect; the latter answer is obviously more promising.

This is a totally different question from whether it makes sense to support libertarianism as a movement, or the Libertarian Party as a party. The answer to those questions, for reasons I hope have been clearly stated earlier in this thread, is an unequivocal "no".

[DarkWaters]

I briefly perused Bob Barr's "issues" section of his presidential campaign website. He explicitly states that he is opposed to using military force against "perceived threats".

The proper use of force is clear. If attacked, the aggressor will experience firsthand the skillful wrath of the American fighting man. However, invading or initiating force against another nation based upon perceived threats and speculative intelligence is simply un-American. We are better than the policy of pre-emptive warfare.

So, hypothetically speaking, if a rogue nation is aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction and explicitly states that they are going to destroy every major U.S. city, we cannot use military force against them, since they are merely a perceived threat who has not attacked us! You cannot parody this stuff.

[TheEgoist]

If Barr were not an ultra-pacifist, I may have considered casting a vote for him. But alas, he is.

[JMartins]

This is the new official ad from the Bob Barr campaign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxPrULE6dUU

It includes about 25 seconds of footage from an interview with Ayn Rand (followed, of course, by Ron Paul).

Edited July 27, 2008 by JMartins

[fletch]

I think the first half of that ad is fantastic. The problem for Bob Barr is that he occupies the second half of that ad. Next to the awesome video images, oratory and quotations from great leaders of the past, Barr comes across as a small, insignificant politician of today...which is what he is.

Edited July 27, 2008 by fletch

[Mammon]

This is the new official ad from the Bob Barr campaign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxPrULE6dUU

It includes about 25 seconds of footage from an interview with Ayn Rand (followed, of course, by Ron Paul).

It shows all the people's coat tails who he is riding on before he even gets in there! There is barely any of his own words coming from him, just a whole bunch of pictures and soundbites they would like you too associate Barr with. That's some cheap marketing right there. Plus, they put the clip of that kid who was harassing John Kerry in there! I'm tempted to say I'm not voting for Barr just because of that!