Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivist Party

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

http://objectivistparty.us/

Chaired by Dr. Tom Stevens

I'm the President of the Maine Branch.

Please join, we need more members! There's a facebook group, too. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=16310178982

If anyone else is in Maine and interested in joining, please also email me at: [email protected]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read all that was up on the website and I must say, I was appreciative of the Les Miserables lyrics. :lol: Even though I'm in Montana and there's a good chance I'll be one of the only ones from Montana for some time, I'll consider joining. Have you ever heard of, or contacted Freedom Party International? I think that it has a similar goal of creating an Objectivist political party as well. Perhaps a collaboration? Here's a link: http://www.freedomparty.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The founder is a Libertarian Ron Paul supporter. He writes:

I was the Political Consultant and New York Coordinator of the Paul For President Coalition and I now run 4 former Ron Paul Meetup Groups in the NYC Metro Area.

So that is my position. I supported Ron Paul all the way!

Its a pity that ARI didn't register the official-sounding name "the Objectivist Party" for themselves, either for future use, or at the very least to keep it from being abused by Libertarians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism is not a political party. This is a futile joke.

I think Rand wrote something about an Objectivist political party; she was not supportive of it. I can't find a quote though. A cookie for whoever does find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Rand wrote something about an Objectivist political party; she was not supportive of it. I can't find a quote though. A cookie for whoever does find it.

"Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A", by Robert Mayhew:

Q: Is it not time for an Objectivist politician?

AR: It certainly is not. The whom would he speak? One cannot run an educational campaign and a political campaign simultaneously. In fifty years, it might be time for an Objectivist politician; but by the time it’s possible, he practically wouldn’t be necessary. The country’s public opinion would continue in the direction of freedom and reason. Therefore, Objectivists should go to the classroom, and correct the situation there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is an odd character. He asked me to be his friend on facebook, and then requested that I help him get onto the presidential ballot for the state of Louisiana. I accepted the friend thing just because (I thought) he was an Objectivist. When he requested that I help him get onto the ballot, I considered it. Helping out a presidential canidate (even a third party one) would look good on my resume, and perhaps I could have bargained for monetary compensation as well. I decided in the end against it though, as I would feel somewhat uneasy about helping a man run for president who I was not, in the end, going to vote for. I still have him as a facebook friend, and as of late I notice him hopping in and out of various Ayn Rand related groups, including weird ones such as this and this trying to drum up support for his party. He's also part of a large number of Louisiana based groups, including this little ditty. While I do not necessarily think that open Objectivist political activism is a bad thing, I do not think think that a political party is the right way to go about it, or that this strange man of Tom Stevens is the person to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. It would be much better if they created a Capitalist party.

The Liberal Capitalist Party:

http://www.liberalcapitalist.com/

As the FAQ says though: "The Liberal Capitalist Party is currently in its conception phase, making Liberalcapitalist.com a "virtual" a political party for the time being."

Edited by JMartins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that politicians so rarely set out to educate the public that it's hardly any wonder the two would be seen as mutually exclusive. The fact remains however that politicians possess a rather unique platform for addressing the public through policy speeches, debates, and addresses, all of which can be used to teach. I can foresee a rational politician conducting something of an educational campaign on rational principles one day.

Indeed, Ayn Rand herself exemplified that education is not confined to the four walls of a classroom, as illustrated by her novels and newsletters. Galt's and Roark's speeches also stand out as vivid examples of "extracurricular" teaching.

That said, Objectivism is a philosophy, not a political party. It would be wise -- as we have done here -- to look critically at any organized party calling itself Objectivist, and reject pretenders. But this should not dissuade individuals interested in implementing rational principles in the cultural and political spheres. Personally I think that intellectual and political activism for freedom and reason is always timely, regardless of the name it goes by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An Objectivist party may be an impossibility but I'd dearly love to hear the Objectivist ideals espoused by a politician. How would/could this not be considered 'education' or activism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my opinion, any philosophy can be applied for politics. Objectivists in charge of a country can be successful:

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

- Winston Churchill

So why not try something new? I think that any politic party which can find the problems and offer good sollutions is worth voting for. For example, Lithuania would be a great country to live in if politicians wouldn't just talk with their sugar lips about progress while draining our budget, creating inflacion and corruption just because of too expensive governing mechanism that is barely working.

If Capitalist/Objectivist Party takes charge of a country and satisfy people's goals, they are worth respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. It would be much better if they created a Capitalist party.

Shhh, let's not give anyone any ideas like that _for now_! (...for the same reasons as why there's no point in having an Objectivist _anything_ officially political these days.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

*** Mod's note: Merged with an eralier topic. Also see this related topic. -sN ***

I was looking through the list of presidential candidates on the ballot in Florida, and I discovered Dr. Tom Stevens of the Objectivist Party!?! Looking over their website (http://www.objectivistparty.us/301.html) he sounds like my kind of candidate except for one glaring contradiction. The website contains a quote from Ayn Rand discussing why Libertarianism in incompatible with Objectivism, yet the site also boasts of Dr. Stevens' positions in Libertarian organizations and work on Ron Paul's campaign. What do you guys think? Is this guy a legitimate representative of Objectivist ideals?

Edited by softwareNerd
Added 'topic merged' notice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*** Mod's note: Merged with an eralier topic. Also see this related topic. -sN ***

I was looking through the list of presidential candidates on the ballot in Florida, and I discovered Dr. Tom Stevens of the Objectivist Party!?! Looking over their website (http://www.objectivistparty.us/301.html) he sounds like my kind of candidate except for one glaring contradiction. The website contains a quote from Ayn Rand discussing why Libertarianism in incompatible with Objectivism, yet the site also boasts of Dr. Stevens' positions in Libertarian organizations and work on Ron Paul's campaign. What do you guys think? Is this guy a legitimate representative of Objectivist ideals?

As you suspect, the answer is no, no, and again no. Stevens is a clueless libertarian, not an Objectivist. I wrote about this supposed "Objectivist Party" on NoodleFood: Objectivist Party? It includes a fairly detailed discussion of why an Objectivist Party would be a bad idea in any case, i.e. even if not run by libertarians.

Update: I just saw that the link to "this related topic" goes to the OO.net version of my NF essay. Thanks!

Edited by dianahsieh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think that an Objectivist, or Capitalist party is necessary. The only reason that I agree with the Objectivist party over Capitalist is because there can be no confusion as to the morals and values that drive it. As we have seen with the Founding Fathers, without the right moral backing, it can all end in vain. Do I support Dr. Tom Stevens? Well that is an interesting question. First, in contrast to what we had to vote for I would vote for him any day. Do I know enough about Tom Stevens as of yet to ensure that he is Objectivist through and through? No I can not say that. It is a question that I am answering for myself. Yet this does not remove the fact that an Objectivist party has begun. It is a new area worthy of utilization for the education of others. We can all remain here in our various chat rooms and forums discussing Objectivism over and over again. We can wait for the few to come to our door and then help guide them to the realizations of Ayn Rands teachings, or we can get out there and really start working to change the popular opinion. Talking about and discussing Objectivism is great in these forums. It helps us all to grow in our understanding, but what use is gaining all this knowledge, especially in the field of politics, if we do not utilize it? Politics is a great topic to open others eyes into the world of Objectivism. In these current days if you can help to explain what is going on with the financial crisis people will give you plenty of time to begin to open their eyes to the philosophy of Objectivism. If Tom Stevens is not the right candidate then before the next election he will be voted out. This is no reason to dismiss the entire idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is no reason to dismiss the entire idea.
True, but there are other reasons. A fundamental truth is that at present and for the forseeable future, the president of the US will be either a Republican or a Democrat, and it is impossible that it will be anything else. So voting for something else does not serve the primary function of voting -- determining who will be elected. It can only serve an symbolic function. In that case, it becomes important that you actually have the right symbol. Why not symbolically write in the name C. Bradley Thompson, whose status as an Objectivist is not in question? You have to do serious research to find the results for the various fringe parties in the last election. None of the fringe party candidates had any impact -- were even noticed -- save for Ralph Nader who was noticed only because he used to be someone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion of an Objectivist party is, in my mind, fundamentally flawed. As has been stated before, objectivity belongs in the classroom, government does not. Politics belong in government, objectivity does not. On the surface this looks like a cheap ploy to appropriate the movement on behalf of an individual with presidential perspirations. I don't know, it just doesn't do it for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I think that politicians so rarely set out to educate the public that it's hardly any wonder the two would be seen as mutually exclusive. The fact remains however that politicians possess a rather unique platform for addressing the public through policy speeches, debates, and addresses, all of which can be used to teach. I can foresee a rational politician conducting something of an educational campaign on rational principles one day.

I agree. Politicians and public figures have the ability to teach and explain to wide audiences. If Objectivism is ever to become widely accepted it will need to be proposed and championed by teachers and politicians alike.

As for this Objectivist Party. While I don't see it going anywhere or doing much good, it does seem to support objectivist political philosophy. And as long as it is Objectivist I don't think that we should be giving it too much criticism. If it truly upholds rationality, to not applaud it would to be anti-rational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...