Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Devils_Advocate

Objectivist Party

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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.

The reason someone would not write C. Bradley Thompson on their ballot is because he is not running for president. When you do vote, you should vote for the canidate that coincides most closely with your views. If you do not think that any current canidate is capable you may run yourself, but do not sit in idolatry and criticize those who are actually attmpting to change government. If Objectivists sit back and say that we shouldn't do anything because the president will always be democrat or republican then guess what? The president will always be democrat or republican. As rationalists we know that there is a cause behind everything, and every election. Horrible leaders are choosen because the people who should know better criticize and condemn every single person who tries to make things better. Will this Objectivist party do well? Probably not. But the fact is, they support individualism and at least uphold rationality unlike the libertarians. If we truly believe in Objectivism then we should at least approve of anyone who actually follows it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As rationalists we know that there is a cause behind everything, and every election.

Objectivists aren't rationalists; your use of the term (which refers to an invalid method of dealing with ideas) makes me question how well you understand Objectivism.

The way to change politics is to change the culture intellectually, i.e. by spreading the right ideas or supporting those who, not in fielding candidates who don't understand Objectivism and who wouldn't have any chance at all in today's culture anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will this Objectivist party do well? Probably not. But the fact is, they support individualism and at least uphold rationality unlike the libertarians. If we truly believe in Objectivism then we should at least approve of anyone who actually follows it.

Of course, but that doesn't even remotely describe the creators of the Objectivist Party.

The Objectivist Party was created by longtime and active supporters of the Libertarian Party, not an Objectivists. So it's no better than the LP -- and worse, because it will be Objectivism (rather than just liberty) a bad name. Once again, see my blog post: Objectivist Party?

It's just mind-boggling that this issue keeps coming up again and again, as if the libertarian origins of this Objectivist Party haven't been discussed at length. Pay attention, folks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason someone would not write C. Bradley Thompson on their ballot is because he is not running for president. When you do vote, you should vote for the canidate that coincides most closely with your views.
That's based on a false premise, that there is intrinsic value in voting for a declared candidate who is no good. You ought to think first about the purpose of voting -- don't just vote as a knee-jerk reaction to the presence of a pile of candidates. For a rational person, the purpose of voting is to determine who will actually hold the office in question. For this reason, one should not vote for any fringe candidates, and one should vote for a candidate who might win and who best reflects your values. This is one reason why voting for a Libertarian is simply not a rational choice for an Objectivist. (Additionally, Libertarians have the added defect of rejecting reason and reality on principle, but we don't need to add to the basic fact that voting for a Libertarian is irrational symbolism). As I said, a better form of symbolism would be to write in the name C. Bradley Thompson, even though he is not a declared candidate. Once you've rejected the actual function of voting (determining who holds office) and replace it with a symbolic function (expression of feelings), there is no point is limiting yourself to declared and officially recognized candidates. And Objectivists would find much more agreement with an actual Objectivist, than voting for a loser candidate with a couple of points of similarity in preferred policies.
If you do not think that any current canidate is capable you may run yourself, but do not sit in idolatry and criticize those who are actually attmpting to change government.
Let me point out that "idolatry" refers to the practice of worshiping images of heathen gods such as Ba'al or Ahura Mazda. I am attempting to change the government, and I do criticize and condemn those -- such as the Libertarians -- who are working against my efforts. At some point in the future, the idea of an Objectivist political party (with actual Objectivists) may not be laughable.
As rationalists we know that there is a cause behind everything, and every election.
You may be a rationalist, but Objectivists are not rationalists. I think you've identified the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite possible that Ayn Rand made an entirely innocent, offhand comment to Farah about the two of them being born on the same day. If find it rather odd that Tom Stevens, Chair of the so-called Objectivist Party, siezed on this comment as an opportunity to attack Ms. Rand and to label Objectivists as "Randroid Cultists". Mr. Stevens and his ridiculous Objectivist Party certainly won't be getting my support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's quite possible that Ayn Rand made an entirely innocent, offhand comment to Farah about the two of them being born on the same day. If find it rather odd that Tom Stevens, Chair of the so-called Objectivist Party, siezed on this comment as an opportunity to attack Ms. Rand and to label Objectivists as "Randroid Cultists". Mr. Stevens and his ridiculous Objectivist Party certainly won't be getting my support.

Yeah her comment was entirely inconsequential. It's so pathetic when someone falls all over themselves to seize an opportunity to criticize an Rand or Objectivism. They're desperate to gain just a little bit of cred in the eyes of those who like to smear her philosophy. "Look at me! I quack like the ducks too!" What slime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier topic. - sN ***

What is with this guy Tom Stevens who says he is heading up an "objectivist party" I've had him on my facebook for a while and I always get this funny feeling when I see him pop up.

Wasn't it Ayn herself that said that Politics was the effect and not the cause? That the problem of our day is a philosophical one? From what i've gathered from history. Political parties are rather easy to corrupt. The mere nature of the party detail inclusivity which requires compromise which is against the ideals of objectivism. If compromise was not made, then you would have to have a closed platform not available for change. That would limit the party to a few thousand people, and what is the point of a few thousand is a majority ruled system? And who is to say I would agree with another objectivists platform?

Personally I think its crap. I wonder if the ARI has made a statement on it. Im sure if they have they disapprove. As do I. I think its crap.

Edited by softwareNerd
Merged notice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is with this guy Tom Stevens who says he is heading up an "objectivist party" I've had him on my facebook for a while and I always get this funny feeling when I see him pop up.

He's a libertarian hostile to Ayn Rand, definitely not an Objectivist.

See this post of mine: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/07/obj...ist-party.shtml

And this one: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/07/tom...him-to-be.shtml

I would recommend un-friending him.

Edited by dianahsieh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's a libertarian hostile to Ayn Rand, definitely not an Objectivist.

See this post of mine: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/07/obj...ist-party.shtml

And this one: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/07/tom...him-to-be.shtml

I would recommend un-friending him.

Oh my. That blog post made me gag. I'm tempted to start a group called "objectivists against that tom stevens guy"

I'm sure it will have more members than his party.

Who does he think he is? http://objectivistparty.us/6464.html I had more members in one of my political groups as a libertarian than he has in his party! Doesn't he know selling the idea of a party to objectivists is like selling junk bonds to an austrian economist.

Edited by LandonWalsh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's a libertarian hostile to Ayn Rand, definitely not an Objectivist.

See this post of mine: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/07/obj...ist-party.shtml

And this one: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/07/tom...him-to-be.shtml

I would recommend un-friending him.

Too late, he unfriended me. After this discussion:

Tom- "The Objective is to spread Objectivism and our view of limited government and respect for individual rights. Rand would love us were she alive today. I don't know and don't care what ARI thinks. I work in the political realm. They work in the Rand Realm."

Landon- "Wasn't it Ayn herself that said that Politics was the effect and not the cause? That the problem of our day is a philosophical one? From what i've gathered from history. Political parties are rather easy to corrupt. The mere nature of the party detail inclusivity which requires compromise which is against the ideals of objectivism. If compromise was not made, then you would have to have a closed platform not available for change. That would limit the party to a few thousand people, and what is the point of a few thousand is a majority ruled system? And who is to say I would agree with another objectivists platform?"

Besides you apparently don't know Rand that well:

"Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A"

Q: Is it not time for an Objectivist politician?

ARand: It certainly is not. For 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."

Tom: Rand was wrong. Rand would agree with what I am doing if she were alive today.

Click here to join the guys disapproval group>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=121889493714

Edited by LandonWalsh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Click here to join the guys disapproval group>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=121889493714

It looks like that group you created scared him off Facebook completely. :pimp: I was starting to wonder when I stopped getting all his odd posts on my news feed. He seems to no longer even have an account, although the Objectivist Party group still exists.

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...