Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
PossiblyParanoid

Presidential Vote 2004

Rate this topic

For whom do you intend to vote for President this year ?  

138 members have voted

  1. 1. For whom do you intend to vote for President this year ?

    • George W. Bush (Republican)
      63
    • John F. Kerry (Democrat)
      19
    • Michael Badnarik (Libertarian)
      9
    • Ralph Nader (Reform/Independent)
      0
    • Michael Peroutka (Constitution)
      0
    • David Cobb (Green)
      0
    • Leonard Peltier (Peace & Freedom)
      0
    • Diane Templin (American)
      0
    • Other
      1
    • I am not voting this year.
      12


Recommended Posts

I will vote for Bush, but will vote for Democrat for House and Senate (though they're disgusting) because I want a legislative counterbalance to Bush. Particularly senator, because I do not want the next Supreme Court justice to help make abortions illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have voted Libertarian in the past as a protest but likely will not vote at all this year. I live in DC, which is solidly Democratic. Our electoral college votes are guaranteed to go for Kerry. We don't have voting representatives in Congress, and the nonvoting delegates are long-term lefty hacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have voted Libertarian in the past as a protest but likely will not vote at all this year. I live in DC, which is solidly Democratic. Our electoral college votes are guaranteed to go for Kerry. We don't have voting representatives in Congress, and the nonvoting delegates are long-term lefty hacks.

This is the price you pay for living in the capital, the feds own it and they control it. You must live in a state to be represented. As it is, its ridiculous enough DC even gets electoral votes, let alone anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against my better judgment, I plan to vote for Kerry.

Leonard Peikoff's speech helped me make my mind up regarding this.

Beyond that, Bush has proven himself to be a grave danger to America because of his incompetence in defending American interests. Also, his zeal for faith-based initiatives concerns me greatly, as we could be headed towards a Christian theocracy.

I want Bush the heck out of there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which candidate would Ayn Rand choose -- and why? Here are two very relevant quotes:

No, I do not regret that I voted for Nixon, because I would vote for almost anyone against Senator McGovern or Senator Kennedy, but this is not saying much.

Later, she wrote:

If, which is very doubtful, Mr. Reagan gets the Republican nomination, there is only one group of people that could make it necessary to vote for him: the Democrats -- by nominating some equivalent of Senator McGovern, such as Senator Kennedy.

Ayn Rand stated TWICE that she would vote for ANYONE sooner than she would vote for Ted Kennedy -- including Reagan, a religious conservative whose position on abortion, according to Ayn Rand, made him someone who "has no right to pose as a defender of rights."

In the three decades since Ayn Rand wrote that, Ted Kennedy has gotten much worse, but there is someone whose voting record places him even to the left of Kennedy. This year the Democrats have nominated someone WORSE than McGovern or Kennedy, and that makes it necessary for me to vote for Bush. (I would vote for almost anyone against Kerry, but this is not saying much.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Betsy.

Even though I am a Canadian and can not vote for your President, it's nice to know that some O'ists are above rationalizing. I have seen the arguments for voting for Kerry and I think Dr. Hurd made the most sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

Ayn Rand stated TWICE that she would vote for ANYONE sooner than she would vote for Ted Kennedy -- including Reagan, a religious conservative whose position on abortion, according to Ayn Rand,  made him someone who "has no right to pose as a defender of rights."

...

Yes, but consider the next step in the series after 1973 and 1975. In the 1980 election contest between Reagan and Carter, Ayn Rand voted for neither candidate. That was during World War III, the "Cold War."

See her statement, made in 1981, in "The Sanction of the Victims," reproduced in The Voice of Reason, p. 156 (hb):

"What do I think of President Reagan? The best answer to give would be: But I don't think of him --and the more I see, the less I think. I did not vote for him (or for anyone else) and events seem to justify me. The appalling disgrace of his administration is his connection with the so-called 'Moral Majority' and sundry other TV religionists, who are struggling -- apparently with his approval --to take us back to the Middle Ages, via the unconstitutional union of religion and politics."

I cast my ballot yesterday. Inspired by Ayn Rand's courageous example, I voted for neither of the candidates. I see no essential long-term difference in their destructiveness overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the price you pay for living in the capital, the feds own it and they control it. You must live in a state to be represented. As it is, its ridiculous enough DC even gets electoral votes, let alone anything else.

I'm not following this. You think DC should not even have electoral votes?

DC got left out because it was never intended to be a major population center. I think the whole system in which only states are represented is archaic and needs to be changed. All US citizens everywhere should have equal voting/representation rights. Not just DC but also Puerto Rico, Guam, etc should be either fully in the US or fully out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not following this. You think DC should not even have electoral votes?

DC got left out because it was never intended to be a major population center. I think the whole system in which only states are represented is archaic and needs to be changed. All US citizens everywhere should have equal voting/representation rights. Not just DC but also Puerto Rico, Guam, etc should be either fully in the US or fully out.

Of course it was never intended to be a major population center, and never was until the Federal government ballooned and created a gigantic bureaucracy and housing projects for poor people. Everyone living there was expected to live there temporarily, but to still have permanent residence in a state. People living in D.C. should wise up and realize this, since they all claim to be so smart.

You say the whole system where only states are represented is archaic and needs to be changed, why? How is it archaic, because it is a couple hundred years old? Does it somehow not work? Do you actually know why only states are represented? Puerto Rico and Guam have the ability under the constitution to become states if they want to if they meet the republican government requirement and have the population necessary. You cannot belong to the United States of America unless you become a state. D.C., as the property of the federal government, as agreed to by the founding states, cannot become a state and those dumb enough to live there permanently should have realized that going in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read with interest the Bush versus Kerry arguments in this forum. I have read the piece by Professor Lewis and listened to Dr. Peikoff’s discussion. Perhaps you are all tired of the subject, but please indulge a few questions I have for the pro-Kerry people.

By the way, I was not able to participate in Peikoff’s DIM hypothesis seminar, so I know little about it. If he has proven that an M2 is more dangerous than a D1, then I may have to retract the following questions. Now, however, I have to evaluate the arguments based on what I know, not what I might learn.

Dr. Peikoff’s position is that Bush is trying to “inject fundamentalist religion into our national values and our government.” He fears that Bush and the Christians are pushing us toward a Christian theocracy.

A theocracy is a form of totalitarianism in which a particular religion’s rules of behavior are codified and enforced by the government. Let us review Dr. Peikoff’s case against Bush. (Peikoff quotes are underlined.)

“A major war against a religious enemy was fought against a secular state (Iraq).” True, but only after defeating the (highly religious) Taliban. Besides, wasn’t Peikoff in favor of the war in Iraq? One can debate the wisdom of going after Iraq versus Iran or North Korea, but according to all of the available intelligence at the time, it was Iraq that possessed WMD, not Iran or NK.

I agree with the criticism that the war is being prosecuted too timidly, but does anyone seriously believe that Kerry would be more aggressive?

Either way, how does the decision to go to war against Iraq push us toward a theocracy?

“He appoints judges that openly bring religion into the courtroom.” Dr. Peikoff did not provide examples, and I don’t know enough about Bush’s appointments to comment. It would surprise me, however, if Bush were able to get such a judge confirmed by the Senate.

“He is opposed to stem cell research.” Not exactly. He is opposed to embryonic stem cell research, but has not advocated that it be illegal.

“He is opposed to cloning.” True, but again he has made no effort to outlaw it.

“He has unleashed a government prosecution of business on Christian grounds, that according to CEOs is much worse than anything done before.” On Christian grounds? I don’t know about that, but it is hard to believe that Bush is more anti-business than Kerry. For example, Bush cut taxes on dividends and capital gains – certainly a pro-business act. Bush also passed legislation that would shield gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits. That legislation was defeated in the Senate. In fact, Kerry left the campaign trail to vote against it, one of only two votes he has cast all year. Kerry supports all sorts of anti-business legislation, such as universal healthcare, no-vote unionization and government imposed pay scales for women.

There are some other things to consider that Peikoff didn’t mention.

The Federal Marriage Amendment, if passed, that would indeed constitute the codification of one of Christianity’s rules of behavior. It does represent a step toward theocracy – but it is going nowhere.

The “faith based initiative” is an attempt to add organized religion to the list of pressure groups that receive funding or favors from the government. Granted, it is another wholly unjustified expansion of the welfare state, but how does it represent a step toward a theocracy?

Bush is also opposed to abortion, but I am not aware of any legislative attempts on his part to outlaw it. There is the danger that he could appoint several Supreme Court justices hostile to abortion. However, given the make-up of the United States Senate, which is not likely to change much this election, it seems unlikely that Bush could get a blatantly anti-abortion judge confirmed.

On balance, then, we have one piece of legislation, the FMA, which appears to be going nowhere. We have some risk, probably low, that Bush will taint the Supreme Court with anti-abortion judges. Then we have the fact that Bush has numerous positions that are anti-science and anti-man, but are not being codified into law. That doesn’t sound like much of a theocracy threat to me.

Thus, I’m having trouble with Dr. Piekoff’s argument.

Dr. Peikoff’s argument seems to be centered on the sheer number of Christians in the United States, which is indeed alarming. However, most of the Christians I know (admittedly a small sample) and most of the ones that publish online, vigorously oppose Bush’s expansion of the government. They oppose the Medicare expansion, the steel tariffs, the farm subsidy bill, the education bill, the amnesty proposal and the increased spending on the arts, just to name a few things. They were also very angry that Bush signed the “Campaign Finance Reform” bill.

Now, I fully understand that we cannot depend on Christians to defend capitalism. Up against the left, Christians are terribly ineffective because they dare not challenge the morality of altruism. But does being an ineffective defender of capitalism equate to being an advocate of theocratic dictatorship?

Dr. Peikoff’s premise seems to be that Christian ethics – namely, sacrificial, religious altruism – will inevitably drive them to advocate its only logical political expression: totalitarian Christian theocracy – even if their avowed political position is pro-freedom and pro-capitalism. This may well be true. But who will get us to totalitarianism sooner? The group whose ethics are in conflict with their mixed-premise politics – or the group whose politics and ethics are pure and perfectly aligned toward totalitarianism: namely, the left and the liberal Democrats?

And if Dr. Peikoff’s premise is correct – that religious ethics inevitably trumps any so-called pro-freedom politics – why hasn’t Israel devolved into a Jewish theocracy? Granted, Israel is even more socialistic than America, but as near as I can tell it is far from a theocracy – and its population is far more religious than America’s.

If I understand Professor Lewis correctly, when Bush advocates “going on the offensive” against the three “axis of evil” countries of Iran, Iraq and North Korea, he does so with full knowledge that this will never be implemented, that we will only take military action on Iraq. According to Professor Lewis, such “toothless tough talk” actually encourages the terrorists.

But which encourages the terrorists more: 1) a policy that is a mixture of some military action -- that kills lots of terrorists, by the way -- combined with some appeasement, or 2) a policy of 100% appeasement? Which is a greater deterrent: responding to 9/11 by sending 150,000 American combat troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, or the threat of turning more of it over to those crack French and German troops? You know, the ones Kerry is going to dispatch to win the war.

And if Bush’s policies have encouraged the terrorists, why have there been no additional attacks in America?

I know, I know, Kerry says he will kill the terrorists and prosecute the war more aggressively than Bush – but only after we pass a “global test”. Do you think Koffi Anan, Chirac, Schroeder and Putin will ever endorse an invasion of Iran and North Korea? Will Kerry ever be willing to take action without the support of France, Germany and Russia – and will France, Germany and Russia ever support the defense of America?

Some have said that Bush is doing nothing about Iran. Well, nothing that we know about. We do know of at least three things Kerry will do.

One, he has already decided to kill the bunker busting bomb program, because “we cannot ask others to give up what we are developing”. He’s decided to kill a weapon system that might very well be needed against Iran and North Korea.

Two, he wants to abandon our missile defense systems, just as both Iran and NK are building longer-range missiles.

Three, he wants to negotiate a deal to give Iran enriched uranium in exchange for abandoning their weapons program. Sounds an awful lot like the approach that worked so well with North Korea. So again I ask, who is more likely to do something about Iran and NK?

And if Bush’s policies have, as Professor Lewis claims, encouraged rogue regimes to develop nuclear weapons, how does one account for Libya’s actions? Not that I trust Libya for a moment, but prior to our invasion of Iraq, no one even suspected that Libya was developing nuclear weapons. Why have they come forward and admitted doing so, if not because of our action against Iraq?

Professor Lewis says that Gore would have done no worse than Bush and had Gore been elected, we’d now be debating, “….the failure of appeasement, not on the failure of self-assertion, pre-emption and offense--ideas which have, in fact, been perverted into their opposites by their alleged defenders.”

Perhaps, but is voting Kerry in now going to insure that four years from now the American people will recognize the need for aggressive military action? If there is an attack on America in a Kerry administration, won’t it simply be blamed on Bush’s prior military action? Won’t it be held as proof that Bush’s prior military action was a mistake?

Kerry wants to raise taxes and implement massive new government entitlement programs, a combination sure to start a recession. With the main stream media clearly in Kerry’s pocket, considerable pressures will be mounted on any “selfish”, “mean spirited” Republican members of congress that refuse to buckle under. The MSM is even more anti-freedom, anti-capitalism and anti-Republican than when Clinton was in office. Kerry might very well get what he wants.

If he does, as recession sets in and tax revenues fall and the deficit spirals even higher, will Kerry cut domestic spending and lower taxes to get us out of a hole, or will he gut the military budget? Will America then be stronger or weaker?

Lastly, I do not buy the notion that the nihilists of the left are less dangerous due to their lack of ideas and programs. They have plenty of horrific ideas and programs. Take the Kyoto protocol, for example, or the UN-inspired global tax, or the UN-led anti-gun effort, or the on-going program to make mining, logging and oil exploration impossible in the U.S., or the animal rights activists attempt to end medical research, the list goes on.

Kerry is not a neutral in the battle for Western Civilization. He is for the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course it was never intended to be a major population center, and never was until the Federal government ballooned and created a gigantic bureaucracy and housing projects for poor people. Everyone living there was expected to live there temporarily, but to still have permanent residence in a state. People living in D.C. should wise up and realize this, since they all claim to be so smart.

You say the whole system where only states are represented is archaic and needs to be changed, why? How is it archaic, because it is a couple hundred years old? Does it somehow not work? Do you actually know why only states are represented? Puerto Rico and Guam have the ability under the constitution to become states if they want to if they meet the republican government requirement and have the population necessary. You cannot belong to the United States of America unless you become a state. D.C., as the property of the federal government, as agreed to by the founding states, cannot become a state and those dumb enough to live there permanently should have realized that going in.

No need for personal insults. I'm not dumb, and neither are most of the people I meet who live here. Most of them are also neither federal govt employees nor poor people in housing projects. Many, including my wife and I, have private sector jobs that have nothing to do with the federal government.

It's archaic because it doesn't work in giving all US citizens the equal right to vote. The Founders made a mistake in making DC so large. IMO the most sensible thing to do now would be to reduce DC to the downtown area containing the Federal government buildings and make the rest part of Maryland.

By your reasoning by the way I no longer live in the USA, which makes no sense. DC, PR, etc. are part of the USA whether they are states or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but consider the next step in the series after 1973 and 1975. In the 1980 election contest between Reagan and Carter, Ayn Rand voted for neither candidate. That was during World War III, the "Cold War."

Nor did I. For very similar reasons to Ms. Rand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Dr. Peikoff may have a point through. This being his second term, he may advance the religious agenda. If he did go overboard on his first term, would he get elected again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might be right, Areactor. However, if Bush wins the election, my guess is that it will be by a slim margin. The Democrats will, of course, claim that this proves there is no "mandate" for any of Bush's social programs. So even if Bush pushes for religious legislation, I can't see him getting much passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but consider the next step in the series after 1973 and 1975. In the 1980 election contest between Reagan and Carter, Ayn Rand voted for neither candidate. That was during World War III, the "Cold War."

Right, but that was because Carter wasn't as bad as Kennedy then or Kerry now. Also, now we are in a hot war -- a war in which Ayn Rand's beloved New York was attacked for the first time since the Revolutionary War.

I cast my ballot yesterday. Inspired by Ayn Rand's courageous example, I voted for neither of the candidates. I see no essential long-term difference in their destructiveness overall.

In the long run it is up to Objectivists -- not political candidates -- to set the cultural agenda. In the short-term, I want a President who will oppose evil, even a little as Bush does, rather than capitulate to it as Kerry does, and buy us the ability to HAVE a long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Dr. Peikoff may have a point through. This being his second term, he may advance the religious agenda. If he did go overboard on his first term, would he get elected again?

I doubt he will get far with religion. There are already opposition groups that formed in response to the little he did with respect to religion.

I still think that Bush's lean toward religion is just a payoff to his constituents. He thinks that is what they want. I think if Bush did not have to worry about elections he would react to whomever makes the most noise in popular culture. If there is a lot of noise from liberals, then you may see a more liberal Bush in his second term. That may sound pretty sucky, but consider that it also means Bush can be influenced by Objectivists.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I get more inspired every day I hit my dropdown of recent sites to go to this forum. I have seen a better quality of Objectivist writing during this election than ever before. Some of my favorite all time Objectivists like Dr Hurd, Betsy Speicher, etc, have done some of their best material this year. The biting humour, and unescapable logic are on our side. I have a feeling that a re-elected Bush may start to feel the impact of Objectivist culture during his next administration. Given the amount of penmanship on the topic of religion on this site alone, he had better watch his step!

I've been meaning to take up the pen again on the topic of religion. I am holding a section of my old website to devote to some religious humor.

But as much fun as it is to poke fun at the bad ideas in religion I also enjoy trying to convert the better religious people to my side. I had a Jehovahs Witness kid knock on my door recently, his parents were at a safe distance down the street. He was 14 years old and a bit geeky. I talked to him about dating girls and how religion would undercut his confidence and his field of potential dates. I got the impression that he was only doing his evangelizing because of his parents. He talked to me for a while even though I had told him up front that I was an atheist and would have no interest. I also told him to expect to meet other good people outside of his religion . I don't know how far I got thru to him, but I haven't seen that family come back to my neighborhood since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kerry is not a neutral in the battle for Western Civilization.  He is for the other side.

Well done, AisA.

Re: Kerry and Iran and Nukes

Edwards first floated a trial balloon at a press conference about giving Iran fisionable material, etc, a couple of weeks ago. Within three days, Iran said, "Hogwash" (or something to that effect). This didn't stop Kerry from forwarding this "plan" again during the debates. I infer that he thinks he can talk them into it, using his Magic Wand of Diplomacy, I suppose. Of course, getting them to accept his "plan" would prove more disasterous than not (see North Korea, a place where he thinks he will succeed where Clinton (and Carter) failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No need for personal insults. I'm not dumb, and neither are most of the people I meet who live here. Most of them are also neither federal govt employees nor poor people in housing projects. Many, including my wife and I, have private sector jobs that have nothing to do with the federal government.

It's archaic because it doesn't work in giving all US citizens the equal right to vote. The Founders made a mistake in making DC so large. IMO the most sensible thing to do now would be to reduce DC to the downtown area containing the Federal government buildings and make the rest part of Maryland.

By your reasoning by the way I no longer live in the USA, which makes no sense. DC, PR, etc. are part of the USA whether they are states or not.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was personally insulting you, I was referring to Washington D.C. politicians and their taxation without representation crusade, even though they elect one communist after another and if they could elect representatives, would only vote for higher taxes anyway.

As for people holding private sector jobs living in D.C., the simple question is "why?" Why would one knowingly live in an area where it is well known you will have no congressional representatives, or at least none with voting powers? Another point, voting isn't the ultimate goal of free government, the franchise is important, but protecting individual rights is the primary function of government, voting is a derivative right. And under our federal system it was established that the States would form a union and create a federal government to handle specific issues. Virginia and Maryland were persuaded to cede land to the federal government for the capital as part of a compromise on Hamilton's economic plans in Washington's administration. No one wanted government employees living in Washington permanently let alone anyone else, which was why there was no entrenched civil service really until Chester A. Arthur got rid of the spoils system.

Also the founders didn't make a mistake in making D.C. so large, subsequent Presidents and congresses made a mistake in letting non-governmental employees live in D.C.

Also, you're technically correct, you don't live in any of the United States of America, you live in the district of the federal government, which is not a state and cannot be. Why would the federal government need to represent itself in congress? Frankly I think the last thing the country needs is a bunch of civil service representatives in the congress trying to give the bureaucrats rasies, even more job security, and raising taxes on everyone else to pay for it all. There is far too much of that already.

Again, if it's really that important to you to have representatives in congress to pilfer and slouch off in your name, move to a state.

Also, Puerto Rico and D.C. are not in the same situation. Puerto Rico is a U.S. Territory with a territorial governor, whereas the congress lets D.C. run a local government with a mayor, though the congress reserves the right to make or unmake D.C. laws (which you should consider a good thing given how leftist D.C. is). Puerto Rico can also become a state whevever its citizens decide they want to become a state, D.C. cannot. Our government is a federated group of states, and those states are never going to allow the seat of the federal government to also become a state, it's a ridiculous notion. Of course this is all common knowledge, so it still puzzles me why anyone who wanted to be represented in congress would live in D.C. in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

I don't know about the rest of you, but I get more inspired every day I hit my dropdown of recent sites to go to this forum.  I have seen a better quality of Objectivist writing during this election than ever before.  Some of my favorite all time Objectivists like Dr Hurd, Betsy Speicher, etc, have done some of their best material this year.  The biting humour, and unescapable logic are on our side.  I have a feeling that a re-elected Bush may start to feel the impact of Objectivist culture during his next administration.  Given the amount of penmanship on the topic of religion on this site alone, he had better watch his step!

...

On the quality of recent Objectivist writings I couldn't agree more. And, despite recently taking advantage of an early voting opportunity to cast my vote for Bush, I think the writing and arguments of the pro-Kerry Objectivists have been first rate as well and made me seriously question whether I wanted to vote for Bush and they (particularly Dr. Peikoff) deserve a lot of credit for drawing attention to rise of religion and its potential threats.

I wish these arguments had been published in a printed forum similar to the way Commentary magazine publishes a forum with 10-20 essays on a single topic. TIA is great (whenever it shows up :) ) but I have never seen anything like that in it. And I think this is definitely an issue where reasonable people can disagree on the best strategy (as in fact, they have).

Though I expect Bush to win, I am somewhat pessimistic about what either candidate will do but I am very optimistic about our movement's growing vitality and strength. More and more Objectivist books are published, there are numerous blogs, growing numbers of Objectivists at Universities, op-eds, interviews, online bulletin boards, public events, growing support by businesses for ARI, increasing participation in the essay contests and on and on...Cheer up everybody -- our future looks bright!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which candidate would Ayn Rand choose -- and why?  Here are two very relevant quotes:

Later, she wrote:

Ayn Rand stated TWICE that she would vote for ANYONE sooner than she would vote for Ted Kennedy -- including Reagan, a religious conservative whose position on abortion, according to Ayn Rand,  made him someone who "has no right to pose as a defender of rights."

In the three decades since Ayn Rand wrote that, Ted Kennedy has gotten much worse, but there is someone whose voting record places him even to the left of Kennedy.  This year the Democrats have nominated someone WORSE than McGovern or Kennedy, and that makes it necessary for me to vote for Bush.  (I would vote for almost anyone against Kerry, but this is not saying much.)

This reminds me of what Bush said in the last debate (IIRC): "Kennedy is the *conservative* senator from Massachusetts!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More and more Objectivist books are published, there are numerous blogs, growing numbers of Objectivists at Universities, op-eds, interviews, online bulletin boards, public events, growing support by businesses for ARI, increasing participation in the essay contests and on and on...Cheer up everybody -- our future looks bright!

Gideon is absolutely right and every issue of my CyberNet is chock full of evidence for everything he says. "You'll know Objectivism is winning ... " because it IS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish these arguments had been published in a printed forum similar to the way Commentary magazine publishes a forum with 10-20 essays on a single topic. TIA is great (whenever it shows up  :confused: ) but I have never seen anything like that in it. And I think this is definitely an issue where reasonable people can disagree on the best strategy (as in fact, they have).

There is a daily emailed version of TIA and also the TIA Forum website where there are many unusually high quality articles and comments on the election. See TIADaily.com.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a daily emailed version of TIA and also the TIA Forum website where there are many unusually high quality articles and comments on the election.  See TIADaily.com.

I subscribe to TIA daily and visit the forum often. I was thinking more along the lines of what Capitalism Magazine is doing presently -- offering side by side 3 arguments for Bush and 3 for Kerry (and there probably could have been three for not voting as well). But I would want it in printed form. I see the controversy on the vote as a healthy thing and a sign of maturity in the Objectivist movement. As others have pointed out it puts the lie on the "Randroid" and dogmatist claims. I would like to reach the point when TIA monthly is the size of Commentary magazine, with an extensive letter section, a 5-6 main articles, and several book and other reviews. In other words I would like it to truly become "an Objectivist review" as it refers to itself. That means it would have to be 50 or more pages per issue. I'm quite sure that we will reach that point and the active intellectual debate on this and other forums, as well as the increasing intellectual output by professional Objectivist intellectuals is evidence of that. :D

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...