Andrew Grathwohl Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 http://race42012.com/2011/03/20/you-heard-it-here-first-jimmy-wales-considering-senate-run/ Would be a very promising candidate, if you ask me! He'd probably be the first self-proclaimed Objectivist to run for Senate in US history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Wolf Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 I'm trying to find out more about his proclaimed "Objectivism".. so far, I have yet to see any contradictions or misunderstandings to the overall philosophy. It would be nice to know that the founder of Wikipedia truly held to Objectivist principles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapitalistSwine Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 (edited) Not sure if this website is by him, but it is full of reasons why Bill Nelson (R-FL) should go as well as has some information about his positions on the issues, along with a very "Randian" quote by himself under his picture: http://draftjimmywales.wordpress.com/ Guess is he is testing the waters with this along with his twitter activity and will amp up to a full blown website closer to that time. He seems to be pretty serious about this from what I can tell. Either way, he would be a good replacement for Nelson, so this is quite exciting nonetheless if we can get a representative that, at the very least, has quite a bit of Objectivist flavor to his dialogue. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales on Ayn Rand, art, and making money Edited March 27, 2011 by CapitalistSwine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 I'm trying to find out more about his proclaimed "Objectivism".. so far, I have yet to see any contradictions or misunderstandings to the overall philosophy. It would be nice to know that the founder of Wikipedia truly held to Objectivist principles Jimmy Wales was very active in the Objectivist community in the '90s. I believe he was opposed to the ARI. I noticed on Facebook that he was friends with Diana Hsieh - maybe she has more information about his history. He was also active on the usenet group alt.philosophy.objectivism. Here is his user page: http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=l_bDlA4AAAAaiyZ1xs6xVLY1G4vy693j Here is an old web page from 1993 with some of his essays: http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/authors/jimmywales.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaight Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 I noticed on Facebook that he was friends with Diana Hsieh - maybe she has more information about his history. If memory serves me correctly Jimmy Wales and Diana Hsieh were dating at one point. Wales was definitely and vocally on the Kelley side of the Peikoff/Kelley debate, which IMHO indicates at minimum a serious weakness in his understanding and/or application of Objectivism. Would he be a better Senator than Bill Nelson? Probably. But I'm not sure I'd pick him as a desirable standard-bearer for Objectivism in the arena of electoral politics. Paradoxically I'd be more inclined to support him if he runs as a generic "pro-freedom, pro-defense, pro-secularism" candidate than as an explicit Objectivist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) Paradoxically I'd be more inclined to support him if he runs as a generic "pro-freedom, pro-defense, pro-secularism" candidate than as an explicit Objectivist.Agree. In fact, I think it is more appropriate to run for political office on that type of basis. While every politician's philosophy informs his political choices, he should make a clear platform about what he intends to push for in his role as a politician. It is fine for a Christian politician to say he will not push for any laws restricting abortion, even though he would personally like to see such laws. Similarly, an Objectivist running for office should be clear on what he is pushing for, and it ought not be as broad as the whole philosophy of Objectivism. A political platform ought to be narrower and clearer to potential voters. Edited March 28, 2011 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boydstun Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 . I met Jimmy here in 1993. He was not “opposed to the ARI” as I recall. I remember him as simply an Objectivist, interested in all its areas of philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Grathwohl Posted March 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 If memory serves me correctly Jimmy Wales and Diana Hsieh were dating at one point. Wales was definitely and vocally on the Kelley side of the Peikoff/Kelley debate, which IMHO indicates at minimum a serious weakness in his understanding and/or application of Objectivism. Would he be a better Senator than Bill Nelson? Probably. But I'm not sure I'd pick him as a desirable standard-bearer for Objectivism in the arena of electoral politics. Paradoxically I'd be more inclined to support him if he runs as a generic "pro-freedom, pro-defense, pro-secularism" candidate than as an explicit Objectivist. If Jimbo does run, will his opponents not attempt to discredit him by bringing up his Objectivist connection? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 If Jimbo does run, will his opponents not attempt to discredit him by bringing up his Objectivist connection?It is a pretty good chance that they will... at least their supporters in the local press might go "he is a cultist Objectivist who wants to eat children and establish a plutocracy". I'm not sure if this happened to Steven Bailey. I understand that he was an Objectivist who contested the last election. I think an Objectivist politician has to be prepared for this, and have a rebuttal that goes down well with people who aren't quite clued in to what Objectivism is all about. Also, since he would not be running "as an Objectivist", he does not really have to go to bat for Rand. He merely has to deflect such attacks while restating his actual platform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapitalistSwine Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Not that this is entirely relevant but the last time I had looked at Steven Bailey's situation during the time he was running he never had a chance to begin with...like...not even close. Someone people correct me if I am wrong but I seem to recall he had pretty much no numbers on his side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IchorFigure Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Not that this is entirely relevant but the last time I had looked at Steven Bailey's situation during the time he was running he never had a chance to begin with...like...not even close. Someone people correct me if I am wrong but I seem to recall he had pretty much no numbers on his side. Iirc Stephen Bailey was heavily outvoted, but it was not surprising as he was in a traditionally Democratic district anyways. I don't know how Florida would turn out, but if he wants to run then good on him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Bailey was running in Colorado's 2nd District which is centered on Boulder. Boulder is the home of the main campus of Colorado University and is nicknamed "Berkeley By The Mountains." It is in fact a great credit to him that he didn't do far worse than he did, under those circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.