Billy Liar Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 I was wondering if a lot of Objectivists vote Republican, especially as the GOP is supposed to be all about small government and such, but their social policies are incredibly anti-Objecivist. Also, for those Objectivists that do vote Republican, how do you reconcile that? I'm not judging (I'm pretty neutral, politically speaking), I'm just wondering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondigitalia Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 Objectivists will line up on both sides of the fence @ election time, and sometimes won't vote at all (Miss Rand herself abstained from voting at times). If you use the search function with the key words "bush kerry," you'll find a lot of threads where the issue was debated. P.S. Where did you get your name from? One of my favorite bands, The Decemberists, have a song called "Billy Liar." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgessLau Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 I was wondering if a lot of Objectivists vote Republican [...] First, keep in mind that, generally speaking, voters don't vote for political parties. They vote either for ballot measures ("propositions") or individual candidates. I try to always vote on ballot measures (unless they are statist dilemmas). I only vote for politicians when there is a clear choice in favor of freedom (or simply less oppression) -- or electing one candidate will create gridlock that might slow down the oppression a bit. Many times I don't vote for any candidate in a particular race for power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Liar Posted March 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 P.S. Where did you get your name from? One of my favorite bands, The Decemberists, have a song called "Billy Liar." That's exactly it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 I'm not judging (I'm pretty neutral, politically speaking), I'm just wondering. Why aren't you judging? I would judge you extremely negatively, in fact, if you said you voted for Kerry. I don't know, or care, who other Objectivists voted for, but I voted for Bush because I was voting against Kerry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondigitalia Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 I don't know, or care, who other Objectivists voted for, but I voted for Bush because I was voting against Kerry. Ditto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Little Posted March 26, 2005 Report Share Posted March 26, 2005 (edited) Billy, Objectivists will often vote for a Republican if he appears marginally less statist than his Democrat opponent. (I suppose they might vote for a Democrat if he appeared less statist, but I know of no case where this has actually happened.) They will, however, vehemently reject candidates who are strongly anti-statist and pro-capitalist, because their party's platform doesn't expound Objectivist moral and ethical principles in support of its political positions. If this makes no sense to you, you can see it explained and debated in excruciating detail in this thread: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=2580. Edited March 26, 2005 by Rex Little Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetrisGod Posted March 26, 2005 Report Share Posted March 26, 2005 Billy, Objectivists will often vote for a Republican if he appears marginally less statist than his Democrat opponent. (I suppose they might vote for a Democrat if he appeared less statist, but I know of no case where this has actually happened.) They will, however, vehemently reject candidates who are strongly anti-statist and pro-capitalist, because their party's platform doesn't expound Objectivist moral and ethical principles in support of its political positions. If this makes no sense to you, you can see it explained and debated in excruciating detail in this thread: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=2580. Can you say troll? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted March 26, 2005 Report Share Posted March 26, 2005 Can you say troll? Why would you say that about him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondigitalia Posted March 26, 2005 Report Share Posted March 26, 2005 I was wondering the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ariana Binetta Posted March 27, 2005 Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 I don't know, or care, who other Objectivists voted for, but I voted for Bush because I was voting against Kerry. But no one knows this. It's a cliche, but the lesser of two evils is still evil. Why sanction evil ever? The real issue here, naturally, is there's no Objectivist political party. Now as for why that is I have no idea. I've heard all the reasons ("It's too early.") but they don't really make sense to me. Why veto ourselves from the political process? Frustrating... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slave Posted March 27, 2005 Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 the lesser of two evils is still evil.That is why I would note vote for either presidential candidate. If I had, I would have taken the responsiiblity for the new old age welfare package and all the other altruist measures Bush wants. Once this has about destroyed any earning we have left after taxation, we can thank those who drew a distinction between evil and evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgessLau Posted March 27, 2005 Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 Why sanction evil ever? Are you saying that voting for a particular candidate in a particular election is a sanction of all that that candidate believes and does? If so, why do you believe that? Defining "sanction," as you are using the term, might help. The real issue here, naturally, is there's no Objectivist political party. Now as for why that is I have no idea. I've heard all the reasons ("It's too early.") but they don't really make sense to me. What is unclear about "It's too early"? Are you saying that the time is right -- all over the world -- to put resources into electing candidates instead of developing a new generation of intellectuals? If you haven't already done so, you might want to study Ayn Rand's title essay in For the New Intellectual. She explains there the role of philosophers and intellectuals in changing a culture. You might also study Leonard Peikoff's Ominous Parallels. He shows the way philosophy must percolate through a culture, decade by decade, showing up finally in the politics. By the way, how many Objectivists do you think there are in the world? How many politicians could we elect, even if all of us lived in one city -- such as Los Angeles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Liar Posted March 27, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 Can you say troll? Like I said, I mean no disrespect or to start a war of any kind, I really was just wondering. Anyway, what you've all said so far has been helpful. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Little Posted March 27, 2005 Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 Billy, that "troll" remark was aimed at me, not you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondigitalia Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 Billy, that "troll" remark was aimed at me, not you. And it still hasn't been explained why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-contradictor Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 Rex Little- I think you might want to clarify your earlier post. It makes it sound like an Objectivist will not vote for anyone except another Objectivist. I think this may be the reason why TetrisGod called you a troll. Your earlier post is confusing to me. First you say that an Objectivist will vote for a democrat if he is less statist than his opponent, but then you say an Objectivist will not vote for anyone who doesn't "expound Objectivist moral and ethical principles." Which is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realitycheck44 Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 I believe he is saying that Objectivists will vote for those who are less statist, but will not vote for Libertarians because they do not/cannot back up the principle of Capitalism on a moral level. By claiming to be Capitalists, they end up hurting Capitalism because they cannot properly defend it. This is what I believe anyway, not to put words into Mr. Little's mouth. Zak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdriveby Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 their social policies are incredibly anti-Objecivist. quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdriveby Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 Let's take over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Little Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 I believe he is saying that Objectivists will vote for those who are less statist, but will not vote for Libertarians because they do not/cannot back up the principle of Capitalism on a moral level. Exactly. I'm surprised anyone had trouble interpreting this; a click on the link I provided should have made it clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 I vote Republican for two reasons: they are less likely to take my money away and they aren't afraid to fight. Even if they're pussies about the wars they choose to fight, it's better than letting Democrats wave white flags of surrender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeJanis Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 ...I voted for Bush because I was voting against Kerry. I felt the same way. A popular radio announcer here in Denver is always saying, "Party trumps person," and in this case, I voted for Bush because I see the Democrat party as the more oppressive (big government, more taxes, less personal freedom). Plus, I think the Democrat party is the more contradictory, although the Republicans definitely have their contradictions too (religion). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-contradictor Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 Exactly. I'm surprised anyone had trouble interpreting this; a click on the link I provided should have made it clear. There was a lot of arguing going on in that thread though, and I was just trying to point out that it was hard to interpret whether your post was serious or was sarcasm intended to make fun of the Objectivist position. I thought you were serious, which is why I suggested you clarify before anybody else called you a troll, which you clearly are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Little Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 I wouldn't call it "sarcasm" exactly, but it was intended to poke a bit of fun at the vehemently anti-Libertarian position most Objectivists seem to take. (If that constitutes trolling, then I plead guilty.) Mainly, though, the idea was to direct Billy (and anyone else interested) to a thread where arguments on both sides are presented, so they can make up their own minds. 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.