Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Libertarians

Rate this topic


Guest Bob

Recommended Posts

One of the candidates is promoting freedom on the basis of the wrong ethics. The other is promoting the idea that freedom cannot be justified on the basis of any
First of all, you have not shown that Badnarik argues that freedom cannot be justified on the basis of any ethics. He says the opposite. More importantly, why is it a better option to help elect a politician who is hardly promoting freedom in any significant way, and who has not made any attempt to disguise his scary belief that he is guided by the God of the New Testament? If Badnarik were running against an advocate of Muslim theocracy, would you vote for the Muslim on the grounds that it is better to behead adulterous women and flog homosexuals than to have a non-ethical advocate of capitalism in power?

The statement that “You own yourself, and no one else on Earth has a higher claim to your body or your labor than you do.” is an empty assertion, offered as though it were axiomatic. But it is not. It is merely a continuation of the error found in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident....."

Nonetheless, self-ownership and the non-initiation of force are in fact ethical principles. This refutes your contention that Badnarik believes that freedom cannot be justified on the basis of any ethics.

That assertion of self-evidency has been failing for the last 229 years. Yet Badnarik's campaign is based on the same failed premise -- as if there is no more justification for capitalism than an empty assertion.

The bad idea that is being advocated will make it impossible for us to reverse the statism that results in things like "victimless crimes".

But where is Bush’s repudiation of self-evidency? Where do we find your candidate going on record to renounce the premises of the Declaration of Independence? Why do the practitioners of coercion get let off the hook?

A proper moral foundation was precisely what the American Republic lacked; and lacking it, it has succumbed to the only morality floating around: altrusim.

The evasion is the greater threat because until we overcome it, we cannot defeat altruism.

And one of the tactics for defeating altruism is to vote for an altruist like Bush?

As long as altruism is an unchallengable, off-limits topic, we have no hope of persuading people of something better.

But where has Bush said that altruism is challengable and one of the topics that should be made a part of public debate? From all indications, Bush takes altruism and the rest of his Christian believes as self-evident truths. Yet, somehow that combined with his contempt for capitalism makes him a politician worth voting for.

When people like Libertarians telling us that we can achieve a capitalistic utopia without challenging altruism, the motivation to challenge it is reduced or eliminated.

Whereas, an Objectivist vote for altruist Bush is a slap in the face to altruism?

Miss Rand refused to endorse Reagan, even when he was facing Carter. Her reason, I believe, was that by that time she realized that Republicans would end up helping to destroy capitalism because of their attempt to tie it to religion.

So even though we know that Republicans will end up helping to destroy capitalism because of their attempt to tie it to religion, it is better to vote for someone like Christian Republican neo-con Bush, who will destroy capitalism, than to vote for Badnarik who is pro-capitalist for the wrong reasons? Better to burn in hell than to inhabit heaven for faulty premises?

The following is taken from Badnarik's presidential campaign web site. It is the Libertarian promise to Christians:

We will ensure economic liberty, which belongs to all individuals and their families by divine right, eliminating federal withholding taxes and any other government devices to rob people of the fruits of their honest labor

We will work together with you, not just for peace and security, but for your God given right to live your life according to your faith, expressing your beliefs openly without fear of reprisal.

I added the emphasis. Badnarik, the self-proclaimed champion of freedom and capitalism, has indeed conceded that there is no rational, moral basis for what he champions. Rights are a gift from god.

Sure, Bush makes the same error, but he is not a capitalist -- he's a compassionate conservative. The last thing capitalism needs is more defenders that claim its basis is god's will.

I did not vote "for" Bush. I voted against Kerry in the only way that made any difference.

Suppose Badnarik were within one vote of defeating Bush? Would it still be better to elect Bush? In other words, would it be better to return to power a religionist who will continue to violate individual liberties and expand socialism, or to put in his place a religionist who will set about reversing the past century of socialism?

I did not say that it would. I said that it is a mistake to help those that seek to keep altruism off-limits, who seek to persuade us that the fight for capitalism can be waged without confronting its chief problem.

So exactly where has your candidate Bush said that altruism is on the table and up for debate? Precisely what has Bush done to arrange for a confrontation between altruists and anti-altruists for the soul of capitalism?

It might well be, particularly if the non-communist was spreading the notion that only communism has a moral basis.

And what if the vote between the communist and non-communist candidates were close? Would it be better to cast a vote that would result in mass property expropriation, complete nationalization of the economy and dictatorship of the proletariat than to permit a non-ethical capitalist from getting elected? Tell us, AisA, would you really rather be marched off to the Gulag than see a Libertarian take the oath of office?

You might want to rethink this in light of the fact that Badnarik considers rights a gift from god.

That would hardly support your claim that Badnarik believes that “freedom cannot be justified on the basis of any ethics.”

Your candidate did not merely fail to challenge altruism, he endorsed it.

Better to have more coercion in the name of altruism than to have less coercion in the name of altruism? Now let’s apply this to the non-political realm. If Citizen A preaches altruism and robs from others, should he be treated more leniently than someone who preaches altruism and does not engage in coercion? A Christian con artist like Jim Bakker should be left alone, but any member of the Libertarian Party should be arrested. That is the absurd conclusion your argument leads to.

Edited by Tom Robinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 465
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

First of all, you have not shown that Badnarik argues that freedom cannot be justified on the basis of any ethics.

You are correct. We now know that Badnarik thinks the source of rights is god, i.e. he thinks that freedom cannot be justified on the basis of any earthly ethics.

And do not bother pointing out to me that Bush believes the same thing. Bush is not promoting himself as an advocate of capitalism. Therefore, his errors in this regard are irrelevant.

He says the opposite. More importantly, why is it a better option to help elect a politician who is hardly promoting freedom in any significant way, and who has not made any attempt to disguise his scary belief that he is guided by the God of the New Testament?  If Badnarik were running against an advocate of Muslim theocracy, would you vote for the Muslim on the grounds that it is better to behead adulterous women and flog homosexuals than to have a non-ethical advocate of capitalism in power?
You proceed from a false premise. Badnarik has no chance of winning under current conditions. No advocate of capitalism has a chance of winning the presidency at present. And if Bush woke up tomorrow and became an Objectivist, he would be impeached by lunch if he tried to enact Objectivist political policies.

Thus, in a presidential election, I am not, at present, choosing between the salvation of capitalism or its doom, as you are implying. I am choosing the lesser of two evils between the two that have any chance of winning.

Nor does voting for Bush have anything to do with defeating altruism. It had to do with avoiding the surrender in the war against terror that would have followed from a Kerry victory. Bush's willingness to attack our enemies (albeit far too timidly and half-heartedly) in the face of near-global opposition made him worth voting for.

At the same time, independent of voting, I am advocating capitalism on the proper basis, and denouncing those who claim that rights are a gift from god, and yes, that denunciation includes the man I voted for.

Nonetheless, self-ownership and the non-initiation of force are in fact ethical principles. This refutes your contention that Badnarik believes that freedom cannot be justified on the basis of any ethics.

But Badnarik is contradicting both of these principles. If there is a god, then he owns us, and he makes the rules. The non-initiation of force is a human construct, not a divine inspiration, and therefore cannot be valid. We must follow god's will as revealed in the Bible.

Yes, Bush believes the same thing, but he is not promoting capitalism.

Suppose Badnarik were within one vote of defeating Bush? Would it still be better to elect Bush? In other words, would it be better to return to power a religionist who will continue to violate individual liberties and expand socialism, or to put in his place a religionist who will set about reversing the past century of socialism?
In the first place, I reject the premise that a religionist is going to be successful reversing socialism – he will be defeated by his premises, as we have seen happen with one pro-capitalist Republican after another.

In the second place, I don’t think I’d have to vote for Badnarik, because if there has been sufficient cultural change to permit an advocate of capitalism to get this close to winning, I think we could find a candidate that was not a religionist. In fact, it strikes me as highly unlikely that the 50% of the voters that favored capitalism would tolerate a Badnarik as their candidate.

And what if the vote between the communist and non-communist candidates were close? Would it be better to cast a vote that would result in mass property expropriation, complete nationalization of the economy and dictatorship of the proletariat than to permit a non-ethical capitalist from getting elected? Tell us, AisA, would you really rather be marched off to the Gulag than see a Libertarian take the oath of office?
Your scenario is ridiculous. No president has the power to implement mass property expropriation, complete nationalization of the economy and dictatorship of the proletariat. And since you specify nothing about the context, such as the postion advocated by the non-communist, the cultural state of the country, etc., your question cannot be answered.

Having said that, if you ask me who I'd rather see in office right now, a communist or a Libertarian, I’ll take the communist over the Libertarian any day of the week and twice on Sundays. The communist has no chance at discrediting capitalism. His inevitable economic failures will only discredit communism. However, when the Libertarian fails – as he certainly will – he discredits capitalism. See, we tried liberty and it did not work.

Better to have more coercion in the name of altruism than to have less coercion in the name of altruism?
You cannot achieve less coercion in the name of altruism. What you can achieve is the further corrosion of the concepts of freedom and capitalism by promoting them as consistent with altruism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, you have not shown that Badnarik argues that freedom cannot be justified on the basis of any ethics.

You are correct. We now know that Badnarik thinks the source of rights is god, i.e. he thinks that freedom cannot be justified on the basis of any earthly ethics.

And do not bother pointing out to me that Bush believes the same thing. Bush is not promoting himself as an advocate of capitalism. Therefore, his errors in this regard are irrelevant.

But why is it better to work for the election of a religious opponent of pure capitalism (who will actually diminish individual freedom) than a religious advocate of pure capitalism who could immediately achieve a roll-back of specific acts of coercion and in the long-run roll back statism? It appears that in your view bad ideas behind bad actions are better than bad ideas behind good actions. If this is the case, then the natural result would be to punish people who merely advocated capitalism on religious grounds more severely than people committed force or fraud and defended their actions on religious grounds.

You proceed from a false premise. Badnarik has no chance of winning under current conditions. No advocate of capitalism has a chance of winning the presidency at present. And if Bush woke up tomorrow and became an Objectivist, he would be impeached by lunch if he tried to enact Objectivist political policies.

Thus, in a presidential election, I am not, at present, choosing between the salvation of capitalism or its doom, as you are implying. I am choosing the lesser of two evils between the two that have any chance of winning.

Fine. But this is an argument quite different from what you have offered before. You had criticized Badnarik, not for being less winnable than Bush, but for having the wrong defense of capitalism. (As if Bush scored any better on this question!) I have no problem with voting for a major party candidate if he presents a more realistic option for preserving freedom than his major party opponent. But this is not the argument you have been making in this thread.

Nor does voting for Bush have anything to do with defeating altruism. It had to do with avoiding the surrender in the war against terror that would have followed from a Kerry victory. Bush's willingness to attack our enemies (albeit far too timidly and half-heartedly) in the face of near-global opposition made him worth voting for.

I have no intention of criticizing a vote for Bush over Kerry if the purpose is to forestall worse government. It is as valid as choosing Goldwater over Johnson.

However, my point all along has been to argue that in some circumstances it may be in our self interest to vote for a libertarian (as well as a Republican) candidate. In post #110 I wrote: “. . . There is no contradiction in working to educate the public about Objectivist principles and at the same time voting for or contributing to reforms that will make us freer -- even though the campaigns for those reforms may not be expressly tied to the Objectivist philosophy. If in the political sphere we restrict ourselves to endorsing only those campaigns that are manifestly Objectivist, then I cannot think of a single political candidate or reform on the current scene that we could support. We would have to abstain from the very activity that is unique to citizens in a representative republic.”

At the same time, independent of voting, I am advocating capitalism on the proper basis, and denouncing those who claim that rights are a gift from god, and yes, that denunciation includes the man I voted for.

Then, given a close race between a Libertarian and a major party candidate, I can morally vote for the Libertarian while denouncing him for any statements that go astray of Objectivist doctrine. And, in the way, I’ve made this point very clear throughout this thread.

But Badnarik is contradicting both of these principles. If there is a god, then he owns us, and he makes the rules. The non-initiation of force is a human construct, not a divine inspiration, and therefore cannot be valid. We must follow god's will as revealed in the Bible.

Yes, Bush believes the same thing, but he is not promoting capitalism.

But wait! Why is it better to vote for an anti-capitalist religionist than a pro-capitalist religionist? If your point is that Bush, because he is more popular than Badnarik, has a better chance of defeating John Kerry’s more aggressive socialism, then that is a perfectly valid strategy. But if that is your argument, then it really does not matter how imperfect Badnarik’s defense of capitalism is, for George W. Bush’s defense (or non-defense) is even worse.

Let’s look at a different possibility. What if Badnarik had been a straight up-and-down Objectivist with all the right answers on presenting a complete metaphysical-epistemological-ethical defense of capitalism? Would you have voted for him? Would you have spent (wasted?) your vote on an Objectivist when your goal was “avoiding the surrender in the war against terror that would have followed from a Kerry victory”?

Since you have already stated “I am choosing the lesser of two evils between the two that have any chance of winning,” it is obvious that placing a principled vote is not your desideratum.

Therefore, we must conclude that purity of Objectivist principles has little or nothing to do with your methodology of voting. I do not argue that your position is wrong. Personally, I find much merit in it. The vital point is, that if our goal is to choose “the lesser of two evils between the two that have any chance of winning,” then criticizing a minor party, non-Objectivist for not adhering to proper principles simply is not relevant.

Still, you have already acknowledged with regard to Bush II that is permissible to vote for said religionist.

Edited by Tom Robinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why is it better to work for the election of a religious opponent of pure capitalism (who will actually diminish individual freedom) than a religious advocate of pure capitalism who could immediately achieve a roll-back of specific acts of coercion and in the long-run roll back statism?
Under present conditions, your religious advocate of capitalism will fail -- he will not succeed in rolling back anything -- he will simply discredit capitalism in the process and strengthen the notion that altruism is valid. See, even capitalists agree that man is his brother's keeper.

It appears that in your view bad ideas behind bad actions are better than bad ideas behind good actions.
I reject the notion that what Libertarians are doing is a "good action".

Fine. But this is an argument quite different from what you have offered before.  You had criticized Badnarik, not for being less winnable than Bush, but for having the wrong defense of capitalism.
My argument has not changed. You attempted to cast the presidential election as a choice between capitalism and doom. I simply pointed out that such is not the case at present. There is no legitimate pro-capitalist candidate and if there were he would not stand a chance of winning.

But Badnarik is contradicting both of these principles.  If there is a god, then he owns us, and he makes the rules.  The non-initiation of force is a human construct, not a divine inspiration, and therefore cannot be valid.  We must follow god's will as revealed in the Bible.

Yes, Bush believes the same thing, but he is not promoting capitalism.

But wait!  Why is it better to vote for an anti-capitalist religionist than a pro-capitalist religionist?

Because your pro-capitalist religionist is furthering the notion that capitalism cannot be justified on any other grounds -- and having conceded the premises of altruism, he will be powerless to resist the expansion of statism.

Let’s look at a different possibility.  What if Badnarik had been a straight up-and-down Objectivist with all the right answers on presenting a complete metaphysical-epistemological-ethical defense of capitalism?  Would you have voted for him?  Would you have spent (wasted?) your vote on an Objectivist when your goal was “avoiding the surrender in the war against terror that would have followed from a Kerry victory”?

Since you have already stated “I am choosing the lesser of two evils between the two that have any chance of winning,” it is obvious that placing a principled vote is not your desideratum.

Therefore, we must conclude that purity of Objectivist principles has little or nothing to do with your methodology of voting.  I do not argue that your position is wrong.  Personally, I find much merit in it. The vital point is, that if our goal is to choose “the lesser of two evils between the two that have any chance of winning,” then criticizing a minor party, non-Objectivist for not adhering to proper principles simply is not relevant.

What you consistently fail to recognize is the continuing damage done by someone who claims to be a champion of capitalism while renouncing its ethical base.

Well, given that America has a large Christian population and that the most religious of them are the least receptive to socialist dictatorship, Badnarik’s chances are far better than, say, yours.  But let us say that there is a anti-religionist revolution: it is just as likely that the majority of those opposing the God-concept would be non-Objectivists, or even socialists.
Depends on the nature of the revolution. If we have an Objectivist revolution, Badnarik will not be the candidate.

In 1932 Germany  no political leader had the legal power to implement mass property expropriation, complete nationalization of the economy and dictatorship.  I guess we can thank our lucky stars for that!!!
Are you equating the U.S. circa 2005 with Germany of 1932? The Reichstag, Germany's last democratically elected legislature, voted itself out of existence and explicitly handed all power to Hitler. Can you see our Congress voting itself out of existence in deference to the Executive branch any time soon?

Like you, AisA, I cannot wait for communism to be implemented!  Once the philosophy becomes the law of the land, we will see communism utterly fail.  And just as the heroic Russians eventually threw the commies out after 50 years, I’ve no doubt we Americans will give them the boot in, oh say, 2055!
Under present conditions, an out and out communist would not be elected. He would have to lie his way into office -- and once there, if he tried to implement communist policies, his dishonesty would be exposed and he would be discredited along with communism. Far better for that to happen to a communist than an alleged champion of capitalism, who will also have to lie his way into office, and then discredit capitalism when his dishonesty is exposed.

Don’t you just hate the American founders for discrediting capitalism?
The founding fathers made a great political achievement, but were not able to formulate the proper ethical base. I do not hold that against them. However, it is true that the lack of a proper ethical base allowed altruism to hijack their achievement and become the justification for economic controls -- which served only to cause enormous economic problems that were blamed on capitlism. So, in a sense, their failure did discredit capitalism (or as close to capitalism as we ever got).

Badnarik's position is different. Miss Rand has given him all the proper philosophical grounds for supporting capitalism -- and he has renounced them by embracing religion. That I find inexcusable.

Anyone who truly loves liberty should be singing the praises of Objectivism. Anyone who rejects Objectivism surrenders any right to pose as a champion of liberty.

So don’t vote for altruists, AisA?  Is that okay in 2004 but not in 2008?
Don't vote for altruists who claim to promote capitalism while rejecting Objectivism in favor of its antithesis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under present conditions, your religious advocate of capitalism will fail -- he will not succeed in rolling back anything -- he will simply discredit capitalism in the process and strengthen the notion that altruism is valid. See, even capitalists agree that man is his brother's keeper.

Lets's see. Voting for a losing religionist will strengthen the notion that altruism is valid, but voting for a winning religionist will not strengthen the notion that altruism is valid? How’s that again? Why wouldn't helping put the statist-creep back in the saddle not strengthen the notion that he has large support in his goofy brand of Christian-Trotskyite-neocon-statism?

I reject the notion that what Libertarians are doing is a "good action".

Yes, I understant that that is because you would “take the communist over the Libertarian any day of the week.” And because, apparently, you would rather see more property expropriated than see existing coercive laws not enforced or see victims of state coercion (Martha Stewart) released from captivity.

My argument has not changed. You attempted to cast the presidential election as a choice between capitalism and doom. I simply pointed out that such is not the case at present. There is no legitimate pro-capitalist candidate and if there were he would not stand a chance of winning.

Your argument has indeed changed. It was not until your recent posts that you introduced the “ability to win” factor. Until then it had all been about Libertarians having the wrong premises.

Because your pro-capitalist religionist is furthering the notion that capitalism cannot be justified on any other grounds -- and having conceded the premises of altruism, he will be powerless to resist the expansion of statism.

Whereas your religionist candidate who has dramatically expanded the powers of the state over the past four years will somehow be able to resist the expansion of statism? Really? How does that work?

What you consistently fail to recognize is the continuing damage done by someone who claims to be a champion of capitalism while renouncing its ethical base.

From earlier in our exchange:

Robinson: First of all, you have not shown that Badnarik argues that freedom cannot be justified on the basis of any ethics.

AisA: You are correct. We now know that Badnarik thinks the source of rights is god, i.e. he thinks that freedom cannot be justified on the basis of any earthly ethics.

Depends on the nature of the revolution. If we have an Objectivist revolution, Badnarik will not be the candidate.

I reject the utopian notion that we have to wait for an Objectivist revolution before we take legitimate self-defense steps to vote ourselves relief from statism. I’ll vote for Goldwater and Badnarik. You can vote for Bush II and communists, if you like.

Are you equating the U.S. circa 2005 with Germany of 1932? The Reichstag, Germany's last democratically elected legislature, voted itself out of existence and explicitly handed all power to Hitler. Can you see our Congress voting itself out of existence in deference to the Executive branch any time soon?

The Republican U.S. Congress has been ceding the people’s liberties faster than Dubya can say “misunderestimate.” Take a close look at the Patriot Act if you have the stomach for it. Maybe one Reichstag fire isn’t enough. But two, three or four just might do the trick. Suggested further reading: The Ominous Parallels. Parallels between what, you might wonder.

Under present conditions, an out and out communist would not be elected. He would have to lie his way into office -- and once there, if he tried to implement communist policies, his dishonesty would be exposed and he would be discredited along with communism. Far better for that to happen to a communist than an alleged champion of capitalism, who will also have to lie his way into office, and then discredit capitalism when his dishonesty is exposed.

Just what lies are you talking about? Libertarians currently hold 570 public offices. Now exactly what fibs do you think they have told?

The founding fathers made a great political achievement, but were not able to formulate the proper ethical base. I do not hold that against them.

Then why hold it against a Libertarian religionist who runs for office? Do you think that the mostly religionist Founders could have built a popular coalition by denouncing one of the key cornerstones of Christianity? Then why hold Badnarik or any other Libertarian to a higher standard?

However, it is true that the lack of a proper ethical base allowed altruism to hijack their achievement and become the justification for economic controls -- which served only to cause enormous economic problems that were blamed on capitlism. So, in a sense, their failure did discredit capitalism (or as close to capitalism as we ever got).

Then why not say, “I’ll take the communist over the Constitutional Framers any day of the week and twice on Sundays”?

Badnarik's position is different. Miss Rand has given him all the proper philosophical grounds for supporting capitalism -- and he has renounced them by embracing religion. That I find inexcusable.

But we can excuse Dubya because this Yalie is too stupid to read Rand? Gimme a break.

Anyone who truly loves liberty should be singing the praises of Objectivism. Anyone who rejects Objectivism surrenders any right to pose as a champion of liberty.

Wait a minute. If a non-Objectivist succeeds in rolling back a tax or abolishing some ugly, coercive codicil of statism, what should we consider him? You say he’s not a champion of liberty. What is he, then? Howard Jarvis worked until the day he died to lift the burden of property taxes from Californians? If he was not a champion of liberty, what was he?

Don't vote for altruists who claim to promote capitalism while rejecting Objectivism in favor of its antithesis.

Instead vote for communists over Libertarians “any day of the week and twice on Sundays”!

Edited by Tom Robinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small digression: does anyone know why Tom Robinson's posts don't have quotes displayed in quote windows, while everyone else's do?  It looks like he's using "quote" and "/quote" properly.

The number of quotes is maximized at ten. If you have more than ten qoutes in your post, they won't show properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Robinson, what you need to understand is that Libertarians are enemies or America. Electing a Libertarian for President would be like electing Osama bin Laden for President; he would destroy the country immediately. Dubya is destroying the country at a much slower rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under present conditions, your religious advocate of capitalism will fail -- he will not succeed in rolling back anything -- he will simply discredit capitalism in the process and strengthen the notion that altruism is valid. See, even capitalists agree that man is his brother's keeper.

Lets's see. Voting for a losing religionist will strengthen the notion that altruism is valid, but voting for a winning religionist will not strengthen the notion that altruism is valid? How’s that again? Why wouldn't helping put the statist-creep back in the saddle not strengthen the notion that he has large support in his goofy brand of Christian-Trotskyite-neocon-statism?

You are twisting my words. I said that if elected, your religious capitalist would fail at rolling back socialism and in the process of failing would discredit capitalism and strengthen the notion that altruism is valid.

Yes, I understant that that is because you would “take the communist over the Libertarian any day of the week.” And because, apparently, you would rather see more property expropriated than see existing coercive laws not enforced or see victims of state coercion (Martha Stewart) released from captivity.
Under present conditions, no president would get away with pardoning such victims as Martha Stewart and individuals convicted of violating drug laws; he would be impeached. Republicans and Democrats alike are almost universally in favor of drug laws and the prohibitions on insider trading (as well as the prohibition against lying to investigators).

I do not say this is a good thing, obviously it is not. The notion of Badnarik winning the presidency under current conditions is silly -- he got 400,000 votes compared to 110,000,000 for the other guys -- but if, somehow, Badnarik were president under current conditions, he would not be able to accomplish even a fraction of the things you keep asserting would happen.

Again, this is not a good thing, but it is reality. That is why you cannot infer from my vote that I am in favor of unjust imprisonment and property expropriation.

Because your pro-capitalist religionist is furthering the notion that capitalism cannot be justified on any other grounds -- and having conceded the premises of altruism, he will be powerless to resist the expansion of statism.

Whereas your religionist candidate who has dramatically expanded the powers of the state over the past four years will somehow be able to resist the expansion of statism? Really? How does that work?

You are making a straw man argument. I have not said that Bush is somehow able to resist the expansion of statism. Currently, with the American people overwhelmingly in favor of things such as Medicare, Social Security, welfare, public education and progressive taxation, no president has a chance of resisting statism.

As I said earlier, if Bush woke up an Objectivist tomorrow and started implementing Objectivist political policy, if he started trying to dismantle Medicare, Social Security, etc, he would be rapidly impeached.

The question is who and what policy is going to get blamed for the massive problems that this statism will create. Just as the Carter administration stands as a footnote to the futility of appeasement, so Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” will rightly take the blame for this expansion of government; indeed, it is already being referred to as“big government conservatism” and "republican nanny state". If Badnarik were somehow in office, the expansion of government would continue (perhaps at a slower rate; Reagan slowed it a little), the same problems would develop -- and capitalism would take the blame. How would we benefit from that?

But the notion of Badnarik being in office under present conditions is fantasy. Until we can blast altruism and all of its associated baggage, we are fighting a losing battle against statism. It is important to make sure that the problems created by statism are blamed on statism -- and on nothing else.

I reject the utopian notion that we have to wait for an Objectivist revolution before we take legitimate self-defense steps to vote ourselves relief from statism. I’ll vote for Goldwater and Badnarik. You can vote for Bush II and communists, if you like.
Fine. You vote for the guy pushing the notion that capitalism is a logical consequence of religion (“economic liberty… belongs to all individuals …. by divine right”) -- and I’ll vote for the guy who is (unwittingly) demonstrating that the destruction of capitalism is the logical consequence of religion.

Under present conditions, an out and out communist would not be elected. He would have to lie his way into office -- and once there, if he tried to implement communist policies, his dishonesty would be exposed and he would be discredited along with communism. Far better for that to happen to a communist than an alleged champion of capitalism, who will also have to lie his way into office, and then discredit capitalism when his dishonesty is exposed.

Just what lies are you talking about? Libertarians currently hold 570 public offices. Now exactly what fibs do you think they have told?

We were obviously talking about the Presidency here. With 400,000 votes for Badnarik, and 110,000,000 against him, it seems obvious to me that he would have to say something other than what he is currently saying to get elected.

The founding fathers made a great political achievement, but were not able to formulate the proper ethical base. I do not hold that against them.

Then why hold it against a Libertarian religionist who runs for office? Do you think that the mostly religionist Founders could have built a popular coalition by denouncing one of the key cornerstones of Christianity? Then why hold Badnarik or any other Libertarian to a higher standard?

I hold it against the Libertarians because they do not have to formulate the proper moral base -- Miss Rand has done that for them, yet they denounce it -- and they have the last 229 years of our history that demonstrates the consequences of promoting capitalism without a proper moral foundation.

Badnarik's position is different. Miss Rand has given him all the proper philosophical grounds for supporting capitalism -- and he has renounced them by embracing religion. That I find inexcusable.

But we can excuse Dubya because this Yalie is too stupid to read Rand? Gimme a break.

I am not excusing Bush. However, Bush is not championing capitalism. He has not taken the Objectivist political positions while denouncing the rest of Objectivism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Here are my two cents, isn't forming a "united front" with Libertarians just as crazy as forming a united front of atheists?

Why would we join followers of Marx, Nietzsche and other irrational groups?

Just because we come to the conclusion that there is no god doesn't mean we should join forces together.

Or is this issue somehow different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Libertarian National Socialist Green party? I don't understand, even after reading their FAQ.
Concentrate on the Hakenkreuz. Throughout history, they have glued together various names to achieve a broader appeal to the disaffected -- I admit this is the first branch that I've seen which puts libertarians in with Nazis, but it is predictable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting story with more info about this group and what happened.

Click here to read the article

They are essentially Modern Nazi's… but a broader based version that promotes racial purity for all races as an ideal.

They seemed to have stolen the word Libertarian in order to gain some credibility for themselves. There doesn’t seem to be any logical reason to call themselves Libertarians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On that note, there is also no reason for Libertarians to call themselves libertarians because there ideas do not lead to liberty, but instead its antithesis, anarchy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some quotes from the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party's website, Nazi.org (I still have a hard time taking that seriously, even in analysing its influence on the very serious recent events). These are from a press-release-type article on the website, "LNSG condemns modern society in school shooting";

"The Libertarian National Socialist Green Party, on whose messageboard Jeff Weise posted one year before shooting people at his Minnesota high school, today refused to wring hands over a 'tragedy,' instead pointing out that such events are to be expected when thinking people are crammed into an unthinking, irrational modern society."

(Persuasion at gunpoint is more thoughtful or rational?)

"National Socialism is a philosophy that, unlike the beliefs of modern society which are founded in material technology and abstract moral ideas about what should be, is based in the realism of nature."

(Doesn't an "abstract" require a larger quantity [reducible, at some point, to concretes] from which it is abstracted from? Abstractions are not metaphysical entities. Moral concepts, in the Objectivist sense, are abstracted from the facts of nature)

"National Socialism recognizes that the individual comes second to the collective"

(A claim to "recognize" something doesn't explain why it is recognized as such. Why should my actions benefit the sum of all individuals, instead of only benefiting myself?)

"As a result, National Socialists are willing to engage in eugenics, racial separation and removal of elements hostile to a healthy society. "

(Certainly the mass-murder of innocent children isn't conducive to a "healthy society")

"Modern society, in contrast, is based around the belief that the individual alone is supreme - a belief system that finds no opposition among the masses, who often fear their own inadequacies."

(The founding of America was [correctly] based on the belief that the individual is supreme. Modern society, however, is not. Altruism is dominant in modern society, and egotism finds plenty of opposition among the masses. This is one of the few allegations that can be disproven by conducting a public poll, and asking people what they think about selfishness.

Of course, the acceptance or opposition of an idea by the majority is not evidence of the idea's validity. I'm merely suggesting that the author's particular claim on the state of modern society is incorrect)

"Such societies turn toward liberal democracy,...(Socialist jargon- not relevant to my response)"

(No, quite to the contrary.

Democracy is incompatable with a society based on individualism. Individualism holds that individuals have rights and that these rights are inalienable. Democracy holds that all aspects of society [therefore including rights] can be voted away by the majority. This is a contradiction.

Collectivism [in even its best form], on the other hand, encourages democracy. If the collective is collectively working for the benefit of the collective, then it is the collective that must make the decisions. This is best facilitated through democractic vote [rule by majority]. However, like I said- that's collectivism at its best. At its worst, all decisions are made by a tryannic, malevolent dictator.)

"...and dominion by mass tastes that contradicts any thought of doing what is right for the whole."

(The "collective" is the sum of every individual in society. If each individual does what is best for himself [in accordance with his rights, which are also in his selfish interest], then wouldn't the collective as a whole benefit?)

"The constraints of modern societies like the United States prevent the individual from publically acclaiming National Socialism or any other non-modernist solution without fear of losing jobs, friends and potential mates through social alienation."

(And for good reason)

"The school shooting in Red Lake, Minnesota will surprise no one who is familiar with this condition."

(Rather- it will surprise no one who is familar with the irrational ideas and justifications subscribed to by the gunman.)

I meant to show only a few absurd statements, but I couldn't help but to respond to them.

Edit: Corrections to formatting

Edited by Cole
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it sad that I find this all deeply funny? Maybe industrial capitalist western society has made me insensitive to the tragedy of these events. :)

What a bunch of losers. It Ayn Rand’s term “anti-life” could only be used on one group of people I would use it on those Nazis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm sure I'm not the most knowledgable person on this board regarding Nazi ideology, but wasn't Hitler's goal eventually to force everyone into, essentially, big state-sponsored racially planned hippy-communes?

And on a more subverted note, aren't most of the "tree-hugger" types ideologically decendent from Nazi/Communist theories?

Anyway, it's still odd, even if it's not surprizing.

I find it odd that they also add the Green Tag as well, can you imagine  a Nazi hugging a tree, while at the same time tying a Jew or an African American to a tree in order to be tortured. :thumbsup:

Edited by Bold Standard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm sure I'm not the most knowledgable person on this board regarding Nazi ideology, but wasn't Hitler's goal eventually to force everyone into, essentially, big state-sponsored racially planned hippy-communes?

And on a more subverted note, aren't most of the "tree-hugger" types ideologically decendent from Nazi/Communist theories?

Some interesting things on the following website (shhh, don't tell the left-wing media or the DNC, who like to call all those who disagree with them "nazis"): Hitler was a Leftist

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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