Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Libertarians

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Ah, I see. You will vote for him before you vote against him!

The simple indication here-the way I see it- is there are three ways to vote against Bush.

1. One votes for Kerry

2. One votes for Nader

3. One doesn't vote at all (symbolic, but what the heck)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 465
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's an insult nonetheless.

Consider this perspective, not meant as an insult but rather as a factual report of my own experience. I read a number of your previous posts, and I stopped reading. I found the posts oppressive, overbearing, a constant expression of negativity, harping on the downside of every issue.

Now, perhaps you are, in fact, the sweetest most optimistic guy one could imagine, and these political themes are just issues that you get passionately caught up in, and wind up expressing an aspect of yourself which is contrary to your overall nature. Or, perhaps you are as oppressive and negative as your posts make you appear.

My response to your posts was to stop reading. I did not much care what the explanation was, it was more negativity than I cared to experience. Betsy was different. Evidently she was willing to continue to read your posts and to reply, so she asked for a reality check -- are you really as negative a person as your words make you appear to be?

In my opinion, whatever that is worth to you, that was a gracious request on her part, and not an insult. If anything, it is a shame that you did not avail yourself of the opportunity and focus, in response, on your positive values, showing in a non-hostile way the things that you care about, apart from the negative issues being discussed. But, then again, it is never to late ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am a member of the FSP but more and more I am considering dropping out.

I think the cartoon is great! In my opinion it is accurate describing libertarians.

At one point in time I thought the Libertarian Party was interesting and was even interested in the FSP. I understood why there are individualists in the US looked for a 3rd party not necessarily "progressive" - meaning socialist Democrats, or mystics for capitalism - Republican.

However, my view of libertarians including the Libertarian Party drastically changed on September 11, 2001. While it is correct that we - as Americans self check our government/society and selves - the attackers against our country do not necessarily hate America because we are capitalists and they did not necessarily come from poor families. They hate America because we are liberal in the classic sense - free thinking, secular and dare I say - some of us are actually selfish. It is the disdain for selfishness that we are hated collectively by collectivists and fascists.

It hit me all in one day exactly why Ayn Rand referred to libertarians as anarchists.

Perhaps my ideas of this year's presidential election are more pragmatic - I will participate and my choice will be for the individual I believe can best protect and defend the constitution of the United States, as well as simple defense of the American people.

However, in many ways we need to protect ourselves from ourselves - so to speak - and I don't think our society is willing to do that. The divide is too wide and because of the democrat/republican split and the amount of time people in our society do NOT spend educating themselves gives me more of a cynical view about the future of the United States.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's an insult nonetheless.

Consider this perspective, not meant as an insult but rather as a factual report of my own experience. I read a number of your previous posts, and I stopped reading. I found the posts oppressive, overbearing, a constant expression of negativity, harping on the downside of every issue.

Now, perhaps you are, in fact, the sweetest most optimistic guy one could imagine, and these political themes are just issues that you get passionately caught up in, and wind up expressing an aspect of yourself which is contrary to your overall nature. Or, perhaps you are as oppressive and negative as your posts make you appear.

My response to your posts was to stop reading. I did not much care what the explanation was, it was more negativity than I cared to experience. Betsy was different. Evidently she was willing to continue to read your posts and to reply, so she asked for a reality check -- are you really as negative a person as your words make you appear to be?

In my opinion, whatever that is worth to you, that was a gracious request on her part, and not an insult. If anything, it is a shame that you did not avail yourself of the opportunity and focus, in response, on your positive values, showing in a non-hostile way the things that you care about, apart from the negative issues being discussed. But, then again, it is never to late ...

See my post regarding the "inspirational speakers" in another part of this forum.

Only those who place emotion before reason would claim I am a negative person.

I guess it's your view that I bring bad karma to this board as well, huh?

I won't let your inane criticism stop me from expressing my viewpoints.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the cartoon is great!  In my opinion it is accurate describing libertarians.

At one point in time I thought the Libertarian Party was interesting and was even interested in the FSP. I understood why there are individualists in the US looked for a 3rd party not necessarily "progressive" - meaning socialist Democrats, or mystics for capitalism - Republican. 

However, my view of libertarians including the Libertarian Party drastically changed on September 11, 2001.  While it is correct that we - as Americans self check our government/society and selves - the attackers against our country do not necessarily hate America because we are capitalists and they did not necessarily come from poor families.  They hate America because we are liberal in the classic sense - free thinking, secular and dare I say - some of us are actually selfish.  It is the disdain for selfishness that we are hated collectively by collectivists and fascists.

It hit me all in one day exactly why Ayn Rand referred to libertarians as anarchists.

Perhaps my ideas of this year's presidential election are more pragmatic - I will participate and my choice will be for the individual I believe can best protect and defend the constitution of the United States, as well as simple defense of the American people. 

However, in many ways we need to protect ourselves from ourselves - so to speak - and I don't think our society is willing to do that.  The divide is too wide and because of the democrat/republican split and the amount of time people in our society do NOT spend educating themselves gives me more of a cynical view about the future of the United States.

What has been most disapointing to me about the FSP is the fact that so many of its members are total lunatics. Just read their message board. It's very saddening...

So who would you vote for?

I won't vote for Libertarians anymore, not after realizing that the majority are lunatics. I would NEVER vote for a Democrat. The Green Party is on the lowest rung of hell as far as I'm concerned. That leaves only Republicans. The problem is, most Republicans are, as you said, mystics for capitalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See my post regarding the "inspirational speakers" in another part of this forum.

Oh, you mean the pathetic demeaning slurs you made against straw man mischaracterizations of those who have a positive view of life, as opposed to your negative one? Yes, I did read that.

Only those who place emotion before reason would claim I am a negative person.
It couldn't possibly be related to the fact that that you almost constantly express negative views, and rarely, if ever, have anything of a positive nature to say? Nah. Must be emotion over reason. That makes sense. :)

I guess it's your view that I bring bad karma to this board as well, huh?

Whatever you bring, I step in it in every post of yours which I read. Which is the reason why I previously stopped reading your posts, and why I will generally return to not reading them again.

I won't let your inane criticism stop me from expressing my viewpoints.

Feel free to evade as many facts as you like. It's your life that you are living, not mine. Thankfully.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I won't vote for Libertarians anymore, not after realizing that the majority are lunatics. I would NEVER vote for a Democrat. The Green Party is on the lowest rung of hell as far as I'm concerned. That leaves only Republicans. The problem is, most Republicans are, as you said, mystics for capitalism.

That's the bad news. The good news is that a small -- but growing -- number of Republicans are Objectivists and Objectivist Sympathizers. A good case can be made, not for Objectivists supporting Republicans, but encouraging Republicans to support Objectivism.

For instance, a group of Objectivists in the 1960's formed the Metropolitan Young Republican Club (MYRC) in New York City. We published a newsletter, ran candidates in local elections, got into the media, and had our say in statewide and nationwide Republican affairs -- much of it paid for and promoted by the Republican party. One MYRC member, Martin Anderson, went on to become a Nixon speechwriter, influenced Nixon to end the military draft, and later became Reagan's top advisor on domestic policy.

In Orange County California, influential Congressman Christopher Cox, though not an Objectivist, is a big-time Objectivist sympathizer who wrote a glowing review of Letters of Ayn Rand for the New York Times. Objectivists hold key intellectual positions in the Orange County Republican organization such as Educational Chairman and Editor of a publication. They are manufacturing intellectual ammunition and the Republican party is paying for it.

I think the best strategy is get inside the Republican party and take over. It's worked for others in the past. The Socialist third parties never got anywhere. It was the Socialists who infiltrated the Democrats and Republicans who got us where we are now. If they can do it, WE can do it -- BETTER.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the bad news.  The good news is that a small -- but growing -- number of Republicans are Objectivists and Objectivist Sympathizers.  A good case can be made, not for Objectivists supporting Republicans, but encouraging Republicans to support Objectivism.

For instance, a group of Objectivists in the 1960's formed the Metropolitan Young Republican Club (MYRC) in New York City.  We published a newsletter, ran candidates in local elections, got into the media, and had our say in statewide and nationwide Republican affairs -- much of it paid for and promoted by the Republican party.  One MYRC member, Martin Anderson, went on to become a Nixon speechwriter, influenced Nixon to end the military draft, and later became Reagan's top advisor on domestic policy.

In Orange County California, influential Congressman Christopher Cox, though not an Objectivist, is a big-time Objectivist sympathizer who wrote a glowing review of Letters of Ayn Rand for the New York Times.  Objectivists hold key intellectual positions in the Orange County Republican organization such as Educational Chairman and Editor of a publication.  They are manufacturing intellectual ammunition and the Republican party is paying for it. 

I think the best strategy is get inside the Republican party and take over.  It's worked for others in the past.  The Socialist third parties never got anywhere.  It was the Socialists who infiltrated the Democrats and Republicans who got us where we are now.  If they can do it, WE can do it -- BETTER.

Do you agree that the two key things an Objectivist takeover of the Republican Party would accomplish are:

#1) To provide a rational and secular moral basis for the defense of capitalism

#2) To reverse the party's stand on social issues such as abortion

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you agree that the two key things an Objectivist takeover of the Republican Party would accomplish are:

#1) To provide a rational and secular moral basis for the defense of capitalism

#2) To reverse the party's stand on social issues such as abortion

Absolutely! It would also arm and embolden those in the party who already support the right things for the right reasons.

Right now there are groups such as the Republican Liberty Caucus and individuals like nationally-syndicated talk show host Larry Elder, who already take those stands. The RLC is sending delegates to the national convention and will try to influence the party platform. Elder has written several best-selling books and is a popular speaker at Republican events.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So who would you vote for?

This is a hard one Patrick.

I don't know of a politician who truly represents me and am still considering.

In some ways (and this may seem horrible) I wish Kerry or Nader would win and get us to the bottom more quickly - maybe from the bottom there can be hope?

The FSP was a good idea. I wondered if in part - Atlas Shrugged was the project inspiration. I'm not insulting individuals who are still on their journey - as we all are. But the project is too open to too many versions of libertarianism to expect to make sweeping changes as I think some of them maybe initially hoped.

I prefer to studying Objectivism and developing myself in this direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Elizabeth @ May 25 2004, 07:46 AM)

Bush?

Possibly - particularly with close family members in the military.

Who do you think you're leaning toward?

I read through some of the posts and I think your exchange with Betsy in regard to sort of infiltrating the Republican Party is worth considering. At least most Republicans I know personally are not as negative as some of the Democrats about people who don't conform to their irrational ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is part of the Republican ideology to be morally conservative, and to enact restrictions on personal freedoms to ensure that morality stays with America. Basically, they legislate morality. Why would any Objectivist support such a cause with their votes? Also, I am not libertarian, but I think that it would be much more along the lines of Objectivist ideology to be libertarian. They prefer retaliatory government actions, so do Objectivists. They prefer laissez faire-capitalism, so do Objectivist. The only difference is libertarians tend to be very reclusive in world affairs, and as I read many of the articles at ARI, I assume most Objectivist prefer an active role in foreign affairs. Neither libertarians or republicans seem to fit the Objectivist ideology just right, so I would think that forming a political party might be the best option. "No income tax" is a good vote incentive. Also. has anyone heard about the case brought before the supreme court, that declares income tax unconstitutional!!!!! Its true i researched it, the amendment was signed by an insufficient number of states, yet still passed into effect. But like usual our government is just beating around the bush, and has yet to accept this very valid court case, which would ruin the country since we are in a deficit as it is. That is most likely the reason this case wont be heard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Possibly - particularly with close family members in the military.

Who do you think you're leaning toward?

I read through some of the posts and I think your exchange with Betsy in regard to sort of infiltrating the Republican Party is worth considering.  At least most Republicans I know personally are not as negative as some of the Democrats about people who don't conform to their irrational ideas.

I have had it with Libertarians, and I would never vote Democrat, so that leaves only the Republican party.

At this point I consider my options to be either:

#1) Vote Republican

or

#2) Don't vote at all

Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely!  It would also arm and embolden those in the party who already support the right things for the right reasons. 

Right now there are groups such as the Republican Liberty Caucus and individuals like nationally-syndicated talk show host Larry Elder, who already take those stands.  The RLC is sending delegates to the national convention and will try to influence the party platform.  Elder has written several best-selling books and is a popular speaker at Republican events.

That the conservative element, including prominent Republicans, are taunting themselves as defenders of capitalism, business, liberty, and right to one's life as elements of their own "traditions" serves as an opportunity for Objectivists, I think.

As we consider lending moral support to those who are willing to defend capitalism, business, liberty, and right to life we nedd to ascertain that their goals regarding these important elements are in concert with our own.

Dare I mention Newt Gingrich's Contract With America in this context? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dare I mention Newt Gingrich's Contract With America in this context? :D

The Contract was, for the most part, pretty good. The American people bought into it and elected a lot of young Republicans to Congress -- including some terrific Objectivist Sympathizers.

Unfortunately, the old line Republicans breached their own Contract and compromised, but I expected that. Changes take place in stages and over time. Setting up the Contract as a goal and an ideal was an important first step. Implementing it will come later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...
However, it seems to me that Libertarianism is far closer to Objectivism than either of two main parties.  So why are Objectivists seemingly harder on Libertarians than they are on Republicans or Democrats?

Because of your first sentence, and the often-voiced misunderstanding of Objectivism that it is some kind of libertarianism (a misunderstanding that libertarians in particular seem to succumb to). There is more danger of people being misled into thinking that there's a connection between Objectivism and libertarianism, that some connection between Objectivism and Republicanology, so it is more important to make clear the non-relation to libertarianism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
First off, allow me to say that I despise Libertarians.  However, it seems to me that Libertarianism is far closer to Objectivism than either of two main parties.  So why are Objectivists seemingly harder on Libertarians than they are on Republicans or Democrats?

Because of all the enemies to Liberty and capitalism, Libertarianism is the most dangerous.

Just as the alleged defenders of capitalism in the 19th century had done far more to descredit capitalism by basing it on Darwinist sociology, so the alleged modern defenders of liberty (the libertarians) can do far more damage to capitalism by basing it on moral subjectivism.

Just consider, who is more deplorable: an explicit collectivist or a collectivist pretending to be an individualist?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about the underlying philosophy. I know that underlying philosophy is indispensable, but it seems to me that Libertarianism is more of a step in the right direction than either of the two major parties. The philosophy may still be bad, but at least some of the politics are leaning in the right direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not talking about the underlying philosophy.  I know that underlying philosophy is indispensable, but it seems to me that Libertarianism is more of a step in the right direction than either of the two major parties.  The philosophy may still be bad, but at least some of the politics are leaning in the right direction.

I have had several friends who ran on a Libertarian ticket. The party is much easier to get on the ballot in. My occasional involvement with politics in that party shows me no specific underlying philosophy. The people I know that have run as Libertarians were Libertarians more out of frustration with the Democratic and Republican parties than aspiring to a particular philosophy. There were some Objectivists among the Libertarian candidates I have known. There were also some Fundamentalist Christians among them.

None of them ever got elected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not talking about the underlying philosophy.  I know that underlying philosophy is indispensable, but it seems to me that Libertarianism is more of a step in the right direction than either of the two major parties.  The philosophy may still be bad, but at least some of the politics are leaning in the right direction.

You should be talking about the underlying philosophy (or its lack). In what way is Libertarianism a step in the right direction? Do you think it's a step in any direction? In 32 years, the LP has demonstrated the evils of adhering to the politics of compromise and convenience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not talking about the underlying philosophy.  I know that underlying philosophy is indispensable, but it seems to me that Libertarianism is more of a step in the right direction than either of the two major parties.  The philosophy may still be bad, but at least some of the politics are leaning in the right direction.

You should be talking about the underlying philosophy. A philosophy is a foundation. To be fundamental (foundational) is to be the cause of what stands on it. Are you concerned only with effects, and not causes?

If a libertarian says, "I support liberty," and an Objectivist says the same thing, do you believe they mean the same thing?

If their underlying philosophies are different -- or if the libertarian has no philosophy -- then they can't possibly mean the same thing. Context determines meaning. Philosophy sets context.

I highly recommend a lecture by Peter Schwartz, called "Contextual Knowledge," available from The Ayn Rand Bookstore.

P. S. -- Keep in mind the distinction between supporting the Libertarian Party, as a party, versus working on single-issue campaigns with a variety of non-Objectivists. I will never again support the LP, but I would be willing to work with libertarians, conservatives, liberals, socialists, and even moderates who combine to -- for example -- prevent a proposed new sales tax from being enacted. The non-Objectivists all have motives I might disagree with, but our actions can combine to block something that should, objectively, be blocked. There is no sanction issue here.

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...