Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Libertarians

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

If a Libertarian candidate wants to repeal drug laws, income tax, etc...does it not make more sense to support that candidate, rather than Bush or Kerry, both of whom would undoubtedly increase taxes and make drug laws harsher? It seems to me that, although the underlying philosophy still sucks, it's better to support the candidate who at least has something right.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

If a Libertarian candidate wants to repeal drug laws, income tax, etc...does it not make more sense to support that candidate, rather than Bush or Kerry, both of whom would undoubtedly increase taxes and make drug laws harsher?  It seems to me that, although the underlying philosophy still sucks, it's better to support the candidate who at least has something right.

1. Libertarians have got the most important issue of these days--the war on terrorism--colossally wrong.

2. Libertarians don't win elections, and they don't intend to either.

3. A vote for one of the major parties is not an ideological statement, but a vote for Libertarians is.

4. If you want to eat mutton, a wolf in a sheep's clothing is not what you need.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a Libertarian candidate wants to repeal drug laws, income tax, etc...does it not make more sense to support that candidate, rather than Bush or Kerry, both of whom would undoubtedly increase taxes and make drug laws harsher?  It seems to me that, although the underlying philosophy still sucks, it's better to support the candidate who at least has something right.

No, since there is no chance at all that Badnarik (for example) will win the election. Voting for a libertarian candidate is (almost always) a purely symbolic act, so voting for one will have absolutely no effect on taxes and drug laws. A purely symbolic act should be directed towards a purpose, and that purpose should be something along the lines of educating the masses. But what will the masses learn from a handful of votes for a dubious politician who gets "something" right (especially when Bush and Kerry also get something right)? What is the exact benefit of supporting a libertarian candidate, given the impossibility of electing one of them?

I think it would be beneficial to investigate the actual conduct and effect of elected LP officials, because the implication of your position is 'If only we could elect one of these guys, there would be mannah everywhere'. I'm skeptical that it would actually make any difference but I'm open to facts that show me wrong. A Google search pointed to a page with the header "Affiliates: More elected officials switching to Libertarian Party", which you would think might have some relevance to this -- I clicked 3 non-random states (California, Ohio, Montana) and see that they do not name one elected LP mamber, meaning that they are just lying about whether there actually are any elected LP officials. If someone wants to muck through the various pages perhaps they can come up with something that actually relates to LP elected officials, but for my money I'm ticked off at the dishonesty of this bait and switch tactic, which implies that "We're winning" when from what I can tell they are making no a shred of progress.

At any rate, I want to see the evidence that having an LP member elected would be a good thing, and so far I have seen no evidence that it would be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If one actually had a good chance at winning, would it not make sense to support him?

Yeah, and az di bobe volt gehat beytsim volt zi geven mayn zeyde. Am I supposed to assume that the libertatian is clearly the superior candidate? If so, of course it would -- but suppose for example that an Objectivist was running on the Republican ticket -- then it would probably make no sense at all to vote for the libertarian. The specific details about the candidates matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But is it not true that, generally speaking, Libertarian politics are closer to Objectivism than Republican or Democrat politics?

Libertarians have essentially plagiarized Objectivist politics, so, yes, their stated political positions largely overlap those of Objectivism (the war on terror being a major exception).

The problem is that libertarians generally view all ethics as subjective and arbitrary. The Republicans have succeeded in spreading the notion that capitalism can only be ethically justified on religious grounds. As bad and false as that notion is, what is worse is to spread the notion that capitalism cannot be justified on the basis of any ethics, which is what the libertarians assert.

Libertarians readily concede the entire field of ethics to the enemies of capitalism. What could be more damaging?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems to me that having Capitalism, built on a faulty premise, is better than having non-Capitalism on a faulty premise.

If this sentence is in relation to present situations:

1. Libertarianism isn't complete capitalism (as per their case on of the most urgent issues, the war)

2. We aren't going to "have" capitalism by voting for them, you'd merely make an ideological statement condoning their actions by voting for the party. So instead of "having capitalism based on a faulty premise," it would actually turn out to be "Democrats [or Republicans] win on a faulty premise, and the Libertarian Party gets a few more votes sanctioning their plagiarization of Objectivist politics while we undermine Objectivism by associating ourselves with a political ideology that contains some Christians and subjectivists as well as drug addicts and people who want child molestation laws repealed."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems to me that having Capitalism, built on a faulty premise, is better than having non-Capitalism on a faulty premise.

If this sentence is in relation to present situations:

1. Libertarianism isn't complete capitalism (as per their case on of the most urgent issues, the war)

2. We aren't going to "have" capitalism by voting for them, you'd merely make an ideological statement condoning their actions by voting for the party. So instead of "having capitalism based on a faulty premise," it would actually turn out to be "Democrats [or Republicans] win on a faulty premise, and the Libertarian Party gets a few more votes sanctioning their plagiarization of Objectivist politics while we undermine Objectivism by associating ourselves with a political ideology that contains some Christians and subjectivists as well as drug addicts and people who want child molestation laws repealed."

Here is a good example of Libertarian writing at it's finest :( :

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace27.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
If this sentence is in relation to present situations:

2. We aren't going to "have" capitalism by voting for them, you'd merely make an ideological statement condoning their actions by voting for the party. So instead of "having capitalism based on a faulty premise," it would actually turn out to be "Democrats [or Republicans] win on a faulty premise, and the Libertarian Party gets a few more votes sanctioning their plagiarization of Objectivist politics while we undermine Objectivism by associating ourselves with a political ideology that contains some Christians and subjectivists as well as drug addicts and people who want child molestation laws repealed."

Here is a good example of Libertarian writing at it's finest  :( :

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace27.html

That's exactly what I was thinking, and my what an article. It amazes me to see how perverse people can be in their interpretations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This makes me curious: since no political party can be said to advance Objectivism, who did people on this forum vote for, and why?

I voted for Kerry. I had not found Objectivism yet, so I can't say if it would have changed my vote. Bush concerns me because I think he and his cabinet are unstable reckless meglomaniacs. I didn't like Kerry either, but this was a vote for the percieved lesser of two evils.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for Bush---Kerry was too "French" for my liking, and I had no confidence he would take the Islamofascist threat seriously. Plus, I do think he acted disgracefully in accusing his fellow soldiers of "war crimes", which he did not substantiate with evidence. At the same time he was doing this, POWs were being tortured in order to get them to confess to "war crimes" so they could be held indefinitely in North Vietnamese jails. Kerry sickens me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
[...]

Here is a good example of Libertarian writing at it's finest  :( :

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace27.html

Is it me, or is Bob Wallace none other than Whittaker Chambers in disguise? (read his review of Atlas Shrugged in the National Review).

That article makes the libertarians worse than some conservatives--at least Rush Limbaugh openly promotes Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead in his website. He may not be an Objectivist, but he is doing us a favor by helping us promote Ayn Rand to the general public.

[edited for grammatical errors]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for Bush, but under no pretense that he is a good President; but, he is doing some things right. Kerry is a definite liberal and voting for him would have been a slap in the face to our troops in Iraq (his desire to fight a more "sensitive" war). Here's something of interest: I started to support the Libertarian party (even sent them a campaign contribution); then, I read an article from a Libertarian who is the Law Professor at Ohio State University: He urged all libertarians to cast their vote for Bush, with the election being so close and so much at stake. A vote for Badnarik to provide a "protest vote" or show of support for libertarian politics would only help Kerry get elected. Kerry is for some of the most profound politics that would undermine America's sovereinty like no other President in History (legislation and policies such as "Sustainable Development", The Kyoto Pact, and others).

Link to post
Share on other sites
[...]

Here is a good example of Libertarian writing at it's finest  :( :

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace27.html

That article reminds me of a quote from an interview of Ayn Rand:

Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981]AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program. 

So relevant and true even today!!! :(

Oh, and BTW, Zoso, Ayn Rand was asked the very question you're asking in this thread. Read the article linked above and then read her response:

Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Egalitarianism and Inflation,” 1974]AR:They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

You can read the rest of the interview here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I especially liked her answer here:

"Further, it should be clear that I do not endorse the filthy slogan, “The end justifies the means.” That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by Communists and Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, the Libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that's what his leftist opponents say ... but I think the problem with him is exactly that he is too timid and self-effacing.

Yeah, I'm only just getting back into politics in an involved way, and I tended towards the leftists, mostly because I can't stand the influence of religion which Bush has allowed in his campaign. As I continue to study Objectivism, I'm sure that my views will mature. I avoided political study until just before the election, and went towards the Democrats as my only option because I dislike Bush so much for his school reforms and as I said, ties to the RR. Then the Democrats disgusted me as a bunch of whiny left over hippies who can't get it together. It was at this point I found Objectivism, right there in mid Nov and it couldn't have come at a better time. I'm learning alot from reading the political views on this forum. Alot are in opposition to the ones I've held, but I'm processing them. I went back and forth on the issue of Bush for his whole term, and at first I would have agreed with the timid and self effacing. Depends where you get your info, but then you have to take all that with a grain of salt too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I especially liked her answer here:

"Further, it should be clear that I do not endorse the filthy slogan, “The end justifies the means.”  That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by Communists and Nazis.  The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, the Libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism."

Where did Ayn Rand say this?

In this forum, please always cite a source for quotations from Ayn Rand -- or anyone else. It helps verify your claim and it helps all of us trace a path back to a particular point in Ayn Rand's vast array of writings.

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends where you get your info

I think the best place to get info for judging a politician is the politician himself: Watch him on TV; look at what ideas he promotes; look at how he reacts to opposition; consider what actions he takes. Don't let your evaluation of him be tainted by the--often irrational--opinions of other people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Where did Ayn Rand say this?

In this forum, please always cite a source for quotations from Ayn Rand -- or anyone else. It helps verify your claim and it helps all of us trace a path back to a particular point in Ayn Rand's vast array of writings.

Yes sorry, I meant to include Tom Rextons link to the rest of the interview Ayn Rand Libertarian Q&A in my post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: Double post

I think the best place to get info for judging a politician is the politician himself: Watch him on TV; look at what ideas he promotes; look at how he reacts to opposition; consider what actions he takes. Don't let your evaluation of him be tainted by the--often irrational--opinions of other people.

Watching Bush himself only furthers my opinion of him as unstable :thumbsup:

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...