Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Dr. Peikoff on which party to vote for: GOP or Democrat

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 343
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I hope so. I mentioned the other day here that immigration was excellent low hanging fruit for Objectivists to insert a more principled stance into the political discussion. Individual Rights are univ

I guess the way I interpreted that is that Obama is identifying strategic races of people throughout the world who will come here and vote Democrat, and he's busy bribing them all to do so.   The al

The most consistently racist people I've met are progressives. They mostly engage in paternalist racism (affirmative action, etc.) and identity politics (inciting hatred between different racial group

I hope so. I mentioned the other day here that immigration was excellent low hanging fruit for Objectivists to insert a more principled stance into the political discussion. Individual Rights are universal, based on logic and reason and a scientific study of the nature of man, etc. A stance on open immigration is way to underscore this principle. On a practical level, it's a big problem that needs to be solved.

 

--> Come to think of it, I recall saying that a principled stance on immigration would be an excellent way for the Republicans to have a shot at the Whitehouse again, as they can reverse the demographic bleeding on Hispanics take Texas out of play and even put CA back in play if they get a strong candidate there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend pointed to this John Hospers (1972 Libertarian Presidential candidate) article where he argues against open borders. The article is mixed, though mostly bad. It is interesting that one of the arguments he makes is echoed by Peikoff, i.e. that "Texas and California, will, ... lose whatever Republican majority they have ... and become increasingly affiliated with the Democratic Party."

Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend pointed to this John Hospers (1972 Libertarian Presidential candidate) article where he argues against open borders. The article is mixed, though mostly bad. It is interesting that one of the arguments he makes is echoed by Peikoff, i.e. that "Texas and California, will, ... lose whatever Republican majority they have ... and become increasingly affiliated with the Democratic Party."

 

And this illustrates my point. Yes, California went Demo, but not so much in Texas. There are just way, way too many moving parts to make a prediction like that especially pointing to one particular factor as the primary driver.  Hospers was nuts to make a prediction like that, and LP is nuts today...

Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that LP is woking off of his predictions in DIM, and at this point is trying to stop the complete slide into Dictatorship.  Since his book predicts it being a Christian Government and he also mentioned a left and religious convergence of sorts, so I wonder if he sees this happening through the Democrats now.  It would explain it.  It's a rationalisation but it would explain it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does LP think that it won't be politically palatable to allow immigrants to work without citizenship, but then his alternative suggestion is to ban all Hispanic immigrants, erect a wall, etc? Which one seems more likely to win bipartisan support?

 

This was practically unlistenable, due to constant interruption and lack of structure. It was not a debate, but an argument, where the "moderator" occasionally got a word in, but by and large LP ran the discussion, asked the questions, etc.

 

I also agree with CrowEpistemologist that this was not really about philosophical principles and their application, but about political tactics. Philosophical principles are barely mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was pretty disappointed and confused with the whole thing, which more or less sounded like a bunch of children bickering! These are smart adults, so...?

If LP already had his mind made up, why discuss it at all? He didn't even entertain the idea of new population stats or voting likelihood. He didn't listen to a thing either of the others said.

If you're going to ban an entire political party from receiving votes, I don't know why you're still entertaining the notion of voting at all. And not mentioned once was the most important assumption: what constitutes an emergency? They kind of compared it to a state of war, but that's not at all applicable to the immigration issue they were supposed to be discussing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian said:

"I also agree with CrowEpistemologist that this was not really about philosophical principles and their application, but about political tactics. Philosophical principles are barely mentioned."

I agree. The whole approach wreaked of pragmatism to me. I have the same sense of the notion that we can just get the right to accept this one out of context principle of individualism and we can change the country.

Edit: or was it the idea that gov=force? Im referring to a discussion between Yaron and Amy Peikoff.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was pretty disappointed and confused with the whole thing, which more or less sounded like a bunch of children bickering! These are smart adults, so...?

If LP already had his mind made up, why discuss it at all? He didn't even entertain the idea of new population stats or voting likelihood. He didn't listen to a thing either of the others said.

 

With respect, I did not get this sense at all. The last minute or so ends with LP basically conceding that Yaron may know the facts about immigrants (their voting patterns and such) better and that he (Peikoff) just gets his facts from talk radio.

 

If you're going to ban an entire political party from receiving votes, I don't know why you're still entertaining the notion of voting at all. And not mentioned once was the most important assumption: what constitutes an emergency? They kind of compared it to a state of war, but that's not at all applicable to the immigration issue they were supposed to be discussing.

 

Peikoff wasn't talking about banning Democrats from receiving votes altogether, his goal is to stop them from having effectively one-party rule. As to what constitutes an emergency, I think you need to go back to the podcast that started all this where he first openly talks about the immigration bill. I recall that he brought up NSA spying as evidence that the Democrats were accelerating the country to dictatorship much faster than he thought. His concern is that very soon freedom of speech will be completely compromised and an effective opposition will be made impossible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect, I did not get this sense at all. The last minute or so ends with LP basically conceding that Yaron may know the facts about immigrants (their voting patterns and such) better and that he (Peikoff) just gets his facts from talk radio.

Yes, you're right. I didn't realize I'd had four minutes of the second episode left until I opened my podcast app this morning. They did sum it up a bit, and were respectful of each other. Still, in all it was a disjointed discussion. And I'm not sure why LP is proclaiming such sweeping, controversial, public positions like this latest on immigration with ONLY facts from talk radio! Geez.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall that he brought up NSA spying as evidence that the Democrats were accelerating the country to dictatorship much faster than he thought. His concern is that very soon freedom of speech will be completely compromised and an effective opposition will be made impossible.

If that truly is his concern behind the supposed emergency, in my opinion it is unrealistic in the context of today's internet and people's ingrained expectation of access to it. I dare any government to try to prevent people from using their internet!
Link to post
Share on other sites

If that truly is his concern behind the supposed emergency, in my opinion it is unrealistic in the context of today's internet and people's ingrained expectation of access to it. I dare any government to try to prevent people from using their internet!

 

I don't think the concern is that the government will take away the Internet, but rather that they'll exploit their monitoring of what people post online to blackmail them or enact reprisals against them (think of the IRS scandal with the unfair auditing of Tea Party groups).

Link to post
Share on other sites

That debate was hard to listen to... lacked direction, proper format, and clarity.

 

By the way, of course the debate wasn't on philosophical points. They agreed on the philosophical points (so there is no debate), but disagreed on the facts and, therefore, the application. The main disagreement was whether or not it was a state of emergency and if you could bring immigrants in without having the ability to vote under the current context.

 

Still, very bad "debate".

Edited by thenelli01
Link to post
Share on other sites

... ... and if you could bring immigrants in without having the ability to vote under the current context.

Legal immigrants to the U.S. often follow a three-step process. First, they work on a "work-visa / work-permit". Then, they apply for Permanent Residence "Green Card". After holding a Green Card for 5 years -- assuming they're all clean -- they can apply for citizenship.

Given the current set up, a logical way to legalize immigrants would be to create a few new visa categories (the U.S. has many, many categories). This would not even be a green-card / permanent residence. Any such category can come with restrictions specifying how many years the holder must wait before applying for a Green Card. (I'm not suggesting this is a good idea, but that it would fit with the current structure, and would not be seen as unfair under the current structure.)

Even after someone applies for a Green Card, they do not get it readily. Current law streams applicants into all sorts of queues. Some queue are 20 years long! For instance, consider the people in the category "Mexico - F1 : i.e. Married Mexican Sons and Daughters of U.S. citizens". Right now, the U.S. government is processing Green Card applications for those who applied in 1993. That's current law. Some of these people might already have unmarried sons and daughters of their own.

 

The main reason for the long queue is that current U.S. law has a racist element that imposes country quotas: max. Green cards that will be issued to any one country's citizens in a year. [Aside: And this is better than previous laws that made it really tough to immigrate from certain countries.] What this means is: even if there is no limit when a new visa category is created for illegals -- as long as they are given legal immigrant status (as opposed to permanent residency), they will crowd up the already exiting queue. So, nobody's going to be getting permanent residence any time soon... forget citizenship.

 

Hopefully that adds some useful information over and above what one hears on Fox ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
 

http://www.peikoff.com/2014/02/24/you-claim-obama-is-a-nihilist-but-isnt-hope-and-change-a-slogan-of-benevolence/

 

 

When the white house talks about hope and change, hope means the ability to trash the republicans and turn the country into a complete dictatorship by enlisting [races**] from any country ??? on to the electoral polls and handing out any kind of favors.

 

 

** See discussion below

Edited by softwareNerd
Fixed quote
Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to it [time position 1:14] I think the word you heard as "races" might be "racists". Would not change my evaluation of the remark too much, but if it is a misquote, it should be fixed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to it [time position 1:14] I think the word you heard as "races" might be "racists". Would not change my evaluation of the remark too much, but if it is a misquote, it should be fixed.

 

In the context of the sentence within which he was speaking, "races" makes sense and "racists" doesn't...

 

This just sad on so many levels. The view of the non-US world as a collection of "races" is terrible, but even worse is that the notion that "Obama" is intentionally "enlisting" races to come here and vote Democrat. That last part is simply retarded in theory. In present-day practice, net-immigration from Mexico is now ZERO, and that's a movement which took place under Obama (not that he had anything to do with it...).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't help that democrats and "anti-racists" like Tim Wise brag about the end of republican politics due to coming demographic shifts.

 

However his statement sounds like something that would come from a protectionist or a white nationalist, not the intellectual heir of Ayn Rand. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the context of the sentence within which he was speaking, "races" makes sense and "racists" doesn't...

It sounded like "racists" to my ear, and I listened a few times. It is at time-mark 1:14 in case someone else wants to listen or slow it down etc.

I don't care enough to judge if one word or the other makes better sense to someone. I just think we should quote what he said, whether it is "races", "racists" or even "razes".

So, if you listened to it again, and still heard "races", thanks.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounded like "racists" to my ear, and I listened a few times. It is at time-mark 1:14 in case someone else wants to listen or slow it down etc.

I don't care enough to judge if one word or the other makes better sense to someone. I just think we should quote what he said, whether it is "races", "racists" or even "razes".

So, if you listened to it again, and still heard "races", thanks.

 

Like knowledge, audible and visual perception is contextual. In all likelihood the data itself is non-conclusive when analyzed out of context, which isn't unusual. I heard all of these words at the same time.

 

If you used the words, "racists" or "razes" in that sentence, it would be nonsensical. Using the word, "races" creates a valid sentence and conveys a meaning that agrees with previous statements made by LP--that Mexicans were going to flood over the border and vote Democrat, which would in turn bring about the end of the world, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't help that democrats and "anti-racists" like Tim Wise brag about the end of republican politics due to coming demographic shifts.

 

However his statement sounds like something that would come from a protectionist or a white nationalist, not the intellectual heir of Ayn Rand. 

 

Let them brag (and they are just pointing out a fact of electoral math).

 

If Republicans don't get the meaning of, "all Men are created equal" and because of that they lose election after election, then this is a good thing...

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...