Objectivist Political Party

[aleph_0]

Not a problem. Just wanted to understand what you meant.

Let me ask it another way.

What are the other options for Objectivists to spend resources in the political arena and why do you think that forming a political party is the best option?

I could imagine working local politics first, but I don't think that gets the wide-spread recognition that presidential politics does. Another option is the Free State Movement, but that's not Objectivist and I don't think it's at all in Objectivist interests to try. Another would be to consider other nations, but I doubt that would be effective either. Another option would be to sponsor the It's My Party Too group, but that doesn't sponsor Objectivism.

The purpose of political parties is to win elections. In order to do that, they need to appeal to the widest possible group of voters. As I said before, this doesn't seem to be compatible with Objectivism.

I don't think that members of the Green Party, the Natural Law Party or the Libertarian Party end up exerting any greater influence on public opinion (and ultimately politics) because they have political parties than if they simply promoted their ideas through think-tanks, letter writing, book promotion, etc. In fact, they could probably do a lot more of that kind of thing if they weren't wasting their resources on running candidates for office who don't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever winning.

I think the Libertarian Party is actually a good example of getting an ideology publicly recognized and increasingly debated in both academic as well as non-academic arenas.

You mean: convincing people of the reality of reality, of the power of reason, and the worth of the self - by forming an organization dedicated to opposing zoning, tax hikes, and public schools?

Well in the same way that you get milk by finding your keys. There's a few steps in-between and you seem to be speaking in terms of non-essentials in order to parody the idea. By organizing such a party, people would learn about the existence of Objectivism, and by learning of its existence more people would investigate it, and by investigating it more people would be convinced of it.

So you're waiting to vote, until a political candidate is worthy of your vote? Do you think that's even practical?

Leonard Peikoff said this about the last election: "In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world."

Do you think waiting is practical now?

I read that and I think P. is wrong about abstention. I think it has been impractical to vote for anybody in the previous two elections. In the coming election, I think it will--depending on who runs--be impractical to vote for anybody then, too. Neither of the front-running candidates for the Dems are inspiring (or even trust-worthy). If McCain ran I would very tenuously consider voting Republican. I know of nobody else currently jockeying for the presidency, so with that I still predict that waiting will be the only practical option. I consider it a vote for better options.

[gags]

I think the Libertarian Party is actually a good example of getting an ideology publicly recognized and increasingly debated in both academic as well as non-academic arenas.

If this is actually happening, have there been any beneficial political results for Libertarians? From a strictly Libertarian point of view, it seems that this country's political situation is probably the worst it has been in a long time.

[DarkWaters]

If this is actually happening, have there been any beneficial political results for Libertarians? From a strictly Libertarian point of view, it seems that this country's political situation is probably the worst it has been in a long time.

The Libertarian Party has an elected United States Representative: Ron Paul.

I think it has been impractical to vote for anybody in the previous two elections.

Why do you perceive it was impractical?

Unfortunately, many voters have little incentive to vote for anybody else except for one of the two major party candidates from a game theoretic point of view. This is why I think we need instant runoff voting so that voters can cast more truthful ballots.

Edited January 11, 2007 by DarkWaters

[gags]

From what I understand, Ron Paul is actually a Republican now.

[DarkWaters]

From what I understand, Ron Paul is actually a Republican now.

You are correct. My apologies. I still think that the Libertarian Party considers one of their former Presidential nominees getting elected to Congress as an achievement nonetheless, even if he did it as a Republican.

[gags]

I'm sure that they do, and I'll admit that's a noteworthy achievement.

[intellectualammo]

I consider it a vote for better options.

I consider it a wasted vote. But more: not only is your decision impractical, it is also immoral.

I agree with Peikoff:

"Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because 'both are bad.'"

[aleph_0]

If this is actually happening, have there been any beneficial political results for Libertarians? From a strictly Libertarian point of view, it seems that this country's political situation is probably the worst it has been in a long time.

They have many local candidates and, in fact, at the local level are extremely influential. At the national level they are still relatively over-looked, but we could chalk that up to the party's anonymity which is increasingly diminishing.

Why do you perceive it was impractical?

Because a vote for either was a vote for a unique brand of death. I find it much more effective to contribute to the phenomenon of people asking, "Why do so few people vote? Our founding fathers fought so that we could vote!" Maybe some of them will find the answer.

I consider it a wasted vote. But more: not only is your decision impractical, it is also immoral.

I agree with Peikoff:

"Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because 'both are bad.'"

Like I said, I voted to object to the options I was presented with. I consider it an effective strategy, like conscientious objection, boycotting, and demonstrating. I refuse to sanction their politics or the political climate by pretending that I care for either candidate. I need a candidate that I want for my president, not that I want so that he precludes the presidency of another.

A thought: I would like to have a march of the abstainers on D.C. Hmm...

[Edit for clarity and accuracy]

Edited January 11, 2007 by aleph_0

[y_feldblum]

Perhaps you should consider taking an undergraduate course in logic.

Doubtful if they teach the law of non-contradiction, except as a discredited rule from old-school Aristotelian logic.

[hunterrose]

I doubt there are enough people who would vote for an Objectivist party to make it a very practical move.

Really? Why do you say that?

When you have (very) limited resources it is extremely important to pick your battles wisely, and I think that at the moment Objectivism is definately still too small to really put the required energy, money and people into a political party.

But if resources are too limited right now, when will they ever be sufficient?

I'm all for the idea of reaching out to the young. But this is a means of establishing an Objectivist Party in the distant future; what are these receptive young people going to do politically right now?

Aren't they going to, in the absense of an Objectivist Party, become active in the existing parties in order to make a better world? (And will they still be considered "young" at that point?)

[DavidOdden]

Like I said, I voted to object to the options I was presented with. I consider it an effective strategy, like conscientious objection, boycotting, and demonstrating.

Then you should be campaigning to extend the "None Of The Above" category, as in Nevada, and to even make it binding.

[intellectualammo]

Because a vote for either was a vote for a unique brand of death. I find it much more effective to contribute to the phenomenon of people asking, "Why do so few people vote? Our founding fathers fought so that we could vote!"

A "unique brand of death"? What the hell do you think not voting is? Clearly a "unique form of suicide", in that respect. You let the others decide that death, instead of making the decision that you do have, one which at least you can fight against the worse of the two. But instead, you choose the most impractical thing to do, the immoral thing to do...staying at home on election day and committing voter suicide.

A thought: I would like to have a march of the abstainers on D.C. Hmm...

So, that's what you may have done with those shoes, then? Well, you and the other abstainers, don't even have to march! Just stand on the lawn waving a white flag...showing the nation just how impractical you are, by clearly surrendering the choice that you do have, to every other voter out there. A cute news reporter would try to ask you and the others a question about your march, but you and the others would not be able to use your voices...for you had surrendered even that, too...by not voting.

[DavidOdden]

A "unique brand of death"? What the hell do you think not voting is? Clearly a "unique form of suicide", in that respect. You let the others decide that death, instead of making the decision that you do have, one which at least you can fight against the worse of the two. But instead, you choose the most impractical thing to do, the immoral thing to do...staying at home on election day and committing voter suicide.

No, that is an incorrect conclusion. When the choice is only a choice between names, and both of the possible winners are indistinguishable from the perspective of the integrated bottom line, then the outcome is already known, and voting for one of these two people isn't making a choice -- you are faced with only death, not an alternative between death and life. If an assailant informs you that you have the choice of death by gun or death by knife, death is death and it is in no way better to say "gun", "knife" or "screw you".

The question really is whether we're being given just the choice "death by gun vs. death by knife". When the choice is "death by gun vs. disfigurement by knife", pick the knife.

[intellectualammo]

The question really is whether we're being given just the choice "death by gun vs. death by knife". When the choice is "death by gun vs. disfigurement by knife", pick the knife.

Exactly my point. Focusing on the choice that we do have. I never made it seem like it was a decision between life and death, in that respect. Only a choice between "unique deaths".

[intellectualammo]

both of the possible winners are indistinguishable...

Then why did you make a clear distinction between a gun and a knife, the "winner". If they were truly "indistinguishable" the weapons would have to be the exactly the same. Two guns, two knives. If that were the case, then we could argue whether or not voting would even matter then... But that is not the case here.

[intellectualammo]

I think that we have to be careful here using the "unique deaths" phrase. In this respect, I think it is more akin to suffering than to actual death obviously, hence the "unique". We have a choice here, and that is whether to suffer more, or suffer less, but suffer nonetheless.

[aleph_0]

Doubtful if they teach the law of non-contradiction, except as a discredited rule from old-school Aristotelian logic.

Your doubts are wrong. Non-contradiction is actually the starting point and the sine qua non in logic.

Then you should be campaigning to extend the "None Of The Above" category, as in Nevada, and to even make it binding.

Perhaps. What would it mean to "make it binding"?

A "unique brand of death"? What the hell do you think not voting is? Clearly a "unique form of suicide", in that respect. You let the others decide that death, instead of making the decision that you do have, one which at least you can fight against the worse of the two. But instead, you choose the most impractical thing to do, the immoral thing to do...staying at home on election day and committing voter suicide.

So, that's what you may have done with those shoes, then? Well, you and the other abstainers, don't even have to march! Just stand on the lawn waving a white flag...showing the nation just how impractical you are, by clearly surrendering the choice that you do have, to every other voter out there. A cute news reporter would try to ask you and the others a question about your march, but you and the others would not be able to use your voices...for you had surrendered even that, too...by not voting.

I've already explained what I think not voting is.

Why can we not have a voice when we choose not to vote? What have you--if anything--to say about the point that not voting is a vote for better options, and so is itself and expression, choice, and a refusal to submit and accept the fait accompli handed to us by the present leading powers?

[intellectualammo]

Why can we not have a voice when we choose not to vote? What have you--if anything--to say about the point that not voting is a vote for better options, and so is itself and expression, choice, and a refusal to submit and accept the fait accompli handed to us by the present leading powers?

"What? Speak up, I can't hear you," Steve says.

Al noticeably tries to speak up louder in an attempt to have Steve hear him better.

Steve says, "What? I still can't hear you. I'll stop trying to listen to you now."

Apparently, Al lost his voice in the last election, by not voting at all. Steve can hear only the voice of those that did vote. Steve realizes that one who has commited such voter suicide, is no longer with him. It's futile to talk or try to listen to such a person any longer.

[aleph_0]

So I guess your answer is... nothing.

[softwareNerd]

IntellectualAmmo, To clarify, suppose one were to pose a reasonable hypothetical of the form: "suppose the Republican party was different in the following ways" and "suppose the Democratic party was different in the following ways". Do you think the specifics of the hypothetical can be such that it would be pointless to vote for either? In other words, are you saying that in a reasonably free country like the US is today, one must vote even if the two major parties were different from what they are; or are you saying that given the current state of the two major parties, one must vote?

[intellectualammo]

This past election was about trends and power, not about the individual candidates. I, and the other "little winds" out there blew so hard in the voting booths, that all these winds added together to become a tornado, a Democratic tornado, one that sweep through the House and Senate, throwing Republicans, along with the trend, out! Their power was no match for our wind power.

In this election, the abstainers were nothing but a breeze that went no further than the room they were sitting in, on election day. Some even apparently tried to create their own "air movement", but that accomplished nothing, just like sitting there did.

[softwareNerd]

Nice metaphor , but it does not explain if the wind is better than the stillness. To consciously not blow something out is also an active choice, if it is not simply the result of apathy.

I voted, by the way; however, that's not because I thought that voting is better than non-voting as such, just that it was so in this election. If someone thought the Republicans and Democrats were equally problematic in the long run, then not-voting could have been one way to act on that conclusion. The non-voting is a derivative of the prior conclusion, and it is that prior conclusion that has to be the subject of argument.

Edited January 12, 2007 by softwareNerd

[intellectualammo]

Nice metaphor , but it does not explain if the wind is better than the stillness.

Yes it does, in regards to the last election. But keep in mind, you always have to ask why or if such a wind needs to be developed instead of leaving the air undisturbed in each and every election.

[not voting] is also an active choice

Yes, it's an active choice for inaction, but a choice nonetheless. Abstaining in the last election was impractical because it's immoral, immoral because it's impractical. Abstaining in a different election? Well, sure. It's certainly possible that can be practical and moral since casting a vote or not casting one is so very context dependent.

To those that abstained from voting in the last election, those abstainers that stayed at home sitting in their "waiting rooms" trying to blow themselves...the ones that come all over on here, typing out the disgusting reasons why they had chosen to do so in the first place...should now be wondering...what would happen if all the "little winds" got together here...

[DavidOdden]

Then why did you make a clear distinction between a gun and a knife, the "winner". If they were truly "indistinguishable" the weapons would have to be the exactly the same. Two guns, two knives. If that were the case, then we could argue whether or not voting would even matter then... But that is not the case here.

Death by gun is not importantly different from death by knife, anymore than death by gun 1 is better or worse than death by gun 2. In assuming that there is a real difference in candidates, are you referring to an actual choice, for example Gore v. Bush, or Kerry v. Bush; or Clinton v. McCain (a prediction)?

[hunterrose]

Are you saying that in a reasonably free country like the US is today, one must vote even if the two major parties were different from what they are?

If one doesn't eventually vote, he loses an opportunity to make his country more than "reasonably" free.

For example, if the "income tax is unjust" crowd refuses to vote for anyone who supports any income tax, maybe some politicians/parties will become more anti-income tax in order to gain abstaining voters. Maybe.

OR, the politicians/parties will simply become more pro-income tax in order to gain people who are and will vote. It'd seem like a crapshoot to anticipate that not voting would encourage politicos to change their platforms.

Actually, I don't so much think not voting is condemnable, but that it seems there are (outside of voting) few acceptable options of changing government.

• It is "improper" to join the existing political parties (due to their mishmash of ideas and supporters?)
  
• Forming/joing a political group in order to push a specific issue carries the same danger (mishmash of supporters + endorsing candidates with mishmash ideas).
  
• It is "not the right time" to create an ideal political party.
  
• Convincing my neighbor that Objectivist political theory is correct doesn't change election results if neither of us vote.
  

Besides voting, other acceptable means is there to make America more than reasonably free?