Objectivist Political Party

[hunterrose]

I'd say when there is a significant part of the population that is receptive to the ideas. At the very least a few % of the population would need to support your ideas before you can start a serious political party.

I would agree with a "receptive" standard for step 4.

But it seems to me that the goals of steps 1-3 is not just to have people who'll vote for (i.e. receptive to?) an Objectivist Party, but to have people who are Objectivists.

My question would be why wait (and suffer under the rule of current parties) if you could get a voting bloc receptive to an Objectivist Party?

Most people who have held the same beliefs for 20+ years are not very given to change them, even when presented with the evidence that their ideas are wrong.

True.

[Maarten]

My question would be why wait (and suffer under the rule of current parties) if you could get a voting bloc receptive to an Objectivist Party?

Well, right now I doubt there are enough people who would vote for an Objectivist party to make it a very practical move, and as other posters have mentioned it could very well backfire on you by lowering your credibility.

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.

[softwareNerd]

Do you not think, though, that the intellectual battle would be furthered by increased popularity, and that an Objectivist Party would do just that?

Assuming that the money and time that would go into such a party would otherwise go toward other Objectivism-related activism, why would this be the more effective way to spend it?

[gags]

What of changing the prevailing philosophy by forming a political party?

As Maarten said, our resources are scarce and I think that forming a political party would squander them. Also, the nature of politics is such that it seems incompatible with the creation of an Objectivist party. Given that you'll never convince everyone that a given position on a political issue is 100% correct, much of politics involves compromise. Objectivism really isn't about compromise, is it?

[aleph_0]

So give up on politics?

[Maarten]

Until there is a better basis for it, yeah. At least, give up on politics as the main battleground, so to speak.

[aleph_0]

I don't think anyone is proposing it be the main battleground, but yet one more front. And I don't see why it requires compromise. Perhaps to be successful at winning the election you must compromise--but not to simply be established and a visible force.

[Maarten]

Yeah, but I'm quite sure that Objectivism hasn't yet reached a point of diminishing returns in the culture, where extra effort spent on cultural activism doesn't do a whole lot of good anymore because everyone is already sick and tired of hearing it everywhere

Given that, any effort you spend on this political party is not spent elsewhere, so if your goal is to further the spread of Objectivism then you'd need to make a really good case as for why people should invest their valuable time and money into doing something like this, rather than the things that are currently being done.

[KendallJ]

So give up on politics?

Why is forming a political party the only way you can "play" in politics? Such that not doing it would be "giving up"? Forming a party is a tactic to try to influence which we readily admit at this time would be an interesting marketing ploy for Objectivism but woudln't do anything politically. My take is that this is very expensive "awareness buildling".

Minorities function best politically either by contributing to a desired party platform or by spoiling an undesired party platform. Aren't those really Objectivists' political options right now? I think one forms political parties when one intends to and has the ability to take political control with that party.

Let's consider separating acheiving political results from building awareness of the philosphy, as they need not necessarily be linked.

[aleph_0]

I didn't say anything of the sort--I was responding to gags much more sweeping condemnation of politics as an enterprise.

I don't think it's practicable to wait until we think we will win the election before we build a political party. Every new political party has (and most certainly will) lose its first election simply in virtue of being a new political party. I think we have to expect and accept it at least for the first election.

[KendallJ]

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?

[the experience machine]

Libertarianism isn't a philosophy (but it tries to pretend that it is), Objectivism actually is a philosophy.

Hayek, Nozick, Friedman (Milton and David), Steiner, Schmidtz, Barry, Kelly could all be refered to as libertarian philosophers, if I'm not mistaken. Indeed, the late chairman of the Libertarian Alliance described himself as both a libertarian and an objectivist. There are many who see objectivism as a mere branch of libertarianism. While I wouldn't quite go this far, I would maintain that libertarianism is a very rich tradtion of philosophy that goes back in history at least as far as Adam Smith and Locke. Objectivism is quite new in comparison.

[gags]

I didn't say anything of the sort--I was responding to gags much more sweeping condemnation of politics as an enterprise.

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.

Hayek, Nozick, Friedman (Milton and David), Steiner, Schmidtz, Barry, Kelly could all be refered to as libertarian philosophers, if I'm not mistaken. Indeed, the late chairman of the Libertarian Alliance described himself as both a libertarian and an objectivist. There are many who see objectivism as a mere branch of libertarianism. While I wouldn't quite go this far, I would maintain that libertarianism is a very rich tradtion of philosophy that goes back in history at least as far as Adam Smith and Locke. Objectivism is quite new in comparison.

If one defines philosophy as an integrated view of existence (covering metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics) then Libertarianism doesn't even attempt to deal with many of the important subjects of philosophy.

[y_feldblum]

What of changing the prevailing philosophy by forming a political party?

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?

[DavidOdden]

Hayek, Nozick, Friedman (Milton and David), Steiner, Schmidtz, Barry, Kelly could all be refered to as libertarian philosophers, if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, it is possible to refer to these people as philosophers. But still, libertarianism isn't a philosophy. I know a philosophy professor who plays the piano, but piano playing isn't a philosophy. It's a mistake to think that every idea is thereby a philosophy.

Indeed, the late chairman of the Libertarian Alliance described himself as both a libertarian and an objectivist.

On the other hand, since in fact he rejects the philosophy of Ayn Rand and Objectivism is actually the philosophy of Ayn Rand, that would be an example of a delusional self-labeler. If he described himself as a pig-rancher, would that make him one?

Objectivism is quite new in comparison.

True, but what does that prove? It still doesn't make libertarianism a philosophy.

Note btw that it is correct to say that libertarianism is an aggregation of numerous vaguely related individual philosophies, on the average 1.5 per so-called libertarian.

[the experience machine]

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.

If one defines philosophy as an integrated view of existence (covering metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics) then Libertarianism doesn't even attempt to deal with many of the important subjects of philosophy.

that's a bold assertion!

[gags]

Which assertion?

[the experience machine]

Yes, it is possible to refer to ojectivists as philosophers. But still, objectivism isn't a philosophy. I know an objectivist who plays the piano, but piano playing isn't a philosophy. It's a mistake to think that every idea is thereby a philosophy.

On the other hand, since in fact he accepts the philosophy of Ayn Rand and Objectivism, he must be pretending to be a philosopher. If he described himself as a pig-rancher, would that make him one?

True, but what does that prove? It still doesn't make objectivism a philosophy.

Note btw that it is correct to say that objectivism is an aggregation of numerous objectivisms, on the average 1.5 per so-called objectivist.

Which assertion?

that Libertarianism doesn't even attempt to deal with many of the important subjects of philosophy

[gags]

that Libertarianism doesn't even attempt to deal with many of the important subjects of philosophy

I won't claim to have done an extensive review of Libertarian literature, but can you point me to one or two pieces that set forth the official Libertarian position on philosophical subjects such as metaphysics, epistemology, or aesthetics?

[DavidOdden]

Yes, it is possible to refer to ojectivists as philosophers. But still, objectivism isn't a philosophy.

I think you need to read some of the Objectivist philosophical literature. By the way, you need to re-read you post, think carefully about your statements, and retract your insults directed at Objectivism, before you post again.

[the experience machine]

I won't claim to have done an extensive review of Libertarian literature, but can you point me to one or two pieces that set forth the official Libertarian position on philosophical subjects such as metaphysics, epistemology, or aesthetics?

Given that libertarianism is a broad church, there probably isn't an "official" position. Critical and "free" debate seems to be the keynote. Libertarians have published extensively on many philosphical issues: the role of the state, the moral bases of negative rights, the state of nature and the social contract, free will and autonomy, liberty and justice, self ownership, the acquisiton of property rights, surely as an authority on philosophy you don't need me to draw your attention to specific books and scholarly articles? However, I may have a couple of first year undergraduate reading lists lying around, I'll have a look.

[the experience machine]

I think you need to read some of the Objectivist philosophical literature. By the way, you need to re-read you post, think carefully about your statements, and retract your insults directed at Objectivism, before you post again.

I don't need to do anything, I don't belong to the church. I was simply responding in kind to your original argument. What am I saying, you haven't made any arguments, just the same old mantra about integrated values, epistemology etc, followed by the usual assertion that other perspectives arn't as good. The irony of course is that the cult of objectivism is the kind of manifestation of collectivism that Ayn Rand claimed to oppose.

[intellectualammo]

Edit: As a note, I have never voted for anybody, largely because I've never believed that a political candidate was worthy of my vote. All the same, in principle, I am not opposed to the idea of voting for a candidate of a given political party.

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?

[LaszloWalrus]

Sorry to sidetrack the thread somewhat, but I have a problem with the subheading of the thread "the Objectivist case." It is quite presumptious to label one's application of his understanding of Objectivism as "the Objectivist case," particularly when Ayn Rand promoted an opposing view.

[gags]

Yes, it is possible to refer to ojectivists as philosophers. But still, objectivism isn't a philosophy. I know an objectivist who plays the piano, but piano playing isn't a philosophy. It's a mistake to think that every idea is thereby a philosophy.

On the other hand, since in fact he accepts the philosophy of Ayn Rand and Objectivism, he must be pretending to be a philosopher. If he described himself as a pig-rancher, would that make him one?

True, but what does that prove? It still doesn't make objectivism a philosophy.

Note btw that it is correct to say that objectivism is an aggregation of numerous objectivisms, on the average 1.5 per so-called objectivist.

Congratulations, that's one of the more childish posts I've seen on this forum.

Given that libertarianism is a broad church, there probably isn't an "official" position. Critical and "free" debate seems to be the keynote.

You admit that Libertarianism doesn't have settled positions on imprtant philosophical issues while also claiming that it's an integrated philosophy. Perhaps you should consider taking an undergraduate course in logic.

The irony of course is that the cult of objectivism is the kind of manifestation of collectivism that Ayn Rand claimed to oppose.

You're nothing more than a troll. Why don't you spread your garbage somewhere else?