On his site right now, Peikoff comments on the upcoming 2012 Presidential election:
I was linked to this awhile ago.. itâs a bit dramatic, isnât it?
The political choice in November is: non-entity vs. anti-entity. Or: a man who is nothing vs. a man who wants to mass-produce nothings. T
Itâs more poetic than dramatic, that part at least.
As I stated in another post , it seems there are four things one can âdoâ with their vote: simply not vote, vote for Romney, vote for Obama or vote for a candidate of neither major party( included here are write in votes). I want to see the current administration out of office. I see the only option is to vote for Romney, none of the other three alternatives diminishes the advantages enjoyed by incumbents.
I want to see the current administration out of office.
Thatâs not a sufficient description of what you want. It could mean that you want the current administration replaced by Hitlerâs corps, it could mean that you want the government disbanded, the world to end, etc. etc.
To avoid confusion, you should be more accurate (i.e. you want Obama replaced by Romney, like Dr. Peikoff). Then we could have a conversation on what makes Romney better or worse than Obama. Personally, I think Peikoff exaggerates the harm any lame duck President can do, and understates the harm a Republican President whoâs party also controls Congress, can do.
I want Obama out because of what I understand to be his motivating philosophy, and as evidence his choices for people he put into power in the executive office. To not see their naked socialism and recognize it as such is a little baffling to me. Collectivists of all various ilks seek power in order to further their agendas. While vanilla candidates from other parties may not be ideal, not voting against a known, proven, dedicated collectivist is I think a position I canât wrap my head around so to speak.
As far as I understand it, to truly cast a ballot against Obama one must cast a ballot for Romney, all other scenarios are equivalent to not changing any advantage an incumbent candidate enjoys
1 Like
Oh and Benghazi, the administration is wholly responsible for the the deaths of Americans. There is ample evidence they had realtime knowledge of the events, a non covert special forces unit on call that could have moblized 85 personnel and chose not to. Just a concrete example of why I want to end his tenure.
But I think the point is that Romney is not simply a âvanilla candidate,â but is also a known, proven collectivist who seeks power, and is at most, millimeters apart from Obama; and secondly, that participation in electoral politics is being vastly overvalued as a strategy for liberty, if not constituting a positive harm.
Regardless of whether one agrees with that point of view, it is easy to see that if one held such a view, it follows that voting against Obama by voting for Romney makes little sense.
I want Obama out
Youâre missing the point. âI want Obama outâ is not a meaningful expression of a change in the state of reality. This isnât a drawing you made as a five year old, where you take an eraser and just erase the President.
You donât get to erase Obama by voting, you only get to replace him. So, I ask again: Do you want to replace Obama with Romney?
And thatâs how reality works in general. Being against something is easy, being for something is harder, but every time youâre against something, you also need to be for something in its place. Otherwise, youâre not dealing with reality, youâre dealing with a magical realm where eliminating something you dislike automatically results in it being replaced by something better.
secondly, that participation in electoral politics is being vastly overvalued as a strategy for liberty, if not constituting a positive harm.
Why would participation constitute positive harm if *someone* will always be voted into office?
Why would participation constitute positive harm if *someone* will always be voted into office?
Of course someone will get voted into office whether we participate or not, until such an alternative exists, but I think that over reliance on electoral politics is harmful, to the exclusion of non participatory methods which focus on building such alternative institutions themselves.
Rand seems to have teetered on both sides of over emphasizing the importance of democratic participation at times, and placing what I think is the correct emphasis on the importance of building alternative institutions at other times.
It would have been great if Peikoff could back up his assertions with some evidence.
The rest of you may know about Obama intimately enought to understand what peikoff is saying, but I donât.
For instance, why is Obama any worse than LBJ or FDR? Why do we think he is anything but a pragmatist with some black-christian/post-marxist background?
There seems to be an idea among Oists that voting in national elections is futile, given the state of todayâs culture and the near impossibility that either the democrats or the republicans would put forward a rational platform. I wonder if this holds to local elections? School board elections(the ones that directly affect the value of your home), state seats, congressional seats? Is there a point where it becomes mundane or trivial enough that the candidatesâ irrationality need not be scrutinized?
The person with a similar post /topic on this site spoke to Peikoffâs piece about the election.
In it she said the Oist voting block was so small that it basically doesnât matter how one votes. True enough in the grand scale of things as they are. But later made a comment to the effect that Oists should not vote until GOP or somesuch put candidates on ballots that would actually support individual rights and capitalism. How could an insignificant block withhold support and yet at the same time exert influence?
By the way in our current political system , you sure can be against and not particular for as far as the voting is concerned. Its a constitutional republic that democratically elects our representatives/leaders. Non participation even on an individual level does little to change reality either. I doubt we can "vote in " change. To have the type of candidiates I would want to vote for requires a cultural paradigm shift.
It would have been great if Peikoff could back up his assertions with some evidence.
Itâs a short article, not a doctoral thesis. Which assertions are you disputing, specifically?
There seems to be an idea among Oists that voting in national elections is futile
In this thread, no one said that. On the contrary, I believe that voting in this election is important. Important enough to not just act on a childish, contrarian whim by casting a vote for an unspecified entity, just to try and get someone out of office.
⌠⌠she said the Oist voting block was so small that it basically doesnât matter how one votes.
If Objectivists are an insignificant minority, then any particular voter is a minority of one. That particular voter can make the same argument: that his vote does not really count. After all, there are hardly any elections where one guy wins by a single vote. The principle behind going to vote is to consider it as being a principle. So, if I support Obama, I would go vote for him on the principle that if every one of his supporters did so, he would win, and if everyone of his supporters thought âmy vote doesnât matterâ he would lose. So, while there is a sense in which my one vote cannot elect this genius back to the Presidency, thereâs another sense in which it is all that matters: the sense where I act a certain way, and others who agree with me do so too.
This does not imply one ought to vote. Nor does it imply that one ought to vote for one of the major parties.
If Objectivists are an insignificant minority, then any particular voter is a minority of one. That particular voter can make the same argument: that his vote does not really count. After all, there are hardly any elections where one guy wins by a single vote. The principle behind going to vote is to consider it as being a principle. So, if I support Obama, I would go vote for him on the principle that if every one of his supporters did so, he would win, and if everyone of his supporters thought âmy vote doesnât matterâ he would lose. So, while there is a sense in which my one vote cannot elect this genius back to the Presidency, thereâs another sense in which it is all that matters: the sense where I act a certain way, and others who agree with me do so too.
This does not imply one ought to vote. Nor does it imply that one ought to vote for one of the major parties.
I agree I plan to vote for Romney in this election , on the principle that only a vote for Romney will actually increase the chances of Obama losing. It is not a principled vote for, or endorsing the Republican platform. Its unfortunate (understatement) that these are the choices.
It is true few if any elections are decided by one vote. But if you live in a small community with low voter turnout a single vote tends to carry more weight, certainly not the deciding factor but with low turnout it could affect results as tabulated by county.