I was referring to Rand's definition here. https://ari.aynrand.org/faq
If your definition above is the correct one, the conflict disappears.

Using David Friedman's definition of "consumer sovereignty," how does Ayn Rand's definition of capitalism (cited above) "forbid" consumer sovereignty?

Yes, the LP needs to purge itself of kooks. It also needs to start hiring the professional event managers the major parties use, which means persuading some of their big-money donors to defect. I hope Johnson is thinking this way.

Yes, the LP needs to purge itself of kooks. It also needs to start hiring the professional event managers the major parties use, which means persuading some of their big-money donors to defect. I hope Johnson is thinking this way.

David Friedman explains it better than I. http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machine...

RE: “A libertarian insists on believing . . . that each person's own good is what he says it is.” Not by any definition I’m familiar with. If a person believes his own good consists of cheating others, advocating socialism, or forcing others to adopt his religious beliefs, he is not a libertarian. A libertarian believes in respecting the natural rights of others, and pursuing what he considers to be his own good within the boundaries of such respect.

And Ayn Rand’s definition of capitalism is “a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.”
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/cap...
This definition certainly supports “consumer sovereignty,” since it defends a consumer’s right to trade his labor or property for the labor or property of others.

I think that the campaign managers really determine who wins the presidency. Its all a stupid game. I just wonder what Hillary would do to twist and manipulate anyone who actually came out with an amendment such as this. CNN would grab onto that and produce hundreds of pundits to show how it would destroy the country as we know it, etc.

Trump wouldn't lose a single vote. the real free-loaders would never have voted for him anyway. Others are voting for him on his arguable personality and they wouldn't see the train bearing down until after the election when it would be too late. the real danger with Trump (and other power seekers) is that the promise is a lie. He would have to make the grass roots process happen before the election or those who don't trust him wouldn't trust his words. Ethical deeds matter.

Hey, I would go for that. I think he would be better off waiting until after he is elected though, or Hillary would use it against him and the 50% who want freebie stuff might smell the end to their free rides.

So Trump should announce his amendment just after his coronation at the GOP convention ;^)
He could start the grassroots stuff immediately but keep the reason quiet until the announcement at the convention. He would get most of Cruz votes and piss off the insiders.

I would vote for you. Cruz did pretty much what you say, and look where it got him. He was pretty much universally hated by the establishment, and they got rid of him. If Trump makes it to president, which I kind of doubt given the $$ Hillary has to hide things and manipulate, I would hope that at least he breaks up some of the cronyism that is prevalent today.

If I was the candidate and had the financing that Trump has (to hire experts etc), I would promise to push for a specific constitutional amendment to clarify and reiterate the original meaning of the constitution so that the original limitations on government were clear. This would be designed to eliminate any laws that restrict rights or use things like the interstate commerce clause or general welfare clause as a loophole around limitations on federal government. I would post the text of that amendment on my website and would immediately fund grassroots local organizations to push it through state legislatures.
None of these statist looters will do this or anything else that gives me a reason to vote for them.
Trump could do this easily if he was really interested in individual liberty and free markets. He would win the election in the biggest landslide since 1980.

Ayn Rand was never a fan of Ronald Reagan, and she died several years before the Cold War ended.

Part of the problem is that no matter what the candidates say, it is picked apart and used to bring them down. Secondly, none of the candidates had experience as president or have access to what's going on in upper echelons of government today (except for sanders perhaps). I don't think I would give specifics either until I was at least elected and chose my team and was briefed by the outgoing president and given secret security vlearance

True that.

Compromising with statist GOP looters hasn't worked. Stop repeating the same failed action.

You stick like glue to that one premise. Voting for Trump will not be statist evil. I understand your viewpoint, which is what I call objectionable Objectivist. However, if you believe as many Objectivists do, that the difference between good and evil, has no shades of grey, then there is no common ground on this issue between us. I realize that A.R. seems to promote that idea, but it doesn't work, nor did it in her own life. I am not denigrating either you or her. I just think that such an attitude is immature and does not jibe with my life experiences. Also, that does not mean that I don't believe in Objectivism as a philosophy, but no philosophy is perfect because of the variable nature of men.People are not gas meters. In the red = bad, in the green = good. There's a space between the red and green, whether you or anyone else cares to admit it.

Right now, about the best the LP can do is to kill the Republicans' chances, at least for this year, maybe forever. I argue that that's a good start.

It would be a worthwhile delay in the growth of government if real cuts aren't a possibility, but then if they aren't, we might as well pack it in.

This comes down to the utmost root of the difference between libertarianism and objectivism, IMO. A libertarian insists on believing -- because of the far-reaching good consequences of so believing, as understood using economics -- that each person's own good is what he says it is. David Friedman calls this principle "consumer sovereignty" and it informs all his works, but especially The Machinery of Freedom. I do accept it.

I am not sure whether or not this is identical to the "dedicated, thoroughgoing subjectivism" that Rand considered "libertarianism" and stridently opposed. The paragraph in ARI's FAQ which explains this "subjectivism" associates it with Murray Rothbard (for whom I have no use) and with a pacifist foreign policy (for which I also have no use).

I certainly deeply disagree with Rand on the definition of capitalism, since my definition requires the principle of "consumer sovereignty" and hers appears to forbid it.

I also find it both self-defeating and irrational that she (and ARI) refused to partner with anyone who didn't share her core philosophy. I believe anyone who sticks to that decision accomplishes nothing except to marginalize himself permanently. Or to put it another way, my core goal is individual rights, and I don't have any problem working with allies to achieve it even if they are anarchists or believe in God.

People are tribal, I think. They like to be around people that they feel are similar to them, at least in the way they think and act. And whats wrong with that really?
I agree that diversity just breaks up the tribes and makes people feel they need to be only out for themselves. There isnt a lot of group unity anymore.

This election is really dividing the country. Maybe it's time for the USA should be made into the divided states of America and we start over without a federal government at all

Even the libertarian candidate isn't at all as pure as you are thinking, and could hardly even get nominated in this culture

I think that AR was right in AS. Philosophy first, then politics. I have severe doubts that a large country like this one can survive over time. It's time for this one to break up.

I thought perhaps the crony establishment would fall under the attacks by sanders and trump, but the hatred that has come out towards both of them is so strong that the establishment will continue to thrive under Hillary and her supporters at the expense of the rest of us

i live on the channel in Ft. Lauderdale where the cruise ships go in and out...great fishing...