We bought some time and the liberal establishment will feel the pressure from the voters. Now is the time to show ordinary people how self responsibility and rational thought will make our lives better. The educational battle against collectivism has a better chance to succeed today than yesterday.

In all the elections we have sought to stop or slow down the worst in order to buy time for something better. Sometimes it has worked for that, but nothing more. The trend has become much worse and the stakes much higher. This can't continue like this indefinitely before something blows. The effects on different individuals in different circumstances are not uniform, and some have already been hit hard while others are still oblivious to the threat.

Ayn Rand couldn't spread the right philosophical ideas all by herself, and Trump surely could not do any of it. He is the last gasp of the anti-conceptual Pragmatist businessmen -- often in the form of a parody -- but our only hope to buy time. It's an example vindicating Ayn Rand's theme of the importance of what is left of the American sense of life versus the intellectuals, but how also of how that isn't enough. Just being 'pro-American' isn't enough.

The Trump vote represents a sizable protest against the establishment intellectuals and the government swamp (including the vacuous Republican establishment), and that will continue, but that movement lacks the ideas necessary to fight -- with or without representation in the presidency -- which is how it wound up fervently following the man on the white horse through the primaries and into so much self-made destruction in the campaign. It's not at root their fault because they haven't been taught anything better, while absorbing mixed and bad premises from the culture around them and continuing to follow and echo them even as they want something better. We have a big battle on our hands, and nothing that has happened has contradicted Ayn Rand.

I agree with you. In this election I was hoping to buy some time for our country by picking someone who had a chance to defeat wicked and thoroughly evil Hillary. It appears that might not be possible and the country is indeed lost as rand outlined in AS. Rand failed to stop the philosophical decline and trump is likely to fail in even slowing down the practical decline.

The political aspects require working between the 4 year elections, but the requirements are much more fundamental. Stossel is talented but isn't doing anything near what is required with his relatively superficial political commentary, often on libertarian topics that most people don't care about and without regard to fundamental principles.

Ayn Rand summarized the essence of the intellectual battle required in "What Can One Do?" and "Don't Let it Go" in her book Philosophy: Who Needs It?:

From "What Can One Do?":

"If you are seriously interested in fighting for a better world, begin by identifying the nature of the problem. The battle is primarily intellectual (philosophical), not political. Politics is the last consequence, the practical implementation, of the fundamental (metaphysical-epistemological-ethical) ideas that dominate a given nation's culture. You cannot fight or change the consequences without fighting and changing the cause; nor can you attempt any practical implementation without knowing what you want to implement..."

"Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to 'do something'. By 'ideological' (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, that subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the 'libertarian' hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies. (For a discussion of the reasons, see 'The Anatomy of Compromise' in my book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.)

"The only groups one may properly join today are ad hoc committees, i.e., groups organized to achieve a single, specific, clearly defined goal, on which men of differing views can agree. In such cases, no one may attempt to ascribe his views to the entire membership, or to use the group to serve some hidden ideological purpose (and this has to be watched very, very vigilantly)..."

"... that reader's question implied a search for some shortcut in the form of an organized movement. No shortcut is possible. It is too late for a movement of people who hold a conventional mixture of contradictory philosophical notions. It is too early for a movement of people dedicated to a philosophy of reason. But it is never too late or too early to propagate the right ideas—except under a dictatorship.

"If a dictatorship ever comes to this country, it will be by the default of those who keep silent. We are still free enough to speak. Do we have time? No one can tell. But time is on our side—because we have an indestructible weapon and an invincible ally (if we learn how to use them): reason and reality."

And from "Don't Let it Go":

"We cannot fight against collectivism, unless we fight against its moral base: altruism. We cannot fight against altruism, unless we fight against its epistemological base: irrationalism. We cannot fight against anything, unless we fight for something—and what we must fight for is the supremacy of reason, and a view of man as a rational being."

"These are philosophical issues. The philosophy we need is a conceptual equivalent of America's sense of life. To propagate it, would require the hardest intellectual battle. But isn't that a magnificent goal to fight for?"

When the people are ready, the leader will appear

And not until then. Education in the 4 years between elections is the way I think we can have an effect. John stossel does a good job. I've heard him on fox. Pointing out how statist programs fail is a good start to cracking their hold on us too

But a better candidate could appeal to general principles of freedom and the right to pursue your own happiness, with its meaning in reality emphasized in contrast to forced sacrifice by overbearing bureaucracy. Everyone can still understand that and what it means to his life, even though the American sense of life has slipped since Ayn Rand wrote about it and how it can not be sustained without a better explicit philosophy. It is the basis of every resistance to tax increases and other sudden lurches in increased controls, despite the appeals to collectivist "fairness" and duty to sacrifice to others. But it has to be articulated and rationally explained as a presidential campaign theme, not smuggled in by stealth while mouthing collectivist bromides the way Johnson calls for the "common good" while denouncing "selfishness". Such compromises on principle are deadly and only accelerate the decline while achieving nothing.

Yes. I guess the state of the culture just isn't such that enough people can support an intellectually consistent objectivist

The whole situation of the country, which was once so great, is disappointing and much worse. But that the Libertarians, who have been anti-philosophical from the beginning in their political antics and lack of understanding, have sunk to this is too unsurprising to me to be considered a disappointment. They never had any promise from the beginning; this is just bringing it to a particularly ludicrous form. You should read why Ayn Rand denounced and contemptuously dismissed them 40 years ago. There are, in a general sense, "libertarian" or "libertarian leaning" this or that which can be a good sign of influence, but no one should confuse the anti-philosophical Libertarian activists with Objectivism.

More of Libertarian Party spokesman Weld supporting Clinton on MSNBC:

1. MSNBC Chuck Todd interview Sept. 30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature... (Watch Todd's face as he pushes farther and farther, as if he can't believe he's getting away with it and wondering how far he can go.)

(at 3:25) "I do not view those other two candidates the same way. I think very highly of Mrs. Clinton, I think she's very well qualified. I thought she did a great job in the debate the other night, she kept her game face on and it was, uh you know, a nice smile not a press lip smile. I thought Mr. Trump by the end of the debate was out - of - control as your guests earlier were pointing out that's nothing unusual, but I think they're whistling past the grave yard if they don't think Trump has a chance to win this whole thing, it's an irrational year.

Todd: "No I understand that, and if you thought you were playing a role in that, what would that mean for you?"

Weld: "Oh no, that would be a very [laughing], that would be a very bad thing..."

Todd: "You seem genuinely concerned about the threat of a Trump presidency."

Weld: "That's for darn sure."

Todd: "Do you think he [Gary Johnson] is more qualified than Hillary Clinton to be president?"

Weld: "I'm not sure anyone is more qualified than Hillary Clinton to be president of the United States."

On the VP debate he wasn't part of - Weld: "Well of course I'd love to be there and uh, uh talk about how uh, uh government can uh make a big difference on issues like uh black lives matter, uh police brutality, I think we need huge amounts of training there ..."

So "doing a great job in the debate" means making a physical impression with a "nice smile" in a "game face" and has nothing to do with rational articulation of rational principles and policies, let alone inability to defend the life-long pattern of indefensible corruption.

2. Nov. 2 transcript of Weld as apologist for the Clinton corruption being investigated by the FBI as he misrepresents and trashes the FBI http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vide...

Weld: "It’s incomprehensible, and I can’t see it – Mr. Comey’s got a good background but there’s nothing there, so far as it appears. Nothing there... So it’s not a good thing, it’s a distraction so I think we should just ignore it because there’s nothing there so get on with the business of last week of the election."

Then another endorsement of Clinton:

Maddow: "The Libertarian Party hasn’t treated you great if they’re putting out statements that you disagree with over your name even now, one week before the election I can’t imagine that your loyalty to them is stronger than your fear of Trump as a President."

"Weld: Well I’m here vouching for Mrs. Clinton and I think it’s high time somebody did and I’m doing it based on my personal experience with her and I think she deserves to have people vouch for her other than members of the Democratic National Committee so I’m here to do that."

No wonder that the MSNBC hard leftist Maddow praises him as she milks him for all she can get on behalf of Hillary: "I’m in a different place than you ideologically on the number line but I have a lot of respect both for your career and your thoughtfulness and I think that you are, you’re a deep thinker and a clear thinker on these things and I have a lot of respect for you, hope you don’t mind me saying..."

Ordinarily they wouldn't bother with these loons, but this was just too juicy for them to not exploit as they butter him up as a "thoughtful clear thinker". It's like shamelessly taking advantage of a retarded child for a heist while laughing about it. He's so out of touch he doesn't see it. Like so many libertarians he wants to feel he's respected by the left and to be accepted so he can spout off and get someone to pay attention to him, and the ruthlessly hard ideological leftists who know what they are doing are only too willing to exploit it for their own agenda.

You are right. It was more of a disappointment to me

It doesn't just look bad, it is bad. Their activist leaders picked these clowns to represent them to the nation in their attempt to exploit a serious election for their publicity seeking.

I think you overestimate the significance of Weld. Few pay any attention to Johnson and Weld at all, let alone follow MSNBC or leftist interviews with Weld. Their poll numbers were already at the bottom of the rock. They are even less now in proportion to Trump's gaining on Hillary, the opposite of what Weld wants. This Libertarian Party nonsense isn't what is driving the battle between Trump and Clinton.

The reasons why Ayn Rand denounced the Libertarian Party and why it continues to fail for anything worthwhile are not irrelevant. The a-philosophical libertarians will continue to ignore it.

Weld was touted in some quarters as a "libertarian" when he was governor of Massachusetts. He turned out to be a flake then, too, and did nothing to further long term improvement and is now forgotten. Grasping at these clowns in wishful thinking that big names have signed on to make political progress makes no more sense than the wishful thinking that Paul Ryan understood and advocated Ayn Rand.

They are their chickens coming home to roost as a result of their own ignoring philosophical principles and expecting to get anywhere in politics for the better by aping its process and trying to exploit big names.

The Libertarian Party picked them as its spokesmen, not that they had much to choose from. They picked them as their own bad name.

You are correct - in the past. Johnson and Weld have completely turned that around. Weld in particular is a flaming socialist.

Obviously.
Johnson and Weld will turn the Libertarian Party into just another party, but with a name that used to have a meaning.

Your reply has no relevance to my comment. You are now ignored.

Maybe you could vote directly for the other libertarians. Johnson/weld is kind of giving libertarians a bad name

First, I think that some of Johnson's stands during the campaign were designed for one purpose only: get enough votes to get in the debates and get open market solutions in the mainstream discussion. They were designed to attract people away from the Democrats. He knew the traditional libertarian approach was a loser and he had to try something different. It failed to get into the debates but it put the libertarian party in the minds of many young people who would never have considered it otherwise. Will it help libertarian candidates in the future? Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I think Johnson is more libertarian than this campaign indicates. I don't think the campaign has set back the Libertarian Party at all.
At this point, as has been the case since the campaign began, voting for Johnson is voting for the candidate that is best qualified and most trustworthy to be president. History has proven to me that voting for the lesser evil only lets looters continue to increase government power and steal wealth from producers. Trump and Hillary are poor choices for president. I vote on principles not in fear of Trump or Hillary. I am not a "Libertarian Party" member and I do not always agree with the platform of the party, but it is better by far than any other choice at present.

That is not remotely what he said. If you have difficulty hearing it you can read the transcript at https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

"LP as an extension of the DP" is a bit much. Democrats have always viewed Libertarians as "Republicans who want to smoke pot". In every Presidential election to date, the vast majority of Libertarian voters would have preferred the Republican candidate if forced to choose between the major parties. And there was a place, however cramped and uncomfortable, in the Republican Party for Ron Paul. There has never been such a place with the Democrats.

Everyone notices. The 4% hasn't yet noticed political reality.

The Anti-Nixonites for Nixon campaign to stop McGovern did not endorse Nixon as "honest and of high moral character" while claiming he represented the "party of principle". A Libertarian Party primary spokesmen is praising Clinton for honesty, high moral character, reliability, and competence, based on "knowing her well" both "professionally" and "personally", while proclaiming that they are "centrist" and for the "common good" while denouncing "selfishness".

Gary Johnson picked Weld and the "delegates" in this phony organization picked him and told him to pick whatever he wanted. They have a 40 year record of abysmal failure. Ayn Rand properly denounced them at the beginning, but even she didn't publicly foresee them sinking to this. It is, however, an unsurprising consequence of their a-philosophical rush (now 40 year old) into politics without regard to the required philosophical base for changing a culture that she explained so well.