Politics draws looters but it is not a precondition. What Objectivist doesn't want the looters pushed out?

Also posted this to Timelords reply:

Why wouldn't an Objectivist consider running?

Might be a stretch but imagine an Objectivist with an attitude like Donald Trump. He might actually enjoy running. At least stirring things up, as Trump has.

Why wouldn't an Objectivist consider running?

Might be a stretch but imagine an Objectivist with an attitude like Donald Trump. He might actually enjoy running. At least stirring things up, as Trump has.

Reason 1; I would vote for him.

Then you were dishonest! Bad Objectivist! Bad!

I'm a big fan of answering the question that was asked, not the one I think should have been asked. That's what politicians do during public forums...

I accept your first paragraph as applying to Ron Paul, but Rand doesn't call himself a libertarian because he is NOT a libertarian! He would have to make big changes to a number of his positions to be close enough to use the title.

He's the best of the bunch by FAR and I'll vote for him if he's nominated (and the LP candidate doesn't make it onto the ballot in CT). Nevertheless, not a libertarian.

I upvoted you but you also get a demerit for not engaging in the the thought experiment!

We would speak the truth and it would stun people indefinitely. The Objectivist candidate could then load them all into a truck, drag them into the polling place, use their arms and hands to cast a vote for the Objectivist, truck them all back from whence cameth they, and then quietly whisper, "Obama!" into their ear.

Why Obama? Because 50% of the population abhors him and the rest adore him, so either way you startle them out of their stupor. Well, wait, you startle them out of the catatonic stupor and back into their everyday stupor!

They certainly could if they could convince people it's not a trick, that it's not an ideological artifice from which to dole out favors to those who contributed to their election.

It probably would not be in an Objectivist's self interest.

We have a long time to wait then. They haven't heard the crystal clear ring of reason in most places in the world. That ring has been muzzled, often by a high caliber weapon.

Well summarized, DrZarkov99.

People would follow such a person--only if he makes them understand (a) his opponents propose to rob them blind and (b) some (not all) of those same opponents would leave us vulnerable to external enemies who do their robbery by more forthright force.

Immigration : Eliminate Welfare and the war on drugs

Abortion: Probably a states rights issue - however this is such a minor issue in the problems of the US that only if forced to comment on it would an objectivist candidate do so.

AJ,
the usa hasn't had a principled person in government. Although I knew the man who took over for John Lindsey when he became mayor of nyc. the man finished the term and never ran for the office because he was principled. an objectivist, a true objectivist would not run because he would be unelectable!!!!!!!!!

knowledge of the only permanent way to get everyone
to become richer in a human society.

integrity, honesty and ethical behavior.

staunch advocacy for freedom.

a good sense of humor, without a fear of failure. -- j
.

You got it right. Venezuela is bad but not yet bad enough to dump failed socialism.

There is no way an Objectivist can win without lying to the voters and to himself. Take Rand Paul, about 25% in line with Objectivism. Can you imagine where he'd be at 100%?

When the social fabric has disintegrated, when the government is in total chaos, then, in such a void, the crystal clear ring of reason could finally be heard.

What should be an Objectivist position on immigration and abortion?

The Pauls (Ron and Rand) are an example of how much a Libertarian candidate can appeal to the public. No purist can get past the hurdles of candidacy, and it's the compromises that hinder honest candidates.

The Founders hoped for many candidates, unaffiliated with powerful political parties, so that an informed electorate would have clear choices. Unfortunately, an uninformed electorate dominates, and is easily persuaded by simple-minded themes and charisma over intellect or integrity. Without limits on campaign money, the major parties have made the Founders worst electoral nightmare come true.

Not if he runs on an anti-immigration platform. This position is not only not objectivist, but the objectivist position would be to tackle the underlying issues.

The anti-immigration positions on the GOP will also sink them. If that and abortion are the two big solutions to the problems in the US according to the GOP we are sunk.

what makes you think an objectivist would consider running for the presidency in the first place?

1 Reason an Objectivist could win - An O would tell the electorate what their best answer/truth is to any question, rather than a lie.

The flip side