List reasons why an Objectivist could NOT win a general election for president
I have also posted another thread for us to list reasons why an Objectivist could win a general election for president.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
In any case, because of this, once it because known that a candidate was an Objectivist, large swaths of the commentariat would attack. After all:
--An Objectivist is an atheist! Heaven help us!
--An Objectivist advocates greed and selfishness. Or that's what they would say.
--An Objectivist, even if espousing a gradual set of pro-freedom reforms, would have to admit thinking it it would be a long-term goal to completely eliminate Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, SNAP,public schools, and Obamacare, along with many regulations and subsidies.
.
Most people are not (currently) looking for a revolution.They aren't looking to be told that their traditional morality is wrong in many ways.
However, an Objectivist could develop a conversation that logically deals with the immoral, the atheist and those mystical. There are certain truths that tie it all together in a logical objective way.
This is the conversation I am trying to developing. I call it a 'Conscious' view. One cannot belong to any particular meme because it will encompass the value in all memes or levels of awareness. Problem is, it won't be understood over night. My hopes are that it will in our future. Currently there is only .01% of the population that finds themselves in this place.
Thanks to you all here and at the Julian Jaynes blog post; and the Neothink society, I don't feel so all alone or out of place.
Thanks for listening
The vitriolic tenancies of many Objectivists when it some to respecting people who do not believe ENTIRELY as they do.
To be POTUS you have to lead everyone, not just those you mentally consider equal or those who subscribe to your way of thinking. I think an Objectivist would have immense difficultly with this very aspect and it would, if elected, destroy any progress he/she would make.
You asked,
Her in Illinois, to replace my districts House Rep, Aaron Schock, LaHood got elected in the primary on less than 8% of the eligible voters and in the special election last week he nailed it with less than 9% of total eligible voters. Opportunity is in these special elections but are Objectivists ready to pounce? Certainly ready to talk about it, but to organize a plan to jump when it will be shorter odds to succeed? I don't see it yet.
Getting your opponents to understand that would make you a modern Tantalus however.
Cheating scandals make a wonderful opportunity for presenting Objectivism. "No one gets to this place by faking reality in any way whatsoever." - John Galt.
One could comment deserves a thank you and a vote.
Objectivists ask is it true.
Understanding the true purpose helps to define a proper premise.
I know it is a mystical expression but I myself can think of none better to describe the outcome...it's referred to as divine providence.
I could express it quantum physically...but it just doesn't have the same impact.
--Objectivity and rationality
--Pursuit of happiness
--Valuing achievement
They just aren't ready for the full implications of those principles, and they have (on average) a poor opinion of Objectivism as such.
At the other extreme is .... us. One party and they still have to steal votes.
Reason 1; Over 50% of the people are receiving entitlements.
Reason 2; 75 to 85% of the people are religious to some extent.
While some people who are receiving entitlements would rather have a job and earn their way and some people who are religious would vote for an atheist if he had the right platform those are some large numbers to get around. The irrational outnumber the rational by a wide margin.
Entitlements depend on what kind. That area covers anything in the area of pay covered only by the Annual General Budget. Military for example, Social Security, Government employees retirement to some extent, Railroad Retirement Trust Fund. Medicare which we are stuck with AND pay through the nose are all examples of monies people are entitled to where there is no funding. Congressional retirement
Clean sweep
I have known plenty of "christian democrats". (Double the irrational)
A military paycheck is not an entitlement. It's earned. Government employee paycheck; Debatable. Social Security; Absolutely an entitlement. People tell me "That's my money. I payed into that!" I tell them "That is not your money. They spent your money. Now they are stealing it from somebody else to pay you." Congressional retirement? Can't we just make glue out of them or something?
b. I am not an atheist.
c. If it's not funded such as military retirees pay it's an entitlement program. I left out the retiree. That was my fault.
d. I do not go to church on Sunday worship the Prince of Peace and the go to war on Monday or as is most common go to work on Monday and spend six days breaking the rules screwing over people.
Instead when I went to war it was seven days a week and I would see those who started the war suddenly show up supporting the other side.
In any case I don't recall any requirement to be an atheist as part of becoming an objectivist so that's my next question. Where is it written? If it is a requirement it must be written somewhere. Or should I refer to myself as religious objectivist. No matter it's my individual choice. Just thought I asked.
I hook have the last of the books just ordered the newspaper colum book and started on the books with Rand and a co-author or about the subject by another author. (I might add over the years I have purchased and given to others two books. Atlas Shrugged over fifty and Where There Is No Doctor over two cases of those. More than any other.
I used to stand with a rifle in my hand and think 'Thank God for Ayn Rand.'
I still do.
And stand on the deck of my boat watching a particularly great sunrise or sunset and say much the same thing.
I gave you a thumbs up out of the last sentence. Glue as I recall is made by boiling. Bring on the cauldrons.
"a. I consider myself to be an Objectivist in training.
b. I am not an atheist.
In any case I don't recall any requirement to be an atheist as part of becoming an objectivist so that's my next question. Where is it written? If it is a requirement it must be written somewhere. Or should I refer to myself as religious objectivist. No matter it's my individual choice. Just thought I asked."
Ayn Rand rejected all forms of the supernatural as a consequence of her philosophy of reason. It isn't "Written" as a "requirement" for "becoming" anything, as in dogma in the Word of God" to "become a Christian"; she explained her positions systematically, and that includes the reasons for rejecting faith in the supernatural. You can read a systematic, comprehensive account in Leonard Peikoff's Obejctivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. There is no such thing as a "religious Objectivist" in any sense of that terminology. You either understand it and act accordingly or you don't. In particular you can't be anything "in training" by clinging to its opposite.
But no one should see himself as "in training" to "become" an Objectivist at all. It's a body of knowledge that is fully explained, but takes time and effort to acquire, not something to decide in advance to "become" before even knowing what it is. You "are" whatever you judge to be true at any time. Those with an interest in Ayn Rand's ideas should concentrate on understanding them for as long as that takes, not "becoming" something in accordance with "requirements" not yet understood.
-Just because the military retirement fund is improperly set up does not make it an entitlement either. It is still earned. Although the amount and the time served to earn it could be debated, it is still a mutual agreement between an employee and an employer. Still earned.
-Thank you for your service.
-There is only 1 group of people in this country that we owe a debt to. Our veterans.
-There is no, and can be no requirement, by the nature of Objectivism, to be an atheist in order to become an Objectivist. It is merely a result of learning, accepting and reflecting. I did not realize that I had become an atheist until I got involved in a debate with some family on facebook (of all places) and realized that I could no longer make my argument from a position of an agnostic. My wife still isn't there. Probably never will be.
-I also don't begrudge someone accepting social security (if they did pay into it) or even some forms of welfare/medicare/medicaid temporarily. In certain situations the system has been rigged to make it impossible not to.
Edit; Last line added
In the Army chapel was mandatory. There I learned my first truth. There is no prohibition against killing in the Ten Commandments. The word is murder. State sanctioned was ok with God and since God and Jesus were the same..according to some, it was jake with me.
We had a couple of sayings in the combat arms. Kill them All Let God Sort them out. The refined version was we only make appointments. Render unto God which is God's and to Cesar which is Cesar's and the second was The Lords work was his business we provided clientele. A third. No atheists in the fox hole. The unspoken part was - until after the battle.
Long before I had decided the reason for church and religion is to help people not be afraid of the dark. The Army took care of that and I became that which should be feared. Then I found one that didn't run a full tilt recruiting drive had some more than decent standards and lived up to them..
Whatever or whoever the power was that started all of this and gave me as a Terran the ability to think and reason has my vote. I
l'll it God out of habit. That led me back to AS and Rand and into Objectivism. Subjectivism provides the dream. Objectivism the reality. Rand provided the connection. I also built on a lot of what Heinlein wrote which brought me History and Moral Philosophy. All his books were about an individual coping with his...wait for it...prosopography... identifying with and relating to a group within their particular historical context. I ran into that one looking for the spelling of proselytise.
From there came 'evaluate not judge in the context of their time. and from that came I take no responsibility for that which was prior to my birth and refuse to not take responsibility for my part of that which is
Heinlein and Rand add one teacher in high school and one neighbor that loaned me a book that caught my interest and one more. The start of applying all that went before, sorting it all out was sparked by one left wing air head liberal.
Creator works in wondrous ways, every being has a purpose. In case you are wondering why you are here.
Another story.. The air head was Madonna.
Just guessing here but you seem to be internally conflicted over things that happened during your time in the service. I cannot and will not do you the disservice of saying I understand. I've never been there and hope to not have to. I will say this though. If it is true, the quote "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants", then it is important that I KNOW that I am right. It is a matter of life and death.
Whatever or Who ever Created The Universe did a pretty good job when it came to evolving a species that doesn't use instinct but the mind. It may be that choice of reality you mentioned is called consciousness and conscience. One certainly doesn't progress by the methods of the progressives. So let's go find the liberals and conservatives question. see if someone answered it....
These words were spoken like a True Objectivist:
" Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it.The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration."
Source: Ayn Rand, 'The Question of Scholarships,' "The Objectivist," June 1966
***
P.S. Ms Rand did use her SS and Medicare benefits in her old age. I would go so far as to say she definitely felt, "entitled" to them. I also expect that by the time she died, they were surely stealing somebody else's money to pay her. Probably some of mine and possibly some of yours. The real question is: Is there a way to change the program without Atlas having to do the Shrug? I am skeptical of that happening. I have tried to make provisions for when the money supply 'shrugs', but perhaps by that time the global redistributionists will have managed to abolish private property (courtesy of UN Agenda 21) and I will have great numbers of, entitled "travelers" from other nations "squatting" in my home with me and all over my property--eating the things that I grow--well that is IF I can find or manage to save heirloom seeds that haven't been outlawed by the influence of Crony Monsanto... and also IF the, "traveling squatters" haven't felt 'entitled' to eat all my chickens because they have no delay of gratification, the attention spans of gnats and are unaware that fertilized eggs bring forth more chickens nor knowledge of any other facet of animal husbandry.
Naturally, both of the above statements are false, but try telling people that and explaining why... "You misunderstand 'selfish'! Ayn Rand defined it as 'rational self interest,' it has nothing to do with not sharing your candy.
Another roadblock to understanding Objectivists (and libertarians) is that we can't, and won't, answer a question that deserves a thorough answer with a sound bite.
Q: Mr Trump, what is your position on illegal immigration and its affect on the American economy?
A: I'd make the Mexican government pay for the wall! (Strains of Pink Floyd begin to play until someone shouts out, "And the worms ate into his brain!" No more Pink Floyd after that!)
Q: Ms Clinton, what's your position on medical marijuana?
A: (shouting) We believe that health care is a basic human right and we won't stop until every working man, woman and child can walk into his chosen doctor's office and receive care from the best medical system in the world! (Ed: only "working" men, women, children? Are you saying you approve of child labor? Are you saying that the "currently un-jobbed" (new PC term for unemployed, which carries with it a terrible stigma) don't get healthcare? Are you saying we have the best medical system in the world yet you still want to redesign it from the bottom up?)
I agree completely that it's hard to explain, but it seems like it shouldn't be. We have phrases to describe the opposite. "putting someone on the spot," "imposing," "hitting someone up for a donations." "Sympathy sex," "Guilt trip," "Roping someone into something," "making someone an offer he can't refuse." People generally do not want to be involved in these transactions. People want to be in selfish transactions.
Start from 2:00 in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoiKD...
"My only goal is to make money."
+1
No more cannon fodder.
blatantly honest and forthright
BS filter settings don't allow "polite discourse"
too little regard for lying, cheating middle-of-the-road people
better things to do with our time and money? -- j
.
That is not a trait of the general public. Unless it's found in the average 35% who register but don't vote in Presidential cycles and 50% who register and don't vote in the off year cycles or in the fifty plus percent who don't register.
Put in perspective fifty percent don't register, thirty five percent don't vote is what? 32.5 voting divided currently between the two halves of the Government Party AND the splinters, thirds, write in, and independents and vote flushers. each about one third with the last group increasing.
Call it 11 percent for each with 12 percent of the eligible voters needed to win.
Given that dismal success rate I would seriously think about supporting the Anti Party Party.
It really doesn't work out quite that way but it isn't far off I took the figures from the 2007 edition of Time Almanac.
In real life that 12% to win in winner take all states gets the full 33. No matter who yoiu thought you voted for.
1 No winners by plurality.
2.No votes given to other candidates or measures
3. If NOTA wins but has less than 50% plus one
Any candidate whose votes added to NOTA would equal a majority. In a multi candidate race if NOTA got 50 as plurality leader the next highest would stay on the ballot. If NOTA 40 and the next highest had ten and the next nine both would remain. However if NOTA had 50 and the ten had five each all get scrubbed. That one wants some thinking. Who would fill the seat in the next month for example.
4. If NOTA wins and has more than 50% plus one the entire slate is scrubbed and requires a new measure or all new candidates.
Length of time to run a new race one week to file two weeks to campaign. Votes added. October becomes November same day. Still no winner November becomes December same day. The first day with a nod to weekends. Plenty of time to do some coalition building and plenty of time for the third race or run off winner to get read into the picture. with the Inauguration 49 days later. No stage coaches.
All coupled with voting on the same day at the same hours and no results announced until the furthest (Hawaii and the Aleutian Chain of Alaska) have closed the polls.
Proposals pose a problem of their own. I favor if a proposal is voted down it's done with. Seattle voted tearing down the unpaid for Kingdome and building the new sports venue. The Legislature declared an emergency and without vote billed the entire state. That is not a substantive change. What they needed was a location change The traffic is third worst in the nation on a good day and with a game in progress it's probably the first worst I-5 and I-90 join right at the ferry and cruise ship docks
The rest has to do with Campaigning not voting.
As for Seattle's problems, Melbourne, FL has a lot of redeeming qualities. I thought you were in Mexico. Am I wrong?
Find that person that will satisfy me and persuade even the devil's advocate polemicists, they've my vote so run 'em for office.
The more serious question is to consider whether someone with the integrity and understanding of a Howard Roark could personally tolerate what it would take to mount the kind of serious political campaign necessary to win a major election today, and then tolerate the kind of daily routine actions typical of the Washington mentality if he won -- even if he could find a proper staff. Could Hank Rearden have psychologically survived personally taking Wesley Mouch's job as his "man in Washington"? That is why an Objectivist could not succeed in today's politics as a major elected official.
Ayn Rand emphasized over and over that it was far too soon for an "Objectivist politics" because of the lack of philosophical presuppositions required in the culture, let alone in Washington. Politics is the last step. That is still true today and those who still pursue the idea of "Objectivist politics" reveal their lack of understanding of what is required in terms of philosophical reform of the culture.
The majority of the voting public does not accept that A=A.
As proof of this I offer "Caitlyn" Jenner.
Absolutely not!
In our heart of hearts we know that.
Man has continued to distanced himself from reason from its inception. The majority of the peoples on this planet would not be able to define what reason is, how to apply it much less recognize it with a vote.
No my friends, we are here because we are few.
It is an illusion to hope that a considerable number of voters, much less a majority, would vote an "O" into the presidency under current social/political conditions. To open that door it would take something short of a revolution IMHO.
I should make it easy for you.
I like to liberally spread a lot of peanut butter on real butter on my 12 grain bread and never mind it's two weeks to payday I have a credit card.
I like peanut butter but not with real butter and healthy bread which is an oxymoron I know but it's two weeks to pay day so I'll make what I have last and reconsider my budget.
The rest is just PC BS from people that don't know what they are.
Where do you find the most liberals and where do you find the most conservatives in the in the Humanoid Party aka Government Party AKA left wing socialist etc. ad nausea coalition formerly known separately as Republicans and Democrats?
An objective individual will have no trouble figuring that out arrive at a conclusion properly tested determine if it is useful therefore practical and put it to good use.
One would expect a subjective prone collectivist to leap for the pragmatic answer answering the needs of the moment but that is rare instead...skip all of that and ask the party for today answer.
The difference defines who is and who isn't free at least in their thinking and reasoning and who do not qualify ergo the Humanoid Party
Which still begs the answer to the question,
where are the most conservatives found and likewise the most liberals.
Two very short answers then I'll grade the papers.
I am very open about our efforts. This is like getting a referendum on slavery. Makes me feel filthy even being near it...