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.
- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- 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
I am very open about our efforts. This is like getting a referendum on slavery. Makes me feel filthy even being near it...
At the other extreme is .... us. One party and they still have to steal votes.
One could comment deserves a thank you and a vote.
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.
"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.
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....
The majority of the voting public does not accept that A=A.
As proof of this I offer "Caitlyn" Jenner.
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.
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.
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.
Load more comments...