Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by fannym 8 years, 3 months ago
    We would be better off reforming the GOP from the inside. More momentum and less work this way. A third party has a very slim chance of working. We just need to convince our fellow citizens of the right ways.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 8 years, 3 months ago
    The answer is that politics is a derivative of ethics, which is based on metaphysics and epistemology. If you would win the political battles, you must fight the philosophical war first.

    "Politics is based on three other philosophical disciplines: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics—on a theory of man’s nature and of man’s relationship to existence. It is only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory and achieve it in practice. When, however, men attempt to rush into politics without such a base, the result is that embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality which is loosely designated today as “conservatism.” . . ."
    “Choose Your Issues,” The Objectivist Newsletter, Jan, 1962, 1
    http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/con...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 3 months ago
      EXACTLY.
      Just as our economy is not truly capitalism, but a mixed, mishmash of capitalism, socialism and whoknowswhatism, so our politics is a mixed up mishmash which reflects flawed metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, based on some reason, but mostly irrational whim and mysticism. It makes no sense attempting an Objectivist Party until the three things politics is based on can be rationally achieved. The only way to do that is to start with the present politics and by correcting the irrational aspects one by one over time, arrive at a reasonable foundation for politics to exist.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 8 years, 3 months ago
      Politics is based on more fundamental philosophical principles, but this has practical implications: A better politics cannot be implemented in practice without the proper philosophical ideas spreading through the culture first, not necessarily in full depth to everyone, but enough to establish an intellectual base. It's not enough to have the right ideas yourself and then use them to rush into politics. A small minority with the right ideas cannot suddenly appear and achieve success in politics regardless of what anyone else thinks in the entrenched establishment and the premises of the general culture. Ayn Rand addressed and emphasized this repeatedly.

      According to The Journals of Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand was interviewed by the New York Times on the day after the 1964 Goldwater-Johnson presidential election. She told them (over the telephone):

      "I am not a 'conservative,' but an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism. I think that this campaign was conducted very badly, that this is the end of old-fashioned, anti-intellectual 'conservatism'—and that the advocates of capitalism have to start from scratch, not in practical politics, but as a cultural-philosophical movement, to lay an intellectual foundation for future political movements. It is earlier than you think. The status quo of today is a mixed economy with a fascist, rather than socialist, trend—and [Lyndon] Johnson is the conservative in the exact sense of that word. Today, the advocates of laissez-faire capitalism, which Sen. [Barry] Goldwater is not, are and have to be radical innovators."

      In the Dec 1964 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter she expanded this in an article "It's Earlier Than You Think", in which she wrote in part" https://estore.aynrand.org/p/210/the-...

      "Unbelievable as it is, Sen. Goldwater seems actually to have believed that philosophy is a matter of the heart, not of the mind, that ideas are of no importance, and that the most profound ideological conflict in history could be won without recourse to the intellect. He believed, apparently, that the principles of 'the American way of life' were a kind of self-evident primary, clearly understood and firmly entrenched in the souls of the people, and that a few old-fashioned slogans were sufficient to bring them forth. He believed, apparently, that statism and collectivism were merely the corrupt aberrations of a small, inconsequential minority: of the intellectuals-but that the broad masses had remained pure in heart, loyal to their American 'tradition,' and that they needed nothing, in order to save the country, but a chance to rally behind a leader who announced himself as a 'conservative'.

      "'Conservatism' is a loose term, embracing many different groups; it cannot be said that Sen. Goldwater represented any one of them. But what he did represent was their common denominator: a folksy, 'cracker-barrel,' mass-oriented kind of anti-intellectual reliance on faith ('the heart') and on 'tradition'. The question, of course, is: what tradition? And since a 'conservative', in the original meaning of the word, is one who seeks to preserve the status quo, the question is: what status quo? The status quo of today is welfare statism, of a semi-socialist, semi-fascist variety. So is the explicit tradition of the past thirty years (and the implicit one of over a century)...

      "The political philosophy of America's Founding Fathers is so thoroughly buried under decades of statist misrepresentations on one side and empty lip-service on the other, that it has to be re-discovered, not ritualistically repeated. It has to be rescued from the shameful barnacles of platitudes now hiding it. It has to be expanded-because it was only a magnificent beginning, not a completed job, it was only a political philosophy without a full philosophical and moral foundation, which the 'conservatives' cannot provide...

      "This is no time for social metaphysicians, band-wagon-climbers, camp-followers, mystics, 'traditionalists' or any of the shaky amateurs who believed that 'conservatism' is safe, easy or fashionable, and were willing to collaborate with any dubious group so long as it was 'anti-socialist'. This is no time for the 'antis' -- it is a time only for the 'pros', in both meanings of the term.

      "The job to be done belongs to professional intellectuals. The battle has to be fought-and won-in colleges and universities, before it can be carried to the voting booths. Not until a cultural movement is ready to answer such questions ... can the advocates of freedom hope to be heard or understood at the polls."

      For more on what Ayn Rand advocated should be done, see especially her anthology Philosophy: Who Needs It?, in particular the title essay and the last two essays "What Can One Do?" and "Don't Let It Go" https://estore.aynrand.org/p/218/phil... But aside from what one can do, she thoroughly rejected the Libertarian Party as naively a-philosophical, rushing into politics without a philosophical base as it half plagiarized and half contradicted her own ideas. It's failure is there for all to see.

      This does not mean that you should not engage in politics at all. That is necessary for survival and self-defense, both personally and for the country. But maintain the context of what is possible, what is needed for more fundamental reform, and the long range time-scale of changing a culture. America was the consequence of the Enlightenment following centuries of intellectual evolution and development overthrowing the established culture of ideas with a new emphasis on reason and individualism. It took hundreds of years for the counter-Enlightenment, and in this country a hundred years of Pragmatism, to overthrow it into today's worsening decline. That will not be reversed overnight and cannot be reversed with only a better minority third political party trying to appeal to people whose fundamental premises have been corrupted.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 3 months ago
      This is silly. At most, politics ought to be derived from ethics. In reality, politics is the screaming and fighting of any two monkeys that want the same banana. "Politics should be discussed on all fours."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 8 years, 3 months ago
        No, it is not "silly". Every politics presupposes an ethics and every ethics presupposes an epistemology. Irrationalism, altruism and collectivism have led to the pressure group warfare of today's fascist trends, and they stick because the underlying thinking is no better than 'discussion on all fours'. But the vicious machinations that go on within politics, especially in Washington and state capitols, reveal much more strategic conniving and misused 'intelligence' than any 'monkeys fighting over a banana'. The chicanery fills an intellectual vacuum perpetrated by ignorance and anti-philosophical cynics.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by TheRealBill 8 years, 3 months ago
    Perhaps because an Objectivist would look at the laws, mechanics, and history of political parties and conclude that the deck is already stacked, the fix is in, and that an Objectivist political party is not a product he or she could sell due to lack of demand. Politics is a market and follows the same laws of economics as any other market. Despite there possibly being a need for one there is insufficient demand for one.

    If I were to compare to something from AS the closest would be Reardon Steel. Objectively the world had a need for the product but it lacked the demand. If not for Dagny seeing it for what it was there would have been no significant production of it.

    The reason it became a success was due to the actions of one person with the resources to risk on it. What would the corollary be?

    Perhaps if a monarchy or dictatorship were to see the merit and value in an objectivist run country and were to bet the country on having an objectivist or a group of them come in and run the country, the world could be shown the value. But absent that you would have to demonstrate in terms and manner which are incontrovertible that objectivists can run a country better. Assuming you could get any large collection of producers to go into a non-productive field.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by blackswan 8 years, 3 months ago
      EVERY innovative product has gone through the Rearden Metal process. Initially, there's no demand at all; no one knows what's there. Then, an early adopter uses it, with outstanding results, beginning a tsunami of acceptance. Then, more and more people use it for purposes not originally imagined. After that, demand explodes. That was the history of the products brought to market by the Robber Barons.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by TheRealBill 8 years, 3 months ago
        And how is that different from what I described? It isn't. The difference between physical products you can sell and a political party is that that they are physical products. Physical products can be purchased and demonstrated. In order for a political party to provide the demand it has to already be successful - just like a physical product.

        However, unlike a physical product a political party requires a mass of people to buy into it for it to be demonstrated as working, valuable, successful in essence you need early adopters. Which is what I described - you need it adopted by a political division such as a country before others can see it and want it.

        You're talking about only part of the process and in that process you're kissing out in the key factors. Not unlike people proclaiming celebrities or products and "instant/overnight" success because they didn't see all the prior years of effort which went into it. You need to find the early adopter, or in other terms the first follower.

        Another key difference is that politics require you to get the majority vote here in the states before you can actually demonstrate the product. In a market you have to compete, sure. But in the political market simply promoting your own product and winning by appeal isn't enough to demonstrate it.

        The closest we have seen to a successfull "third party" was The Reform Party. It was funded heavily by Perot. Even it wasn't successful despite winning some seats and even a gubernatorial one.

        To be a successful party in the states means you have to have enough to exert some control over legislation and executive at state and federal. The RP never achieved that despite a "celebrity" or two and millions of not billions of money provided by Perot.

        By contrast coming up with a real life Reardon Metal would be a walk in the woods (also the name of a really good two man play as I recall).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by gaiagal 8 years, 3 months ago
    Objectivist thinking can't play to people's emotions, only logic. People, on the whole, don't care for logic. It makes "I didn't have choice" and "I couldn't help myself" and "If it wasn't for..." impossible.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Tavolino 8 years, 3 months ago
    The Libertarian Party was loosely formed in very early 70's resulting from the student riots across the univerities.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mspalding 8 years, 3 months ago
      They aren't Objectivist but it is instructive to see how they've fared. In 40 years they've rarely been elected to any office above city mayor. Here in Colorado they've grown dramatically to 32,000 registered voters. But that's out of 3.2 million. It's hard to get elected by promising to do nothing.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rex_Little 8 years, 3 months ago
    The Libertarian Party was founded in 1972 by men who were, for the most part, serious students of Objectivism. Its platform contained not a single provision that an Objectivist would oppose. Its first Presidential candidate, John Hospers, wrote a campaign book which quoted Rand's works (with footnotes) hundreds of times.

    I can't speak for what the LP has become after 45 years of existence, but in the beginning it was certainly "a party based on true Objectivist thinking."

    (Yes, I know Rand hated and denounced the LP from the start. I stand by my opinion.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 3 months ago
    tvpnc.com The Twelve Visions Party of Mark Hamilton whom was very much in favor of Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
    The Prime Law is about as objective as it gets.

    The system makes it extra difficult for any third party to exist never mind prosper.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fivedollargold 8 years, 3 months ago
    As the great John Galt taught us, we cannot change a corrupt system by playing by its rules. We must withdraw and stop the engine of the world. Eventually, the system will rot from within and collapse. Only then will the masses be ready to accept "reason."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 3 months ago
    A political party has to present the public with concrete proposals for legislation that implements its values. On many issues (as shown repeatedly here in the Gulch), Objectivists agree that our current laws are terrible, but there is little agreement about how they should be replaced. Immigration, intellectual property and federal-state relations are examples of such issues.

    This being the case, an Objectivist political party would have to either remain silent on such issues or face public repudiation by Objectivists who disagree with the party’s proposals. Either situation would doom an Objectivist party to becoming a marginal player in the political process.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 3 months ago
    There used to be a political movement very similar to the libertarians (and yes, I know they are not strictly Objectivists) called the Blue Dog Democrats. They were the socially liberal and fiscally conservative politicians - many from the heartland. They got pushed out as the Democratic Party shifted towards hard-core Progressivism, which it is now. They might provide the base from which to build from, but it is going to take significant effort.

    The current political landscape looks like this:
    1. The Democratic Party. It's pretty much the Progressive party, as that is their ideology. It is very socialist in nature, advocating for more social spending, higher taxes, and a burgeoning debt. It's self-destructive, so all I can conclude is that these people are out to get their millions while they can and then retreat as the world burns, or they somehow have persuaded themselves that they'll escape the onrushing tsunami caused by their irresponsibility. The one thing that can be said is that this is a solid group who marches in lock-step and rarely defies their leadership.
    2. The Republican Party. It's a mish-mash of Progressives (aka RINO's) and moderates. Because there is no single ideology, they rarely if ever can get anything done in force. And because the leadership is mostly RINO's who are more scared of the media than their constituents, they rarely stand up on the principles they campaigned on. It's a fairly inept group.
    3. Outliers within the Republican Party. These are the Tea Party-types like Ted Cruz and the Libertarians like Rand Paul. They are pariahs even though they have an (R) next to their name and frequently raise the hackles on their RINO brethren. They are more Anti-Democrats than Republicans, however, as they aren't willing to go along with the Republican masses and instead choose to stand on principle.

    That's pretty much it. You may have some local races which include a Green Party candidate, a Constitution Party candidate, a Libertarian Party candidate and a few others, but their cache is pretty limited, as is their financial backing.

    But here's the real reason why there is no Objectivist Party: there's no money. Politics is all about money (unfortunately) - not ideology. It's the reason why people like George Soros dabble, and the reason why the Clinton Foundation has spent 8 years building up a slush fund of hundreds of millions: they know that money is the key to elections. It's the key to the media (aside from being a Progressive).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by RonC 8 years, 3 months ago
      I would add that a successful Donald Trump is the end of the republican party as described, and they know it. He is self funding, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, pro-business, "make America Great again", with smart work. If successful, all of the cronies that have bought influence and feathered their beds will have to compete in legitimate business activities. Can you imagine the house of Morgan approaching banking with a succeed or parish model, rather than do what we do and fix it later?

      I read an article yesterday by a former Bush cabinet member that stated "they would kill him before they allowed him to be President". William Bennett,

      I tend to agree with that. It is now the financial-military-industrial complex running things, and they will not be denied. They have been stuffing ballot boxes and fixing things since the days of Grover Cleveland.

      It doesn't matter to them who wins, as long as they are controllable. Hillary is just a s good as JEB, Marco, or the others. Trump is self funding and uncontrollable. He could prosecute the former Attorney General, President, Secretary of State, and others and not be called down. That could lead to terrible disruption and perhaps legal exposure for the modern day robber barons.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 3 months ago
        I would add Ben Carson to that as well as both Rand Paul and even Ted Cruz. None of them are GOP establishment types and they all get talked down to by the leadership of their own party.

        "Hillary is just a s good as JEB, Marco, or the others."

        To a certain degree, perhaps. The question is how fast we move towards socialism and where we spend our money in the meantime. With Hillary, it's full speed ahead towards despotism. With Jeb!, Christie, Rubio, Kasich, it would be a slower pace.

        And I'm not really sure Trump would cause the amount of disruption you say. He talks big, but if you look at the history of his business dealings, they cause me to seriously question him. He's come out and stated he is a big fan of eminent domain in favor of businesses. He doesn't offer much as a reduction in taxes. And he's already said he's a fan of Obamacare. I think Trump is in it because he sees the business deals one can make as a government leader and wants a piece of the action. I can't say I believe he would be a good President.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by RonC 8 years, 3 months ago
          I am not an apologist for Donald Trump. All that I have written is to be taken from the point of view of the establishment "money" players. They require a figurehead that can be bought and controlled. Therein lies the unique quality that is embodied in Trump. He is $10B on his own. That is a finger in the eye of the Norquists, the Morgans, the Huntsmans, the Chase family, the Koch brothers, the Rothchilds, and all the other money players. They don't care if it's Hillary or Bush, or any other candidate from their list, they are all controllable. Then there is Trump. I believe he is just as "at risk" as JFK was when trying to wind down Viet Nam.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 3 months ago
            I apologize if my words implied you were an apologist. I merely wanted to point out the very real downside of a Trump Presidency.

            I would take a look at how "The Donald" got his money. That he was able to parlay a $20 million inheritance into what he has now is a credit to him - or it would be if four bankruptcies weren't the method. He has stolen billions of dollars through those bankruptcies and openly laughed about it. To me, there is no difference between him and the politicians who take money from the unions. It's all legal theft.

            If you wanted to talk about a businessman who got his money the right way before turning to politics, I'd make a case for Ross Perot.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by RonC 8 years, 3 months ago
              Yes, and look how the influx of independent wealth transformed the Perot, Bush, Clinton election. Maybe that's what Bill and Donald were chatting about last spring.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by TheRealBill 8 years, 3 months ago
                That influx didn't really transform the election, but it did transform the rules about campaign finance afterward and that was a "bi-partisan" effort. The dems were just as afraid of a democrat doing it.

                Unless Trump is actually elected POTUS the most significant change will be even more rules against and independently wealthy candidate standing a chance - regardless of party.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by RonC 8 years, 3 months ago
                  That "bi-partisan" effort entirely makes my point. The people that are entrenched in the status quo, making money and using power, will do anything to keep things as they are. Having a fair haired wealthy guy tear down how things have been is equally distasteful to both sides. In Bill Bennett's article he flatly said, "they will kill him before they allow him to become President." I tend to agree with that. He could be the end of the Republican party. If he were elected, and chose to prosecute Holder, Clinton, and Obama, he could be the end of both parties as we know them. For me, that makes him "the man on a white horse" because the system is so corrupt and so driven by money and power it now longer does what the founders designed it to do. To someone holding an inside straight at the status quo table, he is the devil incarnate. I guess for most of us he is just an interesting side show.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 3 months ago
                The only thing most media hammered on was how Perot's running gave the race to Clinton. I don't think it was really that simple as many Republicans were ticked off when Bush backed out of his "No new taxes" gaffe. If you have more information to add, I'd love to hear it. That was back in the day before alternative media, so my understanding is likely to be somewhat jaundiced.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 3 months ago
                  Jaundiced does not mean inaccurate.

                  Witness the reaction over the next few years. Witness the fear when one of 'our' ideas catches hold - even for a moment. The left lives in fear that one or more or any of these ideas will take root in the 110 thousand precincts. Short of shutting down the internet and controlling interstate mail and interstate travel.....they haven't a chance of the whole thing blowing up as it always does Y generation in support or not. i learned today X = lost and y is now called Millennium but x + Y = Zero when they have a taste of the whip they asked for they may make something of themselves but their fate is of no matter to me. Those that choose to act beyond their years may also pay the price for their folly.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 3 months ago
                  Jaundiced does not mean inaccurate.

                  Witness the reaction over the next few years. Witness the fear when one of 'our' ideas catches hold - even for a moment. The left lives in fear that one or more or any of these ideas will take root in the 110 thousand precincts. Short of shutting down the internet and controling interstate mail and interstate travel.....they haven't a chance of the whole thing blowing up as it always does Yhine generation in support or not.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 3 months ago
                    I can only hope that the principles of freedom lure people back from the insanity that currently permeates nearly all policy across the world. The principles of self-ownership, responsibility for choice, free markets (both of ideas and products) and being able to keep the fruits of one's own labors used to be the founding principles of this nation.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 3 months ago
          If Cruz an Rand aren't establishment supporters why are they supporting Nancy Pelos's favorite next tax hike? They are role playing for suckers.

          Greeting to USSA from Free North America...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 3 months ago
            I look at body of work - not individual bills. Both Cruz and Rand (and Mike Lee) have been thorns in the side of the Republican Establishment. They are the ones who forced McConnell into even more stringent requirements for the latest immigration bill - among others. Look at who filibusters the most in the Senate and you'll find Paul and Cruz at the top of that list. That speaks volumes to me.

            I would also point out that there is a certain amount of give and take in negotiations (unless you're a Democrat with the media on your side). That's the reality of politics. We deal with ideology in black in white on this forum. Their world is much more the gray of practicality and compromise. Would we like to see the conversations shift more towards personal liberty? Absolutely. But that is only going to happen in degrees - it isn't going to happen all at once.

            Atlas Shrugged never talks about the aftermath of when the big collapse happens. It doesn't talk about the millions of people who die from starvation. It doesn't talk about the looting, rampaging mobs which will descend on and rip cities apart in search of food/water. It likes to pretend that there is a Gulch where the elites can escape and wait for the world to welcome them. Real life is going to be different. When the economy finally gives its last gasp due to debt and taxes, there will be no safe haven for people to run to and hide. Reality is going to come looking for everybody and it's not going to be idyllic like the novel.

            So in that recognition and in favor of my own personal welfare and that of my family, I don't want to see a collapse. I don't want to give up and throw my hands in the air with the defeatists who say there is nothing to do but give up and let the end come. So I will choose to support imperfect men and women of character in our Nation's government despite their foibles. Because the alternative is terrible.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 3 months ago
      I thought the Blue Dogs were the RINOS in either case their allegiance is left and as Republicans they are starting out as the right wing OF the left.

      Rand Paul is Republican not a Libertarian
      Ted Cruz is Tea Party 'after' the Republicans took it over.

      Republican including their enablers = Rino = Democrats = Dinos = progressives = Socialists and the next step is ???? By any other name they are still left wing socialists who use any and all means for their one major goal. Government Control.

      Considering how far they have progressed and how little the opposition has done anything I would say all of them are progressing ...

      There is only one viable means of change at present and who knows how long before that will be compromised if it isn't already...

      I forgot they have the couch potato support as well
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 3 months ago
    Simply because there arent enough objectivists to appreciate it. Romney was mostly right about 47% of the populace just want freebies- but he was wrong about the percentage. Its much higher
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 3 months ago
    Because we are living Atlas Shrugged. The Fountainhead has passed and with it any semblance of justice. A political solution is a lost cause with the great majority of those claiming to be Objectivists willing to keep voting for the GOP evil instead of the Dem evil.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 3 months ago
      So it's a tool and a very useful tool but has no other practical application unless the individual chooses to apply the results which appears too often not to be the case. Another way of putting it is a significant number of Objectivists are part of the problem not part of the solution. So we're back to hoping for a military solution and hoping once they act on their oath of office .... they give it back. Fine by me.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 3 months ago
    See, just me, one person, asking this question, started this string of comments, wow, what a rush! Imagine if 1000 people, than 100,000 people did the same thing!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Donald-Brian-Lehoux 8 years, 3 months ago
    I have a degree from the school of life and hard knocks, with a minor from two years of college. Mike Rowe said “arrogance and elitism are alive and well in every corner of every party.” It is to bad that when he said, “Is it possible that Senator Sanders doesn’t realize the number of college graduates with criminal records?”, he didn’t mention the Bernie Madoff, Senators, other politicians that have been removed from office or gone to jail.
    DIVIDE AND CONQUER is what they do.
    You want to thank a veteran, Vote veteran someone that puts America before ANY party.
    No double standards put DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your support and vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 8 years, 3 months ago
    Because the purpose of a party is to leverage patronage and special favors, not to propound a proper theory of government. Even the Communist Party leverages patronage--just of a different kind. Plum assignments instead of subsidies and protections.

    Ask yourself this instead: how to build a decentralized organization that by its very nature cannot and would not act as a big patronage machine? Like Ragnar Danneskjöld's crew, and then the Galt's Gulch Air-Land Militia, only larger. Much larger.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Tavolino 8 years, 3 months ago
    It was originally started at Brooklyn College under the name of "ad hoc committee against student terrorism". We are moving forward but it needs to be done one mind at a time so the basic principles are clear and consistent
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo