Gee, murder may be a bit harsh. Apparently many in the Gulch do not think these two delegates were unethical. I do. But I am surpised how many in the Gulch wanted to "explain away" the behaviour.

I think the more important question is whether it would be unethical for voters to band together and murder these two fraudsters? Obviously it's unethical to take a job and then turn the job to your own advantage. Is it unethical for a bank employee to take money customers deposit and use it for his own purposes? By all means, explain the difference here.

Indeed.

I do not see what you say here as related to the question I posed.

This gets back to my original point. It's like asking whether it is ethical for a group of thieves to give some members less of the loot than they had promised them. Any answer is wrong.

Let’s take the above hypothetical scenario a step further. It’s the second ballot and you’re the deciding vote. By the convention rules, you’re now free to vote for any candidate. Do you vote for the “nation-crushing mini-Mussolini” that you were pledged to on the first vote, thus securing his nomination, or do you betray the “expectations” of those who elected you and vote for another candidate, thus blocking his nomination?

I would love to have seen that question asked.

I reviewed a few other “writings” by him. Your analysis does seem to fit. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I do not participate here to debate, but to further Objectivism by contributing whatever I can.

The 'reporter' posed a soft-ball question based on the concept that there was a consideration of ethics in the primary. The reporter, if experienced at all in elections already knew that almost no individuals involved in 'democratic elections' in this country have any respect for ethics in the process except for rhetoric. Why wouldn't the reporter pose questions to the elected delegates that points out to the public that ethics is not something they could ever rely on?
A far better question might have been: 'You ran for the position of delegate for the convention based on support for Trump, yet you've admitted publicly that you are actually supporters of Cruz or another nominee and will do whatever you can to support other than Trump? How can anyone in the community ever believe in or trust that anything that you ever say in business or personally, you will stand behind? What makes you 'so special' that you know better than the people that voted for you, even if they believed your lies.?

He just does it, with no logical connection nor rationality nor any common courtesy for the time of others on the site. He's a verbal bully with no respect what-so-ever for others on the site or their post. He also does it because few of you bother to down-vote or challenge his multitude of posts and comments that have almost nothing to do with AR or Objectivism..

Luckily, I'm only one sample. It's my Objectivist opinion that these delegates are frauds.

I was asking only about Objectivist ethics. Nothing else.

I am right behind you in age and I have experienced the same thing...mostly because "good people" are too busy with their own battles to be diligent...so the "pretend-to-be good people" (who have nothing but time on their hands) win almost every time.

It's more complicated than credit default swaps. Oh, you can vote. Sometimes. Sometimes, we'll vote for you. Sometimes we'll have an open primary convention. Maybe not. Blah...Blah... And, the average shmuck plays along and goes, "Oh, I guess they know better than I do." Haha! Kind of funny... And, you did originally ask for our opinion. Mine is that it doesn't matter. Sorry if I misunderstood (wouldn't be the first time).

Too bad we don't have anyone at the Atlas Society who tell us what the Objectivst view is. Maybe Kelley could tell us.

The Objectivist Ethics says that an individual may not violate the rights of other individuals. The example you are citing violates your expectations, but I don't see how it violates your rights. Therefore I don't see how it violates the Objectivist Ethics, any more than does commercial advertising that touts the benefits of a product but not its disadvantages.

and Thank You for your timely post -- revealing and
helpful, we need this kind of thing posted on billboards
and shouted from the rooftops! . people are numb. -- j
.

When somebody says "Vote for me I will vote for X" that is a message that for me says they are a supporter of X. I am not couning angels on the head of pin.,

What is it you are saying here, I am not understanding.

I do expect it. And I love it being exposed. But the question dealt with how Objectivists view this from an ethical perspective.

How is the proposed delegate responsible for your assumptions? If he or she agrees to vote for a particular candidate on the first ballot and you elect that delegate, that's all you are entitled to. If you assume something more, you are free to make further inquiries and act on the basis of what those inquiries reveal.

the scope was the ethics of lying...this is how we handled it in philosophy in college and at NBI seminars in new york city...you always to go back to the origins of ethics and their objective justification...sorry...

Because this is not a "self-defense" question. Restated, it is misleading simply because if one wants to be a delegate for X, the voter (at least me) assumes the proposed delegate is truly a supporter of X and not a mole for Y. Is this consistent with Objectivist ethics?

If you voluntarily choose to participate in a process in which information is systematically hidden from you, you should expect that such information is hidden for a reason, and not assume that those hiding such information are honest and have your best interests at heart.

I understand fully. Also, email/blogs/etc are very easy to misinterpret. There is no eye contact, voice tone, or facial expression to communicate fully the words written. I think we all have this happen to us and do it ourselves. Just part of the “text life” we lead.