Trump: Objectivist Opportunity?

Posted by D_E_Liberty 4 years, 2 months ago to Politics
62 comments | Share | Flag

Sometimes, out of disaster comes historic opportunity. From the ashes of a failed enterprise arises the Phoenix of a more evolved and ideal reality – sometimes!

Whether you support(ed) Donald Trump or not, he is the presumptive Republican nominee. His christening has ushered in a deluge of apocalyptic predictions from the left, but also, more surprisingly from the right. It evidences far less a coronation than a coup by a populist faction led by an accidental revolutionary who has high jacked the GOP by becoming the personification of the frustration, fear, and anger of its party faithful and newcomers who feel abandoned by their Republican leaders.

Say what you will about them, what these Trump supporters lack in fidelity to traditional GOP principles and character litmus tests, they make up for in loyalty. They don’t care who or how many people Trump insults. They don’t care how often he exposes his breathtakingly narrow understanding of the issues―they are going to support him no matter what. As Trump so brazenly stated himself, “I could shoot someone in the street, and I wouldn’t lose any votes.” His supporters are “Trumplidites” to the core, and a very hard core it is.

But beyond his “cult of personality” followers, Trump is not so popular. In fact, he is roundly hated by large segments of the voting populations. His negative popularity ratings are record-breaking for a Presidential candidate, particularly among Independents (the only voting block that really matters since it is the only one really “in play”)

And while the Democratic nominee has her own serious popularity problems, conventional wisdom and historic voting patterns among independents and moderates in the middle eschew extremism and extremist candidates. They abhor loose cannons and cavalier characters―both of which are perfect descriptions of Donald Trump. No one, including Trump, knows what he is going to do or why since, by all indications, his policy making process is devoid of any discernable principles―let alone an actual guiding philosophy. In that sense, he is an unknowable enigma, completely unpredictable. Such capricious and erratic propensities make everyone, but particularly, the majority in the middle, nervous.

This may very well mean that many among the “undecided” will cast their voting in keeping with the old adage, “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.”

Clinton is the devil we know, while Trump is the devil we don’t.

This would seem to give the edge to Clinton. Either way, it is a Faustian choice at best. From the Liberty perspective it a choice of “picking your poison.” Do you go with woman who is peddling poison that offers you a slow death by economic strangulation or the many who is a political poison pill that could cause instant death by one careless misstep?


From the perspective of Libertarians, and more pointedly Objectivist Libertarians, it would appear that the election of either candidate is a nightmarish scenario of apocalyptic proportion. But as apocalyptic as this may seem in the short term, it just might be the harbinger of good news for Libertarians and other liberty-loving micro parties in the long term―as unlikely as this might seem.

So let’s play this out. Here is one possible, if not likely, scenario:

Trump secures the Republican nomination, riding a wave of unprecedented dissatisfaction of traditional Republican voters and new Trumplidite voters (the latter being independents and conservative Democrats and Republicans who are not able to formulate their own political philosophies beyond the sloganeering sound bites Trump spews―they are, by definition, anti-intellectual).

Second, we can assume virtually all Democrats will eventually hold their collective noses and vote for Hillary. Add to that the Independents that strongly dislike Trump, either personally or politically. Subtract from Trump’s total MOST Libertarians and recovering Republicans who dislike and mistrust Trump (and who will just stay at home), and the remaining support for Trump will be woefully insufficient to secure him the Presidency. In fact, his hard ceiling for support is probably in the 40s. Translation: Hillary wins by a landslide.

Trump at the top of the ticket proves to be a tremendous drag on the ticket for those Republicans running for the Senate and the House―such a drag, in fact, that it reverses the majority in both chambers.

Now the Democrats have a field day for four years. Hillary―the human, unprincipled, political wind sock―further adjusts her orientation to the far left, driven by the new Sanders Socialistic/Millennial gale force political winds blowing at her back. She and her Democratic Congress begin passing ultra-progressive legislation and regulations.

The unprecedented landslide of freebies and give-aways (i.e., enhanced Obamacare, free college education, LBJ-ist expansion of the welfare state), in addition to draconian regulations on banking and financial systems, will lead to the final financial meltdown of epic proportions―not hard to imagine given an economy that has tittered on the brink since 2008.

Desperate to address the record budget shortfalls, Hillary makes good on her threats to make up the difference out of the financial hides of both the “rich” and the “upper-middle-class” causing many to flee not only the labor market, but perhaps even the country (effectively bringing to pass “the producer strike” Rand foreshadowed in Atlas). The net effect of the hostile business climate causes a massive economic collapse of depression proportions.

As part and parcel of this demonic Democratic dictatorship, Hillary and her PC Police and newly appoint ultra-progressive Supreme Court Justices, begin to dramatically curtail individual rights (and private institutions) in an attempt to legislate THEIR morality―subjectivism and relativism―into existence, all based on the collectivist ideal.

But there might be a light at the end of Taggart Tunnel – that’s not another train. As has historically been the case in this country, when the political pendulum swings to the extreme left or right, principles of political physics usually dictate that it swing just as far back to the other side. In this case, back to the right, from its precipitous pinnacle on the left (per Einstein, “for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction”).

Now the splintered right might finally find the crucible they have been searching for to melt their disparate coalition back together again.

The atomized right―now made up of traditional Goldwater Republicans, Neocons, the Evangelical Usurpers (many forget the GOP has already lived through one high jacking), the Tea Party, and good portions of the “Liberty Party”―may suddenly realize that their “way of life” is in jeopardy and that their most dearly-held principles of personal freedom are under a withering assault from the Hillary/Sanders rising liberal tide. Maybe then they will see that their only hope of avoiding permanent political irrelevance in Hillary’s “Brave New World” of European-style Socialism is to… UNITE!

In the midst of an economic crisis (perhaps even a depression), the GOP will be looking for a rallying point―the only one that can cure the progressive-induced black plague―and that rallying point is around the only flag that can be planted on the common ground they truly share―the one with the “$” on it.
(For the rest of this article go to www.libertas.website)
SOURCE URL: http://libertas.website


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by mia767ca 4 years, 2 months ago
    Ayn Rand was more anti-conservative than anti-liberal. Bill Buckley was hard against Rand. Objectivists are not on the same moral right-left spectrum as either conservatives or liberals who are both altruists. i converse and meet with human secularists at monthly atheists meetings...they too are altruists as are socialists/communists/fascists. A selfish moral spectrum is a rarity, but the only morally logical and consistently reasonable, defendable position.

    Clinton and Trump are opportunists and pragmatists...altruists who are on the collecting end...not giving end...

    the title of Trump's book is the Art of the Deal...nothing is sacred or absolute...freedom, liberty, etc...it is all on the table...his only absolute is himself in a narcissistic sense of the word...not rational or logical...
    the govt totalitarian educational system does not teach philosophy and principles by design...it wants "good" citizens, not thinking rational logical individualists.
    I remain optimistic, but at the same time, wide eyed realisticand follow Harry Browne's book "How to Live Free in an Unfree World"...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 4 years, 2 months ago
    Unfortunately, this analysis borders on stupidity and ignorance of how things will actually go. Take a look at Venezuela, and even Atlas Shrugged. Things will go downhill and as they do, government powers willbe expanded to keep them in power. This could go on until the wealth of the USA is used up (which will take awhile). Maybe 20-30 years will go by in an increasingly disastrous scenario of searching for basic foods and toilet paper before revolution occurs against the hordes of entitled people supporting a government that has promised to save them.

    I would rather have 4 years more of relative prosperity with Trump than an accelerating decline with HIllary.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbroberg 4 years, 2 months ago
    Trumpublicans are proud Trump supporters. Republicans are just people who prefer anyone but Hillary... who is Trump.

    With all the dictatorial/fascistic leanings Trump has apologized about then reaffirmed, it is obvious to me that calling his rise to prominence is not an opportunity at all. Instead, it is chaos.

    Trump poses the exact threat to the people of the world which he promises to exterminate. That is, he offers solace in reducing civil rights (which is to eliminate them), he offers opportunity by imposing strictures (trade deals), he offers security by encouraging harsh judgment to prevail (police state). Each of these components is completely outside the realm of rationality. Trump is the poster child of the capitalist described by Marxists, not Objectivists. Therefore, it is much more likely that the world would see socialism as the alternative to what Trump represents.

    Trump is the "opportunity" for socialism in the same way that Nazism was an opportunity for Communism.
    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 4 years, 2 months ago
      Well that pretty much proves my theory on Comrade Donald. but the problem so far is the left's problem and it's internal squabble. just like it was in the thirties. hjow you all handle that is none of my business. This time there is no FDR to get in your way.

      My problem is entirely different but still includes parts of your little cat fight.

      I leap ahead and assume your in one of the factions? I may be amiss or remiss in my thinking. Still it changes nothing. they went at each other last time why not let that solution work once again?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by rbroberg 4 years, 2 months ago
        Well, it would be a mistake to claim Trump is the reason Hillary and Bernie (or whomever) might win, even given the popularity of such a claim. The third option is to avoid joining any statist faction and to withdraw from pragmatism completely. I comment here only as the person who narrates a movie that he has seen before. If your last question suggests we pop popcorn and watch the show, I would not disagree.
        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 4 years, 2 months ago
          Pick A Pig! Or as another put it the choice is now the Evil of Two Lessers. The sad part is the election is now over and the American People's low standards are going to get what they are asking for. Along with those of us who choose not to flush our votes down a very dirty toilet. Sorry. Out of Charmin and there's no more choices.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Wanderer 4 years, 2 months ago
    The United States isn't as vastly underpopulated and undeveloped as it was 60 years ago. Communications and surveillance are much more sophsiticated and intrusive than they were 60 years ago. Hiding is impossible.

    The Soviet Union was several times more vast than is the United States. The population was smaller than was ours. When the communists took over there was indeed, a producer's strike but, it didn't look like Atlas Shrugged. Those who couldn't flee were observed and arrested and killed or, battered into submission. My Russian friends told me: 'They pretended to pay us so, we pretended to work."

    Even in the vastness of the Soviet Union, without today's electronic assets, they couldn't disappear and build a producer's paradise. Nor will we be able to. The economy and country won't collapse around us while we watch from afar, it will collapse on us.

    We can't give up saving this ship because there is no hidden lifeboat and, if it sinks, we'll end up treading water for generations, as have all the other countries collapsed by socialist experiments. No one on this board will see the light at the end of the tunnel because, the tunnel lasts for generations.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 2 months ago
    Read the author's background and you will realize he is a lobbyist/looter. He should have a better grasp on "political" reality as a result, but this article shows that he doesn't. Naive.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
      Thanks for your thoughtful and well considered commentary. It was a very useful contribution to the discussion. Two lines. The first tags me with a liablist-leaning and inaccurate label of lobbyist/looter without any reason stated for his summarily dismissive impugning of my character.

      The only thing that is missing is the school-yard taunting nick-name ala Trump, like maybe "Liberty the Looter."

      The Second sentence proceeds to cast aspersions on my political prowess, and grasp on "political reality" - all without a single reference to the content of my commentary. And then you top it off with a final one word verdict - "naive."

      I'm not going respond with my own character assassination, or unfounded attacks on your comments. That would be the antithesis of everything I believe as an Objectivist.

      I'm only disappointed since I really would expected more from a Gulcher, any Gulcher.

      The hallmark of this forum, in my experience, is intellectual honesty based on rational analysis of the facts. People here rarely "name call" or toss out conclusory statements about fellow Gulchers and their comments without offering evidence to support their position. You have chosen to do both.

      It's intellectually lazy and beneath standard of fair and respectful discourse that is the foundation of this forum. I guess what they say is true, if you can't attack the speech, attack the speaker. I thought the Gulch was the one place I could expect more... where we all could expect more.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 2 months ago
        The author's web page discussing his career describes his life as a lobbyist and being compensated therefor. Much more written without saying much about production. Lots of left liberal statist sounding words like "victims rights".
        Your reaction is to attack the writer of the post (while claiming not to do exactly that) instead of explaining how you are not a looter.
        Here is your second chance. Explain.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
          Clearly you know nothing about "victims rights" other than it is "left liberal statist sounding." Rather than condemning the phrase by how it "sounds", you might want to consider actually looking it up.

          The victims rights movement is like all liberty movements. It the fights to secure basic rights for crime victims in the criminal justice system otherwise denied them by the government - including the rights to be present, informed and heard in criminal justice proceeding OF THERE OWN CASES - rights similar to the ones we are all fighting for against and ever more intrusive and reclusive state.

          As for your "left liberal statist" label, victims rights are supported across the political spectrum in the same way civil rights are i.e., by the left, the right, the middle. (polls show 81% of Americans said they support victims rights - source: America Speaks Out: Citizens' Attitudes About Victims' Rights and Violence (NVC 1991)).

          Rand specifically mentioned the judicial system as one of the few indispensable functions of government:

          The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

          Does it make any rational sense the Rand would state that courts are their to protect the right of individuals but that individuals [crime victims] should have no rights?

          As for your comment that I don't say "much about production" you didn't actually read my vitae. As it clearly indicates, most of my work, (30 years of it) has been writing. I think that puts me in good company with Rand herself, unless you are implying that Rand's writing don't constitute production.

          As for your accusation that I am a "looter" - you give no logic or evidence as to why you draw this conclusion, so it makes it difficult to respond to a non-exist argument.

          Nevertheless- I spent my life working for non-profits, not as a lobbyist but as a legal advocate (non-profits are not allowed to lobby by law). Yes, I advocated for changes in the laws, almost all of which were intend to grant rights to; child abuse, sexual assault, homicide survivors, drunk-driving and economic fraud victims. Rights not over and against defendant's constitutional rights, but over and against criminal justice professional and bureaucrats who deny them the opportunity to be involved in their own criminal cases. So, ironically, a majority of my professional career has been to afford justice to those who have been looted - looted of their money, looted of bodily safety, and looted of their very lives.

          My non-profits were supported wholly by donations from private entities and grants from the U.S. Department of Justice funded 100% by fines levied by courts against fraudulent businesses and crony capitalists (in other words "looters"). NOT A SINGLE TAX PAYER DOLLAR ever found it way into my pocket. Oh, but of course their is no way you could know that, since you didn't bother to educate yourself with even a 10 minute search on the net before launching your "looter" label.

          So my criticism of your criticism stands. I don't get into "flame wars" with the negligently misinformed. So I just let my fellow Gulchers form their own opinions about the fairness, facts and judgments behind our respective statements.

          Have a Good Life.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Ed75 4 years, 2 months ago
        D E Liberty, Your post that started this thread, particularly your description of Trump, seems right out of the progressive playbook, (or any liberal commentary) rather than a factual analysis. Your claim to be an objectivist/libertarian is undermined by your essay. What, exactly was your intent for the essay you posted?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 4 years, 2 months ago
    Assuming the Establishment GOP is unable to stop Trump, then the choice is Hillary or Trump. Pick one. All other issues are not relevant.

    Trump is one who at least offers us little people the chance of dealing a blow to the ever growing power of the Big Government Party. Trump ain’t no Galt, but he sure as hell ain’t no Hillary.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by BradA 4 years, 2 months ago
    The author's analysis of the electorate is wrong. All the candidates have a core of "do or die" supporters but what pushed Trump to victory (so far) was the groundswell of the "anyone but the establishment" voters. Identical to the Tea Party groundswell that overturned the establishment apple cart and returned the House and Senate to Republican control. Was Trump the only anti-establishment candidate running? No. But he was the best at articulating the message. The same message was being heard on the Democrat side with Sanders nearly derailing the anointed one. Subsequent polls have shown a significant number of Bernie supporters opting for the outsider Trump rather than facing 4 or 8 more years of the same. And finally, among the middle and independent voters, the "devil you know" argument falls flat. The universal malaise about the economy (and remember, it's always about the economy) is likely to sway people to someone who they believe will change things as opposed to someone who is simply promising more of the same. Trump was not my first or second choice, but it is hard to argue with success. And then there is the whole charisma thing. Hillary and charisma don't even live on the same planet.
    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 4 years, 2 months ago
    Oh Say Can You See, The Home of Bravery

    Those Who Died for that Document that dwells in D.C.

    Equal rights for all, our nation’s living decree.

    Long Live the Constitution! R.I.P.

    After the events of the last 24 hours where a Navy reservist is prosecuted with the Attorney General's Office citing the exact opposite reasoning as that used by the FBI in the Hillary Clinton vs People Of the United States case I recalled D.E.'s poem and the last four lines and thought it the right place and time to present it again.

    What a great day to be a left wing fascist! Lynch, Corney, Obama, Clilnton and the rest of the comrades probably confused this with the real reason for the Fourth of July. Sorry that's our holiday and day to celebrate freedom and independence. It has nothing to do witht he four of you.
    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 4 years, 2 months ago
    Would have gone up the flag pole and maybe been saluted if there were still a two party system of government and the Republicans were not the lap dog right wing of the left. They most assuredly are part of the single party system of government.

    The rest of it was the same old boring attempt to characterize the GOP and the Demos as something they are not. Honest People who are not responsible for the world we live in today.

    What you are left with is One Wrong Answer disguised as two. Right wing or left wing the two presumptuous candidates are still left wing fascist liberals hiding behind a few other labels such as statist and corporatist.

    One can hardly call uniting around a National Socialist much improvement over an International Socialist.

    One can only call it what it is. One wrong answer with two names that are so similar they don't even add up to a compromise.

    You can vote Libertarian instead.

    You can vote None Of The Above and reject the entire rigged election system and then start doing it on the local level.

    Or you can learn the other Russian story. Those with hope learned English. Those with no hope learned Chinese. Those with any brains learned Marksmanship. They may have spelled it with an X

    The real choice is Constitutional Republic versus a Socialist State and a lifetime of old Russian sayings.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 2 months ago
    Thanks for posting this. I agree with most of it, but I'll only focus on the parts I have issues with.

    The analysis completely ignores Gary Johnson. At there very least, he's an alternative for people put off by Trump and Clinton. He is polling over 10% despite not being in the debates. If he gets more attention and/or Trump or Clinton have a glaring scandal, he could really shoot up in popularity.

    You talk about an atomized right, a coalition of neocons, evangelicals, Tea Party people, and liberty-oriented voters, coming back together. This feels natural b/c they've been allied under the rubric of "the right" all my adult life, but I could easily see that changing. Sanders wrote an article for the NYT recently saying he agreed with most of Trump's concerns but no the racism and mean-spiritedness. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... I could easily see kinder, gentler Trump bringing Trump supporters and Sanders supporters together as a new coalition that would need some new name.

    The article accepts without question that Hillary Clinton would enact some radical new policies and huge spending programs that would cause a crisis. I can see why that's comforting, but I don't see that at all. I see her as a great politician and manager of the status quo. Gov't is a quarter of GDP now, has a huge military, has a large percentage of the population jailed or under supervision of the justice system, has gov't programs to take care of middle-class basic needs like heathcare and and education, has risk-prone fiscal and monetary policy; and all of that would state the same after eight years of Clinton. For voters who accept that gov't is involved in everything and see the citizens as members of various groups (rural evangelicals, gays, blacks, high-tech urbanites, and so on), she will make sure all those groups get their ration of gov't support. In short, she'll be good at keeping the current system running. She'll be bad at reform and reducing the scope/cost of gov't.

    So if Johnson were not on the ballot in all states, I could see why someone wanting reform of the issues I mentioned might support Trump, hoping he'll either fix the problems or bring them to a head, instead of just kicking the can. That is way too close to the "flood-myth" thinking, saying let things fall apart to lead to a better world in the future, which I strongly reject. I would rather have Clinton kick the can than have some cataclysm that my lead to reforms but may lead to even worse gov't. This is moot, though, because there is a third choice: Gary Johnson. He actually could win, and even if he doesn't he will at least raise the issue of shrinking gov't.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
      First, let me be clear. I have supported Gary Johnson personally, financially and in print. He will get my vote if for no other reason than my conscious will not allow me to vote for the nominees of the other party. Plus, as an objectivist libertarian, my view are far more closely aligned, not to state the obvious.

      But we need to be realistic about the Johnson candidacy. Now that Hillary has managed to defuse the bomb that could have blown up he campaign (indictment for the e-mail scandal) even if Trump self-distructs, Johnson has almost no chance of getting elected. To think otherwise is self-delusional. BUT that's not a reason not to vote for him - since the realistic goal, and the one I think Gary has in his own mind, it to give Libertarians a voice in the national debate that is the Presidential Election. If he were to succeed it making it onto the debate stage, giving him the opportunity to lay out his policy platform, many americans would find themselves agree with him - in fact many might discover what we already know, it that most americans are libertarians, they just don't know it... or at least that is what the issue polls repeatedly show. AND THAT DOES include non-republicans - to acknowledge your point.

      I'm really surprised that you think President Hillary, backed by a Democratically Controlled Congress and newly stacked progressive Supreme Court would simply defend the status quo. It seems to contradict your point about "paying off" all the constituent groups you named. Some would argue that staying the course we are currently on will likely end in economic disaster, and that its just a matter of time before the economy crashes and burns. But I can't imagine there are many intellectually honest economic and political observers who think that a Clinton Presidency will not have the effect of push the yolk forward, rather than pulling it back - hastening out decent.

      Frankly I foundly wish you were right, and that Johnson had an immediate path to the Presidency, but I think we need to focus on the long game. We need to for strategies that will get our message out now... so we will be their with a solution when people are finally ready to listen, as I said. Johnson can be the start of that process, but he is not the end... at least not yet.

      Thanks for your time and thoughtful commentary
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 2 months ago
        "most americans are libertarians, they just don't know it... or at least that is what the issue polls repeatedly show."
        Yes. This is my impression too. A solid majority would agree to the proposition "you give up your favorite gov't programs in exchange for less gov't interference and lower taxes." Instead politicians make the reverse deal: "accept taxes and gov't interference and we'll fund things important/helpful to you."

        I do think most people are libertarians, if that option were clearly presented.

        "AND THAT DOES include non-republicans - to acknowledge your point."
        Yes. I've always been registered Democrat, and most people in my non-random sample of the country claim to be Democrat. Also most of them claim to want libertarian policies. Sanders reminds me of Trump, and Trump is the personification of why I am not a Republican. So I think the time is ripe for Libertarians.

        Thanks for the response and all your points I liked but didn't comment on.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 4 years, 2 months ago
        Supporting Johnson to get the word out is a good idea. Actually voting for him, and guaranteeing Hillary the presidency is NOT a good idea. Trump will at least delay the inevitable somewhat, and clean up some of the corruption and maybe, just maybe, make it possible for a third party candidate to get elected next time.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ycandrea 4 years, 2 months ago
      I don't think Gary Johnson is the hill the Libertarian Party should die on. Sorry, I just do not see that guy running this country very well. I think it would be disastrous.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 2 months ago
        If in a longshot break he got elected, he would make mistakes unrelated to his ideology that would widely recognized and thereby taint the Libertarian Party? Or do you think he's not a good representative of the Libertarian Party who would make people think LP isn't that different from Republican and Democrat Parties?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by lrshultis 4 years, 2 months ago
          At the end of the top post was UNITE!, which is what libertarians do not want since they are mainly individually directed and will run from any form of unite and the possibility of being ruled in the future. Most people want stability and not a possible future with larger numbers of noisy drugged (including alcohol) parties to deal with due to the libertarians emphasizing legalizing drugs as their primary approach to liberty. They should stick with combining what liberty each party still recognizes and showing the negative of the rest of the claptrap anti-individualism of the other parties.
          That stability, though, makes it difficult for libertarians because it involves mostly those who desire being ruled, whether by religious collectivism or by political collectivism. Trust seems to come at great cost in lost liberty.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 2 months ago
            "Most people want stability"
            I hope you're wrong about people wanting stability over freedom; in many cases I know you're right.

            Regarding having large number of noisy people abusing drugs, including alcohol, we already have that. So it's unfair for people to compare a libertarian approach with a hypothetical approach that doesn't exist where drug problems are mostly eliminated.

            I completely agree with sticking to liberty that each party recognizes or at least sticking to moderate approaches, i.e. approaches that don't scare people and have a chance of winning. Johnson is good about that.

            The great thing about Libertarianism is we can UNITE under a few basic principals, with no requirement we agree on personal issues.
            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 4 years, 2 months ago
              I should insert a partial apology and explain my stance. ALL I've heard from the great unwashed and their suspect news sources can be summed up this way. "We don't care about anything except feeling safe."

              End of the thinking or attention span . I suspect a lot of that is contrived propaganda but it seems to be working. The same people keep getting elected and show no signs at solving the stated problem of terrorism but instead seem to becoming the problem . Just like Marighella predicted when his cycle of repression is used. The onlh difference is it's not rag tag unsupported revoutionaries hiding in the barrios and jungles it's the government itself in the role of aggressor.
              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 4 years, 2 months ago
          how long you going to keep pushing this R and D separate party garbage. Things change, people change, alliances change but some folks thinnk it's still Whigs and Tories. Smell the roses.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ycandrea 4 years, 2 months ago
          I have just not been very impressed with him. He does not seem to be focused or clear headed, or dynamic, or much of a leader. He seems wishy washy and no, I do not think he represents the Libertarian Party to me.
          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 4 years, 2 months ago
            Based on current somewhat factual evidence I would suspect he hits ten billion in four years. For sure Hillarywill be able to buy the White House China instead of steal it. This time.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsudell 4 years, 2 months ago
    He is NOT a Republican. Liberal, New York, Democrat. Got it?
    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 4 years, 2 months ago
      There's a difference? Republicans are just right wing of the Left wing anyway. Personally I think he's closer to Hillary than most Democrats In Name Only.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by bsudell 4 years, 2 months ago
        There should be a difference, but you are right, there isn't. The PGOP is just like the Democrats. They are #TeamGovernment trying to destroy #TeamPeople. And our choice -- Donald or Hillary -- proves that we have a one-team government.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 2 months ago
    Unless Trump is empowered with all the attributes of the Marvel Pantheon, and no matter how strong his rants, I doubt if he can turn this rusted ship of state around. It is sinking, and as of yesterday, the rust broke through and the sinking is accelerating.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 4 years, 2 months ago
    there is no such thing as "objectivist libertarians." and no. not voting. just not.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Esceptico 4 years, 2 months ago
      I am a Libertarian and an Objectivist. So, there must be one.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 4 years, 2 months ago
        well, someone needs to check premises. I say that respectfully
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Esceptico 4 years, 2 months ago
          Oh? Who? This old claim that an “Objectivist cannot be a Libertarian” has been around since Rand set up a straw man and burned it. The phrase is accepted as dogma at ARI, as illustrated by Peter Schwartz. To be a “Libertarian” means only in a political context one opposes the initiation of physical force. Rand and Schwartz try to make a simple political principle into something else. Indeed, one of their failings.

          I never saw anything where Rand did anything other than name-calling regarding Libertarians. When reading her statements about Libertarians, she was close to incoherent because she was so inconsistent about whom her targets were. Most telling, to me, was when she displayed utter jealous emotion in saying: “… [L]ibertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose.” [The Ayn Rand Letter, quoted from my notes, I have not checked which issue. ] Of course, she “plagiarized” many ideas as well, if one defines plagiarism as building upon the ideas of others. She had a way to insult people who did not agree 100% with whatever she said, and I am sure this arrogant attitude drove many people to other, friendlier, camps. Anyhow, I am not here to discuss Rand.

          As a friendly suggestion, in the future, when suggesting to a person they should “check their premises,” which comes across to me as less than nice, a rather “Randian” in attitude, you would specify the premises to which you refer. It would make a lot easier for the listener to understand. I for example, have no idea what it is you mean when you say that to me in the context that I am both an Objectivist and a Libertarian.

          Perhaps you can explain to me how agreeing with the Libertarian principle of not to initiate physical force is inconsistent with Objectivism’s principle of not to initiate physical force?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 4 years, 2 months ago
            "Anyhow, I am not here to discuss Rand. "
            1. movies first
            2.about AYN RAND's IDEAS
            3. and that's what this post is about!

            let's start with NAP. you want this to be a fundamental. this is NOT a fundamental in Objectivism. It leads to many contradictions under Objectivism. By your own definition, someone who claims they are Objectivist and Libertarian. I think that many O's come together with Libertarians for political reasons. but two different animals :)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Esceptico 4 years, 2 months ago
              Movies? I have no idea to what you refer.
              2. Rand ideas? I have no idea to what you refer
              3. What, exactly, is the post about? The Non-Agression Principle dates back to at least 300 years BCE, it is not new with Rand (though she claims it as such). I do not understand what you are trying to communicate to me.

              I believe the NAP is fundamental to Objectivism. I formed this conclusion by reading Atlas and other writings by Rand, as well as work by other Objectivists. This issue is easy to resolve by asking an expert in Objectivism. Ask, for example, David Kelley if the NAP is fundamental to Objectivism. But, fundamental or not, I would guess we agree it is a principle of Objectivism.

              Meantime, at the risk of going back to my question, I asked: “Perhaps you can explain to me how agreeing with the Libertarian principle of not to initiate physical force is inconsistent with Objectivism’s principle of not to initiate physical force?”
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LarryHeart 4 years, 2 months ago
    Blah! A bunch of subjective assumptions misapprehensions and biased views foisted on the serious people in the gulch.... to do what? There is no meat here just hot air. Thanks for wasting my time reading this useless garbage.
    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 4 years, 2 months ago
      Two Years Seven Montns and one joint is a huge amouont of serious. Drive on by
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LarryHeart 4 years, 2 months ago
        You two should do a joint article. You both make no sense.
        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 4 years, 2 months ago
          Part I

          We give and write to extent you need
          And save the best for the rest to read
          With nae wasted thought nor devilish pun
          For occasional drive by's on the run
          You got the reason for your visit
          Meant to end this line with fidgit
          Though midgit clouds it's way in line
          'Twill do quite well until it's time
          To toddle off pop under the covers
          With fright'ning stories for sisters and brothers
          Light switches that won't as Mum bids you rest
          Monsters 'neath beds,in closets and chests
          Waiting for lands beyond negative fears
          Hiding to pounce from behind your ears
          Just past eyelids tightly shut
          Waiting and waiting for sleep and such
          Hiding just behind your ears.
          If it made any sense
          Your eyes would be open

          Would they not?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnJMulhall 4 years, 2 months ago
    Well, thanks for all the negatives. Did it ever occur to you that Trump is filling a void that no one has since Ronal Reagan? Yes, Trump is an OUTSIDER!!! Hated by the left and doing the job that Republicans have promised to do for decades (and then became "Roll-Overs" for the Democrats), the media and their school-mates. I suggest you read Trump's two books and hunt down his U Tube interview with Oprah following the first book. He doesn't sound very different then to now (to me). Since he has financed his own campaign, he doesn't owe "donors".
    I look at him as a Capitalist who is fed up with the self-serving politicians and "can do the job" just like he did with the ice rink in NYC.
    The best reasons I can think to vote for him is that the press (media) hate him because he pushes back and they didn't 'make' him; the left hate him because he is the antithesis of who they are: a man who grew from small-time construction to big-time casino and re-developer becoming fabulously wealthy doing so; and the elite Republicans hate him because he isn't one of them or their classmates - he is an OUTSIDER, and he has actually DONE what they claim that they want to help us do (if only they weren't second-rate democrats).
    He was not my original choice, but he and Cruz and Carly were my top three. Having seen so much PC spinelessness, I became part of his cheering section. Is he perfect? They crucified that last 'perfect man'. Has he a record of doing what he says? Yes - in spades.
    If the GOP actually did what they said they were going to, we would be a far freer country today. We wouldn't have a socialist complaining that a college degree today is worth what a HS diploma was in the 1960s and all our immigrants would be Americans first and appreciate what our Freedoms offer them rather than making their fiefdoms in the image of where they came from.
    I think Trump will bring on prosperity that we haven't seen since the late 50s and early 60s when we had the skills to put men on the moon with less than 1 millionth the computing power that a 'smart phone' has in it today.
    I am a convert!!!
    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 4 years, 2 months ago
      Part II

      Thinking of Trump behind my ears.
      it's enough to ignite some serious tears
      Shut up, Keep quiet. Go to bed!
      (It's me Mum with a stick the young child said)
      I'll Monster you With a great oaken paddle
      Stuff a cork or your foot, Enough of this babble

      Thanks for the loan of the space and the time
      To Finish off this bed time rhyme
      For Larry and John as they think what lies
      Behind their ears behind their eyes.
      Out of sight behind the fence
      In the land of dreams that make no sense

      Gentlemen It's been a pleasure.
      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 4 years, 2 months ago
      Let's see. I will bring you up to date since you just joined a one year old conversation and discussion. No we just ignored all that information you presented in such a timely manner. So Mr. John J come lately how do you justify voting against one left wing socialist candidate in favor of another left wing socialist candidate and where the hell do you get off with the antiquated out of date notion the Republicans and the Democrats are separate parties. You want to go do your homework which is listed at the top in the archives sections and then come up with something besides wearing cheer leader rah rahs for a national socialist and taking us to task with any of your left wing supporting comments.

      That clear enough?

      So here's a little test of you knowledge of objectivism. To every question there are three possible answers. Name them and describe them?

      Landed 1 year three months a go last seen on this forum five months ago. and this is your first post.

      Republicans are the right wing of the Left they are not a separate party. They are part of the a single party system of government
      Democrats publically annouonced they are no longer democratic but socialist.

      The definition of the left is Government over Citizens. So my take is yiou prefer the right wing of the left as the lesser of two evils which makes you a publicly self confessed sipporter of evil.

      A lot of hard working and THINKING reasoning people spent a year exploring possibilities. Why not take your obvious enthusiasm and learn what objectivism is ....because objecting is not objectivism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by JohnJMulhall 4 years, 2 months ago
        Michael - so I am a John J Come-lately. I enjoy the insult. I have known that the communists took over the Democrat party in the early 80s when a communist (at a Democratic Club meeting - I was on my City Council at the time) dressed me down for claiming to be a "Harry Truman Democrat" - 'Ol Harry having the spine to end WWII with the Atomic Bombs and then dump the unions off the trains so he could have the troops and equipment transported across country and into ships and get them over to South Korea. I had an inkling that the GOP was sliding left when they did what they did to Ronald Reagan. I knew that the left had taken over the Congress and the White House when Jjmmy Carter was monkeying around with the economy while I was on my local City Council (14 years), and I saw the beginnings of the GOP going spineless. I also saw that the Libertarian Party (and others) were not framing their answers to political questions in a way that was effective. I knew we were in DEEP doodoo when the press covered for Bill and didn't even blink when his AG burned down the compound in Waco, TX. The fact that I do not comment on every email that appears on my screen does not mean that don't read them - it just means that I am unwilling to comment at that time. Only three possible answers? You, my friend have never been in a room with five or more lawyers - you will have probably 10 sides to any situation and at least as many different answers. The Universe has unlimited possibilities.
        I am told that my 'default' response is 'cognitive' as in 'critical thinking', rather than emotional. I can tell you that people do not recognize that actions have consequences (votes result in policies). Witness the number of people who lost jobs and still voted for BHO the second time.
        I have several people who crossed me off their guest list when I was asked about candidate Barrack Obama and noted that he was a communist - specifically a Marxist - as noted in his televised tet-a-tet with "Joe the Plumber". And I knew his 'opponent' was a dictator disguised as a war hero. I watched in frustration as the roll-overs claimed more and more power while asking 'the faithful' what to do and then never doing it.
        On September 8, 1964 I swore an Oath to support and defend the Constitution of the US - not to a president. I consider it to still be valid.
        Whether I come into the discussion on day one or a year and a quarter into it, I consider the points I made to be valid.
        I stepped up and put my life on the line - first during LBJs war, and later as a Fire Fighter. I stepped up and did my best to move a city in the best direction under the Constitution.
        The communists have incrementally moved us left. We are going to have to incrementally restore the Constitution. Short of a shooting war, I think Trump is our best choice, but we also need to have more Constitutionally-inclined citizens step up on school boards, on city councils, on county supervisors, and they need to know how to frame the situation they face so the voting public is supportive of them. I invite you, Michael, to step up.
        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 4 years, 2 months ago
          So why are you attacking us with all guns blazing away and not hitting anything. The people who set the hosts we're the guests. Your previous words do not support your present explanation. Take a deep breath and by the way i'm the resident asshole there's only room for one. Where were your drops?
          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 4 years, 2 months ago
            Been a City Planning Commission member, a city councilman, and a Mayor. Now here is the fun part. Not one vote. All appointments because no one else would step up.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo