Any Democrat Objectivists?
Is it possible for a strict Objectivist to truly be a Democrat? In my opinion it would be difficult for an Objectivist to be a staunch Republican, but to be a Democrat seems impossible. Libertarian seems to me to fit with the philosophy the best. I do understand that Objectivism deals with rational pursuit of self interest, so being a Democrat could be construed as pursuing self interest; but it is also my understanding that it must not be at the forced expense of others' liberty or property. Thoughts?
Todays Democrat would not be at home in the Truman era part of any other except the FDR time period.
The Democrat party should change its name to the Progressive-Liberal party. Call itself what it really is. Most of its current members do so in private.
Applying the standards set form in "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas shrugged", the current democrats are not and never will be objectivists. Even the best of them and there are a few decent Dems, are not Creators but Looters. They want to take from those who create and give to those who won't or can't create. (There are very few of the latter, most can create, but just want it given to them on a platter/.)
It's important to not equate Ayn Rand with conservatism, especially not using terms loosely here on this forum where so many confuse Ayn Rand as an endorsement and affirmation of the conservative views they started with.
Ayn Rand denounced the Libertarian Party as contradictory to her ideas in both content and means. It is not "in line" with Objectivism. She denounced it for half contradicting and half plagiarizing her political philosophy and for ignoring the intellectual changes in thinking that are required before there can be fundamental political reform. It is no better today, as you can see from the half-baked, pandering LP platform. The disastrous Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were only the latest consequences of 40 years of LP intellectual and political failure.
Rand would want nothing to do with any of our current political parties. The voices of the Libertarian party today are not what the party is supposed to represent, I guess just as the voices of our government today are not what the country is supposed to represent. I would like to know though, how does Libertarianism contradict Objectivism? I don't mean idiot individuals who claim to be Libertarian, but the actual Libertarian ideals.
My big curiosity about you now is that you seem very anti-Libertarian and Republican. If you vote, and don't vote for those types of candidates, then that would leave you with either the Green Party or Democrat. You may just be playing devil's advocate with your "let's leave politics out of Objectivism" stance, but I truly am fascinated by the idea that someone may vote very left of center and adhere to Objectivist philosophy at the same time. Obviously, you may not vote, and it is none of business besides, however I am just very curious. ;)
More fundamentally, even when talking about better emphases in politics they have never shown any grasp of the necessity to change the dominant ideas in a culture in order to effect change in the political direction. It isn't enough to appeal to "freedom" or "do what you want as long as you don't take from me". Political freedom is not a primary. As Ayn Rand put it in her article "Don't Let it Go":
"We cannot fight against collectivism, unless we fight against its moral base: altruism. We cannot fight against altruism, unless we fight against its epistemological base: irrationalism. We cannot fight against anything, unless we fight for something—and what we must fight for is the supremacy of reason, and a view of man as a rational being."
Mainstream public policy for the past 100 years emphasizes drugs. LP wants to de-emphasize drugs.
Most if not All demoncraps looooooooove Unions which is a marxist idea...not very objective.
You probably meant the Idea? We observe "objectively"...epic fail...every time.
Just the fact that they touted themselves for the "little guy"...shows me, they thought themselves Bigger, Better...when in fact, they are gutter trash and couldn't hold a candle to the "Little Guy".
Fixed that for you . ;)
"Capitalist Pig" hedge fund manager and blogger Jonathan Hoenig endorsed Hillary Clinton: http://capitalistpig.com/news-media/n...
She is a criminal. The Clinton Foundation is a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization within the meaning of the Act that takes its name from that term. This goes beyond her being "much dispos'd to have an itching palm, to sell and mart her offices for gold to undeservers." This goes to shaking down the world's "leaders" for bribes. She is Cuffy Meigs as female.
Me dino prefers to call that institution the Clinton Crime Cartel, having read it is a front for other activities than the mere 6% that allegedly goes to charitable causes. Maybe Haiti got 6% of the money the Clintons raised to help out with their earthquake, but I also read the Haitians hate the Clintons whether they received 6% of the promised disaster aid or just plain nada.
Fortunately, that "charity" failed to help elect the most corrupt president ever that money could bribe. And how could Dr. Peikoff overlook even that glaring for an obvious bit?
You don't vote for a criminal.
You don't vote for a criminal.
No.
Matter.
What.
I also think it was a mistake to endorse her; but it was a tough judgement call whether to endorse one of two ghastly candidates, or nobody, or what appears to be a wishy-washy Libertarian.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
and to unitedlc
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Dr. Leonard Peikoff certainly qualifies as an Objectivist. He advocated voting for the Democrat candidate for President, not just once, but several times. He gives his reasons. You can agree or not, but you cannot deny the fact that an Objectivist can vote Democrat for President.
Interesting question, Unitedic... And, I do happen to know an old-school Dem who is just a hair away from being an Objectivist. His views (he's also old-school Catholic) on altruism don't match mine. But, he's damn close.
ist couldn't sometimes vote Democratic. I believe
I heard Ayn Rand on tape once campaigning for
Daniel Patrick Moynihan against Buckley.
By definition, no true practicing Objectivist could be a member of such a group.
:)
I agree completely Libertarian fits with the philosophy best. I am Libertarian when supporting them will not inadvertently help the Republicans.
Certainly not all Democrats or Republicans are alike. Supporting Democrats means abiding handout-seekers, and supporting Republicans means abiding redneck idiots.
Rednecks/handout-seekers is not a fixed trait. Maybe most people at some point experience this feeling of their problems' being caused by some other group and wanting to hurt members of the other group. It's a nasty human foible.
Figuring out which form of this behavior is worse is to fall into their trick.