I fully understand how Dr. Peikoff would not endorse Trump or other Republicans and Libertarians at times, but vocally endorsing Hillary Clinton leads me to believe the good doctor should have nothing to do with the Ayn Rand Institute. "The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me." - Ayn Rand (yes, I know, there is question that this exact quote may be paraphrased). Trump will do nothing to stop me, Hillary will do everything she can to stop me. This would have been a good year to at least abstain from an endorsement.

Any dinosaur for a halfway straight thinker could not endorse such an evil hag based on Clinton's combined corrupt history (and suspicious body count) even if there never was a Clinton Foundation.
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?

Then I would not be surprised if he were to endorse the Holocaust - after all, it did lead to the creation of the State of Israel.

I am the other direction on feeling that the only thing worse than a republican is a democrat.... Handout seekers as a group are actually doing harm to individuals. "Redneck idiots" do no harm as a group other than perhaps hurt people's feelings.

Then Dr. Peikoff betrayed all his Objectivist principles with that endorsement.

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.

See my replies to Dobrien

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.

It is not the only time that Dr. Peikoff endorsed a Democrat for President. It was just the easiest to find. I might agree with your assessment, but the question is whether or not an Objectivist can be a Democrat. Dr. Peikoff (also Yaron Brook) is not a Democrat in the sense that he pays dues to the party, but his public statements are neither more nor less support than the millions of other Democrats who do not actually pay dues to the party. And if anyone is an Objectivist, it is him.

Dr Peikoff's endorsement of the lying corrupt treasonous Clinton is nothing for him to be proud of.The capitalist pigs endorsement of Clinton over Trump because she would continue The Bush, Obama destruction of USA and Capitalism .He then assumes The public would see the light and understand socialism and statist policies don't work. That is like killing the patient to prove he needs a different type of treatment.

I don't get it. You seem to be responding to someone else or another comment.

Your hypocritical name calling ,labeling and prejudice against republicans with opposing views all the while forcing "inclusion and diversity" on everyone is telling. You would have all of us sacrifice our safety and security by opening up our border to Middle East refugees or anyone who pretends to be. You are ready to stifle any free speech that is critical of Man made climate change because you know that scrutiny Will expose the false premise. US citizens individuals ethical self interest should be what is promoted and supported by our govt. .The individual is the greatest minority , anyone who says they are supporters of minority's and would sacrifice the individual are frauds.

Dr. Leonard Peikoff of the Ayn Rand Institute endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016. It was not the first time that he endorsed the Democrat candidate for President of the United States.

"Capitalist Pig" hedge fund manager and blogger Jonathan Hoenig endorsed Hillary Clinton: http://capitalistpig.com/news-media/n...

The Libertarian Party emphasizes the issue of drugs beyond all proportion. They can't stop talking about it to the exclusion of all the things that matter to people.

Of course, they object to everything not democrat...ba dum dum

:)

" emphasis on drugs in the Libertarian Party"
Mainstream public policy for the past 100 years emphasizes drugs. LP wants to de-emphasize drugs.

I think Democrats are solidly better than Republicans when it comes to the Objectivist idea you mention: Allowing people to pursue their self-interest as long as it's "not at the forced expense of others' liberty or property."

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.

The emphasis on drugs in the Libertarian Party has been there from the beginning. It's part of the anti-philosophical, hedonistic 'hippies of the right' mentality that Ayn Rand denounced them for. The media didn't do that to them, they did it themselves. If you watched some of their own discussions on John Stossel's show over the last year you saw their own emphasis.

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."

Registering in a political party, let alone becoming a "staunch" party member, isn't the same as voting. An election isn't a philosophical, personal, or policy endorsement; it's simply a limited choice of which of the (usually) two candidates will be in power. If one of them is relatively pro freedom compared to the other or if you think it makes a difference for what you have to live with, then vote accordingly. That's not an endorsement of the false alternative you are presented with. Ayn Rand, for example, urged people to vote for Nixon, even though she did not approve of him or the trends in the Republican Party, in order to keep McGovern out because his overt collectivist premises and agenda were so much worse. She called it "anti-Nixonites for Nixon".

Our ideas of what the Libertarian party are supposed to represent must be way off. With your comments, I assume you may be focusing on some of the more recent pro-drug movement within the party. That is an unfortunate situation where the media has tried to push the drug leniency portion of the Libertarian party as if it is a core issue. The core "philosophy" if you will, of the party is to let me do whatever I want if it does not take away any of your property or rights, and I will let you do whatever you want if it doesn't take anything from me. That's the premise. That premise does fall in line with Objectivism.

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. ;)

"Supposed to represent" to whom? The Libertarian Party was hopelessly at odds with Objectivism at his founding, for the reasons Ayn Rand gave. It's a mistake to ascribe to it what you would like it to be just because it uses "freedom" language. People have been mistakenly attracted to it since the beginning for that reason, but it's a mirage. Others are of course attracted to it because the various strains of anti-intellectualism or 'hippies of the right' mentality is what they want.

Wishful thinking about the Libertarian Party does not make it "close" to Ayn Rand's ideas, as described elsewhere on this same page https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

First, you win. You have intellectually tripped me at the starting line. You, my friend, have helped me clarify some of my own thoughts.

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.

Support of slavery was only one big problem with the Democrats from the beginning. Andrew Jackson was a populist collectivist. The Democrats have become worse in their collectivism-statism over time (and so have the 'me too but slower' Republicans), culminating in the rise of the New Left now entrenched in the party and its leadership, but the likes of Truman were not compatible with Ayn Rand's ideas. Truman was not an overt ideological collectivist and anti-American like we see today in the Democratic Party, but he did support fascistic measures like wage and price controls, which he tried to continue after WWII, and socialized medicine.

Ayn Rand rejected making choices "with a gun to her head". Force and ideas are opposites. Her view was that if threatened with force she would say whatever was demanded, with every honest person knowing that it would have no cognitive meaning and no connection with her thought.

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.

A strict objectivist would be a person who practices and utilizes the principles of objectivism in all of their actions. I agree that political affiliation is a very different thing than philosophy, however if a person decides to brand themselves with a political affiliation then it can often reveal many philosophical ideals a person holds dear. I happen to be a registered independent for that very reason. I do not subscribe to one specific political affiliation, because none of them fit my own rational pursuit of self interest perfectly. Democrats want to take and tell you what you have to do, and Republicans want to tell you what you can't do. Libertarian is the closest, since it's basic tenant is to live and let live.

Agreed, I used the term "conservative" incorrectly. I meant to say "non modern socialist" views. If forced to pick by gun to her head, I believe Rand would have chosen Libertarian of any of the modern political affiliations in America. Not perfect, but very close to inline with Objectivism. I am not talking about Gary Johnson, I am talking about real Libertarianism.