More Collectivism from LP & ARI

[reason.on]

This is rich; more hysterical fear-mongering and fevered collectivism from ARI...but at least we see a glimpse of LP's shadow-self, who "does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world."

RCR

Peikoff on the coming election (October 19, 2006)

Q: In view of the constant parade of jackassery which is Washington, is there any point in voting for candidates of either entrenched party? Throwing out the incumbents "for a change" is to me an idea based on the philosophy that my head will stop hurting if I bang it on the opposite wall.

A: How you cast your vote in the coming election is important, even if the two parties are both rotten. In essence, the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power.

Socialism—a fad of the last few centuries—has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast—the destroyer of man since time immemorial—is not fading; on the contrary, it is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government.

Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because "both are bad."

The survival of this country will not be determined by the degree to which the government, simply by inertia, imposes taxes, entitlements, controls, etc., although such impositions will be harmful (and all of them and worse will be embraced or pioneered by conservatives, as Bush has shown). What does determine the survival of this country is not political concretes, but fundamental philosophy. And in this area the only real threat to the country now, the only political evil comparable to or even greater than the threat once posed by Soviet Communism, is religion and the Party which is its home and sponsor.

The most urgent political task now is to topple the Republicans from power, if possible in the House and the Senate. This entails voting consistently Democratic, even if the opponent is a "good" Republican.

In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.

If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner.

Edited October 24, 2006 by R. Christian Ross

[Chris Grieb]

Lenny does it again. There is a danger from religion. It is called Islam. The GOP may deserve to be beaten but the Dems don't understand the danger of Islam. There is danger from Christians but it is so much less than the danger from Islam. Followers of Islam are killing Americans even in this country.

[reason.on]

A couple quick comments on what I posted above:

LPs recent clarion call to collectively remove all Republicans from office (regardless of their actual merits) is very strange and troubling for a number of reasons.

It is a) presented as some self-evident truth (w/ no evidence or argument), b) it doesn't square with Ayn Rand's individualism; I can't imagine Ayn Rand philosophically recommending anyone to ever vote strictly along party-lines, while willfully ignoring the merits of the individual candidate, c) it doesn't square with ARI's past positions on "voting", and finally d), it flies in the face of ARI's over-arching desire to have vast numbers of Islamic peoples wiped off the face of the earth as soon as possible (an agenda, under present circumstance, I have a hard time envisioning any modern Democrat or Repulican ever following).

A few examples of the above. Here Rand makes specific voting recommendations--based on the man (not the party).

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3997

"I am not an admirer of President Nixon, as my readers know. But I urge every able-minded voter, of any race, creed, color, age, sex, or political party, to vote for Nixon as a matter of national emergency. This is no longer an issue of choosing the lesser of two commensurate evils. The choice is between a flawed candidate representing Western civilization and the perfect candidate of its primordial enemies ... If there were some campaign organization called 'Anti-Nixonites for Nixon,' it would name my position."

Here ALex Epstein explicates the "Objectivist" position on voting:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...ws_iv_ctrl=1021

The Meaning of the Right to Vote

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

By: Alex Epstein

What makes America unique is not that it has elections--even dictatorships hold elections--but that its elections take place in a country limited by the absolute principle of individual freedom. From our Declaration of Independence, which upholds the "unalienable rights" of every individual, among which are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," to our Constitution, whose Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom of private property, respect for individual liberty is the essence of America--and the root of her greatness.

Unfortunately, with each passing Election Day, too many Americans view elections less as a means to protect freedom, and more as a means to win some government favor or handout at the expense of the liberty and property of other Americans. Our politicians promise, not to protect the basic rights spelled out in the Declaration and the Constitution, but to violate the rights of some people in order to benefit others. Today's politicians want subsidies for farmers--by forcing non-farmers to pay for them; prescription drugs for the elderly--by forcing the non-elderly to pay for them; housing for the homeless--by forcing the non-homeless to pay for it. The more "democratic" our government becomes, the more we cannibalize our liberty, ultimately to the detriment of all.

This Election Day, therefore, we should reject those who wish to reduce our republic to mob rule. Instead, we should vote for those, to whatever extent they can be found, who are defenders of the essence of America: individual freedom.

I wonder if this will mean that Epstein will be revising his essay on "The Meaning of the Right to Vote" (which is clearly contradictory to LP's demands), or if we will be seeing yet another round of excommunications and schizms...oh, and yes, just what WILL the children of the corn have to say?

RCR

Edited October 24, 2006 by R. Christian Ross

[sjw]

In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.

He said "votes Republican" not "votes for a Republican"; there's a difference. On can actually "vote Republican" by checking a box that means to vote for all Republicans, I assume that's what he meant.

Shayne

[Bidinotto]

No, Shayne, he meant this:

"The most urgent political task now is to topple the Republicans from power, if possible in the House and the Senate. This entails voting consistently Democratic, even if the opponent is a 'good' Republican."

The knucklehead meant annihilating the GOP, explicitly including even its "good" individual members.

Of course, as we have seen on other issues, Peikoff and his collectivist entourage believe that annihilation is the cure for all political ills.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I protest!

Of course, as we have seen on other issues, Peikoff and his collectivist entourage believe that annihilation is the cure for all political ills.

Whitewashing is also a favored method. Annihilation concerns only the present. Whitewashing concerns the past.

Michael

[sjw]

No, Shayne, he meant this:

"The most urgent political task now is to topple the Republicans from power, if possible in the House and the Senate. This entails voting consistently Democratic, even if the opponent is a 'good' Republican."

The knucklehead meant annihilating the GOP, explicitly including even its "good" individual members.

Of course, as we have seen on other issues, Peikoff and his collectivist entourage believe that annihilation is the cure for all political ills.

Sorry for the poor reading on my part.

So, are there any good Republicans to vote for?

Shayne

[Chris Grieb]

Shedagg of Arizona, Ron Paul, maybe 4 or 5 others. No one seems to respond to my point that Christians in the United States don't want a theoracy.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.

I wonder what's going on at ARI. In the last Presidential election Peikoff supported Kerry and a great many at ARI supported Bush. I heard rumors of some pretty harsh bickering over this. I have no doubt many of these same people will want to let Bush have a strong Republican Congress so he can wage war against Islamism with greater facility.

I wonder if the ARI people who end up voting Republican will be condemned and excommunicated because they do "not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world."

Surprisingly, despite complete disagreement with those who hold "religion" as the "enemy of Objectivism" (as if both religion and Objectivism were some kind of living entities), I happen to agree with Peikoff's views about the threat of conservative Christianity entrenching itself in power at the highest levels of the USA government. This is a far graver threat than Islamic terrorism (which is still grave, but greatly enhanced beyond the actualy reality with broadcast news). I felt sick with the Patriot Act when it passed and it still makes me sick. By simply expanding on it, a fundamentalist Christian government can do wonders to eroding our freedom and rights. (And I think they would use Muslims as a scapegoat to do it, but I speculate.)

Let me be clear, I do not think a religious person is a bad person. On the contrary, I owe my life to several if I count my past addiction therapy. I have loved, and do love, many. I have a great deal of respect for the right of a man to hold whatever belief he wishes (tempered by individual rights). What I oppose is large fundamentalist religious organizations gaining strength in the USA government. I am a full believer in the separation of church and state.

We need to fight Islamo-fascist terrorism because it infringes the rights of peaceful people, not because it is the wrong flavor of God. The last thing on earth the USA needs is to be the Christian half in another stupid religious war between Christianity and Islam. That is the danger I think Peikoff sees. I know I see it.

As a last thought, it is a damn shame ARI is so tribal. Their public admonitions - even this one by Peikoff - fall on the public ear as if coming from one gang to another.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Michael: "I wonder if the ARI people who end up voting Republican will be condemned and excommunicated because they do "not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world."

And this would have to include members of the ARI Board of Directors such as Harry Binswanger, who, as I recall, recommended voting for Bush in the last election when Peikoff said all Objectivists should vote for Kerry. Vote for Kerry!!!??? I can scarcely get my head around that. Why not vote for Ted Kennedy? He'd certainly do his best to destroy the Republican Party. Or perhaps we should all vote for Hillary in the next presidential election, so that we can have socialized medicine. (I shouldn't have said that. I might give Peikoff an idea.)

Barbara

[Rich Engle]

This is, for me, less desirable than spitting up a hairball, but I do see a bit of where Peikoff is coming from.

As usual, though, he proposes a scorched-earth solution, which I find to be logistically sloppy, since he's supposed to be all that and such.

In essence, he is talking about the connection between Christian fundamentalists and the Bush camp. I happen to have pretty strong experience in this area. Remember, I'm religious (being a dirty Unitarian Universalist, and all), and even I am scared about what the fundies are up to. A lot of advocacy work with the UU church and a stint with the Christian Alliance for Progress increased my panic levels. These people are organized, and powerful.

Now, it must be said that the situation is different than what most people still think it is. Most people think that the fundies are "in bed" with the good 'ol boys, that there's an understanding of sorts. I don't think so; that was then this is now. The fundies concluded that they did not even require that alliance; that they had enough raw power to act as a standalone, and they're doing better than you think (esp. here in OH, a giant battleground state; can you spell "Ken Blackwell?"). They don't have to be beholden to the Repubs anymore, but the Repubs are in a position where they must account for the fundie influence.

So, yes, in a way I get Peikoff's fear, because I share it, with good reason.

But he's still a curmudgeon. And, what with all this Biddle nonsense, and maybe the Brook nonsense, I don't think much more of them than fundies. I see little difference.

[Dragonfly]

I think I sense a new schism brewing... How much energy will be liberated when ARI splits in two? :devil: :devil: :devil: And who will be loyal to whom?

[reason.on]

A few more comments:

...Does LP really think the individuals which constitute the Democratic Party are all atheists, or without their own significant religious bias? Is the world's most authoritative Objectivist's knowledge of modern politics so dim that he has never consider the religious left? Or is "40%" not "essential" enough?

Maybe someone will be generous enough to educate him:

http://www.slate.com/id/2139365/

The Religious LeftIt is fruitful and has multiplied.

By Steven Waldman

Posted Wednesday, April 5, 2006, at 12:41 PM ET

Lo and behold, there is a religious left. The Catholic Church is helping to lead the fight against immigration restrictions. A week doesn't seem to pass without some group convening a conference on religion and liberalism. Last year, Rev. Jim Wallis' progressive manifesto, God's Politics, became a best seller; now Jimmy Carter's book attacking the religious right is on the list.

According to research by professor John Green, white religious voters made up 21 percent of Kerry's tally, compared to 11 percent for Al Gore in 2000. If you add African-Americans and Latinos, who as a group are also very religious and liberal, the religious left amounted to about 40 percent of the Kerry vote. Not surprisingly, the religious lefties are seething over the religious right's political dominance. But they're also frustrated by their secular ideological comrades. The political left "often sees religion not merely as mistaken but as fundamentally irrational, and it gives the impression that one of the most important elements in the lives of ordinary Americans is actually deserving of ridicule," complains Rabbi Michael Lerner in his new book, The Left Hand of God. "The Left's hostility to religion is one of the main reasons people who otherwise might be involved with progressive politics get turned off."

LP writes:

The survival of this country will not be determined by the degree to which the government, simply by inertia, imposes taxes, entitlements, controls, etc.,

Am I the only one who sees this as being the exact antithesis of *Atlas Shrugged*, written by the "world's foremost authority on Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism"? My head is spinning.

Speaking of breaking *Atlas Shrugged*, LP states:

Socialism—a fad of the last few centuries—has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast—the destroyer of man since time immemorial—is not fading; on the contrary, it is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government.

This clear-and-presently dangerous dichotomy between camps, as illustrated by LP, is quite contradictory to Rand (and again, to *Atlas Shrugged*).

...the men you call materialists and spiritualists are only two halves of the same dissected human, forever seeking completion, but seeking it by swinging from the destruction of the flesh to the destruction of the soul and vice versa....seeking any refuge against reality, any form of escape from the mind." Since the two camps are only two sides of the same coin--the same *counterfeit* coin--they are moving closer and closer together. Observe the fundemental similarity of their philosophical views: in metaphysics--the mind-body dichotomy; in epistemology--irrationalism; in ethics--altruism; in politics--statism.--Philosohpy Who Needs It?

More illustratively contrasting quotes from Rand:

I am not suggesting that you should take a stand *against* religion. I am saying that Capitalism and religion are two separate issues, which should not be united into one "package deal" or one common cause. This does not mean that religious persons cannot crusade for Capitalism; but it does mean that nonreligious persons, like myself, cannot crusade for religion.

[snip]

As a man, you are free to hold any religious or nonreligious view you choose; but as a political leader, you must leave the same freedom to your followers. To make religion the basis of your stand is to slap the faces and reject the support of those whom a Conservative leader most needs: the independent thinkers, those who are fighting Collectivisim by intellectual means on the intellectual front.

And finally, something else LP might consider from Rand:

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

RCR

[Chris Grieb]

I plan not to vote in this election. I did not vote in 2004. In previous elections I had voted for the Libertarian. The candidate in 2004 was too much of a flake. I could not vote for Kerry because I thought the Dems were soft on Islamic Facism but while Bush was stronger on Islamic facism I thought he should vetoed at least a couple of bills including McCain-Finegold. I won't vote becuase I live in DC which is hopelessly statist and there is no LP candidate for anything. I would recommend to those who plan to vote against. In New York vote for the Republican running against Spitzer. Vote for the LP candidate running against Hillary. In ballot intivate vote against any minumum wage proposal. A vote for an increase in minumum wage is a vote for unemployment. Vote against any proposal that outlaw gay marriage. Vote for any term limit proposal. Vote for any proposal that tightens eminent domaine. Lets hear from the rest of you.

Edited October 30, 2006 by Chris Grieb

[sjw]

It's mostly academic for Objectivists to argue over who to vote for. We make the barest sliver of a difference. Better would be to argue over how to change the fact that we are impotent in this culture.

But here's my academic answer anyway. I lean to Peikoff's approach. The republicans are in general getting more and more rotten over time. Time to kick them out, and hopefully renew the party for the next round. If they take it on the chin, maybe they'll reject their "compassionate" neoconservatism. Painful, yes, but perhaps necessary. At this point I'm thinking I'll either do as Peikoff suggests, vote Democrat with the hope of teaching the Republicans a lesson; or vote independent/Libertarian with the hope of teaching the Republicans a lesson. Either way, I don't see how letting them carry on in the direction they've been going is a good idea, they need a serious jolt.

Shayne

[Chris Grieb]

It's mostly academic for Objectivists to argue over who to vote for. We make the barest sliver of a difference. Better would be to argue over how to change the fact that we are impotent in this culture.

But here's my academic answer anyway. I lean to Peikoff's approach. The republicans are in general getting more and more rotten over time. Time to kick them out, and hopefully renew the party for the next round. If they take it on the chin, maybe they'll reject their "compassionate" neoconservatism. Painful, yes, but perhaps necessary. At this point I'm thinking I'll either do as Peikoff suggests, vote Democrat with the hope of teaching the Republicans a lesson; or vote independent/Libertarian with the hope of teaching the Republicans a lesson. Either way, I don't see how letting them carry on in the direction they've been going is a good idea, they need a serious jolt.

Shayne

Shayne; I don't disagree but is it a good idea to enccourage the Dems.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

From everything I have seen so far, I don't think it will make any fundamental difference who wins. The USA system of checks and balances is a wonderful mechanism for keeping severe excesses like dictatorships from developing. The USA was in far greater danger with FDR and a real war than it is now, and the American response was to limit the Presidency to 2 terms. (Imagine what would happen now!)

The current overly-heated Democratic/Republican partisan discussion in the Objectivist world started by Peikoff is just a lot of bombast to spark interest in his DIM hypothesis. Seeing that the DIM course was just offered for free, coming on the heels of his statement on the elections (based on DIM thinking), leads me to believe this.

I really wish it were more than that, but I seriously doubt it.

Michael

PS: For what it's worth, Lula was just elected to a second term in Brazil. (That is good news for me.)

[sjw]

Shayne; I don't disagree but is it a good idea to enccourage the Dems.

Any position here can be made to look plausible, because there are plenty of facts to buttress all the positions. E.g., I could say that the dems won't get encouraged because they know that they're only in office because we're disgruntled with the Republicans for the moment; if the dems act too consistently with their own principles, then the Republicans will come back with a solid and coherent platform, win the presidency, and sweep them out. Or, one could argue that the dems will see this as an opportunity to get their ideas even more deeply entrenched, and even if they do get kicked in 4 years they'll be happy for what they were able to "accomplish" and set us back 50 years because hardly anything ever gets repealed.

So why bother with this arcane art of rationalizing which evil we should put into office? We should be focussing on why we aren't doing what we can and ought to be doing, on how we can actually make a difference, not about where to send our few irrelevant votes. My opinion is that we ought to mostly forget about this current events crap that ARI and others like to fixate on and be more focussed on political architecture--designing the ideal government, and a transition plan to peacefully get it implemented. Spending most of your energy squawking about this or that current event as ARI and others like to do is sadly lacking in ambition; Objectivism has the power to do so much more.

Shayne

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

I can't take the current face-off between Leonard Peikoff and Robert Tracinski a whole more seriously than you can.

The current overly-heated Democratic/Republican partisan discussion in the Objectivist world started by Peikoff is just a lot of bombast to spark interest in his DIM hypothesis. Seeing that the DIM course was just offered for free, coming on the heels of his statement on the elections (based on DIM thinking), leads me to believe this.

I really wish it were more than that, but I seriously doubt it.

If Dr. Peikoff really meant what he said about the moral imperative to vote for Democrats, Democrats, Democrats, he'd have been continuously exhorting the faithful to this end for the last several months, if not the last several years. Instead, he held off issuing his broadside till shortly before everyone who cares to participate will be going to the polls.

Could it be a sign that Peikoff intends to rid ARI of some of his rivals, while elevating his deliverances about DIM to canonical status? The accusations of immorality and rationalistic deviationism made me wonder a little. But only a little.

Robert Campbell

[reason.on]

I've attempted to briefly demonstrate in this thread that LP's published stance is not only completely contradictory to Ayn Rand's individualist philosophy (his position is collectivist to the core), her view of "religion", her view of American politics (the false dichotomy presented by LP between Democrats and Republicans), her work in *Atlas Shrugged* (LP's new theory that the concrete and real freedom of creative producers DOES NOT ultimately determine the fate of a nation), but it also demonstrates a complete ignorance of the state of American politics today. I don't know about other readers, but I expect something a little bit better from the world's foremost authority on Objectivism.

With this, and by LP's insistence that those who do not obey him are immoral, he and his few fanatical supporters sadly betray freedom, the rational human being, as well as the work, ideas, and legacy of Ayn Rand.

I've already posted some information which began to illustrate the growing potency of the "religious left" (which, by in large, uses god, Jesus and the Bible to promote the morality and practical necessity of socialism and environmentalism), and wanted to take a moment to render some finer detail.

http://faithfuldemocrats.com/

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=081606D

http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement

http://www.sojo.net/

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=24801

http://www.interfaithalliance.org/

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072606Z.shtml

http://thereligiousleft.blogspot.com/

http://www.faithfulamerica.org/

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/index.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Religious_Left

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1901813_pf.html

http://www.haroldfordjr.com/index.php?opti...&Itemid=149

http://washingtontimes.com/national/200605...10136-1693r.htm

"While we support the liberal agenda, we are going to a much deeper level with this spiritual critique," he said. "We want to bring in a nonutilitarian framework that sees other human beings as embodiments of the sacred."

The point of this list is not to whitewash the influence of "religion" within conservative thinking (which Rand herself critiques quite well), but to demonstrate that modern "liberal" thinkers are more than willing to take up the VERY SAME "religious" influences (especially if it'll win votes!) to prop their various political agendas (including widespread "progressive" socialism, and overly-restrictive environmentalism).

In his zeal to understand the real world strictly in terms of disconnected abstractions, LP and his followers fail to grasp, by a Randian analysis at least, that the Republican party and the Democratic party are ESSENTIALLY THE SAME; there is no dichotomy between the two. The schism presented by LP winds down to arbitrary distinctions made much apart from reality itself. Individual candidates can vary wildly across party lines (prohibiting, of course, a collectivist analysis of any party), but the parties, the platforms themselves represent the same thing--control. Neither party "represents" religion, just as neither party "represents" liberty; BOTH represent control over your life. If "religion" is the predominant mode of morality and value making (which it is), then both parties will use "religion" to make "moral" arguments for and against whatever special interest is barking loudest.

Poor LP and his disciples fail to understand the current political landscape in America, and much of Rand's thinking, but most importantly, they fail --miserably-- to identify the fundamental nature of the enemies of liberty (as expressed by American politics):

Since the two camps are only two sides of the same coin--the same *counterfeit* coin--they are moving closer and closer together. Observe the fundamental similarity of their philosophical views: in metaphysics--the mind-body dichotomy; in epistemology--irrationalism; in ethics--altruism; in politics--statism.

I doubt LP shall ever understand this (if he hasn't by now), but perhaps a few of his mewlings will grow-up, and find the light.

RCR

Edited October 31, 2006 by R. Christian Ross

[Barbara Branden]

Leonard Peikoff's attempt to blackmail Objectivists -- "Anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election . . . does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism." -- is a ludicrous exercise in paranoia. His article is an insult to Objectivists: it consists of a series of assertions -- such as that Republicans are taking "ambitious strides" to give political power to evangelical Christianity -- without a single scrap of evidence, without even the pretense of argumentation, so that it must be accepted on faith or not at all. I suggest not at all.

If Democrats were to sweep the House, the Senate, and the Administration, it means a tail-between-our-legs withdrawal from Iraq just as we withdrew from Vietnam, and the likelihood of leaving behind destruction and death to those millions of courageous voters who allied themselves with us; it means a grotesque appeasement of Iran and North Korea, it means more and more of our autonomy put in the hands of the UN; it means the further decay of our universities and the enshrinement there of the Ward Churchills, it means censorship a la Harry Reid, it means vast power in the hands of Nancy Pelosi, it means Social Security will not be privatized and will accelerate its alarming drain on our resources; it means taxes will be raised, devastating the economy; it means environmentalists will have free rein to throttle industry; it means gun control; it means socialized medicine.

The self-styled "world's leading authority on Objectivism" is clearly not an authority on political reality.

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I merged this thread with the 2006 election thread. I hope nobody's post got deleted.

It looks OK to me so far. Please let me know if somebody's post got eaten.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I've attempted to briefly demonstrate in this thread that LP's published stance is not only completely contradictory to Ayn Rand's individualist philosophy (his position is collectivist to the core), her view of "religion", her view of American politics (the false dichotomy presented by LP between Democrats and Republicans), her work in *Atlas Shrugged* (LP's new theory that the concrete and real freedom of creative producers DOES NOT ultimately determine the fate of a nation), but it also demonstrates a complete ignorance of the state of American politics today. I don't know about other readers, but I expect something a little bit better from the world's foremost authority on Objectivism.

He is not "the world's foremost authority on Objectivism." There may be such, but not someone who puts "Objectivism" first while giving reality lip service. That's not Objectivism.

--Brant

[reason.on]

He is not "the world's foremost authority on Objectivism." There may be such, but not someone who puts "Objectivism" first while giving reality lip service. That's not Objectivism.

No, it isn't, and no, he isn't--both are plainly dim.

RCR

Edited October 31, 2006 by R. Christian Ross

[Reidy]

At a minimum, an authority on a topic would be well-acquainted with the secondary literature; a guy who brags that he doesn't read it isn't even a candidate.

Peter