Obviously, of course, she's dead. But the comment printed in Ayn Rand Answers, (p.69) on the 1976 Presidential election, certainly applies today:

No, I would not vote. You should vote only so long as you think a candidate has more virtues than flaws. But if you regard both candidates as evil, do not choose a lesser evil. Simply do not vote....Despite everything you hear to the contrary, abstaining -- particularly by people who understand the issues -- is a form of voting. You're choosing "none of the above.". (emphasis mine).


I can only add that BOTH McCain and Obama based their political proposals on overt altruism. This is especially so with Obama, who proudly flaunts his altruism, in a manner that would cause "Mr. Thompson" to blush. Unfortunately, McCain is not any better. Go listen or read his Acceptance speech. Or any thing else he has said, for that matter.

Like shouting, big fonts don't make a statement more convincing. To me it has the opposite effect.

Jerry:

There is a way to cast a "none of the above". However, you still must go to the polling place. By "pulling the curtain" or taking a ballot, the public count or counter goes up one.

Then when political consultants, like myself, see 500 registered voters in an election district and we see that 70 % showed up, but the total vote for President was dramatically under the 350 votes that should have been recorded, we can make a conclusion that none of the above was a serious number in that election district which next election we can approach.

Adam

Since N.O.T.A. is not a distinct balloting choice it does not get counted. If we had a true N.O.T.A. choice then more people could come and register it for an official count. Think of it. Suppose 51 percent or more of those who showed up to vote, voted N.O.T.A. That effectively rejects the choice. If the law were such that if more than half reject the ballot then a new set of choices must be placed before the voters.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al:

That was what we tried to accomplish with NOTA. If I remember correctly, the Nevada Democratic primary NOTA out polled Kennedy and Carter.

Adam

Well, maybe they (the fonts) are too large (although they are the equivalent of Rand's often emotional retorts to questions posed to her at NBI or subsequent events). I might reduce them if the editing works....

Anyway, a couple of points that I did not add, which I should have:

1) Speculation: Rand might have very reluctantly backed McCain, because of Obama's proto-Marxist statements. I say "might," because I don't think that she could have stomached McCain's Acceptance speech, which was brimming with extreme altruist rhetoric. I don't think that I have ever heard as many overt references to the "virtues" of self-sacrifice from past Presidential candidates as these two guys have. So, my guess is that Rand would have chosen to not vote.

2) Just because Ayn Rand says something, does not make it so. For example, her public statements condemning her former friend and supporter, John Hospers (when he ran for President in 1972 as a Libertarian).

3) Of course there is Bob Barr. A good choice if one wants to register a principled protest vote.

4) Personally, I don't know who I will vote for tomorrow. We are faced with very bad or horrendous alternatives.

By the way, if these are the kind of candidates that we are facing after FIFTY plus years of Objectivist "education," what does that say about the REAL influence of Atlas Shrugged??? You know the answer.

I don't consider either candidate as evil.

Hitler was evil. He acted on some really bad intentions with murder at the core.

I don't see either candidate doing Hitler-like stuff.

I consider Obama a centrist who comes from the left (and some of it, but not all, really bad hard left) with the character of a typical politician but a strong commitment to common sense, and McCain as a centrist who comes from traditional conservative values, but with oodles of character.

I will vote for McCain.

Michael

**early but final results**

I just would like everyone to know what will happen tomorrow. I have consulted the statements of both men, the media coverage.

And most important, my gut.

All the pollsters and pundits are wrong. Not only does Obama not win a landslide, he does not win at all. People don't really know who he is ====>

MC CAIN WILL WIN.

(Ok, since I am infallible, now you don't have to sit glued to the tube tomorrow evening.)

Phillip:

Colorado and Montana may determine this and it will. I believe, be a very long night and if my dream nightmare scenario comes up with McCain at 269 and O'Bama at 269 it would be months before we know.

However, my call is McCain 273 and O'Bama 265 with O'Bama getting the popular vote 49.8 % to McCain's 49.1 with Nader getting 1.1 %.

One super weird Congressional District to watch is O'Bama leads in Northern Maine, which is Congressional District #2, by 6 points and O'Bama usually performs 5-6 points under what he polls. Maine is one of the two states, Nebraska being the other one, where it is not winner takes all the electoral votes. So Maine's 4 electoral votes could go 3 for O'Bama and 1 for McCain which could make the 269 scenario 270 McCain and 268 O'Bama.

This is a decent guide for times and significance for tomorrow night:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11022008/photos/news004a.jpg

Having just relocated to NJ, I already cast my McCain-Palin vote in the Commonwealth of Virginia which is truly too close to call and should be taken by McCain, if not, it does not bode well.

Vote early and often.

Maybe I should put on black face and vote in Newark tomorrow also!

Adam

I agree with Phil's and Adam's predictions -- and I add the further prediction (as a corollary of them) that we will see a period (a week or more) of severe racial unrest (probably including significant amounts of violence to person and property) as angry, frustrated blacks take out their disappointment on "whitey."

Be careful where you walk and drive for the next several weeks.

REB

P.S. -- I wish I were wrong, but I, too, like Phil, am omniscient.

I find it interesting to learn that hallucinations of Ayn Rand's voice come in 24 pt. Lucida Grande Bold lettering.

Folks:

Now that I am closer to my beloved City, I will be able to see Newberry's work and possibly run into some of you.

Roger is unfortunately quite correct.

Fortunately(??), I have some solid contacts in the black liberation theology networks as well as the Farahkan black muslims, there are fomentation preparations.

Additionally, my suspicion is that there are a number of white convert Muslims dedicated to the Al Quaida ilk who will hit Dearborn, Michigan, Newark, Ft. Greene, Redhook etc.

And you will have the general street thugs who will always foment "situations" so that as many have said, "in confusion, their is profit and opportunity".

Thank God for D.C. v Heller Justice Scalia.

I absolutely shudder to think of this Marxist having even a chance to make at least two and possibly three Supreme Court Justices.

Adam

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1 O'Bama takes the early lead 15-6 Nader 0 Barr 0!

You simply don't know what you are talking about. You must be a libertarian, period.

--Brant

I live about five miles from the city of Compton and the Los Angeles neighborhood of South Central, both epicenters of the Rodney King riots a decade and a half ago.

I'm not in the least bit concerned. Elections come and go, but an electoral loss is not seen by either side as racial Armageddon — as contrasted with some instances of justice being outright denied. The mean streets, the political swag (including the War on Some Drugs, for both sides), and the domestic consequences of Empire roll heedlessly on. All sides that scream loudly enough get paid off eventually.

Is this optimal or peaceful? Not really. It's not a cauldron waiting to boil over. Not yet, anyway. Give us three more years of the Greater Depression we've already entered, and we'll see.

As for Rand's posthumous advice, don't forget that her first presidential vote was for FDR. She wasn't infallible.

Rand wasn't always right, and in this case I think she was wrong. The farther we go down the wrong path, the harder it will be to get back on the right path. Objectivists and Libertarians sometimes argue that we should allow some bad group (e.g., liberals) to win, wait for them to fail, then ride the backlash into power. However, this doesn't happen in practice.

Obama is probably not so stupid as just push the economy into recession or depression. In fact, the economy is likely to start recovering from the subprime mortgage meltdown, and the Democrats will take credit for the recovery. They will incrementally adopt their anti-capitalistic policies while continuing to ride the wave of economic growth generated by earlier, freer generations. Continuing scientific discovery, etc., will continue to keep the ball rolling unless something really bad happens.

What we won't see is what might have been. Right now, we could all be taking home twice as much money on 50% higher gross pay if it weren't for all the taxes and regulations of the last 50 years. Unfortunately, we have know way of know how well off we might have been if there hadn't been so much tax or so many regulations. So, people can't see what they are missing and continue down the wrong path.

At the extreme, look at the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a horrible failure, but it took 75 years to throw off the yoke of tyranny and now they have Putin. Of course, we're not talking about losing the right to vote if Obama is elected, but consider the damage that re-imposition of the fairness doctrine would cause. Consider the damage that applying hate laws to the internet could do. If criticizing socialistic policies is considered hate speech because some racial minority is seen as the beneficiary of such speech, sites that allow criticism of socialist policies, e.g., this one, could be shut down.

I know that it sometimes seems as though we are taking two steps forward and one step back or that we are not making any progress at all, but the alternative is not to wait for an ideal candidate because that person does not exist.

Darrell

Obama will have nothing to do with "recession or depression." What is going to happen over the next few years is already baked into the system. It is not good.

--Brant

Even though I have been closely following Objectivism and its "movement" for the last 46 of those 50 years, it is possible that I have overlooked some really important events that would demonstrate the increasing cultural, philosophical and political influence of Objectivism. It certainly is not evident in this Presidential campaign. Virtually all of the political and moral arguments given out by Obama and McCain have been based on extreme altruism and collectivism. Whereas, the issues and arguments that Objectivists would consider important have not even been raised in any significant sense in the mainstream media. A few feeble conservative voices have been raised, but they have been drowned-out by the media's adulation for Obama.

It is true that there have been a few articles published in places like the Washington Times. But all the Objectivist voices together, have had the effect of a handful of pebbles thrown at a tidal wave. For fifty years, Atlas Shrugged has been widely read, but its main arguments have not even been mentioned to any measurable extent in this election, outside of some websites.

So if I am wrong, kindly show how Objectivism (or Objectivists) have influenced the political climate of this culture, as evidenced in this Presidential campaign.

Henry Mark Holzer, a member of Rand's Inner Circle, who served for a time as her attorney, and who has written a number of books on legal issues from an Objectivist perspective, recently issued a letter, (reprinted on Objectivist Living/Objectivist Living Room/Is it time to shrug?/Roger Bissell), by Holzer writing about his forthcoming 75th birthday, his career, and his estimate of the influence that all of his efforts to protect and advance the cause of individual liberty (and Objectivism), have had. Read what he says. And then, don't answer me, answer him.

By the way, I am not saying (nor is Holzer) that Objectivism is philosophically incorrect. I am saying that it has not had much influence on political discourse. Not a reason to abandon the philosophy, but a reason to look for much more effective ways to advance it.

I see no reason to argue with you about what you have said, but you've completely ignored how Ayn Rand's books have helped countless people live better, happier lives. That's why I mentioned "libertarian" with regard to your political fixation.

--Brant

Brant,

I wish you well in your goals of applying Objectivism to your own life. In fact, I hope you find a convincing way to persuade others to consider the Objectivist argument. For unless there is a more effective plan of action to at least get people to consider the Objectivist case for a free and rational society, we will never get there (at least within our lifetimes, and probably considerably longer).

You have labeled me as a "libertarian." Apparently, you did not like what I said about the lack of significant influence of Atlas Shrugged on today's culture, so that must mean that I must be a "libertarian." I would refer you to Nathaniel Branden's lecture (available on his website), "We are all libertarians now." I would also point out that Ayn Rand, herself, had many influential libertarian (or "classical liberal," if you prefer that term) friends, such as Ludwig von Mises, Rose Wilder Lane, and Isabel Paterson. In her condemnation of conservatism and libertarianism, Ayn Rand omits discussion as to why it was alright for her to consort with these people, but it is not right for others who agree with her philosophy to do likewise.

In any case, my statements in this thread have not advocated any position that could be described as simply libertarian, but not Objectivist.

At the time of Atlas Shrugged's publication, Leonard Peikoff excitedly proclaimed that if A.S. sells fifteen thousad copies, "This culture is cooked!" Umm, Lenny,A.S. has since then sold in the multi-millions. Yet evidence of the influence of A.S. remains severeIy lacking.

Incidentally, when you assert something, be careful that you are stating a provable fact, rather than just a wish of what you would like to be true. For example, you state, "how Ayn Rand's books have helped countless people live better, happier lives." Really? How do you know that, as a fact? What representative survey of Atlas Shrugged readers was conducted that led you to this sweeping conclusion? The key word in your above statement is "countless," i.e., such a scientific survey has never been taken. Regrettably, therefore, I think that statement of yours is a wish, without data to back it up.

Yours for an Objectivist future....( - but do not hold your breath!).

Why then do Rand's novels keep selling? For the "sexual bits?" You are asserting the books have no value to anyone or anything except for a read on an aeroplane or AmTrack train. Do you have any idea how liberating it is to be free from the tryranny of altuism? To be forced to sit and listen to an army chaplain declaim of sacrifice and discard his crap because you have read Atlas Shrugged?

--Brant

Brant,

Why do you insist upon reading into my comments things that I did not say?

Of course, Rand's books obviously have sold in the millions. Yes, many people who read A.S. are initially impressed with her ideas. A few, such as Tibor Machan and David Kelley, go on to academic careers and have made significant contributions and/or applications of Objectivism. Others claim to have "outgrown" their initial "infatuation" (a commonly used put-down of Rand, by her opponents -Nora Ephron and Hillary Clinton - to name two notorious examples). So far, in terms of influence on the culture, the proponents of collectivism and altruism have continued to dominate. There may be many out there who are still Objectivists and more who may become Objectivists. But so far, after fifty years, the influence of Objectivism on the political direction of this culture is minimal.

So, now here we are officially in "OBAMAland," having elected a person who almost seems to be using the villains in Atlas Shrugged as his role models (perhaps an understatement). We will now see how many of the electorate find Ayn Rand's novels as the key to their liberation from altruism - after having initially elected its most enthusiastic proponent as their President.

To use the example you gave, reading Atlas Shrugged may save someone from the ankle-deep load of altruist crap dished-out by an Army chaplain, but do you see that dump truck backing up towards us, with Obama at the wheel? Guess what's in it.

Jerry,

Sorry if I got too hot under the collar. You deserved a more measured response from me. It's not that Objectivism is lacking impact and influence on this culture, but that this culture lacks critical thinking. In regard to Objectivism it has always put true critical thinking on the back-burner. Only Barbara Branden with her "Principles of Efficient Thinking" was a significant exception. I think the reason for that is it would have implicitly challenged the Objectivist hierarchy for there is always the danger of the implicit becoming explicit. Ayn Rand didn't want arguments. Neither did Nathaniel Branden. Objectivism has always been about revealed truths. That explains Galt's Speech which is nothing more than a series of declamations. This is what an artist does and Rand was an artist by temperament. The philosopher was quite secondary. For Rand her best work was always her fiction and it burned her out it was so hard. She finally found relief in non-fiction writing.

--Brant

Brant,
I generally agree with what you have said here.

I was hoping that the "open Objectivism" of IOS/TOC/TAS(/???) was going to address and correct some of the problems that you have just pointed out. And while I still support that organization, I now have my doubts about whether they will be able to complete the job. At any rate, they do not have anywhere near the media attention that Ayn Rand used to command. And ARI is just an embarassment, magnifying all the errors that the Objectivist founders made, many times over.

Unfortunately, Objectivism does not have its "George Soros" to fund its programs. Perhaps new and greater champions of Objectivism will emerge from internet forums such as this one, or from other sources.

Personally, I don't have a clue.