Why McCain and not Obama

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why McCain and not Obama

by Michael Stuart Kelly

I am endorsing John McCain and Sarah Palin for President and Vice President of the USA.

I have strong reasons to do so.

I realize that not everyone on this board agrees with me. Also, in the Objectivist world, some support Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Despite the many discussions where many reasons are given, I perceive that they are alarmed at the pro-life stance of the Republican ticket and small-town religiousness of Palin. Following the Randian tradition of putting metaphysics first, they use this as their primary standard. There is also a famous injunction by a leading Objectivist to vote Democrat at all costs.

Many are frustrated that Libertarians do not have a chance in hell, but will vote Libertarian anyway on principle. (This might apply to another small political party, but I have not seen it so far.)

Many are so disgusted they are not going to vote for anyone. Of everyone in this dispute, I sympathize most with these last, although, as far as I can tell, I have a much higher opinion of the candidates than anybody else. Having lived in another country, Brazil, for over 30 years and having seen some really evil mainstream politicians up close (although they were few among generally good people), I am proud of the high-quality of the candidates currently running for office.

Still, I want to make an appeal to undecided readers and posters. This is based on my own understanding of reality and Objectivism. If you have the slightest doubt, even the slightest nag in the back of your mind, please vote for McCain and Palin.

In the best of all possible worlds, I would not make such a request. I have no special love for politics and, frankly, it is irritating to see parts of what I believe in on one side, and other parts on the other side. For example, why isn't pro-market freedoms on the same side as pro-choice for pregnancy and abortion? That is just one set of fundamental issues among several. Another irritation is that both tickets are far too statist for my taste.

But A is A. Reality is what it is. It does not matter what perfect world I believe in. The choice in front of me is between one of two sides. One of them is going to be in office next year. No one else will. That is reality.

How's them metaphysics for ya'?

Within this context, I see a clear divide on a practical issue that will impact all of us. To quote myself:

I am endorsing McCain and Palin because I am convinced that Obama & Co. will take Bush's galling and exponential increase of government, change the names around, point the finger at Bush and call him some bad names, then expand the government even further to accommodate their own agendas using Bush's laws and policies as underpinning.

I am convinced that McCain and Palin will not. On the contrary, I am convinced that they will dismantle some of it on principle.

I cannot think of any one thing that will impact the lives of everyone in this country more severely over the next four years. Not abortion. Not foreign policy. Not tax credits. Not Social Security. Not anything.

We are going to have inflation, folks. It's coming. The choice is how much do we allow.

I have lived in an economy of skyrocketing inflation and it is no fun. It makes good people do bad things. Try getting by at 50% inflation a month. Month after month. Try hell on earth. I don't want to live under this again. Ever.

We are already going to have some inflation because of Bush's hog-wild spending and end-of-term wholesale financial train-wreck. Cleaning that mess up is going to hurt. Adding more spending and government controls as proposed by Obama to this mess is throwing gasoline on the fire. I have seen it happen. I have lived under it. The measures Obama is proposing are essentially what was done in Brazil during the high inflation years.

Will McCain and Palin put the fire out? I don't believe so. But I do believe they will get it under some kind of control.

Nowadays, I am hearing Rand's ideas in the mouths of mainstream politicians and on mainstream news. That includes McCain and Palin. Disgust at "spread the wealth." Love of production. "Get out of our way" when talking about producers and the government. Let people keep what they earn.

The Atlas Shrugged movie is also coming, folks. It will probably be released during the next administration. We all know that it will get its 15 minutes of mainstream media attention. But we also know that Rand's ideas are powerful. All they need are those 15 minutes and they will shake things up big time.

So I ask. Do you think the impact will be greater in a veiled welfare economy under Obama with extremely high inflation, or a mixed one aimed at freezing government spending under McCain?

I believe Rand's impact from the movie will be greater under McCain. And I believe there will be a chance at showing—in concrete terms at short term—the prosperity her ideas produce.

So once again, if you are in doubt, please vote for McCain. If for nothing else, his administration will result in a hell of a lot less inflation. The law of identity and causality will not be denied. I do not want to say later to anyone, "I told you so."

(I am invoking executive privilege as forum owner to put this on the front page, but other comments are welcome. I will remove this thread from the front page on November 5th and move it to the "Stumping in the Backyard" section.)

Michael

[Greybird]

Not once does your posting even mention the word WAR. The pre-eminent and most crucial issue of our time.

Both McCain and Obama are committed to supporting the Empire, neither rejecting its demands of theft, slavery, and death. Yet only Obama, of the two, has actually spoken of using diplomacy first against some of what the neoconservatives have been ginning up as "our" "enemies." That makes him marginally less painfully intolerable.

You don't talk about it at all, though. I wonder what planet you're observing.

"I am convinced that McCain and Palin [...] will dismantle some of it on principle."

Give us one example of consequence. Of how either has actually done it, on principle, in legislative or executive terms. Try to, anyway.

Nothing whatsoever in the United States government has actually been "dismantled" since Reagan ended the last vestiges (on oil) of Nixon's wage and price controls, and that was done 27 years ago.

I'm not sanguine, to say the least, about anyone actually doing so soon, from either wing of the statist bird of prey.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Steve,

Why would I mention war when you yourself say it makes no difference since everybody is evuuuul?

Michael

[galtgulch]

Steve,

Why would I mention war when you yourself say it makes no difference since everybody is evuuuul?

Michael

Michael,

In the meantime the seeds of our salvation are being planted. Ron Paul has ignited a freedom movement which despite its inconsistencies is moving forwards. Whether it is able to gain traction, stay alive, continue to grow and ultimately become a viable alternative in the years to come remains to be seen.

I am referring to his www.campaignforliberty.com or CFL movement. Here in Massachusetts, the place where the first successful revolution began over two hundred years ago, the birthplace of our battle for individual freedom, the CFL is alive and well. The first quarterly meeting of the CFL of MA will be held this Saturday in Worcester to choose district coordinators and plan for further growth. It is attracting hundreds of people to the movement. The CFL is nationwide and is organizing everywhere. They are presently targeting those congressmen who voted, in their misguided way so characteristic of our current crop of ignorant, incompetent, inept pseudo representatives, for the bailout.

Members of CFL are modern day Minutemen, armed with a variety of intellectual ammunition, including Austrian economics which is recommended by Ron Paul in his best seller The Revolution: A Manifesto in which he also recommends Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. That recommendation is sufficient despite his disclaimer that he has disagreements with her to enable us to recommend her other essays and books to the Ron Paul supporters across the country as well as the works of Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises.

Consider joining the movement and helping to guide it in a more consistently rational direction. Just go to www.campaignforliberty.com to follow its progress.

Our votes in this election matter little especially if you live in other than a battleground swing state. But CFL will be supporting candidates for Congress and the Senate over the years ahead who will provide a rational alternative, hopefully, at least in the realm of restoring the Constitution and establishing sound money and a free market.

Keep in mind that the prospect of inflation is already set by the Feds unleashing of paper to date. The next president will have the opportunity to install one, two or three Supreme Court Justices. Obama's are more likely to be pro choice and McCain's are certainly going to be anti choice. Admittedly only one issue.

Restoring the Constitution is crucial if the government is ever to be reigned in and inflation stopped before the dollar becomes worthless. That is why I see the efforts of the CFL to be worth supporting.

Wm

[Chris Grieb]

Steve,

Why would I mention war when you yourself say it makes no difference since everybody is evuuuul?

Michael

Michael,

In the meantime the seeds of our salvation are being planted. Ron Paul has ignited a freedom movement which despite its inconsistencies is moving forwards. Whether it is able to gain traction, stay alive, continue to grow and ultimately become a viable alternative in the years to come remains to be seen.

I am referring to his www.campaignforliberty.com or CFL movement. Here in Massachusetts, the place where the first successful revolution began over two hundred years ago, the birthplace of our battle for individual freedom, the CFL is alive and well. The first quarterly meeting of the CFL of MA will be held this Saturday in Worcester to choose district coordinators and plan for further growth. It is attracting hundreds of people to the movement. The CFL is nationwide and is organizing everywhere. They are presently targeting those congressmen who voted, in their misguided way so characteristic of our current crop of ignorant, incompetent, inept pseudo representatives, for the bailout.

Members of CFL are modern day Minutemen, armed with a variety of intellectual ammunition, including Austrian economics which is recommended by Ron Paul in his best seller The Revolution: A Manifesto in which he also recommends Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. That recommendation is sufficient despite his disclaimer that he has disagreements with her to enable us to recommend her other essays and books to the Ron Paul supporters across the country as well as the works of Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises.

Consider joining the movement and helping to guide it in a more consistently rational direction. Just go to www.campaignforliberty.com to follow its progress.

Our votes in this election matter little especially if you live in other than a battleground swing state. But CFL will be supporting candidates for Congress and the Senate over the years ahead who will provide a rational alternative, hopefully, at least in the realm of restoring the Constitution and establishing sound money and a free market.

Keep in mind that the prospect of inflation is already set by the Feds unleashing of paper to date. The next president will have the opportunity to install one, two or three Supreme Court Justices. Obama's are more likely to be pro choice and McCain's are certainly going to be anti choice. Admittedly only one issue.

Restoring the Constitution is crucial if the government is ever to be reigned in and inflation stopped before the dollar becomes worthless. That is why I see the efforts of the CFL to be worth supporting.

Wm

Galt; This is impressive and I could support it if you would make clear that the US Constitution does not support Sharia law and those who would impose it.

People have made the point that working as a non-partisan political group would be more productive that something like the Libertarian Party.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Folks,

This is a thread about the present election and which way to vote.

The last I looked, there were two main contenders running, and neither was running on a strong plank of debating the so-called empire and war, nor a grassroots movement about another topic.

Ignoring that this is an election—on this thread—is simply putting you head in the sand and saying you don't want to be bothered.

Unfortunately, when you buy groceries in a supermarket where the prices of everything in it increase on a daily basis (as I have done), you don't have that luxury.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I realize that this would sound a lot more "with it" if I touched on one of the hot button items, but I see them as either temporary or permanent. The maternity rights issue will not be decided by either candidate. Both candidates will have to deal with war if they win and probably not to the satisfaction of anyone. And on and on and on...

But on this inflation thing, here is how I see it playing out. Obama wants a trillion dollars in new spending. And he says he is going to take a scalpel to the government programs that don't work and tax the rich to get it. What I have seen so often that it's not funny is that this kind of politician will set up a few cases where individuals will be brutally sacrificed for public show, just to say he is doing what he said he will do, then the loopholes will start to appear for everybody else.

But...

That trillion dollars will no longer be enough. Obama will need more and he will get it. Oodles more, probably a few trillion more. Then, of course, there will be a one time need for a special exception tax, and we all know where that goes. Since it will be ugly, he will get a good part of his money from devaluing the currency while printing gobs of new money (starting with treasury bills, then with the invention of special new government bonds). I see new official indexes starting in this scenario.

McCain wants a freeze on government spending, with a big honking loophole called essential services, yada yada yada. However, it is harder to keep pushing the essential services button than it is the "need more money to do it right" button of Obama.

All this means inflation, with the following measurements:

McCain = Some inflation

Obama = High inflation

That is the only real short term issue where I see a fundamental impact on all of us.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; The issue you bring up is important. I'm sorry for getting side-tracked.

I am going to be interested in how soon buyer's remorse set in. It is however worth noting that I don't think that until the failure of the hostage rescue effort that the public really turned on Jimmy Carter in 1980. It may be a very long four years.

[Matus1976]

Not once does your posting even mention the word WAR. The pre-eminent and most crucial issue of our time.

Both McCain and Obama are committed to supporting the Empire, neither rejecting its demands of theft, slavery, and death.

leftists and isolationists love throwing around the word "Empire" We've been pretty successful in our "Empire building", ya know, because we no longer have representative elections and are a republic, but are in fact a dictatorship (yeah, I'm still waiting for Bush to become a Dictator, elections are just around the corner, he better make his move soon!) And South Korea, Japan, Tawain, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Singapore, etc etc etc, are all actually run by the American Empire / Dictatorship!

The Roman Empire was called an EMPIRE when it ceased to be a Republic, and was ruled by an 'emperor' it also maintained complete governmental control over all the territories it conquered, it did not help them become free, assist them in maintaining their freedom, and trade openly with them. It conquered and ruled them, and then traded with them.

To you, empire is apparently anything that is not isolationism.

With a very leftist Obama as president, a very real economic crisis and massive appeals to more regulations and control, and a filibuster proof democratic majority, a move to suspend presidential term limits could actually be successful, and given the liberal paternalistic craving might very well be accepted by the majority. THAT scares me.

[algernonsidney]

When does a country become an empire?

It becomes an empire when it establishes a military presence in other countries. It becomes an empire when it hands out foreign aid to other countries. It becomes an empire when it just starts poking its nose into everything else. It becomes an empire when it takes sides in petty Hatfield-McCoy feuds, like the ones in the Caucasus Mountains.

The isolationism argument is just a straw man. Actually Rand herself was not too troubled by that term. I believe in free trade with most nations.

In fact the imperialist is the true isolationist. The imperialist inspires hatred form most everyone around the world. A hated nation is more isolated than a respected one.

Actually a country doesn't have to be liked to be safe. It does have to be respected to be safe. People can hate a country and still respect it.

In one area, the USA is different from previous empires. While the Roman Empire dominated other nations and people, the USA sometimes kowtows to other nations. When Israel attacked the _USS Liberty_ in 1967, the USA did nothing. When Israelis spies steal classified information from the USA, the spies get off with a slap on the wrist. While past empires plundered other countries, the USA actually allows itself to be plundered by countries that it could wipe out in a matter of months. This also includes kissing the butt of Mikhail Saakashvili.

Garet Garrett summarized it: "Everything goes out. Nothing comes in." It's truly embarrassing and is completely contrary to what Jefferson and Washington envisioned for this country.

[merjet]

McCain = Some inflation

Obama = High inflation

That is the only real short term issue where I see a fundamental impact on all of us.

This is a good forecast.

An increase in money and credit (deficit spending is the latter) may not lead to an immediate increase in prices, but it will eventually w/o a countervailing force. The simple quantity theory of money says MV = PT or MV = PQ. I have not seen the velocity of money mentioned in regard to the current credit crisis, but I assume that a "credit crunch" leads to a decrease in the velocity of money. Prima facie, this seems to explain price deflation, despite an increase in the amount of money and available credit. Also, it seems to me that prices most easily fall in the stock market. The stock market seems to be the place for the most discretionary use of money. This is my tentative thinking.

The Fed has injected a lot of money into the system lately. In other words, M in the equations MV = PT and MV = PQ has increased sharply. If eventually M is not reduced as V returns to a more normal level, then P (prices) will increase. We will have to wait and see what happens. Similar to politicians, the Fed may be averse to reducing or slowing demand by reducing or slowing M for fear of slowing or stalling the economy, even in boom times. Of course, you can bet on banks on wanting the Fed to keep the punch bowl full. The more M they have, the more they can earn by borrowing at one rate and lending at a higher rate. Their gross margin = M * interest rate spread = M * (lend rate - borrow rate). Also, money supply contraction (about 1/3 between 1929 and 1932) was the major cause of the Great Depression, so politicians and their friends at the Fed are deathly afraid of any contraction.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Merlin Jetton

[algernonsidney]

There is also a famous injunction by a leading Objectivist to vote Democrat at all costs.

Who is this?

Many are so disgusted they are not going to vote for anyone. Of everyone in this dispute, I sympathize most with these last, although, as far as I can tell, I have a much higher opinion of the candidates than anybody else. Having lived in another country, Brazil, for over 30 years and having seen some really evil mainstream politicians up close (although they were few among generally good people), I am proud of the high-quality of the candidates currently running for office.

It certainly makes me more cynical about people around the world. Hans-Hermann Hoppe pointed out that while a market is a competition in the production of goods, democracy is competition in the production of "bads." What causes the scum to rise to the top so much? How do people create a system in which the best rise to the top?

Another irritation is that both tickets are far too statist for my taste.

If you vote for something you don't want, that's what you will get. I have decided that anyone who votes for McCain or Obama has absolutely NO RIGHT whatsoever to complain about the trillion-dollar ripoff that took place last month. If you vote for McCain or Obama, you are sanctioning this ripoff.

I am convinced that McCain and Palin will not. On the contrary, I am convinced that they will dismantle some of it on principle.

What makes you think this?

I have lived in an economy of skyrocketing inflation and it is no fun. It makes good people do bad things. Try getting by at 50% inflation a month. Month after month. Try hell on earth. I don't want to live under this again. Ever.

When this happens, I will be thinking that the majority of Americans are getting exactly what they deserve.

Again and again, I hear people telling me what they are voting against. It's like drinking Pepsi because you don't want Coke to be the #1 soft drink. What is most telling about apologists for the duopoly is that their arguments are never original. They simply repeat the same dusty bromides over and over again and have been for 30 years.

[merjet]

It's like drinking Pepsi because you don't want Coke to be the #1 soft drink. What is most telling about apologists for the duopoly is that their arguments are never original. They simply repeat the same dusty bromides over and over again and have been for 30 years.

What is your Pepsi? What do you offer as original?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

The leading Objectivist is Leonard Peikoff and there are quotes on his site. His priority is not to endorse Democrats, but to remove power from Republicans. If voting Democrat is the way to do that, this, for him, is the way to do that as evidenced by his own words. It started in 2006 with the famous injunction I mentioned:

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.

I have not listened to the recent podcasts on his site, but I have little doubt that he has changed his mind. There was a big issue that drug on for the longest time on Solo Passion where a lot of young ARI people defended this position tooth and nail. As the owner would not stop ranting against Peikoff for this, they mostly left. Even now, once in a while you will see a Peikoff follower state proudly that he votes Democrat.

What is most telling about apologists for the duopoly is that their arguments are never original. They simply repeat the same dusty bromides over and over again and have been for 30 years.

Jesus, you can get snarky over nothing. Here. Let me flip that and you will see how true that shoe fits your own foot.

"What is most telling about apologists for ignoring immediate reality is that their arguments are never original. They simply repeat the same dusty bromides over and over again and have been for countless years."

To be clear, that applies to your arguments.

So what is gained by that?

Nothing. That's what.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Merlin,

Thanks for the math. I was just using common sense and observation from living decades in another country with similar government monkeyshines in the financial market. It's good to have that kind of verification running also.

Michael

[Matus1976]

When does a country become an empire?

It becomes an empire when it establishes a military presence in other countries.

any presence in any country? Or just presences you disagree with? And what if the military presence is of critical self defense value and voluntarily welcomed by the host nation which is a representative free nation?

It becomes an empire when it hands out foreign aid to other countries

Really, is that government foriegn aide or voluntary foriegn aide from citizens? Do you have to have a military presence AND dole out forieng aide? Canada and Sweeden dole out alot of foriegn aide, are they EMPIRES?

It becomes an empire when it just starts poking its nose into everything else.

So it should ignore absolutely everything that goes on in every other country, lest it is an 'empire' in your eyes. Shall we build a giant wall, close our borders, and look only inward?

The isolationism argument is just a straw man. Actually Rand herself was not too troubled by that term. I believe in free trade with most nations.

So is 'empire' and 'interventionist' Rand certainly had no problem with the later and advocated military intervention in Israel. Free trade with murderous tyrannies? Free trade with murderous tyrannies which invade our allies? Of course, how would we even know if they were a murderous tyranny or invading our allies if we can't 'poke our nose' in other places. You are a military and political isolationist, like an ostrich, but don't care who buys your goods or what they use it for? Perhaps we should sell nuclear bombs to Islamic terrorists?

In fact the imperialist is the true isolationist. The imperialist inspires hatred form most everyone around the world. A hated nation is more isolated than a respected one.

So does the independent individualist or the productive man of rational self interest, inspire hatred from most everyone else around the world. Does that mean he should not be an independent individualist, or a productive man acting in rational self interest? Whether or not the world hate's you is independent of the fact of whether they are RIGHT to hate you, and whether that should alter your behavior.

So lets imagine ourselves in 1979, and instead of invading Afghanastan, the Soviet Union actually invades Canada. They didn't do anything to us, they didnt attack us, or restrict our trade. And what do you propose we do? If Canada asked us to help fight of the communist invaders, are we an 'empire' for doing so? And if in response to a massive build up of forces and intelligence reports which suggest a full scale invasion of canada, they ask us to place a military base there? Are we an 'empire' for doing so, and should we do it?

[algernonsidney]

It's like drinking Pepsi because you don't want Coke to be the #1 soft drink. What is most telling about apologists for the duopoly is that their arguments are never original. They simply repeat the same dusty bromides over and over again and have been for 30 years.

What is your Pepsi? What do you offer as original?

Drink what you want to drink, Merlin. You can create your own soft drink if you like. I don't know what you want, nor do I know what you consider "original."

I will repeat one thing I posted here before. If you vote for McCain or Obama, then do not complain about the trillion-dollar ripoff.

[algernonsidney]

The leading Objectivist is Leonard Peikoff and there are quotes on his site.

I figured it was Peikoff. I thought I should check first.

Actually if I had only the two choices, I would vote for Obama. It's mainly because I want to see the Obama-tons become completely and totally disillusioned with him. Obama is already well-known to be in Israel's pocket. He will change very little with regard to Iraq, Afghanistan, or Americna imperialism in general. His approval ratings in 2011 will be about as bad as Bush's are now. It will be a pretty sight to see.

I predict that Obama will win. I also predict that he won't even run in 2012. He will go out just like the original piece of Texas trailer trash--Lying Bastard Johnson.

It will be the death of the anti-war left. Then, sincere anti-war politicians will finally get the recognition they deserve. There may still be useful idiots like the writers at DailyKos and Rolling Stone. The general public, however, will finally realize that Obama and his cronies are also just one branch of the War Party. Hopefully, the average American idiot will never again fall for a phony anti-war candidate.

There is a good chance that the major neo-cons and Trotskyite war hawks will go back over to the party of Obama. They left that party in 1972 when George McGovern was nominated. Then there will be a chance for a true America-first candidate to be nominated in 2012. It will be a positive paradigm shift. To a certain degree, it's already happening with the likes of Christopher Buckley endorsing Obama.

The neo-cons are not creatures of party. They are creatures of war. They will migrate again just as they did back then.

If a miracle happens and McCain wins, I also predict that he won't run again. If he dies in office or becomes the first President to be placed in a mental institution, Palin could possibly win in 2012.

[merjet]

Drink what you want to drink, Merlin. You can create your own soft drink if you like. I don't know what you want, nor do I know what you consider "original."

My question was about your drink, not mine. Use you own standard of "original." I await your answer, although it won't surprise me if it's "blank out."

[algernonsidney]

any presence in any country? Or just presences you disagree with? And what if the military presence is of critical self defense value and voluntarily welcomed by the host nation which is a representative free nation?

I disagree with a military presence in all countries. It's just the same way that I don't ask my neighbor to keep my guns in his house.

So it should ignore absolutely everything that goes on in every other country, lest it is an 'empire' in your eyes. Shall we build a giant wall, close our borders, and look only inward?

That's a straw man. I have never advocated any such thing. Rand herself understood the connection between foreign trade and peace. I do as well. It means commerce and trade with everyone, just like Jefferson advocated in his first inaugural address. Governments don't trade. Countries don't trade. Individuals and businesses do.

Free trade with murderous tyrannies?

This is up to the people doing the trading. Individuals and businesses trade.

Free trade with murderous tyrannies which invade our allies?

I generally don't believe in alliances. I do believe in goodwill. Individuals and businesses engaging in free commerce promotes goodwill. It also promotes our ideals and makes murderous tyrannies less likely.

Of course, how would we even know if they were a murderous tyranny or invading our allies if we can't 'poke our nose' in other places.

I take my car to a mechanic to get the oil changed. I don't care if the mechanic is male or female, white or non-white, young or old, straight or gay. I only care that the mechanic does the job.

Perhaps we should sell nuclear bombs to Islamic terrorists?

Selling munitions automatically makes you an ally in any war. I personally don't sell any nuclear bombs. In this sense, I don't think the US Government should sell munitions to anyone.

Now, if Joe the Farmer wants to sell or give cabbages and lettuce to Islamic terrorists, I don't care. A food fight would be better than nuclear war anyway. In that same sense, if an American nuclear scientist wants to go to work for them, that's his business.

So does the independent individualist or the productive man of rational self interest, inspire hatred from most everyone else around the world. Does that mean he should not be an independent individualist, or a productive man acting in rational self interest?

Here we go with Objectivist martyrdom. It's a psychological confession. It goes like this: "I'm an Objectivist. People hate me. They hate me because I'm independent. They hate me because I'm rational. They hate me because I'm productive. They hate me because I'm smart." I know this because I have done it in the past. In fact, that's why I can smell it out so easily. Some people have shown me just how disempowering it is. It brings up the question: If you are so smart, then why can't you get these supposedly dumb people to like you?

I have known some very independent, productive, and rational people who are quite well-liked. It just shows how smart they are. It never enters their minds that people will dislike them because of their virtues.They don't act or think like victims and don't get victimized.

On the other hand, if you act and think like a victim, the predators in this world can smell you a mile away.

So lets imagine ourselves in 1979, and instead of invading Afghanastan, the Soviet Union actually invades Canada.

Let's deal with reality instead. The Soviet Union puts missles in Cuba. In that isolated context, I do think John F Kennedy acted correctly. The "crisis" was over without firing a shot. More significantly, the Soviets threw out the guy who was responsible for it. Above all, it showed that they really didn't want a war.

In the case of an invasion of Canada, it wouldn't work. There is too much land. It actually would have brought down the Soviet Union faster than the invasion of Afghanistan would have. The system couldn't sustain an empire, as it clearly showed. The US wouldn't have had to do anything.

Communism wasn't productive. The less productive a country is, the less likely it is to succeed in war.

I would advocate some preparedness. Putting troops near the Canadian border would certainly be wise.

[algernonsidney]

I am very reluctantly voting for Bob Barr. If Baldwin was not a write-in, I would vote for him.

[J. D. Johnson]

My two (non-inflationary) cents:

I'll vote against all the incumbents on the ballot and leaving the presidential race unmarked.

The next day, I'll wait for the inevitable "I have a mandate" speech and cringe over my morning coffee.

[Brant Gaede]

I will repeat one thing I posted here before. If you vote for McCain or Obama, then do not complain about the trillion-dollar ripoff.

Or the FDA. The FTC. The FBI. The DEA. The DoE. The DoA. Etc.

--Brant

[Roger Bissell]

Chris,

The leading Objectivist is Leonard Peikoff and there are quotes on his site. His priority is not to endorse Democrats, but to remove power from Republicans. If voting Democrat is the way to do that, this, for him, is the way to do that as evidenced by his own words. It started in 2006 with the famous injunction I mentioned:

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.

I have not listened to the recent podcasts on his site, but I have little doubt that he has changed his mind. [....]

I don't think Peikoff has changed his mind in general. He considers both major party tickets this year to be "abominable," and he can't imagine voting for either of them. I thought it was amusing to hear his pithy characterizations of the four main candidates, and I abbreviate them even further: McCain is a moron, Obama is a phony, Biden is a windbag, and Palin is an opportunist desperately trying to become a moron, a phony, and a windbag. What's apparent, this time around, is that Obama/Biden have disgusted Peikoff sufficiently that he cannot bring himself to consider them preferable to McCain/Palin, even despite Palin's religious fundamentalism, partly because Obama appears also to be a fundamentalist Christian (even apart from the Muslim fumes swirling around him), as well as clearly (to Peikoff) an anti-American.

Coincidentally, my wife Becky and I had an extended discussion tonight of the ballot propositions and the Presidential campaign, and we decided to abstain from voting on the latter and instead to write a letter of protest to the Libertarian Party for nominating an opportunist candidate who is not a genuine Libertarian. Beyond that? Hunker down and hope the best (or the least bad).

REB

[Chris Grieb]

Roger and Everyone else; There is no silver lining. There is only more black cloud. Hunkering down maybe all we can do.