For all you Randians out there. Came across this while examine the finalized Florida general election ballot. Amongs the staggering list of 13 tickets, plus one write in, that will be on our ballot, is the Objectivist Party consisting of Tom Stevens and Alden Link.
http://www.objectivistparty.us/
Their platform seems to consist solely of excerpts from Ayn Rand's books.
While I reject Objectivsm in favor of Subjectivism, I know there are those here that are Randians that might be interested.
The party is only on the ballot in Colorado and Florida, which does not say much, because almost EVERY party is on the ballot in those two states. :)
...the "libertarians" are tying capitalism to the whim-worshipping subjectivsim and chaos of anarchy.
Objectivists never cease to misuse words for their own subjective agendas.
*boinks the objecto-cons* EVIL! :)
Well how many libertarians argue in favour of objectively grounded moral systems? Few, other than Rothbardians.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
This is the final presidential ballot in Florida. Link is to the sample ballot for my precinct:
http://www.brevardelections.org/g128sb/2-1-NP-FB.pdf
They think this may be a record for number of parties on a presidential ballot. :)
PSL=Party of Socialism and Liberation
CPF=Constitution Party of Florida
PRO=Prohibition Party <yep, their still around>
OBJ=Objectivist Party
SWP=Socialist Workers Party
AIP=American Independent Party
ECO=Ecology Party
SPF=Socialist Party of Florida
BTP=Boston Tea Party
The others should be self evident. :)
There is nothing Objectivst about this group. Their primary implied justification for their party is a quote from Theodore Roosevelt (a bigtime statist) which implies that talk is cheap and the only way to create real political change is through politics. This is nonsense - political action is useless until the philosophical support exists for genuine social change. If such a philosophical change came about, voting would be one of the least effective (and possibly counter-productive) ways to challenge the State's monopoly.
I think you will find that the vast majory of Objectivists share my view on this - this is why the Ayn Rand Institute is just now preparing to open a branch in Washington DC. (Something I'm not happy abiout.)
Jon Irenicus: Well how many libertarians argue in favour of objectively grounded moral systems? Few, other than Rothbardians. -Jon
Mostly true, unfortunately. Three cheers for Aristotelian liberalism!
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
HeroicLife: There is nothing Objectivst about this group. Their primary implied justification for their party is a quote from Theodore Roosevelt (a bigtime statist) which implies that talk is cheap and the only way to create real political change is through politics. This is nonsense - political action is useless until the philosophical support exists for genuine social change. If such a philosophical change came about, voting would be one of the least effective (and possibly counter-productive) ways to challenge the State's monopoly. I think you will find that the vast majory of Objectivists share my view on this - this is why the Ayn Rand Institute is just now preparing to open a branch in Washington DC. (Something I'm not happy abiout.)
Nah...
quoting theo roosevelt is about as objectivist as you get.
This is Ironic! After reading the smears against libertarianism I read this "Dr. Stevens is the Founder of the Objectivist Party. He was elected to the Judiciary Committee of the Libertarian Party in 2006 and re-elected in 2008. He served as a New York State Delegate to the Libertarian Party’s National Convention in Atlanta in 2004, Portland in 2006, and Denver in 2008. He currently serves as President of the Libertarian Freedom Council, a national organization of students, young professionals and entrepreneurs and also serves as a member of the LPNY State Committee. In the Republican Presidential Primary, he was a supporter of Ron Paul and served as Political Consultant and New York State Coordinator for the Paul For President Coalition."
Wow! So I guess libertarianism isn't that bad after all!
Edit:
They have this quote elsewhere:
"The "libertarians"...plagiarize Ayn Rand's principle that no man may initiate the use of physical force, and treat it as a mystically revealed, out-of-context absolute...In the philosophical battle for a free society, the one crucial connection to be upheld is that between capitalism and reason. The religious conservatives are seeking to tie capitalism to mysticism; the "libertarians" are tying capitalism to the whim-worshipping subjectivsim and chaos of anarchy. To cooperate with either group is to betray capitalism, reason, and one's own future. (Harry Binswanger: "Q & A Department: Anarchism," TOF, Aug. 1981, 12.), "
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
You're basing this on what, exactly?
First order of buisness for the Objectivist Party, is to renounce the dialogue from The Fountainhead's movie adaption.Hey, it could happen.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Has anyone ever founded and Anarcho-Capitalist Party? :)
ryanpatgray: Has anyone ever founded and Anarcho-Capitalist Party? :)
I thought the LP was originally supposed to be that, but seeing as both the LP and the term anarcho-capitalism have slid further into obscurity as of late, I can't imagine it hapenning.
Eeek.
(I scream without exclamation points as the Randians have stolen them all)
From the first page of the website:
Change The Culture! Will You Join Our Crusade?
Plus it was founded on the nativity of the prophet
Translation for Randians:
"Plus" it was "Founded" on the "nativity" of the "prophet".
Changing culture...a crusade....Founded on a birthday of a leader....I guess I cannot really say anything that is not already obvious to smart people other than "Mao, More Than Ever".
http://www.comebackalive.com/phpBB2 Travel, Adventure Travel, Arguments, Recipes.
Any Objectivist worth their salt (not many, it may be argued, but...) would realize that creating an "Objectivist Party" right now would do nothing for their cause. The necessary philosophical context is almost completely lacking. This whole thing smacks of some people reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time and saying to each other, "Hey, that was cool! Lets make a political party about that!"
So can Objectivist ever be our (AnCaps) allies or are they a deadly enemy that should be fought?
Nick. B: So can Objectivist ever be our (AnCaps) allies or are they a deadly enemy that should be fought?
Marko:No need to fight them, they are too insignificant.
Please explain, I mean no offense, but we're no political powerhouse either. And also down the road they could gain influence with statists.
Mark B.: BTP=Boston Tea Party
What is the main consensus about BTP, future ally or something not worth our time?
Nick. B: Mark B.: BTP=Boston Tea Party What is the main consensus about BTP, future ally or something not worth our time?
IMHO the future of the BTP depends on what the Libertarian Party does. If the LP keeps nominating people like Bob Barr it has a great future as more and more libertians bolt the LP in favor of a party that actually supports libertarianism. If the LP decides to nominate a libertarian in 2012 it may fade away into nothingness. The ball is in the LP's court.
Nick. B: So can Objectivist ever be our (AnCaps) allies or are they a deadly enemy that should be fought? Huh?
So can Objectivist ever be our (AnCaps) allies or are they a deadly enemy that should be fought? Huh?
I was once an Objectivist. I do not see my former self as an enemy. The primary target of Objectivists are people they view as "statists". Ancaps also view them as statists but I think we agree on political principles - they just have not learned to apply those political principles consistantly yet. View them as potential converts - not enemies. We can even work with them on some immediate goals of mutual benefit (i.e. educating the public about basic economics).
ryanpatgray: IMHO the future of the BTP depends on what the Libertarian Party does. If the LP keeps nominating people like Bob Barr it has a great future as more and more libertians bolt the LP in favor of a party that actually supports libertarianism. If the LP decides to nominate a libertarian in 2012 it may fade away into nothingness. The ball is in the LP's court.
Well if that's the case we should definitely reach out to them. The worst case scenario is that we win a handful of converts, the best case is we have a party that may represent in the future.
ryanpatgray: I was once an Objectivist. I do not see my former self as an enemy. The primary target of Objectivists are people they view as "statists". Ancaps also view them as statists but I think we agree on political principles - they just have not learned to apply those political principles consistantly yet. View them as potential converts - not enemies. We can even work with them on some immediate goals of mutual benefit (i.e. educating the public about basic economics).
Well if that's case I say we consider them shaky allies. Theirs no shame in working with stronger movements until we can stand on our own. And also It sounds like they despise the Federal Reserve, a common enemy that needs to be destroyed!
Nick. B: Well if that's case I say we consider them shaky allies. Theirs no shame in working with stronger movements until we can stand on our own. And also It sounds like they despise the Federal Reserve, a common enemy that needs to be destroyed!
They do despise the Federal Reserve. The most ironic figure to come out of the movement is Greenspan who was once part of Rand's inner circle. Before he became Chairman of the Fed.he was a strong supporter of the gold standard and an opponent of the Federal Reserve. The story with Greenspan is a simple one: power corrupts. Power corrupts, that is all that needs to be said about Greenspan.
Nick. B: Well if that's the case we should definitely reach out to them. The worst case scenario is that we win a handful of converts, the best case is we have a party that may represent in the future.
I agree, we should reach out to them.
From my interactions with Objectivists, mostly of the ARI/Peikoff variety, I have been forced to conclude that they are not my allies. Here are some of the reasons for this conclusion:
1. They are taught to despise libertarians and anarchists, possibly moreso than any other group. Objectivists pride themselves on not being libertarians, and they're correct that they aren't libertarians for reasons that will follow.
2. The contemporary Objectivist line on foreign policy has become indistinguishable from neoconservatism, if not more extreme than what most neoconservatives are willing to embrace. Civilian populations are free game to be mass-murdered in the crossfire between nation-states, any ntry that nationalizes its oil is allegedly allowed to be invaded in the name of protecting U.S. buisiness interests, they advocate things like invading Iran and Venezuela, and so on.
3. Objectivists have no fundamental qualms with centralization and monopoly. I've had multiple Objectivists confirm to me that they would not in principle be opposed to a global government so long as it was an Objectivist government. Their criteria for good government is essentially that it's run by Objectivists, regaurdless of the power or size of that government. This reflects a general naivety about the problems with the centralization of power, and I fear that an Objectivist government would reduce to a centralized technocratic dictatorship in reality.
4. Objectivists rabily support intellectual property law. I know that this is somewhat up for debate in libertarian circles, but generally libertarian anarchists agree at least insofar as an opposition to patents.
5. As soon as the libertarian anarchists wish to secede or form alternative organizations, the Objectivists will initiate force on them and claim that you are the initial threat because your claim of independance or competition threatens "objective law". In this way, they have the NAP totally backwards, similarly with their foreign policy. In short, Objectivists quickly show their true colors as law and order conservatives.
6. Objectivism is ultimately a closed system, I.E. if you do not essentially agree with Rand (note: or Peikoff's interpretations of Rand) on everything under the sun then you're not allowed in the club. It is also quite likely that you will put up with extreme emotional abuse if you consistantly try to disagree with them. Libertarianism is a comparatively open system, given that it has no broad philosophical requirement and is thus polycentric in nature.
Brainpolice, you give very strong reason why not to align with the Objectivist Movement; something that deserves future debate. But how do you feel about the Boston Tea Party, are they people worth reaching out to? If the general consensus is yes, I'll provide their URL adress. So we can reach out to them and build a bigger movement.
Nick. B: Brainpolice, you give very strong reason why not to align with the Objectivist Movement; something that deserves future debate. But how do you feel about the Boston Tea Party, are they people worth reaching out to? If the general consensus is yes, I'll provide their URL adress. So we can reach out to them and build a bigger movement.
To be fair, I'm primarily refering to Leonard Peikoff and the ARI (and my observations and interactions with followers of this group on youtube). It's debatable the degree to which the ARI deviates from Rand and the degree to which the other Objectivist groups that split off (or were essentially purged) are more reasonable. I've gotten the impression that the Boston Tea Party and David Kelley's segment of the Objectivist movement is more reasonable.
I actually made the jump from minarchism to anarchism under the influence of post-objectivists and over the strange debates that have taken place over the concept of "subscribed government" (and it does seem that Rand was kind of vague on this).
Brainpolice, you give very strong reasons why not to align with the Objectivist Movement; something that deserves future debate. But how do you feel about the Boston Tea Party, are they people worth reaching out to? If the general consensus is yes, I'll provide their URL adress. So we can reach out to them and build a bigger movement.
I agree Brainpolice.
But I do think that objectivists should be reached out to before they actually become Objectivists. Much what is appealing about Rand's work can be found in Libertarian / Anarchist principles: Freedom, non-existant or impotant governmnet, personal responsibility and looking upon the success of others as a source of inspiration rather than a cause for envy. If they discover Mises, Rothbard and those who expound on freedom and anti-agression today then perhaps we can get to them before they change their name to a pantomime Anglo-Saxon one with three names followed by "The Third" or "The Fourth".
Once you get someone who was formerly known as "Steve" called Steele Dirk Penobscott IV telling us we need to destroy Mecca and the Vatican because religion is illogical...then they are indeed lost.
Twirlcan: I agree Brainpolice. But I do think that objectivists should be reached out to before they actually become Objectivists. Much what is appealing about Rand's work can be found in Libertarian / Anarchist principles: Freedom, non-existant or impotant governmnet, personal responsibility and looking upon the success of others as a source of inspiration rather than a cause for envy. If they discover Mises, Rothbard and those who expound on freedom and anti-agression today then perhaps we can get to them before they change their name to a pantomime Anglo-Saxon one with three names followed by "The Third" or "The Fourth". Once you get someone who was formerly known as "Steve" called Steele Dirk Penobscott IV telling us we need to destroy Mecca and the Vatican because religion is illogical...then they are indeed lost.
I think that the former objectivists who made the jump to libertarian anarchism (Such as Geoffery Allan Plauche, Stefan Molyneux, The Tannehils, XOmniverse, etc.) and a referance to Roy A. Childs's letter to Rand are best for trying to get such people on board. But I fear that those who have already fully embraced Objectivism as a dogma are generally a lost cause.
We should! We'll call it "THE SCREW IT PARTY" it's symbol: a donkey and an elephant doing it doggy style. All jokes aside we should find the first "apolitical" political party to show people how pointless parties are for the most part.
Brainpolice: I think that the former objectivists who made the jump to libertarian anarchism (Such as Geoffery Allan Plauche, Stefan Molyneux, The Tannehils, XOmniverse, etc.) and a reference to Roy A. Childs's letter to Rand are best for trying to get such people on board. But I fear that those who have already fully embraced Objectivism as a dogma are generally a lost cause.
People who accept ANYTHING as a dogma are a lost cause. Dogma, by its very nature, causes an end to future thought on that topic. If you want to bring Objectivists over to the side of Anarco-Capitalism you need to understand the way they think. A good, cheap and small primary source is a thin little book called "For the New Intellectual". It contains what she considered the most important snippets from her novels. Once you get inside the heads of their heroes you can better communicate why, to be consistent, they must embrace anarco-capitalism. And (this is important) do not speak in terms of having them cease to be Objectivists, oh no, simply say you want them to be consistent in their Objectivist principles.
Just be careful you don't get sucked into their dogmatic view of the world...
Nick. B: Just be careful you don't get sucked into their dogmatic view of the world...
I do not think you need worry about An-Caps becoming dogmatic Objectivists. There is a famous post-World War I phrase, "How're you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Gay Paree [sic]?" At the time "gay" did not have its modern connotation and simply meant happy. The idea was, once you have seen something so grand and Cosmopolitan (in both meanings of the term) as Early 20th Century Paris, France it is difficult to give up all of that. There is no "going back home". Even if you go back home in the physical sense you are forever changed as a person. All that I found attractive about Objectivism is found to an even larger extent in Anarco-Capitalism.
Nick. B: ryanpatgray: Has anyone ever founded and Anarcho-Capitalist Party? :) We should! We'll call it "THE SCREW IT PARTY" it's symbol: a donkey and an elephant doing it doggy style. All jokes aside we should find the first "apolitical" political party to show people how pointless parties are for the most part.
If I recall correctly, that's how the Libertarian Party originally started. And look where it is now
wombatron: If I recall correctly, that's how the Libertarian Party originally started. And look where it is now
Conceived by animal cross breeding? Pics or it didn't happen.
liberty student: wombatron: If I recall correctly, that's how the Libertarian Party originally started. And look where it is now Conceived by animal cross breeding? Pics or it didn't happen.
No, the apolitical part. Lol
wombatron: Nick. B: ryanpatgray: Has anyone ever founded and Anarcho-Capitalist Party? :) We should! We'll call it "THE SCREW IT PARTY" it's symbol: a donkey and an elephant doing it doggy style. All jokes aside we should find the first "apolitical" political party to show people how pointless parties are for the most part. If I recall correctly, that's how the Libertarian Party originally started. And look where it is now
The Libertarian Party was never a "apolitical" party they've always had the intention of getting people into office. A real apolitical party's main goal was to show that all parties are essentially pointless. It's more of an art thing than a government thing. Basically a relations tool.
Nick. B:The Libertarian Party was never a "apolitical" party they've always had the intention of getting people into office. A real apolitical party's main goal was to show that all parties are essentially pointless. It's more of an art thing than a government thing. Basically a relations tool.
From New Libertarian Manifesto, footnote 10 of Chapter I:
The first "Libertarian" Party was set up by Gabriel Aguilar and Ed Butler in California in 1970, as a hollow shell to gain media access. (Aguilar, a Galambosian, was staunchly anti-political.) Even Nolan's "L"P was mocked and scorned by such as Murray Rothbard in the first year of its existence.