I've thought about that, and decided that it would be easier for one charismatic objectivist to come from WITHIN one of the two major parties, take the helm, and transform his/her party and the direction of this country. I'd prefer it be a democrat simply because non-whites seem to favor punching 'D', and non-whites will soon be the majority....
yes, it would be easier. but with the proper backing and media savvy--- the leader could come from anywhere. what i never understood is why a libertarian or objectivist was never backed with MAJOR money--like from a gates, etc. and i am not talking about some nut like perot.... surfer
I don't know if any of you have read "The Ten Things that You Can't Say in America" by Larry Elder. Much of what he says "In my opinion" would help both America and the black community. (He's black) But, some black leadership is very critical of his message. I have no empirical evidence to back this up, but I suspect that a race between Al Sharpton and Colin Powell would be tighter among blacks than many think.
Appealing to many? Maybe until they actually begin to understand its anarchic implications! It's so amusing how every single person I've ever encountered that preaches Rand, Rand, Rand is always lost in some fanciful romance of just how great life would be under this utopic system of non-governance; but never yet do I meet someone that's honestly willing to meet, head on, the absolutely enormous problems the implementation of such a program would have. Hell, the whole thing falls apart at the seams as soon as it begins, and, no, you don't even need empirical evidence to prove this; given everything we know about human nature it's completely unsupportable.
All of you great fans of objectivism would hate your proposed world- even just for selfish reasons. The US does not have the pathetic, leaky safety net that it has for any love of the poor. With even less social programs, the unpaved streets would be filled with even more beggars, thieves, raving mentally ill and other mayhem. Anyways, as Alfonso pointed out, the US has very minimal social spending and what little there was has been mostly gutted over the last 20+ years including under Clinton. Do you people know that for a single person who becomes simply poor and unemployed for any other reason than disability, there is no longer any welfare at all; only minimal food stamps. Even mothers with kids only get a few years now and no more benefit for having extra. There is no incentive to be poor in the US. Without welfare fraud, it is an absolutely brutal life. Maybe this is just fine as far as objectivists are concerned, or too generous even? After all, who am I to make a value judgment that those who fail at work or have schizoprhenia do not deserve to be homeless and starving? Nonetheless, the growing government and taxes is a product of the fact that the US outspends all and overspends on our killing machine, not socialist programs. Without empire we could have a real social safety net and still cut taxes.
Says he who thinks "democracy is a dictatorship of the majority"! (yes, he really said that!) Look, Rand had a few interesting things to say and her novels are exciting and inspirational. And if a person wants to romanticize it all and adopt some of those principles into his own life, good for him. That's all fine and dandy. But, in my and many others' opinion, objectivism qua political philosophy -- especially one that she had the nerve to demand be accepted; and hysterically attack anyone who didn't -- I just find it fails on so many levels. EDIT I should add, I think it would be wonderful if the promised benefits could reasonably be expected to occur; that somehow, all of us acting out of our own self interest to the nth degree would magically solve all of our and everyone else's ills. Yes, to some extent, capitalism has done that. But it comes with diminishing returns and then with negative returns -- unless we protest to the contrary.
That was a quote Alfonso, *I* did not say this. Check your facts. The quote is similar to the quotes of our founding fathers and other great thinkers of the time. The founders were very aware of this problem with democracy. A democracy does not sufficiently protect the rights of the minority/individual. Mob rule is a problem with democracy. Maybe you take offense to this quote because you disagree with our founders, and wish this country to NOT be republic. I disagree with you if this is the case. Ever notice how Alfonso is soooo good at asserting all kinds of things, but never bothers to take the time to support his views? Sorry alfonso, but your post basically boils down to one huge unsupported opinion. Well, at least you admit it just an opinion Personally, I never liked Rands novels. I considered them fairly boring and fairly predictable. However, after reviewing objectivism, it simply made a lot of sense to me, and was extremely logical. I don't agree/understand all of it, her take on art for example, but I have found it extremely difficult to argue against many of their positions. I consider it a very strong position. peace axeman
to the naysayers --- please reread my post, i state RATIONAL libertarianism and RATIONAL objectivism. rational is the key word--- not pie in the sky idealism of these schools of thought--but applying the principles in a rational, practical manner. this is the key to saving the western heritage and our way of life. take it or leave it. surfer