North Texas Objectivist Society (NTOS) Message Board › CHANCE OF A LIFETIME - ELECT A FELLOW OBJECTIVIST!

CHANCE OF A LIFETIME - ELECT A FELLOW OBJECTIVIST!

A former member
Post #: 16
Talk the talk, and walk the walk. I'd like to introduce you to Michael Badnarik. Michael Badnarik was the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate for 2004. He was on the ballot in 48 states and received over 400,000 votes and his campaign raised just over one million dollars. Judging from the campaign budgets of the other candidates it would be reasonable fair to assume a ratio of approximately one vote for every two dollars spent. This is, by no means, suggesting that this is a steadfast rule, only a casual observation. There are many other factors involved which reduced the effectiveness of the Badnarik Campaign.

The Badnarik for President 2004 Campaign was virtually shut out of the Power Elite's Media Machine. Mr. Badnarik and Green Party Candidate David Cobb were both arrested in St. Louis, Missouri when they tried to participate in the Presidential Debate held there. This event did not receive the media attention it deserved, and the American people were done a great disservice. The stranglehold of the "One Party with Two Names" (Demo-Republi-crats) was quite evident throughout the campaign as it continues to be in the general body politic today.

With the recognition and popularity that Michael Badnarik gained during his Presidential Campaign he then becomes the Party's most visible and viable candidate for another attempt to place a Libertarian into the body politic. The race that has been chosen is the Texas 10th District Seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. This district was recently gerrymandered to separate Ron Paul from a significant amount of his supporters. The result is that Ron Paul's new constituency will gain the benefit of this fine Congressman at the expense of his supporters who are now geographically in District 10.

The race for District 10 then becomes the most viable target for Libertarian Party success in 2006 with many Ron Paul supporters looking for another Champion of Liberty. There will be many Libertarians and Independents running across the nation but this race is the one to place all serious bets on. This one race will define the direction and course of our future. This significance will be lost on the masses but will be intimately familiar to the layperson. Only after this stunning victory will the political leviathan begin to seriously confront the dissent amongst it's electorate.

While some may consider this to be a precarious position with respect to turning the spotlight on the dissenting electorate, others will welcome the opportunity to be represented by The Party of Principle. Ron Paul has operated for some time without the benefit of even one serious peer. Now that will change. It is common knowledge that one person can barely do the work of one, but when you combine the efforts of even just two, they then can achieve the success of three, perhaps even more. There are those, amongst the current elected, who will continue politics as usual and they will fail and fall one by one. Others will be forced to accept the role of servant to The People as they should have been all along. Our Constitutional Republic will once again provide it's only function, the protection of Life, Liberty, and Property.

If you have read this far then you recognize the significance of this election. You have a choice at this point. You can move on without further addressing this issue or you can do something about it. Why should you? Simple. This election is what millions have been waiting for. A real chance to put a Trojan Horse into the leviathan. The support base that is being created right now both inside the Badnarik for Congress 2006 Campaign and outside in other developments is astounding. The potential here is that there is real hope for hundreds of races in the 2008 election cycle. It's up to individuals like you.

You have the power. You already know this. The body politic electorate have always had the power to vote with their feet and their pursestrings. The Free State Project is a perfect example of this phenomenon. With a combined total of members and supporters numbering in the tens of thousands this one movement has spawned other serious attempts to attract Freedom and Liberty Minded Individuals to one area to effect serious chance in local and state politics. Michael Badnarik is a Free State Project member, supporter, and endorser. Michael is also a supporter of a value-backed currency and actively promotes this using the second most popular medium of exchange in America today, The Liberty Dollar.

Still, what has this got to do with Objectivism and you? Well, if you object (pun intended) with the current murderous warfare empire that this once great nation has become then you will act right now. Your support as a volunteer, as a donor, and as an endorser are the best investments you can make on your future and the future of our children and grandchildren. You can go to www.badnarik.org and contribute as much as possible today. You can also tell everyone you know about Michael Badnarik and the race of the new millenium. Volunteer, donate, link to, and endorse the first Libertarian Congressman!

With the election almost a year away we have the opportunity of time. We, each and every one of us, can and should promote and proclaim Liberty everywhere we go. Put it in their faces! Every cause effected by the respect of personal liberty and total responsibility. Maybe your friends are religious, tell them the laws they use or create will also be used against them and their religion! Maybe you or your friends are being oppressed in any one of so many incredible injustices that reign supreme in today's body politic. This is the dawning of a new age and you can be a vital part!

For those who are still reading but haven't decided one way or the other I would make this case another way. We are trying to make earth-shattering changes by using the "pen." There will come a day, if we stay on our current path, where the "pen" will no longer be an option and the "sword" will be the only way. Already we have seen women and children incinerated, murdered for just being different. We have seen a family that just wanted to be left alone targeted by a multimillion dollar, three year covert government operation that resulted in the execution of a nursing mother and her son. We have seen oppression of all degrees perpetrated against the American public. We have seen whole airliners sacrificed for the goals and purposes of the Establishment Elite. In case you forgot, I'd like to remind you that 298 people were murdered on KAL 007 just so the Establishment Elite could rid themselves of John Birch Society Member Larry McDonald, who would surely have become a presidential contender.

I don't have to tell you the goals of the Objectivist. I just have to share this vision. Imagine a world of Objectivists and individuals who totally respect the rights of others. Don't let this opportunity for inconceivable prosperity pass you by. Become involved and take a vested interest in our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. You'll be a hero! Join the Team Today!
A former member
Post #: 35
You're assuming that Objectivists and Libertarians are the same thing philosophically, when they are not.


Q: What is your position on the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Censorship: Local and Express,” 1973]

AR: I don’t want to waste too much time on it. It’s a cheap attempt at publicity, which Libertarians won’t get. Today’s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they cannot rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issue is so serious today, that to form a new party based in part on half-baked ideas, and in part on borrowed ideas—I won’t say from whom—is irresponsible, and in today’s context, nearly immoral.

Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Egalitarianism and Inflation,” 1974]

AR:They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

http://www.aynrand.or...­
Sherry
SherryTX
Plano, TX
Post #: 5
But wasn't the Libertarian party much different back when Rand made those comments?
My look into Objectivism is only in its infancy, but this was one of the first things I wondered about too, why there seemed to be so many Libertarians interested in Objectivism, when Rand had made those comments.
A former member
Post #: 4
The current Libertarian Party, in all of its disorganized and ineffective glory, is not the same as the libertarians with which Rand had such an ostensibly contentious relationship. I agree when Dean says that Objectivism and Libertarianism are not the same philosophically, but that's only because a politics cannot, by definition, be a philosophy. I believe Rand was so distraught not by the politics of self-proclaimed libertarians, but by the mindless bandwagon that emerged from the movement. Put another way, encouraging others to accept a certain paradigm without thoroughly understanding why one subscribes to that paradigm in the first place is irresponsible and runs contrary to reason. I made some comments in the Objectivist Party thread on this board that elaborate my view on how Objectivism and Libertarianism relate, and I am quite interested in further discussion of this topic.

-AS
A former member
Post #: 17
Hello Everyone! Thank you for your thoughts. I wanted to comment on an observation I made a minute ago. Look at the "views" and "replies" on the Message Board and see which discussion has the most VIEWS and the most REPLIES. Most people are looking for answers...some people are just looking to argue. Let's get to the root of this issue. Irregardless of previous views and opinions on the democrats, republicans, greens, and libertarians...it is my brief observation that the following is currently true. The democrats vote to take your hard-earned substance and give it to those who have not earned it (definitely NOT Objectivist). The republicans vote to use "god" and "christianity" as their license to go on witchhunts, the latest of which is the hunt for so-called "terrorists," while the current administration believes it has the right to kidnap people (even U.S. citizens) and hold them indefinitely because of political and/or religious dissent (definitely NOT Objectivist). The greens vote to rid the planet of most humans because they hold nature above people (definitely not Objectivist). Only the libertarians vote on principle. The foremost principle being that of "you leave me the hell alone and I will leave you the hell alone" but...the first time you initiate force against me to cause me to do or not do any and/or all of your bidding...you have drawn "first blood" and I am now justified in the use of whatever force I choose to rid myself of your oppression. Ayn Rand had ideas and visions in her head that she was never fully capable of relating to the world. It is my sincere belief that if she evaluated the present condition of our planet she would still be disappointed in all of us. She might never say it to us but she would be thinking it. She found very few people who were even marginally close to her intellectually and I will tell you I count myself as very marginal.

Now that the above has been stated...today the human condition throughout the world is very disappointing indeed.

I will trust that you are all rational, intelligent people and you are concerned about finding answers and using them.

Ayn Rand could have lived anywhere in the world but she chose America. I believe she saw the most potential in the people of America. Perhaps we have let her down.

The Objectivist Philosophy and Body Politic is, at this point, most closely aligned with the libertarian. The Libertarians are making good headway in grass-roots politics today. There are millions of people who would, if they voted on principle and philosophy alone, vote for libertarians. Instead millions continue to vote for the "lesser of two evils" and/or for whomever they think is "going to win." Or, even worse, the left votes to steal your wallet and the right wants to control your bedroom. The greens just want to get us off the planet...do these people even breathe?

The Libertarian votes on principle and philosophy. Libertarians recognize and accept the fact that all people are different, and the one thing that should bind us all together is the "Zero Aggression Principle" or "No One Has The Right To Initiate Force Against Another." Those who advocate aggression or initiate force against others will soon face reality or death at the hands of those they oppressed.

Objectivists will have to decide for themselves who and what they are going to vote for and we will get what we vote for. I am free. I have always been free. You may be able to break or kill my body but you will never possess my mind! I choose today and everyday to reach, teach, and preach...Objectivist Libertarianism.

Join me today and quit yacking about it on the internet.

Talk the Talk, and Walk the Walk.

Put your money where your philosophy is.

After all, Liberty gives each and every one of us the opportunity to reach our fullest potential as...you guessed it...OBJECTIVISTS!


In Liberty,
Rob
Chuck
SmithChuck
Mesquite, TX
Post #: 19
Rob,

1. I see no reason to accept your assertion that Mr. Badnarik is an Objectivist. The title of your post implies it, but the body of your post implies that you might consider all Libertarians to be Objectivists, sort of. Please present facts to support his Objectivist standing.

2. Calling himself an Objectivist does not necessarily qualify him for my vote.

3. Many Libertarians are anti-statists. Is Mr. Badnarik for the repeal of any and all laws establishing a monopolistic government entity? Is he for the immediate repeal of all tax laws? Does he want to privatize all government security and judiciary operations as soon as support can be mustered? If so, he may be a typical Libertarian, but certainly not a typical Objectivist.

4. If we do elect a Libertarian Objectivist, will he be power-brokered by the Party into having to promote those planks of the Platform that are not consistent with Objectivist politics and ethics?

Oh, how I wish the leaders of the Libertarian Party would come out and declare officially that it is the Party of Ayn Rand; that its politics is Rand's politics; that the Party Platform is officially changed to reflect Rand's metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and economics; and that the anarchists, anti-statists, and anti-principle folks in the Party can go elsewhere. Then you would have many more of us supporting the Party. There would be great discussion about interpretations of what is Objectivist, but the realm of discussion would be more properly delimited.

-Chuck
A former member
Post #: 19
hi chuck, glad you stopped by thanks for sharing with us n providing your opinions

ps leonard says hi
Old T.
OldToad
Group Organizer
Dallas, TX
Post #: 128
...The foremost [Libertarian] principle being that of "you leave me the hell alone and I will leave you the hell alone" but...the first time you initiate force against me to cause me to do or not do any and/or all of your bidding...you have drawn "first blood" and I am now justified in the use of whatever force I choose to rid myself of your oppression.
...
Libertarians recognize and accept the fact that all people are different, and the one thing that should bind us all together is the "Zero Aggression Principle" or "No One Has The Right To Initiate Force Against Another." Those who advocate aggression or initiate force against others will soon face reality or death at the hands of those they oppressed.
...
Rob

Hi Rob,

Is there any degree and measurement to this principle? For example, if someone punches you in the nose, does this principle justify your killing him in response? If someone shakes his fist at you, has he initiated force against you such that you are justified in killing him in response?

What does a Libertarian advocate about non-physical interactions? For example, if someone offers to sell you his car for $10,000, you agree and you promptly pay him, but he refuses to give you your car or your money back, did he initiate force against you? Can you use of whatever force [you] choose to rid [yourself] of the oppression? Or would you just be a loser?

It also seems that the principle only allows "the hands of those they oppressed" to respond. For example, if someone hits your friend over the head and knocks him out, are you justified in doing anything about it where you were not the person against whom force was initiated?

And, perhaps most interesting, you wrote that "Libertarians recognize and accept the fact that all people are different." What does this mean? In contrast, for example, the founding fathers of America recognized that "all men are created equal."

-- Todd
A former member
Post #: 19
Hi Todd,

Todd, thank you for asking these important questions! I will try to the best of my ability to answer them. The most important issue is dialog and maintaining respectful communication. It seems some people's only source of gratification is being combative and argumentative with others. Unfortunately I deal with it everyday. It's just another case of "divide and conquer" where, for example, under close scrutiny even Rand and Peikoff are not carbon copies. One last thing...others have answered these questions much more eloquently, but I will do my best at this time.

Is there any degree and measurement to this principle? For example, if someone punches you in the nose, does this principle justify your killing him in response? If someone shakes his fist at you, has he initiated force against you such that you are justified in killing him in response?

Obviously degrees and measurements are subjective to many factors. In a libertarian society you would be armed with the most effective defensive weapon of your choice, usually selected on the basis of what threats you feel you would ever come up against in everyday existence. If you are punched in the face by a person who is totally unknown to you...your first response should be one that will immediately stop this assault...and the other person should know that and be willing to accept that since they INITIATED the force. In my honest opinion, the victim in this particular assault fears for their life because they have no idea where or why this assault is occurring and they have every reason and justification for using deadly force immediately to end this life threatening assault.

Someone cursing at you or shaking their fist is not an initiation of force, but it may be part of their intentional escalation of the encounter to one of force. Many people curse and shake fists without doing anything after that. Then again, we have seen just the opposite also. Obviously each situation is going to be different. You should try not to be in the immediate presence of such people in those instances.

What does a Libertarian advocate about non-physical interactions? For example, if someone offers to sell you his car for $10,000, you agree and you promptly pay him, but he refuses to give you your car or your money back, did he initiate force against you? Can you use of whatever force [you] choose to rid [yourself] of the oppression? Or would you just be a loser?

If you and I decide to enter into an agreement for an exchange of any sort we would probably use either a written contract or witnesses. I prefer a simple written contract AND witnesses. So we have a contract and witnesses and I have handed you payment in full, but then you refuse to complete the exchange. Without discussing what motivations you might have had for not honoring your part of the exchange let's look at what might happen. Most simply I would ask for my payment back in full. I also have a written contract and witnesses which I can then take to a private arbitrator for remedy. If you don't show up or still refuse to complete the exchange then the arbitrator publishes the facts in the media...the names, the contract, the witnesses, and the history to date of publication. This, in and of itself is why you wouldn't dishonor our contract. You would either see your mistake and make it right or in short order you would have a very bad reputation and no one would deal with you. In a contractual situation you would not necessarily be initiating force so force might not be the best remedy, but if you knew my past reputation was to immediately kill anyone who did not complete a written contract with witnesses then you would either stay away or always complete your transactions.

I can hear it already....yeah, but what if...lol...DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU! Enough Said.

It also seems that the principle only allows "the hands of those they oppressed" to respond. For example, if someone hits your friend over the head and knocks him out, are you justified in doing anything about it where you were not the person against whom force was initiated?

If we are walking together and someone comes up and hits you over the head and knocks you out then they would be dead before you regained consciousness. So, what this means is that in a libertarian society aggression wouldn't be an issue for very long because those who initiated force wouldn't be around very long... Anyone else who has knowledge of the facts of an oppressive situation (one not contracted or entered willingly by both participants - meaning you COULD contract to physically fight with someone else as in a football game or a boxing match) can act appropriately to that specific situation. We would teach our children this and lead by example and before very long we would see incredible changes in our society and the world at large since other people would begin to behave in like manner and fashion.

And, perhaps most interesting, you wrote that "Libertarians recognize and accept the fact that all people are different." What does this mean? In contrast, for example, the founding fathers of America recognized that "all men are created equal."

Todd, come on...lol, each individual is just that...an INDIVIDUAL...we are all different...some people just choose not to accept that. In a libertarian society and world we would freely trade with all and have entanglements with none. Rand knew quite well that in a totally free society monopolist warlords would not and could not exist. Again...Todd...all people are created equal...here's a quick example...you and I both have $10k in gold...I buy a car,motorcycle,boat,and a brunette(under contract with her permission of course) with my $10k...****You spend your $10k on a storage facility...So, we had EQUAL gold but we bought DIFFERENT things with it(or did different things with it)...And now you and I contract for the storage of my car, motorcycle, and boat...and damn if that brunette didn't contract with you too...lol. Have a good one and I hope to meet you soon!

Rob
Santiago V.
sanjavalen
Dallas, TX
Post #: 14
Any antiwar party is absolutely repugnant. I'd vote for a democrat before I voted for a short-sighted coward and his cronies who can't see beyond tomorrow.

Here is the skinny. The problems of the libertarian party remain the same as when I mentioned them here­. It has no philosophy - and so it fills itself with unsavory characters who may agree with certain Objectivist political positions superficially, but do so for entirely wrong (and, often, obscenely stupid) reasons. One of these things is the principle of nonagression, which is just a hair away from pacifism in its stupidity.

An example, yes?

“As the American people grow increasingly frustrated with the occupation of Iraq, President Bush still refuses to articulate any type of vision for withdrawal,” stated Shane Cory, Chief of Staff for the Libertarian Party. “While the President evades reality, American troops remain in harm’s way. The Libertarian Party is still the only political party that has formulated a viable, complete, and practical exit strategy for American soldiers in Iraq.”

(From the Libertarian Party Website)

What is this "practical" exit strategy? Well, you need look no further! Conveniently forgetting that they were against the war from the get-go, libertarians now have come up with a marvelous, rational position - its all our fault the insurgency is there, Iraqis are now free to choose any government they want (even dictatorship,) so mission accomplished, lets get out of there right now!

Read, if you have the stomach for it (PDF file)

The hypocrisy is amazing. The short-sightedness only comes close to being equaled by Bush's obscene comment, "Democracy is democracy." It includes blaming the troop presence there for the insurgency, an assurance that the majority of the insurgency is good ol' Iraqis merely taking up arms to "reclaim their country" (which they did not attempt to do against a murderous dictator, but do against our evil "occupying" forces which are trying to safeguard a representative government, which leads me to question exactly what these Iraqis are "taking up arms" to "reclaim" their country from - representative government?) Its solution is to move our troops from their great (if hamstrung due to politicians) mission of attempting to spread freedom in the middle east, back to bases we have in the middle east - bases, you will recall, which are meant to prop up the power of various religious nuts and dictators who we have tolerated being in existence for far too long.

It includes the assertion that we "can't win" against the insurgency, and so we have to negotiate with a bunch of half-assed terrorists/soldiers. They wish for the absurd spectacle of the mightiest military in the world kowtowing to the arab equivalent of hicks with shotguns, with the outright declaration that our military could not beat them.

It includes a retarded "welfare program" to the Iraqi government, which sounds an awful lot like the welfare programs we have to Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc - and is contrary to the principles of helping only your allies, when we do not even know what form of government the Iraqis will finally vote for. And it also blatently contradicts another party platform, that of no welfare for other nations. Oh well, who needs consistency when you're the libertarian party, right?

The libertarian party is filled with fools and cowards. I am not giving a dime to a fool, or a nickle to a coward. They have exposed themselves, through there positions on the Iraq war, as just as slimey and unprincipled as any other political party. They wish for us to forget that they are the antiwar party, antiwar from the start - based on the obscene principle of zero aggression, where if someone has not hit you or shot you yet, you have no moral right to hunt them, based on pleas of Saddam's "Sovreignty," based on (this was actually suggested to me by a man who claimed to be a friend of Badnarik; it was further enforced by the fact that he called me a few days later and had Badnarik have a short chat with me) the suggestion that we should not depose of Saddam Hussein because he was popular with the Iraqi people (!).

Within the party, much debate is had about these "principles" the original poster speaks so much about. Many just want lower taxes, with social programs still intact but much cut back. Frank altruists populate Libertarian party rosters, along with Christian Hedonists, nihilists, and other such principled characters. The only reason you have not seen the domestic libertarian party agenda fall apart is because they have not been forced to debate and put forth a solid plan. If Badnarik is elected, he will compromise - because he is not a member of a party of principle (in the sense that we mean it - ie, noncontradictory principles), but a party of expediency.

Is that to say, Badnarik is not less awful a choice than the man (or men) who oppose him? I could not say, to be honest - that is for you to decide. But I will warn against actively supporting a party that does not get it, as it were, and never will. Objectivist energy is better spent spreading our philosophy. Objectivist money is better spent in the same manner. Do not use it lightly.
Powered by mvnForum

Suggested Annual Donation

$10.00 (after 6 event visits)

This covers: Supporting operating expenses and advertising for new members!

Payment is accepted using:

  • PayPal
  • Cash or check - “Please give any cash or check to any Organizer at an event. We also accept BitCoin: 14sioRkdEBcvvQavE4zbDbSwbsvscPAvF9 Thanks!

Your organizer will refund you if:

  • Each event may have a specific refund policy based on the nature of the event. General donations are not refundable. We may rely on any payment, so if you have any questions please ask an Organizer BEFORE making a payment!

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy