Ron Paul

Cornell's picture
Submitted by Cornell on Tue, 2012-02-28 19:43

It's odd to me that so many Objectivists dislike Ron Paul. Of all the mainstream presidential candidates out there, his platform is by far the most consistent with Objectivist principles. The only points of major disagreement that I can think of between his politics and Rand's and Peikoff's politics are:

1. Abortion -- he doesn't see abortion as a right to be protected by the Federal government; although he does not stand for banning it outright (he takes the "leave it up to the states" stance), and

2. Foreign Policy -- Rand and Peikoff take a much more hawkish stance.

However, (1) most states are not going to ban abortions, so I don't see his stance on abortion changing much of anything, except that he will take away federal subsidies for abortion, which Objectivists would be for anyway, and (2) the truth is that we need to take a less agressive stance towards foreign policy, if for no other reason than that we simply can't afford to be fighting all these wars accross the globe -- we just don't have the revenue to support it anymore; and I think that Rand would agree with Paul on his strategy, if not on his premises, with the possible exception of Iran.

So am I missing something, or does the Objectivists' objection to Paul really just boil down to Iran?

If so, then I'm not that worried about Iran. If America leaves Iran alone, you can believe the Israelis will pick up the slack. And you can't tell me that the American private security firms won't help out the Israelis with weapons and man-power should all hell break loose; there's too much to gain by Israel winning another war in the Middle East unhinged from American intrusion.


Neo-Objectivists

MarkHunter's picture
Submitted by MarkHunter (not verified) on Tue, 2012-07-17 13:39.

Cornell,

“It’s odd to me that so many Objectivists dislike Ron Paul.”

They’re pretty much confined to the Ayn Rand Institute camp. The following shows to what lengths these Neo-Objectivists will go to discredit Ron Paul:
Yaron Brook vs. Ron Paul

Yes.

Cornell's picture
Submitted by Cornell on Sat, 2012-03-03 15:46.

Precisely my point.

In effect

gregster's picture
Submitted by gregster on Sat, 2012-03-03 10:20.

Voting for the policies which most uphold individual freedom would mean a libertarian vote.

Ok, well forget the ends justifying the means.

Cornell's picture
Submitted by Cornell on Sat, 2012-03-03 10:16.

How about electing politicians with the least offensive policy platforms? That would be the Libertarians.

Cornell

gregster's picture
Submitted by gregster on Sat, 2012-03-03 10:11.

Rand was also anti-libertarian, btw; another thing which I find odd

Here's something: http://www.aynrand.org/site/Pa...

Q: The Libertarians are providing intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don’t you support them? [Ibid., 1981]

AR: Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout all history: by means of people who understand and teach it to others. Further, it should be clear that I do not endorse the filthy slogan, “The end justifies the means.” That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by Communists and Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, the Libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism.

Noted.

Cornell's picture
Submitted by Cornell on Thu, 2012-03-01 05:07.

Noted.

Rand was not anti-libertarian

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Thu, 2012-03-01 05:04.

Rand was anti-Libertarian. (Upper case 'L'.)

Politics

Cornell's picture
Submitted by Cornell on Thu, 2012-03-01 00:59.

Well, that's not entirely true. Politics is a major branch of philosophy, and both Rand and Peikoff have written about it extensively. Peikoff has said he doesn't like Paul, and I found some anti-Paul posts here, as well. Now, certainly, you don't have to support Ron Paul or be a Libertarian to be an Objectivist (Rand was also anti-libertarian, btw; another thing which I find odd), but it seems strange to me that an Objectivist would be; especially given the alternatives.

Paul's...

Ross Elliot's picture
Submitted by Ross Elliot on Wed, 2012-02-29 07:44.

...politics have nothing to do with Objectivism.

In some respects his libertarian values are *consistent* with Objectivism, but that is neither here nor there.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.