Carl_Svanberg

Stephen Speicher, "Paul's here", and anyone else who might care. I just want to make it perfectly clear that I do not agree with what Peikoff says about Objectivists who consider to vote Republican. I don't think you're rationalistic. I don't think it's a sign of not understanding Objectivism. I think that this nothing else than a argument from intimidation, and I think it's a shame that Peikoff uses it. (Although it's no excuse, I can understand if he feels frustrated with the situation.) Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my response to Burgess Laughlin, but I don't think that Objectivists who consider to vote Republican are guilty of any evasions, immorality or rationalism, etc.

1. Thought I cannot read Peikoffs mind, I assume he use the word as it is usually defined: "a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities." (dictionary.com) 2. Is it really possible to not be aware of the fact that the vast majority of the evangelicals vote for the republicans? Or that the republicans, at least lately, have been "hijacked" by the religious right? That the secular republicans are a very small minority? I.e., is it really possible to make a honest mistake in this issue, after one has conscientiously studied the facts in the matter? I don't think so. That does, however, not mean that I agree with the implication by Peikoff, that everyone who don't agree with him on this issue, is also guilty of evading the facts. Notice that the people who still think it's proper to support the republicans, don't evade that the Christian right has a strong base within that party. Instead, they want to make the case that this election is not about religion versus socialism (or welfare statism), but between republicans who take the war on terrorism more seriously than democrats, who, in fact, don't take it seriously at all. Furthermore, even though one would agree with all the facts concerning the republicans, one could still argue that the theocractic threat is more of a long term threat, and therefore not something we should focus on in this election. We simply don't have any time worrying about this when there already are religious fanatics in the millions, all around the world, trying to kill Americans. 3. I don't know. I cannot read his mind any more than you can. Do you think that it follows from what he has said? 4. I don't know exactly how Peikoff is thinking (since I cannot read his mind anymore than you can), but given what he said during the last presidential election and this election, I would assume that he think it's entirely proper to vote for "the lesser evil". And I think that's a justifiable position. In this election he apperently views the republicans as the lesser evil, because he views it not in terms of how the parties stand in the so-called war on terror, but on what I believe he views as a more fundamental issue philosophically. However, in situations in which there are no greater differences between two parties or candidates, there's no reason to vote at all. In some rare cases, one might be lucky enough to be able to choose between to real alternatives. I.e., between one option which is essentially good (not necessarily perfect in every regard, but good on the overall) and another which is essentially evil. Those who think that this election is about the war on terror, probably view the republicans as the essentially good alternative, while the democrats are the essentially evil alternative. I think it's ambitious of you to find some rational principles for voting. I think that I've indicated some of them above. What do you think of my suggestions? I want to state one more thing. I do think it's wrong of Dr Peikoff to suggest that anyone who don't agree with him in this issue is immoral and don't understand Objectivism. Even if it were true that the reason people don't agree with him is because they don't understand Objectivism, that wouldn't in any way imply that they're guilt of being immoral. After all, not being able to fully understand everything about Objectivism does not render one immoral.

Peikoff on the coming election (October 19, 2006) Q: In view of the constant parade of jackassery which is Washington, is there any point in voting for candidates of either entrenched party? Throwing out the incumbents "for a change" is to me an idea based on the philosophy that my head will stop hurting if I bang it on the opposite wall. A: How you cast your vote in the coming election is important, even if the two parties are both rotten. In essence, the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power. Socialism—a fad of the last few centuries—has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast—the destroyer of man since time immemorial—is not fading; on the contrary, it is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government. Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because “both are bad.” The survival of this country will not be determined by the degree to which the government, simply by inertia, imposes taxes, entitlements, controls, etc., although such impositions will be harmful (and all of them and worse will be embraced or pioneered by conservatives, as Bush has shown). What does determine the survival of this country is not political concretes, but fundamental philosophy. And in this area the only real threat to the country now, the only political evil comparable to or even greater than the threat once posed by Soviet Communism, is religion and the Party which is its home and sponsor. 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. If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner. (www.Peikoff.com) I think Dr Peikoff is essentially correct in his estimate. What's your opinion?

I don't think we have to limit our discussion to such metaphysically given facts as the sun. Take for instance the case of parents. It is quite obvious that a baby can't survive without the good care of good parents. Thus it would seem that our parents is a value. For whom? The baby. For what? For the sake of its very survival, i.e. for its _life_. So while values are not subjective nor intrinsic, but objective, that fact alone don't seem to answer my question. After all, the baby never _acts_ to gain and/or keep its parents.

Ayn Rand defines "value" as that "which one acts to gain and/or keep." Now, given this definition, how do one think of such a thing as, for instance, the sun. Is the sun a value? In one way it seems to be of _some_ value since it after all is one of many things which makes life possible here on earth. On the other hand, it is not a thing which we act to gain and/or keep. Are you starting to see my problem? If so, then how do you guys suggest you solve this problem of mine? Is one to make a distinction between on the one hand "the valuable" and on the other hand "values"?

Hello Grosz, You're asking a lot of questions, and I don't think I can answer them all. But I will make a try: 1. About the principle "controls lead to further controls", this is entirely true. It is not true in the sense that controls necessarily results in further controls. But it is true that once controls have been imposed there's also a great tendency to impose further measures as a "remedy" for the problems caused by the first controls and interventions. Take for instance rent controls. Once you have rent controls, in combination with inflation, you will end up with shortages on housing. Since most politicians don't know and/or care about economics, they will usually blame the market for the problems. Thus they will suggest some government measures to solve the housing shortages. One such measure might be to subsidize housing. But this will have to be financed by higher taxes, which in turn will cause other problems. These problems will then also be blamed on the market, and once again the politicians will suggest another intervention to solve the problems caused by the higher taxes. Etc. This process will either continue until the politicians and the public realize that they have to do something, which means that they will have to de-regulate the economy, cut spending and taxes, etc. It's either that or they will end up in a society under total state control, i.e. a dictatorship. You can read about this process in this address by Ludwig von Mises: http://www.mises.org/midroad.asp 2. Concerning the Scandinavian countries I would like to say two things. First of all, the Scandinavian countries are not socialist. They are mixed economies, or to be more specific they are, to lend a expression from von Mises, "hampered market economies". Let me quote George Reisman in CAPITALISM: A TREATISE ON ECONOMICS: Thus, the mixed economies of countries like for instance Sweden, where I live, are flourishing only to the extent that they are capitalist, i.e. enjoy a relatively high degree of (economic) freedom. To the extent that we have government intervention in the economy, we are paying a high price for it. Just to give you an indication: the unemployment rate is about 20% in Sweden. This is very much due to very strong pro-union legislation, the regulations on the labor market, very high taxes, high unemployment relief levels, etc. Swedens economic development was much better before the 1970s, when the welfare state was much smaller and economy were freer. It was our high degree of economic freedom in the past - not interventions - that once made Sweden one of the wealthiest countries in the world. You can read more about this in this article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/sanandaji1.html Regards, Carl Svanberg