Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Mercury

The Freedom Party in Canada

17 posts in this topic

Welcome to THE FORUM, Zip.

The political stench in Ottawa must be tough to bear. Well, better Harper than Ignatieff or Layton. :D

As I've said before, as a Canadian my choices in the political arena are bad, worse, horrible and disasterous. :D

Hmmmmmmmmm... No edit button. I'd like to add that the Freedom Party does provide a ray of hope... Perhaps someday

I actually have zero confidence in the Freedom Party. Founded by libertarians (one of whom is marijuana activist Marc Emery), it may actually be harmful to Objectivism's growth in Canada.

Granting even the premise that it is now led by a professed "Objectivist," organizationally, I think they are ineffectual. For example, the Party has not, to my knowledge, spoken out in any significant way against the evil Canadian Human Rights Commissions. Since free speech is one of the most fundamentals of a proper society, one would have thought that a serious freedom fighter would have made this issue one, after property rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Welcome to THE FORUM, Zip.

The political stench in Ottawa must be tough to bear. Well, better Harper than Ignatieff or Layton. :D

As I've said before, as a Canadian my choices in the political arena are bad, worse, horrible and disasterous. :D

Hmmmmmmmmm... No edit button. I'd like to add that the Freedom Party does provide a ray of hope... Perhaps someday

I actually have zero confidence in the Freedom Party. Founded by libertarians (one of whom is marijuana activist Marc Emery), it may actually be harmful to Objectivism's growth in Canada.

Granting even the premise that it is now led by a professed "Objectivist," organizationally, I think they are ineffectual. For example, the Party has not, to my knowledge, spoken out in any significant way against the evil Canadian Human Rights Commissions. Since free speech is one of the most fundamentals of a proper society, one would have thought that a serious freedom fighter would have made this issue one, after property rights.

Actually Mercury if you go to the Freedom Party's site on You tube you will find lots of videos on lots of subjects including this one specifically on hate speech.

What is the relevance of the fact that Marc Emery is a pot activist? If we were living in the days of prohibition would the fact that a former member of the party drank alcohol be relevant? Is the fact that John Adams was a US president somehow confer legitimacy onto Obama?

Bob Metz the leader of the National Party is an Objectivist, so too is Paul Mckeever the leader of the Ontario Party and the Party Philosophy is explicitly O'ist, not mushy headed libertarianism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Welcome to THE FORUM, Zip.

The political stench in Ottawa must be tough to bear. Well, better Harper than Ignatieff or Layton. :D

As I've said before, as a Canadian my choices in the political arena are bad, worse, horrible and disasterous. :D

Hmmmmmmmmm... No edit button. I'd like to add that the Freedom Party does provide a ray of hope... Perhaps someday

I actually have zero confidence in the Freedom Party. Founded by libertarians (one of whom is marijuana activist Marc Emery), it may actually be harmful to Objectivism's growth in Canada.

Granting even the premise that it is now led by a professed "Objectivist," organizationally, I think they are ineffectual. For example, the Party has not, to my knowledge, spoken out in any significant way against the evil Canadian Human Rights Commissions. Since free speech is one of the most fundamentals of a proper society, one would have thought that a serious freedom fighter would have made this issue one, after property rights.

Actually Mercury if you go to the Freedom Party's site on You tube you will find lots of videos on lots of subjects including this one specifically on hate speech.

But, this is not a response to my charge, which is about the absence of Freedom Party opposition to the clear and present danger of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions. With respect, Zip (especially as you are new here and I don't wish to antagonize you), it is, in my view, rationalistic to point to philosophical statements made about free speech in various discussional fora when this is supposed to be a *political* party. A political party, as an institution, is part ideas, part action, with emphasis on action. If the Freedom Party intends to be primarily an educational organization, then its leadership could jumpstart the Ayn Rand Institute's Canada office, so as not to duplicate entities [Occam's Razor]. If they have a new, objective approach to education that the ARI does not agree with, they can start some kind of parallel educational institute.

Running a political party requires a serious social interface with the public and involves "empiristic" issues such as the personal accomplishments, public image, and physical grooming of the leadership. By the time a politician gets elected, the polity has a good idea of the underlying philosophy of the party he belongs to. If the culture disagrees fundamentally with his philosophy - as is the case in near-fascist Canada - the politician's election is extremely unlikely. In Canada, the emphasis should be on education, education, education. Politicians are individuals who seek to provide *political* leadership (i.e., execution of a delimited set of culturally acceptable and governmentally-possible agenda items) not intellectual leadership. It's the PhDs and op-ed writers who prescribe policy. Politicians only execute it.

What is the relevance of the fact that Marc Emery is a pot activist? If we were living in the days of prohibition would the fact that a former member of the party drank alcohol be relevant? Is the fact that John Adams was a US president somehow confer legitimacy onto Obama?

The height of the Prohibition was the Roaring Twenties - see F. Scott Fitzerald's The Great Gatsby - a time of American prosperity. Taxes were still low; regulations much less onerous. The United States had a strong defense policy, and, aside from the denial of some rights of certain minorities, the individual was still considerably free. In such an environment, fighting Prohibition was an "acceptably" serious goal for an activist/politician.

In today's era of diminished freedom, Emery's pot-activist status -- and the current Freedom Party fight for his right to use a substance not commonly "enjoyed" -- is highly relevant. As I've written above, a political party is supposed to be speaking out on the current and burning *concrete* issues of the day. If the Freedom Party looks around, sees the huge Ontario deficit ($30 billion); the new federal deficit of $65 billion; the nationalization of car companies; the strengthening of the unions; the very real anti-business chaos wrought by that filthy punk Miller in Toronto; the death of manufacturing in Ontario; the high personal taxes nationwide; socialized medicine; the huge regulatory-welfare state; but chooses to fight mightily for a marijuana activist who chose to make himself a test case of, not Canadian laws, but US laws(!!!); then, I put it to you that this is - and appears to the public to be - a very unserious party indeed.

The voters -- and yes, what they think matters in this [*political*] context -- will just look at that and hiss contemptuously.

Although you have stretched the range quite a bit by using Obama and John Adams in your analogy, let me turn that around to make the issue clearer: What if John Adams were alive today? Would he be campaigning for Obama?

Bob Metz the leader of the National Party is an Objectivist, so too is Paul Mckeever the leader of the Ontario Party and the Party Philosophy is explicitly O'ist, not mushy headed libertarianism.

Libertarianism is not simply "mushy headed." As I see it, there are two issues here: justice and strategy. The libertarian movement bases its ideas on Ayn Rand's politics, while simultaneously denouncing her. To support them, even leaving aside their anti-philosophical approach to politics, is an injustice to Ayn Rand and to every man who values her. Strategically, it is self-defeating to sanction their loose approach: the public confuses Objectivists with the libertine libertarians, thereby making a moral defense of capitalism harder to push. Fortunately, no thanks to the philosophically-destructive efforts of Rothbard and co., this is changing somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, this is not a response to my charge, which is about the absence of Freedom Party opposition to the clear and present danger of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions.

This is from 1997, long before the much more recent hoopla...

With respect, Zip (especially as you are new here and I don't wish to antagonize you), it is, in my view, rationalistic to point to philosophical statements made about free speech in various discussional fora when this is supposed to be a *political* party.

You're not antagonizing me.

I have a question though do you believe that when the Prime Minister joins in in discussion in a "discussional fora" like CTV news and discusses his philosophical ideals that he is somehow stepping outside of his bounds? Is politics not a part of philosophy? I must be missing something unless you believe that politicians should just be talking heads mouthing empty words and leaving all the real thinking and educating to... whom? Philosophers?

A political party, as an institution, is part ideas, part action, with emphasis on action. If the Freedom Party intends to be primarily an educational organization, then its leadership could jumpstart the Ayn Rand Institute's Canada office, so as not to duplicate entities [Occam's Razor]. If they have a new, objective approach to education that the ARI does not agree with, they can start some kind of parallel educational institute.

You quite literally can not impart political ideals which lead to action without speaking about the things that make those actions necessary. The Liberals didn't stand up and merely state "Multiculturalism is right, follow us!" They took a long time to explain to Canadians why it was right. From the lowliest door-knocker to the then PM (Trudeau) they educated people, they made the basis of their point known, they worked at it.

Running a political party requires a serious social interface with the public and involves "empiristic" issues such as the personal accomplishments, public image, and physical grooming of the leadership. By the time a politician gets elected, the polity has a good idea of the underlying philosophy of the party he belongs to. If the culture disagrees fundamentally with his philosophy - as is the case in near-fascist Canada - the politician's election is extremely unlikely. In Canada, the emphasis should be on education, education, education.

So is your disagreement then with the very existence of the party itself?

Politicians are individuals who seek to provide *political* leadership (i.e., execution of a delimited set of culturally acceptable and governmentally-possible agenda items) not intellectual leadership.

Politicians are ideological leaders, and if they can't speak to their underlying philosophy they are dead.

It's the PhDs and op-ed writers who prescribe policy. Politicians only execute it.

Really? How many PHD's and op-ed writers do you think attend most party policy conventions? These policies are being written by the party faithful (for good or ill), people who have been taught by previous party faithful what it is to be a Liberal, or Conservative or BQ, or Communist NDP.

There is a reason that the word "grassroots" is used with regard to new political movements, I mean how do you think something like the old Reform party started? It didn't spring fully formed out of Preston Manning's grey matter. Lots of hard work, by lots of individuals and lots of work by Preston himself pushing his ideals.

The height of the Prohibition was the Roaring Twenties - see F. Scott Fitzerald's The Great Gatsby - a time of American prosperity. Taxes were still low; regulations much less onerous. The United States had a strong defense policy, and, aside from the denial of some rights of certain minorities, the individual was still considerably free. In such an environment, fighting Prohibition was an "acceptably" serious goal for an activist/politician.

In today's era of diminished freedom, Emery's pot-activist status -- and the current Freedom Party fight for his right to use a substance not commonly "enjoyed" -- is highly relevant. As I've written above, a political party is supposed to be speaking out on the current and burning *concrete* issues of the day. If the Freedom Party looks around, sees the huge Ontario deficit ($30 billion); the new federal deficit of $65 billion; the nationalization of car companies; the strengthening of the unions; the very real anti-business chaos wrought by that filthy punk Miller in Toronto; the death of manufacturing in Ontario; the high personal taxes nationwide; socialized medicine; the huge regulatory-welfare state; but chooses to fight mightily for a marijuana activist who chose to make himself a test case of, not Canadian laws, but US laws(!!!); then, I put it to you that this is - and appears to the public to be - a very unserious party indeed.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that that is all the Freedom Party is doing. Everything you have mentioned has been a subject which the FP has covered.

The voters -- and yes, what they think matters in this [*political*] context -- will just look at that and hiss contemptuously.

Although you have stretched the range quite a bit by using Obama and John Adams in your analogy, let me turn that around to make the issue clearer: What if John Adams were alive today? Would he be campaigning for Obama?

Maybe you missed the point of my analogy. My analogy is drawing a correlation between Prohibition of alcohol and the pot prohibition. Both are wrong. There is a principal involved here, it is the right to life, in this case Marc Emmery's right to live his life and make his way in this world on his own so long as he does not initiate force or fraud on anyone.

This is that philosophical base that politics is built on. It seems to me that you are saying (and it is my turn to say I'm not trying to antagonize you) that upholding that principal is too esoteric or too difficult a task to take on in the political realm. That perhaps a party that is dedicated to the right to life, liberty and property ought to skip that one because it's just not important to stand up for a pot smokers rights.

P.S.

As for my Obama/Adams line, you are absolutely correct, I reached too far for that. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, missed this...

Libertarianism is not simply "mushy headed." As I see it, there are two issues here: justice and strategy. The libertarian movement bases its ideas on Ayn Rand's politics, while simultaneously denouncing her. To support them, even leaving aside their anti-philosophical approach to politics, is an injustice to Ayn Rand and to every man who values her. Strategically, it is self-defeating to sanction their loose approach: the public confuses Objectivists with the libertine libertarians, thereby making a moral defense of capitalism harder to push. Fortunately, no thanks to the philosophically-destructive efforts of Rothbard and co., this is changing somewhat.

You still seem to think that the FP is Libertarian... It's not, please, see for yourself. http://www.freedomparty.ca/htm/en/home.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Libertarianism is not simply "mushy headed." As I see it, there are two issues here: justice and strategy. The libertarian movement bases its ideas on Ayn Rand's politics, while simultaneously denouncing her. To support them, even leaving aside their anti-philosophical approach to politics, is an injustice to Ayn Rand and to every man who values her. Strategically, it is self-defeating to sanction their loose approach: the public confuses Objectivists with the libertine libertarians, thereby making a moral defense of capitalism harder to push. Fortunately, no thanks to the philosophically-destructive efforts of Rothbard and co., this is changing somewhat.

I strongly disagree - I actually think this feud between libertarians and Objectivists is ridiculous and extremely counter-productive. Of course, I understand the problem of having the wrong philosophical base for a government, even if the effects are right. But 1. libertarianism is a gateway drug into Objectivism and 2. it appeals to the non-philosophical public in a much clearer manner.

1. A gateway drug because the way most people are introduced to those ideas, small state, small government, is via libertarians who can prove, factually, that a million times in history free markets have resulted in better conditions for all involved and enormous prosperity. After being destroyed a dozen times in arguments by libertarians, I picked up Friedman and Hayek and was fascinated. Ayn Rand comes later - once you have accepted that the general "wisdom" about statism is completely flawed, you are ready for exploring the philosophical basis behind such "wisdom". Further, many prominent great politicians of the last century have based their very great policies on Friedman and Hayek's work. For example, although privately Reagan was an admirer of Ayn Rand and many in his administration kept copies on their desk and quoted it at each other (I don't have time to get the source, apologies), publicly Reagan was keener on claiming from the libertarian side of his party. Similarly, Thatcher arrived at the Conservative Party conference and slammed down a book by Milton Friedman (whose title escapes me now) saying "and THIS is what we believe in!".

Let's face it. If you are exposed to libertarianism, and you are even half of a thinker, you will eventually read the FH and AS, and then the non-fiction works. And Ayn Rand is a VERY GOOD writer.

2. is simpler. Libertarians basically say "vote for us and everybody is better off". Since you are part of "everybody", if you take the time to read their arguments and look at the evidence of the last century, you'll agree, and vote for them in your own self-interest. A true Objectivist politician would say "vote for me so that I and the people I value are better off through a world that is overall better off". Harder to understand for the "common man" who unfortunately also has the "common vote", since the altruists have destroyed the middle class' reason.

I am not sure whether anybody outside of economic circles and Objectivists and Libertarians will actually think much about Murray Rothbard. Even the Mises Institute blog barely ever mentions him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, this is not a response to my charge, which is about the absence of Freedom Party opposition to the clear and present danger of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions.

This is from 1997, long before the much more recent hoopla...

This is the kind of circular that should have been distributed during the "recent hoopla," which is a curious description of a very grave and ongoing struggle over the very principle which recognizes the right to issue such statements. Many of such circulars, pounding away at the different aspects of the matter should have been distributed throughout the media. Over the past two years, its writers should have been on all the talk shows: Oakley, Adler, Miller, Stafford, Coren, Paikin, etc. If there isn't enough money or manpower to do that, then maybe there shouldn't be a political party. In my view, it's too early for politics.

With respect, Zip (especially as you are new here and I don't wish to antagonize you), it is, in my view, rationalistic to point to philosophical statements made about free speech in various discussional fora when this is supposed to be a *political* party.

You're not antagonizing me.

I have a question though do you believe that when the Prime Minister joins in in discussion in a "discussional fora" like CTV news and discusses his philosophical ideals that he is somehow stepping outside of his bounds? Is politics not a part of philosophy? I must be missing something unless you believe that politicians should just be talking heads mouthing empty words and leaving all the real thinking and educating to... whom? Philosophers?

I really haven't heard or seen the Prime Minister discuss his "philosophical ideals." What I have seen him do is discuss what he intends to do about the deficit; about opening the country to more external investment; about the rising dollar; about the "health care" system; about the U.S.-Canada relationship; about personal and corporate taxes; about the Harmonized Sales Tax; etc. His treatment of all these *concrete* *political* issues is framed in his philosophy, but the philosophy itself is hardly mentioned at length. It is simply assumed that the public knows, roughly, what "conservatism" is.

A political party, as an institution, is part ideas, part action, with emphasis on action. If the Freedom Party intends to be primarily an educational organization, then its leadership could jumpstart the Ayn Rand Institute's Canada office, so as not to duplicate entities [Occam's Razor]. If they have a new, objective approach to education that the ARI does not agree with, they can start some kind of parallel educational institute.

You quite literally can not impart political ideals which lead to action without speaking about the things that make those actions necessary. The Liberals didn't stand up and merely state "Multiculturalism is right, follow us!" They took a long time to explain to Canadians why it was right. From the lowliest door-knocker to the then PM (Trudeau) they educated people, they made the basis of their point known, they worked at it.

Actually, multiculturalism had been taught in the universities by Liberal *intellectuals* for decades before the *political* Liberals implemented it. Education precedes politics. This necessary relationship is ineluctable. Observe the legwork being done by the ARI today in the U.S. (For a better grasp of this point, please see almost any biography of the U.S. Founding Fathers. In it, you'll see just how much of John Locke and other Enlightenment philosophy had to be studied before the Founders could create the U.S.)

Running a political party requires a serious social interface with the public and involves "empiristic" issues such as the personal accomplishments, public image, and physical grooming of the leadership. By the time a politician gets elected, the polity has a good idea of the underlying philosophy of the party he belongs to. If the culture disagrees fundamentally with his philosophy - as is the case in near-fascist Canada - the politician's election is extremely unlikely. In Canada, the emphasis should be on education, education, education.

So is your disagreement then with the very existence of the party itself?

I think it's too early for an Objectivist political party in Canada. But, even granting such an entity, I think one birthed in libertarianism, i.e., anarchism, is destructive of Objectivist ends for all the reasons I gave in my last post. And then, if, on top of that, the party is ineffectual, it really is pointless.

Politicians are individuals who seek to provide *political* leadership (i.e., execution of a delimited set of culturally acceptable and governmentally-possible agenda items) not intellectual leadership.

Politicians are ideological leaders, and if they can't speak to their underlying philosophy they are dead.

No, they are political executives not ideological leaders. Marx and Engels were ideological leaders of communism; Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were political leaders of communism. Obama is a political leader of Marxism in the U.S.

Yes, they need to understand the underlying philosophy; but they cannot be teachers in a society too far removed from their philosophy. (See Ayn Rand's notes on Goldwater in "How to Judge a Political Candidate," The Objectivist Newsletter, March 1964.)

It's the PhDs and op-ed writers who prescribe policy. Politicians only execute it.

Really? How many PHD's and op-ed writers do you think attend most party policy conventions? These policies are being written by the party faithful (for good or ill), people who have been taught by previous party faithful what it is to be a Liberal, or Conservative or BQ, or Communist NDP.

There is a reason that the word "grassroots" is used with regard to new political movements, I mean how do you think something like the old Reform party started? It didn't spring fully formed out of Preston Manning's grey matter. Lots of hard work, by lots of individuals and lots of work by Preston himself pushing his ideals.

The PhDs don't have to attend: their work is done in the classrooms and on talk shows. The attendees of policy conventions are only completing a cycle. Manning simply completed what had begun with the popularization of Frederich Hayek and Thomas Friedman's ideas in North America. Notice the influence of the Frasier Institute.

The height of the Prohibition was the Roaring Twenties - see F. Scott Fitzerald's The Great Gatsby - a time of American prosperity. Taxes were still low; regulations much less onerous. The United States had a strong defense policy, and, aside from the denial of some rights of certain minorities, the individual was still considerably free. In such an environment, fighting Prohibition was an "acceptably" serious goal for an activist/politician.

In today's era of diminished freedom, Emery's pot-activist status -- and the current Freedom Party fight for his right to use a substance not commonly "enjoyed" -- is highly relevant. As I've written above, a political party is supposed to be speaking out on the current and burning *concrete* issues of the day. If the Freedom Party looks around, sees the huge Ontario deficit ($30 billion); the new federal deficit of $65 billion; the nationalization of car companies; the strengthening of the unions; the very real anti-business chaos wrought by that filthy punk Miller in Toronto; the death of manufacturing in Ontario; the high personal taxes nationwide; socialized medicine; the huge regulatory-welfare state; but chooses to fight mightily for a marijuana activist who chose to make himself a test case of, not Canadian laws, but US laws(!!!); then, I put it to you that this is - and appears to the public to be - a very unserious party indeed.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that that is all the Freedom Party is doing. Everything you have mentioned has been a subject which the FP has covered.

Well, I have not seen any evidence of what you are claiming here. All I've heard is that a video is being recorded in Marc Emery's defense; and that the PanAm Games are a tax and should therefore be resisted. No word yet on the HST recently announced by McGinty or any of these other crucial issues.

The voters -- and yes, what they think matters in this [*political*] context -- will just look at that and hiss contemptuously.

Although you have stretched the range quite a bit by using Obama and John Adams in your analogy, let me turn that around to make the issue clearer: What if John Adams were alive today? Would he be campaigning for Obama?

Maybe you missed the point of my analogy. My analogy is drawing a correlation between Prohibition of alcohol and the pot prohibition. Both are wrong. There is a principal involved here, it is the right to life, in this case Marc Emmery's right to live his life and make his way in this world on his own so long as he does not initiate force or fraud on anyone.

This is that philosophical base that politics is built on. It seems to me that you are saying (and it is my turn to say I'm not trying to antagonize you) that upholding that principal is too esoteric or too difficult a task to take on in the political realm. That perhaps a party that is dedicated to the right to life, liberty and property ought to skip that one because it's just not important to stand up for a pot smokers rights.

P.S.

As for my Obama/Adams line, you are absolutely correct, I reached too far for that. :D

No, I understood your analogy perfectly. I am saying that the analogy fails because, in politics, you have to choose your battles in order of significance, not just speak abstractly like a professor. I took some pain to point out why the pot issue is much, much less important than the egregious violations of property rights we are currently suffering. The issue is not whether it is right to champion the right to get high; the issue is whether a fledgling political party which claims to be based on Objectivism's revolutionary, little-understood principles, should make the right to get high a defining issue, given all the other major issues at hand. Getting high is the least of Canada's worries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Libertarianism is not simply "mushy headed." As I see it, there are two issues here: justice and strategy. The libertarian movement bases its ideas on Ayn Rand's politics, while simultaneously denouncing her. To support them, even leaving aside their anti-philosophical approach to politics, is an injustice to Ayn Rand and to every man who values her. Strategically, it is self-defeating to sanction their loose approach: the public confuses Objectivists with the libertine libertarians, thereby making a moral defense of capitalism harder to push. Fortunately, no thanks to the philosophically-destructive efforts of Rothbard and co., this is changing somewhat.

I strongly disagree - I actually think this feud between libertarians and Objectivists is ridiculous and extremely counter-productive. Of course, I understand the problem of having the wrong philosophical base for a government, even if the effects are right. But 1. libertarianism is a gateway drug into Objectivism and 2. it appeals to the non-philosophical public in a much clearer manner.

What do you mean by "feud"? Are you suggesting that libertarians are simply Objectivists without the metaphysics and epistemology? If so, you are very wrong. Their politics is destructive, especially in foreign policy. Also, the use of "gateway drug" in the way you have used it - without quotes - implies that Objectivism, a revolutionary philosophy of the utmost import, is a drug.

How long have you been reading Ayn Rand and what have you read? Have you read any of Ayn Rand's own statements on libertarianism?

1. A gateway drug because the way most people are introduced to those ideas, small state, small government, is via libertarians who can prove, factually, that a million times in history free markets have resulted in better conditions for all involved and enormous prosperity. After being destroyed a dozen times in arguments by libertarians, I picked up Friedman and Hayek and was fascinated. Ayn Rand comes later - once you have accepted that the general "wisdom" about statism is completely flawed, you are ready for exploring the philosophical basis behind such "wisdom". Further, many prominent great politicians of the last century have based their very great policies on Friedman and Hayek's work. For example, although privately Reagan was an admirer of Ayn Rand and many in his administration kept copies on their desk and quoted it at each other (I don't have time to get the source, apologies), publicly Reagan was keener on claiming from the libertarian side of his party. Similarly, Thatcher arrived at the Conservative Party conference and slammed down a book by Milton Friedman (whose title escapes me now) saying "and THIS is what we believe in!".

Please find the source, as I do not comment on arbitrary assertions, which anyone can make.

Owing to their altruist premises, Milton Friedman and Frederich Hayek do not completely reject government intervention in the economy, which is one reason why their admirers still advocate and implement "stimulus" in recessions. (See Ayn Rand's Marginalia for a better grasp of the essential issue.)

Let's face it. If you are exposed to libertarianism, and you are even half of a thinker, you will eventually read the FH and AS, and then the non-fiction works. And Ayn Rand is a VERY GOOD writer.

If this is true, why aren't most libertarians now Objectivists?

2. is simpler. Libertarians basically say "vote for us and everybody is better off". Since you are part of "everybody", if you take the time to read their arguments and look at the evidence of the last century, you'll agree, and vote for them in your own self-interest. A true Objectivist politician would say "vote for me so that I and the people I value are better off through a world that is overall better off". Harder to understand for the "common man" who unfortunately also has the "common vote", since the altruists have destroyed the middle class' reason.

On what do you base this example of a "true Objectivist politician"? I advise that you spend some more time studying Ayn Rand's writings to get a deeper understanding of the issues involved.

I am not sure whether anybody outside of economic circles and Objectivists and Libertarians will actually think much about Murray Rothbard. Even the Mises Institute blog barely ever mentions him.

Well, Rothbard is one of the founders of that school of "thinking." He is also responsible for a heavy smear against Ayn Rand. No matter how ardently many newcomers to Objectivism wish to see a "free market" in their lifetimes, they won't get it by jumping in bed with the libertarians. It takes time, but if you study further you'll come to understand the essential issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you mean by "feud"? Are you suggesting that libertarians are simply Objectivists without the metaphysics and epistemology? If so, you are very wrong. Their politics is destructive, especially in foreign policy. Also, the use of "gateway drug" in the way you have used it - without quotes - implies that Objectivism, a revolutionary philosophy of the utmost import, is a drug.

Feud in that both sides destroy each other at every possible occasion, e.g. on the Mises Institute blog mentioned above or American Objectivists rejecting Libertarians in a public manner (as you are doing on this forum, for example) and denying the possibility of any alliance. The message is almost "these guys are worse than the socialists". In the UK, there are so few liberty-loving people that Objectivists and Libertarians often group meetings. Of course Objectivism isn't a drug. Imprecise wording on my part.

How long have you been reading Ayn Rand and what have you read? Have you read any of Ayn Rand's own statements on libertarianism?

2 years, have read AS, FH, Anthem, Philosophy, Virtue, Capitalism, although my personal philosophy was along those lines already. I have read them and agree with them. I am very much aware of Objectivism's insistence on the necessity of extremes, and agree with it. My position is therefore not Objective. In that sense I am no Objectivist. But I refuse to live in a Roarkian quarry of socialism for most of my life fighting the strongest, most powerful ideological movement in history in a way that is unlikely to succeed. If my vote (and I am no US citizen, so this is a theoretical discussion), by going to Reagan 2.0, means a tax cut and the removal of most welfare, as opposed to another generation of Obama and Republicans that cater to statist religionists because they feel the libertarian vote is wasted, I'm happier.

The further right we get, the stronger our arguments can be. If you want to experience this, I recommend a trip to Europe: in France, for example, private doctors have to pay for studies that prove that they should be allowed to operate. Ayn Rand is an unknown name, and few people outside the economic institutes even know of Friedman or Hayek. I believe I once bumped, by accident, on the one philosopher in France who was close to Objectivism, but he was by and large ignored.

Ayn Rand may have urged people to vote against Reagan, but I like him. As an Objectivist, you are judging me for it, and I don't mind. For example, I'm not keen on being nuked, but accept and endorse the policy of having better nukes and ways to deliver them than the enemy, which keeps the country at peace.

Perhaps you are right, and as I study I will continue to move towards a position of inflexibility towards any non-ethical means of waging this ideological war.

Please find the source, as I do not comment on arbitrary assertions, which anyone can make.

Will do when I find it again.

Owing to their altruist premises, Milton Friedman and Frederich Hayek do not completely reject government intervention in the economy, which is one reason why their admirers still advocate and implement "stimulus" in recessions. (See Ayn Rand's Marginalia for a better grasp of the essential issue.)

One big difference between Ayn Rand's writings (at least in Capitalism and Philosophy) is that she advocates a state-run justice system, police and army, because privatizing those just leads to gang war and anarchy as opposed to the preservation of property rights. In that way, at least as far as I understand it, she argues for more government than the "pure" libertarians. I am not familiar enough with Hayek and Friedman to comment on your point; and even if they do argue for limited intervention, it is better than unlimited intervention.

If this is true, why aren't most libertarians now Objectivists?

Most libertarians aren't making much of an effort to think. That has, at least, been my experience. Or they will not have the time to read the books. The FH on its own is not sufficient.

On what do you base this example of a "true Objectivist politician"? I advise that you spend some more time studying Ayn Rand's writings to get a deeper understanding of the issues involved.

The point I was making was that no Objectivist would argue for "the common good". This is OK with Libertarians.

Well, Rothbard is one of the founders of that school of "thinking." He is also responsible for a heavy smear against Ayn Rand. No matter how ardently many newcomers to Objectivism wish to see a "free market" in their lifetimes, they won't get it by jumping in bed with the libertarians. It takes time, but if you study further you'll come to understand the essential issue.

I am very much aware of Rothbard, have read and seen his little play, and some of his works. The issue as far as I understand it is that the libertarians have gone halfway. They've understood that prosperity and the "common good" can only be achieved via freedom, but still believe in the altruistic philosophy of the "common good". The next step is to move away from the philosophy of the "common good". My other point was that even though Rothbard may have been the founder and leader of that school, people nowadays quote Hayek and Friedman.

Please do explain what I have missed - I am always keen to learn, and this is why I joined this Forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mercury, I disagree.

"Hoopla" was used specifically to illustrate that already many (most?) Canadians have forgotten about Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and Kathy Shaidle yet the FP still talks about it and has been talking about it since before any of these three even bothered to care.

Could more have been done? Sure, but I'm unaware of the financial constraints and time limitations of the key players within the party.

With regard to philosophical ideas every time the PM opens his mouth and speaks on policy he's speaking on his philosophy. Now as you pointed out he has the advantage of hundreds of years of history behind him so he doesn't need to explain altruism but regardless when you hear him (or any other politician) talk about the roots of their ideas it is philosophy that they are talking about.

I'm willing to bet that the philosophy of the enlightenment was way, way beyond the scope and range of the average New Hampshire farmer or Maine fisherman when the framers of the Constitution brought about their change. Did they (the framers) do a good job of utilizing the situation to effect the change they wanted? Sure, but it wasn't because farmer Jim understood the philosophy explicitly, it was because there was a definite and glaring injustice for the framers to piggy back on. Thanks for helping me to make my point though :D :D

Your insistence that because the FP was started by Libertarians, that it is therefore somehow tainted now (and forever?) makes no more sense. You are in effect saying that change from any such organization is impossible. Many people outside of Objectivism would tell you that ARI is ineffectual. I mean it's been over 50 years since Ayn Rand developed Objectivism and it has not impacted in any meaningful way on the politics of the USA. I mean look at who just got voted in. (<-Playing Devils advocate here)

Hitler was both the political and philosophical leader of Nazism. But again, like the framers of the constitution he took advantage of the situation at hand and led the people through it with a new idea.

Do you have a link for that article "How to Judge a Political Candidate"? I haven't read it.

I just checked by the way. The FP was not founded by Emery, as a matter of fact he isn't even mentioned, nor is libertarianism.

As I said at the start I disagree with you that the FP is in any way harmful to the cause of Objectivism. Also, I can find no indication that it was started by Libertarians much less Emery himself, so I have to assume that your problem with the party is sequential, i.e. that you believe that it isn't "time" for such a thing. This isn't a new argument (it's really not an argument at all, just a statement of your opinion).

As for the FP being ineffectual, well, most starting points are, especially when they are tackling entrenched ideals thousands of years old with a system that is foreign in scope and ideas to 99% of the population.

I also think you have to look deeper into the work that the FP is doing, especially the FP of Ontario. Bob Metz has a weekly radio program in Southern Ontario ("Just Right") in which he covers a wide variety of subjects and Paul McKeever's and FP Ontario's you tube channels are listed here

I'm of the opinion that if just a handful of people find Objectivism through something like the FP then it is worth it.

Cheers,

Zip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hitler was both the political and philosophical leader of Nazism. But again, like the framers of the constitution he took advantage of the situation at hand and led the people through it with a new idea.

Have you read The Ominous Parallels, Zip?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hitler was both the political and philosophical leader of Nazism. But again, like the framers of the constitution he took advantage of the situation at hand and led the people through it with a new idea.

Have you read The Ominous Parallels, Zip?

No, but it is on the list... somewhere. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hitler was both the political and philosophical leader of Nazism. But again, like the framers of the constitution he took advantage of the situation at hand and led the people through it with a new idea.

Have you read The Ominous Parallels, Zip?

No, but it is on the list... somewhere. :D

Right on! If you have OPAR I recommend you take a look at the epilogue. There is an essay titled "The Duel Between Plato and Aristotle." In that essay, you can find Leonard Peikoff's (and I assume Ayn Rand's) view of historiography. That might help you see where others in this forum are coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you mean by "feud"? Are you suggesting that libertarians are simply Objectivists without the metaphysics and epistemology? If so, you are very wrong. Their politics is destructive, especially in foreign policy. Also, the use of "gateway drug" in the way you have used it - without quotes - implies that Objectivism, a revolutionary philosophy of the utmost import, is a drug.

Feud in that both sides destroy each other at every possible occasion, e.g. on the Mises Institute blog mentioned above or American Objectivists rejecting Libertarians in a public manner (as you are doing on this forum, for example) and denying the possibility of any alliance. The message is almost "these guys are worse than the socialists". In the UK, there are so few liberty-loving people that Objectivists and Libertarians often group meetings. Of course Objectivism isn't a drug. Imprecise wording on my part.

It is true that outside the United States, a knowledgeable Objectivist is so rare that one is inclined to "take anyone" who speaks about "liberty." The deeper danger -- which cannot be ignored just to "feel good" or to "get something done" -- is that Objectivism becomes confused with Libertarianism, and we actually lose all public support as a result. Libertarianism is anarchism, and anarchy is a particularly ugly form of statist brutishness. Notice, for instance, that Timothy McVeigh was libertarian, but no one could claim his actions were Objectivist. Like I said, there are very significant differences, and it will take further, conscientious study by you to grasp them.

There is some commentary on libertarians by Ayn Rand in Ayn Rand Answers. In the meantime, here are some quotes from the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultanteously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.

“Brief Summary,” The Objectivist, Sept. 1971.

Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies. (For a discussion of the reasons, see “The Anatomy of Compromise” in my book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.)
“What Can One Do?” Philosophy: Who Needs It.

How long have you been reading Ayn Rand and what have you read? Have you read any of Ayn Rand's own statements on libertarianism?

2 years, have read AS, FH, Anthem, Philosophy, Virtue, Capitalism, although my personal philosophy was along those lines already. I have read them and agree with them. I am very much aware of Objectivism's insistence on the necessity of extremes, and agree with it. My position is therefore not Objective. In that sense I am no Objectivist. But I refuse to live in a Roarkian quarry of socialism for most of my life fighting the strongest, most powerful ideological movement in history in a way that is unlikely to succeed. If my vote (and I am no US citizen, so this is a theoretical discussion), by going to Reagan 2.0, means a tax cut and the removal of most welfare, as opposed to another generation of Obama and Republicans that cater to statist religionists because they feel the libertarian vote is wasted, I'm happier.

You write that you are "aware" of "Objectivism's insistence on the necessity of extremes" - and "agree with it." But, you consider your position "not Objective." This is an understandable misunderstanding of Objectivism's nature. I think it is specifically a misunderstanding of, or unfamiliarity with, Objectivist epistemology, which should begin to clear up after you read Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology and listen to Understanding Objectivism.

It is not that Objectivism "insists on extremes," [which is a vague characterization] even though it may *appear* that way. It is that the identifications which comprise Objectivism are radically opposed to the grievous errors in the prevailing culture; as such, it will appear extreme to most people.

You also write that you "refuse to live in a Roarkian quarry of socialism for most of my life fighting the strongest, most powerful ideological movement in history in a way that is unlikely to succeed. " This is a terrible error. First of all, which ideological movement are you referring to? Communism, socialism? And why do you think the non-Objectivist "fighting ways" are succeeding? Have the conservatives and libertarians been able to stop the march of socialism/communism/environentalism in America? If not, why not? You will come to understand that you will not be able to stop them without taking a moral stand, i.e., opposing the altruist premise.

Here is Rush Limbaugh, leader of conservatives and some libertarians, on Fox News Sunday last week, surrendering the fight against socialized medicine in the first major domestic policy question from Chris Wallace: "Do you think that the government has a moral obligation to find any way to cover [the uninsured]?" Limbaugh was presented with a golden opportunity to destroy the morality of the Left but instead ceded the moral premise. What do you think Nancy Pelosi made of that? Do you think she was scared? Or was she emboldened to insure the uninsured? emboldened to bring altruism faster to the American people? as she did on Saturday?

The further right we get, the stronger our arguments can be. If you want to experience this, I recommend a trip to Europe: in France, for example, private doctors have to pay for studies that prove that they should be allowed to operate. Ayn Rand is an unknown name, and few people outside the economic institutes even know of Friedman or Hayek. I believe I once bumped, by accident, on the one philosopher in France who was close to Objectivism, but he was by and large ignored.

You write that "[t]he further right we get, the stronger our arguments can be." But, we are not going rightward at all, if by "right" you mean towards capitalism. Two American car companies have been nationalized, along with some banks. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are thoroughly socialized. The Federal Reserve System is currently a global joke. Socialized medicine is on the horizon, and Islamofascism is winning on all fronts (Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, England, France, etc).

There can be no substitute for the moral case, which is necessarily "extreme."

Ayn Rand may have urged people to vote against Reagan, but I like him. As an Objectivist, you are judging me for it, and I don't mind. For example, I'm not keen on being nuked, but accept and endorse the policy of having better nukes and ways to deliver them than the enemy, which keeps the country at peace.

I am not judging you for "voting for Reagan" because I am an Objectivist. I am not even against voting for [a] Reagan. While I think well of Reagan, I also recognize that he *may* have helped unleash yet another anti-individual political strain in America. In any case, Ayn Rand was writing based on the facts she had. It is clear that the Republican leadership is becoming more and more un-intellectual. We've gone from Gerald Ford to Sarah Palin in a very short time.

Perhaps you are right, and as I study I will continue to move towards a position of inflexibility towards any non-ethical means of waging this ideological war.

Yes, I am; and, if you are attentive, you shall.

Owing to their altruist premises, Milton Friedman and Frederich Hayek do not completely reject government intervention in the economy, which is one reason why their admirers still advocate and implement "stimulus" in recessions. (See Ayn Rand's Marginalia for a better grasp of the essential issue.)

One big difference between Ayn Rand's writings (at least in Capitalism and Philosophy) is that she advocates a state-run justice system, police and army, because privatizing those just leads to gang war and anarchy as opposed to the preservation of property rights. In that way, at least as far as I understand it, she argues for more government than the "pure" libertarians. I am not familiar enough with Hayek and Friedman to comment on your point; and even if they do argue for limited intervention, it is better than unlimited intervention.

The errors here ("more government than the...libertarians" and "limited intervention...is better than unlimited") are similar to your "Objectivism's insistence on the necessity of extremes" error above. This is a misunderstanding of the nature of government and, wider, of the nature of principles. See ITOE. After that, read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal again. Then, read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. If these don't clear things up, let me know.

If this is true, why aren't most libertarians now Objectivists?

Most libertarians aren't making much of an effort to think. That has, at least, been my experience. Or they will not have the time to read the books. The FH

on its own is not sufficient.

Exactly. There is much more to this than a few econo-political books and cries of "liberty!" and "small government now!" If it were so simple, the French would be capitalists. The question is: What does liberty entail? What is its nature? Is liberty individual or collective? What impedes liberty? If men desire "freedom," what is stopping them from fighting for it? Why do they let it go when they do have it? Do they even desire it? If so, why? And if not, why not?

On what do you base this example of a "true Objectivist politician"? I advise that you spend some more time studying Ayn Rand's writings to get a deeper understanding of the issues involved.

The point I was making was that no Objectivist would argue for "the common good". This is OK with Libertarians.

Yes, that is true: the Objectivist case would appeal to the facts of reality, which include man's nature. The facts always come first. The collective good is a chimera which, if employed to appease your opponent, would aid in your defeat.

Well, Rothbard is one of the founders of that school of "thinking." He is also responsible for a heavy smear against Ayn Rand. No matter how ardently many newcomers to Objectivism wish to see a "free market" in their lifetimes, they won't get it by jumping in bed with the libertarians. It takes time, but if you study further you'll come to understand the essential issue.

I am very much aware of Rothbard, have read and seen his little play, and some of his works. The issue as far as I understand it is that the libertarians have gone halfway. They've understood that prosperity and the "common good" can only be achieved via freedom, but still believe in the altruistic philosophy of the "common good". The next step is to move away from the philosophy of the "common good". My other point was that even though Rothbard may have been the founder and leader of that school, people nowadays quote Hayek and Friedman.

Please do explain what I have missed - I am always keen to learn, and this is why I joined this Forum.

There is much more to this issue than I could write here. You have a very good attitude - you've come this far, after all. My advice is to learn logic to the best of your ability; trust your own mind; and try to find out as much about the mechanics of Objectivism as you can. Read everything Ayn Rand wrote. Listen to lectures by knowledgeable Objectivists on different aspects of her philosophy. Decide whether you agree with her and on what issues. If you agree, work on integrating Objectivism into your career and into your personal life. Always start your reasoning from verifiable facts. Never start from hearsay or the unproven. Be cautious about judgment of people but do not be afraid to name a spade. Never give up the things or relationships you love which aren't destroying you, and remain open to new values and new adventures. Philosophy is supposed to make us wise and happy, not foolish and miserable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Mercury - that helps a lot.

Based on things like this: http://blog.mises.org/archives/011004.asp I am starting to see where you are coming from.

You're very welcome!

Long ago, I used to read the articles on the Von Mises Institute website. Some of them were informative, but I don't know what their quality is now. I've heard very bad things recently but have never bothered to verify the claims.

Regarding that particular post, I would advise taking whatever you read on a site like that with a bag of salt until you are able to reduce much/all of what you know in finance and economics to the egoistic actions of individual creators and traders. Your best ally in such a pursuit is Objectivism. As you learn more about the epistemology, particularly the nature of concept-formation and definitions, you will be better able to separate what is good from what is bad on any topic. You will be able to come to your own conclusions about the work of von Mises, Friedman, Hayek, etc. You won't have to take anyone's "word for it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My response to Zip has been put off way too long. Well, here it is.

"Hoopla" was used specifically to illustrate that already many (most?) Canadians have forgotten about Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and Kathy Shaidle yet the FP still talks about it and has been talking about it since before any of these three even bothered to care.

This is false. Two of these three individuals are very probably the most famous Canadians on the North American Right. Steyn is one of the world's best known writers and a regular guest-host of Rush Limbaugh's radio show, which is immensely popular throughout North America. Levant, before his confrontation with the HRCs, was a rising star in the Alberta-born Reform-Alliance Party which merged with the weak Progressive Conservative Party and eventually led to Harper's premiership. Levant also founded and published the Western Standard magazine. Kathy Shaidle, a former Leftist, is a kind of Canadian Ann Coulter, known for her no-prisoners speaking and writing style. She writes fairly regularly for the Examiner, and blogs at Five Feet Of Fury.

Ever since Levant's war with the Commissions started in January 2008 (see this thread), there has been a steady string of victories - many small, a few big - owing to the very calculated strategy adopted by Levant. In just under two years, Levant, who needed a hundred thousand dollars to wage his struggle, has come very close to restoring some form of absolute Free Speech in Canada. You don't have to take my word for it: his website is a riveting chronicle of the entire proceedings. The most recent major event is his October testimony, alongside Mark Steyn, before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in Parliament. Levant and Shaidle have published two books on the Canadian Human Rights Commissions. Levant's book was very well-received -- I even spoke with him briefly at a well-attended book signing in Toronto in April. Regarding the mood of Canadians, it is instructive to note that there was a very well-attended town-hall meeting in London, also in April. You can find evidence of all this on his website.

Could more have been done? Sure, but I'm unaware of the financial constraints and time limitations of the key players within the party.

Precisely. If there are financial and time constraints which are not surmountable via donations, a political party is a non-starter.

With regard to philosophical ideas every time the PM opens his mouth and speaks on policy he's speaking on his philosophy. Now as you pointed out he has the advantage of hundreds of years of history behind him so he doesn't need to explain altruism but regardless when you hear him (or any other politician) talk about the roots of their ideas it is philosophy that they are talking about.

It is not philosophy they are talking about. If that were so, anything anyone ever said would be philosophy, since philosophy covers everything in the universe. They are relying on an implicit philosophy but discussing concrete political issues. Yes, discussion and resolution of these issues rest on philosophy but cannot be called philosophy in the same way that a painting cannot be called philosophy. Governmental politics is the implementation of political theory, and supposes many facts and abstractions which are not at all obvious to many people, even informed citizens.

I'm willing to bet that the philosophy of the enlightenment was way, way beyond the scope and range of the average New Hampshire farmer or Maine fisherman when the framers of the Constitution brought about their change. Did they (the framers) do a good job of utilizing the situation to effect the change they wanted? Sure, but it wasn't because farmer Jim understood the philosophy explicitly, it was because there was a definite and glaring injustice for the framers to piggy back on. Thanks for helping me to make my point though :P:D

This is a red herring. The "masses" do not have to understand the ideas - it's the intellectuals who do. And Canada's intellectuals -- notwithstanding some improvement in recent years (notice, for instance, that William Watson is now Chair of the Economics Department at McGill University) -- are quite ignorant of Objectivism. Educating the student body - the future intellectuals - is where to begin, not the wider populace and certainly not through party politics.

Your insistence that because the FP was started by Libertarians, that it is therefore somehow tainted now (and forever?) makes no more sense. You are in effect saying that change from any such organization is impossible. Many people outside of Objectivism would tell you that ARI is ineffectual. I mean it's been over 50 years since Ayn Rand developed Objectivism and it has not impacted in any meaningful way on the politics of the USA. I mean look at who just got voted in. (<-Playing Devils advocate here)

Then, many people outside Objectivism would be wrong. The facts belie such claims. Yaron Brook is a regular on Fox News, PJTV, and, I think, on CNBC. There were Tea Parties all over America this year, including the massive one in Washington in September. ARI played a role in these Tea Parties.

Since Ayn Rand began teaching Objectivism, the Fairness Doctrine has been cancelled, the Soviet Union is no more, and there has been an explosion of wealth in formerly closed economies like China and India. Globalization is now an almost uncontested fact of human life. Thanks to Ayn Rand; the intellectuals at the ARI; and superior men like John Allison, Objectivism is being taught at 50 universities across America.

So, how can we compare the FP's libertarian flaccidity to the ARI? I have not read or heard a single reference to the Freedom Party on Canadian radio or television since I arrived here over a year ago. The ARI, on the other hand, had been introducing students to Objectivism through its yearly essay contests long before I arrived the U.S.

Hitler was both the political and philosophical leader of Nazism. But again, like the framers of the constitution he took advantage of the situation at hand and led the people through it with a new idea.

He wasn't the philosophical leader of Nazism, which is simply National Socialism. Socialism is not original to Hitler.

Do you have a link for that article "How to Judge a Political Candidate"? I haven't read it.

You can buy it here.

I just checked by the way. The FP was not founded by Emery, as a matter of fact he isn't even mentioned, nor is libertarianism.

Where did you "check" this? On Wikipedia, it says it was co-founded by Emery (look under the Freedom Party of Ontario and Marc Emery entries). The "Marc Emery" entry states:

He first became politically active with the Libertarian Party of Canada, and ran for the Canadian House of Commons under that party's banner in the 1980 federal election. He received 197 votes in London East, finishing fourth. The winner was Liberal Charles Turner.

Emery later left the Libertarians and became a London-area organizer for the Unparty. In late 1983, Robert Metz, who had worked with Emery since 1980, was made President of Unparty. In late 1983, Metz announced that he name of Unparty would be changed to Freedom Party of Ontario, which continues to be an officially registered political party in the Province of Ontario. Emery served as the party's Action Director from 1984 to 1990.

In 1984, Emery, Freedom Party, and the No Tax for Pan-Am Games Committee (founded by Emery and Metz, and Chaired by Metz) successfully campaigned against London's bid for the 1991 Pan American Games, saying the city would lose millions.

Similar information is provided here.

Even if we were to discount Wikipedia as unreliable, I have other sources. I pressed a Freedom Party official last weekend on the issue. Under heavy questioning, he admitted that one reason why the Freedom Party is working so hard for Emery is because Emery used to fund the party (i.e., loyalty is a motivation).

As I said at the start I disagree with you that the FP is in any way harmful to the cause of Objectivism. Also, I can find no indication that it was started by Libertarians much less Emery himself, so I have to assume that your problem with the party is sequential, i.e. that you believe that it isn't "time" for such a thing. This isn't a new argument (it's really not an argument at all, just a statement of your opinion).

No, as I have demonstrated throughout this thread, it's not "just a statement of [my] opinion."

As for the FP being ineffectual, well, most starting points are, especially when they are tackling entrenched ideals thousands of years old with a system that is foreign in scope and ideas to 99% of the population.

I think the FP's failure - to the degree that its errors are honest - rests on a weak grasp of Objectivism, a philosophy many people find relatively easy to pick up but which is really quite difficult to apply.

I also think you have to look deeper into the work that the FP is doing, especially the FP of Ontario. Bob Metz has a weekly radio program in Southern Ontario ("Just Right") in which he covers a wide variety of subjects and Paul McKeever's and FP Ontario's you tube channels are listed here

I have zero interest in their efforts. If they are talking about pot and Pan Am Games, they are useless.

I'm of the opinion that if just a handful of people find Objectivism through something like the FP then it is worth it.

When I meet this handful, I may reconsider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0