lol. ok. of course. but you completely ignore the question of monetary damages and the libertarian disatase for patent rights in specific

To party or not. It's really a strongly personal matter, kind of like which scotch to prefer. It's a matter of taste.

It really boils down to whether you wish to vote in the primaries or not, and if you wish to support an actual party and their platform.

Personally, I remained an Independent for most of my voting life and only recently committed to Libertarian. Much of my politics align with Libertarian, but it's only been the last 10 years or so that they've appeared to have gained traction. Though the reality is, as sad as it is at this time in history, that the only real choice for Libertarians to make any significant difference is to work from within the Republican organizations and influence that party towards more liberty positions.

But you need to do your own research and make your own choice.

Retaliatory force has boundaries too. A degree of proportionality must exist between the crime and its consequences – for example, it would not be a legitimate exercise of retaliatory force to punish every infringement of property rights with life imprisonment or death.

I would suggest that you look at what is more important to you: voting to make the right stuff happen or voting to keep the bad stuff from happening. That is to say - inclusionary or exclusionary.

I tend to vote on an 'exclusionary' basis, since that way I can make a binary choice at each point as to who would be most likely to do the most harm in office. I would like to be able to vote for someone who actually represented my views...but then reality intrudes and I realize that this is not very likely.

Jan

Registering with a party is a ticket to vote in their primary; however, it is also a statement of sorts, how effective is a good question.
I vote in a manner to influence the outcome of the political winds toward freedom, which probably everyone in the Gulch supports. I worry significantly about foreign policy and the next appointments to the Supreme Court. Therefore, I will probably vote Republican next. I would love to vote for a wise independent, but that is just throwing your vote away in the system we have today.

We will not move toward the freer philosophies of Objectivism, Libertarianism than those promoted by the Republicans or Democrats directly. The masses need to come around on the the negative impacts of the clear socialism being purveyed today, and get the message across that the Government is not an appropriate or effective institution to provide charity.

When you talk about joining a political party, you are not talking about who you vote for in November. You are talking about trying to influence who will be on that ballot. For this reason, I recommend joining the Republican Party. The Republicans and Democrats have a lock on the political system. I believe that the Republican Party is better suited to accept our influence.

I would say that you should vote for the candidates whose ideas on Individual Rights most closely mirror your own. Unfortunately, their number on a local, county, state, and federal level are becoming smaller and smaller. Therefore, I will urge you to consider establishing an Individual Rights party basing its principles on the original Constitution and correcting the deficiencies which have allowed the enemies of IR to take over our country.

As to voting, I would shrug. Why should you expend your energies voting for the lesser of two evils? How has that stopped a Socialist takeover in the last century?

again, Libertarians' use of NAP confuses cause and effect. The quote from Galt's speech is not a premise, it is a result. Under Objectivism, this is a result of the fact that man is rational, therefore owns himself, therefore you cannot initiate force. The NAP makes no sense devoid of property rights. If you start with NAP, doesn't tell you why property rights exist, what they are, how they are bounded. What happens, then, with Libertarians is they bog down in questions of who initiates force. For instance, if I pick an apple from your orchard, but I don't recognize property rights and you point a gun at my head and say-give it back-who is the initiator of force? I can tell you in any hunter gatherer society it's the person holding the gun. This is exactly what happens with Libertarians and patent rights. Who initiates force? The infringer or the man with the patent? " Not all of us derive it explicitly from Objectivist roots (though most of the party's founders did)"
NAP is a Rothbard concept most likely. AR was clear that enforcement of property rights was NOT initiation of force. That conflicts with NAP. She was vehemently opposed to Libertarianism. Luckily, there are prominent Libertarian-minded politicians such as Cruz and Paul who understand that important difference.

When it comes to war, A.R. was quite clear. She didn't believe in coercion in any form, but she did believe in self defense. The judgment call is whether any military action can be deemed self defense or aggression. That's where reason comes in. The use of reason is not always as easy as some folks put forward. Especially when a loved one has been effected. When making a decision, based on reason, the criteria boils down in the most basic of terms, is this person, idea, action, pro life or anti life? In other words, simply put, is it good or bad? Taking all that into account, I find that I cannot be, strictly speaking, in one party or another. However, the Democrats have become so very far left, that as a group, no one who believes in freedom can associate themselves with it. If, however, you decide Republican, be prepared to cross over if it is very clear the better man doesn't belong. In my case, here in Florida, if you register as an independent, you are excluded from voting for candidates from either party in primaries. So, While I am a registered Republican, I am actually an independent. Good luck. I wish I had a resource such as the Gulch when I was your age.

Interesting. Up until now, this old dino did not know there was a Constitution Party. Just now looked up the site--

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Three or four years ago I thought I was a conservative with strong libertarian leanings took an online test that concluded I was precisely the opposite. I was, like, OK I'm a conservative libertarian then.
But I'm for sure not into any "non-aggression principle." And I'm a hard core defender of the Constitution.
Looks like I need to go re-figure which nest I need to put my twigs into.

I know exactly where you are coming from and I am Libertarian who used to be a Republican too The last two presidential elections were extremely frustrating. Just say I voted against the socialist.
I heard on TV that the blame gaming snake told some businessmen that he was not a socialist, but that was just the 2003 Lie Of The Year winner moving his lips again.

I've been a registered Republican since the late 1960's, but I don't always vote Republican. When another candidate is clearly better qualified, party affiliation goes out the window. The way the system is rigged, it's nearly impossible for a 3rd party candidate to get elected to national office, and difficult even for local office (we have had a Libertarian school-board member, and I voted for her). I voted for a democrat for Coroner - she was a registered nurse, the republican a political hack.
Within the Republican party, I attempt to support candidates who share my values. During the general election, I'd rather hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils than support a good with no chance of winning and perhaps let the greater of the two evils win.

I cannot vote for the Democrats. They are all lapdogs for this President, regardless of whether they agree or not. I could admire the few who are for freedom, liberty and obeisance of our Constitution, if they stood by their principals but alas they don’t.
Being a confirmed Objectivist, I don’t expect any candidate to have all the values that I do, so I vote for the candidate who is closest to my values, and accept none will be truly aligned with my philosophy. I consider this President to be bent on destroying this great Republic, our Constitution and our Democracy, so anyone who continues to support him means that person is someone I will not vote for.

Yes, this. From Galt's speech (in the book): "So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others." That's the LP's Non-Aggression Principle in a nutshell. Not all of us derive it explicitly from Objectivist roots (though most of the party's founders did), but every other party ignores it, or opposes it outright. I suggest you choose based on that.

If you decide you have to go with one of the major parties, the difference between them is this: there was a place in the Republican Party, however cramped and uncomfortable, for Ron Paul. There is no such place among the Democrats.

I would recommend the Constitution Party.

The Libertarian Party has one problem, and it's insurmountable. Their notion of the "non-aggression principle" leads to allowing an empire to grow, and grow, and grow, while we retreat, and retreat, and retreat, until finally they are right at our borders and launch the final invasion.

They say "non-aggression principle" means "you don't shoot; they don't shoot." But it actually means "you don't shoot at all, no matter how many potshots they take."

Hi DD. I am a registered Libertarian. I was a Republican for years but when they had majorities and failed to do the things they had been talking about doing I left. I now just vote for the best candidate available. It's hard because often none are appealing but I still feel compelled to vote. Good luck and I'm impressed that you are thinking this thru.

Check out the freedom party in Canada, they have some good ideas on how to effect change. Even if they aren't trying to change the American Politics.
http://www.freedomparty.ca/

This is a tough question because parties are about getting politicians to vote together while objectivism is about the individual.

Libertarians are my first choice. Democrats are my second. There was a Democratic Freedom Caucus that I wish they would resurrect.

Any serious political party will have members who exhibit a wide variety of philosophical viewpoints, and will seek to appeal to voters with a wide variety of philosophical viewpoints.

This being the case, I think it makes the most sense to examine each party's stand on the specific issues that are most important to you, rather than attempting to decipher each party's dominant philosophy (which in most cases doesn't exist).

For me, the Libertarian Party is the clear winner in terms of issues. A case can also be made for joining the Republican Party with the goal of influencing its candidates and policies from within. All the other parties you mention are, in my opinion, hopeless.

Well said. +1

Rand derives rights from the nature of Man and reality. A huge difference in my mind, would be some Libertarian's notion of NAP (non-aggression principle). They find that as the most fundamental philosophical foundation of their philosophy. That is a huge difference between Libertarians and Objectivism and Locke. There is. If you are going to get involved, you have to be aware. There are many young Republicans making quite a difference in the party. Your goal in affiliating, in my opinion, would be as much in promoting them as changing them from the inside. For instance, Libertarian organizations such as Von Mises and CATO do not support property rights consistently and VM is not interested in deriving their arguments from Reason. Good luck