One belief may be it's capitalism, or not.It may also be adopting certain features of capitalism and ones which are not capitalistic. They may be the ways of a mix economy.A belief may be too much of The United States Of America continues more than forty-five years an economy of mixtures.It may depend upon the amount of each mix to be distinct from of Red China.

THen, an Objectivist may be more okay adopting of a "low rank" politician.WHat;s with Francisco and John Galt are exmples of selfishness and choices, not altruism, nor ways one may ascribe of possibly most politicians. Too much of a number of politicians may hide under cover of altruism a good thing but desire and activate ways to get money, looking not altruistic by various people beliefs of egoism and altruism.

One answer is a rational and/or objectivist will not want to be a "high rank" politician.

No; not and remain and Objectivist and sane.

And in NASA you were on the relatively "clean" end of the politics there. The lying, two-faced manipulations selling out anyone for anything with 'deals', 'compromises' and alliances of convenience and entrenched power bases, together with phony public personas designed to hide it all from their constituents, all honed to a "professional" art-form, are beyond what most people can imagine. Public opinion of Washington is consistently negative even without knowing how bad it is at the even lower rungs of hell.

There is a difference between a politician that wants to rule and a statesman who prefers to protect the liberties and properties of those of his country. Gandhi made the mistake of thinking that if Indians replaced the British in their socialist ruling system they would treat their own kind better because they were Indians. They treated the people the same as the rulers before had treated them. The Indians simply replaced the ruling class with a different ruling class. Anyone trying to work within the communist democracy we currently have will either be frustrated to learn they have no effect or will be just like those they replaced in order to 'feel effective'. Politics is the art of lying and politicians are the practitioners of the art. Electing an objectivist to a position would be an exercise in futility.

There are four presidents that stand out. All of them serving their terms before "Atlas Shrugged." They are, Thomas Jefferson, John Tyler, Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge. I believe, had they known about Objectivism, they would have approved of it. These four are probably the best presidents ever to hold office. Reference the book, "Nine Presidents Who Screwed Up America and the Four Who Tried to Save Her." The answer would be "Yes" you can be objective and a politician.

Thanks for your insights!

Thanks. There's a troll loose that the Producers seem unwilling or unable to catch. This has been going on for about a month, not just to me, but to others, as well.

I don't know about that ... Nihilism was not his thing, but I do point out that Ragnar Danneskjoeld did imply that he had agents of his own within the tax department. So, some friend of freedom was at that desk.

Libertarianism is a political strategy founded on the "non-aggression principle". Objectivism, as I understand it, is founded on the notion of individuals exercising their rational, objective, self-interest.

Libertarianism is focused on preventing the initiation of force or fraud. This is a limited, though still useful, strategy. An Objectivist can certainly include that (and I think most would). But objectivism can, IMO, lead to supporting things strict libertarianism would not because of the distinction. The same can be true in the other direction. Let us take as an example the FDA.

For Libertarians, the FDA is a target for abolishment because it initiates force to prevent people from selling products/services. Similarly, I can Objectivists being opposed to it for similar, if not identical, reasons. But what about changing the FDA from a regulatory agency to an advisory agency? What if instead it was a neutral collector/disseminator of information? What if it was a non-mandatory place to "store/publish" results of tests and studies done on drugs and devices, with no governmental benefits or detriments if you don't participate?

Strictly speaking the Libertarian has lost their footing - no force is used. The government isn't mandating anything, nor are they enforcing any form of standards or preventing a work at home parent who wants to make cloth pads for other women, for example. But what of an Objectivist objection to the FDA? I have much less experience w/Objectivism to put forth an answer, but I do believe an objective argument against it be made.

For me the difference is that the NAP is not a morality position. It is a "least common denominator", or minimalist position. Objectivism, however, is a moral framework. This difference is crucial, IMO.

As a strategy that doesn't espouse morality, instead relying on the logic of "least infringement", Libertarianism can co-exist with many philosophies of morality such as various religions. it is predicated on the notion that if you are, for example, a Catholic you would rather live in a country that did not enforce any religion than one that enforce a non-catholic one, or even on opposed to Catholicism. Libertarianism thus tries to bridge the gulf between maximum restriction of others and minimum restriction of self - hence the "least common denominator". In some ways it works as a "Hail Mary" play.

By distinction, Objectivism, as I understand it, establishes a morality as part of its core. As such, it will necessarily conflict with other systems of morality. As noted by AR and others, in a battle of morality systems the one that compromises the least ultimately wins. In that regard, you could view Objectivism as the touchdown at the end of a drive , and Libertarianism as the field goal. You want the full party, but if you had to settle for less, you would rather it be libertarianism than another.

Yet, there is evidence to suggest that in certain stages of society, Libertarianism can produce positive movement by its nature of being LCD and non-exclusive. For comparison consider food and diets. In particular consider the rise of the gluten-free diet.

A restaurant which only offers gluten containing products excludes those who can or do not partake of gluten. However, a restaurant which offers gluten-free food can serve both those who avoid gluten and those who do not. As a result there are a growing number of restaurants which have gluten-free items, and indeed even gluten-free menus, in addition to the gluten bombs.

If over time the gluten free population exceeds the gluten eating population, the context reverses, and the former "gluten regime" can face being out of favor and "expulsion" as it becomes more profitable to have GF main menus. At which point a legislative attempt would probably be made to outlaw the "evil gluten".

In this possibly strained analogy, libertarianism is the GF option making way for the Objectivist morality base to become dominant. Essentially what I'm discussion is the cultural dominance cycle - how a culture of non-inclusion "beats" a culture of inclusion. This process is how christianity overcame the roman pantheon of gods. The early christian religion was very exclusive, in the sense that it had strict rules about mingling with other religions. on the other end, the roman multi-theistic "religion" was rather inclusive. In short, worshippers of the roman gods and goddesses didn't care if you also worshipped the christian one. But the inverse was not true. This is back to the same principle underlying AR's analysis of who ultimately wins in a contest of morality/principles.

I see this as why there is significant overlap between Objectivism and Libertarianism, yet that they are more effective in various times and contexts. In non-fall situations Libertarianism is the "gateway drug" by virtue of its LCD status. However, in the case of complete collapse, such as at the end of AS, it is insufficient because it lacks the more complete morality underpinnings. Just like when the fecal matter connects with the oscillating air moving device on a battlefield, you want a leader rather than a pollster.

As I see them, in Rand's writings the state of government and society is beyond the point where libertarianism can perform its function, which is also a state where an objectivist politician can't exist. Can you imagine Galt et al. coming in at the collapse and saying "ok everyone, just don't attack or defraud anyone else and it is all good" - that is the libertarian position. The objectivist one is the one that proceeds to build a planned system to do what needs done because it is the right thing to do.

At least, that is how I see the comparison between the two.

Now as to whether or not the United States of America is in that state, is still an open question. I think a real-life Galt certainly could tip it over. It would be a conspiracy of massive proportions, of course, but I think we know enough about the looters that it can be done. The truly hard part is identifying the key producers that would have to shrug to make it work.

John Galt could be quite effective in today's generation via sabotage as a politician. ;)

It would be a quite effective disguise and might even encourage sabotage.

I'd like the stupid jerk to explain his or her or itself.
Are you reading this, stupid it for a jerk?

AI worked in Washington for 8 years and for two different administrations as part of the NASA contingent to the White house science advisory council. I watched the sausage making process first hand and understand why anyone would feel unclean afterwards. There are some jobs that should never be given to the person tat wants it.

No. Politicians have no conviction.

maybe he is IN with the politicians. who knows. the establishment protects itself.

I'm not sure who downvoted you, Mike. I am giving you your point back. Just occupying space and doing nothing is exactly what an Objectivist serving as a politician as a "shrug job" would do. ;)

I believe Rand was asserting that no one can be ethically pure and still get elected to a major national office. This is probably true.

Therefore, the question of what an objectivist in office could rightfully do doesn't arise. He'll have "sold his soul" before he gets there, or he'll never get there.

I do not believe a true Objectivist could be a politition. First, because Objectivism is based on "selfishness", that is self interest with rational thought. To be a good Objectivist, and a politition, one would have to be altruistic. Objectivism is quite the opposite of altruism. A good Objectivist politition would bee much more self serving running his own business. However, Franco did sacrifice his own wealth for the support of Galt, and Galt risked his life for Dagney. Fallowed by the entire population of the Gulch coming to Galt's rescue. So perhaps a good Objectivist could be a self serving politition for his self interest of bringing society to an Objectivist rational model.
But most polititions are self serving, They just are not moral, or as we know are not Capitalists, but rather Croney Capitalists. While others buy their way to power with Socialists ideas.
I think before we worry about getting an Objectivist elected, we need to be happy when we can get a true Constitutionaln Capitalist elected

Several U.S. Senate and House members claim to be Ayn Rand fans, and probably are to a certain extent. As we gain more influence through our educational efforts, more elected officials might join that group and we might gain officeholders who are more consistent in their support of Objectivist principles. It's a gradual process.

Some jerk popped off the +1 I gave you.
No mistake. I can't put it there twice.