Overall I agree with that statement. However the question did not refer to republicans or democrats generically but rather B H Obama specifically. After Obama this is no longer our father's democratic party. The Democratic party has metastasized into a cancer on the American people. When Barack Obama says he will fundamentally change America it is similar to saying I want to fundamentally change my wife or husband. The only reason one would say that is that they no longer like their spouse. I do not believe BHO has objectivist values but rather is and anti-Rand in the Marxist tradition.

If Objectivists can support Republicans, they can definitely support Democrats.

+1

The ability of the voting public to me mesmerized and ballgagged by fear and magic is unending.

Thanks Well Done!

Thank you for your kind words, TL & MDK
:-)

Bob, I admire your commitment to the cause. Your readings are impressive and far better than mine. I think we need to nominate you as town chairman of the gulch. You clearly rank up there with the best of the other residents of the gulch. Thanks for sharing and a +1 to you

And yet Californians vote for her time after time. I've never been inside, but I've seen the outside of her Pac Heights mansion.It's not possible they don't realize what a thief she is. Can't live there on a congressional salary. In fact, hard to live in SF on her salary.

Bravo.

Definitely. She is so guilty of fraud and deception she makes Obama look honest and Holder competent. Bad...really really bad...

No, Fox news.

We are I complete agreement with regard to what you wrote above.

You've read a lot more than I have!

The “somehow” is meant to imply that the power of the State CANNOT be limited, despite the creativity, brilliance, genius and best wishes of the Rand and the
Framers of the Constitution. While that fact is obvious from observation of the countless failed attempts over the last 6,000 years, but it still took me over 40 years of study, research, observation and practice to accept that inconvenient truth. I did not want to give up the idea of a Constitutionally-limited Republic.

But it’s a utopian myth, TL.

Discovered “Atlas” 1966, then read everything ever published by Rand (far as I know) plus most of the stuff written ABOUT her, plus a LOT of the publications of MANY of the people influenced by Rand (& influencers of Rand) in philosophy, economics & politics, subscribed to the Ayn Rand letter, the Intellectual Activist, etc. for as long as they were published … AND most (perhaps all) of her audio material, as well as that of the Brandens, Peikoff & dozens (hundreds?) of other audio presentations by others influenced by Rand. We were facilitators for many of Peikoff’s taped courses in our area & corresponded with Rand for a while. Disappointed that I did not get to NCY to meet her in person before her premature exit from the planet.

I’m in agreement with most of the Objectivist positions, ‘tho I’ve never completely understood her Esthetics and, after 40+ years of study, I FINALLY graduated from her minarchist limited-Constitutionally-limited government to the more consistent and rational anarcho-capitalist position, which we’re presently calling the Win-Win Free-Market Stateless Society.

Are any of y’all familiar with the work of Andrew Galambos & Jay Snelson?

Sooner or later there's nothing to hand out... other peoples' money runs out, and either those with their hands out wake up...or they don't. Choices have consequences. (Or they should have consequences, these days there is no real consequence for being a lazy mooch, but that won't last forever.)

NOoooo.. Obama said, "spreading the well around is a good thing".. we aren't saying it's a good thing.. HE did. And Joe the Plumber tried to make a point (standing in the sun dripping sweat bullets, while bo droned on and on and then walked off)... Joe got him to say it...and the world ignored it!

I was a (unprincipled, hippie) libertarian long before I ever heard of AR!

"(somehow limited to property protection: military, police & courts)." The somehow, the underlying philosophy, is explained in AR's non-fiction.

"He is threat to freedom and capitalism."

Yes, as a volcano is a threat to snow.

Statism is a philosophy of the proper role of the State, or government, or suspension bridges, choose for yourself. You insist that the mere existence of a State is Statist, and then I think you said that advocating for the existence of a State is Statist.

I vigorously disagree!

Statism: a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.

It appears, as I claimed, that statism is a philosophy of the proper role of government, or suspension bridges, take your pick.

The existence of a State doesn't make it Statist any more than the existence of a hedgehog makes it a cellist.

Unless you have achieved consensus among speakers of English for a brand new definition of Statist, your assertion is incorrect.

(But that's just me; I could be wrong.)

But I'm not.

" having a State isn't Statism by any stretch of the imagination"??!?

Of course it is, TL. Just calling the State "Government" and pretending that the power of the State, once granted or seized, can ever be "limited" does not make advocating such an entity non-Statist.

" Politics branch of Objectivism supports the "limited" State" Oh sure, but having a State isn't Statism by any stretch of the imagination. Objectivism defines the proper role of government, the State, based on consistent, rational criteria and none of those roles or rational criteria are at odds with any other part of Objectivism.

But the economic model described by Objectivism is Capitalism. Statism is just one facet of collectivism and is therefore refuted as a valid model.

That's a mighty unsual look for a woman but hey! Objectivists are an unusual bunch!

You're right, TL. 'tho the Politics branch of Objectivism supports the "limited" State (somehow limited to property protection: military, police & courts).

Admittedly the links do slam the president, with just cause.