Yes, not befriending someone because of his politics is backwards. What do you have in common with someone whose explicit or implicit philosophy leads him to a tyrannical politics?

Differences over politics might be over some judgement of the best policy or candidate otherwise within a proper common framework, or -- more likely today -- a fundamental difference in morality.

As for Jefferson, he mistakenly believed that the slaves were inherently inferior and incapable of taking care of themselves. He overlooked the reasons why they were in the state he observed, incorrectly inferring a lack of capacity. Later in his life he saw results of education and changed his mind. See I. Bernard Cohen's Science and the Founding Fathers. And where would he have released his slaves to in a region where they had no acknowledged rights in addition to his belief that they were incapable of living on their own? He at least could treat them very well as a kind of protection, which he did.

He had been mistaken, but it was an understandable error in the circumstances, the opposite of those who consciously want to enslave other human beings knowing fully well what they are (like the statists today), and the opposite of the accusations against him today as being a hypocrite.

I think liberty is an abnormal condition for humankind that is slowly (over hundreds of years) becoming the new normal. If we had to use a metaphor, maybe it's "evolution".

It sure seems correct to me. There are statists trying to take my freedom and my money FROM me. That is war on me

The war is between statism and freedom right here in the usa

Hello
IndianaGary,
I will pose the same question as I did for term2. Were they ever really your friend?
And again: "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone." - Ayn Rand
Sometimes it is best to move on. Unfortunately, sometimes it takes time to discover the truth. Once one faces the reality and moves on, life can be so much better. :)
Regards,
O.A.

Yes. You can lead a horse to water... as it were.
"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone." - Ayn Rand

Hello Herb7734,
Excellent! Yes. Jefferson and Adams were great friends that had a falling out because of such considerations. It is an inconsistency with Jefferson's stated view and his reality. I believe they made up for it and renewed their friendship in their later lives and perhaps these views were a contributing factor. I do know it was Adams that made the first move and wrote Jefferson... Their battle for the presidency was brutal and made them both very bitter. It must have taken considerable time for them to salve their wounds and renew their affections.

Still, I think the quotation and sentiment, worthy of some weight in the balance of life.
Regards,
O.A.

Hello term2,
Yes. But, in such a circumstance perhaps it would be prudent to ask if they were ever truly your friend...
True, Jefferson was a slave holder as were so many of his time. I believe he was trapped between his principles and the practical realities of his time. So many of his time planted the seeds for a future they could only wish for. I'm not sure how that relates to patience, tolerance and friendships. I have always believed it can sometimes be difficult to judge people of a different time by the standards of today.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Or, a la Harry Browne in "How to find freedom in an unfree world," do your own thing and let the others go fight.

That is one reason for the Gulch.

"there would be a limit to my willingness to continue"

But there again you are allowing a single policy issue to overshadow everything else you have done with that person. In my case: family reunions, personal events, and much more. This is precisely the crux of the article: are you going to allow policy differences to prevent you from forming or maintaining personal relationships with others?

"Love, friendship, and respect must all be earned."

Respect, yes. The others? No. Friendship is mutually developed through common goals, interests, and achievements. Love exists regardless of merit. Infants have done nothing to merit the affection they so readily attract, yet you will find few as protective and loving as a mother for her child!

What is interesting to me is that love is actually a terribly confusing word in the English language. The Greeks have it proper because they separate love into three separate elements (and I wish I knew how to actually get the Greek characters in here): eros - romantic/physical love, filia - friendly love, and agape - selfless love. So friendship is a form of love. If your definition of friendship is constrained by analogy to business transactions, you are missing out on the true definition of friendship. I would even dare say friendship dabbles in what some may call altruism.

There are two claims:
1) It's a war.
2) We must take sides.
Esceptico says #2 is a false choice.
My issue is with #1. I see nothing war-like going on. with the US. There's no war against poverty, extremists, drugs, or crime. These are all from people who earn a living getting people emotionally fired up. "Which side are you on boys? Will you be lousy scab or will you be a man?" I reject that.

One of Francisco's errors, he committed the Fallacy of the False Alternative. The old "you're either with us, or against us" rally to arms. I think it is an error to try to interpret clear statements in AS or the bible. They are what they are, and in AS this was an error.

There is a difference between seeking similarities and agreeing on basic principles. Patience is a virtue but has a "best if used by" date. In your example, should your brother who advocates social welfare remain obstinate regardless of rational arguments against such policies, there would be a limit to my willingness to continue beating my head against the wall. Love, friendship, and respect must all be earned.

I will agree, it doesnt happen instantaneously. People are complex and are usually intellectually compromised in many ways. So it takes awhile to figure out what they really think, and how important it is to the relationship

I would ask what else they are willing to do for you. Is this someone where if an emergency came up you'd be able to call on them for help? Is this someone who you could ask to mow your lawn when you take a week off for vacation? Is this someone who you invite over to your house to watch a football game?

Friendship is more than agreement on politics. To be a friend, one must invest in the relationship one has with another. In that investment, will there eventually be a harmonization on major philosophical matters? Indubitably. But this is a process - not an instantaneous event.

True. Your assumption is however that in order for friendship to exist that all principles must coincide. I disagree. Friendship and bonding form because of similarities, but they do not necessitate perfect imitation. The second inference you present is that in order to be friends you must agree on things. I'm still friends with my brothers, but we disagree on a LOT. One of my brothers is very much an advocate of social welfare policies. We have pretty serious discussions about that from time-to-time. It doesn't make me disown him, however. And it doesn't mean that either one of us suborn our principles. I simply advocate patience in the hopes that he will eventually come around. That's what a friend will do - they will tolerate your failings and disagreements because the relationship (the other similarities you share) are important enough that some dissimilarities can still exist.

OA:
Jefferson and Adams?

Friendships in my case, fall into 3 categories. There are those I can argue with and we'll still be friends and in some cases have love for one another, there those who, for the most part agree with me, and there are those who get happy just to argue. Those who get angry with me are generally not my friends.I have lots of east coast lib cousins. Some of them refuse to answer my emails and have cut me off. Not friends. There are some who argue unsuccessfully but remain friends and even close. I will never lose friendships over Objectivism, but through their actions may lose me.

But "relationships" are NOT more important than principles. Suborn your principles often enough and you won't have any left.

As Francisco says in AS- "Its a war and we must take sides". Doesnt mean we need to fight any and all battles. Just the ones that are important and we can win.

Sometimes that sense of optimism is wasted on a lost cause. I recently divested myself of a so-called "friend" after over a year of trying to interact with him. Of course, politics came up: he is a a socialist but doesn't believe in labels. He had such a toxic personality that I finally had to say goodbye. We met because we both love cats, but that was about all we had in common. His poison rhetoric, eternal pessimism, and looter mentality made friendship impossible. Sometimes what you see is really all that there is. Life is too short to waste time on such people.

Harry Browne has it right- concentrate on yourself and let others be as they want to be and dont waste time trying to "change" them. It will just wear you down and probably not have much effect on them anyway.

But, how is that done really. If they are really into socialism, how can they be a "friend" to you when they are willing to have the government reach into your pocket and take whats yours?

With friends, its all about what you get out of the relationship with them, and what they get out of the relationship with you. The problem with intellectually conflicted friends is that you never know how they will react to unusual situations. Maybe they are ok with you now, but what if you decide to dabble in bisexuality for example- they may turn on you.