Trump is for a few years in the way of what Hillary was expected to do, but it's a blip, not a slowing of the march. We will take that much, but the pattern is the usual zig-zag superimposed on a downward trend as there are occasional relative backlashes. We still aren't sure that Trump with his emotional Pragmatist thinking won't do something really bad, but we tolerate that risk -- with no other choice -- in comparison with the certainty of a Hillary.

"Everybody knows" the Libertarian Party is a fringe party because it is. That is an observation, not an "argument from intimidation". Stop the rationalizing.

Why it can be moral to vote for a Republican given the two choices available was explained during the campaign. "Voting" for the Libertarian Party is not a realistic vote at all. Sarcastic ignorant "appreciation" is not a response to that.

Aside from its fringe political nature the Libertarian Party is worse in that its publicity-seeking misleads people about the meaning of freedom and what is realistic in politics while demanding support for its antics in which it calls itself the "party of principle". No Objectivist should support that.

Youi said you "don't think it's reasonable to obey such laws." It is good that you are personally careful with machinery and I'm glad you are; condoning deadly criminal behavior is not.

Thank you for explaining why it's moral to support Republicans but immoral to support Libertarians.

By the way, Ayn Rand cited the phrase "everybody knows" as an example of an Argument from Intimidation. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/arg...

I don’t operate machinery of any kind when impaired by any one of many factors as a practical matter having nothing to do with fear of criminal prosecution from a power hungry authoritarian government

It’s as simple as that. This is what I do, and that doesn’t mean you have to agree

Telling people that it is not "reasonable" to "obey" laws prohibiting drunk driving is irresponsible advocacy of a crime. Subjectivist "disagreement" is not relevant. The facts of the carnage caused by drunks driving while impaired and the cause of that are not disputable.

The Libertarian Party is not a serious political party with any influence; it is not politically relevant. Everyone knows that. Stop pretending. The Libertarian "positions" were discussed here during the election campaigns. Its vague and contradictory appeals to freedom, including by its own "candidates", are not "Objectivist", nor as an irrelevant "party" does it matter for politics in comparison with Republicans or anything else. A half century of this nonsense and the tracts of rationalizations for taking it seriously is more than enough.

I just think we just disagree on this I don’t think it’s reasonable to obey such laws. I also am not stupid when it comes to driving

The Libertarian Party is more politically significant than in any time in its history. It more than tripled its previous highest vote total in the 2016 presidential election, and in her recent book Hillary Clinton claimed that it might have influenced the outcome. As I mentioned earlier, the 2016 LP presidential ticket was endorsed by several major newspapers, and C-SPAN has covered several LP national conventions.

Interesting that you condemn the Libertarian Party while giving the Republicans a pass. Which party is closer to your views? The LP platform is anything but “vague” on the issue of individual liberty:

“As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.

“We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

“Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.”

And do you consider the following to be “abdication of foreign policy”?

“American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.”

Contrast this with the GOP, and then explain why it’s moral to support Republicans but immoral to support Libertarians.

After a half century of futile publicity-seeking the Libertarian Party is still a fringe party of no political significance. It has nothing to offer Objectivists either in political influence or its subjectivism mixing vague ideas of freedom with anarchism and abdication of foreign policy, as most recently illustrated by the two clowns Johnson and Weld it chose as its spokesmen and leaders out of expediency of "big names" that accomplished nothing. Promoting the Libertarian Party here with rationalizations is not serious discussion.

There are no "Objectivists" running or supporting the Libertarian Party. Ayn Rand did not "influence" it, she opposed it. She also opposed the anarchists who claimed to have been "influenced" by her. Individuals who say they were influenced by her ideas may or may not have understood them and may or may not have been influenced for the better personally, but the Libertarian Party and a-philosophical libertarian movement were not among that..

No one "sliding down a slope" of arbitrary threats in banning drunk driving. The carnage caused by drunk drivers is fact. The victims and the threat are real. The threat is objective, obvious and obviously criminal. Stop making excuses with rationalizations.

If they couldn't find their way to the polls, but please, not by driving.

We just disagree on the proper response to “threats” when no actual harm has occurred. Once you permit criminal charges allowed for “threats”, you slide down the slope of defining more and more things as “threats”. What about being a nazi supporter, or carrying a knife or gun which “could” hurt people if used? What about being a martial arts trainer who “could” be a. “Threat” if he got mad? What about operating a car that had a defect subject to a recall that you did not immediately fix? What about being tired and driving? Off to jail for that one too?

However, with a certain demographic, taking dope or booze before voting, would reduce problems.

The Libertarian Party certainly has been influenced by Ayn Rand (along with other thinkers), but does not claim any association with her. That’s a major distinction.

Furthermore, the Libertarian Party does not have to be 100% compatible with Ayn Rand’s philosophy in order for Objectivists to legitimately support it and vote for its candidates. The Republican Party certainly does not (and never did) come up to this standard, yet Ayn Rand and many of her supporters often voted Republican and endorsed Republican Party candidates.

Laws prohibiting drunk driving are not "arbitrary" and not "victimless crimes". Those threatened, injured or killed by drunks on the road are victims. I hope that the laws prevent you from becoming another victim.

Observations of fact are not "fallacies". Most people (who have heard of it at all) realize the Libertarian Party is a fringe party because it is. Evading that with sophistry trying to 'refute' it with rationalizations pretending to have identified logical fallacies does not change the fact. It is rationalization.

You attempted to promote the Libertarian Party by claiming "some libertarians are also Objectivists", implying it is compatible with Ayn Rand's philosophy. It is not. Neither the party nor the movement are "Objectivist". The most that could be said is that if "libertarian" is meant in a vague sense of being pro-freedom then Objectivism is that. That is not what the libertarian movement or the Libertarian Party within it are.

Again, the Libertarian Party "does not have 'Objectivists'. It has some members claiming to have some interest in Objectivism, without understanding, as it dishonestly claims an association with the thinker Ayn Rand who emphatically denounced any such association with her ideas."

It is an "emoticon" which is supposed to symbolize two eyes (the colon), a nose (the hyphen) and a big mouth laughing (the D)..

I am so done with governments arbitrary and incredible penalties for victimless crimes. They are as they are whether or not I approve. I’m sure the leftists approve and they have mob rule plurality

“The Bandwagon Fallacy (also, Argument from Common Sense, Argumentum ad Populum): The fallacy of arguing that because ‘everyone,’ ‘the people,’ or ‘the majority’ (or someone in power who has widespread backing) supposedly thinks or does something, it must therefore be true and right.” -- http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson...

The Ad Hominem Argument (also, "Personal attack," "Poisoning the well"): The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s intelligence, morals, education, professional qualifications, personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson...

Also, I never said the Libertarian Party is Objectivist.

That is a laugh - start with a colon, then hyphen, then capital d

:-D

Tests for driving mentally impaired while drunk are not arbitrary. "Accept" laws against drunk driving or not, the threat is so obvious and basic that most people understand it even today.and the drunks will continue to be prosecuted for good reason.

I just cant accept criminal penalties for DUI where there is no injury or property damage. Those two things sholuld be the subject of a lawsuit, not the arbitrary criminalization of simply drinking above some arbitrary limit set by the state.

Criminal penalties for threatening people's lives do not depend on who owns the property. You are still hesitant to morally endorse endorse shooting someone in self defense who is trying to kill you and you have difficulty justifying self defense. That is not Ayn Rand's ethics and political philosophy.