Friday, 27 May 2016

#NeverTrump: voting advice from Ayn Rand


Trump has now officially secured the delegates necessary for nomination, and even deluded New Zealanders are excited they can now vote for their favourite strongman. (They can’t. Somebody should tell them.) Ayn Rand has some advice for those however who can and would contemplate voting for someone without a priniciple in sight, and for whom they would have no practical idea of what they would even be voting for.


If a candidate evades, equivocates and hides his stand under a junk-heap of random concretes, we must add up those concretes and judge him accordingly. If his stand is mixed, we must evaluate it by asking: Will he protect freedom or destroy the last of it? Will he accelerate, delay or stop the march toward statism?


It is the basic -- and, today, the only -- issue by which a candidate must be judged: freedom v. statism.

Simple, really.

She also offers this advice for those who see through him:

There are many forms of protest open to us, if [Trump] gets the Republican nomination: we can vote for a write-in candidate of our own choice -- or vote a straight Republican ticket, leaving the presidential and vice-presidential spaces blank -- or vote a mixed ticket -- or vote for and Democrat who is not fully committed to statism [none] -- or not vote at all. But we cannot vote for the proposition that we, as advocates of capitalism, are lunatics -- or for the candidate who so regards us.

[Hat tip Francesca Ford & Keenan I. Nichols]



  1. Faggwell ...felling butt hurt.....

    then again Faggwell loves it up the Out Hole...

    Move to Israel ,, faggwell, where they have a massive wall, and love genocide and Margaret singer eugenic polices ... or tell us how many nigger enrichers YOU are moving into your home....

    Faggwell loves nigger Aids infested Cock..loves low IQ welfare hordes & violent criminal cultures , along with the Nigger Space program

    When you have finished loading your house up to the roof top with those nigger groids whom according to you, faggwell will enrich the economy, can you show us your spread sheet on the costs of feeding them, providing medical care, housing costs, education, a donkey for each one to practice rape "culture" and shower with, vehicle insurance, and birthing care for for the little pigs they shit out every 66 days, along with ALL the Value , creative thinking and Money that they will make...

    We await all the pictures , of you with YOUR new nigger groin family and the cultural diversity it will be bringing to your home and bank balance ...


    Keep the out hole queer shit pictures and donkey stuff private though...

    we don't want to see sad donkeys and you in the same photo...

    1. Hey socialistsomthing what have you got against Peter Cresswell. He seems to be an alright guy to me.It seems rational thought is not your strong point.

    2. This is what the Trump Train flushes out, Don.
      Quality stuff, I'm sure you'll agree. (And you'll get some idea why we've applied moderation for the moment.)

  2. Write in Mark Pellegrino of the Capitalist Party. great interview:

  3. Failing to Vote for TRUMP is a vote for Clinton - a vote for open, unrestricted Communism.

    However a bad a TRUMP Presidency may be, a Clinton Presidency would be far far worse.
    Clinton has sworn to appoint justices who will make libertarianism unconstitutional.
    TRUMP will appoint justices who will uphold the Constitution - perhaps return us to Lochner, abolishing all forms of both federal and state welfare.

    There really can be no choice: TRUMP.

    1. Do you actually vote in the US elections, Angry?

  4. It is interesting that Pellegrino sees "something healthy " in the Trump phenomenon. He is a good speaker, but rabbits on about 'classical liberalism' whatever that means, who cares.
    We can vote for Trump if we like No use voting for Ayn Rand though, I think she's dead just now.

  5. Ayn Rand maybe dead but her philosophy is just as relevant today as it ever was.Our individual liberty is vitally important. Ask those that live in North Korea and other dictatorships.

  6. Peter Crewel lives in a Communist Dictatorship. Vote TRUMP and there will be one less Communist Dictatorship as soon as he is inaugurated, and hopefully many fewer once the nukes start flyin'.

  7. Clearly, mention of the word 'Trump' is the first step to a quality comments section.

  8. Interestingly some members of the Rand cult such as Perigo have the complete opposite view of the Donald.

    1. Oh, there's a Rand cult, is there? You really must introduce me to some of the members.

      I could do things like check whether I'm sacrificing my chickens correctly -- which might even explain this latest influx of idiotic commenters.

    2. That's right Objectivists are individuals. And all you have to do in order to be one is think like all the other individuals. Rand certainly wasn't shy about excommunicating fans with incorrect opinions back in her day.

      Also can't help noticing the irony you linked to a propaganda site dedicated to assuring cult members that each & every criticism of Rand is wrong.

    3. Indeed. We cult members need all that constant reassurance.


    4. Well you did consult a blog of a fellow cult member to learn the 'Rand' way to think about Trump; then the aforementioned propaganda site when faced with criticism of your dear leader.


    5. Ross - Indeed, Perigo and Peter have opposite views on the merit of Trump. Peter and myself (an Objectivist) also have opposite views on the merits of Winston Churchill. How then do you tally that with your assertion that we slavishly follow the same authority?

      Did you not realise that in pointing this difference out you were invalidating rather than proving your hypotheses? Or do you think that consistency and non-contradiction is only relevant to those who are part of a 'cult'?

    6. Mind you, both Mark and Mr P are objectively wrong on both topics. ;^)

    7. @Mark - According to your authority there is only one rational opinion on any given issue. Perigo for example thinks you are sub-human if you're anti-Trump.

      You're all following what you think Rand would have believed (the cult aspect) but you have drastically different ideas about what that would be, which makes your premise of consistency and non-contradiction nonsense.

  9. You've lost me, I'm afraid. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

  10. @Ross - Right, so you're saying all Rand admirers saying the same thing is evidence of a cult, and Rand admirers saying different things is also evidence of a cult? Really? I'll give you marks for originality at least.

    Contrary to your assertion, Objectivism does not say there is only one rational opinion on any topic, it says there is only one reality. Facts are facts, and an opinion can either be perfectly aligned with reality, completely at odds with it, or some mixture of both. The more rational the thought process, the closer it will be to reality. But humans are not infallible, and with complex higher level concepts in particular, you can have two people who are both generally rational, and believing in the same philosophy coming to different conclusions. Objectivisism doesn't have a problem with this, only you do.

    I suspect all 3 of us would recognise the good and bad in both Trump and Churchill. Where I suspect we differ is in the weighting we give to varying aspects of their character and actions.

    Now, it's true enough some Objectivists fail to recognise what I've said above, and are too quick to assume bad faith or evasion on the part of those they disagree with. Rand was perhaps guily of this at times too. It's rather ironic, and for me sad that Mr Perigo, who used to be the most vocal critic of Objectivists in this respect now seems to be the one most guilty of it. But none of that makes Rand's philosophy any less true.

    In your case Ross, I think we have a case of projection. You are stuck with the 'primacy of consciousness' mindset that sees every opinion primarily in terms of how it relates to some authority figure, not how it relates to reality - and project that flaw onto us. Yes, what Rand said on a topic is very important to Objectivists, because she was brilliant and usually got things right - but she's not the ultimate authority, reality is.

    Now granted, there are some admirers of Rand who are too quick to assume bad

    1. That's not what I said: I said your collective belief in a singular reality as defined by Rand is cult-like, and the fact you can't decide amongst yourselves what that reality is shows this belief is delusional.

      Case in point - 'primacy of consciousness' - if you want to learn about this sort of thing read what neuroscientists have to say, not Rand.

      "she's not the ultimate authority, reality is"

      The problem is your concept of reality is determined by Rand, who didn't have a clue what she was talking about: Neuroscientists have shown conclusively that we don't experience objective reality. But you won't pay attention to them because Rand tells you how to think.

    2. So you're saying that neuroscientists have shown us something conclusive about an objective reality?

      I'll leave you to explore the implications of that just a little further.

    3. Reality can only be perceived subjectively Peter. Like I said - read what the neuroscientists have to say, instead of being confused by Ayn Rand's semantics.

    4. Ross - you have just confirmed my hypothesis you have a 'primacy of consciousness' mindset. You also continue to contradict yourself. Your argument amounts to "the way to understand reality is listen to neuroscientists" (as opposed to opening your eyes), and "you and I can't understand reality, but neuroscientists can" (how, using their super-human brain that no-one else has?). Do you see the contradiction?

    5. PS: As it happens, when I went to order my chicken bones for the next cult sacrifice I discovered a short speech by an Atlas Shrugged prizewinner and young neuroscientist who understands metaphysics, science and human nature very differently to you, Ross.

    6. Mark - Again you're missing the point because you're limiting your understanding to Rand's hopelessly outdated dogma.

      It's not a very in-depth explanation but there is of course plenty of information online. For anyone wanting to learn as opposed to those with confirmation bias.

      PC - Interesting to see that cult members come from all walks of life; however her speech and her area of expertise within the field have nothing to do with what we're talking about.

    7. I certainly am missing your point Ross (if there is one), but I'm at least trying to address what you've said, whereas you're ignoring mine. I'll rephrase what I said again, this time as a question: If we only perceive reality subjectively, doesn't that mean neuroscienctists can only perceive reality subjectively? In which case why would I listen to what they say, given it must be subjective?

    8. Yes Mark. As it is explained in that link - neuroscientists understand the hardware responsible for our perception and its limitations, even though they have the same flawed hardware.

      Likewise physicists determined that matter is 99+ percent empty space even though they perceive it the same as everyone else.

      Like I said, you can do a lot better than Ayn Rand (who objectively knew smoking wouldn't give her cancer) if you want to learn about this topic.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.