Leonard Peikoff's podcast 23 December 2007 on Ron Paul

[TheAmericanFreeBird]

im a hard objectivist, and i support ron paul, hes the closet guy on politics to objectivism.

[madderbass]

There is an Objectivist party that was established last election, and Dr. Tom Stevens ran for President in that party. I don't know of any candidates in that party of this upcoming election however. If anyone could tell me if there are or not, I would greatly appreciate it.

[streetmagicstyle]

It reminds me of Bill O'Reilly refusing to discuss a topic when he afraid he will be proven wrong in a 2-way dialogue.

[mrtvi46]

The problem with Ron Paul is that he ignores that there are people - whole nations - that seek the destruction of the US.

[Attritive]

@mrtvi46 That and his Christian nonsense. He's a libertarian version of the Republican party. Hardly an Objectivist alternative by any stretch of the imagination..

[streetmagicstyle]

I think it is odd that Leonard refuses to ever talk about Ron Paul again. My guess is that he is afraid of those who would debate him on Ron Paul's side.

[Attritive]

@streetmagicstyle Or he's disgusted with people who pretend to represent liberty then undercut its foundation, and sees no reason to discuss them.

[streetmagicstyle]

@Attritive It could be. If I had to guess, I would guess it is a big bullshit excuse for Leonard Peikoff to throw out a claim and refuse to back it up.

[Attritive]

@streetmagicstyle Or you want that to be the reason so you can justify your unjustifiable position on the man's intellectual and moral status.

[streetmagicstyle]

@Attritive lol what a double-standard! Why don't you apply that to Leonard Peikoff, the guy who is acting like Bill O'Reilly and refusing to provide arguments in this very video? What a joke.

[Attritive]

@streetmagicstyle The greatest political document ever written, yes. I never defended those wars you name, so I don't see your point. However, Ayn Rand wasn't wrong about foreign policy, and it doesn't 'jibe' or anything else with Ron Paul's, anything other than discount it as ridiculous self-destruction and appeasement.

[streetmagicstyle]

@Attritive Think for yourself. Do not let Ayn Rand do all of your thinking for you. Maybe she was wrong about foreign policy, or maybe her philosophy actually jibes with Ron Paul's foreign policy.

[streetmagicstyle]

@Attritive Do you realize that Ayn Rand repeatedly glorified the Constitution as the greatest document ever written? And that The War in Iraq was unconstitutional? And the war in Libya is unconstitutional?

[Jazzper79]

Ron Paul is not an objectivist, but he is a man who uses his mind a lot. He is in my opinion the best choice for America right now. I think he would be the best man leading towards laissez faire capitalism

[reefpirate]

I'm a big Peikoff fan, but always thought he was a little out to lunch on foreign policy. Therefore, I wasn't too surprised that that was one of the objections he had about Ron Paul. Rock on Peikoff, I have a lot of respect for you, but Ron Paul is my choice for president.

[reefpirate]

@reefpirate Oh, and I do like Peikoff's 'don't use kid gloves when you go to war' argument. War is a serious matter, and if a nation decides to execute war it should do so as quickly and as effectively as possible. However, the 5 (or is it 6?) undeclared wars that the US is now engaged in are unnecessary, unwise, and being carried out against nations that pose no existential threat whatsoever to the United States. In that case, you shouldn't use kid gloves, but you should go home immediately.

[RightLibertarian]

Leonard Peikoff is an intolerant bigot who should shut the hell up.

[TimeWarp66]

@RightLibertarian

I agree.

[TimeWarp66]

@RightLibertarian

I agree.

[iflyboats]

I'm a student of Objectivism and I would strongly consider supporting Ron Paul given the current state of things.

[TimeWarp66]

@iflyboats

Me too. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Maybe Ayn Rand and Ron Paul don't agree on 100% on everything. But he's by far the closest of any presidential candidate.

[bearhuntaa]

@kristopheraugust The point he is making is that its perfectly acceptable to kill MORE innocent life so that your own innocent life here isn't damaged further. I accept that, but to not understand there are multiple routes to take that could very well stop the killings without damaging life further is pretty frightening. Seems like he's wrapped too much into the intellectual side of it to see through this folly.

[bearhuntaa]

@kristopheraugust But do you agree with that conclusion? That it is civilian children, mothers and others that are responsible for their corrupt government's actions? I don't think so.

[DavidsIllustrations]

Just investigate Ron Paul's interviews here on Youtube

This summary is not a fallacy

Both points ron paul has spoken on numerous times

[bearhuntaa]

@DavidsIllustrations not a fallacy but certainly misses the mark on a summation of who the main actually is. Peikoff is an idiot, I just watched him Tell bill oreilly he wants to level the entire middle east and kill all innocent life there, women children etc. What a neocon fuck.

[Sivels]

Objectivists tend not to like libertarians for a variety of reasons. Of course they share views on economics and freedom, but objectivists offer a better intellectual product.

[engine2truck6]

Dr. Peikoff is correct: he does not know much about Ron Paul. I admire Dr. Peikoff very much, and I wish that he would find out more about Dr. Paul by speaking directly to him, so that he could comment in greater depth. Ron Paul is influencing American politics these days, and it would help admirers of Objectivism to process what is going on.

[lucentenor]

He may not be an Objectivist, but do you really expect there to be an Objectivist canidate? Ron Paul has a record of fiscal responsibility and constitutional regard consistent with the free society our founders attempted to create. He's in support of individual rights to a degree unprecedented in Washington. Give him some credit.

[Sivels]

@lucentenor Objectivists offer philosophy and ethics, libertarians the constitution, which really is a slice of wood.

[FilipinoObjectivist]

Dr. Yaron Brook is right.

[engine2truck6]

Dr. Brook is a brilliant man (and I'm not patronizing: I really think he is.) However, he did not point out to Dr. Peikoff a SINGLE philosophic or political principle held by Ron Paul.

[aquatiq]

Miggins, you are a slimy retard. Profanity does not equal a valid--let alone rational--argument.

Ron Paul's principles suck. His type of politics would turn a blind eye towards slavery--after all, "states rights!"

[goodinohio]

Which state will bring back slavery?

You're an idiot!

[aquatiq]

Idiot?

First of all, I never said that any state would bring back slavery. So, at least in regards to knowing what the hell one is talking about, you sir, are the idiot.

My point was that states can violate the individual rights of citizens, so they are not an absolute. Ron Paul is NOT a solid advocate for individual rights, which is what I was pointing out...idiot.

[MoonMankkkkkk]

Thanks for this. This isn't a misrepresentation. Nothing that he said wasn't absolutely true about Ron Paul, (with the only possible exception of assuming that Ron Paul would claim that his defense of placing the right of abortion legislation in that of democracy, while instead it would be Constitutional observance.)

[Miggins88]

Leonard Piekoff is a fucking douchebag. So he didn't endorse Ron Paul because he has doubts about killing unborn infants and doesn't want to nuke Iranian women and children to bits. I hope he chokes on his own phlegm the senile slurring old cunt.

[MoonMankkkkkk]

I think he's explained quite well his position on abortion and Iran. Furthermore, Ron Paul is a libertarian

and a conservative, the two movements above all others that pervert liberty to its misrepresentation.

[Miggins88]

Wrong douchebag. Objectivism is the perversion and the bastard philosophy. It was the Christian mercy of United States which saved Ayn Rand's sorry ass family from the monstrous Bolsheviks. Piekoff's swivel-eyed bloodlust for innocent civilians in foreign countries has no connection with the honourable tradition of American libertarianism and classical liberalism which stands for peaceful commerce in international affairs. Go jack off over some Ayn Rand photos you pathetic objectivist prick.

[oscar7557]

nice arbitrary argument

[Harikus]

I am not sure Ayn Rand would agree with this concept of the "closest thing". I got the distinct impression from her when I read Atlas Shrugged and the Virtue of Selfishness that even one difference, a simple thing like the abortion issue makes Ron Paul completely and utterly NOT an objectivist.

[asalmog]

I believe Rand would most certainly not view Paul as an Objectivist. She would probably be against voting for him just like Peikoff and Brook are, because of his positions on the war and on abortion. I should mention, though, for accuracy's sake- that Rand endorsed Goldwater in 1964, Nixon in 1972, and Ford in 1976, although all were not Objectivists (especially Nixon whom she despised). So she was not as "purist" as some attempt to paint her.

[Bigturns33]

As an objectivist myself i agree with ron paul on many issues. He actually was actually very keane on Ayn Rand and she influenced him a lot. I see where he can stand on the right of life based on the constitution and individual responsibility and I have the understanding why since he was an OBJYN you dont go into that feild with out loving babies and LIFE. But he talks about that a lot. closetst thing we got to a political figure prominate to Objectivist priciples in my opinoin

[Attritive]

@Bigturns33 Fetuses don't have rights; neither do neanderthals killing in the name of Allah. Ron Paul disagrees, and I hope he goes to his imagined hell for doing so.

[Bigturns33]

I agree. I simly made a statement. I didnt agree with rand suporting FDR but I still like rand. I dont have to agree with Ron on everything to see hes not an idiot like the rest of the GOP.