Stephen Bailey (CO-2): The Ayn Rand Candidate

[low preference guy]

There are a lot of Republicans candidates running for office in this election cycle who talk about their affinity for the constitution and for limited government. Stephen Bailey, the Republican nominee for Colorado’s 2nd congressional district does too. What makes him slightly different is that he is also a fan of Ayn Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, her text explaining the philosophy of Objectivism. Bailey isn’t just a small-government conservative, he’s also an Objectivist running for political office.

“I don’t classify myself as an Objectivist candidate. I do consider myself an Objectivist, but to me that’s not relevant. What’s relevant is the constitution and do you respect and honor it, and that’s what I want the law of the land to return to being”, he says. He makes it clear that he doesn’t want to push the Objectivist “ethical lifestyle” onto the nation. He believes in a free society so he doesn’t want to dictate how people should live their lives.


Read more (http://www.frumforum.com/the-ayn-rand-candidate).

[MRoCkEd]

Yeah he's good. District is tougher than Lawson's though, at D+11 (BJ's is D+8).

[low preference guy]

Stephen Bailey on Afghanistan and Iraq:


Daily Camera: What direction should the U.S. take in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Stephen Bailey: We have done a terrible disservice to our military men and women by failing to provide them with the full moral sanction of a declaration of war. After nine years, Americans are, understandably, war weary. We must reassess the best way to defend this country and prevent future terrorist attacks.

Read more: 2nd Congressional District Race: Stephen Bailey - Boulder Daily Camera http://www.dailycamera.com/election/ci_15577272#ixzz11zTqKoal
DailyCamera.com

[emazur]

That's good, but I wonder what he thinks of Iran and also Ron Paul? "Open Objectivists" like the Atlas Society are open to him but the Ayn Rand Center types are not very tolerant of libertarians

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Objectivists are notoriously pro-war (See: Yaron Brooks and ARI). They fully sanctioned Iraq and Afghanistan as in their view Islam is a less rational religion than those of Israel (Judaism) and America (Christianity). If that is your kind of thing, then go for it.

[low preference guy]

Objectivists are notoriously pro-war (See: Yaron Brooks and ARI). They fully sanctioned Iraq and Afghanistan as in their view Islam is a less rational religion than those of Israel (Judaism) and America (Christianity). If that is your kind of thing, then go for it.

false generalization.

even the ones you talk about, like Peikoff and Brooks, prefer the U.S. to come home from Iraq rather than staying. and they didn't support the way we went it. they support always declaring war.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

false generalization.

even the ones you talk about, like Peikoff and Brooks, prefer the U.S. to come home from Iraq rather than staying. and they didn't support the way we went it. they support always declaring war.

Have you even read Peikoff, Brooks, and the ARI? Who do you think is the spoken leader for Objectivism?

Let's see some views on Iran then:


That does not mean a selfless, Iraq-like crusade to bring Iranians the vote. It means upholding the moral right of Americans to live in freedom by destroying Teheran’s Islamic totalitarian regime. Nothing less will do.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=15153&news_iv_ctrl=1512


Every day we allow terrorist regimes to exist gives their minions time to execute the next September 11. America needs honest leadership with the courage to identify and defeat our enemies--world opinion be damned
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8397&news_iv_ctrl=1512


“Iran needs to be attacked and defeated, the sooner the better. This does not mean another Iraqi boondoggle in which our soldiers try to bring the good life to warring tribes; it means the destruction of an enemy regime without apology. We must make it clear that we will no longer tolerate--or evade--aggression from the Islamic Totalitarians.”
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14083&news_iv_ctrl=1512

I could go on and on and on. There are plenty of youtube videos out there on the Objectivist Foreign Policy (From Rand herself), etc. It is quite clear the Objectivist Foreign Policy would seek a massive war against Iran, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, etc.

[low preference guy]

Have you even read Peikoff, Brooks, and the ARI? Who do you think is the spoken leader for Objectivism?

yes, he is the so called "leader", but most Objectivists don't take him seriously (http://www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1234). the majority unabashedly disagreed with him on his proposal to bomb the so-called ground zero mosque.

also, most Objectivists don't give a fuck about who is the so-called "leader" of the movement, but just read Ayn Rand and were influenced by it. like this Stephen Bailey guy who came to like Ayn Rand after reading her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. your suggestion that this random guy self-described as Objectivist will be a warmonger just from the fact he calls himself an Objectivist shows that you need to learn a lot more about the movement.

Peter Schiff doesn't mind meeting with Yaron Brooks and Peter told Lew Rockwell (http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2010/09/28/165-schiff-gold-not-paper/) that he agreed with the philosophy even before reading Atlas Shrugged. Even if Peter Schiff is a bloodthirsty warmonger in your eyes, people like him would be a vast improvement over the other choices.

[emazur]

yes, he is the so called "leader", but most Objectivists don't take him seriously (http://www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1234).

That was quite interesting. And Peikoff said not voting straight Democrat would be "immoral"? Damn, he sucks.