Skip to content

Who Should We Vote For?

January 6, 2010

Note: A commenter asked the following question: “Who should an Objectivist vote for?” The following is my reply:

Vote for your freedom and rights...

Vote for your freedom and rights...

At first, I must admit that I was reluctant to answer your question since honestly, none of the presidential candidates is worthy of the vote of a freedom-loving individual. Again, the electorate has no choice but to choose among a bunch of evils.

Lest I be misunderstood, I must share with you the kind of a leader that deserves the support not only of Objectivists, but also of every rational voter in this country. I support a presidential aspirant who honestly believes in the following:

  1. Laissez faire capitalism or the separation of the state and the economy;
  2. The only proper function of the government is to protect individual rights;
  3. Less taxes or no income tax (given the current setup in this country that favors taxation);
  4. No government controls or regulation on the economy;
  5. No to redistribution of wealth;
  6. Abolition of pork barrel and other government largesse to politicians and subsidies and grants to businessmen or cronies;
  7. Yes to privatization of postal offices, government owned and control corporations, and other government offices;
  8. No to politization of the issue of global warming and environmentalism.
  9. Abolition of non-functional and redundant government offices;
  10. Opposition to anti-trust bill and regulatory economic policies of the government;
  11. Opposition to socialized medicine, anti-population legislation, and anti-trust legislation;
  12. End insurgency, the Abu Sayyaf, and the MILF;
  13. Charter change (to limit the powers of the president and the government, abolish the party-list and multi-party system and all socialist provisions in the constitution, and allow the entry of foreign investors);

It is very unfortunate that all of the presidentiables are a bunch of compromisers, trapos (traditional politicians), and incompetents. I’ve read their platforms and all of them do not offer any concrete plan of action. In terms of economic matters, they merely recite platitudes of pleasant words and abstractions without giving any concrete plan of action. For instance, all of them say they are for job creation and economic progress. These are not concretes but merely abstractions. They all refuse to address the interrogative word “how!” How are they going to create jobs and achieve economic progress? What political-economic system is consistent with this goal? Can they achieve it by means of imposing more economic controls and regulations? Can they achieve it by means of imposing anti-trust laws to address what they call cement cartel, oil cartel, rice cartel, pharmaceutical cartel, and other alleged cartels in the country? More controls and regulations mean economic socialism. The Philippines is a mixed economy bordering on dictatorship.

Most of the economic platforms of the presidential candidates are mainly concerned with distribution, not production. All of them talk about giving more services to the poor, free and quality education, better health care, free access of women to reproductive health care, among others. These are matters related to redistribution of wealth. But none of them want to talk about production. All of them evade the issue that before there can be services and wealth to distribute, someone has to produce them. All of them are good at the “common good” aspect of their politics, but do not have any concrete plan when it comes to sound and reality-based economic platforms. Production is part of economic principles. All of their economic goals and visions are detached from reality.

For instance, leading candidates Noynoy Aquino, Manny Villar, Gilbert Teodoro, and Richard Gordon prattle on about creating jobs and improving the economy, but it appears that their policies call for more controls and regulations. This kind of policy is self-defeating, since more controls and regulations will, in the long run, result in economic catastrophe. This shows that all of the presidentiables are advocates of a mixed economy. Sad to say, it seems that none of the media anchors and the so-called intellectuals in this country would like to ask the right, proper questions. If you want to protect your freedom and rights, you must ask the position of the eight presidential candidates on the following matters:

  1. Are you in favor of more government controls and regulation into the economy?
  2. Would you favor redistribution of wealth?
  3. Would you pass a law to control population?
  4. Would you run after the alleged cartels in this country?
  5. Are you in favor of socialized medicine and universal health care?
  6. Are you against privatization?
  7. Would you focus more on public education rather than military and defense?
  8. Are you in favor of public education, public enterprise, public cooperatives, and more public offices and services?
  9. Would you impose more tax on the rich, the successful, and the productive people and grant tax credits to the poor?
  10. Would you focus on welfare programs and giving handouts and rations to the poor and the needy?
  11. Are you in favor of the nationalization of businesses and the industry?
  12. Would you impose government powers to solve the issue of global warming?
  13. Would you resort to more government spending to finance public works and welfare?

Now, if most, if not all, presidential candidates would answer YES to the questions above, then you may now know that this country is moving fast toward complete collectivism and dictatorship. If this is the case, our road to statism and dictatorship is only a matter of time.

12 Comments leave one →
  1. Clay Barham permalink
    January 6, 2010 3:38

    From her works, it is apparent Ayn Rand admired the courageous pebble-droppers, the nails standing above the boardwalk that ruling elite might trip over, who challenged the established and accepted way things were done. It was the creative, imaginative individuals who followed a dream, a vision of some better way of living that she wrote about, not the socialist taker who envied the creative few even when enjoying the benefits of the pebble-dropper’s efforts. This was her focus. All other ingredients haters add to the interpretation of Ayn Rand’s ideas are simply mud to cloud the water. Whether she was atheist or Jewish, anti-Christian or self-centered means nothing. She believed she was OK and others, as individuals, were potentially OK as well, but herds were led by the few who would limit individuals and take from those who have to share with those who have not, and they and their leaders were not OK. Those who violently oppose Rand are the ones who want to retain the Old World ideals of a few elite ruling the many, as is being reintroduced to America by the Obama forces.

    • January 7, 2010 3:38

      You summed it up, Clays. Thanks for your insight!

  2. green_m permalink
    January 8, 2010 3:38

    i agree with what is stated here. however, it seems improbable that there would be any one in this country who will run for president while advocating the ideas mentioned. simply because the “powerful people” of the country would be prejudiced by the said ideas.

  3. john permalink
    January 8, 2010 3:38

    Very well stated, and also what Mr. Barham said.

  4. Objectivists_are_braindead permalink
    January 9, 2010 3:38

    Accomplishing this is impossible under a democracy which entails moral compromise and forced redistribution of wealth. You need to put down those Rand novels and get back to reality kid!

    • be real permalink
      January 9, 2010 3:38

      Exactly, wake up!

      • January 9, 2010 3:38

        This is the most stupid and the most outlandish thing I’ve ever seen on this site. “Moral compromise” and “forced redistribution of wealth.” Wow! No wonder why your country Philippines is very poor and hopeless. Before you blame your corrupt and kleptomaniac politicians who usually come to America to spend late night casino and all day shopping in New York, why not check the contents of your empty brain first. It is only during this period under the term of socialist Obama that we hear compromise and redistribution of wealth in America. But no! The Americans are goin’ to reclaim America from the socialist thugs.
        You Filipinos will perish because of your own stupidity and evil way of thought. Moral compromise and redistribution? I think you live in an unknown planet.

      • Objectivists are braindead permalink
        January 10, 2010 3:38

        I never thought Vincent had his own trolls to push around. Anyway, I said that as a positive statement and not a normative one. So your accusing me of being a socialist proves you are a bunch of dumb fucks.

    • January 9, 2010 3:38

      by the way, i’m responding to this comment…

  5. January 9, 2010 3:38

    I think the “braindead” commenter has totally lost his mind. “Moral compromise” and “forced redistribution of wealth” your ass! The most ironic message of that comment is that the commenter firmly believes he’s sane and makes sense. That’s the problem with plain idiots who know nothing but hatred for the good and the competent.

    • January 9, 2010 3:38

      I’m a Filipino.. but I know you’re right.. your last sentence makes the most sense..

  6. Rommel permalink
    January 16, 2010 3:38

    For people who are doing their presidential research:

    From this site, you can read an extensive review of Senator Gordon’s achievements and track record. Once you’re done reading it, compare it with gibo’s, noynoy’s, villar’s and the rest of the presidential candidates’ accomplishments. Be the judge on who is the most qualified and capable to be the next president who will lead our suffering country to the greatness that we used to have a long time ago….

    This is not being biased nor being carried away by emotions. This is not being influenced by fame nor being blinded by money. This is a documented record of years and years of genuine and sincere public service and love for his country and countrymen. Proven Records. Positive Change. Good Leadership. Unblemished Integrity. This is why we should elect Richard Gordon and not the other candidates who are mere sweet-talkers but have not delivered results that truly made a difference in our society.

    God bless the Philippines!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: