I have been aware of an argument brought forth from two different directions. The argument is that there IS a difference between the Democrat and Republican political parties. Just for the mear fact that when asked what makes them different, both parties will creatively regurgitate the arguments. Republicans argue that out of the two parties which party is better to be subjugated. From the Democrats they say it’s better to be subjugated by the Democrat party. So, from that point of view the citizen will be subjugated by either party.
My argument starts with the idea that as a free individual the notion that I am subjugated by either party is tantamount to that there is no difference. When ever I have conversations on this subject matter it is amazing to find the opposition to my argument coming from both sides. In other words, it is wrong to be subjugated by the democrats under republican power, but it is also wrong to be subjugated the republicans under democrat power.
Individual democrats love the idea of being subjugated by the Democrat party when democrats are in the seat of government power because the notion of individual responsibility is a moot point; all one needs to do is hold a hand out for benefits. Republicans love being subjugated by Republican party when they are in the seat of government power because the notion of individual responsibility is rewarded.
One has to come to the realization that there’s is not a dime’s difference between either party only from the notion of subjugation. So, where lies, then, is the happy medium. I’m sorry to say there is no happiness being subjugated; by either party.
Where then does one continue the discerment from here. The libertarian/anarchist has a possible answer for this conundrum. Of the Christian belief system the answer is that there is a way out, but only awarded after death. So the Christian has to endure life’s problems in the here and now until death. The libertarian has another answer. Do not succumb to the temptation using arguments trying to convince the democrats or the republicans from the theoretical possibilities of the gains by letting alone the issue of subjugation. Using the correct language and well thought out aruments is not going to trick anyone into seeing the truth of the matter. It boils down to the actions of libertarians, and not the words they produce.
The point is this: Ayn Rand, during the 1950s, tried to convince, educate the general public by applying her philosophical talents in fiction writing. Based upon her philosophical tenants of objectivism, she played out her objectivist notions in fictional works. Her objectivist notions was well received, but in the long run she, and her efforts, failed miserably. Even though her books, to name two the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, have been massively accepted, the end result is that our modern governmental state has grown to even bigger proportions than when she was circuiting her philosophy.
This is where Christianity and the objectivist meet on common ground. Christianity provides truth in the New Testament about individual responsibility. The reason for the Christian’s “philosophy” being accepted among the non-believers is because of the “Spirit” dwelling upon those and being enabled to see the truth. In other words, it is because of the dwelling of the “Spirit” enabling those to see the truth, not because of the non-believer’s efforts awarded the truth.
The objectivist answer is much the same as the Christian. Have dialogue with others that are open to the truth. Where there is a difference between both the Christian and the objectivist lies in the theoretical. Where they are on the same page is the ethical argument. The Golden Rule for Christians, and the non-aggression principle for the objectivist.