If Objectivism is not Pragmatic, of what use it it?
Some have asserted strict and sterile terms for being in-line with Objectivism, very philosophically consistent.
Others have asserted practical actions and decisions, that are clearly in their self-interest, and do not compel others.
Is Objectivism just an abstract concept, like higher mathematics, theoretical physics and various philosophies, or is Objectivism a practical manner to conduct basic decision making?
I'll provide an analogy...because I like them, not an a basic for argument, but as a means of communication:
Judo is both a sport and a martial art. I've practiced it since I was 15 yrs old. One can readily find sport-only practitioners, that will take action in matches that are complete failures in martial arts. (arching one's back to land on their shoulders to avoid points scored when thrown...and landing on your head/shoulders). There are many examples, and people will take strong positions on each side.
Others have asserted practical actions and decisions, that are clearly in their self-interest, and do not compel others.
Is Objectivism just an abstract concept, like higher mathematics, theoretical physics and various philosophies, or is Objectivism a practical manner to conduct basic decision making?
I'll provide an analogy...because I like them, not an a basic for argument, but as a means of communication:
Judo is both a sport and a martial art. I've practiced it since I was 15 yrs old. One can readily find sport-only practitioners, that will take action in matches that are complete failures in martial arts. (arching one's back to land on their shoulders to avoid points scored when thrown...and landing on your head/shoulders). There are many examples, and people will take strong positions on each side.
When the principle involved is not very clear, then it makes sense to act in the way that you've judged to be practically beneficial.
If the principle is clear, it may remind you what the difference is between a short-term gain and a full-context, long-run benefit.
I discussed this in much more detail in "Why Act on Principle?"https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/... when The Atlas Society used to teach Objectivism.
Pragmatism is "whatever works," and can lead to complete abandonment of principle. I prefer the concept of practicality, as in what decision can I make that most closely holds to my philosophical/moral beliefs?
Not every question has an immediate answer that you can find or an answer to the precision you need. You don't yet know what you wanted to find out, but that doesn't leave a dichotomy between principle and the practical
You may not have adequate general principles for a theory and have to experiment to get something to work, but that is just using different principles for whatever experimenting you have to do, with no guarantee that you will find what you mean. It's not a philosophical principle/practical dichotomy.
practiced". (Doesn't necessarily mean very "practical", just possible, I think.) I just don't like that word "pragmatic", because of possible association with that philosophy called Pragmatism.
We are already in a massively negative state. We will not get out of this state in one step. Each step from here to a state without non-Objectivism will have issues. There is no avoiding this. If one refuses to agree with the improved state (vs the ideal end state) one has no chance of succeeding in the politics. Therefore, compromise is required.
It is fantasy to believe even an improvement is not possible without compromise.
We are contending with a statist-collectivist trend that is driven by false philosophical premises widely accepted. Those premises do not permit a sequence of incremental changes for the better (which does not include a more fascistic public-private "partnership" in the name of improvement) -- they are in the opposite direction of the ideologically based trend. Occasional back lashes when the left goes too far in one step do not reverse the overall trend. We'll take the backlashes when they occur, but it's not enough for the future of the culture and the country.
No legitimate role for government can include partnering with private entities.
A good example is the widely publicized ACORN scandal from about 10 years ago (ACORN then ceased to exist but it's pieces simply reformed under different names and continued on). Planned Parenthood is another one that is particularly anathema to conservatives. There are many, many more examples that continue to function with no public knowledge of the abuse.
Ayn Rand pointed out that fascism is a form of socialism in which private property is nominally acknowledged, but in fact controlled by government. It's the ultimate "public-private" partnership. The road from what we have now to an individualist government is not through fascism.
I assume this means you find the simple present redistribution of wealth superior, or do you have another suggestion for what is next? Remember there are three answers here:
1) Yes,
2) No, but my idea for changing the world is...(yes, we know, not happening, but can't wait for the wisdom*.)
3) Silence.
Just want to make sure we don't head off on another "but I don wanna answer the question. I wanna pontificate."
We are "here". Socialism has taken hold. Public services are everywhere, and growing. Private competition is generally controlled by the government in favor of stability...or favor. I prefer "favor of favors" to describe over-reach, but whatever.
So most services that are provided by the government:
1) should stay that way
2) should be abolished and replaced with private services paid for individually, or
3) transitioned out in favor of private enterprise.
Let me help you. 1) is wrong. 2) has no chance of succeeding politically. 3)...maybe some people come along.
A. If you enjoy being angry for the rest of your life, watching the continued erosion of freedom, pick 2), start now, enjoy angry, and stop commenting on my notes.
B. If you realize that showing examples of the success possible of engineered solutions, basic incentives and private enterprise, pick 3) and let's explain a rational, functional future to people (the majority) who presently control the outcome of political decisions.
C. Go Gulch. You recommend going gulch, and waiting for the breakdown...which won't happen in your lifetime...ballsy. Maybe. I question your integrity if you say you are doing so.
"Hillary was a disaster. Trump was a negative, but temporary relief from disaster."
Yes? and likely the same in 2020?
t is a simple question. Is Hillary worse than Trump. Many people can just answer.
For one, I assert "Trump is better than Hillary."
You have pranced around the simple question. I assert, that you are incapable of answering, because you enjoy the ambiguity. Answer the simple question. It really isn't hard, unless you revel in obfuscation.
The correct is -here-,
Trump is way over -there-
Hillary is way over -there- (a different there).
Rather than actually say:
1. I think Trump is better than Hillary
2. I think Hillary is better than Trump
You say:
"-there is far from -here-" I can not even be bothered to consider the difference, but we will argue about Libertarians vs Objectivists (they are really, far apart...relative to the others).
How convenient "He who wins chess matches in not three, but just one move". "We only play the winning cards." Fantastic. Not likely to succeed...at anything...but fantastic. Glad to know you have so much staying power to expect to see the massive change from your wisdom. /s/
No, sorry, well all still be here, in socialist hell, as "Whining about compromise" is engraved on your headstone.
I am not there yet. This will not manifest in my lifetime, unless war with China precipitates it. It may happen in the next generation or or the one after. If we are here to discuss "Gulching", I am fine with that. It is of value to consider. If we are here to discuss how to avoid the need to"gulch", even better. I am happy to engage and discuss.
I just want to make sure we are speaking about the same assumptions.
I'm still waiting. You could've just been quiet, but you jumped on my answer. What is yours?
Oh, I know, we wake up tomorrow and their is laissez-faire! It's been hiding under the couch all the time.
My favorite example of breaking a commandment is: A bad guy comes to your front door and asks you where your children are....
We were all very confused about why it was ok. It never had anything to do with our own self-interest or rights...It was all about the guy lying to himself...great...
But most of the big Ten are totally irredeemable primitive religious in nature and far from fundamental in subject matter. That is to be expected from something originating thousands of years ago in a pre-philosophy religion, but it is very damaging to treat them as 'guidelines' today, which we often hear, accepting their specific subjects while retaining the duty mentality.
Don't fall for the patronizing homework assignment from ewv.
"Evolving" basic principles versus commandments as duties are a Pragmatist false alternative.
Thank you for showing that there is still some interest on this forum for this level of discussion.
Also here again comes the "Pragmatist" term, completely out of context. "Practical" and "pragmatic" here have been used as adjectives, not nouns.
The example of the Ten Commandments he referred to does not apply to Objectivism because "principles of Ayn Rand's philosophy are not 'rules' as out of context duties like the Ten Commandments".
Those on this Ayn Rand forum who would like to understand Ayn Rand's detailed explanation of that can read it in "Causality Versus Duty". It's not an "assignment", "homework', "arrogant", "lazy" or "ignorant".
While you think of a response, all day in retirement, wondering how best to tear down this person who dares challenge a firstborn of Objectivism, but who agrees with you on almost every point of the ideal state, ask yourself, "why do I alienate the people who believe so like me."
If the answer is: He is a a fundamental dissident, and I will not share a foxhole with him, fine. You and I have nothing in common, but a love of freedom.
If the answer is: We generally agree, but he resists my perspective so. Then maybe we should identify the basis of the resistance.
I do not believe Ayn Rand addressed being pragmatic/practical (the adjective) in a negative manner. She addressed "Pragmatism", which is a cult, not an adjective. Something I learned about in this post.
My meaning, is the adjective, not the proper noun for the cult, which I found out was an unfortunate moniker, causing angst amongst Objectivists.
I should've just used practical.
I have to confess that I was disheartened by what I read in this discussion. I am virtually certain that I will not address all instances here where, I think, better thinking is necessary. At the same time, I hope that nobody will find my comments and criticism offensive. Trust me, no personal offense intended. We are here, at least I am, for sure, to learn together and from each other.
“… very philosophically consistent.” It seams to me that something is consistent or not. Consistency is a property and an adverbial descriptor such as “philosophically” does not change the consistency of whatever.
Objectivism is a philosophy in contrast to mathematics, higher or lower (what’s the distinction?), which is a special science. Have you had a chance to read “Where Mathematics Comes From” by George Lakoff and Rafael E. Nún͂ez (Basic Books 2000)? It is fascinating and beautiful.
I have “The Ayn Rand Lexicon”, edited by Harry Binswanger (New American Library 1986). I wish to give two quotes, because whenever I read them, I am deeply impressed by the clarity and precision of her thinking. On pp. 358-359: “Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence. As against the special sciences, which deal only with particular aspects, philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible.” In the next quote she explains the components of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and esthetics.
In the Lexicon, on p. 377, there is a piece entitled Pragmatism. It is very much worth reading. I think that it shines much light onto the discussion on whether the Objectivism is or is not “pragmatic”.
” Objectivist ethical principles are meant to be practical, in the same way that principles of engineering are meant to be practical.” I think that Aristoteles would shudder if he heard that ethical principles are intended to be “practical”. Let’s start with the concept of principle. Let me use the three principles of thermodynamics as the object. The first scientists who discovered them called them principles because they realized that they are like axioms in geometry. Self-evident truths that nothing in nature can violate. Laws are limited in their applicability. You might enjoy one description of the three principles of thermodynamics I found long time ago. The first says that the best you can do is break even. The second says that you must loose and can break even only at absolute zero temperature. The third says that you can never reach absolute zero. How is that for optimism?
The other objection I have for that quote is the concept of principles of engineering. As one of the most prominent practitioners said; “Engineering is the art of things that work.” Imagine developing a new version of a product that is expected to operate flawlessly for, say, 40 years. Of course, with periodic maintenance shut downs. You have a limited budget and three years to develop a new (faster and more cost-effective manufacturing technology) version of a vital component of the product. There is no way of calculating the design, based on accelerated testing for a couple of years, to design a thing that you say we live 40. You have to rely on your gut feelings, the past experience of successes and failures and hope. Do you see why it is an art and not science? You use sciences as the tools of you trade. But, in the end, you have to gamble and put your name on the decision?
This is way too long already, so I will stop. I have a plea: please think through what you are writing. One of my sons taught me decades ago: “To write well you have to think well. If you found somebody who can teach you how to write well, you really have found somebody who teaches you how to think well.” Just one example that older can learn from the younger.
Best wishes to you and to all your loved ones.
Sincerely,
Maritimus
I totally agree, people who write well, have an excellent grasp of what they write (speaking well is similar, but not as definitive). The gentlemen that were classically trained (I mostly know engineers) 50 years ago or more, and were still contributing recently had a firm grasp of the fundamentals, and they could communicate them clearly, to another engineer or a lay person.
Do you really not see a distinction between arithmetic, algebra and calculus or diff equs?
Thank you for the compliment.
Just two clarifications.
I perceive mathematics as a ladder into the skies, infinite, building each rung on the lower ones and branching into some specialties. That is why I recommend that book. It goes from finger counting to the Euler equation. The book clearly shows the continuum and the branching. I wish I had read it some 40 years earlier. (It was published only about 19 years ago!)
I must not pretend.
I did not study engineering. I graduated in physical chemistry (undergraduate) and graduate (physical chemistry of macromolecules). All my life I did, or managed others doing, what you would call development engineering. My father and my mother's father were prominent engineers in their time. I guess genes get things to go their way. Now, I am just an 84 years old fogy.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Maritimus
EDIT: Corrected two typos.
I read Lakoff and Nún͂ez a few years ago, having bought it for reasons similar to what you wrote about it, but was disappointed in one major aspect of it. You are no "old fogy"; I would like to ask you some questions about your personal views of the book that are off-topic here. Could you PM me?
I did send you a private message. Let me know, or answer it, when convenient.
Best regards.
Maritimus
Sounds like you did some interesting stuff. You do have me by a few years. Still working, I do navy power and propulsion now.
My first course of organic chemistry was remembering thousands of compound names by rote. Turned me off completely. Mendeleev came up with periodic table without a clue about quantum mechanics.
As you can tell, I still love physical chemistry. It helped me understand the world. And with the philosophy helping me understand human life, I am all set. They together helped me practice the art of engineering for 44 years. No complaints.
You are right about the hierarchy of knowledge in science and your relating it to Ayn Rand's conception of the role of philosophy. It all illustrates your opening emphasis on the practical as the purpose of principles of theoretical knowledge, not just in science but also in the "clarity and precision of her thinking" in a unique philosophy that is the antithesis of Pragmatism.
We both saw that early in studying science and engineering and found it later in philosophy by discovering the right one. Ayn Rand viewed the proper role of philosophy and her philosophy as a reality based conceptual, systematic science in the realm of its own subject matters as you quoted.
I went for undergraduate education abroad, so I could not have done there what I see being done here. My eternal regret is that I did not have a chance to take dual majors: physical chemistry and philosophy. But, I got there eventually, on my own, and an enormous push by Ayn Rand.
Good talking to you.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
Maritimus
I knew a girl in HS that scored 1600 on SATs, two actually. One failed out of college physics, into astro physics, into languages... The other did similarly, but I forget the details. They were astounding at rote retention, but not so good with fundamental understanding. The best example was one of these girls (women now) setting up a physics experiment, St Louis motors (I think). I gave her a few red leads with banana plugs. She said "This won't work. Negative electricity won't flow through a red wire." A comical example, but true.
So happy to see another engineer here. There are a few. It is all in the grasp of fundamentals.
But my fave subject was Mat.
For what its worth.
Stay well.
Maritimus
There is a well known story about the difference between knowing what things are versus what they are called in James Gleick's very interesting and motivating biography, Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (which is the least technical of the Feynman biographies I've read, all very good). If you haven't read it I'm sure you would like it.
As you know, I think, I was born in a language other then English. Started learning English at age 13.
So, a priori, please do not trust my judgements about language and meanings of words.
But, that notwithstanding, for the concept of becoming familiar with philosophical ideas and their relationships with other ideas and truths and fundamental principles of a philosophical system, the word "grasp" connotes, to me, too much a hand grabbing something. To my mind, "understanding" gives some feeling of deeper and broader familiarity than a hand grab.
Confession: I am too lazy to get up from my desk and take my Oxford Dictionary to explore what they say about grasp and understanding. Where I am is 6 minutes past midnight and far long past my bed time.
I hope that you were wiser and already produce those (Disney's?) series of Zs.
Good night.
Maritimus
EDIT: Corrected a typo.
Who are the "some" who have asserted consistency as "strict and sterile"? What is non-strict consistency? How is consistency "sterile"? Is being consistent claimed here to be contrary to "practical"?
Thoritsu: "Is Objectivism just an abstract concept, like higher mathematics, theoretical physics and various philosophies, or is Objectivism a practical manner to conduct basic decision making?"
Why the dichotomy? Higher mathematics and physics are practical. So is Objectivism. As Ayn Rand put it, it's a "philosophy for living on earth". Thinking and living require abstract concepts and principles. Man differs from the lower animals by his rational faculty.
1. a person who is guided more by practical considerations than by ideals.
"hardheaded pragmatists firmly rooted in the real world"
2.
PHILOSOPHY
an advocate of the approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms
pragmatism is goal oriented. objectivism provide principles to apply in achieving those goals
It is quite clear that an immediate principled decision/action is possible that does not support a long term outcome that is congruent with the philosophy.
It is a guide to (hopefully - as in Objectivism) living life rationally/morally.
Pragmatism is the dispensing of all absolutes and standards; there are no fixed laws of logic, certainty or objectivity. Pres. Trump is a pragmatist.
Thus, Objectivism is the philosophy of greatest use to man. Any philosophy that incorporates pragmatism is of no practical value.
Some decisions/actions one takes (e.g. sports) are not philosophical in nature - do not have moral consequences. But that is not acting pragmatically.
No one here is suggesting Pragmatism.
“pragmatic” is an adjective too.
It is being pragmatic. it is often not being rational.
There is no philosophical guide to being pragmatic. But a good phil. guide does not prevent practicality when the latter is also rational.
Look at the irony of a “Union Strong” bumper sticker in a Walmart parking lot (buying cheap Chinese stuff). This is a great example of a disconnected decision.
There are unquestionably immediate actions/decisions that one can make being consistent with a principled philosophy, that will result in long term outcomes that are not consistent with the same philosophy.
How do we deal with these?
The only one who use "modest" as an adjective to modify Ayn Rand's philosophy is you. I have no idea what this means. I used the word to describe the severity of an immediate decision in another comment.
Do you have aluminum cookware?
Here again, I made a simple point. You troll, comment, and don't address my point or assertion. Just paint your little graffiti all over.
I do not know you. In this context and the comments is the first time I saw your name.
But, please allow me to express an opinion: I think that you should be ashamed for having made the comment above.
If it were addressed to me, I would demand an apology and if it were not fore-coming, consider leaving the Gulch here.
As many of the old timers expressed to me, it has deteriorated much. Your comment does not make it any better, for sure.
Sincerely,
Maritimus
The assertion "As I explained to ewv ..." is false. There has been no attempted explanation.
It's not "aluminum cookware","trolling", failure to "address a point or assertion", inability to "read" or understand "English", "throwing words in the air", or "graffiti".
As a policy for action I prefer to use the response of Rand (when speaking thru Dagny Taggart). The motor had no history, it had no origin, Dagny could claim it. But Dagny will not steal, even from an unknown inventor.
It is the living to these values which define Objectivism.
Strict- yes maybe, actions are to follow thought and evaluation against values, not at all the post-modern view of follow your heart, take it as it comes, regret nothing, think nothing, learn nothing.
Sterile- no, Objectivism demands that the rights that you claim be acknowledged to everyone else. There is no other way - try it.
The analogy- as I understand that kind of situation, you can score points and have fun by doing it wrong, that may be ok for you if you are unwilling to put the time into learning the correct way, the real winner has put in the practice to show the theory is right (assuming it is) and their performance looks effortless.
Here is an example:
One likes nuclear power but opposes socialism.
A senator that supports nuclear power, but wants to subsidize it using public funds.
Another senator opposes nuclear power, has had a mistress, and curses continually, but seeks minimal government and is well connected.
Which one does one vote for?
For me both are wrong. I would vote for the minimal government senator, because the long-term effects are better. In addition, the first senator is unlikely to succeed with nuclear power due to significant opposition.
There is no third choice for senator. There will be a senator. Not voting, or a “write in” accomplishes nothing, unless there is certainty one’s candidate will win anyway.
This is pragmatic. I think it is consistent with Objectivism.
Your example here is an example of this.
Also one other point for your example, not choosing by not voting is also a choice even though many see that as avoiding a choice.
I have seen people be as dogmatic over Objectivism as others are over religion.
Who is the better Objectivist? The one who hews to principle and makes the selfish decision in their own interest or the one that makes a decision against their own interest in service of the appearance of Objectivism?
Are you now saying that Objectivism does not weigh on this decision? Are yo saying Moral choice is separate.
What the hell do you mean when you say "Objectivism does not stand in the way of making the better choice between two candidates"?
There was no "circular argument" about this. Thoritsu is apparently referring to the post here https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... the content of which he did not respond to.
It is important in any discussion to understand the terms and context used. Being pragmatic runs the gamut of what one is trying to convey, as well as the interpretation of the intended receiver. On this platform many are familiar with the philosophical implications, but most others utilize the word with different intentions. Rand had the same issue with selfish and self-interest, having to qualify both by preceding them with rational, eliminating any subjective misunderstanding. Objectivists sometimes fail in their communication, relying on the intrinsic abstract without relating to actual applications that may have a myriad of unknowns.
To properly utilize a word, concept or idea we must first understand its definition. Merriam-Webster defines pragmatism as:
1-A practical approach to problems and affairs
2-An American movement in philosophy founded by C.S. Peirce and William James and marked by the doctrines that the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief
These two definitions are profoundly different and can have implications that are polar opposites. The first can be seen as a rational attempt to understand the world around us. We begin by observation and formulate an idea or question. We continue to acquire and integrate data to propose and test a hypothesis, and then analyze the information to form a conclusion. That is the scientific method and has demonstrated its efficacy in the sciences that has immensely advanced the human condition. Proofs and principles are firmly grounded and form the basis of the inductive/deductive logical method.
The second definition is more reflective of a philosophical movement that began in the late nineteenth century. The dilemma was to reconcile the claims of science on one hand with those of religion and morality on the other. “The people needed a philosophy that is both empiricist in its adherence to facts yet finds room for religious belief.” To accomplish this they needed to sever the relationship of the real world and knowledge to justify actions of a predetermined morality or conclusion. Simply put, the ends justify the means. Rand more eloquently stated “the pragmatists declared that philosophy must be practical and that practicality consist of dispensing with all absolute principles and standards—that there is no such thing as objective reality or permanent truth—that truth is that which works, and its validity can be judged only by its consequences…………there is only an undifferentiated package-deal labeled ‘experience,’ and whatever one wishes to be true, is true, whatever one wishes to exist, does exist, provided it works and makes one feel better.” She further stated that “a later school of pragmatists (including Dewey) amended this philosophy……….and decided that objectivity consists of collective subjectivism-that knowledge is to be gained by means of public polls among special elites of ‘competent investigators’ who can ‘predict and control’ reality.……since reality is indeterminate and people determine its actual nature.”
Which of these two definitions more aptly defines today’s political culture. Does Jonathan Gruber’s or Pelosi’s comments on Obamacare come to mind? Or is it Bushes neocon foreign policy of nation building. The 2016 Clinton strategy was void of any substance and driven by lies, spins and deceptions to achieve a win at any cost. Much of today’s political rhetoric is based on the essential of Trump or anti-Trump, without regard to specific concretes, not to mention the use of governmental force and investigations, including threats, to accomplish a desired end. Re read the above definitions and decide which is the current political establishment and which one Trump represents. I am only using Trump as he is viewed as the quintessential pragmatist, and do not want to turn this discussion to him, but stay on understanding the intended concept.
While Trump may not be able to articulate his principles with the scientific factuality of a Stephen Hawking or the eloquent consistence of the philosophical writings of Rand, he still appears to have an “intuitive” common sense, not only of practicality but also of right and wrong. One need only to look at his children to realize some form of proper values was present and even Hillary recognized that in the last of the debates. His productivity and financial success had to be seated in proper fundamentals as opposed to a chaotic unprincipled achievement of goals or theft. And many, if not all (including his adversaries) that have personally engaged with him have echoed his likability. So does he have a “practical approach to problems and affairs”? Absolutely and if that is pragmatic so be it. But our political system is more reflective of the second definition of pragmatism and it’s what Trump, along with many clear coherent intellectuals can identify, moving it away from the “ends justify the means,” to the principled means justify the principled ends.
We are at a crossroads and as the more rational policies are instituted and succeed, we need to recognize the “cause and effect” to connect the dots of the practical existential applications to the proper fundamental principles, in the same manner and integrity that the scientific method accomplishes for the physical sciences. And just maybe we need to coin a new term, “rational pragmatism.”
The spread of the philosophy of Pragmatism, which came from European philosophy that had already "severed the relationship of the real world and knowledge", has corrupted the common idea of what is practical as being divorced from principle, creating a false dichotomy.
I was completely unaware of the Pragmatism movement, and see how this confused people.
The rest of your note is extremely well written. Thank you! I certainly accept the new coined word for our purposes here, unless someone else has an objection.
What "appearance of Objectivism" tells anyone to not vote, contrary to his self-interest?
In the past some Objectivists (like Leonard Peikoff) have advocated (not railed) for voting for Kerry against Bush or not voting (both of which I disagreed with), but never to vote contrary to one's self interest. They thought that the advice was in one's long term self interest. The dispute over that was political assessment, not about an "appearance of Objectivism" or a call to sacrifice one's own self interest.
A free society versus socialism is more fundamental than liking some kind of power production,
Yes of course, who said it wasn't? Not me.
let alone making it state funded.
again, who recommended state funded power production?
It's also far more fundamental to running a country than some cursing politician's personal life.
a Free society vs socialism is more fundamental than cursing a politicians personal life. Yes, ok.
Now address the simple question I proposed, or shut up.
Saying "It is all more complicated than that", and walking away is not an argument. It is the cowardly, trolling of someone who is incapable of addressing or too lazy to address the clear logical discussion posed as a decision.
I did answer the question by naming the simple basic principles why the socialist should not be supported, the obvious result, which is naturally in accordance with the practical. It took two sentences. It does not require utilitarianism and an after-the-fact claim that someone "thinks" the choice may be "consistent" with Objectivism. This addresses the issue you raised in the thread title.