Rand derives rights from the nature of Man and reality. A huge difference in my mind, would be some Libertarian's notion of NAP (non-aggression principle). They find that as the most fundamental philosophical foundation of their philosophy. That is a huge difference between Libertarians and Objectivism and Locke. There is. If you are going to get involved, you have to be aware. There are many young Republicans making quite a difference in the party. Your goal in affiliating, in my opinion, would be as much in promoting them as changing them from the inside. For instance, Libertarian organizations such as Von Mises and CATO do not support property rights consistently and VM is not interested in deriving their arguments from Reason. Good luck

Any serious political party will have members who exhibit a wide variety of philosophical viewpoints, and will seek to appeal to voters with a wide variety of philosophical viewpoints.

This being the case, I think it makes the most sense to examine each party's stand on the specific issues that are most important to you, rather than attempting to decipher each party's dominant philosophy (which in most cases doesn't exist).

For me, the Libertarian Party is the clear winner in terms of issues. A case can also be made for joining the Republican Party with the goal of influencing its candidates and policies from within. All the other parties you mention are, in my opinion, hopeless.

To party or not. It's really a strongly personal matter, kind of like which scotch to prefer. It's a matter of taste.

It really boils down to whether you wish to vote in the primaries or not, and if you wish to support an actual party and their platform.

Personally, I remained an Independent for most of my voting life and only recently committed to Libertarian. Much of my politics align with Libertarian, but it's only been the last 10 years or so that they've appeared to have gained traction. Though the reality is, as sad as it is at this time in history, that the only real choice for Libertarians to make any significant difference is to work from within the Republican organizations and influence that party towards more liberty positions.

But you need to do your own research and make your own choice.

I would suggest that you look at what is more important to you: voting to make the right stuff happen or voting to keep the bad stuff from happening. That is to say - inclusionary or exclusionary.

I tend to vote on an 'exclusionary' basis, since that way I can make a binary choice at each point as to who would be most likely to do the most harm in office. I would like to be able to vote for someone who actually represented my views...but then reality intrudes and I realize that this is not very likely.

Jan

If your rights don't come form God, who created all things, then where in the world would they come from? A 3rd party in the middle somewhere?

First off, thank you guys for all of your comments and suggestions! I am doing my own research on the matter, but the ideas presented here give me good questions I can ask myself regarding my political involvement in the future.

I think that, while everyone has their own spin on the issue, the three main sides are these: vote for the candidate that best represents your values, vote for the candidate who is the lesser of two evils (considering the system), or do not vote at all. I am extremely torn between all of these. I actually campaigned for the GOP in the 2012 elections in my township, and I was highly motivated in electing republican candidates, even though I didn't fully agree with them on everything. However, as the GOP is looking more and more like the left (forgetting commendable individuals like Paul, Cruz, Walker, etc), I am becoming more reluctant to join them. Libertarians are the most similar to my beliefs, but I know they won't win any major elections in my area or across the country any time soon, so I think it's somewhat of a waste. I presently am beginning to value standing with my principles far more than compromising with a somewhat-ok candidate who isn't a full socialist. However, that provides a justifiable argument for the third stance: should I just shrug? If I compromise or continue to hold on to some small minority party, even if I know nothing will change, am I just like Dagny or Rearden, working hopelessly in a society becoming increasingly unfit for their existence? I don't know if we are there yet, but it sure seems like it's close, if we aren't already. I am tempted to just follow the way of Galt and shrug. My only concern is that, since I cannot just completely walk away from society like Galt did, my life will essentially be in the hands of everyone else, as well as my future children's lives. Am I willing to accept that, purely on a basis of principle? I don't know how this country is going to change, but I believe it still can, and I passionately want to change it. It's a struggle that will probably stay with me for the rest of my life, and I probably will never fully know which way is best.

I certainly do not know which political path to take, but I will do my damnedest starting now to figure it out the best I can. The world the majority of you took part in shaping (whether supporting it or fighting against it) is the world I have to grow up in, and it's the world I need to reshape for my posterity in one way or another.

DD... why should you join any party at all? If you find one that resonates with your ethics, morals and beliefs, by all means, if you care to, join them so you can support them, proselytize or enhance and improve them to your heart's desire!

And you won't be able to influence any primary elections but those of your chosen party.

Falk's First Law: "The Whole World is a Tradeoff." And that's certainly an example of one kind of tradeoff.

Google "Nolan Chart" and take the 'quiz' from several sites and see if your 'score' or mapped location on the grid feels comfortable to you... and maybe research one or more of the 'parties' whose names come closest to your dot on the chart.

Me? http://www.plusaf.com/aboutme/mypolitics... ...

But as an atheist, too (free-market capitalist atheist, by self-identification,) I can't support the anti-free-market controllers of the Liberal/Democrat side, nor can I base my moral decisions or ethics on anyone's bible or preacher, so the Conservative/Republicans are out, too.

I perceive even the Pauls... Ron and Rand and their ilk... as having too-deep roots in "the bible tells me what's right and wrong," (imnsho), and I certainly can't support the Ultimate Power and Control Freaks of Green, Socialist, etc., parties.

In most cases, I've had to go into the voting booth to select the "Lesser of Two Weevils" in nearly every election, and I turn 69 next month and I've voted in damned near every election I've been eligible to vote in.

I'd suggest you look for a party congruent with your beliefs IF you can find one, and if you can't just 'register' as Independent or "other" or whatever and vote ad hoc for the CANDIDATE whose views map closest to yours (or better yet, whose ACTIONS demonstrate congruence with your ethics, morals, etc.

One other personal suggestion from me, though... If ANY candidate, party or supporter comes across as "our group is consistently right, ethical, moral, etc., and 'that other group is the opposite,' " run from them.

Objective as I can possibly be, BOTH of the 'major parties' do NOT have a lock on ethics, morals or Critical Thinking, and many of the smaller parties are even worse.

Good luck with your research and choice, if it comes down to it.
plusaf.com

Registering with a party is a ticket to vote in their primary; however, it is also a statement of sorts, how effective is a good question.
I vote in a manner to influence the outcome of the political winds toward freedom, which probably everyone in the Gulch supports. I worry significantly about foreign policy and the next appointments to the Supreme Court. Therefore, I will probably vote Republican next. I would love to vote for a wise independent, but that is just throwing your vote away in the system we have today.

We will not move toward the freer philosophies of Objectivism, Libertarianism than those promoted by the Republicans or Democrats directly. The masses need to come around on the the negative impacts of the clear socialism being purveyed today, and get the message across that the Government is not an appropriate or effective institution to provide charity.

I would say that you should vote for the candidates whose ideas on Individual Rights most closely mirror your own. Unfortunately, their number on a local, county, state, and federal level are becoming smaller and smaller. Therefore, I will urge you to consider establishing an Individual Rights party basing its principles on the original Constitution and correcting the deficiencies which have allowed the enemies of IR to take over our country.

As to voting, I would shrug. Why should you expend your energies voting for the lesser of two evils? How has that stopped a Socialist takeover in the last century?

I would recommend the Constitution Party.

The Libertarian Party has one problem, and it's insurmountable. Their notion of the "non-aggression principle" leads to allowing an empire to grow, and grow, and grow, while we retreat, and retreat, and retreat, until finally they are right at our borders and launch the final invasion.

They say "non-aggression principle" means "you don't shoot; they don't shoot." But it actually means "you don't shoot at all, no matter how many potshots they take."

Hi DD. I am a registered Libertarian. I was a Republican for years but when they had majorities and failed to do the things they had been talking about doing I left. I now just vote for the best candidate available. It's hard because often none are appealing but I still feel compelled to vote. Good luck and I'm impressed that you are thinking this thru.

I for one am proud of you for your intelligent consideration of "political affiliation" at your tender age.
As time goes by and consideration for ideas spark your affiliations, you will find that most politicians argue for the sake of argument and that philosophy isn't prevalent in politics.
Allow me to encourage you to consider remaining in contact with a few "sponsors" from the Gulch who (with years of wisdom under their proverbial belts) can offer guidance and advice with logic and reason.
You are WAY ahead of the "game" as compared to my own life...GOOD FOR YOU!

I turned 18 53 years ago. I recommend staying independent. There are many intelligent comments posted by folks who got here first and I can not say I disagree - I just see no point in 'joining' any party (unless it's the Surprise Party!)

Unfortunately, in today's elections you almost always are faced with the choice between the lesser of two weevils (my pardon to "Master and Commander"). I still register Republican, but mostly so I can vote against the establishment candidate in the primaries as most of them are corrupted by the system.

When present, I always take a hard look at the independents and Libertarians, even though in my state they're pretty rare.

I will NEVER vote for a Democrat, however. The problem is that they don't get any funding for re-election from the Party coffers unless they vote the Party line - which includes more government handouts, more taxes, more infringement on rights, more costly rules for business, etc.

For me, issue #1 is to get the big spenders out of office, regardless of party label. And I live in California, which imposes two major practical constraints. (1) The Democrats are by far the stronger major party here. Thus if there is any possibility of a reform candidate getting a major party nomination it would be in the Republican party. (In a conservative state I would say the opposite.) And (2), California's weird new election system (which effectively abolishes primaries and replaces them with a free-for-all in the spring, followed by a runoff between the top two in the fall) means that there often won't be a good choice in the "general" (fall) election at all.

In these circumstances, I register independent (so both parties will try to persuade me) and try to vote strategically in each race, meaning I pick the non-big-spender candidate with the best chance to win. (Thus I would usually vote for a Tea Party Republican where there is one running -- mostly because in California he's never going to enact his social agenda anyway. But any Republican that enjoys the support of his party machine probably doesn't merit a vote. And forget any Democrat.)

But there are several races this time where none of the candidates is worth voting for. And that's a shame. I would support an effort to give our state primaries again.

Choosing a party, and voting, requires faith that the people counting the votes will do it fairly and also report the results accurately.

Either that, or you accept that your vote probably doesn't actually count, but you desire to send a message to those in power about which candidates you prefer. On this latter basis, I'll probably be voting for the Libertarian candidate for governor this fall.

Is there anyone who chooses to vote on the former basis? I read so many complaints about how corrupt Obama and other government representatives are, that I would find it surprising if many thought that these same corrupt people would be honorable in tallying votes and stepping down if they lost..

When you talk about joining a political party, you are not talking about who you vote for in November. You are talking about trying to influence who will be on that ballot. For this reason, I recommend joining the Republican Party. The Republicans and Democrats have a lock on the political system. I believe that the Republican Party is better suited to accept our influence.

When it comes to war, A.R. was quite clear. She didn't believe in coercion in any form, but she did believe in self defense. The judgment call is whether any military action can be deemed self defense or aggression. That's where reason comes in. The use of reason is not always as easy as some folks put forward. Especially when a loved one has been effected. When making a decision, based on reason, the criteria boils down in the most basic of terms, is this person, idea, action, pro life or anti life? In other words, simply put, is it good or bad? Taking all that into account, I find that I cannot be, strictly speaking, in one party or another. However, the Democrats have become so very far left, that as a group, no one who believes in freedom can associate themselves with it. If, however, you decide Republican, be prepared to cross over if it is very clear the better man doesn't belong. In my case, here in Florida, if you register as an independent, you are excluded from voting for candidates from either party in primaries. So, While I am a registered Republican, I am actually an independent. Good luck. I wish I had a resource such as the Gulch when I was your age.

I've been a registered Republican since the late 1960's, but I don't always vote Republican. When another candidate is clearly better qualified, party affiliation goes out the window. The way the system is rigged, it's nearly impossible for a 3rd party candidate to get elected to national office, and difficult even for local office (we have had a Libertarian school-board member, and I voted for her). I voted for a democrat for Coroner - she was a registered nurse, the republican a political hack.
Within the Republican party, I attempt to support candidates who share my values. During the general election, I'd rather hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils than support a good with no chance of winning and perhaps let the greater of the two evils win.

Check out the freedom party in Canada, they have some good ideas on how to effect change. Even if they aren't trying to change the American Politics.
http://www.freedomparty.ca/

This is a tough question because parties are about getting politicians to vote together while objectivism is about the individual.

Libertarians are my first choice. Democrats are my second. There was a Democratic Freedom Caucus that I wish they would resurrect.