The Irrational Foundations of Conservatism: David Hume
Some conservatives argue that David Hume was the first true conservative – see the link. He argued that causation does not exist, that inductive reasoning was not valid, and that rational ethics was impossible (is-ought problem).
Conservatism is an attack on reason, the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, Locke and the founding principles of the United States. It is time that conservatives admit that their whole philosophy is based on irrationalism.
Conservatism is an attack on reason, the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, Locke and the founding principles of the United States. It is time that conservatives admit that their whole philosophy is based on irrationalism.
More generally, some have tried lately to convince me that politics is ' the human implementation of philosophy''. I'm beginning to think that the entire idea and effort of politics is irrational, other than just gaining favor or popularity. It certainly can't be Objectivist implementation of philosophy since we only justify a government of service to the protection of rights, the individual, and the nation. No government arrived at through the practice of politics can possibly stay true to Objectivism, or any other philosophy for that matter.
I guess my thinking now finds no way to really tie any philosophy to politics or a political party.
Between the religionists, the conservatives, liberals, compromisers, the Trump and Carson fans, the Islamist haters, the border closers--are there any people left that understand individual freedom anymore. Is there no way to reach through the fogs of belief they surround themselves with.
“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.”
John Maynard Keynes
My investigation of the philosophical basis of the Austrian economists has helped me understand why they take such irrational positions.
There have been several cases where socialists or religionists have attempted to monopolize the gulch, but most of those people were eased out of the gulch. However, the immigration debate has brought out a full scale conservative attack on Rand, Objectivism, and reason and degraded the quality of the discussions.
This is argument from pragmatism and fails on a practical level also if you goal is freedom.
Let me be clear ISIS is evil and should be wiped from the Earth, but it is not any more evil than the EPA which is complicit in the deaths of over 100 million people, but I don’t hear anyone wanting to declare war on the EPA or put everyone who has worked for the EPA in jail.
The Environmental movement wants to kill off 95% of the worlds’ population, but I –don’t hear anyone wanting to create a test for whether someone is an environmentalist or deport them.
The IRS has the ability to steal you money at any time without a warrant. They have the ability to dig into the most personal details of your life without charging you with a crime. The income tax shredded the constitution long before ISIS or radical islam. But I don’t hear any calls for a war on the IRS or its employees or supporters of the income tax.
Under Obamacare the government has the ability to without treatment to anyone for any reason, giving them to right to kill American citizens. In addition, they have the right to monitor every detail of your health and then demand that you follow their prescribed actions. Obamacare and its supporters have shredded the US constitution. Almost all of them are people born in the US. But I don’t hear any calls for a war on Obamacare or its supporters.
In the US 32,000 plus people are killed per year in automobile accidents, About 3,500 people are die from drowning, about 16,000 people are murdered each year in the US . Radical Islam in their best year killed fewer people than the number of people who drown each year.
The NSA illegally steals every US citizens information every day. They have shredded the US constitution. I don’t hear any calls for war against the NSA.
All the alphabet agencies are unconstitutional. They were created by people born in the US including FDR, Wilson, Bush, Obama etc. Don’t tell me that immigrants are going to shred our constitution.
If you are for freedom and want to promote freedom ISIS and Immigration are not even in the top ten issues you should be working on. When we let every crisis divert our attention we play into the hands of those people (Conservatives and Liberals) who want to steal our freedom. Here is a list, not necessarily in order of what pro-freedom people should be working on.
1) Eliminate the NSA, TSA, Border control (all part of the police state and all shredding the Constitution)
2) Eliminate the IRS
3) Eliminate welfare, both corporate and individual.
4) Eliminate the EPA.
5) Require that government officials are held legally responsible for their actions – no more Louis Lerners, no more Eric Holder (Fast and Furious among others), no more the EPA fining private companies but ignoring that they causes one of the biggest environmental spills in history.
6) Eliminate civil asset forfeiture. Police steal more that criminal in the US http://thefreethoughtproject.com/amer.... Talk about a serious threat to both your life and liberty.
7) Eliminate Medicare, Medicaid and social security all of which are really welfare.
8) Eliminate the FCC (who wants to regulate the internet, shredding the constitution), SEC, FBI, ATF, etc.
9) Require that congressmen cannot exempt themselves from laws (Talking about threatening our life and liberty)
10. Eliminate sovereign immunity for police. Police get away with murdering people every day in this country, not to mention they get away with theft, and perjury every day. Talk about shredding the constitution.
If you solved these problems then ISIS and immigration would either not be a problem or would be easy to solve.
a) Natural rights apply to all people
b) The 4th and 5th amendment apply to everyone under the jurisdiction of the US. These constitutional rights do not end (are not surrendered) if you cross the border (a border). Only in time of war and only for people who are the enemy are these suspended.
c) People who practice islam are still people. We are not at war with all of islam or the middle east.
d) A free government can only detain someone (use force) if they have probably cause they are a criminal. (Innocent until proven guilty) Note this means that we cannot play Minority Report and stop people because they might be criminals or because they have thought something criminal. This can be suspended in times of war.
e) Thus the only legal and moral way we can stop muslims from crossing into the US is to declare war on them.
f) Rand was clear that any free country has the right to declare war on any non-free country at anytime, but they do not have the obligation to do so. I agree with Rand, so I am not opposed to declaring war on say ISIS in principle, however I am opposed because I do not think it is in the US’s interest in general, nor do I think it is in the interests of anyone on this email chain as I will explain below.
i) One of Rand’s qualifications was that only a free country could declare war morally and I find it problematic whether the US is a free country at this point.
ii) War always increases the power of the government. I do not want to give more power to Obama or any likely future president.
iii) A war with Islam is unlikely to be successful under the present circumstance. The US could easily win any military war with any Islamic group or all of them, but since we do not even believe in our own values – we did not require freedom of religion, speech, and assembly when Afghanistan’s or Iraq’s constitutions were rewritten – then we will lose the peace as has happened already in Afghanistan and Iraq
iv) The muslim’s do not pose a threat to the US militarily
v) The terrorist threat is overblown. They have caused a small number of deaths, miniscule compared to other causes of death in the US. The biggest damage caused by 911 was caused by the Patriot Act, the TSA, Homeland security.
vi) Islam is less of a threat than the environmental movement to our life, liberty, property and our constitution.
As for ISIS, you are correct that the federal government probably poses more of a threat to our freedom than ISIS right now. However, ISIS is the acute threat right now. You don't ignore a bleeding wound because the person with that wound has cancer. You treat both. ISIS does in fact pose a threat militarily to us. They pose a far greater threat than any country in the world. No army can stand up to ours. On a battle field, we cannot be defeated. However, all the aircraft carriers in the world are useless against a man with a suicide vest in a crowd. Anything we can do to make it more difficult for them to come over here should be explored. The best part is, we have all the resources we need without having to send a single soldier over there at this point. We have an entire army of willing fighters over there right now begging for equipment- the Kurdish Peshmerga. They are winning battle after battle with 80's technology. Imagine what they could do with a crate of night vision goggles and modern weapons. Unlike the Syrian rebels we are arming, the Kurds have been a loyal friend to the US for decades despite our repeated failure to be a friend to them.
There is no such thing as a unlawfully entering a free country or unlawfully leaving a country. Do you ask permission to leave your state or enter another state?
The government does not own property and you cannot use your property rights to imprison people. Private property can never be used to imprison someone. Property rights are not unlimited, they can be used to exclude as long as they do not unreasonable limit access travel between other people's property. If that were not the case then the transcontinental railroads could have forced everyone to travel by ocean to go north or south of their lines.
You have clear not thought about what property rights are how they are created and what they cover. Here are some articles on point http://hallingblog.com/2015/09/20/the... and http://hallingblog.com/2009/12/14/pro...
Your argument fails and it is an attempt to suggest that Natural Rights can be used to imprison people, which is absurd.
So, what is the penalty for violating Natural Law? By your argument, Natural Law is a mere recommendation. And, what are property rights if not the right to exclude people from your property. And, if, as you stated, property rights do allow exclusion, what is to be the penalty for violating those rights?
Your argument is very self destructive. By your argument, a country does not have the ability to defend itself. It must allow all comers to enter. One of the only legitimate duties of government is to protect our borders. You absolutely can travel, but you must do it within the framework of laws set forth by the society where you want to travel.
Atlas was very clear on the right of the producers to decide who they would allow to travel to their Gulch. There are also several references in Atlas alluding to the dangers of letting the "Moochers" from the "People's States" to come to America. I think you are mixing your opinion with Rand's. She was quite clear, and her writing differs greatly from yours.
Really? Your response didn’t address any of the points in my post. Please explain the “basic concept” of a right to travel over someone else’s property in a country where all property is private, as proposed by Ayn Rand.
For instance, do you think muslims are not people? Do you think natural rights only apply to certain people? Make an actual argument.
a) Natural rights apply to all people.
b) A person forfeits some or all of these natural rights if that person violates the natural rights of others.
c) Property ownership is a natural right.
d) In a free country, all property is private, including property along the border of that country.
e) The government of a free country can detain someone if there is evidence that person has performed a criminal act that violates the rights of others.
f) In a free country, trespassing is a criminal act that violates the rights of others..
g) Therefore, anyone crossing the border into a free country unannounced and uninvited is performing a criminal act.
h) Therefore, the government can detain such persons.
i) Protecting private property from trespass is a legitimate function of government.
j) Therefore, it is a legitimate function of government to secure the border of a free country in order to protect the property rights of those on its side of the border.
k) There is no “right to travel” or “right to immigrate” that overrides the above considerations.
btw, I agree with 1-10. I disagree with the Right to Travel. But, you know this.
I appreciate philosophical idealism but we live in reality. In reality we have private property and all manner of boundaries at various levels, including one that encompasses the totality of the continental 48 states. A national border is private land. If anyone wants to pass through get permission or rent a boat and go around.
Btw I haven't been taking your points...I prefer just to talk.
His Right to Travel means you can stop someone from entering your house but not your property. Even an agreement between States cannot constitute a legitimate border that can be regulated or defended because someone else's individual right to travel trumps your (your nations) right to security without just case. Example, let Syrian refugees in because we have no cause to think they will go boom...until one does and the continental US is up shiite creek form sea to shining sea.
Rational thinking.
This is bullshit.
You simply can't cherry pick rights or deny them to others if you wish to live with them yourself. They are inalienable to all men.
There are even a number of Supreme Court cases, both US and state should you like to look at the issue in more depth.
to silver, a proper govt protects your private property. it is not perfect-think about it-a lock on your front door is a deterrent-nothing more. an objective criteria for who or what is your greatest threat? illegals are FAR down the list. Look to your own govt-they threaten you HUGELY
a) Natural rights apply to all people
b) The 4th and 5th amendment apply to everyone under the jurisdiction of the US. These constitutional rights do not end (are not surrendered) if you cross the border (a border). Only in time of war and only for people who are the enemy are these suspended.
c) People who practice islam are still people. We are not at war with all of islam or the middle east.
d) A free government can only detain someone (use force) if they have probably cause they are a criminal. (Innocent until proven guilty) Note this means that we cannot play Minority Report and stop people because they might be criminals or because they have thought something criminal. This can be suspended in times of war.
e) Thus the only legal and moral way we can stop muslims from crossing into the US is to declare war on them.
f) Rand was clear that any free country has the right to declare war on any non-free country at anytime, but they do not have the obligation to do so. I agree with Rand, so I am not opposed to declaring war on say ISIS in principle, however I am opposed because I do not think it is in the US’s interest in general, nor do I think it is in the interests of anyone on this email chain as I will explain below.
i) One of Rand’s qualifications was that only a free country could declare war morally and I find it problematic whether the US is a free country at this point.
ii) War always increases the power of the government. I do not want to give more power to Obama or any likely future president.
iii) A war with Islam is unlikely to be successful under the present circumstance. The US could easily win any military war with any Islamic group or all of them, but since we do not even believe in our own values – we did not require freedom of religion, speech, and assembly when Afghanistan’s or Iraq’s constitutions were rewritten – then we will lose the peace as has happened already in Afghanistan and Iraq
iv) The muslim’s do not pose a threat to the US militarily
v) The terrorist threat is overblown. They have caused a small number of deaths, miniscule compared to other causes of death in the US. The biggest damage caused by 911 was caused by the Patriot Act, the TSA, Homeland security.
vi) Islam is less of a threat than the environmental movement to our life, liberty, property and our constitution.
While fear can be a useful emotion at times (it'll make you duck in a gun fight), reactions to it without reason generates pure primitive animalistic responses and builds upon itself. It's been a useful tool forever against humanity's struggle of reason with priests and charlatans and terrorizers, and it's generated tremendous wealth and attention for the Rushs, Hannitys, and Becks of our world, and particularly promoted conservative politicians.
But here, a site committed to reason, it's invited in and let loose those already here to come in and dominate the discussion in such a way as to not only nearly halt discussion and posting of the principles and ideas of Objectivism, but to drive out many reason contributing members.
Where one would have reasonably assumed that the battle on the site would be against liberal and Christian trolls, we've been trolled over by conservatives.
Are you saying the application of dbhalling's unrestricted "right to travel" of some people coming through this site has made a mess of things? ;-)
Personally, I detest what this country has become under the faux rubric of protecting this country and freedom, Nor do I favor spending this country's limited wealth to import and support a large group of refugees from a country several thousand miles away, particularly when this country's meddling started and supported the war the Syrians are refugees from.
But I absolutely abhor the continued support for the enemies of freedom by those that call themselves Conservative while they justify the gov't's continual whittling away at what little freedom and common sense is left in this country under the rule of Conservatives and Liberals both. It won't be more than a few months from now before I have to hear that we should vote for the least worse candidate. And in just ! !/2 months from now, I'll have to provide gov't approved papers in order to travel on a plane or bus (implemented by Conservatives), just so you can feel protected from the boogeymen of the world..
.
Character assassination is not an argument and you know it (you don't know me from Adam). I'll let that and a lot of the rest of the baseless accusations against my person slide because I've read many of your other posts and this is not in your usual character. You're normally more civil and rational. You say "In No Way", but the emotional heat of your flaming response indicates you really don't like others traveling through and messing things up from what you expect them to be. Behind the flames you do make some rational points. Read my conversation with khalling in this thread to discern more of what I'm about here on this subject.
Dale's comment is still there. He is touchy this weekend. Fighting with friends sucks
On this one issue though, getting "flipped off" so quickly without a single rational sentence, really threw me for a loop. Whatever. I won't let it stop me from reading a good book or from getting involved in other conversations.
I'm traveling right now and my home library is over a thousand miles away, but I can see it's time to blow the dust off the Ayn Rand books when I get back in couple of months and refresh the volatile ram.
So you're a math tutor besides a philosopher and author? Here's a story: Many years ago I had to drop out of college for family reasons. I was holding a QPA of 4.0 in all my courses, which were heavy in analog and digital electronics at the time. When I dropped I was 3/4 through my first calculus course and was holding 100s on all quizzes and scored 98 on the mid term. Anyway, a couple of months ago I purchased a 28 lecture DVD calculus course, which I plan to finish when I get home from my current trip. Wife thinks I'm nuts, but the stuff fascinates the hell out of me and I want to check it out before I go into the ground.
Incidentally, I'm not terribly faith oriented person but I do speak up when the topic arises. It's more out of a mutual respect than an opportunity to change minds.
I am approaching a watershed moment in my life that will put these questions in the spotlight. Just last week, I sat through a day and half of hearings in the US District Court in Reno, Nevada on the motion for temporary injunctive relief of the sage grouse land management plans recently issued by the Department of the Interior. Now the high bar required to issue injunctive relief is proof of imminent harm without the stay on the new land management plans. Half way through the first day, the judge admonished the testimony given from Nevada Counties of the economic train wreck these regulations will cause to the rural communities. She was citing no imminent harm has been shown. Well, that afternoon the judge got her wish. Two private mineral exploration companies (including mine) got up and testified that the new management plans have put these companies out of business. Investment capital has completely dried up and the proposed mineral withdrawals will make it permanent. It's over for us.
She granted plaintiffs request for an expedited decision. The following week she announced that she "needs more information" and a ruling for relief will not be made until after Christmas. That is usually not a good sign. If she rules to not grant relief, this will fly in the face of incontrovertible evidence of imminent harm. And it will be shown that politics (she is an Obama/Reid appointee) has gutted any semblance of rational rule of law. If she grants relief and acknowledges factual reality, her career will be ruined with her progenitors as the decision will be appealed to the 9th Circuit, and overturned. From there, the Supreme Court will probably refuse to hear the case. And politics will have prevailed. For me the watershed is just that realization, but also 40 years of career experience applied to this remarkable mineral opportunity will have been for naught in the face of this government juggernaut. America gone.
Getting through the fogs of belief is a really good question. I may be concluding that the only way will be a barrel of a gun and an empty stomach.
It might be said that faith is reason based on false premises since no effort is spent on verifying whether one's logic is valid with respect to objective reality. Reason should not be an automatic process of just having thoughts entering consciousness.
This Sage Grouse ruling is spread throughout the entire Western US. The EPA and Federal Gov't ownership/control of land has to cease if we value any freedom.
What I think I will do is start a post setting the basis for what they did to our project, but also how wide this issue has metastasized into. It's huge.
This is my view. Most of the time politicians seek popularity and will do what it takes to get elected. It is rare to find one with a philosophy. The best we can do is lobby them, show them that protecting liberty leads to winning elections.
"Is there no way to reach through the fogs of belief they surround themselves with."
I do not know, but I wonder if there's some way for all those people to keep their beliefs and accept the need for smaller and less intrusive gov't.
here in the gulch. . it appears that we have some interest in
driving conservatives away. . this would be regretful, if true.
in my experience, conservatives are peaceful, reason-oriented
lovers of the U.S. as founded who bear no resentment
for anything which we objectivists profess. . my father was
so conservative that he invented recycling before society
could think it up. . conservation began with him as he studied
forestry and loved the Smoky Mountains as a refuge from
the irrational society in which he worked and lived.
at my request, he read AS and his only difference was the
fact that Dagny had more than one lover. . he believed in
chastity until marriage, you see. . and the spirit of conservation
which meant total dedication to elimination of waste.
should we not be building bridges to welcome conservatives
into objectivism instead of trying to drive them away?? -- john
.
To your proposition. I don't think that it's Conservatives that anyone wishes to drive away. It seems more to me to be expressing a dissatisfaction with what has happened to the Gulch as seen by the levels of 'Post Swamping' with nothing more than conservative headlines from presidential candidates and conservative entertainers, the continual proselytizing of Christian viewpoints and values, the stridency of conservative rants, the desire of some to establish credibility within an Objective group requiring that the Objectivist compromise principles of the philosophy, the sophistry of those expressing admiration of Ayn Rand's writing and philosophy on one hand yet on the other denigrate her values and principles, and general denial of Ayn Rand's condemnations of conservatism.
Your definition of conservatism reads more like a description of the EPA's anti-humanity policies and regulations than it does anything else and expresses one of the key points of conservatism in politics of being more efficient at stealing our rights and lively-hoods than the other side, which Objectivism rejects. As to 'no resentment for anything which Objectivists profess', are we not to consider the anti-atheism, anti-freedom, anti-privacy, anti-free market, anti-nonintervention, anti-nonforce which conservatives and their presidential candidates represent.
I can't speak for other Objectivists, but 'building bridges to welcome conservatives into Objectivism' is sophistry of the worst kind since the application of such a statement is for Objectivists to compromise the essential principles of the Philosophy and be more accepting of statism rather than continue the struggle for individual freedom. On the other hand, any person, conservative, Objectivist, or whatever that wishes to have a rational, logical conversation about AR, AS, or the values and principles and applications of Objectivism are welcome anywhere as far as I'm concerned.
conserve, in my humble opinion, means to avoid waste.
avoiding waste means, in my humble opinion, sustaining our
freedoms to conduct our lives in the smartest possible ways
which requires that the government get the f@*k out of our way.
if OTHERS conduct their conservative lives in immoral,
statist, anti-atheistic, anti-privacy, anti-free market,
anti-non-interventionistic and anti-non-force ways, then
I object to them as well.
I profess objectivism. . I believe that Rand was right.
if a posting which I make relative to current events affecting
us all -- which seems to carry some sort of irritation
along with it, like having a Christian writer or seeing
religious persecution as evil -- please excuse me.
you might want to see the "ask the gulch" rules which
welcome comments about a very wide variety of subjects.
are we not here to expand the acceptance of objectivist thought
rather than to castigate anyone who dares to read anyone
besides Rand, Peikoff, Binswanger, Locke, et al? -- j
p.s. I marked yours and Dale's comments with thumbs-up,
by the way;;; this is good, polite discourse, and thank you.
p.p.s. Thank You for the Rand video on conservatism and
capitalism! . she was dead-on right about the subterfuges
which undermine the rational defense of capitalism.
.
My chief concern I've attempted to discuss on this issue is the following:
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. ....
and:
"A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the troll claims to hold. The concern troll posts in Web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group."
I'm not making any direct allegations, but I will note that there are some (avowed Conservatives and Conservative defenders) on the site who seem to seldom post topics that have much if anything to do with the declared point of view of the site. And although they profess an Objectivist point of view, they seem to be very unfamiliar with the premises and principles of the subject when they do comment on Objectivist postings. I'll also note that several involved Objectivist Posters and commentor members left the site at about the same time that this type of behavior began to be expressed which I take to be a direct corollary.
You've mentioned to me in several different posts that you have pointed me up in some of my comments, I could care less about that, more than you might imagine. If you imagine me to be concerned about the points I might accumulate, you're sadly mistaken. I take those points to only mean that I'm communicating something of Objectivist value and that my thinking and expressions mean something to the Objective readers of a particular Post or Comment.
p.s. if I am a troll, trying to help guide a wider
audience to objectivism, I apologize. . I have
been a Rand devotee since I was 15, that is,
for 52 years, and have given away easily 100
copies of AS to friends and acquaintances.
the opportunity, here in the online gulch, to
have a positive influence on others, should
be taken both seriously and with relish, I'd say.
.
Whether you're a Troll or not as I described above is for you to deal with. As I stated, I made no direct allegation. Again, I have absolutely no interest in your claims of being an Objectivist. I simply look at the content of your Posts, comments, and replies.
your idea of the appropriate precision -- damning faith at
every opportunity, castigating those who do not quote chapter
and verse carefully enough -- you can deal with it. . I prefer
to try to stay positive and to try to lift all the boats rather than
spending so much time focused on sinking some of them.
my objectivist discussion deals with actual conservatism,
not David Hume's or Edmund Burke's. . history is wonderful,
but today's problems are rather unique in its flow.
and if I am a conservative, it is according to my definition
and no one else's. . mine is simple::: avoid waste.
any influence, whether voluntary or imposed, which causes
the waste of productive resources -- in a net gain sense --
should be avoided.
doesn't that make sense as a view of conservation?
that's where conservative starts, for me -- not Hume or Burke
or any arcane history which our populace ignores.
and "you're welcome" refers to the upvotes which you deign. -- j
.
There's nothing Objectivist in those ideas. They're exactly opposite to Objectivism. Supportive of faith as a source of knowledge, altruistic in lifting all boats, blind to the lessons of history, and supportive of the anti-human concept of an efficient gov't .In another reply to me, you express appreciation of the values of various religions and occupations as if Objectivists should accept or even applaud such, from a man describing himself as taking the Galt's Gulch Oath every day.
Personally, I have no problem with you having those positions. It's absolutely your life and mind. But I do have a problem with your sophistry in describing yourself or your positions expressed, as relating in any way to Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.
You are not an Objectivist and express a limited knowledge of Objectivism and what it means to be and live life as one. As such a prolific poster of an Evangelical Christian/Ultra-Conservative enews site like WorldNewsDaily headlines, you're providing the appearance of the Objectivists of this site supporting such biased views and slanted information sources.
I can't help but think of this behavior and statements as anything other than trolling with the intent of being disruptive, even destructive to the site and those interested in investigating and pursuing an understanding of Objectivism and the goal of Individual Freedom and Rights.**
discourse, let me correct your misunderstandings:::
I do not seek out chances to damn faith just for proof
that I am an objectivist. . I let it be understood as a
matter of course.
capitalism lifts all of the boats, no matter what you think.
it does not require any altruism.
history is pertinent, but labeling current-day conservatives
with an arcane or obsolete label from the past, of which they
are ignorant, is erroneous.
conservatism, for me, means that the government
gets the f@#k out of the way -- that's my efficient govt.
if I find interesting facts in WND, it does not mean that
I agree with their evangelical views. . you are mistaken if
you think that association is endorsement.
if you think that I am a troll, there is the "ignore" feature
which you may employ.
I don't think that you are a troll, despite your antagonistic
view towards the world in general. . I accept you as a compatriot,
including your flaws. -- john
.
if you want to keep on insulting me, Dale, you are certainly
free to do so. . I have thick skin. -- j
.
for rational discourse here in the gulch. . conservatives
are not all damned to hell just 'cuz you say so. . some are
objectivists and don't know it. . let's help them know it, OK? -- j
.
today's "conservatives" don't know of Hume or his arguments,
but they do use the faith, tradition and depravity arguments
which Rand cited in her talk from 1960. . while the initial post
is wonderfully ominous, I am trying to face today's situation
head-on. -- j
.
of conservatives are problems, not parts of the solution.
I bet that the leaders of the "conservative movement" are
power-hungry thieves who exploit every chance to cheat
US out of our wealth, our freedom and our future.
if you want to place me in that group, go ahead. . I will do
everything I reasonably can to prove that you are wrong. -- j
p.s. it's not likely that someone can get two engineering degrees,
a business master's and a PE without employing reason.
.
Perhaps I misunderstood this statement "I am trying to face today's situation
head-on." But that sounds like the let's be practical and ignore principles particularly common to conservatives.
and try to impress them with objectivism at every opportunity.
the friendlier the face of reason the better, I'd say. -- j
.
.
can see that objectivism is head and shoulders above
the alternative views of life. . I Want More Objectivists,
Don't You?
"conservative dogma" is just as detrimental as liberal dogma
or the others, as is any dogma which distorts reality.
I wonder what distortion of reality you see in my comment
about my father and his dedication to avoiding waste. -- j
.
To preach altruism "in theory" but uphold self interest "in practice" is a breach of which conservatives characteristically perpetrate. On abortion rights, gay marriage, and other "civil" issues, conservatives tend toward the "traditional".
I think a lot of followers make the error of comparing Objectivism to conservatism or libertarianism. It is decidedly neither.
being used to nail people here in the gulch is old and stale.
the new version just might be better, though it is certainly
not objectivism. -- j
.
the only gulcher whom I have ever downvoted, and
I gave it up for lent. . or, rather, springtime. -- j
.
.
.
At the moment, this moment in time Nov 2015 The group in power are living proof by their actions they are conservatives. Those on the outside the opposite.
The group in power this time includes one section which i are sort of mugwumps that confuse the issue. Some are outright left wing socialists (Rinos) and some are along for a ride of convenience or as a way to get 'inside' but in doing so are part and parcel of of entrenching, fortifying and extending the defenses of those in power.
Using the current 'legal' methods.definition.
Seeking change slowly if at all.
That describes the party in power to a "T."
"conservative" associated with it, however loosely? -- j
.
along which humanity might be traveling where religion
is a "palliative of the masses" which precedes the awareness
that reason requires denial of faith? . might our species
be traveling along that path? . and at this point, leading carefully,
might we not want to show gentleness to those who are
stumbling forward towards agnosticism? . I have smart friends
who express themselves fervently as religious, yet whose
actions betray their true confidence -- especially towards death --
that their faith is very tentative. . if we resist the tendency to
treat them as mental dwarves, we might gradually gain
more objectivists, don't you think? ... in this life! -- j
.
Warm, soft, fuzzys is what the socialist/communist side of politics has given people. The philosophy of Objectivism, while providing the cold, hard, pricklys offers only individual happiness.through hard, but rewarding effort, and pride in self. I can't think off the top of my head of a situation in which Rand offered anything but the cold, hard, prickly facts of reality, particularly the damage and danger of warm, soft, fuzzy altruism that might have been introduced to humanity by religion, but is the basis of the gov't being all things to all people and today's Conservative offer of safety if we only accept a loss of individual rights and gov't tyranny.
Continued compromise of Objectivist principles and values can only lead to more and more tyranny.
about rationality and objectivism differently, I guess. -- j
.
This is exactly what Rand said would happen in AS. This was one of the hardest things for me to accept when I read AS, however a few short years later when I was in grad school in physics I saw she was right.
Build fences, use force to keep people out, grow the gov't and let them do more than a proper gov't should do, deny individual freedom to some, let the gov't take some of your rights and privacy and your money --all in the name of protecting you--what do you have and what have you become. No freedom and rights and a denier of other's freedom and rights.
That's what the statist/collectivist has been doing to this country and to us.
It is quite funny watching people argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin because that is exactly what this is if you look closely. Freedom is also an interesting concept that only applies to one's point of view and as we know, there are many different views.
Being a Libertarian the belief is that your freedom ends at the tip of my nose and that we all must be responsible for our actions, etc. Also, almost by definition (at least mine) being an Objectivist is really much closer to being a Libertarian isn't it?
The individual is responsible for himself and himself only. Our relationship with others is predicated on working in one's best interests without ignoring the concept of being part of a larger organization when at times we act in the best interests of the group because there is a direct benefit to our own well being.
It is a voluntary action dictated by our needs and personal mores', tempered with the knowledge that it is also for the good of the order. The operative word is voluntary and not coerced!
Dishonest characterization -1
The Gulch I appreciate is open to discussion and dissent. Perhaps this Gulch doesn't have enough confidence in their beliefs to be able to tolerate differing opinions.
states are contesting it-however-think about it. when laws pass, how easy is it to walk them back
"I demand that you become free -- or else!"
There can be no rational Utopia unless the human race becomes rational, and that is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. It might happen in hundreds or thousands of years -- or never. Rand has started a pattern, which if followed, will allow persons to take steps toward that ideal, but a society of Objectivists of any great significance is not in the offing. At best it could be a semi-isolated community, but, without the motor and the weapons to go with it, I'm afraid its existence is questionable. I am not advocating giving up, however. We must be like water, the universal solvent in which everything eventually gets dissolved.
b) The only right that people give up to live in society is the right to retaliatory force (meaning force not in the use of immediate self defense. This does not imply the ability to stop people from traveling.
d) In free country most property may be private, but not all land is necessarily privately owned. Do not confuse property rights with the object, in this case land.
Private property can never be used to imprison someone. Property rights are not unlimited, they can be used to exclude as long as they do not unreasonable limit access travel between other people's property. If that were not the case then the transcontinental railroads could have forced everyone to travel by ocean to go north or south of their lines.
You have clear not thought about what property rights are how they are created and what they cover. Here are some articles on point http://hallingblog.com/2015/09/20/the... and http://hallingblog.com/2009/12/14/pro...
Your argument fails and it is an attempt to suggest that Natural Rights can be used to imprison people, which is absurd.
b) A person is not “imprisoned” by being denied access to a country in which all land is privately owned, after showing up and/or crossing the border unannounced and uninvited.
c) If a person is in fact invited by an existing property owner, that is a separate issue which is not part of this discussion. If a person is not invited, to whose property would he or she be travelling?
d) If I can only use force for immediate self-defense, does this mean that I cannot use force to prevent a burglar from making off with my television set, provided that he is not physically threatening me?
2) Yes you are trying to imprison people. According to you I could by all the land around your house and you could never leave or enter without my permission.
The absurdity of your position and your unwillingness to learn about property right and apply logic results in -1. The next comment will be hidden, because it is totally inconsistent with objectivism and property RIGHTS.
a) How is agreeing with Ayn Rand on a property rights issue inconsistent with Objectivism?
b) I would never buy a house that did not already have access rights. Neither would any other rational person.
c) How are the above comments totally inconsistent with objectivism and property rights?
2) If I buy all the land around your house afterwards, you don't have a choice Property Rights are not unlimited - which is necessary for your argument. Again you need to study what property rights are, how they are gained, and what the limitations are. You cannot stop someone from flying over your property. Property rights cannot be used to stop people from traveling freely between their property and someone elses.
c) You are using the idea of Property Rights as a collectivist idea. As I pointed out even your formulation fails if I want to have my friend from Syria visit me. Of course you ignored the logic of this. Ultimately you are collectivist, pretending to be for Natural Rights.
Regarding buying all the land around my house, check out the legal term “perpetual easement”. http://thelawdictionary.org/perpetual...
As to having your friend from Syria visit you, it’s not the same thing as showing up and/or crossing the border unannounced and uninvited. As I said earlier, “If a person is in fact invited by an existing property owner, that is a separate issue which is not part of this discussion.” Entering private property with permission of the owner is way different from entering it without permission. In neither case is it a “right”.
Yes I am a lawyer and that was my point, you cannot use private property in the way you say..
And no you are not consistent with Rand, the first thing she would tell you is that your very formulation (we own the United States) is collectivist.
So in this case i shall repeat the post and answer it here.
"Recent Comments
I am a simple man and like to keep things simple. Skepticism and Relativism are not dirty words. Being a skeptic has served me well over the years. ...
Posted by samrigel 4 minutes ago on The Irrational Foundations of Conservatism: David Hume"
i had just finished an hour or so ago looking up some antonyms and synonyms to pragmatic opposite is 'ideal' and one chain led me to Nihilism which among other things includes skepticism.
Not to confuse but then....much of the use of words here does exactly that without seven or eight references on hand.
ni·hil·ism
ˈnīəˌlizəm,ˈnēəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: nihilism
the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.
synonyms: skepticism, negativity, cynicism, pessimism; More
disbelief, unbelief, agnosticism, atheism
"she could not accept Bacon's nihilism, his insistence that man is a futile being"
Philosophy
extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence.
historical
the doctrine of an extreme Russian revolutionary party circa 1900, which found nothing to approve of in the established social order.
Origin
early 19th century: from Latin nihil ‘nothing’ + -ism.
Translate nihilism to
Us
I've added the first group of sources . However would they fairly describe or depict your description of yourself as a skeptic?
Thanks, I'll check it out.
Interesting perspective, I may not have chosen the same wording. Instead, I see man as a creature of self-interest seeking to satisfy his own needs and acting accordingly. In this sense I can agree somewhat with using the word rational until emotion and impulse factor in.
Reason is the application used satisfying self interest (choice)
Self-Interest is nature.
Rationality/Reason are tools cultivated/developed/refined by people.
I kind of lean toward Clarke's (2001) identifying memory and adaptability as the differentiating factor between man and animal. Reason would factor into this scenario as a higher level tool developed to decide which course of action best satisfies self-interest.
Any-who..I should get back to writing.
Self interest a choice and one most people do not follow rational self interest, especially conservatives.
Odd. Does one cell in a human body reason with the next? Does a white blood cell reason with a cancer cell?
Any creature has self interest - a plant, a fish, a snail, a bird, an ape - essentially any living thing. Self interest is what all of them need to do to survive and it can be entirely instinctual (a plant leaning into the sunlight) or genetically coded (a foal walking), or taught from their parent (using eating utensils with hot foods). Humans are not significantly different biologically than animals, correct? If thats true then reason is a higher-thought process that humans use to determine which things suit him/her better so they can achieve maximum value to self from their decisions/actions.
But I haven't found a denial of causality in his writings. If you can cite it, I'll go back and check it out.
In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.”
documents.routledge-interactive.s3.am......
Hume's investigation of causation occurs in the context of thinking about what and how we can know about ... The idea of causation is the idea of a relation between the two objects or events. We must use .... Hume's theory does not deny this.
SparkNotes: David Hume (1711–1776): An Enquiry ...
www.sparknotes.com › ... › David Hume (1711–1776)
But Hume argues that assumptions of cause and effect between two events are not necessarily real or true. It is possible to deny causal connections without ...
Hume's Analysis of Causality
www.loyno.edu/~folse/hUMEQUES.html
QUESTIONS ABOUT HUME'S ANALYSIS OF CAUSALITY. 1. What is a ... The test for whether any statement expresses a relation of ideas is to try to deny it.
David Hume Philosophy: Explaining Hume's Problem of ...
www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Dav...
Explaining philosopher David Hume's problem of causation, necessary ... I deny a providence, you say, and supreme governor of the world, who guides the ...
David Hume - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H...
Jump to Induction and causation - The cornerstone of Hume's epistemology is the problem of ... However, while denying the possibility of knowing the ...
Now it get's interesting. This is my standard google query 'Denial of Causality Hume'
Much more in the way of immediate answers and about half seemed to contradict the other half with Sparknotes
giving the Hume in one lesson quickie but look at the last two....In any case...I'm going back to objectivity after a brief run
at Hume which made me remember why he was not one of my favorites when I first took up philosophy as a way not
to make a living.
However for jdg here's your sources and seemingly is ought has become did didn't.
[PDF]Hume on causation - Routledge
documents.routledge-interactive.s3.am......
Hume's investigation of causation occurs in the context of thinking about what and how we can know about ... The idea of causation is the idea of a relation between the two objects or events. We must use .... Hume's theory does not deny this.
SparkNotes: David Hume (1711–1776): An Enquiry ...
www.sparknotes.com › ... › David Hume (1711–1776)
But Hume argues that assumptions of cause and effect between two events are not necessarily real or true. It is possible to deny causal connections without ...
Hume's Analysis of Causality
www.loyno.edu/~folse/hUMEQUES.html
QUESTIONS ABOUT HUME'S ANALYSIS OF CAUSALITY. 1. What is a ... The test for whether any statement expresses a relation of ideas is to try to deny it.
Kant and Hume on Causality (Stanford Encyclopedia of ...
plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-...
Jun 4, 2008 - Kant famously attempted to “answer” what he took to be Hume's skeptical view of causality, most explicitly in the Prolegomena to Any Future ...
Critical History of Western Philosophy - Page 364 - Google Books Result
https://books.google.com.mx/books?isb...
Y. Masih - 1999
For this reason Hume denied the possibility of empirical knowledge, and, in the ... attacked the empirical explanation of substance or causality given by Hume.
Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They ...
https://books.google.com.mx/books?isb...
Norman L. Geisler, Paul K. Hoffman - 2006 - Religion
Agnosticism and God Hume denied both the traditional use of causality and analogy as a means of knowing the theistic God. Causality is based on custom and ...
Unshakable Foundations: Contemporary Answers to Crucial ...
https://books.google.com.mx/books?isb...
Norman L. Geisler, Peter Bocchino - 2000 - Religion
... upon repeated conjunctions—not observed causal connections.8 We must note, however, that Hume did not actually deny the principle of causality itself.
Which inexorably led to the same conclusion with the Republicans ending up as the lapdogs and lightning rods of the left. and two major three or so minor but function parties became two became one with two faces."
The original idea as embodied in the Constitution became smother in the much and mire of socialism until the use of the word freedom by the progressives bears no relationship to any form of freedom practiced by thinking reasoning people except as a fake, a facade, a diversion in the context of our times.
A country as defined in Merriam Websters Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition
A political State or Nation with it's population and territory
But I'll add some of Rand's comment under National Rights. (Shortened) A nation is a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of it's individual citizens. A free nation ...that recognizes, respects, and protects, the individual rights of it's citizens - has a right to it's territorial integrity, it's social system, and it's form of government. The government ...is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of it's citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated for a specific delimited task (...protection from physical force derived from their right of self defense...)
Such a nation... has a right to it's sovereignty and a right to demand it's sovereignty be respected by other nations.)"
Which doesn't apply to the USA at the present time and explains a lot as to other questions such as immigration, controlled voting and one that openly supports the opposite of the first of Rands requirements by supporting government control of citizens.)
This one lost it' s legitimacy and has yet to establish it's own. The only part left that has any power of all is IF, and a big IF, the military upholds its' oath of office. Especially when the President (s) and the Congress failed in their oaths of office.
Sequuntur inconvenientia ex euentu vel existentialistat is latin for follow the consequences or existentialist absurdity.
The trail leads to the conclusion because the philosophy isn't pure nor are the definitions used in it's description.
This is a glass of water.
Or is it a glass of water?
And if it is a glass of water,
Why is it a glass of water?
Where did it come from, and
Why is it here?...
eventually dies of thirst.
IE: Stephen Hawking claims their is no God, but Albert Einstein spent his life looking, to paraphrase, into the mind of God. So is there a God, I have no idea and neither does anyone else. The only ones who can definitively answer the question are the dearly departed. And they're not talking.
For every question that is philosophically analysed there are currently approx. 7 Billion answers to the question. The current population of the planet.
IMHO a purported Philosopher has simply found a way of making a living by getting Liberal Arts colleges to pay them to set around and string fancy sounding words together, all without definitive proof or evidence. Then people like Burke and Hume are idolized by others who probably didn't even understand all of the fancy words.
In the article that is linked above, bsmith51 said it best.
Philosophy is not an individual preference game, that is one's values. Philosophy tells you which values you ought to have and why. That is not something to which there can be 7 billion answers.
Science (hard) is based on the philosophy of science, which is true. But could have been proven false. This means that Plato's and therefore christianity's metaphysics is incorrect.
As for Plato's supposed meeting with one of the Gods or the bees or whatever it was and the metaphysical, if I were a teacher I would state how one arrived at that "truth" and they must show their work.
Philosophy is simply "love of wisdom" and I do like to learn.
ever! Mind-provoking to say the least. Thank
for this!
(or form or frame) and incorrect in reframing or reforming thus the second description of being left with the consequences surfaces.
Now I shall step aside and let the senior objectivists take over. and direct your first paragraph which is not incorrect into a more acceptable explanation. Something along the lines of a severe lack of philosophers in the USA for the last hundred plus years or so..
In my world, speculation leads to observation leads to theory leads to a hypothesis leads to experimentation leads to knowledge.
It strikes me that without philosophy, one is left to 'wake to a new world everyday, much as a goose does'. That then leads me to find a philosophy that best works for me in the world in which I exist and provides me with the most true knowledge about me in that world that's repeatable and leads me to more knowledge.
I cannot call myself a Libertarian, Conservative or an Objectivist. As there are ideas in all those labels I cannot through reason subscribe. So I would guess I am more of a misfit. I see all of those as being pertinent in “a perfect world”. But the fact is we do not live in a perfect world.
It appears that some of us who happen to be less cerebral cause some consternation in many of the group. Again we do not live in a perfect world but we must always strive to somehow create that world. Referring to comments by dbhalling in answer to you and to RosemaryL. I also believe in most of the items he mentioned. But the immigration and ISIS are not part of that. I agree that everyone has “the right of travel” however millions coming here is NOT immigration it is an invasion. An invasion which puts undo stress on OUR economy. To allow such happenings, in the world we live, is not only irrational but it also destroys the lives of many who have worked hard for what they have set out to accomplish for THEIR lives. Sacrificing ones right for the sake of another is not sound reasoning. And the ISIS question, by reason is lunacy, since they are fanatically religion driven and their religion states all must follow them or die. You do not fight that by saying they have “the right of travel”. They can practice whatever they wish in their country. It is not up to me to go to the aid of their women and children. It is up to the more rational among them to fix what they don't like about how they live.
In the two plus years I have been with this group I have learned much and hope that some of what I say is of value to others in the group and have enjoyed all of the discussions that time permits me to partake. Having said that, I will end by saying I noticed someone in the group lament that she does not spend as much time on the group as she believes that it could be a “Limbaugh” group. Your reply was to say you do not want people to bastardize the “Philosophy of Ayn Rand”. If any of my comments or ramblings have been seen as bastardizing the “Philosophy” or if the function of the group is to simply have a single voice of like minded in all things Rand I would request that you remove me from the group since I have accomplished nothing and that single voice does not need or deserve the distraction.
As to the issues of ISIS and refugees, I won't try to speak for anyone else, but for myself an Objectivist viewpoint is that the Muslims are not the real issue, even though I find no support whatsoever for religionist of any form. It's the welfare state that beckons those to this country and I abhor that. In an Objectivist and free country, those that wish to live a mooch/looter life would find no welcome or success which would prevent them from coming in the first place or to come and fail in such a lifestyle. That principle would also address the issue of refugees, with no support available to those except the ability to work and support themselves and to respect everyone's rights in regards to religion and gov't..
As to the danger from ISIS, again I abhor their actions and beliefs, but in the real world just think about how many Americans' lives have been destroyed, even killed by our own gov't compared to the real impact on us of terrorism. They don't compare in any realistic way.
As to bastardation, you shouldn't expect that Objectivists won't respond strongly to compromise of principles and values, particularly of individual rights and freedoms or gov't intervention in any of the areas of our lives.
My comments to you came about when I was seeing some of the heavy hitters and senior members of the group, yourself included, lament as to the direction of the conversations in this post as well as in other posts. My opinion is those that are the most senior must set the path for the group. If a strict interpretation of the Rand "Philosophy" is the direction those such as myself, I can't speak for anyone else, should not be involved. I like the free exchange of ideas but only when that is the purpose of the group.
As for immigration, refugees and ISIS, in principle I agree. It is the welfare state of our USA that is attracting those that wish something for nothing and that MUST end. But for ISIS, they just want everyone except Muslims to die and then they will probably eat each other on disagreements internally. I have been saying for decades that most war would not be conceivable if there were none of the Main stream Religions. Oh and then I am proven somewhat wrong with those little lovable college wallflowers whose feelings are so easily hurt. Yes the poor babies. But I digress. If we are simply talking about the USA yes many have been killed by our Gov't. But to be fair history needs to be remembered and well as to the 10s of millions who died at the hands of despots the planet over. I do not try to make excuses I mention only the History.
Sorry I just chuckled at your last comment. You mean like the strong rebuke I get from my Baptist neighbor when he tells me I should go to church with him and pay my respects to God. And I say pointing to the sun that I am basking in my Creators light?? As I said earlier, I totally expect a strong reaction at times. But I am in total agreement on individual rights, freedoms and gov't intervention. A few other issues, which should be another post, not so much.
Thanks again.
But I welcome an honest, open straight-forward conversation.
And thank you as well.