Galt would have refused Conservatives from the Gulch just like he would have refused Liberals
Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 6 months ago to Philosophy
Both [conservatives and liberals] hold the same premise—the mind-body dichotomy—but choose opposite sides of this lethal fallacy.
The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man’s spirit, i.e., man’s consciousness; they advocate the State’s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect. The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with “academic freedom”). But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property—they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation.
The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories—with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe—but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.
Yet it is the conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim the superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the “mystics of spirit.” And it is the liberals who are predominantly materialists, who regard man as an aggregate of meat, and who represent what I call the “mystics of muscle.”
This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises. Observe that the conservatives insult and demean the rich or those who succeed in material production, regarding them as morally inferior—and that the liberals treat ideas as a cynical con game. “Control,” to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. Neither camp holds freedom as a value. The conservatives want to rule man’s consciousness; the liberals, his body.
The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man’s spirit, i.e., man’s consciousness; they advocate the State’s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect. The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with “academic freedom”). But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property—they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation.
The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories—with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe—but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.
Yet it is the conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim the superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the “mystics of spirit.” And it is the liberals who are predominantly materialists, who regard man as an aggregate of meat, and who represent what I call the “mystics of muscle.”
This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises. Observe that the conservatives insult and demean the rich or those who succeed in material production, regarding them as morally inferior—and that the liberals treat ideas as a cynical con game. “Control,” to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. Neither camp holds freedom as a value. The conservatives want to rule man’s consciousness; the liberals, his body.
Previous comments...
Liberals wanted instant change regardless of laws as they are the powerless outsiders.
Once Liberals win they become hard core conservatives.
the rest of it is just BS propaganda
There is great power in setting the definition of words. I heard it through the grape vine.
Indeed. That is what a traditional conservative was. They tried to preserve the Constitution. I am afraid I have read too many old books that used definitions of these words that are opposite of the meanings we have had to accept for many decades now.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Liberals (modern day Progressivism) do NOT want freedom in the Spiritual Realm, and prove it all the freaking time. Every single thing you've claimed that liberals want is NOT what they want, nor is it what they practice, either. They are for censorship of ideas they don't like, they are FOR government controlling of ideas (see "Climate Change"), they are FOR government control of the arts (see censorship and art grants), they are for controlling the press (see latest attempts to control drudge report), they are FOR controlling education (see Common Core)... And those are just a few examples that you are totally and utterly wrong.
I could continue, but why bother? If after 2 paragraphs you are batting .000, what do we gain from discussing how much MORE you are wrong?
Invitations were based on the content of their character, not how, if, or who they voted for.
If anything the characters in the novel were more apolitical than anything else.
The fourth branch................the first three branches should be fully understood before venturing into the fourth. BT