Trump: Objectivist Opportunity?
Posted by D_E_Liberty 8 years, 5 months ago to Politics
Sometimes, out of disaster comes historic opportunity. From the ashes of a failed enterprise arises the Phoenix of a more evolved and ideal reality – sometimes!
Whether you support(ed) Donald Trump or not, he is the presumptive Republican nominee. His christening has ushered in a deluge of apocalyptic predictions from the left, but also, more surprisingly from the right. It evidences far less a coronation than a coup by a populist faction led by an accidental revolutionary who has high jacked the GOP by becoming the personification of the frustration, fear, and anger of its party faithful and newcomers who feel abandoned by their Republican leaders.
Say what you will about them, what these Trump supporters lack in fidelity to traditional GOP principles and character litmus tests, they make up for in loyalty. They don’t care who or how many people Trump insults. They don’t care how often he exposes his breathtakingly narrow understanding of the issues―they are going to support him no matter what. As Trump so brazenly stated himself, “I could shoot someone in the street, and I wouldn’t lose any votes.” His supporters are “Trumplidites” to the core, and a very hard core it is.
But beyond his “cult of personality” followers, Trump is not so popular. In fact, he is roundly hated by large segments of the voting populations. His negative popularity ratings are record-breaking for a Presidential candidate, particularly among Independents (the only voting block that really matters since it is the only one really “in play”)
And while the Democratic nominee has her own serious popularity problems, conventional wisdom and historic voting patterns among independents and moderates in the middle eschew extremism and extremist candidates. They abhor loose cannons and cavalier characters―both of which are perfect descriptions of Donald Trump. No one, including Trump, knows what he is going to do or why since, by all indications, his policy making process is devoid of any discernable principles―let alone an actual guiding philosophy. In that sense, he is an unknowable enigma, completely unpredictable. Such capricious and erratic propensities make everyone, but particularly, the majority in the middle, nervous.
This may very well mean that many among the “undecided” will cast their voting in keeping with the old adage, “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.”
Clinton is the devil we know, while Trump is the devil we don’t.
This would seem to give the edge to Clinton. Either way, it is a Faustian choice at best. From the Liberty perspective it a choice of “picking your poison.” Do you go with woman who is peddling poison that offers you a slow death by economic strangulation or the many who is a political poison pill that could cause instant death by one careless misstep?
From the perspective of Libertarians, and more pointedly Objectivist Libertarians, it would appear that the election of either candidate is a nightmarish scenario of apocalyptic proportion. But as apocalyptic as this may seem in the short term, it just might be the harbinger of good news for Libertarians and other liberty-loving micro parties in the long term―as unlikely as this might seem.
So let’s play this out. Here is one possible, if not likely, scenario:
Trump secures the Republican nomination, riding a wave of unprecedented dissatisfaction of traditional Republican voters and new Trumplidite voters (the latter being independents and conservative Democrats and Republicans who are not able to formulate their own political philosophies beyond the sloganeering sound bites Trump spews―they are, by definition, anti-intellectual).
Second, we can assume virtually all Democrats will eventually hold their collective noses and vote for Hillary. Add to that the Independents that strongly dislike Trump, either personally or politically. Subtract from Trump’s total MOST Libertarians and recovering Republicans who dislike and mistrust Trump (and who will just stay at home), and the remaining support for Trump will be woefully insufficient to secure him the Presidency. In fact, his hard ceiling for support is probably in the 40s. Translation: Hillary wins by a landslide.
Trump at the top of the ticket proves to be a tremendous drag on the ticket for those Republicans running for the Senate and the House―such a drag, in fact, that it reverses the majority in both chambers.
Now the Democrats have a field day for four years. Hillary―the human, unprincipled, political wind sock―further adjusts her orientation to the far left, driven by the new Sanders Socialistic/Millennial gale force political winds blowing at her back. She and her Democratic Congress begin passing ultra-progressive legislation and regulations.
The unprecedented landslide of freebies and give-aways (i.e., enhanced Obamacare, free college education, LBJ-ist expansion of the welfare state), in addition to draconian regulations on banking and financial systems, will lead to the final financial meltdown of epic proportions―not hard to imagine given an economy that has tittered on the brink since 2008.
Desperate to address the record budget shortfalls, Hillary makes good on her threats to make up the difference out of the financial hides of both the “rich” and the “upper-middle-class” causing many to flee not only the labor market, but perhaps even the country (effectively bringing to pass “the producer strike” Rand foreshadowed in Atlas). The net effect of the hostile business climate causes a massive economic collapse of depression proportions.
As part and parcel of this demonic Democratic dictatorship, Hillary and her PC Police and newly appoint ultra-progressive Supreme Court Justices, begin to dramatically curtail individual rights (and private institutions) in an attempt to legislate THEIR morality―subjectivism and relativism―into existence, all based on the collectivist ideal.
But there might be a light at the end of Taggart Tunnel – that’s not another train. As has historically been the case in this country, when the political pendulum swings to the extreme left or right, principles of political physics usually dictate that it swing just as far back to the other side. In this case, back to the right, from its precipitous pinnacle on the left (per Einstein, “for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction”).
Now the splintered right might finally find the crucible they have been searching for to melt their disparate coalition back together again.
The atomized right―now made up of traditional Goldwater Republicans, Neocons, the Evangelical Usurpers (many forget the GOP has already lived through one high jacking), the Tea Party, and good portions of the “Liberty Party”―may suddenly realize that their “way of life” is in jeopardy and that their most dearly-held principles of personal freedom are under a withering assault from the Hillary/Sanders rising liberal tide. Maybe then they will see that their only hope of avoiding permanent political irrelevance in Hillary’s “Brave New World” of European-style Socialism is to… UNITE!
In the midst of an economic crisis (perhaps even a depression), the GOP will be looking for a rallying point―the only one that can cure the progressive-induced black plague―and that rallying point is around the only flag that can be planted on the common ground they truly share―the one with the “$” on it.
(For the rest of this article go to www.libertas.website)
Whether you support(ed) Donald Trump or not, he is the presumptive Republican nominee. His christening has ushered in a deluge of apocalyptic predictions from the left, but also, more surprisingly from the right. It evidences far less a coronation than a coup by a populist faction led by an accidental revolutionary who has high jacked the GOP by becoming the personification of the frustration, fear, and anger of its party faithful and newcomers who feel abandoned by their Republican leaders.
Say what you will about them, what these Trump supporters lack in fidelity to traditional GOP principles and character litmus tests, they make up for in loyalty. They don’t care who or how many people Trump insults. They don’t care how often he exposes his breathtakingly narrow understanding of the issues―they are going to support him no matter what. As Trump so brazenly stated himself, “I could shoot someone in the street, and I wouldn’t lose any votes.” His supporters are “Trumplidites” to the core, and a very hard core it is.
But beyond his “cult of personality” followers, Trump is not so popular. In fact, he is roundly hated by large segments of the voting populations. His negative popularity ratings are record-breaking for a Presidential candidate, particularly among Independents (the only voting block that really matters since it is the only one really “in play”)
And while the Democratic nominee has her own serious popularity problems, conventional wisdom and historic voting patterns among independents and moderates in the middle eschew extremism and extremist candidates. They abhor loose cannons and cavalier characters―both of which are perfect descriptions of Donald Trump. No one, including Trump, knows what he is going to do or why since, by all indications, his policy making process is devoid of any discernable principles―let alone an actual guiding philosophy. In that sense, he is an unknowable enigma, completely unpredictable. Such capricious and erratic propensities make everyone, but particularly, the majority in the middle, nervous.
This may very well mean that many among the “undecided” will cast their voting in keeping with the old adage, “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.”
Clinton is the devil we know, while Trump is the devil we don’t.
This would seem to give the edge to Clinton. Either way, it is a Faustian choice at best. From the Liberty perspective it a choice of “picking your poison.” Do you go with woman who is peddling poison that offers you a slow death by economic strangulation or the many who is a political poison pill that could cause instant death by one careless misstep?
From the perspective of Libertarians, and more pointedly Objectivist Libertarians, it would appear that the election of either candidate is a nightmarish scenario of apocalyptic proportion. But as apocalyptic as this may seem in the short term, it just might be the harbinger of good news for Libertarians and other liberty-loving micro parties in the long term―as unlikely as this might seem.
So let’s play this out. Here is one possible, if not likely, scenario:
Trump secures the Republican nomination, riding a wave of unprecedented dissatisfaction of traditional Republican voters and new Trumplidite voters (the latter being independents and conservative Democrats and Republicans who are not able to formulate their own political philosophies beyond the sloganeering sound bites Trump spews―they are, by definition, anti-intellectual).
Second, we can assume virtually all Democrats will eventually hold their collective noses and vote for Hillary. Add to that the Independents that strongly dislike Trump, either personally or politically. Subtract from Trump’s total MOST Libertarians and recovering Republicans who dislike and mistrust Trump (and who will just stay at home), and the remaining support for Trump will be woefully insufficient to secure him the Presidency. In fact, his hard ceiling for support is probably in the 40s. Translation: Hillary wins by a landslide.
Trump at the top of the ticket proves to be a tremendous drag on the ticket for those Republicans running for the Senate and the House―such a drag, in fact, that it reverses the majority in both chambers.
Now the Democrats have a field day for four years. Hillary―the human, unprincipled, political wind sock―further adjusts her orientation to the far left, driven by the new Sanders Socialistic/Millennial gale force political winds blowing at her back. She and her Democratic Congress begin passing ultra-progressive legislation and regulations.
The unprecedented landslide of freebies and give-aways (i.e., enhanced Obamacare, free college education, LBJ-ist expansion of the welfare state), in addition to draconian regulations on banking and financial systems, will lead to the final financial meltdown of epic proportions―not hard to imagine given an economy that has tittered on the brink since 2008.
Desperate to address the record budget shortfalls, Hillary makes good on her threats to make up the difference out of the financial hides of both the “rich” and the “upper-middle-class” causing many to flee not only the labor market, but perhaps even the country (effectively bringing to pass “the producer strike” Rand foreshadowed in Atlas). The net effect of the hostile business climate causes a massive economic collapse of depression proportions.
As part and parcel of this demonic Democratic dictatorship, Hillary and her PC Police and newly appoint ultra-progressive Supreme Court Justices, begin to dramatically curtail individual rights (and private institutions) in an attempt to legislate THEIR morality―subjectivism and relativism―into existence, all based on the collectivist ideal.
But there might be a light at the end of Taggart Tunnel – that’s not another train. As has historically been the case in this country, when the political pendulum swings to the extreme left or right, principles of political physics usually dictate that it swing just as far back to the other side. In this case, back to the right, from its precipitous pinnacle on the left (per Einstein, “for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction”).
Now the splintered right might finally find the crucible they have been searching for to melt their disparate coalition back together again.
The atomized right―now made up of traditional Goldwater Republicans, Neocons, the Evangelical Usurpers (many forget the GOP has already lived through one high jacking), the Tea Party, and good portions of the “Liberty Party”―may suddenly realize that their “way of life” is in jeopardy and that their most dearly-held principles of personal freedom are under a withering assault from the Hillary/Sanders rising liberal tide. Maybe then they will see that their only hope of avoiding permanent political irrelevance in Hillary’s “Brave New World” of European-style Socialism is to… UNITE!
In the midst of an economic crisis (perhaps even a depression), the GOP will be looking for a rallying point―the only one that can cure the progressive-induced black plague―and that rallying point is around the only flag that can be planted on the common ground they truly share―the one with the “$” on it.
(For the rest of this article go to www.libertas.website)
SOURCE URL: http://libertas.website
Clinton and Trump are opportunists and pragmatists...altruists who are on the collecting end...not giving end...
the title of Trump's book is the Art of the Deal...nothing is sacred or absolute...freedom, liberty, etc...it is all on the table...his only absolute is himself in a narcissistic sense of the word...not rational or logical...
the govt totalitarian educational system does not teach philosophy and principles by design...it wants "good" citizens, not thinking rational logical individualists.
I remain optimistic, but at the same time, wide eyed realisticand follow Harry Browne's book "How to Live Free in an Unfree World"...
I would rather have 4 years more of relative prosperity with Trump than an accelerating decline with HIllary.
With all the dictatorial/fascistic leanings Trump has apologized about then reaffirmed, it is obvious to me that calling his rise to prominence is not an opportunity at all. Instead, it is chaos.
Trump poses the exact threat to the people of the world which he promises to exterminate. That is, he offers solace in reducing civil rights (which is to eliminate them), he offers opportunity by imposing strictures (trade deals), he offers security by encouraging harsh judgment to prevail (police state). Each of these components is completely outside the realm of rationality. Trump is the poster child of the capitalist described by Marxists, not Objectivists. Therefore, it is much more likely that the world would see socialism as the alternative to what Trump represents.
Trump is the "opportunity" for socialism in the same way that Nazism was an opportunity for Communism.
My problem is entirely different but still includes parts of your little cat fight.
I leap ahead and assume your in one of the factions? I may be amiss or remiss in my thinking. Still it changes nothing. they went at each other last time why not let that solution work once again?
The Soviet Union was several times more vast than is the United States. The population was smaller than was ours. When the communists took over there was indeed, a producer's strike but, it didn't look like Atlas Shrugged. Those who couldn't flee were observed and arrested and killed or, battered into submission. My Russian friends told me: 'They pretended to pay us so, we pretended to work."
Even in the vastness of the Soviet Union, without today's electronic assets, they couldn't disappear and build a producer's paradise. Nor will we be able to. The economy and country won't collapse around us while we watch from afar, it will collapse on us.
We can't give up saving this ship because there is no hidden lifeboat and, if it sinks, we'll end up treading water for generations, as have all the other countries collapsed by socialist experiments. No one on this board will see the light at the end of the tunnel because, the tunnel lasts for generations.
The only thing that is missing is the school-yard taunting nick-name ala Trump, like maybe "Liberty the Looter."
The Second sentence proceeds to cast aspersions on my political prowess, and grasp on "political reality" - all without a single reference to the content of my commentary. And then you top it off with a final one word verdict - "naive."
I'm not going respond with my own character assassination, or unfounded attacks on your comments. That would be the antithesis of everything I believe as an Objectivist.
I'm only disappointed since I really would expected more from a Gulcher, any Gulcher.
The hallmark of this forum, in my experience, is intellectual honesty based on rational analysis of the facts. People here rarely "name call" or toss out conclusory statements about fellow Gulchers and their comments without offering evidence to support their position. You have chosen to do both.
It's intellectually lazy and beneath standard of fair and respectful discourse that is the foundation of this forum. I guess what they say is true, if you can't attack the speech, attack the speaker. I thought the Gulch was the one place I could expect more... where we all could expect more.
Your reaction is to attack the writer of the post (while claiming not to do exactly that) instead of explaining how you are not a looter.
Here is your second chance. Explain.
The victims rights movement is like all liberty movements. It the fights to secure basic rights for crime victims in the criminal justice system otherwise denied them by the government - including the rights to be present, informed and heard in criminal justice proceeding OF THERE OWN CASES - rights similar to the ones we are all fighting for against and ever more intrusive and reclusive state.
As for your "left liberal statist" label, victims rights are supported across the political spectrum in the same way civil rights are i.e., by the left, the right, the middle. (polls show 81% of Americans said they support victims rights - source: America Speaks Out: Citizens' Attitudes About Victims' Rights and Violence (NVC 1991)).
Rand specifically mentioned the judicial system as one of the few indispensable functions of government:
The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.
Does it make any rational sense the Rand would state that courts are their to protect the right of individuals but that individuals [crime victims] should have no rights?
As for your comment that I don't say "much about production" you didn't actually read my vitae. As it clearly indicates, most of my work, (30 years of it) has been writing. I think that puts me in good company with Rand herself, unless you are implying that Rand's writing don't constitute production.
As for your accusation that I am a "looter" - you give no logic or evidence as to why you draw this conclusion, so it makes it difficult to respond to a non-exist argument.
Nevertheless- I spent my life working for non-profits, not as a lobbyist but as a legal advocate (non-profits are not allowed to lobby by law). Yes, I advocated for changes in the laws, almost all of which were intend to grant rights to; child abuse, sexual assault, homicide survivors, drunk-driving and economic fraud victims. Rights not over and against defendant's constitutional rights, but over and against criminal justice professional and bureaucrats who deny them the opportunity to be involved in their own criminal cases. So, ironically, a majority of my professional career has been to afford justice to those who have been looted - looted of their money, looted of bodily safety, and looted of their very lives.
My non-profits were supported wholly by donations from private entities and grants from the U.S. Department of Justice funded 100% by fines levied by courts against fraudulent businesses and crony capitalists (in other words "looters"). NOT A SINGLE TAX PAYER DOLLAR ever found it way into my pocket. Oh, but of course their is no way you could know that, since you didn't bother to educate yourself with even a 10 minute search on the net before launching your "looter" label.
So my criticism of your criticism stands. I don't get into "flame wars" with the negligently misinformed. So I just let my fellow Gulchers form their own opinions about the fairness, facts and judgments behind our respective statements.
Have a Good Life.
Trump is one who at least offers us little people the chance of dealing a blow to the ever growing power of the Big Government Party. Trump ain’t no Galt, but he sure as hell ain’t no Hillary.
Those Who Died for that Document that dwells in D.C.
Equal rights for all, our nation’s living decree.
Long Live the Constitution! R.I.P.
After the events of the last 24 hours where a Navy reservist is prosecuted with the Attorney General's Office citing the exact opposite reasoning as that used by the FBI in the Hillary Clinton vs People Of the United States case I recalled D.E.'s poem and the last four lines and thought it the right place and time to present it again.
What a great day to be a left wing fascist! Lynch, Corney, Obama, Clilnton and the rest of the comrades probably confused this with the real reason for the Fourth of July. Sorry that's our holiday and day to celebrate freedom and independence. It has nothing to do witht he four of you.
The rest of it was the same old boring attempt to characterize the GOP and the Demos as something they are not. Honest People who are not responsible for the world we live in today.
What you are left with is One Wrong Answer disguised as two. Right wing or left wing the two presumptuous candidates are still left wing fascist liberals hiding behind a few other labels such as statist and corporatist.
One can hardly call uniting around a National Socialist much improvement over an International Socialist.
One can only call it what it is. One wrong answer with two names that are so similar they don't even add up to a compromise.
You can vote Libertarian instead.
You can vote None Of The Above and reject the entire rigged election system and then start doing it on the local level.
Or you can learn the other Russian story. Those with hope learned English. Those with no hope learned Chinese. Those with any brains learned Marksmanship. They may have spelled it with an X
The real choice is Constitutional Republic versus a Socialist State and a lifetime of old Russian sayings.
The analysis completely ignores Gary Johnson. At there very least, he's an alternative for people put off by Trump and Clinton. He is polling over 10% despite not being in the debates. If he gets more attention and/or Trump or Clinton have a glaring scandal, he could really shoot up in popularity.
You talk about an atomized right, a coalition of neocons, evangelicals, Tea Party people, and liberty-oriented voters, coming back together. This feels natural b/c they've been allied under the rubric of "the right" all my adult life, but I could easily see that changing. Sanders wrote an article for the NYT recently saying he agreed with most of Trump's concerns but no the racism and mean-spiritedness. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... I could easily see kinder, gentler Trump bringing Trump supporters and Sanders supporters together as a new coalition that would need some new name.
The article accepts without question that Hillary Clinton would enact some radical new policies and huge spending programs that would cause a crisis. I can see why that's comforting, but I don't see that at all. I see her as a great politician and manager of the status quo. Gov't is a quarter of GDP now, has a huge military, has a large percentage of the population jailed or under supervision of the justice system, has gov't programs to take care of middle-class basic needs like heathcare and and education, has risk-prone fiscal and monetary policy; and all of that would state the same after eight years of Clinton. For voters who accept that gov't is involved in everything and see the citizens as members of various groups (rural evangelicals, gays, blacks, high-tech urbanites, and so on), she will make sure all those groups get their ration of gov't support. In short, she'll be good at keeping the current system running. She'll be bad at reform and reducing the scope/cost of gov't.
So if Johnson were not on the ballot in all states, I could see why someone wanting reform of the issues I mentioned might support Trump, hoping he'll either fix the problems or bring them to a head, instead of just kicking the can. That is way too close to the "flood-myth" thinking, saying let things fall apart to lead to a better world in the future, which I strongly reject. I would rather have Clinton kick the can than have some cataclysm that my lead to reforms but may lead to even worse gov't. This is moot, though, because there is a third choice: Gary Johnson. He actually could win, and even if he doesn't he will at least raise the issue of shrinking gov't.
But we need to be realistic about the Johnson candidacy. Now that Hillary has managed to defuse the bomb that could have blown up he campaign (indictment for the e-mail scandal) even if Trump self-distructs, Johnson has almost no chance of getting elected. To think otherwise is self-delusional. BUT that's not a reason not to vote for him - since the realistic goal, and the one I think Gary has in his own mind, it to give Libertarians a voice in the national debate that is the Presidential Election. If he were to succeed it making it onto the debate stage, giving him the opportunity to lay out his policy platform, many americans would find themselves agree with him - in fact many might discover what we already know, it that most americans are libertarians, they just don't know it... or at least that is what the issue polls repeatedly show. AND THAT DOES include non-republicans - to acknowledge your point.
I'm really surprised that you think President Hillary, backed by a Democratically Controlled Congress and newly stacked progressive Supreme Court would simply defend the status quo. It seems to contradict your point about "paying off" all the constituent groups you named. Some would argue that staying the course we are currently on will likely end in economic disaster, and that its just a matter of time before the economy crashes and burns. But I can't imagine there are many intellectually honest economic and political observers who think that a Clinton Presidency will not have the effect of push the yolk forward, rather than pulling it back - hastening out decent.
Frankly I foundly wish you were right, and that Johnson had an immediate path to the Presidency, but I think we need to focus on the long game. We need to for strategies that will get our message out now... so we will be their with a solution when people are finally ready to listen, as I said. Johnson can be the start of that process, but he is not the end... at least not yet.
Thanks for your time and thoughtful commentary
Yes. This is my impression too. A solid majority would agree to the proposition "you give up your favorite gov't programs in exchange for less gov't interference and lower taxes." Instead politicians make the reverse deal: "accept taxes and gov't interference and we'll fund things important/helpful to you."
I do think most people are libertarians, if that option were clearly presented.
"AND THAT DOES include non-republicans - to acknowledge your point."
Yes. I've always been registered Democrat, and most people in my non-random sample of the country claim to be Democrat. Also most of them claim to want libertarian policies. Sanders reminds me of Trump, and Trump is the personification of why I am not a Republican. So I think the time is ripe for Libertarians.
Thanks for the response and all your points I liked but didn't comment on.
That stability, though, makes it difficult for libertarians because it involves mostly those who desire being ruled, whether by religious collectivism or by political collectivism. Trust seems to come at great cost in lost liberty.
I hope you're wrong about people wanting stability over freedom; in many cases I know you're right.
Regarding having large number of noisy people abusing drugs, including alcohol, we already have that. So it's unfair for people to compare a libertarian approach with a hypothetical approach that doesn't exist where drug problems are mostly eliminated.
I completely agree with sticking to liberty that each party recognizes or at least sticking to moderate approaches, i.e. approaches that don't scare people and have a chance of winning. Johnson is good about that.
The great thing about Libertarianism is we can UNITE under a few basic principals, with no requirement we agree on personal issues.
End of the thinking or attention span . I suspect a lot of that is contrived propaganda but it seems to be working. The same people keep getting elected and show no signs at solving the stated problem of terrorism but instead seem to becoming the problem . Just like Marighella predicted when his cycle of repression is used. The onlh difference is it's not rag tag unsupported revoutionaries hiding in the barrios and jungles it's the government itself in the role of aggressor.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/p...
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/societ...
I never saw anything where Rand did anything other than name-calling regarding Libertarians. When reading her statements about Libertarians, she was close to incoherent because she was so inconsistent about whom her targets were. Most telling, to me, was when she displayed utter jealous emotion in saying: “… [L]ibertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose.” [The Ayn Rand Letter, quoted from my notes, I have not checked which issue. ] Of course, she “plagiarized” many ideas as well, if one defines plagiarism as building upon the ideas of others. She had a way to insult people who did not agree 100% with whatever she said, and I am sure this arrogant attitude drove many people to other, friendlier, camps. Anyhow, I am not here to discuss Rand.
As a friendly suggestion, in the future, when suggesting to a person they should “check their premises,” which comes across to me as less than nice, a rather “Randian” in attitude, you would specify the premises to which you refer. It would make a lot easier for the listener to understand. I for example, have no idea what it is you mean when you say that to me in the context that I am both an Objectivist and a Libertarian.
Perhaps you can explain to me how agreeing with the Libertarian principle of not to initiate physical force is inconsistent with Objectivism’s principle of not to initiate physical force?
1. movies first
2.about AYN RAND's IDEAS
3. and that's what this post is about!
let's start with NAP. you want this to be a fundamental. this is NOT a fundamental in Objectivism. It leads to many contradictions under Objectivism. By your own definition, someone who claims they are Objectivist and Libertarian. I think that many O's come together with Libertarians for political reasons. but two different animals :)
2. Rand ideas? I have no idea to what you refer
3. What, exactly, is the post about? The Non-Agression Principle dates back to at least 300 years BCE, it is not new with Rand (though she claims it as such). I do not understand what you are trying to communicate to me.
I believe the NAP is fundamental to Objectivism. I formed this conclusion by reading Atlas and other writings by Rand, as well as work by other Objectivists. This issue is easy to resolve by asking an expert in Objectivism. Ask, for example, David Kelley if the NAP is fundamental to Objectivism. But, fundamental or not, I would guess we agree it is a principle of Objectivism.
Meantime, at the risk of going back to my question, I asked: “Perhaps you can explain to me how agreeing with the Libertarian principle of not to initiate physical force is inconsistent with Objectivism’s principle of not to initiate physical force?”
We give and write to extent you need
And save the best for the rest to read
With nae wasted thought nor devilish pun
For occasional drive by's on the run
You got the reason for your visit
Meant to end this line with fidgit
Though midgit clouds it's way in line
'Twill do quite well until it's time
To toddle off pop under the covers
With fright'ning stories for sisters and brothers
Light switches that won't as Mum bids you rest
Monsters 'neath beds,in closets and chests
Waiting for lands beyond negative fears
Hiding to pounce from behind your ears
Just past eyelids tightly shut
Waiting and waiting for sleep and such
Hiding just behind your ears.
If it made any sense
Your eyes would be open
Would they not?
I look at him as a Capitalist who is fed up with the self-serving politicians and "can do the job" just like he did with the ice rink in NYC.
The best reasons I can think to vote for him is that the press (media) hate him because he pushes back and they didn't 'make' him; the left hate him because he is the antithesis of who they are: a man who grew from small-time construction to big-time casino and re-developer becoming fabulously wealthy doing so; and the elite Republicans hate him because he isn't one of them or their classmates - he is an OUTSIDER, and he has actually DONE what they claim that they want to help us do (if only they weren't second-rate democrats).
He was not my original choice, but he and Cruz and Carly were my top three. Having seen so much PC spinelessness, I became part of his cheering section. Is he perfect? They crucified that last 'perfect man'. Has he a record of doing what he says? Yes - in spades.
If the GOP actually did what they said they were going to, we would be a far freer country today. We wouldn't have a socialist complaining that a college degree today is worth what a HS diploma was in the 1960s and all our immigrants would be Americans first and appreciate what our Freedoms offer them rather than making their fiefdoms in the image of where they came from.
I think Trump will bring on prosperity that we haven't seen since the late 50s and early 60s when we had the skills to put men on the moon with less than 1 millionth the computing power that a 'smart phone' has in it today.
I am a convert!!!
Thinking of Trump behind my ears.
it's enough to ignite some serious tears
Shut up, Keep quiet. Go to bed!
(It's me Mum with a stick the young child said)
I'll Monster you With a great oaken paddle
Stuff a cork or your foot, Enough of this babble
Thanks for the loan of the space and the time
To Finish off this bed time rhyme
For Larry and John as they think what lies
Behind their ears behind their eyes.
Out of sight behind the fence
In the land of dreams that make no sense
Gentlemen It's been a pleasure.
That clear enough?
So here's a little test of you knowledge of objectivism. To every question there are three possible answers. Name them and describe them?
Landed 1 year three months a go last seen on this forum five months ago. and this is your first post.
Republicans are the right wing of the Left they are not a separate party. They are part of the a single party system of government
Democrats publically annouonced they are no longer democratic but socialist.
The definition of the left is Government over Citizens. So my take is yiou prefer the right wing of the left as the lesser of two evils which makes you a publicly self confessed sipporter of evil.
A lot of hard working and THINKING reasoning people spent a year exploring possibilities. Why not take your obvious enthusiasm and learn what objectivism is ....because objecting is not objectivism.
I am told that my 'default' response is 'cognitive' as in 'critical thinking', rather than emotional. I can tell you that people do not recognize that actions have consequences (votes result in policies). Witness the number of people who lost jobs and still voted for BHO the second time.
I have several people who crossed me off their guest list when I was asked about candidate Barrack Obama and noted that he was a communist - specifically a Marxist - as noted in his televised tet-a-tet with "Joe the Plumber". And I knew his 'opponent' was a dictator disguised as a war hero. I watched in frustration as the roll-overs claimed more and more power while asking 'the faithful' what to do and then never doing it.
On September 8, 1964 I swore an Oath to support and defend the Constitution of the US - not to a president. I consider it to still be valid.
Whether I come into the discussion on day one or a year and a quarter into it, I consider the points I made to be valid.
I stepped up and put my life on the line - first during LBJs war, and later as a Fire Fighter. I stepped up and did my best to move a city in the best direction under the Constitution.
The communists have incrementally moved us left. We are going to have to incrementally restore the Constitution. Short of a shooting war, I think Trump is our best choice, but we also need to have more Constitutionally-inclined citizens step up on school boards, on city councils, on county supervisors, and they need to know how to frame the situation they face so the voting public is supportive of them. I invite you, Michael, to step up.