Why is the Constitution important to objectivists?
Posted by coaldigger 6 years, 1 month ago to Ask the Gulch
"I can say—not as a patriotic bromide, but with full knowledge of the necessary metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and esthetic roots—that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world." Ayn Rand
With all the concern about protecting this document it seems to me to be the basis of law and the definition of the organization to which we elect to follow the laws thereof. those of us that were born in the US should not accept that we have to be ruled by its government without reason. We should examine it's principles and make a determination whether to leave or stay. the principles, not just the implementation should be the guiding factor. If implementation is a problem then we must fight for the principles.
I don't like being thrown with Conservatives because they are statist of a different stripe, they have too many mystical beliefs and their dedication to preservation of individual rights is suspect. The problem with not doing so is to allow Progressives to discard the Constitution and creating a dictatorship of whatever feels good at the moment. While watching the questioning of Kavanaugh, before it became a circus, I was relieved that someone of his intellect and dedication to founding principles would be joining others of a like mind on the court. For about one evening I felt better about the future of America. After being routed in terms of reason, the other side resorted to some of the most reprehensible behavior possible and killed my buzz. It is now even more apparent how important it is to defeat those that would abandon the principles that have provided an organized society that has done more to elevate mankind than any previous system. I think it makes it worthwhile to hold my nose and support Conservatives and perhaps the radical left will lose their grip on the opposition party and we can become a functioning representative democracy again.
With all the concern about protecting this document it seems to me to be the basis of law and the definition of the organization to which we elect to follow the laws thereof. those of us that were born in the US should not accept that we have to be ruled by its government without reason. We should examine it's principles and make a determination whether to leave or stay. the principles, not just the implementation should be the guiding factor. If implementation is a problem then we must fight for the principles.
I don't like being thrown with Conservatives because they are statist of a different stripe, they have too many mystical beliefs and their dedication to preservation of individual rights is suspect. The problem with not doing so is to allow Progressives to discard the Constitution and creating a dictatorship of whatever feels good at the moment. While watching the questioning of Kavanaugh, before it became a circus, I was relieved that someone of his intellect and dedication to founding principles would be joining others of a like mind on the court. For about one evening I felt better about the future of America. After being routed in terms of reason, the other side resorted to some of the most reprehensible behavior possible and killed my buzz. It is now even more apparent how important it is to defeat those that would abandon the principles that have provided an organized society that has done more to elevate mankind than any previous system. I think it makes it worthwhile to hold my nose and support Conservatives and perhaps the radical left will lose their grip on the opposition party and we can become a functioning representative democracy again.
Plus, I thoroughly disagree with your first statement.
As to my 1st statement. Upon reviewing it, I find it is not clear as to my meaning. What I was trying to say was that Americans have no solid philosophies.. The study of philosophy, and history are woefully absent. As a result, religion remains the only moral guide that most people have. When relying on religion, you have to accept the albatrosses that go along with it. If you take away religion you have no ethical guide for politics, metaphysics epistemology or even. art. My problem is that I'm too in love with metaphors.. :
Religion is no longer a source of morality for most people. Ideas of morality are part of the culture, and a lot of which is claimed to be religious morality has nothing to do with the theology; it consists of moral ideas picked up and spread like everything else. Some of it is good like basic honesty and some very bad that came from religion and bad philosophy, such as altruism and the mentality of duty ethics.
Strip away the religion and the rest is all still there, which is already occurring as religion is taken less seriously though without necessary corrections. It would not be possible to "remove" all of the commonly accepted philosophic outlooks like "removing a skeleton". People always have some philosophic sense of life and ideas of how they view the world. The issue is what they are and how they come to accept them.
For the internet, this is a very reasonable (pun intended) forum and no place for insulting responses. I prefer to post comments for discussion and read the responses where I am exposed to different points of view. I feel that the odds are better that I will learn something than they are that I am going to provide some new enlightenment for the world. It is hard to do that in a hostile environment.
He said he is literally memorizing Galt's speech to "recite it" for his "esthetic pleasure and moral benefit" in order to "fully induce the principles of Objectivism" (by the "method" of Muslims memorizing the Koran?). He said, "I've been physically living in San Diego, but allegorically living in the bed of a spiritually tortured invalid, leading a disoriented existence, lost Ideal, a suicidal-Johnny in penance-bound to my moral suburban preapocalyptic fortress against a post-modern, nihilistic dis-civilization."
With that as his credentials and experience he offers to show you with expert instruction how to live with "psycho-poetry": "Undergo the Learning, The Training is the Treatment. Your own psycho-poetic Training should fit you Soul like a glove in place with the Learning, I am here to empower all would-be lords and ladies of liberty, as I aspire to such myself: don't follow, but walk in step and the fugitive lady liberty will be found and rescued by the dishonest souls who hold her a captive for the ransom that is your life."
It's a sad case, farther "out there" than you may have expected, but a degree of how far "out there" as a matter of being relative to something else sane doesn't exactly describe his state.
I can see where Herd was headed with this statement in that the absence of ANY personal moral code leads to more government influence in every persons lives to stop the lack of self-restraint in a small portion. To be free, to enjoy liberty, each person must have a code/belief system that they must live by.
"“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams quotes (American 2nd US President (1797-1801),
As a Conservative Kavanaugh is not a great pick. he is okay to, at best good. His vehement support of the Patriot acts and desire to allow for government intrusion into individual lives goes against the 4th Amendment and has me, a Conservative, concerned. Hopefully the rest of the SCOTUS judges will have the numbers to keep Kavanaugh's options in check and prevent the further expansion of the fedgov into private lives.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/10/sc...
Judge Napolitano's case against Kavanaugh
https://youtu.be/lD7qzH4ob3Y
All that said, there was no way to not take Kavanaugh once the left started their hysteria. To reject Kavanaugh as a result of that farcical display would validate the tactic and we'd ben sure to see more if it in the future. It does make me wonder if the whole thing was a deliberate sham to obscure his 4th Amendment transgressions (the legitimate reason to deny his appointment).
On BK's position on the 4th, I think only a few would have been wise to that, the left, infected by the post modern virus, see their post modern power going down the drain.
I hope this sickening charade was worth the trouble in the saving of the republic.
Conservatives are inconsistent and incapable of intellectually defending a free country.
Yet, given the two primary choices the Republicans are usually the more "reasonable" ones. That does not make them high quality or something to cheer for.
Rand Paul excepted - if I am allowed an exception. :)
I find objectionable.
While Kavanaugh appears 'conservative' in some respects he has upheld the Patriot Act and the right to abrogate the protections of the constitution through the use of FISA (secret courts) in the cause of protecting the citizens from outside danger.
There isn't much left of the original constitution and what the writers of the contract intended. Allowing precedent rulings to interpret the law allows for the contract to be re-interpreted and then refer to that interpretation as the basis for understanding the contract rather than relying on understanding the contract. Kavanaugh sides with collectivism although he might sound 'conservative' and hoping that he might accidentally steer the collectivists back toward the light of liberty is folly.
I don't think most people think he will support the Constitution because he supports the Patriot
Act and the agencies. They think he will support the Constitution because he says so and they don't know fully what that would mean to be true.
I, too, look at the rising Federal debt as an act of hypocrisy by Republican and especially those who claim to be conservatives.
And to support a point made elsewhere that one of the huge departures from the Constitution was the Ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment. The other was the Twelfth Amendment which effectively introduced party ballots and all but eliminated the possibility of third parties being seriously considered.
My Conservatism (condensed)
The preservation of the US Constitution as the Framers intended. This would mean an almost non-extistant federal government that would adhere to the few responsibility given it it by the States. Any social decisions would be concluded locally in each state without federal interference or input.
The individual is paramount and has sole authority to himself, his efforts and his decisions. The constitution provides the social framework for a "free" society to exist and nothing more. How people in each State choose to live is entirely up to them and their local governments.
Naturally it's a large topic and there are any more points.
State governments are "closer to the people they represent" but without protection of the rights of the individual are not "more accountable to their local populations". The slaves knew very well what it meant for an oppressive government to be "close to them", and so has anyone oppressed by statist "social decisions" of Ashinoff's conservativism.
"The Meaning of the American Civil War: Freedom vs. Anarchy":
https://youtu.be/DF25RSDiGhI (~35 min).
Don't feel obligated, but if you watch it I'll be interested to know your opinion.
Cheers! B^)
Film: about 4 minute in, the primary matter for secession wasn't slavery it was the north imposing heavy taxes on southern goods heading to norther mills- agricultural products. Slavery at that time was how the south planted, grew, harvested and delivered their products. This was the reason southern states maintained slavery (and a very small portion of the populace at that). By heavily taxing the south it impacted their profits which took money away from maintaining their plantations and lifestyles.
Aside, one must wonder if in time automation would have removed slavery without the bloodshed or the egregious expansion of the federal government.
But it's been months since I listened to that particular podcast, so Charles Tew's arguments are not fresh in my mind. I also remember agreeing that our Founder's experiment in liberty would have crashed and burned had it not been for Lincoln's "pragmatism." More statist states tend to gang up on freer ones -- as witness today's global landslide.
No, because the 50 State governments are closer to the people they represent and are more accountable to their local populations. State governments can better reflect their laws to suit their populations without concern what other states are doing. The fedgov was established for one specific purpose and had broken out of its structure to be a monster.
Constitutionally, a state governor should be more relevant and important than the US President.
Further, Senators should be appointed by State Governors as representatives of their state. Senators should be fire-able at a moments notices by the state governor if he/she feels they are acting more in their own interest or federal interest than that of their state.
Point of interest (supports how unimportant once presidents were): Lincoln had to write to ask for permission to speak at Gettyburg, he was never invited.
Lastly, slavery. As mentioned previously technology would have rendered the institution prohibitively expensive in time.
For the record, I was born and raised in NY and my family arrived on these shores well after the "Civil War". I have no dog in this argument. :)
The Atlas Spoke Transparency (AST) knows no borders but such as work to defend individuals' property per region by objective law holding the one code of individual rights as absolute.
So, as in linguistics (my field), "regional" forms and levels of gov't would be like a "back-formation" (e.g. "mettle": /med'l/ ) from the universal (and global), which derives its legitimate authority directly from the primary entities (i.e., all human individuals) back down through increasingly more localized administrations (like a virtuous spiral arriving back to each autonomous individual wherever they live or travel).
/(OxO)\ : (best "puppy" I could do).
Per my example, the individual is the political onset to the tertiary formation of local authority (the nucleus) from the (federal) coda that seals the deal in principle for proper (socio-political) pronunciation (and because that particular example works differently for the British in their "environment").
The other important principle of social action (which I got from Oceanography) is constructive, as distinguished from destructive interference. This principle explains why in, say, weather forecasting the aggregate of "micro-aggressions" can't predict if after an off-shore earthquake there will be a tidal wave or a large depression (how actions manifest in aggregate depends on how a plethora of entities, e.g., currents, line up).
But in terms of semantics (one's life) the nucleus is primary, so it only goes so far as an analogy. And philosophy is the prime-mover in terms of how constructive/destructive forces align socially.
(B^\/)-[GSS-105]--<
Screw the globe. We fix home first and then worry about them based on our own interests.
But that's why I'm a cultural revolutionary, an intellectual activist functioning from the "inside-out" as all first-revolutionaries must. Change has always come from "the bottom."
In addition to Galt we can also "take a loincloth" from Gandhi in terms of tactics (he also took to the rails, as it were): going to the people has worked every time (and he didn't really martyr himself since his fasting was part of his revolutionary regimen, and was also assassinated in consequence of the nationalistic content he extolled).
I consistently practice and advise two things:
1) Take ownership: I begin every day by looking myself in the mirror and saying to myself: "Your life belongs to you" ten times slow. I often say this to others as well.
2) Activate your rights: Intermittently I also remind myself that "I am the revolution" which I say only to those who deserve the compliment.
Mr. Ashinoff, You are the revolution. And I haven't forgotten, I'll read your contributions to our "golden" cause when I find the time or opportunity (e.g., next time I visit Phoenix). B^)
This was the slogan of Silk Soymilk they ran during the World Cup. The "take ownership" quote comes from the Galt Speech, and I'm not sure if the "activation" quote is from Napoleon or Platoon's "You smoke this stuff to escape reality? I am reality!" line perhaps.
And just now a fourth principle I thought of recently (while memorizing/reciting/inducing the Galt Speech, which just plants seeds in my mind): "We/I have no time for mysticism, and no room for doubt."
And, "there's an enormous difference between thinking about principles, and thinking in principle."
That's quite a list, but I'm a lifelong poet/songwriter (bassist from HS), the would-be Patrick Henry of my revolution of one ("the one in the many").
Also, in Ryan Holliday style (the neo-stoic author of "The Obstacle is the Way" and "Ego is the Enemy,") my principle is that "The Training is the Treatment".
I should (and probably will) write a book with some such title. People will likely call me a stoic too, and maybe I am.
Ayn Rand's consistency does not mean demanding 'all or nothing' on every issue regardless of fundamentality, valid options, cooperation such as trade and friendship, and other people's rights. It does not preclude Ashinoff's right to stay in the country and believe what he wants to no matter how belligerent.
For the explanation of her emphasis on not compromising on principles see her essay "'Extremism', or The Art of Smearing" in Capitalism' The Unknown Ideal.
In the introduction Hoenig speaks of how most people do not understand the Constitution and how they misinterpret its significance. One that stuck in my craw was that many dismiss The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution by ascribing their authorship to white, landowning, patriarchal slaveholders. This seems to be the mantra of the progressives and that which permeates their views on every issue. To avoid debate on the contributions of Western Civilization, it is a cheap trick to call it "white culture" and therefore something to get away from. I don't know if they even teach history anymore and if they do, what slant they put on it but the experimental laboratory of time finally produced a culture where mankind thrived and enjoyed more freedom than at any other time. That the product came from Europe and the population was white is incidental. No one is prevented from adopting the principles based on individual rights. That it is not prevalent in Asia and Africa can't be blamed on "Old White Men" and it is a cultural death wish to want to go backward for an irrational reaction to success.
While I think depicting Conservatives as statists is a fallacy, you have identified the true enemy: the Progressive. I think that too many try to make everyone they disagree with on the tiniest level the enemy while ignoring that Objectivists and conservatives have much in common.
The Democrats are not openly calling for communism -- they don't dare, at least yet. They are increasingly openly promoting socialism in general, often in the form of the old Fabian incrementalism. (Fabians, though they held the same premises, opposed communism as the form of socialism they wanted.)
The "progressive" label is somewhat imprecise, as are other terms like "liberal" and "conservative". The old progressives from the early 20th century were statists, and by the thirties sympathized with the goals of communists and fascists if not the full means, but by the cold war were anti-communist. But a later meaning of "progressives" was the even more radical collectivism of the New Left of the 1960s and 70s which often was communist. They switched to the term "progressive" for PR reasons, but meant by it much more than the older progressives; it became a euphemism for their radical socialism. Today all progressives want to progressively impose more and more controls with no end in sight for their collectivism, but some are more overt in how fast that is for their revolutionary socialism.
You don't have to be "thrown in with conservatives" just because you take a correct position regardless of who else holds it. You can hold a correct position, and even temporarily ally yourself in politics with others who agree with you, without endorsing everything else they or their other supporters stand for.
When it comes to supporting someone in political office you always have to choose from among the choices you have despite the fact that none of them are ideal. Kavanaugh in particular appears to be a personally decent person and a knowledgeable and generally competent judge with at least a respect for the Constitution, though his understanding of it may too often be philosophically weak, leading to bad major decisions.
The political context and timing made it impossible to try for something better, but when the lefts' nihilist circus broke out trying to bring him down at the last minute there was no choice but to side with civilization against the primitives.
That does not make you "thrown in with conservatives" of all kinds as long as you continue to give your reasons for the decision and make it clear what you stand for. You aren't likely to get caught up in the euphoria and start siding with everything from Collins to religious mystics just because a particularly nasty threat of hysterical irrationalism attempting it impose itself as the very process of government in the false and destructive name of justice has been pushed back.
[All "arguments" will be ignored.]