Trump and Ojectivism
Posted by Tavolino 5 years, 3 months ago to Government
Trump and Objectivism
I’m puzzled by the formal Objectivist movement (ARI, TOS) and their complete disdain for President Trump. From the beginning they have never missed a chance not only to distance themselves, but also follow with a pompous negative certainty, without having the necessary relevant facts. Ironic, considering our foundations are based on proper identification (metaphysics) and validation (epistemology) before passing judgment or taking action (ethics). While I agree principles should never be compromised, context and perspective need to be objectively evaluated and applied, rather than a blind intrinsic repetition. Regarding Trump, there some broad hierarchal recognitions that I believe are very consonant with our philosophy.
Our fundamental basis is metaphysics, which is the proper identification of the nature of something. More than any past politician, however brash, Trump calls it like he sees it within his known knowledge. Be it the emotional motivations of political correctness, the lies of the “fake news,” the imbedded corruption, the recognition of the good and bad on the world stage (Israel, China, North Korea, Iran), the parasitical nations that feed off our teat, etc., etc.. The transparency of his thoughts have been unmatched and not hidden behind political speak, spins, alternate agendas, backroom deals or deceit. It is what it is.
As Dr. Jerome Huyler noted, “Trump has the sense of life of an individualist. His common sense - born of decades of experience as a businessman and dealing with politicians - tells him that taxes and heavy-handed regulations destroy economies. It is true, as Rand said that common sense is the child's method of thinking. But it is born of empirical experience,” the basis of knowledge acquisition.
His “America First” mantra should be championed by us. Rand had always said America will never regain its greatness until it changes its altruist morality. America First is just that. It’s not some blind German nationalism, but an attitude that America’s interests need to be selfishly upheld. This is a necessary fundamental to our ethics. He has attempted to keep open discussions with all, based around trade and fair exchange. Rand had said, “The trader and the warrior have been fundamental antagonist throughout history.” His movement away from aggressive wars, political globalism and multi-lateral agreements keep our own self-interests as paramount. It’s the application of the trader principle.
Lastly, his counter-punch mindset and approach is completely in line with our moral rightness of retaliation. He may prod or poke, but does not pull the proverbial trigger until he’s attacked, either with words or actions.
There is a dire threat that’s facing our country today with the abuses and power of the ingrained bureaucracy utilized for political purposes. It's imperative that all Americans unite, led by the voices of reason to identify and expose this fundamental threat to freedom. It's not about the false alternative of Trump or never Trump, it's about the American system and the fundamental role, purpose and responsibilities of government, regardless ones political persuasion.
As Objectivists, we need to continually apply our principles in the real world of what is, slowly moving it to where it should be. We need to descend from the “ivory tower” to the first floor of reality. Trump may not be able to articulate the principles, but are not what’s mentioned above consistent with our most basic and fundamental beliefs as Objectivists?
I’m puzzled by the formal Objectivist movement (ARI, TOS) and their complete disdain for President Trump. From the beginning they have never missed a chance not only to distance themselves, but also follow with a pompous negative certainty, without having the necessary relevant facts. Ironic, considering our foundations are based on proper identification (metaphysics) and validation (epistemology) before passing judgment or taking action (ethics). While I agree principles should never be compromised, context and perspective need to be objectively evaluated and applied, rather than a blind intrinsic repetition. Regarding Trump, there some broad hierarchal recognitions that I believe are very consonant with our philosophy.
Our fundamental basis is metaphysics, which is the proper identification of the nature of something. More than any past politician, however brash, Trump calls it like he sees it within his known knowledge. Be it the emotional motivations of political correctness, the lies of the “fake news,” the imbedded corruption, the recognition of the good and bad on the world stage (Israel, China, North Korea, Iran), the parasitical nations that feed off our teat, etc., etc.. The transparency of his thoughts have been unmatched and not hidden behind political speak, spins, alternate agendas, backroom deals or deceit. It is what it is.
As Dr. Jerome Huyler noted, “Trump has the sense of life of an individualist. His common sense - born of decades of experience as a businessman and dealing with politicians - tells him that taxes and heavy-handed regulations destroy economies. It is true, as Rand said that common sense is the child's method of thinking. But it is born of empirical experience,” the basis of knowledge acquisition.
His “America First” mantra should be championed by us. Rand had always said America will never regain its greatness until it changes its altruist morality. America First is just that. It’s not some blind German nationalism, but an attitude that America’s interests need to be selfishly upheld. This is a necessary fundamental to our ethics. He has attempted to keep open discussions with all, based around trade and fair exchange. Rand had said, “The trader and the warrior have been fundamental antagonist throughout history.” His movement away from aggressive wars, political globalism and multi-lateral agreements keep our own self-interests as paramount. It’s the application of the trader principle.
Lastly, his counter-punch mindset and approach is completely in line with our moral rightness of retaliation. He may prod or poke, but does not pull the proverbial trigger until he’s attacked, either with words or actions.
There is a dire threat that’s facing our country today with the abuses and power of the ingrained bureaucracy utilized for political purposes. It's imperative that all Americans unite, led by the voices of reason to identify and expose this fundamental threat to freedom. It's not about the false alternative of Trump or never Trump, it's about the American system and the fundamental role, purpose and responsibilities of government, regardless ones political persuasion.
As Objectivists, we need to continually apply our principles in the real world of what is, slowly moving it to where it should be. We need to descend from the “ivory tower” to the first floor of reality. Trump may not be able to articulate the principles, but are not what’s mentioned above consistent with our most basic and fundamental beliefs as Objectivists?
It is conceivable that in a few years they will be on every campus, recruiting entering freshman, and numbering in the tens of millions!
Perhaps not Objectivists but they are affiliated with the Atlas Society so they are encouraged to read Rand. They are affiliated with virtually every pro free market organization. I have met them, they are intelligent, value liberty, are motivated to grow the movement, know they are part of a growing organization which is not top down but driven by the members. I had wished this would happen when Objectivists got started but never organized and not active in the colleges as these groups are.
Enables me to sleep better at night!
We need to be thinking of how to educate and persuade others to want to be of the same mind, not fighting about Ayn disliking Libertarians for co-opting her message.
In the last presidential election the controversy over the Libertarian Party was over the ineptness and lack of proper principles by the party and its candidates, and the fact that voting for what is still a fringe party after over 40 years would take votes away from the real contest, helping Clinton.
I agree, the Libertarian Party has taken away from Trump, more than it took away from Hillary, a net to Hillary. Fortunately we had Bernie.
Now, to the errors. I did not assert we needed to have a Libertaran Party. I said, Libertarians and Objectivists should not fight. We should be helping them, and they should be helping us, because no two are more aligned in politics. Yet here, we often uselessly argue about tiny differences, while the US burns.
I like how you assert, Ayn was not upset about co-opting her message, she was upset about "half plagerizied". You really want to assert she was only concerned someone said what she did and called it their own, and NOT that they got attention for it? Yeah, sure!
Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery, and entirely supportive of the argument I am making. Being angry with dead Libertarians is just like black people seeking remuneration for slavery. There may be a reason to disagree with present Libertatians, but they are still a larger group than Objectivists, and the center (left/right) is ripe for the picking. Here we are just arguing amongst ourselves instead of convincing others that freedom is better than force.
By separating from them, she may have ensured they'd fail. The world will never know. Fortunately the only place I have to argue Libertarian vs Ayn is here. The rest of the world thinks they are the same. Unfortunately the right and left hand may not be connected in the cranium.
Maybe you should wait until tomorrow to respond.
Calling for help...anytime, I guess.
If the Libertarian Party “takes votes away” from Trump, that must mean that Trump “owns” those votes and the LP “stole” them.
It also implies that voters should limit their choices to the “real contest” within the corrupt two-party system, and that giving them another choice is immoral.
None of this is true.
In every presidential election, people are told that they are “wasting their vote” if they vote for the Libertarian candidate.
As one who has voted for every Libertarian presidential candidate since 1972, I think the exact opposite is true. By voting for my principles, my votes over the years have had far more impact than if I had allowed the two “establishment” parties to dictate my choices.
Consider this: no matter how you have voted for President in the past, your vote has never made a difference in the outcome. Nor will it do so in the future. Even if you live in a “swing state” that could go either way, your lone vote will not spell the difference between victory and defeat for either establishment party candidate.
So if you can’t change the election outcome, why vote at all? The answer is that by voting Libertarian, we add to the vote totals of the only party that consistently supports individual freedom. And those vote totals matter – the establishment parties pay close attention when a significant number of voters break with the two-party system, and they will often modify their stands on certain issues to protect their base and prevent further defections.
On the other hand, by voting for the “lesser of two evils,” we are saying in effect, “I support the political status quo. I have faith in the two-party system, and I’m not interested in supporting candidates from other parties, even if they have fresh ideas that I agree with. I don’t like either of the two establishment party candidates, but I will vote for Establishment Party Candidate X because he/she is not quite as bad as Establishment Party Candidate Y.” This truly is a wasted vote, and does nothing to advance the cause of freedom.
It does not "must mean" that. Obviously we are talking about voters choosing how to cast their own votes to be counted within in a real election rather than squandering them for a different purpose that detracts from the voting and accomplishes nothing in the election.
"It also implies that voters should limit their choices to the 'real contest' within the corrupt two-party system, and that giving them another choice is immoral."
It states, not "implies", that votes should be cast for serious candidates, which is what make them "votes" and not an opinion with no impact on the election. If the limited choice makes no difference in reality, regardless of what one would prefer with a different choice not on the ballot, then don't vote. If it does make a difference then it is immoral to not take advantage of the choice. A fringe party that cannot win is not "giving them another choice", let alone a moral one. People already have the choice to not participate in the election.
"...your vote has never made a difference in the outcome... your lone vote will not spell the difference between victory and defeat for either establishment party candidate."
Individual votes do in fact determine the result -- they are counted one at a time and the counts added. Included in the process is arguing for others to vote in the best way available.
That is the way elections work. Elections do not mean and are not intended to mean that every individual vote by itself determines an election outcome with multiple contradictory outcomes. We understand the principle and do not demand a contradiction in its place.
The alternative would be the abolition of elections. That would be a one party system and it won't be the Libertarians. The pitch that 'your vote doesn't matter so vote for me' is one of the more hilarious appeals from the Libertarian Party.
"...by voting Libertarian, we add to the vote totals of the only party that consistently supports individual freedom. And those vote totals matter – the establishment parties pay close attention when a significant number of voters break with the two-party system, and they will often modify their stands on certain issues to protect their base and prevent further defections."
Politicians do not "modify their stands" based on a hopeless fringe party. When politicians look at the vote totals of the Libertarian Party they conclude, "Those are the ones who do not matter because they are not participating in the election''. They do try to get nonvoters to vote for them.
Their positions are based on the philosophical state of the culture in whatever the area of the voters, with manipulative pragmatist variations within the basic premises. Whether there are two or in the future more than two parties with significant ability to win elections has nothing to do with the Libertarian Party.
"... by voting for the 'lesser of two evils,' we are saying in effect, “I support the political status quo. I have faith in the two-party system..."
No it does not. It means that we vote within the possibilities still available to us. It is not an endorsement of the candidates or faith in anything. The vote determines who will be in office out of the few possibilities.
"This truly is a wasted vote, and does nothing to advance the cause of freedom."
There is no vote to waste outside of the choices in the election, and advancing the "cause of freedom" isn't meaningfully on the ballot.
Advancing the "cause of freedom" requires changing over time the basic premises held by most people away from the progressively increasing altruism-collectivism-statism and towards the Enlightenment ideals of reason, individualism and freedom. What people believe determines what kind of people are available to run for office for what purpose, and who among them runs with a possibility of winning.
There hasn't been a presidential election with a real candidate openly advocating individual freedom on principle -- before he gave up on that after the beginning of the campaign -- for over half a century, followed by the even less consistent appeals to freedom almost 40 years ago (and which resulted in a bigger more statist government despite improvements in the economy).
The most we can expect now is who within the accepted statism will advocate retaining some semblance of capitalism in a mixed economy versus explicit hard left collectivists. That can be a difference worth voting on that at least makes a difference to our lives. The Libertarian Party does not, and the Johnson-Weld clown team was not even remotely a "party of principle" "consistently supporting individual freedom" or any other principle or anything serious at all.
“ . . . we vote within the possibilities still available to us. It is not an endorsement of the candidates or faith in anything. The vote determines who will be in office out of the few possibilities.”
A Libertarian candidate appearing on the ballot is one of “the possibilities still available to us.” Intentionally limiting your vote to members of the corrupt two-party system, when other choices are available and when your lone vote won’t change the outcome, sends a message loud and clear that you are okay with the two-party status quo and have no interest in challenging it. This may not be the message you intend to send, but that is how the political establishment will view it.
”There is no vote to waste outside of the choices in the election, and advancing the "cause of freedom" isn't meaningfully on the ballot.”
The Libertarian Party is usually on the ballot in all 50 states, and its principles and platform are far more freedom-oriented than anything offered by the corrupt “major” parties. “Meaningful” is not just about winning the next election, it’s about providing a political home for voters fed up with what you term the “progressively increasing altruism-collectivism-statism.” The LP’s growing vote totals show that it is succeeding in this endeavor.
”votes should be cast for serious candidates, which is what make them 'votes' and not an opinion with no impact on the election.”
Please look up any dictionary definition of the word “vote”. You can’t just make up your own definitions when it suits you. As Ayn Rand says in Atlas Shrugged, “words have an exact meaning.”
”If the limited choice makes no difference in reality, regardless of what one would prefer with a different choice not on the ballot, then don't vote.”
So you’re willing to accept the “limited choice” offered by the two corrupt major parties as a given? Also, in what way is not voting superior to voting for a candidate that aligns more with your views? And what do you mean by "a different choice not on the ballot?" The LP usually is on the ballot during major elections.
”Individual votes do in fact determine the result -- they are counted one at a time and the counts added. Included in the process is arguing for others to vote in the best way available.”
I never said otherwise and you know it. What I said was “your lone vote will not spell the difference between victory and defeat for either establishment party candidate." This enables you to vote for the candidate of your choice, “fringe” or otherwise, without concerning yourself about making the outcome worse than it will be anyway. Being on the ballot gives the Libertarian Party the opportunity to “argue for others to vote in the best way available,” which almost always means to vote for someone besides a corrupt establishment politician. And occasionally a down-ballot Libertarian candidate actually wins.
” The alternative would be the abolition of elections. That would be a one party system and it won't be the Libertarians.”
There are many alternatives to the way most elections are run today. One that is frequently used at the state level is holding a runoff election when no candidate receives a majority of votes. This easily solves the “fringe party” problem, assuming that such a problem exists in the first place.
”Politicians do not ‘modify their stands’ based on a hopeless fringe party. When politicians look at the vote totals of the Libertarian Party they conclude, ‘Those are the ones who do not matter because they are not participating in the election'.”
Right, that must be why both major parties go to such extreme lengths to deny ballot access to Libertarians and other pesky “minor” parties. Also, check out the history of the Socialist Party and its influence on the Democratic Party in the early to mid 20th Century – an influence that continues to this day.
To be continued . . .
”Obviously we are talking about voters choosing how to cast their own votes to be counted within in a real election rather than squandering them for a different purpose that detracts from the voting and accomplishes nothing in the election.”
Libertarian candidates appear on the ballot in real elections and their votes are counted. (And occasionally at the local and state legislative levels, these candidates win.) “Squandering” is a value judgment, not an argument, and relies on the unstated premise that the only “legitimate” vote is for one of the candidates put forth by a corrupt two-party system – a system that also rigs the election rules to make sure that the system stays in place. “Detracts from the voting” is also a value judgment, not an argument, and relies on the unstated premise that any vote for a non-mainstream candidate is somehow “illegitimate” (perhaps even immoral). “Accomplishes nothing in the election” is also a value judgment, not an argument, and relies on the unstated premise that the sole purpose of voting is to validate the “choice” presented to you by the powers that control the political process.
Ayn Rand voted for Goldwater in 1964. Since it was widely known by election day that he was going to lose badly, then by the logic of your argument she “squandered” her vote “for a different purpose that detracts from the voting and accomplishes nothing in the election.”
To be continued . . .
"If the Libertarian Party 'takes votes away from Trump, that must mean that Trump 'owns' those votes and the LP 'stole' them."
The full response was:
"It does not 'must mean' that. Obviously we are talking about voters choosing how to cast their own votes to be counted within in a real election rather than squandering them for a different purpose that detracts from the voting and accomplishes nothing in the election."
What he dismisses as "value judgments" he claims are not themselves "arguments" overlooks the record of the party's own predicted history and the arguments for the judgments.
If my responses to him "make his case" as he claims, then the Libertarian Party's "case" itself shows why for 40 years it has remained a fringe party with no chance of winning or coming close to winning national elections, with no effect on keeping out the worst candidates that threaten us, let alone elect anything better. None of his repetitious claims for "legitimacy" of Libertarian Party wishful thinking change that.
This is far from an accurate assessment of the Libertarian Party’s influence. If we were to apply the same benchmark to Objectivism, it might resemble the equally inaccurate paragraph below:
“The Objectivist philosophy's ‘case’ itself shows why for 60 years it has remained a fringe philosophy with no chance of changing or coming close to changing America’s overall culture, with no effect on keeping out the worst philosophies that threaten us, let alone replace them with anything better.”
The fact is that both of the above formulations are wrong because they massively understate the influence of both the Libertarian Party and the Objectivist philosophy. Although neither is yet a major player in America’s political and cultural life, both have made significant inroads and are continuing to do so.
Higher vote totals in elections follow and reflect the spread of the proper ideas. It’s not an overnight process. Objectivism is not suddenly going to become America’s dominant philosophy, and neither is the Libertarian Party suddenly going to become America’s dominant political party. It’s a gradual process, one that in both cases is headed in the right direction.
”Ayn Rand knew that the ideas come first and that political action without that is futile.”
Then explain why Ayn Rand took the political action of voting for Goldwater in 1964, knowing that he was going to lose. Again, do you think she “squandered” her vote “for a different purpose that detracts from the voting and accomplishes nothing in the election”?
”The Party's ‘case’ does show why for 40 years it has gotten nowhere.”
Not true, as I pointed out at length previously. And even if it were true, then by your logic what does Objectivism’s “case” show? The public is far more familiar with the word “libertarian” than with the word “objectivist”. Internet search engines return 10 times as many hits for “libertarian” as they do for “objectivist”.
After the Dewey landslide victory disappeared over night no one trusted polls for a very long time. Even if Goldwater could be believed in advance to lose, that implies there was no longer an alternative of two viable candidates to vote for and voting for Goldwater made no difference to the outcome.
The Libertarian Party has remained a fringe publicity-seeking organization for 40 years. That is getting nowhere. Objectivism is a serious philosophy, not politics. It's no wonder that most of the public doesn't know the title. Ideas of this kind spread from a small group of intellectuals, not publicity campaigns. Whether or not it ever spreads, spreading proper ideas is a requirement, with very bad results otherwise no matter what political publicity seekers do.
”Knowing that ideas precede politics means that it doesn't make sense to run a party for decades in advance pretending to run for president.”
If early 20th century socialists had adopted this view, they would never have formed the Socialist Party or run candidates for President. Their relentless political activism paid off big time when their ideas were gradually absorbed by the Democratic Party, which today has an influential and growing socialist component.
When the LP launched in 1971, its organizers had no way of knowing how long it would take to achieve legitimacy in the eyes of the voting public. (The same is true of the Objectivist philosophy in relation to the wider culture.) The LP gradually achieved a significant level of recognition and respect, due to its participation in the political process. (Just as Objectivism gradually achieved a level of recognition and respect through public outreach.) Would you say “it doesn’t make sense to promote Objectivism for decades in advance pretending to be a meaningful philosophy”?
”It is worse that the Party is both unprincipled and stuck with unelectable platforms, both being disreputable for capitalism.”
The LP’s principles are clearly stated in its platform. Its platform may be “unelectable” at the moment (although some Libertarians do get elected), but it is equally true that, at present, the Objectivist philosophy is “unimplementable” in the wider culture. Neither the LP platform nor the Objectivist philosophy is “disreputable for capitalism” (whatever that means).
”After the Dewey landslide victory disappeared over night no one trusted polls for a very long time. Even if Goldwater could be believed in advance to lose, that implies there was no longer an alternative of two viable candidates to vote for and voting for Goldwater made no difference to the outcome.”
By Goldwater’s time polls had regained a substantial amount of trust. Anyone following his campaign was aware that it was losing badly, including Ayn Rand, who said so. (I was a volunteer in Goldwater’s campaign and was also a subscriber to The Objectivist Newsletter in 1964, so I was able to follow both the events and Ayn Rand’s comments in real time.)
So again, please explain why you think Ayn Rand took the political action of voting for Goldwater in 1964, knowing that he was going to lose. Again, do you think she “squandered” her vote “for a different purpose that detracts from the voting and accomplishes nothing in the election”?
”The Libertarian Party has remained a fringe publicity-seeking organization for 40 years.”
The LP is a “fringe” party only in the same sense that Objectivism is a “fringe” philosophy – neither has achieved “major” status in its field. Of course it is “publicity-seeking” – so is Objectivism. Promotion of any philosophy or ideology requires publicity. Would you say Objectivism “has remained a fringe publicity-seeking organization for 60 years.”?
”Objectivism is a serious philosophy, not politics. It's no wonder that most of the public doesn't know the title.”
Really? That’s the excuse, after 60 years and millions of copies of *Atlas Shrugged” sold? Even in academia Objectivism has not achieved much of a toehold. Meanwhile, the LP’s influence and recognition are light-years ahead of what they were just a few decades ago. This is proof that political activism can and does work, that it can actually help spread “proper ideas”, and that it makes no sense to defer political activism until the wider culture decides to adopt such ideas.
On that base, in the 1880s the British Fabians still began as an openly intellectual socialist organization promoting socialism and infiltrating the professions for decades in Britain and the US before the British Labour Party began to have an impact in government. In the US the FDR administration was filled with collectivist intellectuals, employing collectivist slogans for popular support.
The Libertarian Party mimicking "political activism" without regard for the intellectual basis is Cargo Cult Politics (in an obvious parallel with Richard Feynman's "Cargo Cult Science" essay). After 40 years of predicted failure and politics becoming increasingly collectivist they still don't understand.
Ayn Rand worked politically with conservatives in the 1930s and 40s, but always understood the importance of ideas. She stressed individualism versus collectivism, knowing what was required to defend capitalism against communist ideas, but from observation became more disillusioned over the practicality of politics in a philosophically hostile culture.
After Atlas Shrugged became popular but had virtually no impact on the intellectual establishment she realized more clearly the magnitude of the intellectual battle ahead. By the time of the Goldwater debacle she was thoroughly disenchanted with the anti-intellectual conservatives, saw that supporting them in politics was futile and increasingly destructive, and realized that it was too soon for any politics to make major changes
She had voted, for the reasons she gave, for Goldwater knowing that one of Goldwater and Johnson had to win. Skepticism over pre-election poll reliability after Truman vs Dewey lasted much longer than that election, but more importantly her vote did not imply endorsement of abandoning real choices to fringe politics. There was no other electoral choice against Johnson.
All of her subsequent analyses of votes were in terms of which candidate still made some significant difference (as in anti-Nixonites for Nixon to stop the collectivist McGovern) or not voting at all. She emphatically rejected any support for the Libertarian Party as both premature and intellectually inept and a disgrace -- but as a side issue in answers to questions because the Party had so little significance. It's still like that with the bizarre claims to be putting "Objectivism" in a political platform while its own spokesmen and candidates routinely contradict even what little remnants there are.
There is no parallel in requirements for progress between Objectivism and Libertarian Party politics. Ideas precede politics and there are no shortcuts, despite those who wishfully don't want to "defer" . Significant change in politics waits for philosophy; spreading better ideas cannot wait for something else to pave the way -- other than those doing the spreading understanding the ideas.
But that's not true. Early 20th century was RIPE for socialism. Thanks to two thousand years of Christian altruism and the work of anti-enlightenment philosophers like Kant, the battle of ideas was already won for socialists. They were able to move into the political arena relatively quickly. Even then it took them about a century to truly overrun everything.
Objectivists on the other hand have a massive fight on their hands. Objectivists need to undo two thousand years of Christian damage, undo the work of anti-enlightenment thinkers and only then will they be in a position to begin political activism.
Until people discover that rational self interest is moral and why that is, there's no way forward for a political movement. You're not going to get any votes. You will be a kooky fringe party.
"The LP’s principles are clearly stated in its platform."
I'm not sure that it's clear that Libertarians even understand what "principles" are so this isn't saying anything.
The issue for Libertarians is that they "borrowed" Rand's economics, arguably the least important part of all her ideas, then ignored everything else and have tried to reverse engineer a political movement out of half-understood, unprincipled economic ideas. Probably a symptom of Libertarians not being very philosophical and not being familiar with the conceptual hierarchy.
In other words, not only are Libertarians a fringe party, but they are so philosophically and politically illiterate that they can't be anything else.
National politics as publicity is not an "arena" for spreading the required ideas, many of which are not political at all. There are other organizations that try to generate awareness of the importance of different aspects of individual liberty without being Objectivist; they don't run presidential non-candidates for PR.
Promoting the Johson-Weld clown team in the name of progress in individualism was disgraceful. So were the spokesmen who gravitated into to sounding like the solution to major problems would be solved by focusing on illegal drugs, along with abdication of foreign policy and an unserious slapstick manner.
If the early 20th century was as “ripe” for socialism as you claim, then they could have infiltrated the Democratic Party directly instead of running their own candidates for several decades (which by EWV’s standards was an exercise in futility).
And the early 21st century may be “ripe” for libertarianism. The political, social and cultural world is undergoing a rapid and massive transformation. Some of it is in our favor, such as changing attitudes on sexual freedom and drug use. Some of it is showing up in a generalized revulsion against politics as usual, which led to the election of Trump and a threefold increase in Libertarian vote totals. A growing percentage of the population describes itself as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal,” and Libertarians fit right into that paradigm.
”Until people discover that rational self interest is moral and why that is, there's no way forward for a political movement.”
Sure there is. Political principles such as individual liberty and free market economics are being debated within the political mainstream every day. Objectivism is not only philosophy on our side in this particular endeavor, and rational self-interest is not the only valid argument in favor of individual freedom. If it were, all vestiges of human liberty would have been snuffed out long ago.
”The issue for Libertarians is that they 'borrowed' Rand's economics, arguably the least important part of all her ideas, then ignored everything else and have tried to reverse engineer a political movement out of half-understood, unprincipled economic ideas.”
If the LP “borrowed” anything from Rand, it was her political and ethical principles. The first few sentences of the LP platform read as follows:
”As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others. We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.”
Many leaders and other members of the Libertarian Party are well versed in economics, learned economic principles from authors other than Rand, and are primarily advocates of the Austrian school (which Ayn Rand endorsed in part).
Different parts of the world have different levels of mysticism and collectivism and so display different levels of susceptibility to communism. In Russia and China, largely Christian or the collectivist equivalent cultures that we see in Asia were completely consumed by communism.
Moving further West into Europe, communism was too primitive, so these "sophisticated" collectivists turned to fascism instead.
And finally in America, contrary to what conservatives will tell you, a country founded on perhaps the most explicitly anti-religious, anti-collectivist principles, both communism and fascism struggled to gain ground.
None of this is surprising.
"And the early 21st century may be “ripe” for libertarianism."
Then I think you're misinterpreting events completely.
The early 21st century is seeing a large return back to the rhetoric of the early 20th century.
Trumps entire election was about the anti-trade, anti-immigrant and nationalist collectivism that we may have expected from an old-school democratic presidential candidate. That's why he won. Not only did he get majority of conservative votes, but he also got many traditional democrat voters to back him. He was the more left wing of the candidates. And that's what most want today.
So the political movement is very much in the OPPOSITE direction to where you think it's heading.
"Sure there is. Political principles such as individual liberty and free market economics are being debated within the political mainstream every day."
I would say this isn't happening at all. No one outside of certain Objectivist circles even understands concepts like "individual rights" without which no serious political discourse is possible. All we have today are people debating various non-essential technicalities of leftist, rights-violating policies. No one is even aware there is an alternative. Meanwhile things slide back towards the intellectual level of what we had at the start of the 20th century as I've already described.
That quote you've provided from the LP platform is a good soundbite but if you read the rest of the page the glaring contradictions and superficiality of libertarian understanding of many of the concepts they espouse starts becoming very apparent.
But you're missing my bigger point: even if Libertarians were the Objectivist political party we'd all like to see, no one would vote for them anyway.
Religious and secular collectivists are not going to be persuaded by individualists. The battle for the culture needs to happen first. Rand did an amazing job when she was alive, but it is very much early days yet. We are far, far from being ready for political activism.
Opposition to illegal immigration, cronyistic trade deals and interventionist foreign policy may have been part of the reason Trump won, but it doesn’t explain the 4,489,235 votes that the Libertarian presidential ticket received in 2016. This was more than three times the vote total for the explicitly leftist Green Party candidates. Hardly an indicator of a country that is “ripe for socialism”.
”Religious and secular collectivists are not going to be persuaded by individualists. The battle for the culture needs to happen first.”
Notice that your second statement contradicts the first. Politics is part of the culture, and political persuasion is an essential part of the “battle for the culture”.
”We are far, far from being ready for political activism.”
Maybe you are, but many of us are not. Nor do most of us spend significant time criticizing the efforts of others that are working to advance the cause of liberty in different ways.
The right leader (not Trump) could bring a lot of people in line with practical positions on freedom, moving us away from all: hating gays and abortion at the same time we move away from giving all the money and power to the government to waste inefficiently.
Yes, Trump calls it like he sees it; but without objectivity, reason or truth.
He is a complete pragmatist without principles (not simply failing to “articulate the principles”. He is an altruist, not an individualist with self-esteem and who defends individual rights. In summary, he is not a moral man.
Politically he is mixed but mostly wrong.
Yes, he has reduced some regulations, some taxes (but certainly not for all), etc.
Yes, he nominated 2 conservatives to the Supreme Court; but that is not necessarily good from an Obj. perspective.
His foreign policy is badly mixed.
Yes, he is pro-Israel, reduced aid to foreign countries, etc.
But his misguided dealings with foreign leaders as in N. Korea and China are pathetic. It is very immoral to talk of their leaders as great persons who care for their people.
His trade policies are equally pathetic. Tariffs are never a good idea; a trade deficit is not overall bad for our economy but retaliatory tariffs imposed on other countries are.
There is no such thing as “fair” trade.
Being a Nationalist is racist and altruistic. Protecting America’s interests is not the same as acting inappropriately against other countries in order to achieve our ends. When our country has bad policies that hurt our economy, patriotism becomes blind.
He has never proposed rational immigration reform (regardless of whether or not Congress would have accepted it). Whether or not he is a true racist himself, his irrational rhetoric suggests racism against many immigrants.
Given all that, can he possibly be better than a Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren?
That’s a tough question; but it is irrelevant in this context. Objectivists criticize Trump for who he is and what he says/does, not for how he stacks up to other statists.
I will also disagree with the "racist" charge against Trump. Trump's nationalism is an objective recognition that some countries (as opposed to some individuals) are indeed better than others. Would you seriously consider living in a country like Cuba or Venezuela? I know many people from both countries who are worthy of belonging to the Gulch, but they were smart enough to leave.
Nationalism is collectivistic -that's the problem.
It's important to identify Trump for what he is and not "overlook" some very serious and threatening problems, let alone fall into the false dichotomy of Trump idolatry versus the leftist sustained demonization, both of which we see constantly.
It's equally important to identify all of the candidates in the same terms of analysis of Trump, and after doing that, assess what is left that is best to do in the limited choice of an election between them. One of them is going to win, we have no choice about that.
There are many "yes, but"s about Trump that we can't say about the others: The "buts" are all there but the "yeses" are not, and the "but's" are worse.
The biggest problem is that racists see him as "their" president. Trump has done nothing to distance himself or dissuade anyone from this perception because he likes how they flatter him.
This is helping to normalize the racists and their primitive ideas in our discussions.
No one knew who Richard Spencer was until Trump was elected, now everyone is interviewing him because his ideas are associated with Trump's ideas. And by extension this mess is then associated with "capitalism."
This is a perfect example of what I mean when I talk about the damage republicans and conservatives do to the discourse and why they can be worse than democrats.
The leftists who call everything they don't like "racist" are obsessed with race. They look at a mob to see what its race mostly is, and accuse everyone else of being racist for objecting to the mob for reasons having nothing to do with its race.
That race-obsessed non-sequitur has been around since the SDS and New Left of the 1960s, and was the mentality behind Biden's recent "gaffe" saying the "poor" are just as good as "whites". The left thinks in terms of race without regard to concepts.
Richard Spencer is an unimportant racist, among a handful of racists, who does not represent anyone. He is being publicly elevated by the left, not Trump, in its smear campaign against most of the country as "white supremacist".
No politician is responsible for the views of everyone who supports him. There was never any reason to "link" Trump with Spencer and no reason for him to go out of his way to denounce him. Politicians do not run around denouncing individuals who vote for them in order to 'clarify' what they don't stand for, and they should not have to. Spencer's temporary support for Trump was Spencer's, not Trump's support for Spencer. (Where do you see Democrats dissociating themselves from Al Sharpton and many other racists -- whom they do collaborate and sympathize with?)
It's the left that is trying to artificially put Trump (and everyone else who opposes it) on the defensive as "racist". It's an Alinskyite tactic, not a reason to denounce Trump for allegedly supporting racism.
Then why would they want to send them back?
Also, isn't the whole imagery of hoards of illegals flooding the border just a conservative talking point?
Most illegal immigrants arrive by legal means and then just overstay. In any case, immigration across the border has been steadily going down for over a decade so to the extent it's even an issue at all, it's one that is improving anyway without the need for the Trump presidency.
"There was never any reason to "link" Trump with Spencer and no reason for him to go out of his way to denounce him."
Then why did the Trump team do so? It was Bannon who ingratiated himself with the alt-right and made it very clear that Trump was their president, not "the left."
Spencer is the one who coined the term "alt-right" so he was linked to Trump by Trumps movement and elevated as a result, not the left in an attempt to smear him.
One could argue that the Trump team didn't really understand what they were doing or what the alt-right even was, but this is ANOTHER example of what I mean about the damage Trump and today's conservatives do to the political discourse.
In the meantime, the democrats, who are actual racists, get racism back into the mainstream, all the while claiming to be opposed to it.
None of this would be possible without the ignorance and incompetence of Trump, team Trump and conservatives in general.
"Alinskyite tactics" are so hopeless that they only work in the first place because conservatives are even MORE hopeless. I don't blame leftists for taking advantage.
The direct border assault has been worsening because it is orchestrated by groups encouraging and paying people to do it rather than legal entry. That is the source of the so-called "caravans". The left is demanding that those coming illegally be cared for at our expense as a form of international welfare central. Trump says he has been curtailing that through his intervention; who knows if that is true.
Some of those opposing illegal immigration oppose some kinds of immigration. They call it "illegal" (which it often is) but don't want it to be legal.
Proper justification for limits on kinds of immigration include criminal gangs, welfare indigents, and disease. This has had a big negative impact on victims near the border and those paying for the welfare, including some cities that have been targeted with large concentrations.
There are also limits on how much a country can assimilate of different kinds of people with different backgrounds without destroying our own form of government -- there are about 7 billion out there; how much of that can we survive coming here with tribalist and socialist premises?
An improper justification for blocking immigration is Trump's economic protectionism.
None of this is about race.
I'll go point by point:
"People opposing hoards illegally flooding the border want to send them back because they are illegally flooding the border. What does that have to do with race?"
The entire issue of "illegal immigration" comes from actual racists and eugenicists towards the end of the 19th and early 20th century that wanted to stop "lesser races" ie people that look different, from coming over and outbreeding/interbreeding with people that look white.
Also, the unions didn't want immigrants coming over and increasing the supply of labor, undercutting the ability of unions to shake down private enterprise.
These anti-immigrant forces were democrats.
Today conservatives have taken on these anti-immigrant positions, not because they are racists for the most part, but because they are politically illiterate and are grasping at straws to stay relevant.
So, "illegal immigration" is all about race originally, even if it's loudest proponents today aren't racists and have no idea what they are talking about. They are also making common cause with ACTUAL racists as a result of their ignorance.
"The direct border assault has been worsening because it is orchestrated by groups encouraging and paying people to do it rather than legal entry."
But there is no "border assault." This is alarmist language used by conservative leftists to create a false crisis in order to justify expanding rights-violating regulations. Most illegal immigrants don't come illegally and the border crossings have been steadily decreasing for over a decade. This all assumes people going about their business without violating anyone's rights is even an issue requiring any action in the first place.
"Proper justification for limits on kinds of immigration include criminal gangs, welfare indigents, and disease."
Yes those are proper reasons. Someone like you would argue them. Most who oppose immigration do not. They are racists, nationalists and intellectually bankrupt conservatives desperate for an issue or cause to identify with.
"There are also limits on how much a country can assimilate of different kinds of people with different backgrounds without destroying our own form of government -- there are about 7 billion out there; how much of that can we survive coming here with tribalist and socialist premises?"
That's not a question of immigration.
That's not really a question of anything. What's the context that requires 7 billion people to move into America en mass?
Early immigration laws also focused on indigents, criminality and disease, but were not fully successful. Especially in an era of progressive eugenics many innocent people were rejected or institutionalized. Criminals got in, including some socialist revolutionaries who were partly the cause of subsequent union violence blamed on industry.
Today criminals, some in horrendous gangs; welfare indigents; and the diseased are violating rights, especially in areas where they concentrate near the border and in some cities. Innocent citizens are being badly hurt by this. That has surged and is being politically and financially organized, but how much of it does there have to be before you care? Criminals are always in a minority as long as there is still civilization, and should always be illegal.
Conservatives do object to both immigrants getting taxpayer subsidies and the criminals. That is a constant theme in their arguments. It is not "politically illiterate and grasping at straws". The problem of bloated welfarism was not addressed in the earlier laws because there was no welfare state then; the welfare magnet is a major problem now.
But conservatives also want economic protectionism, and have increasingly been arguing that a country has a 'right' to decide who to let in on the basis of benefit to society an even more collectivist premise, not a right of migration within objective law. Some of them want protection of their own 'culture', by which they mean their religious sect -- similar to the earlier battles over Catholics coming to the country. But even that is not racist.
The issue of numbers of immigrants that can be assimilated at one time is significant in the face of "open borders" and multiculturalist leftists wanting people from the third world to come for our wealth and to replace capitalism. Immigration for them has become one plank in their agenda for us fund International Welfare Center, which ideology we saw with Obama and the rest of the left pronouncing that our material success is "unfair" to the rest of the world -- we use "too many resources".
Most of the 7 billion on the planet are in poverty from primitive tribalism and socialism and don't know anything better. "Open borders" combined with the leftist multiculturalism and welfare statism would quickly lead to massive numbers coming here for promised improvement of their lives without regard to our rights. Capitalism, let alone what is left of it now, depends an individualistic philosophy of reason being widely accepted. It is already in danger; a massive orchestration of an influx of third-wordlers would destroy it.
Immigration laws originate and are based on racism and economic protectionism and it was leftists advocating this. It is not a leftist smear.
Today these reasons haven't changed, except the racists have become a bit more "softer" and advocate homogeneous culture, nationalism and white identity, word games meaning the same thing. These positions are now being advocated by conservatives as they move further and further left.
There is no rational reason to oppose immigration, just like there's no rational reason to oppose anyone's activity that doesn't violate rights.
"Today criminals, some in horrendous gangs; welfare indigents; and the diseased are violating rights"
What has that got to do with immigration?
All these things should be opposed anyway.
"Conservatives do object to both immigrants getting taxpayer subsidies and the criminals."
Don't they oppose they for citizens too?
That's why this argument amounts to grasping at straws.
"The issue of numbers of immigrants that can be assimilated at one time is significant in the face of "open borders" and multiculturalist leftists wanting people from the third world to come for our wealth and to replace capitalism."
It's true that the left want to import welfare recipients in an attempt to create a permanent voting bloc for themselves.
The problem with this is that humans are not deterministic, so this is likely to backfire, and also that the way to fight it is by fighting the welfare state. Not immigration.
Where am I injecting opinion?
No cost downloads:
https://archive.org/details/RulesForR...
https://rakesprogress.wordpress.com/2...
I think you would find some of this history showing their mentality to be very interesting.
As a nihilistic, burn-it-all-down screed, isn't it just self defeating?
It would only work to the extent we let it work by faking reality for these people.
But Objectivists have actual answers and an actual coherent and practical view for life on earth based on reason.
Conservatives rejected this and so left themselves open to attacks from their fellow mystics.
When given the choice they ultimately chose Jesus over defeating socialism.
They are cowards and liars who can't deal with the most important and basic facts of reality and have chosen evasion and fantasy instead.
As a result they've made a total mess of politics, making it that much harder to oppose the left and in many ways have acted as the lefts handmaidens and enablers.
We may not be able to blame conservatives for literally everything but we should be blaming them for A LOT more than we are.
If you read Rules for Radicals you will see that Alinsky was using his nihilistic methods against everything he went after, not conservatives letting him get away with it, and he got away with it by exploiting the media. Likewise for when the New Left picked up the methods and mentality and used them against universities, which were mostly not run by conservatives.
The liberals were manipulated and allowed themselves to be manipulated as they pandered. Conservatives have been more likely to in practice defend civilization against the nihilism, but most of society has frequently caved in, in part because of the media manipulation to smear the targets. Ayn Rand described what should have been done in her "The Cashing In: The Student Rebellion".
Then there's Hillary. If you read her fawning thesis you will see that she endorsed Alinsky enthusiastically. Her advisor made her include criticism, so she criticized Alinsky for not going far enough -- she said he had kept to local community organizing when he should have gone national (written with elaboration as she rushed the writing at the end). They became friends from the interviews and Alinsky offered her a job as an organizer trainer after graduation, but she wanted to go to Yale law school.
Hillary's thesis was harder to find in the past when I first hunted it down because the Clintons had gotten Wellesley to block access. A scan eventually surfaced anyway. They were well aware of what they did not want people to see.
The left likewise will exploit any manufactured conspiracy-like connection to accuse anyone of "racism".
We don't think in arbitrary conjunctions.
It's either malevolence or incompetence. Whichever it was, this is the source of Trump being associated with racists, not "the left."
Yes leftists, who are themselves racists, have taken full advantage of this own-goal by Trump, but who can blame them?
"The left likewise will exploit any manufactured conspiracy-like connection to accuse anyone of "racism"."
Sure but this is exactly the playbook of today's conservatives, spearheaded by Trump. Conspiracies about border "invasions" and "unfair trade" and so forth...
You may as well be describing team Trump.
These people deserve each other and we should be opposing them all. Trump is not a victim, but I do believe he is more incompetent than malicious.
But they are not alternatives, they are just different flavors of awful.
Referring to the flood of illegal border crossings as an "invasion", which in many respects it is, is not conspiracy. It has many causes, though according to Trump they seem to change sides depending on his praise of the latest "deal" with Mexico. But it's not about race.
Neither are Trump's deals in the name of "unfair trade" about "conspiracy". All kinds of laws and treaties governing international trade and taxes between all kinds of countries affect different people in different ways as countries everywhere manipulate their own currencies and taxes on top of the treaties. Trump treats these as if they were business deals in which it is his job to strike a better "deal", with tariffs as a major tool he has the authority to use, instead of trying remove taxes and controls. But it isn't racism. Obama liked the lopsided arrangement because he wants this country drained for the third world.
At least Trump's unprincipled dealing is out of love of his country. Obama has great love of country, too, but it's every country except this one, and "love" is not the right word.
That's not true. Alt-right was a term coined specifically by Richard Spencer in an effort to re-brand neo-nazis. An effort that was remarkably successful thanks to the efforts of the Trump administration.
It was Bannon who brought them "into the fold" by declaring his media arm the voice of the alt-right and thereby bringing white-nationalists into mainstream politics for the first time in a long time.
Whether he did this intentionally or because he is clueless doesn't really matter.
This is one of those examples of where conservatives can be much worse than democrats.
This is also why Trump is quite rightly associated with racists. The left didn't need to smear him. Requiring him to distance himself from these people is not unreasonable and he has failed to do so, often even doubling down as is his way.
Meanwhile large swathes of the conservative movement have quietly distanced themselves from the alt-right, having at first embraced them and demonstrating they are all pretty clueless too.
They are hoping no one noticed, but people like me noticed.
"Referring to the flood of illegal border crossings as an "invasion", which in many respects it is, is not conspiracy."
If you honestly believe that we have an invasion then you should be calling for military action, because that is the only appropriate response to an invasion.
Unless you are prepared to do that, then you know quite well that there is no invasion, there isn't even a "flood" of anyone, that these are just hyperbole and exaggerations meant to incite hatred of immigrants and justify rights-violating regulations.
"Neither are Trump's deals in the name of "unfair trade" about "conspiracy"."
All of Trumps rhetoric is tinged with conspiracy, he is an Alex Jones-style president. Playing the victim and appealing to the victimhood of people to win their votes is part of his overall strategy.
This is in addition to viewing politics as business deals because he has no grasp of the former.
When large numbers are illegally crossing the border the military should be used to stop it. The border patrol is overwhelmed, but in part because it is tied up by the left controlling it. Trump tried to use the National Guard, but the source of the problem is bad US policy full of loopholes and being further undermined and obstructed by the left in Washington, including by leftists in the courts.
Trump uses a lot of emotional anti-intellectual rhetoric but he isn't Alex Jones. Caricatures of Trump are no way to analyze an election.
The point is that the Trump administration made these people not the fringe, at least for a little bit.
They did not get swept up in a smear from the left, they are rightly called out for associating with racists and Trump to date refuses to concede this point and officially distance himself.
"When large numbers are illegally crossing the border the military should be used to stop it."
When large numbers of people are going about their business without violating anyone's rights, it should neither be considered illegal, nor require military intervention.
Immigration is the greatest non-issue of all time. Conservatives are clinging to it because they have nothing else. No ideology, no understanding of politics, no understanding of philosophy. It's just "stop da immigants!" then profit. The early 21st century sees the conservative movement resemble the anti-immigrant, anti-trade leftists of the early 20th century only with much more confusion about everything.
"Trump uses a lot of emotional anti-intellectual rhetoric but he isn't Alex Jones."
I didn't say he was Alex Jones, but he plays to the same crowd, uses the same appeal to conspiracies and victimhood and fear. The idea that the whole world is out to get you so you better vote for him and he'll save you from the whole world by building a wall to keep it out.
This appeals to today's "right" who have no clue and are therefore scared of everything.
Actually an Alex Jones caricature is not that far off now that I think about it...
I do not support border anarchism. Neither did Ayn Rand. Those entering the country are not "going about their business without violating anyone's rights", as already described. If that's all they wanted they would come legally, and under current law we would still have the welfare magnet problem. Much of that already is legal.
The leftist media tried to dismiss illegal border crossings as a non-issue and it didn't work. Even Democrats in Congress had to change their rhetoric, now turning it into an international entitlement issue as they demand that we take care of the illegals -- the border patrol is now supposed to be a welfare agency.
Conservatives have some wrong standards for what should be legal immigration, but are not "clinging to it because they have nothing else". They have several major issues, including some good ones like property rights, and opposing taxes, environmentalism and bureaucratic control, as stressed by the better conservatives. They are at least thinking and acting out of the American individualist sense of life against the establishment and with some common sense.
But conservatives in general do not have an explicit, consistent set of principles by which to defend that, and many conservatives engaging in more ideological arguments are still hopelessly and destructively promoting faith, family and tradition. That in turn causes destructive policy goals seen in their rising populism and in their desired religious impositions.
Trump tries to appeal to the country, not Alex Jones. He does not need a fringe nut like that. He needs votes across the country and is acting, rightly or wrongly, on behalf of the country, not fringe racist demagogues.
All politicians try to motivate in part through fear or anger or both. What is missing is serious appeal to proper principles instead of the usual vague appeals to altruistic duty and collectivism.
But some fear and anger is justified and you should be looking at where the most serious threats are coming from instead of denouncing all conservatives as a bunch of mindless yahoos while dropping the context of the rise of the establishment intellectuals' radical egalitarian and multiculturalist left in American politics. The more "serious" sounding "educated", amplified through the rhetoric of the media, are the source of the ongoing destruction of this country that you will be trying to live in.
I think as I've already described, it was the Trump administration that not only gave prominence, but has actively worked to mainstream white nationalism. Trumps number 2 at the time, certainly DID speak in a way that gave them undue attention and they all consider Trump "their friends son." You should look up what that phrase means.
I think you're genuinely unaware of how big of an issue this is.
The left has simply taken advantage of this and while I understand you not wanting to take the boy who keeps crying wolf seriously, this time there's actually a wolf.
"I do not support border anarchism."
That's not anarchism anymore than me going to work, or taking a vacation, or running a business, or hiring, or firing, etc.
Ayn Rand would've been an illegal immigrant if she hadn't gotten married, unless you think she would've moved back to Russia rather than overstay her VISA.
Granted you are FAR more familiar than me with Objectivism, so if you know something specific she said on this subject that could help me, I'd love to hear it.
But just applying the basic principles as I see it, I don't see immigration being any kind of issue.
"The leftist media tried to dismiss illegal border crossings as a non-issue and it didn't work."
The leftists are trying to conflate refugees with immigrants in order to import a permanent voter class, sitting on welfare. Refugees are not immigrants and the two things should not be conflated.
In any case, anti-immigrant positions are left wing. The leftist media is just having their cake and eating it too. They get the anti-immigrant policies they've always wanted thanks to Trump, while still pretending to be the "good guys" on the issue and trying to tack-on the refugees, as if it's the same thing.
This is another example of the mess conservatives are making out of our discourse.
"Conservatives have some wrong standards for what should be legal immigration, but are not "clinging to it because they have nothing else"."
The only other issue they have is abortion. On which they are also wrong and left wing.
Then I suppose there is their generic theocracy.
They don't really talk about anything else because they don't know anything else.
There are certainly no conservatives in the mainstream discussing individual rights or rights-protecting government. They don't know what that is.
"They have several major issues, including some good ones like property rights, and opposing taxes, environmentalism and bureaucratic control, as stressed by the better conservatives."
Sadly those are the real fringe in the conservative movement.
The majority are nationalists and statists and more and more are becoming white-identiterians.
"Trump tries to appeal to the country, not Alex Jones."
I meant one of the ways he attracts people is by appealing to their fears, just like Alex Jones does. He's also a kook similar to Jones.
"He does not need a fringe nut like that."
Sadly Alex Jones is not fringe. He was one of the biggest things on YouTube until they kicked him off. And again Trump praised him openly from his bully-pulpit. Another kook that Trump (this time himself) has helped to mainstream.
"But some fear and anger is justified and you should be looking at where the most serious threats are coming from instead of denouncing all conservatives as a bunch of mindless yahoos"
That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to point out that they are in many ways as bad if not worse than democrats. And I've also pointed out how they are actually much better in opposition than in the presidency. They will oppose democrats only if they are in opposition. When Republicans have the presidency no one opposes statism.
Personally, I would love to see the demise of the two-party system. I would love to see alternative parties to the current Democrat v Republican paradigm - even if that means that along with the Constitution and Libertarian Parties we admit the Green and Communist parties.
I don't really believe Trump is a Republican - which probably explains much of his differences with Party Leadership (remember the whole Reince Priebus brouhaha?). I don't think he's a Libertarian or a Constitution Party member and certainly not a Green Party member or Communist. He's his own party: the Business Party. And as most elections are actually economic referendums, this is actually quite a sound strategy in a Presidential candidate.
Will there ever be an Objectivist candidate? I don't think so. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't support the policies of politicians that seek for limited government, lower taxes, free trade (tied of course to property rights), and personal liberty. Trump may not be a 100% candidate, but I'd give him at least an 85% - and that's a whole sight better than anything the Democrats have offered which are closer to 0%. I didn't vote for Trump the first time around, but I will vote for him in 2020.
However, after two years of "promises kept" and real results, I kind of wish we could have an additional 8 years of him. His statistics are simply marvelous and I seriously doubt there is anyone like him to follow.
(I'd also support an Amendment to revoke voting privileges of retiring/forcibly-retired elected representatives following the certification of election results.)
The problem is a complete lack of understanding of political theory, leaving us with no viable options to vote for.
Not to mention an altruist culture that rejects Objectivist values thanks to two thousand years of Christian damage.
The Enlightenment had largely rejected the religious mentality and implicitly endorsed egoism with its emphasis on reason, individualism and principles of life, liberty, property, and pursuit of one's own happiness, but lacked a complete defense of it in ethics.
That is how "2000 years" of cultural acceptance of altruism came to dominate politics today. Blaming it all on the "two party system" or the "Twelfth Amendment" is an anti-intellectual, a-historic, a-philosophical slogan adopted by conservatives.
Is he consistent, NO. His so called tax cut was actually a tax increase for my small business. His "standing up to China" costs me thousands in tariffs, and will gain me nothing if China buckles and agrees to not steal intellectual property (since I dont sell anything to china and I dont have any intellectual property they would want)
That said, he is a LOT better than crooked Hillary, and will be a LOT better than any of the democratic candidates in 2020. Given that I wont live to see a John Galt elected, I choose to pick the best of the lot that CAN be elected when it comes down to it.
The fact that there is no counter to the left in mainstream politics is a real concern.
But all too many conservatives and even some Objectivists are more worried about "owning the libs" then realizing they are becoming just like them.
But even when he has a better approach or goal than others, not every good idea or every action deemed acceptable at the moment is "Objectivist". People can have good ideas arising out of some semblance of common sense and expertise, random influence, mixed in with bad premises.
Objectivism is a philosophy embracing thinking, morality, and a kind of sense of life more than politics. The idea of calling an isolated political act of the moment "Objectivist" because it happens to coincide with something Objectivism would imply is very dangerous.
A collectivist who wants a better economy for "the nation" and implements a statist policy that makes some improvement, at least for the moment, is not being "Objectivist". In our being stuck with a mixed political system becoming worse it's better to have relatively more prosperity than more impoverishment, but that doesn't make the politics "Objectivist".
I think trump gave the Chinese government to erase out their communist leanings, which of course they would reject. What he really wants now is for Americans to stop buying Chinese stuff for patriotic/philosophical reasons. I think this is a good idea due to china’s Avowed expansionist moves we wouldn’t buy from nazi hitler and shouldn’t buy from communist China either
I think it's very important in our own thinking to not equate "Objectivist" with whatever isolated event we happen to approve of in the sea of disasters of the current political context.
Not only can something be done for the wrong motives or for superficial correct motives (or by accident), an isolated event may seem to be some kind of improvement but in a terrible context that has no ideal solution and with results nothing like Objectivist values even though there may be a relative improvement.
Some tax going down temporarily isn't necessarily "Objectivist" -- the whole system is wrong, and so is a law lowering some taxes while raising others, especially when even a reduction is done for nationalist collective purposes of "the economy" rather than for the rights of the individual, and accompanied by appeals to soak the rich. That someone likes his tax going down doesn't make it "Objectivist" -- his own motive for liking that one aspect may be, but not the tax just because part of it is lower for someone.
None of us should be praising Trump for being "Objectivist" in any way to any degree.
Practical tactics in this political mess are neither Objectivist nor non-Objectivist; the philosophical term does not apply. With a proper Objectivist approach one can do better with better thinking, but that's it -- the results are neither Objectivist nor non-Objectivist. Maneuvering through this crap should not be identified as "Objectivist" at all. It has nothing to do with the principles. Our method of thinking may, but that kind of thinking surely does not apply to Trump or his package deals no matter what we think of any of his particular actions that may be some kind of improvement within the mess.
That isn't the only realm where this topic of what is "Objectivist" comes up. In a positive setting such as the sciences there is no such things as Objectivist physics or Objectivist mathematics, they are just physics and mathematics. There can be an Objectivist philosophy of a science, but that science itself is only the science, not an "Objectivist science".
Maybe this is why AR made such a deal about a gulch where the people there could recharge.
Even within his framework, he says nothing about the fact that so much of what we buy "from China" is from American companies in China.
How does this affect your company?
We buy from china for several reasons: 1) Cost, 2) We cant get the same product here in the USA because its NOT made here anymore, and 3) if we had to pay the USA raw material and labor prices we would kill our business and go bankrupt.
I have had a sinking feeling that from a quick review of history that the communist chinese government is following the centuries old pattern of expansionist collectivism of china, and that one day we will be fighting china for our survival. I admit that I kind of put this feeling on the back burner.
China's recent reaction to Hong Kong, given that THEY made a deal for another 20 years to leave it free, leaves little to the imagination as to their honesty and intentions. I am convinced at this point that the more we trade with them, the more militant they are going to get and will threaten to take over the world.
Would it have made sense to trade with hitler in the 1940's ? He would have taken the profits to help build up his weapons.
There will never be a "deal" with china as I see it. Their goals are pretty set in stone, and they arent going to give them up at this point for some tariff concessions on the part of the USA.
I think that Trump's plan all along was to starve China of foreign exchange by having the USA drastically cut back on and possibly just cease trade altogether. He set up relatively small tariffs to forewarn USA citizens and encourage them to slow down purchases. The idea was also to give the chinese one last chance to "reform". Obviously that didnt work. Now he is reverting to the idea that its time to just stop trading with china in order to keep china from gaining the power they want to rule the world.
I wish he would just come out and say this, and encourage the people of the USA to not shoot themselves in the foot by providing trading benefits to such a totalitarian power. But I get the message. It is a rational response to china at this point.
The tarrifs are hurting our company a LOT. Some of our biggest purchases just arent available in other countries YET. Our largest supplier is starting up an operation in Cambodia as fast as he can so his USA customers can still buy from him. We are madly looking at Vietnam and India for alternate suppliers also. It does take time.
Making the items in the USA is just not in the cards. The costs here are 3x what they were in china. With the tariffs at 30% and probably increasing to 100% soon, we will still have to buy from china until we qualify alternate suppliers.
Meanwhile, you seem to be forced to look for alternate suppliers in alternate communist countries susceptible to a Chinese takeover.
Since 1967 we have steadily dropped from 26% to less than 7% in 2016. During that same period China has increase from 2% to over 50% of the world's production. Possibly more today.
For the same reasons that we should be energy independent, should we not be concerned if we ever had to ramp up our military and have to rely on China for supply. Nothing to do with Trump, but more of what our military needs are without having to deal with a potential future enemy.
In general, not relying on an enemy for anything required is common sense. It's not just resources specifically for defense. We also have to live.
More difficult is determining who over time are reliable allies secure from takeover themselvese, what our essential requirements are, and how long it takes to make adjustments.
Trump is a big government leftist, passing trillion dollar spending bills, regulating trade and immigration beyond even the levels of the Obama administration and assaulting the rights of tech companies beyond the levels of any democrat administration. In terms of his personal life he is also a complete disaster. All of this has already been said so your post doesn't make any sense given all these facts.
Sorry but if you support Trump you have no grounds to oppose any of the democratic candidates.
You love big government leftists.
I support Trump because:
I do NOT want to see gun control, and he will veto it
My taxes are lower, and no more AMT.
These are simple reasons, and it is absurd and irresponsible to argue it is not better than it would be with Hillary et al.
So who did you vote for in 2016, if you voted at all
By going to great lengths to prevent “minor party” candidates from appearing on the ballot, the corrupt two-party system blocks the “role of ideas” from having any say in “determining what kind of government we have.” Just because most people lack the “proper standards” to make better choices does not mean that they should be denied any choices other than those the corrupt two-party system permits them to make.
Fringe candidates now are on the ballot and it makes no difference to their fringe status because of the ideas they represent. The role of basic ideas driving politics cannot be rationalized away with a half century of repetitious claims of "corruption". There is a lot of corruption, but it's a consequence not a cause.
But the Libertarian Party's perpetual fringe status is not the only reason to not support it, as discussed previously.
Courruption helps keep itself in power. It does not cause the course of a culture. Repeatedly blaming the cultural and political trend towards collectivism and statism on "corruption" is an anti-intellectual 'evil man' 'conspiracy theory' of history.
”Corruption helps keep itself in power. It does not cause the course of a culture.”
Your second sentence contradicts the first. By keeping itself in power, corruption maintains the continuing course of a culture for its own benefit. Voting for one of two massively corrupt parties, which actively employ the legal system to squash any alternatives, enables the corruption to continue its dominance of the course of a culture.
That corruption helps to keep itself in power does not mean it determines the long term course of a culture and its politics. Corruption in the Catholic Church did not stop the eventual overthrow of Catholic ideology and power for the Enlightenment; the Enlightenment required a gradual but fundamental change in ideas rejecting the Catholic ideology.
I eagerly await a “gradual but fundamental change in ideas” rejecting the subjectivist/collectivist ideology around 1500 years from now.
This one is in response to https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... Can you move it by copying and pasting before continuing? After you paste into the Reply box you can go back and delete the original one above if you want to.
Also, posts are much more readable if you use paragraphs by skipping lines. Responses in a sub-thread are indented so the columns become more and more narrow, making more paragraphs even more useful for readability. As the columns become narrower you can paragraph more than you ordinarily would.
There are several other posts of yours that also appear to be responses to something unspecified. You can find them by searching for your name on the page.
The ones who were honest and trying to understand themselves were the best receivers and the best source of discussion. They don't want to be "sold". I have found that to be true in any subject. The ones who don't want to understand, aren't interested, and/or have emotional problems of their own don't matter; they can't be reached anyway, at least not until and if they develop their own rational motives for their own lives, and "selling" to them doesn't help anyone. Developing and spreading good ideas in any field is a long term process; it's not like a political campaign for votes in an imminent election.
Ewv, you are correct that Rand was the best presenter, but they were her own ideas. But it was initially Branden that brought it to a larger audience. You say “they do not want to be sold,” with the negative implication that the sale removes the individual thought process re their self-interests. I’m sure that’s not what you meant. A sale is a voluntary exchange of values, be it intellectually, emotionally, or materially. Every social interaction is a sale of sorts. When you leave your house to go to the local market, you comb your hair, put on clean shirt, you wait on line to purchase goods while interacting with the cashier, maybe even striking up conversation with others in line. Your overall attitude and demeanor can either further simple expression or stifle interaction, making your transaction easy or more difficult. One needs to identify the nature and importance of the exchange to formulate what and how is conveyed. From that aspect, life is a continual sale, not in the sense of misleading the facts typical of the “used car salesman,” but properly representing the ideas or goods based on their efficacy and contextual application. That’s rational interaction. The idea is to heighten their interest and encourage further inquiry. There is an old expression that you never know who is in the “audience,” and where chance encounters lead. Sometimes we spread our ideas from the concrete to the broad abstract, sometimes vice versa, depending on the context and nature of the other person. The consistency of the idea remains, whether going up or down that ladder. Your context of “being sold” is someone that really wants to be “told,” an issue with many pseudo-Objectivists. Spreading good ideas starts with a simple exchange, developing and demonstrating the consistency is a longer process.
Reply | Mark as read | Delete | Hide | Permalink
Trump was interviewed by Leslie Stahl of 60 minutes after winning the election and before being sworn in. He was asked about some of the promises he had made in his campaign speeches: Would he get rid of the ACA (Obamacare)? Reply; No, there were some good parts in it worth keeping at the most he might replace it (rename it and give the people the same thing). Would he build a wall across the entire southern border? Reply; No, a fence would probably be good enough in some locations. Would he prosecute the Clintons? Reply; No, they were really good people after all.
It is often pointed out that he is not a professional politician and therefore a straight talker. He is a self serving politician who will say what he thinks people want to hear so they vote for him. He is no less a socialist (but pretends not to be) than Barrack Obama was concerned with stopping the war on terrorism, which he promised he would do and never did. There is no compromise to be made with Objectivist ideals that will not lead to socialism and destroy individuals. Moving a little to the 'right' will not awaken the majority of people, it will only entertain them while they are being deceived and destroyed. If Trump is 'playing 3D chess' as some claim it is being played against those he deceived.
Things are better than they were.
Someone is going to be president. It is better that someone who steals less money and tramples fewer right be the president. He may not be the lesser evil, but he is better
Such a limited vote is also not a means to "awaken the majority of people". That takes intellectual activism, the opposite of relying on the likes of Trump's rhetoric, let alone selling Trump idolatry.
The claim that Trump is playing 3D chess (sometimes escalated to 4D), was not a Trump strategy. It was self-imposed delusion by Trump idolizers who could not explain away his emotional, juvenile, inconsistent and often shocking rhetoric (like endorsing murderous dictators in superlatives) by rationalizing that he must have some profound thoughts they cannot discern and no one else has yet discovered. (When the appeal became dubious in its effect, it escalated to 4D.) Faith requires such rationalization. To say that Trump deceived them is an overstatement that gives him too much credit -- they deceived themselves with their own lack of thought and objectivity.
To say "the is not a professional politician and therefore a straight talker; He is a self serving politician who will say what he thinks people want to hear so they vote for him" likewise gives him too much credit. He is not a straight talker at all, just an emotional thinker who will say anything -- which he momentarily believes himself to the extent that he believes anything -- to pitch any deal, as if thought and communication have no meaning other than a pragmatist tools to manipulate people. It's not, while in politics, even just for votes; he does it by nature continuously about everything. We are fortunate, temporarily, that his nationalist collectivist feelings happen to be mostly pro-American economy as opposed to deliberately destroying the economy as the viro left wants.
There probably will never be an Objectivist President because unbending principles and pure rationality doesn't fit a political system where leaders have to be elected by the people. Maybe we can do better than Trump but he is by far the lesser of the evils and without TDS would be a lot more successful.
I am not an Objectivist. I am also slightly pragmatic.
A nation divided against itself cannot stand. - Abraham Lincoln quoting Sam Houston
She had it right when she said that we can properly forge political alliances with different kinds of people on specific issues, which some of us do and which is not Pragmatism, but not in a form of compromising principles or else you give them away.
If she had endorsed the Libertarian Party despite her evaluation of it and the libertarians at the time she would have destroyed her own intellectual reputation and the meaning of her ideas while accomplishing nothing (which they have confirmed over and over).
The same is true today, as especially illustrated by the intellectually unserious nature of the Party leaders and their choice of the Johnson-Weld clown team to speak for the so-called "party of principle" in order to get "big names". Pragmatism does not 'work'.
With that kind of cultural shift there isn't any means of voting that would work to preserve the country. All that is left is the remnants of the American sense of life that is being buried by the intellectuals, so its progressively harder to appeal even to that for voting.
I have the most popular elective classes on our campus, as part of our nanotech minor program and a new "maker" minor that I am trying to get approved right now. Not everyone on our campus is entrepreneurial, but a lot of students are because that is one of the things that I sell as the additional value that they will get from us in exchange for their higher tuition than at a state school.
We are a member of the Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network, or KEEN. See
https://engineeringunleashed.com/
Admittedly this is a philanthropic outreach of the Kern Family Foundation, the family that founded the company Generac that makes backup power generators. This is no small irony as Hurricane Dorian bears right down on my university.
KEEN exchanges its financial values and asks us to engender curiosity, making mental connections, and creating value. I exchange their financial value with the development of maker education content. They quite literally offered me money to convert what I had been doing research on (tissue engineering test bed development) into a class that will soon be taught in the form of Arduino, 3D printing, microfluidics, and bioprinting education at each of the KEEN network universities in a couple of years. They even paid me to visit several of these universities this summer, where I convinced many faculty to be beta testers of my tissue engineering test bed product!
In essence, they funded me in the short term to do what I wanted to do in the longer term. I got no only funding but the opportunity to build a customer base in exchange for distributing educational content to other universities that I was going to develop for my university anyway. KEEN gets its values distributed in value for value exchange.
Anyone who creates an account at the web site listed above can click on Cards and access the content that network participants share as part of similar arrangements to my own.
The following two links are examples of what I have generated as part of that value-for-value exchange:
https://engineeringunleashed.com/card...
https://engineeringunleashed.com/card...
I'm glad your campus has been spared. My undergraduate engineering campus was like that, but when I got to graduate school at a major university the world turned upside down with Leninists, "strikes", building takeovers and more everywhere.
Both universities I attended had the usual protesters. Delaware had some, but Michigan had a lot more. We have a lot of Caribbean students, more than any university in the Caribbean, and so our students are generally happier than most students at most universities.
There were many student organizations against the New Left campus riots who were Ayn Rand supporters and some of them turned into Ayn Rand clubs after the fires went out, some good and some not, turning into libertarians. Are you sure the Libertarian Party started at that one group and not a national coalition?
pretend[ pri-tend ], v.
To appear falsely, as to deceive; feign:
(dictionary . com)
You can’t just make up your own definitions when it suits you. As Ayn Rand says in Atlas Shrugged, “words have an exact meaning.”
John Hospers actually did run for President in 1972 and appeared on the ballot in two states. He received one electoral vote from a Republican elector who was (understandably) fed up with Nixon. His running mate, Tonie Nathan, became the first woman ever to receive an electoral vote. Pretty impressive for a “pretend” candidate of a brand new party.
The Libertarian Party constantly confuses and equivocates between technical requirements and doing something politically meaningful (such as "voting"), then rationalizes a political significance it does not have -- including irrelevant (to them) dramatic quotes such as from Atlas Shrugged here. Observing this pattern is not "making up definitions". Equivocation and rationalization are the opposite of "words have an exact meaning".
Please re-read the definition of “pretend”, above. Did Hospers intend to deceive people into thinking he was going to win? Were his voters duped when they voted for him?
Every political party has to start somewhere. The Socialist Party did not “meaningfully” make several runs for the presidency either, but their activism resulted in the Democratic Party eventually adopting many of their policies (which it continues to do).
Interesting that you consider my quote from Atlas Shrugged, that “words have an exact meaning", to be irrelevant. Words such as “pretend” and “vote”. And I see you still have not answered my question from an earlier post: Please explain why you think Ayn Rand took the political action of voting for Goldwater in 1964, knowing that he was going to lose. Do you think she “squandered” her vote “for a different purpose that detracts from the voting and accomplishes nothing in the election”?
Every party has to "start somewhere" does not justify any party or starting "anywhere".
The quote from Atlas Shrugged is not irrelevant. Dramatically quoting Atlas Shrugged in defense of the Libertarian Party is irrelevant.
Quoting Atlas Shrugged to the effect that "words have an exact meaning" is right on point.
"The quote from Atlas Shrugged is not irrelevant. Dramatically quoting Atlas. Shrugged in defense of the Libertarian Party is irrelevant."
Precisely, that's why my Atlas Shrugged quote was relevant to your use of the words "vote" and "pretend".
The quote “words have an exact meaning” was Francisco’s response to Jim Taggert’s misuse of the term “make money”, as in “any grifter can make money.” My use of the quote was in response to your misuse of the words “vote” and “pretend”. Jim Taggert was counting on the assumption that “everybody knows” that his use of the term “make money” was appropriate. You are counting on the assumption that “everybody knows” that “votes should be cast for serious candidates, which is what make them ‘votes’ and not an opinion with no impact on the election”, and that John Hospers “pretended to run for president”, were appropriate uses of the words “votes” and “pretended”.
My comments remain just as sound once context for the Atlas Shrugged quote is provided.
"All of her subsequent analyses of votes were in terms of which candidate still made some significant difference (as in anti-Nixonites for Nixon to stop the collectivist McGovern) or not voting at all. She emphatically rejected any support for the Libertarian Party as both premature and intellectually inept and a disgrace -- but as a side issue in answers to questions because the Party had so little significance."
But you can do what you want to. No one is following you around trying to stop it.
Regardless, the criteria for voting for a clearly losing candidate when two people are on the ballot should be no different from the criteria for voting for a clearly losing candidate when six people are on the ballot.
And it's not 1971 anymore. The Libertarian Party has a 48-year track record that did not exist when Ayn Rand made her comments. Evoking her arguments from that time, as if nothing had changed since then, is truly an exercise in "irrelevancy".
She did not have to see first hand the Johnson-Weld clown team posing as the "party of principle" or see first hand the current form of the increasing collectivism that precludes even an otherwise proper attempt to pursue an individualist government through politics without regard to the intellectual state of the country.
Ayn Rand's voting for Goldwater did not help Johnson to win and did not endorse fringe parties. Attempting to invoke Ayn Rand's support of Goldwater as implying support for the notion of a Libertarian Party is sophistry.
You can do what you want, but there are practical ways to impact policy through political action for those who want to do it. Such activity in politics can make relative improvements in life now -- at the expense of time and effort to do it -- but they don't stop the political trend towards increasing collectivism and statism, which requires more fundamental intellectual change through spreading the right ideas over time.
By the standards you set earlier, Ayn Rand “squandered” her vote “for a different purpose that detracts from the voting and accomplishes nothing in the election”. Her vote did not help Goldwater to win either (she already knew he was going to lose). I never said she endorsed fringe parties, but I’m not aware of her ever “endorsing” the corrupt two-party system either.
”Attempting to invoke Ayn Rand's support of Goldwater as implying support for the notion of a Libertarian Party is sophistry.”
It certainly would be, if I ever said or implied any such thing. Show me where I did.
”You can do what you want, but there are practical ways to impact policy through political action for those who want to do it. Such activity in politics can make relative improvements in life now -- at the expense of time and effort to do it -- but they don't stop the political trend towards increasing collectivism and statism, which requires more fundamental intellectual change through spreading the right ideas over time.”
The election process is an important vehicle for “spreading the right ideas over time”. Many voters are most receptive to the right ideas when an election is imminent and they’re comparing programs and policies offered by the various candidates. It’s hardly “practical” to confine voters to the “choices” presented by the corrupt two-party system.
The voters of this country are not receptive to a consistent individualist government as described by Ayn Rand, the Libertarian Party does not coherently represent that and, thankfully, the voters do not want the Libertarian Party's mongrel version either. It's a fringe party.
We do not "confine" the choices in the current electoral system; the choices come from primaries in accordance with the kind of candidates the parties realize voters will support. and tolerate. Those choices are the result of prevalent fundamental ideas, which the Libertarian Party has not and will not change by "offering" anything. It's "hardly practical" to wishfully believe otherwise.
And I brought up the Goldwater campaign to demonstrate that your arguments use different standards regarding “squandering” votes for losing candidates, depending on who is doing the alleged “squandering”.
Blaming the current state of politics on "corruption" is the same anti-intellectual ignoring of the role of ideas in determining what kind of government we have. Everyone wants "better choices", but most don't understand the proper standards for what is a better choice and have accepted some bad premises. That is why we get the choices we do.
If not even MORE applicable now.
Their nominee was stoned off his head for many interviews, they had a candidate strip on stage during the convention, another wore a boot on his head, another wore a transparent plastic coat and the convention itself looked like something you'd find at comic-con...
Words fail me.
I'm pretty sure it wasn't THIS bad during Rand's time.
Describing them as "a disgraceful and fringe party" is pretty apt.
Hospers published his book Libertarianism in 1971 and the Party was officially founded following meetings in someone's home in Colorado in 1971. I don't know about the history of prior discussions by people wanting to start a new party that you observed at Brooklyn or elsewhere.
Elsewhere the article denounces a flurry of undertakings by those with superficial or non-existent acquaintance with her ideas but exploiting her name or the name of her philosophy. That included a proposed "Objectivist Political Party", but that's all that was said about that.
Is lying consistent with the policies of this forum? Logical argument presented. No strawman...anywhere.
Here is my logical argument, again, which you have done nothing to refute in numerous cycles.
1. Arguing against Trump in an overwhelming manner improves the position of the other potential to be elected, the Democrat.
2. It is very likely the Democrat who will make the general election will have policies far worse than Trump's, from an Objectivist point of view.
3. Therefore, arguing against Trump in this manner is not in an Objectivists best self interest.
4. Therefore, this behavior is not consistent with a real Objectivist.
One can only assume the rest of the continued whining is because you have no argument, and really hate to be wrong in public. Too bad. That is the beginning of the end of learning.
Unfortunately when ewv sees pragmatism he loses cool.
(Like me when I see- Deep and meaningful conversation.. Pause .. to retch)
Getting an antagonist to lose cool may have advantages, it is not Objectivism.
Surely, you are not saying that when you have two bad candidates you do not criticize the one who is slightly less bad?
Self interest, by itself, is not the definition of Objectivism.
Values such as honesty, and expressing thought-out opinions are part of it.
Reciprocity is essential, every individual right applies equally to every other individual.
Bad temper, hurling insults, and poor spelling may be ok in some places, but are not compulsory.
Of course I do not mean to assert no one criticize anyone they don't agree with. People should voice reasonable, well-thought out views. However, it is self-defeating to take actions that lead to the election of the worst candidate. This would include going all in against someone, like CNN. This is not in one's self-interest, unless one's self interest is just to complain about whoever did get elected (which I hope results in one ending up unemployed).
I think I have been clear on that here. Yes Trump does stupid things. He is far from perfect. However, I want him to win the next election, because the alternative reduces freedom more, much more.
You can argue my points are not an Objectivist argument, but they are a logical, and self-consistent argument. every argument need not be based in Objectivism to be correct, and actions that are against self-interest and greater freedom are wrong, regardless of asserted compliance with Objectivism.
I do intend to be practical. If this is a problem with Objectivism, it is Objectivism's problem. I did not set out to make one lose one's cool. If someone wants to troll around and make comments, they better be be ready to defend them with logic, not begin a separate discussion, deflect or simply whine about being picked on. Otherwise, don't make unsupported assertions in comments.
I have presented a solid, practical, logical argument with a conclusion. One of the group of purists take the logic on, or leave it.
BTW, some group can stop the cowardly wholesale downvoting to hide discussions anytime.
It is part of Thoristu's sustained ongoing personal attacks that you can trace back on this page (and others), consisting of open taunting, mocking, insults, smears, misrepresentations, made up quotes and now even nonsense phrases like "protected class for pronoun references" all as part of the provocation. It more resembles the mentality of a juvenile lout on a fifth grade school yard, not the "logic" he claims for himself.
It seems to have begun with a previous thread in a discussion on the role of altruism and fundamental ideas in the course of the culture towards collectivism, in which he concluded with "Arrogant puke" and "I already terminated this worthless discussion, but someone persisted" as his excuse. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
His personal attacks have since become cruder, in some kind of vendetta he is carrying on and permitted to continue with resentment for Objectivism that he repeatedly calls "dogma". Perhaps he is accustomed to dominating and browbeating people into submission and thinks he can get away with behavior here that if practiced in person would normally land him on his back.
I do not "lose cool", over this or "pragmatism" (which I have seriously discussed several times here), but you are right that that such personal disruption is what he wants. But he doesn't care that such behavior "isn't Objectivism". My response is straightforward description and moral denunciation of obviously abusive personal behavior and his disruption of the serious discussion he doesn't like (but not wrestling in the mud he created). He calls that rejection "whining" as he escalates the taunting.
We have much more important and interesting things to discuss here and we should not have to deal with this abuse at all, even to have to talk about it, but neither can it be ignored now that he persistently shoves it in our faces in his emotional crusade. We know there are people out there who think and behave that way as Alinskyite tactics become more prevalent on the web; the more significant question is why it is tolerated on this forum.
This is random statements and wishful thinking at best.
Your points 1 and 2 make no sense since Trump is no better than any Democrat. You maybe could've made these claims before he was elected, but not now.
The only reason you're supporting Trump is because he has the (R) next to his name and you'll say anything to not have to move from this superficial view. But you need to realize that both the Republicans and Democrats are as bad as each other. Often Republicans are even worse than Democrats if for no other reason than they end up moving people to vote Democrat.
Sadly the best option for any kind of short term, time buying, is to have a Democrat President with Republicans in control of at least congress.
That's the only way we slow the growth of statism.
But both Republicans and Democrats need to be opposed as the leftists that they are, with conservatives held in particular contempt for their all-round political illiteracy, anti-intellectualism and destruction of political discourse.
All they do is make opposing dems harder than it needs to be.
But the premise in #1 is false: "Arguing against Trump in an overwhelming manner improves the position of the other potential to be elected, the Democrat." What is "overwhelming" and what does it have to do with discussions here or with intelligent people elsewhere?
This isn't about trashing someone in campaign hit pieces; analysis and arguments about Trump should be principled and apply to the Democrats, Republicans, and the whole political situation, identifying general features as well as differences. They provide understanding necessary to assess the state of the whole political culture and what to watch out for. Intellectual integrity and practicality require this, and should not be muzzled out of fear for someone's political campaign out of anti-intellectual Pragmatism. It doesn't imply voting for Elizabeth Warren.
Whether this ultimately results in advocating voting for Trump or not voting (which I don't think it does), objectivity requires accepting the results, not deciding in advance that it isn't in one's self interest to not support Trump.
I agree with this. But I think it misses the bigger damage that Trump is doing which is to the political discourse itself. His help to normalize authoritarian-like dialogue, nationalism, racists, etc all helps shift everything further left.
In fact he has been so bad that I would say given what we know now it would've actually have been better for Hillary to be president with conservatives controlling congress and the senate.
In any case, Trumps actions and the conservatives lack of any ideas with which to counter them is doing enormous damage to the over all discourse and this will result in not only more democrats, but more republicans pretty much running, winning and legislating like democrats.
He doesn't have racist dialogue, and the nationalism isn't new: Nationalist in the sense of putting America first in American policy is good -- the opposite of Obama and today's Democrats -- and nationalism as statist justification in place of appeals to individual rights is not new for Republicans, just more bombastic.
I can live under Trump's rhetoric -- I can turn it off -- but not under the far worse radical egalitarianism of the Democrats and their use of the agencies to punish, persecute and steal.
For all of Trump's rhetoric, it is not Hitler speeches mobilizing crowds to war under fascism.
His rhetoric is often bad in its implications, and his extolling murderous dictators is shocking, but he's not one of those dictators; the Democrats are getting there.
Trump's rhetoric is emotional sales talk as if ideas don't have meaning, which is very bad. The Democrat rhetoric coming out of the woodwork now is far more authoritarian than "authoritarian-like".
He's a symptom of the state of this culture, not the cause. Neither keeping him nor dumping him will stop the statist trend. He wasn't my choice to win the Republican nomination, but he is all that stands between us and the next step. The Republicans are not offering anything better, and the Democrats... Getting rid of Trump will get us to that "..." sooner.
I have enumerated freedoms Trump continues to support (lower taxes, particularly the ridiculous AMT, less executive Dept “legislation”, etc). Please enumerate freedoms a likely democrat will support, or otherwise explain how a Democrat’s will be better (and note, the house isn’t switching back, so forget about your Clinton history).
You have no basis for asserting I vote straight R. This is a baseless assertion, and you should withdraw it. I have made my social freedom positions clear in this forum. However, I will say I get less abusive responses from religious people when I refer to a fetus as a parasite, than I do from you two when I use “pragmatic”.
But we've already covered this. Trump hasn't lowered taxes, he has greatly increased them as we see with tariffs. As to corporate tax cuts, they mean nothing because gov spending has exploded, so we will end up paying much more in the long run. He has also passing executive order left right and center. It's the only thing he can do because The Great Deal Maker can't seem to make any deals.
In short nothing you've listed has actually happened. It's a fantasy you have of Trump and his government, not reality.
"Please enumerate freedoms a likely democrat will support, or otherwise explain how a Democrat’s will be better"
For example they won't be banning abortion. They certainly haven't started any economically illiterate "trade wars." So quite a few.
Also, they will not be destroying the political discourse by claiming to be "right wing" while advancing leftism, unlike today's hopeless conservatives.
So the practical approach is case-by-case, but ideally doesn't involve a republican president.
What you must be saying is that he has not balanced the budget, and has increased some costs. Is that right. This is separate from decreasing revenue.
As to abortion, Trump has done nothing. He has not weighed in yet. Others have acted, inappropriately. I look forward to these actions being crushed, and another permanent precedent being set.
Economically illiterate trade war? This is worth a discussion. You have made an assertion. Clearly open trade with China is nothing of the sort. One could argue that China’s subsidation is good for the US, and we should welcome products being provided at sub market value. One (me) would argue the west has a completely inadequate stomach for long term investment, and once China has a market, the west will abandon it, and the barrier to reentry is almost infinite in our culture. The Chinese can set prices, and we are forced to pay them. The Chinese will use the money to fund an significant military.
We are already in an economic war. Whether Trump was smart and highlighted this, or just a pompous instigator is questionable. The Chinese are are war with the west. We just don’t know it.
You can assert, but we need to go back a few steps.
Your last statement, again, needs defending. Please explain how all this would be better under Hillary, or would be better under Warren or Biden.
I remain in favor of free trade and no tariffs however it is good to see different views sensibly expressed.
In particular- the barrier to reentry is almost infinite in our culture.
Yes, but is it culture or is it laws and regulations?
Businesses will not start with a 10 yr negative cash flow. This is not a regulation, it is our cultural decision making and the smaller pockets of private investment vs China’s public investment.
They have a long term plan, decades. Right now they are beginning their investment in AI to become a world leader in this area. Why? Because this will allow them to more quickly ramp up military strength at lower cost. This is not an assertion. It is their plan. We should all be very worried about them, particularly as our country loses economic strength through socialism and a decline in work ethic.
My position on freedom vs tarries and trade is that we are not fighting a fair war. I could be convinced that this is misplaced. Milton Freedman (I admire greatly) opposed tariffs. However, I’m not sure he got to see China vs silly stuff like Europe. Japan could be another precedent. People (me included) were worried about them, but they lacked the resources to really wage this war. China does not lack the resources.
No, I'm saying that "tax cuts" while growing government spending will send incorrect market signals which will cost us more than if he had just raised taxes to pay for raised government spending.
"Economically illiterate trade war? This is worth a discussion. You have made an assertion."
One that I didn't think would need to be clarified.
Trade is what individuals do free from coercion.
If we haven't declared war on a country, then the government should not be meddling in trade. That's pretty much it.
There is no such thing as "economic war" or "trade war." These are economic and politically illiterate terms used to justify rights-violating and therefore leftist policies.
"Please explain how all this would be better under Hillary, or would be better under Warren or Biden."
Neither Hillary nor Biden were/are running on far-left anti-trade policies like the ones that helped Trump win, for one.
But like I said, a Hillary or Biden presidency would be a leftist presidency, opposed by conservatives in congress. As opposed to a Trump presidency which is also a leftist presidency, but is not opposed by anyone, other than the political theater created by democrats as they get everything they want without needing to control any part of the government.
I disagree. It is better to cut taxes (now) than to cut spending (which no one was doing).
It will be very difficult to raise taxes again. The drive to balance will get harder and harder. Cutting what Trump increased spending on is easy.
Hillary/Biden would've left taxes as is, increased spending in inviolate social programs, and probably at this point, pushed gun control.
Therefore, the objective we all seek is easier to achieve now than it was before. The chessboard is better now than it was.
It was/will be MUCH harder to cut spending for social programs we have already committed to, as evidenced by everyone abandoning ObamaCare repeal. We need another approach to get off this merry-go-round to nowhere.
Cutting taxes while increasing government spending means you have not really cut taxes.
Just like central banks lowering interest rates without an increase in production and savings have not created any real money.
This will have disastrous consequences down the road.
"It was/will be MUCH harder to cut spending for social programs we have already committed to, as evidenced by everyone abandoning ObamaCare repeal."
Ofcourse it is when you have no political ideology and no coherent philosophy to backup any of your ideas.
The religious collectivists of the conservative movement have no arguments against government run healthcare.
It may not be appropriate to "correct" in conversation at all, depending on the context. In more philosophical discussion on an Ayn Rand forum it often is, especially when the topic involves the influence of Pragmatism.
There is no such thing as a rational Pragmatism and a term like "rational pragmatism" does not help when the meaning of pragmatism is already compromised. It is likely to add more confusion when someone is already confused without realizing it and believes he is being rational. It implies that there is a rational form of the already misunderstood.
Pragmatism is (improperly) regarded by Pragmatists themselves as "rational"; they aren't mystics. The corruptive influence of a bad philosophy has to be dealt with explicitly; it can't be papered over with a neo-logicism as a shortcut.
In political discussion in particular they tend to include meaning contrary to or without regard to principle -- "practical" as opposed to "principle".
That is because Pragmatism has undermined a rational concept of "principle" -- basically opposing principle on principle. This corruption influences even those who have never heard of William James or the rest of the academic sources because the philosophy of Pragmatism has spread so much into a common way of thinking for over a century.
"Understanding the other's context" includes recognizing that and being on the alert for it, and being careful oneself to not use the terms in a way that reinforces it and doesn't make the required distinctions.
As to Dale Carnegie's "timeless classic," I wouldn't recommend that terrible book to anybody. It's full of random assertions and misintegrations. Hardly a methodical approach to doing anything.
But why would you think I would benefit from it?
The common quote is "To those who understand no explanation is necessary, for those who don't none is possible", which is the common translation from Acquinas' "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." It was a rejection of the possibility of explaining the impenetrable, which must be believed on faith for which no explanation is necessary.
It's probably not what you intended to say.
Understanding anything requires explanation -- including a recommendation that someone spend the time to read a book.
Fair enough, I guess...
“Even god doesn't propose to judge a man till his last days, why should you and I?”
“If you do something for someone else, never remember. If someone does something for you, never forget.”
“Talk about your own mistakes before criticizing the other person.”
“The world is so full of people who are grabbing and self-seeking. So the rare individual who unselfishly tries to serve others has an enormous advantage. He has little competition.”
1.Do Not Criticize, Condemn or Complain
2. Be Generous With Praise
3. Remember Their Name
4. Be Genuinely Interested In Other People
5. Know The Value Of Charm
6. Be Quick To Acknowledge Your Own Mistakes
7. Don't Attempt To "Win" An Argument
8. Begin On Common Ground
9. Have Others Believe Your Conclusion Is Their Own
10. Make People Feel Important
Read into each your own interpretation. To me, it was just about the method of communication, no more.
Once I understood some perspective and their profession, I could strike some common ground to encourage further conversation, again matching appropriate response, or gracefully exit. I must have give away over 150 copies of "Loving Life" (to those I thought would intellectually benefit) as the title was non threatening and I was able to navigate around preconceived misunderstandings and biases, of philosophy and particularly of Rand.
So my bob and weave was more to continue engagement (if desired) intellectually, as well as avoiding potential violence from someone who didn't like the way another looked at his girlfriend. Not as an alternative to serious discussion.
As I have previously said, the general rules of the book are for each to interpret, but mostly common courtesy when dealing with others.
As the old saying goes, you get more with honey than with vinegar.
And yes, the initial comment was a bit tongue in cheek as many of the Objectivists I've met over the years, while brilliant (not all, lol) lack social skills and understanding of communicative context.
Just not on my end.
I came here to learn and help develop points and discussions to convince others of the obvious positives of freedom and minimal government. I am not interested in convincing 3 people to read everything Ayn wrote and treat it like a bible. I am interested in getting legion to think objectively and understand the pouring power into government is a disaster.
I believed this was a forum for fiscal and social freedom, not just an Objectivist monastery.
If this platform rejects my purpose, I'll find another platform to learn from. Until then, I'm going to take on person's attempting to shut down compelling, pragmatic, logical, freedom-supporting arguments.
Even here the snide smears continue. No one is "interested in convincing 3 people to read everything Ayn wrote and treat it like a bible". Explaining and defending Ayn Rand's principles and implications are not "an Objectivist monastery". His threat to "take on" those he smears as "attempting to shut down" his personal smears, which he calls "compelling, pragmatic, logical, freedom-supporting arguments", is a very ugly misrepresentation of what he is doing. Alinskyite tactics do not belong here.
Misquoted quotes, degrading assertions, whining, and no rebuttal to the simple logical arguments.
You can go now. Some of these other people and I are actually having a discussion finally.
You correct and/or exhort people from your perceived moral high ground. You do not discus, you do not debate, you EXHORT.
When people disagree with anything you post or think you posted, you interpret it as a personal attack. Often you are the only one interpreting something as an attack, I guess that's what makes it personal for you.
You are a Zealot by action, and one of the reasons I rarely spend time on here.
I'm not one of the people down voting you, others do that. It isn't worth my time.
BTW if you want to attack me as you do others, go right ahead. I do not care.
Edit- moved nonsensical comma
If you attempt to knock off the glib remarks, I will attempt to be more clinical, at least to you.
And I tried once before.
You are a complete waste of time.
While no one is looking (which is why you have the balls to act like a big shot here), read the story of the martial artist who went to the Shaloin temple asking for training, “Empty your Cup”
Oh, yeah and downvote fast, before other people see what an rigid clown you are.
shrugs
If you get negative votes, your comment is obscured.
Unfortunately, there are an infinity of votes, so one need not discriminate. Little gangs, like ewv’s, will globally, up vote gang members and downvote tribe-enemies.
People who have nothing else to do worry about points, daily, weekly, total.
Read this quickly, because cowards will obscure it as soon as the lights go off.
The "little" gangs here are the ones that downvote ewv's comments, along with anyone else actually putting forward Objectivist positions, not those of the utterly lost conservatives.
The forum encourages 'voting' by rational assessment, not blanket voting to intimidate out of emotional resentment. Thoritsu's personal attacks should have been stopped by the moderator long ago as contrary to the guidelines and purpose of the forum. 'Votes' do not do that. All of his personal attacks are still there for anyone to see.
It's Thoritsu who thinks in terms of gang voting and conspiracy (a practice also contrary to the forum guidelines): "some group can stop the cowardly wholesale downvoting to hide discussions anytime" and "Read this quickly, because cowards will obscure it as soon as the lights go off."
Ayn Rand also commented on choosing a presidential candidate in her articles on Reagan's promotion of religion in politics. She did not vote for Reagan (not voting at all) but said she would if the alternative in the choice were another McGovern, which rules out any electoral support for any of the Democrats at least since Clinton.
Objectivism, if I'm not mistaken, is going about the business of spreading ideas all wrong. This is not to cast aspersions on anything Ayn Rand ever said or wrote. It's a communications problem. Galt understood that you cannot tell anyone something he or she is not ready to hear. Americans are not ready to hear about philosophy - any philosophy. It's not that they're un-philosophical, it's that they're thoroughly anti-philosophical. That's no reflection on Ayn Rand or philosophy, as such. Nobody knows less about their profession than professional philosophers. For centuries they have been giving philosophy a reputation of being senseless and useless. For the average American it has nothing to do with, to borrow Dr. Peikoff's formulation, "the real world out there."
There's another problem. Ideas are spread and get to impact a culture from the top down. It is the intellectuals of the Ivy League Universities who set the course. Ideas filter down from there. Today, the academic deck is stacked heavily against the good - against reason, egoism, individualism, and laissez faire capitalism. So what is there to do?
I say spread Liberty from the bottom up. Not by spreading the philosophic ideas of Ayn Rand, so much, as by reconnecting with the quasi-Objectivist principles preached and (all contradictions aside) more fully practiced than at any prior time in history. John Locke's principles of reason and freedom captured the founders imagination. Their remnants are alive and well, and living in America's heartland.
The common man has not lost his common sense, and the principles enunciated in our founding documents still make sense to most (if only for a few hours before and after each Independence Day's festivities).
Those principles promote reason (yielding the immutable laws of nature), ethics (egoism, individualism, and healthy civic engagement), and a government offering equal protection to all, and so limited to acting as PROTECTOR, but prohibited from becoming a PROVIDER, giving to some by plundering others .
It was the earliest violation of this last principle which, in time, turned America into the runaway Corporate/Social Welfare State that every American should be working to dismantle, brick by brick.
Neither is Trump.
Dynamite hidden in plain sight.
The Fountainhead was a psychological novel showing the clash between the first hand thinker versus the second hander (as in Peter Keating). Atlas Shrugged was much more comprehensive in scope, incorporating the psychology but also all of philosophy in a novel with a more political plot.
If you are referring to Trump's old statement that he liked The Fountainhead, the problem is not Howard Roark, it's Trump's lack of understanding of what he said he liked.
I also agree with your thoughts re the purpose of Objectivism, and it has been my continued effort to widen our audience for over 50 years, since the days I worked at NBI. At times it’s intellectually from the top down, but mostly with the uninformed I try to find common ground to build from there. In addition, over the years I’ve come across many that have become disenchanted, not with “established” Objectivism, but the “formal” proponents, for a variety of reasons. In recent years I’ve had personal interaction at the highest level of both the mentioned organizations, and have made some keen observations that I have not discussed on this thread. Thank you again for your comments.
I said Report me to the Admins or leave me Be
But since you can't accept that, I took care of it for us both.
Load more comments...