The truth is that most equate unfettered individual freedom with chaos and anarchy, and are willing to sacrifice some personal freedom for stability and security. Small, constitutionalist government that focuses strictly on security and stability is what conservatives claim to want, while liberals see a stronger, more paternalistic government, however overblown and corrupt it becomes, as a desirable alternative to a harsh self-responsible society that must depend on the "kindness of others" for help in times of need.

Philosophy = a fool's errand. It is all theory, speculation and only in the mind of the beholder.

As a scientist that began as an engineer I have observed a strong correlation between professional orientation and political leanings. While there are exceptions the trend is that scientists tend to be liberal and engineers tend to be conservative. I suspect that the psychological forces that are necessary to be a successful scientist or engineer carry over into political perspectives. Scientists, in general, seek to find out "how things work" while engineers want to find out "how to make things work". In a way this is like the difference between idealism and pragmatism. A scientist wants to understand the laws of nature while an engineer wants to use the laws of nature to accomplish a specific task. It makes no sense to say that one approach is more valid than the other. If it weren't for scientists the engineer would have no idea what the laws of nature are and if it wasn't for the engineer the scientists would not have the instruments necessary to conduct their research. For science and technology to be useful there must be a balance between seeking and doing.

I am relatively new to the Gulch. Can you describe what it used to be or how you feel it has changed?

I don't think that the 'conservative' political side is homogenous at all to be able to accurately draw conclusions about it - either positively or negatively - as one group. So I disagree that no rationality exists, however it is that conservatives are being defined.

Consider that the man who observes and asks:
This is a glass of water.
Or is it a glass of water?
And if it is a glass of water,
Why is it a glass of water?
Where did it come from, and
Why is it here?...
eventually dies of thirst.

I certainly appreciate both of you, and join you in deploring what the Gulch has become.

Thanks and I you. Unfortunately, since the immigration debate the gulch has become mainly a place for conservative rants.

I for one, appreciate the work you do.

I struggled to follow this article. I didn't understand why he says pure philosophy leads to nihilism.

"the entire idea and effort of politics is irrational, other than just gaining favor or popularity"
This is my view. Most of the time politicians seek popularity and will do what it takes to get elected. It is rare to find one with a philosophy. The best we can do is lobby them, show them that protecting liberty leads to winning elections.

"Is there no way to reach through the fogs of belief they surround themselves with."
I do not know, but I wonder if there's some way for all those people to keep their beliefs and accept the need for smaller and less intrusive gov't.

I think it is very important to understand the philosophical basis for a movement.

“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.”

John Maynard Keynes


My investigation of the philosophical basis of the Austrian economists has helped me understand why they take such irrational positions.

db; I couldn't agree more, but I don't think we're going to see many of them admit it. But going all the way back to Hume and his nonsense arguments is interesting to me. Those ideas of false philosophies, autonomous reason, nihilism as the ultimate answer to philosophical inquiry, etc.--I don't know.

More generally, some have tried lately to convince me that politics is ' the human implementation of philosophy''. I'm beginning to think that the entire idea and effort of politics is irrational, other than just gaining favor or popularity. It certainly can't be Objectivist implementation of philosophy since we only justify a government of service to the protection of rights, the individual, and the nation. No government arrived at through the practice of politics can possibly stay true to Objectivism, or any other philosophy for that matter.

I guess my thinking now finds no way to really tie any philosophy to politics or a political party.

Between the religionists, the conservatives, liberals, compromisers, the Trump and Carson fans, the Islamist haters, the border closers--are there any people left that understand individual freedom anymore. Is there no way to reach through the fogs of belief they surround themselves with.