Blarman,

Thanks for that. One of the things that interested me in Objectivism, probably the most import to me, was that Rand was not going around staying "this sucks" or "that sucks." She was not so much arguing against something. She knew what she was for, and argued for that.

As a result of arguing for her philosophy rather than against opposition views she did not come off as arrogant.

I am no fan of Trump because I see beyond his redirect because of his past actions. If I were judging him solely on his words durring the campaign I would likely like him more, until he started to talk about how he would use executive orders to do good things. Obama thinks what he is using them for is good things. The other thing that turned me off to him is his constant attacks on what others wish to do, or on others themselves. that shows arrogance. Even referring to himself as "The Donald" is arrogant. We have a guy in the Whitehorse that is sure he knows best, and is willing to use executive order to make good things happen (from his perspective). The last thing we need is another arrogant person willing to use executive power to make what he or she thinks is good happen, even if everyone else thinks they are wrong. Arrogance does come to mind.

You know, I was thinking the other day and the word arrogance came to mind. And I began thinking about what really causes arrogance. It struck me that those who are arrogant are those who are seeking to put themselves above everyone else by emphasizing the differences and attempting to ignore the similarities. They are so intent on proving to themselves their own superiority that they box themselves into a mindset that is self-reinforcing - the notion of their own superiority by virtue of the differences they see in others. They denigrate others solely because it is the only way they think they can maintain the fictional superiority they have created for themselves.

I was reading "The Hot Gate" by John Ringo (Sci-Fi) and he was talking about the South American cultures and how their cultural mores are disastrous not only to business, but to any kind of space-faring they might engage in simply due to one reason: maintenance. Those from Latin American who could afford to get into space were the wealthy who considered themselves above everyone else due to family and station. And as a result, their spaceships were hopelessly grounded because they thought themselves above the basic routine maintenance necessary to keep them flying. It was only when they were confronted with the reality of invading aliens and the vacuum of space that they even began to really think about how their culture was self-destructive solely due to the class-centric nature of their thinking. It was only when they started realizing the falsehood in their own notions of superiority that they became successful in working in space and contributing to the defense of the entire planet. Prior to this revelation, they had been consumed with their envy of the Americans and their class rankings yet willfully ignorant of the fact that without those Americans, their entire nations would have been eradicated.

It was an interesting read, and I'd recommend the series to everyone. The author is obviously a libertarian, but lays things out well, including choice and consequence, market vs government, and invention and problem-solving. It was one of the more enjoyable yet thought-provoking works of fiction I've read in quite some time.

I guess if I really believed they would all get us to the same place at the same time, I would just not vote at all. There are NO other choices that would win this time, however. I do think sanders would get us to disaster quickest, hillary a little farther out, and trump farther out yet. In the end, its the vast majority of statist oriented citizens who will get us to destruction- as this is a mob rule democracy. Eventually, only a pure socialist would be elected, but hopefully not THIS time.

All three get you to the same place, at the same time. The only difference is if the "knife" is in your back or your chest. There are other choices.

We are all going to get trump, Hillary, or Sanders. By casting trump as the worst, you are saying you prefer Hillary or Sanders. Good luck with that choice. Look only as far as Venezuela to see where that leads

Your reply speaks to your consistent disregard of the examples presented to you many times and to your agreement with Trump's disregard of the most fundamental of man's rights.

gulchers seem to think that, but they never actually say what he could do that would be worse than what hillary or sanders have promised to do and obama has already done

The "practical reality" you tirelessly repeat is support for a crony fascist that is worse than those you fear.

That's a good analysis. I visited Jefferson's house and came away. Thinking the founding fathers didn't really have a consistent philosophical base, but rather had to compromise in order to get an agreement. The resulting document was based more on getting rid of English rule and English religion and making sure THAT wouldn't happen here again. Once ratified the US government went on constant expansionist binges to take over the continent culminating in the capture and control of the South during the civil war. The statist elements ooo f our founding have expanded and now we have Obama and if we don't watch out. Himmary

So decisions don't have to be firm right now. But in this mob rule culture, the candidate with most votes (electoral) rules. If the election was today. It's trump or hillary. The other repubs are way down in polls. Sanders may overtake Hillary, but it's unlikely trump would be unseated by any of the repubs candidates. I think that's the practical reality

Rejecting belief in the supernatural is not a starting point. It is a consequence of rationality. Religion is "hard to live by" because it is irrational.

The founders of the country did "institutionalize" a "brand of thought": the Enlightenment emphasis on reason and individualism. The political philosophy of the Enlightenment was to allow the individual to follow his reason in his own life. It did not embrace a politics of anything goes for "diversity", based on an intellectual vacuum "therefore" political freedom. Anti-reason leads to dictatorship. Faith leads to force.

The "social conservatives" are part of the contemporary ruin. Their demands for sacrifice are the false and entrenched moral basis of welfare statism and socialism. Their demands for sacrifice to religious dogma compound that with the theocracy they want to impose. Their package dealing of religion with individualism concedes rationality to the left and drives people away from the pro-freedom movement they pollute with religious nonsense.

The choice is not between Trump and Cackles or Sanders. There are a dozen candidates. The primaries haven't started yet.

That wasn't a church, it was a "deal".

That wasn't a death. It was only a "deal". Everything is a "deal".

Trump is a socialist of the fascist variety - private property in name only, i.e., a PPINO socialist. You keep the deed, they get the control -- until Trump takes that too by eminent domain when it suits him.

It is the nature of Pragmatists to not acknowledge their own statist ideology underlying their system of "tools" of government coercion for "what works". Pragmatism is a parasitical philosophy claiming to have no principles as a matter of principle and not acknowledging the implicit principles employed for deciding goals and the criteria for what "works".

Trump is the kind who won't acknowledge his Pragmatist ideology either, he just "acts" in accordance with it. And that is how we get a national socialist of the fascist variety who denies being anything but the Great Man on the White Horse who is the Great Man of Action.

+1

I hear the echoes of goose-stepping boots and paranoid rants.

Trump's followers are deaf to history, recent or otherwise, and accept his shallow bromides on faith. That is why they still support him even when faced with his history on individual rights and cronyism.

Their message to us is, "don't worry; he'll be a good dictator."

Great job of saying absolutely nothing....you must be a politician.....

I think you need to look at the libertarian Johnson.

they are all (the candidates) statists to some percentage. They all are ok with government taking my money. The only way to be "pure" would be to move out and live in the woods somewhere (the gulch perhaps).

As you know from our previous exchanges, I think you should vote, but not for the statists. Vote for evil and that is what you get, evidenced by the past 30 years.

If we werent going to get a really bad one by not voting, I would abstain. BUT, in our mob rule society of entitled people, we will get the worst statist if we leave it to the mob to vote.

Yes all the statist candidates will do the same things! So don't vote for any of them!

Trump is no angel, but I think at least he is right out there and tells everyone without hiding it (as opposed to Hillary who tells us ONLY what will make her look good). Sanders is right out there, which I do respect, but his ideas are really wacko and cant work without there being a money tree with an endless supply of wealth that no one has to have worked for...). As to religious people, I dont have a problem with someone's beliefs, as long as it stays out of government policy. As to islam, I think as long as its in their "bible" that its ok to kill infidels, I dont want anything to do with them, and I certainly dont want to live around them.

fortunately hillary and sanders wont do such a heinous thing