Why is the Constitution important to objectivists?
Posted by coaldigger 6 years, 6 months ago to Ask the Gulch
"I can say—not as a patriotic bromide, but with full knowledge of the necessary metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and esthetic roots—that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world." Ayn Rand
With all the concern about protecting this document it seems to me to be the basis of law and the definition of the organization to which we elect to follow the laws thereof. those of us that were born in the US should not accept that we have to be ruled by its government without reason. We should examine it's principles and make a determination whether to leave or stay. the principles, not just the implementation should be the guiding factor. If implementation is a problem then we must fight for the principles.
I don't like being thrown with Conservatives because they are statist of a different stripe, they have too many mystical beliefs and their dedication to preservation of individual rights is suspect. The problem with not doing so is to allow Progressives to discard the Constitution and creating a dictatorship of whatever feels good at the moment. While watching the questioning of Kavanaugh, before it became a circus, I was relieved that someone of his intellect and dedication to founding principles would be joining others of a like mind on the court. For about one evening I felt better about the future of America. After being routed in terms of reason, the other side resorted to some of the most reprehensible behavior possible and killed my buzz. It is now even more apparent how important it is to defeat those that would abandon the principles that have provided an organized society that has done more to elevate mankind than any previous system. I think it makes it worthwhile to hold my nose and support Conservatives and perhaps the radical left will lose their grip on the opposition party and we can become a functioning representative democracy again.
With all the concern about protecting this document it seems to me to be the basis of law and the definition of the organization to which we elect to follow the laws thereof. those of us that were born in the US should not accept that we have to be ruled by its government without reason. We should examine it's principles and make a determination whether to leave or stay. the principles, not just the implementation should be the guiding factor. If implementation is a problem then we must fight for the principles.
I don't like being thrown with Conservatives because they are statist of a different stripe, they have too many mystical beliefs and their dedication to preservation of individual rights is suspect. The problem with not doing so is to allow Progressives to discard the Constitution and creating a dictatorship of whatever feels good at the moment. While watching the questioning of Kavanaugh, before it became a circus, I was relieved that someone of his intellect and dedication to founding principles would be joining others of a like mind on the court. For about one evening I felt better about the future of America. After being routed in terms of reason, the other side resorted to some of the most reprehensible behavior possible and killed my buzz. It is now even more apparent how important it is to defeat those that would abandon the principles that have provided an organized society that has done more to elevate mankind than any previous system. I think it makes it worthwhile to hold my nose and support Conservatives and perhaps the radical left will lose their grip on the opposition party and we can become a functioning representative democracy again.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Conservatives are inconsistent and incapable of intellectually defending a free country.
I can see where Herd was headed with this statement in that the absence of ANY personal moral code leads to more government influence in every persons lives to stop the lack of self-restraint in a small portion. To be free, to enjoy liberty, each person must have a code/belief system that they must live by.
"“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams quotes (American 2nd US President (1797-1801),
Plus, I thoroughly disagree with your first statement.
I, too, look at the rising Federal debt as an act of hypocrisy by Republican and especially those who claim to be conservatives.
And to support a point made elsewhere that one of the huge departures from the Constitution was the Ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment. The other was the Twelfth Amendment which effectively introduced party ballots and all but eliminated the possibility of third parties being seriously considered.
While I think depicting Conservatives as statists is a fallacy, you have identified the true enemy: the Progressive. I think that too many try to make everyone they disagree with on the tiniest level the enemy while ignoring that Objectivists and conservatives have much in common.
While Kavanaugh appears 'conservative' in some respects he has upheld the Patriot Act and the right to abrogate the protections of the constitution through the use of FISA (secret courts) in the cause of protecting the citizens from outside danger.
There isn't much left of the original constitution and what the writers of the contract intended. Allowing precedent rulings to interpret the law allows for the contract to be re-interpreted and then refer to that interpretation as the basis for understanding the contract rather than relying on understanding the contract. Kavanaugh sides with collectivism although he might sound 'conservative' and hoping that he might accidentally steer the collectivists back toward the light of liberty is folly.
This was the slogan of Silk Soymilk they ran during the World Cup. The "take ownership" quote comes from the Galt Speech, and I'm not sure if the "activation" quote is from Napoleon or Platoon's "You smoke this stuff to escape reality? I am reality!" line perhaps.
And just now a fourth principle I thought of recently (while memorizing/reciting/inducing the Galt Speech, which just plants seeds in my mind): "We/I have no time for mysticism, and no room for doubt."
And, "there's an enormous difference between thinking about principles, and thinking in principle."
That's quite a list, but I'm a lifelong poet/songwriter (bassist from HS), the would-be Patrick Henry of my revolution of one ("the one in the many").
Also, in Ryan Holliday style (the neo-stoic author of "The Obstacle is the Way" and "Ego is the Enemy,") my principle is that "The Training is the Treatment".
I should (and probably will) write a book with some such title. People will likely call me a stoic too, and maybe I am.
But that's why I'm a cultural revolutionary, an intellectual activist functioning from the "inside-out" as all first-revolutionaries must. Change has always come from "the bottom."
In addition to Galt we can also "take a loincloth" from Gandhi in terms of tactics (he also took to the rails, as it were): going to the people has worked every time (and he didn't really martyr himself since his fasting was part of his revolutionary regimen, and was also assassinated in consequence of the nationalistic content he extolled).
I consistently practice and advise two things:
1) Take ownership: I begin every day by looking myself in the mirror and saying to myself: "Your life belongs to you" ten times slow. I often say this to others as well.
2) Activate your rights: Intermittently I also remind myself that "I am the revolution" which I say only to those who deserve the compliment.
Mr. Ashinoff, You are the revolution. And I haven't forgotten, I'll read your contributions to our "golden" cause when I find the time or opportunity (e.g., next time I visit Phoenix). B^)
Per my example, the individual is the political onset to the tertiary formation of local authority (the nucleus) from the (federal) coda that seals the deal in principle for proper (socio-political) pronunciation (and because that particular example works differently for the British in their "environment").
The other important principle of social action (which I got from Oceanography) is constructive, as distinguished from destructive interference. This principle explains why in, say, weather forecasting the aggregate of "micro-aggressions" can't predict if after an off-shore earthquake there will be a tidal wave or a large depression (how actions manifest in aggregate depends on how a plethora of entities, e.g., currents, line up).
But in terms of semantics (one's life) the nucleus is primary, so it only goes so far as an analogy. And philosophy is the prime-mover in terms of how constructive/destructive forces align socially.
The Atlas Spoke Transparency (AST) knows no borders but such as work to defend individuals' property per region by objective law holding the one code of individual rights as absolute.
So, as in linguistics (my field), "regional" forms and levels of gov't would be like a "back-formation" (e.g. "mettle": /med'l/ ) from the universal (and global), which derives its legitimate authority directly from the primary entities (i.e., all human individuals) back down through increasingly more localized administrations (like a virtuous spiral arriving back to each autonomous individual wherever they live or travel).
/(OxO)\ : (best "puppy" I could do).
Screw the globe. We fix home first and then worry about them based on our own interests.
On BK's position on the 4th, I think only a few would have been wise to that, the left, infected by the post modern virus, see their post modern power going down the drain.
I hope this sickening charade was worth the trouble in the saving of the republic.
No, because the 50 State governments are closer to the people they represent and are more accountable to their local populations. State governments can better reflect their laws to suit their populations without concern what other states are doing. The fedgov was established for one specific purpose and had broken out of its structure to be a monster.
Constitutionally, a state governor should be more relevant and important than the US President.
Further, Senators should be appointed by State Governors as representatives of their state. Senators should be fire-able at a moments notices by the state governor if he/she feels they are acting more in their own interest or federal interest than that of their state.
Point of interest (supports how unimportant once presidents were): Lincoln had to write to ask for permission to speak at Gettyburg, he was never invited.
Lastly, slavery. As mentioned previously technology would have rendered the institution prohibitively expensive in time.
For the record, I was born and raised in NY and my family arrived on these shores well after the "Civil War". I have no dog in this argument. :)
(B^\/)-[GSS-105]--<
But it's been months since I listened to that particular podcast, so Charles Tew's arguments are not fresh in my mind. I also remember agreeing that our Founder's experiment in liberty would have crashed and burned had it not been for Lincoln's "pragmatism." More statist states tend to gang up on freer ones -- as witness today's global landslide.
Load more comments...