Galt would have refused Conservatives from the Gulch just like he would have refused Liberals
Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 11 months ago to Philosophy
Both [conservatives and liberals] hold the same premise—the mind-body dichotomy—but choose opposite sides of this lethal fallacy.
The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man’s spirit, i.e., man’s consciousness; they advocate the State’s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect. The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with “academic freedom”). But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property—they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation.
The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories—with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe—but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.
Yet it is the conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim the superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the “mystics of spirit.” And it is the liberals who are predominantly materialists, who regard man as an aggregate of meat, and who represent what I call the “mystics of muscle.”
This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises. Observe that the conservatives insult and demean the rich or those who succeed in material production, regarding them as morally inferior—and that the liberals treat ideas as a cynical con game. “Control,” to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. Neither camp holds freedom as a value. The conservatives want to rule man’s consciousness; the liberals, his body.
The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man’s spirit, i.e., man’s consciousness; they advocate the State’s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect. The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with “academic freedom”). But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property—they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation.
The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories—with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe—but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.
Yet it is the conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim the superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the “mystics of spirit.” And it is the liberals who are predominantly materialists, who regard man as an aggregate of meat, and who represent what I call the “mystics of muscle.”
This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises. Observe that the conservatives insult and demean the rich or those who succeed in material production, regarding them as morally inferior—and that the liberals treat ideas as a cynical con game. “Control,” to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. Neither camp holds freedom as a value. The conservatives want to rule man’s consciousness; the liberals, his body.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 6.
Liberals wanted instant change regardless of laws as they are the powerless outsiders.
Once Liberals win they become hard core conservatives.
the rest of it is just BS propaganda
Liberals (modern day Progressivism) do NOT want freedom in the Spiritual Realm, and prove it all the freaking time. Every single thing you've claimed that liberals want is NOT what they want, nor is it what they practice, either. They are for censorship of ideas they don't like, they are FOR government controlling of ideas (see "Climate Change"), they are FOR government control of the arts (see censorship and art grants), they are for controlling the press (see latest attempts to control drudge report), they are FOR controlling education (see Common Core)... And those are just a few examples that you are totally and utterly wrong.
I could continue, but why bother? If after 2 paragraphs you are batting .000, what do we gain from discussing how much MORE you are wrong?
Life is easy for me because I'm near the end of it. I can take the road less traveled, or just sit by the side of the road and be a friend to man. I can spread around the wisdom I've accumulated if anyone asks, or just mouth off as I see fit. The consequences to me at this time are almost nil. This may not be true in the future, depending on what happens in DC. Believe it or not as you wish, but as this country goes, so goes the rest of the world. Even China or Russia, for the USA has been the only truly free country in history, but is holding on by its bitten fingernails and the future looks bleak.
The true battle is not Liberal VS Conservative. It is Right VS Wrong. Truth VS Lies. Good VS Evil. I sometimes wish there was a Windex product that could clear away men's minds so that they could see more clearly.
The parties are there to divide followers from thinkers...and they are divided into two different genres:
1) Those who value feelings.
2) Those who value achievement.
Both need principles to guide them. The group with the most consistent principles should be the standard bearer...but won't be because of 12+ years of indoctrination in public schools of the vast majority of American children.
Chaos is what brought achievers to the Gulch. It will soon be happening in this country.
Invitations were based on the content of their character, not how, if, or who they voted for.
If anything the characters in the novel were more apolitical than anything else.
I also part ways with Objectivism on spiritual matters. Conversely, I do not press my beliefs on anyone else nor do I require a specific belief set for person be elevated to govern, and I in no away seeks a theocracy of any kind.
I'm an unabashed Constitutional Conservative.
"Can you milk me Focker?"
First of all, everyone here is proud of being a producer. No one accepts unearned guilt for their intelligence and productivity. Everyone here gives primacy to reason, even most of those who claim to believe in God, do so for reasons of their choosing, not for appeals to faith, or challenges to ignorance. (Some do. They tend not to stay.) Everyone here recognizes that rights are a requirement for people to live in society, and, to the point, recognize the nature of rights. The abortion/choice debates never claim a woman's "natural role" as a mother, something that some religionists try and that Karl Marx actually did accept. (Read the Communist Manifesto.) The debate is always about the rights attendant in personhood, and the difficulty in defining that term.
So, I would say that just about everyone here would be acceptable to John Galt of the novel.
That said, realize, too that the book was a fiction derived from the real world before 1957. Rand successfully challenged the moral precepts of the previous 2500 years. We all benefited from that. If just about anyone here could be transported into the novel, they would be a minor hero, easily, along with Hastings, Ives, Willers, Rearden's accountant and the company's union leader, and many others throughout. (My favorite is from the movie, Jeff Yagher's portrayal of Jeff Allen. They changed the story, but it worked for me.)
But I agree with the central thesis. The Tea Party, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Paul Ryan, are the modern conservatives. They are enemies of personal freedom no less than Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Elizabeth Warren. They align on opposite sides of the same counterfeit coin.
Both irrationally seek to impose control upon that which they value, which makes them not only self-contradictory, but also flawed at their core. We do not want parts of our live to be free because they see it as a value, they simply just do not care what happens to it. They see it as their job to protect and therefore control that which they feel is important. They are not half-authoritarian and half-libertarian, they are half authoritarian and half-nihilist.
I am a radical on behalf of capitalism, but choose to live my personal life in a way that many would describe as "conservative" to make it easier for me to live a noncontradictory life. I do recommend my philosophy to others, but certainly do not enforce it or want to enforce it on others.
I might have drawn that comparison for oddballs like myself, whereby one would parallel the Liberal with the Mystics of Spirit and Conservative with Mystics of Muscle. Seems both labels, Liberal and Conservative fall into both categories, and both want to control the minds and bodies of others, just different tactics and shaming methods.
But let's not argue semantics over this particular topic. The point I'm trying to make is that they are both wrong, not that one is superior to the other. I can understand tying to draw specific and ultra-precise distinctions in general, but in this case it doesn't matter which is which. The better terms that Rand uses are the Mystics of spirit and Mystics of muscle, both of which are clearly defined above. If a particular individual falls into both categories on different issues, that is not relevant to the fact that they are still wrong regardless of the camp that they choose.
For sake of argument, I will accept your definitions- the commonly accepted understanding of today (conservative, liberal). They have changed...
"The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with “academic freedom”)." I would disagree with much of this today. It was once so, but today's colleges and liberal controlled media outlets are bastions of liberal intolerance that stifle, shout down and intimidate opposing voices. The liberal activists are in the classrooms and the streets creating mayhem... disrupting political conventions...
The "conservatives" are now learning their mysticism does not hold the weight it once did with the voters. If it were otherwise, Huckabee would probably be the presumptive GOP nominee and the "conservatives wouldn't be so upset.
I learned long ago that the "conservatives" and their moralizing and spirit control have far less deleterious affects on my life than the liberals/progressives. I do not see their use of force to the same degree as you do. I can choose not to listen to them and they can't station a guard on each of us to see that we bend to their way of life. The liberals on the other hand with their redistributionist, altruistic policies use the force of government to take from me with every tax and regulation. One is unenforceable and can be avoided; the other is inescapable. The conservatives have not made me their serf.
True enough, the philosophy of both today is from the same rotten statist, collectivist basis and should be confronted.
Respectfully,
O.A.
You can watch all the talking heads on all the cable channels, read all the editorials in all the papers, and, in my opinion, there is no "generally accepted" definition or concept, other than a similar idea that was expressed in Star Wars during the fight scene between Anniken and Obi-Wan, when in summary, from the Jedi: Sith = bad, Jedi = Good, and from the Sith: Sith = Good and Jedi = bad.
From the "Right, Conservative = good, Liberal = bad, from the Left Liberal = good, Conservative = bad, but they all still only provide ambiguous at best loose ever-changing ideas of what each label is.
More the record, these are all statements from publications written by Ayn Rand, and so possibly the understood concept of each term in the 70s would be more appropriate.
My purpose in writing this is to demonstrate once again that this not designed to be a conservative blog, but for those who want to learn more about and discuss Objectivism. I've seen a lot of examples lately of those who seem to forget that and who make arguments like "90% of Americans think this" or "it's what is best for society."
Neither of those hold water when put to reason, and have no place here other than to be refuted.
If we had a universal definition of these "labels" in the same way we can label the formula for volume or square footage, that applied to everyone and was accepted by everyone. I could accept the premise of the title to this post.
I personally know both self-identified liberals and conservatives, who very closely in personal life follow the Oth of John Galt. My Liberal friend who gives away pretty much all his self-perceived excess to charities claiming the liberal mantle, but constantly complains about being forced to part with his money for things he does not support. I have a conservative friend who thinks school taxes are necessary and should be imposed as well as some other Government impositions. So who is liberal and who is conservative.
I would think my "liberal" friend would be accepted and my conservative friend may not be.
Politics is based on three other philosophical disciplines: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics—on a theory of man’s nature and of man’s relationship to existence. It is only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory and achieve it in practice. When, however, men attempt to rush into politics without such a base, the result is that embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality which is loosely designated today as “conservatism.” . . .
Today’s culture is dominated by the philosophy of mysticism (irrationalism)—altruism—collectivism, the base from which only statism can be derived; the statists (of any brand: communist, fascist or welfare) are merely cashing in on it—while the “conservatives” are scurrying to ride on the enemy’s premises and, somehow, to achieve political freedom by stealth. It can’t be done.