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 5.
There is great power in setting the definition of words. I heard it through the grape vine.
I think that you just illustrated the futile and misleading nature of all these one-word labels. For instance, I would argue that the irrationalism label covers both conservatism an liberalism, Nowadays it seams that liberalism and progressivism are one and the same thing. In Europe, after the fall of the soviet regime, many communist parties overnight became socialist parties with the leadership and the same membership. I would argue that the Bushes were not conservatives in the literal meaning of that label. But, what does that label mean? Some people would say it means those who wish to preserve a regime or to restore one from the past. Others would argue that it means those who would like to preserve or restore the social mores based on religious tenets which once were much more widely accepted.
I like the spirit of our Constitution, which assumes that vast majority of us wish life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and are entitled to a certain, relatively short list of inalienable rights, to which all are entitled in front of the government and the law. They did not institute any dividing labels that I am aware of.
Of course there are people who are masochists and sadists or those who are insane. But, could they not be handled under the principle of no one is allowed to initiate use of force? Consenting masochist is free to pursue his own happiness jus like every normal human being.
So, I would urge let's refrain from using labels other than a membership in a defined club or organization with all the uncertainty of the individual views that it may imply. Is this not one of the reasons for why the vote is secret?
Just think how much uncertainty today is hidden in the meaning of "he is a Republican" or "he is a Democrat?"
Political correctness note: I use he to mean both genders (even those that are trans or otherwise devious).
Stay well and say hi for me to you kind wife.
The rational person uses feelings on determining what is good vs. bad.
He irrational person uses feelings as tools of cognition.
"So we should obey an alleged god’s commandments because we can’t prove that he/she/it does not exist?"
No. But until the matter is settled a measure of respect toward others who do have faith is due. Tolerance isn't necessarily acceptance, its just as it should be, live and let live. In short, we do not and cannot know until after we're dead if there is another more and there is a point of no return. I do believe the basic tenants of Christianity have served this nation well, not great, but well. The loss of those tenants is directly responsible for the nations decline, the rise of collectivism and its natural aversion to capitalism.
I disagree with the notion that morality is rationally derived. If true, morality would be subjective to the individual's personal self interest and no one would be able to reject or deny anyones anything since it rationally make sense to that individual. A rational derived morality would work against society in general.
So we should obey an alleged god’s commandments because we can’t prove that he/she/it does not exist? If so, which god should we obey?
A bedrock axiom of Objectivism is the primacy of existence and its opposite is the primacy of consciousness. This axiom underlies the philosophy’s rejection of the supernatural and of any form of mysticism. It also underlies Objectivism’s view of morality as rationally derived rather than divinely ordained.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pri...
A Christian Constitutional Conservative in no way wants to impose a theocracy.
For example, it does my heart good to see some of a football team taking a knee in a prayer huddle.
It also does my heart good to see some choosing not to.
That's called freedom of choice.
The fourth branch................the first three branches should be fully understood before venturing into the fourth. BT
The problem in our society at present is that we have so few people who are really into the principles of freedom. Most want to control you one way or the other like he says.
We need to split off into another country at this point. The USA is too far gone to waste time on. Its on a downhill slide towards socialism that can only be slowed, but not stopped. The problem is WHERE and how to defend it.
" It would be better if conservatives quit pretending they were for freedom or capitalism, because they are not."
That's for certain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BT
"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. " This is why I used to vote or at least argue for conservatives, but I am no longer sure that this is true. (I voted or voiced support for the free market candidate available).
At the political level it might seem better to support conservatives. However, a fake "free market or capitalist) politician is worse than an open socialists, because he (e.g. the Bushes) confuses people as to what capitalism is. It would be better if conservatives quit pretending they were for freedom or capitalism, because they are not.
On a philosophical basis conservatives and liberals both trace their lineage back to the irrationalism of David Hume, so they are just minor forks in the same tree of irrationalism.
"However even apart from that, the fact remains that they wish to impose controls..."
Do you believe that a law prohibiting murder actually stops someone from committing murder? No, it does not. It simply places a penalty for engaging in the behavior. There is no such thing as "control" of another human being - whether through legislation or otherwise. Everyone is free to choose whatever they want.
What you are really complaining about is the imposition of penalties associated with specific actions according to their judged morality: right or wrong, i.e. laws. And what are laws really? They are societal pacts where certain standards of behavior are set forth. The debate between liberals and conservatives (and libertarians) is on which sets of standards are applicable. Liberals want to establish a class system with rulers and peasants where some are "more equal than others" (Orwell). Libertarians and conservatives promote the idea that all are equal, they simply differ on why all men are equal. Conservatives assert that men are "created equal" (Jefferson) and libertarians (and Objectivists) assert that it is the presence of intellect which makes men equal (Rand).
Your issue is that you disagree with the set of universal standards being selected as the basis for society. You believe in equality which disassociates you from the liberals, but you also don't believe that man's equality is a result of anything other than himself, which is what disassociates you from conservatives.
You have every right to want to form a society in which the members of that society agree to and adhere to a set of standards. That's what the premise of the fictional Gulch is all about: the creation of a society centered around Galt's Oath. The question which is much more difficult to resolve is how to tell whether or not the standards of any society created by man reflect the reality of true universal principles.
The Middle Ages are over.
Well, save for some crazy Muslims anyway.
However even apart from that, the fact remains that they wish to impose controls on people based upon their personal beliefs. Conservatives wish to pass laws to force others to follow their religious doctrine. If a man is not free to act on his own conscience, he is not free to think for himself. They wish to control man's mind, enforcing morality and censorship to conform to the arbitrary commands of a supernatural being.
Galt would reject modern liberals rightly because they take the stand that they can determine reality because they tell themselves that since they can make laws that they can alter reality to conform to their edicts. That is nonsense.
Conservatives are another matter entirely. Galt might reject them for believing that God is the one who set the rules, but he would not dispute the existence of universal morals.
But you sorely misunderstand conservatives if you proclaim that they want to rule man's consciousness. They do not. They simply assert that there is a continuity to consciousness which persists after death and that our actions here have repercussions there as well as here. Their "constraints" are not controls, they are recognitions that one will be limited in his scope of abilities in the next life if one undertakes certain behaviors in this one. Conservatives recognize that the same life we live here will be the life we live there, and that unlike here where we are free to live lives of contradiction, that option will not be present there.
Load more comments...