Trump and Ojectivism
Posted by Tavolino 5 years, 8 months ago to Government
Trump and Objectivism
I’m puzzled by the formal Objectivist movement (ARI, TOS) and their complete disdain for President Trump. From the beginning they have never missed a chance not only to distance themselves, but also follow with a pompous negative certainty, without having the necessary relevant facts. Ironic, considering our foundations are based on proper identification (metaphysics) and validation (epistemology) before passing judgment or taking action (ethics). While I agree principles should never be compromised, context and perspective need to be objectively evaluated and applied, rather than a blind intrinsic repetition. Regarding Trump, there some broad hierarchal recognitions that I believe are very consonant with our philosophy.
Our fundamental basis is metaphysics, which is the proper identification of the nature of something. More than any past politician, however brash, Trump calls it like he sees it within his known knowledge. Be it the emotional motivations of political correctness, the lies of the “fake news,” the imbedded corruption, the recognition of the good and bad on the world stage (Israel, China, North Korea, Iran), the parasitical nations that feed off our teat, etc., etc.. The transparency of his thoughts have been unmatched and not hidden behind political speak, spins, alternate agendas, backroom deals or deceit. It is what it is.
As Dr. Jerome Huyler noted, “Trump has the sense of life of an individualist. His common sense - born of decades of experience as a businessman and dealing with politicians - tells him that taxes and heavy-handed regulations destroy economies. It is true, as Rand said that common sense is the child's method of thinking. But it is born of empirical experience,” the basis of knowledge acquisition.
His “America First” mantra should be championed by us. Rand had always said America will never regain its greatness until it changes its altruist morality. America First is just that. It’s not some blind German nationalism, but an attitude that America’s interests need to be selfishly upheld. This is a necessary fundamental to our ethics. He has attempted to keep open discussions with all, based around trade and fair exchange. Rand had said, “The trader and the warrior have been fundamental antagonist throughout history.” His movement away from aggressive wars, political globalism and multi-lateral agreements keep our own self-interests as paramount. It’s the application of the trader principle.
Lastly, his counter-punch mindset and approach is completely in line with our moral rightness of retaliation. He may prod or poke, but does not pull the proverbial trigger until he’s attacked, either with words or actions.
There is a dire threat that’s facing our country today with the abuses and power of the ingrained bureaucracy utilized for political purposes. It's imperative that all Americans unite, led by the voices of reason to identify and expose this fundamental threat to freedom. It's not about the false alternative of Trump or never Trump, it's about the American system and the fundamental role, purpose and responsibilities of government, regardless ones political persuasion.
As Objectivists, we need to continually apply our principles in the real world of what is, slowly moving it to where it should be. We need to descend from the “ivory tower” to the first floor of reality. Trump may not be able to articulate the principles, but are not what’s mentioned above consistent with our most basic and fundamental beliefs as Objectivists?
I’m puzzled by the formal Objectivist movement (ARI, TOS) and their complete disdain for President Trump. From the beginning they have never missed a chance not only to distance themselves, but also follow with a pompous negative certainty, without having the necessary relevant facts. Ironic, considering our foundations are based on proper identification (metaphysics) and validation (epistemology) before passing judgment or taking action (ethics). While I agree principles should never be compromised, context and perspective need to be objectively evaluated and applied, rather than a blind intrinsic repetition. Regarding Trump, there some broad hierarchal recognitions that I believe are very consonant with our philosophy.
Our fundamental basis is metaphysics, which is the proper identification of the nature of something. More than any past politician, however brash, Trump calls it like he sees it within his known knowledge. Be it the emotional motivations of political correctness, the lies of the “fake news,” the imbedded corruption, the recognition of the good and bad on the world stage (Israel, China, North Korea, Iran), the parasitical nations that feed off our teat, etc., etc.. The transparency of his thoughts have been unmatched and not hidden behind political speak, spins, alternate agendas, backroom deals or deceit. It is what it is.
As Dr. Jerome Huyler noted, “Trump has the sense of life of an individualist. His common sense - born of decades of experience as a businessman and dealing with politicians - tells him that taxes and heavy-handed regulations destroy economies. It is true, as Rand said that common sense is the child's method of thinking. But it is born of empirical experience,” the basis of knowledge acquisition.
His “America First” mantra should be championed by us. Rand had always said America will never regain its greatness until it changes its altruist morality. America First is just that. It’s not some blind German nationalism, but an attitude that America’s interests need to be selfishly upheld. This is a necessary fundamental to our ethics. He has attempted to keep open discussions with all, based around trade and fair exchange. Rand had said, “The trader and the warrior have been fundamental antagonist throughout history.” His movement away from aggressive wars, political globalism and multi-lateral agreements keep our own self-interests as paramount. It’s the application of the trader principle.
Lastly, his counter-punch mindset and approach is completely in line with our moral rightness of retaliation. He may prod or poke, but does not pull the proverbial trigger until he’s attacked, either with words or actions.
There is a dire threat that’s facing our country today with the abuses and power of the ingrained bureaucracy utilized for political purposes. It's imperative that all Americans unite, led by the voices of reason to identify and expose this fundamental threat to freedom. It's not about the false alternative of Trump or never Trump, it's about the American system and the fundamental role, purpose and responsibilities of government, regardless ones political persuasion.
As Objectivists, we need to continually apply our principles in the real world of what is, slowly moving it to where it should be. We need to descend from the “ivory tower” to the first floor of reality. Trump may not be able to articulate the principles, but are not what’s mentioned above consistent with our most basic and fundamental beliefs as Objectivists?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 21.
Makes sense.
The fact that there is no counter to the left in mainstream politics is a real concern.
But all too many conservatives and even some Objectivists are more worried about "owning the libs" then realizing they are becoming just like them.
Compared to your fantastical vision of Trump, calling him a complete collectivist is far more accurate.
Since all that money will need to be acquired another way, usually by printing and borrowing, which is WORSE than increasing taxes because of the incorrect market signals that pretend "tax cuts" send.
The facts .............
"
If it was wrong, then I'm sure one of the facts you would've provided would've been an example of a BILL repealing some regulations. Instead you went into the usual "fiddling around the margins" that conservatives always do, that does not qualify as any serious kind of "deregulation" and will be undone the moment democrats take over again.
He has not repealed Obamacare.
A judge striking down a component of Obamacare that may kill it, maybe, is not an example of "repealing Obamacare."
To repeal Obamacare we would needed to have a bill doing so and no such bill is forthcoming.
I've also listed out all the ways in which Trump is a collectivist. I have received no counter, just nonsensical responses, evasions and downvotes.
If anything I've said is incorrect then it is on YOU to demonstrate that. All my points stand until you do so.
The Act cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% beginning in 2018. The corporate cuts are permanent, while the individual changes expire at the end of 2025.
A responsibility for a task is bad practice?
Please without sudjectivity , tell me how you know Trump wouldn’t know what standard to use?
WRONG
The facts .............
The fall 2018 Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions just appeared today. Notably, this is the first time the fall edition has arrived on schedule in October since 2005. (Here’s an administration overview of the new edition.)
There’s plenty to analyze, but first let’s use the occasion to look at the Trump administration’s simultaneous status update on the now famous one-in, two-out requirement for regulations initiated in Executive Order 13771. This update is called “Regulatory Reform Results for Fiscal Year 2018.”
Back in fiscal year 2017, the Trump administration claimed success in exceeding its 2-for-1 goals. Detail on what rules came and went is here, but the upshot was the elimination of 67 rules but adding only three (for a 22-to-1 ratio). The fall Unified Agenda at that time revealed a more modest but successful four-to-one ratio, but on the other hand there has been streamlining of guidance documents and independent agency rules that the administration could have taken credit for but didn’t. Next, the spring 2018 Unified Agenda found the administration technically still exceeding the two-for-one directive with a (nearly) six-to-one ratio, with 14 rules in and 80 out. Interim detail on what the rules were is here, but the new “Regulatory Reform Results” updates them, as does the new fall 2018 Agenda itself.
In the new 2018 update, 57 significant deregulatory actions and 14 significant regulatory actions were completed. Comparing significant deregulatory actions to significant regulatory actions, the ratio of significant regulatory actions removed to those added is four to one. Here’s a summary comparing year-end 2017 to the fiscal year 2018.
Significant Regulatory Actions 2017 2018
# Regulatory: 3 14
# Deregulatory: 66 57
Claimed ratio of rules out to rules in: 22 4
If one considers deregulatory actions that do not rise to the “significant” label, the ratio is claimed to be 12-to-one, given that agencies issued 176 deregulatory actions in fiscal year 2018 overall, along with the 14 significant regulatory actions.
The dollar savings from regulatory streamlining also exceeded goals. The bottom line of the 176 deregulatory and 14 regulatory actions is a claimed cost savings of $23 billion in present value, as detailed in “Regulatory Reform under Executive Order 13771: Final Accounting for Fiscal Year 2018.”
We know the generation of new regulations has dropped significantly under Trump. But in terms of rollbacks, it is likely to become harder to pick the “significant regulatory action” fruit over time capable of generating rapid rule and cost rollbacks. Major regulations like the Clean Power Plan and Waters of the United States will entail years of public consultation, writing, and legal challenges, and are not to be found in updates like today’s.
I did not use the term "complete collectivist" either. Ideologically Trump's appeals are almost always collectivist with no mention of individual rights even for policies we regard as better despite that. Quibbling over to what degree his collectivism is "complete" within his pragmatist nationalism is an irrelevant rationalistic diversion, not an excuse to personally attack people for rejecting the currently typical uncritical and populist conservative mantra for Trump, which mantra does “indicate a lack of intellectual independence and/or rational standards”.
I did not say that CBJ or other Libertarian Party activists are idolizing Trump; if any are now they certainly did not in the election, in which supporting Johnson-Weld was worse.
Took the time to read "The Cult of Moral Grayness" last night. Really enlightening stuff, demonstrating how resigning humanity to "gray" morality is really an acceptance of "black" morality and an unwillingness to demonstrate complete "white" morality, if I'm understanding it correctly.
Shocking, it was just like what Ayn did.
Load more comments...