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 10.
Sad to say but they are ALL baddies.
Not to mention the major policies of his administration have also been big government and left wing.
Some Objectivists have argued that putting conservatives like Reagan into office gave more prominence to the threat of religious intrusion in politics (even though he did not implement it). To some extent that is true because a president automatically has a platform. But Reagan also used his platform to say may good things which people found properly appealing and motivating.
But when prominent conservatives lose an election to a Democrat or Rino it doesn't stop anyone's bad propagandizing. And when one wins an election he tends to cut back on that rhetoric in order to stay in office. While he remains in office he is generally unable to impose the worst (or the best) of his beliefs into government because he is in a minority, but he does help block the radical left agenda when possible and may lead to at least minor relative improvements within the downward trend.
More fundamental is that ideas precede politics. An election is for who will be in power and what we have to live under. The time and place for fighting for better ideas is before and after elections, everywhere and continuously, regardless of who or what is in power.
Sacrificing to a worse government in the name of clarity of ideas is a destructive strategy similar to the desires of some to crash the country as a means of reform. Political discourse doesn't become clearer when leftists are in office, though it may raise the level of perceived urgency. Letting the worst leftists into power often causes a backlash -- but that means being on the defensive at a new level, almost too late -- and it's a bad idea to make people suffer more under worse extremes of statism in the hope that they will listen to the right ideas. And it doesn't work. It may create a temporary and partial political reversal within the downward trend, but understanding and accepting better ideas is a long term process.
But I don't know what you mean by conservatives "took Microsoft away from Bill Gates". The DOJ under Clinton and several state attorneys general initiated the "anti-monopoly" attack on Microsoft in the 1990s. In 2014 Gates left Microsoft to pursue his charities full time.
But the most essential point has been overlooked. He called it like he saw it with the “fake news” and the witch hunt of an investigation. And the facts being exposed are bearing validity in these observations. It is what it is, a metaphysical fundamental.
Had Hillary been elected there was a much great danger that transcends this entire conversation. Under the Obama administration (and others) along with the embedded bureaucratic establishment, the rule of law was abandoned and its powers utilized to threaten, lie and spin its political adversaries, both pre and post-election. This new “normal” continued to erode individual rights without consequences, and appeared to lead to an organized coup that was gestating to put the final nail in the American coffin. Add in a media that long ago lost its purpose and journalistic integrity, and you have the precursor of every totalitarian state.
For the moment, this has been averted and regardless of the pros and cons of every other Trump issue, the hierarchical importance of this cannot be understated. If this is his only positive the country is still better for it. Without Trump it would have been business as usual, possibly reaching the point of no return.
And he is waaayyyyy better than the alternatives.
Bitching about paying more than the median income in taxes for nothing, with my “Legalize Freedom” and “Who is John Galt?” window stickers and instructing everyone I can in the safe use of firearms.
The closest to the left I get is when I assert a fetus is a parasite, and no argument has been otherwise posed that is not religious.
Trump is a big government leftist. Those you call "the left" are getting everything they want from Trump (trade, immigration regulations, etc) while at the same time getting to pretend to be opposing him.
Who is the real source of damage here, the nihilist left, or those aiding and abetting the nihilist left through sheer incompetence?
Trump punching back against the media and his election win causing some heads to explode amusingly is all cold comfort compared to the damage he has done.
I have the most popular elective classes on our campus, as part of our nanotech minor program and a new "maker" minor that I am trying to get approved right now. Not everyone on our campus is entrepreneurial, but a lot of students are because that is one of the things that I sell as the additional value that they will get from us in exchange for their higher tuition than at a state school.
We are a member of the Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network, or KEEN. See
https://engineeringunleashed.com/
Admittedly this is a philanthropic outreach of the Kern Family Foundation, the family that founded the company Generac that makes backup power generators. This is no small irony as Hurricane Dorian bears right down on my university.
KEEN exchanges its financial values and asks us to engender curiosity, making mental connections, and creating value. I exchange their financial value with the development of maker education content. They quite literally offered me money to convert what I had been doing research on (tissue engineering test bed development) into a class that will soon be taught in the form of Arduino, 3D printing, microfluidics, and bioprinting education at each of the KEEN network universities in a couple of years. They even paid me to visit several of these universities this summer, where I convinced many faculty to be beta testers of my tissue engineering test bed product!
In essence, they funded me in the short term to do what I wanted to do in the longer term. I got no only funding but the opportunity to build a customer base in exchange for distributing educational content to other universities that I was going to develop for my university anyway. KEEN gets its values distributed in value for value exchange.
Anyone who creates an account at the web site listed above can click on Cards and access the content that network participants share as part of similar arrangements to my own.
The following two links are examples of what I have generated as part of that value-for-value exchange:
https://engineeringunleashed.com/card...
https://engineeringunleashed.com/card...
Doing this on a phone sucks out loud.
The problem we should be focused on is how to compel and educate people to bring her philosophy, or consistent thought back to relevancy.
As well, I agree.
Any more?
They may think you are a leftist since they are the usual targets of the Meme
He had raised a serious question about practicality and principles that I answered, then complained that I had not addressed something else (which already has been addressed, several times).
Thoritsu trashes people for criticizing Trump then insists that he doesn't object to criticism of Trump. As long as they are his criticisms, which he wants played down.
No one has refused to address what he calls "the basic assertion" (which it is not). Our criticizing Trump for his fundamental philosophical flaws and their consequences, in the context that Democrats are worse, is not "undermining" Trump in the election. It's an intellectual, and therefore practical, requirement for understanding the state of the culture and its consequences. This intelligent, honest discussion is not a political campaign. We are allowed to do that. One may vote for the lesser of two evils and support that for the election; discussion of the evil is not prohibited.
Thositsu appears to have no interest in such a level of discussion and is in fact concerned with much narrower topics like his taxes (and no one else's higher increases). Observing this is not an ad hominem argument. It isn't an argument at all, just an observation of his level of discussion.
He continues to smear what he doesn't like as: "'Massive pile of disinformation' refers to the discussions bantering about everything but the simple argument" and "'Stupid' refers to the behavior of arguing among ourselves, surrounded by socialists, an not working on addressing this issue."
His so-called "the basic assertion" aka "simple argument" is not the sole topic of discussion here; we are not prohibited from talking about things he doesn't like. Doing so is not a "massive pile of disinformation" and not "stupid".
Thoritsu is free to work on the election campaign any way he wants to and may believe anything he wants; he may not tell the rest of us not to discuss and work on "this issue" in ways he doesn't like, smearing and personally attacking others as his means of enforcement through intimidation -- as in "In your version of Objectivism, is lying to manipulate people ok?" and many, many more.
Meanwhile the list of arguments above remains a strawman.
I don't think most people want to take from us; they don't even think of where it coming from. Your neighbors who wouldn't dream of robbing your house think nothing of voting to raise the taxes. But if you prod them for a justification they fall back on altruistic guilt and don't care what they take. They don't think of it as them taking, but rather the government doing it as a "necessity", rationalized with collectivism.
Many of them otherwise produce and trade peacefully, which is all that makes it worth while to still live among them in a mixed system rather than going off isolated in a jungle because there is no where else to go.
Load more comments...