11

Trump and Ojectivism

Posted by Tavolino 5 years, 8 months ago to Government
670 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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?






All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 6.
  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Equivocation and rationalization are the opposite of 'words have an exact meaning'."

    Precisely, that's why my Atlas Shrugged quote was relevant to your use of the words "vote" and "pretend".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Common sense is something ordinary people can understand. That was one of trump’s appeal in 2016
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The current presidents. Are definitely intellectually compromised, and I agree a consistent objectivist would not want to be president. If for no other reason than he would have to endure 100x the wrath of the left that trump gets
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think it is culture. My point was as China drives our industries into bankruptcy and takes over an entire segment and raises prices, we (or Europe et al) will lack the business-economic strength to restart them.
    Businesses will not start with a 10 yr negative cash flow. This is not a regulation, it is our cultural decision making and the smaller pockets of private investment vs China’s public investment.

    They have a long term plan, decades. Right now they are beginning their investment in AI to become a world leader in this area. Why? Because this will allow them to more quickly ramp up military strength at lower cost. This is not an assertion. It is their plan. We should all be very worried about them, particularly as our country loses economic strength through socialism and a decline in work ethic.

    My position on freedom vs tarries and trade is that we are not fighting a fair war. I could be convinced that this is misplaced. Milton Freedman (I admire greatly) opposed tariffs. However, I’m not sure he got to see China vs silly stuff like Europe. Japan could be another precedent. People (me included) were worried about them, but they lacked the resources to really wage this war. China does not lack the resources.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thoritsu- thanks for your views on trade with China.
    I remain in favor of free trade and no tariffs however it is good to see different views sensibly expressed.
    In particular- the barrier to reentry is almost infinite in our culture.
    Yes, but is it culture or is it laws and regulations?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Very true and that's why we need to always keep context and identify to properly convey concepts. From an Objectivist point of view, it's a continuous struggle as many use words (and their implications) improperly. It's more important for us to identify and try to correct their misunderstanding, keeping them involved rather than preaching the correct usage with pompous authority, putting them on the defensive and closing any meaningful conversation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A is always A, but not in their thoughts. But the media don't have anything to do with this and it isn't even about anyone's opinions on Trump specifically. It's about a particular person on this forum who is engaged sustained abusive taunting behavior of personal attacks which have been allowed by the forum owner to continue for months contrary to the guidelines, ordinary civility, and past practice. There is something wrong with him. Allowing it is not explained away by "we live in an imperfect world". It's about the integrity of this forum to rein in the obvious.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Tavolino makes a reasonable point. The constant pushing of a false reality in society external to the Gulch has taken its toll on many of us, including me. A = A, but not in their world.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    By rational explanations in this case I don't mean too philosophical, just some common sense with appeals to some idea of individual rights would help. Ordinary people can understand that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's clearly a hit piece but it shows the political meaning. To find out what actually happened would take a better source.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago
    No Objectivist would want to be president in this circus. He couldn't do much good, would have to execute immoral policies already in law, and would not have public support for major changes. That doesn't have anything to do with "dogmatism". "Dogmatic Objectivist" is a contradiction in terms, and as for those who try it, as Ayn Rand put it "Objectivism is its own avenger".

    Unfortunately, the potential presidents now are not just more or less rational, but less more and more less.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago
    Maybe so, but he has arguments and we try to put it in context.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "The Libertarian Party constantly confuses and equivocates between technical requirements and doing something politically meaningful (such as "voting"), then rationalizes a political significance it does not have -- including irrelevant (to them) dramatic quotes such as from Atlas Shrugged here. Observing this pattern is not 'making up definitions'. Equivocation and rationalization are the opposite of 'words have an exact meaning'."

    "The quote from Atlas Shrugged is not irrelevant. Dramatically quoting Atlas. Shrugged in defense of the Libertarian Party is irrelevant."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "She had voted, for the reasons she gave, for Goldwater knowing that one of Goldwater and Johnson had to win. Skepticism over pre-election poll reliability after Truman vs Dewey lasted much longer than that election, but more importantly her vote did not imply endorsement of abandoning real choices to fringe politics. There was no other electoral choice against Johnson.

    "All of her subsequent analyses of votes were in terms of which candidate still made some significant difference (as in anti-Nixonites for Nixon to stop the collectivist McGovern) or not voting at all. She emphatically rejected any support for the Libertarian Party as both premature and intellectually inept and a disgrace -- but as a side issue in answers to questions because the Party had so little significance."

    But you can do what you want to. No one is following you around trying to stop it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The endless circles of strained rationalizations and evasions trying to promote voting for the Libertarian Party have been exposed here many times.

    National politics as publicity is not an "arena" for spreading the required ideas, many of which are not political at all. There are other organizations that try to generate awareness of the importance of different aspects of individual liberty without being Objectivist; they don't run presidential non-candidates for PR.

    Promoting the Johson-Weld clown team in the name of progress in individualism was disgraceful. So were the spokesmen who gravitated into to sounding like the solution to major problems would be solved by focusing on illegal drugs, along with abdication of foreign policy and an unserious slapstick manner.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Dictionaries describe common word usage but don't rule out invalid concepts such as package-deals. It's up to us to choose words and qualifications to be properly understood. The word pragmatic even when not referring to the philosophy has been corrupted by it in many contexts as anti-principle.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The one doing it is not religious. Some other's in the past have been.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If you think that Alinskyite tactics only work because of conservatives being "even more hopeless" you should read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals that became an activist 'Bible' of the New Left -- and Hillary Clinton's (as one who read the Bible) college thesis at Wellesley extolling him. It is completely nihilistic in both attitude and methods for disrupting and destroying any kind of civilized life, as he demonstrated in practice. You can't blame everything on conservatives.

    No cost downloads:

    https://archive.org/details/RulesForR...
    https://rakesprogress.wordpress.com/2...

    I think you would find some of this history showing their mentality to be very interesting.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You would have to ask the democrats why they hate trump, assuming you are unable to figure it out yourself
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    We just disagree. There aren’t any dogmatic objectivists that will ever be elected as president of the USA in my lifetime. There are only potential presidents who are more or less rational.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • ewv replied 5 years, 8 months ago
  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ayn Rand knew very well that Goldwater had no chance of winning and voted for him anyway.

    Quoting Atlas Shrugged to the effect that "words have an exact meaning" is right on point.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Bannon wasn't promoting racism. He was an advisor for awhile because he was an effective political operative not because Trump wanted a "racist". Making a "connection" from Trump to Bannon to Spencer through who is said to have coined the term "alt-right" is like the arbitrary conspiracy thinking winding around and evading essentials and causality.

    The left likewise will exploit any manufactured conspiracy-like connection to accuse anyone of "racism".

    We don't think in arbitrary conjunctions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    People opposing hoards illegally flooding the border want to send them back because they are illegally flooding the border. What does that have to do with race? Everyone is some "race".

    The direct border assault has been worsening because it is orchestrated by groups encouraging and paying people to do it rather than legal entry. That is the source of the so-called "caravans". The left is demanding that those coming illegally be cared for at our expense as a form of international welfare central. Trump says he has been curtailing that through his intervention; who knows if that is true.

    Some of those opposing illegal immigration oppose some kinds of immigration. They call it "illegal" (which it often is) but don't want it to be legal.

    Proper justification for limits on kinds of immigration include criminal gangs, welfare indigents, and disease. This has had a big negative impact on victims near the border and those paying for the welfare, including some cities that have been targeted with large concentrations.

    There are also limits on how much a country can assimilate of different kinds of people with different backgrounds without destroying our own form of government -- there are about 7 billion out there; how much of that can we survive coming here with tribalist and socialist premises?

    An improper justification for blocking immigration is Trump's economic protectionism.

    None of this is about race.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo