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 14.
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree, both are emerging. I wonder if the left has gone so far, it will drive people to the basic concepts of freedom.

    The right leader (not Trump) could bring a lot of people in line with practical positions on freedom, moving us away from all: hating gays and abortion at the same time we move away from giving all the money and power to the government to waste inefficiently.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Maybe he hasn't come out and said it because he hasn't thought of it? China is not the only country against which he's using tariffs to force a "deal".

    Meanwhile, you seem to be forced to look for alternate suppliers in alternate communist countries susceptible to a Chinese takeover.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Means require an end which must be justified as a purpose. You choose an end, then find a means to reach it. Both the goal and the means must be justified.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What "zealotry"? His assertions are false snide personal attacks in a sustained campaign of harassment.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    He's not fighting for the principle. He doesn't understand the concept. He's a Pragmatist using intellectual property rights as a bargaining chip in his deal-making, which may or may not result in some temporary reduction of the theft, but with nothing left at the end that he cares about regardless of continuing theft. Rights aren't protected or fought for by negotiating with criminals. Pragmatism is a false alternative to Bush and Obama doing nothing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    When someone has a gun to your head or threatens to punch you, you aren't agreeing to anything, you are being coerced. That is not abandonment of principles.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is an extreme example, but it is not without cognitive meaning.

    Take away the gun then, and replace it with:
    Being threatened to be punched,
    Being required to berth in the baggage compartment on a transoceanic voyage,
    Not getting a free lunch

    There are many examples that are not purely hypothetical. It takes nothing away from the discussion or point.

    You agree that you address getting the gun out of the way first. This means you agree that you comply with the command. This means you set you principals aside and make a statement you don’t agree with. You can not argue this is not setting your principles aside, because you would not otherwise make the verbal statement.

    Between a gun to your head and having the other person yell at you, there are a continuum of negatives. Some, you would deal with. Others, you would compromise. This is obvious.

    It does not mean your principles are abandoned, but they are compromised temporarily to be practical.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A Better Way to Spread Objectivism, Dr. Jerome Huyler
    Objectivism, if I'm not mistaken, is going about the business of spreading ideas all wrong. This is not to cast aspersions on anything Ayn Rand ever said or wrote. It's a communications problem. Galt understood that you cannot tell anyone something he or she is not ready to hear. Americans are not ready to hear about philosophy - any philosophy. It's not that they're un-philosophical, it's that they're thoroughly anti-philosophical. That's no reflection on Ayn Rand or philosophy, as such. Nobody knows less about their profession than professional philosophers. For centuries they have been giving philosophy a reputation of being senseless and useless. For the average American it has nothing to do with, to borrow Dr. Peikoff's formulation, "the real world out there."
    There's another problem. Ideas are spread and get to impact a culture from the top down. It is the intellectuals of the Ivy League Universities who set the course. Ideas filter down from there. Today, the academic deck is stacked heavily against the good - against reason, egoism, individualism, and laissez faire capitalism. So what is there to do?
    I say spread Liberty from the bottom up. Not by spreading the philosophic ideas of Ayn Rand, so much, as by reconnecting with the quasi-Objectivist principles preached and (all contradictions aside) more fully practiced than at any prior time in history. John Locke's principles of reason and freedom captured the founders imagination. Their remnants are alive and well, and living in America's heartland.
    The common man has not lost his common sense, and the principles enunciated in our founding documents still make sense to most (if only for a few hours before and after each Independence Day's festivities).
    Those principles promote reason (yielding the immutable laws of nature), ethics (egoism, individualism, and healthy civic engagement), and a government offering equal protection to all, and so limited to acting as PROTECTOR, but prohibited from becoming a PROVIDER, giving to some by plundering others .
    It was the earliest violation of this last principle which, in time, turned America into the runaway Corporate/Social Welfare State that every American should be working to dismantle, brick by brick.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The philosophical meaning of pragmatism leads to the "ends justify the means" as principles are severed. Wrong on every account.
    What was meant above began with principled (causation) which can lead to a proper pragmatic (in the common usage) ends. That is the fundamental of the scientific theory and cause and effect.
    Unprincipled means will lead to unprincipled ends. It's obvious in the physical sciences, somewhat more muddled in the social sciences.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Very possibly. It was just and interesting statistic and trend re the steel industry that I had come across.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are quite correct in saying that Trump sees everything as negotiating. A popular saying is that you get what you negotiate, but more accurately in Trump's case, you don't get what you don't negotiate for. As an inventor, I am enboldened by Trump's willingness to fight this battle that very few people are willing to fight for.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Further left than Trump certainly.
    But being a supporter of Trump and debating his benefits vs AOC or Bernie, is like debating Obama vs AOC or Bernie.
    You're just debating the pros and cons of different leftists of various specific tribes and levels of consistency.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There are a few very good people in high levels of the Trump administration who are a lot better than "ok". They also realize what the trend is and that their specific actions in their current role is not changing it beyond their tenure. They are not Trump idolizers, just willing and grateful that they are able to do something that otherwise would not be possible at all.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    When someone has a gun pointed at your head your principles require you to get rid of it, not follow out of context commandments that get you killed in the name of "principles". Following principles requires maintaining context. Being forced to say something at gunpoint has no cognitive meaning and everyone seeing it knows it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I observe Trump from a distance, mostly on TV. The reception nationally is pretty good now and doesn't require living in NYC boroughs.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Trump uses the term "intellectual property rights" but does not seem to understand it as an absolute principle. He sees everything as negotiating a deal in which almost everything is up for grabs. Running a proper government is not running a business.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Aren't most of our steel and aluminum imports from Canada regardless of world production statistics? Isn't importing from China rare earth metals required for electronics a bigger problem?

    In general, not relying on an enemy for anything required is common sense. It's not just resources specifically for defense. We also have to live.

    More difficult is determining who over time are reliable allies secure from takeover themselvese, what our essential requirements are, and how long it takes to make adjustments.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think I have done just as you said, made an argument for some of the good things, and against the worse things.

    Being principled is not always practical. If someone points a gun at your head and says tell me Hillary is a good person or all shoot, it is not practical to be principled.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Continuing from earlier post . . .

    “ . . . we vote within the possibilities still available to us. It is not an endorsement of the candidates or faith in anything. The vote determines who will be in office out of the few possibilities.”

    A Libertarian candidate appearing on the ballot is one of “the possibilities still available to us.” Intentionally limiting your vote to members of the corrupt two-party system, when other choices are available and when your lone vote won’t change the outcome, sends a message loud and clear that you are okay with the two-party status quo and have no interest in challenging it. This may not be the message you intend to send, but that is how the political establishment will view it.

    ”There is no vote to waste outside of the choices in the election, and advancing the "cause of freedom" isn't meaningfully on the ballot.”

    The Libertarian Party is usually on the ballot in all 50 states, and its principles and platform are far more freedom-oriented than anything offered by the corrupt “major” parties. “Meaningful” is not just about winning the next election, it’s about providing a political home for voters fed up with what you term the “progressively increasing altruism-collectivism-statism.” The LP’s growing vote totals show that it is succeeding in this endeavor.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo