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 13.
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think Trump's stance on China is the highest risk/reward item in his presidency. It may be the least pragmatic thing he is doing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You get points based on votes.
    If you get negative votes, your comment is obscured.

    Unfortunately, there are an infinity of votes, so one need not discriminate. Little gangs, like ewv’s, will globally, up vote gang members and downvote tribe-enemies.

    People who have nothing else to do worry about points, daily, weekly, total.

    Read this quickly, because cowards will obscure it as soon as the lights go off.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What is not readily recognizable is that the progressives, and all their variants, utilize a moving authoritative control from branch to branch with all the minions consistently falling in lockstep. It doesn't matter which branch they control, they use it to further their agenda for the last century.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    True, but some are misidentified with the alternatives you present, both shut down rational discussion. Put principles to the positives things and if anyone in either of the two groups you mention can understand, just maybe they will be more inquisitive to the hows and whys of Objectivism. Let's keep them in the showroom.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are one of the more articulate with regard to the principles and applications, but don't become defensive when there are many that will not like Beethoven, any modern art, or rock music, because they lack the independent thinking. It's ironic with regards to the philosophy but I've known many, including some that attend every conference. It's just a fact and it's their psychological shortcomings, not the philosophy. Stay positive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ok Francis. I tried.

    And I tried once before.

    You are a complete waste of time.

    While no one is looking (which is why you have the balls to act like a big shot here), read the story of the martial artist who went to the Shaloin temple asking for training, “Empty your Cup”

    Oh, yeah and downvote fast, before other people see what an rigid clown you are.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The constant stream of dishonest smears and libelous personal attacks in violation of the guidelines for posting here, as well common sense civility, are here for all to see. That is one of them. It is not "discussion".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Rejecting your personal attacks, including this one, is not "glib remarks" and "blindsided trolling and lack of response to the simple logical assertions". Your personal attacks are not "simple logical assertions". Just stop it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The "gridlock" theory advanced some years ago by some Objectivists fails to recognize the enormous power of the presidency through the actions of now virtually uncontrollable Federal agencies and their rule-making. Who runs them is appointed by the party of the President. The President also appoints judges and runs foreign policy.

    What little might be done by Congress to check any of this is not done by Republican congresses. We recently saw this in action under Obama. The "gridlock" theory results in the advance of statism and a lot of people by hurt by government action, not a real gridlock of government.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That depends on what you mean by "Trump supporter". There is a big difference between preferring some of Trump's actions over the political alternative of the Democrats (and Rhinos) who would otherwise be fully in power versus supporting what he is himself. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... The Trump idolizers versus the Never Trumpers are a false alternative.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What is an "absolute view of objectivism" equated with "religious evangelists", what are "objectivist purists", and what does "how many angels dance on the head of a pin" have to do with Objectivism at all? This is all a smear of Objectivism and the role of consistent thought and principles in human life. Ayn Rand described her philosophy as a "philosophy for living on earth", which requires objectivity and consistency. What "non absolute" "impure" view of Objectivism do you support?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Forums are for discussion, something too many forget.

    You correct and/or exhort people from your perceived moral high ground. You do not discus, you do not debate, you EXHORT.

    When people disagree with anything you post or think you posted, you interpret it as a personal attack. Often you are the only one interpreting something as an attack, I guess that's what makes it personal for you.

    You are a Zealot by action, and one of the reasons I rarely spend time on here.

    I'm not one of the people down voting you, others do that. It isn't worth my time.

    BTW if you want to attack me as you do others, go right ahead. I do not care.

    Edit- moved nonsensical comma
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years, 8 months ago
    Those who stand on moral purity have a right to object to that which does not fit their world view. Just as it does for religious evangelists, so it does for those who take an absolutist view of objectivism. It may seem frustrating and puzzling to those who are happy with an outcome, even if we don't necessarily feel comfortable with the method used to meet a goal.

    Movies like "The Sting" are an example of how a totally unscrupulous pair of crooks pull off an illegal act that the audience finally perceives as having a righteous outcome. When Trump uses his experience in the business and entertainment worlds to achieve an awkward success, there are usually three audiences: those for whom achieving the goal is all that matters; those for whom the outcome was a defeat (nowadays the progressives, who see the Obama gains wiped out); and those who disapprove of his methods (the NeverTrumpers, e.g.).

    Obama had elegance and oratory, which made many who feel a national leader should have a regal public persona comfortable. News flash for those: this is the country of the common man, which is why Trump has been called the "blue collar President," as his style rings a familiar tone with the hourly working crowd. They like hearing a national leader who talks like they do. Trump was made to work alongside the construction crews by his father, so he would gain an appreciation of their world and interests, and his experience shows.

    I'm used to dealing with academics. When I was developing a model of nuclear warfare and detection sensors, I had to deal with an academic who insisted our simulations have random cloud cover because that was more real. No amount of explaining that we needed predictable conditions in order to correctly gauge sensor performance would sway him, so I fired him, over the objections of our dedicated support contractor, who had to find him another job. I can't fire the objectivist purists here, but I can ignore them, rather than get upset because they insist on turning a discussion into a disagreement on how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The problem we all have is that we live in the here and now, and we WILL get one of the choices of politicians that run. We dont have much control over that. But, the actual choice does affect us in the real world. Typically, we get a choice between a VERY irrational and collectivist president and congress, and a LESS irrational and collectivist president and congress. I will never live to see anywhere near a set of objectivist politicians occupying those offices, BUT I would rather have a less collectivist life than a more collectivist life.

    In any event, whichever way I vote will have zero effect on the outcome, so one could argue its useless to even vote in a mob-rule country like this one.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I will not plead guilty to “smears” and certainly not “dishonesty” et al, but I will say your narrow interpretations, blindsided trolling and lack of response to the simple logical assertions I’ve made...inspire response.

    If you attempt to knock off the glib remarks, I will attempt to be more clinical, at least to you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Those were just to illustrate the point.

    Voting and/or influencing in an election was what triggered this thought process.

    Every candidate is a compromise. No candidates embody all one’s beliefs. Almost none or none (closest I could name is Ron Paul, ret.) are Objectivists themselves.

    How about a hypothetical candidate that was a felon at one time, cheated on his wife last year, and is belligerent but supports reducing government, and is running against an avid socialist?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The negativity is the personal smears and attacks. Rejecting and morally denouncing that is not negativity. I responded to someone apparently taking the latest dishonest smear at face value which showed the intended results in libeling reputation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You described "hard ones" as
    "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"

    Being required (by whom and how?) to be in a baggage compartment, and replacing threat with a gun by "not getting a free lunch", do not describe what you mean by violating principles and I didn't want to guess. If you describe what you mean by those examples I will try to respond to that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You certainly show tenacity is sticking with this negativity, rather than getting back to a discussion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You addressed the easy ones, but not the hard ones.
    There are clearly examples where an immediate action/decision that is consistent with principles will result in long-term outcomes that are not consistent with the same principles/philosophy.

    How is this handled?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo