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 17.
Nationalism is collectivistic -that's the problem.
Maybe this is why AR made such a deal about a gulch where the people there could recharge.
give in" just to tariffs. Once it gets to be a patriotic boycott, there is no turning back for china.
We buy from china for several reasons: 1) Cost, 2) We cant get the same product here in the USA because its NOT made here anymore, and 3) if we had to pay the USA raw material and labor prices we would kill our business and go bankrupt.
I have had a sinking feeling that from a quick review of history that the communist chinese government is following the centuries old pattern of expansionist collectivism of china, and that one day we will be fighting china for our survival. I admit that I kind of put this feeling on the back burner.
China's recent reaction to Hong Kong, given that THEY made a deal for another 20 years to leave it free, leaves little to the imagination as to their honesty and intentions. I am convinced at this point that the more we trade with them, the more militant they are going to get and will threaten to take over the world.
Would it have made sense to trade with hitler in the 1940's ? He would have taken the profits to help build up his weapons.
There will never be a "deal" with china as I see it. Their goals are pretty set in stone, and they arent going to give them up at this point for some tariff concessions on the part of the USA.
I think that Trump's plan all along was to starve China of foreign exchange by having the USA drastically cut back on and possibly just cease trade altogether. He set up relatively small tariffs to forewarn USA citizens and encourage them to slow down purchases. The idea was also to give the chinese one last chance to "reform". Obviously that didnt work. Now he is reverting to the idea that its time to just stop trading with china in order to keep china from gaining the power they want to rule the world.
I wish he would just come out and say this, and encourage the people of the USA to not shoot themselves in the foot by providing trading benefits to such a totalitarian power. But I get the message. It is a rational response to china at this point.
The tarrifs are hurting our company a LOT. Some of our biggest purchases just arent available in other countries YET. Our largest supplier is starting up an operation in Cambodia as fast as he can so his USA customers can still buy from him. We are madly looking at Vietnam and India for alternate suppliers also. It does take time.
Making the items in the USA is just not in the cards. The costs here are 3x what they were in china. With the tariffs at 30% and probably increasing to 100% soon, we will still have to buy from china until we qualify alternate suppliers.
I will also disagree with the "racist" charge against Trump. Trump's nationalism is an objective recognition that some countries (as opposed to some individuals) are indeed better than others. Would you seriously consider living in a country like Cuba or Venezuela? I know many people from both countries who are worthy of belonging to the Gulch, but they were smart enough to leave.
”Obviously we are talking about voters choosing how to cast their own votes to be counted within in a real election rather than squandering them for a different purpose that detracts from the voting and accomplishes nothing in the election.”
Libertarian candidates appear on the ballot in real elections and their votes are counted. (And occasionally at the local and state legislative levels, these candidates win.) “Squandering” is a value judgment, not an argument, and relies on the unstated premise that the only “legitimate” vote is for one of the candidates put forth by a corrupt two-party system – a system that also rigs the election rules to make sure that the system stays in place. “Detracts from the voting” is also a value judgment, not an argument, and relies on the unstated premise that any vote for a non-mainstream candidate is somehow “illegitimate” (perhaps even immoral). “Accomplishes nothing in the election” is also a value judgment, not an argument, and relies on the unstated premise that the sole purpose of voting is to validate the “choice” presented to you by the powers that control the political process.
Ayn Rand voted for Goldwater in 1964. Since it was widely known by election day that he was going to lose badly, then by the logic of your argument she “squandered” her vote “for a different purpose that detracts from the voting and accomplishes nothing in the election.”
To be continued . . .
Unfortunately when ewv sees pragmatism he loses cool.
(Like me when I see- Deep and meaningful conversation.. Pause .. to retch)
Getting an antagonist to lose cool may have advantages, it is not Objectivism.
Surely, you are not saying that when you have two bad candidates you do not criticize the one who is slightly less bad?
Self interest, by itself, is not the definition of Objectivism.
Values such as honesty, and expressing thought-out opinions are part of it.
Reciprocity is essential, every individual right applies equally to every other individual.
Bad temper, hurling insults, and poor spelling may be ok in some places, but are not compulsory.
Reposted from last evening
Is lying consistent with the policies of this forum? Logical argument presented. No strawman...anywhere.
Here is my logical argument, again, which you have done nothing to refute in numerous cycles.
1. Arguing against Trump in an overwhelming manner improves the position of the other potential to be elected, the Democrat.
2. It is very likely the Democrat who will make the general election will have policies far worse than Trump's, from an Objectivist point of view.
3. Therefore, arguing against Trump in this manner is not in an Objectivists best self interest.
4. Therefore, this behavior is not consistent with a real Objectivist.
One can only assume the rest of the continued whining is because you have no argument, and really hate to be wrong in public. Too bad. That is the beginning of the end of learning.
Ok look I made a simple logical argument. I'll make it again so people can follow:
1. Arguing against Trump in an overwhelming manner improves the position of the other potential to be elected, the Democrat.
2. It is very likely the Democrat who will make the general election will have policies far worse than Trump's, from an Objectivist point of view.
3. Therefore, arguing against Trump in this manner is not in an Objectivists best self interest.
4. Therefore this behavior is not consistent with a real Objectivist.
Very, very simple.
What did I not say? I did not say that any negative statement about Trump was wrong. I say many negative things about Trump. Here as well.
You, said because Trump's position on trade are an example of they do so, and are RIGHT to do so. I do NOT think the positions on trade are a clearly negative example, but accept that you do. However, just as I defend above, quite clearly, it is self defeating, and nonobjective to make a massive tear into Trump about trade, and not note or even imply that this is one negative among other positives in some manner. Any one asserting there are no positives is simply a liar or completely ignorant.
I think it's very important in our own thinking to not equate "Objectivist" with whatever isolated event we happen to approve of in the sea of disasters of the current political context.
Not only can something be done for the wrong motives or for superficial correct motives (or by accident), an isolated event may seem to be some kind of improvement but in a terrible context that has no ideal solution and with results nothing like Objectivist values even though there may be a relative improvement.
Some tax going down temporarily isn't necessarily "Objectivist" -- the whole system is wrong, and so is a law lowering some taxes while raising others, especially when even a reduction is done for nationalist collective purposes of "the economy" rather than for the rights of the individual, and accompanied by appeals to soak the rich. That someone likes his tax going down doesn't make it "Objectivist" -- his own motive for liking that one aspect may be, but not the tax just because part of it is lower for someone.
None of us should be praising Trump for being "Objectivist" in any way to any degree.
Practical tactics in this political mess are neither Objectivist nor non-Objectivist; the philosophical term does not apply. With a proper Objectivist approach one can do better with better thinking, but that's it -- the results are neither Objectivist nor non-Objectivist. Maneuvering through this crap should not be identified as "Objectivist" at all. It has nothing to do with the principles. Our method of thinking may, but that kind of thinking surely does not apply to Trump or his package deals no matter what we think of any of his particular actions that may be some kind of improvement within the mess.
That isn't the only realm where this topic of what is "Objectivist" comes up. In a positive setting such as the sciences there is no such things as Objectivist physics or Objectivist mathematics, they are just physics and mathematics. There can be an Objectivist philosophy of a science, but that science itself is only the science, not an "Objectivist science".
If he has something consistent, principled, and rational to coherently say about his China policy or anything else, no one is stopping him but himself.
In particular he seems obsessed with tariffs clobbering American citizens as a weapon of choice for almost everything -- it's by no means restricted to policy with China. It's an executive power, too broadly authorized by Congress, that he discovered and he's running wild with it.
I hope his instability does not create a crises, despite his more sensible advisors trying to rein him in, and/or a further loss of confidence in him so badly that the increasingly extreme Democrat collectivists are able to exploit it to take over, making things much worse. But Trump is what he is and there's nothing we can do about it. The Republicans had nothing else viable to offer, leaving too many to follow the man on the white horse no matter what. This is frightening.
His positions on things like trade are just one of the many example of why they do so and are RIGHT to do so.
Load more comments...