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 2.
Meanwhile report me to the admins if you are so convinced I am attacking you.
Your complaining is tiring.
You have ranted about personal attacks all through this thread and the other long thread about President Trump. I could probably find others too.
The closest I have come to a personal attack on you is referring to your conduct as those of a zealot and I didn't even use your name, I was replying to someone else. It bit close enough to the bone however for you to accuse me of attacking you then.
So go ahead report me to the admins.
Try and ride me under with your righteous indignation.
Let them look at ALL the posts in these threads and decide.
But as I said, be careful what you ask for.
The vicious personal attacks are not from me, let alone the "sustained abusive taunting behavior of personal attacks" you refer to.
Those are not my words, yet you are attributing them to me.
Your false accusation "Your unrelenting interpretation of anyone who disagrees as an attack is your problem" is another personal attack from you. Just stop it.
Your unrelenting interpretation of anyone who disagrees as an attack is your problem and no-one else’s.
Edit- completed the sentence
Cutting taxes while increasing government spending means you have not really cut taxes.
Just like central banks lowering interest rates without an increase in production and savings have not created any real money.
This will have disastrous consequences down the road.
"It was/will be MUCH harder to cut spending for social programs we have already committed to, as evidenced by everyone abandoning ObamaCare repeal."
Ofcourse it is when you have no political ideology and no coherent philosophy to backup any of your ideas.
The religious collectivists of the conservative movement have no arguments against government run healthcare.
I disagree. It is better to cut taxes (now) than to cut spending (which no one was doing).
It will be very difficult to raise taxes again. The drive to balance will get harder and harder. Cutting what Trump increased spending on is easy.
Hillary/Biden would've left taxes as is, increased spending in inviolate social programs, and probably at this point, pushed gun control.
Therefore, the objective we all seek is easier to achieve now than it was before. The chessboard is better now than it was.
It was/will be MUCH harder to cut spending for social programs we have already committed to, as evidenced by everyone abandoning ObamaCare repeal. We need another approach to get off this merry-go-round to nowhere.
Makes sense...
Once I understood some perspective and their profession, I could strike some common ground to encourage further conversation, again matching appropriate response, or gracefully exit. I must have give away over 150 copies of "Loving Life" (to those I thought would intellectually benefit) as the title was non threatening and I was able to navigate around preconceived misunderstandings and biases, of philosophy and particularly of Rand.
So my bob and weave was more to continue engagement (if desired) intellectually, as well as avoiding potential violence from someone who didn't like the way another looked at his girlfriend. Not as an alternative to serious discussion.
As I have previously said, the general rules of the book are for each to interpret, but mostly common courtesy when dealing with others.
As the old saying goes, you get more with honey than with vinegar.
And yes, the initial comment was a bit tongue in cheek as many of the Objectivists I've met over the years, while brilliant (not all, lol) lack social skills and understanding of communicative context.
I think as I've already described, it was the Trump administration that not only gave prominence, but has actively worked to mainstream white nationalism. Trumps number 2 at the time, certainly DID speak in a way that gave them undue attention and they all consider Trump "their friends son." You should look up what that phrase means.
I think you're genuinely unaware of how big of an issue this is.
The left has simply taken advantage of this and while I understand you not wanting to take the boy who keeps crying wolf seriously, this time there's actually a wolf.
"I do not support border anarchism."
That's not anarchism anymore than me going to work, or taking a vacation, or running a business, or hiring, or firing, etc.
Ayn Rand would've been an illegal immigrant if she hadn't gotten married, unless you think she would've moved back to Russia rather than overstay her VISA.
Granted you are FAR more familiar than me with Objectivism, so if you know something specific she said on this subject that could help me, I'd love to hear it.
But just applying the basic principles as I see it, I don't see immigration being any kind of issue.
"The leftist media tried to dismiss illegal border crossings as a non-issue and it didn't work."
The leftists are trying to conflate refugees with immigrants in order to import a permanent voter class, sitting on welfare. Refugees are not immigrants and the two things should not be conflated.
In any case, anti-immigrant positions are left wing. The leftist media is just having their cake and eating it too. They get the anti-immigrant policies they've always wanted thanks to Trump, while still pretending to be the "good guys" on the issue and trying to tack-on the refugees, as if it's the same thing.
This is another example of the mess conservatives are making out of our discourse.
"Conservatives have some wrong standards for what should be legal immigration, but are not "clinging to it because they have nothing else"."
The only other issue they have is abortion. On which they are also wrong and left wing.
Then I suppose there is their generic theocracy.
They don't really talk about anything else because they don't know anything else.
There are certainly no conservatives in the mainstream discussing individual rights or rights-protecting government. They don't know what that is.
"They have several major issues, including some good ones like property rights, and opposing taxes, environmentalism and bureaucratic control, as stressed by the better conservatives."
Sadly those are the real fringe in the conservative movement.
The majority are nationalists and statists and more and more are becoming white-identiterians.
"Trump tries to appeal to the country, not Alex Jones."
I meant one of the ways he attracts people is by appealing to their fears, just like Alex Jones does. He's also a kook similar to Jones.
"He does not need a fringe nut like that."
Sadly Alex Jones is not fringe. He was one of the biggest things on YouTube until they kicked him off. And again Trump praised him openly from his bully-pulpit. Another kook that Trump (this time himself) has helped to mainstream.
"But some fear and anger is justified and you should be looking at where the most serious threats are coming from instead of denouncing all conservatives as a bunch of mindless yahoos"
That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to point out that they are in many ways as bad if not worse than democrats. And I've also pointed out how they are actually much better in opposition than in the presidency. They will oppose democrats only if they are in opposition. When Republicans have the presidency no one opposes statism.
I do not support border anarchism. Neither did Ayn Rand. Those entering the country are not "going about their business without violating anyone's rights", as already described. If that's all they wanted they would come legally, and under current law we would still have the welfare magnet problem. Much of that already is legal.
The leftist media tried to dismiss illegal border crossings as a non-issue and it didn't work. Even Democrats in Congress had to change their rhetoric, now turning it into an international entitlement issue as they demand that we take care of the illegals -- the border patrol is now supposed to be a welfare agency.
Conservatives have some wrong standards for what should be legal immigration, but are not "clinging to it because they have nothing else". They have several major issues, including some good ones like property rights, and opposing taxes, environmentalism and bureaucratic control, as stressed by the better conservatives. They are at least thinking and acting out of the American individualist sense of life against the establishment and with some common sense.
But conservatives in general do not have an explicit, consistent set of principles by which to defend that, and many conservatives engaging in more ideological arguments are still hopelessly and destructively promoting faith, family and tradition. That in turn causes destructive policy goals seen in their rising populism and in their desired religious impositions.
Trump tries to appeal to the country, not Alex Jones. He does not need a fringe nut like that. He needs votes across the country and is acting, rightly or wrongly, on behalf of the country, not fringe racist demagogues.
All politicians try to motivate in part through fear or anger or both. What is missing is serious appeal to proper principles instead of the usual vague appeals to altruistic duty and collectivism.
But some fear and anger is justified and you should be looking at where the most serious threats are coming from instead of denouncing all conservatives as a bunch of mindless yahoos while dropping the context of the rise of the establishment intellectuals' radical egalitarian and multiculturalist left in American politics. The more "serious" sounding "educated", amplified through the rhetoric of the media, are the source of the ongoing destruction of this country that you will be trying to live in.
Load more comments...