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 5.
Elsewhere the article denounces a flurry of undertakings by those with superficial or non-existent acquaintance with her ideas but exploiting her name or the name of her philosophy. That included a proposed "Objectivist Political Party", but that's all that was said about that.
Early immigration laws also focused on indigents, criminality and disease, but were not fully successful. Especially in an era of progressive eugenics many innocent people were rejected or institutionalized. Criminals got in, including some socialist revolutionaries who were partly the cause of subsequent union violence blamed on industry.
Today criminals, some in horrendous gangs; welfare indigents; and the diseased are violating rights, especially in areas where they concentrate near the border and in some cities. Innocent citizens are being badly hurt by this. That has surged and is being politically and financially organized, but how much of it does there have to be before you care? Criminals are always in a minority as long as there is still civilization, and should always be illegal.
Conservatives do object to both immigrants getting taxpayer subsidies and the criminals. That is a constant theme in their arguments. It is not "politically illiterate and grasping at straws". The problem of bloated welfarism was not addressed in the earlier laws because there was no welfare state then; the welfare magnet is a major problem now.
But conservatives also want economic protectionism, and have increasingly been arguing that a country has a 'right' to decide who to let in on the basis of benefit to society an even more collectivist premise, not a right of migration within objective law. Some of them want protection of their own 'culture', by which they mean their religious sect -- similar to the earlier battles over Catholics coming to the country. But even that is not racist.
The issue of numbers of immigrants that can be assimilated at one time is significant in the face of "open borders" and multiculturalist leftists wanting people from the third world to come for our wealth and to replace capitalism. Immigration for them has become one plank in their agenda for us fund International Welfare Center, which ideology we saw with Obama and the rest of the left pronouncing that our material success is "unfair" to the rest of the world -- we use "too many resources".
Most of the 7 billion on the planet are in poverty from primitive tribalism and socialism and don't know anything better. "Open borders" combined with the leftist multiculturalism and welfare statism would quickly lead to massive numbers coming here for promised improvement of their lives without regard to our rights. Capitalism, let alone what is left of it now, depends an individualistic philosophy of reason being widely accepted. It is already in danger; a massive orchestration of an influx of third-wordlers would destroy it.
Personally I don’t think tariffs will change China
I think what trump is actually trying to do is to encourage aN orderly reduction in imports from communist china, which is working. He should just say that and explain why. If anything would scare the shit out of communist China, it would be a decision of 300000000 Americans to willingly boycott chinese imports
And I brought up the Goldwater campaign to demonstrate that your arguments use different standards regarding “squandering” votes for losing candidates, depending on who is doing the alleged “squandering”.
If not even MORE applicable now.
Their nominee was stoned off his head for many interviews, they had a candidate strip on stage during the convention, another wore a boot on his head, another wore a transparent plastic coat and the convention itself looked like something you'd find at comic-con...
Words fail me.
I'm pretty sure it wasn't THIS bad during Rand's time.
Describing them as "a disgraceful and fringe party" is pretty apt.
As a nihilistic, burn-it-all-down screed, isn't it just self defeating?
It would only work to the extent we let it work by faking reality for these people.
But Objectivists have actual answers and an actual coherent and practical view for life on earth based on reason.
Conservatives rejected this and so left themselves open to attacks from their fellow mystics.
When given the choice they ultimately chose Jesus over defeating socialism.
They are cowards and liars who can't deal with the most important and basic facts of reality and have chosen evasion and fantasy instead.
As a result they've made a total mess of politics, making it that much harder to oppose the left and in many ways have acted as the lefts handmaidens and enablers.
We may not be able to blame conservatives for literally everything but we should be blaming them for A LOT more than we are.
It's either malevolence or incompetence. Whichever it was, this is the source of Trump being associated with racists, not "the left."
Yes leftists, who are themselves racists, have taken full advantage of this own-goal by Trump, but who can blame them?
"The left likewise will exploit any manufactured conspiracy-like connection to accuse anyone of "racism"."
Sure but this is exactly the playbook of today's conservatives, spearheaded by Trump. Conspiracies about border "invasions" and "unfair trade" and so forth...
You may as well be describing team Trump.
These people deserve each other and we should be opposing them all. Trump is not a victim, but I do believe he is more incompetent than malicious.
But they are not alternatives, they are just different flavors of awful.
I'll go point by point:
"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?"
The entire issue of "illegal immigration" comes from actual racists and eugenicists towards the end of the 19th and early 20th century that wanted to stop "lesser races" ie people that look different, from coming over and outbreeding/interbreeding with people that look white.
Also, the unions didn't want immigrants coming over and increasing the supply of labor, undercutting the ability of unions to shake down private enterprise.
These anti-immigrant forces were democrats.
Today conservatives have taken on these anti-immigrant positions, not because they are racists for the most part, but because they are politically illiterate and are grasping at straws to stay relevant.
So, "illegal immigration" is all about race originally, even if it's loudest proponents today aren't racists and have no idea what they are talking about. They are also making common cause with ACTUAL racists as a result of their ignorance.
"The direct border assault has been worsening because it is orchestrated by groups encouraging and paying people to do it rather than legal entry."
But there is no "border assault." This is alarmist language used by conservative leftists to create a false crisis in order to justify expanding rights-violating regulations. Most illegal immigrants don't come illegally and the border crossings have been steadily decreasing for over a decade. This all assumes people going about their business without violating anyone's rights is even an issue requiring any action in the first place.
"Proper justification for limits on kinds of immigration include criminal gangs, welfare indigents, and disease."
Yes those are proper reasons. Someone like you would argue them. Most who oppose immigration do not. They are racists, nationalists and intellectually bankrupt conservatives desperate for an issue or cause to identify with.
"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?"
That's not a question of immigration.
That's not really a question of anything. What's the context that requires 7 billion people to move into America en mass?
The voters of this country are not receptive to a consistent individualist government as described by Ayn Rand, the Libertarian Party does not coherently represent that and, thankfully, the voters do not want the Libertarian Party's mongrel version either. It's a fringe party.
We do not "confine" the choices in the current electoral system; the choices come from primaries in accordance with the kind of candidates the parties realize voters will support. and tolerate. Those choices are the result of prevalent fundamental ideas, which the Libertarian Party has not and will not change by "offering" anything. It's "hardly practical" to wishfully believe otherwise.
The quote “words have an exact meaning” was Francisco’s response to Jim Taggert’s misuse of the term “make money”, as in “any grifter can make money.” My use of the quote was in response to your misuse of the words “vote” and “pretend”. Jim Taggert was counting on the assumption that “everybody knows” that his use of the term “make money” was appropriate. You are counting on the assumption that “everybody knows” that “votes should be cast for serious candidates, which is what make them ‘votes’ and not an opinion with no impact on the election”, and that John Hospers “pretended to run for president”, were appropriate uses of the words “votes” and “pretended”.
My comments remain just as sound once context for the Atlas Shrugged quote is provided.
By the standards you set earlier, Ayn Rand “squandered” her vote “for a different purpose that detracts from the voting and accomplishes nothing in the election”. Her vote did not help Goldwater to win either (she already knew he was going to lose). I never said she endorsed fringe parties, but I’m not aware of her ever “endorsing” the corrupt two-party system either.
”Attempting to invoke Ayn Rand's support of Goldwater as implying support for the notion of a Libertarian Party is sophistry.”
It certainly would be, if I ever said or implied any such thing. Show me where I did.
”You can do what you want, but there are practical ways to impact policy through political action for those who want to do it. Such activity in politics can make relative improvements in life now -- at the expense of time and effort to do it -- but they don't stop the political trend towards increasing collectivism and statism, which requires more fundamental intellectual change through spreading the right ideas over time.”
The election process is an important vehicle for “spreading the right ideas over time”. Many voters are most receptive to the right ideas when an election is imminent and they’re comparing programs and policies offered by the various candidates. It’s hardly “practical” to confine voters to the “choices” presented by the corrupt two-party system.
I don't "hate" him, but have a lot of reasons to be alarmed by him and find some of his actions and statements to be destructive and even repugnantly unethical. But I maintain the context and don't conclude a "Never Trump" willingness to get rid of him at any cost, including sacrificing to the Democrat radical egalitarians.
I've provided the rational reasons for doing so.
In political discussion in particular they tend to include meaning contrary to or without regard to principle -- "practical" as opposed to "principle".
That is because Pragmatism has undermined a rational concept of "principle" -- basically opposing principle on principle. This corruption influences even those who have never heard of William James or the rest of the academic sources because the philosophy of Pragmatism has spread so much into a common way of thinking for over a century.
"Understanding the other's context" includes recognizing that and being on the alert for it, and being careful oneself to not use the terms in a way that reinforces it and doesn't make the required distinctions.
She did not have to see first hand the Johnson-Weld clown team posing as the "party of principle" or see first hand the current form of the increasing collectivism that precludes even an otherwise proper attempt to pursue an individualist government through politics without regard to the intellectual state of the country.
Ayn Rand's voting for Goldwater did not help Johnson to win and did not endorse fringe parties. Attempting to invoke Ayn Rand's support of Goldwater as implying support for the notion of a Libertarian Party is sophistry.
You can do what you want, but there are practical ways to impact policy through political action for those who want to do it. Such activity in politics can make relative improvements in life now -- at the expense of time and effort to do it -- but they don't stop the political trend towards increasing collectivism and statism, which requires more fundamental intellectual change through spreading the right ideas over time.
It may not be appropriate to "correct" in conversation at all, depending on the context. In more philosophical discussion on an Ayn Rand forum it often is, especially when the topic involves the influence of Pragmatism.
There is no such thing as a rational Pragmatism and a term like "rational pragmatism" does not help when the meaning of pragmatism is already compromised. It is likely to add more confusion when someone is already confused without realizing it and believes he is being rational. It implies that there is a rational form of the already misunderstood.
Pragmatism is (improperly) regarded by Pragmatists themselves as "rational"; they aren't mystics. The corruptive influence of a bad philosophy has to be dealt with explicitly; it can't be papered over with a neo-logicism as a shortcut.
Regardless, the criteria for voting for a clearly losing candidate when two people are on the ballot should be no different from the criteria for voting for a clearly losing candidate when six people are on the ballot.
And it's not 1971 anymore. The Libertarian Party has a 48-year track record that did not exist when Ayn Rand made her comments. Evoking her arguments from that time, as if nothing had changed since then, is truly an exercise in "irrelevancy".
Load more comments...