Principles of Conservativism
This is a pretty decent list and one that even most Libertarians would agree with.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
This is called trajectory: In physics, think of throwing a ball straight ahead. Eventually, forces like wind and gravity will cause the ball to curve and drop instead of continuing straight. In politics and policy, the forces that create a curved trajectory – deviating from principles – include pressure from the media or political opponents, pressure from those you normally agree with deviating from principles themselves, or not wanting to be seen as the only one advocating for a position that’s right but not popular.”
That point is possible but from what I see they deviate from the path because of Blackmail.
That is what Epstein and Brennan/Hussein’s Hammer were all about.
They get elected and then they get compromised.
These elected officials are human and have weaknesses. The Deep state satanists have all the resources they need , it is just a matter of time before the human takes the bait. If not , they just drug them and then put them in a compromised position.
Isn't it the left that is accusing the right of "populism" when they are striving for the interest of the people and country?
Take Europe for example. The countries that resisted the migrant onslaught are dubbed "populist" b/c their leaders did not bend to the collective demand of the left such as Germany, France, Sweden but kept their promise to the people who elected them to put national interest first. Trump is also blamed for it.
You are probably right on this.
conservativism is based on the altruist philosophy...they are on the right and the communist/fascists on the left...
objectivism is not on the that philosophical spectrum...it is based on natural rights...it is based on reality "evidence of the senses" and and a sound epistemology...
conservatives surrendered the republic for democracy which leads to tyranny of the majority...it is now a numbers game...which we will lose...but the destruction of the financial system will soon end in collapse and chaos with a 90% die-off...
who will rise from the ashes?...
objectivism is based on reality...knowledge and certainty...reason and the rational...respect of the natural rights of the individual and a civilized society...your only hope for a life of your choosing...
An 'imaginary friend' is entirely your opinion. Why? Because you have absolutely no way of proving or disproving what you said. Using reason, you shouldn't discount things that you can't prove or disprove. And I'll add, Constitutionally you should be offering the same level and tolerance you expect from others toward your own ideology.
Objectivism is a philosophy based on reality...the Constitution is based on "natural rights", which are derived from reality...my undergraduate degree is in philosophy and numerous discussions with Rand and Branden...
basically I have knowledge and certainty...religious individuals have a Leap of Faith...they have rejected reality...
answer the question...what is time?...it is a measure of motion...which is measured from things with identity...things with identity are "in" the universe..."time" is "in" the universe...nothing exists without identity...to claim so is to deny reality...time is in the universe...the universe is not "in time"...nothing "created" the universe, as it has no identity and does not exist out of the universe or time...
Conservatism is on the same moral spectrum as Communism...one on the right...one on right...the spectrum is altruism...
Objectivism is not on that spectrum...it is on the spectrum of rational self-interest...
Ayn Rand predicted that the battle between Conservatism and Communism/Fascism would be won by the Communists/Fascists...her prediction is coming true...the downfall of both systems will be financial corruption...we will collapse financially...fiat money will be our downfall...with a 90% die-off...what rises out of that is the question...
So what about business entrepreneurs like Hank Rearden? He thought there was a better way to do things - a better recipe for metals. But he didn't have it when he started out. He had to take a leap of faith and invest in making that dream a reality. There's a lot more faith in business than I think you want to give credit for. If all you act on is certainty, you will never do anything new. Ever.
"answer the question...what is time?"
Time didn't exist until the Big Bang. Here's one of the great problems of physics - causation. Something caused the universe to change state from a point into actual space and time.
"Conservatism is on the same moral spectrum as Communism...one on the right...one on right...the spectrum is altruism..."
You're going to have to explain this one, because every political pundit admits that Communism, socialism, fascism, etc. are on the left - not the right. I'm interested in your opinion here but you have a really hard sell with this argument.
"Ayn Rand predicted that the battle between Conservatism and Communism/Fascism would be won by the Communists/Fascists...her prediction is coming true..."
If "conservatives" were actually running the show, you might have a point. But they haven't been. I can only really name two conservative Presidents after the Civil War - Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan. Under Coolidge, we nearly eliminated the US debt and quickly dug out of a recession because he refused to intervene in the markets. Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union and brought on an economic boom that lasted well into Clinton's Presidency despite being undermined on spending by the Democrats and their social priorities. The jury is still out with Trump.
And we've never had a dominantly conservative legislature in the history of the United States. Prior to the Civil War, Congress was controlled by the South. Following the Civil War it went back and forth between protectionists and Democratic thugs bent on trying to re-instate slavery. And since Woodrow Wilson and WW I it has been riddled with Communists and socialists - Progressives whom Wilson wanted to hide by relabeling "liberals". Sorry, but this one just falls flat on its face.
blarman: "[Hank Rearden] had to take a leap of faith and invest in making that dream a reality. There's a lot more faith in business than I think you want to give credit for. If all you act on is certainty, you will never do anything new. Ever."
Certainty versus religious faith is a false alternative attempting to reject the requirements of reason and evidence. Knowledge and certainty in basic principles of thinking, and the ability to think in essentials, does not mean "certainty" of the truth of every idea that pops into one's head without validation and problem solving. Assertions of the possible and the probable also require evidence and proof of the possibility and probability.
Simple observation of Rearden's actions in the novel shows that he had nothing in common with religious faith with its superstition and rejection of reason as required for knowledge. Rearden had confidence in his own abilities, knowing what kind of accomplishments and life are possible to a dedicated individual using his mind to establish and focus on goals in reality, not faith.
He exemplifies the opposite of the mental passivity of religious faith and feelings drifting into belief in other worldly causes as a substitute for cognition and rational setting and achievement of goals.
Rearden knew that not every attempt would succeed the first time and that life requires perpetual problem solving and and improvement, all of which requires reason based on accumulated experience and already established principles, not faith. "Rearden Metal was a new alloy, produced by Rearden after ten years of experiments" -- not ten years in a monastery contemplating the supernatural.
Blarman has previously equivocated on the common use of the word "faith" as "confidence", equating it with its opposite: faith as the rejection of reason. It is a package deal promoting religious faith as a legitimate means of thinking. To say in common usage to have "faith" in something like one's own proven ability to think and act does not mean religious faith.
The misrepresentation in the fallacy has been discussed on this forum several times, including in direct response to Blarman. To continue to promote the equivocation without even acknowledging previous response is dishonest, if it could ever be considered honest at all. The repetition is not innocent error. To promote religious thinking in the name of Atlas Shrugged is worse than dishonest.
Blarman has also falsely equated religious faith with scientific creativity, promoting the falsehood that without employing the same subjectivist thinking as religion no creativity or progress are possible. The pronouncement that "if all you act on is certainty, you will never do anything new. Ever", in dramatic promotion of faith, is vacuous. It shows no understanding of rational creativity or goal-seeking in science or anything else.
blarman: "Time didn't exist until the Big Bang. Here's one of the great problems of physics - causation. Something caused the universe to change state from a point into actual space and time."
Blarman is equivocating between the universe as all of existence versus the known physical universe of astronomy. But the fallacy of his post is worse and more fundamental.
Causation is not a "great problem of physics"; physics deals with discovering causes within the universe, not explaining the "cause" of existence, which is a nonsensical, invalid question. The universe, as everything that is, was not "caused" from outside existence. A metaphysical 'nothingness' is not a kind of existence outside the universe.
There is no outside of everything that is, and no "cause" of anything outside of space and time. Time as a measure of change or motion is inside the universe. Identifying causes, as well as changes and motion, presuppose the concept of time, in the simple form of at least 'before' and 'after', within the universe. There was no "before existence" outside of existence. There are no causes outside of existence or prior to time, i.e., change in identity of existents without regard to time.
The notion of all of existence as a dimensionless "point" is nonsensical. A point is a mathematical abstraction not a theory of physics as a previous state of all existence. Likewise for the concept of a mathematical singularity.
Conservativism is based on tradition, faith and family, not the Constitution, which conservatives accept -- to the extent they accept it -- as tradition. The Constitution limits government power on behalf of the rights of the individual; it does "require" "respect" for anyone's "beliefs" of anyone or tolerate everything that anyone claims makes him happy. We don't tolerate the actions of anyone, including conservatives, who violate our rights, and do not "respect" what we know to be irrational.
Which are not even politics concepts. People of all sorts of political persuasions have traditions, families and maybe faith.
They may as well have a political movement based on length of men's beards, the weather outside today and water.
They are really just cargo cultists trying to reverse engineer a political ideology without grasping any fundamentals.
"The federal government is instituted to protect the rights bestowed on individuals under natural law. It exists to preserve life, liberty and property—a mission that includes not only protecting the sanctity of life but defending freedom of speech, religion, the press, and assembly, and the right of individuals to be treated equally and justly under the law, and to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
·The federal government’s powers should be limited to only those named in the Constitution and exercised solely to protect the rights of its citizens.
·Government functions best when it is closest and most accountable to the people and where power is shared between the federal government and the states.
·Individuals and families make the best decisions for themselves and their children about health, education, jobs, and welfare.
·America’s economy and the prosperity of individual citizens are best served by a system built on free enterprise, economic freedom, private property rights, and the rule of law. This system is best sustained by policies that promote general economic freedom and eliminate governmental preferences for special interests, including free trade, deregulation, and opposing government interventions in the economy that distort free markets and impair innovation.
·Tax policies should raise the minimum revenue necessary to fund only constitutionally appropriate functions of government.
·Regulations should be limited to those that produce a net benefit to the American people as a whole, weighing both financial and liberty costs.
·Judges should interpret and apply our laws and the Constitution based on their original meaning, not upon judges’ own personal and political predispositions.
·America must be a welcoming nation—one that promotes patriotic assimilation and is governed by laws that are fair, humane, and enforced to protect its citizens.
·America is strongest when our policies protect our national interests, preserve our alliances of free peoples, vigorously counter threats to our security and interests, and advance prosperity through economic freedom at home and abroad."
I get that you want to inject atheism into the mix and emphasize the differences between Objectivists and conservatives. I don't think anyone is trying to say those differences don't exist. But what I'm seeing here is a substantial list of commonalities.
I also knew atheist Madelyn O'Hara in Austin, Texas...she was a true atheist with no philosophy...
Objectivism is a serious, coherent philosophy, but as Ayn and Nat would say...you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas...
".today's conservative has more in common with yesterday's communist/fascist that yesterday's conservative because of their lack of a consistent philosophy and lack of principles..."
You have stated this in effect twice, yet this is at odds with the article and my own experience. Would you care to elaborate on why you feel this way? I know there are a lot of leftists who attempt to portray fascists as right-wing, but the core of their belief set is tied to government control and this article's assertions are very much in opposition...
Statements that the actions of today's conservatives demonstrate they clearly don't understand nor support. This makes them WORSE than if they just opposed these things.
A movement that wants to regulate trade, immigration, abortion, tech companies, marriage, pretty much every aspect of peoples lives at this point, has no business pretending that it's principles include the protection of individual rights.
It's bad enough if they're lying, it's so much worse if they are so politically illiterate that they don't even realize they are lying.
A truly lost movement.
They're just tend to randomly string words together to sound like they're discussing politics.
In reality they have no theory of politics and are just grasping at straws.
I hope you are recovering well and feel better.
I really need to start running more.
You're not the first person I've heard something similar from just re how much it does for strengthening your heart.
That being said, conservatives actually hold a very defined view of God which is anything but arbitrary and capricious - though some hold a more refined definition than others. Even accounting for these fluctuations, however, there are several questions which the notion of God answers which Objectivism does not, mainly regarding the origin of the soul and the disposition of the soul after death. It's all fine to criticize another philosophy or religion but one should do so only after studying it. Passing judgement of something based on ignorance is blatant fallacy and if one does so based on antipathy they fall prey to bias - not objectivity.
That describes ALL notions of god.
What you are stating is only in your head.
IMHO, the major contributor is the media institutions in this nation - they have favored socialism and communism for a century. They fawned over Woodrow Wilson and castigated Calvin Coolidge; they protected FDR while denouncing Eisenhower; they persecuted McCarthy even though he was outing legitimate Communists and turned his name into an epithet; they excoriate Trump after giving a complete pass to Obama.
As to the eventual fall of this nation, the debt will be a major factor in this primarily because there is a faction who wishes to see the Constitution torn down (Democrats) and another which is apathetic (RINO's). Those two outnumber the third faction (Conservatives like the House Freedom Caucus) who would actually do something about it, rendering them impotent on the national policy stage.
I would also mention that if you want a solution, the best friend of the libertarian is the conservative - it certainly isn't going to be the Democrat! Remember, it was the Blue Dog Democrats of the 1980's which used to most closely resemble the libertarian of today, and they were pushed out of that Party by the socialists and communists. In very fact, one can level the very same accusations of apathy toward erstwhile libertarians that you have leveled against conservatives in the Republican Party.
What do I see as the resolution (aside from total collapse and reset which I believe to be the most likely outcome)? I would like to see the abolition/adjustment of the 12th Amendment. People don't bring that one up very often, but it is the one which put the Vice President onto the ballot with the President and effectively ensconced political parties. I think that making the Vice President the Runner-Up in the presidential election would go a long way toward establishing the legitimacy of third parties like the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, and yes even the Green and Communist Parties because they would now have a legitimate shot at becoming President while representing that 30-40% of America which doesn't really have a voice in modern politics. I believe that just like competition is a necessity in the marketplace, we need competition in our political sphere and that it is the two-party system - and the apathy it encourages - which is the biggest impediment to a robust US democratic republic.
I would just argue that by virtue of their religious collectivism, conservatives are ALSO on the left, just like any other collectivist movement.
That's the stark reality of politics: communists announced their takeover and in response conservatives offered nothing but, OK but keep it Christian.
Objectivism is a philosophy consistent with classic liberalism and that is the only true "right wing" in politics, if the political spectrum is to mean anything.