Why is the Constitution important to objectivists?
Posted by coaldigger 5 years, 7 months ago to Ask the Gulch
"I can say—not as a patriotic bromide, but with full knowledge of the necessary metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and esthetic roots—that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world." Ayn Rand
With all the concern about protecting this document it seems to me to be the basis of law and the definition of the organization to which we elect to follow the laws thereof. those of us that were born in the US should not accept that we have to be ruled by its government without reason. We should examine it's principles and make a determination whether to leave or stay. the principles, not just the implementation should be the guiding factor. If implementation is a problem then we must fight for the principles.
I don't like being thrown with Conservatives because they are statist of a different stripe, they have too many mystical beliefs and their dedication to preservation of individual rights is suspect. The problem with not doing so is to allow Progressives to discard the Constitution and creating a dictatorship of whatever feels good at the moment. While watching the questioning of Kavanaugh, before it became a circus, I was relieved that someone of his intellect and dedication to founding principles would be joining others of a like mind on the court. For about one evening I felt better about the future of America. After being routed in terms of reason, the other side resorted to some of the most reprehensible behavior possible and killed my buzz. It is now even more apparent how important it is to defeat those that would abandon the principles that have provided an organized society that has done more to elevate mankind than any previous system. I think it makes it worthwhile to hold my nose and support Conservatives and perhaps the radical left will lose their grip on the opposition party and we can become a functioning representative democracy again.
With all the concern about protecting this document it seems to me to be the basis of law and the definition of the organization to which we elect to follow the laws thereof. those of us that were born in the US should not accept that we have to be ruled by its government without reason. We should examine it's principles and make a determination whether to leave or stay. the principles, not just the implementation should be the guiding factor. If implementation is a problem then we must fight for the principles.
I don't like being thrown with Conservatives because they are statist of a different stripe, they have too many mystical beliefs and their dedication to preservation of individual rights is suspect. The problem with not doing so is to allow Progressives to discard the Constitution and creating a dictatorship of whatever feels good at the moment. While watching the questioning of Kavanaugh, before it became a circus, I was relieved that someone of his intellect and dedication to founding principles would be joining others of a like mind on the court. For about one evening I felt better about the future of America. After being routed in terms of reason, the other side resorted to some of the most reprehensible behavior possible and killed my buzz. It is now even more apparent how important it is to defeat those that would abandon the principles that have provided an organized society that has done more to elevate mankind than any previous system. I think it makes it worthwhile to hold my nose and support Conservatives and perhaps the radical left will lose their grip on the opposition party and we can become a functioning representative democracy again.
He said he is literally memorizing Galt's speech to "recite it" for his "esthetic pleasure and moral benefit" in order to "fully induce the principles of Objectivism" (by the "method" of Muslims memorizing the Koran?). He said, "I've been physically living in San Diego, but allegorically living in the bed of a spiritually tortured invalid, leading a disoriented existence, lost Ideal, a suicidal-Johnny in penance-bound to my moral suburban preapocalyptic fortress against a post-modern, nihilistic dis-civilization."
With that as his credentials and experience he offers to show you with expert instruction how to live with "psycho-poetry": "Undergo the Learning, The Training is the Treatment. Your own psycho-poetic Training should fit you Soul like a glove in place with the Learning, I am here to empower all would-be lords and ladies of liberty, as I aspire to such myself: don't follow, but walk in step and the fugitive lady liberty will be found and rescued by the dishonest souls who hold her a captive for the ransom that is your life."
It's a sad case, farther "out there" than you may have expected, but a degree of how far "out there" as a matter of being relative to something else sane doesn't exactly describe his state.
For the internet, this is a very reasonable (pun intended) forum and no place for insulting responses. I prefer to post comments for discussion and read the responses where I am exposed to different points of view. I feel that the odds are better that I will learn something than they are that I am going to provide some new enlightenment for the world. It is hard to do that in a hostile environment.
State governments are "closer to the people they represent" but without protection of the rights of the individual are not "more accountable to their local populations". The slaves knew very well what it meant for an oppressive government to be "close to them", and so has anyone oppressed by statist "social decisions" of Ashinoff's conservativism.
Religion is no longer a source of morality for most people. Ideas of morality are part of the culture, and a lot of which is claimed to be religious morality has nothing to do with the theology; it consists of moral ideas picked up and spread like everything else. Some of it is good like basic honesty and some very bad that came from religion and bad philosophy, such as altruism and the mentality of duty ethics.
Strip away the religion and the rest is all still there, which is already occurring as religion is taken less seriously though without necessary corrections. It would not be possible to "remove" all of the commonly accepted philosophic outlooks like "removing a skeleton". People always have some philosophic sense of life and ideas of how they view the world. The issue is what they are and how they come to accept them.
As to my 1st statement. Upon reviewing it, I find it is not clear as to my meaning. What I was trying to say was that Americans have no solid philosophies.. The study of philosophy, and history are woefully absent. As a result, religion remains the only moral guide that most people have. When relying on religion, you have to accept the albatrosses that go along with it. If you take away religion you have no ethical guide for politics, metaphysics epistemology or even. art. My problem is that I'm too in love with metaphors.. :
In the introduction Hoenig speaks of how most people do not understand the Constitution and how they misinterpret its significance. One that stuck in my craw was that many dismiss The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution by ascribing their authorship to white, landowning, patriarchal slaveholders. This seems to be the mantra of the progressives and that which permeates their views on every issue. To avoid debate on the contributions of Western Civilization, it is a cheap trick to call it "white culture" and therefore something to get away from. I don't know if they even teach history anymore and if they do, what slant they put on it but the experimental laboratory of time finally produced a culture where mankind thrived and enjoyed more freedom than at any other time. That the product came from Europe and the population was white is incidental. No one is prevented from adopting the principles based on individual rights. That it is not prevalent in Asia and Africa can't be blamed on "Old White Men" and it is a cultural death wish to want to go backward for an irrational reaction to success.
I find objectionable.
I don't think most people think he will support the Constitution because he supports the Patriot
Act and the agencies. They think he will support the Constitution because he says so and they don't know fully what that would mean to be true.
You don't have to be "thrown in with conservatives" just because you take a correct position regardless of who else holds it. You can hold a correct position, and even temporarily ally yourself in politics with others who agree with you, without endorsing everything else they or their other supporters stand for.
When it comes to supporting someone in political office you always have to choose from among the choices you have despite the fact that none of them are ideal. Kavanaugh in particular appears to be a personally decent person and a knowledgeable and generally competent judge with at least a respect for the Constitution, though his understanding of it may too often be philosophically weak, leading to bad major decisions.
The political context and timing made it impossible to try for something better, but when the lefts' nihilist circus broke out trying to bring him down at the last minute there was no choice but to side with civilization against the primitives.
That does not make you "thrown in with conservatives" of all kinds as long as you continue to give your reasons for the decision and make it clear what you stand for. You aren't likely to get caught up in the euphoria and start siding with everything from Collins to religious mystics just because a particularly nasty threat of hysterical irrationalism attempting it impose itself as the very process of government in the false and destructive name of justice has been pushed back.
Ayn Rand's consistency does not mean demanding 'all or nothing' on every issue regardless of fundamentality, valid options, cooperation such as trade and friendship, and other people's rights. It does not preclude Ashinoff's right to stay in the country and believe what he wants to no matter how belligerent.
For the explanation of her emphasis on not compromising on principles see her essay "'Extremism', or The Art of Smearing" in Capitalism' The Unknown Ideal.
The Democrats are not openly calling for communism -- they don't dare, at least yet. They are increasingly openly promoting socialism in general, often in the form of the old Fabian incrementalism. (Fabians, though they held the same premises, opposed communism as the form of socialism they wanted.)
The "progressive" label is somewhat imprecise, as are other terms like "liberal" and "conservative". The old progressives from the early 20th century were statists, and by the thirties sympathized with the goals of communists and fascists if not the full means, but by the cold war were anti-communist. But a later meaning of "progressives" was the even more radical collectivism of the New Left of the 1960s and 70s which often was communist. They switched to the term "progressive" for PR reasons, but meant by it much more than the older progressives; it became a euphemism for their radical socialism. Today all progressives want to progressively impose more and more controls with no end in sight for their collectivism, but some are more overt in how fast that is for their revolutionary socialism.
Load more comments...