They aren't political concepts but 'tradition' can be (improperly) applied as a standard to politics, just like Pragmatists apply "do what works"; and 'faith' designates an invalid way of thinking that is incoherently applied to politics and much more. Trying to base a social system on 'family' is an incoherent reversion to a form of tribalism and an indiscriminate insult to the value and role of good families (which many are not).

"Conservativism is based on tradition, faith and family"
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.

Arbitrary assertions which can't be proved or even be meaningfully understood are properly "discounted", i.e., rejected. That is a matter of rational thinking, not political "tolerance" under the Constitution.

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.

mia767ca: "[time] 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."

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.

mia767ca "basically I have knowledge and certainty...religious individuals have a Leap of Faith...they have rejected reality."

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.

"basically I have knowledge and certainty...religious individuals have a Leap of Faith...they have rejected reality..."

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.

greetings...a bit late...getting stronger...back at work...at age 71...

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...

correct

Most of them are about the gov't not doing things. The penultimate one mentions gov't promoting assimilation. The last one is about the gov't "vigorously" countering threats to citizens' interests. After reading a list of things about limiting the government, the ones at the end about gov't vigorously promoting things stand out.

get a plan...start slow and cross-train...do not overdo any part of your body...get in with a local running group...do 5Ks, 10Ks, 1/2marathons before the full marathon...

That's pretty remarkable.
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.

I had a "silent" heart attack 18 years ago...during my 72nd marathon in St George Utah...qualified for two Boston Marathons...did not find out until 3 months later during my annual physical for the airlines (was a pilot for American Airlines)...I have completed 77 marathons...and it is my athletic heart that kept me going...should be able to run marathons again...I have finished 13 Bostons...I have genetic heart disease from my mother's side of the family...I went vegetarian 18 years ago...I can slow it down, but I can't stop it...

in another country I would have been left to die on the operating table...

Wow, well done.

I hope you are recovering well and feel better.

Glad you made it. 71 is now young. Take advantage of modern medical technology while we still can.

very true...sorry to be late with reply...heart attack and quintruple by-pass surgery...good news is...I lived...new 30 yr lease on life...currently 71 yrs old...

Can you please describe the similarities and differences between Objectivism and Libertarianism.

How so?

The last line of the principles in the gray shading seems out of place. The other one is about America being individual citizens and keeping government intervention as small as possible. The last principle is about seeing America as a group and defending its interests vigorously abroad. It seems out of place, almost in conflict with the other principles.

Mia, as a Conservative I can honestly say that Conservatism is based on the US Constitution. The Conservative ideology does not require faith. It only requires that each person respect (tolerate) the beliefs of another to the extent of not interfering in another persons ability to pursue that which makes him/her happy in life. Simple.

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.

This article pays lip service to America's founding values by mindlessly repeating lines like, "the federal government is instituted to protect the rights bestowed on individuals under natural law."
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.

With their old-school, anti-immigrant, anti-trade rhetoric, I like to say that early 21st century conservatives just represent early 20th century leftists.
A truly lost movement.

Conservatives often say things like "principle," "nation state," "politics," "morality," etc...
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.

"your argument relies upon a notion of "god" which is arbitrary and self-contradictory"
That describes ALL notions of god.

Exactly. Conservatives don't seem to realize that they are also appealing to authority to justify their concept of "rights," which makes them no different to any other statist.