The Irrational Foundations of Conservatism: David Hume
Some conservatives argue that David Hume was the first true conservative – see the link. He argued that causation does not exist, that inductive reasoning was not valid, and that rational ethics was impossible (is-ought problem).
Conservatism is an attack on reason, the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, Locke and the founding principles of the United States. It is time that conservatives admit that their whole philosophy is based on irrationalism.
Conservatism is an attack on reason, the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, Locke and the founding principles of the United States. It is time that conservatives admit that their whole philosophy is based on irrationalism.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
to silver, a proper govt protects your private property. it is not perfect-think about it-a lock on your front door is a deterrent-nothing more. an objective criteria for who or what is your greatest threat? illegals are FAR down the list. Look to your own govt-they threaten you HUGELY
There are even a number of Supreme Court cases, both US and state should you like to look at the issue in more depth.
But I welcome an honest, open straight-forward conversation.
And thank you as well.
It might be said that faith is reason based on false premises since no effort is spent on verifying whether one's logic is valid with respect to objective reality. Reason should not be an automatic process of just having thoughts entering consciousness.
Yes I am a lawyer and that was my point, you cannot use private property in the way you say..
And no you are not consistent with Rand, the first thing she would tell you is that your very formulation (we own the United States) is collectivist.
Regarding buying all the land around my house, check out the legal term “perpetual easement”. http://thelawdictionary.org/perpetual...
As to having your friend from Syria visit you, it’s not the same thing as showing up and/or crossing the border unannounced and uninvited. As I said earlier, “If a person is in fact invited by an existing property owner, that is a separate issue which is not part of this discussion.” Entering private property with permission of the owner is way different from entering it without permission. In neither case is it a “right”.
The Gulch I appreciate is open to discussion and dissent. Perhaps this Gulch doesn't have enough confidence in their beliefs to be able to tolerate differing opinions.
Dishonest characterization -1
2) If I buy all the land around your house afterwards, you don't have a choice Property Rights are not unlimited - which is necessary for your argument. Again you need to study what property rights are, how they are gained, and what the limitations are. You cannot stop someone from flying over your property. Property rights cannot be used to stop people from traveling freely between their property and someone elses.
c) You are using the idea of Property Rights as a collectivist idea. As I pointed out even your formulation fails if I want to have my friend from Syria visit me. Of course you ignored the logic of this. Ultimately you are collectivist, pretending to be for Natural Rights.
a) How is agreeing with Ayn Rand on a property rights issue inconsistent with Objectivism?
b) I would never buy a house that did not already have access rights. Neither would any other rational person.
c) How are the above comments totally inconsistent with objectivism and property rights?
2) Yes you are trying to imprison people. According to you I could by all the land around your house and you could never leave or enter without my permission.
The absurdity of your position and your unwillingness to learn about property right and apply logic results in -1. The next comment will be hidden, because it is totally inconsistent with objectivism and property RIGHTS.
So, what is the penalty for violating Natural Law? By your argument, Natural Law is a mere recommendation. And, what are property rights if not the right to exclude people from your property. And, if, as you stated, property rights do allow exclusion, what is to be the penalty for violating those rights?
Your argument is very self destructive. By your argument, a country does not have the ability to defend itself. It must allow all comers to enter. One of the only legitimate duties of government is to protect our borders. You absolutely can travel, but you must do it within the framework of laws set forth by the society where you want to travel.
Atlas was very clear on the right of the producers to decide who they would allow to travel to their Gulch. There are also several references in Atlas alluding to the dangers of letting the "Moochers" from the "People's States" to come to America. I think you are mixing your opinion with Rand's. She was quite clear, and her writing differs greatly from yours.
b) A person is not “imprisoned” by being denied access to a country in which all land is privately owned, after showing up and/or crossing the border unannounced and uninvited.
c) If a person is in fact invited by an existing property owner, that is a separate issue which is not part of this discussion. If a person is not invited, to whose property would he or she be travelling?
d) If I can only use force for immediate self-defense, does this mean that I cannot use force to prevent a burglar from making off with my television set, provided that he is not physically threatening me?
There is no such thing as a unlawfully entering a free country or unlawfully leaving a country. Do you ask permission to leave your state or enter another state?
The government does not own property and you cannot use your property rights to imprison people. Private property can never be used to imprison someone. Property rights are not unlimited, they can be used to exclude as long as they do not unreasonable limit access travel between other people's property. If that were not the case then the transcontinental railroads could have forced everyone to travel by ocean to go north or south of their lines.
You have clear not thought about what property rights are how they are created and what they cover. Here are some articles on point http://hallingblog.com/2015/09/20/the... and http://hallingblog.com/2009/12/14/pro...
Your argument fails and it is an attempt to suggest that Natural Rights can be used to imprison people, which is absurd.
As for ISIS, you are correct that the federal government probably poses more of a threat to our freedom than ISIS right now. However, ISIS is the acute threat right now. You don't ignore a bleeding wound because the person with that wound has cancer. You treat both. ISIS does in fact pose a threat militarily to us. They pose a far greater threat than any country in the world. No army can stand up to ours. On a battle field, we cannot be defeated. However, all the aircraft carriers in the world are useless against a man with a suicide vest in a crowd. Anything we can do to make it more difficult for them to come over here should be explored. The best part is, we have all the resources we need without having to send a single soldier over there at this point. We have an entire army of willing fighters over there right now begging for equipment- the Kurdish Peshmerga. They are winning battle after battle with 80's technology. Imagine what they could do with a crate of night vision goggles and modern weapons. Unlike the Syrian rebels we are arming, the Kurds have been a loyal friend to the US for decades despite our repeated failure to be a friend to them.
My comments to you came about when I was seeing some of the heavy hitters and senior members of the group, yourself included, lament as to the direction of the conversations in this post as well as in other posts. My opinion is those that are the most senior must set the path for the group. If a strict interpretation of the Rand "Philosophy" is the direction those such as myself, I can't speak for anyone else, should not be involved. I like the free exchange of ideas but only when that is the purpose of the group.
As for immigration, refugees and ISIS, in principle I agree. It is the welfare state of our USA that is attracting those that wish something for nothing and that MUST end. But for ISIS, they just want everyone except Muslims to die and then they will probably eat each other on disagreements internally. I have been saying for decades that most war would not be conceivable if there were none of the Main stream Religions. Oh and then I am proven somewhat wrong with those little lovable college wallflowers whose feelings are so easily hurt. Yes the poor babies. But I digress. If we are simply talking about the USA yes many have been killed by our Gov't. But to be fair history needs to be remembered and well as to the 10s of millions who died at the hands of despots the planet over. I do not try to make excuses I mention only the History.
Sorry I just chuckled at your last comment. You mean like the strong rebuke I get from my Baptist neighbor when he tells me I should go to church with him and pay my respects to God. And I say pointing to the sun that I am basking in my Creators light?? As I said earlier, I totally expect a strong reaction at times. But I am in total agreement on individual rights, freedoms and gov't intervention. A few other issues, which should be another post, not so much.
Thanks again.
Load more comments...