All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 5.
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    you capitalize conservative like it is a static quantity.
    I did not know that. . I thought that we should be talking about
    current conservatives who want smaller government,
    less -- or NO -- corruption, a military designed for defense
    rather than nation-building, the elimination of punitive taxes,
    and the like. . That is Pertinent to Today, IMHO. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    exactly right, I bet. . just like Rand said in here 1960
    talk about conservatives -- they use God, temporal and
    human fallibility crutches to undergird their arguments. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    so this whole thing is about Christianity and its association
    with the word reverence? . your sensitivity to a side concept
    seems amazing to me. . I have reverence for your rights
    as an individual. . I adore them, 'cuz they are exactly like mine.
    I have reverence towards nature 'cuz she continually
    surprises me with intricate complexity beyond my wildest
    dreams. . I could go on and on. . reverence is just a word. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    well, I do not worship them, if that's what you mean.
    I believe, and always have believed, that Madison,
    Jefferson, Adams et al, were creators of a societal
    form which we should sustain and emulate because
    it is good. . in that sense, it's reverence for their work
    and appreciation for what we have. . this has not changed;;;
    only the words which tickle your fancy have. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "appreciating the constitution and its creators, then reverence for work done in the past might be appropriate"
    My understanding isdbhalling is saying conservatives revere whatever is from the past. A non-conservative may revere some things that happen to be from the past, but not because they are from the past.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    michael; Personally I have more respect for the 'draftee' than the volunteer as to their oath to the Constitution in that in the body of the Constitution that war may only declared by the Congress against other nation/states and none of that has happened since WWII. That means the volunteer actually believes and acts based on a direct violation of what they swear to uphold and protect.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But again, the contradictory statements made within the same thread. Did your entire thinking just change in the context of such a major issue of 'reverence' for The Founders and their works.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Founders were for the most part, classical liberals of The Enlightenment and were strongly opposed to an efficient, large gov't, involved in and intruding into nearly every aspect of a man's life, or intruding into the laissez faire free market. They thought a man's religion was between the man and his god and had no business in the public sphere vs. the belief of Conservatives that the world, and all it's people would be better if they followed, or were forced to, Christian beliefs. The Conservative wants laws made and enforced that reflect those Christian values. And I don't think Objectivists use the word 'reverence' in any manner such as yours.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your description of your Dad described an 'Ecological Conservationist' and enthusiast of 'efficiency', not a Conservative.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 5 months ago
    john; Your question is a contradiction. Since a Conservative doesn't believe in reason over faith/belief as analyzed by Ayn Rand directly and proudly expressed in their own words and commitments, making a statement that they are both Conservative and exclusively guided by reason, asks Objectivist to question the reality of their own principles and values.

    I think the important question is more properly, why would Conservatives, or Liberals, or Socialists, or Christians, or any form of irrational Statist want to be welcomed in the Gulch. Why would a person with those beliefs have any interest in what Objectivists discuss or gain from Posting irrelevant information, questions, comments, make contradictory expressions of their positions in different posts or even on the same post or thread, or ask Objectivists to compromise or agree to question their own principles and values?

    Objectivists live in a reality and state of mind which is in direct opposition to nearly everything that Conservatives avow and do, politically and in fact. The real question then becomes, what value do Conservatives bring to honestly and openly trade with Objectivists.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To put it more bluntly they were idealists that turned an idea into a nation. The first time that had been done in world history without resorting to some form of violence - at least until George III sent in his German troops. The idea was man is capable of governing himself and the political hierarchy changed from God, King, Country, population (as cannon fodder and baby factories ) to Citizens as the source of power, family, country and government as temporary servants. In the context of the times Citizens put God first as a way of claiming the old divine right of Kings but in the Constitution God lived on in the First Amendment.

    That lasted until the majority under the teachings of democracy voted themselves a pay raise and traded their sovereignty and freedom for.....Government, Country, People as cannon fodder and baby factories.

    The idea and one other known as the Monroe Doctrine which stated one may help one's neighbor without taking over his property were our historical contributions to the world.

    Our country today is a stark warning of the consequences when citizens fail in their duty as citizens.

    May the next go round pay attention to the lessons of history.

    A dream, an Idea, a concept thus tested and deemed practical then tested again against another possibility without a ...safety net... is someone elses metaphor, a reframed redefined nightmare
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But that is the rub, it is not. The founders were not conservatives. How can you honor the founders, by ignoring what they stood for?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    if it has anything to do with appreciating the constitution
    and its creators, then reverence for work done in the past
    might be appropriate, don't you think? -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    My dad told me to think of conservatism as being conservative with other people's money, but that is not really what it is all about. It is very close to the real meaning of the word, which is to revere what has been done in the past. That is not even close to objectivism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes. . Emma, I despise our societal inducements which
    tend to draw people towards irresponsible conception
    and neglect of children -- before and after birth. . I despise the
    inducements which tend to draw people towards welfare
    instead of work. . I despise those which tend to reward lying
    instead of honesty, to reward corruption rather than integrity.
    and the government is at the center of most of these inducements,
    in my humble opinion. . we who have a sense of healthier life --
    however we're labeled, objectivist or whatever -- need to
    band together to change this society. . soon! -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There's a good point to make 2. I always think of the draftees who were taken against their will and then literally forced to voluntarily sign an oath of allegiance. The oath for them had no meaning as it was coerced and forced.

    For those of us who were legitimate volunteers it had no meaning because it wasn't necessary. The exception was it legally focused us on owing allegiance only to the Constitution. Not to the government, nor the people, nor the President. They were implied but not stated and their were exceptions for example if they became enemies domestic. There was no exception to the first part and no 'to the best of my ability escape clauses.'

    The similarity is they are opposites and can exchange definitions over the course of one general election or by other means. The same as In and Out.

    Fascism large F you nailed it but all despotic totalitarian governments are fascist small f including religious governments (Islam, Vatican) and secular in any form the two forms of socialism extremists are National and International Socialism with only one slight difference between them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Hawron 9 years, 5 months ago
    Reciting oaths, creeds and mottos endlessly is rather pointless, as if you require something to be done as a condition of something else that somebody wants, you instantly give them a reason to give you what you want (such as the recital of some oath / pledge / statement) in order to get what they want & not give it any thought after that.

    What matters more is what someone actually believes for themselves & practices in their daily life.

    You may feel comfortable stating your distain for "Conservatives" but you must really in the end ask yourself why? "Liberals" are almost identical to "conservatives" just with a different set of dogma, much as Fascists and Communists are 2 sides of the same coin just with a different set of Elite leaders.

    Now when it comes to the writings of Ayn Rand, if you actually objectively look at things, you'll find that many "Conservatives", respect her work and read it, as compared to "Liberals" who are much more likely to be found denouncing it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mamaemma 9 years, 5 months ago
    John, can I give you my two cents? I've paid a good bit of attention to your posts, and I always enjoy them. You seem to me to have a bright sense of life.
    I have been thinking a lot about "conservative", especially since there are many positions they take with which I agree. But I come at those positions in completely different ways. For example, a conservative deplores illegitimate births because they feel it is against Gods plan and contrary to the way things used to be. I abhor the fact that our country and society not only allows but encourages men and women to be completely irresponsible , as they know they will suffer no negative consequences to their actions. Their behavior also gives them an unending claim on my life and my productivity. All in all, a complete denial of reality.
    I think that your thinking is more like mine than the conservative thinking. Am I wrong?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 5 months ago
    John,

    That would be a contradiction. To be, is to be something. A conservative is someone who is not exclusively guided by reason. That was the point of my posts on David Hume and Edmund Burke. A conservative by definition is someone who thinks reasons role in determining reality is limited at best and must be tempered by tradition and historical practices.

    That is not to say that someone might mislabel themselves a conservative and only be guided by reason.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    well, Kaila, I love you too. . I do find it hard to check my premises
    at the door, however. . mine kinda stick with me -- like honesty,
    integrity, refusing to fake anything about reality, and the
    abiding love for life which makes your enjoyment important
    to me, as well. . if I can help to brighten the future for someone
    who shares "our" premises -- or who can be drawn into them --
    then, my life is just that much better. . my 51 percent rule
    tends to help me remain optimistic about others! -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo