Objectivism vs. Conservatism
Posted by rbroberg 7 years, 11 months ago to Philosophy
In my experience, most outsiders view Objectivism as a kind of Conservatism. I have read that in Japan, Judaism is considered as a variant of Christianity. Of course, even the less educated among the members of the Western civilization understands from the historical record that Judaism preceded Christianity. It is understood that Christianity was more of a "Messianic Judaism" in its infancy. So, if Objectivism came after Conservatism, does this mean it is a variant of Conservatism?
Perhaps to some. And perhaps this is a majority view. That does not make it a correct view. In fact, Objectivism derives from an fundamental rejection of Communism from an Aristotelean framework.
For the religiously inclined or educated reader, Objectivism could be described as the manna that fell in wilderness when the rational Westerners were escaping their Conservative Egypt. To others, it is just hail.
Objectivism provides the philosophic framework to "the pursuit of happiness". It advocates the "separation of economics and state" as much as it does the "separation of church and state". This is because the capitalism and force are incompatible, like oil and water.
Objectivism is based on observable facts, particularly those pertaining to human nature. It rejects the notion that man go against his selfish nature. It correctly diagnoses this error as a total abdication of personal responsibility. It quite clearly describes rationality as the human means of survival. It is, as such, not a "New Testament" of Conservatism, but derives from reason, which needs no historical precedent beyond that of Rand and Aristotle.
Objectivism is notably different from Conservatism because of its fundamentals. It is pro-choice, it is free speech, it is anti-draft. If Objectivism advocates a manifest destiny, it does not consist of the religiously fueled mouthing of bureaucrats, but rather promulgates an oath whereby an individual proclaims his or her refusal to initiate force against another human being and refuses to accept the initiation of force against his or her person. This is fundamental to Objectivism. Conservatives feel naked in the wind in the presence of such a statement. Why? Because they never intended to give up the righteous indignation and duplicity afforded to them by their first love: Religion.
Perhaps to some. And perhaps this is a majority view. That does not make it a correct view. In fact, Objectivism derives from an fundamental rejection of Communism from an Aristotelean framework.
For the religiously inclined or educated reader, Objectivism could be described as the manna that fell in wilderness when the rational Westerners were escaping their Conservative Egypt. To others, it is just hail.
Objectivism provides the philosophic framework to "the pursuit of happiness". It advocates the "separation of economics and state" as much as it does the "separation of church and state". This is because the capitalism and force are incompatible, like oil and water.
Objectivism is based on observable facts, particularly those pertaining to human nature. It rejects the notion that man go against his selfish nature. It correctly diagnoses this error as a total abdication of personal responsibility. It quite clearly describes rationality as the human means of survival. It is, as such, not a "New Testament" of Conservatism, but derives from reason, which needs no historical precedent beyond that of Rand and Aristotle.
Objectivism is notably different from Conservatism because of its fundamentals. It is pro-choice, it is free speech, it is anti-draft. If Objectivism advocates a manifest destiny, it does not consist of the religiously fueled mouthing of bureaucrats, but rather promulgates an oath whereby an individual proclaims his or her refusal to initiate force against another human being and refuses to accept the initiation of force against his or her person. This is fundamental to Objectivism. Conservatives feel naked in the wind in the presence of such a statement. Why? Because they never intended to give up the righteous indignation and duplicity afforded to them by their first love: Religion.
The principles of rational selfishness of Objectivism are not simply observed as a fact of nature, and do not consist in simply rejecting those who insist on going against self interest, or in rejecting communism as a political system.
The principles of a proper ethics must be discovered. Objectivism is not hedonism. You have to know what is the need for ethics, what is in your self interest, and how to attain it. Rejection of altruism and collectivism are a consequence.
Commonsense Americans and others reject collectivism implicitly, but do not identify the explicit structure that supports their correct worldview. That is where the axioms, which are positive statements, are instrumental. I believe your point that it is "not based on a rejection of anything" is based in the fact that axioms are not negative statements (i.e. rejections)?
If so, then I would re-word the above from "derives" to "supports". Doing so helps to avoid the error in a proper hierarchy (the rejection of altruism and collectivism as a consequence) but captures the original intent of the statement.
All of the above are true with regard to Objectivism. The problem that all of us have with living in this world is precisely that a number of humans do choose to go against their selfish nature.
So....the; job of objectivism is give you the tools needed to make a personal appraisal of any belief system. Grade it for accuracy and usefulness and apply the results through your own ethics or moral system. More....never stop testing. Thngs change witness the moveo of Democrats to announcing they are Socialists or Republicans to becoming sort of rright wing leftists.
Having used objectivism to personallly examine and judge whatever rock, tree, a school teacher come to an opinion on it's nature and usefulness then apply that according to your moral code of values. Which mean the results of one might change the values.that's ok it's the purpose.
It's a tool to judge things, especially value systems or belief systems and make a decision , personally on their continued use or ....what improvements might be made.
Ok judge this rock . Smack yourself in the forehead with it. Ouch it hurts. Now use this rock. Ouch it also hurts. Third try third rock...WOW I get it! It's not this rock hurts more than that rock it's ALL rocks so far hurt.
Here is rock four?
No thank you I'll test them on something not containing my brain.
Excellent you didn't deny the use or rocks just corrected your use of them.
Voila
Aspirin?
Some keep bashing their heads against rocks. Some figure it out a lot faster and make a tool of the rock. How do I make the rock hurt the other guys head. hmmmm longer handle different swing sharpen the edge..... wow I could knock down one of those good to eats.
If you get a real hard decision there is other forms of help but they don't change the basic method. is it moral to test rocks and their handles on other people? My neighbor is getting really upset with me. See that stick and string and other long thin stick He keeps hitting me with the little one;s sharp end. ouch ouch ouch.
Whose the conservative whose the liberal. (Depend on who invents a shield first.)
If it's worth it ehough will come forward voluntarily. If enough do not come forward it leads to two observations.
a. It isn't worth it.
b. Incorrect use of existing assets.
You have grasped the meaning behind 'no more cannon fodder' and with it the reason for repealing the draft law.
Do that....inevitably each soldier will be made stronger and be more well equipped and therefore more able to survive.
But sparingly meaning each politician will be less likely to fly off the handle and each voter even less likely to support such a creature.
Without lessening the defensive will of the nation.
add to that all voters must be veterans and one cannot be a veteran without volunteering their services both increases security and lessens the need.
Can you really countenance going to war. yourself, not sending others - yourself. For the likes of Obama, Clinton or Trump?
Or the patriot act?
, .. .
can you imagine not going to war when the Constitution itself is threatened and through that threat your country and neighbors and their families
all of them without exception
no matter how worthless or deserving of ignoring.
Where's the threat that is not of some politico statists making for some corporatistos advantage?
And if there is a threat why is it not met head on with the full force and the will of the nation?
Boils down to Constitution or Patriot Act. 'Probable Cause' versus 'suspicion of'' Not worth it versus worthy of defending
No more Cannon fodder and add that no more baby factories.