Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

whYNOT

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1892
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

whYNOT last won the day on May 7

whYNOT had the most liked content!

4 Followers

About whYNOT

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    SouthAfrica
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    tony garland
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Occupation
    photography,reading,writing

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    South Africa

Recent Profile Visitors

10226 profile views
  1. "That generation approached viruses with calm, rationality and intelligence" [Tucker] said. And character, too. 51 years since 1969 and what has changed? Two generations which gradually abandoned reason - and character virtues. Most, they've given up any idea of objective value. Those were people (my parents' generation) who had faced worse, having gone through a European war of doubtful outcome, and many the Cold War, unpredictable too. They had learned that "life must go on", wars or pandemics, and whatever comes they must protect the values they still had, for themselves, for we the children and later generations. Not as sacrifices to be made, although that's wrongly how every person would then have framed it, but as defending the greater values over the lesser. The post-modern devolution to skepticism, determinism, infantalism and a primacy of sensations has put paid to the rational "calm" (and benevolence to others and good humor). This global shutdown, an attempted suicide of man's life, is how present generations which have only known the soft life, repay our parents and grandparents their tough-minded resolve.
  2. https://click.exct.stansberryresearch.com/?qs=3a6639a59d95647b616ebcfa51a4e914ad24a543e37ab41ffccf69a12a051e6af56ae2a8420a1d0c03f02dab2f2ae3c83e03b7258d15a085
  3. An informative conversation, while not actually much "about Trump's response". "Perspective" Crenshaw raises. Right, that's what was lacking all along with the crisis. They touch on the changing face of conservatism, "atheist Conservatives", any one? And Trump's "style". An hour long, but can be sped up, of course:
  4. That's not a rabbit hole I particularly wish to pursue, Eiuol. One has have to have 'been there', to inductively follow the implications and effects of Trump's actions and words which have reverberated in every place. (An invaluable takeout we know from Objectivism, in justice, to assess the integrity of how a person's words match his deeds). As I say - No. 1 - and tops for me : That he has shocked to the core the international altruistic Establishment and shown them up for the anti-individual sacrificers they are. How deliberately he did so is another matter and I believe of lesser importance. Being leader of the free world, a fact I grew to better deeply appreciate, America has been always getting my avid attention, and now more than ever. We collectively stand at this most uncertain time, perhaps bound for greater global, statist controls and collectivism, and the direction the USA takes is crucial. An ~operational~ US which quickly regains its famed "business as usual" is therefore critical, to we on the outside too. Will Trump be the man for the times?* Plain to see, in opposition, there is an intrinsicism applied by most to Trump which Objectivists alone should be savvy to. I continually hear how people take as the given that his outward manner and appearance ~must~ be revealing of his inner "soul". Further, those critics judge him by either a. double standards, or b. impossible standards. For all his faults, one word that sums up his character for me: indomitable. *Huh, I later recall the recent, very clever Time cover on Trump. "Time ... to go". As the Left media are expert at, never letting a crisis go to waste.
  5. Yes, Elon Musk: https://click.exct.stansberryresearch.com/?qs=c279ed07a655b279420f9579635c8ff91de71688a0b0fad72a87e8df630517b462885b60b9f3536a0b7352ffe804439166a765a45ca84920
  6. Put it together. The epidemiologists were authoritatively insisting on lock down, citing dire mortality numbers , the panic-stricken people were observing the consequences of corona on Italy and NY state, the media were fear-mongering for all they were worth - and the president (ANY president) must stand alone against them all? Knowing better science than the scientists. Understanding the sacrificial premises of everyone. Not budging on individual rights. Ignoring the partisan opposition. In proud certainty of his principled, ethical position. Trump could have got himself impeached all over again. (And nearly was. Schiff or someone suggested it for Trump's 'lateness' in imposing the lock downs). Which would have disturbed him not much, as before. Earth to Louie. What heroic movie do you have running in your mind?
  7. You are coming at this from only one end, I think. Too "top down". Too political. You do know there is only so much any leader can do against the moral will of the majority. Not just what he can do, but should the ethics of the people be a leader's responsibility? Individual rights, O'ists know, is the manifested end of a philosophical process. What Trump is up against - overwhelmingly from the Left, today and lately - is entrenched altruism. And further, by an anti-reason epistemology. Take a look at how the treatment of this pandemic has upended and broken millions of people's lives, with the universal, unquestioned presumption that one must "do good". That the anonymous "other" and his/her living - is one's responsibility. E.g. If someone might catch the virus from me by my selfish behavior - and they die - I am morally culpable. (And never mind that 99.xxx % of patients recover. It's the perception of guilt that counts. They "could" die). Governments too have responded with imposed sacrificiality on the populaces, to meet the self-sacrificial morality nearly everybody in a society is brought up with. In some countries, opportunists know that total political power can be wrested away and another dispensation advanced and enforced or furthered (both the US and South Africa, not all that different in their envisaged outcomes by our power lusters). Lock down control will become the habit, and the masses will remain controlled and subservient. What is abundantly clear, with the coronavirus has come an eruption of the always underlying altruism in the West. Objectivist thinkers must have picked this up. They only debate the role of a proper government and rights in a crisis, and from what I see, ignore the fundaments. Therefore, when O'ists don't cover it, who can expect Trump to oppose the lock down on ~ethical~ grounds? When all about him, even his scientist advisers, have altruist premises and advocate harsh controls? With little concern for the life of everybody else. I doubt any politicians have Rand's grasp of the destructiveness on man's life of altruism. BUT - I maintain that the president knows well its effects, visibly. His opposition in action to the sacrificial *effects* upon the USA is the real reason he is universally loathed and feared (by altruists).
  8. To clear this up. I have not said you should blanket praise him. I've indicated that what is praiseworthy of Trump is his principle for a working America. And that such was happening. When commerce and industry and employment is going big time, individuals largely forget about their superficial 'differences' (wealth, race, etc.) They mix more. They don't have time and motive for mischief. They don't need a Nanny State. They want to be left alone to their lives.
  9. What I don't get, is the common belief that it is "the leader", e.g. a president, who would "somehow" lead all the people to individual rights and laissez-faire. Do we need to find a capitalist dictator? That's an non-intellectual position and a causal reversal. The insistence of the majority and their predominant philosophy are the determining factor of their leaders .
  10. OF COURSE this is a matter of rights and individual choice. I said so at the start. Comes down to, by which impossible standard (President John Galt?)do you hold a past or sitting president? Let us live in the real world. While, naturally, propounding the "proper" course of action -- and complete individual rights,. I know you must be aware that every president you can name would be caught in the same bind, right now, while undergoing the pandemic. Trapped between concerns for his constituents' health panic and economic fears, a lock down would be inevitable for every one of them today. So why should you hold Trump, alone, responsible? And keep in mind that the Democrats are more to blame here. And I'd add, Objectivist intellectuals would be better placed to promote rights and limited govt., and advise people and the government how this crisis could be objectively handled, if ARI intellectuals had not continually scorned this president (and allowed him some praise where it was due) from day one. With that unreasonable bias they've cut themselves out of the mainstream advisory loop, especially with serious thinking conservatives. (Rubin et al).
  11. Take a listen to Jeffrey Tucker, whom I've read quite a bit of in the past. A libertarian intellectual I generally admire (I'd estimate him a "conservative" libertarian, though I may be wrong) and very Objectivist friendly. Talking with the also respectable Rubin (a conservative classical liberal, probably). The "perfect storm": anti-Trumpism plus Covid-19. And the NYT should be "culpable".
  12. For crying out loud, Eiuol: between the health and lives of the people and the economy of the nation!
  13. https://www.realclearmarkets.com/video/2020/04/10/revealing_how_the_media_fueled_the_panic_with_jeffrey_tucker_488876.html
  14. Another of those damned if he does, damned if he doesn't issues. You know it is. Philosophically, there is no compromise between man's life with men's lives - the two integrate - but politically, there needs to be a balance found now (in these coronavirus circumstances). That's the "compromise" Trump is trying for, a balance. Give up the economy for a little health and one will deserve neither and lose both. But yeah, the ensuing panic and this extended lock down was mainly the Leftist opposition's and Left media's doing. You know that, also - you can't bluff me.
  15. I think it's unfair to criticize him harshly for his (short-lived, I'll bet) reluctance to make a blanket lifting, obviously it's not so easy. Not all citizens are like you (and I) chafing or angry at their loss of liberties .There's still much fear of further outbreaks of corona around, still being promoted by 'experts' (must I mention too the media??). The mortality numbers from NY state were sobering enough to make many legitimately worried of even further deaths. The president has to answer and listen to everybody, AND respect the autonomy of each state. So that's not an "essential", not in the least can he be "fine" with the delay. If one accepts his real essential premise, that the US 'works' best when it works, one knows full well there must be a strong resistance to stop Trump getting his way and opening up the economy. Add in there what the cynics claim - that his re-election relies on the US economy - (okay, that is probably true, but again that's not his "essential"). It was always a mistake for world leaders to metaphorically call this a "war" against a virus. (In usual copycat fashion that was what this government here also invoked, in this case to pressure depths of self sacrifice on the people, worse than most places, and to assume to themselves neo-police State powers. For how long is indefinite). This is not some identifiable and belligerent enemy to defeat, a clear crisis of survival, for which the whole populace would rise to the challenge. For one, a nation 'gears up' for war activity, it doesn't gear down into inaction. In this case, I am sure a leader like Trump has to delicately take into account the fears of -all- his people, in part he is led by them. He is not dictatorial which you almost infer he should be. (And wouldn't the Left media make hay of him imposing his will? They'd love it) I look to the US most keenly, when you and some EU countries are released it may be that SA will be forced to follow.
×
×
  • Create New...