Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

HB v. AB: Is collectivism the greater evil?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There is much more integration (not just coherence, but mutual reinforcement and support) between modern conservatism and Marxism and postmodernism, than there is between Marxism and postmodernism.

People interested in how a leading religious (Jewish) conservative thinks can watch Dennis Prager chat with Craig Biddle. They cover some hard topics and find common ground. I hope more Objectivists g

Has anyone come up with a more precise characterization of who or what is or is not being suppressed than "rightist" or "leftist"?

20 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

If he is your template, it means "sometimes in favor of individualism" until it comes time to enforce his version of the "public good".

I had more text, but I lost it. Here are the key points I made. Treasonous (or is the PC term "voting process reformer?) Hawley explains his version of conservatism, the kind we are talking about. Perhaps worse than what is usually understood as a religious conservative.

He talks about the evils of tech corporations and wants to bring trust busting back because Republicans invented it. You know, trust busting, the original progressive talking point by Teddy Roosevelt.

He talks about becoming a citizen as joining a family. This is the wording of the collectivist, who emphasizes something like a motherland. America Uber Alles.

When he talks about rights, he emphasizes the origin is from God. This is fine, but the context is talking about why America is great. 

He really wants rule of the people. You know, the collective! No, I don't think he's talking about the people usually mean by representative democracy. His primary concern is the collective, the people.

Pretty pathetic example of anything remotely favoring individualism. Even if I agreed with whyNot shouting across the ocean that big scary monsters are all around me (they are actually balloons filled with hot air), I'm not at all confident that this could fight back against the collectivism of leftists.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I'm not at all confident that this could fight back against the collectivism of leftists

Now to your second question: “Do those almost with us do more harm than 100% enemies?” I don’t think this can be answered with a flat “yes” or “no,” because the “almost” is such a wide term and can cover so many different attitudes. I think each particular case has to be judged on his own performance, but there is one general rule to observe: those who are with us, but merely do not go far enough, yet do not serve the opposite cause in any way, are the ones who do us some good and who are worth educating. Those who agree with us in some respects, yet preach contradictory ideas at the same time, are definitely more harmful than the 100% enemies. The standard of judgment here has to be the man’s attitude toward basic principles. If he shares our basic principles, but goes off on lesser details in the application of these principles, he is worth educating and having as an ally. If his “almost” consists of sharing some of the basic principles of collectivism, then we ought to run from him faster than from an out-and-out Communist.

 

 


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

What is relevant is Hanson and other conservatives embraced a random pragmatic tendency when they supported Trump's mercantilist direction. If he is your template, it means "sometimes in favor of individualism" until it comes time to enforce his version of the "public good".

I have no idea about his mercantilism, while I believe you. But this is minor. If V D Hanson were an integrationist of individualism with laissez-faire capitalism - this would be moot, he wouldn't be up for discussion.

His "ethical-psychological" individualism, I'd say, is of high standing: his thoughtful rationality, body of work and background tells that he "...thinks and judges independently, respecting nothing more than the sovereignty of his mind". Except -- there's God, competing with his independence. (He is a Protestant I read, but nobody claims he's of integrated mind-body, as the religious are not, either).

And on his "ethical-political" individualism (rights), he would seem to be impeccable.

The entire point is not looking for differences with such effective conservatives, that's easy, it's finding where and how conservatives and Objectivists can have values in common for the political battle.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2021 at 6:04 PM, whYNOT said:

conservatives and Objectivists can have values in common for the political battle.

Unfortunately, the average conservative today is like Hawley, with mindless platitudes and unashamedly collectivist phrases. Hanson is at least capable of nuanced analysis of society, even if he does have some collectivist notions (probably more so the kind that he is mistaken rather than guiding his thinking on collectivism). I watched the video but nothing was remotely as bad as anything Hawley said. The national conservatives are a prime example of collectivists of the worst kind, certainly no better than CRT types..  

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 2/28/2021 at 12:33 AM, Eiuol said:

I had more text, but I lost it. Here are the key points I made. Treasonous (or is the PC term "voting process reformer?) Hawley explains his version of conservatism, the kind we are talking about. Perhaps worse than what is usually understood as a religious conservative.

He talks about the evils of tech corporations and wants to bring trust busting back because Republicans invented it. You know, trust busting, the original progressive talking point by Teddy Roosevelt.

He talks about becoming a citizen as joining a family. This is the wording of the collectivist, who emphasizes something like a motherland. America Uber Alles.

When he talks about rights, he emphasizes the origin is from God. This is fine, but the context is talking about why America is great. 

He really wants rule of the people. You know, the collective! No, I don't think he's talking about the people usually mean by representative democracy. His primary concern is the collective, the people.

Pretty pathetic example of anything remotely favoring individualism. Even if I agreed with whyNot shouting across the ocean that big scary monsters are all around me (they are actually balloons filled with hot air), I'm not at all confident that this could fight back against the collectivism of leftists.

He is a politician - yes, they think in terms of the mass of people and pander to them, and yes, power and politicians go together. If that's the sample you know of conservative thinkers you are barely touching the surface. What we are viewing is an attempted fight-back by conservatives to re-assert themselves against initiated attacks from the leftist-collectivists - and - you take that to be 'nationalistic'?

The "cancel culture" put in motion by big tech, politicians, media and entertainment, in education, business - etc. - is real, or is this something you missed? It has been blatantly going after conservatives and they are responding in self-defense.

And Objectivists too should oppose that purge, on principle. Next, it comes for them. Or does everyone enjoy seeing Christian conservatives getting hammered more than want individual freedom?

You don't understand collectivism.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 The national conservatives are a prime example of collectivists of the worst kind, certainly no better than CRT types..  

 

And I ask you again. What are these "national conservatives" going to DO about what they think or believe?

What are the logical actions that follow from God, Nation, Constitution, Family? Impose one's beliefs on others, by forced conversions? A theocracy? Invade neighboring countries? Put dissidents into camps? Or what?

"National conservatism" is meaningless or benign: So - one is conservative and has high regard for one's nation.

How does it hurt others?

This goes for many/most citizens in every country, give or take.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

What we are viewing is an attempted fight-back by conservatives to re-assert themselves against initiated attacks from the leftist-collectivists - and - you take that to be 'nationalistic'?

This type of viewpoint is called national conservatism. The kind mentioned by Journo. Call them whatever you want. The attempted fight back is by means of stronger collectivism. They want to beat left collectivism with right collectivism. It's the bad kind of nationalism. Nationalism per se is not a problem, but it is when it is proclaimed in collectivist terms.

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

What are these "national conservatives" going to DO about what they think or believe?

-Use government force to break up large corporations that have committed no crime and have not initiated force

-Emphasize national dialogue about the importance of the family over the individual

-Emphasize the importance of God

-Forcibly reject government procedures that don't involve the will of the people ("stop the steel")

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

 It's the bad kind of nationalism. Nationalism per se is not a problem, but it is when it is proclaimed in collectivist terms.

 

 

>When it is proclaimed in collectivist terms<.

Therefore when "we" as individuals in a group (of sorts) are being named, targeted and publicly ostracized by vengeful collectivists, would speak out or resist the treatment, qua group, "we" are now equally ... 'collectivists'?

Tarring the victims with the victimizers' brush.

And what would you have the conservatives do? Meekly submit to their virtual elimination, self-sacrifice? You know what - I am beginning to think that's what militant anti-Christians actually wish for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

 

-Use government force to break up large corporations that have committed no crime and have not initiated force

-Emphasize national dialogue about the importance of the family over the individual

-Emphasize the importance of God

-Forcibly reject government procedures that don't involve the will of the people ("stop the steel")

 

Omigod. Run for the hills, the nationalists are coming. They are going to emphasize us to death.

No the large corporations have probably committed no crime, not initiated force, but some are amoral, anti-capitalist corporatists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

would speak out or resist the treatment, qua group, "we" are now equally ... 'collectivists'?

Did you listen to the speech I showed you? He used explicitly collectivist terms. Watch from 9:30 to 10:30. 

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

but some are amoral, anti-capitalist corporatists.

Indeed, but national conservatives literally want government force, Hawley in particular. You asked me what they would do, and directing a philosophy is part of it. Trust busting is the most immediate thing they would do. Use the power of government to forcibly tear apart private companies. Do you not believe him?

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Did you listen to the speech I showed you? He used explicitly collectivist terms. Watch from 9:30 to 10:30. 

Indeed, but national conservatives literally want government force, Hawley in particular. You asked me what they would do, and directing a philosophy is part of it. Trust busting is the most immediate thing they would do. Use the power of government to forcibly tear apart private companies. Do you not believe him?

"We the people"?

At about 80% - 20 % I might estimate is the ratio of leftist collectivism to rightist collectivism, and varying widely with the latter. The left are locked into anti-individualism; it's their entire nature and modus operandi.  Reckon further, about 5 - 95 is the ratio of Left to Right individualism.

So one avoids over-generalizations, all S is P - yet, can infer where lie the predominant or overwhelming characteristics.

Summary: The conservatives have individualism by a huge margin compared to the Leftists.

You have been looking for identity-equivalence of Right and Left, which I think is patently false, so that you can establish moral-equivalence which is wrong. Middle of the road position: they are both so bad, let's wait until Perfect comes along. Until then do nothing that may dirty one's hands.

A conservative spouting off about trust busting once  more - and nothing new, in the past - is hardly the sign of a nationalist state, to come. That's small potatoes. If that's as bad as it gets, US "national conservatism" is apparently not the scary bogeyman that Journo presents it.  Of course - Hawley is wrong.

One important thing to remember. Conservatives and many rationally dissenting voices are being silenced in droves - and called out for public shaming. Their appeal to Ist Amendment rights applied to private media platforms may be misplaced but is -morally- right. They are exactly correct to demand freedom of expression for America, but have picked the wrong methods and targets. Do not cover over that real concern with them (wrongfully) wanting "government force" in correction. We ought to be as concerned with the dirty silencing tactics by Leftists that shut down free speech, not be making excuses for them..

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Summary: The conservatives have individualism by a huge margin compared to the Leftists.

Summary: Embracing "duty" to a god, embracing the idea that "you are your brother's keeper" is 100% anti-individualist.
You're will (as an individual is not important). That is at the core of the problem with collectivism.

Now if you want to include people who call themselves religious but don't fully believe, anything goes.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

let's wait until Perfect comes along

Where did I suggest that? I gave you examples earlier of imperfect things I would accept. I'm saying that the national conservatives are really really really bad.

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Do not cover over that real concern with them (wrongfully) wanting "government force" in correction.

What's with the scare quotes? Again, did you listen to the speech I showed you? I'm not using a euphemism, I'm referring to things Hawley said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Now if you want to include people who call themselves religious but don't fully believe, anything goes.

That's the majority of Christians. 58% don't believe reading the Bible is an essential part of being a Christian. Religion is so watered down today that even among those who believe the Bible is the word of God, about half of them look elsewhere for moral guidance, to common sense, philosophy, reason and science. Check out this Pew study.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:
4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Now if you want to include people who call themselves religious but don't fully believe, anything goes.

That's the majority of Christians. 58% don't believe reading the Bible is an essential part of being a Christian. Religion is so watered down today that even among those who believe the Bible is the word of God, about half of them look elsewhere for moral guidance, to common sense, philosophy, reason and science. Check out this Pew study.

That's what anything goes means. It means Muslims are fine. It means that Communists are okay because most of them don't believe their dogma. It makes this whole comparison becomes totally meaningless ... when it already was meaningless.

It was a hidden way of saying Trump's totalitarian ways were better than the alternative. Sorry, it isn't going to fly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Summary: Embracing "duty" to a god, embracing the idea that "you are your brother's keeper" is 100% anti-individualist.
You're will (as an individual is not important). That is at the core of the problem with collectivism.

Now if you want to include people who call themselves religious but don't fully believe, anything goes.
 

I've gone about as far as I care to, supporting the religious-conservatives. I have not implied they are objectively right and moral, I say they are better by far to deal with than the alternatives. "Duty"? The left-collectivists promote "your brother's keeper", on steroids. That is their total metaphysics, ethics and politics, right there. 1. Other people - the standard of value. 2. Exacting control over others' lives and minds through the state.

The reason is this, I think. The complete collectivist is necessarily a total determinist. Here, one is predetermined by physical factors, xyz, which render them the ultimate racialists, victim lovers (etc.). Not one's individual character and thinking, only superficial characteristics determine one's goodness or badness and one's outcomes, to them.

The religionists in contrast leave room for one's volition: They have to, by their own belief premises. Since if you know you are one day going to face your Maker, you know he's going to judge you on what you -chose- to do in your life and the state of your - individual - 'Soul'. Therefore, stands to 'reason' that one's "will' in this mortal realm features highly.

In this evolved manner the conservatives  -tend- in recent times to leave others almost alone to their independent ideas or religions. There's little desire to a Christian theocracy, the rule of religion. They clearly learned way back that tyrannous power and any forced conversion of the individual and of masses of people to their faith can and will be instantly recanted if it's insincere, made under pressure: Proof of their grasp of men's free will. If the choice is made voluntarily, that is what counts.

Leftist- determinist-collectivists will not and cannot allow others to make up their individual minds in the leftist Faith. Their great fear is independent minds which ARE volitional. The Socialist regimes of the last century, and indoctrination camps, are evidence.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

That's what anything goes means. It means Muslims are fine. It means that Communists are okay because most of them don't believe their dogma.

Muslim conservatives, perhaps. But communism is a political ideology explicitly against capitalism, so no. Religion, particularly Christianity, is not defined by a political ideology, especially not in modern day America.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

to do in your life and the state of your - individual - 'Soul'.

Did you read anything I said about the soul earlier?

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

I have not implied they are right and moral, I say they are better by far to deal with than the alternatives.

What about Hawley - in the speech you must have listened to my now - sounded like a better alternative? 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Did you read anything I said about the soul earlier?

What about Hawley - in the speech you must have listened to my now - sounded like a better alternative? 

1. Show me where, in that belief system, one's soul is considered the collective property of other 'souls'. Do you get that (in that belief system) each individual meets his maker alone? Let that notion sink in for a moment. Right off, there's the simple cause of much more self-responsibility from the conservatives. You will never hear the word "character" from leftists.

2. You go by one speaker mouthing off about breaking up big tech as your insight into conservatives and ignored the substance of what I said about clamps on freedom of speech directed at the conservatives - and anything I said about the totalitarian power the Left needs to have.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

clamps on freedom of speech directed at the conservatives

Anyone can say anything they want in America. These conservatives just want a safe space.

Anyway, since you still didn't listen to the speech and you didn't read what I wrote before about souls, there isn't anything more to be said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

 Do you get that (in that belief system) each individual meets his maker alone? Let that notion sink in for a moment.

 

Those mystics who laud God and the Soul, chased off in the wrong direction. Put in "existence" to replace "God" and man's consciousness for "soul" (and that "each individual meets" or apprehends reality, alone, and judges for himself by that standard) and there is something Objectivists might relate to as an interesting exercise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Anyone can say anything they want in America. These conservatives just want a safe space.

Anyway, since you still didn't listen to the speech and you didn't read what I wrote before about souls, there isn't anything more to be said.

Of course I listened. And of course anyone can say anything, just selectively not conservatives and some libertarians on Left-owned social media.

What bothers you especially about Hawley? I want to know why he is so alarming by contrast to what the Left are doing in power and will do more of.

Rather ironic, you think that the embattled conservatives want a "safe space" which has been the creation and feature of frightened Leftists. I think you enjoy them getting muzzled.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

What bothers you especially about Hawley? I want to know why he is so alarming by contrast to what the Left are doing in power and will do more of.

Keep in mind I picked him as a clear example of the mainstream conservative viewpoint, what passes as mainstream for conservatives these days. More or less that it has transformed into something else. He isn't alarming in contrast, he is alarming in similarity. If this is the future we can expect, I don't think it's going to turn out well. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...