14 minutes ago, whYNOT said:
Some telling blows: https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2021/02/religious-left-and-right-quibble-over-human-carnage-but-agree-to-keep-hating-capitalism/
Sums it all up for the two threads regarding religion vs secular socialists.
You know what would be better? Thinking of even better political allies, regardless of the pragmatic value that religionists like Prager might have or not have.
Elon Musk is the type of person we should talk about. I can’t think of _anyone _who uses billions of dollars to advance reason and technology, and to reach new frontiers, because it’s valuable to him. And his politics (as far as I can gather) is compatible with liberty.
Why make due if there are better options that exist already?
22 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
Sums it all up for the two threads regarding religion vs secular socialists.
The “telling blows” Salsman writes only makes the problematic more succinct, than have other articles.
In short - we knew that.
The conservatives, purported capitalists, are not willing or able to morally defend capitalism.
Assume as ‘the given’.
One is still left with: who can we *work* with? (Should we work with anyone?)
In order for Objectivists to bring real weight to bear on outcomes in the society, I maintain qualified support should be given to the better proponents of freedom from others/the state. ‘Win’ that one, ideologically-politically, and effective advocacy of the full package, individualism-individual rights-capitalism, follows.
I believe one ~creates~ (anything) with the best and/or most available materials at hand. To be productive one can’t wait for better days and better materials. Here in the present, for one’s lifespan, and looking to the near future of a country and civilisation, one can build - leaving something better for others to build on. The alternative is to retreat from the field, admitting that this philosophy is ineffective in action.
Simply, no one and nothing from the Left-“secular socialists”, I have seen, provides us materials to work on towards that freedom. Without exception, their defining aims are the collective control over others’ lives and behavior and morality, delegating the agency of government to force their combined will on independents and recalcitrants.
Conversely, right-conservatives have largely, not exclusively, a “leave us be” self-reliance - i.e. We and each person in our families and communities can sort out and determine our own lives, thanks very much. You do the same, live and let live. That basic self-responsibility constitutes a rough liberty in practice, to my mind. And they don’t, that I can tell, need to make anyone convert to religion; the leftists have always known that wielding power, automatically “converts” everybody - to their religion.
19 hours ago, Eiuol said:
You know what would be better? Thinking of even better political allies, regardless of the pragmatic value that religionists like Prager might have or not have.
Elon Musk is the type of person we should talk about. I can’t think of _anyone _who uses billions of dollars to advance reason and technology, and to reach new frontiers, because it’s valuable to him. And his politics (as far as I can gather) is compatible with liberty.
Why make due if there are better options that exist already?
A foreigner who took hold of the opportunities, abilities, knowledge, capital and division of labor existing in the USA, to make his immense mark. Dare I remind you, Musk’s a South African, originally? Pretty sure his ideas, drive and talents could have gotten him far anywhere in the West, and e.g. Japan, Australia, but the US best of all.
Main thing is, Musk found the freedom to do what he wanted.
The commonality is freedom, and so all advocates/part advocates and exponents-in-action can be recruited to that cause.
Not this one or that one - all.
2 hours ago, whYNOT said:
One is still left with: who can we *work* with? (Should we work with anyone?)
You work with them because of current common interests, not because of philosophical leanings.
As in the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We allied with Stalin in world war two, not because he was pro-capitalist.
Similarly with Bin-Laden in Afghanistan, again not because he was pro-capitalist.
Prager can only be a temporary ally, similar to Democratic Senators like Manchin or Cinema. One can endorse him on specific issues, one should not endorse his philosophy.
Prager is not an individualist in the way an Objectivist is. We don’t believe in original sin or being evil.
We can also ally with leftist regarding legalization of marijuana and allowing for stem cell research and preventing asset seizure. Not because they are pro-capitalist and not because they are always a better choice.
The standard of good has to be long term. With Prager it’s “good until”.
There is always a caveat that has to be included.
If you said we can ally with Prager on this specific issue (as long as he won’t change his mind), I could agree with you.
4 hours ago, whYNOT said:
Pretty sure his ideas, drive and talents could have gotten him far anywhere in the West, and e.g. Japan, Australia, but the US best of all.
I don’t think that all. I think he only could have accomplished what he did in the US. Anyone who lives in Japan, South Africa, or Australia is better off coming here. My point is that a (relatively but imperfectly) pro-liberty immigrant in the US is more likely to understand what freedom actually means than anyone else in the world.
I’m not sure what your point is, but people like Prager (religious conservatives who simply rage against the left however you define it) are neither inspiring nor interesting. Maybe they sort of kind of understand liberty but they don’t live it. They take it for granted. I’m talking about inspiration for culture here.
2 hours ago, Eiuol said:
I’m not sure what your point is, but people like Prager (religious conservatives who simply rage against the left however you define it) are neither inspiring nor interesting. Maybe they sort of kind of understand liberty but they don’t live it. They take it for granted. I’m talking about inspiration for culture here.
As I understand this, you have it backwards. They DO “live it” but may not fully understand it. That’s why you made a comparison with immigrants who know intimately what they are gaining by going there. They know the freedom-lacks they left behind. They better appreciate the explosion of opportunities and range of choices they find.
Explain to the Prager-type conservatives who, maybe, have only a sense of life, implicit, appreciation of “liberty” - because they grew up in it and with it, undefined - in fundamental terms: You have the right to life, life requires action, therefore you have the right to protected freedom of your selected actions. Identical to everyone else.
At this juncture it matters little that this conservative believes his “right to life” was God-given. He/she will nearly always agree with the reasoned outcome. They aren’t per se, anti-reason - that’s the province largely of post-modern leftists. If anything, I constantly hear more logical -objective - thinking by many conservatives lately ( I gather, to combat the Left, on what, ironically, used to be the secularist Left’s turf).
AR
“If one upholds freedom, one must uphold man’s individual rights; if one upholds man’s individual rights, one must uphold his right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness—which means: one must uphold a political system that guarantees and protects these rights—which means: the politico-economic system of capitalism”.
44 minutes ago, whYNOT said:
They DO “live it” but may not fully understand it.
Give me some examples then. Not just the words they say, but also what they have produced. I only care about who understands better than someone else.
The particular sentiments sweetly expressed here by Joni might not be rational, the essential theme, losing values, will be recognizable. Don’t it always seem to go, you don’t know what you’ve got til it’s gone?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWwUJH70ubM
I don’t know what that has to do with religious conservatives.
46 minutes ago, Eiuol said:
I don’t know what that has to do with religious conservatives.
Yup. I know.
Your words “They take it for granted”. True.
What happens when you take things as they are for granted, and possible allies for freedom for granted? You can lose them.
On 3/8/2021 at 11:27 AM, whYNOT said:
admitting that this philosophy is ineffective in action.
A modern physician plunked down in the middle ages might be able to accomplish a little medically, but this would be very limited, because most people would not understand what he or she was saying and would disagree with whatever they did understand, and because there would be no modern tools.
If we’re talking about major change in society, the effectiveness of Objectivism will be very limited as long as most people disagree. On this scale, the effectiveness of Objectivism will increase as more people come to understand and appreciate it.
Objectivism is still effective as a tool for living one’s own life.
2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
A modern physician plunked down in the middle ages might be able to accomplish a little medically, but this would be very limited, because most people would not understand what he or she was saying and would disagree with whatever they did understand, and because there would be no modern tools.
If we’re talking about major change in society, the effectiveness of Objectivism will be very limited as long as most people disagree. On this scale, the effectiveness of Objectivism will increase as more people come to understand and appreciate it.
Objectivism is still effective as a tool for living one’s own life.
Unquestionably, “Objectivism … for living one’s own life” is central. Those many people around one will and do interfere with that purpose, which is why the influence of Objectivism’s ideas on them might be less an introduction into O’ism (which will bear fruit, one individual at a time) yet, over all aimed at demonstrating that individual rights would be the unparalleled system for a peaceful coexistence of numbers in societies. That each can freely practice his/her own doctrine and ethics, without hindrance or help. That’s the O’ist effectiveness factor I meant - on meta-politics, to coin a phrase. Free enterprise is the natural consequence.
Agreement/disagreement among people would become moot so long as they agreed on that system.
in the mean time it’s to any who have a glimmer of what such complete freedom which individual rights could bring, Objectivists should encourage - not turn away. (For one reason given they are supposed “nationalists”). Controversially, some of us consider the religious conservatives, together with all of the classical liberal Right, could be closest now to gladly accepting individual rights. In places especially the USA they are getting a taste of collectivist domination in the shape of socialist democracies and not enjoying it.
Prager seems to separate liberalism vs. leftism. Is this how people should see it or do see it (on this forum)? It’s already confused but does this help?
https://www.prageru.com/video/left-or-liberal/
It is a legitimate distinction and makes sense. Even leftists do. Leftists hate liberals and neoliberals. Neoliberals such as Clinton or Biden. The bigger problem is that he doesn’t cite anything. He’s not good with nuance.
So is Rawls a Liberal, Leftist, NeoLiberal? What about Obama?
Ultimately, what about Trump?
1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:
So is Rawls a Liberal, Leftist, NeoLiberal? What about Obama?
Ultimately, what about Trump?
Yes
I was hoping to avoid “yes” but it may end up being the appropriate answer. The words mean different things to different people, in some cases the opposite of what they mean.
Quote
As if this weren’t complicated enough, liberalism has now been saddled once again with a new variation, the meaning of which remains unclear: “neoliberalism.”
What is neoliberalism? Well, it appears that, at least among its critics, “neoliberalism” usually means nothing more than “liberalism.”
https://mises.org/wire/whats-difference-between-liberalism-and-neoliberalism
Meanwhile this is one reaction to the interview with Biddle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqGhbUCGkdw
8 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
Prager seems to separate liberalism vs. leftism. Is this how people should see it or do see it (on this forum)?
Liberalism is a political orientation, like authoritarianism is a political orientation. Liberals lean toward personal sovereignty and freedom, authoritarians lean toward government controls and obedience. But the meaning and limits of “freedom” versus “control” depend on one’s underlying views of reality, man and society. Is it protecting “freedom” to enact laws against racial discrimination in employment and housing? The same laws “control” employers and property owners.
Leftism provides a subjectivist-altruist-socialist viewpoint. So a liberal today might sound psychotic compared to his ancestor liberals, because today’s leftists advocate some truly nutty views. Today, a liberal orientation might look like the belief that men should have the freedom to choose to be women, and furthermore that society should recognize these men as women and even accept them in women’s sports competitions. It’s not hard to find leftist liberals with this position. One is our current president.
Not all liberals, however, are beholden to leftist ideology. Some listen to, or have started listening to, intellectuals on the right. There are rightist liberals who focus on freeing up the economy from state controls, like the better Republicans in Congress. But the right is still debating its semi-objective, semi-egoist, semi-capitalist philosophy. Thus the rightist liberal movement is hampered by the vestiges of religious dogma, duty and devotion. I believe it’s here, at this clash between liberal and authoritarian rightism, where we find people like Dennis Prager.
2 hours ago, MisterSwig said:
Today, a liberal orientation might look like the belief that men should have the freedom to choose to be women, and furthermore that society should recognize these men as women and even accept them in women’s sports competitions. It’s not hard to find leftist liberals with this position. One is our current president.
So does that mean that Biden is not a Neoliberal?
11 hours ago, Eiuol said:
Neoliberals such as Clinton or Biden.
2 hours ago, MisterSwig said:
I believe it’s here, at this clash between liberal and authoritarian rightism, where we find people like Dennis Prager.
But for someone who believes that “man” is basically bad, doesn’t that necessitate a form of authoritarianism to reign him in?
On a fundamental level, doesn’t he see the essence of America as being a merging of church and state vs. what it really is at its core: A separation of “a church” and state? In other words, isn’t he advocating for a theocracy? Would that be an advocacy for “Freedom/Liberty”?