Recommended Posts

Posted

The Intellectual Leadership of the Right Stands Against Trump by Robert Tracinski

Peter,

I will give you the perspective of a Trump supporter. The problem is right there in the title of that article. And it starts with a gut feeling from Trump supporters that could be described as an "irritated dismissal of elitist crap."

The "intellectual leadership" Tracinski is referring to is not seen by Trump supporters as a group of leaders of anything except their own careers. They are seen as people who preach one thing and do another backstage. They talk a good game to the public, but when Trump supporter-like voters send people to Congress based on a very clear platform and said elected people sell out to the big crony government/corporations machine and do the opposite, and the "intellectual leadership" keeps talking good about those legislators, keeps up friendships with them, keeps discussing their pronouncements as if they were ideas with integrity, keeps supporting their reelection campaigns and the campaigns of similar people, and so on, Trump supporters see that as the height of elitist hypocrisy.

(As an aside, one of the reasons Trump supporters actually like Ted Cruz and don't reciprocate much against the goading of Cruz supporters is because he called Mitch McConnell a liar right there on the Senate floor. They don't agree with Cruz's tactics because 1 against 99 is not the way to win a battle--Trump would win that battle, but they admire his balls and integrity.)

The "intellectual leadership" has credibility to Trump supporters only when there is no viable alternative--when the mass media has been coopted and prohibited to present certain ideas, so to speak. Hell, even Fox News was starting to constantly say "undocumented immigrant" instead of "illegal."

And even then, the intellectual emissions of the "intellectual leadership" are only thought of as a placeholder for keeping some kind of discussion alive. If you can't have a good meal and you are starving in the desert, you eat snake. It's like that. And the "intellectual leadership" sages stupidly think it's because they are admired as the true heroic defenders of liberty.

But now someone (Trump) has come along and is not only discussing the things they want discussed with a normative clarity they want, the person has a long history of getting magnificent stuff done. On time. Under budget. And everyone involved always makes boocoo money.

So, think Trump supporters, let the "intellectual leadership" lead. Look where they've led so far. If that's where they want to go and keep going, let them lead and bon voyage to all who join them.

Bye-bye...

:smile:

Michael

  • Replies 439
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Cruz, Trump, You, and Rand.

Hypothetical:

You are a candidate for president who has proposed getting rid of certain government subsidies and mandates. You're campaigning in a state which has industries which are heavily dependent on subsidies, and which gain many advantages over competitors from mandates.

You're being hounded by opposition activists and reporters, and, at town hall meetings, doe-eyed local folks ask very emotion-laden and seemingly innocent questions, like, "Me and my husband work in one of them industries yer gonna cut. How we s'posed ta live? We got kids ta feed! Got bills ta pay! Why you wanna yank the rug out from underneath us like that? Why you wanna hurt us?"

What would you say in response?

What should you say, and with what manner or demeanor should you say it, if you truly believe in liberty, and you have actual courage of conviction?

Now, compare your answer to how Cruz has answered such "victim"/critics' opposition to his ideas, and, more importantly, their implicit emotional vilification of him.

Then compare to how Trump has handled such "victim"/critics.

Now, finally, ask yourself how Rand would deal with that type of question, and why.

Rand had a pretty "integrated" view of things, no? Would she answer more like Trump has, or more like Cruz has?

J

Posted

The Intellectual Leadership of the Right Stands Against Trump by Robert Tracinski

Peter,

I will give you the perspective of a Trump supporter. The problem is right there in the title of that article. And it starts with a gut feeling from Trump supporters that could be described as an "irritated dismissal of elitist crap."

The "intellectual leadership" Tracinski is referring to is not seen by Trump supporters as a group of leaders of anything except their own careers. They are seen as people who preach one thing and do another backstage. They talk a good game to the public, but when Trump supporter-like voters send people to Congress based on a very clear platform and said elected people sell out to the big crony government/corporations machine and do the opposite, and the "intellectual leadership" keeps talking good about those legislators, keeps up friendships with them, keeps discussing their pronouncements as if they were ideas with integrity, keeps supporting their reelection campaigns and the campaigns of similar people, and so on, Trump supporters see that as the height of elitist hypocrisy.

(As an aside, one of the reasons Trump supporters actually like Ted Cruz and don't reciprocate much against the goading of Cruz supporters is because he called Mitch McConnell a liar right there on the Senate floor. They don't agree with Cruz's tactics because 1 against 99 is not the way to win a battle--Trump would win that battle, but they admire his balls and integrity.)

The "intellectual leadership" has credibility to Trump supporters only when there is no viable alternative--when the mass media has been coopted and prohibited to present certain ideas, so to speak. Hell, even Fox News was starting to constantly say "undocumented immigrant" instead of "illegal."

And even then, the intellectual emissions of the "intellectual leadership" are only thought of as a placeholder for keeping some kind of discussion alive. If you can't have a good meal and you are starving in the desert, you eat snake. It's like that. And the "intellectual leadership" sages stupidly think it's because they are admired as the true heroic defenders of liberty.

But now someone (Trump) has come along and is not only discussing the things they want discussed with a normative clarity they want, the person has a long history of getting magnificent stuff done. On time. Under budget. And everyone involved always makes boocoo money.

So, think Trump supporters, let the "intellectual leadership" lead. Look where they've led so far. If that's where they want to go and keep going, let them lead and bon voyage to all who join them.

Bye-bye...

:smile:

Michael

You perhaps, then, have some inkling of how some irritated and dismissive some of us feel about the "anti-intellectual leadership" who support the populist, bloviating claptrap of Mr. Trump. And we bid buh-bye to those who join *him.* :tongue:

REB

Posted

Roger,

Except, from all indications, we are going to get to see what America looks like under Trump's connect-reality-to-ideas system.

We already know what it looks like under the National Review-like "intellectual leadership" of the connect-crony-elites-to-ideas system.

:smile:

Michael

Posted

Michael wrote: We already know what it looks like under the National Review-like "intellectual leadership" of the connect-crony-elites-to-ideas system.
end quote

Your polemic was well done Michael. I do not kowtow to Rino’s, (nor does Roger, I bet), The National Review, to the ARI, or to Trancinski. In my thinking . . . I agree with what they say, in the ratios of 20 percent with the (Rino’s), 60 (Nat’l Review), 80 (ARI), and 90 percent (for Trancinski,) in that order of best- guess - tamate. The candidates who most reflect my political philosophy are Cruz, Rand Paul, and maybe Rubio. My strategy is to support them until I see they have little chance of winning. It is even possible a half dozen other viable candidates at this stage of the process are better than Donald Trump. I make fun of Trump but I don’t despise him – I even half - heartedly cheer him and his bravado on. If he is the most likely to succeed I will support him in the general election, after the primaries and preliminaries, but not until then.

I remember Peikoff’s advise to not vote for or in any way support anyone who was not ideologically pure. Even Rand Paul’s and Cruz’s religiosity might cause Leonard to not vote for them. But I don’t even care about his opinion. Rand “reluctantly” supported Dewey and Goldwater as everyone knows and I think she would have mostly supported Ronald Reagan. I know I did and she is my idol.

Which of the 16 or so candidates who are or were running for President would do the best job as Prez? Who will have the best policies? Who will be the most Constitutional candidate? Who would Rand support? At this stage IT IS NOT TRUMP.

I think Trump’s policies as stated on his web site are better than good but does he mean any of it? His track record, theatrics, and conniving suggest not. But I will wait and see. Tonight and Monday? Oh, what fun. Let's hope Objectivist Living remains like a Town Hall meeting, but civil and without hecklers who are too loud or go on for too long.
Peter

Posted

Roger,

Except, from all indications, we are going to get to see what America looks like under Trump's connect-reality-to-ideas system.

Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of. Actually, *this* is what I'm afraid of:

obey_Or_Die_II.gif

Posted

Roger,

LOL...

:)

Don't worry your pretty little heart about it. Trump is a deal-maker, not a tyrant.

He might come off tyrannical with the media, but he's making sure the media talks about him and not about themselves.

I saw a talking head somewhere mention something that was absolutely true. If Trump had not walked out of the debate, everybody would be talking about Megyn Kelly, what would she ask Trump, how would she keep her own position of credibility, if Chris Wallace and Bret Baier would go gunning for Trump because of the first debate and standing up for Megyn, and so on. What's worse, we would have seen that clip of Megyn asking Trump about being a misogynist over and over and over. And the blood spurting out of her wherever over and over and over.

Instead, we now have the media talking about Trump and nothing but Trump.

:)

That's not a dictator.

That's a person who is taking out the dictatorship of the media big-time, and using their own need to present news to do it.

Michael

Posted

... *this* is what I'm afraid of:

obey_Or_Die_II.gif

Roger,

On second thought, there are contexts where I believe this is true.

That is a perfect graphic for Trump's attitude toward ISIS's war of expansion and Islamist terrorism in general.

They had better obey him and stop butchering people or they will die.

For real, not just in rhetoric.

I'm 100% OK with that. More than OK. And I'm sad our current president isn't that way with them.

Sad? Hell, I'm pissed.

I seriously hope ISIS takes a look at your graphic and wonders if that means them. Because it does.

Michael

Posted

... *this* is what I'm afraid of:

obey_Or_Die_II.gif

Roger,

On second thought, there are contexts where I believe this is true.

That is a perfect graphic for Trump's attitude toward ISIS's war of expansion and Islamist terrorism in general.

They had better obey him and stop butchering people or they will die.

For real, not just in rhetoric.

I'm 100% OK with that. More than OK. And I'm sad our current president isn't that way with them.

Sad? Hell, I'm pissed.

I seriously hope ISIS takes a look at your graphic and wonders if that means them. Because it does.

Michael

I look forward to the day when ISIS is NOT. :angry2:

However, my impression of Trump's approach is that he favors letting other countries (like Russia and Iran) bleeding *themselves* dry of young people and trillions of taxpayer dollars fighting ISIS, rather than us having to do it. I certainly agree with that!

REB

Posted

Cruz, Trump, You, and Rand.

Hypothetical:

You are a candidate for president who has proposed getting rid of certain government subsidies and mandates. You're campaigning in a state which has industries which are heavily dependent on subsidies, and which gain many advantages over competitors from mandates.

You're being hounded by opposition activists and reporters, and, at town hall meetings, doe-eyed local folks ask very emotion-laden and seemingly innocent questions, like, "Me and my husband work in one of them industries yer gonna cut. How we s'posed ta live? We got kids ta feed! Got bills ta pay! Why you wanna yank the rug out from underneath us like that? Why you wanna hurt us?"

What would you say in response?

What should you say, and with what manner or demeanor should you say it, if you truly believe in liberty, and you have actual courage of conviction?

Now, compare your answer to how Cruz has answered such "victim"/critics' opposition to his ideas, and, more importantly, their implicit emotional vilification of him.

Then compare to how Trump has handled such "victim"/critics.

Now, finally, ask yourself how Rand would deal with that type of question, and why.

Rand had a pretty "integrated" view of things, no? Would she answer more like Trump has, or more like Cruz has?

J

I'll bite.

Cruz would begin by saying, "see, what we have in America right now is <insert some meaningless pseudo-induction that fails to get at the essential>, and that's why when <insert whatever piece of legislation> got called to vote, I <insert his vote> because what we need now in Washington is proven leadership, and that's why when <he voted yay/nay> it showed that I stood for <whatever issue he stands for> and <now tie it back to the meaningless pseudo-induction (premise) from before>." That's rationalism, and that's Cruz. Disconnected from reality. When I was younger I used to call these politicians "issue men" because they can only speak about whatever issues come across their desk and don't know much outside of it. Cruz is stuck in an epistemological bubble that doesn't go outside the voting floor.

Fun with hypotheticals!

Posted

Posted

Cruz would begin by saying, "see, what we have in America right now is <insert some meaningless pseudo-induction that fails to get at the essential>, and that's why when <insert whatever piece of legislation> got called to vote, I <insert his vote> because what we need now in Washington is proven leadership, and that's why when <he voted yay/nay> it showed that I stood for <whatever issue he stands for> and <now tie it back to the meaningless pseudo-induction (premise) from before>." That's rationalism, and that's Cruz. Disconnected from reality. When I was younger I used to call these politicians "issue men" because they can only speak about whatever issues come across their desk and don't know much outside of it. Cruz is stuck in an epistemological bubble that doesn't go outside the voting floor.

Fun with hypotheticals!

Your whole comment was hypothetical and stuck in an epistemological bubble.

Did you even watch the debate? Cruz handled the (to Iowa voters) very crucial issue of ethanol subsidies - and he handled it well. (I thought Rubio did the best job tonight, also Paul, while Cruz did passably well.)

Cruz said not only that there shouldn't be ethanol subsidies, but that there shouldn't be ethanol regulations that hampered the market's development of it as an alternative fuel, AND that in general the government should not be picking winners and losers with subsidies. He knocked that particular one out of the park.

Cruz's answer was so specific in dealing with the question and yet so well integrated in connecting it to related and wider issues, it did not at all resemble the surrealistic template you accuse him of using. I have to wonder what alternate dimension you draw your material from - and you are the one who accuses *Cruz* of "rationalism." Amazing.

REB

Posted

We already know that Hillary is an expert at killing by neglect, by abandonment of responsibility. She's got that part down pat (not to be confused with Dick Nixon's bedroom activities with his wife back in the bad old days of the 60s and 70s).

I do not like Cruz's foreign policy. I agree that our military strength needs to be restored, for *our* defense - but I also worry that that will encourage the interventionists and hawks to feel more confident about going on foreign adventures (aka killing sprees).

REB

Posted

Fun with hypotheticals!

Your whole comment was hypothetical and stuck in an epistemological bubble.

Did you even watch the debate? Cruz handled the (to Iowa voters) very crucial issue of ethanol subsidies - and he handled it well. (I thought Rubio did the best job tonight, also Paul, while Cruz did passably well.)

Cruz said not only that there shouldn't be ethanol subsidies, but that there shouldn't be ethanol regulations that hampered the market's development of it as an alternative fuel, AND that in general the government should not be picking winners and losers with subsidies. He knocked that particular one out of the park.

Cruz's answer was so specific in dealing with the question and yet so well integrated in connecting it to related and wider issues, it did not at all resemble the surrealistic template you accuse him of using. I have to wonder what alternate dimension you draw your material from - and you are the one who accuses *Cruz* of "rationalism." Amazing.

REB

Of course my whole statement was in an epistemological bubble, that's the nature of the modality I was using :)

Technically, the debate happened after my previous post, so I guess you got me there. I didn't watch the debate before posting it.

But I definitely watched the tail end of the Fox debate after I posted, and know of the Cruz ethanol comment you speak of. No, it doesn't fit the template, but that doesn't change the estimate. REB, don't make the mistake of concretizing Cruz's statements for him. When Cruz speaks he might be pinging on your Objective hierarchies, which are grounded to reality, but Cruz's, the majority of the time, are not. You're almost defining rationalism in your reply here, "specific.. yet so integrated in connecting it to related and wider issues,"--but that doesn't mean he concretized it. A rationalist will have integrations--often wide hierarchies--concepts, and so on, but that doesn't mean they are concretized, and Cruz's, are not. It is distinct, no alternate dimension. When I hear Cruz I hear a rationalist, when I hear Rand I hear an Objectivist. Big difference in the use of their mind.

What "amazes" me, however, is how Cruz is an avowed mystic and you go to bat for him. Not sure what to make of that contradiction.

Posted

Cruz, Trump, You, and Rand.

Hypothetical:

You are a candidate for president who has proposed getting rid of certain government subsidies and mandates. You're campaigning in a state which has industries which are heavily dependent on subsidies, and which gain many advantages over competitors from mandates.

You're being hounded by opposition activists and reporters, and, at town hall meetings, doe-eyed local folks ask very emotion-laden and seemingly innocent questions, like, "Me and my husband work in one of them industries yer gonna cut. How we s'posed ta live? We got kids ta feed! Got bills ta pay! Why you wanna yank the rug out from underneath us like that? Why you wanna hurt us?"

What would you say in response?

What should you say, and with what manner or demeanor should you say it, if you truly believe in liberty, and you have actual courage of conviction?

Now, compare your answer to how Cruz has answered such "victim"/critics' opposition to his ideas, and, more importantly, their implicit emotional vilification of him.

Then compare to how Trump has handled such "victim"/critics.

Now, finally, ask yourself how Rand would deal with that type of question, and why.

Rand had a pretty "integrated" view of things, no? Would she answer more like Trump has, or more like Cruz has?

J

I'll bite.

Cruz would begin by saying, "see, what we have in America right now is <insert some meaningless pseudo-induction that fails to get at the essential>, and that's why when <insert whatever piece of legislation> got called to vote, I <insert his vote> because what we need now in Washington is proven leadership, and that's why when <he voted yay/nay> it showed that I stood for <whatever issue he stands for> and <now tie it back to the meaningless pseudo-induction (premise) from before>." That's rationalism, and that's Cruz. Disconnected from reality. When I was younger I used to call these politicians "issue men" because they can only speak about whatever issues come across their desk and don't know much outside of it. Cruz is stuck in an epistemological bubble that doesn't go outside the voting floor.

Fun with hypotheticals!

You nailed Cruz's style there.

Trump's style, in response to people who accuse him of being vicious for proposing taking away "their" freebies, is something like, "You know, it's amazing, I mention food stamps and that guy who's seriously overweight went crazy. He went crazy."

Now, how would Rand respond to someone attempting to vilify her for opposing the existence of their free shit programs?

J

Posted

Fun with hypotheticals!

Your whole comment was hypothetical and stuck in an epistemological bubble.

Did you even watch the debate? Cruz handled the (to Iowa voters) very crucial issue of ethanol subsidies - and he handled it well. (I thought Rubio did the best job tonight, also Paul, while Cruz did passably well.)

Cruz said not only that there shouldn't be ethanol subsidies, but that there shouldn't be ethanol regulations that hampered the market's development of it as an alternative fuel, AND that in general the government should not be picking winners and losers with subsidies. He knocked that particular one out of the park.

Cruz's answer was so specific in dealing with the question and yet so well integrated in connecting it to related and wider issues, it did not at all resemble the surrealistic template you accuse him of using. I have to wonder what alternate dimension you draw your material from - and you are the one who accuses *Cruz* of "rationalism." Amazing.

REB

Of course my whole statement was in an epistemological bubble, that's the nature of the modality I was using :smile:

Technically, the debate happened after my previous post, so I guess you got me there. I didn't watch the debate before posting it.

But I definitely watched the tail end of the Fox debate after I posted, and know of the Cruz ethanol comment you speak of. No, it doesn't fit the template, but that doesn't change the estimate. REB, don't make the mistake of concretizing Cruz's statements for him. When Cruz speaks he might be pinging on your Objective hierarchies, which are grounded to reality, but Cruz's, the majority of the time, are not. You're almost defining rationalism in your reply here, "specific.. yet so integrated in connecting it to related and wider issues,"--but that doesn't mean he concretized it. A rationalist will have integrations--often wide hierarchies--concepts, and so on, but that doesn't mean they are concretized, and Cruz's, are not. It is distinct, no alternate dimension. When I hear Cruz I hear a rationalist, when I hear Rand I hear an Objectivist. Big difference in the use of their mind.

What "amazes" me, however, is how Cruz is an avowed mystic and you go to bat for him. Not sure what to make of that contradiction.

Cruz was presenting a consistent, principled position, it was connected to specific facts, and it was applied across the board to other specific cases. Inductive, deductive. Connected to specific facts is what concretized means. So I really don't get this bit you keep saying about how Cruz is not concretized or grounded in reality.

Perhaps you are just equating his belief in God with not having valid, reality-derived knowledge whatsoever? I find it hard to believe you would make that equation, but I know some Objectivists do. (In the old days, they made exceptions for people like von Mises and Goldwater.)

Even wild-eyed mystics come up with really rational, reality-based, true generalizations and principles. Leonard Peikoff extolled Isaac Newton as a prime example of his I (Integrative) category in his book The DIM Hypothesis - yet, if you look into Newton's life story, you find that he had a lot of wacky historical-religious notions. (There's another exception Objectivists like to make in their usual relegation of theists to the epistemological rationalist garbage bin.)

On the other hand, Immanuel Kant, the favorite Objectivist whipping boy and categorized as Disintegrative (D2) by Peikoff, not only failed to straighten out the empiricist-rationalist split and Hume's wreckage, but was actually a brilliant theoretical physicist during his younger years - in some ways, as insightful and brilliant as Newton. Read up on him, too. His nebular hypothesis (of the formation of the galaxy) and his theory about the tides are amazing.

I'm not sure where along the DIM continuum to place Cruz, but I'd imagine he is M1, considering his respect for free market economics, rather than market interventionism. He sounds like someone who has read a lot of von Mises, Rand, Hazlitt, etc. Rand Paul, also a Christian, but a more consistent libertarian, is somewhere between M1 and I (Integrative). Huckabee and Santorum, however, are way off towards M2, Santorum for sure. They're both pretty scary.

Actually, all three of them (Paul excluded) scare me with their evangelical-tinged hawkish foreign policy. But interestingly and scarily, way too many Objectivists for my comfort *also* like the idea of sending troops over to kick ISIS's ass (with not a few of those troops coming back in body bags or with body parts missing).

So, that to me is a very important issue on which I do *not* stick up for Cruz. I actually prefer Paul's and Trump's approach to immigration and foreign intervention (assuming Trump is serious about letting Iran and Russia beat up on ISIS and not sending our troops and money over). I give Cruz a C-minus in foreign policy, Trump maybe a B, Paul an A.

But on the *economy*? Cruz gets an A-minus at worst - and Trump maybe a C-plus. In economics, Cruz is the real deal. So is Paul (an A for him).

In regard to personal liberties, Paul is considerably better than Cruz, but I don't like either of their pro-life positions (nor Trump's). Overall, I give Paul an A-minus for civil liberties, Cruz a C-plus, Trump...I have no idea, but no higher than a B.

To me, the bottom line on the whole "mystic" (code for proud Christian) is that even those who believe in God have valid, reality-based concepts and principles. Their knowledge is not fully integrated, but very large clumps of it are. What matters to me is: are they correct, do they know they are correct, do they mean what they say, and do they back up their correct opinions with action?

In the areas Cruz has correct, he gets an A. So does Paul. Trump...he doesn't have enough of a track record for the *good* stuff he says to give him a grade for "talks the talk, walks the walk." He's really a blank check, asking us to trust him. Heard that one before...

REB

Posted

 

 

 

 

 

Fun with hypotheticals!

 

 

Your whole comment was hypothetical and stuck in an epistemological bubble.

 

Did you even watch the debate? Cruz handled the (to Iowa voters) very crucial issue of ethanol subsidies - and he handled it well. (I thought Rubio did the best job tonight, also Paul, while Cruz did passably well.)

 

Cruz said not only that there shouldn't be ethanol subsidies, but that there shouldn't be ethanol regulations that hampered the market's development of it as an alternative fuel, AND that in general the government should not be picking winners and losers with subsidies. He knocked that particular one out of the park.

 

Cruz's answer was so specific in dealing with the question and yet so well integrated in connecting it to related and wider issues, it did not at all resemble the surrealistic template you accuse him of using. I have to wonder what alternate dimension you draw your material from - and you are the one who accuses *Cruz* of "rationalism." Amazing.

 

REB

 

 

Of course my whole statement was in an epistemological bubble, that's the nature of the modality I was using :smile:

 

Technically, the debate happened after my previous post, so I guess you got me there.  I didn't watch the debate before posting it.

 

But I definitely watched the tail end of the Fox debate after I posted, and know of the Cruz ethanol comment you speak of.  No, it doesn't fit the template, but that doesn't change the estimate.  REB, don't make the mistake of concretizing Cruz's statements for him.  When Cruz speaks he might be pinging on your Objective hierarchies, which are grounded to reality, but Cruz's, the majority of the time, are not.  You're almost defining rationalism in your reply here, "specific.. yet so integrated in connecting it to related and wider issues,"--but that doesn't mean he concretized it.  A rationalist will have integrations--often wide hierarchies--concepts, and so on, but that doesn't mean they are concretized, and Cruz's, are not.  It is distinct, no alternate dimension.  When I hear Cruz I hear a rationalist, when I hear Rand I hear an Objectivist.  Big difference in the use of their mind.

 

What "amazes" me, however, is how Cruz is an avowed mystic and you go to bat for him.  Not sure what to make of that contradiction.

 

Cruz was presenting a consistent, principled position, it was connected to specific facts, and it was applied across the board to other specific cases. Inductive, deductive. Connected to specific facts is what concretized means. So I really don't get this bit you keep saying about how Cruz is not concretized or grounded in reality.

 

Perhaps you are just equating his belief in God with not having valid, reality-derived knowledge whatsoever? I find it hard to believe you would make that equation, but I know some Objectivists do. (In the old days, they made exceptions for people like von Mises and Goldwater.)

 

Even wild-eyed mystics come up with really rational, reality-based, true generalizations and principles. Leonard Peikoff extolled Isaac Newton as a prime example of his I (Integrative) category in his book The DIM Hypothesis - yet, if you look into Newton's life story, you find that he had a lot of wacky historical-religious notions. (There's another exception Objectivists like to make in their usual relegation of theists to the epistemological rationalist garbage bin.)

 

On the other hand, Immanuel Kant, the favorite Objectivist whipping boy and categorized as Disintegrative (D2) by Peikoff, not only failed to straighten out the empiricist-rationalist split and Hume's wreckage, but was actually a brilliant theoretical physicist during his younger years - in some ways, as insightful and brilliant as Newton. Read up on him, too. His nebular hypothesis (of the formation of the galaxy) and his theory about the tides are amazing.

 

I'm not sure where along the DIM continuum to place Cruz, but I'd imagine he is M1, considering his respect for free market economics, rather than market interventionism. He sounds like someone who has read a lot of von Mises, Rand, Hazlitt, etc. Rand Paul, also a Christian, but a more consistent libertarian, is somewhere between M1 and I (Integrative). Huckabee and Santorum, however, are way off towards M2, Santorum for sure. They're both pretty scary.

 

Actually, all three of them (Paul excluded) scare me with their evangelical-tinged hawkish foreign policy. But interestingly and scarily, way too many Objectivists for my comfort *also* like the idea of sending troops over to kick ISIS's ass (with not a few of those troops coming back in body bags or with body parts missing). 

 

So, that to me is a very important issue on which I do *not* stick up for Cruz. I actually prefer Paul's and Trump's approach to immigration and foreign intervention (assuming Trump is serious about letting Iran and Russia beat up on ISIS and not sending our troops and money over). I give Cruz a C-minus in foreign policy, Trump maybe a B, Paul an A.

 

But on the *economy*? Cruz gets an A-minus at worst - and Trump maybe a C-plus. In economics, Cruz is the real deal. So is Paul (an A for him).

 

In regard to personal liberties, Paul is considerably better than Cruz, but I don't like either of their pro-life positions (nor Trump's). Overall, I give Paul an A-minus for civil liberties, Cruz a C-plus, Trump...I have no idea, but no higher than a B.

 

To me, the bottom line on the whole "mystic" (code for proud Christian) is that even those who believe in God have valid, reality-based concepts and principles. Their knowledge is not fully integrated, but very large clumps of it are. What matters to me is: are they correct, do they know they are correct, do they mean what they say, and do they back up their correct opinions with action?

 

In the areas Cruz has correct, he gets an A. So does Paul. Trump...he doesn't have enough of a track record for the *good* stuff he says to give him a grade for "talks the talk, walks the walk." He's really a blank check, asking us to trust him. Heard that one before...

 

REB

 

 

 

The problem I have with a mystic is that each one has a psychological condition, a delusional disorder.  Being a common delusion doesn't make it okay, and Cruz sends a shiver down my spine when he take a pause then speaks in intonation.  I believe Cruz takes god as an axiom, that he's consumed by it.  He has a space in his head were the concept of god is, but to him it's not a concept: it is a consciousness inside his head.  This consciousness is always there, watching him (omnipresent), and helping guide his thoughts (omniscience).  Cruz, metaphysically, can sense god (interoception)--that's scary.  And I do not want the President of the United States to have a delusional disorder like Cruz's.  My first question to Cruz when he "prays" would be, "has god talked back?"

 

I know what you mean about estimating mystic by a matter of degree, though.  Rubio, up until the last week or so when campaigning for the evangelical vote, has kept it grounded.  When he speaks, he does concretize and seemingly keeps his faith for "insurance" after he dies and to have a "decent" morality (probably because it's widely accepted) for while he's here--and while "on earth" he seems to get the process of identity; psychologically, metaphysically.  I'd say that Paul is further out on the mystic spectrum, just for comparison.

 

I haven't read The DIM Hypothesis, these are my own integrations, but it sounds like I'd enjoy it.

 

 

I'd like to go back to Cruz and ethanol.  Here is the clip from the debate:

 

 

First, for this argument Cruz makes a concept out of the EPA mandate, farming subsidies, and the state of Iowa.  He calls it "not picking winners and losers."  Fine.  But has to be broken apart as they are separate concepts, and I'm sure Cruz knows this and can do this.

 

As for the EPA mandate, it's nonsense.  It's not a mandate at all, it's more of a suggestion, without any regulation or oversight.  It was Obama fluff, and as a conservative, I'm okay with it being a suggestion--but it needs to be repealed anyway.  Separately.

 

Farming subsidies.  The basic economic principles of land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship are important here.  Barriers of entry are low with farming.  Resources (land) aren't considered scarce in economics and with farming, in fact they are considered to be easy to obtain.   Entrepreneurship is considered a low factor here (education and ability of the individuals).  Capital is medium.  Obviously the labor is low.  Farming is considered to be easy to get into, so many people enter the market.  What kind of competitive advantage can be had?  None--at least, as considered in economics.  To concretize that, the land will only produce so much.  Only so much technology can be had in the farming equipment.  So where farming is concerned, it's almost a level playing field where economics is concerned, where reality is concerned.

 

Next comes some causations and dynamics.  Because farming is easy to get into, many people want to get into it.  The better businessmen and farmers will have some intellectual advantage, maybe some efficiency advantage--but what comes next is that because the land and equipment are easy to obtain, more people enter the market than the market will bear.  Demand stays relatively constant, supply increases, prices drop, and they drop below the cost to produce the goods.  This is where most people claim "subsidy", but this isn't why the subsidy is there.  All I've described so far is an aspect to capitalism.

 

Next you'll have farmers drop out, the ones that stay are likely the better businessmen and more efficient farmers.  The supply market fluctuates, the demand likely stays the same and buyers will pay more for the product once supply drops--but a soon as that happens--and because the barriers of entry are low--new farmers enter the market, and then more farmers than the market will bear, and again people are losing money, farmers drop out, only to be the beginning of another cycle.  (Again, no subsidy yet..)

 

Now one neglected aspect to the previous three paragraphs needs to be mentioned: the set up time for these new farmers.  Though the barriers of entry are low, it does take some set up time, which once intermixed with the aforementioned cycle, almost perpetuates it, as a varying level of farmers will always be in the queue, entering it, which leads to a destabilization, then leaving--this is the cause for the subsidy.  I should mention again that the free market, and capitalism, implies there are competitive advantages that can be had with land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship--and entrepreneurship here includes invention, or use of, technologies, and efficiencies--but efficiencies that don't exist from the aspect of concretized economics and the farming market, without an advantage that can be had in technologies.  And finally, to state the conclusion: farming subsidies exist, fundamentally, as a matter of suppliers.  (QED)   The subsidy helps increase the barriers to entry, which helps stabilize the market (the supplier end).  The subsidy also helps regulate, as the number of suppliers enters and leaves the market, prices.  Fundamentally, though, subsidies exist as a matter of suppliers.

 

Second (continuing from six paragraphs ago), Cruz wants to eliminate farming subsidies to have a completely "free market"--but this just isn't factually how the farming market works and the flaw in Cruz's argument.  Eliminating the farming subsidies will completely destabilize the farming market.  The farmers of Iowa know this.  The Governor of Iowa knows this--and this is the reason why he spoke out against Cruz.  It is basic/intermediate economics--concretized economics--and proven not only in theory but practically.  The farmers have a real worry about this, because they know how the market really works out there.

 

Third, Cruz tries to cover for the elimination of farming subsidies destabilizing the farming market--as I suspect he knows it will destabilize it--by citing his fair tax.  This is a non-sequitur.  Again, that's not the fundamental of the farming subsidies, they exist, fundamentally, as a matter of suppliers.  Taxes might be a consideration for creating the business, as a condition, but taxes do nothing in stabilizing the natural stabilization/destabilization of a non-subsidized farming market.

 

 

So as a conservative, I would normally be against a government handout or regulation, but in the case of farming, I look at reality, at the facts, and the facts are that the farming market destabilizes/stabilizes naturally.  It necessarily needs something to stabilize it.

Posted

Creepy.

Beck has been losing it during the past year (and a half?). He's been doing some good things, but then also wallowing in self praise about his godliness while trying to pretend to be Christ-like and humble and not wallow in self praise. It's as if Beck has fired everyone in his life who had the confidence to tell him when he's being foolish and vain.

J

Jonathan,

It's gotten worse (from Right Wing Watch):

Glenn Beck Readies To Read His Children 'Left Behind' And Move Operations To Israel In Preparation For Looming Collapse

He's worried that after the collapse of America, they won't let him broadcast anymore. So his plan is to get some place in Jerusalem where they will allow him to broadcast into America and try to save it.

But first he's going to campaign on the ground in Iowa for Ted Cruz. According to him, he has to, even if he can convince only one person. He knows the consequences and they are simply too grave if Cruz loses...

His company is suffering a downturn (see here).

I want to mock him or jazz it up a bit, but frankly, I'm brokenhearted...

Michael

Posted

I want to mock him or jazz it up a bit, but frankly, I'm brokenhearted...

Michael

Make that two...

A...

Posted

I'd like to go back to Cruz and ethanol. Here is the clip from the debate:

First, for this argument Cruz makes a concept out of the EPA mandate, farming subsidies, and the state of Iowa. He calls it "not picking winners and losers." Fine. But has to be broken apart as they are separate concepts, and I'm sure Cruz knows this and can do this.

As for the EPA mandate, it's nonsense. It's not a mandate at all, it's more of a suggestion, without any regulation or oversight. It was Obama fluff, and as a conservative, I'm okay with it being a suggestion--but it needs to be repealed anyway. Separately.

Farming subsidies. The basic economic principles of land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship are important here. Barriers of entry are low with farming. Resources (land) aren't considered scarce in economics and with farming, in fact they are considered to be easy to obtain. Entrepreneurship is considered a low factor here (education and ability of the individuals). Capital is medium. Obviously the labor is low. Farming is considered to be easy to get into, so many people enter the market. What kind of competitive advantage can be had? None--at least, as considered in economics. To concretize that, the land will only produce so much. Only so much technology can be had in the farming equipment. So where farming is concerned, it's almost a level playing field where economics is concerned, where reality is concerned.

Next comes some causations and dynamics. Because farming is easy to get into, many people want to get into it. The better businessmen and farmers will have some intellectual advantage, maybe some efficiency advantage--but what comes next is that because the land and equipment are easy to obtain, more people enter the market than the market will bear. Demand stays relatively constant, supply increases, prices drop, and they drop below the cost to produce the goods. This is where most people claim "subsidy", but this isn't why the subsidy is there. All I've described so far is an aspect to capitalism.

Next you'll have farmers drop out, the ones that stay are likely the better businessmen and more efficient farmers. The supply market fluctuates, the demand likely stays the same and buyers will pay more for the product once supply drops--but a soon as that happens--and because the barriers of entry are low--new farmers enter the market, and then more farmers than the market will bear, and again people are losing money, farmers drop out, only to be the beginning of another cycle. (Again, no subsidy yet..)

Now one neglected aspect to the previous three paragraphs needs to be mentioned: the set up time for these new farmers. Though the barriers of entry are low, it does take some set up time, which once intermixed with the aforementioned cycle, almost perpetuates it, as a varying level of farmers will always be in the queue, entering it, which leads to a destabilization, then leaving--this is the cause for the subsidy. I should mention again that the free market, and capitalism, implies there are competitive advantages that can be had with land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship--and entrepreneurship here includes invention, or use of, technologies, and efficiencies--but efficiencies that don't exist from the aspect of concretized economics and the farming market, without an advantage that can be had in technologies. And finally, to state the conclusion: farming subsidies exist, fundamentally, as a matter of suppliers. (QED) The subsidy helps increase the barriers to entry, which helps stabilize the market (the supplier end). The subsidy also helps regulate, as the number of suppliers enters and leaves the market, prices. Fundamentally, though, subsidies exist as a matter of suppliers.

Second (continuing from six paragraphs ago), Cruz wants to eliminate farming subsidies to have a completely "free market"--but this just isn't factually how the farming market works and the flaw in Cruz's argument. Eliminating the farming subsidies will completely destabilize the farming market. The farmers of Iowa know this. The Governor of Iowa knows this--and this is the reason why he spoke out against Cruz. It is basic/intermediate economics--concretized economics--and proven not only in theory but practically. The farmers have a real worry about this, because they know how the market really works out there.

Third, Cruz tries to cover for the elimination of farming subsidies destabilizing the farming market--as I suspect he knows it will destabilize it--by citing his fair tax. This is a non-sequitur. Again, that's not the fundamental of the farming subsidies, they exist, fundamentally, as a matter of suppliers. Taxes might be a consideration for creating the business, as a condition, but taxes do nothing in stabilizing the natural stabilization/destabilization of a non-subsidized farming market.

So as a conservative, I would normally be against a government handout or regulation, but in the case of farming, I look at reality, at the facts, and the facts are that the farming market destabilizes/stabilizes naturally. It necessarily needs something to stabilize it.

A subsidized, regulated market is inherently distorting of optimum investment of resources. It doesn't matter whether it's the financial or housing sector, the energy sector, or the agricultural sector. It causes malinvestment and wastefulness. I get this from reading Rand, Branden, Friedman, Rothbard, Adam Smith, Henry Hazlitt - but also from my experience. (Thank god I didn't own a house when I was getting ready to move from California 6 years ago. That was a bubble I'm glad I wasn't part of.)

I grew up on a farm, and my dad and his brothers, my mom's dad and brother, our neighbors, the whole lot of them cussed every time the government announced a new tweak (intervention) into the markets. Bad weather and all, they were willing to take their chances with the "instability" of the free market - but the corrupt bigger farmers sought and bought government subsidies that helped them to squeeze out their competition and to "protect" them against bad crop years.

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad is a crony capitalist. Crony capitalism is evil, even when it's practiced on behalf of the wonderful, hard-working Iowa farmers. Crony capitalism isn't the worst thing about the Republican Party, and President Obama - crony capitalizing the heck out of the medical industry - makes them look like pikers. Nonetheless, it is very destructive and wasteful. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary stability deserve neither.

REB

Posted

I grew up on a farm, and my dad and his brothers, my mom's dad and brother, our neighbors, the whole lot of them cussed every time the government announced a new tweak (intervention) into the markets. Bad weather and all, they were willing to take their chances with the "instability" of the free market - but the corrupt bigger farmers sought and bought government subsidies that helped them to squeeze out their competition and to "protect" them against bad crop years.

 

I wanna hear more about the farm. And a few more home truths about Iowa's governor. How did he get to be all crony-ized, Roger?
Posted

If the farming industry "destabilizes/stabilizes naturally," any problem apropos that isn't a problem. One hopes something unnatural isn't injected into the situation.

--Brant

leave the farmers alone--with their organic farming problems

(easier said than done--for instance, they have to deal with our fascist banking system, etc.)

Posted

I grew up on a farm, and my dad and his brothers, my mom's dad and brother, our neighbors, the whole lot of them cussed every time the government announced a new tweak (intervention) into the markets. Bad weather and all, they were willing to take their chances with the "instability" of the free market - but the corrupt bigger farmers sought and bought government subsidies that helped them to squeeze out their competition and to "protect" them against bad crop years.

I wanna hear more about the farm. And a few more home truths about Iowa's governor. How did he get to be all crony-ized, Roger?

More about the farm? Well, it was a half-section of land (about 320 acres, one mile by one-half mile) - some pasture, but mostly dedicated to field crops, including corn, soybeans, oats, and hay (for the critters). We raised cattle throughout, but hogs only for about 10 years (bad weather and disease made it unprofitable). I was coddled and sheltered and didn't learn to drive tractor until age 10, but not long after that my musical talent became apparent, so my folks agreed that they wouldn't channel me into farming, just make me the live-in unhired hand until I went off to seek my fortune (or whatever you call a musician's income). My last farm labor was at about age 18, slinging hay bales onto and off of hayracks and lowboys for Dad and neighboring farmers. I was in pretty good physical shape from doing that, but it really sucked big-time. The one really inspiring thing from those years was how farmers were not only dedicated and hard-working, but also very benevolent and willing to help each other out when the harvest came quick and hard and extra hands were needed, and when someone was laid up and couldn't work. Very good, salt of the earth folks - certainly putting the lie to the standard liberal line that government has to help the less fortunate, because regular people are no damn good and can't be trusted to pitch in and help those in need.

About Terry Branstad? Rather than listen to me bloviating about him, check out this piece on Reason.com. They nail him pretty well. Just remember: crony capitalism is all about using government to "pick winners and losers," to soften the rigors of the market on businessmen or producers who want *others* to take on and insure their risk by mandating their product, subsidizing their expenses, etc. That's what Obamacare is all about for the insurance companies, and that's what ethanol subsidies are all about for Iowa farmers (the anti-free market, I am entitled to be cushioned ones, anyway)....Also, I'll just note that Hillary was against the ethanol mandate, until she was for it. :-)

http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/27/corny-crony-capitalism-in-iowa/print

Also see:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/renewable-cronyism.php

Oh, one other thing - Gov. Branstad's son, Eric Branstad, is director of America's Renewable Future (ARF), a biofuel industry group. And they, of course, have given Ted Cruz and Rand Paul a "bad" rating - and that's just for proposing to *gradually phase out* the mandate. Gov. Branstad is practically guaranteed a cushy gig with an ethanol lobbying firm once he eventually retires - if Cruz or the like don't succeed in getting rid of the abominable ethanol mandate. Nice revolving door there - another insignia of cronyism.

REB

Posted

If the farming industry "destabilizes/stabilizes naturally," any problem apropos that isn't a problem. One hopes something unnatural isn't injected into the situation.

--Brant

leave the farmers alone--with their organic farming problems

(easier said than done--for instance, they have to deal with our fascist banking system, etc.)

Nonsense. Saying "destabilizes/stabilizes naturally" does not say it behaves unnaturally, the latter estimate is your own.

I'd like to go back to Cruz and ethanol. Here is the clip from the debate:

First, for this argument Cruz makes a concept out of the EPA mandate, farming subsidies, and the state of Iowa. He calls it "not picking winners and losers." Fine. But has to be broken apart as they are separate concepts, and I'm sure Cruz knows this and can do this.

As for the EPA mandate, it's nonsense. It's not a mandate at all, it's more of a suggestion, without any regulation or oversight. It was Obama fluff, and as a conservative, I'm okay with it being a suggestion--but it needs to be repealed anyway. Separately.

Farming subsidies. The basic economic principles of land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship are important here. Barriers of entry are low with farming. Resources (land) aren't considered scarce in economics and with farming, in fact they are considered to be easy to obtain. Entrepreneurship is considered a low factor here (education and ability of the individuals). Capital is medium. Obviously the labor is low. Farming is considered to be easy to get into, so many people enter the market. What kind of competitive advantage can be had? None--at least, as considered in economics. To concretize that, the land will only produce so much. Only so much technology can be had in the farming equipment. So where farming is concerned, it's almost a level playing field where economics is concerned, where reality is concerned.

Next comes some causations and dynamics. Because farming is easy to get into, many people want to get into it. The better businessmen and farmers will have some intellectual advantage, maybe some efficiency advantage--but what comes next is that because the land and equipment are easy to obtain, more people enter the market than the market will bear. Demand stays relatively constant, supply increases, prices drop, and they drop below the cost to produce the goods. This is where most people claim "subsidy", but this isn't why the subsidy is there. All I've described so far is an aspect to capitalism.

Next you'll have farmers drop out, the ones that stay are likely the better businessmen and more efficient farmers. The supply market fluctuates, the demand likely stays the same and buyers will pay more for the product once supply drops--but a soon as that happens--and because the barriers of entry are low--new farmers enter the market, and then more farmers than the market will bear, and again people are losing money, farmers drop out, only to be the beginning of another cycle. (Again, no subsidy yet..)

Now one neglected aspect to the previous three paragraphs needs to be mentioned: the set up time for these new farmers. Though the barriers of entry are low, it does take some set up time, which once intermixed with the aforementioned cycle, almost perpetuates it, as a varying level of farmers will always be in the queue, entering it, which leads to a destabilization, then leaving--this is the cause for the subsidy. I should mention again that the free market, and capitalism, implies there are competitive advantages that can be had with land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship--and entrepreneurship here includes invention, or use of, technologies, and efficiencies--but efficiencies that don't exist from the aspect of concretized economics and the farming market, without an advantage that can be had in technologies. And finally, to state the conclusion: farming subsidies exist, fundamentally, as a matter of suppliers. (QED) The subsidy helps increase the barriers to entry, which helps stabilize the market (the supplier end). The subsidy also helps regulate, as the number of suppliers enters and leaves the market, prices. Fundamentally, though, subsidies exist as a matter of suppliers.

Second (continuing from six paragraphs ago), Cruz wants to eliminate farming subsidies to have a completely "free market"--but this just isn't factually how the farming market works and the flaw in Cruz's argument. Eliminating the farming subsidies will completely destabilize the farming market. The farmers of Iowa know this. The Governor of Iowa knows this--and this is the reason why he spoke out against Cruz. It is basic/intermediate economics--concretized economics--and proven not only in theory but practically. The farmers have a real worry about this, because they know how the market really works out there.

Third, Cruz tries to cover for the elimination of farming subsidies destabilizing the farming market--as I suspect he knows it will destabilize it--by citing his fair tax. This is a non-sequitur. Again, that's not the fundamental of the farming subsidies, they exist, fundamentally, as a matter of suppliers. Taxes might be a consideration for creating the business, as a condition, but taxes do nothing in stabilizing the natural stabilization/destabilization of a non-subsidized farming market.

So as a conservative, I would normally be against a government handout or regulation, but in the case of farming, I look at reality, at the facts, and the facts are that the farming market destabilizes/stabilizes naturally. It necessarily needs something to stabilize it.

A subsidized, regulated market is inherently distorting of optimum investment of resources. It doesn't matter whether it's the financial or housing sector, the energy sector, or the agricultural sector. It causes malinvestment and wastefulness. I get this from reading Rand, Branden, Friedman, Rothbard, Adam Smith, Henry Hazlitt - but also from my experience. (Thank god I didn't own a house when I was getting ready to move from California 6 years ago. That was a bubble I'm glad I wasn't part of.)

...

Yes, I know this principle.

...

I grew up on a farm, and my dad and his brothers, my mom's dad and brother, our neighbors, the whole lot of them cussed every time the government announced a new tweak (intervention) into the markets. Bad weather and all, they were willing to take their chances with the "instability" of the free market - but the corrupt bigger farmers sought and bought government subsidies that helped them to squeeze out their competition and to "protect" them against bad crop years.

...

Logically, it's not the subsidy that is the cause for the corruption, it's the people. I don't think you were making that mistake.

In your first hand experience, it sounds like there are many undue hardships endured by you and yours at the effect of those corrupt farmers. That's no good of the corrupt farmers, and amoral. There is definitely a problem that needs addressing.

---

I offered a very solid refutation of Cruz and his stance on ethanol, logically laid out and clear. I have formal education in this area, performed a lot of my own research (rejecting the spoon-feed liberal junk that subsidies are empathetic), and of course Rand, Peikoff, etc. In other markets I researched I found a subsidy to be unjustified, but in the farming market I found it justified. That's not a contradiction, that's an identification that it doesn't behave the same as the others in the class. In my previous post about it, I laid out a proof. That doesn't mean that I agree with the implementation of the subsidy, how it is maintained, or the corruption that has taken place. Anyway, that's my position on it, and I understand Cruz's position.

Posted

Dallas wrote: In other markets I researched I found a subsidy to be unjustified, but in the farming market I found it justified. end quote

It is a dilemma that hits close to home. For years my wife worked for the Federal Government and at one time she worked in the “set aside” program. Farmers were paid to not plant certain crops. A lot of decent farm owners participated.

To me, on a moral basis, it was like Social Security or Medicare. Is it moral to participate? You might not be competitive if you did not. I worked for a bank partially owned by Warren Buffet. At first they were not going to accept funds from the Government but they changed their minds to remain competitive around 2007 or 2008 due to defaulted home and home equity loans. I say it is moral to accept help if you remain dedicated to the free market and individual rights.
Peter

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now