About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Saturday, June 23, 2012 - 2:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I was unfortunately reminded of the main point of this quote by a really, really likable conservative: Marco Rubio. Rubio seems to be about as genuine and of good character a politician as you could ever ask for. His words are like 'ear candy'. His sense-of-life is thrillingly contagious yet, on NPR the other day, I overheard him utter words that brought a startling chill to my bones. He said something like this [a paraphrase]:
I am not morally or religiously against high taxes. I am against high taxes because they hamper economic growth.
If it is possible for you to both be a heterosexual and to still have your heart broken by another man, then I must confess that I am and just did.

Marco Rubio broke my heart.

:-)

Ed
[usually pretty leery about so-called "man-crushes"]


Post 1

Saturday, June 23, 2012 - 2:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Is it actually possible for a GOP conservative to use reason as his guide? Thankfully, yes.


Post 2

Saturday, June 23, 2012 - 3:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I like Rubio for his fiscal and constitutional conservatism and for his honorable character (a very strange thing to find in a politician)... but he is also a very deeply religious person and that is always a bit scary.

If he becomes the VP (and I'm not sure that Romney wants him), and if Romney wins *which is looking more and more likely) and Romney gets a second term, then Rubio would have 8 years on the inside to gain the seasoning he needs. At that point he'd be a good president - right now he just doesn't seem quite strong enough for VP (but I'd take him over most of the others).

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 6/23, 3:24pm)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Saturday, June 23, 2012 - 3:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I focus on this part: "I am against high taxes because they hamper economic growth."

This is such a breath of fresh air considering what the left (Pelosi, Krugman) says every day.

Post 4

Saturday, June 23, 2012 - 6:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yeah, I really like the guy (despite his religious positions). His honesty and his grasp of economic principles, and his soft-spoken intelligence are all great!

It will be bad news for all of us if Romney picks some middle of the road Republican who is part of the establishment. It will tell us how he is going to govern.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Sunday, June 24, 2012 - 8:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This guy is one of the few politicians that makes sense to to me on most issues regarding political philosophy and basic economic economic principals - then he pulls a 'hard left' by being devoutly religious. Exaperating. These days it's like " stop the world, I wanna get off". HeHe

Alas. Reading a bit of commentary here at the ROR always restores and informs me for the better. Sincerely, thanks.

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Sunday, June 24, 2012 - 5:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ayn Rand was right in that the real defense of liberty has to go deep and have strong foundations. It will ultimately need to have the moral foundation of rational self-interest. Otherwise the opponents will eventually topple any free-market protections with altruistic arguments. The evidence for this is right in front of us. We have had a strong conservative wing in this country since the fifties, at least. Yet here we are with Obama, and Reid, and Pelosi, and Obamacare. They have been winning.

But the good news is that there is striking change in conservative movement in recent years - partly a split and partly an evolution. We are seeing them take more and more libertarian positions and arguments - and actually having libertarians in their midst. I'm talking about those that understand and value a constitutional republic and those that advocate massively reduced regulations and fiscal and monetary conservancy. The split is where a divide is opening between those more libertarian positions and those whose political roots are religious - the social conservatives - and the neo-cons, who seem only to be about using force to make other nations be like some ideal they hold and have no grasp of small government.

There is also an old guard establishment conservative who is really just about not being quite so untraditional and wants to compromise. Despite the degree of entrenched power they hold now, it is fading and their time is about over. The new winners will have to be the more libertarian/Tea Party block otherwise the winners will be the Progressives who have already won the silent, invisible battle against the old school democrats/Liberals who were only willing to go so far as a mixed economy to support a partial welfare state. They were quietly eaten alive by the Progressives in different backrooms because they didn't have the stronger moral stance. We have a new enemy and the beginnings of new allies (up to a point). In the end, the Objectivist moral understanding will have to infuse the libertarians and the libertarian-leaning conservatives or that final argument, the one Rand saw so clearly, won't be won.

My application of that view is that some of these new or evolved conservatives are to be chosen in a heart beat over the progressives. And that the social conservatives and the neo-cons need to be rejected as being as bad as the progressives in a different way. At least that's my take at this point. So, for example, I'm in favor of Rubio and against Santorum - despite both being deeply religious and both against progressives. Santorum's religion seems to form the content of his specific goals, whereas Rubio's religion, at this point, hasn't defined his stated goals, whereas fiscal soundness, small government and a constitutional government have.

Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - 7:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think another way of appreciating Rand's comment is that we expect liberals to advocate and defend forced association in pursuit of their tribal agendas, but are disappointed that modern conservatives don't adequately advocate and defend free association; they sometimes choose to advocate forced association for their pet political desires, and in so doing, validate the advocacy of forced association in American politics and in so doing, sell out freedom.


An example is their view on a state definition of marriage; how any advocate of freedom can condone the state inserting itself into the relationships of consenting adults seeking happiness in their one and only life is beyond me. One's fealty to their own church and their own beliefs is admirable until that extends to advocacy of aiming the states guns at others, simply to forcefully proselytize our religious beliefs onto others.


We yearn for a party not only of power but of principle, and that is today neither the GOP nor the Democratic party.

So our choice is, to vote for someone who we agree with who will get 1% of the vote in a going nowhere act of symbolism, or hold our nose and vote for the lesser of two weasels. And when we vote for the candidate we believe in, we increase the liklihood of ending up with the greator of two weasels by taking votes away from the lessor of two weasels.

As a young man, I was lucky; in '80, I voted for Clark, based on reading his book (New Beginnings) and ended up with Reagan.

In '92, Perot took 15% or so of the vote and the country ended up with Clinton. (Why nobody ever questioned the self-interest in that campaign is a great mystery; Perot's $50M investment almost paid off big time, if Hillary had been successful in implementing National Health Care. EDS and later Perot Systems was a major vendor of government health insurance systems(MEDICARE), and would have made billions selling automated systems to the government. By running for office in '92, Perot all but guaranteed that the Clinton's would be in office.)

The silence on that question in '92 was glaring, because just like now, the press was in the tank for the Democrat.


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Thursday, June 28, 2012 - 5:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Today, in the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, we saw that it was Roberts, the alleged conservative, who bent reasoning into a pretzel-like shape to create a huge hole in our constitutional protection. This new hole may prove to be as big as the hole created by previous constitutional misconstruing of the meaning of "regulate commerce."

Now, any law is okay as long as it compels behaviors not directly, but by taxing those who don't engage in some desired behavior. This ruling stands as a horrendous problem in protecting us from unlawful takings. Before we could only be fined or penalized for violation of a valid criminal statute - and then only after an individual was able to avail himself of due process. Now, we can be "found guilty" and "fined" for not doing something - for not acting - and with no access to judicial relief - in effect, we have already been found guilty and can only stay execution of the sentence by paying for something we might not want.
--------------

On occasion, on this site we talk about amendments to the constitution. Well, let me be the first to state what is now obvious - we need to amend the constitution to rewrite the very opening paragraph - getting rid of loose generalites.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Maybe replacing it with something like this:
We the People of the United States, in order to protect our individual rights against the initiation of force, the threats of initiated force, fraud or theft, whether those actions come from outside of the nation or inside, whether those actions come from private individuals or government, do establish this constitution. Further, the government shall create civil courts for the purpose of allowing people to settle civil differences by objective law. The federal government shall have no powers that are not explicitly provided by this document.
------------------

Article 1, Section 8 which gives Congress the power to tax needs to be massively rewritten. Take away the power to tax even one penny that doesn't apply identically to everyone so that taxes can't be used as a stimuli to effect behavior. This is where they need to put in proper balanced budget language, cap total revenues as a percent of prior year's GNP.

They need to remove the language in clause 3 to delete the power to regulate commerce - replacing it with language that says, neither Congress, nor any state shall pass any law that restricts commerce across state laws, or with foreign entities.

They need to also change the language that allows the Federal government to print money. (And while there, drop the Post Office.

There should be an amendment to demand that congress shall initiate impeachment proceeding at any time that the president refuses to enforce passed laws or to exercise powers not given to the executive branch - this is language that must be added to the existing "high crimes or treason" language.

I could go on and on...
----------------------------

Not much can be done about fixing this mess if we can't ensure that elected officials are not crooks. To win ideological arguments it is very helpful to have people being honest on their agenda's and beliefs. Towards that I've come up a constitutional amendment. It could create a new department, sort of like a new FBI agency but it would report to a body made of a rotating membership of say 9 State Attorney Generals. It would be funded solely by mandatory contributions of the States. It would have only one function - continual, in depth investigations of every elected official or high level appointees at the federal level. Each of those officials and appointees would have sign a release of privacy to this agency before they could take office.



Post 9

Friday, June 29, 2012 - 9:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve:

A cold reality is, this is the atrophied tribe we live in. The herd mentality gene is dug in deep, and freedom is in the way of what the tribe wants.

My wife is lobbying hard to leave the country. She might be right. The rot is going to accelerate.

regards,
Fred





Post 10

Friday, June 29, 2012 - 10:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

It is very frustrating. The changes needed are relatively simple, very doable, yet they may never be done, or least aren't likely to be done in the next decade or more.

We didn't see the danger of a government educational system and it's progressive infection and as a result that rot you mention is generations deep.

Where does your wife want to move to?

Post 11

Friday, June 29, 2012 - 10:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Judicial conservatism is not the same as political conservatism.  It's a content-neutral deference to the will of voters and legislators and to precedent.  What Rand said about political conservatives is not easy to apply to judges.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.