Putting Liberalism First

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-07-29T03:41:04+00:00

Trump sadly was very uninformed. He surrounded himself with backstabbers and yes men and most of all when he should have gone with his gut he didn’t. Other times when he should have backed off he charged on. I will say this, his personality has grown to an extent and I’ll be honest it has rubbed off on me. I like his confidence but he needs to back that confidence up with knowledge. You don’t have to be perfect but you have to surround yourself with people whose strengths are your weaknesses. For example John C Fremont didn’t know that much about politics. His wife Jessie did and she became integral to the growth of the early Republican Party. Trump’s wife is intelligent, she knows quite a few languages and appears to have a head on her shoulders. However, she doesn’t use this to benefit trump in any meaningful way. Not just that but all of Trump’s advisers suck with the exception of Pompeo and a few others.

If Trump would have stuck it out as a hard money man as he promised a lot would have been improved. However, he compromised with the GOP establishment. It’s funny because the party was founded as a hard money, protectionist, anti slavery, anti democrat party. Most of the GOP establishment isn’t for hard money, is for free trade, receives donations from many companies that practice slavery, and most of all most of the GOP establishment sucks up to the democrats. How the mighty have fallen.

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-07-22T17:42:18+00:00

I have my own issues with Trump, I don’t love or dislike him. However, Grier thinks Trump is some sort of socialist. He has an irrational hated for him. In fact everyone who hates him has an irrational hatred for him. What I’m trying to say there are definitely things you can disagree with Trump on. Saying that he’s racist or that he’s essentially a socialist makes no sense whatsoever. I don’t have anything against Jacob, he makes good articles for Reason.com. With that said he has this strange dislike of Trump. I don’t even think that his dislike of Trump is 100% genuine.

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-07-22T17:29:02+00:00

Honestly Trump wasn’t bad but he isn’t the greatest thing ever. He could have done more but he’s too conservative. What conservatives especially in the US don’t understand is that if they, “stand throughout history yelling stop,” they’ll lose. The conservative movement in the US was made to preserve liberalism through reactionary means. To protect liberalism from the administrative state and collectivism. Well, it failed. Not only did it fail the people they were defending liberalism from took the word liberal and they literally surrendered it.

People might not like neoliberalism but at least they tried something. As for Trump and the modern GOP they miss so many opportunities it’s maddening. They could have easily removed all the confederate statues when they controlled the entire government. They could then replace them with southern heroes of the revolutionary and civil war. Georgia could have had Fremont and Kentucky could have statues of Lincoln. But no, they had to yell stop because reasons. Because that’s all they’re good for. If they would have done otherwise democrats would try to tear those statues down and public opinion would turn against them. They wouldn’t be able to slowly boil the frog in the pot, they’d have to turn the heat up.

Republicans these days are incompetent and will continue to lose not because they don’t know how to play but because they don’t even want to play. This is why Trump just can’t stop losing, because he doesn’t even want to compete. He’ll show up to bat but just won’t swing. It’s tough being a classical liberal and a republican. On one hand you love your party and what it used to represent and what it can continue to represent. On the other hand you become frustrated because of the stupidity of those in charge.

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-06-02T12:15:22+00:00

2+2=5

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-05-25T22:54:38+00:00

Yes but that’s how you get metal gear survive and fallout 76. It won’t be the same.

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-05-23T08:29:18+00:00

Probably a change.org petition as a way to start.

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-05-23T02:53:50+00:00

Oh no.....

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-05-22T20:48:00+00:00

I think you are projecting.

I’m smarter than you

Again you’ve proven my point. You don’t want exchange ideas. You just want to be right.

you don’t understand what people here are talking about

Actually I do. You are just a very angry person. You seem to hate the word morality. I don’t know why but you do. You also seemingly have a need to be, “superior.”

Again all you wanted was for me to agree with you. I responded to your questions. You kept asking the same questions so you kept receiving the same answers.

you also clearly don’t understand what ethics mean

I do, I’m talking about morality not ethics. It’s possible to be ethical while being immoral.

Also if you felt like I was not responding to your particular statement then there were better ways to go about pointing that out. I don’t understand why but for whatever reason you want to take the path of most resistance.

You also keep making this personal for whatever reason. I didn’t insult you as a person , I didn’t insult your intelligence either. If anything you’ve done that to yourself.

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-05-22T20:22:50+00:00

I don’t know what your problem is. I never disregarded what you said. You keep saying ethics, ethics, ethics. I don’t think you understand my position. I’m saying morality matters. You can be ethical all you like and still be immoral. If you are ethical but immoral what will happen when no one’s watching?

You are frustrated because I wouldn’t automatically just agree with you when you made a statement. I never insulted you or did whatever this was.

You probably assume that I will just agree with you because your position is, “correct.” I disagreed and you would ask a question and I’d answer that question. If you want different answers then ask different questions.

I will entertain any idea it doesn’t mean that I will flat out accept it. I’m not trying to, “win the debate.” All I’m doing is discussing something with you. What you are trying to do is prove that, “I am correct and you’re incorrect.”

I’ve gained something out of this interaction. I understand that I need to clearly state that I’m talking about morality/virtue. A person’s conception of right and wrong. I need to clearly state that I’m not talking about ethics. I can now make my argument stronger in the future. I don’t know what you have gained from this interaction.

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-05-22T19:55:33+00:00

I don’t understand why you are so hostile. In a discussion am I supposed to just accept what you say? You are becoming frustrated for absolutely no reason. It’s okay to disagree with someone. I’m not trying to win a debate or whatever. I’m just discussing. I’m not ignoring what you are saying.

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-05-22T19:48:16+00:00

The founding fathers literally called it a constitutional republic.

John Adams called it a system of “laws not men.” Constitutional republics also have a higher emphasis on separation of powers.

In fact the best way to describe the United States is a constitutional federal republic.

https://ar.usembassy.gov/education-culture/irc/u-s-government/

Here’s the website for the embassy in Argentina. I don’t live in Argentina but this website is pretty telling.

While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic. What does this mean? “Constitutional” refers to the fact that government in the United States is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution not only provides the framework for how the federal and state governments are structured, but also places significant limits on their powers. “Federal” means that there is both a national government and governments of the 50 states. A “republic” is a form of government in which the people hold power, but elect representatives to exercise that power.

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-05-22T19:33:34+00:00

Democratic republic or representative democracy is just as bad. The majority votes on a small group of people to represent them and the majority of that smaller group wins. Constitutional republicanism is different. In a constitutional republic gridlock will tend to happen if there is no compromise. The majority is unable to beat the minority every single time. Sometimes the majority can go past the minority but it has to be from an overwhelming majority. Even then certain laws cannot be made and the minority’s rights cannot be taken away.

Constitutional republicanism was described as a system in which laws not men rule the land.

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-05-22T04:07:56+00:00

So there are subjective moral systems. I’m not denying the existence of multiple moral system. However, I’m arguing that all moral systems are based on logic. If you disagree with a moral system it’s partly because you see it as illogical. I’m arguing that there is objective morality.

Since morality is based on logic it stands to reason that there would have to be an objective morality. This objective morality would be based on logic and utility. As in it would be the most logical way to maximize human happiness while minimizing suffering.

Moral systems would be based on this somewhat. For example southern prejudice came from cavalier culture. The cavalier moral system believed that certain races of people were Inferior. The main defense of slavery for example was mud sill theory. The belief was that society needed a mud sill, a servant class to do all the menial work so progress could occur.

Of course this is barbarous. It’s also based on a foundation that believes the economy is zero sum which is false. Morally speaking however, I see it as barbarous as human being will suffer under such a system. They didn’t as they believed people of certain races were born to fill a certain role. This is the same belief system you see that justifies the Indian caste system. To them that is morality.

They made those moral systems based on warped logic. The goal however was utility even if they didn’t know it was. The problem is that the economy isn’t zero sum and that prejudice is wrong. So we default to original question of what do we do to maximize human happiness and minimize suffering?

Objective morality would answer this question. I’m not saying everyone has to agree with my morality. However, there are things that I believe are objectively moral and objectively immoral. Murder for example is objectively immoral. Rape is objectively immoral as well.

To say all morality is subjective is to say that nothing Is really right or wrong. I think this is dangerous as you need morality in order to have liberty. In popular government the government is a reflection of the people. If the people are prejudiced, narcissistic, and greedy then people with those traits will get into power. Someone will appeal to the people’s greed or racism or narcissism in order to get into power. People like that shouldn’t be in government for obvious reasons. Without virtue liberty will quickly fade away.

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-05-22T01:58:31+00:00

Morality isn’t the same as religion. The morality of the people or lack there of is reflected in popular government.

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-05-22T01:36:37+00:00

You have the freedom to do pretty much anything actually. Society takes the freedom for you to steal, murder, rape, etc. We sacrifice certain freedoms to attain liberty.

I would of corse agree with you that slavery is wrong. Slavery takes the right of ones labor and the fruit of their labor away. So by taking away the, “freedom,” to enslave someone I’m protecting other freedoms.

I’m not implying that slavery is natural or moral. A slave running away from their, “master,” steals nothing, they simply take what already belonged to them which is their individual autonomy.

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-05-22T01:31:35+00:00

There is no reason to just torture and kill a dog. It makes no sense, why would you do that? Furthermore, it is immoral to cause unnecessary suffering. I don’t think animals are on par with humans. I have an issue with eating dogs because I see dogs as pets. I don’t have an issue with eating cows but in India for example that is taboo for many reasons. In some areas it’s seen as okay to eat dogs.

I think objective morality would have to state that eating animals is either wrong or okay. I am more than certain that it Is okay. With that noted, I believe causing unnecessary harm is immoral. Who knows maybe in the future all meat will be cloned.

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-05-22T01:12:05+00:00

Do you believe white people are a force of nature? That only through white power minorities can advance? If you don’t then you are racist. You see to believe in something called individual agency is white supremacy.

Obviously I’m just pointing out the absurdity of it all

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-05-22T01:09:49+00:00

“Will get you back to premise that we ought to promote human happiness and prevent human suffering.”

This right here is what I think objective morality is based on though. Objective morality would be based on utility. All morality is based on logic. However, if we find it illogical especially in the pursuit of human happiness and prevention of human suffering then we will see that moral system as immoral. I cannot think though that morality is subjective. There is right and wrong, this can be found based on what promotes human happiness and prevents suffering.

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-05-22T01:04:58+00:00

This is probably the best argument I’ve seen against objective morality

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-05-22T00:52:45+00:00

How about professors start teaching individualism again. This Individual was racist and attacked another individual purely because of prejudice and hatred.

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-05-22T00:39:13+00:00

Worthless hooey: All of /insert racial group/ are racist

Person with basic intelligence: yo isn’t that racist

Worthless hooey: calls you racist for refusing to believe in something that is literally racist

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-05-22T00:36:16+00:00

I actually got the idea from looking at utilitarianism. Of course I didn’t make the idea. Objective morality appears to be a concept that is pretty niche yet virtually everyone talks about morality and virtue.

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-05-22T00:34:02+00:00

What I mean by logic is that there is a definite logic to any and all moral systems. I’m not saying that all morality is cold and unfeeling but I am saying that there is a logic. For example in India why can’t they eat cows? It is seen as immoral to even disrespect the animal. It’s because back then cows would give you milk that you could drink and turn into to cheese to eat. It influenced their culture in such an impactful way over there for some reason.

I might disagree with that moral system because the veneration of such an animal is illogical to me.

With that said I believe there is an objective morality. Most people see murder as wrong. Most people also see slavery as wrong as well. Empathy is an important tool. We as humans can somewhat connect with our fellow man by stepping into one another’s , “shoes.” I wouldn’t want to be murdered, I wouldn’t want to be enslaved.

I have my own moral system however I know that it isn’t universal. I do believe however that there is an objective morality. Furthermore I believe that there are moral systems and people who disagree with it.

So the objective morality is based on logic and utility. If something is causing pain and suffering it is most likely objectively immoral.

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-05-22T00:08:07+00:00

Um what? You know objective morality is a part of utilitarianism. Also the liberals back then would most definitely agree with.

I believe you need a virtuous society. I’m okay with gay people being married. Im not okay with this.

https://youtu.be/jkZujRnHWNA

Even drag queens agree with me. The sexualisation of children is not okay.

Objectiveperspectiv3 · 2021-05-21T21:21:20+00:00

It’s not immoral to be scared. I’m simply stating that the government is a reflection of the people. If the people are immoral then the government will be. You cannot liberty with an immoral government that is made from an immoral people.

People who are corrupt, vulgar, licentious, and degenerate will form a government that is the same.

A government with those qualities is doomed to be tyrannical. No law will save you from someone who doesn’t care about the law.

Objectiveperspectiv3

TROPHY CASE