For The Atlas Society, I recently wrote a Pocket Guide to Self-Interest, a relatively short booklet—about 6,000 words—explaining Ayn Rand’s case for “the virtue of selfishness” and answering various objections.
This all sounds like continuing support for the ideals you are trying to bring to the public consciousness with Symposium, and Anders Ingemarson is trying to do with his book, "Think Right and Wrong, Not Left and Right.". Ultimately, the result has to be a political party devoted to the ideals of real liberty that dethrones one of the two dominant political parties if we are to come back from the abyss. Perhaps, the most likely outcome is the two parties unite in their love of statism thus leaving the door open for a party diametrically opposed to each of them.
There is a reason conservative fusionism became infused in such specrapular fashion in the last few years….so many of my fellow Tea Partiers, and even more distressingly, famous so called Catholics turned integralists [W.T.F.], forsake The Second Amendment, I mean Commandment! And a bull shit graffiti artist, in a made in anti China rhetoric shop, Grand Ole Party Crasher Donald J Trump ruined everything. Kinda like Il Duce did with knuckle draggers longing for not 1955, but 355 Romanism. Them Hebrews were on to something Bob when penning and therefore creating, I mean cultivating, a Patriarchy, even for an atheist reading The Bible three thousand years hence. Unfortunately this current right wing gone wild and current malaise, I mean malfeasance, is not going to stop until, forgive me Jesus, the world’s formerly biggest Twitter troll and Americas Now Biggest Sore Loser Donald J Trump finally stops breathing and St. Pete hits the express elevator button descending six thousand feet under. Indictments, incitements, The Don knows his own audience and can shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it like he is the real victim. Ashli Babbitt cannot be reached for comment. Speaking of Liberalism, God help U.S. Gotta run on, I need a new IPad made by my wannabe Chinese overlords. Peace through superior mental firepower.
I’m not a conservative, but there is an argument for conservatism that is better, and more sophisticated than just ‘preserve old stuff’. In the interests of steel-manning rather than straw-manning our opponents, I’m going to briefly present the best case for conservativism I can muster. This is largely based on some things I’ve heard from Jordan Peterson I agree with, combined with some integrations thrown in from my own perspective.
Evolution is determined by survival of the fittest. The genetic traits that aid in the survival of the genes tend get selected for reproduction, and those that don’t tend to die out, given a long enough time span. A similar principle applies to ideas and cultural practices. Those that aid in the survival of the culture tend to get preserved and endure, those that don’t tend to die out.
If something has been preserved in tradition for a reasonable period, there tends to be a reason for it. On some level it ‘works’ in preserving the culture, at least compared to the alternatives of the time, otherwise it would have died out. Often it helped achieve an end that had more relevance or value in the past, but less now. In those circumstances you should be careful before completely dismissing it - at least understanding what value it might have once had, and being confident that the context has sufficiently changed.
This perspective does not dismiss the need for progress and advancement, which distinguishes humans from all other animals. However it does recognise that all progress tends to build on achievements of the past. The Renaissance was built on rekindling of Classical philosophy, the Enlightenment built on the Renaissance, and the capitalism of the 19th century built on the Enlightenment.
In adopting new ideas that are counter to traditions, we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. For instance the capitalism of the 19th century was not perfect, and many still lived in poverty. Along came the communism of Marx promising a ‘scientific’ outlook and advance on capitalism. However Marx failed to recognise the value and important of existing institutions, therefore communism led to regression rather than progression.
Peterson provides an analogy of the ideal human state – one foot on stability and precedence, the other on instability and uncertain progression. Humans need both. If everything is too certain and stable, it’s boring and we stagnate. On the other hand if everything is too uncertain and we disregard precedent, chaos ensues and we tend to regress rather than progress.
From that perspective I see some justification for a fear of too much immigration from an alien culture (eg: Islamist) overwhelming Enlightenment institutions and practices, that most of us born into implicitly take for granted. Assimilation takes time. We recently saw riots in France that feed this concern - but it’s not immigration per se that's the problem here. It's the failure of immigrants and their recent offspring to assimilate and climb the prosperity ladder.
I think the difference I have with (the better) conservatives is largely around emphasis rather than extreme disagreement. In what they emphasise though, I think your thesis is largely on the money. For instance, I see immigration as largely an opportunity to spread Enlightenment ideas throughout the world, and to weaken the hold of bad ideologies such as Islamism. Conservatives however tend to see just the potential downside, which betrays a fundamental lack of confidence in the strength of the ideas and culture they purport to be defending.
This all sounds like continuing support for the ideals you are trying to bring to the public consciousness with Symposium, and Anders Ingemarson is trying to do with his book, "Think Right and Wrong, Not Left and Right.". Ultimately, the result has to be a political party devoted to the ideals of real liberty that dethrones one of the two dominant political parties if we are to come back from the abyss. Perhaps, the most likely outcome is the two parties unite in their love of statism thus leaving the door open for a party diametrically opposed to each of them.
There is a reason conservative fusionism became infused in such specrapular fashion in the last few years….so many of my fellow Tea Partiers, and even more distressingly, famous so called Catholics turned integralists [W.T.F.], forsake The Second Amendment, I mean Commandment! And a bull shit graffiti artist, in a made in anti China rhetoric shop, Grand Ole Party Crasher Donald J Trump ruined everything. Kinda like Il Duce did with knuckle draggers longing for not 1955, but 355 Romanism. Them Hebrews were on to something Bob when penning and therefore creating, I mean cultivating, a Patriarchy, even for an atheist reading The Bible three thousand years hence. Unfortunately this current right wing gone wild and current malaise, I mean malfeasance, is not going to stop until, forgive me Jesus, the world’s formerly biggest Twitter troll and Americas Now Biggest Sore Loser Donald J Trump finally stops breathing and St. Pete hits the express elevator button descending six thousand feet under. Indictments, incitements, The Don knows his own audience and can shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it like he is the real victim. Ashli Babbitt cannot be reached for comment. Speaking of Liberalism, God help U.S. Gotta run on, I need a new IPad made by my wannabe Chinese overlords. Peace through superior mental firepower.
I’m not a conservative, but there is an argument for conservatism that is better, and more sophisticated than just ‘preserve old stuff’. In the interests of steel-manning rather than straw-manning our opponents, I’m going to briefly present the best case for conservativism I can muster. This is largely based on some things I’ve heard from Jordan Peterson I agree with, combined with some integrations thrown in from my own perspective.
Evolution is determined by survival of the fittest. The genetic traits that aid in the survival of the genes tend get selected for reproduction, and those that don’t tend to die out, given a long enough time span. A similar principle applies to ideas and cultural practices. Those that aid in the survival of the culture tend to get preserved and endure, those that don’t tend to die out.
If something has been preserved in tradition for a reasonable period, there tends to be a reason for it. On some level it ‘works’ in preserving the culture, at least compared to the alternatives of the time, otherwise it would have died out. Often it helped achieve an end that had more relevance or value in the past, but less now. In those circumstances you should be careful before completely dismissing it - at least understanding what value it might have once had, and being confident that the context has sufficiently changed.
This perspective does not dismiss the need for progress and advancement, which distinguishes humans from all other animals. However it does recognise that all progress tends to build on achievements of the past. The Renaissance was built on rekindling of Classical philosophy, the Enlightenment built on the Renaissance, and the capitalism of the 19th century built on the Enlightenment.
In adopting new ideas that are counter to traditions, we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. For instance the capitalism of the 19th century was not perfect, and many still lived in poverty. Along came the communism of Marx promising a ‘scientific’ outlook and advance on capitalism. However Marx failed to recognise the value and important of existing institutions, therefore communism led to regression rather than progression.
Peterson provides an analogy of the ideal human state – one foot on stability and precedence, the other on instability and uncertain progression. Humans need both. If everything is too certain and stable, it’s boring and we stagnate. On the other hand if everything is too uncertain and we disregard precedent, chaos ensues and we tend to regress rather than progress.
From that perspective I see some justification for a fear of too much immigration from an alien culture (eg: Islamist) overwhelming Enlightenment institutions and practices, that most of us born into implicitly take for granted. Assimilation takes time. We recently saw riots in France that feed this concern - but it’s not immigration per se that's the problem here. It's the failure of immigrants and their recent offspring to assimilate and climb the prosperity ladder.
I think the difference I have with (the better) conservatives is largely around emphasis rather than extreme disagreement. In what they emphasise though, I think your thesis is largely on the money. For instance, I see immigration as largely an opportunity to spread Enlightenment ideas throughout the world, and to weaken the hold of bad ideologies such as Islamism. Conservatives however tend to see just the potential downside, which betrays a fundamental lack of confidence in the strength of the ideas and culture they purport to be defending.