That’s okay, you don’t need to post anything. Don’t waste your time. We get the gist of it. 
PK is just another objectivist. So, sure, he has to hammer an unimaginably complex world [rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy] into the narrative he has constructed in his head. Just as you and James and Uccisore and the conservative objectivists do from the other end of the political spectrum.
Hell, once you go there, there’s no limit to the absurd things you are likely to say!!
Oh, and do.
I suspect though that by “liberal world” he means a world that evolved out of the Dark Ages. The world that many call the Enlightenment.
In other words, a world where might makes right and right makes might gave way to democracy and the rule of law.
Indeed, Karl Marx managed to touch on that, didn’t he? It was a time in world history when [organically] feudalism gave way [though mercantilism and a burgeoning world trade] to the onset of capitalism.
Of course with capitalism, we tend to get a philosophy of life that revolves around “show me the money”.
And, basically, that’s nihilism isn’t it?!
Bottom line: Objectivists [left and right] don’t really spend much time actually thinking about these things.
They’re too busy being [among other things] idealists. Or worshipping the Lord.
He doesn’t. Old liberals mostly say things because it is strategically advantageous to say them, not because they believe them. I’m sure PK actually believes very little of what he says about conservatives, he just thinks there is some end to be achieved by portraying them in such a way.
That’s why SJWs are the way they are- they are a new generation of true-believers who actually take the rhetoric of the previous liberal generation at face value.
So, old liberals who called everybody racist to win arguments begat new liberals who actually think everybody is racist.
Yes, but what on earth – on earth existentially – does this mean? It is entirely too abstract.
In other words, pertaining to an issue like abortion, what are your expressed values? How are they not the values of a zealot or absolutist?
And forget hypotheticals. Note an actual experience you have had in which your values came into conflict with another’s. Why/how were you able to argue that your own frame of mind came closer to encompassing the most [or the only] rational and virtuous reflection on the conflict?
And, please, how “out in the world” would one ever come to embrace this…
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
…as an example of “moral superiority”?!
Hell, I’m here in large part trying to come up with a frame of mind that might actually help to yank me up out of it!!
Okay, for the sake of argument, let’s concede this. PK doesn’t give reasons. His facts are completely wrong. His logic is flawed.
And yet there are any number of exceptionally intelligent and articulate men and women who are in fact able to defend liberalism with considerable acumen and eloquence. Just as there are any number of exceptionally intelligent and articulate men and women who are able to defend conservativism with considerable acumen and eloquence.
But, then, that’s my point, isn’t it?
But where is the philosophical argument able to demonstrate and to establish which frame of mind really is the most rationally, morally, essentially, epistemology etc., sound?
And who here is able to apply that argument to a particular moral/political conflict such that the manner in which I construe the role that dasein, conflicting goods and political economy play is obviated.
Just not you, right?
Oh, right. Like Uccisore or James or any one of dozens of other right wingers here haven’t said some rather preposterous things about liberals and Democrats.
But, again, that is my point about the objectivists.
Once you have concocted a “world of words” “in your head” about the way the world ought to be, then those who don’t share it become “one of them”.
In fact, I once attempted to encompass this in a frame of mind expressed as a psychological contraption.
Here, see if it rings a bell:
[b][i]1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.
4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.
5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.
7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.[/i][/b]
And I would be very curious indeed to hear the PKs and the Uccisores explain why their own political dogmas are not an expression of this at all. How, instead, they, and only they, really do understand the one truly optimal manner in which to connects dots [rationally and morally] between “in my head” and “out in the world”.
You start, okay?
I will have my attack on socialism tomorrow and with luck, also
my defense of capitalism and then a conclusion which I have basically
have already written (in my head), but day 5 of 7 straight days at work, calls me…
Kropotkin
we will see how this goes as the kid who is replacing the furnace is here…
and is making quite a racket…
Socialism is a failure…and it failed because it is against human nature…
man is greedy and selfish and full of lust… human nature cannot overcome
itself to allow socialism…people are not capable of sharing because
people want more and more and more instead of sharing goods equally…
children are what human beings are, they are about what is mine, listen
to them and they are always talking about what is mine… that is mine…
no amount of training or education can overcome that basic instinct
of greed and selfishness…
the truth is, we are not made for sharing…
man must be selfish to survive because it is a harsh world
out there and the only way to survive is to be selfish…
the failures in the world are the ones who bah, bah about sharing…
they want to force everyone to share because they are weak and can’t
make it on their own… I am strong, so I don’t need the weak
and pathetic need to force others to share with me, I simply take what
is mine…it is about strength and I have it and the socialist don’t
have it… simple as that… they are weak and I am strong…
Kropotkin
double post, my apologies
Kropotkin
Socialism fails because socialism itself is selfish: “I dictate ALL things. I am God” - Towers of Babble.
man I never knew replacing a furnace was so freaking loud…
my defense of capitalism is simple, capitalism has created
the greatest standard of living ever known by man…
the average person in America lives better then the
greatest king of the bible or better then the tsar or better
then any Caesar has ever lived…
we have luxuries that ancient man hadn’t even dreamed
of and all because of capitalism…I am watching TV, the winter classic,
listening to my music on my headphones and typing on the internet…
wonders never dreamed of hundreds of years ago and all possible
because of capitalism… that greed, that selfish nature of man that
makes socialism impossible makes capitalism possible…
Human nature is why capitalism is a success…
we have freedoms that wasn’t possible before and all
because of capitalism… you can follow your dream
and become something if you work hard and follow
capitalism and not those other phony ideologies…
you can of course nitpick minor things like that idiot
Kropotkin, but the reality is, without capitalism…
he is living like a cave man somewhere…
instead of his life of luxury that is provided by
capitalism…
so those who have created the greatest good are
the ones who have profited the most as it should be…
Bill Gates has created the greatest good and he should
be rewarded as such… those like that idiot Kropotkin
haven’t created anything and they shouldn’t be rewarded
for doing nothing… if they are poor, it is because they haven’t
work hard enough to deserve to get more money…
that is why capitalism is the system because it rewards those
who work the hardest and those who contribute the most to the
system…
those who are rich are the best among us and those who are poor are
the worst… simple as that and capitalism proves that …
Kropotkin
It is 4:00 AM and I can’t sleep, so here I am…
I am offering my conclusions to my challenge…
don’t assume because I have items in some order, that
is the order in which I have put these matters… No,
the order is simply for convenience sakes, and not in any
this is first and this is second order…
I put a defense of matters in which I am opposed to,
my defense of capitalism and my defense of conservatism…
and I attack matters in which I approve of, my attack of liberalism
and my attack on socialism…
now many may object to my reasoning given for each project, both
in defense and in my attacks, but no reasons were given for either…
my project was dismissed right from the start, with vague reasons given…
and then more surprising, no defense was ever offered, by anybody…
to say that someone is wrong and STILL offer no defense, is not
philosophy, but religion…the defenders of the faith of
capitalism and conservatism are religious zealots and not
philosophical minded… for they have accepted the gospel
of capitalism and conservatism without any examination of the gospel
and that is religious, not philosophical… kinda makes wonder why they
are here as this is a philosophical site and not a religious site…
You can make many different interpretations over my remarks
about my defense or the attacks of ideologies and you can state
how Kropotkin is wrong but the question becomes, how do you judge
that? what criteria would you use to judge my attacks or defense?
the question is not one of the conclusion but about the methodology
used to reach both the defense/attacks and any conclusion reached about
them… it is not about whether my statements are right or wrong,
but the method used to reach any given truth…what method would
we use to find the truth? For example, the defenders of the faith, both
of capitalism and conservatism, have used religious methods to find the truth…
and that means they have accepted without reservations or questioning,
their belief system and that is accepting given truth and finding reasons
why it is true instead of questioning or attacking their beliefs which is
the philosophical method… the defenders of the faith, both
of capitalism and conservatism have used religious methods of
accepting their truth and not philosophical methods…I
was able to attack my cherish beliefs and accept beliefs that run
counter to my beliefs, not by religious methods, but by
philosophical methods… it is not about the conclusion, but
about the method to reach the truth that is in play here…
the defenders of the truth/capitalism and conservatism were not
even able to attack their religious belief in capitalism/ conservatism…
they couldn’t even offer up a intellectual attack or for that matter,
a intellectual defense of their beliefs… they have dismissed out
of hand my attacks/defense and they offered none of their own, either
attack or defense… that is the religious mind at work… truths
just accepted because they were truths they had heard since childhood…
Truths just blindly accepted and not challenged in any way…
bow down and pray to the religion of capitalism and conservatism…
so what method do we use to find the truth…
for example, let us say, the sun rises in the east…
we see this every single morning but we dismiss it
because it is “obvious” and not worth looking into…
but this one truth can lead us in many different ways…
for example, does the sun rise exactly in the east or does
it rise away from directly east, say southeast or northeast…
this tells us something and what angle does the sun rise at,
and if we measure it every single day for 2 years, we will find out
either the sun moves or the earth does or both, because the sun will
leave different measurement every single day and over the course of a year,
the sun shadow will move and we can use that to figure out if the earth
is moving or if the earth is round or some other truth…the sun
also doesn’t rise in the east in the north pole… what does that tell us…
the statement “the sun rises in the east” will tell us plenty if we look
behind the truth of the statement… if we just accept it as gospel,
we will never learn anything… it is only by going beyond the statement
will we learn anything, will we learn the truth…
if you accept or dismiss anything without questioning, you are not
doing philosophy, you are practicing religion…
and many, many here are not doing philosophy, they are
practicing religion, for they accept or reject without
questioning…
it is not about the conclusion we should be wondering
about, it is the methodology we use to reach the conclusion
that we should be wondering about…
how do we find the truth? what methods do we use to find the truth?
Kropotkin
After your “defense of conservatism”, I posted this:
Which you completely ignored.
So at least I’m “doing philosophy”.
PK completely ignoring an argument so he can rant some more? No way! Anyway, the idea that conservatives must be religious or theists is just silly and false.
K: just because I didn’t answer you, means I am ignoring you… quite often it means
I just am involved in other matters and can’t get there and then I forget about it…
it means I am old and I forget things, pretty simple…
Do all conservatives believe in god? I have no idea but my guess would be no, BUT
and it is a big but, like HERR Trumpf’s but (small political joke, unlike his but
which is a big joke) anyway, the problem word in your statement is…all…
there are exceptions to every single rule… no one rule covers every single
occurrence… we learn this in math and in science and in history…
the base of the conservative belief system is god… now they may call
it a higher power or jesus or whatever, but the starting point of
conservatism is there is something bigger then us and for convention
sake, we call it god… that is the starting point… as for the rest of
the subsets you mention, it doesn’t really matter because they are simply
sets within sets who may or may not hold similar viewpoints…
you can’t really get tangled within but this group says this and this person
says this and he believes this… those are the weeds and I stay out of the weeds…
they are small exceptions within every single group and subgroup…
for no one group is monolithic within its beliefs and the beliefs of its
followers…
BTW, I would be curious, please name me a conservative atheist…
Kropotkin
You come off as intellectually dishonest.
Intellectual honesty:
- Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one’s hypothesis;
- Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty
It was the basis for your “defense of conservatism”. My statement merely echoed your main idea.
Now you reveal that you have no idea if it is a true representation of conservatives. 
You shrug off details as though they are totally irrelevant.
Small wonder that I stopped talking to you.
Oh, they are out there: newsmax.com/Newsfront/George … id/596249/
On the other hand…
[b]"In the Real Clear Religion interview, Will was asked whether his atheistic views would preclude him from running for office as a conservative.
‘It would be impossible for me to run for high office as a Republican,’ Will said. ‘Since I have no desire to run for office, it’s a minor inconvenience!’"[/b]
And then this part:
“Russell Kirk never quite fathomed this, which is one of the reasons why I’m not a big fan of “The Conservative Mind.” For him, conservatism without religion is meaningless.”
And isn’t that basically what religion is: a font.
Is Existence just the brute facticity embedded wholly in the immutable laws of matter? Are there no teleological components at all?
And, sure, there might be. But some folks are just unable to imagine human interactions without a moral font. That most call it God would seem to reflect the capacity of the human brain/mind to connect the dots. So, why not the First Dot?
But I construe this as [far more] reflective of human psychology than anything that philosophers of religion are able to pin down. Least of all the objectivist renditions here.
So, have you stopped talking to me again too? There are a couple of posts on mine above that you have failed to attend to. 
And, as though there is not the liberal rendition of conservatives shrugging off details in turn.
I actually did answer your question but you didn’t like the way
I answered it soooooooooooo…
I shall make it simpler for you…
I shall dumb it down for you
John doe is one, one, individual who is a conservative…
Mr. doe doesn’t believe in god… does that negate my point?
Not in any, way, shape and form. which is what you are trying for…
By saying one person, John doe who doesn’t believe in god and is
a conservative, my thesis is wrong… that is where you are heading toward…
now my point is this… the basis of conservatism is belief in god…
within every single group be it, democrats, masons, baseball fans,
republicans there are those who do not subscribe to the orthodoxy
such as Mr. doe… that doesn’t negate the orthodoxy… it just means
within every group, you have people who believe in something different
thus you can have liberals who believe in god… it doesn’t change anything…
it is a detail that doesn’t change or prove anything… it doesn’t change the orthodoxy,
it doesn’t change the belief system… that is what I mean by the weeds…
I hope I slowed this down enough for you to understand…
you can have conservatives who don’t believe in god… it doesn’t change
anything I wrote because those conservatives are simple a subset within
the larger group, set…
as for your charge of “intellectual dishonesty”…
that is your belief and because one individual believes it doesn’t
make it the orthodoxy… kinda see how that works…
it wouldn’t matter to me if every single person on planet earth
believed it… because l am pursuing the truth in my own way…
and seekers of the truth are often out their seeking alone…
it is kinda how seeking the truth works… you seek alone…
Kropotkin
and now off to work I go…
this is day 7 of 7 straight days of work…
I have jury duty tomorrow so I don’t even get a clear day off…
man, I hope I don’t have to go in… I need some rest…
Kropotkin