Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Nicky last won the day on September 22

Nicky had the most liked content!


About Nicky

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright

Recent Profile Visitors

14061 profile views
  1. Shadow Banking

    Not what you're asking (I can't really answer your actual question), but, just in case there's any confusion about this: Objectivism is opposed to regulation, but it is in favor of contract enforcement and the protection of individual rights in general. More importantly, it is in favor of a market ruled by objective laws. This market, like all black markets, doesn't just lack regulation, it also lacks the other things (for the most part...I guess off shore jurisdictions can in theory provide them...they just don't always do so reliably). Black markets are also under threat from powerful nation states, so they tend to attract unscrupulous, incompetent, and even violent participants. So black markets are not capitalist, free markets. They are not the kind of markets Objectivism, or most free market advocates, call for. Far from it. That's probably why you don't see notable Objectivists try and defend them. P.S. The shadow banking system also serves to hide the wealth of dictators, corrupt politicians and oligarchs, and organized crime syndicates. In fact, it probably caters more to that category of clients than the western private sector.
  2. Paul Ryan makes another principled stand: “ “The speaker does not agree with the decision. Law-enforcement officials have a special responsibility to respect the rights of everyone in the United States. We should not allow anyone to believe that responsibility is diminished by this pardon.” ...statement released by his office, on the subject of Trump pardoning Joe Arpaio (a pardon Trump, cowardly, issued as a hurricane was descending on Texas).
  3. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    No, you shouldn't have. You should've refrained from throwing out that gratuitous smear altogether. George Soros was a 14 year old ethnic Jew during the seven months the city he lived in (Budapest) spent under Nazi occupation.
  4. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    A pretext to do what?
  5. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    It's abject stupidity. And it's being pointed out...including in the mainstream media. But I'm more interested in the "former Nazi billionaire" thing you mentioned the other day. Would you mind clarifying who you were referring to, and what's it based on?
  6. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    Communism is a much more dangerous ideology than anything "Unite the Right" has to say. Partly because they have been far more destructive throughout history, but mainly because, unlike the far right, they are well represented, and tolerated, among cultural, academic and political elites. So they, along with the entire far left they work side by side with, should absolutely be the main concern.
  7. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    Are you claiming that George Soros is a former Nazi? You understand that he's an ethnic Jew, right? Or that he was born in 1930, which would make him 15 when WW2 ended?
  8. It terrifies everyone with half a brain, not just China.
  9. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    I won't waste my time challenging this statement. It should be clear to every Objectivist why it's monstrous in its dogmatic dismissal of rationality and individual moral responsibility.
  10. Immigration as related to loyalty

    “We will reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers, the forgotten people. Workers. We’re going to take care of our workers.” - Donald Trump When you stand for Trump, THAT is what you stand for. Once you support that, you have no leg to stand on accusing anyone else of altruism. Donald Trump's stance on immigration is driven by clear, pure, undeniable altruism. He wants immigrants (legal immigrants, who are wanted in the US by American companies) kept out because they "don't serve the best interests of American workers".
  11. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    I am. I'm not on "the Left". You know that, we've both been posting on this board for years. So why are you talking past me, and to "the Left", while quoting one of my posts? If you address me, talk to ME. When have I refused to condemn Mexico and Canada for being scumbags to immigrants?
  12. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    It's not funny, it's sad. It is ironic that someone on an Oist forum would think that "they do it too" is a defense for the government violating individual rights. Still not funny, though...not all irony is funny. Wide open borders are foolish. But leaving innocent economic migrants alone is very different from having "wide open borders". So, if you wish to continue the conversation, I suggest you drop this childish straw man.
  13. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    What about all the innocent immigrants he's deporting? You have nothing to do with that either?
  14. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    On a separate note, it also strikes me as extremely stupid to drive dangerous ideologies underground. That's when they turn from obnoxious loudmouths into violent insurgents. And this bunch might just prove better equipped for mass killing than the Islamists. So I really wouldn't poke the bear. The guy who drove his car into the lefty agitators was just some idiot who flunked basic training. Someone who didn't would go about mass murder a lot more efficiently. Just leave them alone, let them protest and march, expose and shame politicians like Trump who show any sympathy for their cause, and that will be that.
  15. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    A federal judge ruled the "supremacists" had a right to protest. It seems the reason violence occurred is because "counter protesters" gathered in an effort to block the lawful expression of free speech. Notwithstanding the murderous act of one individual who drove his vehicle into the crowd, is there a reasonable basis to blame the supremacists for the violence? ---------------------- Not for the fistfights, no. That was the local authorities' fault, for allowing (and at times encouraging) a counter-protest clearly designed to shut down the right wing march. And it is a frightening thing...not just for white supremacists, for everyone who believes in free speech. These leftist groups have been doing the same thing to everyone they disagree with. The authorities have the responsibility to protect people who choose to exercise their right to protest. That means that, once the supremacists obtained permission to hold this event, the counter-protesters should've been kept away for the day. They could've protested the next day, or some place else. But the supremacists are to "blame" for the murder. The person who committed that attack was influenced by their ideology. They're not legally responsible, of course (not unless new info comes to light, suggesting that he was acting on orders), but they are morally responsible.