Wotan

Bush was (1) stupid, (2) lazy, (3) intellectually incurious, and (4) a brain-dead ideologue who knew it all without working or trying. Obama is (1) smart, (2) hard-working, (3) intellectually engaged and wide-ranging, and is (4) a pragmatist who actually pays attention and looks for answers. Obama will be like Clinton.

Bush was a mindless pro-laissez-faire capitalist ideologue who actually knew next to nothing about capitalism and who secretly opposed it virtually completely. His destruction of American freedom via "compassionate conservatism" was thorough and immense. What a moron and scumbag! Thank Galt he's gone. Obama will be far more capitalist and libertarian.

Does anyone know the current status of this movie?

Even in a completely free state there's a strong argument to be made for keeping "the barbarians at the gate" outside, lest they use the access provided by public roads to commit crime. They may also degrade the quality of life on those same public roads. But America isn't close to being a free state, and preventing the public areas from being overrun by crooks and beggars is reasonable -- especially if these new immigrants gain access to citizenship where they can vote in socialism and tyranny. Having open borders now, with all other conditions remaining the same, as Biswanger and Brook suggest, seems horrific. Would America be a happier, freer, richer, better place, with a superior lifestyle, if 300 million or more Latin Americans, Africans, and Muslims suddenly moved here, to our welfare state, in the next year? What if they acquired instant citizenship too?

DavidOdden -- No one is allowed to "immigrate" into private homes, businesses, country clubs, or gated communities. The owners control the "immigration" completely and by right. Any alien or foreigner who tries to "freely immigrate" is trespassing, and has no right to be there. It's the same principle with a free state. If a hundred individuals set up a tiny city-state with a hundred personal lots, and a small amount of "public" roads, these hundred may indeed forbid all immigration -- all use of their roads by non-citizen foreigners. If not a single one of the citizens wants Person X to visit, then Person X is properly forbidden to enter. He has no freedom to enter that domain -- no right of immigration which the hundred are properly required to consider. Indeed, the hundred could even draft a charter or constitution in which in order to become citizen, and not a criminal, visitors are never allowed. If all the private property owners and free individuals agree to this condition in setting up their government and city-state then that's the way it is. No freedom of immigration is permitted whatsoever. Such "freedom" would be a violation of property rights.

"Free" immigration isn't properly or legally allowed for private homes, businesses, country clubs, or gated communities, So why should it be for whole countries? Don't the people who freely, voluntarily cooperate to create and maintain a country -- i.e. the owners and financiers -- have a right to control who enters?

Only high quality immigrants should be allowed. Only intelligent hard-workers who aren't inclined to commit crime or go on welfare. Also people who are pro-freedom, pro-American, willing to learn English, and won't vote socialist. In primitive, practical terms -- just to be wildly unPC and offend everyone -- this means far fewer blacks, hispanics, and Muslims, and far more whites, orientals, and Jews!

There's so much to say on this topic that I don't know where to begin. But suffice to say that we in the West will have an incredibly hard time winning The War On Islam so long as we keep insipidly calling it "the war on terror." It'll now take us 100 times the money and blood to half-ass "win." But if we instead accurately identified it as "the war on Islam" -- as our enemies, ironically, truthfully call it -- we would be in far, far better shape. This battle is mainly moral and intellectual. Our enemies loudly, proudly call America "the great Satan." They enthusiastically shout worldwide: "Death to America!" And they brazenly claim America is the most immoral nation on earth by far. We desperately need to return the philosophical fire. We need to return the hatred and moral condemnation. If George Bush, Gordon Brown, and other Western leaders would tell even a hint of truth about the loathsome ideology which is moderate Islam they would be stunned. All these political leaders would have to do is publicly proclaim even a small part of their honest thoughts and feelings (even though they're overwhelmingly ignorant and morally weak). And then the bastardly Muslims would be badly hurt -- personally and philosophically. They'd be utterly taken aback. They know from long experience in the Culture Wars (of West vs. Islam) that the West never tells the truth. Still, once a bit of the truth was spoken on the world stage, they'd have no choice but to start retreating from jihad and sharia. Oh, they'd call it a "reinterpretation" based on past "mistakes" in which now they were adhering to "true" Islam. But they'd retreat -- and they'd retreat fast. All they need is a tiny push from the West in the form of brief, minor truths. Instead, we in the West have engaged in non-stop displays of what Ayn Rand called "sanction of the victim." This is especially true in the 7 years after 9/11. We never shut up about how mainstream Islam is good. We say Islam is a "great" religion of '"peace" which has been sadly "hijacked" by a non-representative tiny minority. All lies. Here's the reality folks: Every time we say "radical" Islam or "fundamentalist" Islam or whatever Islam is the enemy, we morally sanction normal Islam. And we seal our own doom.

Round them up? Shoot them? Where did I say or imply that? You misread me completely. People can beleive what they wish -- including devil-worship! The point I was trying to make is that mainstream and moderate Islam is evil. Mainstream, moderate, average, normal Islam needs to be destroyed. We need to shut the hell up about all this "radical" and "extremist" jazz. Radical Islam is NOT the problem and radical Muslims are NOT the enemy. It's normal Islam and normal Muslims. As a matter of fact...I even think this ideology might be worse than Nazism and communism. I'm not aware of any past history of Nazis and communists killing pure innocents for the sheer joy of it, as with Mumbai. There is a kind of rawness to their evil which has to be noted. And I think it very wrong to compare them to Christians, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, and others, as Sam Harris argues. Muslims are in a class by themselves. The key point is their philosophy -- with their jihad and sharia -- needs to be passionately and ferociously morally condemned by George Bush, Dick Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and all the leaders of all the major universities and think tanks. And the Muslim people -- to the extent they dare to go to mosque and back this loathsome ideology -- need also to publicly rebuked, condemned, reviled, and viscerally hated.

This is way too little, way too late. Mainstream and moderate Muslims are commanded to give to charity -- and they pretty much all do. Last week the biggest Muslim charity in the US was rightly convicted on over 100 counts of being a jihadi organization. And mind you, these are integrated and American Muslims, which are the most civilized and BEST Muslims on the planet by far. And they're still a savage horror. All because of their evil philosophy. Muslims as people are very nice. I'm pretty well acquainted with about seven of them, and every last one is a good person. But so what? Their ideology is sheer poison. These guys are brainwashed. And it's mainstream, normal-type Islam which poisons their minds and souls.

Osama is the most popular and beloved Muslim on earth -- a true hero and new Saladin to most. This is the view of mainstream and moderate Muslims based on their mainstream and moderate Islamic ideology. These people also generally support and favor 9/11 and Mumbai. Just as Nazism and communism needed to be openly excoriated as ideologies to destroy or badly hurt them, so does Islam. We need to let Muslims know in no uncertain terms that we hate their ultra-slimy religion. Barack Obama and Gordon Brown need to loudly proudly say so. This would utterly take them aback, and probably cause them to radically change their ways, and maybe institute a badly-needed Reformation. No longer would they subscribe to such monstrous -- but extremely normal and average -- Muslim beliefs such as jihad (aggressive war) and sharia (legal slavery) against the innocent. The radicals and extremists are not the real enemy of the West. It's the philosophy of garden-variety historical and current Islam. It needs to be savagely attacked and then destroyed.

*** Mod's note: Split from another topic *** Once again Islam announces its nature -- and openly displays its soul -- to the whole world. And once again the world adamantly refuses to listen and see. Everyone blames radical and extremist Islam for this horror. But the real culprit is normal, average, standard, common Islam. The enemy we all need to hate and destroy is mainstream and moderate Islam!

Maybe the most important point on this one is India is very suspicious of Pakistani involvement. Why? Well, because Pakistan supports jihadism! They inspire, fund, arm, train, and provide sanctuary for Muslim activists worldwide. And no one really calls them on this. America actually says the jihadi-loving Pakistani semi-dictatorship is a ally(!) of the US, and an ally(!) in the "war on terror!" Sick, sick.

Racism is that thing which blacks belieive in and practice -- not whites. In the June 2008 Commentary magazine, Linda Chavez pointed out that about 10% of all whites (supposedly) have a basically negative view of blacks. But about 70% of all blacks have a basically negative view of whites. And this culture-wide real racism is written into law via "minority" scholarships, "affirmative action" employment, etc. And what about that 10% of white people who seemingly are bigots? They're probably mostly just displaying defiant virtue and intransigent honesty on an issue they can't identify and about which virtually all those around them are hypocrits. So they ignorantly self-identify as "racists," as they blindly heroically resist anyway!

Better Obama and the quasi-vivacious Democrats than Grampa McCain ("You kids stay off my lawn!" ) and the dismal, lifeless, confused, utterly-lost Republicans! **************************************** Congratulations to intelligent, energetic, ambitious, idealistic, earnest, reflective, young, intellectually-curious, hard-working, hopeful President Barach Obama!

Bingo! He seems quite amoral and unprincipled. Relative to almost all of the higher-up Libertarians, he's also a true political dolt!

Personally, I trust the government. These are good people, and they know what they're doing. This $700 billion plan is well thought out, and constitutes a sound investment -- in the future. And once it's passed, and everything is over and done with, we'll never make that mistake again! It'll be sound economics from here on out. We're in good hands with the current Democratic and Republican leadership. Soon this whole mess will be behind us. "Nothing to worry about folks! Show's over, now move it along." Once this bill is passed all our problems will be solved and we'll be sitting pretty. The economy will be healthy again, and they're be lots more good governance from these guys in the future. God's in his heaven, and all's right with the world, folks!

I've never heard this claim before. Any evidence you can present to back it up, TuringAI?

TMM -- I agree! But if a new ultra-powerful gov't agency is going to be created, as seems hugely likely, then we might as well have it run by pretty much the one guy on earth who wasn't suckered by the housing bubble. A good man like Buffet may save us hundreds of billions of dollars!

Let Warren Buffet , the "wizard of Omaha," take over this new US super-regulatory agency! In today's economic hard-times, he's flush with cash. And he was well-grounded enough to avoid the bursting of both the internet and the housing bubbles! Who else on this earth was that smart? Warren Buffet for our new High Finance czar!

Jeff Frankel, former economics advisor to Bill Clinton and current Harvard professor of government, etc. says: Well, I'm one, pal! I want all those Big Finance companies declared bankrupt. Have them declare Chapter 11, followed by an orderly sell-off of their assets -- probably for 80 cents on the dollar or so (but no less). Then some good and savvy company will take them over, and the economy will probably boom in a few years, with many great business innovators. But this will happen far less with all these "rescues." The Microsofts, Googles, Wal-Marts, and Staples of the future will never be born -- due to all this evil government "help." I, for one, simply do not believe "the system" is in danger of "collapsing." No potential "meltdowns" loom on the horizon. Laissez-faire! and let all those incompetent financial companies immediately die.

Publius -- You say: I don't buy it. All this recent fantastic interventionism and government "help" seems wrong in theory and wrong in practice. Does any competent Objectivist economist agree with your quote?

Everyone of intelligence and virtue today seems to be crying out for "transparency" on Wall Street. Well, let's get it by making Big Finance much more honest! But don't regulate toward it. No more Sarbanes-Oxleys! That's coercive and doesn't work. Maybe just enforce the financial fraud laws much more closely. And let everyone learn to vastly mistrust all accountants and ratings agencies. And all those unreadable tissue-of-lies company financial statements and "prospectuses." Make these four institutions radically improve via new and radical public skepticism!

I've never said -- or even thought -- this before in my life but: I have good confidence in the current US bankruptcy laws and courts! I wish all of those companies had been allowed to go bankrupt (yes, Fannie and Freddie too). As far as I can understand it, they would have then been sold off to the highest bidder and ipso facto a superior and fairly competent competitor would take over. All the old employees would be fired (good riddance to bad workers). Many would then go to work at a superior company. These new hires would be the best of the lot, and they would also probably be forced to raise the level of their game a bit. To me, this sounds like the perfect solution. Good companies and good workers throughout the economy! But maintaining the bad companies in business seems to give us the worst of both worlds. All the old money is lost under government "rescue", but now new money will be lost too, as the incompetent companies and CEOs continue to do a bad job and lose money probably. As I read everybody's comments above, and try to think this through in my head: In my view, even if all those financial companies above went into Chapter 11, the American and worldwide economy would NEVER have a "melt-down" or systemic collapse. We would never even come CLOSE to a doomsday or long Depression. Government intervention is 100% bad in theory and 100% bad in practice, folks. Laissez-faire, damnit!

Isn't all this government intervention in the financial markets -- all these bail-outs, rescues, and "back-stops" in the past month -- just making things worse? It seems like this is exactly what happened to create the 1930s Great Depression! Some natural economic problem and decline of a year or two was extended to a decade due to government "help." Would the economy really have a "melt-down" if Bear Stearns, Shearson Lehman, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, AIG, and all the rest were allowed to go bankrupt? I don't believe it. It seems to me like all these bad companies would just be sold off to good companies! Maybe they would then only be worth 80 cents on the dollar or so -- but the problem would be solved! As far as I know, the housing market is almost the only difficulty here, and it's just going to fall 20% or thereabout. So I say: Let it! "Hands off!" and "Laissez-faire!" I think we desperately need a competent Objectivist economist here. I understand very little of what's going on today economically but...I have a truly sick feeling inside neither does anybody else. Especially not President George Bush, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson! The Three Stooges seem like they're gonna kill us. Help!