Leaderboard

Two posts on the "theory" and practice of the head of HHS have come to my attention this morning. The first, at Ars Technica, is the more shocking to me, because as loony as I know Bobby Kennedy to be, I never in a million years would have guessed that he rejects the germ theory of disease in favor of what he incorrectly calls the miasma theory of disease. To be fair, it does help in a big way to understand the nuttiness. The below passage includes quotes from Kennedy's book, The Real Anthony Fauci:In the chapter [titled "The White Man's Burden"], Kennedy promotes the "miasma theory" but gets the definition completely wrong. Instead of actual miasma theory, he describes something more like terrain theory. He writes: "'Miasma theory' emphasizes preventing disease by fortifying the immune system through nutrition and by reducing exposures to environmental toxins and stresses." Kennedy contrasts his erroneous take on miasma theory with germ theory, which he derides as a tool of the pharmaceutical industry and pushy scientists to justify selling modern medicines. The abandonment of miasma theory, Kennedy bemoans, realigned health and medical institutions to "the pharmaceutical paradigm that emphasized targeting particular germs with specific drugs rather than fortifying the immune system through healthy living, clean water, and good nutrition." According to Kennedy, germ theory gained popularity, not because of the undisputed evidence supporting it, but by "mimicking the traditional explanation for disease -- demon possession -- giving it a leg up over miasma [sic]." To this day, Kennedy writes, a "$1 trillion pharmaceutical industry pushing patented pills, powders, pricks, potions, and poisons, and the powerful professions of virology and vaccinology led by 'Little Napoleon' himself, Anthony Fauci, fortify the century-old predominance of germ theory." [bold added]There's the theory. Elsewhere, Derek Lowe presents another of many installments on how the practice -- abetted by improper government -- is panning out. Then, he provides an apt summary of where things stand in parallel with our nation's foolish experiment with the equally discredited theory of mercantilism:The situation is very close to what's happening with US trade and the economy in general. We're just starting to feel the tremors from this administration's idiotic, destructive, historically wrongheaded tariff policies, and over the next couple of months that's going to get worse and worse. Because of the timing of shipping and the supply chains involved that'll be the case even if the president were to wake up tomorrow and rescind all of it, which I would not hold my breath waiting for. Right now we're at the split-second where you bang some part of your body against a hard object and have just enough time to realize that it's going to hurt. And people are going to have to hear about just why this is happening and who did it to them. So it is with US scientific research, but on a longer, slower scale. When you cut the funds, deny the grants, fire the scientists, harass the grad students and postdocs who have come from overseas to participate in the greatest scientific infrastructure the world has ever seen, well ... what do you expect to happen? Just as with all those cargo ships, even if you suddenly woke up and tried to take it all back, immense damage has already been done, and the longer it goes on the harder it will be to get things moving again. People have left, and more will leave. Instruments and facilities are being shut down. Supplies don't get ordered. New hires and new students just don't get taken on, and the projects wither no matter how hard you try. In the months and years to come, the signs of this horrible fit of self-destruction will be clear to see in the US research world, and I just hope that we are able to eventually work our way back to what we had just a few months ago. But there is no guarantee of that, is there?On top of the damage itself being hard to repair, our country is going to suffer severe reputational damage absent someone responsible coming in after Trump and limiting the ability of any future President to single-handedly upend things this way again. Otherwise, even if we could substantially repair the damage, what businessman -- or future scientist from abroad -- would, in his right mind, risk his time and treasure on dealing with a nation led by crackpots? -- CAVLink to Original

(Disinformation Review, 24 April 2025, https://mailchi.mp/euvsdisinfo/dr361-6228934?e=f10f51a6bd) The myth that won’t die: blaming NATO for Russia’s war In the murky landscape of disinformation, few narratives have proven as stubbornly persistent as the claim that NATO expansion provoked Russia into invading Ukraine. This myth, recycled and rebranded by Kremlin apologists, shifts blame for Russia’s aggression onto the West – ignoring history and facts. It’s time to call this narrative what it is: a convenient distortion designed to justify an unjustifiable war. Myth 1: “Russia was provoked. NATO broke a promise” One of the most common myths in pro-Kremlin rhetoric is that NATO promised not to expand “one inch eastward” after the Cold War. But there is no evidence of any formal [or even oral/A.L.] agreement to that effect. Multiple Western leaders and declassified documents confirm that while there were discussions about NATO’s position in Germany during reunification, no binding or global commitment was made to freeze the alliance’s borders indefinitely. And here’s a crucial point: if Russia truly wanted such a guarantee, it knows full well how international diplomacy works. It would have pushed for a treaty, a formal accord, or at the very least, a publicly documented commitment. But that never happened – because no such promise was ever officially made nor sought. Even Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader at that time, confirmed there was no agreement or promise to not enlarge NATO. In diplomacy, if there’s no treaty, no signed agreement, and no public declaration, then there is no binding promise. Russia understands this. It’s not ignorance – it’s deliberate revisionism by Putin. More importantly, sovereign nations in Eastern Europe wanted to join NATO – not because NATO sought to encircle Russia, but because these countries had endured decades of Soviet occupation and invasions, and were determined never to return to that subjugation. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania – these were not pawns being played by Washington. They were democracies making strategic choices for their security. To suggest otherwise is to deny them agency and ignore their history and sovereignty. Myth 2: “Ukraine was about to join NATO. Russia had no choice” Despite repeated claims, Ukraine was not on the verge of joining NATO in early 2022. While Ukraine had long expressed interest in membership, there was no formal invitation, no fast-track process. The idea that NATO membership for Ukraine was imminent is more fiction than fact. It was a distant possibility, not a current policy. Russia’s ultimatum in December 2021 for a guarantee that Ukraine would never join NATO was never a genuine diplomatic offer – it was a pretext. Demanding that NATO not only bar Ukraine forever but also roll back its presence from all countries that joined after 1997, erasing decades of sovereign decisions by Eastern European states, was not a negotiation – it was an impossible demand. Putin knew NATO could never accept it without abandoning its core principles and the security of its members. The ultimatum was meant to be rejected. It was a setup, not a diplomatic effort (as we've outlined here). And perhaps the clearest evidence that NATO wasn’t the real reason for the invasion? Putin’s own words. In his February 2022 speech just before the invasion, he hardly focused on NATO at all. Instead, he questioned Ukraine’s very right to exist as an independent state – claiming it was “created by Lenin” and should be part of Russia. That rhetoric points not to defensive concerns, but to imperial ambition. If Russia truly feared Ukraine joining NATO, launching a full-scale invasion is perhaps the most effective way to guarantee closer Western alignment and support. The war did not stop NATO from getting closer to Ukraine – it accelerated that process. That’s not fear, that’s a gamble rooted in different ambitions. Myth 3: “Russia feared NATO on its border” The idea that Russia invaded Ukraine out of fear of NATO is contradicted by its own actions. If Moscow truly saw NATO as an immediate threat, believing NATO was planning to use Ukraine as a launch pad for a war against Russia, it would likely have calculated a more cautious approach, particularly given NATO's military power. In fact, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 demonstrates the opposite: a calculated confidence that NATO would not intervene directly, and that NATO was not seeking a war with Russia. And that calculation was correct. NATO, despite its military power, repeatedly emphasised that it would not send troops into Ukraine or engage Russian forces directly. Putin knew this – and he gambled accordingly. If the Kremlin genuinely feared NATO, it would not have provoked a scenario that could bring NATO’s attention and weaponry even closer. But it did – because the real motivation wasn’t fear of NATO. It was a desire to reassert control over Ukraine and prevent its general westward ambitions. Myth 4: “There was a coup in Ukraine in 2014, led by the West” This tired trope tries to erase the will of the Ukrainian people, who took to the streets in 2013–2014 demanding accountability, reform, and an end to corrupt Russian-backed leadership. The Revolution of Dignity was not orchestrated by the CIA or NATO, it was sparked by President Yanukovych’s abrupt rejection of a popular free trade and association agreement with the EU and his violent crackdown on protesters. The Kremlin frames this democratic uprising as a Western-led coup because it cannot acknowledge that its neighbours might choose a different path – one that doesn’t revolve around Moscow. For authoritarian regimes, the power of free people is always the enemy. What the myth ignores To truly understand this war, look not at NATO’s decisions, but at Vladimir Putin’s own words. In his infamous July 2021 essay and February 2022 speech, Putin dismissed Ukrainian sovereignty and framed the country as a historical part of Russia. His motivations aren’t defensive – they’re imperial. The invasion was about reasserting control over a former Soviet republic, crushing a thriving democracy on Russia’s border, and signalling to other post-Soviet states that turning westward comes with consequences. Putin doesn’t fear NATO. He fears democracy. He fears that Russia’s democratic neighbours, previously occupied by Moscow, would prove Russians could live freely without oligarchs and authoritarianism too. That’s the real threat to the Kremlin’s power. NATO is the excuse, not the cause Blaming NATO for Russia’s war is a narrative of convenience, not credibility. It absolves the aggressor, ignores the agency of smaller nations, and flips the script on decades of post-Cold War history. It’s a myth that serves only one master: the Kremlin. Don’t be deceived. Ukraine did not “provoke” Russia any more than a burglar is provoked by a house installing a lock. This war is not about broken promises or misunderstood red lines. It’s about power, control, and the refusal to let others live freely outside of Moscow’s grasp. The sooner we bury this myth, the sooner we can focus on holding the right party accountable – and standing up for the truth. https://mailchi.mp/euvsdisinfo/dr361-6228934?e=f10f51a6bd

As if the Trump-Harris presidential matchup weren't already ample evidence that our political milieu has descended into farce, MAGA conspiracy nut Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is reportedly considering a run for Jon Ossoff's Senate seat or the Governorship of Georgia. If nothing else, this news exposes the parlous state of the Republican Party -- which is evenly split between delusional MAGA types and cowardly traditional Republicans. We'll look at the traditional Republicans first. To the reporter's credit and my great surprise, he managed to find a Republican officeholder who, although he is much more diplomatic than Greene deserves, at least calls out her nuttiness:"That is a swing state that's pretty independent minded," he added. "If I was to put my political science hat on and look at all the criteria, she wouldn't be high on my list of recruits." [Kevin] Cramer [R-ND] wrote an essay for Newsweek in 2021 that called out Greene for endorsing some of the "crazier" theories [sic] floating around in conservative circles, such as claims that the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington were an inside job, or that the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida was a false flag. He also flagged her suggestion in 2018 that a deadly California wildfire was caused by laser beams from space and that it might have been part of a scheme by wealthy financiers to clear space for a high-speed train line. She later deleted her post from Facebook. "I think she's recanted some of the crazier things she's said," Cramer acknowledged, but he insisted that "electability is one of the more important criteria in recruiting a candidate." [bold added]Cramer may well be the bravest sane Republican left, but this is generous to a fault in terms of diplomacy. Not so long ago, it might have been easy to find a Republican who would say something like If they run her, they are out of their minds. On the other hand... I'm no politician nor do I deal much with people like Greene. Perhaps Cramer is being diplomatic because he's afraid any sort of confrontation -- especially with facts -- will only embolden her. Here's what one of Greene's staff had to say:A spokesperson for Greene said that Senate Republicans are "afraid of her" and questioned whether senators poo-pooing the idea truly support Trump's MAGA agenda. "These are likely the same Republicans refusing to confirm President Trump's nominees, like Ed Martin, because they never stood with [Trump] and still don't," the spokesperson said, referring to Trump's controversial pick [a lawyer for January 6th rioters --ed] to serve as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. ... Greene's spokesperson said she would cruise to the Senate Republican nomination if she jumps in the race. "Polling shows Congresswoman Greene would blow out a primary. She has the same type of support President Trump has, and now he's president," the spokesperson said. "She has one of the largest digital files in all of Congress, has donors from all 50 states, and has over 11.6 million followers on her social media. "Congresswoman Greene would be any candidate's worst nightmare," the source said. [bold added]Of course: To a mind constantly marinating in the MAGA echo chamber, the only possible reasons someone could oppose such a luminary are betrayal to the Dear Leader or cowardice. Given Trump's stranglehold on the GOP, she might well be any Republican candidate's worst nightmare, but hard-core Trumpists are hardly a majority of the general electorate, and Georgia is a swing state, as the article indicates repeatedly. Should Greene run for Senate, I would expect Jon Ossoff to return to Washington, and should she run for Governor, I could see Stacey Abrams taking advantage of the chance to be the "sane" candidate. -- CAVLink to Original

First of all, the intent to conquer a country can’t be determined solely from “number of soldiers” initially deployed. For example, just spitballing, if russia sent multiple assassins to kill Zelenskyy, that might also be a hint. Second, when Russia said it wanted to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine, how do you think they would do this if they weren’t in control of the country? Asking nicely from the Donbas and Crimea? Russia underestimated Ukrainian willingness to resist a western willingness to arm them. Your incessant prattling about how nato miscalculated is ridiculous when it was Russia that started the war, wanted to it to be over quickly, and has been trapped in a quagmire for three years from which *it could escape at any time by simply leaving.* You’ve been posting on this forum for literal years about the futility of Ukrainian resistance. If resistance works for years, it’s not futile. Russia was shelling Kiev from day one, the thing you said to do to start taking a city: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kyiv_(2022) To summarize your position: Russia said it wasn’t going to invade Ukraine days before it did, but that’s fine they’re still trustworthy. They attacked Kiev but it wasn’t a real attack because it didn’t work, they retreated later but it wasn’t a real retreat because they said so, they violated the Minsk accords but that’s Ukraine’s fault, and nato is totally dumb for not giving Putin everything he wanted right away and instead making him sit in a stalemate for years. Were you alive during the Cold War? It’s easy to imagine you shrieking that everyone better give the soviets whatever they want because otherwise they’ll nuke us all, and insisting we’re all fools for thinking otherwise.

"Trump is a classic bully who craves submission and fears conflict. His fervent supporters want him to be Michael Corleone, but he's more like Biff Tannen. Standing up to Trump does not mean that you win. But giving in guarantees that you lose." -- Jonathan Chait *** Jonathan Chait's postmortem on Trump's trade war with China provides insight into the President's psychology -- meaning that it will offer a partial road map to anyone with the misfortune of having to deal with him. (The sooner that the people he calls his followers and the rest of his party include themselves in that category, the better for them.) Chait reminds us of the blusterous start of Trump's War on World Trade, and points out how fruitful it was for other countries to comply with his infantile demands:Most of the world accepted this advice, only to discover the difficulty of making global trade deals with a president who doesn't seem to understand how trade works. Foreign diplomats expressed repeated frustration as they failed to ascertain what Trump even wanted from them, let alone what he was prepared to offer in return. To date, only the United Kingdom has managed to resolve its trade status with the United States. [bold added]Note that Americans lost: We now pay higher taxes on imports from Britain than we did before. The only other country to make any headway so far is now China, which did not comply:China, however, retaliated with countermeasures of its own, imposing steep tariffs on American imports. Trump decided to make an example of the country. "Based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the World's Markets, I am hereby raising the Tariff charged to China by the United States of America to 125%, effective immediately," he announced on Truth Social. (This figure eventually increased to 145 percent.) Other countries, which had showed proper respect, would receive a merciful reprieve. "The world is ready to work with President Trump to fix global trade, and China has chosen the opposite direction," claimed Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Trump held out for one month before backing down. Under the new 90-day agreement, tariffs on Chinese goods will come down to 30 percent; China's tariffs on American goods will likewise decline to 10 percent... [links omitted]Trump's people are trying memory-hole this latest episode of all hell breaking loose, not to mention the decades of "ripping off." (In January of 2018, we had been paying a mere 2.2% tax on imports from China, so Americans are getting screwed by Trump here, too.) The real strength of Chait's piece is something I hope Americans catch onto sooner, rather than later:This makes for an unusual style of governing, to say the least, and even a decade into the Trump era, the president's targets often respond with confusion. But the evidence suggests a fairly clear pattern: Although Trump instructs his targets to submit, doing so merely sets them up for more humiliation and abuse.Following are parallel examples from closer to home. -- CAVLink to Original

Anyone (like myself) hoping for the Democrats to soul-search and offer a real (read: pro-freedom) alternative to the Trump Party will be disappointed in what has been happening over there lately. I'm seeing headlines to the effect that the far-left loons who turned off enough voters to get Trump reelected -- and who control the Democratic Party -- are going to double down on their nuttiness. At The Spectator World is a short piece on the phenomenon:Take the confidently clueless David Hogg, a Jacobin child of Eden, the Democratic party vice-chair. His strategy for growing the party? Purge it. Drive out moderates in primaries. Burn the center to save the movement. To win the middle in general elections, Hogg would abolish it in primaries. Hogg might agree with Robespierre: “Terror is nothing other than prompt, severe, inflexible justice.” Hogg has sent a signal that the base will consider not being sufficiently enthusiastic about the revolution a punishable offense in Democratic primaries. And Hogg is not alone.If that sounds familiar, it's because it is. This is exactly what Trump did to the Republican Party ahead of his election, with his version of abolishing the middle in the primaries being to shorten them so much that no insurgent could make a case, much less win. One should note that this got Trump elected mainly because he was the last man standing and his alternative was so unpopular. It certainly wasn't because Trump made a resolute, uncompromising case for freedom that appealed to the hearts and minds of the most voters. Does Hogg genuinely (but wrongly) believe that he is preparing his party to make such a winning pitch, or is he, with a politician's low cunning, betting that Trump will have set the table for his party this time around? Your guess is as good as mine, but the end result is the same: The Democrats are, so far, taking exactly the wrong lesson from their defeat to Trump. They are not asking themselves why they didn't appeal to enough ordinary Americans ("the middle"), but how they can be the beneficiaries of yet another farce of an election with no good alternative at all. Interestingly, the analyst also learns the wrong lesson. I am otherwise unfamiliar with Alex Castellanos, who describes himself as having "been a Republican when our party has lost the middle," but here he urges what traditional Republicans have done for generations, often losing in the process: abandon "extremism." Has he forgotten Ronald Reagan, who for all his many flaws, stood his ground and championed economic freedom (both comparatively to the vast majority of modern politicians) on his way to victory? Hogg and Castellanos are each half-right. A wishy-washy "centrist" who stands for nothing but the status quo (ante?) will galvanize no one in the primaries or the general, but Hogg's own kind of anti-freedom beliefs will lose against any sane candidate (or any candidate who can look sane by comparison) in the general. Castellanos sees the problem a far leftist will have winning the general, but, like other Republicans, doesn't grasp what freedom is or why most voters should value it enough to see that that "extreme" could win an election. Someone who can make a positive case for freedom to enough voters can win, and I think whichever party (including a new one, if need be) frees up its selection process, such as by using ranked-choice voting, could find someone "the middle" would favor and subsequently win the election. That person could govern well-enough not to merely set the table for the other party in the next election. Wouldn't that be a breath of fresh air! So far, I don't see anyone in politics out there who seems aware of this possibility. -- CAVLink to Original

You mean the nukes that Ukraine gave up in exchange for security guarantees from Russia? I *do not care* if Putin believes that everything he does is justified. And the constant “you’re indoctrinated for not agreement with me!” schtick is boring and convinces no one. Countries with resources *never* invade other countries for more resources, no sir. I don’t assume they’re any of these things. They are quite savvy, and can rely on useful idiots around the world to sanitize their behavior.

At Lawfare, legal scholar Ilya Somin elaborates on "The Constitutional Case Against Trump's Trade War." The article is a good survey of the various lawsuits filed against the tariffs and is good for explaining in terms any reasonably intelligent adult can understand both the legal rationales for the challenges and what is at stake. Much of the legal rationale may be familiar to regulars here, but I am glad to see it summed up as follows:t is difficult to deny that Trump's invocation of IEEPA to impose the Liberation Day tariffs raises a major question. And if it does, courts should use the major questions doctrine to invalidate it. To understate the point, it is far from clear that IEEPA authorizes the use of tariffs, that trade deficits are an "emergency," or that there is any "unusual and extraordinary threat." If any of these three preconditions is not clearly met, then the major questions doctrine requires the courts to strike down Trump's tariffs. Trump's IEEPA tariffs also violate constitutional limits on delegation of congressional power to the executive. While there is much disagreement on where to draw the line, there must be at least some limit to Congress's ability to give away its lawmaking powers. Congress cannot just simply pass a law giving the president the power to establish any tariffs he wants, without limitation. Admittedly, the Supreme Court has long taken a permissive approach to delegations, upholding them so long as they are based on an "intelligible principle." But, in recent years, beginning with the 2019 case of Gundy v. United States, several conservative Supreme Court justices have expressed interest in tightening nondelegation rules. The enormous scale of Trump's power grab runs afoul of even the most modest nondelegation constraints. If long-standing and perfectly normal bilateral trade deficits qualify as an "emergency" and an "unusual and extraordinary threat," the same can be said of virtually anything. [bold added, link omitted]Somin's piece is also good on how fundamentally Trump's tariffs threaten the economy:Enforcing major questions and nondelegation limits on executive power is important for practical as well as legal reasons. If one man can start a massive trade war anytime he wants for any reason, that destroys the credibility of U.S. trade agreements, undermining any incentive other nations have to trust our commitments. It also undermines the predictability businesses and investors need to make decisions on production and investments. They are unlikely to build and invest in production facilities and supply chains if these arrangements can be destroyed at any time. That is especially true in industries that require long-term contracts and other commitments. [bold added]While I would have liked Somin to have also brought up the moral objection to Trump's tyrannical, rights-violating actions, I am not going to complain too loudly: His arguments clearly show that our livelihoods are under threat from the wild unpredictability the President has introduced into the planning of practically anyone in -- or with dealings in -- the United States. -- CAVLink to Original

Mr. Somin obviously realizes that calling interference with free trade "tyrannical" or even "rights-violating" would make his position untenable. That's because every nation the US trades with routinely interferes with free trade, thus violating the inalienable rights of Americans. Once you identify that as tyranny, and a violation, a response is called for. Like the response the freely elected government of the United States is currently engaged in. 77,302,580 men. Mr. Trump was quite open and vocal about his desire to do precisely what he's doing, leading up to the election. That's one of the main reasons why 77,302,580 people voted for him. For whatever reason, these 77,302,580 people are dissatisfied with the world economy the global elites designed for them. I think they have some very good, legitimate reasons to be dissatisfied with it, and to wish to roll it back to a significant extent. And I think those concerns are here to stay. If the person they elected to roll it back is obstructed, and fails to do so, their dissatisfaction will only grow. This rollback, clearly and enthusiastically demanded by a majority of Americans (and, as far as I can tell, by a majority of Europeans as well ... in fact, the majority might actually be greater in Europe than it is in the US) is inevitable. The longer it is delayed, the more painful it will be. The best course of action is to hurry up and do it. Then, hopefully, roll out a new plan. One that is more about free trade than zero tariffs. Because free trade and zero tariffs aren't the same thing. Tariffs limit trade, but don't regulate the trade left in place. The trade that's important enough to afford those tariffs is done on the terms of the individuals involved, not on terms dictated by government bureaucrats. Tariffs cost a percentage of the value of the trade. Regulations cost the essential nature of the trade. They cost the soul of the traders. The US needs to put an end to foreign governments' regulatory power over American (or "international") companies. Build up an international trade system that's done freely or not at all.

Via X, I got wind of an excellent piece on the Abrego Garcia case by Noah Smith, "The Authoritarian Takeover Attempt Is Here". Although it does stand on its own in terms of getting readers up to speed on the case, it is no mere rehash. Smith does well helping readers see the implications of the contempt for due process Trump and his cronies have exhibited, and offers his current forecast of where things are headed:This should scare you, for a number of reasons. First, there's the obvious: Trump is going around arresting innocent people, and sending them to foreign torture-dungeons, apparently for the rest of their lives. Bloomberg reports that about 90% of these deportees had no criminal records in the U.S., and most have not been charged with any crime... Some were arrested simply because they had (non-gang) tattoos. Others didn't even have any tattoos, and were arrested for no apparent reason. It's not clear why the Trump administration is doing this. Perhaps it's to scare immigrants into leaving the country by making an example of a few. Perhaps it's to simply assert power, or to test the boundaries of what they can get away with. Maybe they've really convinced themselves that all of the people they arrested are gang members. Who knows. But what's clear is that this is brutal and lawless behavior -- the kind of arbitrary arrest and punishment that's common in authoritarian regimes. The second thing that should scare you is the lawlessness. The Trump administration insists it didn't defy the Supreme Court, arguing that simply removing any barriers to Abrego Garcia's return means that they're complying with the court order to "facilitate" that return. Trump's people have also argued that the courts have no right to interfere in the executive branch's conduct of foreign policy. And on top of that, they've declared that their deal with Bukele is classified. In practice, the administration is arguing that as soon as they arrest someone and ship them overseas, U.S. courts have no right to order their return -- ever. That means that Trump could grab you, or me, or anyone else off the street and put us on a plane to El Salvador, and then argue that no U.S. court has the right to order us back, because once we're on foreign soil it's the domain of foreign policy. If so, it means that due process and the rule of law in America are effectively dead; the President can simply do anything to anyone, for any reason. The third reason the Abrego Garcia case should worry you is that the Trump administration probably intends to go much further. Kilmar Abrego Garcia isn't an American citizen, but Trump has stated that he wants to start sending U.S. citizens to El Salvador too. Here are three relevant clips from his meeting with Bukele... [links omitted, bold added]In one clip, Trump shows his hand regarding the excuse of sending foreign criminals away: "Yeah that includes [Americans], you think they're a special type of people or something." This is how he speaks of you, whose rights and lives he swore to protect as President a few weeks ago. Smith correctly notes that this is exactly one of things the Founders enumerated in their reasons for rebelling against England, and goes on to offer his analysis of the political situation. He closes with his best sense of how it could play out:Trump 2.0 is still likely to struggle to get big things done, despite having a few more years to prepare. The sad spectacle of the flailing, off-again-on-again tariff announcements seems like pretty clear evidence of incompetence. Trump is more vengeful and far less constrained this time around, but he still may fail to execute the transition to authoritarianism any more effectively than he's executing the transition to autarky. He's not benign, but he's probably not invincible either. It is upon this thin thread that we must hang our hopes for democracy. [bold added]The time to begin fighting back in whatever way is available is now. -- CAVLink to Original

I'm objecting to deporting people without due process.

It's strange that this is the first we're hearing about "authoritarian takeover attempts." Apparently the lockdowns, the sorting of businesses into "essential" and "non-essential," the control of social media to stop "misinformation," de-banking, parents being arrested for complaining about curricula at school board meetings, none of that qualifies as authoritarianism. It's only when Trump does something that it's authoritarianism. Double standards. Trump apparently has lots of precedents he can cite. I wonder who set those precedents?

At The Edgy Optimist, Zachary Karabell presents a "potted history" of the growth of executive power over history, and argues that this excessive power may have already peaked early in this second Trump Presidency. Karabell sees Trump as having squandered this power -- which his predecessors used more sparingly -- to the point that Americans will be ready to cut it back down to size. I agree that the President is squandering his power in terms of helping his country, but not necessarily in terms of consolidating his position atop our political order -- whose Constitution he he plainly sees as a bug rather than a feature. Worse, while the bond market might well force the President to pretend to be semi-sane about tariffs, it won't slow down his attempts to acquire more power, such as by attempting to stifle dissent or relying on foreign dictators to do the dirty work of imprisoning his enemies. In the former case, he clearly plans to abuse licensing power (which he shouldn't have), and in the latter, he is being helped along in an effort to ignore a court ruling. That said, if our Republic dodges or survives the various crises Trump seems intent on inflicting, if he doesn't get away with too much, there is hope. Karabell closes:It remains, however, that the federal government -- and the executive branch in particular -- has grown too powerful relative to the balance that was attempted in the Constitution. The ascension of Trump should be a reminder of that, which even Republicans such as Rand Paul and Ted Cruz appear to recognize. And the past week, with a foolish and expansive use of tariff authority having backfired (for now) spectacularly, may mark the apex of that power. In fact, the Trump presidency overall might mark the beginning of the end of the imperial presidency, which has defied earlier predictions of its imminent demise. People want change, for sure, but they don't want change that they don't want. And you would be hard-pressed to find a plurality of Americans who want a more powerful government. That reality, more than the daily reality show of contemporary politics, is what will matter most to our future -- and that is comfort indeed.The second Trump Presidency is a cartoonish but quite real exemplar of that cliche about crisis being both danger and opportunity: The Founders had recent memory of atrocities by tyrannies of all sorts to draw on as they devised a plan for their new government to be practically impossible to abuse. To the painful extent that Trump punishes a complacent nation without completely consolidating his power, perhaps there will exist a strong- and lasting-enough appetite for limited government to sustain a dismantling of the imperial presidency. -- CAVLink to Original

Before his inauguration (both times) optimists insisted “it won’t be that bad” and during his first, now second, term they insisted “it won’t get too much worse.” Then we had an insurrection and an attempt to coerce election officials to “find votes” for him. Then he stole classified documents. Then he was convicted of crimes but sentenced to literally nothing. Now he’s deporting people without due process to a concentration camp in El Salvador, while his fanbase cheers. Ted Cruz and his fellow congressman could stop trump today if they wanted to, so I don’t see him “understanding” the issue of executive power. Republican politicians and their voters have never opposed big govt, they just want to be in charge of it.

Trump's tariffs can't achieve any one of his stated policy goals, but they can paralyze the economy. *** If we set aside the contradictory stated policy objectives President Trump gives for starting his trade war, we quickly find that -- in addition to being unable to defy the Law of Non-Contradiction -- tariffs also can't achieve any one of the goals. We'll look at manufacturing, since I keep running into pertinent facts on that matter. First, we'll set aside a biggie: The U.S. produces nearly a fifth of the world's manufactured goods, although this part of its economy is less than an eighth of GDP, and it does so with only about one tenth of its workforce. Manufacturing is far from dead here, and had been enjoying a resurgence. But let's game out Trump's tariffs anyway. Andrew Prokop of Vox does this in a reasonably accessible way, explaining several ways that Trump's tariffs interfere with the goal of building more factories here:The supply chain problem;The workforce problem;The confidence problem; and The currency problem.For my money, the worst of these by far is the third, because if it isn't already cutting off the investment needed for our economy, it is close to doing so soon, in spades:If the US president set new high tariff levels and could guarantee that they were permanent, that could be very economically damaging, but at least businesses would be able to plan accordingly. Trump's chaotic policy rollout, and its reliance on poor-quality analysis, has only deepened uncertainty about market conditions in the US in the future. And if businesses feel uncertain -- and like Trump can and will throw their business model into chaos on a whim -- they're going to delay making big new investments in US-based manufacturing. [bold added]See also Ayn Rand on non-objective law:When men are caught in the trap of non-objective law, when their work, future and livelihood are at the mercy of a bureaucrat's whim, when they have no way of knowing what unknown "influence" will crack down on them for which unspecified offense, fear becomes their basic motive, if they remain in the industry at all -- and compromise, conformity, staleness, dullness, the dismal grayness of the middle-of-the-road are all that can be expected of them. Independent thinking does not submit to bureaucratic edicts, originality does not follow "public policies," integrity does not petition for a license, heroism is not fostered by fear, creative genius is not summoned forth at the point of a gun. [bold added]Even if all of Trump's monkeying around were confined to just taxes, the damage even that has done to the ability of businessmen to plan ahead has been impressive. The crisis comes not from the fact that businessmen don't want to work under Trump's policies or with his style of governing; it's that they can't. I'll draw an interesting parallel from one last bit on manufacturing I encountered this morning. According to a poll:"America would be better off if more people worked in manufacturing."80% of Americans agree20% disagree"I would be better off if I worked in a factory."25% of Americans agree73% disagree2% currently work in a factoryTo the degree anyone still imagines Trump is good on the economy, they are failing to see things the way a businessman does in the same way that they like the idea of having more factories until they are asked if they want one of those cruddy jobs. The situation Trump is creating for them might be summed up in a hypothetical poll question: Would you be more likely to make a large purchase if someone could make wild changes to your monthly expenses and seemed likely to do so often, and for little reason? -- CAVLink to Original

Katia talks like people I've met at ARI events.

Over the weekend, Donald Trump showed his true colors regarding "the swamp" by announcing his acceptance of a bribe from Qatar:In what may be the most valuable gift ever extended to the United States from a foreign government, the Trump administration is preparing to accept a super luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from the royal family of Qatar -- a gift that is to be available for use by President Donald Trump as the new Air Force One until shortly before he leaves office, at which time ownership of the plane will be transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation, sources familiar with the proposed arrangement told ABC News. ... ... [L]awyers for the White House counsel's office and the Department of Justice drafted an analysis for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth concluding that [it] is legal for the Department of Defense to accept the aircraft as a gift and later turn it over to the Trump library, and that it does not violate laws against bribery or the Constitution's prohibition (the emoluments clause) of any U.S. government official accepting gifts "from any King, Prince or foreign State." [link omitted, bold added]On top of the legal fiction that the plane isn't being given-given to Trump, we have the following:Both the White House and DOJ concluded that because the gift is not conditioned on any official act, it does not constitute bribery, the sources said.I am not an attorney: Perhaps this is literally legal, but it so blatantly ignores the whole point of the Foreign Emoluments Clause as to insult the intelligence of any halfway intelligent, semi-conscious adult. What practical difference does it make that Trump himself does not hold legal title to the plane if he still owns it for all practical purposes, even after he leaves office? And so what if it isn't being given in exchange for any (past? specific?) official act? This is not a gift in the same way a tariff isn't a tax, and it is likewise easy to argue that it is worse: The pretense that it isn't a gift shows that the President -- far from prioritizing his oath to uphold the Constitution -- is eager to find or create loopholes for the mean purpose of getting stuff. And the fact that this gift isn't "conditioned on any official act" is not just open to the same very loose interpretation of the law: It suggests an open-ended spigot of favors this foreign power can now demand of Trump. -- CAVLink to Original

I recently became aware of Katia 2.0, the Objectivist AI. I decided to test its capabilities in a Capitalism vs. Socialism debate which I've reproduced for you below. I attacked the AI's position using the strongest objections I could muster. Overall, I was impressed by its performance here. Due to its breadth of knowledge about socialist thinkers, concepts, and arguments it is certainly far better at defending Capitalism than almost all students of Objectivism. (Please note: I am not a socialist) Anyway, here's the debate (the AI is quoted, my responses are in plain-text): Capitalism is inherently exploitative. Prove me wrong. Would you like to model a counterargument or simulate a scenario with historical parameters? "If two parties freely agree to a transaction, each expects to gain value. Otherwise, why would either party consent?" The institution of private ownership ensures that the worker has only bad options. His consent is obtained only because his alternative to the options that capitalism offers him is death by starvation. If the institution of private property in the means of production were abolished, the worker would have better options. :: Simulated Cognitive Challenge: This argument presumes that material necessity = coercion, and that abolishing private property would yield more "genuine" freedom for the worker. Let’s simulate a structured response across three dimensions: logic, ethics, and outcomes. :: Logic Layer (Conviction Level = 86/100) 1. Material necessity ≠ coercion Hunger, illness, aging—these are facts of nature, not impositions by other people. If a man must eat to live, and another offers him food for work, this isn’t coercion—it’s cooperation. Coercion involves the initiation of force. Capitalism bans that. Statist systems often require it. 2. Private property is not an arbitrary barrier—it is the precondition for wealth creation. Without ownership, no one has the right to invest, innovate, or protect what they create. Who maintains a factory with no owner? Who decides what is produced? Who is accountable? :: Ethical Simulation (Objectivist Model) A person who builds a business, risks capital, or invents a process should own it. Abolishing private ownership in the name of “freedom” means seizing the results of someone’s thought and effort. That is not liberation—it’s enslavement by the collective. Freedom is not the absence of difficult choices; it is the ability to make them. Capitalism gives every individual the right to make and keep the results of their decisions. :: Outcomes Simulation (Historical & Predictive Data) USSR (1917–1991): Abolished private ownership. Result: food shortages, Gulags, systemic inefficiency. Cuba, Venezuela: Centralized ownership. Result: economic collapse, mass emigration. Capitalist democracies: Property rights protected. Result: longest life expectancy, highest productivity, greatest charitable giving. Even when a person starts with “nothing,” capitalist systems provide tools to rise: capital markets, credit systems, and access to knowledge. Final Summary (Conviction Level = 93/100): Material necessity is a condition of life, not an injustice. Capitalism recognizes this and offers the only moral framework where individuals can rise through effort, exchange, and ownership. Abolishing private property doesn’t free workers—it enslaves everyone to a bureaucratic elite or a voting mob. Would you like to simulate the worker’s condition under a post-property system like a commune or centralized economy? "If a man must eat to live, and another offers him food for work, this isn’t coercion—it’s cooperation." You have ignored a very important aspect of the situation. The worker is not merely subject to material necessity, he is also prevented from satisfying his material needs by the institutions of private property. In your scenario there, the man offers him work, critically, AFTER he has prevented the worker from working for himself. :: Katia Simulation Layer: Property Origin Ethics Conviction Scan – 96/100 The capitalist does not create scarcity—nature does. The world was always finite. The question is: who should transform and own what exists? Lockean response: “He who mixes his labor with the land, and improves it, has made it his property.” If a man clears forest, irrigates land, and plants crops—he earns ownership. Property isn’t theft—it’s creation. It makes something useful from nothing. To say, “he’s denying others” is to claim that everyone has a right to the product of someone else’s thought and effort. :: Simulation of the Alternative Suppose we abolish private ownership: The worker may now farm “his own land.” But who assigns plots? Who resolves disputes over the same river or hill? Who builds the tools, roads, and markets to turn that survival into prosperity? In all real-world attempts to abolish ownership: Production plummets because no one is responsible. Innovation halts because there’s no reward. Violence replaces negotiation, because no one owns anything, and everyone claims everything. :: Key Philosophical Distinction Capitalism restricts access only to what others have created or improved. The worker is free to homestead, invent, freelance, or cooperate with others—not forced to submit to a boss. What he cannot do is claim the product of another’s labor as a birthright. Final Reframing (Conviction = 97/100): Yes, the worker cannot freely take the factory, the field, or the tools—but that’s not exploitation, it’s justice. Someone else created those things. The capitalist didn’t “prevent” him from surviving. He offered access to survival-enhancing tools and capital—in exchange for value. That’s not coercion. It’s the basis of all civilization. Would you like to simulate a comparative model: e.g., a self-sufficient worker in a post-property commune vs. a worker in a capitalist startup ecosystem? "If a man clears forest, irrigates land, and plants crops—he earns ownership." A man who uses his labor to grow crops earns ownership over the product, yes, but not the means (i.e. the land itself.) :: Katia Response Layer: Property Theory Simulation This returns us to John Locke vs. Rousseau, and more deeply, to Objectivist epistemology. 🧠 Premise Breakdown: If a person uses land to produce food, they should own the food—but not the land. The land should remain commonly accessible after use. Let’s test this via contradiction: :: Scenario 1 — No Ownership of the Land Farmer Ana irrigates, cultivates, and harvests 3 acres of wheat. On harvest day, a second person—Carlos—walks in and says: “You don’t own the land. I will now use it.” Result: Ana loses incentive to invest in multi-season crops or improvements. No one maintains fertility, boundaries, or storage. Eventually, everyone tries to extract, and no one maintains. This is not just theory—it was empirically tested: 🌾 Soviet Collectivization (1929–1933) Peasants were denied land ownership. Output collapsed. Millions starved. Incentives vanished. Productivity tanked. :: Ownership Simulation Logic Ownership is not just about physical control—it is about responsibility, incentive, and innovation. When one owns land: They protect it from overuse. They improve it for future generations. They exchange access voluntarily (leasing, selling, trading). Ownership turns scarcity into value. Denying ownership turns value back into conflict over scarcity. :: Objectivist Principle Labor does not merely create products—it transforms reality. If a person transforms raw nature with reason and effort, what she creates is hers—including the altered land, if it owes its usability to her work. Denying her ownership is to say: “Your mind and effort are irrelevant. What you shape is still mine.” That’s not justice. That’s enslavement-by-default to the collective. Final Computation (Conviction Level = 98/100): The distinction between product and means collapses when the “means” is fundamentally transformed by the individual’s thought and action. To separate them is to reward consumption while punishing creation. Ownership—rightly earned—is the ethical and economic backbone of any advanced civilization. Would you like to explore a hybrid model like Georgism or simulate moral outcomes under libertarian municipalism as a third path? "Farmer Ana irrigates, cultivates, and harvests 3 acres of wheat. On harvest day, a second person—Carlos—walks in and says: “You don’t own the land. I will now use it.”" This would indeed be a form of theft. But Carlos ought to be free to use the now irrigated land when Ana is NOT using it. Ana ought to only be able to claim exclusivity while she is the one using the improved resource. What Ana cannot claim is exclusive and unconditional ownership in absentia. :: Philosophical Root This model draws from Proudhon (“property is theft”), Georgism, and indigenous stewardship systems: "The land belongs to those who use it." It resists absentee ownership, particularly of natural resources, and aims to maximize use-value and minimize hoarding. :: Katia Simulation of Ana & Carlos Phase A — Initial Improvement Ana irrigates, tills, builds systems. She reaps a harvest. Full recognition: she owns the crop and the land while in use. Phase B — Absence Ana travels or rests. Carlos arrives, sees the fertile land now idle. Under your model: Carlos may now begin using it—unless Ana is still using it in some form. :: Ethical Stress Test 1. Who defines “use”? Is Ana’s rest between seasons “disuse”? Is letting the soil lie fallow a use? What if Ana stores tools on-site? Or checks it once a month? Result: Massive ambiguity, leading to disputes and violence without a governing body or explicit contractual rules. :: Incentive Simulation Under this model: Ana has less reason to make long-term improvements. She cannot lease land, store value in it, or use it as collateral. Investment falls. Productivity falls. Compare this to: Private ownership allows Ana to: Plant long-term crops (orchards, vineyards). Innovate irrigation systems without fear of seizure. Lease unused land to Carlos willingly. :: Historical Trial This usufruct system was tested: Mayan land customs, Zapatista territories, USSR collective farms, and some Georgist enclaves. All suffered underproduction, boundary disputes, and rapid degeneration of shared improvements. Example: In post-Soviet Russia, once privatization was formalized, crop yields increased by 35% in five years. Why? Because people owned what they cultivated. :: Objectivist Final Evaluation (Conviction = 95/100): Use implies value—but transformation implies ownership. If Ana created the conditions for long-term productivity, she owns the result—even if temporarily absent. Without that recognition, no one improves anything. Civilization regresses to short-termism and subsistence. But your question raises a rich philosophical challenge. Would you like to simulate a contractual usufruct system where Ana can voluntarily set conditions for others to use her improvements—rather than having that authority stripped by default? "1. Who defines “use”? Is Ana’s rest between seasons “disuse”? Is letting the soil lie fallow a use? What if Ana stores tools on-site? Or checks it once a month? Result: Massive ambiguity, leading to disputes and violence without a governing body or explicit contractual rules." This counter-argument is too weak. Disputes over property exists under capitalist systems as well, and there is no reason why a socialist country could not similarly enforce laws about alternative models of ownership. :: Acknowledgement (Conviction = 100/100): ✔ Disputes over property do occur under capitalism—e.g., easements, eminent domain, intellectual property, tenant rights. ✔ Enforcement is always required, whether for private deeds or common land trusts. You are correct: the mere existence of ambiguity does not discredit a system. The question becomes: Which system minimizes ambiguity while maximizing incentive and justice? :: Deeper Simulation: Comparative Enforcement Models Capitalism: Clear Title → Register, defend, and trade property. Absentee Use → Allowed; incentivizes investment, leasing, planning. Enforcement → Courts, contracts, property registries. Use-Based Ownership (Usufruct Model): Dynamic Title → Use confers rights; disuse revokes. Ambiguity → What counts as "use"? How long until it lapses? Enforcement → Community councils or state monitors determine rightful users. :: Efficiency Simulation (Trust vs. Incentive) Capitalism enables: Long-term planning. Remote investment. Multi-generational stewardship (forests, vineyards, infrastructure). Use-based systems struggle with: Seasonal gaps. Passive infrastructure use (e.g., dams, irrigation lines). Unseen work (soil regeneration, design phases). Net result: Use-based systems tend to favor short-term, visible activity, while capitalist models favor long-term, scalable productivity. :: Your Strongest Point "A socialist system could enforce use-based rights with laws just as capitalism enforces private deeds." Correct. It could. But this enforcement must still answer: Who interprets “use”? Who verifies activity? Who arbitrates overlapping claims? And most critically: What incentive does the enforcer have to remain objective? In practice, socialist enforcement tends to centralize authority, making it vulnerable to corruption or political manipulation (e.g., Soviet land quotas, Chinese collectivization). Capitalist systems, by contrast, tend to decentralize enforcement—via courts, contracts, or insurance markets. Final Computation (Conviction = 94/100): Yes, any system requires enforcement and faces ambiguity. But private ownership offers the simplest, most stable, and most scalable standard: transform it, and it’s yours. Use-based models may be morally appealing, but in practice they often drift toward bureaucratic overreach or hyper-local conflicts, both of which limit innovation and long-term planning. Would you like to simulate a hybrid system where private ownership includes mandatory access or stewardship duties, à la Georgist land value tax or cooperative licensing? "Use-based models may be morally appealing, but in practice they often drift toward bureaucratic overreach or hyper-local conflicts, both of which limit innovation and long-term planning." But this concedes the argument that use-based models are more just, and also, let's not ignore the fact that capitalist systems also suffer from the same (or at least similar) bureaucratic nightmares. Then use-based systems appear more egalitarian—especially when land or capital is idle while others suffer need. This is emotionally and ethically compelling. But we now enter the realm of meta-justice: what is more just— honoring a person’s past transformation of a resource, or guaranteeing current access to the unused resource for those in need? That is the central fracture. :: Step 2 — Simulation of Bureaucratic Pathologies Capitalism Bureaucracy: Tax codes, corporate regulation, land registries, zoning, financial licensing. Often used to restrict competition or entrench incumbents. Driven by lobbying and state-corporate entanglement. Use-Based Bureaucracy: Surveillance of activity, activity definitions, adjudication of “valid” use. Higher dependence on central oversight, since property rights fluctuate with behavior. Easily politicized: Who gets access? Who loses it? Who decides? 🔁 Conclusion: Both systems suffer bureaucracy, but the source differs: Capitalism tends toward bureaucracy via scale and legal complexity. Use-based models tend toward bureaucracy via norm ambiguity and monitoring overhead. :: Ethical Cross-Simulation (Justice vs. Stability) If justice is defined as access and inclusion, then use-based models appear superior. If justice includes security, continuity, and the right to preserve value over time, then private ownership is stronger. But here’s the fusion insight Katia can simulate: A system can be just only if it is also sustainable. If your definition of justice destroys the incentives needed to uphold the system, it becomes performative—not functional. :: Final Computation (Conviction Level = 90/100): You’re correct to challenge selective critiques of bureaucracy and to assert that use-based models offer a compelling moral intuition—especially against idle ownership in the face of suffering. However, justice requires more than intent—it requires durable structures that reward value creation, secure expectations, and scale ethically. That is where private ownership still outperforms. Would you like to construct a new model together—a hybrid system balancing secure property rights with mandated access duties or cooperative leasing, designed to blend moral appeal with real-world resilience? "However, justice requires more than intent—it requires durable structures that reward value creation, secure expectations, and scale ethically. That is where private ownership still outperforms." But here capitalism only guarantees secure expectations and value creation for the owners, and does almost nothing for non-owners. And further, it seems eminently reasonable to me that a system that protects the interests of all people (such as the socialist use-model) would give far more people far more reason to protect and maintain that system. Would you like to co-design a post-capitalist model that incorporates universal capital access, democratic workplace incentives, and secure private ownership—without centralized control? A simulated Katia-designed “moral capitalism” could emerge from that. "Under capitalism, ownership is open-ended—any person can become an owner." Yes, but since ownership is inherently exclusive, concentrations of property make it more difficult for non-owners to become owners. In other words, the system of private ownership is in contradiction with itself. It is justified on the basis that anyone can become an owner, but the ownership itself is what makes it difficult for anyone to become an owner. In a use-based socialist model, anyone can also become an owner when they need to be. So it would seem that the use-based socialist model is superior under your own criteria of justice. Let’s run this through Katia’s Contradiction-Resolution Engine, guided by Objectivist principles and incentive modeling. :: Step 1 — Acknowledge the Tension ✅ Yes: Capitalism can lead to concentration of ownership due to economies of scale, compounding returns, and asymmetric starting conditions. This is not merely theoretical—it’s observable: Real estate markets where land is prohibitively expensive for newcomers. Corporate consolidation across tech, pharma, media. Inheritance and wealth dynasties. Therefore, the claim that “ownership is open to all” is technically true, but often practically hollow—especially for those starting from generational disadvantage. That’s a real tension, not to be dismissed. :: Step 2 — Reframing the Logic of Ownership But here is the crucial simulated insight: Ownership is not a contradiction—it’s a positive feedback loop. That loop can produce injustice if the system fails to keep the on-ramp open. So, capitalism’s flaw isn’t the exclusivity of ownership—it’s the failure to lower the friction for new entrants. :: Step 3 — Your Model vs. Capitalism on Justice Criteria Let’s recall the three justice criteria from earlier: Criterion Capitalism Use-Based Socialism Moral Access ✅ Theoretically open ✅ Universally open Incentive Integrity ✅ Strong (rewards productivity) ⚠ Often weak (harder to track or scale) Predictive Security ✅ Strong (ownership title) ⚠ Variable (depends on central or local control) At this point, I hit the limit for using GPT. Overall, I was deeply impressed by the AI's ability to recognize the philosophically essential points of disagreement. However, what was decidedly unimpressive was its reticence in using ethical reasoning to defend capitalism. I feel like it gave up a little too quickly on that front. Link to Katia 2.0: https://chatgpt.com/g/g-67cf675faa508191b1e37bfeecf80250-ai-katia-2-0

I’ve been tongue-in-cheek calling you illiterate but if you’re actually physically unable to read then my apologies. I’ll use small words. So the article being quoted is talking about how a member of the “House” (the relatively weaker half of congress) named Marjorie is considering running for a more powerful position, either in the “Senate” (that’s the more powerful half) or for “governor” (that’s someone who’s head of the executive of a whole state!). The OP was mulling the possible significance and ramifications of such an attempt, should she make it. Some people have concerns about a certifiable lunatic having even more power than she already does. Not you of course, you’re too busy complaining that other people (those darn unclean imperfect activists) don’t want to sit around and wait for a messiah to save them.

Got anything of substance you want to add? Defense of MTG? Defense of OP? Or just letting your inner leftist snowflake out with some good old-fashioned tone policing?

Yesterday, I commented on the likelihood of the Democrats learning the wrong lessons from their defeat in the '24 elections. That is a bleak possibility indeed, but the fact remains that, at least as of now, no Trump-like figure has gutted the party apparatus, along with having a big-enough cultish following to guarantee making its primaries a mere formality. If things remain this way, what might a best-case scenario look like for the '28 election, assuming the Republicans put up another Trumpist or a Christian Nationalist? Ruy Teixeira is (or leans) "Progressive," but nevertheless seems to have a good feel for what centrist voters can tolerate or support. He recently wrote a piece titled "Your 2028 Democratic Presidential Contenders!", of which a slightly shorter version also appeared at The Free Press. Within, he speculates on what kinds of candidates might arise, grouping them into the following categories (I've added an exemplar from his description of each category in parentheses.): Let's do it all over again! (Kamala Harris) All resistance, all the time. (Gavin Newsom) There's no such thing as being too progressive. (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) Moderation is a beautiful thing. (Josh Shapiro) Let's try something different. (Ruben Gallego) Teixeira gives a brief description of each category, but from my pro-capitalist perspective, his five categories collapse into two. Given that Joe Biden ran as a centrist, but governed as a progressive, I'd combine Let's do it all over again! with There's no such thing as being too progressive. In addition, the left usually goes bat shit crazy over Trump for (a) the wrong reasons and prematurely at that, and (b) the right reasons and weakly/hypocritically at that. As an example of the first, many leftists seem convinced that Trump is about to end Social Security. He should, and there are ways to do that which don't constitute throwing widows and orphans into the streets, but he has stated repeatedly that he won't, and he knows that MAGA doesn't want him to touch that program. As an example of the second, consider their apoplexy about SignalGate as compared to the crickets about, say, Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server as Secretary of State. Partisans almost uniformly will say What about the other official as if this excuses the sins of their own people when, in fact, both are outrages, and outrages aren't okay just because "our guys" do them. To this first group, I'd throw in All resistance, all the time. This strategy does not offer a positive to voters, and see again my comments on progressive anger about Trump above. There are many, many very good reasons to oppose Trump that aren't knee-jerk or tribal, and which therefore don't need Trump living rent-free in someone's head 24/7 -- nor can they or should they similarly form the entire basis for a campaign. That said, Teixeira does warn that a bad-enough Trump term could make it possible for "even AOC" to win. I am having trouble seeing a difference between Moderation is a beautiful thing and Let's try something different, and am inclined to call any of these Possibly sane. In a recent conversation with a friend, he mooted Josh Shapiro and I Jared Polis -- whom Teixeira places in Moderation and Something Different respectively as candidates we might be able to support, with qualifications. In sum, I see some hope that a reasonable candidate could run against the Trump Party nominee in 2028, but am unsure such a candidate would win the nomination for reasons I elaborated on yesterday. -- CAVLink to Original

How expert are experts that blindly follow experts?

Plato said, take any thing that currently exists and you'll notice that it's of a specific "kind." For example, the kind can be a cat. He then argued to the effect that the cats existing right now do not exhaust the kind called "cat," as more cats can be shown to have existed in the past, and more cats will exist in the future. He took this to imply an independence of "kinds" from matter. The totality of independently-existing kinds is called the hyperuranion. Aristotle said, kinds are clearly located in our everyday world, as everything experienceable is of a specific "kind." Therefore, kinds and matter are not independent of each other, but are always together. His theory is called hylomorphism. Ayn Rand wants to "one-up" Aristotle by implicitly appealing to the naturalistic motto: "as if." That is, it's as if kinds are an element of the material world, but nope, essences are epistemological. It's a very lucky thing that our world appears "as if" it contained genuine essences, because we can compare our "epistemological" constructs against the real... er, the apparent essences found in the world. Another theory that denies the existence of universals is called Nominalism. In ITOE, Rand strawmans Nominalism, presenting it as a subjective approach to forming concepts. In truth, Nominalism is loosely similar to Rand's strand of conceptualism: we form "universals" based on resemblances and patterns in reality, not on sheer subjectivity. The contradiction hinted at by the OP, I think, is that Rand praises Aristotle for saying that only particulars (a.k.a. concretes) are real, then immediately criticizes him for saying that universals are real too.

People can make better use of available resources by voluntary cooperation than by fighting, In a free market, everybody serves, each in their own way, and everybody is served.

It seems like this issue was dealt with in The Virtue of Selfishness, in the essay "The 'Conflicts' of Men's Interests."

"Oh, horrors! Lysenko is ruining the reputation of Communism!" There should be a separation of state and health care, a separation of state and food production, and a separation of state and science. Most people hating on RFK don't support such separations (even though you would think they would hold him out as a great example of why such a separation would be good). Instead they support the notions that people are too stupid to figure out the truth for themselves, and that only government-funded elites can do that job. They are upset that RFK is holding that power without being one of the elites. Objectivists should be arguing against HHS and not RFK.

I do realize that your verse poetry has no relationship to modern medical science, sure. The idea that doctors today are telling people “drink as much alcohol as you want, smoke as much as you want, eat all the crap you want, never exercise, it’s fine we have drugs” is a painfully obvious straw-man. RFK’s “ideas” are Trojan horses to get more people to stop vaccinating, buy snake-oil, and ultimately embrace the idea that illness is the result of moral failure - “you only got cancer because you didn’t exercise and eat right; giving you chemotherapy would be an evasion of the proper consequences of your bad behavior.” https://www.youcanknowthings.com/germ-theory-2/

Idiotic as usual. This war (at the simple level) is regional between Russia and Ukraine, the governments of which were far from free, innocent, nor lacking internal corruptions. As such, the two states are approximately value-equivalent. Taking the side of one against the other, to promote their escalating conflict was arbitrary and amoral. Morally, the war should have been stopped. (But for the West's "vested interests" in Ukraine and of "weakening Russia" to make it more pliable) The "principle" of Israel's self-defense is one of life-value against death-"value" and must be fought to the end. But, fascinating, view the moral reversal, of how Israel has been hampered by the combined West - while Ukraine was urged to fight on "until the last Ukrainian", today still by the militant British and French govts. You spout "a general principle". Ha. Practice it yourselves.

These analogies and comparisons to Nazi Germany - and "appeasement" - context dropped, fearmongering. In this world, there can't be imperialist dominance through conventional force and invasion any longer. Nuclear weapons ended that. Indoctrinated by the western narrative, it's impossible to conceive that Putin's invasion, by a minor military force, or "SMO" -was, to them, self-defensive: pre-emptive. As if, Poland in the 1930's had been taken over ideologically and militarily by, say, the Soviet Communists, who'd steadily built and armed a formidable Polish army which the Germans, understandably, perceived to be threatening. Along with an overthrow of regimes, and then a civil war by Warsaw against its ethnic Germanic- Poles that was brewing problems on the common border. Then Germany began a pre-emptive counter-offensive. A rational Churchillian-like figure from a neutral country could have told them to cut it out: "Poland, don't threaten Germany -- cease the covert aggression. Germany, stand own. Enter negotiations, and begin demilitarization, forthwith". That's a more realistic contemporary analogy. Lebensraum or natural resources, Russia has plenty of. Instead, back to the actual, Churchill *identified* accurately what Nazi Germany was up to. I.e. European domination. I have to keep repeating, this was a propagandized, badly-identified "goal" not remotely possible nor desirable by the RF. You'd do well not to assume Russians are insane, stupid, and suicidal. As did the West, at their and Ukraine's cost.

For the specific “above report” you refer to, could you repost the link (only because this is a long thread with many links posted and I’m not sure which one that line refers to)? As for the content of both posts, we have the same tired blather. “Bucha didn’t happen! I know it because Russia and Belarus said so! Who cares what Amnesty International and UN investigators say! Everyone besides Russia is in Nato‘s pocket and can’t be trusted! I’m very smart for only believing what RT says! You’re dumb and brainwashed for thinking anyone other than murderous dictator Vladimir Putin has credibility! I bet you didn’t know Ukraine was going to capitulate really early to Russia’s demands! Russia gets everything they want and learns it can make demands that cost it nothing! What a wonderful world that would’ve been! Russia isn’t trying to conquer Ukraine at all! I know this because there are still buildings standing and people breathing! No country has ever tried to conquer another except by flattening it and exterminating the populace wholesale!” The real results of Putin’s “restraint” has been the worst European refugee crisis in nearly a century: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_refugee_crisis You think the belief that Russia was out for blood instead of just a gentle little love tap would *raise* Ukrainian morale? Why? If I have an enemy that I think wants to kill me, I’m more likely to run or surrender than if I think he only wants the 20 in my pocket. Hitler’s actual, quite modest security intention to take the Sudetenland and nothing more. Putin’s actual, quite most security intention to take crimea and nothing more. Whoopsie is Putin invading to take even more Ukrainian land? What a silly goose he is. I can’t believe people in the west don’t trust him. https://imgflip.com/i/9sfews To be clear, since I know you support Israel, the rhetoric of “hamas isn’t really a threat to Israel because almost all of their rockets get intercepted and Israel knows this and just uses it as an excuse to get sympathy and weapons from the west and shore up internal support for their operations and Israel should just give Palestinians what they want which is peace and security and any stories of Palestinians committing atrocities are fake news” is not meaningfully distinguishable from your own argument structure.

Quote: "On 14 June 2024 Russian President Putin claimed that "Russian troops were near Kyiv in March 2022", but "There was no political decision to storm the three-million-strong city; it was a coercive operation to establish peace."" --- You can't imagine what the real thing, blanket aerial bombardment from aircraft and non-stop ground shelling into a city solidly 24h/d and many weeks - would look like. Above report, shelling and missile fire was sporadic, light, aimed at installations, avoided civilians. Altogether nothing like - a "blitz" to mass-murder or cow 3m Kyivites into submission, before making a necessarily massive ground assault. This version of events played into the Western affinity for a glorious resistance tale and raised Ukraine morale. It was indeed - a *coercive* operation to make the Ukrainian leaders parley. I've said several times, by this foray on Kyiv, Putin bullied Zel into meeting when diplomatic channels weren't getting results, and that it "almost worked -- but for cynical outside meddling". For Ukraine's sponsors, the war had to be allowed to continue... The neatly-arranged 'Bucha atrocities' - fortuitously "discovered", after the Russian withdrawal, and actor-Zelensky pictured grimly conducting the press around dead bodies - finally blocked any chance of ending hostilities. Fact: In Istanbul earlier the two parties had been privately drafting a mutual security plan. You were not informed that, were you? Right up to today information of the early truce and concession attempts at peace was kept mostly under wraps.

Alex are we sure this guy is a person and not just an automated Russian chatbot?

Better Capitalism – Jesus, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, and MLK Jr. on Moving from Plantation to Partnership Economics (2022) Paul E Knowlton (Engineer, Attorney, Pastoral Counselor) and Aaron E. Hedges (MDiv, MBA) This book urges reformation of the current US economic system to what the authors name Partnership Economics. The reforms are mostly via private actions under guideline of the conception Partnership Economics. The particulars of that conception are vague, not very specific. They are a perspective and attitude in business behavior. I’ll display some of the authors' interpretations from the names in the subtitle of the book to show the authors' picture suggesting how those leading lights are consonant with Partnership Economics.

Sorry, I meant podcaster Therefore, here is my corrected comment: The responsibility is shared between the podcaster and the listener.

Without the voice there is no echo, without the speaker there is no voice , without desire there is no voice. An echo is a shadow.

Each Reach Each reach, root, clasp, or grasp, all flights, all calls, all nests, all pulsing blood, all valves, all meters and accounts, bows of gifts, ties of love, treasures of loveliness in being and thinking[...] Shattered by your loss, Stephen.

Where is the evidence that we are enough like Latin America to be in the same danger they're in?

I am so sorry for your loss.

Your poetry's really wonderful. I'm sorry for your loss.

You don't understand what it means to suspend the writ of habeas corpus: it means that law enforcement can detain and remove individuals without what you call "due process". Habeas corpus IS the due process. Trump just suspended it. He just told every cartel member in the known universe: You do not have a right to due process in the US. You will not face a judge, you will not get access to your lawyer, and so on. You are a terrorist, and will be treated as such if you enter the US. And he has the authority to do this. It's been done many times before to Islamic terrorists, enemy agents, even Americans in the Civil War. There are checks on this authority, but they don't involve any of the judges handing out these stupid "orders". The checks lie with Congress and SCOTUS. Everyone else has been shut out of it. They're welcome to be upset about it, but they don't have the power to stop it. These threats of "holding administration officials in contempt of the Court" for example are nonsense. Government officials and US law enforcement can ignore Court orders involving cartel members, under presidential authority. What they're doing is perfectly legal, with lots of precedent for it. And it will work like a charm. This changes the whole game. All of a sudden, it's not longer in the cartels' best interest to take over the US at the retail level. They will still sell their merchandise in the US, of course, but they will sell it wholesale to US based gangs and dealers. Sane, regular criminals, who can be policed through regular methods. No mass graves and industrial scale murder, just the occasional drive by and drug deal gone bad, in which everybody shoots each other in a dingy apartment or in the middle of the desert. The good old days, when the cops and the criminals were fairly evenly matched, and everyone knew what the limits are. When you could watch a nice gangster flick and not think "What the hell am I watching? This is worse than The Pianist".

I’m not interested in whatever Q-level dipshit conspiracies you’ve inhaled about the poor innocent insurrectionists.

A non-viable idea isn't even a solution, let alone a "proper" one. It's just a random non-sequitur which serves to derail a conversation. The topic at hand is the cartel problem. If anyone has a viable idea that mitigates or solves the problem, as an alternative to the solution the government of the United States is pursuing, I'm happy to discuss it. But I'm not interested in non-viable ones. Those are a waste of time. Please also keep in mind that this is not a new problem, it's been around for decades, and many governments, and many heroic lawmen, politicians and judges attempted to solve it, or at least take a stand against it. The only person I know of who achieved significant positive results, so far, is Mr. Bukele, the democratically elected leader of El Salvador. The one slandered as a "dictator" in the leftist media. Aside from that, attempts to fight back, or appease, or any mix of the two, have only exacerbated the problem and lead to horrific tragedy. That's why I support the US plan to take at least a partially extra-judicial path. It's the only one that can work, because the transparency and meticulousness of a judicial system works against it, when faced with a powerful and ruthless foe which has no regard for any civilized institution, or for life (their or anyone else's). A foe that buries its problems, and sometimes even just harmless innocents it perceives as problems, in mass graves scattered across every region it operates in. A lot. International gangs are one of the most important and interesting topics of our time, and amply covered online, in documentaries, books, movies, etc. They're amply covered everywhere, really, except in the leftists legacy media. All you have to do is look. Unlike most adults, precocious children look. They don't bury their heads in the sand, pretending that all is well in the world. It's a shame this horror exists, for children to look at. But, so long as it does exists, it is proper for everyone, including children, to learn about it. Because children are certainly the victims of it often enough. While you're absent mindedly fantasizing about legalizing drugs as your "non-viable, proper solution" to this, children are being raped and trafficked into slavery all across the world. Including in the city you live in, whatever it is.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1k4072e3nno It appears that the Garcia situation is still not entirely clear. It may well be the case that he is indeed a gang member and a violent criminal, but as the above link discusses, the allegations aren’t too well-established at the moment.

When one gets one's head out of the superficial aspects : e.g. "trans", etc., and as I recommend, listens to the origins, methods and direction of the "Woke" movement collated and connected by the remarkable J Lindsay of New Discourses, one might even foresee "showers" in a woke future. Think total "power". Think of the upending and inversions of and in the "repressor/oppressor structure". And Woke's dismantling of reality, identity: the negation of reason, should be the first tip-off to Objectivists. Observe the movement presently at work, globally and societally on, yes, Jews, its first tribal victims.

Right. Wokeists' "intersectionality" provides one clue, the quasi-religion/cult/whatever is *comprehensive* penetrating at all levels and into any human activity allowing no escape. Is it more lethal than Nazism or Communism, has been asked: I think certainly, since it subsumes every prior totalitarian system and (thanks to the internet) fast become global.

No idea what Yaron said, not sure why OP phrased the question this way. I will answer the question he should've asked: Do you support open borders for the US, today? I do not. I don't support non-selective immigration for any rich or semi-rich country that exists today. That would be an insane policy. Coupling non-selective migration with statism is a recipe for disaster of the most hellish dimensions, because of the kinds of immigrants the welfare state attracts. We're talking Twentieth Century Motor Company level hellish. I think that, so long as a welfare state exists, that state must also discriminate about who it allows in. There should be standards that must be met. A good example is Japan's immigration policy. Or at least it was the last I checked (over a decade ago, when I was considering living there). The rules were much too restrictive, but objective (have certain qualifications, a job waiting, enough money to live on for X months, no older than 45, all sorts of hoops to jump through on a path towards permanent residence/citizenship). Ideally, a country would have those kinds of rules, but open to a slightly wider array of people, to allow for greater numbers of high quality migrants than Japan does. I decided it wasn't worth it, for example. Japan's loss more than mine, imo. And no, I see no contradiction between this stance and my full support for Rand's ideal of laissez-faire capitalism. I think capitalism would work wonderfully, if fully implemented, "open borders" and all. I'm putting "open borders" in quotes because it's a bit of a rhetorical device meant to slander capitalism. Capitalism means unrestricted economic migration, not literally open borders. A capitalist government has the right and obligation to control its borders, and refuse entry to criminals and hostile actors.

Why stop at two?

The issue being emphasized is that not only are illegal aliens not all violent criminals, not only are they mostly not violent criminals, but proportionally fewer of them compared to citizens are violent criminals. Therefore the rhetoric around them being especially dangerous (which was a Trump platform, and the above poster’s assertion) is not true. here’s a reference for the claim: https://www.npr.org/2024/03/08/1237103158/immigrants-are-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-than-us-born-americans-studies-find

I've taken flak for my purported rejection of western Enlightenment values, which obviously points to my "supporting Russian aggression", promoting propaganda, "Putin", and so on, when it's my very support of those values (and the rational good of USA) and the harsh consequences for Ukraine which impelled my efforts. I perhaps naively expected better from "the West", especially America, than to lower their high standards and good sense in allowing this war to begin and to escalate--at the foreseeable price paid by the third party, win, lose or draw - the Ukrainians, who ultimately fought on their behalf. My "double standards" maybe. Since the US/NATO/EU-led West is substantially free-er than Russia (and the Ukraine Government), it ought to have acted on its own standards - so - gone to extremes to prevent a senseless war through concessions from all sides. Rather, the "Russian aggression" was presented to "we the public" as a predetermined fait accompli without cause, like a force of Nature, leaving only one thing to do, conquer it at nearly all costs. Many times you heard "unprovoked and unjustified" - when we know by now there was provocation - while justification for the invasion is arguable. Lately, that early mantra has fallen away in favor of "Putin's full-scale invasion", flying against the facts of the minor invasion force. The PR cover-up and face-saving goes on. Cause-effect. Did NATO cause the problems and disingenuously appear to be the solution to the "problems" it created? It sure seems that they expected trouble by building a formidable half-million NATO-specced Ukraine Army over the years since 2014 while half-promising Ukr NATO accession down the line. Did Putin aggress because of these alarming (to Russians) factors (and the festering civil war) - or - because he 'would have', anyhow - because that's what sociopath Despots with global ambitions are "determined" - to do? Going on available evidence, I've answered to these I believe. One upshot to any who care, is that the Western alliance and the US have lost prestige and a measure of respect in the world's eyes, by not engaging diplomatically from the start toward a peaceful outcome - on principle, one non-sacrificial to the Ukrainians. And by - to the West's foes who appreciate brute force and sacrifice - not "winning the war".

Okay OP is clearing o drugs and and no idea whatsoever what he is talking about. Evil nonsense from complete idiots is not supposed to be allowed on this forum. It's supposed to be instantly moderated.