Nicky

Such as the idea that all people possess the same inalienable rights? Not just Americans, ALL PEOPLE? Will you be spreading that idea on your youtube channel?

I'm not sure what that sentence means. I hope it's not an attempt to speak for Ayn Rand. If it is, all I can say is, read the quote again. She was against initiation of force to keep economic migrants out of the country. Makes absolutely no difference how "strict" or "loose" the initiation of force is. That's not true. On the surface, immigration laws introduced in the 1920s were racist, giving preferential treatment to Western Europeans, sure. ON THE SURFACE, they banned all Asians, and severely limited Eastern Europeans like Ayn Rand. That is why Rand herself emigrated to the US illegally (using the same method most illegal immigrants use today: she came in on a visitor/tourist visa, and never left). However, that's not the full story. That was only the 100% legal immigration side of things. However, unlike today, illegal immigrants like Miss Rand weren't rounded up, imprisoned, and eventually shipped back to the misery they left behind. Instead, they had a path to citizenship. That's why, by 1932, she was a US citizen. More importantly, they weren't prevented from gaining lawful employment, like they are today. That's why Miss Rand was able to build a life for herself, after she arrived in the US, instead of being reduced to a serf in the black market economy, the way many immigrants are today.

A lie is intentional. Is this going somewhere?

Google should be able to help you with that.

What does that have to do with anything?

Think of it this way: if you knew someone who not only lies to you, but openly admits that he thinks lying to you is a good idea...would you say that person has a "Skylark1 First!" policy? Would you say he holds you in high esteem, and has your best interest at heart?

Because he considers lying a virtue.

That is precisely what socialism stands for: restrictions on economic freedom, for the purpose of compensating for the purported inherent unfairness of unrestricted trade.

Not per se. Neither does Bernie Sanders. The both agree on the morality and fundamental assumptions of Marxism (*), but neither agrees with Marx' idea of the perfect society. The modern Left replaced the Marxist ideal of a society where all wealth is confiscated and placed under the control of the collective, and private business activity is banned, with a more pragmatic scheme involving the partial redistribution of income and wealth, and limits on trade and business activity...towards the same goal of resolving inequality and purported class conflict in a free economy. And yes, Trump believes in wealth redistribution and limits on trade, on a massive scale. The difference between Trump's tax plan and Sanders' is minuscule, compared to the difference between Trump's tax plan and the Objectivist stance against any forced taxation or any other form of wealth redistribution. As for the difference between Trump's and Sanders' plans to limit trade, there isn't one. They both made rejecting free trade a central pillar of their campaigns. (*) there is a permanent asterisk over any statement concerning Trump's beliefs: he claims to believe in these things, and acts as if he does, but we can never know what he believes for sure, because he is a habitual liar and a man without strong convictions of any kind.

You are deliberately equivocating on the term "invasion", to misrepresent Ayn Rand's views on the proper role of government. You're welcome to be a nationalist and a racist. But, please, don't lie about Ayn Rand agreeing with you. Here's Rand's position on the issue, as stated in a 1973 Q&A: She was asked: “What is your attitude toward immigration? Doesn’t open immigration have a negative effect on a country’s standard of living?” This is her answer: You don’t know my conception of self-interest. No one has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force, which is what you’re suggesting. You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living — which isn’t true, though if it were true, you’d still have no right to close the borders. You’re not entitled to any “self-interest” that injures others, especially when you can’t prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can’t claim that anything others may do — for example, simply through competition — is against your self-interest. But above all, aren’t you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn’t be alive today if our borders had been closed?

No single entity rules the US. Most politicians are on the Left (mainstream Republicans, all Democracts, most independents), some on the Right ( the fiscally conservative, sometimes libertarian, usually pro-Constitution faction of the Republican party), and there are even a few Republicans who are so focused on religion that they can only be classified as medieval (before there was such a thing as Left/Right). As for the current President, he's too big a liar to know what he actually believes in, but his actions put him mostly on the Left. He was mostly a Democratic donor before he decided to run as a Republican, he supports all the major entitlement programs, including socialized health care, he is also a protectionist, he is by far the most outspoken adversary of the First Amendment, etc. etc. Luckily, Trump doesn't "rule" anything. Not even the house he lives in, as evidenced by the fact that everything he says and does is in the headlines the next day.

I didn't insinuate anything. In general, you don't need to try and read between the lines of my posts. I'm gonna tell you what I think directly. You can count on that much. And, since you asked, here's my impression of you, based on this brief exchange: you're not a Capitalist, you're a right wing nationalist. I base that on two things: 1. You called me a "leftist". Only Americans who ever call me a leftist are entrenched right wing nationalists. No one else ever does that, because I'm so obviously not a leftist. Conversely, the only Americans who call me a "right winger" are entrenched leftists. That's because both these groups are indoctrinated into this cult-like belief that there can be only two political ideologies: theirs and the enemy's. And anyone who disagrees with even the tiniest portion of their ideology must belong with the enemy. 2. You're trying to distinguish between hating a "race" (an invalid concept in itself, biological race is an antiquated way of classifying people) and hating people from a geographic area like Latin America or the Middle East. That's a big clue. No individualist would ever feel the need to do that. It's part of the alt right's arsenal of what I like to call the "I'm not touching you" tactics...because they remind me of that thing kids do to annoy each other, where they hold their finger really close to someone's face, and chant "I'm not touching you". As if that somehow makes it okay.

Oh, okay. So your argument is that hating Latinos isn't a form of racism, because they're not technically a race. What about hating blacks? Is that racism? Or does a Klansman need to know the local African terms for various African ethnic groups, before he can be accused of racism?

I bet that's taken wildly out of context...to the point where it's a lie. If I had to guess, the context was the Arab Israeli conflict? And she called the people attacking Israel "savages", for committing an act of aggression. Not exactly the same as a populist nationalist, catering to the base desire of white supremacists in the US to keep Mexicans out, now is it? If being rich makes one a capitalist, does that mean you would've voted for George Soros, if he ran against Trump? Soros is worth about 10 times more than Trump.

You called Colorado a "lost cause" because they voted against Donald Trump. Donald Trump routinely says things that suggest he might be sympathetic to white supremacy. A lot of people in American public life label him that (or use similar terms to describe him) because of it. He also had a platform that aimed to keep Latin Americans out of the US, and has used racist language to describe them during the campaign. Meanwhile, I've never heard him say anything that suggests he might be a capitalist, or even knows what that is. I've also never heard any prominent Americans call him a capitalist. So Coloradoans being opposed to white supremacy (and various other forms of racial and religious intolerance) is a far more likely reason why they voted against Trump. I really thought one sentence would've been enough to convey all that. I'm not exactly breaking new ground here.

It's a lost cause to white supremacists, I guess.

For those who might read the thread later, I'm posting this thread shortly after the Vegas mass shooting in October, 2017. Every media analyst in the western world is searching for the shooter's "motives", and looking for them everywhere, except on their own news channels, and the front page of their own news sites or papers. That's your motive: the world's attention is focused on this dull, unimportant idiot who could've never commanded attention any other way except through the most unimaginative, copycat act of murder in the history of crime. Sorry to the victims, it's a tragedy for them and their friends and families, but, as far as everyone else is concerned, nothing notable happened in Vegas. Some people were killed by some moron. No special achievement, no special misfortune in the overall scheme of things. Just some personal tragedies. They happen. To everybody, eventually. And covering it as if it's the most important event in the world, for the next week, will benefit no one. Especially not the victims, or the victims of future copycats. If it was at least interesting, like Ted Bundy going on a seduction/torture/murder/necrophilia spree, or Charlie Manson and his exploits, then there would be some reason for the coverage. It would still be despicably exploitative, but it would be a reason: it would be telling the audience something they've never heard of before. There's no reason for covering these mass shootings to this extent. They're not interesting, they're not even frightening (at least not to anyone with an ability to evaluate the danger rationally), it's just the same coverage, every single time some loser does the same exact thing (knowing that that's what it takes to get into the headlines).

Not what you're asking (I can't really answer your actual question), but, just in case there's any confusion about this: Objectivism is opposed to regulation, but it is in favor of contract enforcement and the protection of individual rights in general. More importantly, it is in favor of a market ruled by objective laws. This market, like all black markets, doesn't just lack regulation, it also lacks the other things (for the most part...I guess off shore jurisdictions can in theory provide them...they just don't always do so reliably). Black markets are also under threat from powerful nation states, so they tend to attract unscrupulous, incompetent, and even violent participants. So black markets are not capitalist, free markets. They are not the kind of markets Objectivism, or most free market advocates, call for. Far from it. That's probably why you don't see notable Objectivists try and defend them. P.S. The shadow banking system also serves to hide the wealth of dictators, corrupt politicians and oligarchs, and organized crime syndicates. In fact, it probably caters more to that category of clients than the western private sector.

Paul Ryan makes another principled stand: “ “The speaker does not agree with the decision. Law-enforcement officials have a special responsibility to respect the rights of everyone in the United States. We should not allow anyone to believe that responsibility is diminished by this pardon.” ...statement released by his office, on the subject of Trump pardoning Joe Arpaio (a pardon Trump, cowardly, issued as a hurricane was descending on Texas).

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

A pretext to do what?

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

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

Are you claiming that George Soros is a former Nazi? You understand that he's an ethnic Jew, right? Or that he was born in 1930, which would make him 15 when WW2 ended?

It terrifies everyone with half a brain, not just China.