thepipesmoker

Animals don't have rights. Only humans do.

Sure he ain't perfect, but who cares. I don't demand perfection for my enteritainment. Any man who can be so hated by the left and pisses them off to such a extreme is fine by me.

Fact is I'm fine with Rush. Most of the moderates I know in the GOP are anti-free trade not pro free trade so the hell with them. The lose of Colin Powell and others that he is describing doesn't bother me a bit. Powell is a extreme disappointment and changes his mind do to fear that he won't be invited to Georgetown cocktail parties anymore. Any man who can look at Obama and support him isn't worth a damn to me. The fact is Obama hates the Constitution, hates Capitalism, wants to make a larger slave class by making even more people dependent upon the government, and the only chance to stop him is if McCain wins. I hate McCain I think the man is a moron, but reality shows that he isn't going to hurt us worse then Obama will. I'm supporting McCain, after the election I'll fight against him. Fact is though Obama is a million times worse. All the GOP "moderates" who are voting for Obama, and is supporting him doesn't belong in the GOP. The hell with you leave! Support the biggest socialist quais Marxist that has been up fort he Presidency since FDR. I'll take the guy who acts like Eisenhower instead of the guy further to the left then FDR. So for all of those moderates supporting Obama please leave the GOP never come back, and don't cry to me when your life becomes harder because of the policies Obama brings to the nation.

I have a dirty little secret I LOVE Rush Limbaugh! I was wondering what the rest of you thought of him? The way he pisses off alot of the leftist around the world just makes me smile, and love this guy! What do the rest of you think of Maha Rushie?

So no one else has anything to say on this matter?

Thanks Grames! Although a lawyers argument isn't exactly what I had in mind. I don't like the idea that Capitalism is being killed by some South Korean intellectual though. Their has to be something false in his reasoning. Or outright wrong in his overall conclusions beyond post hoc, ergo prompter hoc.

What is the best way to deal with this new Protectionism and the ideals of this idiot? I'm seeing more and more leftist grabbing onto his ideals and throwing them in my face. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business...ill-458396.html I have a six-year-old son. His name is Jin-Gyu. He lives off me, yet he is quite capable of making a living. After all, millions of children of his age already have jobs in poor countries. Jin-Gyu needs to be exposed to competition if he is to become a more productive person. Thinking about it, the more competition he is exposed to and the sooner this is done, the better it is for his future development. I should make him quit school and get a job. I can hear you say I must be mad. Myopic. Cruel. If I drive Jin-Gyu into the labour market now, you point out, he may become a savvy shoeshine boy or a prosperous street hawker, but he will never become a brain surgeon or a nuclear physicist. You argue that, even from a purely materialistic viewpoint, I would be wiser to invest in his education and share the returns later than gloat over the money I save by not sending him to school. Yet this absurd line of argument is in essence how free-trade economists justify rapid, large-scale trade liberalisation in developing countries. They claim that developing country producers need to be exposed to maximum competition, so that they have maximum incentive to raise productivity. The earlier the exposure, the argument goes, the better it is for economic development. However, just as children need to be nurtured before they can compete in high-productivity jobs, industries in developing countries should be sheltered from superior foreign producers before they "grow up". They need to be given protection, subsidies, and other help while they master advanced technologies and build effective organisations. This argument is known as the infant industry argument. What is little known is that it was first theorised by none other than the first finance minister (treasury secretary) of the United States - Alexander Hamilton, whose portrait adorns the $10 bill. Initially few Americans were convinced by Hamilton's argument. After all, Adam Smith, the father of economics, had already advised Americans against artificially developing manufacturing industries. However, over time people saw sense in Hamilton's argument, and the US shifted to protectionism after the Anglo-American War of 1812. By the 1830s, its industrial tariff rate, at 40-50 per cent, was the highest in the world, and remained so until the Second World War. The US may have invented the theory of infant industry protection, but the practice had existed long before. The first big success story was, surprisingly, Britain - the supposed birthplace of free trade. In fact, Hamilton's programme was in many ways a copy of Robert Walpole's enormously successful 1721 industrial development programme, based on high (among world's highest) tariffs and subsidies, which had propelled Britain into its economic supremacy. Britain and the US may have been the most ardent - and most successful - users of tariffs, but most of today's rich countries deployed tariff protection for extended periods in order to promote their infant industries. Many of them also actively used government subsidies and public enterprises to promote new industries. Japan and many European countries have given numerous subsidies to strategic industries. The US has publicly financed the highest share of research and development in the world. Singapore, despite its free-market image, has one of the largest public enterprise sectors in the world, producing around 30 per cent of the national income. Public enterprises were also crucial in France, Finland, Austria, Norway, and Taiwan. When they needed to protect their nascent producers, most of today's rich countries restricted foreign investment. In the 19th century, the US strictly regulated foreign investment in banking, shipping, mining, and logging. Japan and Korea severely restricted foreign investment in manufacturing. Between the 1930s and the 1980s, Finland officially classified all firms with more than 20 per cent foreign ownership as "dangerous enterprises". While (exceptionally) practising free trade, the Netherlands and Switzerland refused to protect patents until the early 20th century. In the 19th century, most countries, including Britain, France, and the US, explicitly allowed patenting of imported inventions. The US refused to protect foreigners' copyrights until 1891. Germany mass-produced counterfeit "made in England" goods in the 19th century. Despite this history, since the 1980s the "Bad Samaritan" rich countries have imposed upon developing countries policies that are almost the exact opposite of what they used in the past. But these countries condemning tariffs, subsidies, public enterprises, regulation of foreign investment, and permissive intellectual property rights is like them "kicking away the ladder" with which they climbed to the top - often against the advice of the then richer countries. But, the reader may wonder, didn't the developing countries already try protectionism and miserably fail? That is a common myth, but the truth of the matter is that these countries have grown significantly more slowly in the "brave new world" of neo-liberal policies, compared with the "bad old days" of protectionism and regulation in the 1960s and the 1970s (see table). And that's despite the dramatic growth acceleration in the two giants, China and India, which have partially liberalised their economies but refuse to fully embrace neo-liberalism. Growth has failed particularly badly in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, where neo-liberal reforms have been implemented most thoroughly. In the "bad old days", per capita income in Latin America grew at an impressive 3.1 per cent per year. In the "brave new world", it has been growing at a paltry 0.5 per cent. In sub-Saharan Africa, per capita income grew at 1.6 per cent a year during 1960-80, but since then the region has seen a fall in living standards (by 0.3 per cent a year). Both the history of rich countries and the recent records of developing countries point to the same conclusion. Economic development requires tariffs, regulation of foreign investment, permissive intellectual property laws, and other policies that help their producers accumulate productive capabilities. Given this, the international economic playing field should be tilted in favour of the poorer countries by giving them greater freedom to use these policies. Tilting the playing field is not just a matter of fairness. It is about helping the developing countries to grow faster. Because faster growth in developing countries means more trade and investment opportunities, it is also in the self-interest of the rich countries. The author teaches economics at the University of Cambridge. The article is based on his book Bad Samaritans - Rich Nations, Poor Policies, and the Threat to the Developing World (Random House).

I disagree with the general idea that many of you are making. I don't see it as a "waste of time" to argue with morons like this especially on places like youtube where people are reading about our ideas perhaps for the first time. Regular people are reading your comments as well as the stupid socialist idiots. We aren't trying to change the minds of socialist where about getting our ideas to the people in multiple different ways. Let the morons responses show through and show how ideas or best. I'm so tired of hearing fellow capitalist say "its a waste of time to debate our ideas against people who don't agree with us". It's not about changing the minds of those people its about putting our ideas forth to be seen by people who are simply reading the debate in general. You are changing minds of people who are reading what you are writing because you are correct! People will see how stupid this moron is, and your well written point of view will shine through as the truth. Don't be a coward like other capitalist. You are doing the exact right thing, Fight these morons get our ideas out there. Don't forget that people are READING your views and are making their minds up based on it.

Isn't it amazing that truth is now considered "propaganda"? Its usually called "right wing propaganda" now adays.

For the record I am not a Behavioroligst (in fact the implications of the idea scares the crap out me lol) but they would respond that you can't prove that man has consciousness. As I have read in the past (and I'm paraphrasing not directly quoting) "The idea of the mind, the self, man's consciousness, free will, and certain aspects of "reasoning" or left overs from Mysticism. One can not show nor prove that a man has any of them. It cannot be recorded, or measured by any known scientific measure. Therefor the idea of the mind, is the same as the idea of the soul. And since you can not prove a negative there is no purpose for having such mystic ideas in the science of Psychology. Either that or we should abandon Psychology, the same way the chemist abandoned the alchemist, and the biologist abandoned the magician."

Hello everyone and nice to meet you all. Although I myself am not a Objectivist I am very interested in the movements ideas. That said though I want this discussion to be the topic at hand and not about me. What is the Objectivist opinion of (and answers) to Behaviorology? For those who don't know what Behaviorology is it is also sometimes known as Scientific Psychology, Radical Behaviorism, and behavior analysis. It is field that is growing out of the ideas of B.F. Skinner and others. Plainly stated it is the adoption of a pure Natural Science perspective in the study of human beings and humanity. Of the ideas that they reject (which they call left overs from Mysticism) is that there is no such thing as the mind, the self, the psyche, and even free will (among other things). Instead as the son of one of the former big wigs of the movement has described humans are little more then machines (biological of course) who simply are conditioned through our environment to react to certain setting in a certain way. What philosophers call the mind does not exist instead we react to our surroundings based off of data recorder in our brain. We as humans do make choices we act how we have previously been programed through our environment to act. Or in other words man doesn't decide anything. He reacts he doesn't think. He reacts he doesn't choose. The state of his brain is constantly altered by the environment and we have no choice in that regard. Man does not choose because we are preprogrammed to make decisions based off of the environment. All of mans "ills" can be altered once we learn more about how to control the way his body reacts and functions. He will have no choice because remember man doesn't have free will and cannot choose. We only react. Know granted I am not a Behaviorologist so I can only tell you what I know about it in laymans terms, but I will state what I do know about the ideas it holds. Now I was wondering what you all think of the idea, and what affect it will have on us all if eventually it is wildly accepted.