New Buddha

From the Lexicon: Skepticism . I probably heard read that phrase for the first time 30 years ago, lol, and it stuck with me. I had to Google it to find where it was in her writings. These two positions appear to be antagonists, but are, in fact, two variants on the same theme, two sides of the same fraudulent coin: I was questioning whether he can draw a moral and philosophical distinction between Stalin and Hitler. The philosophical root of both Communism/Anarchism and Fascism are to be found in the philosophies of Kant/Hegel. The fact that we teamed up with Stalin to defeat Hitler has nothing to do with the discussion. Objectivism rejects the traditional Left vs. Right Axis - with Communism/Anarchism on the Left and Fascism on the Right - and Founding Fathers/Objectivism falling somewhere in between. Communism/Anarchism/Fascism are philosophically identical.

Comparing Methodists (or, more generally, the ideas of the Dissenting/Nonconformist/Puritan British Protestants that formed the U.S. - and whose ideas influenced Rand) with Jihadists is comparing apples to oranges. The two sides of the conflict that took place in Charlottesville are apples and apples. The philosophical ideas of the Left'ist Antifa and the Right'ist Fascists are both derived from Kant/Hegel. They are, philosophically, "Opposite sides of the same fraudulent coin."

Don, Do you really believe that if you were to pull one of them aside, from each group, that they could provide you with an articulate, well-reasoned statement of their philosophical ideas?

Absolutely. Do you seriously believe that the fools on either side swinging baseball bats at each other are philosophical revolutionaries?

See my post above. They are only "right" in the sense that a broken clock is "right" twice a day.... Neither group has a systemic objective philosophy integrating epistemology, metaphysics, ethics and politics. Absent a systemic objective philosophy, it's ludicrous to validate the ideas and/or actions of either group. They are just ignorant little children lashing out violently. Rand would be disgusted with both of them.

And here is where I'm coming from: Values It is only a [Individual] living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.” Roughly speaking, Locke based his Theory of Natural Rights and Value (and Individualism) on his Protestant religious views while Jefferson derived them largely from his Epicurean ideas viz. the Unalienable Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Rand provided a biological basis for her Theory of Value and Ethical Individualism. Rand's work in Ethics did not invalidate the ideas of either Locke or Jefferson - it expanded upon them. But in order for Rand to validate her Theory of Value (Ethics), she had to develop and integrate it into both Epistemology and Metaphysics. Her monumental work in Epistemology is (largely speaking) the foundation of her Ethics and her Theory of Value. I think that you and I can both agree that Antifa is a far-Left, anti-Capitalist, quasi-Anarchist group. They have no systemic philosophy from which they derive their Values (or, what they have is some pastiche of Hegelian/Marxist/Anarchist nonsense). And the same can be said for Fascists/White Supremacists. Saying that Antifa is "right" in that they are against Fascism is like saying that a broken clock is "right" twice a day. The fact that Antifa and Objectivism both reject Fascism does not make them fellow travelers. If it did, then the Fascist/White Supremisticst would also be "fellow travelers" because they are against the far-Left Antifa. Antifa is on the "Left" and Fascists/White Supremisticst are on the "Right" only in the sense that they are on "Opposite sides of the same fraudulent coin." This is something that few, other than Objectivists, truly understand. By the standards of the Leftist MSM and the far-Left, Objectivists are on the far-Right near the Fascists. This is, of course, not the case.

You are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of Rand's greatest achievement in philosophy - the creation of an objective foundation for ethics. I can hear Rand rolling over in her grave...

Both groups are the opposite side of the same fraudulent coin.

Then why did you even bother making a post? Do some research first and then defend them (if you dare).

Antifa and White Supremacists are, as Rand would put it, "Opposite sides of the same fraudulent coin." If both groups are wrong, then how is it even remotely possible that one can be "marginally" better than the other? For you to think so is to destroy the entire idea that there exists an objective "right" and and objective "wrong." Neither group represents an ethics predicated on Individual Rights in the vein of Locke, Jefferson or Rand. You are playing right into the hands of moral relativism - which is the foundation upon which identity politics rests. Your view is completely indefensible.

Two news articles on the wonderful Governor of Virginia. http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/06/exclusive-virginia-gov-pardons-60000-felons-enough-to-swing-election/ (The Daily Caller has published ARI articles) http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/terry-mcauliffes-latest-scandal-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/article/2592889

I found the following article after I made the above post. It supports exactly what I said. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/347012-centrist-dems-push-back-on-warren Excerpts: Moderate Democrats are pushing back at Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) [Pocahontas, for those who don't keep up with politics] view that progressives have taken control of the party. “We can't win the House back with progressives running in swing states,” said former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a surrogate for 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton who is leading the Fight Back California super PAC aimed at winning back seven House seats in the Golden State. [....] Warren’s remarks at the conference in Atlanta last weekend sparked an instant headline from The New York Times saying she was taking aim at moderates. And while she didn’t mention either of the Clintons by name, the Times wrote: “Ms. Warren sent an unambiguous message that she believes the Clinton effort to push Democrats toward the political center should be relegated to history.”

I'm having trouble believing that someone who claims to be an Objectivist would make such a nonsensical claim that there is a difference between the two. I suppose you also think that Stalin was morally superior to Hitler. Edit: I really cannot believe that you would make such statement. It probably explains why you were attracted to Antifa.

Item 3 is not my position - nor is it in any way a "justification." It is what I believe will be one of the reasons that the Bill will receive bipartisan support. I could, of course, be wrong about that, but my entire post is what I think will happen to the Bill as it moves thru Congress - regardless of what I think of its merits or demerits.

One thing that drives the Dem's bat-shit crazy about Trump is that he keeps setting their agenda for them. By his taking the position that both sides are equally reprehensible and equally responsible for the violence (which is true) he is forcing the Left to defend and champion the Antifa thugs as "victims." The only thing this will serve is to drive even more centrist Democrats and Independents into Trump's camp. This is what happened in the general election last year. He forced the Left to adopt such an extreme level of identity politics that it drove many on the Left and Center away - either they voted for him or they stayed home. It drove Hillary nuts that she couldn't pivot back to the Center in the general election. Hillary is as corrupt as they come, but she is not part of the "far Left" like Bernie or Pocahontas.

Regarding Point Number 4 above, here is something that not many people know about. Remittance . From the link: $133,552,000,000 in remittances was sent from the United States to other countries in 2015.

There are several points to consider when reviewing the proposed RAISE Act: It will probably receive bipartisan support because it depoliticizes immigration by moving to a points-based system. As it works its way through Congressional Committees, BOTH the total number allowed AND who is covered by the Act will almost certainly change i.e. go up. By focusing on numbers, and less so on the move to a points-based system, both "sides" of the issue will be able to claim victory on the compromised final number. This is a standard negotiation ploy in the passing of legislation. Start with a low proposal that allows for an increase in the numbers as the legislation moves thru the process. It's no different than making an initial low-offer on a house, and then meeting somewhere in the middle for the final price. The so-called "protectionist" provisions (which Don alludes to) of limiting low-skilled workers in favor of higher-skilled workers who can demonstrate self-sufficiency is something that Labor Unions, largely supporters of Democrats, would most favor. Most highly skilled workers do not belong to Unions. This is one of the reasons why the Act will probably receive bipartisan support. It's not a coincidence that the RAISE Act was announced at the same time that NAFTA is being renegotiated. It will serve as a tool in the renegotiation process. Here is a pretty good detailed review of the Act. The author of the piece agrees that, in some parts, the number is too low, but that it can be easily changed without altering the overall goal of the proposal. Also, the number will fluctuate over time regardless. https://thefederalist.com/2017/08/03/everything-need-know-raise-act-without-reading/

Lol, good to see that someone on this forum actually understands what's' happening. I thought I was pissing in the wind. An increase in the GDP (and jobs in general) should also have resulted in an increase in wages in Mexico - but, of course, this never happened. The wages are kept artificially low thru currency manipulation by Mexico's Central Bank (at the bidding of foreign owned companies). NAFTA has no provision for sanctioning the devaluation of the Peso. From the article: The other key policy is that Mexico’s government simply let its currency drop. Since NAFTA, the peso has weakened nearly every single year — compounding the advantages on price that Mexico already has over US manufacturers. During 1993 NAFTA hearings, Democratic Representative John LaFalce of New York warned that the treaty had “no mechanism to coordinate monetary policy between the United States and Mexico.” The big fear was that Mexico would weaken its peso for competitive purposes once it joined NAFTA, and the United States would be unable to do anything about it. The Peso Crisis just pre-dated the enactment of NAFTA in 1994, and of course, Mexico swore up-and-down that they would never do it again, lol. NAFTA was originally seen as a way of creating parity in wages among the US, Canada and Mexico. Instead, it's turned into a huge swindle benefiting three key players. 1) The Democrat AND Republican establishment who receive corporate donations to fund their campaigns and line their pockets. Both groups who are, by the way, united against Trump. 2) The oligarchs who own Mexico - since foreign companies must "team up" with local Mexican business owners (and just guess who actually owns those local Mexican business shells....). Funny how many billionaires were created in Mexico under NAFTA. 3) US and other Transnational Corporations who write legislation in the US, Mexico and Canada benefiting themselves. This and other multilateral trade agreements are a race to the bottom....

I'm not stupid Eiuol, and I can back up my position multiple ways. I am wanting you and others to grasp for themselves what is at play here. To ask questions of themselves (as I did) to better understand the level of transnational, corporate crony-capitalism that NAFTA represents. Ask yourself, how is it that the GDP can go thru the roof and yet poverty still remains at over 50% in Mexico? Why have wages fallen in Mexico? Why have many other Latin American countries gotten richer than Mexico over the same time period? Why did a flood of illegal immigration from Mexico occur after NAFTA was enacted? Who and/or what was responsible?

No, I answered it. You just don't understand it. Edit: As I stated in the North Korea post, don't chase the shiny object....

This doesn't' even come close to making sense. Scale has nothing to do with it, lol. The two graphs show that while Mexico's GDP has gone thru the roof under NAFTA, the Peso has fallen thru the floor. Contradictions do not exist. Try and explain, if you can, how this dichotomy between the GDP and the exchange rate came about... Edit: NAFTA started January 1, 1994. Look at the graphs again. Edit 2: The answer lies in the opening statement on the NAFTA renegotiations made by Ambassador Lighthizer.

The Trump Administration effectively backed China into a corner over North Korea - and this was months in the planning. If fighting had broken out against NK - and China stood by and did nothing to prevent it - then leveling retaliatory sanctions against China would have been seen as both palatable and just. It would have exposed them for what they still are - a power-hungry dictatorship willing use puppet regimes like North Korea to advance their economic agenda. Now, to be fair, President Xi Jinping is probably a fairly good person interesting in reforms, but he doesn't necessarily have complete control over the Chinese military or foreign policy. There are still many of the "old guard" in China who are reluctant to cede power -- which is why, after all these years, it is still a brutally repressive regime. For all we know, XI may have planned this with Trump, knowing what the Administration was doing all along. We have tremendous economic power that we can bring to bear against China to achieve peace and stability in SE Asia - if we are willing to use it. Trump's "buy American and hire American" policy terrifies China. So too do the NAFTA renegotiations, since China dump products in Mexico in violation of NAFTA trade agreements (it has to do with the certification of point-of-origin wrt products used in assembly plants in Mexico). China needs us far more than we need them. But Trump's slogan it is largely a bargaining chip. He has no interest in isolationism or protectionist trade policies. As with all thing Trump, you have to read between the lines. Everything is a negotiation tool with him. If you are chasing the shiny object, then you are doing exactly what he wants you to do.

I posted this last Saturday. It was an announced on Friday that a review of trade violations against China would (and did) start on (this last) Monday. Here is a link to the Friday news story about the trade investigations. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/11/trumps-china-trade-crackdown-coming-monday-241558 On Monday, North Korea announced that maybe they won't be launching missiles at Guam after all . Remember, citizens born on Guam are US citizens - launching missiles at Guam is no different than launching missiles at Hawaii or Los Angeles (or Portland, OR). It was not just a coincidence that NOKO's announcement just happened to occur three days after the trade sanction investigations against China were announced. It also has to be remembered that, last April, when Trump launched the 59 Tomahawk missiles at the Syrian airbase (after Syria used chemical weapons) the Chinese President Xi Jinping learned about the attack over dinner at Mara Lago, where he was dining with Trump. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/10/syria-strikes-were-aimed-at-china-control-risks.html For those of you on this forum too young to remember Reagan (I was 13 when he was inaugurated), the Left was pissing themselves over the belief that "Mad Ronnie" was going to start a war with the Soviet Union. The Soviets also believed it. He stood up to them and eventually the Soviet Union collapsed. After 8 years of Obama's "strategic patience" which allowed NOKO to develop nuclear weapons and will soon result in Iran having them as well, it's good to see that we finally have a President who understands how to use "strategic impatience."

Am I supposed to be impressed by your wit? You have stated a position that you are completely unable to back up. I'd be embarrassed to do so.

Explain what you think his position on NAFTA is, if you can. And I notice that you failed to provide answers to my two questions. If you know his position is wrong, then provide answers. Edit: I'll even give you a hand since I doubt you even know what the issues are. Two images. The first is Mexico's GDP. The second is the exchange rate of the Peso against the Dollar.