Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Nicky said:

This is actually one of the disagreements we had in our conversation about Brexit: you claimed that the EU is less democratic than Britain, I pointed out that it's not. Britons don't get to choose who governs them directly either.

I guess my point didn't stick, you still think Boris Johnson can't govern you without voting for him directly. Guess what: he can. The British government isn't elected directly. This is how British democracy works: governments are appointed by the legislature, based on what they think the wishes of the people are.

So you DID vote for him, and he IS governing you. In fact, he holds one of the most important positions in the British government: he's the Foreign Secretary. His decisions in the next two years will determine the future of Britain for a long, long time to come.

You don't know what I think, and your presumptions are what takes you off track in these exchanges.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I was going to vote for Trump to keep Hillary out but that was months ago.  I can't do that now.  I know now what Nicky has known all along.  He's a disaster in the making if he's elected.  Vote for J

I'm not "for Trump" at all but his opponent should be in prison for her crimes. Instead she will be elected President. lol Wouldn't the Founding Fathers be proud if they were alive to see today's clus

Let's not get caught up in all the non-essential questions regarding which candidate is more evil. Have we honestly not settled on the fact that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are ridiculous cl

Posted Images

34 minutes ago, Jon Southall said:

I voted to leave the EU. There was no aspect of this that involved voting for UKIP or Johnson. Do you understand what a referendum is?

I do. But you clearly don't. You didn't vote to leave the EU. You voted to replace the government. As evidenced by the fact that you're still in the EU, and the government has been replaced.

You see, Britain is not a direct democracy. The British people don't get to make decisions directly. Instead, their representatives choose a government, which then makes the decisions.

This is how it worked this time, as well. The referendum was about David Cameron. He's the one who initiated it, in an effort to consolidate his power. When he failed, he resigned and was replaced by Theresa May and Boris Johnson. Who now have a choice (that they, apparently, are still mulling over): leave the EU, or ignore the wishes of the people and just stay in it. They can do either. Neither option would be illegal. It is entirely within their right to make this decision, not in the British public's.

You didn't make the decision by voting in the referendum, you put the people in place to make the decision, because you figured they'd make the decision you prefer. The decision is yet to be made, but, don't worry, unless something big happens in the next few months, it's going to be the decision you wanted. May and Johnson are way too hungry for power to commit political suicide by making the smart decision and staying in the EU.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Jon Southall said:

You don't know what I think, and your presumptions are what takes you off track in these exchanges.

The reason why I don't know what you think is because you're failing to explain yourself, and clear up this very, very obvious contradiction: you're OK with voting to give power to Boris Johnson, but you're not OK with voting to give power to Hillary Clinton.

And sorry, but denying that your vote gave power to Boris Johnson is not gonna work. He didn't magically get power after the vote. There's a pretty obvious correlation. You also can't pretend you didn't know he's going to get this power, because I remember telling you he will, long before Brexit.

Not because I'm some kind of clairvoyant: everybody knew that Boris Johnson would become powerful if he wins the referendum...that's the only reason why he got involved with it in the first place. Boris Johnson and Hillary Clinton are motivated by the same exact thing (hunger for power), and you chose to give power to one, because you thought that will accomplish a narrow goal you had (leave the EU), but you have some kind of convoluted moral argument against doing the same with Clinton.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

I can figure out the lesser of two evils, but I don't want either. Evil goes against my life, why vote for something that goes against our standard of value (assuming we are Objectivists) when we don't have to? We should be opposing both, not each other over which to support!

Admittedly it's hard to make a case for voting for Trump or Clinton. These two are so bad, it's like being asked which limb your torturer should amputate: an arm or a leg? Will you state your preference, or will you remain silent, because either option is evil and goes against your values? There is no moral choice in such situations. There is only your personal preference. And crying out that you oppose both options will do no good. That is a given.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Admittedly it's hard to make a case for voting for Trump or Clinton. These two are so bad, it's like being asked which limb your torturer should amputate: an arm or a leg? Will you state your preference, or will you remain silent, because either option is evil and goes against your values? There is no moral choice in such situations. There is only your personal preference. And crying out that you oppose both options will do no good. That is a given.

Well, I am certainly not advocating we beg for an impossible alternative.

However a movement starts by people saying no to what there is, and presenting an alternative, which captures the minds and hearts of people. That political movement can then grow and in time establish itself as a plausible alternative. When enough people want that alternative and support it, it will succeed. No such movement will ever exist if we support either side of the political status quo.

There are the crazy claims this is unrealistic, that we will NEVER move away from a Democrat vs Republican system in the US. Crazy because the fact is, American people can change their minds and opt for something else, if they want it enough.

The crazy thing is not to change one's mind, the crazy thing is to accept that the political system is something that is done to them, that all they simply face is a choice of what poison to take, and try to rationalise that choosing one set of ill effects is preferable over another.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nicky said:

I do. But you clearly don't. You didn't vote to leave the EU. You voted to replace the government. As evidenced by the fact that you're still in the EU, and the government has been replaced.

No, I voted to leave the EU. The government was replaced so that what I voted for can (hopefully) be delivered over the next couple of years. The Conservatives decisions about how to do that was at no time under my control or determination.

How are representatives able to form a government? By winning majority support of the electorate they are representing. Government positions are filled by MPs who have been elected democratically, and they are who steer policy making and legislation, unlike in the EU. I consider the UK system to be more democratic for that reason (and more).

I really don't know why you love the EU so much. Do you really love the idea of the Common Agricultural Policy, of transferring massive contributions from the richer nations to the poorer nations to help equalise them, of terrible border controls, attempts for the Tobin tax, do you love the socialistic aims of the EU? What is it that you want to champion about it?

What I value about the EU is working collaboratively and trading, which we can do without membership.

Despite all this talk of tough negotiations from France and Germany, this is a big, expensive gamble. We import a lot more than we export to the EU, so any trade tariffs will be mutually applied and overall this will profit the UK and harm EU businesses. They will be cutting off their noses so-to-speak. It is all political, they don't want the UK to lead to the failure of the EU project. Longer term, as we establish better deals with other nations, especially "commonwealth" nations, the EU will have to do business with us on better terms, it will do so.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nicky said:

The reason why I don't know what you think is because you're failing to explain yourself, and clear up this very, very obvious contradiction: you're OK with voting to give power to Boris Johnson, but you're not OK with voting to give power to Hillary Clinton.

I don't know how to explain it to you. If you can't see the differences between voting on membership and voting for a particular party and leader, this exchange is pointless. It is also a smokescreen to move the discussion away from the real point, which is there can be no necessity for voting for an outcome that is self-sacrificial.

Your obvious correlation must be a joke. There was no causal necessity that voting to leave the EU would result in what it has done so far. 

What this all comes down to is one thing. You like Clinton. You want to defend Clinton and rationalise your support of Clinton. You don't want to question the rationality of your own poor judgment, so it is easier to invent claims and present false cases.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Jon Southall said:

No, I voted to leave the EU.

You thought you did, because you don't understand your country's political system. But now that I explained it to you, you really should stop repeating that falsehood.

What you voted for is to replace David Cameron's cabinet. Both these facts were reported in the news:

1. a "Leave" vote doesn't automatically trigger Brexit, only the government can do that. And Brexit is yet to be triggered.

2. a "Leave" vote would result in Cameron's resignation, and a new cabinet.

It was also pretty clear that Boris Johnson would be a part of that new cabinet.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Jon Southall said:

Do you really love the idea of the Common Agricultural Policy

Yes, of course. The CAP is the mechanism by which European leaders seek to limit agricultural subsidies. Short of simply banning subsidies (which isn't politically feasible, because no member nation, not even Britain, would agree to that), that is the only way to preserve a free trade zone.

If member states were allowed to create their own agricultural subsidies, there would be huge political incentive for ever increasing subsidies, in an attempt to give their home producers an advantage in the market, making free trade essentially meaningless.

This, by the way, is also the reason why Britain, if it wants to keep free trade with the EU, will continue to have its subsidy policies controlled by whatever treaty rules they agree to...same as before, except, this time, less favorable to Britain.

.

55 minutes ago, Jon Southall said:

of transferring massive contributions from the richer nations to the poorer nations to help equalise them

Now you're just spreading chauvinistic disinformation. Less than 0.1% of EU GDP is spent on what the EU calls "underdeveloped regions". Britain redistributes at least a hundred times more British taxpayer money than the EU. To pick that relatively minuscule redistribution scheme to break up the EU over, and continue with your own, at least a hundred times bigger redistribution scheme, is the height of hypocrisy.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

No such movement will ever exist if we support either side of the political status quo.

Movements don't begin because people refuse to vote for the status quo. Movements begin because someone has an idea and promotes it, and then others like the idea. It may be in response to a perceived problem. But it's not because people vote or not. Sorry, but nobody cares about people who don't vote. It's inaction, and it doesn't matter. Just because I'm voting, that doesn't mean I support the status quo and won't speak out against it. I will. All my vote means is that I'm choosing a president.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/10/2016 at 9:15 PM, MisterSwig said:

Movements don't begin because people refuse to vote for the status quo. Movements begin because someone has an idea and promotes it, and then others like the idea. It may be in response to a perceived problem. But it's not because people vote or not. Sorry, but nobody cares about people who don't vote. It's inaction, and it doesn't matter. Just because I'm voting, that doesn't mean I support the status quo and won't speak out against it. I will. All my vote means is that I'm choosing a president.

For a political movement to win power it must get votes. This isn't about not voting as a principle, it is about only voting for something that is worth it. 

In choosing Trump or Clinton people are defeating themselves. People can try to rationalise it but the fact is these aren't the two best people in America to be president.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/10/2016 at 6:20 PM, Nicky said:

Yes, of course. The CAP is the mechanism by which European leaders seek to limit agricultural subsidies. Short of simply banning subsidies (which isn't politically feasible, because no member nation, not even Britain, would agree to that), that is the only way to preserve a free trade zone.

If member states were allowed to create their own agricultural subsidies, there would be huge political incentive for ever increasing subsidies, in an attempt to give their home producers an advantage in the market, making free trade essentially meaningless.

This, by the way, is also the reason why Britain, if it wants to keep free trade with the EU, will continue to have its subsidy policies controlled by whatever treaty rules they agree to...same as before, except, this time, less favorable to Britain.

.

Now you're just spreading chauvinistic disinformation. Less than 0.1% of EU GDP is spent on what the EU calls "underdeveloped regions". Britain redistributes at least a hundred times more British taxpayer money than the EU. To pick that relatively minuscule redistribution scheme to break up the EU over, and continue with your own, at least a hundred times bigger redistribution scheme, is the height of hypocrisy.

You are a politician!

How interesting. But a waste of my time to correct all your misinformation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Jon Southall said:

You are a politician!

How interesting. But a waste of my time to correct all your misinformation.

Of course it is. You have all the time in the world for cheap rationalizations for supporting the populist right, but once it's time to deal in facts, you're suddenly out of time. Off to go do something important, like watching Jill Stein videos on youtube, I guess.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need to justify what I do with my time - but yes it's a better use of my time to watch Jill Stein videos on YT than correcting all your misinformation.

We don't like each other, we rarely if ever agree on anything, and quite frankly, the only value in exchanging thoughts with you is entertainment value. 

To your credit, at least your misinformation is inventive. I've never heard a €40bn subsidy system like CAP defended and described as pro free market before, just to try to save your silly position of love for the EU.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

I don't need to justify what I do with my time - but yes it's a better use of my time to watch Jill Stein videos on YT than correcting all your misinformation.

It's not about correcting "my misinformation". So far, all you've done is parrot Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage's propaganda on the EU...which I've taken apart point by point.

Instead of moving on to the next demagogue to parrot in Jill Stein, maybe you should try and demonstrate some kind of ability to think for yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm voting for Trump because at a minimum his election could be [perhaps should be] interpreted as a philosophically-symbolic rejection of leftist ideology and a wholesale rejection of the status quo. Sure, DJT is far from being an Objectivist hero and much of what he says is worthy of venomous criticism... it's also true that many who will vote for him are not concerned with philosophy and are simply seduced by his populist rhetoric... but there exists among Objectivists, Conservatives, Libertarians - even some disillusioned Liberals - a shared frustration with the Regressive-Liberal domination of American politics and American culture... as a result they share a perfectly rational desire to rebel against it.

If ideas really do matter, a political movement that at least pays lip service to the ideas of liberty and capitalism - the idea of American exceptionalism - is preferable to a political movement that openly rejects these ideas completely. The shamelessly collectivist left has been scoring gains upon gains for a long time now - they are more emboldened than ever - and I'm convinced it is in my best interests... dare I say our best interests... to serve them a cold cup of shut-the-f**k-up, even if they do just spit it up all over their bibs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GaltRight said:

If ideas really do matter, a political movement that at least pays lip service to the ideas of liberty and capitalism - the idea of American exceptionalism - is preferable to a political movement that openly rejects these ideas completely.

But Trump doesn't do even that. He pays lip service to autoritarianism, that is, he still fails to pay any lip service to liberty. What pro-liberty words has he even said?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

But Trump doesn't do even that. He pays lip service to autoritarianism, that is, he still fails to pay any lip service to liberty. What pro-liberty words has he even said?

I'll point to the most obvious thing - his campaign slogan.  As hollow as "Make America Great Again" might be - there's no denying that it's an intrinsically Pro-American statement, especially if contrasted with the Left's mantra that America was never great to begin with. But look, I'm not prepared or inclined to prop up DJT as the second coming of Thomas Jefferson... so my lip service argument would be more appropriately put in the context of Left vs Right in general. The Right endorses capitalism and Western values but often fails to follow up these endorsements with any meaningful action. The Left on the other hand has a nihilistic obsession with tearing down capitalism and Western culture in the name of social justice, and that agenda is consistently reflected in both their words and their actions. Let's not forget these are the same people who actually considered nominating an avowed socialist to represent the Democratic party on the national stage. HRC's election would symbolize a continued acceptance, or at best a disgusting level of complacency, with this dominant ideology whereas DJT's election would properly symbolize a resistance to it. Say what you want about Trump - and rest assured, there is plenty to say - but his campaign is a 500-HP Anti-PC/Pro-West vehicle on mud tires with a yuuuge American flag sticker on the back window, and if The People actually put that guy in the White House, it tells me there is still hope for America the idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GaltRight said:

I'll point to the most obvious thing - his campaign slogan.  As hollow as "Make America Great Again" might be - there's no denying that it's an intrinsically Pro-American statement

Democratic Socialist, not the same kind as a "Socialist" specifically.

Trump isn't even part of the right, only in name. I'm asking for literally any phrase Trump said that is pro-liberty or pro-capitalist. "Make America Great Again" is ambiguous - great at what? It could be just a way to say "America, protectionist corporate welfare state!" I'd like an unambigous pro-capitalist phrase.

Don't conflate "Pro-American" with "Pro-Capitalist". Trump does -not- envision America as capitalist. His great America is decidedly anti-liberty. He's also too concrete bound to know what America the idea even is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...