Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
MisterSwig

Trump, the Anti-Socialist

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Bottom line, the OP was about supporting his bid to be a champion of Capitalism against Socialism.

Depends which democratic candidate we compare him to and what kind of Capitalism you are talking about.

Yes, I think that Trump is more in line with Adam Smith's brand of capitalism than Ayn Rand's. And he's more in line with the Founders' brand of individual rights than Rand's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Several issues have been mentioned, not just Hong Kong.

It is clear that he does not value individual rights, his Howard Stern interview before he was elected, his pro evangelical positions, his behavior both with Saudi Arabia and Hong Kong adequately demonstrate an absence of valuing individual rights. 

Admittedly we can't know precisely (and for how long) what he thinks, but 

  • The only thing we can be sure about his thinking is that getting reelected is the most important thing in the world.
  • If the polls supported return of Slavery, he probably would support it (assuming none of his family and friends would become slaves).
  • One can predict more immature behavior on his part. 
  • He believes he is the great victim, never acknowledging his behavior has created predictable backlash.
  • He is not committed to protecting us from socialism, in fact if the polls support socialism, he will support socialism to get elected.

Bottom line, the OP was about supporting his bid to be a champion of Capitalism against Socialism.

Depends which democratic candidate we compare him to and what kind of Capitalism you are talking about.

Protecting foreigners individual rights, support Slavery (ha!), great victim, backlash, will support socialism to get elected ...

This grants Trump not a single principle or recent achievement. Whether you agree or not with his goals and methods, he is obviously genuine about the wholesale, productive success and stability of the USA. That's his "principle". And, naturally, he thinks staying in Office would give that a better chance of success. Last figures, his Black demographic support is up to an unprecedented 35%, they must know something you don't know.

By what standards are you people judging his Capitalist credentials? By purely Objectivist standards no one President you've had fits. It is clear to me that any "backlash" has been from the Left who had their future Leftist ambitions blocked by the President's (shock) election. Thus, *their* infantile behavior.

Hearing this sort of talk on an O'ist forum worries me, you guys are closer to Socialism than you think. That will be a long, dark night for America. 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


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

No, he wouldn't have made it expressed U.S. policy.

Why wouldn't he?

The alleged deal came from an anonymous source in that article. Assuming it's true, I'm still only speculating about Trump's motives, as are you. I'd much prefer to go by his prepared statement to the U.N. and his official action in signing the Hong Kong act. Also, before that, to the press, he has repeatedly offered tacit support calling on Xi to let the protesters protest and to treat them in a humanitarian manner. 

That said, I'm sure there are additional tactics of international politics of which I'm ignorant. Maybe Trump didn't want to make support of Hong Kong the U.S. policy for other reasons in addition to the trade negotiations. For example, the CNN story I referenced indicated that China can now claim that the U.S. is the "black hand" behind the protesters, which might put a blight on the sincerity and integrity of the freedom fighters in the eyes of the Chinese people. It's easy for us Americans to think we know what's best for people fighting for their rights on the other side of the globe. But we aren't them. We aren't there. And such knowledge is not easily obtained.

When we judge Trump on such complex issues of foreign policy, we should keep in mind that we don't have his presidential context, and he's surrounded by very smart advisors from every branch of the government. His official words and acts are not made alone or in a vacuum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for under-hand, unethical dealings, valid or not in this case, you can bet that every political leader in the world has done so, and it may be argued, even had to do so. Politics is a dirty business, y'know.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Last figures, his Black demographic support is up to an unprecedented 35%, they must know something you don't know.

Can you link to your source for this number?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2019 at 5:54 AM, Eiuol said:

 To say that I think AOC has a better vision of America than Trump isn't to say that I prefer socialism over capitalism.

 

 

Yes, it IS to say that. You'd take the "vision" of an openly avowed Socialist - over an, I'll call him, imperfect Capitalist who wants the people to construct a thriving country. 

Do you know what Socialists do? They take and destroy. Socialism can't happen unless there's wealth and the producer-creators of wealth. When that is sucked dry, they will move further afield.

Mentions of "nationalism". 

Has no one heard of national socialism? That's when the parasite nation had to go into other countries for more resources to plunder.

Mentions of "pragmatism". 

Well. There is nothing so "pragmatic" as is Socialism, I hope I have proven. As long as the looting system *works* (temporarily of course) we don't need no stinking principles...

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Can you link to your source for this number?

Read it at Objectivist Living a few days ago. I will look into it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Read it at Objectivist Living a few days ago. I will look into it. 

Nevermind. It's a Rasmussen poll. They've been claiming that for over a year now.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/08/16/trump-approval-rating-african-americans-rasmussen-poll/1013212002/

Share this post


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

As for under-hand, unethical dealings, valid or not in this case, you can bet that every political leader in the world has done so, and it may be argued, even had to do so. Politics is a dirty business, y'know.

Objectively yes, that is the history. Ethically speaking, they should have "clean hands". If you are saying that dirty business is the inevitable norm, then it is an invitation to more of the same.

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Mentions of "pragmatism". 

Well. There is nothing so "pragmatic" as is Socialism, I hope I have proven. As long as the looting system *works* (temporarily of course) we don't need no stinking principles...

As far as philosophical leanings, Trump is closest to pragmatism. According to your analysis it makes him a socialist?

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Protecting foreigners individual rights

To say something in support of individual rights is protecting our own individual rights and indicating a preference for it.

2 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

When we judge Trump on such complex issues of foreign policy, we should keep in mind that we don't have his presidential context, and he's surrounded by very smart advisors from every branch of the government.

The problem is that "his smart advisers" are mostly in the business of cleaning up after him instead of him listening to their smart advice. And given time he fires them and disparages them. Which smart advisers are you thinking of?

3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Trump is more in line with Adam Smith's brand of capitalism than Ayn Rand's.

What difference are we talking about now? If you water it down enough everyone is a Capitalist country. Did you hear, Saudi Arabia is having the worlds largest IPO, and China is renting ports in Greece, North Korea Sends arms everywhere, and Cuba sends doctors to be paid en masse. Next thing you know Bernie is a Capitalist too. And then your survey ends up having no meaning. It's just this team against that team. Kind of like sports.

Share this post


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

Maybe Trump didn't want to make support of Hong Kong the U.S. policy for other reasons in addition to the trade negotiations.

So... other things came before supporting individual rights.

You are shifting the goalposts though, from suggesting he does support Hong Kong, to now saying that you don't have enough information to judge. If you don't know enough, fine, but then don't say that Trump supports Hong Kong.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

The problem is that "his smart advisers" are mostly in the business of cleaning up after him instead of him listening to their smart advice.

Are you a fly on the wall of the Oval Office? You don't know what his advisors say and do in there. Trump gets advice from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, his Cabinet, his staff, as well as non-partisan leaders in every department, including military and intelligence officers, lawyers, and diplomats.

 

46 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

What difference are we talking about now? If you water it down enough everyone is a Capitalist country.

So naming the "father of capitalism" is considered "watering it down"? If you want to know the differences, read Smith and Rand. That's not really my focus here. 

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2019 at 6:17 PM, Eiuol said:

 Illegal immigrants can't get welfare by definition (to get welfare, you need to be documented, otherwise, no one knows where to send the money).

How naive can one get?  One example among many categories of fraud.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Are you a fly on the wall of the Oval Office? You don't know what his advisors say and do in there. Trump gets advice from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, his Cabinet, his staff, as well as non-partisan leaders in every department, including military and intelligence officers, lawyers, and diplomats.

There is a fundamental problem with that argument. On one hand none of us are the fly in the office so none of us know what exactly goes on. Yet you make all these statements about what he does. That implies you are a fly on the wall. Are you?

Bottom line, this is all deductive. We all see, no just me, that he frequently rebels against advice and turns on most of his former "adults in the room".

58 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

So naming the "father of capitalism" is considered "watering it down"? If you want to know the differences, read Smith and Rand. That's not really my focus here. 

Your claim (OP) is that Trump is some sort of champion for Capitalism and the survey is a vehicle to support that. Problem is that it is simply a propaganda/marketing ploy. He is against individual rights when the polls indicate a benefit, and if you want to drop names like Adam Smith to exonerate him, you have to indicate the specific argument.

There may be actual benefits to voting for Trump over someone else, but we should not support based on false information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump may not be a thorough-going capitalist but viewed against Bernie Saunders and OAC he is much more a capitalist and much less a socialist than they are.

This is so obvious I don’t know what to say to explain it further.

Do you want your tax-deferred retirement accounts confiscated?  Obama was laying the groundwork for it and OAC and friends might well go down that road.  I doubt such a thing would enter Trump’s mind, crazy as he sometimes appears to be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

On one hand none of us are the fly in the office so none of us know what exactly goes on. Yet you make all these statements about what he does.

Is your position based on assuming what goes on in the privacy of Trump's head or office? Because mine is based on what he explicitly says and does before the eyes of the world's media.

11 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Your claim (OP) is that Trump is some sort of champion for Capitalism and the survey is a vehicle to support that.

I said he isn't the best spokesman for capitalism. How did that become "some sort of champion"? The survey is an example of Trump making this an issue in the election. It's not evidence for a claim I never made. I can give you more examples of him making this an issue, if you want. He did a campaign ad about it too which played on YouTube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

if you want to drop names like Adam Smith to exonerate him

Not to mention that one of the main points of Smith's economic work is in free trade and against what he called mercantilism, so it's not exactly clear how name dropping Smith is supposed to work in order to be a defense of Trump.

Share this post


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

How naive can one get?

If they have to commit fraud to get welfare, then you recognize that they at least need false documentation. Those people are receiving welfare premised on the belief that they are documented immigrants, not the belief that they are illegal immigrants. Clearly, you can't give an illegal immigrant welfare through legislation. The question in the survey was if tax dollars should go towards giving illegal immigrants welfare. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

The question in the survey was if tax dollars should go towards giving illegal immigrants welfare. 

The survey might have been referring to Democrats passing laws that give health benefits to illegal immigrants. California has already done this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that they would still be documented in some sense. Still bugs me that it emphasized the immigrant part, because it suggests that welfare to citizens is perfectly fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eiuol,

More and more we live under what Sam Francis called Anarcho-Tyranny where the law is enforced or not to our detriment.  “[W]e refuse to control real criminals (that’s the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that’s the tyranny).”  What does it matter if on the books it is illegal for illegal aliens to get welfare when the government makes little effort to enforce the law.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But failure of enforcement is a different issue. The survey question asked about giving welfare to illegal immigrants, not a failure to enforce welfare laws. I wouldn't like a law attempting to make welfare even more expansive (even if I don't know how laws could succeed at doing it without providing documentation to the immigrants), but it is the last area of welfare I even care about.

 

 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm slow to understand.  Willfully failing to enforce welfare laws is giving welfare to illegal aliens.  In either case the illegal alien gets the cash.   That's what he cares about, and we care that we're forced to pay for it.

This reminds me of a debate back in 2003:  Did Bush lie when he sold the public on invading Iraq?  Con:  He personally believed the falsehoods.  Pro:  He willfully refused to examine the evidence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a distinction you might not care about, but I think it matters. I don't care about lack of enforcement over welfare very much nor should you (to a degree, I think fraud is appropriate with welfare programs, but not as a rule), but I care a lot more about introducing laws about welfare. Without the distinction, you end up blaming them by nature of being illegal immigrants (and that they somehow must not care about America), rather than an act of fraud.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

It's a distinction you might not care about, but I think it matters. I don't care about lack of enforcement over welfare very much nor should you (to a degree, I think fraud is appropriate with welfare programs, but not as a rule), but I care a lot more about introducing laws about welfare. Without the distinction, you end up blaming them by nature of being illegal immigrants (and that they somehow must not care about America), rather than an act of fraud.

 

 

Oh Eiuol I'm sure they're fine with all illegal immigrants that don't try to fraudulently get welfare, then, and totally won't all of a sudden manifest some new goalpost to shift to.

Share this post


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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...