Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Dupin

Biden is our only hope, says Yaron Brook

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Dupin said:

The article alluded to in the original post is
Biden Must Win or America is Doomed
It quotes most of the pro-Biden speech that Brook made on his show (link in the original post).

 

This is a great analysis. Reminds one that an Objectivist institution should stay out of broadcasting their political personae preferences, and, particularly not commanding and speaking for Objectivists at large. ("Sell-outs to Objectivism"?!).  Rand could and did give her advisement - and too she allowed for caveats in her judgments. But who has the predictive-conceptual capacity of Rand, or her reckoning of a person's character virtues/flaws, or what she saw in their "sense of life". Especially not her abstractive grasp of the essential nature of America. So why try to imitate her? Is it that ARI's internet exposure needs to be more 'relevant'? And why specifically so anti- Trump? Perhaps, I'll surmise, the 'market' for future Objectivists is perceived to be from among the secularist-atheists, while naturally not from the religious-conservatives (although many are known to have accord with Objectivist political theory). Therefore, in the subject matter and tone of many articles/essays I've read in recent times which are otherwise very good, if predictable, ARI writers have consistently leaned towards the Leftists, at times looked to be pandering to them. Please leave each O'ist to his/her own judgment calls in these matters.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy Truth,

You write:
“... [Trump] has replaced the previous deep state with his own deep state.”

Previous?  Replaced?  The Deep State continues to very much exist.

Trump’s administration is in every way better than Obama’s.  His biggest problem has been brought on by himself.  Perversely, he has surrounded himself by his own enemies.

Our so-called intelligence agencies are corrupt and not to be believed.  I don’t know anything about Russia’s.

Comparing Trump to Mao, or his actions to a Maoist revolution, is something Yaron Brook might say.  It’s absurd, a prime example of TDS.

“Are you arguing that Trump’s immigration promises should have been kept?”  (Scare quotes around “should” in the original.)

Not arguing, stating.  There are good arguments on ARI Watch, and you can find others by Lawrence Auster and Peter Brimelow on the Internet.

I’m in the process of packing up and moving.  The computer gets boxed this evening.

Share this post


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

Yes, there is a non-zero probability that the Dem party will quantum-tunnel to individual rights, economic freedom, limited government etc.😁

You keep saying that, but I don't know why you say there is zero chance, and at the same time, there is a non zero chance that Republicans would? I'm asking for reasons, not assertions.

 

Share this post


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

So the government is to determine "immigrants who are needed here", not the employer. What brand of Capitalism is this?

If you want the employer to do it, then you need to drop your rhetoric about "the most talented" and just admit that you don't care whether they are the most talented. Because if you want the most talented immigrants, then the government would have to assess their talent before letting them work here. Otherwise you might as well be for completely open immigration like Dr. Binswanger.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


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

if you want the most talented immigrants, then the government would have to assess their talent before letting them work here

You don't see the fascism in that statement? I am the employer. I could understand the government checking if they have a disease, but other than that it is an infringement of my rights.

Share this post


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

I could understand the government checking if they have a disease, but other than that it is an infringement of my rights.

What rights are those? Are you claiming a right to bring whomever you want into the country?

Share this post


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

What rights are those? Are you claiming a right to bring whomever you want into the country?

In principle, as long as it does not infringe on other people's rights, it would be similar to any freedom. So, no trespassing, no criminals, spys, no transmissible disease etc.

The question is where does a government get the right to infringe on people's freedom of movement? (but I think this is going to need its own thread and has been discussed already)

My bottom line is this. I have employed engineers from India and China and Pakistan and some eastern European nations using the H1B system. It is already a grueling process. You cannot bring in anyone you want. And the ones available are incredible in talent. To restrict it is motivated by an anti immigrant policy (that gets votes). Otherwise, it is simply authoritarian. It is also part of a union mindset, form a union, prevent others from working. Similar to licensing laws.

We can also add Rand's thought on this:

"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. "

https://ari.aynrand.org/ayn-rand-on-immigration/

Edited by Easy Truth
Added Rand Info

Share this post


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

why you say ... there is a non zero chance that Republicans would?

Because in the past some Republicans had some glimpses in that direction. It is true, however, that public demand for that has dropped…

And then... there is Trump's chaotic and clownesque personality...

Edited by AlexL
Added

Share this post


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

The question is where does a government get the right to infringe on people's freedom of movement? (but I think this is going to need its own thread and has been discussed already)

It has. You can find my argument on this thread.

Share this post


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

Because in the past some Republicans had some glimpses in that direction. It is true, however, that public demand for that has dropped…

And then... there is Trump's chaotic and clownesque personality...

Who and when? Democrats have had glimpses, Republicans have had glimpses, so I'm challenging you to give evidence. There have been deregulatory measures by Republicans, but often the same types that would propose measures of corporate socialism (namely subsidies). Maybe you mean tax cuts, but that is merely alteration of funding, not any stand about individual rights. I could say that Democrats have had glimpses in terms of decriminalization of drugs, or gay marriage being legal, or opposition to the Iraq war and opposition to the Patriot Act. Of course, those same people believe in some profound regulation on individual choice, but I think these qualify as "glimpses".

In other words, I don't think your prediction or justification of why Biden winning has any grounding. I'm not going to vote either direction because I don't think I can make a realistic prediction of either candidate resulting in something better in the long term. It's as good as a wild guess. I see the value of the strategy you are talking about (Biden winning would cause Republicans to reform), but I don't think there's any evidence that it would pan out that way.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy Truth,

That alleged quote of Rand is actually a fairly good paraphrase of her off-the-cuff answer to a question at the Ford Hall Forum in 1973, long before the Hart-Celler Immigration Act (written by Norbert Schlei), which rescinded the Act of 1924, had had much effect.  You can read the exact quote at Ayn Rand on Immigration.
 

 

Edited by Dupin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2020 at 3:56 PM, MisterSwig said:

So you didn't mean that he "arbitrarily rewrote the law."

I meant what I said. In the examples that I gave, his orders clearly violated well-established law, though perhaps you are not happy about with the law on these points. Your response is mostly part directed at a different question, namely whether it is reasonable to ignore the law. Given that the purpose of a president in our republican form of government is to implement the law, Trump is dysfunctional. This is a basic divide within the population of those calling themselves Objectivists: some consider law to be optional, others consider it to be fundamental to living in a civilized society. There’s a really simple explanation for lots of Trump’s behavior: he sees himself as being above the law; the law impedes him getting what he things we need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

Given that the purpose of a president in our republican form of government is to implement the law, Trump is dysfunctional.

Was every president who had an EO blocked or overruled by the Supreme Court "dysfunctional" in your opinion? Or just Trump?

Share this post


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

I see the value of the strategy you are talking about (Biden winning would cause Republicans to reform), but I don't think there's any evidence that it would pan out that way.

If you see the value of that strategy, then I am satisfied.

Besides, there can be no evidence about what people will do in the future.

Edited by AlexL
Added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Republican "reform", post President Trump? I take that to mean the GOP will return to being a party of gentlemen who fight clean, Queensbury Rules, whatever tricks their opposition get up to. Not a street fighter like Trump (which Yaron disapproves of, apparently). But what about the reverse, and the Dems' "reform", if Biden doesn't win? It seems quite apparent that they and their electorate are hanging together very tenuously, with only one unifying aim - defeating Trump. For now it is a party which spreads across from the moderates to the extremists and neo-Marxists. Their new bed partners and their destructive, divisive ways have to make the moderate support most unhappy about the Party's direction, but will put up with them for now to achieve the required numbers. But if Biden loses, a fair prediction is that something healthier will come of it, my guess is the Democrat pols/supporters will fragment in internal blame and strife and eventually split their loyalty back into the traditional, centered Democrats, but many swapping allegiance into the Socialist Party. The SPUSA will become a bigger contender as a result, but not strong enough for a long while, if ever. A return then to some honesty and candor in US politics. At very least, the Democrats will change identity to a Social Democrat Party to try to keep everybody under the same roof.

The very open secret is that Biden's running mate will be the president when Joe will be 'asked' to retire due to ill health after one term (or before), and all eyes are on who "she" will be. You have to feel a little sorry for him, he must know he's a cat's paw - Trojan Horse, I heard him called - who's only there to present a relatively respectable mask on the disreputable Dem elements, to beat Trump.

 

 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, AlexL said:

If you see the value of that strategy, then I am satisfied.

Besides, there can be no evidence about what people will do in the future.

What? You are saying you have no evidence for your position? What are we talking about then, are we just giving random scenarios and picking what feels the most true? 

I see the value of your scenario insofar as it is plausible, but since you have no evidence, your claims have no value. You don't even see the value of your own scenario because you don't have evidence for it! 

 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


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

What are we talking about then, are we just giving random scenarios and picking what feels the most true? 

Many scenarios are possible when extra parties are added but generally:

Extreme, meaning the extreme left in the case of Democrats, and Extreme right in the case of Republicans.

When the Center Loses, the extreme gains converts and power.
When the extreme loses, the Center gains converts and power.

If Trump Loses, the center Republicans (Romney etc) Gain converts and Power.
If Biden Loses, the extreme (socialist/Bernie) Democrats Gain converts and Power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The dogmatic Objectivist desperately tries to reduce principles to concrete rules that can be applied automatically, like a ritual, so as to bypass the responsibility of thinking and moral analysis. These are ‘Objectivist’ ritualists. They want Objectivism to give them what a religion promises, namely, ten or one hundred commandments, which they can apply without having to think or judge anything.”

— Ayn Rand

The responsibility of thinking and moral analysis - yes. And holding to context. As far as open immigration goes, there's no problem with that in itself, but a few little itty-bitty things that make up the context, like the welfare state, minimum wage laws**, affirmative action, and so on would first need repealing. Only then, without those incentives for some/many migrants/immigrants to advantage themselves from the system, could the borders be opened. WITH that context, open migration amounts to altruism. And not "open" in the sense of free access - unless also the mandatory law to carry identification for all existing citizens were repealed; I'd think the migrant-immigrant would still need to be registered on entry and be given identity documents like everyone.

**Obviously, wage laws that penalize the present workers, facing the artificial competition in the new people who could find jobs at far less wages, and are prepared to.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2020 at 9:23 PM, AlexL said:

 

And then... there is Trump's chaotic and clownesque personality...

Yup, chaotic and erratic, discomfiting at times. Together with the clownishness, he ¬seems¬ to give the impression of not knowing what he's doing, but I think most of it's bluff by Twitter to throw off or tease his virulent media opponents into frenzies. Such as delaying the election and even extending his term, which he retracts later. He does know what he wants to attain for the US in the long run, and it spells greater freedom plus self-responsibility for Americans, not less. The saying is apt: his supporters take him seriously but not literally, his enemies take him literally but not seriously. I'd not be fooled, he is dead serious.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


The argument has never been let us have a welfare state and then have open immigration.

In the final moral analysis, even with a welfare state, as in any Liberty, you should be able to do whatever does not harm another.

The Trump/Bannon case is an anti competition (anti capitalism) argument.

  • The argument being made is that a lower wage, union busting person hurts your wages. 
  • Employers should not be able to employ the lowest wage worker they can get and consumers should not be allowed to get the best product they can get.
  • A lower priced competitive product hurts our country.
    • Which means Tariffs and Ban on immigration.

Now, this is music to the ears of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

And don't forget the FDR like policies that we would see if both Congress and Presidency goes to Trump. (not that it would be any better with Biden)

In final analysis, there may in fact be not much of a difference between Trump and the Alternative. Except we would not be the laughing stock of the world and we could count on allies better, with the press and intelligence agencies being more cooperative with the presidency.

When it comes to complex large operations, any leadership requires this cooperation. Right now the President says one thing and the people implementing do their own thing.

Hard to determine who is serious.

Share this post


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

Many scenarios are possible when extra parties are added but generally:

Yeah, I think you're being reasonable and how you want to analyze it. But it's unfortunate that AlexL is literally saying he has no evidence for his claim. I'm hoping that it's a misunderstanding, and he thinks I'm asking for absolute proof that his one scenario will definitely happen. I'm only actually asking for why I should believe that, if Biden won,  there is a small but >0% chance that Republicans might reform to become more oriented towards individual rights, and also believe that if Trump won,  there is a 0% chance that Democrats might reform to become more oriented towards individual rights. What evidence is there to believe that our prediction should be weighted this way? 

4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

If Trump Loses, the center Republicans (Romney etc) Gain converts and Power.

A few things about this. I argue that Trump is more like a center Republican than anything. He says things to agitate people all over the political spectrum, while the policies he enacts always falls short of anything radical. The whole thing about the wall, it's just really become a fence, which has been around since W. I believe this is calculated on his part: political agitation works very well in this day and age. So in practice, he is just a centrist, as pragmatists are. My concern is that Republicans will throw off Trump as the Machiavellian pragmatist he really is, and the extreme Republicans (Pence etc) will gain converts, thereby creating the religious authoritarian scenario that I imagined earlier. 

And besides that, if nothing happens with extreme Republicans, there is no reason to think that the centrist Republicans will become more individualistic. They have failed on that front for decades. And I can't tell you a Republican candidate or congressperson who sows individualistic about something, except maybe Rand Paul. I can't think of a single other person. There also are no policies I can think of that are even largely in the right direction. 

4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

If Biden Loses, the extreme (socialist/Bernie) Democrats Gain converts and Power.

Why should I believe they would? Sanders has failed both when following a Democrat, and when following a Republican. I don't find Sanders particularly extreme anyway. Even still, how do you leave room for explaining things like the attention Yang received? Seems to me there is still room for something vaguely individualistic. 

 

Share this post


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

In final analysis, there may in fact be not much of a difference between Trump and the Alternative. Except we would not be the laughing stock of the world and we could count on allies better, with the press and intelligence agencies being more cooperative with the presidency.

 

Used to be "the laughing stocK", except that (I believed) from very early it was a mockery hiding the fear of such an undiplomatic, non-PC, non virtue-signaling, and basically anti-altruist president of America, who was rattling and disturbing the new status quo of an anticipated - and sacrificial - global utopia that most of the West has been dreaming into. That used to be so, but like here in SA, where Black Lives Matter has entered via the internet and news media, (thanks, btw ;)) and every two-bit intellectual is spouting anti-white rhetoric to blame for their and some of their people's and this government's inept failures - all of a sudden lately the loud TDS Leftists whom my wife and I know, have gone silent on Facebook. One or two have openly expressed that "Well, Trump might not be so bad, if that's what his opponents are like". Like here, surely that goes in many countries, when sacrificing hits home personally, people are wakening to reality, having second thoughts about Trump, not finding him so ridiculous after all ...

 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Trump, being "such an undiplomatic, non-PC, non virtue-signaling, and basically anti-altruist president of America, who was rattling and disturbing the new status quo of an anticipated - and sacrificial - global utopia that most of the West has been dreaming into" brings to mind Lt. Columbo, a detective that came across as naive (until dementia started to set in), yet the progression toward the resolution of the case was almost always apparent. Trump does not come across as scripted as in a Columbo sense, but more of a Gomer Pyle; bumbling along while events happened turning out more or less for the better anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice analogy d_w.

Some of both, Colombo's (seeming) ingenuous naivete, lulling his suspects into arrogantly exposing their guilt and a bumbling Pyle. lol.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

chaotic and erratic… clownishness… I think most of it is bluff by Twitter to throw off or tease his virulent media opponents into frenzies… analogy - Columbo's (seeming) ingenuous naivete, lulling his suspects

" I think ..." Do you have some hard facts to substantiate your assumption? Otherwise it is simply wishful thinking or rationalization.

Edited by AlexL

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...