Donald Trump

[KorbenDallas]

This is interesting, Facebook apparently doesn't like paying for all those egalitarian/altruistic ideals they support and decided to try to skirt paying taxes by moving some (a lot of) assets to Ireland:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/29/technology/facebook-irs-penalty/index.html

Quote

Facebook could owe $5 billion in taxes

[...]

The investigation dates back to 2010 when Facebook shifted the rights for its worldwide business, excluding the U.S. and Canada, to Facebook Ireland as part of a complex maneuver to reduce its tax payments.

That transfer included certain hard to quantify assets like its "user base, online platform and marketing intangibles."

The IRS came to believe that Ernst & Young, the accounting firm tasked with valuing the assets in this transfer, may have "understated" the worth of these intangibles by "billions of dollars," according to a copy of the legal filing provided to CNNMoney.

[...]

Facebook, along with tech peers like Apple (AAPL, Tech30) and Google (GOOGL, Tech30), has come under fire in recent years for curbing assets in Ireland and other countries that serve as tax havens thanks to their low corporate tax rate.

 

Tax the rich!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This tweet was featured on Drudge for some reason. But the message has a lot of promise...

.@realDonaldTrump : "After watching Hillary last night ... Such lies... I'm taking the gloves off...No more Mr. Nice guy."

— Nick Kalman (@NickKalmanFN) July 29, 2016

Michael

[merjet]

Zuckerberg & Clinton: A Jewish Perspective of Altruism

"Zuckerberg is not going to sell his stock and donate the cash, as he would then have to pay capital gains on the stock. Instead, he will donate up to 50 percent of his adjusted gross income (the maximum IRS limit for donations) by donating the stock itself when it gets to a high level, thereby maximizing the deduction and avoiding taxes."

The tax savings is another way that politicians benefit those who contribute to their political campaigns and government-approved charities such as the Clinton Foundation.   

Assume Zuckerberg contributes $10 million of stock with zero cost basis. The tax avoidance could be about $7.14 million -- 39.6% ordinary income + 28% capital gains + 3.8% Medicare. 

Facebook employees donate more to Clinton than Trump—coincidence?
 

[SteveWolfer]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That makes ideas truly for living on earth and less about abstract constructions qua abstract constructions.

I think that this comes about because the abstract constructions (which are needed) is what we explore, work with, and argue over on forums.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If Ayn Rand is correct when she said that individual rights are moral principles taken to the social realm (I, for one, like that)

I love her formulation.  Here is her definition:

Quote

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.

That's elegant.  Like so much of what she wrote she never strayed from purpose - which is such a key part of context when you don't want to float off on untethered abstractions.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

...there has to be a mechanism for the individual to choose those morals as the good, and by extension, those individual rights.

There is much in religious practice that we should look for to find the important ways to bind good ideas, motivate virtuous behavior, and bridge social interaction with moral tune-ups, and celebration of our core spiritual values.  People are 'choosing to value' when they go to church.  They have to have the belief, or think they might, before it works psychologically.  But when they go, and they sing and pray and listen to sermons they are choosing all that they hold as good in their beliefs and that builds it into their being.  We should have something that is similar, but obviously secular, and based upon reason instead of faith.

But we should also be teaching the most elementary versions of moral and political philosophy in the early years of school (I wouldn't trust today's schools).

 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 I don't think she nailed that part with Galt's oath since it can be so easily twisted.

The constitution should be a tight legal document.  A modern declaration of independence would be a better place to bind the spirituality of free men of goodwill with the legal document that confines government.  As to Galt's Oath, did you see what I wrote on another thread about that?

Much of what we are discussing here should have a developmental foundation for it.  For example, if you strip out the religious stuff in the pledge of allegiance (which was added in the fifties), and make it more individual rights instead of pure nationalism, that is good, but what should happen is some learning each and every year of school so that rituals like the pledge draw on a background of teachings that grows deeper and richer with each passing year.  Pledge what to what is a question that would have a much richer answer in the mind of a high school senior than a sixth grader.

[KorbenDallas]

30 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

There is much in religious practice that we should look for to find the important ways to bind good ideas, motivate virtuous behavior, and bridge social interaction with moral tune-ups, and celebration of our core spiritual values.  People are 'choosing to value' when they go to church.  They have to have the belief, or think they might, before it works psychologically.  But when they go, and they sing and pray and listen to sermons they are choosing all that they hold as good in their beliefs and that builds it into their being.  We should have something that is similar, but obviously secular, and based upon reason instead of faith.

Steve, I think this is where Rand placed such a heavy emphasis on Romantic art, both practicing and consuming it.  (Not a critique, just wanted to add..)

[SteveWolfer]

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

I think this is where Rand placed such a heavy emphasis on Romantic art

I'd never thought of that.  I think you are right.  But I think that something that has a social aspect and maybe some ritual - something that allows for a celebration of objective values. would make a big difference.  Most people are busy in their career and lives and not being steeped daily in the philosophy like she was - and with her friends and associates.

[KorbenDallas]

27 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

I'd never thought of that.  I think you are right.  But I think that something that has a social aspect and maybe some ritual - something that allows for a celebration of objective values. would make a big difference.  Most people are busy in their career and lives and not being steeped daily in the philosophy like she was - and with her friends and associates.

There does seem to be a hole there.  (And, I'm glad I found this forum.. Oists exist! )

[Wolf DeVoon]

51 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

something that has a social aspect and maybe some ritual

Jesus in a Ferrari! - now I've heard everything.

 

2 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context

This is what I meant about Rand making mistakes. "The philosophy of law is a separate branch of science, independent of ethics. Moral inquiry pertains specifically to the interests, powers, and dilemmas of an individual, epitomized by the question: "What shall I do?" Legal philosophy addresses impersonal administration of public justice, litigation among parties in dispute, the combined might of a community, and custodial guardianship of certain individuals who are unable or legally prohibited to conduct their own affairs." [Laissez Faire Law, pp. 166-167]

 

[SteveWolfer]

15 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Jesus in a Ferrari! - now I've heard everything.

Well, what would you suggest?

 

16 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

This is what I meant about Rand making mistakes

I don't see the mistake.  If you don't join that branch of knowledge that deals with "What shall I do next?" to the description of "What can I not do?"  That is you need to join morality to law:  Otherwise, you have law with no moral basis, or morality that is never enacted in law. 

(by the way, doesn't morality deal with more than "What shall I do next?" but also what is of value, what is the standard of value, what is right, and does so apart from time - that is: past, present and future?  E.g., "What should I have done")

Is a "right" not a moral principle?  I know that there are legal rights, but that isn't what we are discussing.

And doesn't this moral principle apply to a social context... it doesn't apply when on an otherwise deserted island.

And doesn't a right pertain to action?  Specifically those actions one can take by right, as opposed to those that require permission.

That is why I think that Rand's definition is just fine: "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context."

[Wolf DeVoon]

19 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

 I think that Rand's definition is just fine

I know (shrug)

[KorbenDallas]

59 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

Well, what would you suggest?

Steve, you mean you weren't talking about worship?

Count me out then.

[SteveWolfer]

Just now, KorbenDallas said:

you weren't talking about worship?

Celebration, affirming, enjoying, sharing

[KorbenDallas]

13 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

Celebration, affirming, enjoying, sharing

Yea, I figured you meant something like that

[Wolf DeVoon]

10 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

Celebration, affirming, enjoying, sharing

I'm currently living in a remote part of the Mid West and there are some well-grooved traditions in the neighborhood. Thursday night jam session with banjos and ukuleles. Every couple of months a fund raiser for the volunteer fire dept with food and music. Thanksgiving dinner for 50 old hippies, everyone brings something, then play poker for pennies.

Those might not be my first choice. Just reporting what folks do.

 

[Brant Gaede]

Sounds like high up just behind the front range.

[Wolf DeVoon]

I'm slightly curious what the Trumps do for fun, but since they don't drink, well, phooey.

Our libertarian brethren go to freedom confabs and listen to high profile preachers. Never been tempted to do that.

Atlas Society events look pretty dull, but MSK attends.

For me, a couple nights in Elko rates pretty high, gamble some, eat, drink.

Among the best was a sauna in Holland, sit naked with others in the bar/cafe, loosely draped in a towel.

[KorbenDallas]

12 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

I'm slightly curious what the Trumps do for fun, but since they don't drink, well, phooey.

 

Who sez no drinkin'?  Not much time for fun though, lot of working going on right now.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Donald says he doesn't drink, never has.

 

[KorbenDallas]

3 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Donald says he doesn't drink, never has.

 

Sometimes, I think he should

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Sometimes, I think he should

Why?

[Brant Gaede]

13 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

I think that this comes about because the abstract constructions (which are needed) is what we explore, work with, and argue over on forums.

 

I love her formulation.  Here is her definition:

That's elegant.  Like so much of what she wrote she never strayed from purpose - which is such a key part of context when you don't want to float off on untethered abstractions.

 

There is much in religious practice that we should look for to find the important ways to bind good ideas, motivate virtuous behavior, and bridge social interaction with moral tune-ups, and celebration of our core spiritual values.  People are 'choosing to value' when they go to church.  They have to have the belief, or think they might, before it works psychologically.  But when they go, and they sing and pray and listen to sermons they are choosing all that they hold as good in their beliefs and that builds it into their being.  We should have something that is similar, but obviously secular, and based upon reason instead of faith.

But we should also be teaching the most elementary versions of moral and political philosophy in the early years of school (I wouldn't trust today's schools).

 

The constitution should be a tight legal document.  A modern declaration of independence would be a better place to bind the spirituality of free men of goodwill with the legal document that confines government.  As to Galt's Oath, did you see what I wrote on another thread about that?

Much of what we are discussing here should have a developmental foundation for it.  For example, if you strip out the religious stuff in the pledge of allegiance (which was added in the fifties), and make it more individual rights instead of pure nationalism, that is good, but what should happen is some learning each and every year of school so that rituals like the pledge draw on a background of teachings that grows deeper and richer with each passing year.  Pledge what to what is a question that would have a much richer answer in the mind of a high school senior than a sixth grader.

What the Declaration of Independence means is the Constitution--the Republic--is subordinate to individual rights and what the government can and cannot do does not legally dead end in any adopted constitution. For instance, the 2nd Amendment is derivative of the right to self defense which is primary. (If you have the right to defend yourself you have the right to defend yourself with an appropriate something.) It does not mean you can keep an A-Bomb in your garage.

Hence, there is no need for rewriting these documents. What is needed is better education centered on critical thinking and western values. "God," btw, belongs in the Pledge of Allegiance. That means bowing down to God (reality by my interpretation) not the state for the state itself bows down to Him. This is not a nation of atheists and sometimes simplicity is called for instead of arcane and complication ratiocinations. (I'm against any pledge of allegiance, however. It's just something to help the state go to war by subordination of individuality. I never liked it, even as a kid, but I got it osmotically anyway, unfortunately.)

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

8 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

 

Hence, there is no need for rewriting these documents. What is needed is better education centered on critical thinking and western values. "God," btw, belongs in the Pledge of Allegiance. That means bowing down to God (reality by my interpretation) not the state for the state itself bows down to Him. This is not a nation of atheists and sometimes simplicity is called for instead of arcane and complication ratiocinations. (I'm against any pledge of allegiance, however. It's just something to help the state go to war by subordination of individuality. I never liked it, even as a kid, but I got it osmotically anyway, unfortunately.)

--Brant

The God of Thomas Jefferson (who wrote the DOI  and who created an edited version of the Bible)  is the deist God,  not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or the Father  of the Trinity.  This God is the naturalist God,  the central and organizing principle of the Cosmos.  This is also similar to the God of Aristotle who did not  sacrifice goats to Zeus  or Apollo.  

Please see:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

"The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, commonly referred to as the Jefferson Bible, was a book constructed byThomas Jefferson in the later years of his life by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels which contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages indicating Jesus was divine."  

Jefferson was a Deist (which puts him in the same pew  as Spinoza and Einstein)   or a closet atheist (a position that he could not tout publicly during the time  he lived)   or so it might appear from his (Jefferson's)  writings and actions.  Franklin and Paine were also part of that congregation  (in a manner of speaking).

 

[moralist]

17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This tweet was featured on Drudge for some reason. But the message has a lot of promise...

 

Michael

...and here I thought he had already taken off the gloves! 

 

Greg

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's poor Romney doing anything he can to try to stay relevant in the mainstream:

Mitt Romney Thinks Donald Trump Could Win The Election

The word in other places is that he is thinking of endorsing Gary Johnson.

In fact, the core Neocons seem to be attracted to Johnson.

I don't think Johnson has a chance, but if he welcomes a bunch of Neocons on board, I really don't see it working.

Michael

[Peter]

Steve wrote: The people also have to understand individual rights - not a deep theoretical level, but as general rules that they accept.  "Understanding" precedes "being good". end quote

Michael commented: I disagree. They have to go hand in hand . . . . Goodwill + good principles = good society. end quote

I agree with everybody. There is a constant social evolution. If a group is presorted to be “bad”, like a group of outlaw bikers, a group of black nationalists, klansmen, or political despots like Progressives then the group will be bad.  

Tyrannies, despots, dictators. and ruthless kings are countered historically by The Magna Carta, republics, common law, and constitutional government. North Korea, South Korea. Communist China and Free China (Taiwan.) Is either eventuality inevitable? I have always wondered why some groups of people “go bad.” Remember the book, “The Lord of the Flies” where a group of kids gradually start to act like monsters?

I think a truly random group of people like settlers, stranded island dwellers (as in the TV show “Lost”), or refugees in general will not infringe on individual rights. They will be “good,” with a few bad apples, who will be encouraged to also be “good” or be banished. A group ethos will manifest itself which will eventually become a government. If this were not true humans would not number in the billions.

Ayn Rand insisted that the right philosophy is the key and I agree. And there is nothing starry eyed about that, because to various degrees humans start out with nurturing parents, in benevolent family units. What a cute baby! Let me hold her. Then you develop an individual philosophy and sense of life.

To get back to politics, who is presorted to be good? A power hungry progressive like Hillary who is quite willing to use force against you and to steal your rights, or a businessman who has spent a lifetime interacting voluntarily with his fellow man? These truths are self evident. There are more unknowns about Donald Trump but I will take that over the "knowns" we have of Hillary. 

Peter