Donald Trump

[Peter]

Nuts and bolts and political policy time? We have a LOT of illegal immigrants here on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. A few years ago, the local Walmart was busted for the illegals stocking the shelves at night. And because agriculture is so significant here we see a lot of pickers. As the squeeze on illegal immigrants begins I think I would be afraid if I were here illegally. This might sound silly but I might still look like a white patriot, maybe a retired cop though I no longer where “the shoes.” And I have noticed a lot of Hispanics trying to hide their faces when I see them at local venues.

Peter

excerpt from: Is the Wall Possible? What Trump Can Do on Immigration Josh Siegel / November 11, 2016. When Donald Trump is inaugurated as president in January, he has the authority to dramatically reshape immigration policy by himself. While Trump would need Congress to appropriate money to fund his biggest campaign promise—building a wall across the southern border—he can act alone in other areas, just like President Barack Obama has, in deciding how to enforce immigration law.

“The president does have a lot of executive authority and discretion to enforce the law as he wishes,” said David Leopold, an immigration attorney and former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “There is a lot of immigration enforcement discretion.”

How Trump Can Act Alone.

. . . .Trump can take immediate actions by himself, starting with canceling Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which has provided deportation protection and work permits to about 800,000 immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. The program grants protection for two years, after which beneficiaries can apply again. New applicants can still request DACA protection through the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). “One of questions is whether he would cut [DACA] off immediately or let the program sunset so that when people’s protection expires, he does not allow for renewals,” said Faye Hipsman, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. “USCIS is still receiving first-time DACA applications, so that would occur in a pretty staged and staggered manner.”

Trump could also permanently cancel a broader Obama program that made more people eligible for DACA protection and extended legal status to include the parents of U.S. citizens or legal residents. The Supreme Court has blocked that program.

In addition, Trump, if he wishes, can change the priorities of the Department of Homeland Security on who it seeks to deport.

The Obama administration asked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency that handles most deportations, to focus its resources on those who are considered threats to public safety, or are have been convicted of crimes, usually a felony. Other priorities for deportation include individuals who have been convicted of multiple misdemeanors, and recent arrivals who came here illegally after Jan. 1, 2014.

“Right now, the way the Obama administration is treating it, is unless you are a priority, we won’t actively go after you. Trump can flip that,” said Theresa Cardinal Brown, the director of immigration policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and a former policy adviser at the Department of Homeland Security.

After calling for mass deportations early on in his campaign, Trump has walked that back to say he would focus enforcement on illegal immigrants with criminal records.

“Right away, border security is one of the top five things he will try to address right out of the starting gate,” said Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies. “That includes taking the handcuffs off the immigration agencies and letting them get back to doing their job according to the law. I don’t want to say there will be immediate drastic change. But there are many things the Trump administration can do on their own right away to restore control to immigration policy.”

Seeking Help From Congress. Trump would need Congress’ cooperation on his signature proposal—finishing the construction of a wall across the southern border. The border security mechanism that Congress would support would likely not come in the form of a brick-and-mortar wall described by Trump, but as extended fencing. Immigration experts say the U.S. has spent billions in recent years fencing about one-third of the border. The next president has the template to finish the job.

In 2006, the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Secure Fence Act, which authorized 700 miles of additional fencing along the border with Mexico. President George W. Bush signed the law. However, his administration later pushed for an amendment to the bill to give the government the discretion to determine what type of fencing was appropriate in the various areas of the border, depending on environmental and land-use restrictions.

As a result of that amendment, the majority of the fencing erected as a result of the law has been vehicle barriers—designed to stop vehicles rather than people, and single-layer pedestrian fencing. The original law called for double-layered fencing. Subsequent Republican attempts to require double fencing have failed.

“Depending on what type of infrastructure he wants, [Trump] probably already has the authorization to do it,” Brown said. “He just needs Congress to appropriate money.”

Similarly, Congress would have to approve the funding for another major Trump proposal: tripling the number of ICE agents who focus on deporting immigrants living in the country illegally. Brown says personnel costs already make up about 80 to 90 percent of the budgets of ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the agency that protects the border. The border patrol, meanwhile, has faced challenges fulfilling hiring goals mandated by Congress. Republicans in Congress who share Trump’s hard-line positions on immigration say they welcome his plans, even though they will certainly cost a lot of money.

“It seems to me the Republican conference sees we just had a seismic, historic election so there is a new mandate to get things right with immigration,” said Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., in an interview with The Daily Signal. “It was one of [Trump’s] big issues, and one of my big issues that I ran on. So yes, it is worth the money. Look at France and Germany. If you don’t secure borders, you lose the entire country.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who met with Trump on Thursday, was asked by Fox News’ Bret Baier if he supports building a wall but committed only to “physical barriers.”

“I’m in favor of securing the border,” Ryan said. “And I do believe you need to have physical barriers on the border. I will defer to the experts on the border as to what is the right way to actually secure the border.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is less committal on whether he’d support paying for a border wall.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, McConnell did not directly answer questions about if he supports Trump’s wall proposal. “I’m not going to go back and relitigate events of the past,” he said. “We have a new president. I would like to see him get off on a positive start. I think we should look forward and not backward and kind of rehash and relitigate the various debates we had internally and with the Democrats over the past year.” Pressed again, McConnell added: “Border security is important. I think even our Democratic friends realize we haven’t done a very good job of that. Achieving border security is something that I think ought to be high on the list . . . . .”

 . . . . More Trump Proposals, Along with his more prominent proposals, Trump has also called for punishing so-called sanctuary cities that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Trump could withhold federal funding from those cities, but would need support from Congress to do so. The president-elect has not limited his plans to illegal immigration. He said he would reduce legal immigration levels, a step requiring the approval of Congress. And Trump said he would suspend immigration from countries that are “compromised by terrorism,” although he has not clarified what countries he’d consider.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

... he will really seeth when he gets that first ‘Hell no!’ from people in his own party.

Peter,

I don't agree with this (was this George's thought or yours?).

Anyone who has ever done business with government bureaucrats knows what to do when you hear, "Hell no!" Seething is not the best response. Looking for fissures of persuasion and influence are. Or finding a way to get to the bureaucrat's boss. This is called leverage.

Donald Trump built skyscrapers in New York City, one of the most complicated and corrupt zoning structures on planet earth. (Not to mention his real estate developments in countries all over the world with their different complicated zoning laws.)

I don't see any evidence that he caved and became a milktoast (all one has to do is look at a Trump skyscraper to see that), nor do I see any evidence that he went to pieces in frustrated anger.

On the contrary, I saw winning...

Beautiful productive winning...

Nobody knows the names of all those faceless bureaucrats who stood in his way. Everybody knows the name of Donald Trump. And it's not because he pouts.

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote: I don't agree with this (was this George's thought or yours?).

end quote

Me. It’s lemonade. We don’t sell ice tea here. Read the sign. I try to insert ”end quote” but sometimes I don’t. I will put that on my tombstone: “Here lies a patriot, a Dad, and a loving husband. end quote.”  I suppose I am trying to “channel DJ’s spirit,” as the injuns say.

I just got back from the dump. They have finally leveled some old trash mountains that may be 30 years old but there is still one humongous hill. I remember visiting Virginia Beach and they had “Trash Mountain’ with hiking trails all over it. It looked pretty good for a pile of garbage and every once in a while the garbage burps or ignites, though not recently. I would be afraid a hole will open up and a kid will chase a ball into a trash cavern. Maybe a strange frog or bat will mutate in Trash Mountain, like those caverns in Mexico. What if Mexico built a wall to keep us out?

Peter  

[Mikee]

In other news:  Europe Panics over Trump

Word of the day:  dirigisme

" What possible interest could America have in a European Union that stands for statism and dirigisme and standing athwart the one member, Britain, that holds out for liberal principles? "

Definition of dirigisme

1. :  economic planning and control by the state

dirigiste

play \di-ri-ˈzhēst, dē-rē-\ adjective

[anthony]

Yech. Not forgetting the long social planning by les dirigistes. Good term.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was just listening to Rush Limbaugh.

He started in on one of those statistics things and I was going to turn it off, but then he said to stick with it for a minute. So I did.

The gist of his stats is that, according to the mainstream media--in fact, practically all the media, mainstream and otherwise--Trump was supposed to be crushed in minority demographics. The fact is that Trump improved, sometimes significantly, almost all the numbers achieved by Mitt Romney. Blacks, whites, women, Latinos, etc.

Trump got better numbers than Romney across the board.

People tend to have a short memory, but I still remember looking at ALL the mainstream news stations and hearing, "the election is over. Clinton has won it." And their basis was the fabrication about Trump's impending crushing defeat among minorities. Say hello to President Clinton. This went on for days and days. And they said it often each day. They said it condescendingly. They said it with enthusiasm. They said it with a smile on their faces. Nonstop.

Why?

Well, the best I can figure, this was the Hail Mary pass at the big lie, trying to make people believe it before they voted. If you repeat a lie often enough, some persuasion folks say, most people will accept it as truth. Maybe that's not as true as it seems, though. I certainly didn't, although it raised my anxiety level through the roof. A lot of other people didn't, either.

But I know one group of people who swallowed it whole, without chewing and without any seasoning: the Cupcake Revolution. Our youth. The ones who are now making a slobbering babbling mess all over social media.

As I consume the mainstream news media now, I'm never going to forget that.

The mainstream media folks lie in your face and feel no shame about it. So I intend to get important information from other places, or at least check other places to see if they are saying the same thing.

I was already doing that a lot. Now it's my default.

Just like the default of the mainstream media is to lie and telling the truth is their exception.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

59 minutes ago, Mikee said:

Word of the day:  dirigisme

I kinda like the definition "dictatorship by technocrats," myself.

Michael

[Peter]

Well reported Michael. I too am listen to Rushbo, and I also heard this. Everybody wants to get on board the Trump train. Instead of splitting the Republican party, the Democrat Party is on the skids. Chuck U. Shumer’s Senate office is under siege by outraged Bernie supporters who know the higher ups spoiled Bernie’s chances. The cheaters! The vote for Nancy Pelosi has been put off. That was supposed to be a sure thing. Some Dems in the House want someone younger, smarter and less divisive, so it is the Dems who are falling apart not the huge winners in the Republican Party. Of course it wasn’t a traditional landslide but it was a landslide when you remember the “expectation” was so low. That was a landslide. And on the down ballet, once again Republicans triumphed. Rejoice my friends. The Paid Protest is a sham. The “little guy”, blue collar workers, and middle America is owned by the Trump Republican Party.

And I am thinking that we will see an end to the alliance to stop man made global warming. We see a lessening of PC, BS. Now get this. At UVA, founded by Thomas Jefferson, the students are protesting the publication of his words because he owned slaves and he wrote in a letter that blacks were inferior in body and mind, which “virtually everybody” thought back then, even blacks.    

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

57 minutes ago, Peter said:

Of course it wasn’t a traditional landslide but it was a landslide when you remember the “expectation” was so low.

Peter,

There is a lawsuit coming about annulling a lot of illegal votes--the bulk of which will have been made for Clinton. The article where I saw this said three million illegitimate votes. Seeing as this came from the alt right media, I knew the lawsuit was on, but I thought the figures were off and I wasn't even sure the final numbers were going to make a difference.

However, yesterday Rush said the final tally and verifications would most likely include about two million illegitimate votes, mostly for Clinton. So the current narrative about Clinton winning the popular vote will likely go the way of the dodo bird.

See here (Rush speaking):

Quote

So my prediction is that when all of the votes are counted, we're going to find that a significant number of illegal immigrants voted. I wouldn't be surprised if the number is as high as two million illegal immigrants. And when this all happens, it's going to be quite clear that Trump won the popular vote as well. Mark my words on this. As usual, don't doubt me.

All right, all right, Rush said two million and the other guy said three million...

Michael

[Peter]

Two of today’s alt news clips. I like the edginess of ‘Fresh Off the Boat’ and that is why I find the blurb for the show so funny: 'Fresh Off the Boat:' Thanksgiving a 'Celebration of People Who Made a Living Swindling the Natives'

Now Trump appointee Steve Bannon is something else. He gave this talk in a church so the amalgamation of subjects is understandable but I thought his critique of Rand could use some fleshing out and maybe we will hear more from him. But as of now, like a lot of people, I say Dump this yahoo, President Trump.

Peter   

Tuesday, 15 November 2016 21:12. Buzzfeed: ‘How Steve Bannon Sees the Entire World’ From Buzzfeed’s transcript: And we’re at the end stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict, of which if the people in this room, the people in the church, do not bind together and really form what I feel is an aspect of the church militant, to really be able to not just stand with our beliefs, but to fight for our beliefs against this new barbarity that’s starting, that will completely eradicate everything that we’ve been bequeathed over the last 2,000, 2,500 years.

Now, what I mean by that specifically: I think that you’re seeing three kinds of converging tendencies: One is a form of capitalism that is taken away from the underlying spiritual and moral foundations of Christianity and, really, Judeo-Christian belief.

But there’s a strand of capitalism today — two strands of it, that are very disturbing. One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that’s the capitalism you see in China and Russia. I believe it’s what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism of people that are involved with these military powers-that-be in the government, and it forms a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people. And it doesn’t spread the tremendous value creation throughout broader distribution patterns that were seen really in the 20th century.

The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I’m a big believer in a lot of libertarianism. I have many many friends that’s a very big part of the conservative movement — whether it’s the UKIP movement in England, it’s many of the underpinnings of the populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States.

However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I call the “enlightened capitalism” of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost — as many of the precepts of Marx — and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation [that] they’re really finding quite attractive. And if they don’t see another alternative, it’s going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of “personal freedom.”

[Peter]

Robert Tracinski wrote . . . : Take what we can get. One of the reasons I opposed Trump is that as a man with no consistent ideological grounding, he is inherently unpredictable . . . . But I supposed this has an upside. Though he may not do some of the good things he said he would do, he probably won't do a bunch of the bad things he said he would do

 . . . .  And who knows? He might come through on a couple of key items advocates of liberty really want. There are four things we have some hope he will do--with the support of Congress--in his first 100 days: repeal Obamacare, make a good nomination for the Supreme Court, reject the Paris climate deal, and bury the Iran deal.

 . . . . Donald Trump is going to be attacked unremittingly by the left, and often for stupid, made-up reasons. As a result, people on the right are going to develop a natural reflex to defend him and to assume that all such attacks are invalid . . . . 

. . . .  Be the loyal opposition. At some point, Donald Trump is going to do something or propose something that is truly awful. It's not a matter of "if," it's a matter of when. Take your pick: restrictive new libel laws, draconian restrictions on international trade, an alliance with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, single payer health care. These are all things Trump has thought were good ideas in the past. Or maybe it will be some totally new awful idea that hasn't even popped into his head yet.

When that happens, we need to be prepared to be the "loyal opposition" to our own party leadership. Let me explain what I mean here by the word "loyal." It's not about being loyal to a party or to a temporary political leader. It's about being loyal to our country and its interests, even if that means opposing our current party leadership.

None of this should be a stretch for us. For all the big talk about Trump being the "anti-establishment" candidate, most of the NeverTrumpers I know have actual records of opposing the establishment. We're the ones who cheered, for example, when frustrated primary voters put the skids under Eric Cantor. Holding Donald Trump to account will come naturally. 

[Mikee]

" a man with no consistent ideological grounding, "

A man with a perfectly consistent ideological grounding is like a broken clock.  When right, absolutely right!  But wrong most of the time.  See "The True Believer".

[merjet]

1 hour ago, Mikee said:

" a man with no consistent ideological grounding, "

A man with a perfectly consistent ideological grounding is like a broken clock.  When right, absolutely right!  But wrong most of the time.  See "The True Believer".

There is a lot of room between "no consistent" and "perfectly consistent" ideology. Of course, Trump is much closer to the former. 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

One of the reasons I opposed Trump is that as a man with no consistent ideological grounding, he is inherently unpredictable...

Peter,

The thought behind this statement is one of the reasons I don't take Robert Tracinski seriously. He not only read Ayn Rand, he spoke in her name.

I wonder if he remembers that passage when Dagny was looking at the engine during the John Galt Line run. She concluded that it was a morality of reason, moral principles, that held the machines together and made them run correctly. At another section (or maybe in this one), I remember she said the slightest breach of morality would cause a disaster at one of Hank Rearden's steel ovens. The book is full of allusions like this.

When we take a look at Trump's buildings, they don't fall. The reason? Well, according to Ayn Rand, the philosophy of reason--in other words, moral principles--hold them up. 

When Tracinski, Bidinotto and others talk about "ideology," they are not talking about the philosophy of reason or moral principles. They are talking about who gets to tell others what to do. Who gets to rule. They are talking about governing others according to their precepts. They are talking about power.

Yet the couch it as if they were talking about ideology.

Trump is one of the most consistent moral people I know of in politics. He's made mistakes, but I don't attribute them to evil or lack of principle. I attribute them to bad judgment at the time.

And do you want to know the sign of a great man?  A moral man? A consistent man? He learns from his mistakes.

When Donald Trump has corrected his mistakes, he has always aligned them with his morality.

How many people do you know who does that?

Pretty soon these guys (Tracinski, Bidinotto, etc.) will go back to saying Trump supporters are stupid, unprincipled, emotionalists, low-information, yada yada yada. In short, they are elitists. Good people, but ruling class mentality through and through.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, Peter said:

The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I’m a big believer in a lot of libertarianism. I have many many friends that’s a very big part of the conservative movement — whether it’s the UKIP movement in England, it’s many of the underpinnings of the populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States.

However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I call the “enlightened capitalism” of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost — as many of the precepts of Marx — and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation [that] they’re really finding quite attractive. And if they don’t see another alternative, it’s going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of “personal freedom.”

Peter,

That is a quote from Steve Bannon (I mention this for the benefit of the reader).

Before we go into a kneejerk because Bannon said "Ayn Rand" and followed it with a negative characterization, I think we need to see what he is getting at.

The form of capitalism he attributed to Rand is something that gives me the willies, too. Now, is that what Rand is about? I don't think so, but I have certainly seen that many of her followers think that way.

Here's just one example. I recall several serious--serious!--discussions in O-Land about whether cannibalism should be allowed on the open market. One guy even proposed that it should be legal for a person to will his body to a restaurant as meat for them to cook and serve at meals. Another guru wannabe self-destructed with the orthodoxy over this. (Ortho-objectivists have their own people-as-commodity issues, but thankfully, cannibalism is not one of them.)

With Randians speaking like this, I certainly understand where Bannon can get his misconceptions from.

Bannon's comment is something that deserves a lot of commentary, a lot of correct ideological framing and conceptual precision, not just dismissal as one more attack on Rand. (btw - We can expect the Orthos to go ballistic. But don't expect Bannon to like them about much anything, either, since they preached voting for Hillary Clinton.  )

O-Land is not a land of ideological milk and honey. There are plenty of bullies running around. And what's ironic, I believe the proportion of bullies to good guys is about the same as for other major thought systems. Mostly good people and a minority of bullies, loudmouthed or otherwise.

Going by observation alone, based on what I have lived over this last decade in online O-Land, reason, the way Rand presents it, does nothing to make a bully want to stop being a bully.

And a bully with money and power is no more virtuous than a bully without. I believe the core of Bannon's lens of seeing capitalism--or, at least, one of the main cores--is this one, capitalism without bullying, which he calls the Judeo-Christian ethic.

He looks at bullies and thinks Christianity is the cure without realizing that there are many Christian bullies. Ayn Rand looks at bullies who preach altruism and thinks reason is the cure without realizing there are many bullies who spout reason--her brand of reason at that.

Bullying, to me, is a fundament of morality. Not just initiation of force. This is what needs to be clarified over the following months--maybe even try to get Bannon to see this.

Freedom does not mean the freedom to bully. Capitalism does not mean that, either. But many outside our subcommunity believe Ayn Rand means this. And, unfortunately, many within our subcommunity act as if they believe that's exactly the license and moral sanction she gives them--the sanction of the bully. They're wrong, but so what? Who's making the case against them?

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote: When we take a look at Trump's buildings, they don't fall. The reason? Well, according to Ayn Rand, the philosophy of reason--in other words, moral principles--hold them up. end quote

That is a very good insight. I think most moralists do that. She insisted that her philosophy was a cohesive *whole.* Yet, you cannot claim esthetics or morality hold a building up, just the vision, the property, the money, materials, and execution. And some things I am missing, like gravity, but a real builder would know.  

I cherry picked Robert Tracinski for the ideas I thought were interesting and more ‘pro Trump.’ And what are those important ideas I thought were important for the movement. But what movement, you might ask? The Ted Cruz, anti-establishment, objectivist, libertarian, begrudging republican party movement. The ‘keep the totalitarians out of government’, out of our schools, stop the waste, stop the endless war - COHESIVE unit now called . . .  from here on out . . . The Republican Party.

Peter  

Michaelangelo wrote: When we take a look at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel my art is beautiful and it doesn’t fall. The reason? Well, according to Aristotle, it is my philosophy of reason not my evoking of religious myths - - in other words, moral principles--hold it up. And glue. end quote 

[Mikee]

NY Sun's Conrad Black:

" It awaits the oldest and wealthiest person ever elected to the presidency of the U.S., and the only one of modern times to have paid for his own campaign, and the first since General George Washington to forgo his official salary, to excise a rot in the federal institutions of America that in the grandiosity of its decay has attained a scale worthy of the imperishably great nation it threatens. "

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

5 hours ago, Peter Taylor failed to cite an excerpt in which Steve Bannon said:

The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism.

That is a quote from Steve Bannon [...]

Bannon's comment is something that deserves a lot of commentary, a lot of correct ideological framing and conceptual precision, not just dismissal as one more attack on Rand.

This Is How Steve Bannon Sees The Entire World (full transcript)

 

 

[Wolf DeVoon]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Freedom does not mean the freedom to bully. Capitalism does not mean that, either. But many outside our subcommunity believe Ayn Rand means this. And, unfortunately, many within our subcommunity act as if they believe that's exactly the license and moral sanction she gives them--the sanction of the bully. They're wrong, but so what? Who's making the case against them?

Michael

I'm sorry, I don't follow this. Parents are legally entitled and morally required to "bully" their children, require them to brush teeth and do homework.

[jts]

About the video of "Should Christians impose limits on wealth creation?"

A very confusing speech. No answer to the question in the title. And it's a stupid question. No definition of capitalism. He recognizes more than one kind of capitalism. He mentions Ayn Rand capitalism without definition and without saying what is wrong with it. And why should we care about Christianity other than to disagree with it? Is this speech worth listening to?

Capitalism (in OL) means a social system based on recognition of individual rights, including property rights. Would anyone prefer to live in a world where individual property is not recognized?

To answer the question in the title: Should limits be imposed on wealth creation? (without reference to Christians):

First understand "wealth creation". To create something means to bring something into existence that did not exist before. Wealth means goods and services. Why should a limit be placed on bringing into existence goods and services that did not exist before?

Perhaps the question is not about creation of wealth but about one person acquiring wealth at the expense of another person, the socialist limited pie fallacy. This is not creation of wealth and is not capitalism (Ayn Rand capitalism, which is what we in OL mean by capitalism) and yes it should be limited.  Theft should be limited.

The speaker is confused all to hell, probably beyond hope of redemption.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

19 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Parents are legally entitled and morally required to "bully" their children, require them to brush teeth and do homework.

Wolf,

I agree we have to consider family law, but not as a primary.

I hold that philosophy (and law) are made for human beings, not that human beings are pegs that have to be molded to fit into a philosophy (or law). Throughout history, whenever there has been a poor fit, there has always been a strong reaction, meaning war, revolution, widespread poverty with a weakened population, exodus, etc.

So human nature has to be included in principles for humans to live by. One aspect of human nature is that we educate our young as mammals. All mammals "bully" their young in this respect. But that is not what I mean by bullying.

The bullying I am talking about re kids would be beatings (which I, personally received a lot), sexual abuse, etc. The following is tricky and I'm not certain on legalities, but I hold psychological bullying of a kid is evil. When a kid grows up being constantly demeaned, mocked, irrationally restricted in his interests, made to do long hours of really boring things for no reason except parental sadism, etc., the kid either finds a way to leave or turns into a mess. He has no other options just by the nature of his situation. In our current society, including legally, it's far easier for him or her to turn into a mess.

Let's put it simply. Family life is a part of human nature. Freedom means you can grow and nurture your family any way you please, including leaving your family as an adult, but you don't get to torture your kids or other family members to death.

Those are not the best words, so put that in any manner of syllogism you please. So long as the concept reflects philosophy and law emerging from human nature and not allowing some humans to be predatory on other humans, I'm fine with it.

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

This Is How Steve Bannon Sees The Entire World (full transcript)

[...]

Here are my selections, realizing I'm about to quote some of what Peter already has, but I'm adding some bold, correcting some text between the video and the transcript (annotated with an *), and also providing more quotes to the end of the speech:

[...]

But there’s a strand of capitalism today — two strands of it, that are very disturbing.

One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that’s the capitalism you see in China and Russia. I believe it’s what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism of people that are involved with these military powers-that-be in the government, and it forms a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people. And it doesn’t spread the tremendous value creation throughout broader distribution patterns that were seen really in the 20th century.

The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I’m a big believer in a lot of libertarianism. I have many many friends that’s a very big part of the conservative movement — whether it’s the UKIP movement in England, it’s many of the underpinnings of the populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States.

However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I call the “enlightened capitalism” of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them as really almost, as many of the precepts of Marx*.   And that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation that they’re really finding quite attractive. And, if they don’t see another alternative it is going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of “personal freedom.”

The other tendency is an immense secularization of the West. And I know we’ve talked about secularization for a long time, but if you look at younger people, especially millennials under 30, the overwhelming drive of popular culture is to absolutely secularize this rising iteration.

[...]

So I think the discussion of, should we put a cap on wealth creation and distribution? It’s something that should be at the heart of every Christian that is a capitalist — “What is the purpose of whatever I’m doing with this wealth? What is the purpose of what I’m doing with the ability that God has given us, that divine providence has given us to actually be a creator of jobs and a creator of wealth?”

I think it really behooves all of us to really take a hard look and make sure that we are reinvesting that back into positive things.

[...]

And so I think we are in a crisis of the underpinnings of capitalism, and on top of that we’re now, I believe, at the beginning stages of a global war against Islamic fascism.

[...]

This is a bit concerning, especially when I'm hearing on the shows that Bannon has Trump's ear.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

31 minutes ago, jts said:

The speaker is confused all to hell, probably beyond hope of redemption.

Jerry,

If you think like this on the part you heard, you should go to the link and read the Q&A.

I like it. I don't think you will.

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

16 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Bannon, "[Objectivist] capitalism ... looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them as really almost, as many of the precepts of Marx.

I think Bannon's reasoning is Objectivist capitalism objectifies and commoditizes people through the trader principle, and Marx objectifies people and commoditizes people as laborers, so they share precepts.

If that's what he is saying, he has it very wrong.

[Brant Gaede]

56 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Here are my selections, realizing I'm about to quote some of what Peter already has, but I'm adding some bold, correcting some text between the video and the transcript (annotated with an *), and also providing more quotes to the end of the speech:

[...]

But there’s a strand of capitalism today — two strands of it, that are very disturbing.

One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that’s the capitalism you see in China and Russia. I believe it’s what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism of people that are involved with these military powers-that-be in the government, and it forms a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people. And it doesn’t spread the tremendous value creation throughout broader distribution patterns that were seen really in the 20th century.

The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I’m a big believer in a lot of libertarianism. I have many many friends that’s a very big part of the conservative movement — whether it’s the UKIP movement in England, it’s many of the underpinnings of the populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States.

However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I call the “enlightened capitalism” of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them as really almost, as many of the precepts of Marx*.   And that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation that they’re really finding quite attractive. And, if they don’t see another alternative it is going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of “personal freedom.”

The other tendency is an immense secularization of the West. And I know we’ve talked about secularization for a long time, but if you look at younger people, especially millennials under 30, the overwhelming drive of popular culture is to absolutely secularize this rising iteration.

[...]

So I think the discussion of, should we put a cap on wealth creation and distribution? It’s something that should be at the heart of every Christian that is a capitalist — “What is the purpose of whatever I’m doing with this wealth? What is the purpose of what I’m doing with the ability that God has given us, that divine providence has given us to actually be a creator of jobs and a creator of wealth?”

I think it really behooves all of us to really take a hard look and make sure that we are reinvesting that back into positive things.

[...]

And so I think we are in a crisis of the underpinnings of capitalism, and on top of that we’re now, I believe, at the beginning stages of a global war against Islamic fascism.

[...]

This is a bit concerning, especially when I'm hearing on the shows that Bannon has Trump's ear.

Capitalism doesn't use people. People use capitalism.

--Brant

reprise