Yaron Brook on Executive Amnesty


Recommended Posts

Just one more fraudulent use of Ayn Rand's name made possible by Leonard Peikoff. It would be fraudulent even if Yaron Brook wasn't full of crap and his position was consistent with Objectivism. There is Objectivism and there is Objectivism applied. You apply, I apply, all and sundry apply. Many times we'll be wrong. Mistakes are made and shit happens. There was Ayn Rand and Ayn Rand applied and she called most of it Objectivism. That was her. Frankly, she was entitled. Not so for Yaron. He's not privileged to go around applying "Ayn Rand" to anything. Nor am I. Nor is anyone. But he gets to anyway.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

.

“White demise” is among the reasons this author (Mark Hunter?) gives for his proposition that “immigration is the most important issue we face.” Mr. Brook, we are told “makes much of illegals coming here to work. This is no consolation to those forced to look at them, . . .”

What a racist sewer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are a great many articles on ARI watch. The author is a good writer and prolific. There are many uses of the word 'look'; transitive verb 1 "to make sure or take care (that something is done) fits the context of the article best. It also describes the position of a hapless population forced to deal with the unintended consequences of all kinds of legislation passed by self interested social engineers and ivory tower intellectuals. Full Definition of LOOK
transitive verb
1
: to make sure or take care (that something is done)
2
: to ascertain by the use of one's eyes <look what I brought you>
3
a : to exercise the power of vision upon : examine
b archaic : to search for
4
a : expect, anticipate <we look to have a good year>
b : to have in mind as an end <looking to win back some lost profits>
5
archaic : to bring into a place or condition by the exercise of the power of vision
6
: to express by the eyes or facial expression
7
: to have an appearance that befits or accords with <looks her age>
intransitive verb
1
a : to exercise the power of vision : see
b : to direct one's attention <look upon the future with hope> <look at the map>
c : to direct the eyes <looked up from the newspaper>
2
: to have the appearance or likelihood of being : seem <it looks unlikely> <looks to be hard work>
3
: to have a specified outlook <the house looked east>
4
: to gaze in wonder or surprise : stare
5
: to show a tendency <the evidence looks to acquittal>
Link to post
Share on other sites

Going didactic with a word leaves the sentence--the context--untouched. Many words have more than one meaning with the meaning determined by use. If this weren't true, rapid reading of complex thoughts would be impossible, not when you have to go through a list to try to find out what is being said and still failing. You'd might have to call the author and ask which definition should be applied. He'd tell you to read the sentence--for the context. So it'd be a circle for that's what you should have done in the first place as in learning to read when you were a child.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember my grammar rightly, the word look is used in this sentence as a transitive verb. The first definition for the transitive verb look given in my American Heritage Dictionary is "To turn one's eyes on."

Mike, I think that plain meaning fits the author's little piece best. Certainly fits his concern over "white demise." If you were the author of this piece, well I'd certainly be thinking twice about whether the plain surface racism were true to the author's head. But I'm pretty sure you are not the author.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

“White demise” is among the reasons this author (Mark Hunter?) gives for his proposition that “immigration is the most important issue we face.” Mr. Brook, we are told “makes much of illegals coming here to work. This is no consolation to those forced to look at them, . . .”

What a racist sewer.

Yeah, is that a made up name? He's also anti-Semitic. He says Brook is using "the Jewish cultural play book."

This has to play back to the fact that Ayn Rand and most of her "Collective" were Jewish. It would seem the heart of the ARI Watch is Jew watch.

The problem with the philosophy of Ayn Rand is it does in many respects address both Christian and Jewish cultural outlooks and sensibilities with terribly serious reservations. Jews tend to be more secular than Christians in the aggregate, but each set of religious extremists absolutely do not mix except with those who are of almost exactly the same ilk. Hence, racists mix with racists. Rand's philosophy has nothing to do with "Jews for Jesus."

As for Brook's position on immigration he's simply wrong. So too Binswanger. Rand was more practical in my experience of her. I think she would have said "Yes but But" and come with a list of caveats--that is, before you jump into the swimming pool you take out the alligators.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember my grammar rightly, the word look is used in this sentence as a transitive verb. The first definition for the transitive verb look given in my American Heritage Dictionary is "To turn one's eyes on."

Mike, I think that plain meaning fits the author's little piece best. Certainly fits his concern over "white demise." If you were the author of this piece, well I'd certainly be thinking twice about whether the plain surface racism were true to the author's head. But I'm pretty sure you are not the author.

You call the author a racist. This is a convenient way to dismiss everything he says and not think about or discuss them. But cultural habits and ideas and the preservation of western culture and ideas are the subjects of his articles, not race as in genetic inheritance. The terms racism and racist are too broadly defined and applied too liberally I'm afraid in order to dismiss what some well meaning (though perhaps very angry) people are trying to say. I would be more impressed if you addressed individual issues point by point in the article (there must have been some reason you read it). Though having a cogent conversation about anything seems hopeless given the noise level that invariably arises.

I cannot reply again today until this evening soonest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of tables around which immigration issues are being debated from every angle with no element of racism. That has gone on at OL and has lately gone on at the Facebook page of Amy Peikoff. The racists can talk elsewhere, to each other. Whatever else they have said can be heard in places more sane.

My old two cents are here. To the author's point about immigration being the most important issue facing this country, No. The most important issue is the national debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Yaron Brook's two-week-old podcast "The Immigration Debate" has caught some flak on Facebook. There is some nuance in his views, it seems, and some issues that he is willing to 'bend' on -- including the notion that Muslim immigrants to the USA be fiercely 'screened' for ideological unsuitability, if not barred on political-religious grounds.

Here's brief examples of Brooke getting into it ...

Yaron Brook: Mark Martinson I have repeated said that under current conditions Islamic immigration to Europe should be stopped. And, of course I'm against muslim immigration into Israel. Really, how stupid do you guys think I am. You don't listen, create straw men and then insult me.
Yaron Brook: Given that we have not, and seemingly will not do so, a policy that excludes all Muslims is a very sad, pathetic, but possibly necessary alternative (certainly in the case of Europe). But that is how it should be viewed -- as an unjust, horrible thing to do, necessitated by a pathetic, weak foreign policy. Certainly not as some ideal to be praised
Yaron Brook: BTW, given that we have no foreign policy, and are at war, I do not object to banning all Muslims from immigrating to US. But the likelihood of that happening is zero. Border security will not keep out Muslims, and is not intended to.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get Yaron. If he doesn't think there should be Islamic immigration and that Israel has the right to restrict immigration to maintain its ethnic (Jewish) character then obviously he doesn't believe in "open immigration." And a Zionist has no right to accuse other people (immigration restictionists) of being "racist" and "xenophobic."

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get Yaron. If he doesn't think there should be Islamic immigration and that Israel has the right to restrict immigration to maintain its ethnic (Jewish) character then obviously he doesn't believe in "open immigration." And a Zionist has no right to accuse other people (immigration restictionists) of being "racist" and "xenophobic."

Neil

Is that why? Maybe it's to physically protect its inhabitants.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get Yaron. If he doesn't think there should be Islamic immigration and that Israel has the right to restrict immigration to maintain its ethnic (Jewish) character then obviously he doesn't believe in "open immigration." And a Zionist has no right to accuse other people (immigration restictionists) of being "racist" and "xenophobic."

Neil

Is that why? Maybe it's to physically protect its inhabitants.

--Brant

Who cares what Yaron thinks about how the US should control all immigration to this country right now.

It is a matter of national security and is the primary function of a Constitutional Republic.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Look at all these poor widows and orphans yearning to behead you...

041215border.jpg

On Thursday, a large group of men from Iran, who want to go to Europe, were not allowed through. Around 6,000 migrants are reported to be in the border town of Idomeni, and more than half of them come from Iran, Pakistan, Morocco and other countries whose citizens are not granted asylum in Europe.

On photos spreading on Twitter, one can see how a group of angry economic "refugees" unfurled a banner at the border - with the threatening text "Open or die"

.

The tense situation on the border between Greece and Macedonia, where migrants previously were able to cross the border with relative ease, has emerged as the two countries have decided to introduce a stricter control. Those coming from countries where there is no war, and without any chance of getting asylum in the EU, Greece and Macedonia are now trying to prevent from traveling further.

http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.2236/open-or-die.html

http://www.infowars.com/muslim-migrants-display-open-or-die-banner-at-macedonian-border-before-attacking-police/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get Yaron. If he doesn't think there should be Islamic immigration and that Israel has the right to restrict immigration to maintain its ethnic (Jewish) character then obviously he doesn't believe in "open immigration." And a Zionist has no right to accuse other people (immigration restictionists) of being "racist" and "xenophobic."

Neil

Is that why? Maybe it's to physically protect its inhabitants.

--Brant

Who cares what Yaron thinks about how the US should control all immigration to this country right now.

It is a matter of national security and is the primary function of a Constitutional Republic.

A...

I'm in favor of open immigration under a vastly different regime of private property rights in a free society, but let's leave that aside (as Brant rightly said, freedom is hundreds or thousands of years in the future in "a better world").

Instead, let's discuss national security as the primary function of a Constitutional Republic.

1. I don't see why national security pertains uniquely to a constitutional republic. Why not monarchy or theocracy?

2. The phrase used by our Founders was 'the common defense' and specifically meant the job of preparing for and conducting war -- with England (1812), Spain (1898), or Japan (1941). Had nothing to do with immigration historically. Common defense became 'national security' when war powers came unglued from explicit constitutional provision of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11. During the Vietnam Not-Really-War, it sort of floated off into Never Never Land.

U.S. officials began discussing the possibility of a regime change during the middle of 1963. The United States Department of State was generally in favor of encouraging a coup, while the Defense Department favored Diệm. Chief among the proposed changes was the removal of Diệm's younger brother Nhu, who controlled the secret police and special forces and was seen as the man behind the Buddhist repression and more generally the architect of the Ngô family's rule. This proposal was conveyed to the U.S. embassy in Saigon in Cable 243. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was in contact with generals planning to remove Diệm. They were told that the United States would not oppose such a move nor punish the generals by cutting off aid. President Diệm was overthrown and executed, along with his brother, on 2 November 1963. When he was informed, Maxwell Taylor remembered that Kennedy "rushed from the room with a look of shock and dismay on his face." He had not anticipated Diệm's murder. The U.S. ambassador to South Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge, invited the coup leaders to the embassy and congratulated them. Ambassador Lodge informed Kennedy that "the prospects now are for a shorter war". Kennedy wrote Lodge a letter congratulating him for "a fine job." [Wikipedia]

3. I dispute that 'national security' had anything to do with bombardment, invasion and occupation of Iraq. It served Israel's security interests, sure, but the United States had no US national defense angle to justify defense of Kuwait or subsequent destruction of Iraq -- which we irretrievably destroyed and for which there is no cure. Likewise, US national security has nothing to do with ousting Assad, or arming Syrian insurgents and bombing other Syrian insurgents.

4. Our track record in legitimate national security is awful. NSA conducting pointless domestic mass surveillance, on top of massive foreign communication surveillance, did nothing to defend the U.S. from terrorism. TSA routinely fails to find weapons at airport screening tests. No one at the FBI knew anything about the San Bernadino jihadis assembling pipe bombs and stashing ammo. They couldn't stop two successive attacks on the World Trade Center by known foreign agents, including two at flight schools who didn't care about landings. Maybe the conspiracy theories are right. How else could known jihadi Nidal Hasan shoot 43 disarmed soldiers at Fort Hood in "workplace violence"?

During the six years that Hasan worked as an intern and resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, colleagues and superiors were deeply concerned about his behavior and comments. Hasan was not married at the time and was described as socially isolated, stressed by his work with soldiers, and upset about their accounts of warfare. Two days before the shooting, which occurred less than a month before he was due to deploy to Afghanistan, Hasan gave away many of his belongings to a neighbor. Prior to the shooting, Hasan had expressed critical views described by colleagues as "anti-American". An investigation conducted by the FBI concluded that his e-mails with the late Imam Anwar al-Awlaki were related to professional research and that he was not a threat. [Wikipedia]

5. The primary function of a Constitutional Republic is to limit the lawful powers of the Federal government. Go ahead. Suggest any aspect of Federal power that is limited today. I can't find any.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wolf:

It is interesting that you did not ask me to define "national security."

However, let me be clear, my concern is now going forward.

I cannot change the reationale for Iraq I or II.

Certainly not for Vietnam, or, even Korea.

None of those had declarations of war.

If you do not have a Congressional declaration of war, you have no Constitutional power to conduct a war.

It is self evident and axiomatic.

We are still structurally and by initial design a limited Constitutional Republic.

In terms of "Common Defense," you raise an interesting point...can we agree on the following paragraph?

The Preamble presents six purposes of the Constitution. Of these six, two are immediate requirements of safety and security common to every sovereign nation: “insure domestic tranquility” and “provide for the common defense.”

Two look forward to building a particular society that upholds the rule of law and fosters prosperity and well-being for all of its citizens: “establish Justice” and “promote the General Welfare.” The other two objectives grandly express the Founders’ hopes for their nation’s and their people’s future: The Constitution is meant to “form a more perfect union” and “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..”

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

For 140 years, the Court held that the Preamble was not law. Now "general welfare" trumps everything else.

Agreed.

However, I am an originalist and a pretty close to strict constructionalist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone, in or out of the gov't, has constitutional power to do anything unless the Federal courts say, "No you don't." If the courts don't maintain the law then there's lawlessness--the wrong kind too boot for it isn't anarchy so desired by left libertarians (are any right libertarians anarchists?)

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone, in or out of the gov't, has constitutional power to do anything unless the Federal courts say, "No you don't." If the courts don't maintain the law then there's lawlessness--the wrong kind too boot for it isn't anarchy so desired by left libertarians (are any right libertarians anarchists?)

Goshk (as Popeye would say) a riddle first thing in the morning. The dog just woke me to let the cat in. Why he does that is a mystery, because he doesn't like the cat. So I have a riddle on top of a mystery.

I don't know what left anarchists are. I know they exist, but whatever they were trying to say never made any sense to me, so I gave up. Freedom is the legal right to be free from your neighbors. Long time ago, I wrote that socialism is mala in se, inherently and always a multiplicity of criminal wrongs, like slavery, and that adversarial due process is impossible under socialism because everyone has an equal claim of right, simultaneously petitioner and respondent in a dispute.

I don't think U.S. courts maintain the law. They maintain rules of evidence and such, but decisions are enforced (or ignored) by other people, almost always amounting to 'general consent' by We The People. Estimates I've seen say 13-15% of U.S. GDP is lawless black market trade, but that doesn't include all the anarchy that goes on in private homes, used car lots, political campaigns, etc. Courts and cops are a weak force, unable to do much about homicide.

If courts did their job properly, they'd limit government. But judges are no better than the people they serve, and in the United States judges serve the government who appointed and pay them to wreck innocent lives in family law, searches and seizures, tax law, redistricting, foreign wars, and mandatory college admissions for the Free Shit Army.

I think I need coffee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are both right.

Left wing anarchist are somewhat marxist driven in that there primary foundational assumption is that no private propery can exist in their model state.

The right wing anarchist, in my opinion, has roots in Proudhon.*

One reason is that he and Marx split from each other which was a healthy start to me.

He believed in Cooperatives and workers associations rather than having no "private property." He believed in non-violent change.

"Anarchy is Order without Power."

He was also a rabid anti-Semite...

Woodcock, a Canadian chronicler of Anarchism, points out that Proudhon,

Proudhon described the "form of government" he was proposing as "a centralization analogous with that of the State, but in which no one obeys, no one is dependent, and everyone is free and sovereign."[51]

I am reading the only biography of Lysander Spooner now. At least the only one that I could find on-line.

And, of course, there is Murray Rothbard.

Then we have the kinda Proudhon website with the circle A:

http://dailyanarchist.com/2013/09/26/is-left-right-and-right-wrong/

Interesting appearance on the author[ess] on the right.

A...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now