zantonavitch

The world is dying from welfare statism.

That sounds like a self-selection bias. Those kinds of people are loudest and go looking for videos to make trouble on. and are looking for an argument. The other 999 in a 1000 don't. So they are invisible. In a country of a billion people, 0.001% feels like a lot of people. Nerian -- I hadn't considered that, and I hope you're right. But a loud, aggressive, passionate, motivated minority can accomplish a lot.

Nerian in post #7 -- China probably won't start a nuclear war with America, in my view, over the next few decades. Russia and Pakistan haven't so far, despite their ideology pushing them in that direction strongly. Still, you can't really be sanguine. The Westernized, well-educated, English-speaking Chinese on YouTube scare the hell out of me when we debate the issues. So aggressive and hateful toward America. When they speak of Taiwan, Tibet, Hong Kong, East Turkestan, and America's imagined, malefic predations and designs on their beloved nation, they seem filled with out-of-control rage.

That guy in front of the tanks in post #10 showed immense personal courage. But he was probably acting on the basis of Confucian, Taoist, or Communist self-sacrifice -- the best moral theories he knew. But in the end, even shocking bravery is no substitute for philosophical knowledge. If a given person lacks the proper intellectual understanding, then personal greatness, integrity, courage, and other virtues can go a long way. But not nearly long enough. Only philosophical and moral truth can actually liberate and save China and humankind.

Monkey Scherk: That was a reference to culture -- not anything else. I'm the least bigoted person on the planet, bar none. Both Taiwan and China were stuck in the feudalistic, anachronistic Dark Age much longer than the West. But Taiwan has been hugely influenced by Western liberalism since the late 1940s; China by communism. The mainlanders were also debilitated by the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

Nerian -- You make many good points! I think you're exactly right when you say "what China really needs is good philosophy and good ideas!" I really fear for China under democracy, even today. Their overall philosophy, culture, lifestyle, and mindset is still so primitive, childish, and monkey-like. So non-Western liberal. I'm close to terrified even now that their leaders will eventually start a truly dreadful nuclear war with America, which will devastate the Chinese people from top to bottom (not to mention what it will do to Americans). If in 1989 the Chinese had achieved the nightmare of democracy, or majority-rule via voting, I think they would have done even worse than Russia or Ukraine. They would have almost immediately created a traditional dictatorship, rife with corruption, and inclined to wars of conquest against their neighbors, and to civil war between the Han and the other Oriental "minorities." Such would have been the fate of the barely-human Chinese monkeys! And such is the current weakness of Western liberal philosophy and culture in trying to defeat its Communist and Islamic enemies. Thus the world and Chinese are lucky to have the current leadership of Platonic philosopher-kings and benevolent dictators. I feel sick saying this -- but it seems to be true. The great ideal here, beyond all doubt, is Singapore and its stunningly virtuous and ingenious dictator Lee Kuan Yew. In today's irrational, illiberal Dark Age era, the key to achieving libertarianism and civilization is evidently this: suppress political rights to gain civil rights and liberties; suppress democracy to gain freedom and individual rights. Sad!

Today marks the dolorous 25th anniversary of the bloody crackdown and heartless massacre of Tiananmen Square by the loathsome, evil, Chinese dictators. It was a truly black day for world freedom. The idealistic, noble, and very brave, student-led protest was basically advocating overall reform, less corruption, democracy, and liberty. But it was called a pro-"democracy" demonstration from the start, and now it's almost exclusively remembered as being part of a pro-"democracy" movement. Well, democracy has advanced only slightly in the past quarter-century. Only to a scattered, inconsistent, and minor extent do the Chinese people actually get to elect their leaders, and decide who will rule them based on a majority vote. But freedom has advanced substantially. So too justice, and even impartial, objective rule of law. It's rather sad and odd that neither the Chinese nor the world publicly note it much. This problem -- and grave philosophical error -- began a long time ago. Indeed, in 1989 the Peking protesters occupying the central Square built a statue explicitly called "The Goddess of Democracy" to symbolize their protest. They did not build a "Goddess of Individual Liberty." The difference is telling -- and overwhelming. The sloppy language and poor thinking of the demonstrators and everyone else -- then and now -- is a true disaster for all. This business of government reformers incoherently stammering: "I want democracy -- you know: majority rule plus individual liberty," is very confusing to everybody. It renders the all-important battle royal for freedom and individual rights exceedingly difficult. Indeed, it mainly serves to advance the trivial notion and minor goal of a nation getting to choose its political leaders. As for the chance the newly-empowered people of China in 1989 might have used their new "democracy" to advance welfare-statist bureaucracy and tyranny far more than the economic capitalism and personal libertarianism recently advanced by the communist Chinese dictators -- well, no-one cares to consider that. Best to close our eyes to reality, and pretend that embarrassing issue doesn't exist. In the end, post-Tiananmen China has advanced fairly far down the only road that matters: not towards slimy, worthless democracy, but towards all-important freedom. When it comes to government, politics, and the law, the only things which matter are liberty, justice, and individual rights. Put more simply, the only thing which counts is individual liberty. And the Chinese people -- altho' still grossly and unconscionably deprived -- have a lot more of this today than they did 25 years ago.

Right-wing conservatives promote family (and traditional) values, while left-wing progressives promote multi-cultural (and politically correct) values. Both moral codes are collectivist and self-sacrificial. What is needed are rational liberal or individualist values. Or else healthy and happy ones. Or even intelligent, insightful, and wise values. Maybe just true, correct, moral, good, and valuable values. The Right and Left seem to be in a competition where each says to the public, between the lines: "Hey, I'm standing up for everybody. I'm not here just promoting myself and my tribe!" But why aren't they? Ultimately, both of these failed philosophy groups guys have a secret, nasty, evil, social agenda. It involves a pseudo-utopianism which involves attacking and destroying the Holy Individual. And that means everybody.

Live as much as you can, as long as you can. Life is glorious -- while it lasts.

I consider myself to be an ethical egoist and individualist. I champion the Holy Individual and the Sacred Self. I very much disagree with the pre-modernist, right-wing conservatives who largely or mostly live for the sake of "god"; and the post-modernist, left-wing progressives who largely or mostly live for the sake of the collective. Neither supposedly high concept seems to really exist, since there's no actual evidence for "god," and the collective is best and most accurately seen as merely a group of individuals. However, even if god and the collective do exist, they're virtually invulnerable, and thus no-one should really care about or protect them. Everyone, however, should care about and vigorously defend the special, unique, irreplaceable, invaluable One. The purpose of the individual joining up with a group, and creating society, is his own selfish and greedy betterment. All of society should be oriented toward benefiting the Holy Individual. (I explain this more carefully, and in far more detail, in my recent radical book.) My guess is that Rand deliberately and provocatively used the term "egotist" in The Fountainhead at first because it was the stronger version of "egoist," even tho' it was technically a mistake, based on common dictionary definitions. Thus her explanation for the change afterward was slightly disingenuous. And, it's worth noting, she never did uplift herself enough to embrace the term "hedonism" (another discussion found in my book). But this is just a guess, and obviously people (especially AR!) get the benefit of the doubt and are innocent until proven guilty. Thanks for saying I've got a lot of ego and self-esteem, Brant! Those are basically compliments. I enjoy bold, brash, outsize personalities in others. Even loud, obnoxious braggarts. The only caveat is that these charming egomaniacs have to be able to back up their words with deeds, somewhat. If they can't or don't, they're not nearly as much fun to observe and meet. But there's also nothing wrong with being modest and reserved, if that's your natural way. I'm mostly fiery in writing and intellectually debating issues -- not in person or personality. I agree with virtually everything Nathaniel Branden says about self-esteem and psychology, that I'm aware of. I think he's more intellectually impressive and accomplished than Sigmund Freud and Carl Yung combined. In my view, Branden is an under-appreciated genius and the greatest psychologist that ever lived.

I really don't recall that from Hunter in 2011 -- but that was three years ago, so maybe I forgot. In the current novel, Bad Deeds, Annie is very much dynamic and badass, albeit not quite on Dylan Hunter's level. She does suffer somewhat from what could be called "girlfriend syndrome" (from the movies). Still, Hunter is the lead character and hero, so what do you expect? They aren't a Batman and Robin evil-fighting partnership. That said, her actions in Bad Deeds are nothing but central to the plot and heroic.

Long-time Objectivist Robert Bidinotto's new thriller novel Bad Deeds was just published today on Amazon. It's a follow-up to his previous 2011 best-seller, Hunter, featuring many of the same characters. I was lucky enough to read an advance copy, and I can report that this new book is simply outstanding. The hero of the story is a tough guy and "lone-wolf vigilante" (Bidinotto's own words) in the tradition of Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer, Lee Child's Jack Reacher, Showtime's Dexter, and many cartoon superheroes. Also in the tradition of the dynamos of Ayn Rand. The lead character is investigative reporter Dylan Hunter, and he's an independently wealthy guy who's in love with the ideal of justice. But when exposing the truth about something in a newspaper doesn't do the trick, or when attacked directly, avenging angel Dylan Hunter...doesn't entirely work within the law in fighting back against deadly evil. My kind of guy! http://www.amazon.com/BAD-DEED...

He could still answer the substance of my arguments. Then he could return the insults, if he cares. Of course -- he's no match for me on either account.

Didn't the parents of the Russian citizen/slave provide all the food, clothing, shelter, health care, etc.? Or else the citizen/slave himself, when he turned 18 or so? And all this was done under very arduous, financially-crippling, Soviet-tyranny circumstances. In justice, the evil USSR state needed to pay the emigrant a king's ransom in compensation for all his suffering, as a parting gift.

Here's the comment I posted to his blog a few hours ago: My reply on www.PeterSchwartz.com is currently "awaiting moderation." Anyone care to guess whether or not he'll allow it and answer it?

Cultist monster Peter Schwartz analyzes Edward Snowden and the National Security Agency: http://peterschwartz.com/snowden-and-the-nsa/

"Those [iranians] who want to promote negotiation and surrender to the oppressors and blame the Islamic Republic as a warmonger in reality commit treason....The reason for continuation of this battle is not the warmongering of the Islamic Republic. Logic and reason command that for Iran, in order to pass through a region full of pirates, needs to arm itself and must have the capability to defend itself....Today’s world is full of thieves and plunderers of human honor, dignity and morality who are equipped with knowledge, wealth and power, and under the pretense of humanity easily commit crimes and betray human ideals and start wars in different parts of the world....Battle and jihad are endless because evil and its front continue to exist.…This battle will only end when the society can get rid of the oppressors’ front with America at the head of it, which has expanded its claws on human mind, body and thought....this requires a difficult and lengthy struggle and need for great strides....The accelerated [nuclear] scientific advancement of the last 12 years cannot stop under any circumstances." --dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamenei; May 25, 2014 (http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/25/irans-supreme-leader-jihad-will-continue-until-america-is-no-more/#ixzz32sZ50Igg)

At some point you simply have to make allowances for "poetic license." The Fountainhead is a dramatic, hyperbolic, fictional story -- not real life. (Reference.com defines poetic license as: "license or liberty taken by a poet, prose writer, or other artist in deviating from rule, conventional form, logic, or fact, in order to produce a desired effect.")

I think the Establishment Democrats also pretty much have no core beliefs, surrender, and refuse to fight. Where are the ones who want to legalize drugs and prostitution, while closing down Guantanamo and giving the jihadi-suspects trials instead of torture? Where are the ones who want to fight the NSA's wild violations of privacy, while rejecting legal favoritism for blacks and women, while opposing American support for the dictatorships of China, Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. ? In the 1970s or so, one might reasonably have expected the leftists/progressives and Democratic Party to stand up for freedom and individual rights in these areas. But now? Almost nothing.

Republicans like Senators Rand Paul (from Kentucky), Ted Cruz (from Texas), and Mike Lee (from Utah), etc. seem to be secret libertarians, or at least semi-libertarians. At the least, they're quietly more pro-freedom than most Americans and Republicans. And yet....their beliefs and political goals are fairly well-known by those who pay attention. Establishment Republicans like Congressmen Peter King (from New York City suburbs, in Long Island) seem to genuinely revile, and bitterly personally oppose, the pro-liberty folks like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/17/peter_king_im_thinking_of_running_for_president_to_stop_rand_paul_and_ted_cruz.html

A-m-a-z-i-n-g story and video: http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/cameras-catch-family-cat-taking-dog-bit-boy-224251670--abc-news-topstories.html?vp=1

To state the obvious: the philosophies of Christianity and Objectivism are massively antithetical and constitute overwhelming enemies. Moreover, belief in "god" is 100% false and 100% evil -- and everybody knows it.

Moralist/Greg -- I'm curious: Philosophically do you consider yourself to be a Christian or Jew or some type of monotheist? Do you consider yourself to be a semi-Objectivist as well?

Nice video, Michael! I watched the first 22 minutes. It's intelligent and high-minded, but also pretty bland and tiresome, featuring poor sound quality, as advertised; plus a bad French accent from the speaker. The worst part so far occurs at 10:55 where Piketty calls for more "progressive" (i.e. punitive) taxation. Still... As far as I can tell, there has been a medium-size growth in income inequality in the past 40 years or so. And inequality in the US evidently did decline from 1910 to 1970. In the post-war, post-1945 period all this took place despite the growth of unions and union power, minimum/prevailing wages, the (WW II) GI Bill with its education and housing (Levittowns) subsidies, the interstate highway system, etc. Welfare statists would argue that income inequality wonderfully declined because of all this state expansion and intervention. They would also say that the radical growth of gov't during the 1930s New Deal beautifully equalized things as well. My quick argument and counter-speculation is that this growth of income equality occurred in spite of welfare statism. More importantly, once the Great Society of the late 1960s and early 1970s kicked in -- with Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, increased regulation, newly complex tax codes, etc. -- then broad socio-economic trends reversed and inequality noticeably started to grow. The laws and gov't programs became elaborate and super-complex. Thus the gov't and welfare statism, as always, are the problem -- not the solution. Freedom and capitalism aren't failing today. Probably the rich folks know how to manipulate and control the system -- with all its tricky "protective" regulations and tax "shelters" -- in ways the middle and lower class don't. It's pretty sad to see all those pseudo-free enterprise and pseudo-libertarian "tax cuts" and "tax holidays" for millionaires and billionaires ever since Ronald Reagan and the 1980s. Pretty much every time a big company wants to open a new factory or business, or threatens to move an old one, it negotiates giant tax cuts for itself from the state gov't. Major sports team owners are generally showered with subsidies. There are now a plethora of wretched and farcical "enterprise zones" in most major US cities. Basically, all kinds of benefits are bestowed upon the politically-connected upper class. And all this anti-liberty nonsense is done in order to "spur growth" and "get gov't off our backs" and encourage "capitalism" -- usually with conservatives, libertarians, and Objectivists cheering. What a joke! This is all just charity for the mega-rich. I call it "monopoly kleptocracy," while most label it "crony capitalism." Those "Occupy Wall Street" and "We are the 99%" folks had a point. Mitt Romney and his fellow investor plutocrats pay less than 15% in income taxes because this the official US rate for stock dividends or capital gains. Meanwhile, the poor are also showered with welfare state benefits, so that they have a huge incentive to stay poor and little motivation to climb out of poverty. Thus the middle class suffers while those at the top and bottom exploit the system, profiteer from it, and grow in relative population size. No wonder there's growing income inequality in the West! But along with all this illegitimate growth in wealth inequality -- ironically enough -- there may be something proper and virtuous going on as well. Maybe as our world becomes more specialized and detailed in its division of labor, we are becoming "a world of experts." Thus there's a great call today, unlike 40 years ago, for highly-educated specialists in isolated fields; those who are this, and can do the tricky difficult work needed, get paid a comparative fortune. Meanwhile, those who are vocational generalists and blue collar workers are progressively less needed and valued in today's economy. Also: thinking, creating, innovating managers, executives, and bosses may be more necessary and important than ever, while braindead factory workers and laborers are quickly becoming less valued and important -- and thus less well paid. Robots and automation seem to be driving down their wages. Also considerably increased "outsourcing" and "third world", "the world is flat" competition. So today's world, interestingly enough, may also be displaying a partial growth in income/economic justice and morality. In other words, the hated "top 10%" and "top 1%" folks who are prospering these days may genuinely be productive workers who are earning more for their companies and so deserve more in pay. Thus a fairly large minority of growing income inequality today also seems to be based on merit.

Here's something pretty horrific. One of the greatest enemies and destroyers of freedom of the present moment seems to be economist Thomas Piketty and his new book Capital In the 21st Century. I haven't read it, but it seems to be a magisterial and powerful argument for socio-economic equality and against political liberty. Here's a rather glowing and ghastly tribute to it, complete with attacks on libertarianism and Randian ideology: http://www.alternet.org/economy/how-pikettys-bombshell-book-blows-libertarian-fantasies.