MAGA-Trump Movement 2021 And Beyond

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I look out over the news and social media.

The howling is something to behold.

I luvs me some howling...

 

Michael

[Marc]

Yeah but Trump has mean tweets

 

[Marc]

So just saying but if Trump becomes Speaker, and then Biden/Harris get impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, then not only does Trump become acting President but he can also run for 2024.

I would though appreciate a comment from my favourite poster, Mr.Peter! 

 

 

[Marc]

 

 

[Peter]

20 hours ago, Marc said:

I would though appreciate a comment from my favourite poster, Mr.Peter! 

You missssspelled favorite and Mr.Peter. My name deserves a space.

I see Biden is going to extend the border wall. What a hypocrite. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

I see Biden is going to extend the border wall. What a hypocrite. 

Peter,

He's also sicking the FBI on Trump supporters to help out his 2024 chances.

For real.

From Newsweek, of all places:

Exclusive: Donald Trump followers targeted by FBI as 2024 election nears

WWW.NEWSWEEK.COM

---

The government believes the threat of violence and major civil disturbances is so great, it has quietly created a new category of extremists: MAGA.

From the article:

Quote

The federal government believes that the threat of violence and major civil disturbances around the 2024 U.S. presidential election is so great that it has quietly created a new category of extremists that it seeks to track and counter: Donald Trump's army of MAGA followers.

So there you have it.

I guess I am now going to be categorized as an extremist and tracked and persecuted by he FBI because I am proud to be a member of "Donald Trump's army of MAGA followers" and I say it out loud. 

btw - That's the formal name the FBI uses now, if I am not mistaken.

Donald Trump's army of MAGA followers

 

Dan Bongino is having a fit. He said this was not a leak, as is publicized. Leaks of that nature go to Breitbart of maybe Fox. Not Newsweek.

Bongino says this was a warning from the Deep State. Essentially a warning not to support or elect Donald Trump--or else.

Or else means knocks on the door at night from the American Stasi.

What's worse, this is how a police state starts solidifying.

Bombshell Report Exposes FBI Targeting Trump Supporters (Ep. 2103) - 10/05/2023

RUMBLE.COM

---

For show notes, visit https://bongino.com/ep-2103-bombshell-report-exposes-fbi-targetting-trump-supporters Check out our Clips channel for video highlights https://rumble.com/BonginoClips Sign up to r

 

Is this the America anti-Trumpers are happy with?

Apparently so.

That is until the knock in the night comes to their door.

I'm not all that worried, though.

I little birdy is telling me this is not going to work.

There are just too many people for them to persecute to pull off a major coup out in the open.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's another discussion by Tim Pool.

FBI Labels MAGA ARMY As Extremists, Democrats TARGET Political Rivals

WWW.BITCHUTE.COM

---

HANG OUT WITH US LIVE IN MIAMI - https://timcast.com/timcast-irl-x-miami/ Sign Up For Exclusive Episodes At https://timcast.com/ Merch - https://timcast.creator-spring.com Hosts: Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) Serge @se…

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I like a lot about Mark Levin, but I don't like his steady campaign against Matt Gaetz for getting rid of McCarthy.

I liked the response to him below from JD Rucker so much, I followed the dude.

 

JD Rucker's words express mine.

The best thing the Heroic 8 led by Matt Gaetz did was expose the globalists shills who had good smokescreens.

I wonder how much Levin was getting from backroom deals with McCarthy. There's no doubt in my mind he was in on something.

 

Michael

[Backlighting]

I also support Mark on many of his takes. It's his religious beliefs that I don't agree with. AR was right when she said conservatives don't know how to promote capitalism...that it needs to be advocated on moral grounds. Sure it's the most prosperous system & it's argued in that vein, but it is the only system (laissez-faire capitalism) that recognizes and supports individual/ property rights. What we have now, of course, is a mixture of freedoms and controls.

A couple of years ago I was listening to his radio program and a listener called in to ask him why he doesn't bring up Ayn Rand.

His reply was he does on occasion and said when she's right she's right on. He didn't get specific. I've never seen any of AR's quotes in any of the books he's written that I've looked at.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

He's also sicking the FBI on Trump supporters to help out his 2024 chances.

For real.

They mean business, too.

Hillary Clinton is calling for a formal deprogramming of Trump supporters.

In practice, that means mind control and reeducation camps. Struggle sessions.

Scott Adams hardly ever uses the word "evil."

But he used it here:

 

 

For those who have not seen it yet, how obvious does it have to get?

The FBI made a formal extremist category for Trump supporters and set up a task force to target them. Secret police anyone? Top Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton are clamoring for a formal deprogramming of Trump supporters. Formal means government-controlled. Trump himself is being harassed with amateurish long-winded frivolous lawsuits from the government.

It's a good thing MAGA people are many. If not, they would get obliterated by the government with large-scale setups similar to the Widmer kidnapping plot.

You don't have to like Trump or agree with him or his supporters to know something is wrong when all this is done in the name of the American system.

Seriously, Biden and Clinton and the others are engaging in communist-takeover tactics. And if they are successful, they will be coming for you at some point.

They always do in countries where this stuff is successful.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 hours ago, Backlighting said:

What we have now, of course, is a mixture of freedoms and controls.

B,

There's a reason for that not covered in Objectivist thought.

That reason is the existence of the Deep State, military/medical/information-industrial complexes, or whatever else one wants to call it.

Rand rightly bashed crony business between the market and the government.

But then she said the market was morally correct to serve the government in a laissez-faire capitalism way.

In my view, this is a humongous misidentification. The premise is that the government is capable of acting as a simple laissez-faire capitalism customer.

It cannot act that way by its very nature of being the government.

When two people make a deal and only one has a monopoly on initiating force, is it any wonder that the party that can freely initiate force will do so?

Supplying the government with goods and services cannot be called laissez-faire capitalism without proposing a serious contradiction at the foundational level.

I am not against supplying the government, but I am against blanking out the true nature of what that means.

A special category needs to be made for supplying the government. If that never happens, legal and moral provisions to make it work will never come about. The world will keep witnessing military ventures like endless war for profit happen and capitalism will be the fountainhead shown to the public. This goes for medical and intelligence crony bullshit, too.

If one does not identify a problem correctly, one will never be able to use reason to correct it.

Michael

[Marc]

17 hours ago, Peter said:

You missssspelled favorite and Mr.Peter. My name deserves a space.

I see Biden is going to extend the border wall. What a hypocrite. 

My favourite way to spell favorite is the British way because it has a "u" in it and U are my favourite poster!

And you do deserve the space Mr. Peter!

Even worse than a hypocrite, he stole the election but President Trump will fix it.

 

[Marc]

18 hours ago, Peter said:

You missssspelled favorite and Mr.Peter. My name deserves a space.

I see Biden is going to extend the border wall. 

Yay or nay Mr. Peter? 

[Strictlylogical]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

But then she said the market was morally correct to serve the government in a laissez-faire capitalism way.

In my view, this is a humongous misidentification. The premise is that the government is capable of acting as a simple laissez-faire capitalism customer.

I don't think it is a huge misidentification though.

I think there is a lack of a critical distinction/identification.

 

In the free market anyone is free to provide goods and services to anyone... and this is true for sealing wax, haircuts, office supplies, etc.

What a proper government is and does, will still require many of these things and it would be senseless to have them provided only within the government from scratch ... we know government is not the entity which is good at providing any goods or services.... quite the opposite.  Furthermore, government must not and should not obtain any goods and services from the free market at preferred or coerced prices... indeed prices which are artificial in any way.

OK, so much for the business of the Justice System, laws, courts and all...

What about the police?  What about weapons?  Without thinking harder on it, its not perfectly clear to me whether there is a justification for the police, in executing their duty to protect individual rights of the people via enforcement, to have any armaments which are prohibited to the law abiding individual citizens... to me it seems there should be a symmetry or mirroring of both professional and non-professional alike ... defending themselves, loved ones, and neighbors.

What is clear to me is that the weaponry and tactics and offensive devices of a military for use against foreign powers must be greater and of a different kind from that provided to and used by the police and the citizenry.  As such, here we have a CLEAR situation where the government has a complete and utter monopoly on use of and engagement with surveillance, cyber, conventional, and nuclear weaponry dealing with foreign threats.

In this way then, there will be some products and services which have only one customer... the military.  THOSE products and services, for which there is properly NO free market, must be differentiated, and should likely be controlled by government according to principles of the role of a  proper government.  Likely this would prohibit Global entities from providing these to America as well as other countries whose interests may not be aligned...  In fact engineers and scientists creating said weapons should likely be employed by the military.  Now drilling down further... there will be components IN those products which are on the free market... but then we go back to what I said above.


So Rand I think was right for (just about) at least two branches of government, but not for SOME products and services solely within the power of the third ... the military branch.

 

[Peter]

2 hours ago, Marc said:

Yay or nay Mr. Peter?

As John Wayne said in his cowboy hat and best Frenchy accent, "May we, mon sewer." At least I recognize Jordan's face.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, Strictlylogical said:

So Rand I think was right for (just about) at least two branches of government, but not for SOME products and services solely within the power of the third ... the military branch.

S,

So you are OK with medical products being sold to the government? Like vaccines? And if so, are you surprised a lot of medical products receive immunity from being sued?

Ditto for information products developed by DARPA and given a free market pass (especially Facebook and Google). They, too, are immune from being sued. And get this. They get to censor who the government wants censored.

 

Outside of the military, those are the biggies, but by far they are not the only ones.

But wait! There's more!

After the government spends money developing, or helping to develop, products it later grants immunity from prosecution to, it buys products from the companies it helped set up to sell them.

And it buys them to the tune of billions and billions and billions of dollars.

Do you think Rand ever discussed something like that?

No.

I have read most everything she wrote and I don't recall anything. Maybe she did, but I don't recall it.

She discussed government being involved in swindles. And she had plenty to say about specific cases over time. But for her, I don't recall her dealing with the topic of a lopsided trade arrangement where one side has guns and the courts and the other side has nothing but syllogisms at root for defending their agreements. If the other side needs to defend it's trade agreements with the government, it needs to use the guns and courts of the government to do so.

You tell me, what works better in that situation to defend you interests? Relying on the party that is injuring you of just flat-out bribery and blackmail?

 

Should it be that way? Should does not enter at the identification level. It just is. 

And it's OK for Rand to have missed some things. Even fundamental things. She did OK without them.  

 

On another point, I loved it when Trump blew up the notion that trade with China was "free trade" and replaced that term with "fair trade." Here in O-Land, some people made boatloads of money from China over decades (you damn well know who you are, too) and patted themselves on the back that they were engaging in laissez-faire capitalism. When you would ask about the government subsidies in China and the disparate tariffs between Chinese government and US government, they would just mumble laissez-faire capitalism or free trade or something. Maybe tell you to read more Rand.  

That is the danger of ignoring a fundamental piece of reality. People eventually divorce the intention from the word and don't even allow it to become a workable concept in reality. Hell, they don't even allow it to become a concept at all for conscious awareness and communication. Instead, they use the word as a smokescreen to cover their own cheating.

So "free trade," for the longest time, meant a rigged market in practice--even here in O-Land. And rigged by who? That's easy. By government people and crony insiders, of course. The only thing laissez-faire about that is laissez-faire sleaze.

 

Michael

[Strictlylogical]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

S,

So you are OK with medical products being sold to the government? Like vaccines? And if so, are you surprised a lot of medical products receive immunity from being sued?

No.

A proper government does not buy medicine... why would it? 

Granting immunity to private entities is also not the role of government.

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ditto for information products developed by DARPA and given a free market pass (especially Facebook and Google). They, too, are immune from being sued. And get this. They get to censor who the government wants censored.

Here you speak of corrupt government doing improper (non proper governmental) things.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

After the government spends money developing, or helping to develop, products it later grants immunity from prosecution to, it buys products from the companies it helped set up to sell them.

I see a pattern here... a corrupt government, an improper government, can and does things which are corrupt and improper... 

this is not an argument for why Rand's statement that government should interact with the private market in a laissez faire manner.

 

I submit again, a proper government should do so except for services and goods which are not properly in the free market.

6 hours ago, Strictlylogical said:

What a proper government is and does, will still require many of these things and it would be senseless to have them provided only within the government from scratch ... we know government is not the entity which is good at providing any goods or services.... quite the opposite.  Furthermore, government must not and should not obtain any goods and services from the free market at preferred or coerced prices... indeed prices which are artificial in any way.

Ok so you know what I think, how do you think a proper government (minimal... three branches) should interact with the free market in a proper and free society, with respect to goods and services properly offered in that free market to others?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, Strictlylogical said:

A proper government does not buy medicine... why would it? 

Granting immunity to private entities is also not the role of government.

S,

Of course I agree with the first statement.

I do not agree with the second. Granting immunity to private entities actually is the role of government. The government makes laws and grants exemptions by definition. We are talking about a law. A bad law, but still a law. Who or what else is going to make laws? In fact, granting immunity is what the government is doing this very moment.

Should it? I don't like the idea, but I do recognize that reality comes with severe contexts at times. But so long as we treat the problem of supplying the government as belonging to laissez-faire capitalism, I don't see how we can keep the government from granting immunity to private entities at whim. Or from buying medicine, for that matter.

 

The problem is when people have a monopoly on force, why on earth would they obey you or me?

Because what? Syllogisms? Reasons? Moral condemnation? Someone uses the word "proper"?

The guy with the gun looks at you and says, "So what?"

We can't just make a structure and tell everyone, "Obey my rules of what is proper," and expect them to obey. I know we do a lot of that here on O-Land, but notice how much that works in practice. The fact is it doesn't. 

We can make it work in novels and syllogisms and principles. We can morally condemn left and right. We can't do that with living breathing human beings and expect much to come of it, though. We need something more. We need a connection between the idea and reality in the form of physical action and that aligns with human nature.

 

Enter the greatest gift the Founding Fathers ever gave to mankind. It goes even deeper than Individual Rights. It is called Separation of Powers with Checks and Balances.

 

A person who has power wants more. Is that as it should be? Is that proper?

Nope. It just is. That is how human nature works, or at least a fundamental part of human nature. One accepts that reality about humans or one ignores it (blanks it out), but it will keep being what it is regardless. All those human suckers out there just won't obey a good idea when someone tells them to. In fact, more often than not, they want you to obey them.

So whatcha gonna do when that happens? Complain? Withdraw moral sanction? Pout?  

 

The Founding Fathers knew what to do. They knew the best way to curtail the power of one man was to give another man half the power (oversimplified to serve as an example). Both want to expand their power and the only place to get more is from the other man. So they block each other.

Since the slice of power each has is real and can be used in reality, they do things with their portion of power--things in reality. This is how the wonderful ideas in the Constitution go from syllogism and principle and suggestion into reality. That's the mechanism.

Nobody can rule other humans (for good or ill) without the power to back it up. That goes in spades for a document to rule other humans. 

The Founding Fathers did not ignore the inner power-monger inside all humans. They accepted that it exists to some degree and outsmarted it by slicing power up into lots of pieces. They forced the inner power-monger to obey Individual Rights, thus let the idea of reason in the document to emerge long enough to seduce it--in practice.

 

 

The rub has come when the people in government perceive places to expand their power that does not come from the power of another person in government. For example, when they authorize purchases in the name of the government.

Buying medicine does not take away any power from a judge or legislator or even member of law enforcement. So nobody in government has much interest in stopping it when other people in government suggest it and start doing things to make it happen. Why should they bother? It's no skin off their nose, so to speak. But buying medicine expands the power in spades of the person who authorizes the moolah and purchase.

And once the laws become so convoluted, nobody can understand them anymore, and there are taxes and purchases galore to provide lots of moolah to go around, who the hell in government wants to obey? In that scenario, there is plenty of power to go around. Just set up your gang and set up shop. You don't need to step on the toes of other people in government. You have the entire country to step on.

That's a reality that will not go away by saying the word "proper."

That needs to be fixed. And keeping that reality hidden as theory, as "laissez-faire capitalism," essentially grants it moral credibility it does not have in reality. 

And with moral credibility, with equating the man in a deal with no guns to the man in the same deal with guns, the first thing to go out with window is Individual Rights. Not all at once. Instead, bit by bit.

Michael

[Strictlylogical]

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

S,

Of course I agree with the first statement.

I do not agree with the second. Granting immunity to private entities actually is the role of government. The government makes laws and grants exemptions by definition. We are talking about a law. A bad law, but still a law. Who or what else is going to make laws? In fact, granting immunity is what the government is doing this very moment.

Should it? I don't like the idea, but I do recognize that reality comes with severe contexts at times. But so long as we treat the problem of supplying the government as belonging to laissez-faire capitalism, I don't see how we can keep the government from granting immunity to private entities at whim. Or from buying medicine, for that matter.

 

The problem is when people have a monopoly on force, why on earth would they obey you or me?

Because what? Syllogisms? Reasons? Moral condemnation? Someone uses the word "proper"?

The guy with the gun looks at you and says, "So what?"

We can't just make a structure and tell everyone, "Obey my rules of what is proper," and expect them to obey. I know we do a lot of that here on O-Land, but notice how much that works in practice. The fact is it doesn't. 

We can make it work in novels and syllogisms and principles. We can morally condemn left and right. We can't do that with living breathing human beings and expect much to come of it, though. We need something more. We need a connection between the idea and reality in the form of physical action and that aligns with human nature.

 

Enter the greatest gift the Founding Fathers ever gave to mankind. It goes even deeper than Individual Rights. It is called Separation of Powers with Checks and Balances.

 

A person who has power wants more. Is that as it should be? Is that proper?

Nope. It just is. That is how human nature works, or at least a fundamental part of human nature. One accepts that reality about humans or one ignores it (blanks it out), but it will keep being what it is regardless. All those human suckers out there just won't obey a good idea when someone tells them to. In fact, more often than not, they want you to obey them.

So whatcha gonna do when that happens? Complain? Withdraw moral sanction? Pout?  

 

The Founding Fathers knew what to do. They knew the best way to curtail the power of one man was to give another man half the power (oversimplified to serve as an example). Both want to expand their power and the only place to get more is from the other man. So they block each other.

Since the slice of power each has is real and can be used in reality, they do things with their portion of power--things in reality. This is how the wonderful ideas in the Constitution go from syllogism and principle and suggestion into reality. That's the mechanism.

Nobody can rule other humans (for good or ill) without the power to back it up. That goes in spades for a document to rule other humans. 

The Founding Fathers did not ignore the inner power-monger inside all humans. They accepted that it exists to some degree and outsmarted it by slicing power up into lots of pieces. They forced the inner power-monger to obey Individual Rights, thus let the idea of reason in the document to emerge long enough to seduce it--in practice.

 

 

The rub has come when the people in government perceive places to expand their power that does not come from the power of another person in government. For example, when they authorize purchases in the name of the government.

Buying medicine does not take away any power from a judge or legislator or even member of law enforcement. So nobody in government has much interest in stopping it when other people in government suggest it and start doing things to make it happen. Why should they bother? It's no skin off their nose, so to speak. But buying medicine expands the power in spades of the person who authorizes the moolah and purchase.

And once the laws become so convoluted, nobody can understand them anymore, and there are taxes and purchases galore to provide lots of moolah to go around, who the hell in government wants to obey? In that scenario, there is plenty of power to go around. Just set up your gang and set up shop. You don't need to step on the toes of other people in government. You have the entire country to step on.

That's a reality that will not go away by saying the word "proper."

That needs to be fixed. And keeping that reality hidden as theory, as "laissez-faire capitalism," essentially grants it moral credibility it does not have in reality. 

And with moral credibility, with equating the man in a deal with no guns to the man in the same deal with guns, the first thing to go out with window is Individual Rights. Not all at once. Instead, bit by bit.

Michael

I lean towards the sentiment attached to "Bad Laws are not law at all"... when I think of how things should be and yes what "proper" government would be, but this "ideal" so to speak is not grounded in wish or faith or intrinsicism or any thing other than the political principles springing from ethics, i.e. morality (rational selfishness)... how the economy "should" be, what "government" should do, how the market "should" interact with "government" are all premised on what kind of systems individuals should set-up and maintain... and guard with eternal vigilance.

I know, in the real world setting up things is more than wishing and speaking with two friends who might tell two of their friends... setting up systems has been incredibly laborious, bloody, and complicated in the past, and it would ever be so.  It must come from an overriding culture and sense of life as well, ultimately ideas, individuals have, morphing into some "we" deciding to act on it because they know the kind of society which leads to flourishing.

But in the real world every system involves people, and people are flawed in innumerable different ways and to different degrees... but why even bother keeping the idea of what is "proper" in mind in terms of a system or government, if we have no one too staff it with diligence and integrity?

I'm not at the point of throwing out "shoulds" and "propers"... to me they are still lodestones, and principled... ideal even.. and like perhaps an unreachable infinity... they still are "directions" toward which can all face and move, knowing the end is never reached and the striving never ends.

 

I have thought of your points many times before, and bemoaned the fact of reality that although we may be able to determine what "we" should set up for ourselves based on ethical principles and human flourishing... it is somehow unattainable because "we" (the only ones who could) cannot implement it as flawed human beings... but this feels like Peter saying he knows what he should do but he cannot... it is synonymous to someone initiating the individual task of personally seeking moral principles but giving up entirely when he realizes he is flawed and cannot be completely and infallibly trusted to DO or ACT in accordance with those principles. I, however, believe in free will... for individuals AND for cultures/societies (even if Harry Seldon would argue the statistics prove determinism for groups..) and so I have hope.

But of course, these things are NOT easy, so principles both individual and societal need to take into account the frailties AND the virtues of human nature... obtaining a result according to principles requires implementation which soberly takes into account human nature. So, insofar as the balance of powers works with and takes into account human nature without giving up on the principles those powers are meant to uphold... I see great genius and benefit in something akin to that.. if one day someone could think that up.

I do agree that something along that vein ... of aiming to live by and set up principled proper systems, necessitating the inclusion (and made possible by) specific kinds of systems, or procedures, or machinations which attenuate, balance, cancel...etc... the effect of our lower natures.

 

The principle "laissez-faire" means government leaving alone private parties... free individuals etc. to deal with each other however they choose.  This principle applied to a deal BETWEEN government and private parties does not take the same form of "leave the dealers alone" BUT must be in the same spirit and provide the same outcome as the wider principle.  The wider principle is the separation of government and the economy.. or government "leave the market alone". In the same manner the principle of honesty is not an imperative forbidding one person for uttering falsehoods to another, but the wider principles of adherence to reality and not faking reality to gain a value.  So too, "applying" the principle of "laissez-faire" to a government deal does not mean leaving the GOVERNMENT alone (to deal however the heck it wants), but means structuring the dealings so as to ensure they leave the market alone and as untouched and unaffected as possible.  [The deal also should leave the government and its agents unaffected... and untarnished...]    How to systematically achieve this, structure it to attenuate the darker side of the people implementing it from affecting the intended results... that is another mystery new Founding Fathers will need to tackle.

 

I agree with you in broad strokes, the separation of powers of the branches of government work well to balance that power, but the interface of that power with the people and the economy needs its own mechanism, it needs to be somehow inoculated from the the opportunities and incentives of corruption.

 

[Marc]

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, Strictlylogical said:

I agree with you in broad strokes, the separation of powers of the branches of government work well to balance that power, but the interface of that power with the people and the economy needs its own mechanism, it needs to be somehow inoculated from the the opportunities and incentives of corruption.

S,

I am glad to see you are thinking this through. More people need to do this.

I recall a super-embarrassing episode involving the Objectivist community and Bill Gates. It happened when he attached Internet Explorer as a condition to use Microsoft products and blew Netscape off the playing field. Then there was an antitrust suit against Microsoft.

Rather than look at what was really going on, Objectivist bigwigs all rallied in support behind Bill Gates and even sought him out to grant him the status of some kind of John Galt. This was on fire in the O-Land forums and online communities. Lots of people got to feel self-righteous and they shit-posted.  

I remember a news story at the time saying Gates looked at some document they had prepared for him (I don't recall what that was, but if you look it up, it will be there). After looking at it, he looked up perplexed, said something like, "Oh... OK," and walked off.  

It never occurred to the O-Land doofuses to look into Gates's gaming of the patent laws as a fundamental component of his power and success of Microsoft products, nor the oodles of moolah stemming from the plethora of government contracts Microsoft held. Since Microsoft products also worked well (and Gates should get credit for that part), all they saw was Atlas Shrugged and they lived and acted as if that were an accurate depiction of the Gates reality before them. 

They refused to look at reality as it was.

So how did that deification of Gates work out for them? Hmmmm?...  

Gates is only one of the most evil men on the planet in promoting genocide right now...

 

This is the same epistemological problem at root with treating commerce with the government as the same as commerce on the open market and calling it all laissez-faire.

If we want to change reality to better suit human life, we have to start with identifying reality, not start with what we think reality should be.

There's an old religious doctrine that says if you want a wish to become true, you should start living as if it already were true. That, to me, seems to better depict this process in practice in O-Land than reason or Objectivist epistemology (which should be the standard). "Fake it until you make it" is the major way far too many people in O-Land implement the philosophy.

 

Note, I am not against principles or projecting a better reality or anything like that. I am against blanking out reality to get there. This fits so well with the depiction James Lindsay gave of Hermetic thinking it's not even funny. In Hermetic thinking, they believe reality is flawed on the surface, but not underneath, and the purpose of living a good life is to peel away the flaws and let the real reality emerge. Live in the essence of the real reality, they say, not on the flawed reality surface.

That makes for a good story, I suppose, but a horrible business plan or charter document for a society.

 

There is an insinuation I get from your post that I prioritize the dark side of human nature over the ideal. Just for the  record, I do not. I am against blanking out the dark side of human nature when preaching and intending to implement a change where humans exist.

In my view, we imagine an ideal, then strive to achieve it. When we imagine an ideal, we don't need to start with reality, although it is far better to start there. But we sure as hell need to start with reality when we try to implement the ideal. The people who refuse to start with reality and are successful at attaining great power always end up with the following reality: piles and piles of murdered innocents.

Reality has no mercy for those who ignore it. Nor for those who are governed by those who ignore it.

 

You mentioned the following, and this, to me is part of the error I see widespread in O-Land.

5 hours ago, Strictlylogical said:

So too, "applying" the principle of "laissez-faire" to a government deal does not mean leaving the GOVERNMENT alone (to deal however the heck it wants), but means structuring the dealings so as to ensure they leave the market alone and as untouched and unaffected as possible.

Actually, applying the principle of "laissez-faire" to the government does mean leaving the government alone. This isn't a pop song where "Bad" can mean powerful and good. "Laissez-faire" literally means leave alone. You cannot apply "leave alone" to the government and not apply it at the same time. A cannot be non-A.

However I like your idea of applying "laissez-faire" to the market only. But that means shackling the government with different rules. The kicker is the government's ability to initiate force. Initiating force, by definition, means not leaving someone or something alone. 

To repeat, A has to be A. It cannot be non-A at the same time. That's the only way I know of to use with observation to correctly identify reality. The proposition, "A (reality) is A (ideal)" does not compute in my mind.

My way is "A (reality) can become B (ideal) with a reality-based plan and process."

 

I mentioned one of the plans and processes that work for that to happen: checks and balances based on separation of powers. Thank you Founding Fathers.

There is another device that has been invented that separates the economy from the government and there is proof of implementation. That proof is happening this very moment. The device is Bitcoin. And the proof is El Salvador.

When government cannot issue new currency, and with Bitcoin there is a fixed quantity by its very nature, the government cannot go off into endless wars for profit. There is no way to pay for it.

(Reality check for those who think in theory only. Soldiers and ordinance need to be paid for. What's more, soldiers eat and that needs to be paid for, too, as you go along. And so on.  )

This means the government can be forced to become closer in reality to an unarmed member of a deal when it no longer has the power to issue currency. That leaves borrowing and confiscating (taxing) as it's only sources of income. And voluntary payment of taxes, which means it has to convince people to pay, not force them to pay.

Bitcoin, by its nature, cannot be confiscated. This is what is driving the elitist ruling class nuts right now. But the government can borrow. The question is, presuming a Bitcoin system, after a string of government defaults on loans, who will loan anything to it? And, when convincing people to pay taxes, if the government says, for example, it's a good thing to mutilate the genitals of children, who will pay taxes for that?

 

So we don't need to figure out how to separate the government from the economy. Some new Founding Fathers (who I admire enormously) have already done that and they are turning it into reality.

Our job in this context is to learn this reality and educate others about the true nature of it, thus convince them to resist the propaganda from the bad guys as the fiat world crumbles and this new system emerges.

Note, this is not a flawed reality being peeled back to allow the true reality to emerge. That's Hermetic thinking.

This is more in line with what I understand as true Objectivist epistemology (despite Rand's errors in extending it to the interactions between the government as a customer and market):

1. Identify reality as it exists as the starting point,
2. Shackle the elements that get out of hand on their own (power, issuing currency, etc.),
3. Shackle them in reality (Bitcoin anyone?), not just in words, and
4. Invent and implement these new idealized plans and processes using these new tools and devices.

Bitcoin and checks and balances work great for this to happen. And where they work is proof that they do work. We now have enough reality to look at comparisons.

And we have to use reason, of course.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 10/6/2023 at 6:18 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Hillary Clinton is calling for a formal deprogramming of Trump supporters.

LOL...

 

Michael

[tmj]

Was there satirical Kulak literature ?

[Marc]

We need Trump in as Speaker IMMEDIATELY.

Then he needs to remove Biden/Harris and save the world.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 10/3/2023 at 4:02 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

McCarthy lied, and he got fried.

Steve Scalise (more swamp) just got nominated for Speaker of the House.

Now get this, they did it behind closed doors. The GOP swamp will never learn. They all need to be primaried.

Scalise beat Jim Jordan for the nomination 113 to 99.

But now he needs 218 floor votes to win the office.

Rotsa ruck on that. If 6 of the Heroic 8 say no, then it will be no.

 

Michael