You are coprrect that we are becoming more like other nations, it has been a tactic of the left to promote open borders, they learned during the Johnson administration that a large, needy population keeps them in power without any questions - the one that provides the bread cannot be attacked, or the bread stops. Our education system has been overseen and unionized since the Carter administration, when a person has always been told red is blue, they believe it completely. I was raised on the Juarez border, controlled immigration matters.

Yes, I found the bar. There are some interesting topics indeed. The only point is, I was surprised by the undertone of the forum messages (for explanation please see my other recent response). I wanted to make sure, I got the main focus of the forum. Apparently I didn't, so now it's back to the research phase. Once I'm done with that, I will be more than happy to discuss politics too. But until then I don't want to discuss volleyball on a volleyball forum, when I've never even seen a volleyball match. ;-)

All governments thrive on the profits of others because governments don't produce a damn thing.
Major corporations thrive on the profits from the products they produce or services they provide. We get to decide if we care to support such detestable individuals as Zuck the Schmuck on FB who has a God Complex and feels as though he gets the final word on what is and what is not acceptable.
Politics is actually quite simple here. I would bet we have those who align with R and others who align with D but many, many more who are in the third party known as I. Some might even classify me as an L which is complete BS because neither I nor many others here saddle up to any single party or leaning on all matters.
YUP! Lots and lots of political speak goes on here but you do have the choice to either jump in or out at will so welcome to our addictions and pick the fights and discussions you chose to become involved in. You did in fact make me give a lot of though by your post. I detest democrats and don't have much use for far too many republicans. I have a sneaking suspicion that Donald Trump is in the republican party out of necessity but he damn sure does not want to go to many of their parties. Those who pick their friends by color, party affiliations or ethnicity are dumber than the fools tossing bricks and molotov cocktails in their own towns and cities.
You will quickly find many here from the content of their character worth having meaningful discussions with. Being you are not of this country I have to repeat a very meaningful quote you may or may not know the man of God who said it. Saturday Night Live lots of years back, Father Guido Sarducci directed this to the Pope, "You no play a the game, you no make a the rules"! If you don't live here in the US under these rules you will do well to not inject your opinions based on the rules where you do live.

I think it's an interesting time indeed. Though I'm more afraid, that the reason is rather that the US has started to become a country like others. Originally it was built by immigrants. People, who took the risk and worked their ass off (ignoring any other factor). These days immigration seems to be less relevant, and for locals the politics has always been the ultimate sports event, where people can root for one side. I hope I'm mistaken. Though from the outside that's how it looks like.

My point was only that while you say, the other side is communist, they say you are a nazi. These labels are easy to throw around, harder to understand the other side. Even harder to avoid doing it, when people really do believe, politicians do something.

By libertarian I mean I would prefer a weak government. Not a lack of it. Government's task is maintaining order. But that should be it as far as I see. Once the constitution is in place, it is hard for me to justify the validity of any lawmaking. I mean it's like changing the rules while playing cards. Of course if I can change the rules as I wish on the go, I will definitely win, and everyone else will lose.

Admittedly though, libertarianism is just what it is. An idea, a theory. Nobody ever tried it for real, as far as I know. If they did, all the worse - as apparently it didn't result in a shiny success.

Back to the current political climate of war, there is nothing new in this. Though as I wrote before, I am not in the US. So I might not know the fine details. In other cases the pattern is increasing the tension until one side gets the ultimate upper hand. Then they need a new enemy to keep the power, hence they head into a war with another country. This result in a large number of deaths, but it never matters, as long as the given politicians can keep their power.

So I'm not against talking about politics. But on a libertarian site, thaf I thought it was (obviously it's not the case and it's only my mistake), I would have expected the main political narrative to be about how to decrease politicians' power, or which candidate wants to grow the government more. Opposed to this, I saw a number of threads cheering for one side. This is not libertarian, regardless of the side.

But just to make sure. You are the right one here. As the site is not about libertarianism, it is more than valid to have these threads as the main narrative, especially in an election year. I just explained, why I wrote what I wrote.

If the politics gets to you, see the header bar above. Under "Categories" there are about 20 different topics of discussion. Sometimes it's difficult to keep politics out some of them with a different.totally disassociated title.

Political discussions in this country have always been one of three ways, left & right opinions that probably cant be swayed and the folks that actually chase the links, follow the story to its facts, then decide what is most likely the truth. Politics now, in this Republic, have come to two sides, Constitutional rule of law, or communist authoritarianism. The masks have come off, the corrupt entrenched congress is deathly afraid they are about to be exposed publicly and their power taken away, they are reacting as a cornered snake, striking out at anything that moves. You ve picked an interesting time to be involved, you are about to witness the power of a nation that has always known Liberty, when that Liberty is seriously and methodically, attacked.

It sounds great. I have checked out an objectivism summary, but it sounded very alien at a first glance. So reading up on the topic first, then having fun. As usual. Work first, then enjoying the fruits of it.

Yes, it does seem very diverse. Though it's notable, that the site still focuses on objectivism. And as that is a rule, I would say, let's keep the place what it's like, to further nourish the open minded, diverse community. So I definitely don't want to be the first one breaking the rules by not understanding the main focus of the forum. Hence I'll read my part first and see back later. Have fun in the meantime and keep up the great community and discussions. ;-)

So, we live in a social world.
Politics, in fact, dictates HOW we will live and operate.

I believe Libertarians make the mistake that SOME EFFORT must go to PROTECT the system.
There is a cost to a lightweight system of government, and that is defending it from communists and greedy people/companies.

The true challenge. We are human. We are flawed. The levers of power can lead to great wealth, and has.
Look at the income of the Clinton's and the Bush's! Romney fought to save Fannie Mae when 1/2 of his FORTUNE was invested in their bonds!
Imagine that. They were saved. How self-serving.

The lost lesson is our OBLIGATION to work to keep what we like about the system.
This is where the liberals have won. They took over school boards, and teach UTTER NONSENSE.

So, if you want to avoid the conversations about politics... But you are interested in keeping your freedoms, and your property.
How do you propose to do that? Because ONE impinges constantly on the other.

And in America, we are at a Crossroads. We will either clean things up (Trump and draining the swamp), or go back to being RAPED by both dominant parties!
I USED to love Ron Paul. Until I realized HE SOLD US OUT. We had the UPCOMING Renewal of the Federal Reserve, and in exchange for putting Rand Paul in more power, he opted to be silenced. Where was his book "End the Fed", with the chapter explaining HOW... That we needed to get things ATTACHED to the upcoming renewal of the Federal Reserve, or have the president VETO IT. Where was that push!

Anyways, welcome aboard. Feel free to start new discussions on the topics that interest you and avoid the ones that don't.
But in America, we have a battle for the future of our country on our hands. We are either going to become a RACIST/IDENTITARIAN Communist country, or we are going to spend decades volunteering, and cleaning up the crap we call our current corrupt government.

If Trump has done ONE thing, it is to expose the reality of the situation. The corruption runs deep (HRC doesn't need to testify, but Flynn cannot be freed yet)!

Welcome and it's always wonderful to encourage thoughtful people. A great site for the basics of Objectivism, (and philosophy in general) is
www.importanceofphilosophy.com. It is well organized, easy to navigate, and in plain language.

Great to see a new person, with an open mind. I was one here not long ago.

Definitely not all political discussion, but the present, polarized situation, and the significant dominant centralized government power position of one party biases much discussion. RINOs are almost as bad, not almost isn't counting right now.

There are some atheists, some religious, some Rand-zealots, some simple Libertarians, a couple of socialist trolls here. There are a lot of smart people, and good discussions.

Glad to have you!

Thanks for clarifying your point of view. As I wrote earlier, I decided to stay at the sideline for now. I'm afraid it wouldn't make sense to state disagreement now, as 1. The site has a base ideology I am not familiar with and 2. The knee jerk response to many of the topics would be too far away from the discussion to make sense.

They the MSM are being subsidized by the deep state. If you look at the ratings they are doing terrible. Real info is coming from the digital soldiers. Yet they are being banned and censured by the monopolistic social media.
We are in what I call an “Uncivilized War”. It is also information warfare. ThinQ of how Sweden is hiding the increase in rapes from the Muslim immigrants and the danger to girls and women there. Is it beneficial to the citizens for that info to be covered up?
The Leftist Dems know they don’t stand a chance unless the cheat. That is why they are pushing for mail in voting which will be a disaster. BTW we are underrepresented in the MSM. But not in reality.
I am confused by your concern of what is posted or discussed here. Use your free will to ignore what doesn’t interest you or state your disagreement of specific issues.

For me, this is part of what I don't understand yet, though as promised, I will read up on objectivism and get back with more educated questions.

I tend to hear, that right wing is underrepresented. But this is probably the single most seen message I see everywhere. So while I get, that certain medium (cnn, bbc, you name it) might be biased, I don't get why it is a problem. If what they do is legit, it should be ok. If it's not legit, they lose credibility and people leave them, making them go bankrupt. I know it doesn't happen overnight. But it's not a process to stop overnight either, so starting to slide downhill will almost inevitably drive these mediums in the ground, if that's the case.

At the same time, if the single most seen message I see is "we are underrepresented", then people read this message instead of a constructive idea coming from the right. By other words, why chase people away, when the other side did the same? Then this should be a game already won. The point should be just not deliberately losing it.

This all, while the US has a republican president for now and the next term (let's be honest, Biden is still talking about the same democratic party agenda, which already lost last time. People not learning from their own mistakes tend to lose in any kind of competition).

Don't get me wrong. While I didn't find this thread, I saw a few decades old topics. Based on that and the plot of the site it seems to be a nice idea. I was just taken aback by the amount of politics in the recent threads. Someone just reminded me it's election year, so that explains a lot (still not necessarily agreeing with the concept, but understanding it at least).

Based on a few comments I decided to stick to answering the messages I get, though not starting up topics until better understanding the concept behind the forum.

For me, Atlas Shrugged was about libertarianism - apparently the site is revolved around objectivism, which seems to be very different for now. Considering the outstandingly civil tone (even for a live debate, yet alone for the Internet!!!), I will definitely read up on the topic some more. Then will likely come back with questions. :-)

Well I think I have already cleared the air with my comments on Socialism, Progressiives, New Green Deal,etc. I understand Mr. Trump.

Hi greybear, Several years ago, there was a thread where Atlas Shrugged was discussed in detail, chapter by chapter. I looked for it briefly but didn't find it, maybe someone else knows where it is. It came along shortly after I had first read the book (and seen the first movie) and prompted me to do a more careful second reading. I for one thoroughly enjoyed that series, though it didn't get as much "traffic" as some of the more recent topics.

Alright. Have a nice day / night based on your time zone. Thanks for the conversation, it was great learning about your thought process.

Perhaps someone else would like to converse with you on the topics that you bring up. I do not have time to do so to the extent needed for understanding.

My concern about the 1 term only vs 2-3 terms is this (noting, that I think it's still a short enough term to prevent career politicians appearing, which I agree is a desired outcome): This removes any incentives for good performance. Though it creates a gap in the person's CV. This combined might result in the most incompetent people running for public positions (aka becoming candidate, at least I have a shelter for the time of election). Granting just 2 terms can give the prospect, that a successful term can grant another one. So later on it's easier to determine for an employer, that this person did well (or not) in this position.

Also, it's important not to be radical, throwing politicians in jails. History (even recent in certain countries) proves, that countries taking it liberal end up with stronger governments (getting rid of opposition) and modifying any good foundational laws to their favor. So I see this being contraproductive.

"Is there some rational evidence that the wealthy are better at being representatives of people than those who are not wealthy?"

This in itself is an awesome topic for a complete debate. I believe the representation itself is not necessarily as important as effectiveness (of the country, not the government. Surprisingly it seems they are inversely proportional). Wealthy people on an average have a better understanding of economics, than poor people. Of course this statement is only considerable as averages, not on the level of individual. But in this case it's masses electing, not just a few individuals. I think it would balance itself out pretty well (and US vs socialist countries seems to support this).

As a matter of fact, Hungary still has this rule you mentioned. It led to a semi dictatorship, as poor people were easy to convince with some free food or some wood for the winter.

Media companies, service providers, and production companies are all alike in a sense, that they fulfill a need. The better they do it (and luck and everything else of course), the more money they make. Google and Facebook do it super effective apparently. I don't think, any government would be able to do it better.

I haven't seen an evidence yet, that companies use government power to advance their wealth and power. Instead, their agenda just matches well with democrats (actually democrats followed the flow). It originated from the idea, that if we welcome everyone as equals, they will spend more time with us and spend money way easier. And we don't care who pays, we just want money. Capitalism at its best.

"Corporations are not people; they are creations of government"

You wrote this. I interpreted it as if you meant, corporations are closer to government than to people. If this wasn't what you meant (obviously, based on your previous message), then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't get this part then. Can you please elaborate on this one? I don't get, what you meant by this then.

For me, corporations are things, that people start from the bottom and build it up from there as people still. Governments tend to create corporations in countries, like former USSR (to avoid actual politics of certain countries). Though as someone coming from one of those countries, this statement automatically triggered the above interpretation.

And btw sorry for the slow responses, it's bath time over here for the baby and soon sleep time for us, parents. But thanks for sticking around. Awesome conversation going around the topic. :-)

We do not need career politicians. Only one term. No re-elections. If they are corrupt force them to do their worst as quickly as possible (and go straight to jail as an example for the next treasonous scum.) If they are not corrupt then they will not want to be in DC as a public servant any longer than one term, and will want to get back to productive work.

Is there some rational evidence that the wealthy are better at being representatives of people than those who are not wealthy? If so, they should be more effective at sharing that evidence than the less wealthy and should not require more money in the campaign. The idea of spending more should be discouraged, not encouraged in a candidate for federal office. We don't want to elect one just because one has more money to spend on advertising. We want to elect one who will represent the people of his district wisely.

Google and Facebook are not production companies; they are media companies. Strawman.

The problem is companies that use government power to advance their wealth and power instead of serving customers. We do not have a free market because of this (and other meddling using government power.)

I don't know where you "hear the statement, that a company is closer to the government ..." It's not something I wrote. Your last paragraph doesn't follow from anything in this discussion that I see.

I actually love the idea of not doing business with such companies - This way the market can give the sign, that the company went too far, causing damages to them. Though looking at current setup, I don't quite see the effect taking place. I mean right now even major companies tried to affect Facebook income, and failed miserably.

Restricting th campaign funding - I guess that could be an option. Though this would take away the option from wealthy people to affect the elections more, than poor people. This could be fair from some viewpoint (we are all equal as human beings), but to me, this sounds something, that could come from a socialist country or a fictional government in a certain book...

Limiting the terms could again work again. For me, one term sounds a bit too low as a limit. Though it could be 2-3 terms, that would already change things I guess, if there are no such rules in place for now.

"Change the laws that allow Facebook, Google, et al to censor postings and to ignore free speech rights."
Mmm. Making it mandatory, that these companies cannot censor anything on their domain? I guess we could extend it to production companies too. Like making it mandatory, that a certain steel production company must sell their products to people, they don't want to do business with.

In general I feel like we have a fairly open market, without governmental interruptions (that is, within the US and EU - admittedly even moreso in the US than in the EU). Though that's my point kind-of. Once anyone tries to make sure, that one political side should be heard, it's very easy to slip into the supression of companies. Simply because people start to see everything through the lens of politics, instead of the lens of economics.

And honestly, to hear the statement, that a company is closer to the government, than to the people from the US is a bit confusing to me. I mean if the US is already at a stage, where the government decides, which companies should exist, then we might as well go with the Chinese way. I mean communism is communism. At least they have expertese in it. The US seemingly used to have capitalism. Aside from this post I try to hope, that it still has. And if that's the case, then I guess companies (regardless of size) are still closer to people than to government.

First, don't do business with any such companies, if possible.
Unfortunately, that is not a realistic solution given the way such companies are using government policy makers to legalize their unethical actions and limit competition.
One step is to restrict campaign funding to only donations from individuals who reside in the district of the candidate's office. For example, within the senator's state, within a congressperson's district. Corporations are not people; they are creations of government and they should not have the rights of or superior to sovereign people. I would also state a dollar maximum limit for campaign spending based upon the population of the district to level the playing field for candidates and reduce the effect of funding on elections. Being good at fund raising should not be a high priority talent for elected officials since it is not something they are required to do in office- especially if they can't be re-elected (see below.)

Another step is to place term limits on every elected federal office. I would make it only one term with no re-election possible. Eliminate career politicians completely and reduce the possibility of corruption.

Change the laws that allow Facebook, Google, et al to censor postings and to ignore free speech rights.

Ok, so this is the issue. What could be a solution?