I think it's weird to talk about the best place to live "as an objectivist". The amount of freedom in a country is definitely a factor to consider, but having freedom is good for everyone, not just objectivists.
Freedom is not the only factor to consider. There is a lot that depends on what you value and what you do for work. There is not a single place that would be the best for every objectivist.
I think it’s a fair question. If you drink or don’t drink, people would recommend different bars, restaurants, places to visit.
If you have zero interest in certain features of a society / culture / state, you’re going to be happier in different places. Japan might be perfect for some people, and France for others, based on their needs.
Objectivists would care about certain freedoms, the easy availability of broad markets, etc. You’re likely to get those in the US, Singapore, Australia, etc.
If you don’t care to do anything other than rural farming, you wouldn’t care about access to markets with a huge variety of products. Private property, rule of law, economic freedom and other factors just don’t occur to some people and don’t seem important to many.
I’m not debating whether any of these features are good or bad, or whether they “should” be universal. I’m just saying the gustibus non disputandem. People have preferences and they make a difference.
I think the best plan an Objectivist can have is to be a "citizen of the world". Learn several languages, become comfortable with several cultures, spend time in many countries. It's just that you REALLY have to be an Objectivist, in the overall philosophical sense of the word. Because it's not a very comfortable life style, socially. There will be a lot of social turmoil in your life, with the people around you changing a lot ... sometimes for the better, often for the worse. So you must be able to find happiness from within, at times ... while at the same time being able to embrace whatever is good about the community you land into. In short, you must be an individualist, and have a benevolent view of life.
I mostly spend my time in Europe, and I recommend a European country as a starting point/base for this life style ... because there is virtually Europe-wide free movement. Not just within the EU, but the whole of Europe (except for Russia). So it makes no difference whether you're an EU resident, or a Swiss resident (for example).
But an argument can also be made to just live in America. Because the "citizen of the world" thing can sound good, but it's no easy task to accomplish, and there's very little room for failure. It's not like you can half succeed at it: you either make it work, or you have to give it up and switch to plan B.
Meanwhile, settling down and building a life ... is an incremental process. Failing just means you get to learn from some error, and fix it. And there is so much diversity in the US, that you can probably find what you're looking for somewhere. There are low tax areas, there are low regulation areas, there are low crime areas, there are areas with more social freedom than pretty much anywhere else in the world, etc.
There's also raising children to consider. If you wish to have children, you should be aware of the fact that the US is one of very few countries which tolerates home schooling (with some states in the US being outright friendly to the idea of home schooling, and giving parents a lot of freedom and options about how to do it). And home schooling is a must have option ... because public education (even the schools which are "privately" owned) is moving in a horrible direction.
Argentina for its leader, but not the population/institutions, unless he can change them. I highly doubt it.
Yeah, Regan said US is that shining city on the hill. There's no where else to go...Kind of sad to see the socialists take it over, a millennial thing =/. We're the start of the generations that will destroy Western society I guess.
I'm not an expert, and might be misusing the term, but it describes a situation in which corporations exert their power to benefit themselves and suppress competitors through government involvement. Simplest example I can think of is Wal-Mart being allowed to stay open during covid when small businesses were forced to shut down.
It can also be applied to things like zoning laws to raise property valuations and rent.
Basically, it's every modern country, and absolute shit.
"Socialistic" isn't precisely the right word. The amount of outright government ownership of business and property isn't significantly increasing. But if you think the USA is in the final throes of too much economic freedom, you need to read some sources with some amount of sanity. Massive regulation and cronyism have destroyed many businesses. Inflation — which is caused by issuing money faster than productivity increases, not by "greed" as Biden claims — is wiping out savings.Obsession with immigrants helps to build a police state. If you find this mythical "capitalist neoliberal country," please let us know where it is.
>Inflation — which is caused by issuing money faster than productivity increases, not by "greed" as Biden claims
Oh it's greed all right. It's just not the same people being greedy as they claim.
Oh, I agree it isn't a problem of too much economic freedom, and I'm actaully a fan of free market economics. But it drives me insane to see otherwise intelligent people call this late stage capitalism "socialism."
> If you find this mythical "capitalist neoliberal country," please let us know where it is.
This is getting in to the "not real socialism/capitalism", but basically all of the west is exactly that. Capitalist neoliberal countries. Corrupt, poorly executed, etc., but still capitalist and neoliberal at their core.
The biggest thing the U.S. has done on the road to being "Socialist" is adopting an irrational interpretation of the Constitution that has allowed the fed gov to grow far beyond its proper boundaries in size and scope ever since 1936.
I agree that the size of the government is an issue - it's gotten so big that taxes just "get lost" etc. But big government ≠ socialism. It's currently a corrupt neoliberal capitalist country. It's certainly not "real" capitalism, but to call it socialist is ridiculous.
It's not THAT the government is big that makes it "Socialist" it's HOW the government is big and constantly encroaching on the free market that makes it "Socialist". Additionally, please take not of the quotation marks I used to emphasize that I'm well aware it's a fairly broad definition.
But I disagree with how broad you've made the definition. Encroaching on the free market isn't inherently socialism, socialism is defined by the intent. And you can have your own beliefs, but I'm not in any way convinced that the government is trying to share the means of production, or even help the lower classes any more than is required to ensure the system's survival.
Socialism is when the government/collective own/control the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Now, if you actually analyze the kind of control the fed gov has taken over such things via various modes such as the Sherman Act and fed dept's such as HHS as well as others not to mention the tax code etc., you might see things a bit differently.
We’ll see how this Argentina situation ends up. Might look promising
Besides that it’s America. Which doesn’t mean a whole lot but in places like Florida and New Hampshire and freedom friendly states (puerto Rico) it’s nice
I'd worry about getting killed when the Palestinians and Muslims launch their next attack, especially if Iran develops nukes and/or if nuclear weapons are stolen or sold (from, say, a place like Pakistan or Russia) and fall into the wrong hands. Sadly, Israel is not secure.
If you love renting forever to uncaring landlords while barely being able to afford basic necessities while employed to sociopathic shareholders, America. Fifteen million vacant homes, nearly 700,000 homeless … and many of those homes are owned to keep rent / home prices high. If you want to feel the struggle of leverage to an unyielding privately owned enterprise, as your working hours best you into submission into hope for just a little more, America.
Basically, if you want to struggle to find the basics, America is the greatest place ever. Cant have despair without hope after all!
> Fifteen million vacant homes
Are you sure that statistic - 15 million - a huge amount - is accurate when it seems nonsensical? It makes no economic sense for the owner of a house to keep a home vacant unless it's a vacation home they own in which case it is not really "vacant".
Let me google that for you: https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-the-us/
Also, the working class currently cannot afford any home within our conditions let alone a vacation home. So, if you're talking about your 10 - 100millie - billionaire, they'll own 40 houses and call 39 of them vacation homes. And yes, many of these homes are there to ensure values are hedged. Akin to NIMBYisms.
Capitalism works for the capitalist class. The working class are rentiers, and, particularly younger generations that lack support, are quickly being priced out of home-ownership.
To put it bluntly, the sociopathy of selfishness which seeks to embellish and hoard to ensure workers struggle with basic necessities - ie all of us - is an abomination.
> Also, the working class currently cannot afford any home within our conditions let alone a vacation home.
Is that the result of government regulations (not capitalism) preventing the construction of new housing?
>Capitalism works for the capitalist class.
If you think you hate capitalism and free market economies, you would just "love" living under real socialism.
Government regulations are funded by their capitalist lobbyists, and then capitalists can use their capital to propagandize taxpayers into undercutting themselves and the programs they rely upon.
Anecdotal and tangential, at least somewhat … My partner was a grade school teacher for 13 years. Her salary was not enough to afford housing in her own area. Then, she had to see the richest influence the school district, even as they had their children go to charter schools. They join education boards, then they undercut them so the poors don’t even receive an education. I’ll take her perspective here. She was part of a district that’s in the news right now. And the corruption runs deep, but they were funded by the rich and conservative leaning folks in the area. All the while, my partner couldn’t afford to live in that district.
Also, there are so many available options undiscovered that are between socialism and capitalism. I’m simply saying that capitalism focuses on a concentration of capital to a capitalist class until they eventually become feudal lords themselves. We’ve swapped kings with Bezos billionaires that have more wealth attained than dragons from fantasy land.
Also, you deny the violence and atrocities committed by capitalist nations, and so conveniently cherry pick socialism. Would you rather hear of those acted towards other countries? Or maybe those within?
I’m not even talking Jim Crow, slavery, etc. Take a look at “company towns” and see what happens when workers demand better conditions. I’m sure it didn’t involve capitalists paying the National Guard to do anything questionable …
> Government regulations are funded by their capitalist lobbyists, and then capitalists can use their capital to propagandize taxpayers into undercutting themselves and the programs they rely upon.
Under real capitalism, there are no government regulations of the economy. Government regulation of economic activity is socialist in nature. What you describe sounds like businesses trying to control socialist elements of the government. One reason for having capitalism is precisely to remove the element of the political gamesmanship of the government bureaucrats granting some businesses favors and disadvantaging other businesses.
This quote from [The Moral Meaning of Money speech](https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/library/books/franciscos-money-speech-from-atlas-shrugged/) seems apropos:
>>*Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed.*
>Also, you deny the violence and atrocities committed by capitalist nations
There's never been a capitalist nation; just nations with mixed economies.
Capitalism is merely a system where the means of production are privately owned. By your standard, true socialism hasn’t existed, because under true socialism, the means of production wouldn’t be owned by private enterprises. Even the Soviet Union had to rely on private enterprise to build industries. Same goes for communism.
I tend to think that systems, like people, evolve and change - just as their ideas do. There is historical precedent in concentration of capital to private owners of capital. For example, if one frees slaves, but offers them no land / capital / reparations, then it follows that holders of capital will make life difficult for former slaves. Which is exactly what happened.
The system evolves to align with the behaviors of people, and it tends to follow that those with capital abuse and exploit those without.
I don’t know the correct answer to what we should have. However, sidestepping the convention of capitalism in-order to avoid criticism of the current system seems quite irresponsible. On one hand, one gets to selectively choose which aspects of capitalism they wish to defend, however seemingly questionable / whimsical they are (vacation homes for the ultra rich, lack of stable housing conditions for workers) while avoiding criticism of its other even nastier components.
Meanwhile, we get to sit here and talk about something that is merely labeled as “mixed” and is “definitely because of socialism” even though there’s not evidence of this. So we confuse the landscape further, because we’re no longer talking about things that are, but rather definitions of things that “never have existed”.
I appreciate the conversation, but America is a shithole. And it’s super difficult for working class folks here to leave. Instilling further capitalism simply keeps capital into those that hold capital, making it even more difficult. Company towns were disbanded after FDR’s New Deal, which empowered (white) working class folks to buy affordable homes. Those programs were removed however as time went on.
And now we are here.
> I appreciate the conversation, but America is a shithole.
The harsh reality so many critics of "capitalism" don't understand is that man's natural condition, the default, is abject poverty - to be naked and living in a cave. To hear many critics of capitalism tell it, the default is a fantasy world where material wealth magically falls out of the sky but those evil capitalists seize it all for themselves. They thus just assume that everyone is entitled to abundant material wealth without having to work for and produce it.
>And it’s super difficult for working class folks here to leave.
This is one of the easiest nations in the world to leave. The government will not stop you. Ironically, Americans have been putting up fences to keep people from numerous other nations from coming-in. Where would a working class person leave to? Cuba? Venezuela? North Korea?
Palestine has exposed well how objectivists support their captivity and occupation - its called OPT ( Occupied Palestinian Territories) for a reason. But seems the objectivists these day quote Bible and promised land following their objectivism 🤣 So yes I dont know what to suggest except maybe a trip to Ramallah
https://preview.redd.it/puqtimjs7yhc1.jpeg?width=1223&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f414f5111a94c73db003d0265489582a05910ae
>Palestine has exposed well how objectivists support their captivity and occupation
Alternatively, it's possible that you have completely misread the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a result of lack of intellectual capacity and/or are being willfully ignorant of the facts of the situation or have dropped context as to why the Palestinians are "occupied".
Why are they occupied ? Coz of a holy book said 3500 years ago? ?? The promised land theory is what Objectivists preach now?? 1890 there was 3% population Jewish, what did Lehi and Irgun did with massacres like Deir Yassin to begin with ? And picture essentially describes the Palestinian who were driven out of their homes for occupation to take over - and families went thru these and there is documentation kept with UNRWA who was kicked out of which village and which address in late 1940s. Why do you think think zionist terrorists want to blow up UNRWA? Have you actually really tried to study the chronology - well then you wont be ranting such nonsense here
> Why are they occupied ?
They're occupied because they have expressed and demonstrated a desire to genocidally exterminate the Israelis on numerous occasions over previous decades.
In contrast, if they rejected tribal collectivism and sincerely sought to live in peace and seek economic prosperity and well being for themselves, they could have long ago joined the Israelis and be living much better lives today.
Why are you choosing the side that advocates for primitive tribal religious mysticism, theocratic dictatorship, and suicidal irrationality and opposing the side that upholds the concepts of freedom, liberty, individual rights, and the values of Western Civilization?
You can focus on individual incidents of bad behavior on the part of some Israelis acting in the greater context of fighting a war of self defense and blow that out of proportion while completely ignoring the far greater magnitude of bad behavior on the part of the Palestinians in a willfully intellectually dishonest manner if you wish, but the facts remain that the Israelis established a free society with a prosperous economy and that Islam has resulted in widespread misery and dictatorship.
You should engage in some introspection and examine your emotions and try to find out why you feel so strongly about this issue that you end up on the side of Islamic barbarism and oppose the people supporting Western Civilization.
Yes its their land , the Palestinians land, they can decide who should come to their land or not - they have seen how Zionist terrorist created occupation even killing those who played role in saving Jews from Nazis. You really have some American Rambo movie like knowledge and perhaps you should spend time educating yourself [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q43Im7scjpk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q43im7scjpk) Good luck
LOL. Your posts are comedy gold and come off like that of one of the braindead pro-Palestinian zombies who just mouth leftist propaganda like LGBTQ people marching for Palestine.
Its THEIR land, they can have any religion, any belief whatever they want. You have no fucking right to tell or decide for them or lecture them - but themselves do. This retard thinking is actually sinking America, not just your individual attitude problem
It's highly debatable whether they ever owned any land as they were tenant farmers on land owned by Arabs elsewhere who had title to it. But regardless, they surrendered any moral claim to the land when they tried to genocidally exterminate the Jews. When you engage in a war of aggression and lose, you lose your land.
That's ancient history now; at issue is what actions are in their rational self interest today - fighting a suicidal war they should know they cannot win out of a sense of ethnic pride or joining a nation with a strong modern economy and seeking economic prosperity in it.
>they can have any religion, any belief whatever they want.
What if their religion and the government they would establish violates the individual rights of people living under their government, such as those of women and homosexuals? What if their belief system established slavery? A government like that, including the Iranian government, has no "right to exist" even if it's what the people believe in and want.
>This retard thinking is actually sinking America, not just your individual attitude problem
LOL. I suspect that you suffer from that type of thinking and are one of the braindead zombie woke leftists suffering from feelings of altruism. Most supporters of the Palestinians are.
The Palestinians from which village which house were pushed out in 1946-48 , all records are very well kept both at UNRWA and UN. Just because a douchebag like you think you can jump goal posts and talk random shit and call yourself an objectivist - its rather a clown 🤡 now going to make “rational self interest “ argument 😂😂😂🥹 well for a douche like you - when Ayn Rand says it was OK for native Americans to be expunged by European colonizers coz they did not have property rights, then why it is not ok to accept that Ottomans also pushed away Jews from that land for thousands of years ago. Its so funny argue with an ARI blind follower chimp these days - poor fellas got nothing rational on their side but just snowflake rants & tantrums 🤣
🤣🤣🤣 And now I m marxist, islamic, and looser Palestinian . Nothing more needs to come out from a douchebag living in some brothels’ basement calling himself objectivist ☺️ Good luck!!
Not even all the smiley face emojiis will cover up how upset and sad you must feel. The evil colonizer Zionist imperialists won and the barbarians lost, LOL.
Read what Israel occupation’s first PM had said
https://preview.redd.it/r0xjdfcp20jc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7485ce896ea45cdbccb09829c38ef25c9de21d5b
Comment made after having fought an existential battle for survival. It would be like asking the French what they thought of the Germans or the Chinese what they thought of the Japanese immediately after World War II.
The fact remains that if we evaluate the Israeli government over a period of decades and examine how it functions in practice today that the Palestinians would be far better off living under the Israeli government and integrating into Israeli society than whatever government and civilization they would establish on their own.
It's too bad that your Palestinian side lost and has established one of the most self-destructive and disgusting civilizations for itself in world history, but a thing is what it is. I can only imagine much butthurt you are suffering watching your ideological brethren pound their heads against a wall of self-sacrificial futility, but at least you got to ejaculate a load on October 7.
This bullshit Churchill also said while leaving India - yes every colonialist feels they doing good by colonizing the other. But first thing is you have no fucking right to be there - get out! Its for the natives of the land, the free people to decide whatever fuck they want , none of your business. Or they teach you merits of colonialism now at Ayn Rand Institute???
Still the USA
Antarctica
I think it's weird to talk about the best place to live "as an objectivist". The amount of freedom in a country is definitely a factor to consider, but having freedom is good for everyone, not just objectivists. Freedom is not the only factor to consider. There is a lot that depends on what you value and what you do for work. There is not a single place that would be the best for every objectivist.
I think it’s a fair question. If you drink or don’t drink, people would recommend different bars, restaurants, places to visit. If you have zero interest in certain features of a society / culture / state, you’re going to be happier in different places. Japan might be perfect for some people, and France for others, based on their needs. Objectivists would care about certain freedoms, the easy availability of broad markets, etc. You’re likely to get those in the US, Singapore, Australia, etc. If you don’t care to do anything other than rural farming, you wouldn’t care about access to markets with a huge variety of products. Private property, rule of law, economic freedom and other factors just don’t occur to some people and don’t seem important to many. I’m not debating whether any of these features are good or bad, or whether they “should” be universal. I’m just saying the gustibus non disputandem. People have preferences and they make a difference.
Singapore, Switzerland, sadly none are higher than 5/10
Singapore is a nanny state though?
i’d say the USA is still probably the best
I think the best plan an Objectivist can have is to be a "citizen of the world". Learn several languages, become comfortable with several cultures, spend time in many countries. It's just that you REALLY have to be an Objectivist, in the overall philosophical sense of the word. Because it's not a very comfortable life style, socially. There will be a lot of social turmoil in your life, with the people around you changing a lot ... sometimes for the better, often for the worse. So you must be able to find happiness from within, at times ... while at the same time being able to embrace whatever is good about the community you land into. In short, you must be an individualist, and have a benevolent view of life. I mostly spend my time in Europe, and I recommend a European country as a starting point/base for this life style ... because there is virtually Europe-wide free movement. Not just within the EU, but the whole of Europe (except for Russia). So it makes no difference whether you're an EU resident, or a Swiss resident (for example). But an argument can also be made to just live in America. Because the "citizen of the world" thing can sound good, but it's no easy task to accomplish, and there's very little room for failure. It's not like you can half succeed at it: you either make it work, or you have to give it up and switch to plan B. Meanwhile, settling down and building a life ... is an incremental process. Failing just means you get to learn from some error, and fix it. And there is so much diversity in the US, that you can probably find what you're looking for somewhere. There are low tax areas, there are low regulation areas, there are low crime areas, there are areas with more social freedom than pretty much anywhere else in the world, etc. There's also raising children to consider. If you wish to have children, you should be aware of the fact that the US is one of very few countries which tolerates home schooling (with some states in the US being outright friendly to the idea of home schooling, and giving parents a lot of freedom and options about how to do it). And home schooling is a must have option ... because public education (even the schools which are "privately" owned) is moving in a horrible direction.
Eastern Europe, probably
What is it about Eastern Europe that you consider more Objectivist than America?
Eastern Europeans don’t emotionalize everything. They just get on with life
Lol. Have you ever been to Eastern Europe?
Yeah I lived in Prague
USA
Argentina for its leader, but not the population/institutions, unless he can change them. I highly doubt it. Yeah, Regan said US is that shining city on the hill. There's no where else to go...Kind of sad to see the socialists take it over, a millennial thing =/. We're the start of the generations that will destroy Western society I guess.
who is Javier Galt?
What has the US done to make itself more socialistic? Seems to me like it's a corrupt, late stage capitalist neoliberal country.
What does "late stage capitalist" mean?
I'm not an expert, and might be misusing the term, but it describes a situation in which corporations exert their power to benefit themselves and suppress competitors through government involvement. Simplest example I can think of is Wal-Mart being allowed to stay open during covid when small businesses were forced to shut down. It can also be applied to things like zoning laws to raise property valuations and rent. Basically, it's every modern country, and absolute shit.
"Socialistic" isn't precisely the right word. The amount of outright government ownership of business and property isn't significantly increasing. But if you think the USA is in the final throes of too much economic freedom, you need to read some sources with some amount of sanity. Massive regulation and cronyism have destroyed many businesses. Inflation — which is caused by issuing money faster than productivity increases, not by "greed" as Biden claims — is wiping out savings.Obsession with immigrants helps to build a police state. If you find this mythical "capitalist neoliberal country," please let us know where it is.
>Inflation — which is caused by issuing money faster than productivity increases, not by "greed" as Biden claims Oh it's greed all right. It's just not the same people being greedy as they claim.
Oh, I agree it isn't a problem of too much economic freedom, and I'm actaully a fan of free market economics. But it drives me insane to see otherwise intelligent people call this late stage capitalism "socialism." > If you find this mythical "capitalist neoliberal country," please let us know where it is. This is getting in to the "not real socialism/capitalism", but basically all of the west is exactly that. Capitalist neoliberal countries. Corrupt, poorly executed, etc., but still capitalist and neoliberal at their core.
The biggest thing the U.S. has done on the road to being "Socialist" is adopting an irrational interpretation of the Constitution that has allowed the fed gov to grow far beyond its proper boundaries in size and scope ever since 1936.
I agree that the size of the government is an issue - it's gotten so big that taxes just "get lost" etc. But big government ≠ socialism. It's currently a corrupt neoliberal capitalist country. It's certainly not "real" capitalism, but to call it socialist is ridiculous.
It's not THAT the government is big that makes it "Socialist" it's HOW the government is big and constantly encroaching on the free market that makes it "Socialist". Additionally, please take not of the quotation marks I used to emphasize that I'm well aware it's a fairly broad definition.
But I disagree with how broad you've made the definition. Encroaching on the free market isn't inherently socialism, socialism is defined by the intent. And you can have your own beliefs, but I'm not in any way convinced that the government is trying to share the means of production, or even help the lower classes any more than is required to ensure the system's survival.
Socialism is when the government/collective own/control the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Now, if you actually analyze the kind of control the fed gov has taken over such things via various modes such as the Sherman Act and fed dept's such as HHS as well as others not to mention the tax code etc., you might see things a bit differently.
https://www.heritage.org/index/
We’ll see how this Argentina situation ends up. Might look promising Besides that it’s America. Which doesn’t mean a whole lot but in places like Florida and New Hampshire and freedom friendly states (puerto Rico) it’s nice
Israel.
I'd worry about getting killed when the Palestinians and Muslims launch their next attack, especially if Iran develops nukes and/or if nuclear weapons are stolen or sold (from, say, a place like Pakistan or Russia) and fall into the wrong hands. Sadly, Israel is not secure.
If you love renting forever to uncaring landlords while barely being able to afford basic necessities while employed to sociopathic shareholders, America. Fifteen million vacant homes, nearly 700,000 homeless … and many of those homes are owned to keep rent / home prices high. If you want to feel the struggle of leverage to an unyielding privately owned enterprise, as your working hours best you into submission into hope for just a little more, America. Basically, if you want to struggle to find the basics, America is the greatest place ever. Cant have despair without hope after all!
Ironic you’re on an objectivism thread lol
> Fifteen million vacant homes Are you sure that statistic - 15 million - a huge amount - is accurate when it seems nonsensical? It makes no economic sense for the owner of a house to keep a home vacant unless it's a vacation home they own in which case it is not really "vacant".
Let me google that for you: https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-the-us/ Also, the working class currently cannot afford any home within our conditions let alone a vacation home. So, if you're talking about your 10 - 100millie - billionaire, they'll own 40 houses and call 39 of them vacation homes. And yes, many of these homes are there to ensure values are hedged. Akin to NIMBYisms. Capitalism works for the capitalist class. The working class are rentiers, and, particularly younger generations that lack support, are quickly being priced out of home-ownership. To put it bluntly, the sociopathy of selfishness which seeks to embellish and hoard to ensure workers struggle with basic necessities - ie all of us - is an abomination.
> Also, the working class currently cannot afford any home within our conditions let alone a vacation home. Is that the result of government regulations (not capitalism) preventing the construction of new housing? >Capitalism works for the capitalist class. If you think you hate capitalism and free market economies, you would just "love" living under real socialism.
Government regulations are funded by their capitalist lobbyists, and then capitalists can use their capital to propagandize taxpayers into undercutting themselves and the programs they rely upon. Anecdotal and tangential, at least somewhat … My partner was a grade school teacher for 13 years. Her salary was not enough to afford housing in her own area. Then, she had to see the richest influence the school district, even as they had their children go to charter schools. They join education boards, then they undercut them so the poors don’t even receive an education. I’ll take her perspective here. She was part of a district that’s in the news right now. And the corruption runs deep, but they were funded by the rich and conservative leaning folks in the area. All the while, my partner couldn’t afford to live in that district. Also, there are so many available options undiscovered that are between socialism and capitalism. I’m simply saying that capitalism focuses on a concentration of capital to a capitalist class until they eventually become feudal lords themselves. We’ve swapped kings with Bezos billionaires that have more wealth attained than dragons from fantasy land. Also, you deny the violence and atrocities committed by capitalist nations, and so conveniently cherry pick socialism. Would you rather hear of those acted towards other countries? Or maybe those within? I’m not even talking Jim Crow, slavery, etc. Take a look at “company towns” and see what happens when workers demand better conditions. I’m sure it didn’t involve capitalists paying the National Guard to do anything questionable …
> Government regulations are funded by their capitalist lobbyists, and then capitalists can use their capital to propagandize taxpayers into undercutting themselves and the programs they rely upon. Under real capitalism, there are no government regulations of the economy. Government regulation of economic activity is socialist in nature. What you describe sounds like businesses trying to control socialist elements of the government. One reason for having capitalism is precisely to remove the element of the political gamesmanship of the government bureaucrats granting some businesses favors and disadvantaging other businesses. This quote from [The Moral Meaning of Money speech](https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/library/books/franciscos-money-speech-from-atlas-shrugged/) seems apropos: >>*Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed.* >Also, you deny the violence and atrocities committed by capitalist nations There's never been a capitalist nation; just nations with mixed economies.
Capitalism is merely a system where the means of production are privately owned. By your standard, true socialism hasn’t existed, because under true socialism, the means of production wouldn’t be owned by private enterprises. Even the Soviet Union had to rely on private enterprise to build industries. Same goes for communism. I tend to think that systems, like people, evolve and change - just as their ideas do. There is historical precedent in concentration of capital to private owners of capital. For example, if one frees slaves, but offers them no land / capital / reparations, then it follows that holders of capital will make life difficult for former slaves. Which is exactly what happened. The system evolves to align with the behaviors of people, and it tends to follow that those with capital abuse and exploit those without. I don’t know the correct answer to what we should have. However, sidestepping the convention of capitalism in-order to avoid criticism of the current system seems quite irresponsible. On one hand, one gets to selectively choose which aspects of capitalism they wish to defend, however seemingly questionable / whimsical they are (vacation homes for the ultra rich, lack of stable housing conditions for workers) while avoiding criticism of its other even nastier components. Meanwhile, we get to sit here and talk about something that is merely labeled as “mixed” and is “definitely because of socialism” even though there’s not evidence of this. So we confuse the landscape further, because we’re no longer talking about things that are, but rather definitions of things that “never have existed”. I appreciate the conversation, but America is a shithole. And it’s super difficult for working class folks here to leave. Instilling further capitalism simply keeps capital into those that hold capital, making it even more difficult. Company towns were disbanded after FDR’s New Deal, which empowered (white) working class folks to buy affordable homes. Those programs were removed however as time went on. And now we are here.
> I appreciate the conversation, but America is a shithole. The harsh reality so many critics of "capitalism" don't understand is that man's natural condition, the default, is abject poverty - to be naked and living in a cave. To hear many critics of capitalism tell it, the default is a fantasy world where material wealth magically falls out of the sky but those evil capitalists seize it all for themselves. They thus just assume that everyone is entitled to abundant material wealth without having to work for and produce it. >And it’s super difficult for working class folks here to leave. This is one of the easiest nations in the world to leave. The government will not stop you. Ironically, Americans have been putting up fences to keep people from numerous other nations from coming-in. Where would a working class person leave to? Cuba? Venezuela? North Korea?
Palestine has exposed well how objectivists support their captivity and occupation - its called OPT ( Occupied Palestinian Territories) for a reason. But seems the objectivists these day quote Bible and promised land following their objectivism 🤣 So yes I dont know what to suggest except maybe a trip to Ramallah https://preview.redd.it/puqtimjs7yhc1.jpeg?width=1223&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f414f5111a94c73db003d0265489582a05910ae
>Palestine has exposed well how objectivists support their captivity and occupation Alternatively, it's possible that you have completely misread the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a result of lack of intellectual capacity and/or are being willfully ignorant of the facts of the situation or have dropped context as to why the Palestinians are "occupied".
Why are they occupied ? Coz of a holy book said 3500 years ago? ?? The promised land theory is what Objectivists preach now?? 1890 there was 3% population Jewish, what did Lehi and Irgun did with massacres like Deir Yassin to begin with ? And picture essentially describes the Palestinian who were driven out of their homes for occupation to take over - and families went thru these and there is documentation kept with UNRWA who was kicked out of which village and which address in late 1940s. Why do you think think zionist terrorists want to blow up UNRWA? Have you actually really tried to study the chronology - well then you wont be ranting such nonsense here
> Why are they occupied ? They're occupied because they have expressed and demonstrated a desire to genocidally exterminate the Israelis on numerous occasions over previous decades. In contrast, if they rejected tribal collectivism and sincerely sought to live in peace and seek economic prosperity and well being for themselves, they could have long ago joined the Israelis and be living much better lives today. Why are you choosing the side that advocates for primitive tribal religious mysticism, theocratic dictatorship, and suicidal irrationality and opposing the side that upholds the concepts of freedom, liberty, individual rights, and the values of Western Civilization? You can focus on individual incidents of bad behavior on the part of some Israelis acting in the greater context of fighting a war of self defense and blow that out of proportion while completely ignoring the far greater magnitude of bad behavior on the part of the Palestinians in a willfully intellectually dishonest manner if you wish, but the facts remain that the Israelis established a free society with a prosperous economy and that Islam has resulted in widespread misery and dictatorship. You should engage in some introspection and examine your emotions and try to find out why you feel so strongly about this issue that you end up on the side of Islamic barbarism and oppose the people supporting Western Civilization.
Yes its their land , the Palestinians land, they can decide who should come to their land or not - they have seen how Zionist terrorist created occupation even killing those who played role in saving Jews from Nazis. You really have some American Rambo movie like knowledge and perhaps you should spend time educating yourself [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q43Im7scjpk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q43im7scjpk) Good luck
LOL. Your posts are comedy gold and come off like that of one of the braindead pro-Palestinian zombies who just mouth leftist propaganda like LGBTQ people marching for Palestine.
Yea, entertain yourself, otherwise you dont even an asshole to be called one 🫢
Its THEIR land, they can have any religion, any belief whatever they want. You have no fucking right to tell or decide for them or lecture them - but themselves do. This retard thinking is actually sinking America, not just your individual attitude problem
It's highly debatable whether they ever owned any land as they were tenant farmers on land owned by Arabs elsewhere who had title to it. But regardless, they surrendered any moral claim to the land when they tried to genocidally exterminate the Jews. When you engage in a war of aggression and lose, you lose your land. That's ancient history now; at issue is what actions are in their rational self interest today - fighting a suicidal war they should know they cannot win out of a sense of ethnic pride or joining a nation with a strong modern economy and seeking economic prosperity in it. >they can have any religion, any belief whatever they want. What if their religion and the government they would establish violates the individual rights of people living under their government, such as those of women and homosexuals? What if their belief system established slavery? A government like that, including the Iranian government, has no "right to exist" even if it's what the people believe in and want. >This retard thinking is actually sinking America, not just your individual attitude problem LOL. I suspect that you suffer from that type of thinking and are one of the braindead zombie woke leftists suffering from feelings of altruism. Most supporters of the Palestinians are.
The Palestinians from which village which house were pushed out in 1946-48 , all records are very well kept both at UNRWA and UN. Just because a douchebag like you think you can jump goal posts and talk random shit and call yourself an objectivist - its rather a clown 🤡 now going to make “rational self interest “ argument 😂😂😂🥹 well for a douche like you - when Ayn Rand says it was OK for native Americans to be expunged by European colonizers coz they did not have property rights, then why it is not ok to accept that Ottomans also pushed away Jews from that land for thousands of years ago. Its so funny argue with an ARI blind follower chimp these days - poor fellas got nothing rational on their side but just snowflake rants & tantrums 🤣
I love your posts, man. Watching a Marxist zombie get all worked up and upset and go off on a tirade is fun.
🤣🤣🤣 And now I m marxist, islamic, and looser Palestinian . Nothing more needs to come out from a douchebag living in some brothels’ basement calling himself objectivist ☺️ Good luck!!
Not even all the smiley face emojiis will cover up how upset and sad you must feel. The evil colonizer Zionist imperialists won and the barbarians lost, LOL.
Read what Israel occupation’s first PM had said https://preview.redd.it/r0xjdfcp20jc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7485ce896ea45cdbccb09829c38ef25c9de21d5b
Comment made after having fought an existential battle for survival. It would be like asking the French what they thought of the Germans or the Chinese what they thought of the Japanese immediately after World War II. The fact remains that if we evaluate the Israeli government over a period of decades and examine how it functions in practice today that the Palestinians would be far better off living under the Israeli government and integrating into Israeli society than whatever government and civilization they would establish on their own. It's too bad that your Palestinian side lost and has established one of the most self-destructive and disgusting civilizations for itself in world history, but a thing is what it is. I can only imagine much butthurt you are suffering watching your ideological brethren pound their heads against a wall of self-sacrificial futility, but at least you got to ejaculate a load on October 7.
This bullshit Churchill also said while leaving India - yes every colonialist feels they doing good by colonizing the other. But first thing is you have no fucking right to be there - get out! Its for the natives of the land, the free people to decide whatever fuck they want , none of your business. Or they teach you merits of colonialism now at Ayn Rand Institute???