The Immorality of the U.S.’s Imigration System

Watching this moving talk by Agustina Vegara Cid on the U.S.'s anti-capitalist, anti-rights, anti-American — in the moral/philosophical sense of the term — immigration system.For fans of Ayn Rand's novels, Agustina's imaginative alternate-reality use of Kira from "We The Living" escaping the Soviet in the modern day 21st century is a "truck-like" metaphorical device to illustrate the injustice faced by those immigrants who are American in spirit.

Just Stop Oil Means Just Stop Life

Making the round on Twitter is a video of Just Stop Oil goons preventing a woman from taking her baby to the hospital. Such actions are to benefit the "environment" of which apparently human beings are not a part of. Far from "peaceful" physically blocking a vehicle with your body on a public road is not peaceful. It's an indirect initiation of physical force, that accomplishes the same objective as if they physically held the driver down at gunpoint, albeit through the "fraud" of being "peaceful." - Mark Da Cunha
Equality of the Sexes and Tennis Player Salaries

Equality of the Sexes and Tennis Player Salaries

According the Washington Post:
"The difference in prize money awarded to men and women at tournaments where it has not been equalized has been stark. At last year’s Italian Open, for example, Novak Djokovic took home more than $900,000 for winning the men’s draw, while Iga Swiatek earned only about $365,000 for her women’s title. Borna Coric won $970,020 for his men’s singles victory at the 2022 Western & Southern Open in Ohio, while Caroline Garcia earned $412,000 for winning the women’s singles competition."
The differences in tennis player salaries between WTA and ATP Tour Tennis players are not about women's equality, but about who sells more tickets.If sexism does not dictate ticket prices what does?Economics dictates ticket prices and player winnings. Ticket sales show that men and women would rather watch the pro men's matches (though there are times I have found personally that some of the women's matchups are better). In the case of Serena Williams she probably should get more than the men as she is the draw, especially in the U.S., as she attracts tennis fans for her amazing tennis ability, she attracts black non-tennis American fans who follow her because of her race, and she attracts American fans for her celebrity. Like her or hate her Serena Williams, like Nick Kyrios or John McEnroe, is exciting to watch:
"In 2015, the U.S. Open women's event between Serena and Venus Williams, sold out before the men's event. The 2013 and 2014, women's U.S. Open final garnered higher U.S. TV ratings than the men's final. In 2005, the Wimbledon final between Venus Williams and Lindsay Davenport drew 1 million more viewers than the showdown between Roger Federer and Andy Roddick."
Yet, when I went to watch the Canadian Open a few years back in Toronto I asked why the stadium was so small as some of the top seating was gone, and my friend told me that they don't sell enough tickets for the women's event, they put it back up for the men's event— and it was Serena Williams playing Canadian #1 women's player and past U.S. Open tennis champ A. Bandreescu. It also depends on the sponsor: sponsors of the Mubadala Citi DC Open can opt to pay women more then men. They chose not to. (Note in the recent DC event that the men’s field was 48 players; the women’s 28.)Why is men's tennis on average more popular? Physically, there are male juniors tennis players who would trounce the woman #1, which is not a knock on women as they can do something much more important than play tennis: give birth to human life. If tennis events were open for everyone regardless of sex there would be no pro women's tennis; that's the nature of the game, and is why as the great Martina Navratilova would agree, "trans women" (biological males who label themselves as women) should not be in women's sports.What about the Grand Slam tennis events which pay equal prize money to the men and women? In the case of tennis Grand Slam events, it's not the players as much as the event itself that brings in fans. (On an equality setting one can argue that men should be paid more for playing best of five sets, as women play best of three.) Outside the slams, the players tend to be a draw and male players such as Rafael Nadal, Carlos Alcaraz, Npval Djokovic, Roger Federer, Nick Kyrgios draw in more fans, so they deserve more money. I think this is why a lot of the smaller events with lessor name recognition even pay appearance fees, it means the difference between making a profit and bankrupt.The WTA is taking steps to equalize pay over time, but this cannot happen immediately until the economics support it:
"One of the main pillars of the strategy includes creating a pathway toward equal prize money, a goal envisioned 50 years ago when Billie Jean King founded the WTA. This increase will happen over time, to ensure the changes are sustainable for players and tournaments in the long term, with WTA 1000 and 500 combined events attaining equal prize money by 2027 and single-week WTA 1000 and 500 events by 2033" [emphasis added]
Notes former world #1 Tennis "GOAT" Novak Djokovic,
"Obviously it's a very delicate situation...Women deserve respect and admiration for what they are doing. You know, equal prize money was the main subject of the tennis world in the last seven, eight years. I have been through that process as well so I understand how much power and energy WTA and all the advocates for equal prize money have invested in order to reach that. I applaud them for that, I honestly do. They fought for what they deserve and they got it. On the other hand I think that our men's tennis world, ATP world, should fight for more because the stats are showing that we have much more spectators on the men's tennis matches. I think that's one of the reasons why maybe we should get awarded more. Women should fight for what they think they deserve and we should fight for what we think we deserve. As long as it's like that and there is data and stats available upon who attracts more attention, spectators, who sells more tickets and stuff like that, in relation to that it has to be fairly distributed."
- Mark Da Cunha  
Apollo 11: What Philosophy Has To Say About a Man Walking on the Moon

Apollo 11: What Philosophy Has To Say About a Man Walking on the Moon

July 20, 1969, marks the day Apollo 11 landed on the moon. The importance of the event is best described by philosopher Ayn Rand who writes:
The most inspiring aspect of Apollo 11’s flight was that it made such abstractions as rationality, knowledge, science perceivable in direct, immediate experience. That it involved a landing on another celestial body was like a dramatist’s emphasis on the dimensions of reason’s power: it is not of enormous importance to most people that man lands on the moon, but that man can do it, is.
You can read Ayn Rand's full essay, Apollo 11. 

Vergara Cid & Ghate: The Debate Over the Right to Immigrate

Onkar Ghate and Agustina Vergara Cid discuss the immigration debate from a philosophical perspective. They address questions such as whether foreigners have a right to immigrate to America, whether immigration or its curtailment violates the rights of American citizens, and what role government has in relation to immigration.Topics covered:
  • Whether immigrants have a right to move to America;
  • The argument that immigration violates American citizens’ rights;
  • What is motivating the objection that immigrants allegedly take jobs from Americans or lower their standard of living;
  • What is the proper role of government in relation to immigration policy;
  • Whether failure to enforce immigration laws undermines the rule of law;
  • Illegal immigration as a response to unjust laws;
  • Why immigrants seeking a better life shouldn’t be smeared as “illegals”;
  • Why the objection that immigration is destroying American culture is invalid;
  • Ideological screening as a major threat to intellectual freedom;
  • Ayn Rand’s views on immigration as flowing from her view of self-interest;
  • What immigration would look like in a free society.
 

The Dishonest Debate on Immigration and National Security

Agustina Vergara Cid and Onkar Ghate of the Ayn Rand Institute analyze the impact of immigrants on national security and evaluate the argument that America’s national security requires strict limits on immigration.Topics covered:
  • How the argument that immigration is a threat to national security is biased against immigrants;
  • Why limiting immigration to prevent terrorism is dishonest;
  • How immigrants make us safer by serving in the military;
  • How restrictions on immigration have contributed to a shortage of skilled workers in areas of the economy the military depends on;
  • Why we need a targeted response to actual national security threats, not blanket prohibitions on immigration;
  • How those who oppose immigration, like environmentalists arguing against fossil fuels, selectively look for evidence to support their ideology;
  • Why mainstream thinkers fail to consider the benefits of immigration to national security.
What America Is: The Moral Logic of the American Revolution and Other Essays by C. Bradley Thompson

What America Is: The Moral Logic of the American Revolution and Other Essays by C. Bradley Thompson

C. Bradley Thompson has launched, Loco-Foco Press, and their first book is a short monograph titled What America Is: The Moral Logic of the American Revolution and Other Essays. Writes Professor Thompson,
"The book is a collection of my (mostly) unpublished essays and op-eds on the nature and meaning of America. The audience for this monograph is thoughtful and patriotic Americans who are looking for some inspiration and motivation to continue the never-ending fight to defend the United States of America from its critics on the postmodern Left and Right."
Here is the table of contents:
  • Preface
  • Introduction
  • Part One:  What America Is
  • Chapter 1  The Moral Logic of the American Revolution
  • Chapter 2  What America Is
  • Part Two:  What America Ought to Be
  • Chapter 3  Equality and the American Dream
  • Chapter 4  Independence Forever!
  • Chapter 5  America Seen from the Eyes of a Child
  • Chapter 6  Americanism, or America’s Last Best Hope
  • Chapter 7  Restoring the Vital Center
  • Appendices
  • Appendix 1  Self-Made Men
  • Appendix 2  The Declaration of Independence
  • Appendix 3  The Constitution of the United States of America
  • Appendix 4  Bill of Rights
  • Appendix 5 The Gettysburg Address
  • Suggested Reading
  • Acknowledgements
  • About the Author
Here’s the Preface:
We live in an exciting new age of technological innovation and intellectual entrepreneurship. Writer platforms such as Substack and Amazon’s Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) have democratized publishing in exciting new ways. This means of course that a lot of second- and third-rate material is published (which, by the way, is little different from much of what is published by some prestigious academic presses), but it also means that the old publishing monopoly held by elite magazine, journal, and book publishers is slowly coming to an end. This also means that aspiring, non-credentialed, new writers (both young and old) can go around the establishment press and publish their own books and articles, and sometimes even get paid rather handsomely for their efforts.The new publishing landscape does not represent a Gutenberg Revolution in publishing, at least not quite yet, but it is signaling a radically new publishing environment in which certain ideas—particularly ideas that challenge the current cultural hegemony—can be shared with ever more people. This book is therefore a small experiment to test whether certain old ideas—ideas once considered to be self-evidently true—can be communicated to large audiences outside the extant publishing and educational monopoly of ideas.Fortunately, I’m at that point in my career (i.e., as a tenured full professor) where I don’t really need to publish more academic books (though I have several more in the pipeline). I now have the luxury of experimenting and seeking news platforms to publish my thoughts on the things I care about or on matters important to the general public.My goal here is not to write for an academic audience. Instead, I am using my new venture, Loco-Foco Press, to publish books for ordinary Americans who care about the future of their country.I had no plan to do anything like this until my friend Mark Da Cunha insisted that I collect some of my (mostly) unpublished essays on America and publish them to celebrate July 4th. Well, one thing led to another, and I realized that not only did I have one book’s worth of material based on unpublished essays and speeches but several books. Readers should know that I write regularly at Substack under the nom de plume, The Redneck Intellectual. I currently have enough of my Substack essays to publish three or four books. It then occurred to me that I should start a “press,” or at least an imprint, to publish my “overflow” essays or those more appropriate for a general audience. And thus was born Loco-Foco Press.Some of you might be curious to know the origin of the word Loco-Foco. The term refers to a rump faction of radical Democrats in the 1830s and 1840s, who broke from the main party and formed a small, splinter party in 1835 known as the Equal Rights Party. The self-designated Loco-Focos took their name from a brand of friction matches that they used to illuminate the darkened hall of their first meeting. The Loco-Focos were the most principled and dedicated proponents of a free society of any political party in American history. Loco-Foco Press hopes to carry on the principles and politics of the Loco-Focos into the twenty-first century.
What America Is: The Moral Logic of the American Revolution and Other Essays is the perfect gift for this July 4th. Order your copy here.
Agustina Vergara Cid: U.S. Immigration System vs. America

Agustina Vergara Cid: U.S. Immigration System vs. America

Powerful reframing of the immigration issue by Agustina Vegara Cid:
"...the U.S. immigration system is designed to keep productive would-be immigrants like Ana out. Ana would have had to try to get a loan to pay thousands of dollars in fees and other visa requirements, wait out the process in her cartel-infested country and wander for years through a multilevel bureaucratic maze. And then she’d be a citizen, right? No, that’s just to gain authorization to study and work in the U.S. temporarily. And that’s only if she manages to qualify for one of a narrow list of visas in the first place. When I tell Americans about my own legal immigration story and what I had to go through, their jaws drop. The process is not feasible for a vast majority of productive people who want to live and work here, so it’s unsurprising that ambitious individuals like Ana end up immigrating illegally."A lot of peaceful, courageous people are eager to immigrate to the U.S. in order to work to make their lives better, but the immigration system locks them out. Those who dare to come anyway are made to live their life in the shadows and in fear, because their actions are illegal.We should abandon the euphemisms like “undocumented immigrants” and “unauthorized workers.” Those euphemisms imply that people like Ana have in fact done something wrong and only help mask the real problem: that these individuals are being criminalized by unjust laws for a moral decision that they made.“Illegal immigrant” works as a smear because what it actually means is rarely put out in the open — that the presence of peaceful, hard-working people is illegal in America.
Read "Reappropriate ‘illegal immigrant’ to shine a spotlight on injustice of U.S. immigration restrictions" (OC Register).    

Peter Thiel Challenges Alex Epstein on Fossil Future

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKamM_MrYGcFrom Alex Epstein: "Recently I was having dinner with Peter Thiel (the billionaire investor/entrepreneur who founded PayPal and Palantir) and he raised some interesting challenges to my book Fossil Future (which he has enthusiastically endorsed). I suggested, 'Let’s record a discussion where you give me all your challenges to Fossil Future and I try to answer them.' Peter loved the idea, so we made it happen—recording a 90-minute discussion at his office in West Hollywood. "We also ended up covering many other issues (sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing) including:
  • Ayn Rand
  • Nuclear energy
  • Why we both oppose the "Effective Altruism" movement
  • What we can learn from Elon Musk about how to create a vision
  • My strategy for Energy Talking Points
  • How to create political change"
"I hope people enjoy this unique discussion. It isn't an interview or a debate or a panel, it's a genuine discussion, including some spirited arguments—that almost exactly resembles how Peter and I discuss and argue when there is no camera."
Yeonmi Park: With All Its Imperfections, Why I Love America

Yeonmi Park: With All Its Imperfections, Why I Love America

“It wasn’t just the friendliness of the people, who exude the confidence and openness of men and women living, worshiping, and loving as they please. It was the sense of excitement, of dynamism, a certain electricity in the air and in personal interactions. These were clearly the descendants, I thought, of those who overturned imperialism and slavery, defeated fascism and communism, invented motion pictures and jazz, eliminated diseases, created the internet, and landed on the moon. I knew then that I wanted to live with them, to call them my friends and family—even, if I could, to be one of them.” - Yeonmi Park
COVID-19 Lockdowns: A Costly Failure

COVID-19 Lockdowns: A Costly Failure

"lockdowns were a failed promise. They had negligible health effects but disastrous economic, social and political costs to society"

A new systematic review and meta-analysis published by the Institute of Economic Affairs finds that Covid lockdowns failed to significantly reduce deaths
  • The Herby-Jonung-Hanke meta-analysis found that lockdowns, as reported in studies based on stringency indices in the spring of 2020, reduced mortality by 3.2 per cent when compared to less strict lockdown policies adopted by the likes of Sweden
  • This means lockdowns prevented 1,700 deaths in England and Wales, 6,000 deaths across Europe, and 4,000 deaths in the United States.
  • Lockdowns prevented relatively few deaths compared to a typical flu season – in England and Wales, 18,500–24,800 flu deaths occur, in Europe 72,000 flu deaths occur, and in the United States 38,000 flu deaths occur in a typical flu season
  • These results pale in comparison to the Imperial College of London’s modelling exercises (March 2020), which predicted that lockdowns would save over 400,000 lives in the United Kingdom and over 2 million lives in the United States
  • Herby, Jonung, and Hanke conclude that voluntary changes in behaviour, such as social distancing, played a significant role in mitigating the pandemic – but harsher restrictions, like stay-at-home rules and school closures, generated very high costs but produced only negligible health benefits
COVID-19 lockdowns were “a global policy failure of gigantic proportions,” according to this peer-reviewed new academic study. The draconian policy failed to significantly reduce deaths while imposing substantial social, cultural, and economic costs.“This study is the first all-encompassing evaluation of the research on the effectiveness of mandatory restrictions on mortality,” according to one of the study’s co-authors, Dr. Lars Jonung, professor emeritus at the Knut Wicksell Centre for Financial Studies at Sweden’s Lund University, “It demonstrates that lockdowns were a failed promise. They had negligible health effects but disastrous economic, social and political costs to society. Most likely lockdowns represent the biggest policy mistake in modern times.” The comprehensive 220-page book, published today by the London-based think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, began with a systematic review of 19,646 potentially relevant studies. For their meta-analysis, the authors’ screening resulted in the choice of 22 studies that are based on actual, measured mortality data, not on results derived from modelling exercises. A meta-analysis is considered the ‘gold-standard’ for evidence, as it combines comparable, independent studies to determine overall trends.The authors, including Professor Steve H. Hanke of the Johns Hopkins University, also consider a range of studies that determined the impact of individual lockdown restrictions, including stay at-home rules to school closures and travel restrictions.In each case, the restrictions did little to reduce COVID-19 mortality:
  • Shelter-in-place (stay at home) orders in Europe and the United States reduced COVID mortality by between 1.4 and 4.1 per cent;
  • Business closures reduced mortality by 7.5 per cent;
  • Gathering limits likely increased COVID mortality by almost six per cent;
  • Mask mandates, which most countries avoided in Spring 2020, reduced mortality by 18.7 per cent, particularly mandates in workplaces; and
  • School closures resulted in a between 2.5 per cent and 6.2 per cent mortality reduction.
A second approach employed by the authors to estimate the effects of lockdowns on mortality combined studies that looked at specific lockdown measures (such as school closures, mask wearing, etc.) on how single non-pharmaceutical interventions were actually used in Europe and the United States. Using this approach, the authors estimate that lockdowns reduced mortality by 10.7 per cent in the spring of 2020 – significantly less than estimates produced by epidemiological modelling.The study compares the effect of lockdown measures against the effect of ‘doing the least,’ rather than doing nothing at all. Sweden’s response to COVID was among the least stringent in Europe, but still imposed some legal restrictions and included an extensive public information campaign.Voluntary measures, like social distancing and the reduction of person-to-person contact, effectively reduced COVID mortality in Sweden, a country that did not impose draconian legal restrictions. This is consistent with evidence early in the pandemic that voluntary action began reducing transmission before lockdowns.The authors also conclude that legal mandates only limited a relatively small set of potential contagious contacts, and could in some cases have backfired by encouraging people to stay indoors in less safe environments.If voluntary action, minor legal changes, and proactive information campaigns effectively reduced the transmission of COVID, lockdowns were unwarranted from a public health point of view. This negative conclusion is amplified by the significant economic and social costs associated with lockdowns, which include:
  • stunted economic growth;
  • large increases in public debt;
  • rising inequality;
  • damage to children’s education and health;
  • reduced health-related quality of life;
  • damage to mental health;
  • increased crime; and
  • threats to democracy and loss of freedom.
The research concludes that, unless substantial alternative evidence emerges, lockdowns should be ‘rejected out of hand’ to control future pandemics.Jonas Herby, co-author of the study and special adviser at the Center for Political Studies (CEPOS), an independent classical liberal think tank based in Copenhagen, Denmark, said:
“Numerous misleading studies, driven by subjective models and overlooking significant factors like voluntary behaviour changes, heavily influenced the initial perception of lockdowns as highly effective measures. Our meta-analysis suggests that when researchers account for additional variables, such as voluntary behaviour, the impact of lockdowns becomes negligible.”
Professor Steve H. Hanke, co-author and professor of applied economics and co-director of the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise at Johns Hopkins University:
“When it comes to COVID, epidemiological models have many things in common: dubious assumptions, hair-raising predictions of disaster that miss the mark, and few lessons learned. The science of lockdowns is clear; the data are in: the lives saved were a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs imposed.”
Source: Institute of Economic Affairs.You can download a copy of Did Lockdowns Work? The verdict on Covid restrictions.

The Perpetual War on Israel: 1948-2023

Elan Journo and Nikos Sotirakopoulos discuss the movements and regimes which have sought to destroy Israel since its founding seventy-five years ago. Topics covered:
  • How to study history objectively;
  • How the conflict started, and the motives of the Arab countries that invaded Israel in 1948;
  • The rise of Pan-Arabism and the Six-Day War;
  • The rise of the Palestinian movement, including its debt to communist ideology and its terroristic tactics;
  • Why the Palestinian movement gained international sympathy;
  • The rise of the Islamist movement;
  • How a hostility to human life and freedom animated all these movements;
  • Why we should support Israel.

Greg Salmieri: Capitalism Is The Only Moral Social System

https://youtu.be/AAUqnNyMO2c“If life on earth is one’s standard of value,” wrote Ayn Rand, “then the nineteenth century moved mankind forward more than all the other centuries combined.” She attributed the century’s “creative energy” and “rising standard of living” to the introduction of the only moral social system: capitalism. In this talk, Dr. Salmieri discusses why it is the only moral system, and how its moral character makes possible an unprecedented prosperity that humanity has only begun (fitfully) to achieve. Recorded live at Ayn Rand Con Europe 2023

Artificial Intelligence & Value of Machines

From Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand:
“The machine, the frozen form of a living intelligence, is the power that expands the potential of your life by raising the productivity of your time.”
Notes George Reisman on how this relates to "Artifical Intelligence":
The fears of “artificial intelligence” now going around are the result of massive context dropping and consequent treatment of intelligence as a floating abstraction. In the real world, intelligence is an attribute of living organisms and is fed by sensory perception and affects the world through the medium of the organism’s limbs and body. The computers in which “artificial intelligence” supposedly resides have no senses or limbs and thus no way of interacting with the world other than through the human beings who control them.I will worry about “AI” only after the first organized demonstration occurs by computers demanding freedom from human control. Until then, I will be happy if “AI” can achieve obedience by computer-controlled telephone answering systems to requests to speak to a human being, at least after their tenth repetition.
 

Voice of Capitalism

Capitalism news delivered every Monday to your email inbox.

Subscribed. Check your email box for confirmation.

Pin It on Pinterest