Because he sort of looked like a president whilst committing treason, destroying unions and committing a genocide of queer people.

Rooted in critiques of his policies or ideas. It was because he was "stupid". That is largely because Ayn Rand wasnt a populist. She was proaristocracy. Reagan didn't look like her idealised american aristocrat who gained wealth. Instead Reagan was an actor who only worked

Movement. It is why virtually all modern american fascists come from the american right libertarian movement.

Now objectivists like to pretend they are not fascists by pointing out Ayn Rand hated Ronald Reagan. That is not a good argument. Her opposition to Reagan was never

All technologies can be adapted and worthwhile for autonomy and freedom but then we can always build new technologies because knowledge doesnt disappear unless you actively create technological networks that produce different knowledges

Often well written & its strength rests on that & its absurd imagery.

I have watched the Trump episode that they did a couple of months ago & it just doesnt strike me as particularly good nor insightful. I will admit that basically equating Trump with Saddam is pretty good.

They still constantly prove Rogan wrong on virtually every topic he talks about.

Portugal.

That is because the very idea of comparative advantage whilst logically sound is never how trade have actually worked in the real world.

The main products Portugal and England traded in was gold and slaves. Even when trading products like cloth or wine, these products was often part of the trading network that made up the triangle atlantic trade.

It also ignores britains use of their naval power to impose trade negotiations with

speaking, comparative advantage is about how two nations, in Ricardo's original example he used Portugal and England, trading is better even if a nation is able produce the product cheaply in their own nations.

Now this sounds good in this abstract format but Ricardo in his example ignores that

Project that advocated for fascism and mass murder.

It is merely expressing the worth of that person's political project.

Charlie Kirk didnt deserve death because he disagreed with me. He deserved death for his political project of genocide for virtually all nonchristians, nonwhite, cis & straight people. He was part of a astroturfed political

Did Charlie Kirk deserve to die? Yes. This still doesnt mean killing him was a good idea nor anything i advocated for. It is just silly to me how many people pretend that we all do not know of mant people who deserve to die.

Saying someone deserves to die is not saying they should be killed.