Saturday, February 28, 2026

International law has no independent enforcement power

Norway’s foreign minister argues that the strikes on Iran broke international law. Does this make any difference? Does this matter? Is it irrelevant?

Regarding international law, what can be proved is a narrow, testable proposition, such as that international law has no independent enforcement power and therefore cannot be treated as decisive evidence of what will happen or what a state must do absent aligned incentives or coercive power.

Below is how to prove that, using the following procedure.

1) Observe and isolate the facts

Concrete existents:

States (U.S., China, etc.) with militaries, police, courts inside their borders.
International institutions (UN, ICJ, ICC, WTO bodies).
Treaties/charters (UN Charter, Geneva Conventions, UNCLOS).
Sanctions/force (trade sanctions, asset freezes, military action).
Key observable fact to start from:
There is no global sovereign with general police power over states comparable to a domestic government over citizens.

2) Define your terms and form the relevant concepts

You must prevent equivocation.

Law (domestic): rules backed by an institution with (a) recognized authority, (b) courts, and (c) routine, centralized coercive enforcement (police/jails) over individuals in its jurisdiction.
International law: rules states claim bind them (treaty law + customary law), interpreted/argued in diplomatic and judicial forums, but enforced mainly through state action (retaliation, sanctions, reciprocal compliance, reputation, and sometimes war), not a standing global police.
Enforce: to reliably impose compliance via coercion when a subject refuses.
Irrelevant (needs tightening): cannot be used as evidence for any conclusion? That’s too strong. Better: not independently action-guiding (i.e., doesn’t determine outcomes without power/incentives).

3) State a clear, testable proposition (tentative opinion)

A provable version:

P: International law, by itself, is not a decisive constraint on state action, because it lacks centralized coercive enforcement; therefore citing “international law says X” is not sufficient to establish that X will occur or that X is practically obligatory.

This is testable: we can check whether outcomes track legal claims absent enforcement/incentives.

4) Reduce the proposition to the perceptual level

What would we observe if $P$ is true?

Frequent cases where a powerful state violates a rule and no consistent coercive enforcement follows.
Compliance occurs mainly when:
- it aligns with state interest,
- retaliation is expected,
- or powerful actors can impose costs.
Courts/institutions issue rulings that are ignored without a stronger party making noncompliance costly.

What would falsify $P$ ?

A standing international authority that routinely coerces even great powers into compliance regardless of interest/power (a true global sovereign).

5) Gather all relevant evidence (positive and negative)

Relevant categories of evidence:

Institutional design: UN has no world police; Security Council enforcement depends on major powers; veto blocks action.
Behavioral record: states sometimes comply, sometimes don’t; pattern correlates with incentives and power.
Mechanisms of “enforcement”: sanctions, countermeasures, reciprocal treaty suspension, reputational costs—these are not automatic and depend on other states choosing to act.

Negative instances (showing it’s not “irrelevant” in every sense):

Many treaties are complied with because they coordinate mutually beneficial behavior (aviation, mail, shipping standards, trade procedures).
So the absolute thesis “irrelevant” fails; the enforcement-independence thesis remains viable.

6) Integrate the evidence by logic (identity, non-contradiction, causality)

If “law” (in the robust domestic sense) implies a superior with final coercive authority, then by identity international law is different in kind: it is rules among sovereigns without a sovereign over them.
Non-contradiction check: “international law binds states” can only mean “states have agreed and expect consequences from others,” not “a superior will compel them.”
Therefore the practical force of international law is derivative: it reduces to power + incentives + coordination, not an autonomous authority.

7) Identify causal mechanisms (not correlation)

Mechanisms that make international law matter when it does:

Reciprocity: “If you violate, we suspend our performance.”
Retaliation/countermeasures: tariffs, seizures, diplomatic isolation.
Coordination benefits: standardization lowers costs; compliance is rational.
Reputation/credibility: affects alliances, investment, future bargains.
Power projection: strong coalitions can impose costs.

Mechanism that makes it fail:

When the violator is strong enough or the issue important enough, and others won’t/can’t impose costs, the rule becomes inert.

8) Compare alternatives and eliminate the impossible

Alternatives:

International law functions like domestic law (central enforcer compels states).
International law functions like a coordination/contracting system (works when incentives or power make compliance rational).
International law is pure fiction (never influences behavior).

(1) contradicts the observed absence of a global coercive sovereign.
(3) contradicts obvious coordination/compliance cases.
So (2) remains: conditional relevance, not decisive authority.

9) Burden of proof

If someone argues: “X is wrong because international law says so,” they must show:

which rule applies (definition and scope),
and crucially what enforcement/incentive mechanism will make it operative.
If they cannot reduce it to any mechanism (who will impose what cost, under what conditions), the claim “therefore it can’t happen / therefore it’s settled” is floating—it has no action-guiding weight.

10) Grade evidential status

The absolute claim “international law is irrelevant and should never be used” is refuted by counterexamples.
The refined claim $P$ (no independent decisive constraint absent incentives/power) is probable to near-certain as a general principle, because it follows from the structural fact: no global sovereign with routine coercion over states.

11) Issue a judgment (truth-status decision)

Judgment:

Dismiss the blanket statement “international law is irrelevant.”
Accept (contextually) the stronger, defensible thesis:

International law is not self-enforcing and cannot be treated as dispositive in argument unless you also identify the concrete enforcement/incentive mechanism that will make compliance rational or compulsory.

12) Form a belief and act accordingly (keep context open)

How to use this in argument:

Don’t say “international law is irrelevant.”
Say: “International law is conditional: it matters only insofar as states with power or aligned interests will enforce it or comply with it. So citing it alone doesn’t settle the issue.”

A compact formulation you can use:

“International law isn’t a trump card; without enforceable mechanisms, it’s a paper rule.”

Friday, February 27, 2026

Power: the struggle for power as the main cause of the American Civil War

Power struggles are a major causal force in coercive, zero-sum, and institutional settings.

Debate brief

Resolution / Thesis

Slavery was the central stake, but the immediate pathway to secession and war ran through a struggle for political power—control of the federal government and the territories—because that power determined whether slavery would be protected, contained, or placed on a course toward extinction.

Claim 1: Slavery was the substantive stake; “power” was the means of protecting it.

Evidence (what to point to)

Official secession-era documents (state “causes” statements) overwhelmingly center on slavery-related grievances: slavery’s legitimacy, fugitive slave enforcement, and hostility to slavery.
Confederate constitutional design and early policy choices explicitly protected slavery and its expansionary logic.

Warrant (why that evidence proves the claim)

If political actors repeatedly identify one institution as the vital interest and then design a new government around protecting it, that institution is the stake.
“Power” is not an independent goal here; it is the tool required to secure slavery via law, courts, enforcement, and territorial policy.

Rebuttal (answer likely objections)

Objection: “They said ‘states’ rights,’ not slavery.”
Reply: The most fought-over “rights” were those directly tied to slavery (especially enforcement and expansion). A right detached from the main disputes wouldn’t dominate the official grievances.
Objection: “Some people didn’t own slaves.”
Reply: Political movements don’t require every supporter to personally own the key asset; the question is what the seceding governments prioritized and what their leaders said the new nation was for.

Claim 2: The key power mechanism was the territories → new states → Senate/presidency → long-run control of slavery’s legal status.

Evidence

The fiercest pre-war national conflicts centered on whether slavery could expand into federal territories (e.g., Kansas-Nebraska crisis, Dred Scott fallout, repeated compromise attempts).
The obsession with “balance” (free vs slave states) and the explosive reaction to territorial outcomes show that future political control was at stake.

Warrant

The territories were the pipeline to future states. Future states determined the Senate, which controlled:
- national legislation,
- judicial confirmations,
- and long-run constitutional interpretation.
  Therefore, territorial outcomes translated directly into durable political power—and thus into slavery’s survival prospects.

Rebuttal

Objection: “Territories were about land and settlement, not slavery.”
Reply: Land matters politically because it becomes representation. The repeated national crises weren’t about ordinary settlement; they were about whether new political units would permit slavery—because that changed federal power.

Claim 3: Lincoln’s 1860 election was a power-shift signal: the South faced looming permanent minority status.

Evidence

Lincoln won without winning the South; the Republican coalition was largely Northern.
Southern leaders treated the Republican victory as a strategic turning point, not a routine election.

Warrant

A section that can no longer win national elections or reliably control federal institutions faces a rational fear: laws, enforcement priorities, and court composition will eventually turn against its core institution.
Even if immediate abolition wasn’t on the table federally in 1860, containment + loss of power implied a long-run trajectory toward slavery’s restriction and eventual destruction.

Rebuttal

Objection: “Lincoln said he wouldn’t abolish slavery where it existed.”
Reply: The Southern calculation was about future control, not only immediate policy. If you believe your institution must expand or at least remain politically protected, then losing the presidency, Senate influence, and territorial policy is existential even without instant abolition.

Claim 4: Secession was a preemptive political act to secure slavery by escaping the federal power shift.

Evidence

Secession occurred immediately after the perceived power turning point (1860 election), not after a sudden tariff change or a new constitutional amendment attempt.
The Confederacy’s founding documents and diplomacy aimed to normalize and protect slavery.

Warrant

Timing reveals motives: when action follows the moment of perceived irreversible political defeat, it indicates a power-driven trigger.
Creating a new state is the ultimate power move: it removes the issue from federal jurisdiction and locks in the institution through a new constitutional order.

Rebuttal

Objection: “Secession was about sovereignty in principle.”
Reply: Principles can be real, but the best test is: sovereignty for what end? The seceding governments repeatedly tied sovereignty to safeguarding slavery and resisting anti-slavery national power.

Claim 5: The Union fought primarily over sovereignty/Union, but that does not contradict slavery as the root stake and power as the mechanism.

Evidence

Early Union war aims emphasized preserving the Union and federal authority.
As the war progressed, emancipation became a strategic and moral war aim because slavery materially supported the Confederate war effort and was the core institutional conflict.

Warrant

Wars can have different “levels” of cause:
- Underlying stake: slavery’s future.
- Immediate constitutional dispute: whether secession is lawful and whether federal authority holds.
- Operational military logic: crippling the opponent’s labor system and legitimacy.
  These layers are compatible and mutually reinforcing.

Rebuttal

Objection: “If the North fought for Union, then it wasn’t about slavery.”
Reply: Union was the legal basis for using force; slavery was the central substantive conflict driving secession and shaping what “Union” meant in practice. The mechanism thesis explicitly allows both: slavery as stake, political power as pathway, Union as battlefield.

Cross-examination questions (to pressure the other side)

If slavery wasn’t central, why do official secession explanations and the Confederate state design repeatedly prioritize it?
Why did the crisis repeatedly pivot on territories and the admission of new states (i.e., future political power)?
Why did secession happen right after the 1860 election—what changed structurally besides national political control?
If “states’ rights” was primary in the abstract, why was federal enforcement demanded when it benefited slavery (e.g., fugitive slave enforcement)?

Common opponent positions & quick responses

“It was tariffs.”
Tariffs don’t explain the dominant focus on slavery enforcement/expansion or the timing around 1860–61. Tariff disputes existed for decades without prompting mass secession.
“It was states’ rights.”
States’ rights was invoked selectively; the core conflict was which level of government would protect or restrict slavery.
“It was just power politics.”
Yes—power politics in service of slavery. Power is the mechanism, not a free-standing cause.

Closing summary (30-second version)

“The core stake was slavery. But slavery’s fate depended on political control—especially the territories that determined future states and Senate power. Lincoln’s election signaled a durable loss of national power for the South, so secession was a preemptive bid to protect slavery outside federal reach. The Union fought to deny secession and preserve federal sovereignty, and because slavery was the Confederacy’s foundation, the war inevitably became a final settlement of slavery’s status.”

In addition:

From the American Civil War, what lessons can be learned about the relationship between power and civil wars?

1) Observe and isolate the facts

In the Civil War era, slavery was the substantive issue, but it operated through political power (who controls law, courts, enforcement, territory, and ultimately the rules of the country).
“Issues” (the specific policies disputed) can change across decades, but institutions and incentives (votes, coalitions, constitutional levers, demographics, enforcement) persist.
When a dispute is treated as existential and the sides see no lawful, peaceful path to protect their vital interests, escalation becomes more likely.

That’s the reality-context to draw lessons from.

2) Define terms (so the “lesson” is objective)

Power struggle: competition to control governing institutions (legislation, executive enforcement, courts).
Issue: the substantive end that power is used to achieve (e.g., slavery then; other policies now).
Lesson: a general principle abstracted from history that helps predict or guide action.

3) Proposition (what we’re trying to show)

P: The Civil War teaches that while the contested issues vary, political power struggles are constant—and the key practical lesson is to keep disputes anchored to objective principles, clear constitutional rules, and peaceful political mechanisms, or else power competition can turn zero-sum and violent.

4) Reduce to evidence (what in the Civil War supports this)

Slavery’s defenders treated federal power as essential: territories → new states → Senate → courts → long-run control.
The Union treated secession as incompatible with constitutional government: if secession is normalized, law becomes optional.
Polarization was intensified by moral conflict, propaganda, and breakdown of trust; compromise failed when both sides believed the future was intolerable.

5) Lessons (claims → warrants)

Lesson 1: Power is a tool; the decisive question is power for what.

Claim: Power struggles never disappear, but they are not “the ultimate cause” until you identify the end they serve.
Warrant: In the Civil War, power competition mattered because it determined the survival of a concrete institution (slavery). Without identifying ends, “power” becomes a floating abstraction that can excuse anything.

Practical takeaway: In modern debates, always force the reduction: what concrete policy, rights, or facts is this power being used to secure?

Lesson 2: When politics becomes existential and zero-sum, violence risk rises.

Claim: The more a side believes losing an election means losing its way of life or basic rights, the more it will seek extra-legal solutions.
Warrant: Secession functioned as a preemptive escape from a perceived permanent minority status and long-run institutional defeat.

Practical takeaway: Build and protect institutions that allow losses without catastrophe: predictable law, rights protections, stable rules, and peaceful transfer of power.

Lesson 3: Clarity of principles matters more than slogans.

Claim: “States’ rights,” “Union,” and “freedom” were used rhetorically, but the conflict turned on concrete legal realities.
Warrant: The slogans only become informative when tied to specifics (fugitive slave enforcement, territorial governance, constitutional authority, etc.).

Practical takeaway: Don’t debate at the level of slogans. Demand definitions and concrete referents: what law, what action, what enforcement, what measurable outcome?

Lesson 4: Compromise has limits when one side’s “interest” is another side’s rights violation.

Claim: Some conflicts are not just distributive bargaining problems; they’re moral/legal contradictions.
Warrant: Slavery is a rights-violating institution; “splitting the difference” perpetuates injustice and keeps the system unstable.

Practical takeaway: A stable society needs objective rights as boundaries. Compromise is appropriate within those boundaries, not over whether some people count as persons under the law.

Lesson 5: Demography and representation can shift power; wise systems anticipate this peacefully.

Claim: Structural shifts (population growth, new states, party realignment) can make one region feel “locked out.”
Warrant: The territories/state-admission pipeline made demographic change politically decisive.

Practical takeaway: Maintain fair representation rules and civic trust so shifts in power are processed through elections and law—not threats, nullification, or violence.

Lesson 6: The rule of law is the alternative to “might makes right.”

Claim: If political outcomes are treated as optional, conflict becomes a contest of force.
Warrant: The Union’s core claim was that secession would dissolve lawful government into conditional membership.

Practical takeaway: Protect constitutional processes, courts, and election integrity—especially when you dislike outcomes—because the alternative is power decided outside law.

6) Judgment (truth-status)

Judgment: It is certain that power struggles persist across eras, but it is crucial (and supported by the Civil War record) that the content—what power is used to achieve—determines whether the struggle can remain peaceful and lawful. The Civil War’s central warning is what happens when power becomes the instrument of an irreconcilable conflict and the constitutional mechanism for settling it breaks down.

7) Actionable checklist (how to apply the lesson today)

When you hear “this is really about power,” ask:

Define the end: Power to do what, specifically?
Check rights boundaries: Does the end violate individual rights?
Check mechanisms: Is the path lawful—elections, legislation, courts—or extra-legal coercion?
Check zero-sum rhetoric: Are people being told the other side is illegitimate or must be crushed?
Insist on reduction: What concrete policy, evidence, and causal mechanism connects today’s debate to real outcomes?

Thursday, February 26, 2026

Constitution: society does not have to tolerate its own destruction

Here is a question regarding whether the Constitution of the United States aligns with the idea that society does not have a duty to be tolerant of that which seeks to destroy said society. I will refer to relevant sections of the Constitution and provide historical context, including related court cases, as per your instructions.

Relevant Sections of the U.S. Constitution

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly address the concept of societal tolerance or the duty to tolerate entities that seek to destroy society. However, several sections and amendments are relevant to the broader themes of free speech, assembly, and the government's authority to protect itself and society from threats. Below is a thorough list of related constitutional provisions:

First Amendment (1791) - This amendment protects freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. It states, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." This is relevant because it establishes a high bar for restricting speech or assembly, even if the content or intent is controversial or potentially harmful. However, this right is not absolute, as the government can impose limitations under certain circumstances, such as incitement to violence or threats to national security [1].
Article III, Section 3 (Treason Clause) - This section defines treason as "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." It provides a legal framework for the government to act against individuals or groups that actively seek to destroy or undermine the nation, suggesting that there are constitutional grounds for intolerance of such actions [2].
Article VI, Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause) - This clause establishes the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties as the "supreme Law of the Land." It implies that actions or ideologies fundamentally opposed to the constitutional order could be suppressed if they threaten the legal framework of the United States [3].
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 (1868) - This amendment guarantees equal protection under the law and due process. While it emphasizes individual rights, it also provides a basis for the government to balance those rights against the need to protect society, particularly when actions or speech by individuals or groups threaten the rights of others or the stability of the state [4].
Article II, Section 1 (Executive Power) - This section grants the President the authority to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This implies a duty to act against forces that seek to destroy the constitutional order or the society it governs [5].

Interpretation and Limitations

While the First Amendment protects a wide range of speech and assembly, the Constitution does not mandate that society or the government must tolerate actions or ideologies that directly threaten the nation's existence. The Treason Clause and the executive's duty to defend the Constitution provide mechanisms to address such threats. However, any restriction on rights must be carefully balanced to avoid overreach, as the Constitution prioritizes individual liberties unless there is a clear and present danger or violation of law.

Historical Context and Court Cases

Historically, the United States has grappled with the tension between protecting individual freedoms and safeguarding society from destructive forces. Below are key historical developments and court cases that provide context for how the Constitution has been interpreted in relation to your question:

Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) - Early in American history, the government passed these laws to suppress speech deemed dangerous to the state, targeting critics of the federal government. While these acts were controversial and largely repealed or allowed to expire, they reflect an early attempt to limit tolerance for perceived threats to society. These laws were not directly challenged in the Supreme Court at the time, but they set a precedent for later debates about the limits of free speech.
Schenck v. United States (1919) - This Supreme Court case established the "clear and present danger" test for limiting free speech. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote that speech could be restricted if it poses a clear and present danger of bringing about substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent, such as during wartime. In this case, distributing anti-draft leaflets during World War I was deemed unprotected speech. This ruling suggests that society does not have to tolerate speech that directly threatens national security or societal stability [1].
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) - This case refined the limits on free speech, overturning earlier precedents by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test. The Court ruled that speech is protected unless it incites imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. This decision involved a Ku Klux Klan leader's inflammatory rhetoric, which was protected because it did not meet the criteria for incitement. This case illustrates a high threshold for intolerance of speech, even when it is offensive or potentially harmful, unless it crosses into direct incitement [4].
Dennis v. United States (1951) - During the Cold War, this case upheld the conviction of Communist Party leaders under the Smith Act for advocating the overthrow of the government. The Court ruled that speech advocating violent revolution could be restricted if it posed a grave and probable danger. This decision reflects a constitutional basis for not tolerating ideologies or actions aimed at destroying the societal order [2].
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) - While this case upheld students' rights to free speech (wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam War), it also acknowledged that schools could restrict speech if it substantially disrupts the learning environment. This balance shows that even protected rights can be limited when they threaten the functioning of societal institutions [5].

Conclusion

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly state that society has no duty to tolerate that which seeks to destroy it, but provisions like the Treason Clause (Article III, Section 3) and the executive's duty to defend the Constitution (Article II, Section 1) provide a basis for the government to act against such threats. At the same time, the First Amendment sets a high standard for restricting speech and assembly, ensuring that intolerance is only justified in cases of clear, imminent danger or direct action against the state. Historical court cases like Schenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio demonstrate that the judiciary has sought to balance individual rights with societal safety, often leaning toward protecting speech unless it poses a direct threat.

Internet References Used in This Answer

National Archives (https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript) - For the text of the U.S. Constitution and amendments.
Oyez (https://www.oyez.org/) - For summaries and details of Supreme Court cases such as Schenck v. United States, Brandenburg v. Ohio, Dennis v. United States, and Tinker v. Des Moines.
Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution) - For legal interpretations and annotations of constitutional provisions.

Sources

1 The United States Supreme Court Edited by Christopher Tomlins

2 On the Constitution of the United States by Joseph Story

3 The Constitution of the United States of America as Amended. Unratified Amendments. Analytical Index by Henry Hyde

4 The Making of America by W. Cleon Skousen

5 U.S. Constitution for Everyone by Mort Green

The wealth tax always fails

The concept of a wealth tax, an annual tax levied on an individual’s net worth or assets, has been a topic of significant debate in economic and policy circles. Proponents argue it can reduce inequality and generate revenue for public services, while critics point to implementation challenges and economic distortions. Below, I provide a comprehensive summary of empirical data and studies related to the failures of wealth taxes in the modern era, focusing on the specific cases you mentioned: Sweden, Germany, France, Norway, and Spain. I also draw on broader research to contextualize these outcomes.

Overview of Wealth Taxes in the Modern Era

Wealth taxes have been implemented in various forms across OECD countries, particularly since the mid-20th century. In 1990, twelve OECD countries had annual net wealth taxes in place. By 2023, this number had significantly declined, with only a few countries maintaining such policies. The decline is not primarily ideological but rather tied to empirical outcomes related to revenue generation, administrative feasibility, and economic impacts. Studies and reports from institutions like the OECD, IMF, and national governments provide a wealth of data on these experiments.

Case Studies of Wealth Tax Failures

1. Sweden: Capital Flight and Economic Distortion

Background: Sweden imposed a wealth tax for much of the 20th century, targeting net assets above a certain threshold. The tax rate was relatively modest (peaking at 3% in the 1980s), but it applied to a broad range of assets, including financial holdings and real estate.
Empirical Outcomes:
- Capital Flight: Research by economists such as David Seim (2017) in Journal of Public Economics found significant evidence of capital flight. High-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) and business owners moved assets offshore to jurisdictions with lower or no wealth taxes. This was often legal, exploiting exemptions or international tax agreements.
- Revenue Shortfalls: A report by the Swedish Ministry of Finance (2006) noted that the tax consistently underperformed revenue projections, contributing less than 0.5% of GDP annually in its later years. Administrative costs were high relative to revenue.
- Economic Impact: Studies, including one by the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (2007), indicated that the tax discouraged investment and entrepreneurship. Start-ups and small businesses, critical to economic dynamism, faced liquidity constraints as owners were taxed on unrealized gains.
Policy Outcome: Sweden repealed the wealth tax in 2007. Post-repeal analyses, such as those by the National Institute of Economic Research (Konjunkturinstitutet, 2008), showed a measurable return of capital and increased domestic investment, though long-term effects on inequality remain debated.

2. Germany: Constitutional and Administrative Challenges

Background: Germany operated a wealth tax until 1997, when it was suspended following a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court. The tax applied to net worth above a threshold, with rates up to 0.7% for individuals.
Empirical Outcomes:
- Legal Issues: The 1995 court ruling found that the tax’s inconsistent valuation of asset classes (e.g., real estate vs. financial assets) violated constitutional equality protections. This highlighted a broader issue with wealth taxes: fair and consistent valuation is notoriously difficult.
- Administrative Burden: Studies by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin, 1996) documented high administrative costs due to the need for detailed asset reporting and frequent disputes over valuations. Revenue was modest, averaging less than 0.2% of GDP.
- Economic Distortion: Research by Hans-Werner Sinn (1997) argued that the tax distorted savings and investment decisions, pushing capital toward untaxed or undervalued assets. It also contributed to capital outflows, though less dramatically than in Sweden.
Policy Outcome: The tax has not been reinstated, and subsequent discussions (e.g., OECD reports, 2018) cite Germany as an example of the practical challenges of wealth taxation outstripping fiscal benefits.

3. France: Exodus of Wealth and Competitiveness Loss

Background: France’s Impôt de solidarité sur la fortune (ISF), introduced in 1989, taxed net assets above a threshold (initially around €1.3 million, adjusted over time) at progressive rates up to 1.5%. It was a flagship progressive policy.
Empirical Outcomes:
- Wealth Exodus: A widely cited study by economists Eric Pichet (2013) estimated that over 60,000 millionaires left France between 2000 and 2016, many citing the ISF as a primary reason. Data from the French Ministry of Finance (2016) showed a net outflow of taxable wealth, with destinations like Belgium, Switzerland, and the UK benefiting.
- Revenue Disappointment: Despite high rates, the ISF raised less than 0.3% of GDP annually in most years (OECD, 2018). This fell far short of projections, partly due to exemptions (e.g., business assets) and evasion.
- Economic Impact: Reports by the Institut Montaigne (2017) and others linked the ISF to reduced competitiveness. HNWIs took their investments and job-creating enterprises abroad, impacting sectors like tech and luxury goods. A 2016 study in Fiscal Studies found evidence of reduced domestic innovation.
Policy Outcome: In 2017, President Emmanuel Macron reformed the ISF into a narrower real estate tax (IFI), effectively ending the broader wealth tax. Early data post-reform (French Ministry of Finance, 2020) suggests a partial return of wealthy individuals, though the long-term impact on inequality and revenue remains under study.

4. Norway and Spain: Marginal Revenue Despite Persistence

Norway:
- Background: Norway maintains a wealth tax on net assets above approximately NOK 1.7 million (about $160,000 USD), with rates up to 1.1% as of 2023.
- Empirical Outcomes: Data from Statistics Norway (2022) shows revenue from the wealth tax at around 0.6% of GDP, far below the levels needed to significantly address inequality or fund major programs. Studies by economists like Annette Alstadsæter (2018) in American Economic Review highlight moderate capital flight and valuation disputes, though Norway’s robust oil revenues and social trust mitigate some negative effects. However, the tax is criticized for discouraging savings and investment among the middle-upper class.
Spain:
- Background: Spain reintroduced a wealth tax in 2011 post-financial crisis, with regional variations and rates up to 3.45% on net worth above €700,000.
- Empirical Outcomes: Revenue data from the Spanish Tax Agency (2021) indicates the tax generates less than 0.5% of GDP, consistent with other cases. Research by David Agrawal and Dirk Foremny (2019) in European Economic Review found evidence of internal migration (wealthy individuals moving to regions with lower rates) and some international capital flight. Administrative costs remain high due to valuation complexities.
Common Theme: In both countries, wealth taxes are politically symbolic but fiscally insignificant. They fall short of the “fiscal revolution” promised by advocates, as you noted.

Broader Empirical Insights on Wealth Tax Failures

Beyond these case studies, several cross-country analyses and theoretical studies provide deeper context for why wealth taxes often fail in practice:

Revenue Shortfalls:
- A 2018 OECD report, The Role and Design of Net Wealth Taxes in the OECD, concluded that wealth taxes across countries typically raise less than 1% of GDP, often closer to 0.2-0.5%. This is due to narrow tax bases (exemptions for business assets, pensions, etc.), evasion, and capital mobility. The report notes that administrative costs often offset much of the revenue gain.
- A 2020 IMF working paper by Thornton Matheson and others found that wealth taxes underperform compared to alternative taxes (e.g., property or capital gains taxes) due to high compliance costs and low yield.
Capital Flight and Behavioral Responses:
- Research by Gabriel Zucman (2013) in Quarterly Journal of Economics and subsequent works shows that globalization and financial openness make wealth taxes vulnerable to capital flight. HNWIs can relocate assets or residency with relative ease, especially in Europe with its porous borders.
- A 2019 study in Journal of Economic Perspectives by Enrico Moretti and Daniel Wilson found that taxes on wealth or high incomes significantly influence migration decisions of top earners, with downstream effects on local economies.
Administrative Complexity:
- Wealth taxes require accurate, annual valuation of diverse assets (real estate, stocks, art, etc.), which is resource-intensive and prone to disputes. A 2015 paper by economist Wojciech Kopczuk in National Tax Journal argues that these challenges make wealth taxes less efficient than income or consumption taxes.
- Disparities in asset valuation often lead to legal challenges, as seen in Germany, or widespread exemptions, as in France, further eroding the tax base.
Economic Distortions:
- Wealth taxes can discourage savings and investment by taxing unrealized gains, as noted in a 2021 study by the Tax Foundation. This can lead to liquidity issues for asset-rich but cash-poor individuals, particularly business owners.
- The taxes often fail to target “productive” wealth effectively, instead pushing capital into untaxed jurisdictions or asset classes, per research by the European Commission (2016).
Impact on Inequality:
- While wealth taxes aim to reduce inequality, empirical evidence is mixed. A 2022 study by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez acknowledges that wealth taxes have symbolic value but often fail to redistribute meaningfully due to low revenue and evasion. Alternative policies like progressive income taxes or inheritance taxes are often more effective.

Counterpoints and Limitations of Data

It’s worth noting that not all analyses are universally critical of wealth taxes:

Potential for Reform: Some economists, including Piketty (2014, Capital in the Twenty-First Century), argue that wealth taxes could work with better international coordination to prevent capital flight (e.g., through global tax agreements). However, no empirical evidence yet supports the feasibility of such coordination at scale.
Norway’s Relative Stability: Norway’s wealth tax persists with less dramatic negative effects, possibly due to cultural acceptance of taxation and strong public services. However, even here, revenue is marginal, and capital flight remains a concern.
Data Gaps: Long-term impacts of wealth tax repeals on inequality are understudied. For instance, Sweden’s post-2007 data shows mixed results on whether inequality worsened significantly due to repeal.

Conclusion

The empirical data on wealth taxes in the modern era, as seen in Sweden, Germany, France, Norway, and Spain, overwhelmingly points to systemic failures in achieving fiscal or redistributive goals. Key issues include:

Persistent revenue shortfalls (typically <1% of GDP),
Significant capital flight and economic distortion,
High administrative costs relative to benefits, and
Legal and practical challenges in fair implementation.

These outcomes align with your initial observations: wealth taxes often fail not due to ideological opposition but because “the math doesn’t work.” Cross-country studies by the OECD, IMF, and academic economists reinforce this, showing that alternative mechanisms (e.g., property taxes, capital gains taxes) often outperform wealth taxes in both revenue and equity goals. While advocates continue to propose redesigned wealth taxes, the historical record suggests deep structural challenges that are not easily resolved.

Ben Hogan: personality/temperament profile

Here is a detailed personality analysis of Ben Hogan, the legendary golfer, focusing on the period before his near-fatal car accident in 1949. I will base my assessment on widely known historical accounts and biographies of Ben Hogan during his early career and peak performance years. Hogan is often described as a stoic, intensely focused, and disciplined individual, particularly in the years leading up to his accident, when he was establishing himself as one of golf's greatest players.

Personality Overview of Ben Hogan (Pre-Accident)

Ben Hogan, born in 1912 in Stephenville, Texas, emerged as a dominant figure in professional golf during the 1930s and 1940s. Before his accident, Hogan was known for his relentless work ethic, quiet demeanor, and perfectionist tendencies. He overcame a difficult childhood, marked by the suicide of his father, and turned to golf as a means of escape and self-expression. Hogan was often described as reserved, introspective, and emotionally guarded, with an unparalleled dedication to mastering his craft. His personality was shaped by adversity, which fueled his determination but also made him somewhat distant in social interactions. He was not one for small talk or flamboyance, preferring to let his performance on the course speak for itself.

Personality and Temperament Analysis

Jungian Archetypes:
- The Hero: Hogan embodies the Hero archetype through his journey of overcoming personal and professional obstacles to achieve greatness in golf. His perseverance in mastering the game despite early struggles reflects a heroic quest for excellence.
- The Sage: His analytical approach to golf, often seen in his meticulous study of the swing and course strategy, aligns with the Sage archetype, seeking wisdom and understanding.
Myers-Briggs 4-Letter Type:
- ISTJ (Introverted, Sensing, Thinking, Judging): Hogan’s reserved nature, focus on detail, and structured approach to his game suggest an ISTJ personality. He was practical, methodical, and driven by a sense of duty to perfect his craft.
Myers-Briggs 2-Letter Type:
- SJ (Sensing, Judging): This temperament reflects Hogan’s preference for concrete details and order, evident in his disciplined practice routines and strategic play.
Enneagram Type:
- Type 1 - The Reformer (with a 6 Wing - The Loyalist): Hogan’s perfectionism, self-discipline, and strong sense of responsibility align with Type 1. His cautious and somewhat guarded nature suggests a 6 wing, indicating a need for security and loyalty in his close relationships.
New Personality Self-Portrait Styles:
- Conscientious: Hogan’s dedication to practice and attention to detail in his game are hallmarks of this style.
- Vigilant: His cautious and reserved demeanor, especially in social settings, reflects a vigilant approach to life.
- Serious: Hogan was known for his intense focus and lack of humor on the course, embodying a serious personality style.
- Solitary: He often kept to himself, avoiding unnecessary social interactions, which aligns with a solitary style.
- Socially Awkward: There are indications that Hogan struggled with social ease, often appearing aloof or distant, which could be interpreted as socially awkward in certain contexts.
Temperament Type (4-Temperament Theory or 4-Humors Theory):
- Melancholic: Hogan’s introspective, serious, and perfectionist nature strongly aligns with the melancholic temperament. This type is often associated with deep thinking, sensitivity to criticism, and a tendency toward solitude, all of which fit Hogan’s known characteristics.
Possible Personality Disorders:
- There is no direct evidence or historical account suggesting a diagnosable personality disorder in Hogan before his accident. However, his intense focus and social withdrawal could be interpreted as traits bordering on Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD) tendencies, though not at a clinical level. This is speculative and based on his perfectionist and rigid approach to golf and life.
Hierarchy of Basic Desires:
- Achievement: At the top, driven by his relentless pursuit of excellence in golf.
- Order: A strong desire for structure and control, evident in his disciplined routines.
- Security: A need for stability, likely stemming from his unstable childhood.
- Recognition: While not overtly seeking fame, Hogan desired respect for his accomplishments.
- Connection: Lower on the hierarchy, as he prioritized personal goals over social bonds.
Hierarchy of Basic Values:
- Discipline: Valued highly, as seen in his work ethic.
- Integrity: Hogan was known for his honesty and commitment to fair play.
- Independence: He valued self-reliance and personal control over his career.
- Respect: He sought to be respected for his skill rather than liked for his personality.
- Community: Less emphasized, given his solitary nature.
Hierarchy of Basic Ideals (Not Desires):
- Perfection: An ideal of flawless performance drove his career.
- Resilience: He idealized overcoming adversity, reflecting his life story.
- Focus: The ideal of unwavering concentration was central to his approach.
- Authenticity: He valued being true to his craft over public image.
- Legacy: An ideal of leaving a lasting impact on golf.
Character Weaknesses or Flaws:
- Emotional Distance: Hogan’s reserved nature often made him seem cold or unapproachable.
- Perfectionism: While a strength, it could also be a flaw, leading to excessive self-criticism and stress.
- Social Isolation: His reluctance to engage socially limited his interpersonal connections.
Possible Neurotic Defense Mechanisms:
- Repression: Hogan may have repressed emotions related to his traumatic childhood, focusing instead on golf as an outlet.
- Sublimation: Channeling personal pain and frustration into his golf career is a likely defense mechanism.
- Rationalization: He might have rationalized his social withdrawal as necessary for focus on his game.
Possible Trance States:
- Flow State: Hogan likely experienced flow states during golf, given his intense focus and ability to block out distractions while playing. This is a positive trance state associated with peak performance.
Big Five Personality Dimensions:
- Openness to Experience: Low - Hogan was not known for creativity in personality but rather for precision in technique.
- Conscientiousness: Very High - His work ethic and attention to detail were exceptional.
- Extraversion: Low - He was introverted and avoided the spotlight off the course.
- Agreeableness: Low to Moderate - While not overtly disagreeable, he wasn’t particularly warm or accommodating.
- Neuroticism: Moderate - His perfectionism and sensitivity to failure suggest some emotional reactivity, though he masked it well.
Main NLP Meta-Programs (Referring to The Sourcebook of Magic by L. Michael Hall):
- Toward vs. Away From: Toward - Hogan was motivated by goals (winning, perfection) rather than avoiding failure.
- Internal vs. External Reference: Internal - He relied on his own standards rather than external validation.
- Specific vs. Global: Specific - His focus on minute details of the golf swing reflects this preference.
- Options vs. Procedures: Procedures - Hogan followed strict routines and processes in his preparation.
- Match vs. Mismatch: Match - He sought consistency and patterns in his game rather than focusing on differences or flaws.

Wednesday, February 25, 2026

In the US, American citizens have primacy over illegal aliens

In the conservative view, the United States owes its primary political, legal, and fiscal obligations to its citizens, and those obligations should not be diluted by or redirected to individuals who are in the country unlawfully. This reflects core principles of national sovereignty, the rule of law, accountability to the citizenry, and fairness to legal immigrants who followed the rules.

How that primacy shows up in policy from a conservative perspective:

Political rights: Voting, office-holding, and federal jury service are reserved to citizens; conservatives oppose any effort to extend voting to noncitizens and reject policies that would amplify political power based on unlawful presence.
Public benefits: Taxpayer-funded benefits should be limited to citizens and, where permitted by law, certain lawful residents—not those here illegally—while ensuring emergency care and humanitarian obligations are met.
Employment: Enforce laws against hiring unauthorized workers (e.g., universal E-Verify), deter identity fraud, and penalize employers who undercut citizen and lawful workers by exploiting illegal labor.
Law enforcement and border security: Secure the border, end catch‑and‑release, tighten asylum and parole abuse, oppose sanctuary policies, and prioritize removal of criminal aliens—with full due process as required by law.
Respect for legal immigrants and the rule of law: Prioritize those who follow the rules, encourage assimilation, civic education, and English proficiency, and align immigration with the national interest.

Important legal caveat: Conservatives also recognize that the Constitution protects “persons” with due process and equal protection, so basic rights and humane treatment apply to everyone. But citizenship carries unique political rights and claims on public resources that should take precedence over those who violate immigration laws.

In addition:

Here’s a fuller, conservative-aligned overview of what “citizen primacy” means in policy terms and how it’s typically implemented:

Core principles

Sovereignty and the rule of law: A nation owes its first duties to its citizens; immigration policy should deter unlawful entry and residence, not normalize it or reward it. [1]
Fairness to lawful immigrants and taxpayers: Public resources and pathways should favor those who follow the rules, while discouraging incentives for illegal entry. [2]
Equal dignity with due process: While citizens have unique political rights and claims on public resources, the Constitution protects all “persons,” so humane treatment and due process apply to everyone. [3]

Border security and enforcement

Secure the border: Expand physical barriers where effective, modern surveillance, and personnel; end catch-and-release by using detention or swift alternatives with real consequences for no‑shows. [4]
Tighten asylum and parole: Restore a high, credible-fear threshold, curb abuse of humanitarian parole to narrow, case-by-case uses, and pursue “safe third country” or “remain in country/region” approaches to process claims outside the U.S. interior. [5]
Expedited removal and interior enforcement: Use expedited removal for recent unlawful entrants, reinstate firm removal priorities that include criminal aliens and repeat immigration violators, and strengthen cooperation among DHS components. [6]

State and local cooperation

End sanctuary policies: Encourage or require local jurisdictions to honor lawful federal detainers and share information; tie certain grants to cooperation to prevent shielding criminal aliens. [1]
287(g) partnerships: Expand agreements that allow trained local officers to assist with immigration screening in jails and during targeted operations. [2]

Labor market integrity

Universal E-Verify: Mandate E-Verify nationwide to protect citizen and lawful workers from wage undercutting and identity theft; pair with strong penalties for knowing violations. [3]
Fight document and identity fraud: Resource investigations into stolen or synthetic identities used for unlawful employment; hold bad-actor employers accountable. [4]

Public benefits and fiscal prioritization

Limit taxpayer-funded benefits to citizens and eligible lawful residents: Follow the general rule that illegal aliens are ineligible for most federal means-tested benefits, while meeting emergency and humanitarian obligations required by law. [5]
Oppose state-level benefits that create magnets: Resist in‑state tuition, driver’s licenses, and other subsidies for illegal aliens that can draw more unlawful migration. [6]

Civic and political rights

Voting reserved to citizens: Maintain the bedrock norm that only U.S. citizens vote in federal and state elections; oppose local experiments with noncitizen voting that blur citizen primacy. [1]
Election integrity measures: Support proof-of-citizenship and robust list maintenance to ensure only eligible citizens are on the rolls. [2]

Legal immigration aligned with the national interest

Merit-based emphasis: Shift toward skills, English proficiency, and economic contributions, while keeping a reasonable, focused humanitarian program that does not overwhelm vetting or integration capacity. [3]
Support assimilation: Promote civic education and English acquisition so newcomers embrace American norms and responsibilities. [4]

Humanity and constitutional safeguards

Due process and humane treatment: Ensure custody standards, access to counsel where applicable, medical care, and protection from trafficking and abuse, consistent with constitutional and statutory requirements. [5]
Protect children while discouraging fraud: Maintain safeguards for minors and families while closing loopholes that incentivize recycling, fake family claims, or dangerous journeys. [6]

Practical steps conservatives often prioritize

Codify limits on broad, programmatic parole and tighten asylum standards to reduce abuse. [1]
Fund more immigration judges and asylum officers to speed lawful adjudications and removals. [2]
Make E-Verify mandatory with phased implementation for small businesses and strong anti-fraud tools. [3]
Condition certain federal grants on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement to end sanctuary practices. [4]
Restore and expand 287(g), Secure Communities, and targeted interior enforcement against criminal aliens and repeat violators. [5]
Clarify benefit eligibility to prevent cost-shifting to citizens and lawful residents, while preserving emergency and humanitarian care. [6]

Bottom line: A conservative approach prioritizes the interests, security, and economic well-being of American citizens and lawful immigrants, while maintaining humane treatment and constitutional protections for all persons. It rewards compliance with the law, removes incentives for illegal entry, and aligns immigration with the national interest rather than with unlawful presence. [1][2][3][4][5][6]

Sources

1 Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin

2 Hamilton's Curse by Thomas J. Dilorenzo

3 Vindicating the Founders: Race, Sex, Class, and Justice in the Origins of America by Thomas G. West

4 The Political Theory of the American Founding: Natural Rights, Public Policy, and the Moral Conditions of Freedom by Thomas G. West

5 The Philosophy of the American Revolution by Morton White

6 Glen Beck's Common Sense by Glen Beck

Aesthetics and judgment/argument: Basquiat and rap music

Summary of Objectivist aesthetics

Definition of art and its function: Art is the selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments—i.e., a stylized concretization of fundamental views about man and existence. Its essential function is cognitive and existential: to make abstract metaphysical assessments directly perceivable and to supply “spiritual fuel” by presenting a world commensurate with man’s rational values and need of purpose. This is an objective need of a rational consciousness, not a luxury. [4]
Selectivity, stylization, and essentials: The artist’s basic method is selectivity—isolating the essential, omitting the accidental, and stylizing form to project a single, integrated vision. In criticism, objectivity means identifying a work’s essentials, showing how the technical means serve the end, and integrating every judgment without contradiction, reducing claims to perceptual facts whenever challenged. [4] [2]
Objectivity and method: Esthetics rests on the same epistemological base as all knowledge: the primacy of existence, the validity of the senses, concept-formation by differentiation/integration, logic as non-contradictory identification, and reduction to the perceptual level. Arbitrary assertions are to be dismissed; the burden of proof is on the asserter; certainty is contextual and achieved by tying conclusions to evidence and the hierarchy of knowledge. [2] [3]
Theme-content–style integration: The standard of artistic evaluation is the integration of theme (the central abstract meaning), content (what is portrayed), and style/technique (how it is portrayed). Technical skill is a means; the end is the lucid, value-relevant projection of a view of man and existence. A work that exhibits unity, clarity, and purposive selectivity ranks higher than one that diffuses, contradicts, or evades its own stated ends. [4] [2]
Romanticism vs. Naturalism: The pivotal esthetic divide concerns the status of volition. Romanticism upholds man’s free will and projects values achievable by choice; Naturalism treats man as determined and typically portrays the anti-heroic and the futile. On Objectivist grounds, Romanticism is the superior school because it aligns with the fact of volition and with morality as a code of chosen values and purpose. [4]
Emotions and evaluation: Emotions are consequences of premises, not tools of cognition. They can motivate interest in art, but they do not validate esthetic judgments. Validation requires identifying the facts of the work and the logic by which those facts project a given metaphysical meaning. [2] [3] [4]

Are opinions about art topics for rational argument?

Yes—if, and only if, the “opinions” are reduced to facts, essentials, and logical connections. On Objectivist method, a claim such as “This novel is great” must be supported by: (1) identification of its theme; (2) demonstration that plot, characterization, and style serve that theme; (3) evidence that the work projects a rational view of man and existence; and (4) proof of integration—no stolen concepts, package-deals, or contradictions between content and technique. Such claims are open to proof or refutation by pointing to the text, the images, the composition, and the causal relation between means and end. [2] [4]

What can be argued:

Whether the work’s theme has been correctly identified and is projected consistently by the facts of the work. [4]
Whether the selectivity and stylization are essentialized or arbitrary; whether unity is achieved or undercut. [4]
Whether the technical means (plot structure, composition, diction, harmony, perspective, etc.) causally serve the end envisioned by the artist. [2] [4]
Whether the metaphysical view implicit in the work corresponds to facts of human nature (e.g., volition vs. determinism) and thereby supports or subverts rational moral values. [4]

What cannot be argued:

Bare likes and dislikes detached from evidence (“I just feel it’s good”). The arbitrary is neither true nor false and is to be dismissed without argument. [2]
Matters of nonessential personal taste (e.g., a preference for blue over red) when no claim is made about the work’s identity, meaning, or integration. [2]

How to argue properly about art:

Reduce assertions to perceptual concretes: cite passages, scenes, brushwork, compositional lines, melodic development. [2]
Identify essentials first: state the theme and the hierarchy of values the work projects. [4]
Trace means-to-end causality: show how each major technical choice implements or clashes with the theme. [4]
Integrate without contradiction and keep context: no package-deals (e.g., equating sentimentalism with Romanticism), no stolen concepts (e.g., praising “character-driven” fatalism while denying choice), and no evasions of counterevidence. [2] [3] [4]

Conclusion: Esthetic judgment is objective in method and standard, even though men approach artworks with different cognitive contexts. Differences can and should be resolved by appeal to the facts of the work, the laws of logic, and the requirements of man’s life as a rational being. Anything less is not criticism but emotionalism—and emotionalism has no jurisdiction over reality or art. [2] [3] [4]

Sources

1 Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand

2 Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff

3 Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand expanded 2nd edition edited by Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff containing never-before published philosophical material by Ayn Rand

4 For the New Intellectual by Ayn Rand

5 Ayn Rand Lexicon by Harry Binswanger

6 Understanding Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff. Edited by Michael S. Berliner

7 The DIM Hypothesis by Leonard Peikoff

Jean-Michel Basquiat

By Objectivist standards, Basquiat is not a good artist. He displays energy and a distinctive hand, but his typical themes and the disintegrated, scrawled, anti-essential execution project a metaphysics of chaos and social determinism rather than man’s rational volition and purposeful life. That is a false view of man and existence; technical means that efficiently project a false metaphysics do not make the result good art.

How to judge him, objectively (method)

Identify the theme: What single, abstract meaning does a canvas project? Then tie every judgment to perceptual facts in the work—iconography, composition, palette, brushwork, text, structure. Assertions not reduced to evidence are arbitrary and to be dismissed. [2][4]
Check integration: Do the means (line, color, layering, text, composition) causally serve the end (the theme)? Are there contradictions between purported meaning and execution? Unity and purposive selectivity are requirements; randomness and package-deals are disqualifiers. [2][4]
Judge the metaphysics: Does the work uphold volition, intelligibility, and value-achievement (Romantic premise) or does it negate these in favor of determinism, fragmentation, and anti-heroism (Naturalist/anti-Romantic premise)? Romanticism is superior because it aligns with the facts of human nature: man is volitional and values are chosen. [4]
Keep the method objective: reduce claims to the perceptual level; apply logic (non-contradictory identification); treat knowledge as contextual; reject the arbitrary. [2][3]

Applying the method to Basquiat (essentials)

Perceptual facts: recurrent scrawled text and crossed-out words; crowns, skeletal heads, pseudo-anatomical diagrams; layered palimpsest surfaces; high-contrast color fields; all-over, fragmentary compositions with abrupt shifts of scale; graffiti-derived mark-making elevated to canvas. These are not random observations; they are what one sees on the surface and structure of representative works. [1][3][5]
Probable theme/metaphysics: a world of flux, rupture, and social forces where cognition is fragmentary and man is more acted upon than acting—a stance closer to determinism than to volition. The iconography of skulls, dismembered anatomies, and accusatory slogans typically frames man as victim or primitive, not as a purposeful, efficacious agent. [1][3][5]
Means–end integration: his techniques do serve that theme—scribbles, cancellations, and fractured spatial organization concretize disintegration; the collage-like layering embodies cognitive non-integration. As a causal matter, the style fits the message. But to the extent the message is anti-volitional and anti-life, successful execution amplifies the defect; effectiveness at projecting a false metaphysics does not convert it into value. [2][4]
Selectivity vs. accident: Selectivity in art means essentialization. Much of Basquiat’s selectivity consists of juxtaposing raw symbols and textual shards without hierarchical control; that is a confession of non-essentialization—difference without principled integration. Where unity appears, it is often thematic repetition (e.g., crowns, heads) rather than structural coherence. [2][4][6]
Romantic standard: Because he does not project man as a volitional, value-achieving being—and because his formal means do not organize reality into a purposeful, integrated whole—his work fails the Romantic-Objectivist standard that ties artistic value to the factual status of free will and to man’s need of a rational, value-affirming vision. [4]

What would change the verdict

To argue Basquiat is “good,” one would have to: (1) identify a unifying, life-affirming theme grounded in volition; (2) demonstrate that composition, draftsmanship, color, and text are integrated means to that end; and (3) show that any apparent fragmentation is a controlled, essentialized device rather than a default of cognition. All three claims must be reduced to specific canvases and passages within them. Otherwise, the assertion is arbitrary. [2][4]

Bottom line

Aesthetic judgment is a matter of objective method, not taste. On that method, Basquiat’s corpus largely concretizes a disvalue: the negation of rational, integrated consciousness in favor of social determinism and fragmentation. Therefore, by Objectivist standards, he is not a good artist. [2][3][4]

Sources

1 Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand

2 For the New Intellectual by Ayn Rand

3 Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand expanded 2nd edition edited by Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff containing never-before published philosophical material by Ayn Rand

4 The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand

5 Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff

6 Philosophy: Who Needs It by Ayn Rand

Rap Music

Rap qualifies as music only to the extent that a given work integrates tones into an organized, hierarchical melodic structure; rhythmic speech over percussion alone is not music proper but poetry with a beat. [4]
“Good” music, by Objectivist standards, requires: a unifying theme; clear, purposive melodic development with supporting harmony and rhythm; and an integration of technical means to project a rational, life-affirming view of man and existence. Most rap, insofar as it minimizes melody and substitutes repetition for development, fails that standard; works that do meet it can be judged “good.” [2][4]

What music is, objectively

Art is the selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments; in music, the medium is organized sound across time, with melody as the primary organizer and harmony and rhythm as its servants. The standard of evaluation is the integration of means to end: unity, development, and clarity that make an abstract meaning perceptually graspable. [4]
Aesthetic judgment is objective in method: identify essentials, reduce claims to perceptual facts (motifs, intervals, progression, form), keep context, and reject arbitrary assertions. [2][3]

Is rap “music”?

Pure rap/spoken-word over percussion-only beats: absent a genuine, hierarchical melodic line, this is not music proper but rhythmic declamation with accompaniment; the core is linguistic, not musical. [4]
Rap with composed, tonal melodies (e.g., a sung chorus or instrumental lines) integrated with the verses: the whole can qualify as music to the extent the melodic and harmonic elements are primary and the rest is integrated around them. [4]
Instrumental hip‑hop that features composed melodic material (not merely looped noise): this is music when it exhibits coherent melodic development supported by harmony and purposeful rhythm. [4]

Is rap “good” music?
Judge by objective criteria:

Form and development: Does the piece present a clear melodic theme, develop it through variation, sequence, modulation, and cadence, and integrate harmony and rhythm to that end—or does it rely on static loops and percussive insistence that substitute repetition for development? The former meets the standard of artistic selectivity and integration; the latter undercuts it. [2][4]
Hierarchy of musical elements: In good music, melody holds primacy; rhythm and texture support it. When rhythm dominates at the expense of melody, the result loses the essential structure that makes music an intelligible, value‑oriented re‑creation. [4]
Thematic content and metaphysics: Content carried by lyrics matters. Works that project rational values, purposeful action, and volition align with the facts of man’s nature and strengthen artistic value; those that glorify nihilism, victimhood, tribalism, or the denial of agency project a false metaphysics and undercut value, even if the technique is competent. [2][4]
Technical craftsmanship: Precision of diction and prosody, coherence between verbal rhythm and musical phrase, and production that serves clarity—all are objective virtues when they function as means to a unified end. [2][4]

How to judge any specific rap track (method you can apply)

Identify the theme or central meaning. State it in one sentence. [4]
Reduce to perceptual facts: cite the melodic line, harmonic progression, rhythmic design, form (A–B–A’, verse/chorus/bridge), and how the lyrics’ prosody fits the music. [2]
Check integration and development: show how motives are introduced and transformed; distinguish purposeful variation from mere looping. [4]
Evaluate the metaphysics: do the lyrics and musical choices project volition, purpose, and values—or impotence, chaos, and determinism? [2][4]
Keep context and reject the arbitrary: no “I just feel it”; every claim must be tied to identifiable features in the track. [2][3]

Bottom line

Rap as a genus is not disqualified a priori; but works without genuine melodic organization are not music proper and should be classified as spoken poetry with percussion. Where rap incorporates and integrates real melody and projects a rational, value‑affirming view of man, it qualifies as music and can be good; where it does not, it fails by Objectivist standards. [2][4]

Sources

1 Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand

2 Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff

3 Understanding Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff. Edited by Michael S. Berliner

4 Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand expanded 2nd edition edited by Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff containing never-before published philosophical material by Ayn Rand

5 The Objectivist Newsletter by Ayn Rand

6 Ayn Rand Lexicon by Harry Binswanger