Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Harrison Danneskjold

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Harrison Danneskjold last won the day on July 6 2018

Harrison Danneskjold had the most liked content!


About Harrison Danneskjold

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Real Name
    William Harrison Jodeit
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • School or University
    Hard Knox
  • Occupation
    General Specialist

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Saint Paul
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

17589 profile views
  1. The Aristotelian concept of "essences" being metaphysical (rather than epistemological) seems applicable.
  2. Yeah; sorry about that. I was already a little bit tipsy. Thanks for not giving me the kind of answer you definitely could have. Sure, it can be text-only, but I wouldn't be comfortable with the kind of emotionalist "average human being" that'd fall for any program sufficiently capable of tugging at their heartstrings. Obviously I'd prefer to be the judge, myself, but the average Objectivist should suffice. Let's not limit the processing power or memory capacity. Well, that's just it. If it was generating any of its own content on-the-fly then it wouldn't be part of today's "chatbot" paradigm (in which absolutely every response is pre-scripted). But even if it could generate its own content on-the-fly, if it had no basis to know what its words REFERRED to (like if it was just a neural net trained to imitate human speakers) then it would still end up saying some equally-bizarre things from time to time; things that could not be explained by the intentions of some bona fide consciousness. How long it'd take for it to make such a mistake isn't really the point. A more sophisticated system would obviously be able to mimick a real person for longer than a more rudimentary one could; all I'm saying is that sooner or later they would ALL show obvious signs of their non-sentience, unless they truly were sentient. Alright; maybe we'll see certain things that could fool MOST people in the short run. That's not really what I was trying to get at (and I do see that I wasn't being very clear about it; sorry). I think the better way to phrase this principle is that any non-sentient system can eventually be shown to be non-sentient by an outside observer (who perhaps has no idea what's going on "under the hood") who's at least somewhat capable of thinking critically. I have to start getting ready for work soon, but maybe it'd help if I showed some examples of what I mean later on?
  3. And presumably this would apply equally to American citizens and foreigners, alike? For instance, if I take a vacation to Cancun then the Mexican government should stop me on the way there and my own government should stop me on the way back (just in case I took up murdering random strangers while I was there)?
  4. Well, yeah. I said I wasn't entirely comfortable with where Binswanger's logic leads, but that is precisely it.
  5. I think that's where "access to criminal records" comes in. If you move from one state to another, it is generally possible for the police in your new state to find out about anything you've been convicted of in the previous one; not necessarily so with Mexico or Uruguay. Of course, this seems to imply that all the data our government currently keeps on every single one of us is proper. I'm not saying whether it is or it isn't (frankly, there have been a number of recently made points I still need to chew on a bit); only that it does seem to be a part of it. Because if it is right for our government to keep tabs on every single one of us (right down to our unique "social security numbers") then it would be wrong to just let people into the country for whom we don't have that information. But I think a case could be made that we shouldn't be keeping such close track of our own citizens, in the first place. I really don't know. But "double standard" probably isn't applicable and "circular" most certainly isn't.
  6. Really? I'm still reading through that last page (and I'm actually more inclined to agree with you about this than with Don Athos) but subjectively feel like considering this a special case??? Citation very much needed, sir.
  7. Yeah but you have argued for banning socialist ideas on the basis that they're objectively dangerous. It was a much stronger case than "we should ban them because they're offensive"; they are actually dangerous ideas. And both cases boil down to "but what if X happens", which is not the proper question to ask. I believe Harry Binswanger already did. And what you outlined is the best argument I've heard so far for having a somewhat-controlled border. I'll have to chew on that while I'm at work today.
  8. But not from writing or selling books about their (truly offensive) ideas, nor teaching it to their own kids (and those of any other consenting adults) nor talking about it online with anyone who's willing to listen. So not only would it do us very little good to ban "public collectivism" on such grounds, it would add that air of mystique to such ideas (I believe it's called the Streisand effect) and in today's culture would be much more likely to get our ideas banned from the public, instead of theirs. Honestly, your defense by the horrors of "what'll happen if enough people start taking them seriously" was so much stronger.
  9. See, that actually seems to be true. If "public property" is a valid conception then something similar to your position certainly would follow (although there would still be the problem of your inappropriate yardstick). So... What do you think of all the arguments Rand made against public property? I mean, as an advocate of "open Objectivism" I'm always willing to entertain the possibility that she was wrong about it; maybe this was something she really screwed up, and now you've found the solution that she hadn't. That's not sarcasm; it's actually how I try to approach this kind of thing. But it would make this whole conversation much easier if you'd address her arguments about it, first, to give the rest of us a clearer picture of where you're actually coming from. Would it help if someone (preferably not me) went and tracked down everything she said about public property?
  10. Alright. First of all you're arguing for the validity of "public property" in a big way. I don't remember all of Ayn Rand's arguments against it off the top of my head, but she's made quite a few and they all apply. For starters: since there is no such thing as "the public", only some number of individual men, it has all the same problems with it as that of the concept of a "public good". Who gets to decide how best to use such public property and by what standard? Now, if you were to mention the Democratic process (as I suspect you probably will) then it wouldn't be too difficult to show how, in practice, this would actually mean pressure-group warfare. In short, everything that's wrong with today's "mixed economy" would also apply to what you're arguing for (since they're both based on the same kind of fallacy). Secondly, you say that "society in general has no claim on private lands", which I would wholeheartedly agree with. That's absolutely right. It also means that if some rancher on the border wanted to hire a truck-full of Mexican (or Columbian or Somalian or whatever) laborers to work his own land -or if someone who owned some land in Minnesota chartered a private plane for the same purpose- then it's none of "society's" business. Right? I do agree that your argument deserves serious consideration (as you mentioned in the other thread). But I don't think it's sturdy enough to survive it. Actually, it does. By defending the rights of immigrants at the borders we are also defending our own rights, inside of them (and several of Binswanger's examples demonstrate precisely how); anyone who defends the rights of one man is defending the rights of all. You are right that it doesn't take much imagination to think of ways in which open immigration could go horrifically wrong. That is true. But the same could be said for every other way in which our government is not allowed to meddle in our private lives. Think of warrantless wiretapping and surveillance. Surely it's important that we allow our government to do the necessary snooping to discover who is or is not an objective threat to everyone else. Not much imagination is needed to think of the terrible things that could happen if we don't allow the government to do that. Not much imagination is needed to think of what could happen without legally mandated insurance (of either the health or automotive varieties), either. You'd probably think it was a straw man if I threw drug prohibition on top of the pile, but it wouldn't be. "What could happen if we allow people to do X" is not the proper yardstick to apply in this situation. And it turns out that pointing that out does, actually, show regard for the lives and property of our citizenry. Because neither really matter without freedom.
  11. Well, here is Binswanger's essay. The main bit that got me was when he pointed out that our government has no right to start bothering random people on a bus or on the street, checking to see that everyone can prove their citizenship somehow. I agree with that: such a policy would be a gross perversion of all the proper procedures for actually protecting individual rights. Well, if we have the right to be free of that anywhere inside of America then presumably anyone trying to cross the border has that same right to be left alone (as long as they aren't obviously carrying bodies or bombs with them). As I've mentioned more than once, I'm not entirely comfortable with the implication that we should just be letting anyone cross in either direction, and trying to take care of the actual threats after-the-fact. But whether I'm comfortable with it or not isn't what's supposed to count here, and his logic does seem pretty solid to me. And yeah; it's completely a procedural question. But as near as I can tell the just procedure would be totally and completely open borders.
  • Create New...