MisterSwig

It sounds like this root substance is very much like yourself, having both a physical and mental aspect. The universe must be absolutely jam-packed with these tiny people. I'll call this the Micropeople Theory. And these micropeople all form a grand social system called Logos, which is everywhere. I say "micropeople" because to have a mental aspect there first needs to be a mind capable of producing that mental aspect--and not just any old aspect, but a concept! So I think it's fair to say that this root substance should be like a human being, which is the greatest concept-making thing known to science. Perhaps you have a definition for "mental" that does not logically depend on the mind or brain of a living animal. If so, please provide it. Then we might get around this confusion.

No, they are not. But our opposition is saying that IQ can be linked to race, and IQ might be essential to someone's identity, as it appears to measure the rational faculty. It's very important, therefore, that we accept what is true about race, so that the other side cannot accuse us of evading it.

Go ahead and bail, if you want. You just accused me of having zero respect for reason. (Sorry, the "spirit" of reason.) I don't think I've ever gone that far with any of my harshest opponents here. I accuse them of being wrong, evading points, or using fallacies, but I trust that they have some respect for reason. Otherwise, why are they arguing with me on an Objectivist forum? If you're still listening, consider your Rand quote more closely: "...evil ideas are dangerous only by default of men advocating better ideas." Did you notice how she phrased that? She did not say, "Evil ideas are not dangerous." Because evil ideas are, indeed, dangerous--but only when men stop advocating for good ideas. How many people in the public realm do you see advocating for good ideas compared to those advocating for evil ideas? This is a debatable question. And based on the answer, evil ideas are either dangerous or not. And if they are dangerous, then that means they are a threat of some kind. Right? Am I less of an idiot now? More consistent with Rand and reality and reason? Is it possible that the state of things has changed since Rand's time in America? Perhaps Rand didn't think that advocating for Nazism or communism was such a big threat to her personally because America was literally going to war with these ideologies overseas. Also, after WW2, the nation started restricting communism domestically with laws such as the Communist Control Act of 1954. So maybe she thought that the general public was already against these evil ideas. She also had a strong public voice herself and was able to reach millions with her better ideas and books. We don't have another Ayn Rand today. We don't even have a public Leonard Peikoff anymore. And many Objectivists here sound like they would tolerate a full-blown socialist government--because, you know, free speech and all. I fear the public at large has defaulted on advocating better ideas. I hear and see socialism on the Left and Right, and not a whole lot of answers in the middle. Some in the middle scream, "Socialism always ends in starvation and genocide." Which is probably true, but it's not really a winning argument, especially when people don't care about history anymore. The better conservatives and liberals don't have a moral argument against socialism. They are going to lose, unless a real champion for capitalism emerges.

Do you recognize the moral difference between the initiation of force and retaliatory force? Forcing your way into another country against that country's laws is the initiation of force. Stopping that person from violating your laws is retaliation. We've already established that a nation has the right to control the border. So what's with calling it force and violence, as if it's an immoral, unjustified act? Also, again, what are the usual signs of threats and violence regarding totalitarians? What should we be looking for at the border to catch these types?

Hear, hear. On two counts: the 'group' does not exist; and mankind's immense range of superficial, physical features which say nothing of an individual. Race is not an illusion. It doesn't describe a group's trait. It describes each individual's trait in relation to another individual's trait. This man has dark skin versus that man with light skin. You can then group each type and treat them collectively. You might find something interesting, like the darker-skinned people have higher melanin levels. But the fact of their race is not an illusion. They actually do have darker skin. The problem with today's racists is that they are attempting to connect IQ with obvious traits like melanin level, because if it's only connected to brain development, then they would have no justification for segregating people by skin color. They would have to call for intrusive examinations of people's brains, and segregation based on brain types.

And what are the usual signs of threats and violence? So having border control and laws and government are all signs of violence, and therefore totalitarian belief?

If the government does the first one, it would be violence because it would be backed up by the use of force.  Are you saying that the government cannot make any rules for public spaces because those rules are backed up by the use of force? Essentially, whatever people can do in private, they should also be allowed to do in public? The right to speak does not include the right to a platform for speaking. And whether your speech harms someone has nothing to do with it. That is the very position Rand argued against in her criticism of the Supreme Court case against pornography.

It would take more than "some people getting panicky" to pass a law against Objectivist immigrants. It would have to be at least 50% or more of Congress, right? Seems unlikely that would happen, since we are pro-individual rights, unlike socialists. But let's say it does happen. Maybe they use our advocacy for egoism as justification. Or maybe the radical socialists dominate Congress and keep out radical capitalists. I would then seek representatives who would fight to overturn that law or I might move out of the country. In your scenario India sounds pretty good.

No. It means that people have the right to ban it, not necessarily that they should. This is why people are always debating what should be allowed in public places. If Objectivism gets banned, then we'll have to stop marching through the streets and only speak where we're invited.

The main issue is with #3. If universals and concepts have the same nature, then they both exist in the mind. You have not established any reason to think that universals or concepts exist outside the mind. You have only (in #2) stated that concepts are "in our own mind." I don't see how you could logically solve this problem of establishing universals outside the mind. If, for example, you equate "metaphysical" with non-mental, then your conclusion in #3 turns into a blatant contradiction: reality has a non-mental aspect that is essentially mental in nature. And if you equate "metaphysical" with mental, then you cannot place universals outside the mind, unless you then openly assert that the mental is also the non-mental--an obvious absurdity. And so I conclude that you've severed the concept "mental" from its logical foundations, and are now using it fallaciously to assert a non-material essence to reality. The non-material essence resides with the mind, not the reality outside the mind.

An immigrant who's never been here obviously hasn't made speeches here. So we might need to question him to screen for anti-American beliefs. There would need to be some guidelines for determining which beliefs constitute an objective threat to America. But if we were to ban public advocacy of socialism, then that might not even be a belief that disqualifies foreigners from entering the nation, as long as they agree to obey the law.

I'm pretty sure I agree with all that, except that in my example we are already suffering under socialist laws, so any outspoken socialists, particularly activists and politicians, constitute an ongoing threat to my property. They actually represent the political force presently engaged in violating my rights via the legal system. We aren't in the early stages. We're in the later stages. And I'm not calling for violent measures, unless you think revoking someone's citizenship, denying them a public soapbox, or not letting them into the country is violence. Not you personally. But the government could kick me out for my beliefs. Of course. Don't associate with it. Don't apologize for it. Don't tolerate it. And certainly don't give it support or sanctuary.

No. I believe I'm applying her philosophy consistently. You bring up free speech, but I'm not arguing against free speech. A socialist has the right to talk. But he doesn't have the right to issue a threat against my property. So, you're right, we would have to debate the nature of threats. Which I'm happy to do if you can summon the will.You also bring up Rand's view on pornography. Note that in Thought Control she writes: Now, just replace pornography with Nazism or socialism, and you have a perfect application of Rand's principle of protecting people from seeing or hearing things that they find loathsome. According to her philosophy, it is entirely justified for a society to establish rules for public procedure or etiquette. If we want to keep socialists from advocating in public places, we have that right.

This is a perfect argument for tolerating evil. Suppose someone says, "I've got an idea that I might rape your wife if you don't give me your wallet." Ah, well, you shouldn't initiate force against this person simply for having an idea you might not like. After all, he might "change his mind" or "lose the courage" to rape your wife. Don't worry. His words aren't a threat until they "push him towards initiating force." Wait until he initiates the initiation of force. Then you can retaliate. In the meantime, you should probably hand over the wallet to prevent his idea from pushing him towards violence.

No, socialists are human beings who deny and violate individual rights. Rights are not intrinsically held. You gain or lose them through your own actions, just like other values. And advocating for socialism is an action, just like demanding someone's wallet is an action. I consider both to be threats against my property. Both are therefore the initiation of force.

It depends on what is actually happening. Context still matters. I'm mostly concerned about socialist activists and politicians. I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of law against them. Perhaps removing them from political office or revoking their citizenship would be enough. I don't know what it'll take to restore or protect our rights. Perhaps it's too late. The socialists already have too much power.

No. A government that turns into a dictatorship can actually be a threat too. It's easy to say that the initiation of force is the only thing that threatens your rights. But that's an abstract idea. Start giving it some concrete reality, and you begin to realize that in a democracy other people's ideas can be a real threat. The rules that the people vote for begin as ideas in someone's mind. And anyone advocating for the violation of your rights is a threat to your rights, especially if that person is seeking political power.

How is allowing socialists to take over the government fulfilling that purpose? "Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake..." (FNI) "The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights..." (VOS) "There is no difference between the principles, policies and practical results of socialism--and those of any historical or prehistorical tyranny." (VOS) I just plucked the first sentences from the first three Lexicon entries under "Socialism." If your purpose is to bar physical force from society, how do you justify letting more socialists into the country? I submit that you are giving aid to your country's political enemy. Given the extent to which America has turned socialist, I wonder if Rand would have agreed that socialists should be given visitor passes to your store, let alone free passes to citizenship. You're using the libertarian NAP to justify letting in sworn enemies of individual rights. Doesn't that strike you as absurd? Doesn't this scenario end with you digging your own grave and a socialist's gun at your back? At some point you have to recognize a national emergency and do what needs to be done to right the ship. I submit that advocating for socialism today is the initiation of physical force. The initiation here doesn't begin with passing a law against your rights. That is already several steps along in the process. The initiation of tyranny begins with a serious threat of tyranny. Just like the initiation of a robbery doesn't begin with taking your money, it begins with someone saying, "Give me your money or else!" Socialists essentially say, "Vote for us so we can rob those who have something we want!" And it's a very real threat, because there are already socialists in power doing exactly that.

The thing about evolution is that things change. Tribal nations have been repeatedly crushed by nontribal ones for hundreds of years now. Compared to constitution and rights-based nations like America, race and culture-based ones are at a retarded level of social and technological development. Even primitive religion-based nations like Iran outclass the tribal nations of the world, who generally survive due to military protection from nontribal nations. Your desire to Make America Tribal Again ignores not only our rational (not tribal) nature, but also the clear lessons of history. I'd say it's a worse position than the far Left, who wants to make America socialist. Tribalism has a much longer history of defeat than socialism, which is based on a moral system rather than a race or culture. To promote tribalism means you ignore an even greater amount of historical evidence against your position than some goofball progressive like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does.

I have argued for my position on the Immigration Restrictions thread. I don't care to discuss it further in this one. But in a nutshell, I believe in border control for objective threats to the general welfare, such as contagious diseases, criminals, and anti-American beliefs.

It occurs to me that you're committing the fallacy of the stolen concept. "Mental" means pertaining to the mind, and "mind" is an aspect of a living being with a brain. I therefore don't see how you could apply "mental" to non-living things such as a rock. Wouldn't you first have to prove that non-living things have brains? Or that brainless things have minds too? Your position relies on a concept whose logical roots you are rejecting. Thus, it is invalid.

I don't believe this is consistent with Objectivism. The role of government is "protecting [our] rights under an objective code of rules." It is not to respond with force against those who initiate it. That is merely one of the ways a government fulfills its role. But the primary way is creating objective rules that protect rights. One rule we have is that the police can stop and question people, and if they find something suspicious, that person can be detained further and investigated. Why shouldn't this rule apply at the border? And further, why shouldn't we have more stringent rules for immigrants, whom we know little about and who might be coming from nations hostile to the United States?

The Objectivist morality would not apply. It is based on the things we need in order to survive, which Rand makes very clear in The Objectivist Ethics. If you make man effectively immortal, then you effectively remove the basis for Rand's moral system. If we are immortal, then we don't need a system for surviving. That'll be covered. We'll need a system for doing whatever immortal things do. What will the common immortal need in thirty years? Pleasure? Will we be programmed for pleasure or will we need to gain it? Maybe we'll all become godlike hedonists.

We already detain certain people seeking to leave the country. What's absurd about that? Are they in favor of easements across international borders? I'm curious how you arrived at this particular assertion. You seem to have an intimate understanding of every prominent Objectivists' position on such an irregular question. First of all, it's not a typical western country. It's an island. But, in any case, New Zealand has the same right to keep out Nazis that a fully capitalist nation would, as I have articulated. And they should do so, especially under your scenario, if they wish to remain a free country.

@MisterSwig, is that true? No. It means that reality is fundamentally mental, and if physical reality exists, it reduces to the mental one. Does that fit with your view of the Logos?