Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

MisterSwig

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1391
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

MisterSwig last won the day on January 10

MisterSwig had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About MisterSwig

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Los Angeles
  • Interests
    Politics

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    California
  • Chat Nick
    MisterSwig
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Extensive

Recent Profile Visitors

3338 profile views
  1. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    Because you fail to portray history accurately. After Hitler's imprisonment, he convinced the authorities to lift the ban on his party, and the Nazis disavowed their goal to take political power by force.
  2. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    Not even the original Nazis did that. They rose to power within the legal system of Germany. Do you have any examples of what you're talking about?
  3. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    Okay. So, the fundamental question, as I see it, is whether a person has the right to advocate for a constitutional transition to a form of dictatorship, specifically Nazism in this case. Agreed?
  4. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    So Iranians should have the right to vote in U.S. elections?
  5. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    I said I wasn't sure. It's a borderline case. I need to give it more thought and consider the relevant concerns I mentioned previously. Right now I can address this notion that immigrants have all the same rights that citizens have. This is clearly untrue and represents an intrinsic view of rights. Rights are established objectively based on the nature of reality in relation to a particular human's context. Someone who has not earned citizenship in the U.S. (by whatever objective standard exists) has no right to participate in the government of the U.S. They have rights based on being a rational animal, but they do not have the rights which come from being a U.S. citizen.
  6. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    I've already stated what I mean by "overthrow," and I'm using the standard definition that you can google yourself. Nothing archaic or obscure. It's even used in laws against sedition. It means to forcibly remove from power. It is the opposite of a peaceful, constitutional system of change in government. I suggest reconsidering how things "feel" to you, and focus on how things actually are in reality. I won't be addressing this point again. I dislike repeating myself.
  7. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    I have a problem with the inclusion of "imminent" in that ruling. It makes the standard way too concrete-bound. Inciting violence often takes time. The inciter must first brainwash or convince his followers to commit a crime, and often that takes longer than an imminent amount of time. A successful incitement to violence does not occur in a vacuum, as that ruling apparently assumes. A more fundamental problem with espousing a Nazi state is that no such government can claim a right to exist. As Rand argued, "The right of a nation to determine its own form of government does not include the right to establish a slave society (that is, to legalize the enslavement of some men by others)." What's wrong with advocating for a dictatorship, you ask? Well, you're attempting to institute a system of slavery by means of a system of freedom. If anything represents an ideological threat to America, it is a pro-slavery belief such as this. Still, the Nazi question is a borderline case, and I'm not sure whether it should be a crime, unless a specific Nazi advocates for overthrowing the government or tries to incite a crime.
  8. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    Well, right now it's shut down. So I imagine plenty of people want it to start back up.
  9. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    If by "Final Solution" you mean what the Nazis meant, then I'd say no. You don't have a right to incite murder, or in this case the mass murder of an entire race, even if you're trying to accomplish it through a democratic process. The neo-Nazis would have to prove that all the Jews deserved to be exterminated, and they obviously can't do that.
  10. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    It seems he is guilty of both. My point, however, is that simply advocating the overthrow is enough. It does not need to be accompanied by details of how you'll do it. And electing a new president is not an overthrow. An overthrow means a forcible removal from power, not a constitutional one. I would probably agree if you say that merely advocating an overthrow implies an initiation of force. We could differentiate between an implied versus explicit threat of force. Saying "death to America" would be an implied threat of force, because the actions proposed are not specified. However, saying "I'm going to kill Americans" would be explicit, because now murder is on the agenda. Does that help?
  11. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    Then we disagree. I have already given my prime example of anti-American belief: those who advocate for the overthrow of the American government. If we can't even agree on that one, then there is no point continuing. Murderous intent would generally fall under the criminal category of threat, since it's not typically aimed against a government institution, but instead directed against individual people.
  12. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    "Anti-American belief" is only vague if you drop the context of it needing to be an objective threat. It needs to be a dangerous idea in relation to the general welfare of the people within the nation. I don't think disliking fireworks qualifies. Nor does burning the flag. Merely insulting the president doesn't qualify either, unless it smells like an actual threat. If history is a guide, I'm pretty sure we are going to disagree on the meaning of "objective." That's fine. But it's unfair to claim that my term is vague, when there is a contextual qualifier in play. The immigration policy shouldn't go pragmatic or statistical/racial, as long as we remain objective-minded. Of course we'd have to prove that each type of specific threat is objective in nature. But that has to be done on a case-by-case basis in a particular context, because that's how objectivity works. Something that is a threat to our country now might not be a threat in a hundred years. Thanks for splitting the thread.
  13. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    Have you seen that TV show Lie To Me? It was based on actual science regarding microexpressions. Apparently it's possible to detect deception by analyzing unconscious facial expressions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microexpression
  14. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    If your problem is with my particular view on anti-American beliefs, then let's focus on that. Even if I'm wrong here, that doesn't mean my entire justification for border control is wrong. You call it "thought crime." That's your term, not mine. The legal term is sedition. And, yes, I tend to agree that seditious acts, such as advocating the overthrow of our government, should be punishable offenses in the case of citizens already here, and disqualifying offenses in the case of immigrants trying to cross the border. Also, take note of laws against conspiring or inciting violent behavior. Are you against those laws too?
  15. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    Why do you keep straw-manning my position? I said nothing about making laws for the townsfolk. You keep going on about how I lack a logical argument, yet you can't even grasp my basic position. Instead of starting over, let's just call it quits for now. Thanks.
×