Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


MisterSwig last won the day on February 23

MisterSwig had the most liked content!


About MisterSwig

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Previous Fields

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

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Los Angeles
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

3527 profile views
  1. You seem convinced that the town would get more racist, because "racist ideologies completely lack any individualism." And "when you concentrate all these people, a rights-violating political ideology is a lot more likely to form." I see a causal issue here. Humans have complicated belief systems. They can hold a racist view among their personal beliefs, yet not include that view in their political beliefs. This does not mean there is a necessary contradiction. It means they don't want to impose their morality on society. For example, I think it is wrong to lie to children about Santa Claus, yet I would not favor a law against deceiving children about Santa Claus. So, what causes people to integrate a personal moral belief into their political belief? I suspect it happens when they do not recognize an individual right in that context, and think it's important on a political level. Historically, almost everyone was a racist, and almost nobody had a concept of individual rights. Therefore, it's not surprising that the violent groups were also racists. But were they violent because of their racism or because they had no concept of individual rights? Why would a concentration of non-violent racists be more likely to form a rights-violating ideology? Wouldn't the more peaceful people start leaving the town if its leaders advocated violence? And wouldn't they tell authorities what's going on in there? I suspect that the town would become less racist over time, not more, because there would be no outside pressure for them to radicalize against an enemy.
  2. I have dealt with racists who support individual rights. For example, some parents don't want their children marrying outside the race, and yet they would not support a ban on interracial marriage. While they personally value one race over another, for whatever reason, they don't believe in enforcing their own morality on others. So not all racists want to inject racism into politics. And if they do, they should be banned from politics.
  3. In 1775 Alexander Hamilton wrote: "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." And the Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." Both quotes from our Founding Fathers represent their firm belief in god-endowed rights. This dogmatic view is erroneous. It led to massive mistakes in the Constitution, and grave violations of individual rights throughout our existence as a nation. Millions of citizens now don't believe in god-given rights. They have realized that if god is a myth, then so are the rights he mythically installed in humans. This fantastic foundation for our nation has therefore cracked wide open, and it's crumbling before our eyes. Ayn Rand tried to fix the flaw. She looked away from god and toward individual human lives. She pointed toward an objective basis for man's rights, and thus for our nation. But most intellectuals have not followed in her footsteps. They have returned to more primitive foundations for nationhood, namely religion and race. If someone believes that rights come from a particular god, then logically their nation should be based on the religion of that particular god. And so we see Jews, Christians and Muslims at each other's throats, because each group is fundamentally, spiritually dissimilar, and therefore entirely incompatible with the other in terms of building or sustaining a nation of religionists who believe rights come from their particular god and faith. What if someone does not believe in a rights-endowing creator? What then should be the thing that unites a nation of people? If not a spiritual characteristic, like religious faith, then what about a physical characteristic, like race? Race, however, is a crude trait upon which to form a nation of intelligent people. So it must be conflated with some sort of culture. Logically that will end up being the culture most closely associated with the preferred race. And here we arrive at the notion of a nation founded on "ethnicity": the ethno-state. Here, rights do not originate from one's god, but from one's "ethnic" identity. The ethno-nationalist, like the religionist, represents a political misintegration of the physical and the spiritual. He seeks an integrated whole, but cannot objectively grasp the concept of individual rights by inducing it from the lives of individual men. Ethno-nationalists are biased toward the physical aspects of human life, whereas religionists are biased toward the spiritual. Finally there is the political globalist, who might see the problems with "ethnic" and religion-based nationalism, but who has no fix for the concept of individual rights. Ultimately he rejects individualism as fatally flawed, adopts a collectivist position regarding rights, and advocates something like worldwide communism. In my view, this must be worse than any nationalism, because it sacrifices the individual to all of humanity, whereas nationalism sacrifices the individual to a portion of humanity. Less total sacrificing will be required under nationalism, because there are less people in the group for whom one must sacrifice. Of course it makes little difference to the individual person whether he's sacrificed for globalism or nationalism, unless he supports one of those causes. While I think globalism is generally a bigger threat to civilization, this does not mean I support a religious or "ethnic" nationalism. Rather, a nation should be founded on the shared recognition of objectively identified rights in relation to the individual's natural life.
  4. I read your scenario. I get what you're saying. Here's the issue. As long as someone's racist ideology does not promote the violation of rights, on what basis do you claim that it will lead to violence? Because they hold an irrational viewpoint? Lots of people hold lots of irrational views. It doesn't necessarily make them all future criminals. If someone holds a racist view on faith, then we must challenge their reliance on faith. If they offer actual evidence, we must deal with the evidence, like we do in the IQ threads. That's basically how I would deal with people who espouse racism. I'm going to move off this idea of Bigot Town, because I don't claim to know how it would work, except as some voluntary association perhaps, in which case it would be subject to the local laws of whatever city it occupied. Furthermore, my hope is that any Bigot Town would fail, and the bigots might then learn the error of their ways. So I'm reluctant to speculate further how such a thing might endure. That's for the bigots to figure out.
  5. Aren't you missing some other relevant factors? Even Tarrant recognizes that immigration is driven partly by the desire for cheap labor under capitalism, which is why he's an anti-capitalist and calls for murdering "anti-white CEOs" and raising the minimum wage. This is why we need to take the manifesto seriously and attack its arguments. Tarrant has taken some reasonable views, some you might hear from famous Objectivists, and twisted them into an argument for militant ethno-nationalism. If we are going to help capitalists, especially those on the right, resist this militant ideology, we need to comprehend it and undermine it with facts. And if we are going to appeal to socialists on the left, we need to more clearly differentiate our views from the radical right, who are coming for us too. Muslim immigrants, who make up less than 1% of the population, should not be our ideological focus. We need to patch the foundation of individual rights and capitalism, and defend reason from the enemies within. Non-religious manifesto-creators like Tarrant think they are the voice of reason. Islamists represent a dying religion, a dying faith. They only gain power because of the West's vacuous self-implosion.
  6. I'm not grappling with secession. Secession, as I understand it in this context, is separation from the federal government. I'm talking about a tribal nation, which is still under the authority of Congress. Members of tribal nations are still US citizens. If they leave the reservation, state and local laws also apply to them. I understand that white nationalists probably advocate for secession, but that's not me. I'm not talking about violent racists who advocate the violation of individual rights. We agree that those people should not have full autonomy. They should be subject to federal laws. And if they try to enact and enforce race-based laws, they should be tried in federal court. But we can't assume a racist will be violent. Some are, some aren't. It depends on whether they respect rights.
  7. Here is the Official Guidelines document for Indian groups petitioning for federal acknowledgement. It covers the criteria that needs to be met. OfficialGuidelines.pdf If you skip to page 41 it defines "Indian entity" as "a political, self-governing group." This includes entities like tribes, pueblos, villages, etc. By "self-governing" they specifically don't mean a "formal structure." "Political authority or influence" may be "informal leadership found in churches, schools, etc." This means that "certain individuals not holding an office or title are able to influence the behavior of other members." One example given is a leader who organizes group activities like building a church, so that requirement doesn't even mandate a tribal chieftan. The hardest criteria to meet, in my view, would be the first two listed. 1. Being "identified by reliable external sources on a substantially continuous basis as an Indian entity since 1900." 2. Having "maintained a continuous community from historical times to the present day." For #1 there needs to be consistent, historical source statements identifying the group, as a group. And for #2 there needs to be evidence proving communal existence from historical times. It is not necessary to show that the group has kept its native language, religion, or culture. Those things can change, as long as they've kept up their community. The other criteria for acknowledgement don't appear to be relevant to the definition of a tribe.
  8. I never said that and don't believe it. I clearly stated that new laws would need to be created for them. They therefore do not have a legitimate claim. Furthermore, I don't even know whether they have a moral claim. I'm only trying to figure out if they can be considered a tribe, like other groups are considered tribes. What do you consider to be a tribe? Are the Sioux a tribe or cultural identity? Some of the things that bind a tribe together are a common culture and language. I'm talking about familial groups who have lived and breed together in a community for many generations and have formed a common culture, language, and typically a common religion or set of beliefs. If this applies to the Sioux, why not the Amish?
  9. Historic white nations exist in Europe, and many subsets of those people have migrated to America, starting with the English in 1620. Later, in the 19th century, Norwegians settled in the Midwest, and the French in Maine. Millions of descendents of those who left Europe have retained their various ancestral identities, and to this day many of them live together in tight-knit neighborhoods or towns. The Amish are a prime example, having remained segregated the most out of all the white migrant groups, and being given special exemptions from certain laws. So that is one way white tribes might be recognized in the United States without seceding. But like I said, it would require a new act of Congress to acknowledge them as a non-native tribal nation, and I don't see that happening any time soon.
  10. I didn't realize that I was preventing people from seeing all the interesting topics that you've created recently.
  11. The Pamunkey Indian Tribe was federally acknowledged in 2016, so this tribal nation process is an ongoing concern for Native Americans. I doubt Congress would pass similar laws for tribal Europeans who settled in America and now want their own nation, but maybe.
  12. Not out of nowhere. SL pulled the second sentence out of context and tried to apply it to a non-tribal nation situation. I pointed this out and he accused me of trolling. No, a tribal nation is still under the protection of the United States, and Congress has authority over them. I am not in favor of letting bigots, in this case white nationalists, secede from the United States.
  13. I'm not interested in talking to people who think I'm trolling them. Thanks for critiquing my post, though.
  14. You were replying to my comment about a Native American-like tribal nation for whites. I suggest you review the thread before calling me ridiculous names.
  15. You say Bigot Town would have irrational, immoral people in local government, which would be a threat to individual rights. I'm saying, okay, now apply that logic to real cities and states which have irrational, immoral people in government. By your logic, isn't America already a "system of anarchy"? Bigot Town would still be subject to State and Federal laws. So obviously we would first need to repeal all anti-discrimination laws for Bigot Town to work as an actual US city. And I doubt that will happen any time soon. I also doubt we'll see a bigoted version of Mulligan's Valley, because the bigots will want to govern themselves to some significant extent. More likely we would see a tribal nation, once the white nationalists cluster together in a specific region of the country and negotiate a peace with the federal government. That, of course, assumes that they don't win. I would prefer that we repeal the anti-discrimination laws, because I think it's the most obviously moral course, and by restoring the rights of bigots in general, we will undercut some of the anti-government rhetoric of the more militant bigots.
  • Create New...