Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

MisterSwig

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1391
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

Everything posted by MisterSwig

  1. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    I did not base my argument on that. I see immigration laws and border control as public safety measures, intended to protect individual rights. Let's imagine that there were no government, and we lived in a small frontier settlement. We would have to worry much more about our general safety. Thus, it would be appropriate and right for us to organize like-minded folk and to initiate security patrols of the settlement's boundaries. We'd want to stop and question strangers before permitting them to get close to the heart of our community. Extend that scenario to a nation with a government, and we get a large security agency devoted to controlling the entire border. Its mandate is not based on violating your rights. On the contrary, it's based on protecting them. All rights are held within a context. The right to free association is held within the context of the society or nation which protects that right for you. Our government therefore has no obligation to protect or respect your desire to associate with someone from another country. It must first determine whether that foreigner represents an objective threat to the general welfare of the citizens it protects. And only after some vetting at the border can such a determination be made.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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?
  5. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    So Iranians should have the right to vote in U.S. elections?
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    Well, right now it's shut down. So I imagine plenty of people want it to start back up.
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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?
  16. 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.
  17. MisterSwig

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    I don't believe in segregation by race or IQ. Like I said, however, there might be a case for denying imbeciles citizenship, particularly the privilege of voting.
  18. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    And to echo myself, you again have completely ignored the prior arguments I have already made in favor of border security and immigration control. I can't force you to consider them. But I can claim to have made an argument, because I did.
  19. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    I would also include spies. If there is a valid concern (circumstantial or direct evidence) that someone is trying to take state secrets to another country, I believe they should be held and investigated.
  20. MisterSwig

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    I wonder if this recent topic shift to immigration can be split and moved to its own thread in a political forum? It's a shame that it's being buried at the end of this one. I propose splitting it here at EC's post. http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/topic/31369-the-case-for-open-objectivism/&do=findComment&comment=356997
  21. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    You seem to think it's my job to figure out the technical details of the screening process. That is the job of politicians and security professionals tasked with solving the problem. In general, though, the purpose of screening would be to identify the clear and obvious threats. We especially want to know if some sworn enemy is trying to cross the border with weapons. Also, if someone lies during their interview, for example, then maybe they escape detection. Just because the system isn't perfectly ideal, that's not an argument against trying your best to keep out the threats. But in this particular case we can take additional measures to control for the possibility of liars. If we are at war (or in a conflict) with a certain group of people and expect some of them to lie to us, then perhaps we should subject them to additional levels of security, such as psychological examinations, lie detector tests, a search of their social media activity, etc. But, again, these technical details are best left to professionals. In my prior posts I only tried to provide the philosophical justification for such a security system as border control.
  22. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    No, I gave Eiuol an explanation of what I mean by "objective threat." You completely ignored my argument prior to that post.
  23. MisterSwig

    Universals

    This thread is devoted to the nature and problem of universals, particularly in relation to the Objectivist theory of concept-formation. What are universals? What is the problem related to them? I'll begin with the Wikipedia entry--to present the issue as neutrally as possible. A universal is something that particular things have in common. This common something can be a kind of thing, a property of a thing, or a relation of a thing. Beyond that, there are theories about the further identification of universals, because it is not obvious how we have knowledge of them or where they even come from. This leads into the essential problem of universals. The problem arises from the fact that we observe similarity, yet every kind, property, or relation of a thing is a unique, particular kind, property, or relation. Thus, how do we get from awareness of particulars to awareness of similarities? From knowledge of specifics to knowledge of universals? The problem begins simply with the recognition of similarity, or commonality. It doesn't begin with an explanation or location for universals. It doesn't say that universals exist in this way or that way, or that they're located in here or over there. But it does acknowledge the existence of particular things which can be similar in some respect. And it also acknowledges a consciousness capable of identifying similarity. Where anyone's theory goes from there is not the problem of universals, but an attempt at solving it. If anyone disagrees so far, please present the problem as you see it. Otherwise, in a day or two, I'll move on and address the argument presented by Intrinsicist elsewhere.
  24. MisterSwig

    Universals

    Okay, let's imagine that Logos is the laws of physics, and it's not a metaphysical god. Would it actually be "laws" (plural) or a single law (Grand Unified Theory?) of which we now only understand parts? If the Logos is multiple laws, are they all equally important, or of varying importance? Is there an order to them? Supposing there is only one law, has it remained unchanged through all time, or is it capable of changing? If it changes, what might be the cause of this change?
  25. MisterSwig

    Universals

    I was addressing Intrinsicist because I don't agree with him and wanted to see if he would address my prior criticism of the Logos idea. If you have any new thoughts on universals, that might be something for us to discuss here. Though I think we exhausted that topic last year. It probably wouldn't be productive for us to talk about the Logos, since neither one of us believes in it. However, I am generally curious about this effort by people like Intrinsicist to convince us that the Logos is an irrefutable fact. I'm noticing this sort of idealism being applied in other threads about morality and politics too. I'd like to understand it better, and see if it goes any deeper than the Logos.
×