Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

whYNOT

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1588
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

whYNOT last won the day on June 13

whYNOT had the most liked content!

4 Followers

About whYNOT

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    SouthAfrica
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    tony garland
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Occupation
    photography,reading,writing

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    South Africa

Recent Profile Visitors

9603 profile views
  1. Imagine yourself shipwrecked on that famed "desert island". Alone, obviously you can't have any more rights than a palm tree and Fiddler crab--i.e. no human, intrinsic, natural, nor individual, rights. Adapting to your environment and using nature to your ends you do have, indeed, total freedom of action (from others), and still you'd have to be highly rational (moral) to survive and lead any sort of good life. Eventually, another person is washed ashore, then others. You have a "social context". You have a territory. Among you, you nominate some individuals to form a small judiciary and police force. You have a rudimentary government. That initial freedom of action towards your "good life" - which only other people can prevent and curtail - is established and guaranteed, for all. You have individual rights (of property, etc.) If many more persons arrived (on a boat), at a certain stage if they wished to remain, you'd ask them to promise to abide by the island's individual rights and governance, or leave. They don't have an intrinsic or human right to enter and stay, merely by virtue of being humans. And if you explored by boat, discovered another inhabited island, you could not expect and insist on these other islanders accepting and treating you by your own island's particular system of rights. Individual rights are a universal truth (by the standard of value, man's life), but that's not to mean that they have been and are recognized or practiced, universally. The preconditions of rights are the individual in "a social context", "territorial integrity", and "A" government which protects and preserves them. This last is crucial, I think.
  2. All right, though I'm unconvinced. Far as I can tell from Rand and from what I see, only one's own government (limited, properly) can protect one's *individual* rights. These are rights to freedom of action upheld within a specific sovereign territory -- but aren't universal in practice -- and can't in reality be extended to others outside this specific social context. Yes, individual rights are "right and proper to man", so are a universal truth. Instead of that, there exist almost everywhere, "human rights" - which allow for some freedom of action, certainly - but the 'freedom' comes with strings attached - which constrain one's freedom. They are entitlements and demands (or claims, I like to call them) upon others to provide one - by coercion, ultimately - with what a human being 'needs', and are a contortion of (individual) rights. As I see this they are hardly "human", or humane for that matter.
  3. But I have not recommended unreasonable searches and seizures, I have respect for the 4th. I made the simple comparison with air passengers, willingly and clearly, legally, going through body and baggage searches. Connect back with immigrants, who would need to undergo some not "unreasonable" amount of background checking. They too would or should understand the ~self-interested ~ importance of this. I have always said of immigrants, they don't want to find in their new country the worst elements and people they gladly left behind. But "harrassed", as HB suggests, they seldom, if ever need to be, I find that a bit strawmannish.
  4. National Rights ¶ A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense) . . . . Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations. “Collectivized ‘Rights,’”
  5. I know, something like being blown up on a plane: A very bad violation of one's rights.
  6. Been quite some question begging here. Does Mexico employ individual rights? Are Mexicans in a Mexican "social context"? Or, in an American "social context". Which country's government provides them with protection of their individual rights? (Hey, maybe I have the protection of the US individual rights--right where I am! Great!)
  7. I've been confused by something. Is it the contention that a nation's individual rights, such as they imperfectly exist, extends to pre-immigrants? Obviously, they continue to have basic "human" rights but I'd think their individual rights can/should only be protected after they are citizens (/residents) "...that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context". ...[AR] If one has not (legally) entered this "social context" how and why can his individual rights be protected? One would arrive at the silly conclusion that anyone on the other side of a border who is applying for immigration from, say, a US Embassy in his country, has already come under America's individual rights and gains their protection before he's been approved. . "By what moral principle can they be inspected, harrassed, or excluded" (HB) "[not] as harrassment, but rather as the *protection* of their own rights".(DA) Indeed - the same principle by which an air traveller submits to the hassle and indignity of body and baggage searches: he realises it's for his own safety - and - that of all others. Only a person with something to conceal would try to evade being checked out. If the threat hadn't existed or ever been acted out on aircraft, nor would body-searches. By that token, ceasing body searches ~in the hopes~ that there are no longer any dangerous individuals, would be subjectivist. I.E. having trust that every, single one entering a country or an airplane only has benign purposes. As much as I find them a drag, I wouldn't fly on an airline which did not have processes to protect its passengers. Therefore, by that "moral principle".
  8. Going more into how several contexts can be dropped in favor of a principle, I think it's valid to raise the psychological effects on a populace as well. If a country altruistically welcomes tens of thousands of undocumented refugees/migrants/economic migrants e.g. in Germany, or if they slip over borders into the country like SA, and/or tacitly accepted at times, like the USA, it is a logical assumption that in every sample of - any - people, while there are a greater number of good or harmless ones - also - there're x percentage of hard criminals, y percentage of religious fanatics, z, of psychotics--etc. There will be those many who are prepared to work - and - if the government enforces minimum wage laws as most do, they will be willing to labor at much lower rates than the local citizens, and will usually find informal employment. What happens in outcome is a great increase in the numbers of unrecorded people of all kinds, good, mediocre and bad, and worsening social (not racial) tensions. The influx of anonymous, untraceable people over a period, has to validly cause citizens to harbor worry, fear, resentment, suspicion and so on. Since one can't visibly see ~specifically and accurately~who is legal and who not (obversely, in Europe, the average citizen will begin to indulge in racial stereotyping of individuals of other races he sees at large), you'll get what seems like "xenophobia" from many. "Morbid dislike of foreigners". Concise Oxford. In parts of EU nations where many incomers haven't at all assimilated, by choice or circumstance, there's the feeling those areas have been "taken over", in rejection of the locals who had earlier invited them in. If one bears in mind that a large majority of Western citizens are by long exposure~not~ racist - nor often, xenophobic, one can imagine the self-conflicts that each non-racist person has, knowing that there must be many undocumented people around who might be harmful (or be costing him some livelihood) - and many more who are decent civilians like he. But which? Against their good will and convictions, the conceivable result is many will begin to dislike such "foreigners". From the minority of genuine racists or pathologically frustrated individuals, one could anticipate the odd racist attack upon innocent people. A government cannot have the right to arbitrarily or unilaterally relax its border control. Although its function isn't the psychological well-being of the people, permitting open access to floods of people which so predictably risks creating general social unease, amounts to psychological sacrifices on the populace, and is wrong. Its mandate is the rights of existing citizens above potential/future ones.
  9. Well, I'm sorry if I seem to be picking on you, but not entirely. You have made unearned presumptions about me too. There is the principle, I'm only concerned about here. Iow, for wherever one's location, what do we do with immigration, in principle and in reality? The problem I have with Yaron's and Binswanger's arguments is they appear to be dropping context, akin to rationalism. The ideal, or principle, is that every human has as his right, free access across borders. There was a time, for instance, the USA admitted just about everybody -- but not without briefly checking on and documenting them, not through "open" borders (do they know the function of Ellis Island? which is one dropped context) - and, unfortunately, some periods of racial quotas. The main context being dropped was that every immigrant back then, was literally left to his own devices. He couldn't seek aid from the government nor have to pay them back in any way. That's as close to complete freedom as anyone has known. Those glory days are not going to be recovered by the device of open borders. One could consider the attempt as "the tail-trying to-wag-the-dog-syndrome". Most importantly, if there were full individual rights there (or anywhere), the problem would become moot. People coming from other rights-respecting nations could simply jet in, remain and gain citizenship if they chose; even and although, from other countries, there would still have to be some process for prospective immigrants. The present reality and context cannot be subsumed to the moral principles (ideals) we all wish for: freedom of movement and individual rights. Similarly, no more than one should ~always and categorically~ practice the virtue of honesty and tell just anyone who asks, the truth, when at potential cost to one's values in certain identifiable contexts and situations. We are not going to bring about the essential transformations of politics by such limited means. It will need a comprehensive overhaul.
  10. Of course "xenophobia" is the common argument beloved of leftists: Either "you" are for open borders - or - "you" must be a xenophobe! Don't worry, they say the same here, and I gather, everywhere. What does that impose upon one, but a false alternative. I.e. You either love "the people" or you are evil, you hate the people. Never mind that you ~primarily~ value your own country and its just laws -- which is why "the people" presumably, want to be there in the first place (not of course, the criminals among them...). For the ~supposed~ 'xenophobe' who is not "necessarily" a racist he/she has every right to speak up and question their nation's immigration policies. They cannot apply force. Nearly all do not. Which is the converse to what has been happening this week in waves of attacks against "illegals" from other African countries (some of them are legal immigrants) and their modest shops around the RSA. Violent xenophobia, and its pretext for looting and burning by vile mobs is the most evil of acts. The victims who lose everything fully deserve one's compassion.. The "xenophobia", fear of others, you speak of there is a tame and non-violent reaction by US citizens who have that right to complain, whether one thinks irrationally and unfounded, or not. Where does "ignorance" enter when someone perceives a disvalue to his country? The issue is hardly true/false, rather it's good/bad. Not "necessarily racism", is correct. However "apartheid" certainly implies racism.
  11. https://media.breitbart.com/media/2019/09/migrant-caravan-mexico-flags-bridge-getty-640x480.jpg Let them pass?
  12. Man, you gratuitously tried to pin "apartheid mindset" and xenophobia on me: no dice. You have found I''m extremely liberal about ~legal~ immigrants. More than most, in fact. You understand my words. All this trying to "understand" ~me~ is sophistry. As for whether immigrants are going to be good or bad citizens, I think it's an bad error of intrinsicism for officials to make that judgment call - I've repetitively said you can't know. I said one assesses what is known about what they've done, not what one believes is their ideology, nor where they come from, race and nationality. This is thrown out the window with illegal migrants, except some O'ists presume these to be extraordinary "immigrants". That's intrinsicism, too, I reckon. I've noticed from several debates you gotta unearth racist motives in anything I say. Pretend you haven't learned my locale, that I am an average American Objectivist, and all your concerns over me will go away--right? Because you sure as hell do not pounce on other members and their varying positions in this debate the same way. As a mod, I'd believe your function is to be even handed.
  13. Hey, you've heard of objectivity? One (I) may recognize the objective value of an action/enterprise (immigration) and in particular, a specific destination (USA) which represents a high objective value, but not wish or need to go there one/myself? One may value a lot of things without having to enact and achieve them. Next you have to be aware of one's hierarchy of values. You are effectively telling me that I can't "know" and understand and value (nor empathize with) what immigrants (most of them) undertake, if I don't "do" it myself, which has non-objective undertones. And then, I may also recognize and stress the dis-value of arbitrarily admitting migrants through open borders, upon the host country.
  14. Apartheid mindset, denied entry, had to associate myself with immigrants, xenophobia - how can I love America if I don't want ...etc. If this were not hilariously funny mind-reading, I'd have cause to feel insulted. Where do you get off, being this condescending? All your off-target conjecture I doubt you could have come up with alone. I quite suspect you needed input from others.
×
×
  • Create New...