Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

Moderators
  • Content Count

    5309
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    100

Eiuol last won the day on September 9

Eiuol had the most liked content!

About Eiuol

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    NewJersey
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Rand related: All major works. (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, etc)

    Peikoff related: OPAR and three lecture series (Objectivism Through Induction, Understanding Objectivism, Unity in Ethics and Epistemology)

    Tara Smith related: Most things, including Viable Values and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    NJ

Recent Profile Visitors

23158 profile views
  1. Sorry if that was an unfair characterization of what you meant to say. When I read about stopping "all those who cross", that sounds like random searches to me. Well, maybe not literally random people since it is everyone, but if it isn't selective, it's arbitrary. Presumably, when you say stop, you mean stopping people so that you can inspect or search something. I don't think you would mean watching license plates and asking people to slow down see can look at them. When you say stop, I think of a border patrol agent telling me to stop my car, ask where I'm going, why am going there, and otherwise intrude upon my privacy by threat of arrest or some kind of punishment. Maybe let's forget the word search and focus on inspection. I'm leaving aside asking questions, because it requires no physical interaction (unless stopping means asking me to leave my car and saying I must go into a building for questioning). To sum that up, I'm claiming that stopping all who cross without a standard of selection is arbitrary and therefore random. Then it would be selective, and then I'm fine with it. That is, a systematic and selective way to decide who to stop is perfectly fine to me. I feel like I'm missing something about your question. Fair enough. I would say though that having such a database is conducive to protecting individual rights as a procedural matter (like you said, procedure matters). Interpol is the best example I can give, but I don't know much about it to discuss it. How does anyone know if someone is searching for him? If law enforcement fails to pass along information, or the US law enforcement fails to communicate with foreign law enforcement, the failure is on law enforcement. The failure isn't the border to stop everyone who crosses. Yeah, stopping everyone who crosses the border would solve the problem, but so would data sharing and communication. If government and law enforcement fails to operate efficiently and effectively, it will fail to protect your rights. Stopping all who cross is not efficient, it doesn't sell communication problems, and has a huge amount of tension with individual rights (as in with major contentions even if you might be able to justify it). It's not the process of checking that matters I think. Talking about the initial information that is perceptually available to you. Cameras would probably be appropriate because it's still basically the perceptual stuff you do. But facial scanning is not even close to what you do perceptually because it takes into account things you literally are unable to note on your own. It's not the database comparison that bothers me, but the information you use for the comparison is derived from something you can reasonably expect to be private in day-to-day life. Reasonable, as in the things people pick up just by being conscious. That's how you get prior justification by the way. You make simple observations to start. Science works the same way. You don't start with complex procedures that take hours to do by hand or done by a computer. It's not justified to start analyzing all the numbers. You start with basic things like did a participant follow directions, or what color did the chemical turn when it was combined with another. From there, you are justified in continuing the investigation. But you can't start running tests that should only be done five steps down the line; I don't run an MRI just because you tripped on a step (even if it is possible that it's an early sign of ALS). Maybe you observe a certain chemical disposed in a nearby lake connected to a restaurant in town. Restaurants don't usually have chemicals to dispose of, so this is a strong justification for the possibility that the restaurant is doing something very bad (maybe poisoning food on purpose?). In the case of a border, maybe you see a bloodied arm hanging out the back of a car. That's a very blatant example, but that's the sort of thing I'm thinking about.
  2. I'll detail it more later, but is it not enough to say that looking at a license plate number requires unaided ability beyond using your eyes and brain and a little bit of writing, while facial scans involve and require a computer with sophisticated algorithms that go far beyond any human capability?
  3. No, more like claimed illegitimately if we are to call it public property. That isn't to say that there can't be select channels through which people pass, and with some buildings that are dedicated to law enforcement duties. My objection is to saying that strict regulation is justified because the land is public property. It's a bad justification. Therefore, border patrol isn't protecting public property. That's all I was saying. Okay, that's all I have to offer for now then.
  4. Individual rights aren't contingent upon different social contexts. Rather, they are only applicable if you enter in some kind of social context. Rights don't need to be extended towards you, even though their defense and respect does. More specifically, individuals are protected or violated by an entity, not the rights per se. So when a person approaches a border, it is morally proper to treat them as individuals, and to respect their rights. To go towards DA's post, I agree that law enforcement needs information to perform its duty. But I don't see a need for there to be some special consideration at the border, as 2046 says. If information is needed, random searches on some individuals isn't really helping anything even if it is easier compared to other methods. The DEA should be concerned with Mexican law enforcement and communicate with them in order to figure out who might be worth questioning. It's not like by crossing jurisdictions everyone starts from scratch. It's actually good reason to say that part of good government is good procedure. If there is good communication, there is no need to even approach violating rights, and information is available just in time. "I want to go over Mexican data first, so please wait here for 5 minutes" would make sense sometimes if there is a known suspect from a Mexican drug cartel with a network of trucks carrying fried chicken batter for Los Pollos Hermanos, if that's what you mean DA. But if you mean "please let me search you so I can then compare Mexican data to what I found, just in case", that's a suspicion coming out of nowhere, and would be an unreasonable search. Either law enforcement has enough data already to be looking for something specific, or they have no reason at all to be searching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJYUs2UH0SM By the way, for unreasonable searches, I am including using phones to scan someone's face and see if they match a database. Maybe more important here is a right to privacy. No, I don't mean a procedural right to privacy, but privacy as an aspect of individual rights.
  5. No country does. All people have individual rights by virtue of being in a social context. We don't say that people have particular rights as relative to the particular social context in which they live. Countries can either fail or succeed at protecting individual rights. Since it doesn't matter which country someone is from in order for them to have rights, we don't need to specify where those people come from. We are talking about immigrants, not people who live in foreign countries...
  6. Each country has different individual rights? Mexicans aren't in a social context? Or, you know, don't like to have their rights violated.
  7. Public use is not public property. On top of that, the border is not land that was voluntarily donated by private individuals, so your argument is pointless for this discussion. If something doesn't exist, trying to enforce its protection and defense is necessarily a violation of rights. Why? Because there is no right even there to violate! As I already said though, you know the arguments that Rand makes against public property, I'm not going to reconstruct it for your convenience.
  8. Question begging. Question begging again. To show that it doesn't violate rights, you still need to show how public property defends or supports individual rights. By the way, when I say political elite, I mean that as a pejorative. Public property would be granting politicians some special elite status by virtue of discerning how the public may use the so-called property.
  9. No one owns it given how things are. It is dressed up in a legal fiction. The idea is collectivistic fiction. The US government might attempt to manage public use, and might declare how you may or may not use it based on the "will of the people" but this would be illegitimate because "the people" have no legitimate claim, and "the people" aren't assembled in the same way as groups that do own property. The only such groups that exist are political elites, that is, politicians deciding how to use public property act as the owner. Individuals and groups of individuals would be unable to decide how to use it, except by running it past the government (after all, the people includes everyone in the country, or the local government if we mean local roads). Where did the public derive ownership such that they could pass it onto the government for management? And why should the government own land if it doesn't further improve individual rights? Anyway, if you want to object to me, I suggest objecting to Odden's post directly as well. I want to know what you think about it.
  10. I'm not going to rehash what Odden wrote. Your position is clearly that public ownership is a real thing. I'm not sure how you're going from "groups can own property" to "the public owns property". That's an argument by analogy, basically argument by assertion, since there isn't any kind of demonstration. You didn't improve your argument by saying "public property is a species of group ownership", because I said it doesn't exist. If unicorns existed, they would be a species of horse. But they don't exist in the same way public property doesn't, so I don't care how you would categorize them. It sure is, and so basic that I don't even want to discuss it. If you want to argue for public property on an Oist forum, it's an uphill battle. Rand calls public property a collectivist fiction. I'm sure you know the reasons well enough, so argue against those. "Since “public property” is a collectivist fiction, since the public as a whole can neither use nor dispose of its “property,” that “property” will always be taken over by some political “elite,” by a small clique which will then rule the public—a public of literal, dispossessed proletarians." I misread your statement before. Anyway, that's what I meant by pretending public property is a real thing, and you said the government owns it. But forget that, it looks like you changed your argument again - the public owns the border, but then they ask the government to look over or manage it. So to answer your question, the government authorized them. By your premise though, the public authorized the government.
  11. Neither do I, because there is no such thing as public property, so public property can't be owned by anyone. You can't own what isn't real (we can pretend it's real). Doesn't mean the land is not necessarily property. Group ownership is not equivalent to public property. Doesn't really matter, because the government doesn't own the land even as a group of individuals. Individuals or groups of individuals. Not "the public".
  12. "Open" borders is very undefined, each person who says it means something different. It could range from anarchy at the border (literally no law enforcement of any kind), to simple patrolling as occurs anywhere else in the country, or many other ideas. All you can do is argue against specific conceptions of it. Binswanger, for instance, doesn't seem to have a sensible position, even if he is correct to say that the was government doesn't own the country's land (as Odden was saying). Your justifications for your beliefs seem to shift all the time. Are you trying to argue against people as if anyone who is against your position is therefore for "open" borders, so you are trying to generalize their positions? If you do that, of course it will seem like your goalposts are always shifting, since many of your objections could apply to one person, but not another, even if they are both extremely liberal about border control. So we end up with strange objections like "since group ownership is possible, the public owns the land at the border". Why solve an illegitimate problem?
  13. No argument required here in our discussion. Pretend it's a very bad argument that's easy to shoot down. Pretend you're sitting in your office, in charge of deporting socialists. Your chief investigator comes to you and says "look at this, Eiuol is arguing for socialism, and it requires violating rights! He created the Capitalist UBI party and is going to run for president. He said so ". Where I'm going with this is that your standards aren't any good here. We don't even need fringe cases to immediately show problems with activism as a dangerous threshold. If I were to use "authoritarian activism" as a standard, you would be deported already, even though I think you're honestly mistaken.
  14. In this case, his psychological condition is framed as his connection to reality related to how he chooses to cope. This focuses on methods of thought and thinking as a cause of one's psychological condition, and using methods of thought and thinking to create a new philosophical outlook. Or at least, if Phoenix does a good job, he won't stick to a surface level "the Joker is crazy and he embraces that and projects it onto others".
×
×
  • Create New...