Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

Moderators
  • Content Count

    5309
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    100

Everything posted by Eiuol

  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".
  15. We would love to hear any thoughts. We will be making format tweaks along the way so that we can keep things interesting.
  16. The reason I like the trailer so much is that it portrays the Joker as someone who could have become a hero in every sense of the word. The music at the beginning is really suggestive of movies that portray a character who goes through great struggle to become a heroic and admirable person in the end. That doesn't happen since he chooses to see reality as an absurd joke; he overcomes struggle by making life itself a joke. We see that he becomes more confident, more sure of himself, living by his own values, probably less altruistic. But he chooses something besides life as his standard: amusement and absurdity.
  17. No, you would have to remove something about yourself to make you no longer homo sapiens. All anyone really means when they say exceeding limits is overcoming a constraint. If you want to be so concrete bound that any change from what is naturally given makes you no longer technically human, fine, but that really only matters if you were abducted by an alien and they had to decide where to put you in a zoo. And you can exceed those limits surgically.
  18. You could phrase it that way, but I said biological so that I could emphasize biological parts of your body (in contrast to prosthetics or implants).
  19. I can't even... I've never even referenced anything you said about open borders. I thought we made progress in discussion, too, because we were working out what you thought I actually was disagreeing about.
  20. You're the one who told me that old habits die hard, so if I were to use your reasoning, being stuck in an apartheid mindset would make sense. But that's not really a good theory here, mostly because old habits don't die hard. The reason it can't apply to you is because the premise is false (in which case what you said is false). That's why brought I it up: that specific reason is absurd. Although that doesn't necessarily mean it's not true. I am saying though that your refusal to talk about why you haven't immigrated (discussing your values and things like that), I can tell it is a sensitive topic, it bothers you, and even saying that I don't have any negative intentions still wasn't enough. It's a kind of hostility that when I put it together, it doesn't seem like you're thinking very clearly about immigration (yeah, I did suggest it might be some self-loathing, precisely because your bad reasoning would apply to you). Is it that hard to believe? Understanding doesn't just mean knowing the words you said, it's *understanding* why you say what you say, how you learned what you say, the emotions related to what you say, the reason you care about what you say. You said none of those things, so I ask. That's why said the word empathy before. I'm not talking about compassion, I'm talking about what's going on in your mind. If you did tell me, what do you think would happen? For one, xenophobia isn't necessarily racism. I said xenophobia because of what you say about immigrants, which are primarily negative, or at least extremely skeptical. I doubt you wanted me to be PC and tone it down for you because you might be sensitive to that word. Like I was saying about Trump, I don't think he's racist, but I think he's ignorant. I don't know, but I also would be far less interested in what you have to say. I would get bored much sooner. Why do I pounce harder and you in general? Not because of your positions per se, but because of what you get wrong to reach those positions, or simply because it is factually incorrect about immigrants. My meta-concern though, about our discussion, is that too many Oist types take discussions to be a fight where somebody has to win. And if someone asks a relevant personal question, it's a cheap shot and an attempted personal attack. Actually, that's the Internet in general.
  21. Harrison is on the right track I think. But I think some things should be added to the discussion. Not every case is age-related, to be sure, but it's a form of damage no matter what, and age will always be a factor at least. You can never remove age as a factor, and it is well-known and documented and studied how no matter who you are, you will experience cognitive decline especially with memory. On some level, it's the brain breaking down overtime. So you might say the purely biological human brain as it is has a hard limit before neurons in the connections between them start to deteriorate (and who knows, maybe that limit can be extended very far). But if you can replace the parts that break down, then the hard limit doesn't matter anymore. Neural prosthetics are a thing these days. Those also might have hard limits, but then you replace them again. To me, curing aging is more about finding the ways of going past biological limits caused by natural decay and disintegration.
  22. I said it sounds like you don't understand, there's a difference. Nope, I was saying that it would help me understand you. I'm asking because I don't understand why someone who claims to love America doesn't want to become American. It's a relevant question to me, because I would better understand your overall viewpoint if you tell me more information about yourself. But since you didn't answer, that also gives information to me, which I posted about.
  23. Come on man, what do you expect? Maybe you do, but you still choose not to become American. Yet people who immigrate, on average, care less than you? Unless being an immigrant is something that would make life less valuable even though South Africa is inferior to America. You can't expect to criticize immigrants and not apply it to yourself. -You- told me all those kinds of reasons of old habits.
  24. I don't see the difference. Some people argue that UBI is socialistic, so if I actively promote UBI, then I'm necessarily promoting socialism, even if I say that isn't my goal. You already said you don't care what the person believes in their heart, only if they are being activist. What's the line across to become a socialist activist, from a mistaken capitalist? I don't think there is any line for determining when it becomes a threat or not. There is no method to do so, unless you start calculating the probabilities of a given person from becoming a socialist revolutionary. If you start to think In probabilities, that is pre-crime in the PKD sense: things reach a violence probability threshold determined by computers or conscious robots. The reason I propose more stringent standards for citizenship is to maintain your legitimate concern (true socialists, not neoliberals), such that no one who intends to implement socialism would really manage to become a citizen and therefore attain political power. It wouldn't be criminal to be a socialist activist, and you don't need to give ideological screening tests. Citizenship can be a screening test.
×
×
  • Create New...