Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
CartsBeforeHorses

Uzbek national kills 8 in NYC, shouts "Allahu Akbar"

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

That being said, what is your proposal for how we should fight terrorism and prevent events like the one which occurred in New York?

I believe in fighting terrorism through police and intelligence efforts. There may be a military component, too. Specific policy recommendations are probably best left to the experts, but philosophically what I have to say is that I can't support anything which violates individual rights.

The question of "preventing events" runs a touch deeper than the mere retaliation of force, perhaps, and what I believe -- long term -- is that the only real solution is the proliferation of a philosophy of reason (inclusive of the argument for individual rights, which necessitates its strict observance).

Beyond that, there will probably always be an element in the world which acts in this sort of manner, whether in Las Vegas or New York, via Trump supporter (as I have recently heard claimed of Paddock) or immigrant. As much as I would like to prevent every single murder, every single tragedy, I think that there exists no way to do so in reason, and that many proposals to prevent all such things will necessarily rely upon the violation of individual rights -- and thus cause greater tragedy overall if enacted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2017 at 2:30 PM, DonAthos said:

Beyond that, there will probably always be an element in the world which acts in this sort of manner, whether in Las Vegas or New York, via Trump supporter (as I have recently heard claimed of Paddock) or immigrant. As much as I would like to prevent every single murder, every single tragedy, I think that there exists no way to do so in reason, and that many proposals to prevent all such things will necessarily rely upon the violation of individual rights -- and thus cause greater tragedy overall if enacted.

So, most recently we've had the massacre in Sutherland Springs. I expect that, had this been the work of an immigrant (or a Muslim of any nationality/origin), Objectivism Online would by now have a thread dedicated to it. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, Devin Kelley did not shout "Allahu Akbar," and ISIS has not yet taken credit for this tragedy. Perhaps this will change as we learn more.

But in the meantime, I wonder whether those who propose to curb immigration, in order to stop events like the one in New York, have similar proposals in mind to prevent another Las Vegas or Sutherland Springs...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

I wonder whether those who propose to curb immigration, in order to stop events like the one in New York, have similar proposals in mind to prevent another Las Vegas or Sutherland Springs...?

Curb immigration/visitation to Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DonAthos said:

But in the meantime, I wonder whether those who propose to curb immigration, in order to stop events like the one in New York, have similar proposals in mind to prevent another Las Vegas or Sutherland Springs...?

7 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Curb immigration/visitation to Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs.

Both of you are using reasoning amounting to this:

Because we have crazy people already in America who kill, there is no issue with allowing religious fundamentalists to come to America who kill.

Do you realize how that sounds? That's like saying:

Because I am already obese which is a health risk, there is no issue with me taking up cigarette smoking which is a health risk.

We have violent psychopaths enough as it is. We don't need to import more of them!

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah! You guys are basically saying this: because we already have crazy people in America who kill, there's no issue with allowing more babies to be born who grow up to kill.

Do you realize how crazy that sounds!? We don't need more violent psychopaths! End all child bearing now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, 2046 said:

Yeah! You guys are basically saying this: because we already have crazy people in America who kill, there's no issue with allowing more babies to be born who grow up to kill.

Your argument is essentially: the government has no place regulating childbirth, therefore the government has no place regulating immigration, because both involve adding more people to the United States population.

That's a false equivalency. Children are born tabula rasa, with no ideology. Immigrants have an ideology when they come here. That's the difference.

Additionally, would you support any immigration control whatsoever? Such as, stopping people with a terrorist background (former ISIS fighters) or stopping people with infectious diseases? If you acknowledge that the government has a bare minimal role in doing these things, then your entire point is moot... it simply becomes a question of how far the government should go in protecting the rights of its citizens from those who would violate said rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I am on your side! We must regulate ideology! If someone wants their grandmother to come over to their house from their native land, we must violently suppress this activity. Subject them to loyalty tests! Thought crimes against this great nation must not be allowed. Let's make CartsBeforeHorses dictator of ideology! Heil!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott Ostrem, of Colorado, may be added to the rogues gallery of psychopathic mass murderers, whose victims were selected at random. Inasmuch as Ostrem survived, authorities may learn thing about his deranged mental condition. As with so many of the others in that rogues gallery, ranging as far back as Charles Witman, the 1966 Texas Tower Sniper, no one may ever learn exactly what motivated their crimes. I have no doubt that there are professional psychoanalysts with theories.

Sayfullo Saipov, the Uzbeck immigrant responsible for the mass murders last Tuesday, stated his motive loudly and proudly. He had a support system in the form of ISIS. As more facts become known, the likely conclusion will likely be that Mister Saipov was more than less motivated by his faith. It what be foolish, as well as tragic, to even attempt to regulate peoples' beliefs via government coercion. Immigration regulation is a proper function of government. While there's no reason for hysterics in the form of mass deportations, I see no reason why the government should not be more discriminating with regard to immigration.( I think Trump's proposed wall would be a bit expensive, ineffective, and unnecessary, and Uzbekistan is not on his "banned nationality list.")

Domestically raised terror (Islamic or not) has also appeared in recent years to be on the rise. (2046, the sarcasm is noted; government restrictions on infants would not play well in most countries, other than China.) Omar Mateen, the Pulse nightclub shooter, was reported to have had mental problems unrelated to his faith, and yet it seems his faith played a role in his hatred of homosexuals. Dylann Roof was another one strongly motivated by his hatred of African-Americans. While government force may never eliminate the impulse for murder, nor screen out immigrant mass murderers, I advocate for personal support systems for the rational, i.e., lend a little support to those with doubts about their religious and/or ideological beliefs. I've talked with people expressing racist tendencies, and found them to reluctantly admit that their fear of blacks is irrational. It is always my habit to assure anyone who has broken with their religious past that they are right with regard to their doubt. Ask not what your government can do to prevent fanaticism, ask the fanatic why he holds his beliefs. This forum is certainly an example of one such support system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Because we have crazy people already in America who kill, there is no issue with allowing religious fundamentalists to come to America who kill.

Do you realize how that sounds? That's like saying:

Because I am already obese which is a health risk, there is no issue with me taking up cigarette smoking which is a health risk.

Rather, it is like you're making an argument that, because cigarette smoking is a health risk, it should be outlawed. And I'm pointing out that if you're outlawing things on the basis of their risk to health, then it seems to follow that eating should be regulated, because poor eating is equally a health risk.

That's not central to my argument regarding immigration, though -- as you're aware, my argument has to do with individual rights -- but I do find it interesting to note how the anti-immigration contingent seems either not to understand what the consistent application of their arguments would do to other positions that Objectivists typically hold, or not to care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

...  would you support any immigration control whatsoever? Such as, stopping people with a terrorist background (former ISIS fighters) or stopping people with infectious diseases? If you acknowledge that the government has a bare minimal role in doing these things, then your entire point is moot... it simply becomes a question of how far the government should go in protecting the rights of its citizens from those who would violate said rights.

You keep making this argument that if the government has the power to regulate immigration then it has carte blanche power. But, it's a non sequitur. It amounts to saying: since the government has the power to regulate, it can do whatever... including regulating births of white babies!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you support laws against murder, rape, assault? Once you acknowledge the government has a role in doing these things, then you're objection to socialized medicine is moot. It's simply a matter of how far the government should go in protecting said rights!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2017 at 4:47 AM, 2046 said:

Don't you support laws against murder, rape, assault? Once you acknowledge the government has a role in doing these things, then you're objection to socialized medicine is moot. It's simply a matter of how far the government should go in protecting said rights!

It's easy to make quippy comments when I don't know what I'm arguing against. What is the government's proper role in regulating immigration, if any, in your view? Does it have no such role at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×