Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Azrael Rand

The Case for Open Objectivism

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, human_murda said:

And why do collectivists even need sanction from Objectivism?

Sanction of the victim.

Someone please explain how anyone in the US is supposedly hurt/negatively affected by an average (non-criminal) Mexican entering our nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw this quote on FB and think it's perfect for this thread.

“And since this is the last speech that I will give as President, I think it’s fitting to leave one final thought, an observation about a country which I love. It was stated best in a letter I received not long ago. A man wrote me and said: ‘You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American.’ ” —Ronald Reagan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Eiuol said:

But with freedom of association, without even discussing immigration yet, you are allowing racial groups to mix and therefore lower the average IQ.

Something has to give. At least one of your beliefs has to change if you care about the consistency of your own beliefs. 

Indeed there is a tension in his thought and it can only be resolved by one of the two factors "trumping" or taking primacy over the other. Either rights will trump and "race/tribe" will be dilluted, or race/tribe will be trump and "rights" will be dilluted. Both concepts can't stand as is, one has to give way.

Given his definition of "rights" earlier, it's clear that he has already committed himself to his social ontology (which I commented on earlier) and thus "rights" become permissions that the race/tribe allow you. In this way, Azrael has an "atomistic" myth of his own, since since race/tribe is equivalent to the self-sufficiency he falsely attributes to us at the individual level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2018 at 9:45 PM, EC said:

Is a person truly free if he isn't able to choose where he lives voluntarily? Can a society truly claim to value liberty while denying other's liberty to make such a choice?

I see it as striking an objective balance between freedom and security given human nature. If absolute freedom means us accepting anyone that comes in and the consequences be damned then that's essentially only freedom for the people wanting to come here, not freedom for the people already living here. The people wanting to come here want a better life and the people who live here want to preserve their way of life. I don't see why only one sides case matters.

On 12/27/2018 at 11:58 PM, DonAthos said:

There is no "will of the people" in this sense. There may be a majority vote, perhaps. But if I have property in the US -- let us say a store -- and if a Mexican wishes to come to my store, you and your majority vote have no right to tell that Mexican he may not come to my store, and no right to restrict my access to his patronage. (And furthermore, no right to restrict home sales in my neighborhood, etc.)

If that Mexican is here legally on vacation and wants to patronize your store there is no issue. Or if you want to do e-commerce and send them a package that's fine subject to laws governing said trade imposed by either the US or Mexico. But to say that we have to grant someone access to the country for the sole purpose of going to your store and making a purchase doesn't really make a lot of sense.

On 12/27/2018 at 11:58 PM, DonAthos said:

This is so even if you believe yourself to represent the fictitious "will of the people."

(Since you have taken aim at "logical consistency," you might not care, but what you're proposing here runs directly counter to the "freedom of association" that elsewhere you seem to think important.)

Like it or not, the reality of politics is one of interest group warfare. Those fighting for certain freedoms are one group in this contest. If you do not have the support of the people you and your ideas will likely not stay in power for long. While power by itself isn't everything, it's still a prerequisite for implementing any set of ideas into law and keeping them there. A constitution that is not understood and valued doesn't stay in place for long. That's just reality.

As far as freedom of association which I brought up in context to diversity in the US, I didn't reference it as a moral absolute, rather as the best practical situation given the variables in place.

 

On 12/28/2018 at 10:07 AM, Doug Morris said:

We should respect everyone's rights even if this requires more work to deal with differences among people.

If another country is following a rights-violating policy, that does not necessarily call for drastic action on our part.  One way we may be able to influence other countries is to set a good example ourselves.

I agree with the latter part. We have our set of rules and other countries may or may not share the rules and values that said rules are based on. That part I agree with. My argument is that these rules should be properly aligned with human nature to maximize outcomes for the people that make up a country. Rational self-interest at the nation-state level you could say. However when we come up with these rules we need to be sure that they aren't used against us and our interests. Sacrificing our national self-interest for logical consistency of an ideology that isn't properly aligned with human nature is counter to the concept of rational self-interest.

On 12/28/2018 at 10:07 AM, Doug Morris said:

It's not clear to me what you're saying about a rape culture among some male American college students.  Are you saying there is no such thing?  Are you saying it's OK if there is, we just need to understand it and work with it?  Please clarify. 

There is a difference between rapes occurring on campus and an actual rape culture. I do not believe it's fair to say that a rape culture exists on US colleges because there are X number of rapes reported on said campuses each year. A rape culture exist if rape was incentivized using social norms. If you want to see a rape culture look at the middle east where there are actual incentives built into their culture and into law to incentivize rape. That's not the case at American campuses. Being accused of rape is a net negative to the accused individual not a net positive.

The only cultural component I can see on campuses that encourages rape is Marxist and feminist ideology that say's we're all equal when this isn't true. Of course Marxist feminists are the ones spreading the untruth of rape culture in the first place...

Men and women aren't equal they are complimentary. If we are equal that means we value the same things the same way which couldn't be further from the truth. We may value the same things but the weight we attach to them is completely different. You're setting people up for failure when you brainwash people against the grain of reality.

My recommendation is that if you want to harmonize relationships between men and women, then the best means of doing so is by starting with the truth behind male and female nature. Understanding and empathy go hand in hand with each other. Gender roles were created with an understanding of male and female nature. Outright rejecting them in favor of Marxist and feminist egalitarianism is asking for trouble between the sexes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2018 at 11:08 AM, human_murda said:

Emotionally pleasing to whom? Different people have different values and different emotions. I'm sure there are some Nazis who would be emotionally pleased to believe that differences between people exist (even when none factually exists). The existence of irrational atheists (or people who became atheists by emotional rebellion against their parents) does not prove the existence of God. The fact that there exists emotional & irrational people who believe in equality (and use it to justify their arguments) does not invalidate their claim. Just because irrational people believe something doesn't mean that's false. Most people have an emotional attachment to their children; doesn't mean it's irrational. There are ridiculously dumb people who believe in capitalism. I don't know why you're so concerned with other people's beliefs/emotions and how you can manipulate them.

Just to recap, the comment was in response to your view that "everyone's base intellectual capacity is the same." This isn't exactly true if you look at IQ distributions both within a given population and across populations. We do not all possess the same intellectual capacity. What your describing is the case for 100% environmental causes to describe differences in intelligence and the science doesn't support it; I posted resources in this thread if you want to read up on the matter in-depth. As far as reasoning in general goes, if say X is proven to be false then that doesn't necessarily prove Y to be true. The part about assuming commonality being emotionally pleasing comes from us, humans, generally valuing others that are like ourselves. If someone looks like you, talks like you, and shares your belief and values that contributes to social well-being. The more we have in common with people the more we value them. It's likely part of both our tribal and selfish nature as humans.

 

On 12/28/2018 at 11:08 AM, human_murda said:

and if you're going to say that emotions are the chief culprit, then why do the "IQs" of people matter?

I consider emotions to be the chief culprit because we as humans are able to believe and treasure the dumbest things so long as they provide us with emotional support. IQ does not exempt you from basic human psychological needs. IQ doesn't prevent someone from making stupid mistakes that are based on emotional reasoning. If your emotional intent is to prove something wrong your reasoning mind is likely going to give you a conclusion good enough for you to accept. To combat this phenomenon, education, cultural controls and traditions are most effective in my opinion.

But again, just because X is or isn't true doesn't necessarily prove anything about Y unless there's a universal and objectively true documented relationship between these variables. Ask yourself this, are you able to do things now intellectually that you weren't able to do in your younger years (when you had a lower IQ)? If the answer is yes, imagine a society with more people capped at that lower IQ (from your childhood years) and imagine what that society would look like.

 

On 12/28/2018 at 11:08 AM, human_murda said:

 

On 12/24/2018 at 4:52 PM, Azrael Rand said:

Unless there's a good reason not to, we naturally assume that others are like us.

You're contradicting yourself:

On 12/26/2018 at 9:52 PM, Azrael Rand said:

A precondition is that there's a requirement for a certain level of likeness among the members of the population.

If we naturally assume that other people are like us, then that "precondition" is satisfied regardless of our "tribal nature".

When someone doesn't look like you and doesn't talk like you, your subconscious doesn't perceive them to be like you. Now if you know the person and have a positive relationship with them your conscious knowledge and emotional investment in the relationship obviously override the gut feeling of first impressions. But based on Enos findings, which I referenced, perceptions of likeness matter as it relates to social cohesion and the upkeep of social institutions.

On 12/28/2018 at 11:08 AM, human_murda said:

Nah, he's right. Having an open mind requires you to enter a debate without having an opinion. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion even if you're not omniscient. (Besides, requiring your opponent to not have an opinion is a weasely way of inserting your own opinion into their mind). 

If that's how your going to define open mind I'd agree with your conclusion because virtually everyone has an opinion on all the major issues, therefore finding someone with an open mind is like finding a needle in a haystack.

On 12/28/2018 at 11:08 AM, human_murda said:

 

On 12/25/2018 at 7:05 PM, Azrael Rand said:

You can be 90% correct but if you're not 100% correct you're leaving a weakness for others to exploit.

You said yourself this (being 100% correct) isn't possible.

There's only a contradiction here if you want one to be here ;D

What's the reason why both can't be true at the same time. The only reason I can see is the emotional reasoning of preferring to be in a position where you can't ever be fooled which is made impossible by one of my two claims. The fact that we can't be omniscient does not negate the need or desire for self-improvement. After all, perfection isn't required to beat an opponent, you just have to be better than them at whatever counts.

On 12/28/2018 at 11:08 AM, human_murda said:

Not my point (I'm not saying that people have extremes of IQ. I'm saying that differences in IQs, however small, doesn't predict a split in basic intellectual capacity). My point was, at which level of intelligence (or IQ points if you want) does the split between people (those who can solve every problem in the Universe and those who can't) occur.

But you are in that you're assuming that individuals exist on the IQ scale that are able to solve every problem in the world. What made you conclude this to be true?

On 12/28/2018 at 11:08 AM, human_murda said:

Where is the split (and if there is no such split, then why does it matter if people have different IQs)? At which IQ point does there exist a split in intellectual capacity required to understand capitalism? The concept of intelligence or even the concept of IQ doesn't contain such a split, which is why I said it doesn't make sense. Not because I "want" it to be true. Thanks for the psychiatric evaluation but don't try to make up what my emotions are. It shouldn't even be part of the argument. 

If it's IQ ranges and associated meanings you're interested in see here: http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iqclassifications.htm

Also you're welcome on the eval, it's on the house :)

On 12/28/2018 at 11:08 AM, human_murda said:

Individuals have a right to restrict access to their houses. However, you don't have a right to restrict access to your neighbor's house. 300 million people don't have that right. What you're talking about are collectivized rights (and identity politics, which is its natural consequence). You're more "leftist" than you think (or atleast, you're jealous that you don't get to play by their rules, as you've stated throughout this thread).

The leftist are actually right about some of the things they talk about but the conclusions they draw from their objective assessments are most often wrong. You have your own definition of rights that is most likely different from the rights currently observed by your country or any country in existence. Rights only matter in a social context. What ends up as the rule of law in a country is shaped by politics which involves different groups vying for power. That's objective realty. You can decorate the process intellectually in any way you see fit but that doesn't change this underlying reality. The rights you believe to be true will only be respected by society if your group wins in this process. Power isn't everything, but it's an absolute prerequisite.

 

On 12/28/2018 at 11:08 AM, human_murda said:

And don't forget that Nazism is the identity politics of the right (or maybe you already know it).

If all else fails, there's always uncle Adolf to fall back on. How about them leftist tactics huh ;D

Embracing objectively true differences doesn't have to lead to concentration camps. That's what's called catastrophizing. Japan understands that there are differences between themselves and other peoples and they limit immigration accordingly. I don't see any concentration camps in Japan do you?

By the way, you're from India if memory serves right? Do you feel that any Pakistani has a claim to travel to and live in India if they so chose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2018 at 12:30 PM, Eiuol said:
On 12/27/2018 at 8:21 PM, Azrael Rand said:

Lowering the average IQ of a country has real life implications whether you like it or not. Saying IQ is irrelevant, a non-factor, is misguided.

 

On 12/27/2018 at 8:21 PM, Azrael Rand said:

If a group of white, blacks, hispanics, etc choose to live in racially homogeneous communities they are free to do so. If you have a group of interracial individuals that choose to live in each others company then they are free to do so under the freedom of association.

You seem to contradict yourself. 

First you say that IQ matters a lot for the health of a country. Moreover, you have gone over how you think that by nature black people have lower average IQ than white people. This means that having more black people will lower the average IQ. According to you, this is bad. In response, you could deport black people, withhold the right to vote, or deny them citizenship. If you do nothing, then you are allowing the country to weaken.

Then at the same time, you clearly advocate for freedom of association. 

But with freedom of association, without even discussing immigration yet, you are allowing racial groups to mix and therefore lower the average IQ.

Something has to give. At least one of your beliefs has to change if you care about the consistency of your own beliefs.

Given the variables in play, freedom is the best choice to let the problem work itself out according to my estimation. Freedom works great in certain applications, I don't contest that. We are mostly selfish by nature and our desire for freedom is a reflection of that. That doesn't mean that it's the answer to every problem. Just because freedom works in certain applications given certain environmental factors doesn't mean it's the solution to everything. I don't think it's a good idea for the US to allow its population to be replaced by importing a fifth of the Africa's population in the name of freedom and individual rights. Nor Chinese people for that matter even though they have a higher average IQ than whites do. Drastically changing the ethnic make-up of a nation is not an action that is informed by an understanding of human nature. I consider it as immoral as an imposition of a communist form of government. 

On 12/28/2018 at 12:30 PM, Eiuol said:
On 12/27/2018 at 8:21 PM, Azrael Rand said:

This belief system is solely based on our selfish individualistic nature

This reflects why I wasn't going over individual rights. 2046 went over with you that individual rights are not based off a selfish nature. Nothing even about Objectivism supposes that people are selfish by nature, or tribal by nature. I only mentioned it for the convenience of other people reading the discussion.

Rational self-interest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Azrael Rand said:

Drastically changing the ethnic make-up of a nation is not an action that is informed by an understanding of human nature. 

Fine, just stop saying you support freedom of association. Or at least, you want to have it both ways. I've asked you very simply: what would you do about black people in the US, since they lower the average IQ? 

5 minutes ago, Azrael Rand said:

Rational self-interest?

Yeah, not "people are selfish by nature".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2018 at 4:56 PM, EC said:

Just saw this quote on FB and think it's perfect for this thread.

“And since this is the last speech that I will give as President, I think it’s fitting to leave one final thought, an observation about a country which I love. It was stated best in a letter I received not long ago. A man wrote me and said: ‘You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American.’ ” —Ronald Reagan

Thanks for posting this. It's a good point to illustrate the difference between being persuasively correct and being factually correct.

Being persuasively correct involves the usage of language that targets people emotionally, in this case by tying one's proposal to the way people want to view themselves as human beings. You're cleverly equating your proposal with a people's sense of self-actualization and it's a highly effective strategy to get things done. It's likely the most effective form of persuasion in existence (along with fear which arguably covered).

But this rosy verbiage doesn't speak to the quality of one's actual proposal or the implications of adopting said proposal.

Does this statement negate the fact that a clear majority of ethnic minorities that vote actively support the political party that advocates for racial interest group politics? No it does not. Does it change the fact that they view the world in racial terms when they are living in one of the freest countries in the world? No it does not. As a people, and yes they see themselves as a people, they have made the choice to reject individual rights. White people would be advised to wake up to this reality.

Also is this the same Ronald Reagan that signed amnesty into law thereby creating an unmistakable incentive structure for future illegals to come by indicating that the laws on the books are only for show?

Edited by Azrael Rand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Eiuol said:
25 minutes ago, Azrael Rand said:

Drastically changing the ethnic make-up of a nation is not an action that is informed by an understanding of human nature. 

Fine, just stop saying you support freedom of association. Or at least, you want to have it both ways. I've asked you very simply: what would you do about black people in the US, since they lower the average IQ?  

And I think I answered that question. Given all the variables in play I think freedom is the best solution here.

But no I do not believe in universal freedom of association that would allow for the destruction of America from within. I do not believe it's wise to sacrifice the good for ideological consistency.

I totally understand why the concept is distasteful to you but individualism and collectivism aren't just good or bad ideas that were created wholly detached from human nature. Each represents a "distilled" version of either selfishness or tribalism with some rationalizations thrown in for good measure so that it's convincing enough for those in the market of being convinced. Rather than choosing between the two ideologies I'd rather seek an objective balance between the two since both concepts are rooted in human nature.

You can have an individualistic society only as long as everyone believes that groups don't matter and that the individual is all that matters. The only context in which this is objectively true is in the context of an ethnically homogeneous society where the group has already been controlled for. Once you stray from this you'll be reminded by reality that we are both individualistic and tribal. Like it or not tribalism played a major role in human survival strategy for a very long time. It's part of us for better or worse. We can choose to ignore the facts, just like a communist would have us ignore our selfish nature, but reality will catch up with us sooner or later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like he's trying to throw 1001 bad and evil ideas at us at once in a clusterfuck of racist nonsense. Part of me want's to ignore it all like I normally do with evil racists, and the other part says this is the type of person that elected Trump to build a wall (against Mexicans? lmao). I'll just come back to this when I'm less annoyed, and not just thinking people that promote evil shit like this should just be arrested with the key thrown away....

Edited by EC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

If that Mexican is here legally on vacation and wants to patronize your store there is no issue. Or if you want to do e-commerce and send them a package that's fine subject to laws governing said trade imposed by either the US or Mexico. But to say that we have to grant someone access to the country for the sole purpose of going to your store and making a purchase doesn't really make a lot of sense.

No, it makes sense. I have a store and someone wishes to come to my store to make a purchase -- it makes sense that he should be able to do so.

What doesn't make sense is your idea that you have some authority to tell him that he cannot, because my store is in "your" country, and he was born somewhere else. Or because you think your "way of life" is somehow threatened by his very presence. If the maintenance of your way of life requires controlling other peoples' business -- let alone on the basis of race/ethnicity -- then your way of life is not worth saving.

What makes less sense still is the idea that you give yourself the authority to tell others where they may live, work, shop, etc., and yet you believe yourself somehow on the side of freedom/"liberty."

4 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

Like it or not, the reality of politics is one of interest group warfare. Those fighting for certain freedoms are one group in this contest. If you do not have the support of the people you and your ideas will likely not stay in power for long. While power by itself isn't everything, it's still a prerequisite for implementing any set of ideas into law and keeping them there. A constitution that is not understood and valued doesn't stay in place for long. That's just reality.

As far as freedom of association which I brought up in context to diversity in the US, I didn't reference it as a moral absolute, rather as the best practical situation given the variables in place.

Yes, I understand: you support "freedom" as a rhetorical tactic so long as you think it serves your ends, but you're willing to throw it out just as soon as it proves inconvenient to those ends. And you further recognize that your arguments eventually resolve into "might makes right."

I'm not entirely certain why you're so dismissive of human_murda's comparison to the Nazis; just based on the things you've argued, I'd guess that if this were the 30s, you'd be happily arguing (as many at the time did) that Hitler made a lot of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

If all else fails, there's always uncle Adolf to fall back on. How about them leftist tactics huh ;D

And Nazism is still the identity politics of the right, regardless of what leftists think or whether Venus is too bright in the sky. And why are you bringing up Hitler? I didn't call you Hitler. Don't attempt to invalidate my arguments by pretending that I called you Hitler. And Nazism is the identity politics of the right (and I'm not talking about concentration camps. I'm talking about their principles: their belief that you should build a country based on physiological similarity, that people should stick to their own countries, that immigrants (blacks, jews, gypsies) will destroy countries and a Nationalism based on race, not geography). If you feel insecure about that, that's your problem. What's with assuming that everyone who opposes you is calling you Hitler? How about them right-wing tactics huh ;D

If you're going to be a racist, at least be a proud racist and acknowledge that fact, instead of jumping through hoops, worried about what others think.

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

But no I do not believe in universal freedom of association that would allow for the destruction of America from within.

Right, you believe in some constraints to freedom of association. Importantly for you, one such constraint would be freedom of association that would lower the average IQ of the country. This means that there needs to be some sort of constraint on freedom of association with black people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Azrael Rand:

You speak of "national self-interest".  What is important is individual self-interest.

You have made it clear that you think our self-interest requires restrictions on immigration and letting race be a consideration in setting public policy.  But I don't see how you have proven this.  You have not sufficiently considered the point that we must think of people and treat them as individuals, not as members of collectives, whether defined racially or otherwise.

When I spoke of rape culture I did not mean in the whole society or a whole university.  I was speaking of what might be called a subculture, a cultural attitude that seems to exist among some American male college students that encourages rape.

If one-fifth of Africa's population (about a quarter of a billion people) decide to enter the United States in the next year or so, where exactly would they go?  No private property owner would have to let them onto his or her property.  Even owners who were willing to accept some of them would probably have a limit to how many they would accept.  If they are squatting on or clogging government property, the government would have the right to require them to leave, and if there is no place here for them to go, that would mean sending them back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

You can have an individualistic society only as long as everyone believes that groups don't matter and that the individual is all that matters. The only context in which this is objectively true is in the context of an ethnically homogeneous society where the group has already been controlled for. 

And again Eiuol and I already explicitly denied this atomistic fallacy, and explained why from the fact that even though we do believe "human sociality matters," it doesn't follow that "groups must be controlled for." Your argument is a non sequitur and your constant mantra-like repetition is ignoring what we are actually saying. You are knocking down an imaginary naive individualist strawman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

If one-fifth of Africa's population (about a quarter of a billion people) decide to enter the United States in the next year or so, where exactly would they go?  No private property owner would have to let them onto his or her property.  Even owners who were willing to accept some of them would probably have a limit to how many they would accept.  If they are squatting on or clogging government property, the government would have the right to require them to leave, and if there is no place here for them to go, that would mean sending them back. 

Right. If immigrants don't have housing and attempt to live in other people's homes, that's a violation of individual rights and they should be rightfully deported (with the money required for deportation being collected from everyone while they enter the country). This is a restriction on immigration imposed by reality, not by arbitrary constraints. Welfare should be eliminated as immigration isn't compatible with welfare. Democracy should be replaced by a limited form of democracy: a republic, so that immigrants (or people who are born and raised in their respective countries) can't actually change or threaten the nature of the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

By the way, you're from India if memory serves right? Do you feel that any Pakistani has a claim to travel to and live in India if they so chose?

They already do. India has a lot of immigrants. So does Pakistan (mainly from Afghanistan after the recent conflicts). There's also a large immigration into Kerala (the state I'm from) as well. Of course, the immigrants should be vetted because of the terrorism problem. Muslims per se aren't the problem (India also has almost as many muslims as pakistan). Of course, India can't really support all these immigrants, but that's a problem with the economy. Many also don't have proper housing.

Also, as many have said Objectivism doesn't assume that people are selfish by nature (if people were already selfish by nature, you wouldn't need a philosophy to advocate for selfishness. It would happen automatically).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Azrael Rand Another thing that stands out to me is that you have completely replaced Normative ethics with statistics. You haven't stated what non-White people, like me, should do. If capitalism only works for White people, what should non-white people do (and this needs to be answered because Objectivism is concerned with moral imperatives)? Do different races have different codes of morality? Should I, as a low-caste dark skinned South Asian [I hate bringing this up but I guess this is all you care about], just give up on capitalism and follow communism? Should I just start advocating communism because I'm not white? What's the deal? (And as a side question as an Indian: Why is America so race conscious? Even as a low caste dark-skinned person from India, I've never been questioned about my beliefs because of my caste in India [and I don't even know the caste of anybody outside my family]. Why is this so important in America?)

Another question about "shoulds" also arises. If somebody has rationally determined that the best way to preserve their life is to move to another country, what should they do? If you're not concerned about what people should or shouldn't do, you're not talking about morality. How does reason, rationality and moral imperatives work in a country with no individual rights (in a country where people are not allowed to act on what they think is right)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2019 at 11:44 PM, DonAthos said:

No, it makes sense. I have a store and someone wishes to come to my store to make a purchase -- it makes sense that he should be able to do so.

Well of course it makes sense to you since you stand to gain in said example. But what happens if this individual uses their temporary access to stay in the country illegally, commit a crime during their time in the country, etc. Is your business or you going to assume full legal and financial liability for the individual during their stay in this country?

On 1/2/2019 at 11:44 PM, DonAthos said:

What makes less sense still is the idea that you give yourself the authority to tell others where they may live, work, shop, etc., and yet you believe yourself somehow on the side of freedom/"liberty."

Every country on the surface of this planet has made these types of decisions and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. I understand you're coming from a place of "ought" as opposed to "is", but the "ought" is meaningless unless your ideas are acknowledged by a majority of decision makers in society. If your ought doesn't even account for the means to do so you may have to re-look your original position. That's one of the core themes of my original writing. I listed a number of facts that I believe traditional Objectives aren't accounting for. Race wasn't the only item on that list.

On 1/2/2019 at 11:44 PM, DonAthos said:

Yes, I understand: you support "freedom" as a rhetorical tactic so long as you think it serves your ends, but you're willing to throw it out just as soon as it proves inconvenient to those ends. And you further recognize that your arguments eventually resolve into "might makes right." 

I wouldn't call it "might makes right."  All I'm saying is that "right" without "might" doesn't amount to anything but a thought in someone's mind.

On 1/2/2019 at 11:51 PM, human_murda said:

And Nazism is the identity politics of the right (and I'm not talking about concentration camps. I'm talking about their principles: their belief that you should build a country based on physiological similarity, that people should stick to their own countries, that immigrants (blacks, jews, gypsies) will destroy countries and a Nationalism based on race, not geography).

I stated before that not all of the progressives facts are wrong but that I believe that their conclusion based on said facts are incorrect. I still consider myself an Objectivist and that implies a philosophy for man on earth. I do not believe that human nature supports sweeping identity under the rug completely in favor of individualism.

Here's why: Based on our epigenetics we end up falling into a spectrum that is defined by a focus on security on one end and openness to new experiences on the other. A more resource rich environment tends to produce more people with openness for new experiences whereas a resource poor environment tends to produce people that are more security oriented. This makes sense because as a species we need to be able to adapt to our environment. The safety of the tribe is a core component to the safety aspect whereas the desire for freedom is linked to the desire for new experiences.

If you're going to adopt a purely individualist position you're essentially describing utopia for one end of the spectrum but a living hell for the other end of the spectrum. I think a more sensible approach is to work towards an objective balance between the two given human nature and environmental considerations. Identity, race, human irrationality, IQ, cognitive biases and distortions, all of these factors should be taken into consideration and accounted for as best as possible when determining said objective balance.

On 1/3/2019 at 11:08 AM, Eiuol said:

Right, you believe in some constraints to freedom of association.

Correct.

On 1/3/2019 at 11:08 AM, Eiuol said:

Importantly for you, one such constraint would be freedom of association that would lower the average IQ of the country. This means that there needs to be some sort of constraint on freedom of association with black people. 

I oppose the notion that anyone that is not a US citizen has the moral right or claim to US citizenship, access, or property. I do not believe that it is immoral for black people to live in the US, but I do believe it would be immoral to say that anyone living on the African continent that isn't a rapist or murderer has the right to become an American citizen. You have people like George Soros that will hold nations to their virtue signaling rhetoric. If you create a right he will fund the transportation costs.

On 1/3/2019 at 12:09 PM, Doug Morris said:

Azrael Rand:

You speak of "national self-interest".  What is important is individual self-interest.

You have made it clear that you think our self-interest requires restrictions on immigration and letting race be a consideration in setting public policy.  But I don't see how you have proven this.  You have not sufficiently considered the point that we must think of people and treat them as individuals, not as members of collectives, whether defined racially or otherwise.

I also believe that individual self-interest is critical but based on my understanding of human nature I cannot say that it should reign supreme without considerations for the collective.

I'm sure most if not all of the members on this board consider themselves as individualists and not as tribe members, but this simply isn't true for all of humanity. Tribalism isn't just a bad idea someone came up with it's a part of human nature.

Now that doesn't mean that we have to live like North Korea or Soviet Russia but at the very least you have to objectively address it as part of life in society. If you want a more open and more racially diverse society you have to convince people of the benefits of it if you want their support.

If you're bringing in say one foreign family per community, that is made up of the best and brightest a foreign country has to offer, I think that works out to be a net plus for that community and the family but when you set out to dramatically reshape the ethnic composition of a country you can't just equate it to the former scenario that involved just the one family.

It's like saying that just because it's safe to consume a small amount of a given substance, that it's safe to consume a larger amount of said substance.

On 1/3/2019 at 12:09 PM, Doug Morris said:

When I spoke of rape culture I did not mean in the whole society or a whole university.  I was speaking of what might be called a subculture, a cultural attitude that seems to exist among some American male college students that encourages rape.

I don't support rape on an individual level or a group level so the individuals or groups of individuals that are committing these rapes, wherever they are (on campus, off campus, etc) should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

On 1/3/2019 at 12:09 PM, Doug Morris said:

If one-fifth of Africa's population (about a quarter of a billion people) decide to enter the United States in the next year or so, where exactly would they go?  No private property owner would have to let them onto his or her property.  Even owners who were willing to accept some of them would probably have a limit to how many they would accept.  If they are squatting on or clogging government property, the government would have the right to require them to leave, and if there is no place here for them to go, that would mean sending them back. 

If they have a moral right to access then you can't deny them access. Their rights would equal those of homeless American citizens who also have a right to live within the US even though they do not own any property. If you make something a moral right you can't use practical concerns to reign in those rights.

On 1/3/2019 at 12:28 PM, 2046 said:

And again Eiuol and I already explicitly denied this atomistic fallacy, and explained why from the fact that even though we do believe "human sociality matters," it doesn't follow that "groups must be controlled for." Your argument is a non sequitur and your constant mantra-like repetition is ignoring what we are actually saying. You are knocking down an imaginary naive individualist strawman. 

Could you link to that previous post(s); I may have missed it. As far as your moral framework, how do you morally justify individualism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2019 at 2:49 PM, human_murda said:

They already do. India has a lot of immigrants. So does Pakistan (mainly from Afghanistan after the recent conflicts). There's also a large immigration into Kerala (the state I'm from) as well. Of course, the immigrants should be vetted because of the terrorism problem. Muslims per se aren't the problem (India also has almost as many muslims as pakistan). Of course, India can't really support all these immigrants, but that's a problem with the economy. Many also don't have proper housing.

So based on your assessment of the situation would it be fair to assume that you have about as many immigrants as you can sustain?  If so how do you square that away with the principles of freedom of association?  Do moral considerations not trump practical considerations?  Would you still feel the same way if the current ethnic majority group became an minority?

On 1/3/2019 at 2:49 PM, human_murda said:

Also, as many have said Objectivism doesn't assume that people are selfish by nature (if people were already selfish by nature, you wouldn't need a philosophy to advocate for selfishness. It would happen automatically).

People are very selfish by nature, but we're also tribal (and thus a little altruistic). What we consider in our self-interest though isn't just a mathematical calculation that maximizes personal profit. There are multiple dimensions to our self-interest and that does vary from person to person and includes the epigenetic considerations I mentioned in my previous post.

Also how do you personally arrive at the moral case for individualism?

On 1/3/2019 at 6:46 PM, human_murda said:

Another thing that stands out to me is that you have completely replaced Normative ethics with statistics. You haven't stated what non-White people, like me, should do. If capitalism only works for White people, what should non-white people do (and this needs to be answered because Objectivism is concerned with moral imperatives)? Do different races have different codes of morality? Should I, as a low-caste dark skinned South Asian [I hate bringing this up but I guess this is all you care about], just give up on capitalism and follow communism? Should I just start advocating communism because I'm not white? What's the deal?

That's not for me to decide but for you and your country as a whole. I'm not making any claims to how India should govern itself. I would hope that the Indian people would do the best they can to create a workable mix of liberty and security that works best for most of its people.

On 1/3/2019 at 6:46 PM, human_murda said:

Why is America so race conscious? Even as a low caste dark-skinned person from India, I've never been questioned about my beliefs because of my caste in India [and I don't even know the caste of anybody outside my family]. Why is this so important in America?)

Just my best educated guess but I'd say because America is a multicultural society and because interest group politics works in that type of environment. It doesn't help that the current dominant culture is defined by a combination of altruism and collectivism which in my opinion culturally incentivizes whites to sacrifice their interests to non-whites. Maybe other posters can chime in here for some added perspective.

On 1/3/2019 at 6:46 PM, human_murda said:

Even as a low caste dark-skinned person from India

I don't know if you're using that as an objective term to describe yourself based on your culture or not but you shouldn't hold anything outside of your control against yourself. Mindset matters a lot ;D  But I probably don't have to tell you that.

On 1/3/2019 at 6:46 PM, human_murda said:

Another question about "shoulds" also arises. If somebody has rationally determined that the best way to preserve their life is to move to another country, what should they do? If you're not concerned about what people should or shouldn't do, you're not talking about morality. How does reason, rationality and moral imperatives work in a country with no individual rights (in a country where people are not allowed to act on what they think is right)?

People should want to pursue what's in their rational-self interest. If that's moving to another country then they should pursue that as a goal. But there can be no blanket moral obligation for any other country to have to accept you. If there was then that would be suicidal. Ask yourself this, why would the Dalai Lama of all people say "Europe belongs to Europeans?"

Edited by Azrael Rand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

Well of course it makes sense to you since you stand to gain in said example.

Yes, that's right. That's how stores work. And also capitalism. And liberty. That's why it makes sense. If you have stores, but people aren't allowed to shop in them, you've not only taken away my "gain" (and presumably the gain of the shopper), but also you've made stores into rather poor investments/uses of time. And, as suggested above, you've compromised both capitalism and liberty.

See? It should make sense to you, too.

5 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

But what happens if this individual uses their temporary access to stay in the country illegally, commit a crime during their time in the country, etc.

Staying in the country "illegally" is as smoking weed illegally, wherever that is still illegal: neither should be a crime.

People who commit actual crimes (meaning: initiating the use of force) -- in this country or any other, and whatever their origin -- ought to be stopped/penalized.

5 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

Is your business or you going to assume full legal and financial liability for the individual during their stay in this country?

Suppose I were to propose that any family members of Azrael Rand ought to be strung up by their heels, and you were to offer some argument against that according to, oh I don't know, some theory of "individual rights." But then I ask: ah, but what happens if one of your family members commits a crime? Will you assume full legal and financial liability for their actions?

Would that sort of "argument" warrant an earnest response from you?

5 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

I wouldn't call it "might makes right."

No, you would not use those words to describe your position. It would lay things out too clearly, possibly even for yourself.

5 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

I still consider myself an Objectivist...

Are you aware of the Objectivist position on politics, generally? Take for instance Rand writing, "Freedom, in a political context, has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion."

The Mexican who means to come to my store -- you propose to physically remove him from the country, or possibly prevent him from ever entering. You mean to stop him, physically, from doing business with me. How do you imagine that squares with "the absence of physical coercion"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The racial situation in America, including race consciousness, started with black slavery and continued with white supremacism and Jim Crow.  It's taking us a long time to recover from those evils.  Bad philosophy and its fruits have done a lot to worsen the situation and delay the recovery.

10 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

If you want a more open and more racially diverse society you have to convince people of the benefits of it if you want their support.

Right.  We have a lot of convincing to do, starting on a more fundamental level.  But we can't hope to succeed at this if we don't clearly understand the truth ourselves.

10 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

but when you set out to dramatically reshape the ethnic composition of a country

We shouldn't worry about the ethnic composition of the country.  We should worry about how well people understand basic principles.

10 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:
On 1/3/2019 at 12:09 PM, Doug Morris said:

When I spoke of rape culture I did not mean in the whole society or a whole university.  I was speaking of what might be called a subculture, a cultural attitude that seems to exist among some American male college students that encourages rape.

I don't support rape on an individual level or a group level so the individuals or groups of individuals that are committing these rapes, wherever they are (on campus, off campus, etc) should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

Do we need to do anything about some groups sharing and reinforcing ideas that encourage rape?  I don't mean treating them as criminals because of their ideas.  Do we need to use any techniques of persuasion that take into account the existence of a subculture?  Do colleges need to have policies addressing the matter?

11 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:
On 1/3/2019 at 12:09 PM, Doug Morris said:

If one-fifth of Africa's population (about a quarter of a billion people) decide to enter the United States in the next year or so, where exactly would they go?  No private property owner would have to let them onto his or her property.  Even owners who were willing to accept some of them would probably have a limit to how many they would accept.  If they are squatting on or clogging government property, the government would have the right to require them to leave, and if there is no place here for them to go, that would mean sending them back. 

If they have a moral right to access then you can't deny them access. Their rights would equal those of homeless American citizens who also have a right to live within the US even though they do not own any property. If you make something a moral right you can't use practical concerns to reign in those rights.

If the number of homeless people in the United States drastically increases, where exactly would they go?  No private property owner would have to let them onto his or her property.  Even owners who were willing to accept some of them would probably have a limit to how many they would accept.  If they are squatting on or clogging government property, the government would have the right to require them to leave.  This might mean arresting and jailing them for trespassing, especially if there is no other place for them to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

I do not believe that it is immoral for black people to live in the US, but I do believe it would be immoral to say that anyone living on the African continent that isn't a rapist or murderer has the right to become an American citizen.

Come on, man. You've gone on about IQ and racial differences, not just threats by actual rapists. I didn't ask if it's okay for black people to live here, I'm asking what you'd do about the threat of black people lowering average IQ.

You said:

""So if we choose objectively managed diversity we likely have to accept state intervention into the way communities are organized and we'd have to settle for a lower cultural and material standard considering the lowest common denominator."

"As far as individual variations being more important, I agree with this statement assuming we're comparing individual outcomes and that the people involved don't suffer from low IQ or retardation. However I don't believe this statement to be true on a societal level based on our tribal nature and potential IQ differences between races."

"If the differences are big enough as to impact the average population's ability to think in terms of abstracts then in my opinion it would affect the calculus of how to best organize society around objective truths, especially when we add our tribal and emotional nature to the equation."

"But when compared to other populations, the societies whites tend to produce are objectively better than those of other races with average IQ levels below whites."

"But imagine a country where half the population has an above average IQ and the other half of the population has an IQ that is borderline retarded. You can't tell me that it would be reasonable to hold all members in that society to the high IQ set of standards. Same goes for culture. "
"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, of the "evil" of racism (i.e. collectivism) there is no doubt. But I''ll see your collectivism, and raise you altruism. They are inextricably linked, but altruism leads. Without the sacrificing and/or self-sacrificing of and by the individual to some mystical 'group identity', collectivism/racism has to perish.

In all the talk everwhere about incoming refugees and migrants (only into the West - of course) the foremost question to be asked is - do others' wants, needs, entitlements - or demands - constitute and justify an obligatory sacrifice of oneself? Or, in the broad abstract, upon one's country? 

Apparently I do not believe men have an *intrinsic* right to cross national borders. That smacks of 'human rights' (as employed today) and says nothing about individual rights, the main characteristic of a free nation, some of which are losing-sacrificing their liberties as a result of such intrinsicism (perhaps to the dismay of some of the immigrants, themselves).

(One doesn't need to read Rand on the subject of altruism destroying man's good will and benevolence (or even compassion) to others, now you only need to look around. There can be no doubt).

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


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

In all the talk everwhere about incoming refugees and migrants (only into the West - of course) the foremost question to be asked is - do others' wants, needs, entitlements - or demands - constitute and justify an obligatory sacrifice of oneself? Or, in the broad abstract, upon one's country?

Other peoples' actions in this way (moving to a neighborhood, for instance -- even when immigrating; taking a job; living their life) does not constitute "an obligatory sacrifice of oneself." It is not a "sacrifice" at all; it is not even your business.

The reasoning you're giving here, whYNOT, is akin to the person who complains when some rival opens up a competitor business across the street. "Shouldn't I be able to stop him?" he asks. "Why should I be forced to sacrifice? Why about my rights?" But that is not a sacrifice, and men do not have the "right" to tell others where they may live, or work, or travel, or etc.

Edited by DonAthos

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×