Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
MisterSwig

Immigration restrictions

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Why do you keep straw-manning my position? I said nothing about making laws for the townsfolk. You keep going on about how I lack a logical argument, yet you can't even grasp my basic position. Instead of starting over, let's just call it quits for now. Thanks.

In endorsing political end X, the logic of the position does lead somewhere, even if you don't want to recognize it. If you endorse thoughtcrime for immigrants in the name of preserving the general welfare, the logic of the position will lead to policing thoughtcrime amongst the domestic citizens on the same grounds. Your approval of it is irrelevant.

Share this post


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

In endorsing political end X, the logic of the position does lead somewhere, even if you don't want to recognize it. If you endorse thoughtcrime for immigrants in the name of preserving the general welfare, the logic of the position will lead to policing thoughtcrime amongst the domestic citizens on the same grounds. Your approval of it is irrelevant.

If your problem is with my particular view on anti-American beliefs, then let's focus on that. Even if I'm wrong here, that doesn't mean my entire justification for border control is wrong.

You call it "thought crime." That's your term, not mine. The legal term is sedition. And, yes, I tend to agree that seditious acts, such as advocating the overthrow of our government, should be punishable offenses in the case of citizens already here, and disqualifying offenses in the case of immigrants trying to cross the border.

Also, take note of laws against conspiring or inciting violent behavior. Are you against those laws too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

And to echo myself, you again have completely ignored the prior arguments I have already made in favor of border security and immigration control.

You are just stating your belief. That's fine.

But you didn't make an argument. "Sedition laws exist" and "I would use screening", without saying much more than "we need to protect people from objective threats". Sure, it makes sense to somehow and in some way stop or restrict those who fully plan to violate rights. Anti-American beliefs is a vague description, it can be flag burning, or insulting the president, maybe even as simple as disliking fireworks on the 4th of July. Naturally, you'd want to narrow down the definition of anti-American. But then we quickly diverge from any discussion of rights. We end up judging people on pragmatic grounds, or statistical grounds, discussing whether those grounds should be race, IQ, or set of culturally approved behaviors. The critical thing though, is that anti-American beliefs is not essential. Rights violators (those on the run or in organized crime) and those who will imminently violate rights are the bigger concern. 

I'll split the discussion by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2019 at 4:24 PM, EC said:

Not talking about about a polygragh test. I'm thinking of an advanced lie detecting AI algorithm that would be/is nearly infallible. I'm sure we are close to this level of technology or we probably have it now.

Have you seen that TV show Lie To Me? It was based on actual science regarding microexpressions. Apparently it's possible to detect deception by analyzing unconscious facial expressions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microexpression

Share this post


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

Sure, it makes sense to somehow and in some way stop or restrict those who fully plan to violate rights. Anti-American beliefs is a vague description, it can be flag burning, or insulting the president, maybe even as simple as disliking fireworks on the 4th of July. 

"Anti-American belief" is only vague if you drop the context of it needing to be an objective threat. It needs to be a dangerous idea in relation to the general welfare of the people within the nation. I don't think disliking fireworks qualifies. Nor does burning the flag. Merely insulting the president doesn't qualify either, unless it smells like an actual threat.

If history is a guide, I'm pretty sure we are going to disagree on the meaning of "objective." That's fine. But it's unfair to claim that my term is vague, when there is a contextual qualifier in play. The immigration policy shouldn't go pragmatic or statistical/racial, as long as we remain objective-minded. Of course we'd have to prove that each type of specific threat is objective in nature. But that has to be done on a case-by-case basis in a particular context, because that's how objectivity works. Something that is a threat to our country now might not be a threat in a hundred years.

Thanks for splitting the thread.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But this is still difficult to pin down, exactly because you have avoided defining it. You can't simply say "all we need to do is find the appropriate contextual qualifier", the point is whether anti-American belief should be that qualifier.

Think of it this way. If some guy in the Taliban yelled death to America while burning a flag, would this be a threat because of his stated and demonstrated intent to murder Americans, or would it be a threat because he yelled and did something obviously anti-American? I'm saying that anti-American belief is irrelevant. Since you want to disqualify disliking fireworks, and burning flags, and you haven't mentioned any types of anti-American beliefs, it sounds like you haven't thought it through. If you mean anti-American belief as in someone who intends to murder and kill people that are American, I don't disagree with you, except to say you should say initiation of force is the real issue. It's not anti-Americanism that's the issue per se. It doesn't even enter into the equation.

This is why I was saying either you end up supporting the idea that initiating force is the real issue, or you start resorting to statistical methods based on existing beliefs or intrinsic qualities, like the precogs from Minority Report.

Share this post


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

"Anti-American belief" is only vague if you drop the context of it needing to be an objective threat. It needs to be a dangerous idea in relation to the general welfare of the people within the nation. I don't think disliking fireworks qualifies. Nor does burning the flag. Merely insulting the president doesn't qualify either, unless it smells like an actual threat.

If history is a guide, I'm pretty sure we are going to disagree on the meaning of "objective." That's fine. But it's unfair to claim that my term is vague, when there is a contextual qualifier in play. The immigration policy shouldn't go pragmatic or statistical/racial, as long as we remain objective-minded. Of course we'd have to prove that each type of specific threat is objective in nature. But that has to be done on a case-by-case basis in a particular context, because that's how objectivity works. Something that is a threat to our country now might not be a threat in a hundred years.

Thanks for splitting the thread.

Some people (most notably people who are trying to ape Rand) think throwing "objective" in front of various words seems to have some very special powers. What philosophical content does the distinction add? A contextual qualifier? What does that even mean? A "threat" is an acontextual one and an "objective threat" is a contextual one? Is that philosophically useful? What content does that even add? If I'm constructing an argument does that enhance the argument in any way? Do you see the problem here?

What kind of objectivity is even being invoked here? There's at least 12 different notions of objectivity in philosophy denoting various things, and it's not clear what you're even trying to denote here. Value-objectivity? Epistemic-objectivity?

Rand's understanding of objectivity as epistemic-objectivity is based on her theory of concepts which she claims treats concepts "as neither revealed nor invented, but as produced by man's consciousness in accordance with the facts of reality" (ITOE 54.) In other words, concepts are instruments for human knowing whose content is dictated by abstraction from perceptual data. "Objectivity" is a concept denoting normative epistemic method, not a positive description of the content or nature of things. To say "oh no, you see, I only mean 'objective threats' here" really adds nothing to the content of just what a threat is, and when you use it as if does, it comes off as a kind of category mistake.

Threats aren't "objective," threats are threats. Making the distinction between "threats" simpliciter and "objective threats" is really just another way of saying "only the threats that I want to qualify as threats count as threats, you see," which of course is to assume that which you need to prove. What is a threat, and what is it a threat to, how is it a threat, and why is this a purpose of government, and what problem is this solving for a social system? Saying "x, y, and z are threats to the general welfare or public good and thus are appropriate for government action" is just about the vaguest and meaningless argument one can concoct. Adding "but it's an objective threat in a certain context!" is a question begging redundancy.

 

 

Share this post


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

Have you seen that TV show Lie To Me? It was based on actual science regarding microexpressions. Apparently it's possible to detect deception by analyzing unconscious facial expressions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microexpression

Haven't seen that show. But this is what I was thinking of, or at least that the AI would be analyzing microexpressions in part of it's decision tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 2046 said:

Rand's understanding of objectivity as epistemic-objectivity is based on her theory of concepts which she claims treats concepts "as neither revealed nor invented, but as produced by man's consciousness in accordance with the facts of reality" (ITOE 54.)

 

I just want to note that I think it's strange that you termed this "she claims". While literally true, it also seems to imply that you may not agree with the quoted passage or that there is an alternative. There are exactly zero other ways to form concepts other than the second half of the clause given the first half. Sorry for the partial derail.

Share this post


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

If you mean anti-American belief as in someone who intends to murder and kill people that are American, I don't disagree with you, except to say you should say initiation of force is the real issue.

Then we disagree. I have already given my prime example of anti-American belief: those who advocate for the overthrow of the American government. If we can't even agree on that one, then there is no point continuing.

Murderous intent would generally fall under the criminal category of threat, since it's not typically aimed against a government institution, but instead directed against individual people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a question, might be relevant to the thread: let's say someone formed the International Nazi Party in South America. This movement then started recruiting like minded, white South Americans, putting them on buses, and bringing them up into the US, for the stated purpose of spreading national socialism in America (this includes promoting antisemitic laws, government imposed segregation and overall fascist control of society, an eventual takeover of America's military might and a global Final Solution).

Is this within their rights? Why or why not?

Note: the reason why someone would want to do this is because of the First Amendment. The US is the only country where you could, in theory at least, promote national socialism on a significant scale. Anywhere else, you would eventually get shut down by a new law that simply bans your activities. But you would need an "open border" Amendment, similar to the First, because if you started doing this now, the feds would just shut the operation down at the border, before all the neo-nazis could flood in and take advantage of the First Amendment...and they would have the support of about 99% of the populace, in doing so.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


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

I have already given my prime example of anti-American belief: those who advocate for the overthrow of the American government.

You completely missed how in this example, the guy is advocating to overthrow the US government, through violence and initiating force. I'm asking if this is bad because it is anti-American, or if it is bad because it is advocating the initiation of force.


Your prime example is also pretty vague. Or at least, you are including nonviolent overthrow of the US government. Do you really mean to include peaceful overthrow? Electing a new president is a type of overthrow. In the American Revolution, demanding representation in government was a type of overthrow, because the government was explicitly against that. Based on your explanations so far, it sounds like you only want to include violent overthrow.

 

3 hours ago, Nicky said:

Is this within their rights? Why or why not?

The Chinese government does similar things already. Anyway, if the purpose is ideological expansion, this would be completely fine legally speaking. The rest of the issue depends on if there means of spreading their ideology is violent or not. Eventual violence and rights abuses if they get their way ideologically is not sufficient.

But I'm not saying that only from the perspective of "it's not violent, therefore it's okay!" Intense political discussions that go deep into fascism promote a sort of competition among ideas. When other people push on your ideas, even to such an extent that their ideas are evil as Nazi-ism, it pushes you to strengthen and intensify your positions. It makes the Nazi ideas more apparent, because they are free to express their ideas. Of course, this changes if the Nazi is trying to acquire a stockpile of automatic weapons, associated with assaulting minorities, or has training videos of guerrilla operations. After all, when force enters the picture, reason doesn't matter anymore.

Share this post


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

You completely missed how in this example, the guy is advocating to overthrow the US government, through violence and initiating force. I'm asking if this is bad because it is anti-American, or if it is bad because it is advocating the initiation of force.

It seems he is guilty of both. My point, however, is that simply advocating the overthrow is enough. It does not need to be accompanied by details of how you'll do it. And electing a new president is not an overthrow. An overthrow means a forcible removal from power, not a constitutional one.

I would probably agree if you say that merely advocating an overthrow implies an initiation of force. We could differentiate between an implied versus explicit threat of force. Saying "death to America" would be an implied threat of force, because the actions proposed are not specified. However, saying "I'm going to kill Americans" would be explicit, because now murder is on the agenda. Does that help?

Share this post


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

Here's a question, might be relevant to the thread: let's say someone formed the International Nazi Party in South America. This movement then started recruiting like minded, white South Americans, putting them on buses, and bringing them up into the US, for the stated purpose of spreading national socialism in America (this includes promoting antisemitic laws, government imposed segregation and overall fascist control of society, an eventual takeover of America's military might and a global Final Solution).

Is this within their rights? Why or why not?

If by "Final Solution" you mean what the Nazis meant, then I'd say no. You don't have a right to incite murder, or in this case the mass murder of an entire race, even if you're trying to accomplish it through a democratic process. The neo-Nazis would have to prove that all the Jews deserved to be exterminated, and they obviously can't do that.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

If by "Final Solution" you mean what the Nazis meant, then I'd say no. You don't have a right to incite murder

I said "eventual Final Solution". Under US law, the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Espousing Nazi ideology (which is centered on racial harmony, clearly only achievable by killing all non-Aryans), is protected speech. So what exactly is the problem? Being a Nazi is not a crime in the US. Why shouldn't, then, Nazis be free to settle in the US in great numbers?

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


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

Anyway, if the purpose is ideological expansion, this would be completely fine legally speaking. The rest of the issue depends on if there means of spreading their ideology is violent or not. 

The stated purpose of the organization is EXACTLY what I said. Nothing less, nothing more. They will not say they intend to do anything else except help people who share their stated beliefs enter the US, and then organize to take power. There's no mention of how. They also do not tell the people they are helping whether to behave peacefully or violently. They leave it up to them.

So, is this a right, or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Then we disagree. I have already given my prime example of anti-American belief: those who advocate for the overthrow of the American government. If we can't even agree on that one, then there is no point continuing.

I don't think there is a person alive who wants the American government as it currently exists to continue to exist though. Leftists want a more socialist or communist government. Those on the right want, um something, not sure exactly what they want; a socialist government that they won't admit is socialist and is socialist in different ways than the Leftists, I suppose. And us capitalists want a capitalist government. Everyone wants a different American government, so essentially everyone is "guilty" of this in essence. I doubt there is very few to no people who want or like the government we currently have.

Edited by EC

Share this post


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

Espousing Nazi ideology (which is centered on racial harmony, clearly only achievable by killing all non-Aryans), is protected speech. So what exactly is the problem? Being a Nazi is not a crime in the US. Why shouldn't, then, Nazis be free to settle in the US in great numbers?

They are and should be free to do so. They have the right to be "closet" Nazi's but they don't have the freedom to act on their beliefs or recruit others since "recruitment" is a form of acting on rights-denying beliefs.

Edited by EC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, EC said:

I don't think there is a person alive who wants the American government as it currently exists to continue to exist though.

Well, right now it's shut down. So I imagine plenty of people want it to start back up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Well, right now it's shut down. So I imagine plenty of people want it to start back up.

I think it being shut down is the best thing that's happened since the last shutdown. The reason for the shutdown is pretty idiotic, but that it's been shut down for the longest period in history is pretty awesome. Here's to it never re-opening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nicky said:

So, is this a right, or not?

Yes. The added bit about violence was more for MisterSwig because I expect he would ask "if that's okay, then is there anything that isn't okay?". In this case, about the Nazis, it's pretty close to the edge of what I say is okay. It's worth observing to keep apprised of what's going on, but that's about it. The Nazi's you described do not pose imminent or definite threat, nothing more than a probability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nicky said:

I said "eventual Final Solution". Under US law, the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

I have a problem with the inclusion of "imminent" in that ruling. It makes the standard way too concrete-bound. Inciting violence often takes time. The inciter must first brainwash or convince his followers to commit a crime, and often that takes longer than an imminent amount of time. A successful incitement to violence does not occur in a vacuum, as that ruling apparently assumes.

A more fundamental problem with espousing a Nazi state is that no such government can claim a right to exist. As Rand argued, "The right of a nation to determine its own form of government does not include the right to establish a slave society (that is, to legalize the enslavement of some men by others)." What's wrong with advocating for a dictatorship, you ask? Well, you're attempting to institute a system of slavery by means of a system of freedom. If anything represents an ideological threat to America, it is a pro-slavery belief such as this. Still, the Nazi question is a borderline case, and I'm not sure whether it should be a crime, unless a specific Nazi advocates for overthrowing the government or tries to incite a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

A more fundamental problem with espousing a Nazi state is that no such government can claim a right to exist. As Rand argued, "The right of a nation to determine its own form of government does not include the right to establish a slave society (that is, to legalize the enslavement of some men by others)." What's wrong with advocating for a dictatorship, you ask? Well, you're attempting to institute a system of slavery by means of a system of freedom. If anything represents an ideological threat to America, it is a pro-slavery belief such as this. Still, the Nazi question is a borderline case, and I'm not sure whether it should be a crime, unless a specific Nazi advocates for overthrowing the government or tries to incite a crime.

No present governments have the right to exist, as they all do this to a degree including here in America. I acknowledge that there is a immense gap between the horrors of Nazi Germany and the relative "horrors" of a mixed state, but it's still a matter of degree (huge) and not a fundamental difference. 

On reflection, I keep interjecting these things because of the "promoting to overthrow the government" thing. A switch to full capitalism would require the present government's "overthrow", although I suppose most people want a slow switch to it. While that's better than no switch, I see nothing wrong with a quick bloodless coup either (although I think there's close to zero chance that will happen anytime in the near future either).

In other words, it feels like you're saying that capitalists shouldn't "promote" capitalism, as a future capitalist government would require the "overthrow" of a present non-capitalist government.

Edited by EC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...