Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. But if it were the case, or even simply someone who meets all your standards of immigration, you shouldn't be concerned if the country could take on more people or not. (I already bracketed off the discussion about government programs in the modern-day political reality. You know as well as I do there don't have to be government programs. Besides, immigrants from poor countries do just fine without help.) The vast majority already understand this.
  3. Today
  4. One cannot assume "ideal" immigrants, no more than assuming everyone presently is an "ideal" citizen. With liberty, everyone is free to be less than ideal, "free to fail" so to speak. Just as for any proposed Utopian ideal, I am also against a quota system (in all areas). If you considered my not improbable future of a limitlessly increasing influx of migrants, as people from the many poorer countries move into wealthier ones without access control, there would have to initially exist a government program to house, feed, clothe, etc. - often to educate them in the main languages - before they could be integrated into wider society. That public service and those public institutions must surely become overwhelmed and underfunded. Or do you suggest letting them move freely as soon as they disembark? But beginning now, with a minimal process of individual evaluation, all potential immigrants would know in advance they can't merely arrive and be automatically and immediately made at home. Staying behind to help free their own countries, might occur to most. For war-refugees, as separate from "economic" migrants I'd think that an international, humanitarian effort, aimed at re-building their homeland should be the prime concern for free nations. Next in line, there'd be some accommodation of refugees. The fall-out from wars on civilians is terrible, but not quite the same, they are emergencies.
  5. I'm assuming that no one assumes I think immigrants-bad. Immigration is a "good", that's without doubt, for immigrants, mostly, and for the host nation. But this concerns a false dichotomy, and is not an open and shut case, which should (at least) not be superficially considered and judged by thinkers. Between the poles of all-inclusivism and all-exclusivism, I am suggesting what only seems a compromise, that migrants/economic migrants/refugees should be considered and treated within practical limits, as individuals, case by case, rather than free admission through "open borders" to great numbers. That needn't and shouldn't be a slow, bureaucratic process (like my friends experienced relocating to the USA), because in this dispensation immigration officials will not be running more than the simplest background checks. Importantly, not trying to socially-engineer who gets in, not presciently looking for the 'perfect' new citizens who could 'offer' some 'service' to the country. Basically, I think it is the sovereignty of a nation which protects the sovereign individual and his freedom. So access by an immigrant who is drawn to the nation for exactly this image of freedom, who knows there is value in it, that "it is better" even not entirely consciously, must realize that it requires ~some~ effort and patience on his part, and ~some~ official review on the part of the nation he aspires to. He more clearly than most should recognize that the non-freedom he has left behind is not what he ever wants here in this place. And opening borders indiscriminately could, in time, defeat his goals. One cannot, without mystical insight, sort out the decent person who wishes to succeed by his efforts from the criminal predators, or those who intend to depend on the state, but slowing down wide-open admission of these great numbers will naturally tend to reduce the latter categories, I think. Apart from criminality, an ingress of such numbers could probably cause social friction, like it or not. But the cure for social tensions, such as collectivist/tribal prejudice, is not 'forced kindness' which believers in emotional-primacy seem to believe. A reminder that benevolence and kindness have no relation to altruism. Concerned sympathy - by an individual - as in my country and many other much more liberal Western countries, represent, to many I hear from, a moral duty - for all, collectively - to give/share with all i.e. the masses of unknown people. The advocacy that those who "have more" should reduce their circumstances to those who have less, is the surefire path to entitled demands, envy, guilt, and eventual resentment: the loss of benevolence. When expanded to public policy, we get socialism. What is inimical to simple, individual, human kindness for others, is the entrenched moral duty by all, to all 'others', and being of a rawer state, I think it is more palpable around me here than to my American cousins.
  6. Blog Roundup 1. Jean Moroney of Thinking Directions explains what we can learn from the momentary desire for destruction that we all experience from time to time: Image by Lucija Ros, via Unsplash, license.Now that I know how to look for those signs of darkness and deprivation, I can catch them sooner, remedy the situation, and reinforce a fully positive context. I'll write more later about the remedy. The easy-access version is: Retreat temporarily. Be kind with yourself. You are at the limits of your capacity in some way. What is causing a sense of deprivation? If you can identify a rational value you are willing to go after, which seems to address the issue, do so. That will help you out of this state. The longer version is, you need to "Transform the Pain of Unmet Needs into the Beauty of the Needs." This is a process I learned at the same conference at which I realized a few people were motivated by destruction.The connection between the "prickliness" and the condition of unmet needs is brilliant. That and the remedy remind me of how (after researching a minor medical condition of mine) I learned to recognize signs of dehydration in myself in time to avoid passing out. That said, one of the things I learned then was that, for my condition, both the prodrome and the trigger for syncope can vary among individuals. (e.g., In my case, if I feel averse to food and want to get out of my situation for no apparent reason -- I am dehydrated. I can keep from passing out by reclining and rehydrating.) Obviously, the unmet needs Moroney speaks of will vary by individual and situation. I would not be surprised if introspection might yield a different (though unpleasant) feeling (i.e., not necessarily prickliness) for different individuals as well: As with my dehydration problem, I will need to give this thought. 2. At New Ideal, Ben Bayer discusses the folly of trying to treat an ethical question as if it were solely a scientific one. Here are his closing remarks: Defenders of abortion rights need to check their philosophical eyewear. Without doing so, they may unwittingly be looking at the world through the same lenses as their opponents. If they don't challenge the assumptions that rights derive from God's will or from our capacity for pleasure or pain, they won't convince anyone that the fetus has no rights and that a woman does. Invoking our uncertainty about science only obscures the real issue. Defenders of abortion rights need a worldview that provides moral clarity.In addition to explaining the above, the earlier part of Bayer's post raises some interesting (and real) ethical considerations recent scientific work can raise for prospective parents. 3. At How to Be Profitable and Moral, Jaana Woiceshyn considers the false dichotomy between artistic and commercial success: Creation of high quality products, including paintings, must start with a primary focus on reality, not on other people. While it is true that buyers of products, including art, have needs or wants waiting to be fulfilled, the most successful producers and artists -- painters, writers, musicians, and others -- are prime movers: they create original, innovative products that create their own demand. Steve Jobs, and other innovators like him in other industries, did not conduct popularity votes among customers (or imitate their competitors) to decide what to produce but focused on creating best personal computers and smart phones, trusting -- correctly -- that in time there would be plenty of willing buyers for them. Disdaining an audience is absolutely not the same thing as making a well-grounded judgement that that audience will largely disagree with, at least for a time. (Insert joke about price rises and dead artists here -- then give serious thought to marketing.) 4. Over at the blog of the Texas Institute for Property Rights comes a cautionary tale: Imagine the following scenario: You buy a house and over the next forty years the property significantly appreciates in value. The previous owner then threatens to terminate the sale unless you renegotiate the deal...Unfortunately, in today's political climate, the lesson is for us, not the previous owner! Too many of us take the right to contract for granted, and unprincipled opportunists are trying to cash in. To see what I mean, read the rest of the post. The fact that you will not be too surprised should serve as a warning: Our courts and legislatures are teeming with attempts (of which this is one) and proposals to undo contracts presumably signed by consenting adults. -- CAV Link to Original
  7. Yesterday
  8. 8000-Year-Old Shipyard Located off English Coast is World’s Oldest
  9. Found this at the Conservative HQ comparing the shift in some businesses to various business practices touched upon in Atlas Shrugged. Another Depressing Chapter Of Atlas Shrugged Comes Alive
  10. The first three words of Pittsburghjoe's most recent post are . So my question stands.
  11. Cal Newport uses email as his example of a common error people make when evaluating a technology: homing in on its superiority to what it replaced with little thought given to how it integrates with the rest of their lives. He calls this the utility fallacy: [It's] the tendency, when evaluating the impact of a technology, to confine your attention to comparing the technical features of the new technology to what it replaced.But the superiority of email to, say, faxes, is hardly the whole picture. Newport continues: In terms of getting news, the internet is better... (Image by Dutch National Archive, via Wikipedia, no known copyright restrictions.)[A]lmost everything interesting about our current struggles with [these technologies] concerns the impact of these tools on our lives beyond the screen. The point too often missed in a cooly instrumentalist understanding of technology is that we don't use these tools in a vacuum; we instead participate in complicated social systems that can careen in unforeseen directions when powerful new technological forces are introduced. Features are important, but they're not the whole story. [bold added, link omitted]I am glad Newport is paying attention to this kind of problem, and will smilingly think of a fax machine burying an old office in paper the next time I tidy up my in-box. -- CAV Updates Today: Made minor corrections to opening paragraph. Link to Original
  12. What, exactly, does frequency mean if time doesn't pass?
  13. Last week
  14. Until your post, the last one was in 2006. It is a pinned topic, and depending on where it goes, sub-topics could be added with the warning that spoilers are likely to be encountered. Aside from personally re-reading Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and The Romantic Manifesto this year, there was Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy Seals Lead And Win and Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Created Christianity.
  15. Please read more carefully. I wasn't even engaging in the part of the argument about who should be let in. I said assuming that they would be ideal citizens, why would there be a limit of how many people could be let in? That is, why should there be a quota? You were asking about the capacity for newcomers, not asking which immigrants should be let in. If you meant the economic impact in relation to welfare programs or what the government provides to refugees, that's fair. The problem is your wording doesn't convey that very well. That's not a question of how many additional people a country can take on, it's a question of how resources can be distributed given how the country operates already with refugees. You were also talking about immigrants in general, not refugees specifically. Maybe you didn't realize it, but immigrants in the US don't get anything additional by virtue of being from a poor country. Refugees get something by virtue of being from a war-torn country. It sounds like you've conflated immigrants and refugees. EDIT: I agree though that what Trump says about immigration doesn't have to be racism. I think it shows he is ignorant about immigration, or knows how to play up fears in others, but I don't think race has to do with his views. I'm claiming his statements come from a place of second handedness (because of the political advantage he pulls from them) rather than hate.
  16. Time doesn't pass in a black hole (past the event horizon) because unobserved quantum waves don't use time. If unobserved quantum waves don't use time, is it a safe bet they are using frequency instead? The quantum field is usually intermixed with spacetime, but apparently it doesn't always have to be. Does anyone here have an account on newscientist.com? I've got to know if my ideas were just stolen. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24332440-600-quantum-weirdness-isnt-real-weve-just-got-space-and-time-all-wrong/
  17. Nice. And I think of the individual also. A few I know there and particularly some close friends who emigrated to the US, were put through official hoops for some years first, had to learn new careers here, and then had to themselves find guarantees of employment and never once entertained the idea that they would need to be looked after, or (intrinsically) deserved to be. They are of course doing well today (in California). The freedom of movement within a nation that you indicated, is an objective good and positive right. To sustain that freedom, necessitates a nation having boundaries; objective borders which are respected by outside freedom-seekers. One applies for entry much as one applies for a job. And yes, one does not need be "intrinsically a great all around person", and is not the business of immigration officials to discover (beyond the obvious checks). But the value one shows by the act of making that application and waiting, rather than feeling entitled to entrance, or entering illegally, then to fall back on social welfare - is all the difference.
  18. No. I don't attempt to defend your president to have seen that - essentially - he is telling his countrymen and to other countries that Americans and America are best when they are independent - and acting in their self-interests. And he's greatly encouraging other nations, allies and enemies, to do the same, you've noticed quite a few times. He recognizes the identical problems of the USA's sacrificial role in the world. Is that so terrible? Some of us outside are pleased to see a president who unapologetically can do this. But most here are Leftists of precisely the American kind (not by coincidence) and are as hard to reason with. The noise he makes and his brash outbursts might incline you to think he is a second-hander, but no. He has an objective to accomplish. And as staunchly as his ferocious opposition allows him, is sticking to that. But he is damned if he does, damned when he doesn't. Making oneself highly unpopular for trying to follow through one's convictions and commitments, is the opposite of second-handedness. But that's politics, not very nice, but he can't survive by hiding his light under a bushel, even less when most of the media is blatantly on a mission to take him down, and never has a good word to report.
  19. Suppose you live in Nevada and get laid off. Employment opportunities are sparse. You search for a job in California. You get hired. You rent a room and go. You need not obtain any extra permission from the government or anyone. Nor need it be that you are intrinsically deserving of anything special. It need only be that you deserve or merit moving to California because you have enacted the relevant causes of moving to California. Nor need it be that you are intrinsically a great all around person. Nor need it be that anyone has a positive obligation to support your move. You may move to California and no one ought to forcibly prevent you because you need only be regarded as having basic negative rights.
  20. There is the intrinsicist myth that all immigrants should be admitted because they are all deserving of better - simply because they seek better. Forgetful of the adage that there will always be "makers, fakers and takers" in any group of humans. Does anyone stop to think that the migrants' own countries are in bad shape mainly because of the thinking and values of most of their people--not of their (elected, sometimes) autocratic leaders? Of course - if there is a better option available, one can't blame people for preferring a civilised and rich nation, but there is a difference between acknowledging and sympathizing with other peoples' needs - and feeling duty-bound - or forced - to look after them. Why are you speaking as if this would have a minor impact, involving little sacrifice? First year, 50,000 immigrants arrive on your shores and in your ports, next, 100K, ever escalating until the boat people are too many for the temporary refugee camps they will need to be placed in. At great cost to your taxpayers, a million-plus, and increasing per annum, people will have to be cared for until they hopefully assimilate into society. And those amount to 0.1 % of Africans. You don't think that even the biggest open border proponents will begin having second thoughts when there is no end in sight? Ha! There is always a question to be asked of noble feelings and altruistic gestures: Why? Next - at whose cost? Because it makes "me" feel good? Fine, but who will prevent "me" to adopt, stand surety for and take care of one person, or a family of migrants? Except this hardly happens, even by the leftist and rich celebrities who loudly virtue-signal their altruism. Everyone 'likes' the idea of welcoming immigrants - in the abstract - but let other people/the state make the effort, pay costs and carry the consequences. Altruism is insinuated into a society with another intrinsic myth of "equality" which Leftist-Socialists have been perpetrating, that the imbalance of wealth between individuals - and nations - was 'a given', just luck of the draw, etc. - and therefore an "imbalance" that has to rectified until desired "equality" is achieved. This naturally demands sacrifice or self-sacrifice of the 'haves'-- until comes the stage, that nearly everyone is a 'have not'. Then nobody will be able to care for anyone who needs help and is struggling to survive. A continuing mass migration from poorer to richer nations must have that equalizing effect, and the socialists will finally and permanently have won. I've no idea why I'm explaining equality, altruism and their necessary consequence, Socialism here. Could it be that they are not just theoretical, and I've lived in enough African countries to know that these are not just fanciful ideas (e.g. of Rand's), they turn real, with devastating effects upon people? And on the same people who originally chose their ideological route and who will need to be rescued by charitable westerners, arriving there as immigrants one day.
  21. I'm in as well, what are we reading first?
  22. More people recognize over time that he stands for nothing. He is the paragon secondhander. Why would you even ask this? What could possibly set a limit? Usually when people ask if more people can be taken in, they are referring to what welfare programs can handle. You are wondering how many people can enter in the first place, even if 100% of the people are ideal citizens. Not if the people don't want to live there. That's why people immigrate - for some reason they don't want to live in their former country anymore. Why are you speaking as if African countries are being told to send their people away?
  23. What it is ( believe) Mr Van Horn, is that the American Left has 'weaponized' the famed benevolence which Americans conduct themselves, utilizing the natural, national good will against itself, to become a duty to all. Then we O'ists know that benevolence becomes strained and eventually impossible under altruism or any form of "duty". "Racist, white nationalist"--are a cynical ploy by some, and a falsehood, whether applied to the large majority of Trump supporters - or for he, himself. Clearly, *anyone* who is pro-America is marvellous in Trump's vision. And I add that one doesn't have to love the man to know what he's after, or, like me, who agree that the USA has been too much counted upon by the international community and should revisit and reset its (often altruist) obligations to others. I ask whether the USA can absorb all the people who wish to enter. No one knows how many. Don't only look south to Latin America. There are many people to your East who also want to better themselves, who despite the natural border of the Ocean would begin arriving by ship as soon as they knew that restrictions were lifted and all were invited. (I'm talking of Africa with its 1 billion). They too have the right of entry, surely? At some stage, after a few years, of course your government would have to call it quits and return to a sane immigration policy. Why leave it until then? And should we Africans not reserve our talents, minds and energy for creating better countries for ourselves? I always enjoy reading your blog, thanks. Tony
  24. I refused to cast a vote for President in 2016 and am no fan of Donald Trump. That said, I don't generally give him much more thought than any other President I can remember. This apparently makes me a rare bird, if accounts of widespread Trump Derangement Syndrome -- or the infatuation with the Orange Man some acquaintances of mine seem to have -- are any indication. Since so many of his policies involve government control of the economy, I regarded him as little better than a Democrat on that score before the election, and only the far-left lurch of that party since then has caused me to begin to consider holding my nose and casting a vote for him in 2020. I do not want to starve in the dark, and although Trump is no capitalist, his reelection may afford more time to fight for freedom than any of the likely alternatives. Enter Heather Mac Donald, and her timely exploration of a topic that seems never to be far from the mind of the typical Trump-obsessed leftist: his alleged racism. Mac Donald makes a succinct case in the Wall Street Journal that, contrary to Respectable Blue State Opinion (aka, Almost All You Ever Hear on the News), Trump is not the one dividing the country by race. (Her points stand even allowing for him stooping to take advantage of the acrimonious climate others have created.) Here is what she has to say after correctly naming academia as the source of so many of the more fashionable ideas on the left: Image by Gage Skidmore, via Wikipedia, license.Ms. Warren recently provided an unwitting summary of academic identity politics. Mr. Trump's "central message" to the American people, she declared, is: "If there's anything wrong in your life, blame them -- and 'them' means people who aren't the same color as you." She has in mind a white "you," but change the race and you encapsulate the reigning assumption on college campuses -- that white people are the source of nonwhite people's problems, and any behavioral or cultural explanations for economic disparities are taboo. The academy's reflexive labeling of nonconforming views as "hate speech" has also infiltrated popular rhetoric against Mr. Trump. The president's views on border control and national sovereignty are at odds with the apparent belief among Democratic elites that people living outside the country are entitled to enter at will and without consequences for illegal entry. To the academic and democratic left, however, a commitment to border enforcement can only arise from "hate." Such a pre-emptive interpretation is a means of foreclosing debate and stigmatizing dissent from liberal orthodoxy.I disagree with Trump's immigration policies (among many other things), but I can see them coming from a place other than "hate." Furthermore, since I also disagree with Democrats on aspects of this issue, I do not appreciate their obvious hatred for debate, to say the least. Mac Donald is on the money here, and it is high time that someone named the real apostles of racial identity politics -- also known in better days as racism. And it is interesting to ask whether psychological projection might at least partially account for the constant accusations that Trump is a racist. -- CAV Link to Original
  25. I'm curious. If "the law of identity" (as defined by Aristotle) means non-contradiction, and of K-ehatever railed against "identity" in the way you quoted earlier then what did he describe "science" as? What is "science" without logic? Thank you.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...