Nicky

Again: what's your problem with force? Objectivism doesn't hold force to be immoral, it holds initiation of force to be immoral. And annexation of a territory to a capitalist country is not initiation of force. No, that's not my statement. That's another attempt from you to change my statement. My statement: Rebuke away. The right to do what? Define borders? Where does that right come from?

Not surprising. These groups tend to troll pretty much any public event they can get to. I'm curious though, did any of the gay people throw stones at them, over at the gay pride event? In fact, out of all the events they trolled over the years, did anyone else except for the Arab youths throw stones at them? Anyone at all?

I agree, that's not what freedom means. But still, it has to mean freedom from something. What is that something?

You've just arrived at a contradiction. Check your premises. You've just arrived at a contradiction. Check your premises.

By what standard of morality is the use of force immoral? Also, who said anything about force? Annexing an island isn't necessarily an act of force. If the country the island becomes a part of has a capitalist government, then the act of annexing the island does not involve the initiation of force. At worst, it involves the use of retaliatory force, but only against those who violate others' rights. That is perfectly moral. My statement is that allowing land owners to choose their government on an individual basis is anarchy. If you want to rebuke my statement, that's the statement you should rebuke. The other statement, the one you are rebuking (that more than one country is anarchy) is your straw man, not my statement.

If someone is admirable, then the unhealthy thing would be to not admire them. But there has to be an objective reason for your admiration. Having a crush on a girl doesn't count.

I don't see how it follows that a territory may not be governed without express invitation from its owner, because the government doesn't own that territory. But, if it does, then current US land owners should also be allowed to just invite Japan (or Iran, for that matter) to govern them. After all, they (or any of the previous owners) never invited the US government to govern them. The US was established by colonists, sure, but it definitely wasn't established by all, or even most of them. In fact some of them fought to continue being ruled by the British, and the vast majority never picked a side. If your principle was followed, North America should have quite a colorful political map, with probably every country in the world represented many times over, in various spots, across it. That would obviously result in anarchy of the worst kind. Do you mean that each colonist would get to pick his government of choice, or that they would have to get together and vote on which one government to pick? If it's the latter, then what happens to all the minorities which wanted to go with different governments? Their land is all of a sudden annexed to a country they didn't choose.

If the "citizenship" agrees, then the "citizenship" is responsible. I never agreed to any infrastructure, and I definitely never agreed to being part of a group called "citizenship" which operates on majority opinion, so I'm blissfully exempt from any responsibility over any action of said citizenship, except the ones I agree and vote for.

If you choose to live in an area where there are taxes, you chose to be taxed. Now replace area where there are taxes with area where there are rapes. Your claim that a choice of a geographic area implies a choice of things that are forced on people, in that area, still would mean that rape's a choice. No, my friend, that makes no sense. A choice is something that presupposes freedom from force.

The Constitution is a federal document, true. But it is still a document that is very difficult for the federal Congress to alter. Aside from that rarely exercised power Congress has to amend the Constitution, the states are not legally subordinate to the federal government. They are of course subordinate to the Constitution (just like the federal government is), and subject to Supreme Court rulings regarding the constitutionality of their actions, but not subordinate to the federal government itself. And, of course, state officials can be subject to federal law enforcement, if they commit crimes that fall under federal jurisdiction. But that's also true for federal officials who commit crimes that fall under state jurisdiction. Local cops can in fact arrest federal agents if they commit a crime in their jurisdiction.

The only legal option the state itself has is to offer whatever support the federal government requires in the matter. But I don't see anything wrong with that: that's what it means to have no legal jurisdiction over something. Beyond that, the citizens of Arizona are welcome to write their representatives, or vote for someone else next time. Besides, I don't understand how using Police resources to target people who, by definition, have committed no crimes except crossing the border, would solve anyone's problems. If crimes (other than crossing the border) committed by illegals are the problem, local Police can still be the solution to that. It's just that they have to target the actual criminals who commit those crimes. They do still have full jurisdiction over that.

P.S. I did read one excerpt of Scalia's dissenting opinion (he's pretty much the only one I ever bother reading, because he makes sense from time to time), in which he laments that if the states aren't given the power to control immigration on their territory, then we might as well stop calling them sovereign states. That is nonsense: sovereignty consists of the power to use force to protect individual rights in the governed area, not control the land as if you own it. States are sovereign (they protect individual rights -or provide for the "welfare of the people", as the Const. unfortunately puts it - as they see fit, within their state), but they do not protect the US border (to the extent that immigration laws serve that purpose), and they definitely don't get to control immigration in general.

It's more of a parallel jurisdiction than a subordinate one. That's why Arizona doesn't have jurisdiction in this matter, just as there are crimes (theft, burglary, even most murders) over which the federal government has no jurisdiction. Doesn't mean that the two governments can't collaborate, but the one which has jurisdiction has to set the terms. I highly doubt that if Arizona offered unconditional manpower in support of federal law enforcement in the area, they would be turned down. The problem was that they started passing laws dictating local Police involvement, in violation of founding principles regarding the two parallel jurisdictions (states in charge of crimes that have a scope limited to only one state, the feds in charge of everything involving two or more: crossing the border of the United States illegally falls quite clearly in the latter category).

Except for Obamacare. Or Romney-care (Michigan's health care scheme). Or the Swiss military. Or a rape. Pretty sure participation in a rape is not a choice for all parties involved. Etc., etc. Choosing a geographic area to live in is not the logical equivalent of choosing a health care scheme. And yet, you are treating them that way, in your inference. That's why it is flawed. Yes, by that method of "deduction", you could probably prove that there is a choice in everything. Even a rape. But it's a flawed method. A choice presupposes the absence of force.

I haven't read the opinions, but I love the ruling. It preserves the status quo of 250 years, whereby state sovereignty doesn't include the right to control who may or may not live in the state. The United States is preserved as a nation of cohesive immigration laws and enforcement policies, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. As it should be. Now let's hope that, after the election, a new administration realizes that relaxing the caps on legal immigration would provide immediate relief to Southern states trying to deal with thriving human smuggling networks. I don't hold out much hope for anyone addressing the bigger cause of out of control crime on the border though (that would be the war on drugs). Mexicans everywhere are relieved that the reason why you're willing to abuse and dehumanize them has nothing to do with their race.

No one would ever doubt your extensive expertise in that area.

We are only responsible for our own choices, agreed? We can't be responsible for other people's choices, that makes no sense. So, if, like you said, it's impossible to opt out of government programs (not for the reason you cited, but it is indeed impossible to opt out of taxpayer funded projects, because taxes are mandatory), then why would we be responsible for something we have no choice about? P.S. While I think I got your point after reading your post a couple of times, a couple of paragraphs would've made my job so much easier. So please consider using them in the future.

So, the consciousness is the "decider" then, correct? The human brain is a mechanism that (in a specific, not fully known yet but obviously knowable way) sustains a consciousness with the ability to choose.

You're not describing free will though. Animals also have a somatic nervous system, and yet they don't have free will. Studying the SoNS isn't going to tell you much about free will. Free will is the ability of a consciousness to focus or not focus on a specific thought, not the ability to move one's muscles. Movement doesn't require free will.

So what's the analogy? In the case of Darwin's theory and Social Darwinism (as commonly used), the common element is the actual killing off (or at least sterilization) of those unfit or deemed unfit to live. If that isn't the common element (because no one is getting killed off, all genes, fit and unfit, are passed on), then what is? What justifies drawing a parallel between the two? Or between Darwin's theory and feudalism, for that matter?

Why is it difficult to prove fraud, when fraud occurred? Large scale financial transactions are well documented, everything is in writing. It's very rare for a lender to just allow themselves to be swindled without having all the promises made to them, written and signed. I think the issue is something else: some of the things critics of these practices refer to as "fraud" aren't actually fraud. There is a discrepancy between the legal definition of fraud (which follows the traditional view of rights and responsibilities in a business transaction), and the popular definition (which follows the modern view of those rights and responsibilities).

Sounds like a setback. Doesn't mean the whole process is doomed to failure though. We'll just have to wait and see if Egypt will move towards freedom or tyranny in the long run. Either way, the overthrowing of the previous regime is the only way in which freedom can at least have a chance.

Is that real or satire?

Different? Both statement are equally untrue. There aren't any laws requiring use and acceptance of Visa cards, and as a result plenty of businesses don't accept them. The notion that every single US business would accept Visa's terms and deal with them is quite absurd. And so is the notion that they would all freely accept the terms of the US government to use dollars. So, now that the record is set straight, how do you explain that Visa (which you described as a brilliant service that people would be stupid to refuse) is refused all the time, and the dollar (which is a poor service that is causing its users to lose value every second of every day) is used by everyone?

Well then, Social Darwinism is obviously false. First, for using a vague metaphor instead of precise language, and second, because people who can't keep up obviously don't die. They are helped. Examples are endless. I personally know people who aren't surviving on their own (or welfare), but due to the voluntary help of others. Yes, I know. And your point is wrong, because private prisons are not an example of individualism put into practice. You are arguing against a strawman. And it's not that original an argument either. Liberals coming up to me and saying "you are a silly idealist, because we obviously need cops and prisons and soldiers because human nature blah blah blah", is practically an everyday occurrence. I of course reply that I agree, and that Capitalism is a system with cops and prisons and soldiers. And then they usually understand the difference between Capitalism and anarchy, and withdraw the argument. Will you? For what it's worth (not that much, I guess), wikipedia agrees with me that it is. But it doesn't really matter, since HellBoy isn't using it in that sense. Right. So let's say all that is true, and the poor can never escape their condition. What does that have to do with Darwin? Being poor, uneducated, without access to cutting edge healthcare tech, etc. doesn't mean your genes will die out. Look at all the countries filled with poor people: Not only are they not dying out, their population is expanding at a much higher rate than those of rich countries. And within individual societies, the poor are having more (viable) offspring than the rich. So I don't understand the choice of metaphor. If anything, statistics say that being rich and highly educated is what is more likely to lead to the extinction of a bloodline, not being poor.