Nicky
-
Posts
3835 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
195
Posts posted by Nicky
-
-
I think you're right that a pregnant woman has a moral responsibility to abort her unwanted pregnancy as early as possible. But that has nothing to do with politics.
7 hours ago, tomaspajaros said:People can also implicitly adopt responsibility for caring for others: If Bob decides to take Mary for a ride out to sea, he does not have the right to then order her off his boat to her death.¹⁶ That would be murder because Bob chose to bring Mary — another person — into a state of vital dependence on him. Mary’s rights would be violated by then arbitrarily removing his support and thrusting her into mortal danger rather than delivering her safely from the dependent condition he created. (And note that such withdrawal of support would be a rights violation no matter whether she was threatened by his explicit design, depraved indifference, or mere recklessness.) Bob is responsible for Mary’s welfare until the dependence he invited has ended.
Huh? This scenario has nothing to do with "implicitly adopting responsibility", and everything to do with a correct interpretation of rights. If Mary was on the boat uninvited, ordering her off it in the middle of the ocean would be murder for the same exact reason it is in your scenario: your property rights don't include the right to kill someone for trespassing. The earliest you can get an unwanted person off your property is when it's safe for them to leave.
There's no such thing as "implicitly adopting responsibility", in Oist politics. The concept of individual rights is perfectly sufficient to build a fully functional political system on. One of the more obvious consequences of that concept is that you in fact CANNOT impose obligations on people who have not EXPLICITLY AND FREELY adopted them. That would be a violation of their rights.
-
1 hour ago, EC said:
When people use the word "simplistic" they are usually boxed in thinkers who are incapable of simultaneously thinking in both principles and uniquely using intuition to create new abstractions.
I'm not one of those people. I used it because I found your post simplistic. I also find your next post (all we have is tyrants) simplistic. The world isn't divided into good people and evil people. The vast majority of people are somewhere in between. And the only realistic path to a better world is through convincing as many of them as possible to believe in it.
1 hour ago, EC said:I agree with all of this. It has no bearing on my conclusion though, as what happened in a non-technological past isn't important for an ideal society of a highly technical future. We are just now at the dawn of actual civilization, it's never truly existed before.
This statement sounds very similar to the communist and fascist approach to politics. They too thought their systems were so modern and advanced compared to those bumbling ancient civilizations (well, supposedly not civilizations) , that it fully justified substituting them for individual judgement.
So if what's your getting at is the technological elites (Objectivists or otherwise, it's entirely irrelevant) using robotics and AI to impose their politics on the masses, that's the polar opposite of everything Objectivism stands for. The whole basis for Objectivist politics is the human capacity for reason. That's why Ayn Rand was opposed to the use of physical force. Substituting technology for individual judgement would be just as much a denial of man's basic nature as the communists' and fascists' forceful imposition of their supposedly modern, superior social orders.
-
8 hours ago, EC said:
No, populations "influencing the government" is what contradicts American values. Democracy in any form is evil.
You know Americans fought a war over not being represented in their government, right?
By the way, when you go around making simplistic statements like this, you're misrepresenting Objectivism too, not just American ideals. Just because there are a set of fundamental principles that should supersede popular will doesn't mean that democratic mechanisms should play no role in deciding how those principles are implemented.
Through history, democratically elected governments have been by far the most successful in protecting individual rights, and Ayn Rand never disputed that fact. Even monarchies only last if there are mechanisms for popular input built into the government. When a monarch tries to rule alone, the system becomes highly unstable withing a generation or two, at most.
-
5 hours ago, MisterSwig said:
Why then do we have the Bill of Rights?
Only way I could possibly answer that is with a list of books to read. Let me know it you're interested.
-
5 hours ago, Eiuol said:
But isn't that literally what you are suggesting ought to be done in your thought experiment?
It's not.
-
17 hours ago, MisterSwig said:
There is no such principle. In order to prove your guilt, the state first has to subject you to state actions, such as investigating, charging, and possibly holding you for trial, if you're a flight risk or violent criminal. I didn't get it before, but now that you've also brought up Jason Brennan's moral parity thesis, I guess you don't see any moral difference between the same action of a private citizen versus a policeman, so why should you see any difference between a citizen and an immigrant? The difference is simple. The citizen has standing with our government. The immigrant does not. Therefore there are certain threats the citizen can represent, such as voting for socialist laws, that an immigrant can't. If the citizen says he's going to vote for socialized health care, it's not the same as if the immigrant said it. The immigrant can't vote. His threat is empty. But I might not want to see him become a citizen, because then his threat will have substance.
The notion that you should keep a large chunk of the population from influencing the government contradicts American values. And the notion that you can...well that's just naive.
-
On 1/23/2019 at 11:52 PM, DonAthos said:
But the scenario you'd proposed consists not merely of beliefs, but activities -- purported to kill Eiuol/Objectivists within a year. Those activities -- the activities necessary to overthrow a rights-respecting government and install a dictatorship -- ought to be illegal (and what you've described might be construed as a kind of criminal conspiracy).
I already explained that it's not a criminal conspiracy to believe in Nazi ideology, under US law.
As for Eiuol's execution, I'm not saying that he would be executed in a year because anyone is planning his execution, as they are entering the country. In fact, I assure you, no such plan exists at the time the migration is taking place. In fact, no one has ANY specific plans to kill anyone. They only have a general, abstract belief that everyone who opposes the cause deserves death. Which is protected speech under the US Constitution. There are people in the US right now, saying stuff like that. Not just Nazis, extremists both on the Right and Left (about cops, capitalists, Jews, etc.). And it's their right.
So stop putting words in my mouth. What I am stating is the obvious: Eiuol's arrest and execution for crimes against the state would be a natural consequence of the majority of his compatriots being Nazis. That's all. There's no conspiracy, at the time all these Nazis are entering the country. In fact, most of them don't even know each other, they're just coming because the news is spreading that this is the place to be.
-
On 1/24/2019 at 1:43 AM, Eiuol said:
I wasn't talking about large-scale migrations. I was talking about large-scale migrations explicitly connected to the spread of an ideology that would possibly lead to violence. The only nonviolent version of that I can come up with is if a foreign government were involved. If there is not a foreign government involved, there would be significant markers of potential violence, like stockpiling arms.
I'm claiming that those Nazis aren't actually a threat, but you are. I don't know any historical examples, so that's why I think it's fantastical. If anything, I'm saying that any actions that might need to be taken can be taken when someone commits a crime.
You've kept insisting that these Nazis would be a threat to my life right at that moment (if I were a citizen of New Zealand). I'm not convinced. The most they could do is talk in very vague statements, which is a bad way to motivate people to do anything.
Would you just use a real-life example, instead of the one you imagined? If it is a realistic scenario, then we don't need to talk about an imagined one.
The reason why there are no historical examples is because no society in the history of mankind has ever done something as foolish as what you are in favor of: opening the borders to a throng of people fundamentally opposed to their political values. That's the "fantastical" part in this: the notion that any country would ever do what you're suggesting: fail to stop a mass migration of totalitarian thugs, in the name of "freedom".
But the two components of my scenario happened many times, separately: there have been many large scale migrations, and there have been many instances of a totalitarian ideology supported by a large minority taking over. So it should be very clear to anyone not willfully obtuse that, if a society were dumb enough to allow it, those two things could happen in the same place, at the same time. There's nothing preventing that besides national borders. The notion that New Zealand authorities could deal with five million Nazis once they're in the country is childish.
And the scenario does happen in the absence of a government...most recently, this is exactly what happened in Syria/Iraq. Islamists from across the world flooded in, took over large chunks of both countries, and proceeded to terrorize the population with horrific efficacy.
Only difference here is that you're proposing the same thing should be allowed when the prospective victims actually DO have a strong government, that possesses the means to stop it...before they come in, of course. Once they're in, it's too late.
-
42 minutes ago, DonAthos said:
Either people do or do not have a right to those activities, inside or outside of the US, immigrant, visitor or born-n-bred Yankee.
I said nothing about any activities. I am talking about beliefs, not activities. If any of the Nazis commit an illegal act, then they should of course be arrested. That was not my question.
And I already proved, in this very thread, that people DO HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO ANY BELIEFS, in the US. And there isn't any prospect of that changing, because the First Amendment isn't getting abolished anytime soon.
So that's not the question either. You might as well be answering every question with "well, first of all, my answer assumes that the Moon is made of cheese". No, it's not made of cheese, and no, you can't legally stop Americans from being Nazis. Those are two basic facts.
My question is about what should be done given THE FACTS. So, first accept the facts, then answer the question. If you can do that.
42 minutes ago, DonAthos said:That is, when someone has themselves initiated the use of force (inclusive of threats, which I ought not otherwise need make explicit here, but will do so for clarity's sake).
Please don't explain, because it's entirely irrelevant to the conversation. I linked to the US Supreme Court decision on what constitutes a threat that overrides the First Amendment. That's what's relevant, not your opinion, because your opinion will not affect the precedents that have been established by 250 years of American history.
If you wish to answer my question, you first need to recognize the FACT that US law allows for every single belief attributable to Nazi ideology, and the free expression of all those beliefs. If you can't do that, then the conversation is pointless. My question is about current policy, given the facts of reality.
-
On 1/17/2019 at 4:58 AM, MisterSwig said:
Would-be immigrants have the right to advocate for Nazism. But they don't have the right to enter the country. Entering the U.S. is a privilege that must be granted by the government.
To help explain this position, I ask you to imagine that we live in a capitalist society where all property is privately owned, including the land along the borders of the nation. And now imagine that all the landowners agree to construct a fence along the border and keep out socialists. This practice is entirely within their rights as private landowners.
1. No, it's not, that would imply that you can also keep people from leaving using the same exact mechanism. Which is absurd.
2. Easement is a well established common law right, and there is nothing in Objectivism that would allow you to dispute that. All prominent Objectivists are 100% in favor of easements. Besides, airplanes were invented a while back, so the notion that a fence could stop someone from entering a country is ridiculous.
3. My question involves New Zealand, a typical western country with a mixed political and economic system. So there's no reason to even bring up a perfect capitalist society. I already know the Oist position on what immigration policy should be in a perfect capitalist society.
-
On 1/17/2019 at 12:53 AM, Eiuol said:
I wouldn't.
But your scenario is pretty fantastical once you start talking about millions upon millions of people, and I'm answering according to the constraints you set. If there are millions of people coming in, they would be supported by some foreign government, or possibly even a corporation.
Not in my scenario. And it's a perfectly realistic scenario, history is full of far, far larger scale migrations than the one I'm suggesting. They weren't supported by any government, people are perfectly capable of mimicking patterns of behavior off of each other, without any central organizing force.
-
On 1/16/2019 at 9:38 PM, EC said:
Don't know how Eiuol will answer, but drop fake New Zealand idea, and insert a proper ideal capitalist country they should be welcome in any number.
We're talking about current immigration restrictions, not hypothetical ones in an ideal country. New Zealand is a typical western country. It's not fake, it's right next to Australia. I know there's a meme about how Australia doesn't exist, but I've been to both, and took pictures just in case.
So, if you lived in New Zealand, would you be in favor of letting 5 mill. Nazis in?
-
On 1/19/2019 at 2:12 AM, whYNOT said:
I am claiming that honest attempts at coming close to *an accurate as possible* methodology, have been made.
You sure are. Emphasis on "claiming", because you've repeatedly ignored requests to present any evidence for that claim. This is I think the fourth time I'm asking you to specify even just one of those "many extensive studies" you claim have been done on the subject of IQ differences between races, for instance. That's not the only question you've been ignoring, either. You're yet to explain how exactly would an IQ test amount to a scientific measure of intellect (it obviously isn't, the notion is laughable: IQ tests have about as much to do with the scientific method as a learning disabled jelly fish).
On 1/19/2019 at 2:12 AM, whYNOT said:Should one throw out the baby and bathwater if the methods are not always exactly precise, to the nth degree? Either a 'perfect' measurement, or the system must be discarded. Hm?
Given that there's no evidence to prove your claims? Yes, of course. Out the window, preferably off the top floor of the Empire State Building. Your measurement isn't imperfect. There is no measurement. The IQ tests that were made are few and far between (and poorly executed), and, on top of that, IQ tests aren't even science.
This is the classic racist argument. You are arguing from ignorance (it's very clear to me that you never studied the field of Genetics), and erring on the side of racism. You're doing DiCaprio's act in Django Unchained: instead of bothering to study the science, you're developing this parallel, simplistic pseudo-science that uses shallow association and made up studies to "prove" blacks inferior.
...when, in fact, guess what: unlike with your made up IQ studies (not to mention the unscientific claim that IQ tests are a good measure of intellect), Genetics is an actual science, in which all assertions are backed up by peer reviewed, empirical proof. And extensive genetic studies DO EXIST comparing races. Genetics overwhelmingly proves that the differences between the so-called "races" are extremely minor. It's just the few alleles that determine superficial traits like skin color (and some inconsequential ones that appear only in a small minority of populations). The differences are nowhere near enough to affect complex traits like brain structure or function.
On top of that, the time span from when we left Africa to present day is nowhere near enough for such complex changes to evolve. Only meaningful things that changed, when humans migrated away from the Equator, were adaptations to the change in temperature and sunlight intensity. These changes involve relatively few genes.
-
7 hours ago, whYNOT said:
The quality, and therefore accuracy, of the IQ testing (and across ethnic groups), by systems taking into account and allowing for cultural, language (Etc.Etc.) differences, as impartially as possible, one should research and judge for oneself.
Yes, one should. Preferably before basing insulting claims about billions of people on it.
Did you research this? And what did you think? Are they accurate, and what specifically are they accurate AT?
-
6 hours ago, whYNOT said:
If figures were released showing that the average lifespan in Denmark was x, or the average height of people in Tibet was y, most of us would give the numbers the briefest attention, accept the findings and forget about them as being irrelevant. What is it then about IQ scores which raises objections and doubt.
Are you claiming that IQ scores are as accurate at measuring intellect as a ruler at measuring height, or basic record keeping at measuring lifespan? By the way, where are you getting the notion that most of us dismiss the average lifespan in Denmark as irrelevant from?
-
57 minutes ago, whYNOT said:
I don't think anything is 100% 'nature' - nor 100% 'nurture. Which does not detract from the many findings about IQ and ethnicity, conducted assiduously by many researchers who have repetitively studied this for a long time. I am surprised only that there is any doubt about their findings here.
By all means, dispel the doubt, by citing the studies and the findings. Only one I know about is Richard Lynn, who did a terrible job guessing national IQs from low sample sizes, non-uniform tests and conjecture, and then wrote a book that interpreted the results poorly (and that's a charitable choice of words).
More importantly, once again: science has a poor understanding of what intellect even is. That's why it's such a struggle to create artificial intelligence: we don't really know how it works. So the notion that they have a test that quantifies intellect is ridiculous. The first thing you need, to measure something, is know how it works.
Just to be clear: is it your position that IQ tests accurately quantify a person's intellect? Do you agree with all the assumptions the people who devised the tests made?
-
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:
This is quite right, I think Watson has been treated terribly unjustly. There are settled facts about the correlation of IQ to race, he simply made a factual statement. Another researcher I heard just now, recently concluded, "IQ is about 80% genetic by the late teens". This can't be wished away.
That second statement doesn't confirm Watson's claim that IQ differences between whites and blacks are genetic, it contradicts it. If IQ is 80% genetic, then, clearly, the other 20% is environmental and cultural (cultural in the sense that it's culturally biased, not in the sense that the person grew up in a shitty culture...growing up in a shitty culture is an environmental factor). And since the (few, not all that reliable) IQ comparisons between Africans and Europeans claim about a 20% difference, there you go: that's due the environmental part and any potential cultural biases built into the tests. It's not like Psychology is a 100% objective science, that will produce a flawless test for objectively measuring intelligence across every culture and society. (and, frankly, this is all it would've taken to discredit Watson's statements: point out to him that any statement build on IQ tests is built on sand, not solid ground; I doubt he would've had much of a reply to that).
So the 80/20 split (for the little it is worth, because the whole concept of IQ is worth very little) fully contradicts Watson: if environmental and cultural factors account for 20% of the IQ score, then Africans who live in terrible conditions, and are about as culturally different from the West (where the IQ test was developed) as humanly possible, are bound to have 20% lower score, even if their genetics doesn't differ, in any relevant way, from that of whites or Asians.
P.S. The reason why I'm leaving free will out of this post is because I'm fairly confident this unnamed researcher didn't figure out a way to quantify it. So that's probably not included as a factor, in that other 20%. I'm assuming he just means IQ is split 80/20 between genetic and environmental factors, and he never even considered free will. Might not even believe in it. I of course don't believe that a person's intellect has to be the sum of his genetics and environment. I think it often is, but sometimes it's not. Not sure how much of a factor these outliers play in influencing the overall average though (especially since, if you're an intellectual outlier in a hellhole like Africa, your first order of business is gonna be to leave).
-
5 hours ago, Eiuol said:
I wouldn't. There is no plan of action even.
Just to be clear, because I'm having trouble believing what you're saying: if people who openly subscribe to Nazi ideology started pouring into New Zealand (and you lived there), you wouldn't be in favor of the government halting the migration at any point? Not at one million, not at three million, not even at five million? As long as they're not part of an organized invasion, they're just regular migrants who happen to subscribe to Nazi ideology, you would not want it stopped? You would rather allow Nazis to become the majority in the country you live in, than break with this belief you're clinging to that borders should always be open to non-criminal civilians?
Do you understand that you would be executed within a year of them gaining majority, simply for being an Objectivist?
-
32 minutes ago, EC said:
While you are probably right to some degree, there is also very little to be gained from having such a debate.
This isn't some random guy off the street. This is one of the prominent geneticists alive. (Well he was, back when he first made these views known, over a decade ago. That's when he was ostracized ... now I don't think he's still of sound mind, these latest headlines are just the result of unscrupulous journalists taking advantage of a seriously ill 90 year old man.)
Point is, when politicians, journalists and academics who don't possess that standing in the world of science dismiss him, that's not an effective strategy. If someone of higher status is wrong, he must be challenged, not ignored. Ignoring such a person is what allows his words to stand. Only laymen who would take the word of the PC Police in that scenario are the leftist ideologues. Everyone else is going to be skeptical of the reflexive "that's racist, he must be banned" reaction, and very likely to entertain the ideas Watson is presenting, on some level. And, in the absence of any argument against it, rightfully so. Rational people don't dismiss a controversial idea because someone's "various honors" were taken away by some college administrator.
As evidenced by this thread. These views are becoming popular because they were left unchallenged. I suggest checking out the movie Denial for a blueprint on how someone who gains any kind of status, and is presenting flawed or evil ideas, should be dealt with in a free society (or read the book it's based on, if you prefer...but the movie did a good job too).
If you think James Watson has been discredited in these views because mainstream politicians, journalists and academics ostracized him from public life, think again. That's not how this works.
-
7 hours ago, Eiuol said:
It's definitely part of the reason, but not the main reason. It is not a sufficient or necessary condition, but more people adds more weight for concern when there already is a concern. All I really care about is if there is a plan of action, not simply hope on their part.
Okay, so if you lived in New Zealand, you wouldn't be in favor of the government preventing millions of Nazis and white supremacists from settling in the country?
-
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:
I mean, sure, that's their purpose, but purpose must be evaluated in terms of possibility as well. Just because a person wishes to have a form of government that is totalitarian, doesn't mean that there is a threat. If they proposed that they would use giant super soakers to take over the government because they think it will instill fear on the American populace and traumatize the congresspeople that they assault, I wouldn't rate that as a real threat. If they were casting a spell that they claim would summon Cthulhu and therefore destroy the US government, that wouldn't be a threat either. Based on your immigration example, if I'm reading it correctly, the Nazis were providing ideological material, without any apparent plan for attaining their goal, and no apparent backing by a foreign government. There wasn't anything I would call threatening (specifically, the threat of force).
Nazis took over Germany while they were a small minority. And they only had a third of the vote, with most of that vote coming from people not actively involved in the party. Not everyone who voted for Hitler was a Nazi, they just liked him more than the weak alternatives. So 100 million Nazis and people who'd rather vote Nazi than let's say Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, WOULD realistically threaten to take over the US.
Which leads me to conclude that the reason why you're fine with letting them try is because there's no way there's enough of them willing to move to the US. If so, I tend to agree, Nazi-ism isn't a big enough phenomenon to threaten a country of 330 million.
Is that the reason? And, if so, would you change your answer if we were talking about New Zealand, instead? Because, if New Zealand opened its borders, and neo-Nazis and white nationalists across the world got it into their heads that NZ is a good place to congregate, there would be enough of them. They would be able to become a political force that would be a threat. It wouldn't even have to be massively organized. Just a naturally growing community that attracts more and more like minded people, until it's finally big enough that there's no stopping them.
-
44 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:
Because you fail to portray history accurately. After Hitler's imprisonment, he convinced the authorities to lift the ban on his party, and the Nazis disavowed their goal to take political power by force.
Whatever. So do you plan on answering the question, or do you just wanna build childish arguments about how law abiding Hitler was?
-
On 1/14/2019 at 2:03 AM, EC said:
Nobel Laureate Dr. Watson was stripped of various honors for the same type of claims as being made in this thread recently. https://news.sky.com/story/dna-pioneer-james-watson-stripped-of-honours-after-reckless-race-remarks-11606108
On the one side, Watson failed to exhibit some basic humanity, by using his public status irresponsibly, to spout unfounded nonsense that demeans billions of people. On the other side stand the brutish savages who are too stupid and intellectually lazy to face him in open debate and prove him wrong instead of banishing him.
Oh yeah, and only one of the sides has the redeeming quality of having figured out the Double Helix (one of the great scientific discoveries of the 20th century).
-
30 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:
Not even the original Nazis did that. They rose to power within the legal system of Germany.
Not sure why I need to explain that the Nazis weren't scrupulous, democracy loving, law abiding gentlemen, but here's some fun facts: Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in prison... prison he was sent to after being put on trial for high treason after the so called "Beer Hall Putsch", an attempted coup d'etat, with the use of elements of the military sympathetic to the fascist cause, in 1923.
After his pardon by a fascist friendly court a year later, he followed that up with a campaign of violent street fights and rioting, and countless murders of political opponents. All this, while the Nazi Party wasn't even legally allowed to exist, on account of them trying to, you know, violently overthrow the democratically elected government a few years earlier.
Immigration restrictions
in Political Philosophy
Posted · Edited by Nicky
And I consider this an excellent example of why your understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy is simplistic.
No, it's not. If it was, I would've used the word simple instead of simplistic.