Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Harrison Danneskjold

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold got a reaction from exaltron in An Objection to Open Immigration   
    First of all you're arguing for the validity of "public property" in a big way. I don't remember all of Ayn Rand's arguments against it off the top of my head, but she's made quite a few and they all apply.
    For starters: since there is no such thing as "the public", only some number of individual men, it has all the same problems with it as that of the concept of a "public good". Who gets to decide how best to use such public property and by what standard? Now, if you were to mention the Democratic process (as I suspect you probably will) then it wouldn't be too difficult to show how, in practice, this would actually mean pressure-group warfare.
    In short, everything that's wrong with today's "mixed economy" would also apply to what you're arguing for (since they're both based on the same kind of fallacy).
    Secondly, you say that "society in general has no claim on private lands", which I would wholeheartedly agree with. That's absolutely right.
    It also means that if some rancher on the border wanted to hire a truck-full of Mexican (or Columbian or Somalian or whatever) laborers to work his own land -or if someone who owned some land in Minnesota chartered a private plane for the same purpose- then it's none of "society's" business.
    I do agree that your argument deserves serious consideration (as you mentioned in the other thread). But I don't think it's sturdy enough to survive it.
    Actually, it does. By defending the rights of immigrants at the borders we are also defending our own rights, inside of them (and several of Binswanger's examples demonstrate precisely how); anyone who defends the rights of one man is defending the rights of all.
    You are right that it doesn't take much imagination to think of ways in which open immigration could go horrifically wrong. That is true. But the same could be said for every other way in which our government is not allowed to meddle in our private lives.
    Think of warrantless wiretapping and surveillance. Surely it's important that we allow our government to do the necessary snooping to discover who is or is not an objective threat to everyone else. Not much imagination is needed to think of the terrible things that could happen if we don't allow the government to do that. Not much imagination is needed to think of what could happen without legally mandated insurance (of either the health or automotive varieties), either. You'd probably think it was a straw man if I threw drug prohibition on top of the pile, but it wouldn't be.
    "What could happen if we allow people to do X" is not the proper yardstick to apply in this situation. And it turns out that pointing that out does, actually, show regard for the lives and property of our citizenry.
    Because neither really matter without freedom.
  2. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Devil's Advocate in Philosophic cycles   
    I see that literature is another one, and if you include movies, it seems there's quite a bit more fascination today with zombies and vampires; Is this the reflection of philosophically lifeless society? I'm a big fan of Sci-Fi, and a diehard Trekker, so I kinda see today's literature as an appeal to cynicism (as opposed to "boldly going where no man has gone before"), or a validation of Jimi Hendrix's, "there ain't no life no where", but perhaps I'm reading too much into it...
  3. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to 2046 in Immigration restrictions   
    Yeah, we already discussed the role that bias against immigrants plays, but also just cognitive biases in general play a role as well. Most people don't know the opposing arguments. And I don't mean they haven't seen them, like even if they've read this thread, I mean they read them and yet still don't know them because they aren't thinking. Most people that don't study the arguments specifically aren't thinking at all, they just engage in a random word association game in their minds.
    Like if you're a Red Sox fan, if you see a close pitch, you say of course it was a strike (if the pitcher was a Red Sox.) If you're a Yankee fan, you say of course it was a ball. You have no incentive to judge the pitch correctly, you just boo or cheer as depending on whether it helps your team. In the same way, they see a bunch of words on the screen. There's some words that get them the result they're already committed to (keeping foreigners they don't like out) and some that get to the result they don't want (scary brown people near me.) They don't see arguments.
  4. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to 2046 in Immigration restrictions   
    But like nobody is saying we should apply principles without a context. So, thanks for repeating standard Objectivist claptrap, but I mean no one is saying otherwise. Nobody is saying hey we should be rationalists. 
    As far as 1-4, those have been refuted, and I mean decisively refuted, by a bunch of political philosophers and economists working on this issue. Some of those arguments have been repeated here in this thread and in other threads. None of 1-4 or the counter arguments you listed are new, bold font notwithstanding.
    Yes, we need to think long term. Yes we need to think about what would happen. Right now, economists estimate world GDP (GWP) would likely double, long term. Millions of people could be lifted out of poverty. That is a good thing. The welfare argument, the culture argument, the voting argument, all of these have been addressed numerous times.
  5. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to whYNOT in Immigration restrictions   
    1. "...a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of ITS CITIZENS [...]"
    2. ...has a right to demand that its sovereignty be RESPECTED by all other other nations."
    "All other nations"-  by the same formulation that a nation "is only a number of individuals" - means, as well:  all individuals who are presently citizens of other nations. The nation they're applying for immigration to, therefore has the right to ~demand~ that its sovereignty be respected, Rand put it. I read that as individuals not crossing borders illegally.
    If you're sensitive about ~perceived~ xenophobia and (mostly) unwarranted suspicion of outsiders, Eioul, you could bear in mind that this immigration process is and should be one of mutual respect and value-trade. 
    Candor about one's basic identity is also important. ["Who are you?"]. The same way one approaches a stranger at a social gathering: "Hi, I'm Johnny. Who would you be?" Hi Johnny. I'm the US Government"...
    That indicates good will, openness and respect, the apposites and demolisher of distrust.
    Frankly, if that basic information is not voluntarily forthcoming from a prospective immigrant, why admit him? From obligation and dutifulness? This is where the trepidation of several countries of appearing racist (-collectivist) has been concealing altruist self-sacrifice. Both, equally, are the culprits of bad immigration policies.
    For the nation and "its citizens", they most definitely are owed the obligation by government, of this basic identification of immigrants; to repeat, the lack of it is what causes societal unease and that is NOT racism (- while it naturally does promote xenophobia). I related a friend's tragedy, how an undocumented illegal managed to escape capture and commit several shootings for a long while - the consequence of being anonymous. When an applicant becomes a citizen is when his rights under the 4th are secured, not before. I'd believe.
    (BTW, even those early immigrants off the ships at NY Harbor had to show some identification).
  6. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to whYNOT in Immigration restrictions   
    I wonder if unreasonable search and seizure is not becoming a red herring. After all, a physical "search" at the border isn't the real point; what IS the "need to know" by immigration officials, is: "Who are you?" The minimum requirement for an individual rights-affirming nation ought to be identification of the unknown individual. Then would follow the question, do you have any objection to a check run into your past records? I argue, this is not "unreasonable" information to "search" for.* His/her answer, at the very least, would display the good intentions of a prospective immigrant. If he grants his permission, he is implicitly proclaiming he has nothing to hide: he's prepared BY HIS FREE WILL**, to undertake the process leading to citizen status. The value of immigrants and of one's benevolence to incoming citizens, isn't arguable. But I caution not to be naive and intrinsicist about "who" and what some people can be in reality. (And individual rights are "objective" rights, not intrinsic rights).
    *Checked this once, and assiduously, I'd think the gratuitous and unpleasant harassment of random people in public could mostly be avoided and stopped.
    **What about those citizens now present, who'd earlier got away from authoritarian states, or organized crime and gangs, or Sharia laws, and so on? Does their "free will" count less than that of the illegal migrants (whose free will Yaron Brook admired)? Their rights, safety and peace of mind, from the identical threats they once knew, and seeing the same bad aspects of their native land following them 'here' -- seems to be overlooked.
  7. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to StrictlyLogical in Senescence   
    Nonsense.  The value of discussion is to work out things... not to bandy about things one has already worked out.  You belong here as you are.
    First, I only attributed rationalists with such a motive... there are many scientists who do not fall into that category... Second, I was mostly being colorful, in reality the mistake is an honest one, especially for rationalists, although being fooled by the fool who fools himself creates the same result only by a slightly different route.
    My point is that the sham evaporates when you see the simplicity and the mechanistic brute force of fake intelligence.. I agree that until we understand consciousness when we look at a real intelligence it will be baffling but once we have a science of consciousness we’ll be able to identify its fundamentals.
    I do agree with most of what you say and perhaps now believe we are in agreement in principle.
    I’ll not concede but state (i was never in disagreement with you on this) that the thing I think you see is that things are what’s they are and the properties they exhibit, how they act etc is in accordance with their nature.  This is solid Objectivism... in principle and in reality the fake behemoth will never exhibit everything a real consciousness does... the PRACTICAL problem with a text interface is that it is an EXCEEDINGLY poor instrument for identification of things in reality.  
    Only a real  Monet would look like a Monet to an expert under bright lights and close up... enough for people to pay Via Sotheby’s millions based on that assessment of reality. But a common person wearing a partial blindfold at 100 feet in a dimly lit room?... well now that’s not a fair test is it?
  8. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to MisterSwig in Senescence   
    Oh, just Windows Live Movie Maker for video editing. Picasa for photos. I record myself with the Lexus Audio Editor app on my phone. Eiuol records on his desktop mic, I think. And now we're using Skype to record a phone chat segment.
  9. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to DonAthos in Immigration restrictions   
    For completeness' sake, I'm going to go ahead and review Binswanger's essay and respond to it here:
    Granted that "freedom of entry and residency" are absolutely different from citizenship/voting rights or other means of participation in governance.
    Agreed, though to the point of contention I would say that a procedure by which immigration takes place does not amount to a barrier against it.
    Absolutely, and also agreed to Binswanger's arguments re: seeking employment, buying homes, etc., and against immigration quotas.
    Indeed. And it is depressing to note that I've witnessed many Objectivists on this very site make a version of this argument.
    Right. And speaking to the point of departure I'm anticipating, the fact of that jurisdiction requires a certain procedure at the border...
    Criminals do not carry signs announcing the fact, but the government can sometimes ferret it out by contacting those other governmental bodies that have the requisite information: for instance, the Mexican government may be aware that a certain car is stolen.
    Whether such a stop/gathering of information is "violating the rights of the innocent immigrant" in those cases where no car is stolen is precisely the question at issue.
    Here's the rub. There may well be evidence that a given man is a criminal, or even actively on the run from law enforcement, but accounting to a transfer of jurisdiction, that evidence may not be immediately available (as it would otherwise be when a man goes from New York to Connecticut).
    When Binswanger writes that a man does not have to satisfy "the government," it elides the fact that there are two distinct governments involved. A criminal ought not have a "home base" by crossing the border, where he is thereafter safe, and must commit fresh crimes before he can bear investigating. He remains responsible for the crimes he has already committed. But law enforcement in this new jurisdiction, if it is to hold him responsible for the crimes he has committed in the other, must be able to access that sort of information. And it cannot do so instantaneously with respect to everyone who might cross the border, nor would it even know to do so if it does not know who crosses the border at all.
    Binswanger argues against an "indiscriminate subjection of everyone to a screening process," but a border screening process is not indiscriminate: it is alone for those who cross the border, and accounting to the fact that law enforcement agencies in different jurisdictions have different information. So when someone enters the new jurisdiction, there must be an opportunity to gain access to that information, so that criminals can be stopped and law-biding citizens can pass without further delay.
    Without Binswanger available to defend himself, I don't want to expand on this too much, but I do wonder why these are exceptions, "of course." War and an epidemic presumably constitute exceptions in his mind because they are dangerous, creating "emergency conditions" (which is often a kind of magic totem for some Objectivists); yet a criminal, too, can be dangerous and threaten life, liberty and property. Indeed, that's what it is to be criminal.
    But let it pass...
    Once we have eliminated those aspects of immigration policy that seek to prevent access on the basis of collectivist notions like racism, economic protectionism, etc., I do not believe that rights-respecting people would experience the remaining inspection required at the border as harassment, but rather as the protection of their own rights.
    This is often true, and has been true for a long time, here and elsewhere, yet it might still be possible to want people to be able to immigrate freely... and bar criminals, terrorists and plague-carriers, for the very same fundamental reason: the protection of individual rights.
  10. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to 2046 in Immigration restrictions   
    That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted. (George Mason et al., Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776.)
    Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities, prescribed by the laws. (John Adams, Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, 1780.)
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (US Constitution, Amendment 4, 1789.)
    In 1765, the King's Messenger Nathan Carrington, along with others, pursuant to a warrant issued by George Montagu-Dunk, 2nd Earl of Halifax forcibly entered the home of one John Entick. The warrant authorized them "to make strict and diligent search for ... the author, or one concerned in the writing of several weekly very seditious papers entitled, 'The Monitor or British Freeholder, No 257, 357, 358, 360, 373, 376, 378, and 380.'" They seized printed charts, pamphlets and other materials. Entick filed suit in Entick v Carrington, argued before the Court of King's Bench in 1765. Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden ruled that both the search and the seizure were unlawful, as the warrant authorized the seizure of all of Entick's papers, not just the criminal ones, and as the warrant lacked probable cause to even justify the search:
    "By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my licence, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing; which is proved by every declaration in trespass, where the defendant is called upon to answer for bruising the grass and even treading upon the soil. If he admits the fact, he is bound to show by way of justification, that some positive law has empowered or excused him" (Camden 1765.)
    Entick vs Carrington established the English common law principle against general search warrants and of requiring some positive action (probable cause) requirement before subjecting an individual to a warrant. Camden's judgment became the basis for the Virginia and Massachusetts Declarations and later the 4th item on the Bill of Rights.
    Among self-styled Objectivists and Randians, the ones that are not biased against immigrants and who support some kind of free immigration (Brook and Binswanger come to mind), they often express desire for some kind of screening and inspection at the border. This is problematic because it seems like a general warrant. It also seems like there was no probable cause that could have triggered the inspection. If you submit someone to an inspection without those requirements being met, it seems like you're violating their rights.
    Why is that? Well if it's "initiation" of physical force that qualifies as violating rights, the people you're searching generally and without probably cause haven't even been accused of doing anything wrong at all. They haven't met any evidentiary standard. You're just searching them because they're foreigners and might possibly have done something. It seems like you're the one initiating physical force on them.
    Indeed, if you're interested in what might normally be the traveling of private persons going about their business, and just wish to apply the normal right of liberty, property, security in one's person, papers, and effects, it seems like you don't have a basis to search immigrants. Normal here means to assume there's no unusual circumstances going on. 
    People cross and transfer multiple jurisdictions all the time, every day. And yet this is normally not grounds for a search or inspection. If there actually are grounds, then a warrant can be executed by the legal system. But no pre-crime searches are normally allowed if I'm traveling from, say, California to Nevada, or Bronx to Brooklyn. It seems like normally there is no special problem of "transfer of jurisdiction." I'm just in one jurisdiction one second, then in another the next. 
    If you say, well what if they're evading Mexican justice, well what if I'm evading Bronx justice by traveling to Brooklyn? Can we subject me to a "what if" search warrant? It seems not. It seems "what if" search warrants are a terrible idea. In real life, the matter is resolved by a judge in one jurisdiction being presented with a writ or warrant from another jurisdiction. Then the legal system proceeds as normally. No "what if" warrants are permitted.
  11. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Doug Morris in An Objection to Open Immigration   
    When government manages property or something like property, then regardless of the rights and wrongs of that underlying situation, it should do so in a way that respects rights as much as possible,  including the right to freedom of movement. 
  12. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Eiuol in An Objection to Open Immigration   
    Neither do I, because there is no such thing as public property, so public property can't be owned by anyone. You can't own what isn't real (we can pretend it's real). Doesn't mean the land is not necessarily property. Group ownership is not equivalent to public property. Doesn't really matter, because the government doesn't own the land even as a group of individuals. 
    Individuals or groups of individuals. Not "the public". 
  13. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to DonAthos in Immigration restrictions   
    (Caveat: I haven't read Binswanger's essay.)
    I think there's reason for border patrol/checkpoint/a controlled point-of-entry, and that this does not interfere with what we might call the "right of travel," but which is really just a specific application of the normal liberty/property/right-to-life stuff. Such a checkpoint represents a broad transfer of legal jurisdiction, and I believe that the proper administration of law and justice requires an opportunity for ensuring that -- you know -- someone leaving Mexico to come to the United States isn't fleeing Mexican justice, etc., because all else being equal, American authorities aren't going to be on the lookout for people who've committed crimes in Mexico (and will not have the requisite information on them). Thus, such a border checkpoint provides at least an opportunity for that information to be transferred/collected by the appropriate bodies, when relevant. It's mostly a procedural matter, then, but procedure matters.
    The comparison that I've used before is this: part and parcel to our rights, vis a vis the administration of justice, we have the right to a "fair and speedy trial." Fair enough. We can't simply throw people into prison indefinitely without establishing that they've committed whatever crime, and without having received an appropriate sentence; the lack of a fair and speedy trial, then, is an abrogation of liberty/individual right.
    But that fair and speedy trial must actually be executed, in reality, and we need real world procedures to achieve this. Someone arrested, however he might have the right to a "speedy" trial, cannot expect an immediate trial. Some actual judge must be found to hear the case, evidence must be collected, etc., etc., and this may amount to some delay, in reason, even if every actor is doing his level best to provide that speedy trial. Even an innocent man may have to spend some time in prison to accommodate the provenance of justice on his behalf.
    And so it is with crossing a border (whether international or, say, between states): an individual has every right to do this, yet there may be some kind of delay at a crossing reflecting the real procedural change between one legal jurisdiction and another -- to ensure, again, that the person involved isn't a wanted criminal, or a known terrorist, or etc.
    Edited to add: It may go without saying, but just in case...
    The appropriate procedural delay I discuss above has nearly nothing to do with modern or historical immigration policy, which is usually a mish-mash of xenophobia, economic protectionism and various other assorted collectivist ideas. If the border checkpoint were delimited to what I've briefly outlined, it would look far, far different than our own border today.
    That said, I think it's important to at least acknowledge that there's a role for such a checkpoint, if only because bad faith debaters seem to enjoy suggesting apocalyptic scenarios where actual invading armies stroll across an unguarded border, because we don't believe we have the right to stop them. But no, we're within our rights to stop invading armies and wanted criminals, just as we could stop them on our own, domestic streets. A rational border policy then is really just an inspection service meant to identify and respond to such threats as they enter our jurisdiction.
  14. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to dream_weaver in Senescence   
    I managed to snag a hardcover version with all three in it for $7.24!
    Started to read it today and had to get over being inundated by the Dramatus Personae. If HD doesn't thank you later for suggesting it, I might just have to, especially if the terminology I have to keep looking up keeps panning out like it has thus far.
  15. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to StrictlyLogical in Senescence   
    I disagree. A human DNA molecule is a human DNA molecule by virtue of how it is structured atom by atom not where it came from.
  16. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold got a reaction from MisterSwig in Immigration restrictions   
    It's actually funny you should mention that. I was chewing on this a bit more when it occurred to me that I didn't have any hard evidence that you're basing your position on emotion. It is in the very least a fundamental misconception of how "rights" work (which I'll come back to) but I don't have any good reason to believe it isn't based on SOME legitimate process of thought. I guess I mainly concluded it because of the (EMOTIONAL) part of me that sympathizes with your arguments (which makes it doubly funny that you said "it usually says more about them than me").
    I am sorry about that. My philosophical "chops" are very rusty right now, which is part of what I'm trying to do on this forum. I usually try not to psychologize anyone I actually respect (just because it's rude) but I really have never had anyone ask for it before.
    I'll respond to everything else in another hour or two. I just wanted to mention my mistake before anyone else could do it for me.
    I'm sorry.
  17. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to DonAthos in Immigration restrictions   
    Yes, and it was magnificent.
    Indeed. I don't know how else to square your responses in this thread. Do I really need to recap them? (Technically you should be able to read them over again for yourself, but I don't know that I can trust you to do that honestly, either.) You argued that people should not be allowed to advocate for socialism; I questioned whether that was consistent with Objectivism (or at least with Rand's views), and I provided quotes to demonstrate that Rand supported free speech, specifically including that for communists/socialists. In direct response, you claimed consistency with Rand and that you were not arguing against free speech.
    The implicit dishonesty involved in such a thing is just staggering. I don't know whether "Orwellian" or "Trumpian" would be more damning, but they both apply -- it is doublethink, pure and simple, on par with 1+1=3. A month on, fresh off of a vacation, and I'm still blown away by it. So I'll put it this way: perhaps it goes too far to say that you have zero respect for reason (how could I possibly know such a thing to such a degree?)... but if you do have any respect for it, that respect will drive you to understand your incredible error, and the disregard for reason and reality it conveys, make amends for it, and try to root it out from all future conversation -- because it is the kind of error that renders all such conversation worse than worthless (to say nothing of what it portends for your thinking).
  18. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to MisterSwig in Immigration restrictions   
    Yes, and just to show that I meant what I said, I thank you for your invited opinion. I actually prefer when opponents try to psychologize me, because usually they offer zero evidence for their claim, and it reveals more about them than me. But I also occasionally find the rare observer-listener who really gets me, and then their fact-based insights are like treasure to me.
    There's nothing to address. If I actually believed what you say I believe, then I would be evil. But I don't believe in "thought-crime." I don't even believe that socialist activists on public street corners should go to jail. They should be warned or fined for unpermitted public speech-making. If they continue, only then should they be arrested for being a public disturbance. If you had read my argument on this thread starting from page four, you'd know this already.
    I have made the argument to end all Objectivist arguments for the right to travel. To nutshell it for you: If all property, including roads, were privatized, then you wouldn't have this so-called "right" to travel across jurisdictional boundaries at will. The property owners could all band together and exile you to your own property, if you had any--or to some country that would have you. So you're arguing for a "right" that you wouldn't even have in an Objectivist nation.
  19. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Eiuol in Immigration restrictions   
    No argument required here in our discussion. Pretend it's a very bad argument that's easy to shoot down.
    Pretend you're sitting in your office, in charge of deporting socialists. Your chief investigator comes to you and says "look at this, Eiuol is arguing for socialism, and it requires violating rights! He created the Capitalist UBI party and is going to run for president. He said so ".  
    Where I'm going with this is that your standards aren't any good here. We don't even need fringe cases to immediately show problems with activism as a dangerous threshold. If I were to use "authoritarian activism" as a standard, you would be deported already, even though I think you're honestly mistaken.
  20. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to StrictlyLogical in Senescence   
    The concept "man" includes a great many variations, both in virtue of genetic nature (some disabled, others "gifted") and by nurture (natural variations in physical, intellectual, and emotional growth of humans ... "self made soul"...).
    That a man has a heart rebuilt with stem cells, or a mechanical one, or a pig heart transplant, makes him no less a man.
    Specific men have specific differing natural limits... which can and will be changed with treatment and manmade advances in health and biological intervention, but each will still be a man.
    Be sure, I am not advocating that a machine masquerading as a person is a person just because it can imitate that person...
    The extension of the limits on MAN, likely require changing his defunct cells with newly generated ones on a continual basis, etc. to grow generations of organs and cells and systems over and over, in an analogous way that new generations of people are newly made all the time, except it would take place within that person's own body, involve that persons own cells/DNA etc. and not entail or require replacement of the whole at the same time... but bits and pieces throughout over time.
    The body already regenerates all of its cells every 7 years ... the problem is when this process creates unviable ones... telomeres (part of DNA) plays a role... so the system is there already... it just needs some support ..
    an internal wheel chair  of sorts.
  21. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Eiuol in Senescence   
    Harrison is on the right track I think. But I think some things should be added to the discussion.
    Not every case is age-related, to be sure, but it's a form of damage no matter what, and age will always be a factor at least. You can never remove age as a factor, and it is well-known and documented and studied how no matter who you are, you will experience cognitive decline especially with memory. On some level, it's the brain breaking down overtime. So you might say the purely biological human brain as it is has a hard limit before neurons in the connections between them start to deteriorate (and who knows, maybe that limit can be extended very far). But if you can replace the parts that break down, then the hard limit doesn't matter anymore. Neural prosthetics are a thing these days. Those also might have hard limits, but then you replace them again. 
    To me, curing aging is more about finding the ways of going past biological limits caused by natural decay and disintegration.
  22. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to 2046 in An Objection to Open Immigration   
    So like, not only is this wrong, but wrong according to just about every moral theory I know of, except maybe Hobbesian absolutism (where the dictator or sovereign establishes right or wrong by its will.) Wrong according to utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, liberalism, Randianism, Marxism, nationalism, whatever. And that's because most theories require that you actually have to have done something wrong, or met some probable cause standard of doing something wrong before the police can accost you. Almost every moral theory thinks that pre-crime is wrong.
    Moreover, if you can restrict someone for what "some dude might" do, it can't be denied that some babies being born might go on to commit crimes. All childbirthing must be restricted on those grounds. Or someone might be moving from the Bronx to Brooklyn, and this dude might have a bomb that no one can see. All movement from the Bronx to Brooklyn might be restricted on those grounds. Etc.
    Why is it that these arguments are so bad? It seems like every time some argument is made, and shot down, another one pops up. First it was the old "clubhouse" argument, or the US as some collectively owned entity, then it's pre-crime, next it's going to be "because foreigners don't have the same rights," or something else. We've already seen the "culture argument," the "they're going to vote wrong" argument, the welfare argument. Why do the goalposts keep shifting? Once these arguments are shown to fail, if you keep believing in them, you're being dogmatic.
    The Simpsons character Nelson punches Ralph. "Why are you hitting me?!" exclaims Ralph. "You're breathing my air!" answers Nelson. This "you're breathing my air" is really what the argument boils down to, and why the every shifting goalposts never seem to land on a coherent argument that doesn't beg the question. There is widespread anti-immigrant bias. Whether that bias is racism, xenophobia, or just dislike of different people, some people just have a priori decided they don't like immigrants, and they have bad arguments. 
  23. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Grames in What are you listening at the moment?   
    SABATON - Winged Hussars (Official Lyric Video)
  24. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Eiuol in Immigration restrictions   
    I don't see the difference. Some people argue that UBI is socialistic, so if I actively promote UBI, then I'm necessarily promoting socialism, even if I say that isn't my goal. You already said you don't care what the person believes in their heart, only if they are being activist. What's the line across to become a socialist activist, from a mistaken capitalist? I don't think there is any line for determining when it becomes a threat or not. There is no method to do so, unless you start calculating the probabilities of a given person from becoming a socialist revolutionary. If you start to think In probabilities, that is pre-crime in the PKD sense: things reach a violence probability threshold determined by computers or conscious robots. 
    The reason I propose more stringent standards for citizenship is to maintain your legitimate concern (true socialists, not neoliberals), such that no one who intends to implement socialism would really manage to become a citizen and therefore attain political power. It wouldn't be criminal to be a socialist activist, and you don't need to give ideological screening tests. Citizenship can be a screening test.
  25. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to whYNOT in Immigration restrictions   
    The importance of "UN"-open immigration lies in the screening/vetting/checking, of what can be known about what an individual has DONE. Not what and how he ~supposedly~ thinks. A mind is the unknown, anyway prone to subterfuge and fakery by some. And anyhow, eliciting one's ideas, ethics and character is not what the govt. officials ought to be involved in. A socialist college professor? Approved. (Do your damndest, we already have plenty of your type). Someone who has a record of inciting and/or committing violence? Rejected.  
    The concept of social/ideological engineering is anathema to a free nation. No one knows how individuals are going to turn out, often not they themselves. I've enough basic confidence in most human beings, the diversity of individuals, and in the USA's "melting pot" of ideas, cultures, (etc.)  (While not quite trusting enough to sanction illegal migrants as some O'ists do).
  • Create New...