[Natural rights, borders and deportations]

8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

She did seem to think that, in her view, irrational savages are people who are at such a primitive level that trade and rational interaction is impossible. There are problems with that view, but she was talking in the context of the first Europeans visiting North America, not the reverse where "primitive" people would visit the advanced civilization. And besides, the immigrants you are talking about, no one is thinking of them as primitive savages like tribes in the middle of the Amazon. Rational or not, immigrants south of the border in the US aren't even the kind of people Rand was talking about. 

I think you are underestimating how scathing Rand was for most of humanity in its current state and how widely she used the term "savage".
 

In Collectivized Rights, she speaks of "all forms of tribal savagery, ancient or modern, primitive or 'industrialized'"

She laments the "savage tribes of Asia and Africa" being "granted the sovereign  "right" to slaughter one another in racial conflict" 

She is referring to nation states here, evident by the use of the term sovereign. 

In The Roots of War, referring to prehistoric savagery, she says "this savage ideology now rules nations armed with nuclear weapons" 

In Theory and Practice, she laments the American failure to champion its political system and says: 

"this is what we should have been teaching the world. Instead, we are deluding the ignorant and semi-savage by telling them that no political knowledge is necessary, that our system is only a matter of subjective preference—that any prehistorical form of tribal tyranny, gang rule, and slaughter will do just as well, with our sanction and support. It is thus that we encourage the spectacle of Algerian  workers marching through the streets and shouting the demand: “Work, not blood!”—without knowing what great knowledge and virtue are required to achieve it."

Is she suggesting Algerian workers are semi-savage? It appears so. 
 

In the Anatomy of Compromise, she speaks of "epistemological savages" 

and 

"the “mysterious” power moving the events of the world is the awesome power of men’s principles—which is mysterious only to the “practical” modern savages who were taught to discard it as “impotent.”

Contrasting the US to the rest of the world and criticising the intellectual leaders of today, she says: 

"There is one country—the United States of America—who is not acceptable to them, who must renounce her tradition and, in atonement, must crawl on her knees, begging the savages of five continents to choose a new name for her system, which would obliterate the guilt of her past."

I will leave it there, but I have barely searched all her works with these quotes. 
 

It seems pretty clear she would regard a substantial proportion of Mexicans as semi-savage at the very least, and certainly third world migrants from Asia and Africa. 
 

I find it impossible to believe she would be in favour of open borders in the modern world. 

[Natural rights, borders and deportations]

12 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

The problem is that you have demonstrated by your words that you do not recognize individual rights, therefore you do not have rights and we can use preemptive physical force against you, because you are a savage. Alternatively, the problem is that you haven’t included a sufficiently objective epistemological basis for deeming someone to be a savage brute. Rather than subjectively declaring it to be self-evident that a certain act is initiation of force (whereby I get to condemn you as an aggressor and you get to condemn foreigners as aggressors), we should determine “what constitutes proof that a person has initiated force?”. A more subtle question is, “what constitutes initiation of force?”. Since the precogs are fallible science fiction, we have to judge based on objective evidence, not direct inspection of a person’s mind. What action has a foreigner, or resident, taken that proves that he has no respect for individual rights?

Fair points, I agree it's difficult to draw the lines, but that is the nature of the law. This problem arises in every area of the law. 
 

There could be the reasonable assumption that those who cannot positively articulate a rational morality and its social application (i.e rights), pledging loyalty to those principles, can be presumed not to recognise individual rights. The burden of proof would be on them. 
 

But it is a secondary issue. Before it is even considered, one must accept that: 

1. Those that do not recognise rights cannot claim them for themselves. 

2. Blocking the entry of foreigners who do not recognise individual rights is a legitimate function of the government.

[Natural rights, borders and deportations]

14 hours ago, Boydstun said:

TS,

Exactly where did Rand write or even voice the idea that people who do not recognize individual rights have no rights themselves?  I don't recall such a thing.

 

 

In Counterfeit Individualism, she said: 

"one man cannot claim the moral right to violate the rights of others. If he denies inviolate rights to other men, he cannot claim such rights for himself, he has rejected the base of rights." (Emphasis my own). 

In Man's Rights, Rand describes "rights" as the "logical transition" between the "moral code of a man and the legal code of a society" and that they "protect individual morality in a social context" 

Therefore, it's quite clear that Rand held that a rational mind which recognises the requirements of man's nature and its proper application in a social context is the prerequisite to claim individual rights.

Regarding indigenous Americans, she said: 

"Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights – they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures" – they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using."

So even though they mixed their labour with the land, they still had no right to it because they did not recognise the concept. 
 

Rand frequently referred to irrational humans as "creatures", "savages", and I think she used the term "sub-human" or "semi-human" 

In The Missing Link, she said:

"But the development of a man’s consciousness is volitional: no matter what the innate degree of his intelligence, he must develop it,  he must learn how to use it, he must become a human being by choice."

i.e those that do not, are not human, or at least not fully human. Only human beings can claim rights.

To summarise, it's pretty clear that Rand did not believe that individual rights are automatically granted by one's mere existence. Like any claim to something, there are prerequisites which must be satisfied. In the case of rights, the prerequisites are a sufficiently rational human who recognises the requirements of man qua man and understands and accepts the application of those requirements in a social context. Only then can he claim individual rights for himself. 

Regarding her off the cuff comment about immigration - her only mention of the issue - she is referring to the impact of immigration on living standards. That is wholly different to the impact on rights themselves I.e the basis of a free society. And regarding her last sentence, I am not advocating closing borders, only controlling them. 

[Natural rights, borders and deportations]

1 hour ago, DavidOdden said:

The essence of Objectivist political ethics is that the function of government is to prevent the initiation of force, meaning that human interactions are based on reason. Every person has the right to pursue his life according to his judgment, as long as he does not initiate force. A corollary of these principles is that holding or expressing a disagreeable position does not constitute the initiation of force. You will notice that although Rand properly vilified leftist and rightist dictatorial views, she also opposed government mind control, indeed it is a central premise of Objectivism that the mind cannot be forced. The proper response to the expression of a vile philosophical idea is not force, it is reason: counter-argument.

Preventing the initiation of physical force includes preemptive action. 
 

Taking preemptive action against savages even if they have not yet initiated force seems perfectly reasonable to me.
 

Considering what Rand said about the colonisation of North America, I find it hard to believe she would disagree. 
 

It seems extremely unlikely she would be in favour of open borders and the consequent millions of irrational savages pouring into the country. 
 

I am using savage in the same way she did i.e an irrational brute who does not recognise individual rights and is willing to use force to achieve his ends. 
 

Please address Rand's point about people who do not recognise individual rights having no rights themselves. If this is true, no rights are being violated by blocking the foreigner's entry (assuming the foreigner does not recognise individual rights). 

[Natural rights, borders and deportations]

On 6/26/2023 at 7:58 PM, human_murda said:

To where?

Anywhere, it doesn't matter. Pushed beyond the boundary of the country with guns pointed at him. 

[Natural rights, borders and deportations]

On 6/26/2023 at 8:43 PM, Doug Morris said:

It is reasonable to have a loyalty oath as a requirement for citizenship/voting, but not as a requirement for entering or remaining in the country.

 

Why not? 
 

Why do people who do not recognise individual rights have the right to enter the country?
 

Someone who does not recognise individual rights is clearly a threat to those that do, and the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those that do. 
 

This is merely an extension of your point about voting. If we ought to be careful about who we allow to vote, we ought to be careful about who we let into the country. 

[Natural rights, borders and deportations]

On 6/26/2023 at 3:58 PM, DavidOdden said:

A person has the right to act according to his own judgment, as long as he respects the rights of others. Therefore, a person can sell knives for a living, even though knives can be used by others to stab the innocent. It is only right that the government prevent the initiation of force. Selling knives is not initiation of force, nor is moving from Nevada to California, nor moving from Canada to the US.

The idea that everybody, both migrants and natural born residents (who have come of age), should swear a loyalty oath is squarely at odds with Objectivist ethical principles, and is not even required in fairly oppressive states, except perhaps North Korea and Khmer Rouge Cambodia. It is also quite ineffective: forcing people to lie about their beliefs does nothing to protect a society from initiation of force. It is in fact the initiation of force itself – force will be used to block you from entering or remaining if you do not sign the loyalty oath. My rights, to engage in lawful business relations with people from outside the US (who come here to do that business), have been violated by the government. Those who enact such law themselves are initiating force, and must by law be expelled from the country.

The problem with deportation for rights-violators “beyond a certain point” is the vagueness of what that point is. Assuming that we have a system of rational laws limited to only punishing violation of rights, there is a technical-implementation question regarding what is the proper punishment for theft or murder. Incarceration is the obvious punishment to impose, exile is not likely to be effective in a free society, but if we erect an impenetrable barrier around the US and carefully monitor entry into the US… we’re back to where we started.

How is it squarely at odds with objectivist ethical principles? Could you elaborate? 
 

There are no rights violations against people who do not recognise individual rights according to Rand. 
 

Regarding your vagueness point, that problem arises frequently in the application of law. It's so easy to talk about ethical principles, but much harder to draw the lines in law. 
 

We could talk about the vagueness of when a child becomes an adult, or the expiration of a patent, or the appropriate punishment for theft, or what constitutes causation, or what constitutes reasonable doubt and so on... All difficult, all debatable, no different to setting the threshold for deportation.

[Natural rights, borders and deportations]

56 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

How would one know who is a potential migrant? When Rand's sister visited Rand on the USA in the '70's, Rand thought of her sister as a potential migrant, but her sister did not.

Isn't it better to have an oath acknowledging that the specific fundamental law of the US is the US Constitution with the individual rights protected therein and in context of the other parts of this law of laws? "Principles of a free society" is too vague.

What would you say to a complete unification of the USA and Mexico? The southern border would be easier to monitor. When East Germany was united to West Germany, it was the law and economic system of the West that prevailed; likewise, law of the US could become the reformed law of Mexico. Greater peace and prosperity might come to the Mexico part of the US, compared to today, especially if we repealed the prohibition of drugs to adults. The migration and trade could be just like between Texas and Oklahoma.

Do you think citizens who support individual rights, but do not mean by that individual property rights, should be deported? (If we deport enough people to Canada, I hope they don't retaliate by getting the flow of maple syrup to us cut off.) I don't think so. As long as civil liberties, such as communications free of government suppression, especially criticisms of the government and its officials, continues; the free and creative mind continues, and at least de facto recognition of property rights has a very good chance.

By potential migrant, I just mean someone trying to enter the country. 
 

I'm not sure about unification with Mexico. I don't know enough about the cultural differences and tensions. I am British. 
 

But the key part of my point is about rights. 
 

If the government has a duty to protect individual rights and those who do not recognise individual rights are: 

 

1. A threat to individual rights 

2. Forfeit their own rights. 
 

does it not follow that the foreigner loses the right of entry and the government has the right to block entry?

 

Yes I agree with your point about the constitution. Pledging allegiance to the principles properly expressed in a constitution. 

[Natural rights, borders and deportations]

Rand suggested that the colonisation of North America was fair play because the inhabitants did not recognise individual rights. 

Therefore, if a potential migrant does not recognise individual rights, does he lose the right to enter the country?

I would suggest that migrants must pledge allegiance to individual rights and the principles of a free society, as must all residents who come of age. 
 

Any migrant who refuses to, or does so unconvincingly, would be blocked from entry. 
 

And anyone, migrant or domestic born adult, who violates those principles beyond a certain threshold would be eligible for deportation. 
 

What are the problems with this from an Objectivist perspective?

[Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point?]

27 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Preventing by any means. The issue is preventing (survival qua man) of another man's survival "non defensively" i.e. initiating the prevention.

According or based on the nature of a human being.

So you're saying punching a man in the face does not prevent the survival (qua man) of that man?

[Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point?]

22 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Morality alone, that's up to the individual. But the rest, that would be whoever makes the laws (and ultimately the justification for that is on what basis a government should be founded).

It's one and the same.

The initiation of physical force (between humans) can have a matter of fact dictionary definition or an Objectivist definition.

The dictionary definition is along the lines of objects colliding between humans or any kind of physical resistance/force between humans, like a playful push or a vaccine injection, or boxing etc.

The Objectivist definition appears to be 'the type of initiation of physical force which is unjust'.

Which begs the question. Which types of dictionary definition physical force are just and which types are unjust?

 

[Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point?]

56 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

But I was clear that the government doesn't have a duty to intervene per se

But of course it does. The government's duty is to protect individual rights. The initiation of physical force is a violation of individual rights and it is banned under the law. Therefore, the government has a duty to intervene.

So if you cannot give away/surrender/trade away your right to life (partially or otherwise), then as long as it is considered a violation of your right to life, the gov would have a duty to intervene.

Then the only question is determining whether it is or is not an initiation of physical force.

 

56 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I'm not sure how else to explain it. I was saying that your example has to do with potential damage, not violation of rights. To later be harmed would not be a violation of your right to life, in the sense the damage could not have been known before; it could not have been intentional that you were harmed (or there is no reasonable expectation you would have been harmed). All your means of living your life as you see fit are available for you to use as you wish when you put yourself at risk.

It's still a violation of your right to life from the POV of the violator. They committed the act of force. 

Unless you mean the transmission of covid is not an initiation of force or a violation of anyone's rights as long as the person who transmitted it didn't know it? So it comes back to defining the initiation of force.

56 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

To even think about the way your right to life is used or what constitutes its violation depends on having that right to begin with. That right doesn't go away if you ignore it, just as much as your right to life doesn't go away because some totalitarian government ignored your right to life.

I acknowledged this.

 

2 hours ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

The alternative seems to be that:

"Because my right to life is derived from the facts of nature and is therefore unalterable, any initiation of physical force against myself, direct or indirect, is a violation of my right to life. Even if I sign a contract in which I give consent to the initiation of physical force against myself, such a contract would be void by default. If I consequently receive physical force, the government has a duty to intervene to protect my right to life, even if I insist that the government does not intervene."

 

[Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point?]

1 minute ago, Easy Truth said:

Before I can move on, can you please elaborate on this?

Who is giving away their right to claim damages and why?

It was in reference to the covid example. If the transmission of covid is considered an initiation of physical force then the entrant could enter the property at their own risk i.e giving up their right to claim damages against anyone inside the property who transmits the virus to them causing them harm.

Of course, if it is not considered an initiation of physical force then the 'enter at your own risk' disclaimer isn't a rights based issue.

But that leads me to the central issue of my post regarding the definition of the initiation of physical force.

[Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point?]

4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Suicide is your right (one that does not affect others).

Assisted suicide may not be depending on how it is done.

So what is the guiding principle for assessing assisted suicide? That is what I've been getting at. That is a situation where you are consenting to another person killing you.

 

4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

There are rights you are born with and then there are rights that are contractual.

The right "not to be murdered" is not the same time as "the right to your car".

You can trade your car but not your life.

The fact that you own your life is not contractual.

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

What I'm trying to say is that to even make sense of saying you have a right to make choices and bad decisions, depends on a foundation of a right to life first and foremost. If we contradict that, or ignore that, there is no basis to say you have a right to anything in particular.

It's not correct to say that taking on risk is equivalent to signing away part of your right to life.

One implicit question is whether anyone should interfere. Just because I say that you can't sign away your right to life even if you wanted to doesn't mean that I want to interfere. If it was some secret island off the coast of Alaska, that wasn't part of the US, I wouldn't care. They can attempt any contradiction they want, and I won't care.

The second part is if they are violating each other's rights. And they are. One person is murdering another person. It's not a risk of death, it is a guarantee of death. The objective is a deprivation of someone's life.

When I say 'trade', I didn't mean someone else gains possession of it. You 'surrender' some of your right to life in exchange for some values. So it is a personal trade in that sense.

You're giving away your right to claim damages from someone who transmits covid to you and harms you as a result.

Now if the above sentence cannot be described as trading, giving, surrendering etc part of your right to life, then how can it be described? And would it contradict Objectivism?

The alternative seems to be that:

"Because my right to life is derived from the facts of nature and is therefore unalterable, any initiation of physical force against myself, direct or indirect, is a violation of my right to life. Even if I sign a contract in which I give consent to the initiation of physical force against myself, such a contract would be void by default. If I consequently receive physical force, the government has a duty to intervene to protect my right to life, even if I insist that the government does not intervene."

If this is true, it destroys the 'enter at your own risk' argument (which I was/am sympathetic to).

So are not the ultimate questions here 'who decides what is and is not the (illegal/immoral) initiation of physical force?' and 'how exactly is it to be defined?'?

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

so I'm not going to get into discussing what exactly initiation of force means.

Perhaps it is the crux of the issue though. I think it does need clarifying.

4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Force in this context is not a collision of objects.

Fraud and theft are not a collision of something against your body.

Involuntary, meaning (not by accident) but being force by another person is the issue.

Not being forced by a tsunami or your hunger.

It is "preventing" another from pursuing their life as they would see fit if when they are unfettered by you. (and the same goes for them)

"preventing" by what means? "unfettered" in what way? And according to who?

A fist to the face is a collision of objects. That is physical force. Physical force that does not involve the collision of objects is known as indirect physical force i.e fraud. I understand the 'indirect' part to mean that the collision of objects would have or will take place if the victim tried to prevent the crime from taking place or in attempting to reclaim his property.

How is boxing any different from a more extreme version of a similar game, on a sliding scale from smashing knee caps, acid wars etc all the way up to a hunger games fight to the death?

What is the principle that separates boxing from the rest? i.e why is it not an initiation of physical force when it comes to boxing but it is with more extreme games?

(And not just games. Anything that involves consenting to physical violence against oneself or initiating against a consenting person).

Why shouldn't the government intervene the moment the first punch is thrown?

[Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point?]

19 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The Covid instance of consent was the only one mentioned by the OP, and his concern with that is which clearly motivated his question.

Exactly right. 

22 hours ago, whYNOT said:

one is NOT initiating force by transmitting an infection; one does NOT have the right to not be infected.

What’s the logic here? Even for a deadly virus that would kill man at his best i.e fit and healthy?

It seems to me your claim rests on divorcing the virus from the individual even though the latter carries the former.

For covid, there is perhaps a case to be made. I’m not sure it can be considered a violation if the damage is primarily due to the ‘victim’s’ own poor health. 

22 hours ago, whYNOT said:

A business owner however could rightfully disclaim as many have always, that injuries (etc.) on his premises are non-liable. "Enter at your own risk".

Right, this seems like the obvious solution to me, and I’ve been left baffled by the libertarian and Objectivist controversy over how to respond to Covid. At the very least, it does the bulk of the heavy lifting.

Do you know of any prominent Objectivists who have argued along these lines?

20 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Boxing is not an initiation of force.

It is not an agreement to allow violation of your rights.

You seem to be equating an agreement that has risk involved as always being a violation of your rights.

Then what’s your definition of “initiation of force”? 

Punching someone in the face complies with the literal definition of those words.

If the initiation of force (literal interpretation) is illegal only when it is involuntary receipt of the initiation of force, as Doug suggests Ayn Rand meant, then the individual can dispense of his right to life (and its derivatives) in any way he pleases meaning he can consent to the receipt of physical force (guaranteed or potential). 

As necrovore argues, man can “surrender” some of his rights in exchange for other values.

In other words this is ultimately down to the discretion of the individual. If not, why? Since he owns his life, he has the right to incrementally trade it off (or incrementally risk trading it off) for other values. 

In the case of covid, when one enters a premise “at their own risk”, they weigh that risk against the values to be gained from entering. By entering they trade away some of their right to life (they’d be losing their right to be free of the initiation of physical force from covid, assuming one considers the transmission of covid an initiation of force). 

A more extreme example: a group of men dying from cancer agree to a televised fight to the death for big sums of cash which they can pass onto their family. 

One might object on the basis that the the “surrender” of rights for values, or the “weighing” of force and values must be rational (like receiving a vaccine) and so voluntarily fighting to the death for money is fundamentally anti-life and irrational. 

But we know from Objectivist literature that one has the right to live the life of a heroin addict which is also fundamentally anti-life and irrational. One has the right to sabotage oneself. 

[Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point?]

9 hours ago, necrovore said:

A rights violation requires that you didn't agree to it.

As Eiuol pointed out, I’m essentially asking if one can consent to the initiation of physical force against oneself (actual or potential).

Your response seems to be that yes you can, so long as there is something to be gained (potentially). That is the guiding principle? So, what about the hunger games? And my covid 19 example?

If you or anyone could post that Rand passage on arbitrary contracts it would be very helpful. I own the book in audio form so it would take a long time tracking down the passage.

 

17 hours ago, Eiuol said:

It might be easier to think about distinct cases. Can you consent to being a slave? Can you consent to being killed? Both of these necessarily deprive you of your life, which is the basis to thinking about right in the first place.

Euthanasia? 
 

I suppose you wouldn’t be a slave if you consented. It would be voluntary work free of charge.

But same question to you assuming you approve of the legality of boxing, what is the guiding principle?

12 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

But the OP seems to ask about a "violation of your rights" that you agree to. You agree to be punched based on some rules as you say. Is that a violation of your rights that you are agreeing to?

 

Do you oppose boxing then? If not why not, despite the fact that it involves the initiation of physical force? 

[Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point?]

Can one give consent to the violation of their own rights, and in doing so provide legal protection to the violator who has received such consent? 
 

I see no reason why not. If they couldn’t, they wouldn’t have the right to their own life. 
 

An individual can make it a condition upon entry to their private property that entrants agree to specific potential violations of their rights, like any harm from a covid 19 infection, which would provide legal protection to any entrants who transmit the virus. In these properties, this would remove the justification for government intervention in the name of protecting individual rights. 

[What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?]

8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Potentially, but IQ is also a double-edged sword in a certain way.

There are three basic methods of mental functioning: rational, truth-oriented thinking, drifting (or "going with the grain") and evading.  Both the rational and evasive forms of thought are "active" and their effectiveness is at least partially mediated by IQ.  So although it's true that someone with a higher IQ could potentially be more effective at the proper cognitive method (like John Galt) they could also be more effective at evasion and self-delusion (like Robert Stadler).

Right but you agree that IQ is an example of genetics influencing human behaviour? Do you know of any Objectivist writings on evolutionary psychology? This is a burgeoning field and I think Objectivists are too dismissive of 'hard wired' biological biases in human behaviour. As we've agreed, it doesn't mean incompatibility with Objectivism. Reality is what it is. That is what an Objectivist seeks to know.

8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Well, we can't just ban everyone on Earth who calls themselves a "Muslim"; as with any other religion there are plenty of "Muslims" who get drunk, have sex with random strangers and simply are not a threat to anything except logical consistency.  If half of the "Muslims" in the UK believe that homosexuality should be illegal then that also means that the other half do not

It actually doesn't. The study found that 52% disagreed that homosexuality should be legal while only 18% agreed.

But does it matter? 52% is huge compared to the population at large, which is 5%, the same study found. That is a massive disparity. And the population of British Muslims is rapidly growing in size. Plus, legality is the bare minimum, attitudes on the morality of homosexuality would be even worse, which has its own cultural influence.

The study also found that 23% support the introduction of Sharia Law and 39% agreed that 'wives should always obey their husbands' compared to 5% of the pop at large.

The list goes on and on. The bottom line is the rapid expansion of the Muslim population likely means the rapid expansion of these attitudes and the growth of a serious threat to western civlisation (as this is happening across the west).

8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Now, it's a different question as to whether or not such people should really count as Muslims, but as long as they don't believe in the parts of Islam that would truly make them dangerous they have the same freedom of movement as anybody else.  What we really want our screening process to look for are basically those individuals who believe that infidels and blasphemers deserve to be murdered.

Yes I agree we could implement more detailed screening processes. Right now it is political suicide to speak of the drawbacks of the growth of the Muslim population and the need for discriminatory migration policies based on values.

8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

While I tend to agree with the sentiment I'm really not sure it's as cut-and-dry as that.  What about native Muslims who were born here and wouldn't be willing to personally harm anyone at all, but who would vote for Sharia law if they ever could?  What about Communists, antihumanists or "people" who talk in movie theatres?  What you're proposing is that the government should get involved in policing certain ideas, and although I'm also uncomfortable with the prospect of having neighbors that support Sharia law (or Communism) we should only continue down that line of reasoning with extreme caution.

I agree it requires extreme caution but mostly what the government needs to do is simply protect our rights to allow critics to undermine Islam. Hate speech laws are doing just the opposite. But this must be combined with restricting immigration to be more effective, considering the Muslim population is already growing rapidly even without further immigration, due to their birth rates.

8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

If you're worried about the voting tendencies of immigrants, though - who said they should automatically be given a vote as soon as they arrive?

Good idea. How long would you leave it?

8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Also you misspelled favor. 

Haha I don't think so!

8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

If they are a threat.  I suspect they wouldn't bother making the journey to your country if you'd stop giving them all free houses, free money and free reign with your daughters.

Yes this is an important factor of course. Subsidising their breeding is literally a suicidal policy.

8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

No.  Free societies originally developed in the West but they've since taken root all over the place.  Were Australia and Hong Kong not free societies until just last year?  Certain people all over the world do actually get it (like the Nepali-American couple I mentioned) and certain others don't.  Responding to the latter by giving up on the very freedoms on which such societies are based (including the freedom of movement) would be like trying to cure COVID by administering drain cleaner.

Not as much 'taken root' as having been transplanted. You'll notice those British colonies where freedom 'took root' most successfully is actually mostly those colonies that were literal British offshoot societies, meaning the British people themselves physically settled in those colonies, bringing their culture with them. The US, Canada, Australia, NZ in particular.

An actual transplantation process from one peoples to another is a much slower process, though I agree it is possible. The longer the process is attempted, the more successful it is going to be. Hong Kong was a British colony for 156 years. The recent attempts to spread democracy and freedom in the Middle East with only a few years of occupation was laughable. It didn't stand a chance.

 

8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

 

Despite such ideas I'm personally quite fond of Jordan Peterson.  Many of his other ideas are correct and a few of them mesh quite nicely with Objectivism.  But despite the fact that chemicals and hierarchies are an aspect of human biology, you can't adequately describe human behavior in those terms; it's like trying to explain how an internal combustion engine works in terms of individual molecules.

Adequately, no. In the nature vs nurture debate, few would claim it is all nature. But that doesn't mean it isn't significant. And there is a lot of evidence that it is significant. Any philosophy has to account for it:

Lincoln said:

"It is to deny, what the history of the world tells us is true, to suppose that men of ambition and talents will not continue to spring up amongst us. And, when they do, they will as naturally seek the gratification of their ruling passion, as others have so done before them. The question is, can that gratification be found in supporting and maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others? Most certainly it cannot"

Is it not an aspect of human nature to some degree, originating perhaps in the evolution of power dynamics, that man tends to seek power and tear down those on top? (Again, not saying free will and rational thought cannot overcome this on an individual basis).

So one justification for the American system of government is that it exists to constrain that tendency through the balance of powers, making it as difficult as possible for that tyrant to surface. That is a rational response to what may be an innate tendency of man.

That is a political philosophy based on human beings as they tend to behave, as opposed to human beings as we would like them to behave.

8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

 

Maybe it won't.  That changes neither the fact that it is the truth nor that every single person would benefit from learning about it.  Shouldn't we advocate for the truth regardless of whether anyone else wants to hear it or not?

I agree we should, but we should also understand the limitations of that approach and subscribe to a philosophy that takes account of that reality.

It's all very well for Objectivists to preach about how the world ought to be and how humans ought to behave (and it is a vital service) but someone has to get on with the business of dealing with the world as it is and how humans actually behave, which means confronting the reality of certain 'tendencies' which don't seem to be dissipating any time soon.

[What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?]

11 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

But why? I doubt that it is true, but even if it is, we don't have to suppose that the reason is because they are immigrants. Why would it be that a foreign culture that they are only exposed to at home exerts more cultural pressure than the culture they see everywhere else?

Because they grow up under the influence of their parents and the surrounding community which is dominated by Islam, and in many cases this includes the Islamic schools they go to. So it isn't just the home, though the home alone is a significant influence.

Their lives predominantly exist inside these communities, which revolves around the local mosque, which is a significant influence too, local muslim run businesses, restaurants, shisha bars etc which dominate the street and they do it surrounded by fellow Muslims, who also form their friendship groups. Have you ever visited one of these areas? I'd recommend it. It's like entering another world.

The idea that they are 'only exposed to at home' the Islamic culture and that the world outside that home is western, as if these families are living like isolated islands in westernised streets is very far from the reality of actual migrant settlement.

11 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Like above, I doubt this is true and I don't know how you could simply know that the area was 90% Muslim just by walking by. But even if it is true, you have to ask why it developed into a microcosm, and to what extent the microcosm has adopted or significantly mixed with the local culture. China Towns across the US are a microcosm but they are extremely capitalistic and possibly even more so than the average American. 

I can assure you 90% is accurate. It was home time so most of the children and their parents were gathered outside in the playground where the children are picked up. I didn't see single white kid/family. Everyone had brown skin and they were all wearing Islamic-style clothing and this was deep inside a Muslim dominated area as described above.

Why it developed into a microcosm? Because that's just what people do. Maybe it's human nature, maybe it isn't. But the facts are the facts. Immigrants tend to concentrate in areas and set up their own communities, propagating their own culture. That's just what happens. The "local culture" is their own culture, because they create their own local communities. The same phenomenon happened with European migrants to the US, whether Italian or Irish. However, European migrants shared Judeo-Christian roots so the differences are not as pronounced as with Muslim immigrants.

But there are strong cultural differences between different areas of the US even within that general Judeo-Christain background. That is the legacy of immigration. It isn't random. The cultural practices and attitudes of particular areas can be traced back directly to the immigrants who settled there, carrying their cultures with them.

I'd recommend Sowell's culture trilogy for an indepth study of this. It is true that some cultures are more open to influence than others. The more dogmatic, the less open. Islamic culture is of the less open types (of course there are variations within Islamic culture itself), which isn't surprising for anyone who has studied Islam.

As for the Chinese, they are still very different.

11 hours ago, Eiuol said:

And for the sake of argument, we could even suppose that the microcosm failed to assimilate, perhaps as far as to advocate for sharia law. I would characterize the situation as the chickens coming home to roost. The problem is not the nature of the immigrants and the nature of the country where the immigrants come from. The problem is the culture of the UK. The culture of the UK always seemed weak to me and doesn't exert much influence. I mean, sure, I like some British TV, and there are some regional quirks that I find funny. But really there isn't much to it. Not to mention even on the level of government, the UK is kind of... Nothing. On top of that, it was heavily imperialistic for so long, so there isn't much people really seek out from the UK. You should hardly be surprised when the UK barely exerts cultural pressure on immigrants. It won't matter how many Muslims you prevent from entering the UK, the societal decline you are concerned about will still be going on.

If you fix the cultural problems, the rest will follow. 

 

I agree, the behaviour of the host country can be a significant factor but since we are advocating a free society here, the most a host country can do to change cultural behaviours is to protect freedom of speech and other rights, allowing the Muslim culture to be held under the spotlight in the media and criitcised for its barbaric attitudes and practices, and ensuring the rule of law reigns supreme.

What do you mean by 'exert culture pressure'? I agree there are more authoritarian measures we could take, including regulating and/or banning mosques and Islamic schools, forcing Muslims to go to schools that aim to westernise them etc.

But a free society cannot stop immigrants congregating the way they do, nor can you do much to make a culture more open or to stimulate fundamental change within that culture, at least not in the short term without violent conflict, especially when religion is involved. Those things can take hundreds of years. It took that long for Christianity to reform. The larger the Muslim population, the bigger this problem becomes and the harder it is to manage.

To 'modernise' Islam comes at a great cost. We are essentially importing that problem to the west, the same problem we resolved at great pains, over a long period of time, with Christianity.

Limiting Muslim immigration is a simple, effective and practical measure to restrict the rapid growth of Muslim communities and therefore the rapid growth of an alien, hostile culture.

[What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?]

6 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

What comes to my mind is that "suffering, as such, is not a value; only man's fight against suffering, is." There are people engaged in the fight against the suffering you are expressing. What are you contributing to the effort?

Never you mind about that. But I agree with the point.

[What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?]

On 2/18/2021 at 5:50 PM, MisterSwig said:

I don't believe Rand's philosophy is mine to revise or expand upon. I have, however, criticized her position regarding public property. And so I think her definition of capitalism is mistaken and partly accounts for some of our rifts when it comes to politics. 

Thanks. Rand revised and expanded on Aristotle. I'm not saying it necessarily has to still be called Objectivism. It depends how big the changes are.

19 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

We have the power to choose rationally.  To the extent that instead we let our emotions do our thinking for us, we leave ourselves very vulnerable to the subconscious and/or genetics/biological processes.

I agree. The problem is very few people choose to think, to be rational, and even among those who attempt it, there is fierce disagreement.

We know that it takes a deliberate, conscious effort to focus and think rationally, which can be a draining process, and most people simply 'go with the grain' so to speak, meaning to avoid the burden of thinking for oneself in large areas of their lives and having faith in established patterns of thought and action, passed down over generations, essentially allowing them to econmise on the time and effort that goes into thinking everything through rationally on their own.

But also to 'go with the grain' in the sense of those biological processes we are referring to. Perhaps those processes themselves exert a 'bias' or incentive against thinking too much. An obvious example, which may be just the tip of the iceberg, is the painful sensation one feels when focusing over a prolonged period. Another is IQ. The higher the IQ, the easier it probably is to spend the same amount of time focusing and thinking rationally, so the lower the incentive to 'switch off'.

15 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

How do you propose to alter human nature? Are you proposing that others need to be managed since self-management mysteriously leads to your rights being severely restricted, as is the current state of affairs?

I don't propose altering human nature, though in the future this may be possible with new technology, and may be the only way for humans to ever behave on a mass scale in the way Rand had advocated.

I understood 'manage themselves' to include politics. It's not particularly mysterious why my rights are severely restricted. We live in a democratic system where people can vote away my rights/resources.

15 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Do we? If you mean first-generation adults, perhaps. If you mean the children of that first-generation, not really, they will assimilate just as well as any other child. Carnegie was born in Scotland by the way, it is not as if some standout Americans that we think of as Americans are never immigrants.

By the way, the example you gave of ethnic minorities voting for Trump doesn't have anything to do with adapting to a culture. On top of that, not all ethnic minorities are immigrants... 

What kind of limitation are you thinking of? 

I suppose we would need to be more specific about what we mean by assimilate and of course it varies depending on the immigrant group.

In the UK, Muslims are extremely out of step with the average on attitudes toward women and gays. For example, a recent study found that half of all British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal. I disagree that the average child of Muslim immigrants will assimilate to British culture just as well as the average child of indigenous Brits.

The problem is that immigrants tend to concentrate in particular areas so that the area becomes a microcosm of their homeland to an extent. I was in one of those areas recently, which is dominated by Muslims. I walked past a school in the area and it was about 90% Muslim.

Limitations based on values essentially. Discriminatory immigration policies. Perhaps a cap on Muslim immigration to stem the flow. The larger and faster particular immigrant groups grow, the more self-sustaining their culture is and the more resistant to outside influence.

 

10 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Fundamentally, each of us has a right to the freedom of movement (including international movement) so long as we're not doing so for any nefarious purpose (such as terrorism).  There are no two ways around that.

I fear you are right.

10 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

While we should have "open" borders that allow any civilized person to live wherever the Hell they want, it does make sense for us to have some sort of screening process to ensure that potential immigrants are, in fact, civilized people who aren't planning on manufacturing sarin gas or instituting Sharia law as soon as they arrive.  And since we should be trying to constrain the welfare state as much as we possibly can, it seems prudent to also say something like no immigrant can ever qualify for any sort of government handout, for example.  Once we had something like that in place we could then start trying to talk about whether we should really be giving handouts to anyone at all.

I agree so where do we draw the line on this? Perhaps there is a rational case to impose discriminatory immigration policies based on values.

You say institute Sharia law as soon as they arrive. What about simply being in favour of it? Of wanting to see it in the host country? Such a person is an enemy. There must be a rational case against immigrants who want to come here and violate our rights/don't recognise those rights, pledging allegiance to Allah, the Quran and sharia law etc.

10 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

The Objectivist position on borders is that they should be open - within reason.

Incidentally, I wouldn't say that you can't still call yourself an Objectivist if you disagree with that position - just that you're currently wrong.    But that happens to us all.

Do we know that, though?

I once knew an immigrant couple from Nepal who, despite not speaking the best English, acted like some of the most American people I've ever met.  The one time I made the mistake of referring to them as Nepali-Americans I was swiftly told on no uncertain terms that they were full-fledged Americans like myself.  That couple took about two years to become almost entirely integrated (with the exception of some slight accents that I'm sure they've ditched by now).

I bring them up, not to say that transplantation is quick, but simply to point out that it depends on whom we are talking about transplanting.  Some people drag their feet while others are eager to get it out of the way ASAP.

Yes it depends on the people. Ultimately, those who already share similar fundamental values will assimilate quicker than those who don't (but then is it really assimilation?). So those that drag their feet are the ones we ought to limit, if they are a threat to a free society.

10 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

 

And those who drag their feet about it, and set up little miniature versions of their respective homelands - do they actually want to BE American (or British)?  If not then what we should really be asking about are their motives for trying to enter our countries in the first place.  I also know a number of Somali immigrants to my area who have no intention of ever integrating, learning English or getting a job; they came to America for the handouts.  Handouts which should not exist in the first place.

Exactly. This is the issue that the west is currently facing. The development of free societies grew out of a small corner of the world by a group of very particular peoples. It has never developed anywhere else. It is surely playing with fire to allow peoples from all over the world to pour in and risk crushing that precious development, on the belief that they will 'get it' and recognise and defend human rights.

10 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?

See my response to Doug above. I will add the question I asked Reidy earlier; what do you make of Peterson's point about human beings tending to form hierarchies and that there are deep biological causes of this which he shows is shared with other animals and therefore has deep evolutionary origins?

Now I'm not necessarily saying that humans cannot use their freewill and reason to overcome any biological 'bias' toward forming hierarchies but do you think that bias exists, generally speaking? And that there are many other biases at play that 'push' or provide incentives for humans to behave in particular ways which helps explain particular behaviours and trends that we can observe throughout human history, common to all cultures and races?

I also don't think Objectivism is necessarily incompatible with this stuff. Ultimately we have to take reality as it is. The issue I have is the reality of human nature is far from well understood due to these biological processes that we don't fully understand.

And surely if we know, or think it is highly likely, that society will never be filled with mostly Objectivists on a mass scale, then the political philosophy of Objectivism is inadequate as a prescription for the world as it is, and more suitable for the world we would like to see, that is, a world where most people subscribe to Objectivism and respect human rights. I want that world but I don't see it happening perhaps ever.

[What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?]

8 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

If we are talking about immigrants rather than refugees, most immigrants come to the US because they see US society is better than where they came from. They are already open and wanting to gradually change their viewpoint to one consistent with America. And then their children are pretty much as American as anyone else. All that this means is that if the culture is healthy and strong, immigrants will come because they seek that health and strength. If the culture is unhealthy and weak, and the immigrant's culture is by comparison stronger, then of course the immigrant's prior culture will take over instead.

 

Agreed. There is more than enough evidence to conclude that culture can be transplanted from one people to another, including from one race to another. Thomas Sowell's example of black American ghetto culture originating with white southern rednecks who came from Scotland and Ireland is a good one.

Another good example is the increase in the ethnic minority vote for Trump.

On the other hand, we know the transplantation is a very slow process. The ethnic minority vote for Trump was still only a very small percentage of the total ethnic minority vote, despite the increase.

So, if we know these things, is it possible to create an objective, if not Objectivist, case to limit immigration based on the likelihood that without that limit, our relatively free society will be destroyed?

[What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?]

30 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

You start with yourself and let others manage themselves.

I appreciate the sentiment but letting others manage themselves means my rights being severely restricted. That is the current state of affairs.

30 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

It would not be an Objectivist case. It would only be an objective case were I so inclined.

Please do share it.

30 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

Consider, too, the role compulsory education contributes as an obstacle going forward.

Yes, as a temporary step, do you support the 'infiltration' of the education system? If we cannot privatise it currently, the least we can do is wrestle it back off the leftists.

30 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

If you're still intent on changing the world (or even just standing up for America) consider the advice provided in the hidden comment by William McRaven:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great advice. I'm all for self-improvement and I'm a big fan of motivational speakers.

[What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?]

52 minutes ago, 2046 said:

That was the best part of Atlas Shrugged when John Galt had to convince the majority before doing what he wanted

I assume this is sarcasm? Please could you be more specific about the point you are making? I am referring to the politics of entire countries, not a small group of Objectivists practicing Objectivist politics in a valley.

I cannot do what I want here in the UK. My rights are severely restricted.

[What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?]

58 minutes ago, Reidy said:

Empirical psychology is not exactly a part of philosophy, but the Objectivist writings make several assertions in this field without providing more than intuitive or anecdotal evidence:

Personality predicts sexual attraction.

Sexual attraction predicts personality.

Artistic taste predicts personality.

Personality predicts artistic taste.

Childhood literary exposure predicts adult character.

Philosophical training and belief predict intellectual efficacy.

This is not to say that one couldn't test these claims, only that I haven't seen such tests.

You've touched on one of my ongoing issues with Objectivism here. I am concerned that the philosophy leaves insufficent room for the complicated nature of psychology and how the subconscious and/or genetics/biological processes affects decision making/human behaviour.

You may have noticed I posted another question asking for any Objectivist writings on heuristics.

If my concern is misplaced, please could you or anyone explain why?

Sexual attraction is a good one. The Objectivist position on this has changed over time. Before, homosexuality was simply a case of holding the wrong premises. Now it is one's nature.

Even if it is true that ultimately we have free will and we have the final say on our actions, it seems to me that certain biological processes exert a bias on human behaviour; the pain of hunger exerting an incentive to eat food, orgasms to have sex, endorphins influencing behaviour, all the biological processes resulting from evolution and natural selection etc.

How does Objectivism approach these issues? For exmaple, what do you make of Jordan Peterson's point about the biological determinism, or at least bias, toward the creation of hierarchies?