~Sophia~

Yes it does - the nature of the situation in which human rights are in conflict.

This is an abnormal, man created situation in which the rights of citizens have been placed in conflict with the rights of immigrants. There is no moral obligation on the part of the citizens to act at the expense of their rights. Immigrants do not have a moral right to demand such a thing. No person has a moral right to demand a sacrifice from another. That is Objectivism. If you find yourself demanding such a thing - you have to check your premises. The arguments that have been presented here in support of this are pure rationalism removed from the facts of reality. Most of us here (if not all) agree on what "ought to be" but the conditions, the context which make the ought to be a good idea are not present at the moment. The only true solution is to eliminate laws which created the conflict of rights in a first place.

Yes, I thought about it but I don't consider it the same. Economy is created by the producers but it is not dependent on the looting/redistributive system the way it is claimed. In fact it is the opposite. Also in practice, it would be a gradual process of failure and withdrawal.

I am still thinking about this issue. When people can move freely indefinitely the welfare state becomes unsustainable quickly and breaks down. To me that is the strongest argument for open immigration. Restricting immigration (aside from criminal background checks) helps to maintain the socialistic status quo.

I am sorry for the delay in response and overall reduced participation. Lack of time for this kind of activities is an ongoing state of things in my life. Because I do not support further creation of immoral laws. The overall rule of law is important (as per my argument) but so it the content of the law. Increasing the % of immoral laws is not in my best interest. The goal is to eliminate immoral laws while maintaining the overall rule of the law.

It is the restriction on the use of force in social relationships. It is both by the 1) government vs. the individual and 2) between individuals. It is a mistake to ignore the significance of the second as you have done. The second after all is the very reason why men do need a government in a first place. This follows based on your reasoning but it is false given my explanation above. No disagreement there. It is however not the reality today that there is no conflict. This abnormal if you will situation exists. No one here has claimed such a thing. This is true for you and me. But an altruist won't respect the law more on that level when you repel the kind of laws me and you consider immoral. I live in today's real context. People of different moral views are around me and when I succeed at eliminating immoral laws I want them to obey that rule of law. The source of the of government’s authority is the consent of the governed.

Some people I know are still illegal in US after close to 17 years (that is how long ago I moved from NY to Vancouver). I chose not to live that life. That was my personal judgment you are free to yours. Right changes can be made after the elimination of the welfare state. I understand the reluctance of American citizens, given their rapidly growing welfare state, to just open borders right now.

I am also an immigrant and the only reason why I am a Canadian citizen and not an American citizen is because of immorality of American immigration law.

I have no idea what are you talking about. That is not what I said or meant. Your emotion is affecting your comprehension. Your responses do not reflect my views (you have checked them very easily - I have written many posts on this board).

I am not sure how you have arrived at this. You seem to be jumping to conclusions. Was it because I mentioned merit? That at least would be a good start. I do believe that some screening is necessary. I am open to arguments in regard to what criteria is best. I am not sure if you realize just how broken your current immigration system is. Almost anything seems like an improvement.

I am not sure why would you get this impression given when I wrote. I am saying precisely that it should not be advocated that it is (or can be) up to the individual to decide which laws they will obey and which they won't based on what they consider correct. I did not think it needed to be stated on this board how it is properly decided what a correct law is.

I am not for open borders. I am for legal immigration with rational objective rules, screening, and merit based component. After the agreement of the principle is established the discussion about particulars can happen. Eliminating of the welfare state would resolve many of raised issues but even if that is not the case I am sure people could come up with some reasonable conditions. For example, I believe Canada has a rule that if you sponsor a family member, after entering Canada, that person will not be eligible for any public assistance for 10 years. For those first 10 years if they "fall on the bad luck" or simply can't work you have to help them financially instead. I remember reading this in the sponsor agreement.

What you deem as correct is probably very different from what the socialist or satanist next door considers as correct. They may never agree with you given their different moral code. Do you want them to take the same approach in relation to the many laws they don't like? Do you mean in relation to the societal respect for the law? If so.. it depends on the situation. If you doing light drugs in your basement and keeping it to yourself then you are right.

Implication for actions for me is that my default is the respect for the law. That is what I want to project and advocate. That is what I want the societal standard to remain. That is what I teach my child. I am not for acting like a martyr, either. But I do pay attention to the significance of what I am doing in the light of what I wrote above. That significance is a part of my cost/benefit analysis if you will.

Is it ever justified? Sure. Rand identified at least one such scenario but there are others. Please note her mentioning here the importance of one's respect for legality.

I disagree. You have seen this principle in practice ... little by little for years but especially recently. The actions of Republicans against the free market during their 8 years, especially toward the end of their term (with the bailouts) emboldened Democrats. The consequences are proportional to scope. One person privately breaking the law in their basement would not have the same influence as a large group doing so openly and further excusing others doing so or advocating others to follow.

It does not. I am taking into consideration a bigger scope of things. Reason should be promoted as the ONLY proper standard influencing societal change. Please pause and ponder the importance of this statement. Socialists in your country don't like your Constitution (or parts of it) but they are legally bound by it and can't just openly boldly disobey it (although we know they are trying their best). At least they still have to pay lip service to it. They would have to persuade, using the rules of logic and facts, all kinds of legal scholars and the courts about the illegitimacy of the Constitution before they could change or eliminate it. That process is secret and ought to be preserved. What you allow yourself you allow that to others. Again, civil disobedience seems affordable because others are not engaging in it.

What is moral or not is contextual even in regard to immoral laws. In most cases, civil disobedience in a mostly rights respecting country like America (it still IS) would be immoral - for the reasons aequalsa eloquently presented. Consequences of one person doing it may not seem very severe but the consequences of advocating it and attempting to do so on a large scale is not trivial. To attempt to achieve the good by undermining proper function of the government as an enforcer of an established law (which means all laws of that land) when intellectual persuasion against immoral laws IS possible is to reject reason as means with which men should deal with one another. Like aequalsa mentioned: "you cannot protect rights by destroying or fighting against the entity which is responsible for preserving them, except as a last resort." The only reason why breaking immoral laws seems "affordable" is because most people around you are not engaging in breaking laws they deem as bad. Your reasoning in regard to what is a "bad" law may be proper but other people, with their fuzzy thinking or ignorance or more importantly their different ideology, may regard all sorts of legitimate laws as "bad". If you do not think you should follow the law of the land why should they? Think of all of the socialists and the inconvienent for them US Constitution. When the processes that lead to rights violations can no longer be reversed through intellectual means - civil disobedience becomes moral. softwareNerd: Even if one grants the morality of following the rule of law, that does not mean one ought to support a new law that further enforces the current rule of law. Thanks. Can't agree more.

Happy birthday!

Thank you for posting. I am in the process of watching the QA component (I did not want the experience to end after the end of this man's speech...).

Last time I checked it is the parent who decides to have a child and not the other way around. It is also the nature of our species that our offspring is born immature and takes a long time to reach independence. It is a fact of reality that by having a child you create yourself a dependent. That is the context here that you have dropped. Now, in most cases, this period of dependency is expected to end at some point. But there are cases in which it is never reached (for example, mental infirmity due to an accident) and a parent continues to be responsible for providing support - it does ends up being "from womb to tomb".

Maybe I am missing something. They just voted for this bill so what would make anyone believe that they can get the majority to vote to repeal it?

Historically, has any bill dealing with social programs been ever successfully repelled through the courts?

I found this website: here 80,000 people have signed it since Sunday. From the website: I think there are other pledges or letters of intent on the internet.

I hope someone is informed enough to comment. What is the significance of this? How likely that this can actually prevent this bill from becoming the law of the entire land? How much self-governing power do the states still have vs. the federal government?