Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Cogito

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/09/1990

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Chat Nick
  • Real Name
  • Copyright
  • School or University
    Baruch College
  • Occupation
    Undergraduate Student

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    Cogito 101010
  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    New York, NY, USA
  1. Just FYI: I dropped out of the OAC at the end of last semester due to having too busy a schedule, before LL was even completed. That being said, had I not dropped out then I would have certainly dropped out by now due to this mess.
  2. This question reflects a fundamental misconception of the concept "energy". Energy is a property, specifically a capacity. It is not an entity, a thing, a material, etc. Energy does not "interact" with matter, matter HAS energy.
  3. Quotes from that article: "With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services." So should we also block people from having kids unless they can prove they have a high education? This isn't immigrant-specific. "Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 bil
  4. How do "illegals" (a term I don't like to use) drain resources without being on welfare? No one has said anything about citizenship, at least not that I've seen. Refraining from impeding movement and allowing people to vote are very different things. We have a huge influx of people making demands on those services without immigration: birth. Does it make sense to use force to stop that particular influx? You shouldn't have to prove anything about supporting yourself to immigrate. If someone is willing to let you stay on their property or willing to sell you property,
  5. Sorry if I haven't been clear here. To state my position clearly: The government has a right to set up border checks if they are deemed necessary for the protection of individual rights. If a particular area (let's say Mexico, though I don't know the specifics to say if it's a good example) is overridden with crime and disease, then the government could make a determination that it's necessary to screen those coming in for diseases or known criminal status. However, if those screens don't catch anything, people should be let through. Moreover, such a border check isn't always necessary: the
  6. Yes, but I don't think it's always necessary. I grant that, in some cases (maybe the Mexican border is such a case), criminal activity is so rampant (or a disease is so widespread) that mandatory screening could be enforced. But such a system wouldn't be necessary at, say, the Canada-US border.
  7. So why isn't a background check of all entrants into New Jersey from New York necessary? There are criminals and diseased folks in New York. I've already conceded that it may be necessary in certain particularly bad areas to have such a border check, but why everywhere? Yes, but those trucks are often driven over public roads. Now, if the roads were privately owned then you could call that trespass, but as it is it's just a driver using the "public" resource (owned by everyone and therefore no one). Moreover, this ignores the fact that many immigrants come over by plane and are still
  8. Ok, fair enough. This is a political discussion, so I assumed you meant "wrong" in the sense of "shouldn't be allowed". Sorry for jumping to conclusions. Edit: Given the fact that your post was about moral, and not legal, issues, I would take it a step further. For rational, productive folks, it's more than just "nothing wrong" for them to immigrate to a freer place: It is heroic and commendable.
  9. And if the foreigners do wish to preach racist/discriminatory doctrines? By what right do you get to decide what ideas a man has to accept before being unhindered in his travel over land that is not yours?
  10. Quick distinction: For a governmental entity, a border defines jurisdiction: The area over which that particular governmental entity has the right to use retaliatory force in order to protect individual rights. For a private entity, a border defines ownership: The area over which the property owner has the right to set all terms of behaviour, interaction, etc. I think this issue stems from a conflation of these two types of borders.
  11. No one is claiming that it needs to be financially free. Immigrants who fly here should have to pay the airlines, etc. We're claiming that it should be free of government intervention, which is a very separate issue. Yes, it is currently handled by the government and it is currently very costly. That's our problem! It doesn't need to be! At the very most (and I'm not convinced even this is necessary), immigration would involve a border check running names and faces against databases of known criminals and a blood test screening for known diseases. I can see an argument that the immigra
  12. This argument is flawed on three grounds: 1. Laws enacted under Clinton restrict the type of welfare available to immigrants. 2. It punishes all would-be immigrants for the potential future actions of a sub-set thereof. 3. Nothing about it is limited to immigrants. By your logic, we should limit childbirth too since some of those children could end up on welfare. We should limit inter-state migration because some migrants might end up on welfare programs. If we have a right to limit the movement, living conditions, and working conditions of foreigners because they might take illegitimate
  13. I'm not sure this is necessarily the case. All of these issues apply to inter-state boundaries (criminals, contagious folks, and terrorists are bad and should be kept out), but a border patrol isn't necessary. If there was a particluarly crime-ridden area, like some claim is the case for Mexico, I could see an argument being made for having a border patrol around it, but there's no need for a border guard along, for example, the Canada-US border. Not everyone would need to check in.
  14. Ah, yes! Thank you. Of course it was Kendall.
  15. Ok, let's take a real-life example. My good friend Rory wants to immigrate to the US. The airlines are willing to sell him a ticket, I am willing to pick him up from the airport, I am willing to allow him to sleep on my couch and share my food, my boss is willing to offer him a job, I am willing to drive him to and from work, the bank is willing to allow him to open an account, and my apartment complex is willing to rent him an apartment once he has enough money. Should he be stopped from doing all of these? Under current immigration law, he cannot. At what point in the above chain would Rory
  • Create New...