kainscalia

Hear, hear!

I think that Maximus' major fallacy is that he falls into the typical conservative ideology concerning nationality. As it currently stands, the status of citizenship is granted in accordance to two congenital factors: geographic location and the citizenship status of one’s parents. Later it can be acquired through heterosexual marriage (gays and lesbians are denied the rights to be sponsored by their partners, as their unions are not approved by the federal government) or through the daunting process of work visas and other similar processes. Those who would claim that American residence should be birth-bound or controlled by some status (where a crime-free individual immigrant may still have to wait up to eighteen years to become a citizen, IF he manages to immigrate into the country legally AT ALL) are, in fact, the ones who understand America the least. The ideology of this country was founded upon the rejection of monarchy, tyranny and oppression, discarding all notions that some mystical, authoritarian element was carried over through bloodlines and down family lineage and embracing individual rights and the ability of the individual to determine his own destiny. It sought to uphold the ideal of achievement, that those who were willing to work, diligent, honest and with integrity, would someday reap the fruits of their labor, and be free of all oppression, to seek ultimate contentment and fulfillment within the goals they have established. It is under this desire that immigrants have forged their paths, whether they achieve little or a great deal isn't important. Shouldn't immigration be granted to those who strive to live by the principles and ideology of this land, entering into an ideological commitment that is reflected in a lifestyle of achievement and freedom, rather than only selectively reserve the status of resident and citizen for a new breed of genetic aristocracy, who will not necessarily work towards preserving these ideals? Maximus, among other things, shows very little understanding in the difference between an immigrant and a criminal- criminality is not unique to immigrants, and to tie them together is extremely faulty thinking. He is incapable of seeing that the system which he boasts is, in fact, the cause of this problem: By restricting something which has no right to be restricted by the government (immigration of non-criminal individuals), you create an artificially large number of criminals (an illegal immigrant is not a legitimate criminal) and now you have an entire branch of the INS and the border patrol hunting for people who are not legitimate criminals, and who also have to worry about the criminals. For a system Maximus likes, it is incredibly inefficient and in fact causes a great division of the task force which weakens what should be its primary function (hunting for real criminals trying to get into the country) by burdening it with secondary issues that are irrelevant (hunting for any immigrant that crosses the border). Sun-Tzu strategy, this is not. So, in short, Maximus? In order to take logical steps towards fixing the situation, what you must do is in fact dismantle the INS immigration system, instate open immigration with background checks and criminal screening, and voilá-- suddenly all you have to worry about are the people who will try to jump the border because they are criminals, gangsters and evildoers. When you no longer have to pay over eleven to twelve thousand dollars for the possibility of maybe being allowed to perchance stay here, and are no longer faced with a system that, from the get-go, will look for unprincipled reasons to keep you out (such as "Intent To Remain" or getting a girlfriend as opposed to, oh, I don't know, actual criminal activity or terrorist affiliation?) , then you will have many more people willing to go through a background check to immigrate here if that's all it takes. With the exception of the aforementioned criminals, of course. THAT is how you take logical steps towards a solution. You, on the other hand, are just piggybacking on a broken system and you're trying to stop the leaks with your fingers, shouting over the din that you are "taking reality into account" when it is plain to see that your reality checks have bounced.

You haven't seen *everything* just yet-- Spain is trying to get a law passed to declare the siesta period a national heritage.

Translation: Objectivism only works when all men are moral, until then let us all be Pragmatists. I expected no less from you.

On one hand: Harry Binswanger's extremely well-articulated argument on immigration. On the other hand: A paternalistic argument that has now been reduced to demagoguery worthy of the best conservative alarmist. Bravo! Honestly, Maximus, to quote your reply to Grames what the hell are you smoking? Your visceral and irrational aversion to open principled immigration and your almost Platonic stance by which you try to justify your stance on homosexuality being immoral makes me wonder if you never made the transition out of tribalistic Republican ideology. It's almost like talking to Anne Coulter with testosterone. And I'm sorry, but Really, Maximus? That's the best you can come up with? The majority of AMERICANS here are poorly educated, don't pin this one on the immigrants, buddy. This 'poorly educated' immigrant has to correct several Americans on serious grammatical errors every day. Oh yes, because this worked so well for Thomas Hobbes. lFor the next 50 years, try thinking on principle instead.

Yes, this love affair some Objectivists have with freedom and individual rights is going to cause nothing but the destruction of the American Way and... Oh... wait.

The law is morally bankrupt and it does contradict the principles in question. This bill isn't targeting any immigrant who may be here in the united states and who may have be guilty of criminal activity, it is treating the presence of any immigrant here by itself as suspect. The police have no right to assume that just because you do not seem like an American-born citizen, that you are in violation of some law. Binswanger, in his article for Capitalism Magazine, demonstrated how crossing the border itself could not possibly be an illegal activity - but rather a principled one- and that what is at fault is the immigration system at work. I am very well aware of Binswanger's argument that those who are criminals do not have the right to enter, and that is perfectly alright-- nevertheless, how could you possibly support or even applaud an effort that, in fact, does not lean in the right principled direction but in fact reinforces the system responsible for all of these problems? Furthermore, the greatest fault in all of this deals with how the individual is treated by the law: According to correct procedure, you are assumed innocent until proven guilty. The police have no right, for example, to pull you over and breathalyze you without evidence of inebriation by reckless driving or similar indications: a stop is a legal stop only if the officer has probable cause to make a traffic stop. There must be a traffic violation committed in his presence or equipment violation or some type of suspicious activity detected before the officer can effect a legal traffic stop. Under this law, all immigrants must be treated as guilty before innocent. Why? Well, you tell me: What evidence can a policeman have, prima facie, that will indicate that the person in question is an 'illegal' immigrant? The existence of an accent? Yaron Brook has one. Non-caucasian skin? Exotic dress? Not speaking english fluently? A great deal of native-born Americans can't do that anymore. So What constitutes 'Probable Cause' here? By principle you are blanketing a whole subsection of individuals to be deemed guilty before innocent by what can only be completely arbitrary standards (how do you determine a legal immigrant or a naturalized citizen from an illegal immigrant or an illegal criminal or an illegal alien with criminal intent, by pure observation?)-- by observing an individual's actions you may be able to infer whether he may be intoxicated or agressing upon someone, but you cannot by observation alone determine whether he has a mortgage on his house or whether he is an organ donor. These are legal/contractual data, and hard facts and information are required to know that, and that is not acquired through completely different methodology by which you determine a drunk driver. Having already established that the current definition of illegal entry (being here without going through the baroque, extremely expensive and nearly impossible process of the INS) is immoral, by saying that this is "at least looking for an answer" you are saying you have no problem with the police being granted this level of unconstitutional force in the process of creating a solution that is already bankrupt on principle! You don't NEED to 'look for a solution', we know what the solution is already, and this isn't it.

Jesus H. Christ, what happened to thinking around here? So an attempt at finding a solution is worthy of being praised when its fundamental philosophy is not only flawed but it directly contradicts the principles that objectivism recognizes comprise the rights of an individual? I don't know what you're smoking, but I want none of it.

Well, it's your lucky day. I'll be your artist for $1000/month.

It looks gorgeous, Mathus. Tell me, what program are you using to create these structures?

That's why I'm still hoping that someday this will finally come to pass:

Where did Rand mention that 'good is whatever brings one pleasure' precisely? I have read Epicurus say that, but never Rand.

You may also look into the book "Facets of Ayn Rand," where she answered "What would have become of me, if the United States had had a closed border policy?"- her friends knowing what she meant: she would have perished in Russia.

Their political freedoms are great? Are you speaking of a parallel timeline Europe? I don't consider, for example, a Germany where you can be fined for flying a swastika a 'great land of political freedom', and let's not even talk about the corruption in Italy with Berlusconi...

Australia is far more deranged politically than the U.S. To consider it a haven from the kind of insanity infecting the philosophical world would be very foolish.

I would recommend the books to anyone, extremely delightful books and certainly require more than your typical reader's passive observation. I recommend The Annotated Alice (http://www.amazon.com/Annotated-Alice-Definitive-Lewis-Carroll/dp/0393048470) as *the* book to get if you have never read either book (Wonderland/Looking Glass) and are thinking of picking them up. All other editions are poor by comparison.

Well, as he admits, it's not like the people close to him were oblivious to it. As far as he goes, he's better equipped to fight the battle on the front he's been fighting on for many, many years. I certainly don't mind that he's just now coming out of the closet when he's done so much to debunk and expose humbug (and inspire Penn & Teller to do the same.)

I guess I'd better add some more news to the fray: Attorneys general launch lawsuit backlash against Demcare VIRGINIA: Virginia will file suit against the federal government charging that the health-care reform legislation is unconstitutional, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s office confirmed last night. Cuccinelli is expected to argue that the bill, with its mandate that requires nearly every American to be insured by 2014, violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. The attorney general’s office will file suit once President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, which could occur early this week. SOUTH CAROLINA: After the U.S. House’s historic vote Sunday night passing the health care reform bill, South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster issued the following statement: “The health care legislation Congress passed tonight is an assault against the Constitution of the United States. It contains various provisions and federal mandates that are clearly unconstitutional and must not be allowed to stand. A legal challenge by the States appears to be the only hope of protecting the American people from this unprecedented attack on our system of government. FLORIDA: Moments after Congress voted to approve President Obama’s health care legislation, Florida’s Attorney General announced he will file a lawsuit to declare the bill unconstitutional. …”The health care reform legislation passed by the U. S. House of Representatives this evening clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state’s sovereignty,” Bill McCollum said in a statement distributed late Sunday night. TEXAS: Texas AG, Greg Abbott: "Just got off the AG conference [with several other State Attorney Generals] call. We agreed that a multi-state lawsuit would send the strongest signal. We plan to file the moment Obama signs the bill. I anticipate him signing it tomorrow. Check back for an update at that time. I will post a link to the lawsuit when it is filed. It will lay out why the bill is unconstitutional and tramples individual and states rights." IDAHO: Idaho's governor Otter already signed a law prohibiting Obamacare implementation in the state. OTHER STATES: Texas, Nebraska, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Alabama are expected to join the campaign. Here's Cloud Downey's lletter to the other governors: http://therightsofman.com/letters/view-letter/71 Register at TROM and make use of this tool if you so desire.

Pretty disgusting trash, I'd put it on the same level as "Rome" as far as being shallow entertainment with exploitative sensationalism using sex- I particularly dislike what they did to the character of Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis (Cato The Younger) in 'Rome', where the producers apparently thought that he was his grandfather for some reason. I count Rome, Spartacus, Nip Tuck, Entourage and House as the worst trash to come out of TV Land in the last couple of years.

Dagny herself was not beautiful, except for a nice pair of gams. Hank Rearden is described as austere and angular. Roark is anything but an ideal hunk. John Galt was a babe. What does that say? Discuss. I'm afraid there's not enough kindle for your fire here. And Alfa, as far as missing the boat? I'm afraid your 'arguments' never left port to begin with. Firstly, for someone who espouses such interesting Eugenics, you have failed to provide us with something very important: Your photograph. Allow me to explain: You see, since you must obviously hold these beliefs as rational and true, then you must be an ardent practicant. We would like to evaluate the objective aesthetic standards of your face by means of the Marquadt mask, and then evaluate those of your chosen wife, girlfriend, boyfriend or husband, so that we may judge whether or not you have transgressed upon these principles by choosing someone who is either far more attractive than you are or far less attractive. It really is that simple- and should you be found at fault, I would naturally expect for you to separate from the offending party immediately-- after all, Frank O'Connor clearly abandoned Ayn Rand when he realized that the mathematical symmetry of his features far outstripped the ugly inequality of hers. Right? As an artist I must express a very relieved sigh to note that on the subject of art here I am dealing with a very large group of eunuchs. By that I refer to the famous Beethoven quote about critics which read "Critics are like Eunuchs, they all know how it should be done..." Otherwise were it not so and these empty intellectualloids had had any bearing in the field of art and entertainment, we could have said goodbye to Julie Andrews. Oh, let's face it boys and girls, the girl's not beautiful at all-- analyze her features and you'll see that she's actually extremely plain. As plain as an English breakfast, even as plain as a milkmaid. So what if her acting talent is enormous, or the fact that her inner quality was so palpable that she lit up the screen with her presence? Despite the presence of a beautiful singing voice, obviously someone so un-beautiful did not objectively deserve the career of a leading lady- at best a first figure in the chorus. And let's not even speak of Carol Channing. By Alfa's standards, this is a complete and absolute failure! Eyes the size of saucers, a mouth the size of Nantucket, and a reedy voice with a freakish three octave register that wasn't beautiful in the least!. So what if her acting talents are legendary and could act circles dramatically and comically around the much more beautiful Megan Fox? What if any performance of hers still have more fire, artistry and impact than most entertainers half her age? What if the woman can sing musically and with great aplomb despite the fact of having an un-beautiful voice? Just look at her! She's as ugly as Ayn Rand! Obviously she never deserved the career she had, obviously just like Maria Callas. What a sham! Ugly face with dissonant features (enormous nose, incongruous lips, too high cheekbones), and her voice was hardly the idealized crystal-clear birdlike soprano that opera managers of her day were looking for. Who cares if she was able to revolutionize the whole concept of an operatic performance into a much more passionate and modern affair? Or that her musical interpretations are to this day the standard under which all sopranos aspire to and are held to? The woman had an ugly voice by most standards, so her performance has no value whatsoever. What does it matter that her acting onstage is still to this day the standard by which most actors and opera singers aspire to? Girl was ugly. Out the window! Meryl, Meryl.... what's to be said? Plain as a housewife, not beautiful by any stretch of the imagination. Not valuable in the least- what can I say? It is obvious to me that the real talent and value here has to be acknowledged: The gorgeous, beautiful and breath-taking Jessica Alba, who gave us such startling and deep performances in... er... Fantastic Four. Or was it Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer? No, I am certain I mean The Love Guru, yes. Clearly.

Alright, then, let's take a look. Let's apply these analects and put them into practice in a game of Matchmaker! Feel free to turn on your Fiddler On The Roof soundtracks for this exercise. Let's begin! This person Being of great beauty and desirability should strive for this person and nothing less: Meanwhile this person, who is not attractive in the least and could not be considered beautiful by most standards should therefore strive for someone of equal unattractiveness, but not anyone more genetically repugnant than her, so since we already broke up one end of the couple let's match the missing end to her, and choose for her the appropriate man: Yeah, I just went there, and proudly so to highlight how utterly brainless and ridiculous these arguments have become. This is simply thoroughly ridiculous and I will beg the forgiveness of The Council Of Eugenics, but I have no further desire to inhabit a thread that tries to disguise shallowness as intellectual arguments. Honestly, one would be inclined to think you've lost your minds.

I may have misread the posts, but one line caught my eye: It seems to me that he's stating that in the situation he's referring to, there is such an agreement in place. Perhaps you missed it.

In favor of completeness, can you cite the federal law in question? this will provide a resource in case this topic happens to come up again.

Except that there is no value to be derived from something that is predicated on a falsehood. No, Virginia, there IS no Santa Claus, and the years of your life you spent believing in him could have been spent doing something better and real. When dealing with God-people, I usually don't waste too much time with them. Objectivism has some excellent arguments, but at times when I don't feel like going into detail I merely grab Epicurus' riddle, which attacks the very notion of what 'god' is: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

David is right. Also if the hotel accepted this sort of substitution, they wouldn't have a direct control of the items in the fridge nor the quality thereof.