

whYNOT
Regulars-
Posts
3951 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
130
Everything posted by whYNOT
-
It is a far cry from tribal groups who long, previously inhabited the land that became a nation, being properly, though tardily, granted citizenship -- to a (illegal-undocumented ) mother giving birth there today, which ~automatically~ would bestow the same on her child. Once in; in for all time - and what can you, the Gvt, do about it? Nothing. "Within its jurisdiction" seems to me a poor, legal argument (which means any foreign visitors and tourists and/or their babies born there can claim citizenship). While lawful protection, of course, must be given them when there. And "the equal protection of the laws" (while visiting or after sneaking into the country) is not synonymous with qualifications for citizenship. My interest has wider implications for other countries if I must explain myself. I admit the "birthright" thing has anti-conceptual undertones for me. Some strange bond between an infant and the place he's born, irrespective of his parents? ----Excerpt: "In 1982, the Supreme Court interpreted a separate but similar clause of the 14th Amendment to have an equally expansive scope. In Plyler v. Doe, the justices ruled, by a vote of 5-4, that a Texas law barring undocumented immigrants from attending public school violates a provision of the amendment that prohibits a state from denying to any person "within its jurisdiction". In an opinion by Justice William Brennan, the court rejected the state’s argument that undocumented immigrants were not “persons within its jurisdiction” and therefore not covered by the equal protection clause. The phrase “within its jurisdiction” “confirms,” Brennan explained, “the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory.” This includes, Brennan stressed, people who entered the United States without proper documentation: While they are in a state, he reasoned, they are both “subject to the full range of obligations imposed” by the state’s laws and “entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.”"
-
Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition
whYNOT replied to AlexL's topic in Terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism
The President's Gazan relocation, occupation and rebuilding proposal might be seen to be "calling the bluff" (of those Europeans, pretending to be ever so concerned about Gazans) or an opening gambit to see if any counter-offers are made--or simply "throwing the cat among the pigeons". With few better solutions on hand, and the certainty that Palestinians have never desired a fictional, peaceful "2-state", something may come of it. Ireland and its leaders would fully deserve its quota of Hamas-Gazans, I'd enjoy seeing that One of the best and bravest observers, a dry Douglas Murray: -
Reblogged:RFK's 'Show Me the Data' Game
whYNOT replied to Gus Van Horn blog's topic in The Objectivism Meta-Blog Discussion
"How deep the lies go". There should be little remaining doubt that one vaccine was promoted by multiple governments/ NGO's/health ministries/Pharma, etc, well beyond its potential efficacy or health benefits - the Covid one/s. The vaccines: Didn't stop infection; didn't stop transmission; had no upsides for the very young, the youngish, and older and healthy, but - some severe and minor downside risks for that group have emerged. They did not need it. A fact known early on, yet silenced. The MMR and polio vaccines have long proven themselves beneficial on balance. Autism has not once been validated as a risk, but not to my slight knowledge completely invalidated either by extensive studies. But that's beside the point. I'd suppose the liberty-rights stance to be non-interference: 'Government-scientists' [!], should have no more powers than advisory, so to leave the decisions to the parents of children and those individuals themselves (for any vaccination/innoculation). If one looks back just recently, in fresh memory, the psychological blackmail, intimidation, disinformation and force from authorities to vaccinate entire societies, often against the choice-necessity by many, was horrendous - heads must roll. A non-controversial (today) recap. -
The actual words may be again taken mistakenly to invoke, choose living - or suicide. But, her "basic act of choice", life or death, is above and in many places in Rand's words and fiction, clearly between a rational and selfish life - or, selflessness. The self-less, in the fully consistent practice of their doctrine, must ultimately and soon meet their deaths when nature prevails. (In actuality, nearly all people who preach and admire altruism, are inconsistent in putting it to practice, knowing, at least implicitly, its natural outcome. i.e: suicide by selfless-ness). The rational choice of course is - "life" ... as "man". More of Rand's actual words (following "The Objectivist ethics holds..." VoS) ""That which is required for the survival of man qua man" is an abstract principle that applies to every individual man... "Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man--in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life"... Etc. (Everyone present knows these familiar words backwards, but I find the occasional re-perusal invaluable)
-
Yes. And a "rational ethics" still needs justifying, as all other ethical systems pretend, by what is "good" and "evil" for humankind. Not, the standard of value: "others' lives" nor "Gods", nor "what I feel like today". "Man's life" - the conjunction of consciousness plus existence, mind and body - simply lays the objective foundation for this ethics.
-
A lot about ethical choices. There is no choice in the matter in metaphysics. Only seeing, recognition and acknowledgement of what's self-evident. "Choice" comes down the line with - free will, cognition, value-judgment - morality. Self-evident (and observable) every living thing - a man included - is an end in itself: a "closed system", so to speak. ("Autonomous, self-generating, self-directing"). Any other life form, according to AR 's view, has only its own continued biological life - or death - as its (unconscious) 'standard of value', of good or evil. That which ends its life, like a drought, is "the evil". And only one form of life has the conscious means to realize, adopt and pursue an objective measure of good (vs evil) - not measured alone by the criterion of his/her own life-survival, unlike animals, insects, plants, but by the standard: man's life. Ultimately, refuting what other doctrines preach, there can't be an option other than one's life being one's top value, on which one's made and chosen values depend and subtend.
-
No, guys. The metaphysics comes first, prescribing the ethics. Existence precedes consciousness. The fundamental ~moral~ choice each faces is not either existing or perishing, which might introduce the possible and irrelevant option of actual suicide, it's living a life by the qualities and capabilities appropriate to "man". In short, how to prevent 'spiritual suicide': THE self-sacrifice; while remaining yet alive.. Your biological life is 'the given' and an immeasurable value, nobody fairly sane will throw it away needlessly. How to go about living it to its fullest is optional and non-automatic, non-given. I remind, Rand most distinctly did *not* state that "life" (one's own - or all life, in general) is the "standard" of value, rather, man's life - the abstraction one each measures our own purpose and performance by. The issue of "Suicide" itself may be amoral, immoral or moral for someone, according to this gauge. Can he/she continue a proper "man's" life under unavoidable and constant physical/mental suffering etc.?, is answerable by them alone.
-
Seems to me at times, the ethics, rational self-interest, may be taken to be an artificial (maybe - arbitrary) construct (by Rand) - a side-bar feature of O'ism which one can take up or ignore, like any other moral code for life. Despite the pains she took in explicating the ethics tied irrevocably to man's essential, metaphysical, and epistemological ~nature~ and derivative from that. No, so long as "man" is an individual and autonomous and free-willed being with mind, in charge of his/her values, I can't see their evolution (if still active) making a dent in this ethics.
-
There's the precise point Branden made. This ethics is the fundamental pedigree of civilization.
-
It's probable one can be unaware of how distant from the standards of "civilization" humankind has slipped in gradual degrees. When every modern population's "individualism", the civilization's pre-requirement together with rule of law, has been in long retreat from mass collectivism. "Objectivist ethics" would presume upon one's individualism, and go far deeper*: To individualism's radical source and first cause. The mix-up (rational selfishness wrt individualism as manifested in reality) might be simplistically clarified this way - all rational egoists are individualist, while not all - a very few - individualists are rational egoists. Much better explained here: "A political system is the expression of a code of ethics. Just as some form of statism or collectivism is the expression of the ethics of altruism, so individualism - as represented by laissez-faire capitalism - is the expression of the ethics of rational self-interest... [and the nitty-gritty]: "Individualism is at once an ethical-psychological concept and an ethical-political one." N Branden HtS * "...a moral code for living *your* life..." DOdden put exactly.
-
That is, "choosing" MAN's life: the life "proper to man". So to Rand's "the standard of value" of the Objectivist ethics. What you are is what you ought, as do any other life-forms (automatically - by instinct, mimicry, etc. for those) and there is the way to individual self-fulfillment and well-being. To add: staying alive, merely sustaining one's physical life, isn't so hard in contemporary, altruist-collectivist societies; little independent mental effort is required to meet the base requirements for biological living. "Reason, purpose, self-esteem", to my mind have fallen off the (ethical) map, accordingly.
-
That view of 30's Germany regarding their own and Europe's Jews, was not of hatred as such, but of widely accepted ("normalized" in the parlance today) Jewish sub-humanism, I think. (Although how that may be considered of individuals of a tiny "tribe" who produced, and continued producing, more pro rata in many fields, commerce, science, medicine, philosophy, literature, politics etc. than any other known in history, demands extreme mind contortions.) Of all citizens, the Jews were then the least reactionary and best assimilated, loyal Europeans. "We didn't know!" was the common German, postwar justification. Not of the "work camps" and subsequent mass murders, perhaps, but of Jews they knew and saw being picked out and picked upon, while some saw them loaded onto rail-cars - for the fault of "being Jewish", religious and not, they each knew very well. For all that, one cannot rationally hold a grudge against modern Germans. With the Nazis no longer to blame, the neo-Fascists in another, combined, form with Islamists have sprung back, lately. They have more in common than immediately meets the eye. I'd envisage it an internet-and-street "Holocaust". No one today can say they didn't see "it" happening while it happens.
-
Trump Talking Up New US Imperialism - Any Visual-Show Greatness Will Do
whYNOT replied to Boydstun's topic in Current Events
A bad deal, I'm also sure of, Stephen. Seized upon by Gazans/Hamas as a moral victory. Only delaying the task ahead when the IDF has to return (after an emboldened Hamas no doubt breaks the ceasefire). Apropos, this new poll disturbs me coming out of the USA, it might tell of Israel's future and America's when - some portion - of the society's moral inversion is quite acceptable. https://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/21-of-american-voters-support-hamas-over-israel-poll/&ved=2ahUKEwis7bnzt4eLAxXBT0EAHcH0LaIQvOMEKAB6BAgPEAE&usg=AOvVaw3cNySE_uq4reTC2yvbKCv4 -
Here's One for the Trump Fans Out There in OO Land
whYNOT replied to Reidy's topic in Current Events
https://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://patriotpolling.com/our-polls/f/greenland-supports-joining-the-united-states&ved=2ahUKEwiLhb7JnP-KAxWgWkEAHfA-BbIQFnoECDMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3qOBPAf05de9RSxZ32uTwS -
Do you agree with Yaron Brook on open borders for the US?
whYNOT replied to RobertP's topic in Political Philosophy
Nah. You minimize it. Ask yourself what type of already amoral person is most prone to illicit activities. The one who knows he has least chance of being found out and caught. He has no *record*, personal, legal or official. The alluring wealth of a country presents easy pickings to those. Making a case for anonymity because any (earlier documented) citizen can do so, seems plain sophistry. That goes across the board; what keeps many people on the straight and narrow is the fear of the Law, otherwise there'd be many more bank robbers and the like. I find it is rationalistic to ignore "human nature" - of a). the section of migrants who would turn to crime - and/or were criminals to begin with, and b. the rational fears and distrust by the general population who are faced directly by the steep rise in unknown petty thieves, criminals and gangsters. I think the "Diversity - Inclusivity - Equality" ideology correlates well with this un -rightful insistence on illegal migrants, - particularly "inclusivity". They too should be 'included' ... no ? The esteemed "nation of immigrants" was never a nation of migrants. -
Do you agree with Yaron Brook on open borders for the US?
whYNOT replied to RobertP's topic in Political Philosophy
You advise uncontrolled, unlimited access to migrants, followed later by controlled citizenship - if they so choose? Cart before (Trojan?) horse. Let 'em in, then see what happens? So presenting a fait accompli (for those danged "xenophobes" to have to get used to and deal with). Your faith in human nature extends to all migrants, apparently. This is an untenable position which will create havoc down the line when some/many illegals who -will- commit crimes have to be traced with difficulty by the over-worked legal system, then tried and imprisoned or deported. -
Do you agree with Yaron Brook on open borders for the US?
whYNOT replied to RobertP's topic in Political Philosophy
You know there exists this perception of "rights": My right to food and clean water, a right to shelter and clothing, a right to education, a right to employment -etc., etc. Your retort would be, I presume--"Who pays?" "No. One has the right to seek, apply and negotiate (and pay) for those needs -- not the "right" to them". Onto the above "rights" list one can identically tack: my "right" to cross into the USA (et al), anonymously. To which the same reply forthcoming. One has the right to apply for entry (and eventual citizenship), not the right to it. I'm most concerned with compromises and equivocations being made that have watered-down individual rights both of the "group" sort and the "needs" kind. After all, if the prospective immigrant does admire the individual rights and freedoms of his country of choice, his first actions should be in accordance with its system of rights. -
Do you agree with Yaron Brook on open borders for the US?
whYNOT replied to RobertP's topic in Political Philosophy
His views above have shifted dramatically from his previous pronouncements. 15 minutes in was enough to see him backtracking on "Open immigration" to appear sufficiently reasonable. It would be good to see Objectivists candidly admit when they were wrong, as sometimes must happen. “The solution to illegal immigration is to make it legal.” — Yaron Brook Open Immigration Policy YouTube March 17, 2008 -
Do you agree with Yaron Brook on open borders for the US?
whYNOT replied to RobertP's topic in Political Philosophy
I don't know when "prior approval" was never required in the USA. What I'd and many consider the glory days of Ellis Island -still - didn't permit *open* immigration/migration. Incomers in far lesser concentration of numbers than today (they came by ship, after all), were met by officials who briefly recorded and documented them and checked their health, one-by-one, not so? Some were disallowed or sent back "deemed unfit" (for some arbitrary, bizarre reasons, contrary to individual rights). While the "myth" was largely true, since US - legal - immigrants back then gained an inestimable value, the sentiment doesn't wholly conform to the reality. From a quick search. Note: "As a filter". Precisely. "Why did people get rejected at Ellis Island?" "Because of this, Ellis Island has entered our national mythology as a place of welcome that funneled new citizens into the nation. But it acted equally as a filter, one that excluded those deemed unfit for citizenship for reasons ranging from poverty to disease to homosexuality". -
Do you agree with Yaron Brook on open borders for the US?
whYNOT replied to RobertP's topic in Political Philosophy
Says who? You used the "entitled" word. Entitlement is a claim not a right. Here, we swing back to the initial argument, um - begging the question: does a person not break the country's laws by covertly entering a country? In which case, he/she has 'violated rights' from the get-go. And acted illegaly. But there's an O'ist answer! Brook gets round the problem by declaring we simply change "Illegal" into "legal" with a little sweep of a pen. That settles it! -
Do you agree with Yaron Brook on open borders for the US?
whYNOT replied to RobertP's topic in Political Philosophy
PM Tony Blair, at the start of Britain's "open migration" policy, legal and illegal, said "The Right must get used to diversity". --reported by UK's Douglas Murray. AFAIC, on every "intersectionality" front, gender, race, (migration), etc.etc., that while sincere persons have been looking for rights-based and just "solutions", increasingly the "Cultural Marxist" [Lindsay] Leftists have acted as provocateurs, clearly manipulating and thriving on the effects in the social discord - or, better, open conflict - with the (largely fictional) "Far" Right. An up to date report by Murray. -
Do you agree with Yaron Brook on open borders for the US?
whYNOT replied to RobertP's topic in Political Philosophy
My rough impression is the "nation state" started coming under intellectual assault at around the same time Critical Theory was making inroads, un-coincidentally. Those who are in any way proud and patriotic of their nation were tarred with the "Nationalist" brush, beginning the erosion of western self-confidence and promoting guilt and self-disgust. "No borders" would require the jurisdiction of a World Government, as you must have heard openly opined by some dangerous dreamers. All I know is the general gist of the Globalist dream, I admit. -
Do you agree with Yaron Brook on open borders for the US?
whYNOT replied to RobertP's topic in Political Philosophy
You'd have a border-less world? Which is the child's view (my own was). Subjectivist, since you know and I know, here or abroad, we'd commit no harm to others or their property--so you 'project' your ethical/rights conviction onto all, many of whom don't merit it. ("Self-selection" - means *every* individual who wishes to enter a free country, or enters without "permission", indicates they are automatically suitable to its freedoms - is non-rational). Same method, individual rights ends at your border and cannot/should not be 'projected' to include and protect anyone outside. "Rights ... the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context". The self-contradiction, a border-less "social context": the fantasy of socialists, by definition. Open migration was visibly being promoted in many countries by far-Left/socialists, and we can see how that's turning out in their loss of freedoms and unrest. How prominent Objectivist intellectuals have the same notion (for the US) is beyond me. -
Do you agree with Yaron Brook on open borders for the US?
whYNOT replied to RobertP's topic in Political Philosophy
Yes - and no, not quite. Within the country, the first goes without saying. To people of foreign countries next, this "Gvt." cannot uphold and protect their "individual rights"- since such rights don't exist there and the Gvt has not the jurisdiction. Let alone, obligingly proceed to war to protect them. I suppose we should delineate "human" rights from "individual rights". The threats to the physical well-being of lives elsewhere will certainly be a great concern to free nations, but many actions can be undertaken by them before going to war to protect those lives. An aside, I often pointed out, Rand's view was that a free nation has the *right* to invade an unfree country--but she specified, not the (self-sacrificial) moral *duty*. True. A nation might well be constantly in a state of war, considering the number of non-individual-rights countries. -
Do you agree with Yaron Brook on open borders for the US?
whYNOT replied to RobertP's topic in Political Philosophy
To teach the understanding of rights, we should begin at the roots: from the inalienable right to life which precedes the right to personal freedom of action (in order to pursue one's "life") - and so on. Their context is the "social" realm, where freedom of action can be and often is always vulnerable: from "other people". Right now we're talking of *many* more people entering a country: un-recorded and undocumented. Only practically speaking, ask yourself how can they be protected - and/or traced and arrested - when either the victims, or the perpetrators of crime - which is the curtailment of others' "freedom of action"? Anyone must agree, it's an impossible or difficult task for the law--when you have no clue who that individual IS - their name, workplace, home, next of kin, etc.. What that does to a society is to instill general suspicion and fear of the undocumented "outsider" roaming around. I reiterate, such migrants are the recipients of special "entitlements", permission first to pass through borders and second to move about anonymously that no one else in the populace possesses. To top it, they won't benefit from "individual rights", either. So what are the "open border" rationalists thinking? Somehow, that , as well as being "owed" such rights and freedoms without personal reponsibility, a million more entrants will be conducive to a society of individual rights - "or something"? In practice, the obverse. And I am one strongly for liberty above security (being forced to always carry and present my ID to any authority figure who demands it, and so on). But how long can "liberty" last in these circumstances?