Dingo_aus

Well I personally feel that if I take ANY group of people on this planet and and somehow accurately measure intelligence and then compare that measure against another group, those two measures will differ. Maybe only a very small difference but there will be some difference, even if the groups sampled are random.

Does "immigration application channels" mean that you are assuming potential immigrants apply to a department and receive a authority once checked? Does this mean you envisage the borders be blocked except to this pursuing the "immigration application channel". I assume that in your scenario if the borders were not blocked then what reason would there be to pursue "immigration application channels" rather than walk across a border? I was working on the assumption from other posts in this thread that freedom of immigration meant the freedom to walk across a border without impediment. Ok you've propounded a test of "propensity to actually violate rights". Now whilst I see how such a test accords with freedom to emigrate I would still be interested in what boundaries you test has, ie in concrete terms what are some of the facts that allow/disallow immigration for an individual? No one but yourself John has defined, used or referred to "ideological invasion" as a basis for anything in this thread so I'm not sure how far it takes the discussion to define a term and then attack that term. But to address the point I understand you to have raised, surely there are some criteria for an Objectivist to determine who is and is not an enemy? You raise one in relation to active KGB agents. What are those criteria that stops a KGB agent but allows a non-KGB Soviet Russian citizen to enter? How do you define "foreign power" in the third sentence? Can a foreign religious leader be a foreign power? Can a tribal gang leader be a foreign power? Again I refer to my first point, does this scenario of yours pre-suppose that immigrants attempting to enter a nation not via an "immigration department" be stopped and if so, is it the military which stops them? Again here, if I understand you correctly, "immigration" is a process involving a Government department assessing potential immigrants before they are allowed to enter an Objectivist nation. So are you arguing that an Objectivist nation is correct in stopping immigration without first assessing candidates? ...and if so, what are the philosophical bases for formulating the tests applied to allow entry or not (ie what is the philosophy behind stopping people with communicable diseases? (there might be hospitals in the nation which the immigrant could pay to get cured at, albeit whilst infecting citizens first before treatment). You also refer to excluding agents of foreign powers, what is the philosophy that determines who is deemed a threat or not? (ie are devout religious followers acting under a foreign power?) If your view is that immigration to an Objectivist nation does not require closed borders, then how does it work? BTW thanks for taking the time to post and help me answer my questions.

Ok so we are agreed that defence of a nation is a good thing. We are also agreed that allowing free immigration is a good thing. What is the Objectivist test which defines the balance between defence (keeping some people out) and immigration (letting most people in). A side question, what was the philosophical Objectivist basis for Galt's shield over the Gulch to keep people out? We know he did it to stop the "Looter" world finding Galt's Gulch but what was the Objectivist principle which allowed the defence of Galt's Gulch to override the Objectivist principle that human beings should be able to go across borders freely? (@all the people talking about Swastika's, Aryans and Hilter's nationality I fail to see how it is related to the topic of this thread so it might be useful to start a new thread for discussion of such things to keep each discussion separate and focused)

To refine my earlier question, what is the Objectivist test which defines the limits of a legitimate Objectivist army's power to repel hostile forces? To break it down further: Is an Objectivist army acting correctly if it defends an Objectivist nation against 100,000 armed soldiers attacking the Objectivist's nation's borders? Is an Objectivist army acting correctly if it defends an Objectivist nation against 100,000 unarmed soldiers armed only with their hands, attacking the Objectivist's nation's borders? What if the numbers were 10,000 or 100 or 10? To put an even blunter point to it, what would Ayn Rand have said about 30 KGB operatives who wanted to walk into America in 1960? Imagine that it is 1960. These would be 30 unarmed individuals but I would argue their ideology make them very "armed" (ie able to do significant harm). What if the number was 300 or 30,000? Also remember that many KGB agents were chosen due to their zeal (read: brainwashing) or ability to exert control (read: threats to their family etc). So thinking as an Objectivist, what are the limits to government power in defending it's borders, especially as defence ostensibly appears to overlap with immigration?

Yes I agree that without a welfare state, persons from outside of the nation would not be able to "mooch". As for an enemy's "inflitrators" being nullified by becoming Objectivists themselves, I think that anti-human, totalitarian, "looter" nations would send infiltrators who they could exert control over by threatening the infiltrator's family back in the "looter" nation, or through comprehensive brainwashing (ie thugs of the mind or thugs of the spirit). Yes, I agree an individual with sufficient wealth and respect for the law should be able to emigrate, in posing my question, I was concerned about whether it is the role of an Objectivist government to control this, and if so, what Objective authority is giving for this. As for long-range military reaction... I think even a Lion could be taken down by mice if it was careless enough to let the mice have an advantage and there were enough mice with the intent of killing the Lion.

My question is twofold but relates to just the issue of immigration into a nation of which an Objectivist is a citizen. What is the Objectivist stance on immigration in the ideal Objectivist society, and what is the Objectivist stance on immigration in present Western nations (USA and Australia are the two nations I have concerned myself mostly with in thinking about this question). Does Objectivism proscribe immigration across a border into a nation without restriction or a restriction placed by government or a restriction managed by another mechanism? Does the notion that an one of an Objectivist government's roles is to protect the nation from outside aggressors extend to denying entry by foreigners who may or may not be a threat? My thoughts on the subject are that an Objectivist government would need to instruct the armed forces to deny entry on the basis that any person attempting entry may or may not be a threat but until that is determined the worst must be assumed. If this approach was not taken then there would be the very real chance a foreign nation with "Looter" intentions could just instruct its armed forces to enter one by one until a point in time when they would launch an attack on the Objectivist nation from within. Does this imply that an Objectivist government, as a subset of protecting the borders, has a role in filtering immigration into the an Objectivist nation?

I'd guess that the ideal situation would be a series of competing fire-fighting services available to compete in the fire-fighting market. Once upon a time in merry old England this was the case and people would haggle at the scene of a burning building. In modern times, I'd imagine it would be a service sold like insurance, ie a subscription based service. You could choose to pay $100 to Company X for 10 minute response time to fires, or pay $150 to company Y who guarantees 8 minutes...etc. (just like pizza delivery competition but more pressing that service levels are achieved). You would then see building owners go and install Halon systems etc to look after their own needs. Competing fire-fighting companies would also develop novel ways to be better than their competition to attract your business (ie sensors installed, or flying robots to attend the scene or robots that are stored in the attic and descend when needed etc etc.

I think you will also enjoy John William Godward's works: http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=82