Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'laws'.
Let's focus on the difference between border screening and border control. I'm not going to entertain Binswanger's open borders position here. I did that on another thread. Here I invite DonAthos (and others) to present their border screening position, and we can respectfully debate the issue. I'll offer my view supporting principled border control. My position, in a nutshell, is that the government of a nation has the absolute right to control its borders. Much of my argument is based on a disagreement I have with Rand over the existence of public property. I presented my case here. I submit that if you don't agree that public property exists and is a valid form of property, then you won't agree with my argument for border control. So maybe you want to address that issue first. If not, I'll listen to your positive case for screening and respond. In addition to the linked thread, I recently addressed the issue of political groups in some Facebook comments. I've revised them a little for this context, but admittedly they weren't written with this forum in mind. I think they address a critical question though about the nature of groups and rights. ***** "Group membership" There is no conflict between my life belonging to me and me joining a group. It's my life. I can join a group if I want. I can even submit to certain rules of a group in order to gain the value of being part of that group. When I choose to be part of a group, then people can rightly treat me as a member of that group, within limits of course. When I join a social group, I agree to obey the rules of that society. I am thus obligated to submit to these rules. I must treat others in accordance with the rules of the group, even when the rules differ from my personal standards. Essentially I am trading some of my individual sovereignty (self-government) for whatever value membership in the social group provides. "Political structure" Noncitizens can participate in a political structure, but citizens are members of that political structure. The citizens comprise it. There is no political structure without the people who make up that structure. This doesn't mean the citizens of a nation meld together into a Borg ship-like entity. It just means that there are real political relationships that define a national group of people.
What is the Epistemological ground for believing the universal validity of the basic laws of logic (Identity, Non-Contradiction, Excluded Middle). How does one properly validate that "A is A", universally? Can one know that it is true universally or is it only possible to know it about that which one has perceived? If it is only possible to know it concerning that which has been perceived, then how can one know that "contradictions do not exist"? I do not question the validity of logic. However, the ground upon which one validates an idea is crucially important and it seems that Objectivists tend to ground the validity of logic in very intellectual dangerous territory-- such that if one takes Objectivist Epistemology seriously (or, at least, that which is professed by many parts of Oist Epistemology), one cannot also consistently take the laws of logic seriously. So, I want to test that out and reveal what is and is not the proper epistemological grounding for the validity of logic. Many (if not all) Objectivists hold that the validity of logic is grounded in perception (along with all other knowledge). However, if this is the case, one can only know it's validity concerning that which one has perceived. If one can know that it is valid concerning that which has not been perceived, where did this knowledge come from and upon what is it grounded? Is it simply believed as a pragmatic necessity? Is it assumed by whim or by faith? OR is there some other form of validating knowledge aside from perception? I obviously would argue that there is. I want to ask everyone who participates in this conversation to attempt to accurately understand what is (and is NOT) being said in order to avoid straw men, and that everyone attempt to be CONSISTENT with their professed views. I predict that most (if not all) objections will be the result of failing to do one of the above.