Clarification about certain aspects of Objectivism

[tothemax]

Hi all,

Just have some things I would like to clarify about the beliefs of objectivists. As a newby to this forum I guess Ill introduce my self a bit. My exposure to Ayn Rand 'Atlas Shrugged' novel was through a route that seems quite different to that I have heard others describe (read it at school, recommended by a friend etc). I more or less purchased the book off amazon.com when I read the description, for the purpose of mental relief, if you will. When I read the book, rather than it 'changing my life' as many have described, it simply struck me as a beautiful expression of what I already believed in - namely, the primacy of rationality, the insanity of the left, and the stupidity of religon. As someone who rejected religon more or less instantly in my youth (despite religous schooling), by simply observing that they were talking complete jibberish and nonsense, and having rejected socialism as clearly being an evil enterprise of theft and death, I enjoyed the book immensly. However:

I fail to understand Ayn Rands concept of taxation, which seems to be: "none; never". I looked a bit on google, and it doesn't seem that she really ever addressed this that thoroughly. The concept of no-tax seems simply and fundamentally impossible to me. Taxes are required to support the state apparatus - namely, cops, judges, troops and the government. These must exist to protect a national system of individual rights. I see this tax as simply being a purchase of these services...

I also fail to understand how objectivists, especially Mr Brook (saw him on youtube), can consider open-immigration as an ideal. The idea of open-immigration is abhorrent to me. On this issue, objectivism seems to be matching communism with regards to the question of nations and races. The nature of a nation, the average lifestyle and level of civilisation it enjoys etc, depends upon the nature of the men who comprise it. Immigration is of course, mostly from bad to good countries, and thus open-immigration favours civil degeneration. Mr Brook confuses me immensly because he talks about how Israel is good, he is pro-israel etc, but he also believes in open-immigration. To what exactly is he referring, when he speaks of "Israel"? If it opened its borders, it would be demographically annihalated as quick as you can say 'democracy'.

If someone could clarify these two points for me I would be very thankful.

Cheers, TTM

[Trebor]

The crux of the matter, with respect to both taxation and immigration (and all of government), is the consistent adherence to and respect for the principle of individual rights, the fundamental principle of a proper government.

Taxation

'The Solution to "Illegal Immigration"' by Harry Binswanger:

"Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights: The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration" by Harry Binswanger

"Immigration and Individual Rights" by Craig Biddle

What's the importance of acting on principle, of accepting and adhering to the principle of individual rights?

"Why Should One Act on Principle?" by Leonard Peikoff -- a one hour lecture (audio) available online (free) at the Ayn Rand Institute.

To listen, one has to register (free). Once registered (or logged-in), one is taken to one's "Registered User Page" where one will find the lecture as well as a 30 minute Q&A period that followed the lecture. (There's a log-in or register link on the upper left of the home page of the institute.)

[L-C]

Taxation is forced appropriation of property, i.e. robbery. It really is as simple as that. There are several suggestions as to how the government would be funded without taxation. Rand also mentioned that, in a transition from the current state to laissez-faire, it would be one of the last things to be abolished.

As far as open immigration goes, there's no justification for barring peaceful men from entry to one's country. "Open" doesn't mean indiscriminate, as criminals, terrorists, bearers of contagious diseases etc would naturally be subject to restrictions. But as of today, the US, for no good reason, makes it difficult or impossible for a lot of independent, productive people to immigrate.

Edited April 18, 2010 by L-C

[tothemax]

OK, Neither of you two nice gentlemen actually addressed my issues over the two points, you merely reiterated the standpoints I am questioning. Could you please directly address the specifics of the points?

As far as open immigration goes, there's no justification for barring peaceful men from entry to one's country.

This statement appears circular. "One's country" seems to imply an ownership of sorts, perhaps you actually mean "the section of the earth in which one's person resides". Which is my issue: what is the objectivist standpoint on nations. Does objectivism object to the US being demographically seceeded to mexico or not? According to what I perceive to be your current ethical standpoint, it is perfectly reasonable for the entire population of africa, central asia, west asia, and south asia to migrate into, say, east asia and europe. Does this, on its face, seem rationally good?

Taxation is forced appropriation of property

I disagree that it is that clear-cut. If there were only a sales tax, taxation could be viewed in the same way one views a spread in currency trading - paying for the use of the market. The market has costs - namely the state apparatus I described, which are necessary for the market to actually exist. You remove the judicary and the police and the men with the biggest guns control property ownership - not free trade. You remove the military and you are automatically at the whim of any non-individualist nation nearby. These things are real. You can't simply opt-out by refusing to pay tax - since every trade you do is part of this market. You can only opt out by not trading at all (and thus probably die), or if you like you can go and live somewhere desolate that is not under state control (where there is no such market).

Thankyou both for your responses

TTM

[DavidOdden]

I fail to understand Ayn Rands concept of taxation, which seems to be: "none; never". I looked a bit on google, and it doesn't seem that she really ever addressed this that thoroughly. The concept of no-tax seems simply and fundamentally impossible to me. Taxes are required to support the state apparatus - namely, cops, judges, troops and the government.

Rand does address this in the essay "Government Financing in a Free Society". The fact is that government right now has expanded so far beyond its proper function that discussions of a free society have a tinge of the mythical -- a free society is a goal towards which we are working. In a free and rational society, government would be financed by voluntary contributions. But elimination of taxation would logically have to come after the elimination of the welfare state.

The idea of open-immigration is abhorrent to me.

That's not a rational argument, it's an emotional reaction. The idea of restrictions on immigration is abhorrent to me, so now what do we do? On what basis do you claim the right to deny a person the right to move to some town in the US and be employed?

Immigration is of course, mostly from bad to good countries, and thus open-immigration favours civil degeneration.

You are confusing those good people in foreign countries which have bad societies with the bad people in those countries. The fact of being involuntarily born into a bad society is not evidence of bad moral character; indeed, the fact that a person recognizes the bad of that society and desires to live in a good society is evidence that the individual is of good moral character.

The main point which your questions show you don't understand is about the nature of human rights, thus I would suggest that you focus on understanding "rights". The book The Virtue of Selfishness is an excellent collection of essays on morality and political ethics in Objectivism, and it costs less than a pint.

[Zip]

The concept of no-tax seems simply and fundamentally impossible to me. Taxes are required to support the state apparatus - namely, cops, judges, troops and the government. These must exist to protect a national system of individual rights. I see this tax as simply being a purchase of these services...

A purchase is a voluntary exchange there is no such thing as voluntary taxation. Rest assured though in a LFC society I'm sure that you could voluntarily donate a percentage of your income to the functioning of the state.

On this issue, objectivism seems to be matching communism with regards to the question of nations and races.

Absolutely not. Marx envisioned the "whithering away of the state", Objectivism (note the capital "O" by the way) acknowledges that the state is a vital part of human civilization.

We are not anarchists, the state fills the role of arbitrator in disputes, through Objective law. It ensures the protection of individual rights by police forces, and the defence of the society (Nation/Country/State) in which all of these things have been made possible.

The nature of a nation, the average lifestyle and level of civilisation it enjoys etc, depends upon the nature of the men who comprise it.

Excellent, you are making my argument for me. What kind of men do you think a society without any form of institutionalized welfare is going to attract? Do you think the people looking for a handout are going to come to a place where if you don't work, you don't eat? Do you believe that someone who wants to control others through legislation (force) is going to come to a place where there is no scope for that in government? Do you think a whole lot of leftist labour leaders are going to come to a place that doesn't have a minimum wage or acknowledge that a Union of any sort could ever tell a Business owner what to do?

Immigration is of course, mostly from bad to good countries, and thus open-immigration favours civil degeneration.

So the intent of the immigrant is to make the bad in the place he sought out for its good? Your argument makes no sense and is sounding a little like knee-jerk nationalism.

[Dante]

what is the objectivist standpoint on nations. Does objectivism object to the US being demographically seceeded to mexico or not?

I believe this question was actually addressed in one of the articles you were linked to:

The implicit premise of barring foreigners is: "This is our country, we let in who we want." But who is "we"? The government does not own the country. Jurisdiction is not ownership. Only the owner of land or any item of property can decide the terms of its use or sale. Nor does the majority own the country. This is a country of private property, and housing is private property. So is a job.

American land is not the collective property of some entity called "the U.S. government." Nor is there such thing as collective, social ownership of the land. The claim, "We have the right to decide who is allowed in" means some individuals--those with the most votes--claim the right to prevent other citizens from exercising their rights. But there can be no right to violate the rights of others.

--Harry Binswanger, Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights

Simply because you and I have our rights protected by the same entity does not mean that I should get a vote about who you let live on your land, or who you hire to do labor.

The minute an immigrant steps over the border, does he step on the U.S. government's land? No. He steps on a particular person's land. Only that particular person, the owner of the land, can bar him from entering. It is true that that particular person's right over his land is protected by the U.S. government, but that does not allow the U.S. government to have any say in who is allowed on that land. The U.S. government enforces my property rights over the books I own, but that does not mean that the government has a say in what I can and cannot read.

As to your assertion that "The nature of a nation, the average lifestyle and level of civilisation it enjoys etc, depends upon the nature of the men who comprise it. Immigration is of course, mostly from bad to good countries, and thus open-immigration favours civil degeneration..."

You seem to be asserting that mostly "bad" people live in "bad" countries, and this provides a justification for restricting entry from "bad" countries. Neither of these premises is true. Ayn Rand herself emigrated from Soviet Russia; should she have not been let in because most Russians were collectivist? Violating someone's rights based on a nonvolitional characteristic of them, such as where they happened to be born, is unjust. People should be judged according to the choices they actually make, not the circumstances into which they are born.

Mr Brook confuses me immensly because he talks about how Israel is good, he is pro-israel etc, but he also believes in open-immigration. To what exactly is he referring, when he speaks of "Israel"? If it opened its borders, it would be demographically annihalated as quick as you can say 'democracy'.

Note that in all discussions about open immigration, we are talking about people who are not criminals and are not judged likely to be a danger to others. Binswanger, in the article I quoted from, specifically says: "Entry into the U.S. should ultimately be free for any foreigner, with the exception of criminals, would-be terrorists, and those carrying infectious diseases." Open immigration does not mean that a government cannot protect its citizens from outside threats. All it means is that people should not be judged a "threat" simply because they are a foreigner.

[tothemax]

A purchase is a voluntary exchange there is no such thing as voluntary taxation.

If you say so. I can choose to leave the city and live in the wilderness, or I can choose not to trade and die. There is no voluntary exchange of any sort if there is no state apparatus to protect it from bad men. An opt-in taxation scheme will suffer the tragedy of the commons. You can't say 'you will want to', communists said that in their tragedy of the commons. Donating money to the state will look just the same to the individual in an Objectivist utopia as in a Communist one - you are out of pocket and the resulting change isn't immediately obvious.

So the intent of the immigrant is to make the bad in the place he sought out for its good? Your argument makes no sense and is sounding a little like knee-jerk nationalism.

The intent of the immigrant (individual) is to increase his position, the effect of migration collectively is to modify the content and nature of a nation.

What kind of men do you think a society without any form of institutionalized welfare is going to attract?

Depends on the price of basic labour. Someone from an inferior country is always willing to provide a lower price. So I take it that objectivism believes that a world in which there is a constant immigration stream from inferior nations to superior ones, constantly, changing only when relative superiority changes, and that this would cause progression rather than regression of mankind? Or, dare I ask, is it the standpoint of objectivism that all men are equal, save only the thoughts in their heads?

we are talking about people who are not criminals and are not judged likely to be a danger to others.

And why would the arabs be criminals? People are not criminal because they are arab. Arabs could simply steadily move across the border (thereby nullifying its existence), offer a lower price for their labour, etc etc, and render Israel non-existent. What is Israel? Why do people in this forum speak of nations as though they belief in them as valid concepts, whilst simultaneously rejecting the concept? Why not refer to the US, Israel, as 'Areas' rather than states.

You do not actually believe in the concept of states plural, you believe in a one-world state. Objectivia if you will, where there is one nation, one ethnic group, and one culture. A homogenous goo , much like the communists wanted (or 'Amorphous mass' as Brook put it).

You seem to be asserting that mostly "bad" people live in "bad" countries, and this provides a justification for restricting entry from "bad" countries. Neither of these premises is true. Ayn Rand herself emigrated from Soviet Russia; should she have not been let in because most Russians were collectivist? Violating someone's rights based on a nonvolitional characteristic of them, such as where they happened to be born, is unjust. People should be judged according to the choices they actually make, not the circumstances into which they are born.

This is all very good when taken from an individualist perspective. But most russians were not like Rand. Had the US opened its borders and had the USSR not had closed-borders, it wouldn't be the US. It would be Russia-US. Why should a nation have to sacrafice its existence because another nation went insane? Why should a nation sacrafice its existence because another nation produces less and its citizens see that yours produces more?

Which brings me to my next question: since individualism is the primary basis of Objectivist arguments, how far does Objectivism go as to what can be an individual? Saying 'only humans' is inherently species-collectivist. Only those entities that are rational you say? Then what is the standpoint of objectivism on retarded people, insane people, animals which demonstrate rationality, a rational computer etc?

If you include these things into the collection of 'individuals', what then is the purpose of rationality? If you do not, why the species-collectivism?

Thankyou for you this debate,

TTM

[DanLane]

Arabs could simply steadily move across the border (thereby nullifying its existence), offer a lower price for their labour, etc etc, and render Israel non-existent.

What happens during etc etc in that statement? I don't see the connections between wages and nationhood. A general response that might help: there is no right to a job, there is no right to a wage, and the only states that deserve to exist are the ones which will protect the rights of all its citizens regardless of the will of the majority.

Edit: If you are implying military takeover or terrorist attacks of somekind would occur it has already been stated that 'open' borders are not literally open to anyone.

Edited April 21, 2010 by DanLane

[VcatoV]

This statement appears circular. "One's country" seems to imply an ownership of sorts, perhaps you actually mean "the section of the earth in which one's person resides". Which is my issue: what is the objectivist standpoint on nations. Does objectivism object to the US being demographically seceeded to mexico or not? According to what I perceive to be your current ethical standpoint, it is perfectly reasonable for the entire population of africa, central asia, west asia, and south asia to migrate into, say, east asia and europe. Does this, on its face, seem rationally good?

There is no such geographic entity as The United States, or Mexico, or any other nation on this earth. There is no difference in the soil on one side or the other of the border, other than what would be naturally different. A nation is not a place, it is an idea, embodied in a set of laws. I would assume that you oppose the various attempts by government or individuals throughout history to coerce the minds of, to attempt to enforce choices upon their citizenry. What makes immigration any different? In short, human beings are innocent until proven guilty by nature, and as such unless an immigrant is initiating force against another, they have every right to choose where they live, so long as another agrees to sell them the land. Immigration is both an intellectual and a physical journey. Outside of the welfare state (a whole other issue in regards to immigration), an immigrant has two choices upon moving to another country: 1.) is there another individual willing to trade them land? 2.) Do they agree to the contract they enter into by crossing a designated intellectual barrier; ie., do they agree to abide by the laws of the land. If they do not, they are punished accordingly, and in that instance, the issue is criminal and legal, having nothing to do with immigration.

I disagree that it is that clear-cut. If there were only a sales tax, taxation could be viewed in the same way one views a spread in currency trading - paying for the use of the market. The market has costs - namely the state apparatus I described, which are necessary for the market to actually exist. You remove the judicary and the police and the men with the biggest guns control property ownership - not free trade. You remove the military and you are automatically at the whim of any non-individualist nation nearby. These things are real. You can't simply opt-out by refusing to pay tax - since every trade you do is part of this market. You can only opt out by not trading at all (and thus probably die), or if you like you can go and live somewhere desolate that is not under state control (where there is no such market).

Thankyou both for your responses

TTM

Your fallacy is that the government is not a market; it is its antithesis. Government is based upon force, whereas the market is based upon trade (volition).

[Grames]

Donating money to the state will look just the same to the individual in an Objectivist utopia as in a Communist one - you are out of pocket and the resulting change isn't immediately obvious.

This is a objection that needs to be better addressed than it has been because this is not an arbitrary doubt. American history has been down this road before with the Articles of Confederation, the government that failed to govern and was replaced by the current Constitution. There, funding of the confederal operations was by voluntary allocation of state legislatures who were presumably more consciously aware of the choice they were making and the consequences than the typical citizen out in his fields. Those state legislatures still didn't fund the central government reliably.

The early years of the current government were financed by mainly tariffs on imports, and supplemented by land sales and an experiment with a central bank. Tariffs are bad, the good land has long been sold off, central banks are pyramid schemes. No lottery could be enough even for a radically downsized federal budget. What is left other than some tax scheme?

A poll tax or a "stamp tax" on contracts have been suggested elsewhere, and a sales tax is fairly equivalent to a tax on contracts. The "black market" is the unregulated, untaxed, unenforceable transactions that take place and it is black because it is illegal and secret. Perhaps the way to go would be to permit a legal market of untaxed, unenforceable transactions to coexist with the official, taxed and enforceable transactions. Any large sum or potentially important transaction of consequence (off the shelf medications, food) would have a large incentive to be made on the official market with the tax paid for the civil legal protections.

[Grames]

There is no such geographic entity as The United States, or Mexico, or any other nation on this earth. There is no difference in the soil on one side or the other of the border, other than what would be naturally different. A nation is not a place, it is an idea, embodied in a set of laws.

A government is laws and a place, a definite geographical domain over which those laws have jurisdiction. Denigrating the physical requirement is taking the mind side of the mind-body dichotomy.

[VcatoV]

A government is laws and a place, a definite geographical domain over which those laws have jurisdiction. Denigrating the physical requirement is taking the mind side of the mind-body dichotomy.

Borders (and the very nature/definition of) have changed many times in history. Our government, and the rest of the world in this century, have adopted the "national" concept of borders. It is true that the border is drawn out on a geographic line, but that distinction is purely governmental for the purpose of law and order. A border separates ideas. The ideas are enforced by the military and other defensive bodies. How is this "taking a side" in the mind/body dichotomy? Can you find "American Border" in the natural world?

[Grames]

Can you find "American Border" in the natural world?

You keep emphasizing "natural world" and "geographical". Are you concluding from the fact that national borders are man-made and not metaphysically given that they are invalid or otherwise nonexistent? Because that does not follow.

[VcatoV]

You keep emphasizing "natural world" and "geographical". Are you concluding from the fact that national borders are man-made and not metaphysically given that they are invalid or otherwise nonexistent? Because that does not follow.

No-they are of course valid. I am just stating that they are created, which means they can change, as as such are not to be considered "property". Border is a legal designation, whereas property, in this sense, is a physical manifestation of the individual (right to life being equal to right to private property). That is why any individual can cross any border, so long as they are not "breaking the law" by crossing the border. If they do break the law, and the law is unjust, then the problem lies not with the individual or their property or their crossing the border (possibly from one hill to another, if they purchased it), but with the law itself.

[Eiuol]

This is all very good when taken from an individualist perspective. But most russians were not like Rand. Had the US opened its borders and had the USSR not had closed-borders, it wouldn't be the US. It would be Russia-US. Why should a nation have to sacrafice its existence because another nation went insane? Why should a nation sacrafice its existence because another nation produces less and its citizens see that yours produces more?

If an individual recognizes that one country is more productive, they would want to migrate to that country. "Nation's" don't go insane, people do. If the immigrant is not a criminal, then there is no reason to forcibly deny entry onto the property owned by people within the government's jurisdiction. After all, entering a country implies stepping onto someone's property, and it's up to the property owner to decide who is allowed on their land. If a government is to protect individual rights, it only should get involved with initiation of force.

If anything, the people leaving an unproductive area should be the most welcome immigrants. There is no sacrifice of values involved.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Eiuol

[Grames]

No-they are of course valid. I am just stating that they are created, which means they can change, as as such are not to be considered "property".

Because we all know property is not created, or never changes? On the contrary, property changes hands and uses more frequently than borders.

I'm not hostile to you or what you want to claim, it is just that this is bad reasoning.

[Trebor]

Why does open immigration seem to be a problem?

"Immigration Plus Welfare State Equal Police State" (2006) by George Reisman

[Trebor]

At the end of his article, "Immigration Plus Welfare State Equal Police State" (mentioned above), George Reisman says:

"In a future posting, I’ll explain how not only the problem of chronically crowded hospital emergency rooms but also the whole so-called crisis of the medically uninsured, which certainly applies to all illegal immigrants, could be radically reduced, if not entirely eliminated, by introducing some simple economic freedoms into medical care."

There's no search function on his blog, at least that I'm aware of, so I'm not certain if he posted such a followup on the issue, but he did post (in August 09) his 1994 article, "The Real Right to Medical Care Versus Socialized Medicine" on his site.

[tothemax]

What happens during etc etc in that statement? I don't see the connections between wages and nationhood. A general response that might help: there is no right to a job, there is no right to a wage, and the only states that deserve to exist are the ones which will protect the rights of all its citizens regardless of the will of the majority.

Edit: If you are implying military takeover or terrorist attacks of somekind would occur it has already been stated that 'open' borders are not literally open to anyone.

Nation refers to a collective of people, in the same way as 'race' or 'gender' does, and these each have a physical basis. Nations vary in the clarity of the distinction, but it includes common language, common descent, common culture, and to some extent common beliefs (e.g. religous societies). They almost always have a state associated with them, and definately had one associated with them at some point in the past, since these things are required to preserve the commonalities. The most sure way (and perhaps only way) to for such a collective (the nation) to destroy itself is to open its borders, presuming the quality of life within that state is superior to its neighbours. In the 'etc etc', the Arabs, offering a lower labour price than the Israelis (since Israel is better, average wages are higher for everything than they are in the Arab states) migrate into Israel at the request of the greedy Israeli employers. Since there is always a larger number of the lower-paid jobs than the higher ones, this constitutes a large migration in percentage terms. You now have a large number of Arabs, who came from an Arab culture, nation, etc, present in Israel. If for any reason they should become beligerant, nationalistic, and wish to 'reclaim' things, the Israelis have lost the only effective device with which they could defend themselves and continue national existence - a border, which they could stop people crossing. Israel is the Jewish state, a state founded by the Jews for the Jews, that is the reality. Should this demography cease, it shall return to being Arabia. And what possesses one to think that each of these Arabs suddenly sheds all of his beliefs the moment he crosses the border, and becomes an Objectivist? He need only be concerned with his self-interest at the time he crosses the border. Believing in memetics or not, one must see that this causes a demographic-idealogical recession of an Objectivist state, an the expansion of the neighbours who are not. I would prefer to opposite - an expanding objectivist state, where objectivists emmigrate continuously, making neighbour states more objectivist.

I would assume that you oppose the various attempts by government or individuals throughout history to coerce the minds of, to attempt to enforce choices upon their citizenry. What makes immigration any different?

You said it yourself, the immigrants aren't citizens, and thus don't have rights in the destination state.

Your fallacy is that the government is not a market; it is its antithesis. Government is based upon force, whereas the market is based upon trade (volition).

A market must be preserved from force by a force-producing entity strong enough to repel it, namely, a Government + military. A market with no government shall become a battle-ground, not because of philosophical deficiencies in the individuals, but because individuals can not defend themselves from gangs, and thus the purely individualist system is unstable. Since the market is a collective of freely-trading individuals, it must be paid for collectively, namely, with a tax. There is no other way, Objectivism must be grounded in its metaphysics first and foremost: reality.

If the immigrant is not a criminal, then there is no reason to forcibly deny entry onto the property owned by people within the government's jurisdiction.

The immigrant is not within the government's jurisdiction, and thus does not have rights prior to stepping over the border, regardless of the citizen who wants to sell to him. You are saying that he need only place his foot down on the otherside of the border and then he has the rights. I say this means the border doesn't exist, since it is entirely artificial. What makes the border 'be there'? How about the US simply draw its border out into the Atlantic and around Africa? Why not? It takes only a pen and a map, the straight lines of the African states can tell you that. That would give all of those people full individual rights, and we can then go there and start blowing up all the bad guys who violate the rights.

[DavidOdden]

You said it yourself, the immigrants aren't citizens, and thus don't have rights in the destination state.

...

The immigrant is not within the government's jurisdiction, and thus does not have rights prior to stepping over the border, regardless of the citizen who wants to sell to him.

It seems that you don't understand the nature of rights. Rights are not a creation or gift of the government, they are those conditions necessary for man's survival, meaning, they exist independent of any government. Thus a foreigner has the same rights that a citizen of the US has.

[Dante]

. The most sure way (and perhaps only way) to for such a collective (the nation) to destroy itself is to open its borders, presuming the quality of life within that state is superior to its neighbours.

This treats individuals within a nation as purely passive absorbers of the culture and beliefs around them. However, people have freedom to choose, and it is always possible that, even if our ancestors were largely in agreement over religion, culture, etc, their descendants (us) could diverge quite significantly. Saying that a nation automatically preserves its cohesiveness unless it opens itself up is saying that people do not have freedom of choice in accepting or rejecting aspects of the culture which surrounds them.

You now have a large number of Arabs, who came from an Arab culture, nation, etc, present in Israel. If for any reason they should become beligerant, nationalistic, and wish to 'reclaim' things, the Israelis have lost the only effective device with which they could defend themselves and continue national existence - a border, which they could stop people crossing.

Uhh... no?

The body which is supposed to protect citizens from belligerent, dangerous individuals is called the police force, and it punishes anyone who fits this description, regardless of whether they're Arab or not. That's the just way to do it, rather than simply presume all foreigners guilty.

Israel is the Jewish state, a state founded by the Jews for the Jews, that is the reality.

Only the owner of the land can determine who can live and work on it, not the government who protects the rights of the owner. The Jews who founded Israel should have exactly zero say as to whether a landowner in Israel should be allowed to let any peaceful person work there or live there.

what possesses one to think that each of these Arabs suddenly sheds all of his beliefs the moment he crosses the border, and becomes an Objectivist?

No one presumes this. All we are saying is that if such a person turns out to be a dangerous rights-violator, he should be dealt with the same way as all the other dangerous rights-violators: the police force.

You said it yourself, the immigrants aren't citizens, and thus don't have rights in the destination state.

They may not have their rights protected, but they do have rights. Rights come from the nature of man; they're not gifts of the state.

[JMeganSnow]

You're making a lot of really bad underlying assumptions here. Let's look at a few of them:

The "tragedy of the commons" will happen if people aren't FORCED into doing what's "good for them" (i.e. pay taxes for the support of the state). This is an absurd claim because people regularly *do* all sorts of abstract things that benefit them (buy insurance, save for retirement, preventive maintenance) only long-term. It's been my experience that you only get a "tragedy of the commons" situation in real life when the default has been mismanaged. (Read Nudge.) A buzz-phrase out of the "liberal narrative" is not proof of any position. If you have some actual data to support your case (such as a researched discussion of the early days of the Articles of Confederation and/or the failure of other voluntary financing schemes), that might be different.

This whole "demographic" thing. Objectivism completely and utterly rejects the idea of treating individuals as though they belong to a "demographic", which quite frankly would be insulting to any rational person. Before multiculturalism and this whole demographics fetish, America used to use the "melting pot" strategy where, due to uniform legal rights people gradually assimilated into the culture and the only "demographic" left was "Americans". Now, with enforced "you must respect their culture and their native folk ways no matter how insanely stupid and oppressive and even evil they are" multiculturalism, assimilation doesn't happen. My family is all descended from immigrants, and WE don't form any sort of independent "demographic". We assimilated. It's multiculturalism that needs to go, not open immigration.

You're not going to understand individualism if you take certain collectivist positions as the given and work from there.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

.... I agree about multiculturalism being the real problem behind immigration--though I would also add the welfare state.

In the presence of a strong multiculturalist and/or welfareist tendency though, such as we have now, where an immigrant is very likely to simply go on welfare and/or fail to assimilate, what is the appropriate policy to hold while we work on getting rid of those two pernicious factors? I am assuming that we simply haven't the political strength necessary to pass a law banning non-citizens receiving subsidies or a law getting rid of (for example) government-pushed bilingualism (a huge factor in retarding assimilation), but we might, if we *want* to, manage to restrict immigration (either make less of it legal or crack down on what is currently illegal)... question is would we *want* to, under those circumstances? (Note that I believe that hypothetical accurately represents the current political situation in the US.)

[tothemax]

It seems that Objectivists are more concerned with righteous statements of how idealy things should be first, rather than addressing physical reality first. I assume it is this reason why my points focussing on the physical aspects of applied Objectivism seem to be being blatently ignored. This reminds me of how the communists rejected outright any explanation as to why economically their system couldn't work, and thought that stating how it would be would be enough to force a physical manifestation thereof. But anyway, I will address your points:

It seems that you don't understand the nature of rights. Rights are not a creation or gift of the government, they are those conditions necessary for man's survival, meaning, they exist independent of any government. Thus a foreigner has the same rights that a citizen of the US has.

That is insufficient. Please take it down to first priniciples as to what exactly you are refering to by 'foreigner', 'US', 'Citizen', 'government'. Yes a foreigner ought to have the same rights, in the nation to which he was born, secured by the government of that nation. Rights by themselves do not need a government to 'create', as though they were a loaf of bread or something, yes that is right. A right is the obligation of the collective to the individual (not vice-versa which is leftist). However, as I have addressed in my previous post, they will not preserve themselves. A focal point of power, a power-monopoly, if you will, is required to preserve the rule of rights. When governments fall, states disintegrate into smaller states, each with a power-monopoly of some sort. Eventually, we reach the gang land. That is reality. If you are saying that a foreigner has the same rights as a US citizen, you are saying that the US borders encompass the world, and since both of these are physical concepts (united states and the world (common term for the earth, or perhaps the surface area of the earth), you are saying US = world, which is 1=2.

Only the owner of the land can determine who can live and work on it, not the government who protects the rights of the owner. The Jews who founded Israel should have exactly zero say as to whether a landowner in Israel should be allowed to let any peaceful person work there or live there.

What is Israel?

This treats individuals within a nation as purely passive absorbers of the culture and beliefs around them. However, people have freedom to choose, and it is always possible that, even if our ancestors were largely in agreement over religion, culture, etc, their descendants (us) could diverge quite significantly. Saying that a nation automatically preserves its cohesiveness unless it opens itself up is saying that people do not have freedom of choice in accepting or rejecting aspects of the culture which surrounds them.

What is a nation? What is a culture?

The body which is supposed to protect citizens from belligerent, dangerous individuals is called the police force, and it punishes anyone who fits this description, regardless of whether they're Arab or not. That's the just way to do it, rather than simply presume all foreigners guilty.

How big does a police force have to be to fight a nation within the state, which has become beligerant? 5% of the nation? Israel has a choice: it can hold the line, or it can follow the fate of the Afrikaner, and slowly disappear, with everyone morally posturing all the way. Objectivism was first and foremost, born from Rands rejection of leftist economics and philosopy. In Atlas Shrugged, her masterpiece, the book which more than an inch thick devoted how much time to the nature of nations, language, ethnicity, races, states, the physical nature of a human as a species, genes, etc? Objectivism is perfect at its core, but these are the edges where it starts to break down - and it seems that Objectivists consider objectivism (as it was when Rand made it) just as correct when applied to anything, when infact its central concern (Rands central concern when measure as pages of atlas shrugged) was economics and the relationship between men thereof.

The "tragedy of the commons" will happen if people aren't FORCED into doing what's "good for them" (i.e. pay taxes for the support of the state). This is an absurd claim because people regularly *do* all sorts of abstract things that benefit them (buy insurance, save for retirement, preventive maintenance) only long-term. It's been my experience that you only get a "tragedy of the commons" situation in real life when the default has been mismanaged. (Read Nudge.) A buzz-phrase out of the "liberal narrative" is not proof of any position. If you have some actual data to support your case (such as a researched discussion of the early days of the Articles of Confederation and/or the failure of other voluntary financing schemes), that might be different.

I have logic, and the records of Communism are my data. Logic insists that voluntary payment for a military, police and judiciary can not work, since (and this is the tragedy of the commons) the individual is better off at the time if he doesn't pay it, since there is no result for him after he does (thats him not putting his sheep on the commons). Now, if he does think long term, but he sees that others aren't paying it (thats the commons being overgrazed bit), he certainly had no reason to pay it, since the state hasn't enough power to repel an attack anyway, so he may as well enjoy his money whilst he is still free. It is the inverted pendulum.

This whole "demographic" thing. Objectivism completely and utterly rejects the idea of treating individuals as though they belong to a "demographic", which quite frankly would be insulting to any rational person.

Incorrect. It does not, ultimately it is species-collectivist. And specifically, you, as an objectivist, will treat others differently based on their age and their gender. You wouldn't treat a baby as you would an adult, and you wouldn't marry a woman if you are straight.

My family is all descended from immigrants, and WE don't form any sort of independent "demographic". We assimilated. It's multiculturalism that needs to go, not open immigration.

Everyone is decended from an immigrant from Africa, everyone is decended from a non-human. So what? My point is that nations exist so long as they preserve commonality. An open border, almost by its definition, declares the nation invalid. Only a selective and moderated immigration policy is reasonable, anything else is national suicide. There is a difference between a million English immigrants to the US, or a million Chinese immigrants to Singapore, and a million Mexican immigrants to the US, or a million Somali immigrants to singapore. Its called social cohesion. You can't reprogram your immigrants with Objectivistic beliefs.

You're not going to understand individualism if you take certain collectivist positions as the given and work from there.

The inverse also applies, but I am following neither (and I am well far from being a collectivist). My capacity to understand the nature of reality by rational process is my philosophical foundation.