Immigration Law in Arizona

[2046]

You are making, what I would consider, a wrongful correlation between "rights violations" and "the law." There does not exist a 1:1 ration where that is the case. The law is the methodology of avoiding as many rights violations as possible. What should be legal, should definitely be based on what protects rights. Whether or not a law should be followed should not.

Unless you are advocating that we are at the point that all immoral laws should be disobeyed. So, next April 15, you think I should not pay taxes and maybe shoot the guy who uses guns to force me to give up my hard earned money and bury him in my backyard, if I can get away with it in a rationally self-interested way, of course. I just want to be certain of your consistency.

You are not morally obliged to follow any law except objective laws, therefore you have a right to disobey any immoral law. Whether or not you should depends on how practical that may be.

I'm glad that see the borders as having some meaning. Who then, do you think, should be in charge of running that process of entry and setting the rules for it? The government or each individual?

We've talked about that meaning and defined it over and over, and it answers your second and third sentences here. National border = jurisdiction of protection by the government, private border = exclusive right of owners to exercise control. Obviously with that comes some qualifications for the non arbitrary process of entry. The government has the obligation to exclude force initiators and include peaceful migrants, private owners have a right to exclude or include everyone they want, except force-initiators, with the government enforcing that code.

[FeatherFall]

What I was referring to is the frequent assertion on this thread that being here is a right. A right that no one seems to agree on at which point that right may be restricted.

Oh, I see. I was confused; I thought that YOU thought that residency = citizenship. It doesn't. And I believe residency is a right, the government's job is to screen out people who have lost that right - and only those people. If the government institutes a system that fluctuates with immigration demands and makes a few thousand people wait another few months, that'd be ok. As long as the infrastructure was maintained well enough to be able to deal with expected demand. Today, there is no consideration given to how many people actually want to come here.

I disagree that one would be justified in breaking an unreasonable law, even one as unreasonable as a 1/2mph speed limit. The law is very clear that below 1/2mph is acceptable, above is not.

A 1/2 mph speed limit is effectively a law banning the use of cars on roads. I didn't mean that the law was gray, but that eventually the speed limit increase will stop being a defacto ban on driving. The point at which this happens is an area of grayness. Nobody is required to obey a blanket ban on driving, dictatorship or not. I simply don't believe you'd obey such a ban if it wasn't enforced.

[aequalsa]

We've talked about that meaning and defined it over and over, and it answers your second and third sentences here. National border = jurisdiction of protection by the government, private border = exclusive right of owners to exercise control. Obviously with that comes some qualifications for the non arbitrary process of entry. The government has the obligation to exclude force initiators and include peaceful migrants, private owners have a right to exclude or include everyone they want, except force-initiators, with the government enforcing that code.

To the point of both statements, the government, having the proper authority to enforce laws is contingent, entirely, on a populace obeying them. This is why I disagree with your stance that only laws which are moral, which in political practice would mean, you have been correctly or incorrectly convinced are moral should be followed. To believe that you can have a government charged with writing and enforcing law but unable to enforce it since everyone believes they are under no obligation to follow laws which they perceive as unjust, strikes me as inherently contradictory.

[softwareNerd]

To those that are saying that because the immigration process is flawed people have the right to forego it by any means necessary I am posing the question- is this not true then of any government process?

One could ask the same question about any law. There was some discussion about "rule of law" interleaved within this thread. The topic is important enough to have a thread of its own. There are some more general thread on the topic here, here and here, if you're interested, but I'm not sure how good those are. Edited May 11, 2010 by softwareNerd

[aequalsa]

A 1/2 mph speed limit is effectively a law banning the use of cars on roads. I didn't mean that the law was gray, but that eventually the speed limit increase will stop being a defacto ban on driving. The point at which this happens is an area of grayness. Nobody is required to obey a blanket ban on driving, dictatorship or not. I simply don't believe you'd obey such a ban if it wasn't enforced.

I see. I misunderstood. In fact, in that case I would not drive. I'd ride a bike or walk.(and spend a lot of time advocating against the law) Enough people would be driving at that speed +/- a mph, that driving much faster would be unrealistic and probably extremely dangerous for everyone else on the road. Pedestrians and other drivers expecting 1mph cars would not account for someone driving at 40mph.

This really is a great metaphor, btw. An unreasonable law does put our interests into conflict, but it still does not justify some following their own rules because those 'some' are then directly responsible for the inadvertent rights violations of others. Putting them more at risk by way of their lack of common expectancy. Same happens now, If someone drives through a 15mph school zone at 45mph, he's putting many in danger, even though 45 isn't objectively dangerous.

Not only that but it gives those, demographically speaking, who are more likely to break the law, for whatever (im)moral reason, an advantage over the moral law abiding types who you would wish to encourage to come here. A bad law, paired with poor enforcement, in this case could serve as a filter, punishing the good and benefiting the bad.

[softwareNerd]

Enough people would be driving at that speed +/- a mph, that driving much faster would be unrealistic and probably extremely dangerous for everyone else on the road.

Not necessarily. Keeping the metaphor, one might find that everybody simply ignores the speed-limit. This actually happens in the case of certain laws: enough people assume that that particular law is unreasonable and will not be enforced. When enough break it, others "on the same road" have to "get off" or break it as well.

Dropping the metaphor, you will even see this literally in traffic laws where certain ones are obeyed pretty closely and others are routinely flouted (sometimes in specific contexts), and a majority ends up realizing the latter and playing by the de facto rules.

Edited May 11, 2010 by softwareNerd

[Jake_Ellison]

the inadvertent rights violations of others.

No such thing.

the moral law abiding types

No such thing.

[2046]

To the point of both statements, the government, having the proper authority to enforce laws is contingent, entirely, on a populace obeying them. This is why I disagree with your stance that only laws which are moral, which in political practice would mean, you have been correctly or incorrectly convinced are moral should be followed. To believe that you can have a government charged with writing and enforcing law but unable to enforce it since everyone believes they are under no obligation to follow laws which they perceive as unjust, strikes me as inherently contradictory.

What they perceive is of no concern to me, so long as they aren't using force. If the government doesn't protect me from them, then we have a different issue on our hands: I need a new government that recognizes my right to life.

In politics, the subjectivist question of "Who decides?" comes up in many forms. It leads many alleged champions of freedom to the notion that "the will of the people" or of the majority is the ultimate sanction of a free society, which is a contradiction in terms, since such a sanction represents the doctrine of unlimited majority rule.

The answer here, as in all other moral-intellectual problems, is that nobody "decides." Reason and reality are the only valid criteria of political theories. Who determines which theory is true? Any man who can prove it.

What you're doing is circular, saying “but if the mass of the people want to use force at whim, then people will be using force at whim! There will be anarchy! So we should obey immoral laws.” That doesn't make any sense. The choice is not “either go hit my neighbor in the head or file a 1040.” There is a third option: individual rights.

The number of its adherents is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of an idea. A majority is as fallible as a minority or as an individual man. A majority vote is not an epistemological validation of an idea. Voting is merely a proper political device -- within a strictly, constitutionally delimited sphere of action -- for choosing the practical means of implementing a society's basic principles. But those principles are not determined by vote. By whom, then, are they determined? By the facts of reality -- as identified by those thinkers who chose the field of political philosophy. This was the pattern of the greatest political achievement in history: the American Revolution.

[agrippa1]

No.

No, it doesn't.

No.

No. I believe in Capitalism.

You obviously have a wonderful economy with logic, Jake. I look forward to your next syllogism with great eagerness.

[FeatherFall]

I see. I misunderstood. In fact, in that case I would not drive. I'd ride a bike or walk.(and spend a lot of time advocating against the law) Enough people would be driving at that speed +/- a mph, that driving much faster would be unrealistic and probably extremely dangerous for everyone else on the road. Pedestrians and other drivers expecting 1mph cars would not account for someone driving at 40mph.

I still suspect that you'd re-evaluate your position were speed limits placed at 1/2 mph. Anyway, It's safer to go with the flow of traffic regardless the speed limit, but that's not related to the point I want to make... This may have been asked earlier in the thread (please forgive me if I've forgotten), but what about sodomy laws and the like? There are all manner of silly laws that are on the books but not enforced. Are we to obey those laws out of fear of anarchy? The principle that law-breaking promotes anarchy doesn't apply in such cases. Am I wrong, and if so, why? If I am correct, how can you continue to contend that the principle is sound?

This really is a great metaphor, btw. An unreasonable law does put our interests into conflict, but it still does not justify some following their own rules because those 'some' are then directly responsible for the inadvertent rights violations of others.

Thanks. I obey school zones when I notice them, BTW, because I think they are objectively more dangerous than your common piece of pavement.

[Jake_Ellison]

You obviously have a wonderful economy with logic, Jake. I look forward to your next syllogism with great eagerness.

I don't need syllogisms, since I'm not the one trying to justify the initiation of force. My position is that you can't justify it using logic.

[~Sophia~]

one might find that everybody simply ignores the speed-limit. This actually happens in the case of certain laws: enough people assume that that particular law is unreasonable and will not be enforced.

This is an example of the rule of men, though. What are the consequences if you apply this in principle? Would you want your Constitution (or any other ideologically complex law) to be put routinely to such "enough people test"?

------------------------

Forget anarchy - the rule of law is the most important restriction placed on the people who have been voted into power. Societal overall acceptance of selective law ignoring, even if not resulting in anarchy, leads to a path you don't want to go down. My previous comment about Democrats getting emboldened by the actions of Republicans - is an example of the consequences of the "enough people have done it."

------------------------

I am going to repeat one of my comments above and say that the consequences, in terms of affecting what is or is not socially acceptable, will depend on the visibility of your action. Engaging in sadomy in the privacy of your bedroom won't probably lead to anarchy or policy makers ignoring the law of the land.

[agrippa1]

I don't need syllogisms, since I'm not the one trying to justify the initiation of force. My position is that you can't justify it using logic.

You had me at "I don't need syllogisms."

[aequalsa]

I still suspect that you'd re-evaluate your position were speed limits placed at 1/2 mph. Anyway, It's safer to go with the flow of traffic regardless the speed limit, but that's not related to the point I want to make... This may have been asked earlier in the thread (please forgive me if I've forgotten), but what about sodomy laws and the like? There are all manner of silly laws that are on the books but not enforced. Are we to obey those laws out of fear of anarchy? The principle that law-breaking promotes anarchy doesn't apply in such cases. Am I wrong, and if so, why? If I am correct, how can you continue to contend that the principle is sound?

I would just take the inability to use cars as a circumstantial fact like I do in business planning with regard to taxes.

I don't think that we should obey laws out of a fear of anarchy, but as a matter of principle. I don't mean to convey that a single illegal act causes anarchy to come into existence. Even the illegal immigration on a grand scale does not cause it because the place that they are coming to is populated mostly by people who do follow the law. This is similar in scale and effect to stealing or ponzi schemes. When everyone is stealing and mooching(as in heavy socialism) eventually there is nothing to steal. Parasitism only works when most are not parasites. Likewise, a ponzi scheme only works when few are collecting and many are paying. On an individual level there is virtually no risk of catastrophe or descent into anarchy. When everyone or most everyone even views the law as something to be decided by themselves in each particular instance, then it is certain to be a state of anarchy. Or, like Sophia mentioned, if enforcement of laws is considered optional at the state level, then you have a "rule of men," de facto even if not de jure.

Thanks. I obey school zones when I notice them, BTW, because I think they are objectively more dangerous than your common piece of pavement.

I would hold that there is no difference in which should be followed. I live in Colorado, and in mountains the speeds change widely and routinely on blind curves and through towns, for example. Though the limit is open for some debate, there is usually some reason for each alteration and the nature of these things are that a limit must be set to preserve the safety of everyone else on the roads. Me deciding, or even feeling certain that I can take a curve at 45 miles an hour when it says 25 does not justify it, morally.

[aequalsa]

Not necessarily. Keeping the metaphor, one might find that everybody simply ignores the speed-limit. This actually happens in the case of certain laws: enough people assume that that particular law is unreasonable and will not be enforced. When enough break it, others "on the same road" have to "get off" or break it as well.

Dropping the metaphor, you will even see this literally in traffic laws where certain ones are obeyed pretty closely and others are routinely flouted (sometimes in specific contexts), and a majority ends up realizing the latter and playing by the de facto rules.

I realize that this occurs, but I don't believe it is justified in that the extent to which law, at large, is optional, is the extent to which society is not ruled by laws any longer.

[kainscalia]

Respect for rights entails protection of rights. Protection entails limited infringements on freedom.

It is nonsense like this to which I point when I say that you people obviously need to re-read the books that allegedly brought you here.

Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

-Ayn Rand,“Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 96.

Freedom is a right. You cannot have your rights infringed in the protection of your rights. That is a contradiction on a level that really makes me wonder...

[softwareNerd]

... will depend on the visibility of your action.

In general, people who commit crimes will not advertise them, and will even lie about not having committed them. Years ago, I've had a close friend lie to me about their immigration status.

I suppose you'll agree. So, I wonder if you're saying that one ought not to advocate any principles such as "It is only moral to break the law when it violates rights significantly and after weighing the cost of being caught". Is that your point?

[aequalsa]

It is nonsense like this to which I point when I say that you people obviously need to re-read the books that allegedly brought you here.

Freedom is a right. You cannot have your rights infringed in the protection of your rights. That is a contradiction on a level that really makes me wonder...

Just as a clarification, I think you are missing that he implicitly distinguishes between individual, unalienable rights, and freedom in his statement. The absolute freedom of a man alone on an island is not the same as the individual liberty that is his moral right in a political context. His freedom to act is limited in the preservation of the rights of everyone else in the latter context. This misidentification could lead to a seeming contradiction with objectivist principles.

[agrippa1]

It is nonsense like this to which I point when I say that you people obviously need to re-read the books that allegedly brought you here.

Freedom is a right. You cannot have your rights infringed in the protection of your rights. That is a contradiction on a level that really makes me wonder...

Freedom and rights are not synonymous. Rights are "freedoms from" not "freedoms to." Rights, among men, are not contradictory. Freedom, among men is potentially contradictory to the rights of other, and must be defined and sanctioned by all men in order to prevent one man's freedom from infringing another's rights.

There is your contradiction, and it is your premise ("rights = freedoms") that creates it. Discard that premise and reconsider.

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.

...

As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights. [my emphases]

Rights restrict freedom. That is, the freedom of a man is necessarily restricted by the rights of others.

on edit:

BTW, I suggest that, rather than admonitioning others to "re-read the books that allegedly brought" us here, you re-read the quote of Rand's you just posted. Your faulty premise is precisely exposed by that quote.

Edited May 12, 2010 by agrippa1

[JASKN]

I realize that this occurs, but I don't believe it is justified in that the extent to which law, at large, is optional, is the extent to which society is not ruled by laws any longer.

This is only true if legitimate, objective laws in a non-mixed-law society are being broken, and really only to the extent that the flagrant lawbreaking is known to the populace at large. However, in that society it would also be true that most lawmakers would be very rational and would exercise the law in razor-sharp ways which would be enough to deter people generally from breaking the laws. That is why we have law, no? To prevent (legitimate) unlawfulness.

Thus, you would have to only be referring to a mixed-law environment where objectively bad laws are on the books and being enforced. Since this environment is not ideal and nothing to strive toward or support, it seems logical to conclude that there are no principles in place which apply, only strategies to get out of such an environment and on to a better one where the laws are all objective. From that one could conclude that a cost-benefit approach may be perfectly valid, while one would also explicitly support the making and following of objective laws. I do not see how one could, in principle, support the following of non-objective laws that are a detriment to one's life. That scenario doesn't call for a principle, but a work-through.

My previous comment about Democrats getting emboldened by the actions of Republicans - is an example of the consequences of the "enough people have done it."

This has only been done toward the implementing of non-objective, bad laws, in such an environment. In an environment where objective laws themselves deter such behavior, there is no such thing as "enough people have done it."

I am going to repeat one of my comments above and say that the consequences, in terms of affecting what is or is not socially acceptable, will depend on the visibility of your action.

When the laws themselves do the work, more visibility will actually deter lawbreaking since proper, objective justice will be exactly served.

[Jake_Ellison]

Freedom and rights are not synonymous. Rights are "freedoms from" not "freedoms to." Rights, among men, are not contradictory. Freedom, among men is potentially contradictory to the rights of other, and must be defined and sanctioned by all men in order to prevent one man's freedom from infringing another's rights.

There is your contradiction, and it is your premise ("rights = freedoms") that creates it. Discard that premise and reconsider.

This is an Objectivist forum, and using words the way Ayn Rand used them helps with communication and understanding. I already posted Rand's definition of the word freedom in politics, and it's entirely consistent with his use. Your use is the fraudulent one, aimed not at differentiating between freedom and rights, but at negating some rights with this wordplay.

[FeatherFall]

From noodlefood, Questions on Ethics:

In Canada the gov't has banned some satellite signals. If Canada was a free country people would be able to pay for these tv signals and watch them, but can't because of the ban. From Objectivisms view, is it immoral to watch these channels in Canada?

I don't think so, provided that (1) you don't conceal what you're doing and (2) you advocate for the lifting of the ban.

You are not morally responsible for the force wielded by others, nor obliged to penalize yourself for their sins -- provided that you don't sanction those sins. If you wanted to keep the ban in place so that you could continue to receive the signals for free, that would be immoral.

This is a different scenario, but I think the principles at work are relevant to the "visibility" question WRT law-breaking. I don't have time to give this its proper treatment right now, but it appears that Dr. Hsieh may believe visibility to be important when breaking the law. More on that later.

[Grames]

This is a different scenario, but I think the principles at work are relevant to the "visibility" question WRT law-breaking. I don't have time to give this its proper treatment right now, but it appears that Dr. Hsieh may believe visibility to be important when breaking the law. More on that later.

If disobedience is law-breaking and civil disobedience is visible lawbreaking, I do not follow the reasoning behind judging the first to be immoral and the second to be moral merely because one is caught. Certainly it is morally ambitious and praiseworthy to take on the task of beating an improper law within a legal system (when that is possible), but willingness to be a martyr cannot promote or ennoble an objectively immoral act into being a moral one. Facts, moral reasoning and the law jointly determine what is right and wrong and in the case of conflicts between those elements there is a clear hierarchy of priority. Those same factors should be used by the original actor and the judge and jury of a particular case. There is no place for the meta-judgement that a particular act is one of civil disobedience to play a role in the relevant moral or legal reasoning employed by the parties directly involved in the case.

[Grames]

This is an Objectivist forum, and using words the way Ayn Rand used them helps with communication and understanding. I already posted Rand's definition of the word freedom in politics, and it's entirely consistent with his use. Your use is the fraudulent one, aimed not at differentiating between freedom and rights, but at negating some rights with this wordplay.

This exchange is going into my file on disputes over "two definitions".

[2046]

I'm not really seeing how it's a dispute over definitions. It's a dispute over some committing doublethink saying "rights have to be violated in order to be protected" and some that think, in agreement with Ayn Rand, that rights have to be compossible, otherwise there are no rights.