A challenge to Yaron Brook

[plaintext]

As an average, people in Islamic countries are less educated and are less demanding of their individual freedom than people in Christian countries. People in Hindu countries are somewhere in between.

However: Christianity and Islam have nothing to do with this. If anything, Christianity holds the west back.

As for the Islaminc world, many people there seek freedom. The blog run by "Chrenkoff" has many items on changes in the muslim world.

[Oakes]

If any of the moderators are thinking that this thread is getting off-topic, I would suggest moving every post starting at #186 to the Ending Islamic Immigration topic, since that is where the immigration discussion in this thread began.

[EDIT: Added "in this thread"]

Edited January 28, 2005 by Oakes

[AisA]

Since the quote function is not working, I’ll try something else.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Zeus said:

But, all the above examples are state-sponsored, except perhaps for the lone shoe bomber. Which is very likely why he failed.

________________________________________________________________________________

I respond:

What is the evidence for nation-state involvement in these cases? The 9/11 hijackers were part of al Qaeda, which had the active support of the Taliban. However, as far as I can tell, their funding is not traceable to a specific government. It most likely came from private sources, including the numerous Muslim "charities" right here in America. The flight training and the weapons (boxcutters and airliners) were supplied by us.

The total cost of the 9/11 attacks has been estimated at $300,000. Pocket change to bin Laden.

The evidence of nation-state support in the other examples I gave is even thinner. However, for good measure, I'll throw in a few more examples.

On July 4, 2002 a Muslim immigrant opened fire on the ticket line at the Israeli Airline counter at Los Angeles International Airport, killing 2 and wounding 4. He came to America from Egypt, but there is no evidence the government of Egypt sent him the gun he used in the attack.

In 1999, the Muslim co-pilot of an Egyptian airliner that took off from New York seized control of the plane and crashed it into the Atlantic. He is heard on the cockpit voice recorder saying, "I put my trust in Allah". He killed 217.

Then we have John Allen Mohammad, the Muslim convert who murdered 11 people in DC and Maryland.

As I said, I agree that the evil states must be ended. But the facts show that unrestricted Muslim immigration is risky, to say the least.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Zeus said:

And as for the Muslims dancing in the streets, as truly despicable as it was (and I almost lost my job, at the time, campaigning for a US reprisal), many American liberals danced in the privacy of their bedrooms.

I may be misinterpreting your tone here, but I get the impression that you're raising "deceit and treachery" to the status of essentials. Heck, even Objectivism sanctions deceit, but it depends on whom this deceit is being practiced on. Moral action, since it is based on knowledge, is contextual.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

I respond:

You challenged me to prove what I said about Muslims. What I said in the post to which you were responding, is that Islam sanctions the use of deceit to further its goals, which makes it difficult to know which Muslims can be trusted. The purpose of my comments about the dancing in the streets is to illustrate that sanction.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Zeus said:

Now, you're talking. This is a strong point which I have considered at length. Because of this, I almost began to think that all advanced immigration problems belonged to the ethics of emergencies.

But, this one too fails.

For one, why would the good Muslims be left out? Because there is still a danger that some bomber would sneak in, right? But this then leads to the question: Can a bomber not sponsored by a nation-state succeed? If an example or two of such phenomena is found and presented to me, I will stop arguing against the halt of Muslim immigration.

But no-one here has come forward with contextually-viable concretes, which is why I almost lost my temper when arguing with Oakes. The onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive; in the absence of such proof, the negative position requires no evidence to dismiss the positive claims.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

I respond:

See the examples I gave above. By the way, the onus of proof is on you, since you are the one making the positive claim that all of my examples were state-sponsored. Demanding that I prove the absence of state support is demanding that I prove a negative.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Zeus said:

I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but, to quote Dr. Peikoff, who was quoting Hegel, the True is the Whole. All existence is a system. The America that will do the right thing by war against terror-states will do the right thing by immigration. If there is no proper foreign-policy regarding war, there can be no proper foreign-policy regarding immigration.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

I respond:

Sounds like determinism to me. But right now we see the America that, in your terms, is doing the wrong thing with regard to the war (we are not ending the evil states) but doing the right thing about immigration (we continue to let Muslims in). Does this mean that existence is no longer a system? Should I be concerned?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Zeus said:

Note that the altruistic, anti-business liberals and conservatives both support vigorous immigration restrictions but oppose a vigorous, ruthless war on Islamic terror. The altruists always know whom to sacrifice first: The Creator.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

I respond:

Since some irrational people endorse position X, position X must be wrong?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Zeus said:

You believe that America has the right to take her time in appeasing evil states, yet you vociferously defend her right to [let me grant] unavoidably deny admission to good men.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

I respond:

You must not have read many of my posts here. I am opposed to appeasement. I am in favor of the war doctrine articulated so well by MisterSwig and Mr. Speicher: Wipe out city by city (then nation by nation if necessary) until the bastards quit.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Zeus said:

Yet, it is individuals who make or break whole cultures. Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Ayn Rand, Kant. The fate of millions depends on any one of these types of extraordinary individuals. After all, if Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff hadn't emigrated to the US, how would you have been so sure about what method to apply in fighting Islamic terrorism?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

I respond:

None of the people you name were Muslims, though the evil one you mention -- Kant -- preaches a view of epistemology and ethics quite similar to Islam.

By the way, I do not necessarily advocate restrictions on Muslim immigration forever.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Zeus said:

You seem to have dropped the "Islamic" in front of the "terrorism." What about Christian abortion-clinic bombers? What about Timothy McVeigh, an American libertarian? What about the Unabomber, who is an environmentalist?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

I respond:

No, I left off "Islamic" intentionally. It would not have added much to the discussion to say that Muslims account for a huge percentage of Islamic terrorism.

I concede that 99.999% may be too high. But certainly the percentage is very high, at least 95% or so.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Zeus said:

Even if Islam is more evil than those other belief-systems, that doesn't remove the fact that only state-sponsorship makes for terrorism.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

I respond:

Here is that pesky, unsupported positive assertion again.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Zeus said:

I quote Leonard Peikoff again:

[Emphasis added.]For over a decade, there was another guarantee of American impotence: the notion that a terrorist is alone responsible for his actions, and that each, therefore, must be tried as an individual before a court of law. This viewpoint, thankfully, is fading; most people now understand that terrorists exist only through the sanction and support of a government.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

I respond:

I agree with Mr. Peikoff. Trouble is, sometimes that sanction and support comes from our government, as in most of the examples I gave. It is our government’s sanction of easy immigration that allowed those guys to get here.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Zeus said:

I took a quick look at the statements listed by you there and tried to verify them by checking them against what I have observed when amongst my Muslim friends.

So, let me see...

Do the liberals you know condemn terrorism unequivocally?

What do these liberals say about the portions of the Western philosophical texts (such as Hegel's and Hobbes') which say that the individual must be submitted to the state by any and all means, including force?

Furthermore, what do the Christians say about the portions of the Bible that exhort the deaths of unbelievers?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

I respond:

These would be more valid points if Liberals and Christians were openly calling for the destruction of America and murdering and torturing disbelievers all over the globe.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

I conclude:

Your positions appear to be contradictory. On the one hand, you exhort us to "end evil states", and do so immediately, on the theory that this will end terrorism and allow us to "spare good men", i.e. allow them to continue immigrating.

However, ending all of the evil states immediately can only be done through the massive use of overwhelming force, such as a thermonuclear strike on Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cheyna, Sudan, Libya, Algeria and a whole bunch of countries south of Russia whose names end in "-stan". Such a strike will "end" a whole bunch of "good men" in a much more permanent way than denying them immigration rights.

So which do you really wish to do to the Muslims: naturalize or vaporize?

[Zeus]

What do you mean by this?

The full context of my statement requires that you examine what I wrote on the "Ending Islamic Immigration" thread in conjunction with what I have written on this one.

[Zeus]

Since the quote function is not  working, I’ll try something  else.

___________________________________________________

Zeus said:

But, all the above examples are state-sponsored, except perhaps for the lone shoe bomber.  Which is very likely why he failed.

___________________________________________________

I respond:

What is the evidence for nation-state involvement in these cases?  The  9/11 hijackers were part of al Qaeda, which had the active support of the Taliban.  However, as far as I can tell, their funding is not traceable to a specific government.  It most likely came from private sources, including the numerous Muslim "charities" right here in America.  The flight training and the weapons (boxcutters and airliners) were supplied by us.

The total cost of the 9/11 attacks has been estimated at $300,000.  Pocket change to bin Laden.

The evidence of nation-state support in the other examples I gave is even thinner.  However, for good measure, I'll throw in a few more examples.

On July 4, 2002 a Muslim immigrant opened fire on the ticket line at the Israeli Airline counter at Los Angeles International Airport, killing 2 and wounding 4. He came to America from Egypt, but there is no evidence the government of Egypt sent him the gun he used in the attack.

In 1999, the Muslim co-pilot of an Egyptian airliner that took off from New York seized control of the plane and crashed it into the Atlantic.  He is heard on the cockpit voice recorder saying, "I put my trust in Allah". He killed 217.

Then we have John Allen Mohammad, the Muslim convert who murdered 11 people in DC and Maryland.

As I said, I agree that the evil states must be ended.  But the facts show that unrestricted Muslim immigration is risky, to say the least.

Because of the lengths of these posts and because of the limited time available to me, I will let this last post of mine on this subject stand against any future opposition.

To answer your first charge, the Taliban was a specific government. The Taliban was the de facto government of Afghanistan.

Now, in response to your request for evidence of government-sponsorship of the various attacks, failed and successful, that you mentioned, I put forward the following:

You ask about,

"...the dress rehersal attacks on the World Trade Center back in 1993 masterminded and carried out by Muslims that most definitely hid their plans and goals and went to prayers while doing so?"

I point you to this site:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSU.../narayanan.html

You ask,

"...about the shoe bomber who attempted to destroy an airliner while traveling to the U.S. under false pretenses?"

I point you to these sites:

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=423

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSU.../narayanan.html

You ask,

"...about the numerous plots that have been foiled both before and since 9/11, such as the millenium plot to simultaneously detonate numerous airliners at LAX?"

And I point you here:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSU.../narayanan.html

You also ask

"...about the recently-foiled plot to bomb the Brooklyn Bridge?"

And I point you here:

http://www.highvolumemedia.com/thebullhorn...error/Page4.htm

You also ask about when,

"...July 4, 2002 a Muslim immigrant opened fire on the ticket line at the Israeli Airline counter at Los Angeles International Airport, killing 2 and wounding 4. He came to America from Egypt, but there is no evidence the government of Egypt sent him the gun he used in the attack."

and about when

"In 1999, the Muslim co-pilot of an Egyptian airliner that took off from New York seized control of the plane and crashed it into the Atlantic. He is heard on the cockpit voice recorder saying, "I put my trust in Allah". He killed 217."

And I point you here.

http://hometown.aol.com/missiletwa800/egyptair.htm

Some of the links I have provided above convey similar information, so I ask you to consider them as a unit when you search for my corroborating evidence.

Then, finally you say:

"Then we have John Allen Mohammad, the Muslim convert who murdered 11 people in DC and Maryland."

Now, this is an atypical case, one which involved the use of methods never seen previously (in the operation of Islamic terror), and which are usually employed by serial killers.

I'm not saying that Islam is not somewhat responsible for this, but I think that considering the number of murders committed by serial killers everywhere claiming to be motivated by various "ideals," we can agree that this is not typical of Islamic terrorism.

______________________________________________________________________

Zeus said:

Now, you're talking.  This is a strong point which I have considered at length.  Because of this, I almost began to think that all advanced immigration problems belonged to the ethics of emergencies.

But, this one too fails. 

For one, why would the good Muslims be left out?  Because there is still a danger that some bomber would sneak in, right?  But this then leads to the question: Can a bomber not sponsored by a nation-state succeed?  If an example or two of such phenomena is found and presented to me, I will stop arguing against the halt of Muslim immigration.

But no-one here has come forward with contextually-viable concretes, which is why I almost lost my temper when arguing with Oakes.  The onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive; in the absence of such proof, the negative position requires no evidence to dismiss the positive claims.

______________________________________________________________________

I respond:

See the examples I gave above.  By the way, the onus of proof is on you, since you are the one making the positive claim that all of my examples were state-sponsored.  Demanding that I prove the absence of state support is demanding that I prove a negative.

Please see my comments above, where I provide evidence.

______________________________________________________________________

Zeus said:

I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but, to quote Dr. Peikoff, who was quoting Hegel, the True is the Whole.  All existence is a system.  The America that will do the right thing by war against terror-states will do the right thing by immigration.  If there is no proper foreign-policy regarding war, there can be no proper foreign-policy regarding immigration.

______________________________________________________________________

I respond:

Sounds like determinism to me.  But right now we see the America that, in your terms, is doing the wrong thing with regard to the war (we are not ending the evil states) but doing the right thing about immigration (we continue to let Muslims in).  Does this mean that existence is no longer a system?  Should I be concerned?

No, sir, determinism does not live here anymore.

Like I said earlier on this thread, I do not believe that Muslim immigration should be unrestricted.

What I said was that restrictions should revolve around physical ties to terrorist groups and/or the states who sponsor them. This is not new in American immigration policy: On the current Application for Permanent Residency, those vying for it are asked if they have any ties to the Communist Party. This question can be duplicated for Islamic fundamentalist organizations and the countries which sponsor/support Islamic terrorism. Note that these countries (like Syria and Iraq under Saddam) are not necessarily Islamic countries.

In order to keep context, I also want to remind you of how this exchange began: I had taken issue with Oakes advocacy of restrictions on Third World immmigration (which is wider than Muslim immigration).

______________________________________________________________________

Zeus said:

Even if Islam is more evil than those other belief-systems, that doesn't remove the fact that only state-sponsorship makes for terrorism.

______________________________________________________________________

I respond:

Here is that pesky, unsupported positive assertion again.

Please see above.

______________________________________________________________________

Zeus said:

I quote Leonard Peikoff again:

[Emphasis added.]For over a decade, there was another guarantee of American impotence: the notion that a terrorist is alone responsible for his actions, and that each, therefore, must be tried as an individual before a court of law. This viewpoint, thankfully, is fading; most people now understand that terrorists exist only through

the sanction and support of a government.

______________________________________________________________________

I respond:

I agree with Mr. Peikoff.  Trouble is, sometimes that sanction and support comes from our government, as in most of the examples I gave.  It is our government’s sanction of easy immigration that allowed those guys to get here.

No, I disagree: the sanction provided by the US is in appeasing the states, not in allowing Mexicans over the border, or in letting Indians or other nationalities into the US.

American immigration policy, overall, while wanting, is basically good. But, the problems that its own loopholes creates are beginning to undermine it. People calling for unconsidered restrictions are only causing more damage.

If immigration were open (see Robert Tracinski's Open Immigration) and evil states were ruthlessly destroyed, there would be no talk of further restrictions. The United States would not even get as many immigrants as it does now, since most countries, witnessing the uncompromising American response to despotic, warlike nations, would sit up and put their houses in order. Fewer dictatorships and mixed economies means fewer immigrants.

Your positions appear to be contradictory.  On the one hand, you exhort us to "end evil states", and do so immediately, on the theory that this will end terrorism and allow us to "spare good men", i.e. allow them to continue immigrating. 

However, ending all of the evil states immediately can only be done through the massive use of overwhelming force, such as a thermonuclear strike on Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cheyna, Sudan, Libya, Algeria and a whole bunch of countries south of Russia whose names end in "-stan".  Such a strike will "end" a whole bunch of  "good men" in a much more

permanent way than denying them immigration rights.

So which do you really wish to do to the Muslims:  naturalize or vaporize?

Ignoring the somewhat cavalier last paragraph, this is a good point: a brutal strike would end the lives of some would-be Muslim immigrants. But, at least, there would be no appeasement, i.e., no sacrifice, involved. The U.S. would not be sacrificing itself to the evil states; the evil states would no longer sacrifice their best citizens; and immigrants from not-so-evil states (Mexico, India, and others) would not be sacrificed to bad foreign policy (immigration or diplomacy [war]). But, if we were to impose an unenforceable, niggling restriction on good men only to appease the warlike tyrants, there would be nothing but sorrow, tears, and blood all around.

Besides the previous point, there is also the issue of why "nuking" some of the states you mentioned above would be impractical: the American oil interests resident in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and in case of such a strike, Libya, Iraq, and Egypt. Bringing down the states by severe bombing need not end those interests, but nuking them certainly would. And why cut your nose to spite your face? Also, the Iranian citizenry is now noticeably pro-US. I would rather that any attack against Iran be ruthless but very well-calibrated. I would even prefer the "nuking" of a Syria, which does not harbor any interests I am aware of. Furthermore, the proximity of Israel to these countries also makes an uncalibrated nuclear strike seem unworthy.

But, do not take my comments here to mean I am opposed to whatever action is required to ensure zero American casualties. On the contrary, I am in support of any means necessary to end the terrorist threat. But, as in all things, one must not evade any facts: one must be objective.

[Marc K.]

Zeus:

Morality ends where a gun begins.

The full context of my statement requires that you examine what I wrote on the "Ending Islamic Immigration" thread in conjunction with what I have written on this one.

I read the "Ending Islamic Immigration" thread and the only thing I could find from you regarding morality is:

Rights are based on a moral code? How is this so? What necessitates this moral code and how does it lead to rights?

What this says to me is not that you believe: “[m]orality ends where a gun begins”; but that no moral code exists, that there is no difference between right and wrong, good and evil. That rights are granted to us by the state or god or society. That we have no rights except by permission or law.

If this is your position (and please correct me if I’m wrong) let me state unequivocally that it is wrong and that the statement: “morality ends where a gun begins”; is a dangerous, morally relativistic, Libertarian fallacy that has no basis in reality. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is essential for your survival when confronted with a gun.

Let’s say a robber pulls a gun on me and threatens to kill me unless I hand over my wallet. I reach into my back pocket and instead of my wallet I pull my gun and shoot him dead. How are we to determine who is right and who is wrong using your fallacious statement? The same is true in war. Or do you think there is no difference between the initiation of force and retaliatory force?

To quote Ayn Rand from “Man’s Rights” which may be found in both The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal:

“Rights” are a moral concept -- the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others -- the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context -- the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

While you profess not to be a Libertarian (and I have no reason to doubt your veracity) many of the views you hold are consonant with theirs. You need a much stronger grounding in ethics in order to enlighten yourself on the logical derivation of rights, their basis in reality and why only individuals possess them. “Man’s Rights”, VOS and CUI are a great place to start.

[Zeus]

Zeus:

I read the "Ending Islamic Immigration" thread and the only thing I could find from you regarding morality is:

What this says to me is not that you believe: “[m]orality ends where a gun begins”; but that no moral code exists, that there is no difference between right and wrong, good and evil. That rights are granted to us by the state or god or society. That we have no rights except by permission or law.

If this is your position (and please correct me if I’m wrong) let me state unequivocally that it is wrong and that the statement: “morality ends where a gun begins”; is a dangerous, morally relativistic, Libertarian fallacy that has no basis in reality. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is essential for your survival when confronted with a gun.

Let’s say a robber pulls a gun on me and threatens to kill me unless I hand over my wallet. I reach into my back pocket and instead of my wallet I pull my gun and shoot him dead. How are we to determine who is right and who is wrong using your fallacious statement? The same is true in war. Or do you think there is no difference between the initiation of force and retaliatory force?

To quote Ayn Rand from “Man’s Rights” which may be found in both The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal:

“Rights” are a moral concept -- the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others -- the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context -- the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

While you profess not to be a Libertarian (and I have no reason to doubt your veracity) many of the views you hold are consonant with theirs. You need a much stronger grounding in ethics in order to enlighten yourself on the logical derivation of rights, their basis in reality and why only individuals possess them. “Man’s Rights”, VOS and CUI are a great place to start.

I see the problem: you don't have all the context you require to understand where I'm coming from. It's no cause for conflict though - you seem a measured, mannered fellow who can be reasoned with.

The statement, "Morality ends where a gun begins" is Ayn Rand's, with only the slightest alteration by me. The full context is the novel, "Atlas Shrugged" (if I recall correctly). She wrote: "Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where the gun begins." I don't have my copies before me right now, so I can't confirm the exact source text.

So, now that you have that lead, I hope you will hunt down the necessary information and re-read my posts on the "Ending Islamic Immigration" thread. Some of my statements from that thread, one of which you quoted above, are rhetorical and must be taken and understood in their full context.

I look forward to your return here and to your revision of this unfortunate statement from your last post: " While you profess not to be a Libertarian (and I have no reason to doubt your veracity) many of the views you hold are consonant with theirs."

This is a very dangerous accusation, but, like I said, you probably didn't know enough to say better.

And if this isn't the case, that would be a shame indeed.

[Marc K.]

Zeus:

The source of my greatest concern is the statement you made in the “Ending Islamic Immigration” thread:

Rights are based on a moral code?  How is this so?  What necessitates this moral code and how does it lead to rights?

This is what you said in response to Oakes when he made the positive claim that rights are based on a moral code. So these questions indicate to me that you don’t accept that rights are based on a moral code or that a moral code is necessary to establish the source of individual rights. Am I wrong?

Since you directed me there it is within this context that I analyzed your statement from this thread:

Morality ends where a gun begins.

(And please, if your original intent was to quote Ayn Rand, etiquette demands that you indicate such using proper punctuation and reference.) I’ll let you “hunt down” the reference now that you’ve made it. (If you do I hope you’ll provide more context than one or two sentences.)

...But no need to get bogged down searching for context that you can provide here quickly and explicitly. After analyzing your words I have stated what I think your position is, namely:

Not that you believe: “[m]orality ends where a gun begins”; but that no moral code exists, that there is no difference between right and wrong, good and evil. That rights are granted to us by the state or god or society. That we have no rights except by permission or law.

If I am wrong, please correct me.

If you would rather not defend this position, then allow me to ask a few questions in order to flesh out your position:

- Where do rights come from, (or more accurately...)

- From what principles are rights derived?

- Is a moral code required to define what rights are?

- What principle in reality links morality and rights?

- What is required of you to exercise your rights?

- What is required of others for you to exercise your rights?

- Is it possible to define objective laws without a moral code? If yes, How?

- Is there a difference between initiation of force and retaliatory force?

Your answers to these questions should provide for a more fruitful discussion, thanks.

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

p.s. -- as a friendly reminder the forum rules require minimal quotation. No need to quote an entire post. If you are responding to me a “Marc:” at the top of the page will suffice.

[MisterSwig]

[To Zeus:] ... This is what you said in response to Oakes when he made the positive claim that rights are based on a moral code. So these questions indicate to me that you don’t accept that rights are based on a moral code or that a moral code is necessary to establish the source of individual rights. Am I wrong?

Perhaps these Ayn Rand quotes will shed light on this misunderstanding:

The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A--and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival.

Individual rights is the only proper principle of human coexistence, because it rests on man's nature, i.e., the nature and requirements of a conceptual consciousness.

In Objectivism, the source of rights is man's nature--not a specific moral code, such as egoism or altruism.

[Zeus]

Zeus:

[...]

Mr. Swig has been kind enough to give you yet some more context on this issue. I suggest you use this opportunity wisely.

I hope your next post shall be a true post.

Best wishes.

[AisA]

Zeus, I just started reading your reply to my last post. (For some reason, I do not get email notification of responses to a long post. ) I got to this point:

You ask about,

"...the dress rehersal attacks on the World Trade Center back in 1993 masterminded and carried out by Muslims that most definitely hid their plans and goals and went to prayers while doing so?"

I point you to this site:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSU.../narayanan.html

When I went to the site you provided, I find only this mention, in a table, of the 1993 WTC attack.

1993 WTC bomber Ramzi Youssef traced to Pakistan; tied to 1995 plot to bomb 12 US airliners.

Before I read all of the links you provided, perhaps we should discuss what constitutes proof that terrorism is only possible with nation-state support.

Everyone comes from somewhere. So what does it mean that Youssef was "traced to Pakistan"? Does it merely mean that is where he came from? Or does it mean the Pakistani government assisted him in carrying out the 1993 attack? Those are two very different things.

[Zeus]

Before I read all of the links you provided, perhaps we should discuss what constitutes proof that terrorism is only possible with nation-state support.

Like I said, that post will suffice. Feel free to post as much as you wish against my argument, but I really don't want to discuss it further. Those who can be reached have been reached.

[Marc K.]

MisterSwig:

I'm not sure why you have chosen to answer a post directed at Zeus, but that's fine. Indeed I can't tell if your post is directed at me or Zeus. I must assume it is Zeus since nothing you have said or quoted contradicts anything from my last two posts.

If this is directed at me:

In Objectivism, the source of rights is man's nature--not a specific moral code, such as egoism or altruism.

then please reread my last two posts carefully and consider the specific words I have chosen. In particular consider the eight questions posed to Zeus at the end of my last post.

If you disagree with something I have said please quote it and tell me why you disagree.

[Marc K.]

Zeus:

Your silence is deafening.

If the questions at the end of my last post were too difficult to answer, then I suggest reading the Objectivist literature I cited in my post before last and get back to me.

[MisterSwig]

MisterSwig:

If you disagree with something I have said please quote it and tell me why you disagree.

I have already done that in my previous post. To clarify, I believe that you are misunderstanding Ayn Rand's position on individual rights. Rights are the link between ethics and politics. (I.e., Ethics is logically connected to politics via individual rights.) But this does not mean that ethics is the source of rights, as you seem to be saying in your posts.

[Zeus]

Well, history will bear witness to my good-spiritedness, which this fellow had here spurned.

Zeus:

I read the "Ending Islamic Immigration" thread and the only thing I could find from you regarding morality is:

What this says to me is not that you believe: “[m]orality ends where a gun begins”; but that no moral code exists, that there is no difference between right and wrong, good and evil. That rights are granted to us by the state or god or society. That we have no rights except by permission or law.

No, this is not my position. I agree with Ayn Rand.

In fact, it is an ignorant interpretation of my position, because it betrays ignorance of Miss Rand's work, i.e., ignorance of Objectivism.

If this is your position (and please correct me if I’m wrong) let me state unequivocally that it is wrong and that the statement: “morality ends where a gun begins”; is a dangerous, morally relativistic, Libertarian fallacy that has no basis in reality. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is essential for your survival when confronted with a gun.

You have called Ayn Rand a Libertarian, or at least, someone who discovered a principle that is "a dangerous, morally relativistic, Libertarian fallacy that has no basis in reality."

You have not rescinded this statement - among others - since you made it, in spite of all my tactfulness in this regard. Instead, you decided to rattle on foolishly.

Let’s say a robber pulls a gun on me and threatens to kill me unless I hand over my wallet. I reach into my back pocket and instead of my wallet I pull my gun and shoot him dead. How are we to determine who is right and who is wrong using your fallacious statement? The same is true in war. Or do you think there is no difference between the initiation of force and retaliatory force?

That is not the context in which the principle applies. The context would be if the robber asked you if you were armed and you lied, knowing you had a gun. Would it be moral to tell him the truth in this case?

Context-dropping is a logical fallacy.

While you profess not to be a Libertarian (and I have no reason to doubt your veracity) many of the views you hold are consonant with theirs. You need a much stronger grounding in ethics in order to enlighten yourself on the logical derivation of rights, their basis in reality and why only individuals possess them. “Man’s Rights”, VOS and CUI are a great place to start.

Perhaps I should be the one to educate you on Miss Rand's work, since I have been reading them voraciously for 5 years. I have read VOS about 5 times and many essays in CUI 5 or 6 times, but some only twice. And that's just to name a few of the more well-known articles.

And going by your conduct on this thread, you obviously haven't grasped Objectivism anywhere near my understanding of it.

I will respond to your other post in a new post, for clarity's sake.

[Zeus]

The source of my greatest concern is the statement you made in the “Ending Islamic Immigration” thread:

This is what you said in response to Oakes when he made the positive claim that rights are based on a moral code. So these questions indicate to me that you don’t accept that rights are based on a moral code or that a moral code is necessary to establish the source of individual rights. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are completely wrong.

Since you directed me there it is within this context that I analyzed your statement from this thread:

(And please, if your original intent was to quote Ayn Rand, etiquette demands that you indicate such using proper punctuation and reference.) I’ll let you “hunt down” the reference now that you’ve made it. (If you do I hope you’ll provide more context than one or two sentences.)

Look here, many of the basic principles of Objectivism are facts of reality, and in the context of this forum at least, do not require a reference.

Why?

For the same reasons and in the same way that each time I say, "for a right-angled triangle, the square of its hypothenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides," I do not always have to specify that Pythagoras said so; and when I say "two plus two equals four," I do not always have to specify which Babylonian or Egyptian or Indian first came up with this principle.

In objective communication, the knowledge of the audience determines context: there are some things which can be taken for granted on this board. And the principle I paraphrased, not quoted, is one of them.

And anyone who takes a look at my record on this board knows I am very well-referenced. In fact, I hardly ever post without some concrete(s) side-by-side with my abstraction(s). No-one can today accuse me of rationalism or anything near it.

...But no need to get bogged down searching for context that you can provide here quickly and explicitly. After analyzing your words I have stated what I think your position is, namely:

Not that you believe: “[m]orality ends where a gun begins”; but that no moral code exists, that there is no difference between right and wrong, good and evil. That rights are granted to us by the state or god or society. That we have no rights except by permission or law.

If I am wrong, please correct me.

You are wrong, wrong, wrong. Which is why I took such a reflective stance toward your posts at first.

If you would rather not defend this position, then allow me to ask a few questions in order to flesh out your position:

- Where do rights come from, (or more accurately...)

- From what principles are rights derived?

- Is a moral code required to define what rights are?

- What principle in reality links morality and rights?

- What is required of you to exercise your rights?

- What is required of others for you to exercise your rights?

- Is it possible to define objective laws without a moral code? If yes, How?

- Is there a difference between initiation of force and retaliatory force?

Your answers to these questions should provide for a more fruitful discussion, thanks.

As I have said, I agree with Ayn Rand, and I'm actually one of the few people I know who can actually answer the above questions inductively, as opposed to deductively.

But it is 11:40p.m. here, and I have to go to work in the morning.

If you show some remorse, I might find some time to answer the above in such a way as to add value to your life; otherwise, I'll pass.

[Zeus]

Yes, you are completely wrong.

My response here should read:

"I agree with Ayn Rand and Mr. Swig."

I must have been truly exhausted yesterday night. Well, that's what work, weightlifting, and running 3 miles will do to you.

[AisA]

Like I said, that post will suffice.  Feel free to post as much as you wish against my argument, but I really don't want to discuss it further.  Those who can be reached have been reached.

To those who understand, no further explanation is necessary, and to those who do not, none is possible?

Obviously, I cannot force you to discuss anything. However, I do not see, in the links you provided, much evidence of foreign government assistance to the terrorists and would-be terrorists that have operated on American soil (the exception being the Taliban, al Qaeda and 9/11).

I agree that properly motivated by fear of American military retribution, governments of Islamic nations could crack down and reduce the terrorist training in their countries. And I agree that we should supply that motivation.

But there is a limit to what they can do. We are talking about billions of people spread across entire nations -- and the governments of those nations do not have the sophisticated surveillance and investigative capabilities of our FBI and other law enforcement agencies.

It is not realistic to expect, say, Pakistan to completely eliminate terrorist training in their country. Reduce it, yes, though even that will take time. It will not happen overnight no matter how motivated they are. Until it does happen, why should we allow immigration from there?

What I said was that restrictions should revolve around physical ties to terrorist groups and/or the states who sponsor them. This is not new in American immigration policy: On the current Application for Permanent Residency, those vying for it are asked if they have any ties to the Communist Party. This question can be duplicated for Islamic fundamentalist organizations and the countries which sponsor/support Islamic terrorism.

Surely, you do not expect to stop terrorist immigrants by asking them, "Are you a terrorist or do you belong to al Qaeda?"

But, if we were to impose an unenforceable, niggling restriction on good men only to appease the warlike tyrants, there would be nothing but sorrow, tears, and blood all around.

Why do you assume that imposing an immigration restriction on Islamic nations would be "unenforceable"? It would not be perfect, but it would make it more difficult for the bad guys to get here.

Also, it does not follow that advocating immigration restriction means one wishes to appease tyrants.

[Marc K.]

But this does not mean that ethics is the source of rights, as you seem to be saying in your posts.

This is why I asked you to read my last two posts carefully and consider the specific words I have chosen.

I never said that ethics (or a moral code) is the source of rights. What I actually said was that “rights are based on a moral code” and that “a moral code is necessary to establish the source of individual rights”. Both of which are correct, neither of which conflicts with your statement that:

In Objectivism, the source of rights is man's nature--not a specific moral code, such as egoism or altruism.

And while a moral code is not the source of rights a moral code is required to define what rights are -- which is what I implied in one of my questions to Zeus.

Even though I really wanted Zeus to answer my questions so as to flesh out his still unstated position on this issue; let me be explicit:

A right is a moral principle. To quote Ayn Rand: “Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.” So rights cannot be defined without first establishing a moral code and, of course, a rational moral code can only be established by observing reality and considering man’s nature.

[Marc K.]

Well, history will bear witness to my good-spiritedness, which this fellow had here spurned.

The only thing history will bear witness to is your evasion of the issue and that you answer logical argument and rational questions with bomb throwing and personal attacks.

In the course of three or four posts you have hidden behind the word “context”, have said nothing of intellectual value, and have explained your position on this issue not one bit.

“Saying” you agree with Ayn Rand means little since some Libertarians, Conservatives and even Marxists “say” they do too. What you must do is demonstrate that you have integrated the principles Ayn Rand has enumerated and proved, by explaining your understanding of said principles. You have not done so in this instance. Reading the entirety of Ayn Rand's corpus five, six or a thousand times will mean nothing until you understand it.

Saying I’m “wrong, wrong, wrong” or saying you can answer my questions doesn’t make it so and is not a proper way of correcting me, you must prove I’m wrong using logical argumentation.

I have said that many of your arguments seem to be consonant with Libertarianism which means that I am open to being convinced otherwise. So prove me wrong and I will gladly rescind this assertion and apologize for any damage done to your integrity. Until such time my posts will stand.

It is quickly becoming apparent however that rational discussion with you (on this issue at least) is not possible (this is my third try). I implore you, end the personal attacks and evasionary tactics and answer logical questions with principled argument.

[MisterSwig]

I never said that ethics (or a moral code) is the source of rights. What I actually said was that “rights are based on a moral code” and that “a moral code is necessary to establish the source of individual rights”.

Can you clarify what you mean by "based on" in this context? Because while a legal code may be based upon a moral code, I don't see how rights are. Ayn Rand wrote: "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." How then can a moral principle be based on a moral code? Wouldn't it be part of the moral code?

And what do you mean by this: "a moral code is necessary to establish the source of individual rights"? Why is a moral code "necessary" for this? Is man's nature not enough to establish rights?

[Zeus]

Also, it does not follow that advocating immigration restriction means one wishes to appease tyrants.

In the way you and Oakes have prescribed it, yes, it does; and this is the fact of the case that cannot be wished away.

[Zeus]

The only thing history will bear witness to is your evasion of the issue and that you answer logical argument and rational questions with bomb throwing and personal attacks.

[....]

It is quickly becoming apparent however that rational discussion with you (on this issue at least) is not possible (this is my third try). I implore you, end the personal attacks and evasionary tactics and answer logical questions with principled argument.

This is a load of crock. I have given you the essence of my argument (in regard to my use of "morality ends where a gun begins" against Oakes) in my post on the armed robber context. But you've, very conveniently, chosen to overlook it.

Instead of facing facts, you're hoping you can bluff your way through this by asking me to do precisely what I had asked Oakes to do on the "Ending Islamic Immigration" thread.

You callowly chose the wrong target - and the wrong approach. And I am not an altruist.

[AisA]

QUOTE(AisA @ Feb 2 2005, 10:07 AM)

Also, it does not follow that advocating immigration restriction means one wishes to appease tyrants.

In the way you and Oakes have prescribed it, yes, it does; and this is the fact of the case that cannot be wished away.

You also advocate immigration restriction, a fact which I assume you also do not want wished away. In post 205, you said:

Like I said earlier on this thread, I do not believe that Muslim immigration should be unrestricted.

What I said was that restrictions should revolve around physical ties to terrorist groups and/or the states who sponsor them.

Therefore, what we disagree on is not the principle of restriction, but its implementation.

Why does my proposed implementation necessarily entail appeasement while yours does not?

We agree that the ideal system would keep out the bad guys while admitting the good guys. However, any immigration system will be administered by humans, who are not omniscient and who operate with limited knowledge; such a system will always involve the possibility of mistakes. Just as a criminal justice system must balance the risk of convicting an innocent man versus the risk of acquitting the guilty, a restrictive immigration system must balance the risks of denying entry to the good versus the risk of allowing the entry of the bad.

I gather that you advocate a system designed to minimize the risk of denying entry to the good. I advocate, in the present context, a system that minimizes the risk of allowing the entry of the bad.

The only screening mechanism that you have proposed is a questionnaire. This amounts to asking the bad guys to identify themselves as such. I don't have much confidence in such a measure; it would only screen out the really stupid bad guys.

I also don't have much confidence in the ability of foreign governments to screen out the bad guys. Their track record in this regard is very poor. Granted, under threat of military destruction they will likely do better, but prudence dictates that we wait until they demonstrate a willingness and an ability to stamp out terrorism in their own country before we trust them not to export it to ours.

I am open to any ideas you may have for screening out the bad guys, above and beyond the questionnaire, but until someone comes up with an effective screening method I will oppose the immigration of potential enemy combatants.

Nothing about this stance constitutes an advocacy of appeasement.