Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Donald Trump

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

If you actually want to have a civilized discussion about this, then I'm all for it, but I don't think you're open to changing your mind anyway.

But for now I will say that whoever you import has no "right" to vote for a socialist party. Or, preferably, no right to vote at all.

“Whoever you import”? Like a bag of wheat? Is that what you consider civilized? I hope you realize that most of your fellow Americans are essentially socialists, and prove it with their elected officials from all parties.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 219
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm not sure on what you base your view of the psychology of middle-class Americans.  What Trump saw was the the number of whiny whites had grown to a point where they had become a voting bank th

If you get between me and an immigrant/foreigner who I want to trade/associate with on my property, you can just plain fuck off. I don't care what philosophy or "objectivism" you think you've modeled,

A philosophy of Objectivism that distorts itself and compromises its principles for the sake of wider acceptance is not what I want.  Have children and raise them rationally, that is one method that c

Posted Images

4 hours ago, JASKN said:

“Whoever you import”? Like a bag of wheat? Is that what you consider civilized? I hope you realize that most of your fellow Americans are essentially socialists, and prove it with their elected officials from all parties.

Yeah. One of the things I don't understand about the idea that we can restrict immigration (which is travel) on the basis of "cultural differences" is: what would the response be if the next proposal is that we have the right to kick people out of the country (born here, let's say), on the basis of their not sharing the same beliefs or culture?

Telling two people that that they cannot do business with each other is the initiation of the use of force. We can dress it up however we'd like, but if the Mexican government told me that I could not go work in Mexico (for someone else who agrees to hire me; to live on a property that I purchase; etc.), then they are violating my individual rights to that extent. They have no moral authority to do such a thing. No right to do it.

That said. If the proposal was something along the lines of, citizenship (including the right to vote) should be more strictly limited -- perhaps to those who demonstrate sufficient understanding of and commitment to the principles of liberty -- then I think we'd have a conversation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

Yeah. One of the things I don't understand about the idea that we can restrict immigration (which is travel) on the basis of "cultural differences" is: what would the response be if the next proposal is that we have the right to kick people out of the country (born here, let's say), on the basis of their not sharing the same beliefs or culture?

Telling two people that that they cannot do business with each other is the initiation of the use of force. We can dress it up however we'd like, but if the Mexican government told me that I could not go work in Mexico (for someone else who agrees to hire me; to live on a property that I purchase; etc.), then they are violating my individual rights to that extent. They have no moral authority to do such a thing. No right to do it.

That said. If the proposal was something along the lines of, citizenship (including the right to vote) should be more strictly limited -- perhaps to those who demonstrate sufficient understanding of and commitment to the principles of liberty -- then I think we'd have a conversation.

Indeed. The argument being that we should restrict immigration, because sometime in the future, an immigrant might go on welfare.

It cannot be denied that any children born today might, some years into the future, avail themselves of the State's welfare programs. But if we can preclude the entry of immigrants on this ground, this goes as well for having babies. Becoming pregnant ought to be a crime, on these grounds.

At least the Chinese Communists limited people to one child per couple. If opponents of open immigration on the ground that they might become welfare recipients are logically consistent, they would have to oppose any childbearing, whatsoever.

At least the Chinese didn't whine about socialism in the same breath as endorsing its migration and association policies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JASKN said:

“Whoever you import”? Like a bag of wheat? Is that what you consider civilized? I hope you realize that most of your fellow Americans are essentially socialists, and prove it with their elected officials from all parties.

Considering that the argument which treats human beings as sacks of wheat to be imported freely without government inspection or intervention, I'm not the one making that claim to start with. They are human beings, so they necessarily deserve different considerations for admission than a sack of wheat.

Bearing in mind that the HuffPost is a Leftist rag, and use race-based arguments, these stats that they give are still informing. Certain segments of the American population are most certainly NOT socialists, but open immigration has replaced non-socialists with socialists from the Third World. Obamacare would never have passed if the Immigration Act of 1965 hadn't passed, and changed the makeup of America.

4 hours ago, DonAthos said:

Yeah. One of the things I don't understand about the idea that we can restrict immigration (which is travel) on the basis of "cultural differences" is: what would the response be if the next proposal is that we have the right to kick people out of the country (born here, let's say), on the basis of their not sharing the same beliefs or culture?

The difference is that people born here have the right to be here. Because they're American citizens.

People from elsewhere in the world have no right to be here. They are not American citizens.

Quote

Telling two people that that they cannot do business with each other is the initiation of the use of force. We can dress it up however we'd like,

No, crossing an international border illegally is the initiation of force. It is the immigrant who initiates force against America by coming here against our laws, not the government who removes them.

Quote

but if the Mexican government told me that I could not go work in Mexico (for someone else who agrees to hire me; to live on a property that I purchase; etc.), then they are violating my individual rights to that extent. They have no moral authority to do such a thing. No right to do it.

The Mexican government does exactly this, though. Mexico's immigration policy is notoriously strict. So, since it's apparently the responsibility of the US government to protect the rights of people anywhere on the planet, when do you propose that we invade Mexico?

Quote

That said. If the proposal was something along the lines of, citizenship (including the right to vote) should be more strictly limited -- perhaps to those who demonstrate sufficient understanding of and commitment to the principles of liberty -- then I think we'd have a conversation.

Citizenship should be strictly limited. That being said, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to let in millions of people and not grant them citizenship, there will be endless calls to do so--just as there are today. How long could our politicians resist the temptation to grant overnight citizenship and gain those votes? The only solution is to just not have it be a temptation in the first place.

 

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like you finally have a non-vulgar position to defend.

4 hours ago, 2046 said:

Indeed. The argument being that we should restrict immigration, because sometime in the future, an immigrant might go on welfare.

The argument is that we should restrict immigration because immigrants come from incompatible cultures. This restriction should occur even if the welfare state didn't exist. The fact that many immigrants are welfare parasites, disease-ridden, and criminals only bolsters the case against it.

4 hours ago, 2046 said:

It cannot be denied that any children born today might, some years into the future, avail themselves of the State's welfare programs. But if we can preclude the entry of immigrants on this ground, this goes as well for having babies. Becoming pregnant ought to be a crime, on these grounds.

We can preclude entry of immigrants to the USA for any reason, because they do not have the right to be here in the first place.

4 hours ago, 2046 said:

At least the Chinese Communists limited people to one child per couple. If opponents of open immigration on the ground that they might become welfare recipients are logically consistent, they would have to oppose any childbearing, whatsoever.

The solution is to get rid of the welfare state first. And get rid of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination by private individuals against immigrants. Once we do that, immigration levels will decline naturally on their own.

4 hours ago, 2046 said:

At least the Chinese didn't whine about socialism in the same breath as endorsing its migration and association policies.

Open immigration is a tool of the left to get what they want. See my earlier post about how non-native-born Americans supported Obamacare by huge margins vs historical Americans who opposed it by huge margins.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

No, crossing an international border illegally is the initiation of force. It is the immigrant who initiates force against America by coming here against our laws, not the government who removes them.

You may have to elaborate on this.  When someone crosses an international border illegally, it does not, as far as I can tell, force anyone else to think, say or do (or not think, say or do) anything.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Craig24 said:

You may have to elaborate on this.  When someone crosses an international border illegally, it does not, as far as I can tell, force anyone else to think, say or do (or not think, say or do) anything.  

It is an initiation of force against America as a nation of laws. By failing to use legal avenues to enter America, they have demonstrated that they are antagonistic towards the law. It doesn't matter whether it's an invading army or one person.

It is also an initiation of force against the private property owners whose property they trespass on. Such as this Arizona rancher who has had livestock die as a result.
http://ijr.com/opinion/2016/11/261508-ranch-arizona-illegal-immigration-environment/

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

The difference is that people born here have the right to be here. Because they're American citizens.

People from elsewhere in the world have no right to be here. They are not American citizens.

People have the right to do anything which does not initiate the use of force against another individual. An immigrant moving from Tijuana to San Diego does not, by so doing, initiate the use of force against anyone (any more than moving from Los Angeles to San Diego).

1 hour ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

No, crossing an international border illegally is the initiation of force.

It is not. "Legality" has nothing to do with it; if we pass laws against drug use, that doesn't mean that the person who uses drugs has somehow initiated force. It is the act of making drug use illegal that is the initiation of force. Crossing an international border does not initiate force. But passing a law which means that a would-be immigrant is not allowed to move to San Diego -- is not allowed to conduct legitimate business there, live there, etc., is the initiation of the use of force.

1 hour ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

The Mexican government does exactly this, though. Mexico's immigration policy is notoriously strict. So, since it's apparently the responsibility of the US government to protect the rights of people anywhere on the planet, when do you propose that we invade Mexico?

It is not the responsibility of the US government to protect the rights of people anywhere on the planet, however the US government (as any other body or individual) has no right to violate the rights of anyone, regardless of their citizenship or country of origin. They US government has no duty to go into Mexico, to protect people in their rights there; but they have no moral authority to violate the rights of individuals whether on US or Mexican soil.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DonAthos said:

People have the right to do anything which does not initiate the use of force against another individual. An immigrant moving from Tijuana to San Diego does not, by so doing, initiate the use of force against anyone (any more than moving from Los Angeles to San Diego).

If that person willfully evades inspection at the border, doing that in and of itself telegraphs that they do not have good intentions, that they do not respect the law. If they truly have no ill intent, then why not come here legally?

It's the same as missing a court date. By your definition, I haven't initiated force against the government by not showing up at court to answer the accusations levied against me. In fact I am still considered innocent until proven guilty of whatever my initial alleged crime was. Nevertheless, I am considered a fugitive because I did not allow the justice system to objectively consider the facts for and against me.

Illegal immigrants are similar fugitives from the law, fugitives from objective verification as to their intentions in the United States.

1 minute ago, DonAthos said:

It is not. "Legality" has nothing to do with it; if we pass laws against drug use, that doesn't mean that the person who uses drugs has somehow initiated force. It is the act of making drug use illegal that is the initiation of force. Crossing an international border does not initiate force. But passing a law which means that a would-be immigrant is not allowed to move to San Diego -- is not allowed to conduct legitimate business there, live there, etc., is the initiation of the use of force.

Crossing an international border does not, by itself, initiate force. But it shows the intent to do so.

If I'm an Islamic preacher from Saudi Arabia who preaches death to the infidel, and I cross the border, should I be permitted to remain here? Absolutely not. Even though I have not personally initiated force, Islam is a death cult and its more vehement imams are generals in the war against infidels.

1 minute ago, DonAthos said:

however the US government (as any other body or individual) has no right to violate the rights of anyone, regardless of their citizenship or country of origin.

By that standard, do you agree with waging war? That violates many people's right to life. We would never drop a bomb on Detroit to fight criminals, they have certain rights that we must respect which includes innocence until proven guilty. So by the standard that we should never drop a bomb on Raqqa, we should have to capture and try every member of ISIS because we don't know for sure if any of them have initiated force. Some of them are just young saps who got roped into ISIS and haven't ever actually killed anybody, they just serve as sexual servants or something. Some of them were forced by ISIS to fight under penalty of death to themselves or their families. We can't violate their right to a fair trial, a right which they have regardless of where they live.

1 minute ago, DonAthos said:

They US government has no duty to go into Mexico, to protect people in their rights there; but they have no moral authority to violate the rights of individuals whether on US or Mexican soil.

Say that a fugitive from justice in Mexico crosses into the United States. He is wanted for being a cartel lord and for human trafficking. He will not get a fair trial in Mexico. Under your logic we have no recourse to deport him. And since he has not initiated force against America by his mere presence as a notorious individual, he should be allowed to stay, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

It is an initiation of force against America as a nation of laws. By failing to use legal avenues to enter America, they have demonstrated that they are antagonistic towards the law. It doesn't matter whether it's an invading army or one person.

So, a 20-year old drinking a beer is "initiating force", according to the way you conceptualize the idea?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

So, a 20-year old drinking a beer is "initiating force", according to the way you conceptualize the idea?

There exists no rational basis for underage drinking laws, so there is no force initiated.

However, as you correctly point out, there is a rational basis for restricting who can and cannot come into the country.

Quote

I have no issue with the idea of an objective border control. Even within the "open borders" crowd, many are fine with border control.

By saying this, you are essentially agreeing with me that there is a rational basis for the government knowing who is coming into the country. By avoiding those checks, a person is not "initiating force" necessarily, but they are a fugitive.

If I am accused of a crime, I can't just skip out on my court date for no reason. Even if I am totally innocent. My act of skipping court by itself demonstrates that I am not willing to allow the law to objectively prove my innocence (or guilt). I become a fugitive.

Similarly, if I'm willing to skip a check for diseases, criminal background, or terroristic intent... then my act of skipping demonstrates that I am not willing to allow the government to objectively vet me.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

If that person willfully evades inspection at the border, doing that in and of itself telegraphs that they do not have good intentions, that they do not respect the law. If they truly have no ill intent, then why not come here legally?

Because the current legal process for immigration is so restricted as to be practically impossible for many. It's not a simple question of "inspection"; if that's all we were talking about, we could come to an easy agreement. Should people be stopped at the border, to ensure that they are not murderers on the run? Sure. And if it moving to the US ("the land of opportunity") to pursue employment were a straightforward procedure, with provisions only in place to screen against murderers and the like -- then yes, I would agree that someone who seeks to evade such a procedure likely does not have good intentions otherwise. But in that case, I think that the vast, vast majority of immigrants would respect the law.

26 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

It's the same as missing a court date. By your definition, I haven't initiated force against the government by not showing up at court to answer the accusations levied against me. In fact I am still considered innocent until proven guilty of whatever my initial alleged crime was. Nevertheless, I am considered a fugitive because I did not allow the justice system to objectively consider the facts for and against me.

There are a couple of times when you're introducing what I consider to be fairly different contexts (war and whatnot), and I do not mean to get bogged down in tangential discussions which are apt to be as contentious as this already-contentious topic. But here, we would want to take into account the nature of the justice system we're discussing; they're not all made equal. If we mean a justice system that is essentially objective and fair, then I agree that an individual must submit to it -- which is necessary for the providence of justice in general. But a Jew who gets a summons in Nazi Germany has no obligation to respect "law and order" and show up for his court date; he has not initiated force by recognizing that he cannot expect fair treatment, or his rights to be respected. By becoming a fugitive in this manner, he is acting morally, in self-defense.

It's my understanding that many prospective immigrants to the US have no reasonable expectation that going through the system we've set up will result in their being allowed to immigrate (which means, in part: to travel, to seek employment/conduct business, to live) -- as is their right to do.

26 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Say that a fugitive from justice in Mexico crosses into the United States. He is wanted for being a cartel lord and for human trafficking. He will not get a fair trial in Mexico. Under your logic we have no recourse to deport him. And since he has not initiated force against America by his mere presence as a notorious individual, he should be allowed to stay, right?

Not at all. If this is what you think my logic demands, then you do not yet understand my logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

There exists no rational basis for underage drinking laws, so there is no force initiated.

Would you be okay with a shopkeeper selling absolutely anything: drugs, drink, guns, to anyone, regardless of age?

 

23 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

However, as you correctly point out, there is a rational basis for restricting who can and cannot come into the country.

By saying this, you are essentially agreeing with me that there is a rational basis for the government knowing who is coming into the country. By avoiding those checks, a person is not "initiating force" necessarily, but they are a fugitive.

If I am accused of a crime, I can't just skip out on my court date for no reason. Even if I am totally innocent. My act of skipping court by itself demonstrates that I am not willing to allow the law to objectively prove my innocence (or guilt). I become a fugitive.

Similarly, if I'm willing to skip a check for diseases, criminal background, or terroristic intent... then my act of skipping demonstrates that I am not willing to allow the government to objectively vet me.

I actually don't have a huge problem with any of this, in principle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

Should people be stopped at the border, to ensure that they are not murderers on the run? Sure.

Under what criteria do we screen them for "criminality"? We can rely on their government's information, but Mexico is a corrupt country where people do not get fair trials, where police can arbitrarily detain and accuse anybody without evidence. If we rely on Mexico's word to restrict people's "right" to come here, we would necessarily be doing it on just as arbitrary of a basis as Mexico's criminal justice system. Garbage in, garbage out. In that case, wouldn't our government be guilty of the same violations of rights as Mexico's is, merely by proxy?

It's impossible to obtain objective evidence as to whether or not somebody coming here is "truly" a murderer unless we try them for the crime ourselves... because Third World "courts" are usually not objective. Even if they were, the criteria for determining guilt or innocence varies by country. Iran might not consider a man who rapes his wife to be a rapist, or a man who participates in a public stoning of a homosexual to be a murderer, whereas US courts would. We can't just ask Iran, "Hey, is this guy a rapist or a murderer?" Because they'd say no, no crime was committed. That's if Iran would even cooperate with us and answer our questions in the first place.

Furthermore, what of areas with no functioning government like in Syria? There exists no way to objectively vet people for terrorism. Trump's travel ban is the only objective way to keep America safe from potential murderers or terrorists. We have to exclude everybody from that country, it's the only way.

13 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

It's my understanding that many prospective immigrants to the US have no reasonable expectation that going through the system we've set up will result in their being allowed to immigrate (which means, in part: to travel, to seek employment/conduct business, to live) -- as is their right to do.

You've implicitly admitted that no right to immigrate to the US exists. If we can morally demand that they subject themselves to a screening, then no right to move here exists. It becomes meaningless if it's restricted in such an arbitrary manner (see above).

If I could morally demand that people at protest demonstrations subject themselves to screenings for disease, criminality (papers, please) before they assemble, then no meaningful right to freedom of assembly exists because the government can simply deny it based off of arbitrary reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

Would you be okay with a shopkeeper selling absolutely anything: drugs, drink, guns, to anyone, regardless of age?

That one's tricky, maybe worth a topic on its own? The original question was in regards to 20-year-olds and beer, and there is no reason why the age for beer should be higher than that of military service.

Quote

I actually don't have a huge problem with any of this, in principle.

Okay, but if you accept that there are certain restrictions which can be applied against immigrants at the border, then you implicitly accept that there is no right for anybody to move here in the first place. See my response to DonAthos above.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

If that person willfully evades inspection at the border, doing that in and of itself telegraphs that they do not have good intentions, that they do not respect the law. If they truly have no ill intent, then why not come here legally?

Perhaps, perhaps not. I don't know about you, if I break a rule, I don't always have ill intent or no respect for the institution making the rules. As far as breaking laws, I'd only do so after reasoning out that there are substantial barriers to living my life well that goes beyond simple dislike. So, why would someone immigrate illegally? One reason might be that immigration rules are not made rationally but otherwise the country is substantially better. On top of that, it isn't any overt harm - and it's hard to demonstrate harm (unless we believed in collective property). Ill intent is one reason to break immigration laws too, so there is no singular reason to break immigration laws. In other words, there is not enough to judge that illegal immigrants plan to initiate force. Not to mention that the majority don't as it is. It's not the illegal-immigrantness that's the issue.

Part of the problem any of us has isn't about illegal immigrants. I do not think you reasoned out so well about immigrants in the first place. I think you're letting in bias by paying more attention to worst-case scenarios than equally likely not-bad-at-all scenarios.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Under what criteria do we screen them for "criminality"?

I don't know how best to do that; I think that's an issue for law enforcement. It may be difficult to work with other governments, or to get trustworthy information, but I would not accept that as a reason to treat every Mexican as a criminal.

Quote

Furthermore, what of areas with no functioning government like in Syria? There exists no way to objectively vet people for terrorism. Trump's travel ban is the only objective way to keep America safe from potential murderers or terrorists. We have to exclude everybody from that country, it's the only way.

I intend no personal disrespect -- I really don't -- but this is ridiculous on its face. We also have homegrown murderers and terrorists, so the only objective way to keep America safe is to exclude everyone born here...

Or we could rely on law enforcement and intelligence. The FBI and other agencies do their best to track our homegrown murderers and terrorists. Where international terrorism is concerned, it's my understanding that it's the CIA's business to try to keep tabs on it. I'm certain that's a tough job, and that it will not always prove successful. A proper vetting process for individuals coming from an area like Syria may well be more intensive than someone coming from Mexico [edited to add: and it is my understanding that the vetting process for such people is quite intensive]. But again, this is not cause to treat everyone as though they are a terrorist.

Quote

You've implicitly admitted that no right to immigrate to the US exists. If we can morally demand that they subject themselves to a screening, then no right to move here exists. It becomes meaningless if it's restricted in such an arbitrary manner (see above).

Not at all. I am asserting that there is every right to immigration (to the US or anywhere else). The screening we're discussing is a procedure for the sake of fulfilling that right to immigration -- out of respect for the fact that people are leaving one legal jurisdiction and entering another.

It's sort of like the "right to a speedy trial." Because we recognize that we cannot simply dump a person into a cell for ten years before bringing them to trial -- because that would be a violation of their rights -- that doesn't mean that a person is entitled to "justice on demand," the moment they're arrested. There still might be some reasonable delay; what constitutes "reasonable" in this context depends on the requirements for convening a trial such as justice requires; a complicated topic, and beyond my expertise to get into particulars, but it is in no sense "arbitrary." The right to a speedy trial (or trial-by-jury, or immigration, or any other "procedural right") must be translated into real terms in some manner, but neither does this make it "arbitrary."

The need to screen people entering the country (whether immigrants or travelers, including US citizens) -- which I agree is reasonable -- does not provide carte blanche to subject prospective immigrants to any violation you might imagine, or to deny them the right to move, to work, to live.

Edited by DonAthos
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Part of the problem any of us has isn't about illegal immigrants. I do not think you reasoned out so well about immigrants in the first place. I think you're letting in bias by paying more attention to worst-case scenarios than equally likely not-bad-at-all scenarios.

The worst-case scenario is already upon us. Socialist candidates like Hillary Clinton would never stand a chance without immigration. Third World immigrants and their descendants vote socialist at 2x the rate as native born citizens. I've provided source after source for this statement but you've just said that they're "assimilating." No, no they're not. They would be assimilating if they voted the same as Americans, but they are more socialist by far. For the sake of saving the country we must stop immigration or else we'll perish. This is zero hour, we're playing for keeps and you're conceding the left's biggest point. They're getting the sanction from you, and you're their victim.

We have every right to do this as a country because there is no right to immigrate. I'll demonstrate this with an example. If an American wanted to immigrate to, Australia for instance which has very strict laws, and Australia wouldn't let them in, should we declare war on Australia because they're not respecting our citizens' rights to freedom of immigration? No, of course not, because no right to do so exists in the first place.

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

The need to screen people entering the country (whether immigrants or travelers, including US citizens) -- which I agree is reasonable -- does not provide carte blanche to subject prospective immigrants to any violation you might imagine, or to deny them the right to move, to work, to live.

See above. Should we declare war on Australia for their blatant violation of our citizens' rights? I think we should. Besides their immigration policies, they're also a bunch of gun-grabbing parasites who've been leeching on us for their national defense for far too long!

#InvadeAUS

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Should we declare war on Australia for their blatant violation of our citizens' rights? I think we should. Besides their immigration policies, they're also a bunch of gun-grabbing parasites who've been leeching on us for their national defense for far too long!

Well, I don't think we ought to invade Australia. But yes -- they are violating our rights in restricting our ability to live and work in Australia, should we choose (not to mention the rights of their own citizens). They are also violating everyone's rights in "gun-grabbing," as you mention, which I presume applies equally to US citizens traveling or working in Australia. But I don't think this generally rises to the level of war, any more than I think that income tax (which is a violation of right) is provocation for armed insurrection.

That said, if someone wanted to live in Australia and could not immigrate there legally, I would not say that it was immoral (as such) for them to immigrate illegally, any more than I would say that it is immoral to work "under the table" to avoid income tax. And at all times I call for the abolition of law which is contra individual rights, and initiates the use of force, including income tax and the restriction of immigration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

Well, I don't think we ought to invade Australia.

Me neither, but I do think that we need to stop paying for their defense. They have disarmed their own people. If they don't even care about their own national defense, why should we station our carriers to defend their sorry backsides from China? Adding insult to parasitism. Saudi Australia. They are the most basic of jokes. I'm getting off topic now.

15 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

And at all times I call for the abolition of law which is contra individual rights, and initiates the use of force, including income tax and the restriction of immigration.

You call for the abolition of the income tax, yet you say that the CIA and FBI should be out investigating everybody in the world who wants to come here? These things are not free, and the budgets of these agencies runs in the 10's of billions? How could an ideal Objectivist America afford to screen the ten million immigrants a year who would move here if we allowed all comers? There would have to be some sort of line, some sorts of quotas, and some sort of wall or barrier to stop people from queue jumping.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Me neither, but I do think that we need to stop paying for their defense.

No argument there.

3 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

You call for the abolition of the income tax, yet you say that the CIA and FBI should be out investigating everybody in the world who wants to come here?

Along with our economic relations with Australia, I think that the subject of financing an Objectivist government is 1) off-topic and 2) big enough for its own thread, or five. In fact, with a little searching, I'm sure we could discover some of them.

Suffice it to say that whatever the challenges of proper governance (and I agree that there are challenges), I will not support the initiation of force to make things (seemingly) easier. Or for any other reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

Along with our economic relations with Australia, I think that the subject of financing an Objectivist government is 1) off-topic and 2) big enough for its own thread, or five. In fact, with a little searching, I'm sure we could discover some of them.

Suffice it to say that whatever the challenges of proper governance (and I agree that there are challenges), I will not support the initiation of force to make things (seemingly) easier. Or for any other reason.

So no matter how big the population of people who want to come into America, and no matter how small the FBI and CIA is and no matter how few cases they can process in a year, there should be no lines, no wall, no way to ensure that everybody who comes in actually is vetted? Can you see how this is impractical? There is no difference between the moral and the practical. This example alone proves that there is no right to immigrate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

So no matter how big the population of people who want to come into America, and no matter how small the FBI and CIA is and no matter how few cases they can process in a year, there should be no lines, no wall, no way to ensure that everybody who comes in actually is vetted? Can you see how this is impractical? There is no difference between the moral and the practical. This example alone proves that there is no right to immigrate.

I agree that there's no difference between the moral and the practical, but that doesn't mean that we can take any means which seems "practical" to a given end and then conclude that, therefore, the proposed means is moral. The end does not justify the means.

Suppose we were concerned with funding for the FBI and CIA, as you say, and big corporations (whose income tax -- another practical measure -- we rely upon for funding) were fleeing the country, threatening our ability to maintain the various walls surrounding our country. Could we then assert our right to restrict their egress, with the same walls we'd built to keep others out, in the name of practicality and self-defense? It's been done before.

I'm sure you think that my slope is slippery, but honestly, I'm not sure you're aware of the Pandora's box you're opening by allowing the government to violate rights for the sake of "practicality." (And I think it's no coincidence that Trump, protectionist that he is, was hostile to business leaving the US before his administration got swallowed by every scandal under the sun.)

And if we're truly concerned over funding a legitimate immigration process (and I agree that it would be a legitimate concern -- later down the line, after we are agreed as to principle), then as an initial approach to the subject (though not one I am prepared to argue or defend), what about requiring prospective immigrants to pay for their own vetting fees, or something similar? I don't think it's an impossible task, to defend individual rights (which is what governance, at heart, means) without asserting some self-defeating right to violate them in the process.

Edited by DonAthos
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

I'm not sure you're aware of the Pandora's box you're opening by allowing the government to violate rights for the sake of "practicality."

I do not recognize the right to immigrate as you (partially) do. Therefore there is no Pandora's box, practicality need be the only concern for a selfish immigration policy for America's national self-interest.

It appears we are at an impasse... I refuse to recognize an irrational right which cannot be justified by the only primary right, the right to life.

  • Every individual has a right to life. (Agreed)
  • He has a right to “take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support… his life”. (Agreed)
  • Productive work is required to support life. (Agreed)
  • Sometimes work requires travel. (Agreed)
  • Thus travel is a right, no matter where the travel starting points and destination are. ( <== The point I would disagree on)
  • Thus, there is a right to travel across international borders. (Also disagreed)
1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

(And I think it's no coincidence that Trump, protectionist that he is, was hostile to business leaving the US before his administration got swallowed by every scandal under the sun.)

Ah yes, the imaginary Russia nonsense. As if having good relations with the second-most powerful country on earth is a bad thing. I would call this off-topic but this is the Donald Trump thread, so I'd say it's related.

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

And if we're truly concerned over funding a legitimate immigration process (and I agree that it would be a legitimate concern -- later down the line, after we are agreed as to principle), then as an initial approach to the subject (though not one I am prepared to argue or defend), what about requiring prospective immigrants to pay for their own vetting fees, or something similar? I don't think it's an impossible task, to defend individual rights (which is what governance, at heart, means) without asserting some self-defeating right to violate them in the process.

Vetting fees are but one component. While I agree that immigrants should pay their own vetting fees, you could not hire enough FBI and CIA agents to vet the number of people who would come here under an open system. There simply aren't enough qualified people in America to conduct this task. This is doubly true for countries like Australia and New Zealand whose populations are tiny.

Also, if you're asking them to pay, you really can't say that a right exists. Otherwise why not make criminal defendants pay court costs and judge's salaries? Because they have a right to a trial financed with public funds... whether or not those funds come from taxation or some other undetermined "Objectivist government" source.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

It appears we are at an impasse...

Perhaps so. I'll respond to this post and then let you have the last word between us (at least until I reload ;)).

Quote
  • Every individual has a right to life. (Agreed)
  • He has a right to “take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support… his life”. (Agreed)
  • Productive work is required to support life. (Agreed)
  • Sometimes work requires travel. (Agreed)

All agreed.

Quote
  • Thus travel is a right, no matter where the travel starting points and destination are. ( <== The point I would disagree on)

I would not say "no matter where the travel starting points and destination are"; I do not, for instance, have the right to travel through your home, without your permission, so that I can use your swimming pool. But insofar as I do not violate anyone's rights along the way -- if you have invited me over for a swim -- then yes, I do have the right to travel in this fashion.

Lest we oversimplify it, as sometimes happens, "the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life" does not distill down alone to "productive work," and etc. Rather it is inclusive of swimming in a pool (when invited) and all manner of things. If some third party stops me from swimming in your pool, they are violating my right to life as much as telling me that I cannot take employment where I'd like.

So where does my freedom to act end? Only one place: the initiation of force. Whatever else I do, I cannot initiate the use of force against another. So that's the case that you have to make -- that in my travel, I am somehow initiating force against some individual (or individuals). And I'd like to stress that last part, because again, that's the very case you need to make:

A man immigrates from Tijuana to San Diego and goes to work in construction. Against whom has he initiated the use of force and by what means? That he "breaks the law" is insufficient, because as we've already discussed, the law may itself represent the initiation of the use of force. I can demonstrate to you how preventing a man from his right to work in construction does him harm by reference to the standard you've provided above -- that it prevents him from taking the actions required by his nature for the support of his life. But can you show me his use of force, and precisely who suffers by it?

I'm not the one to suffer by another man living his life in peaceful fashion, building a life for himself; force has not been initiated against me. I have no cause to stop him from doing it (and no desire). I have no right to stop him. And neither do you, and neither does any man (nor any group that we call "government," although insofar as it acts contrary to man's rights, such a group does not deserve the name -- or the respect).

If we want to find a man's right to travel (even across a border) in Rand's positive formulation, I think we have done. But perhaps it is rendered even more clear by her negative formulation, which follows hard upon what you'd quoted:

Quote

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

"Interference by other men" is precisely what you propose. A man in Tijuana wants to work in construction in San Diego, the construction foreman agrees, and you wish to interfere, to stand in their way (of working! building buildings!). His right to move to San Diego imposes no obligation on you, neighbor, except to abstain from violating his rights. But how would you prefer to think of it? That by crossing the border he... violates your right to interfere in his life? Your right to tell him where he's allowed to live, or with whom he's allowed to associate? Your right to control the business affairs of others? I don't think there's a coherent way of framing your central idea, to be honest.

I know you would like to characterize it as some kind of self defense, because who knows whether any given immigrant is good or bad, but "the unknown" is not justification for the use of force; only retaliation is justified. On that subject, Rand wrote:

Quote

Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.

Only against those who initiate its use. That you do not know whether a prospective immigrant has initiated force against anyone (subject to vetting) does not give you justification to use force against him, to impede his travel.

As to the rest (payroll and such), I'm content that such matters can be worked out after the principles are settled; and perhaps Mexico can pay for it. They won't, after all, be paying for any wall.

Edited by DonAthos
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...