Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Illegal Immigration & Objectivism

Rate this topic


Capleton

Recommended Posts

Anyway, I think I may have asked you this once before and never got a reply. Why do you think that the border is "impossible to effectively patrol?" Totalitarian states of much lesser ability have been able to keep their people in, so why shouldn't a more capable free state be able to keep the unwanted out?

A free society is much more difficult to police than a totalitarian one. For one, the difference in the amount of international trade in a free society – such as the U.S. and a totalitarian one – such the USSR - is so much greater that monitoring it all becomes infinitely more difficult. This alone makes effective policing extremely difficult, if not impossible. Add the fact that trade is the result of individual judgments of millions of individuals without any centralized records or identification. Borders are crossed without centralized permissions or record keeping. The government is relatively small and cannot spend unlimited resources on border patrols. The technology available to the government to detect trespassers is also available to those who wish to avoid detection, and is generally legal.

“One nuclear weapon can really ruin your day.”

While one won’t find this out from the media, WMD’s are not that easy to make, including operations like 9/11. At the very least, they require a large sum of money to create, if not the support of a government. While terrorists may be hard to track, money-making has two key traits: it requires a well-established base of operations, and it is conducted by individuals with a long-term perspective. For this reason, it is much easier to stop the financiers of terrorists, or at least set up the proper incentives (total annihilation) than to stop the terrorists themselves. I doubt there is anything that can be done to stop a nuke-laden ship from sailing into the New York harbor, no matter how much money we spend on border patrols.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A free society is much more difficult to police than a totalitarian one. For one, the difference in the amount of international trade in a free society – such as the U.S. and a totalitarian one – such the USSR - is so much greater that monitoring it all becomes infinitely more difficult. This alone makes effective policing extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Add the fact that trade is the result of individual judgments of millions of individuals without any centralized records or identification.

But goods are not the same as people. What I am asking about, specifically, is keeping unwanted people out.

Borders are crossed without centralized permissions or record keeping.
But that is the problem I would like to have addressed. Why would it be impossible to establish permissible border crossings and control them?

The government is relatively small and cannot spend unlimited resources on border patrols.

But you are just assuming it would take "unlimited resources." Why would you think that?

The technology available to the government to detect trespassers is also available to those who wish to avoid detection, and is generally legal.
We have an enormous array of technology that is not generally available, including the potential for automated systems as an adjunct to a smaller manned force.

While one won’t find this out from the media, WMD’s are not that easy to make ...

I was a consultant to the Defense Nuclear Agency for a number of years, doing top secret work on nuclear devices, explosions, and their effects. I can assure that many wish what you say were true. Besides, it is easy enough to acquire already existing nuclear weapons from rogue nations, including a ready Russian supply.

I doubt there is anything that can be done to stop a nuke-laden ship from sailing into the New York harbor, no matter how much money we spend on border patrols.

We already have the ability to detect such a scenario long before it waltzes into the harbor. If only the many internal restrictions were removed to take advantage of much research technology that are not now politically correct tools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But goods are not the same as people. What I am asking about, specifically, is keeping unwanted people out.
When there is a large volume of goods flowing across the border, it become much easier to smuggle people as well. You can’t seriously be suggesting that is possible to keep a determined and resourceful individual out of America if he really wants to get in. It’s impossible to keep out spies in a war, much less individuals out of a free country in peacetime. Our government can barely make a dent in the international drug and immigrant smuggling into America – how is it going to stop a few determined individuals? We are not talking about millions of illiterate Mexican immigrants here, but a few trained professionals.

Besides, it is easy enough to acquire already existing nuclear weapons from rogue nations, including a ready Russian supply.

While I obviously have no first-hand knowledge, I doubt that a working nuke could be acquired for a sufficiently small sum so that their efforts to obtain it (either to purchase it, or seeking the funds to purchase it, or establishing the support organization) it would not go unnoticed by our intelligence agencies.

We already have the ability to detect such a scenario long before it waltzes into the harbor. If only the many internal restrictions were removed to take advantage of much research technology that are not now politically correct tools.

Are you saying that we can stop ships with nukes before they can get to any coastal city in the US? From what I know, there is no technology capable of detecting nuclear weapons over a large enough area, especially if they have well-designed shielding. Even if we did, you could just as easily put a nuke on a cargo plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Galt,

Escaping a robber doesn't make one a robber, right? If the government robs people and forces them to pay for all kinds of things - it isn't your responsibility - but the government's.

Suppose the government would kill 100 people a day, and your name came up. If you ran away, the government would kill someone else instead. Does that make YOU a murderer?

From a conversation between Dr. Ferris and John Galt, in Atlas Shrugged:

Dr. Ferris was drawling in too airy, too forced a tone of casual informality.

"You seem to have talked on the radio about nothing but sins of commission. But there are also the sins of omission to consider. To fail to save a life is as immoral as to murder... For instance, in view of the desperate shortage of food, it has been suggested that it might become necessary to issue a directive ordering that every third one of all children under the age of then, and all adults over the age of sixty be put to death, to secure the survival of the rest. You wouldn't want this to happen, would you? You can prevent it. One word from you and you can prevent it. If you refuse and all those people are executed - it will be your fault and your moral responsibility!

.

.

.

"Tell the bastard to look at me, then look in the mirror, then ask himself whether I would ever think my moral stature is at the mercy of his actions."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have already answered your question, in the context of this discussion, and it is contained in my several previous posts.

If I thought my country was not fundamentally rights-respecting[...]

That was not my question. I asked whether you thought that "a guy"--AN INDIVIDUAL--who did that kind of thing was fundamentally rights-respecting. And it was a sort of rhetorical question, of course, as we all know that the answer is "absolutely NOT." The information I was actually looking for is this:

Why should the criteria for deciding whether a government is fundamentally rights-respecting be more lenient than the criteria for deciding whether an individual is fundamentally rights-respecting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...illegal aliens are just that - illegal. They are criminals who obtain other's property and wealth through fraud and therefore violate a core ethic of Objectivism

This is a problem created by the immigration laws and the inevitable injustices of a "mixed economy". It is not the fault of the "illegal aliens". I can't prove this but I suspect, on balance, that illegal aliens (assuming they are productive) are beneficial to the economy even if they don't pay taxes and take advantage of various welfare programs. It's also almost impossible not to pay some taxes, e.g. sales taxes.

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When there is a large volume of goods flowing across the border, it become much easier to smuggle people as well.

Undoubtedly. But, the question I asked has to do with the unrestricted flow of people across our borders. That is the issue I am addressing in regard to your claim that the border is "impossible to effectively patrol."

You can’t seriously be suggesting that is possible to keep a determined and resourceful individual out of America if he really wants to get in.
You can't seriously be suggesting that I am employing a standard of omnipotence? The idea I am challenging is your notion that we cannot "effectively patrol," not that there is no possibility of error. I am simply challenging the notion that we should let people flow freely across our borders without employing controls to filter out terrorists, criminals, people with serious contagious diseases, etc.

We are not talking about millions of illiterate Mexican immigrants here, but a few trained professionals.

But if we do not control our borders then those "few trained professionals" will be free to mingle with your "millions of illiterate Mexican immigrants." Not to mention criminals and people with serious contagious diseases.

Are you saying that we can stop ships with nukes before they can get to any coastal city in the US?
Yes, the capability exists.

From what I know, there is no technology capable of detecting nuclear weapons over a large enough area, especially if they have well-designed shielding.  Even if we did, you could just as easily put a nuke on a cargo plane.

Let's just say that if, from orbit, we can detect certain small fluxes of particles emanating from processes buried deep within Earth, the rest is not that difficult to do. But, regardless, this is getting far afield from the question which I originally asked, and that question had to do with whether or not we have the capability to effectively control our borders for the influx of people. That is what needs to be directly addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Escaping a robber doesn't make one a robber, right? If the government robs people and forces them to pay for all kinds of things - it isn't your responsibility - but the government's.

Suppose the government would kill 100 people a day, and your name came up. If you ran away, the government would kill someone else instead. Does that make YOU a murderer?

Although in general I have been in agreement with most of your other writings on this site (especially that brief explanation of god and the arbitrary in another thread, I thought it showed real mastery :) ), I fail to understand your point here. Also, I don't see how the Atlas Shrugged quote supports your point.

You seem to be stating that taxation is robbery. If so, then if someone can avoid taxation, that's good. So the tax evader, whether illegal alien or not, is to be admired as someone who avoided being the victim of crime. And all us foolish taxpayers are criminal victims and the goods and services purchased with tax money - and I'll reiterate, because were talking reality here, not principle - fire dept, police dept, public schools, etc - are like the fancy car driven by the drug dealer. Simply stolen goods.

So, when an illegal alien or tax evader uses public school for his kids or calls the fire dept when he has a heart attack, he's really super clever because not only did he avoid getting robbed by the tax collectors, he gets to take the advantages bought with those taxes too. Or maybe he's not stealing, because somehow stealing from a thief is not stealing?

Do you see why I see ethical conflict in the real world when we're talking about illegal aliens?

In this real world of America, we've gone way too far with wealth redistribution and statism. Taxes are way too high. I totally agree with that.

In "Government Financing in a Free Society" (in The Virtue of Selfishness) Ayn Rand wrote that "... the proper services of a government - the police, armed services, law courts - are demonstrably needed by individual citizens..."

I readily admit she didn't want these services paid for by involuntary taxation. She felt that there should be some way to make the payment for such services voluntary, like insurance.

But for my purpose, the point is that she agreed these were in fact necessary services. And, just like car insurance in California, we are legally required to pay for these rather than having the freedom to "opt out."

So these services are necessary. And we have to pay for them. But some of us get the advantage of this "insurance" without any payment. That seems unethical to me. Why isn't it?

And I certainly don't agree, in reference to a different reaction to my post, that somehow sales and other taxes that are paid by illegals can possibly make up fo getting away with no state or federal income tax.

I just haven't seen any rebuttal to my position so far that does not involve an abstract position that since taxes themselves are bad, you can take other people's tax money without any ethical problem.

I mean, if we're going abstract, then what if another country hacked into the nations computers and took the nation's entire year's tax receipts? Would that be theft? Or, because taxes are robbery, it would not? On the principle that theft of a dollar is the same as theft of a million, in its moral implications, what's the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be stating that taxation is robbery. If so, then if someone can avoid taxation, that's good. So the tax evader, whether illegal alien or not, is to be admired as someone who avoided being the victim of crime.

The problem in responding to your question is you are jumping "mid-stream" into an inherently unjust and immoral situation and expecting a clear answer to help you sort through the different degrees of injustice. You are focusing on just one element of this problem - the illegal alien - and excluding all the others.

We are all victims of the system and it is virtually impossible to try and measure who is victimized more or less by it.

What makes you think that if some part of the population - whether it is the illegal alien or any other - started paying what you regard as their "fair share" of taxation that it would reduce the tax burden on the rest of us? Is it your understanding that if the gov't collects more taxes that their typical reaction is to reduce them? That with increased revenues, gov't spending will be reduced?

Apart from the illegal alien, a great many people operate to one extent or another in the "cash economy" to try and avoid taxation. That's why the gov't has introduced a whole range of other forms of taxation which aren't related to reportable income, such as sales taxes, gasoline taxes, property taxes, etc. I'd venture to guess that the income levels of most illegal aliens is too low anyway to produce much in the way of increased tax revenue based on their income. They do however pay other taxes, directly and indirectly. For example they have to live somewhere. If they are renting, they are indirectly paying property taxes. If they work for someone "off the books", then that person can't deduct those payments from his business expenses and to that extent it is contributing to the greater profitability of that business which eventually will yield increased tax revenues on the income of the company.

But the focus of your concern isn't dealing with the fundamental issue - which is the injustice and immorality of the tax system and its basic source: gov't spending. What needs to be addressed is gov't spending and reducing it's involvment in the economy through privitization of many of the functions it has taken over, most especially schools and health care. Btw, gov't involvement in those areas greatly inflates their cost, so getting the gov't out of them not only will reduce taxation, but it will also lower their cost dramatically.

Whether illegal aliens do or don't pay their "fair share" of taxation, whatever that is, is a trivial issue. I might add that we should be welcoming these people into this country - assuming they are willing and able to work - not trying to exclude them. They tend to pursue work which many Americans consider "beneath them" and they serve a very valuable function in the economy. With reduced taxation and a vast improvement in the regulatory environment on business, perhaps many companies wouldn't flee overseas for their manufacturing. At one time, with a much freer economy, this country was easily able to absorb millions of immigrants. It can do so again. In that eventuality, your "aliens" not only wouldn't be "illegal" they would be welcome and needed, just as they were 100 years ago.

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might add that we should be welcoming these people into this country ...

Yes, that is exactly right. That is what, in principle, we should be doing. But, the reality is that these people are called "illegals" because they are breaking our laws. There are many good people who want to come here, but they uphold the rule of law; they follow the legal procedure for immigration. Instead of condoning illegal actions we should be fighting instead to repeal the horrible immigration laws.

There are those who justify breaking laws in order to gain a benefit or to avoid a consequence. We have heard justifications for illegal immigration and tax law and draft evasion alike. I consider these arguments, at best, to be confused. I uphold the rule law in a civilized society, and I think that Ayn Rand upheld it too.

In the late 1960s Miss Rand considered the military draft to be perhaps the most important issue debated at that time. No one, and I mean no one, was more vocal for all the right reasons as to why the draft was unconstitutional and horribly immoral. But Ayn Rand did not support or condone breaking the law, she instead did all that she could to have the law changed.

In the April and May 1967 issues of The Objectivist, Ayn Rand wrote an article titled "The Wreckage of the Concensus," which was actually the content of a speech given at The Ford Hall Forum. At the end of the article she added a postscript which content was not part of the speech. Here she deals with the issue of morality in regard to force, and she upholds the rule of law.

"Once in a while, I receive letters from young men asking me for personal advice on problems connected with the draft. Morally, no one can give advice in any issue where choices and decisions are not voluntary: "Morality ends where a gun begins." As to the practical alternatives available, the best thing to do is to consult a good lawyer.

"There is, however, one moral aspect of the issue that needs clarification. Some young men seem to labor under the misapprehension that since the draft is a violation of their rights, compliance with the draft law would constitute a moral sanction of that violation. This is a serious error. A forced compliance is not a sanction. All of us are forced to comply with many laws that violate our rights, but so long as we advocate the repeal of such laws, our compliance does not constitute a sanction. Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have observed that often, when trying to take an injustice as the given, and try to decide what is the proper thing to do, you find that there are no more good options.

Trying to do justice on top of injustice is impossible. The right thing to do is A. If you choose non A, the choices resulting from that are no longer in the province of morality. They are often moral (or rather, immoral) equivalents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"... All of us are forced to comply with many laws that violate our rights, but so long as we advocate the repeal of such laws, our compliance does not constitute a sanction. Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom."

I agree with that quote from Ayn Rand. However she is not saying that therefore meek compliance with the law is necessarily always proper. And there are also certainly clear instances where laws are so outrageously intrusive and immoral, or ridiculous, and compliance with them so abhorrent or absurd, that you would be fully justified in ignoring and evading them.

One however must be prepared to accept the consequences if you choose to disobey them.

In the category of the dramatic, there was of course the civil rights movement, where people willfully and heroically violated the segregation laws. There were - and may still be - various state laws which proscribe certain sexual practices even between consenting adults. There was a law in Connecticut I believe which forbade the use of condoms!

In the category of the absurd, I know for a fact that I was in technical violation of the zoning laws of my town in NJ by running my book business out of my home. But those laws were so ridiculous and out of date that I discussed them openly - though "off the record" - with the town zoning officer who agreed with me. I knew they would never be enforced because of their absurdity. Technically, even a computer programmer or financial consultant, even if clients didn't come to their home, would have been in violation. I just made sure that I didn't put up a sign and kept customers visits to a bare minimum so as not to upset the neighbors. Since I wanted to do most of my business via the Internet anyway, it really wasn't an issue. But nonetheless I was in violation of the law - a law I chose to ignore. (And in the process of which of course I violated no one else's rights).

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here she deals with the issue of morality in regard to force, and she upholds the rule of law.

"Once in a while, I receive letters from young men asking me for personal advice on problems connected with the draft. Morally, no one can give advice in any issue where choices and decisions are not voluntary: "Morality ends where a gun begins." As to the practical alternatives available, the best thing to do is to consult a good lawyer.

"There is, however, one moral aspect of the issue that needs clarification. Some young men seem to labor under the misapprehension that since the draft is a violation of their rights, compliance with the draft law would constitute a moral sanction of that violation. This is a serious error. A forced compliance is not a sanction. All of us are forced to comply with many laws that violate our rights, but so long as we advocate the repeal of such laws, our compliance does not constitute a sanction. Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom."

In that quote, Miss Rand is clearly talking about situations where people are forced to do things:

"[N]o one can give advice in any issue where choices and decisions are not voluntary [...] A forced compliance is not a sanction. All of us are forced to comply with many laws that violate our rights, but so long as we advocate the repeal of such laws, our compliance does not constitute a sanction."

She does not address, at least in the passage you quoted, the issue of complying with an unjust law in the absence of force--i.e, when you can "get away with it"--i.e., voluntarily. However, the fact that she says "A forced compliance is not a sanction" rather than simply "Compliance is not a sanction" very strongly suggests that she DID consider an unforced compliance a sanction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what Miss Rand thought about voluntary compliance:

"The conquered slave has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man and he degrades the conception of love."

Granted, this is not about voluntary compliance with the law. But I contend that it would still be valid if you replaced "love" with "the rule of law." To willingly subject ourselves to arbitrary, tyrannical laws degrades the conception of the rule of law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that quote, Miss Rand is clearly talking about situations where people are forced to do things...

She does not address, at least in the passage you quoted, the issue of complying with an unjust law in the absence of force--i.e, when you can "get away with it"--i.e., voluntarily. However, the fact that she says "A forced compliance is not a sanction" rather than simply "Compliance is not a sanction" very strongly suggests that she DID consider an unforced compliance a sanction.

Technically, if there is a law and you are obeying it, your compliance can never be considered unforced - however unlikely it is that you might get caught.

Admittedly some laws are almost inherently unenforceable or so unlikely to be enforced that complying with them out of fear of lawbreaking is rather absurd. Examples that come to mind are your private sexual practices with another consenting adult or jaywalking at 3AM when there isn't a soul around and there are no cars on the street.

In the example I cited (of my working from home in violation of the zoning laws), I never completely lost the concern that they might try and stop me, perhaps as the result of being reported by some nasty neighbor. But, since the law did exist, however ridiculous and however unlikely to be enforced, if I had chosen to abide by it, I don't think you could have considered it a sanction of the law.

There are however some category of laws which are such egregious violations of rights - such as the "runaway slave laws" of the pre-Civil War era - that compliance with such laws is immoral. I don't think you would necessarily have to feel obliged to harbor a runaway slave, but if the law required you to report such activities if you knew about them or if you were obliged to bear witness to observing such activities, I know I would refuse. But I wouldn't do so only if I didn't fear I might get away with it. I simply wouldn't do it, even if there were some risk involved. So, in that regard, I do agree with you - at least with respect to some laws - that one cannot in good conscience choose to comply with them. But it is not on the grounds that you think you could get away with it. It is on the grounds that such laws are abominations.

One can give some considerable credit to people who looked the other way even if they knew of activities which were aiding Jews during Nazi occupation. It is quite another those contemptible scum who reported such activities.

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with that quote from Ayn Rand. However she is not saying that therefore meek compliance with the law is necessarily always proper.

I did not say she did. My point was, and is, upholding rule by law, not "meek compliance." Note that she suggests seeing a good lawyer -- one who upholds the law -- not an underground shyster who can forge some phony documents. Also, as I said in previous posts, if we choose civil disobediance, we do so to publicly protest and legally challenge the law, with conscious knowledge of paying the price for doing so.

The issue is not "meek compliance," it is upholding rule by law. I do not condone lying and cheating on tax returns in an attempt to evade the tax law. I applaud those who follow immigration law to enter our country, and I do not condone those who do so illegally. We should fight to change the tax and immigration laws, not sanction their evasion.

If things get bad enough -- if the the violation of individual rights becomes too oppressive to uphold the rule by law -- then that is time to go underground and fight with force to overthrow the government. Until then, I obey rule by law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are focusing on just one element of this problem - the illegal alien - and excluding all the others.

We are all victims of the system and it is virtually impossible to try and measure who is victimized more or less by it.

What makes you think that if some part of the population - whether it is the illegal alien or any other - started paying what you regard as their "fair share" of taxation that it would reduce the tax burden on the rest of us?

taxes,

But the focus of your concern isn't dealing with the fundamental issue - which is the injustice and immorality of the tax system and its basic source: gov't spending.

Looking at some of your points, quoted above (I do not understand the multi-quote system people use to address posts point by point... but I'd like to know!)

I thought that illegal immigration was the subject of this whole debate! :D

So if you declare the system itself immoral, then no discussion of behavior within that system, vis a vis morality, can be accomplished? Let's say you are arrested and convicted, although innocent, because a corrupt prosecutor is trying to score points somehow. Then while in prison you kill a cellmate to get his cigarettes. Can we discuss the morality of the killing, even though you are the victim of an immoral injustice?

I never said anything about a collective tax burden and never discussed any "fair share" concepts at all. I was just pointing out that all that service and infrastructure paid for by tax money does not magically appear. Real money taken from real people pay for it.

Again, I thought were were talking about illegal immigration here, not the morality of taxation...

Anyway, since it appears that the answer to my contention that illegal aliens immorally consume goods and services paid for by the productive efforts of others is simply "taxes themselves are bad so we can't discuss that," I'll have to give up discussing it that way.

I do notice an interesting shift to voluntary vs non-voluntary compliance issues in some of the arguments I'm seeing. So here's an entirely different point, one that has nothing to do with taxes (except in that they are, themselves, laws): our laws do not apply to foreign people. Its only the voluntary decision to sneak across the border that puts them in our country and subject to our laws. So you'ld have a hard time arguing that the illegal immigrant can morally refuse to obey unreasonable laws involuntarily applied to him or her - when they voluntary put themselves under the control of those laws in the first place by free exercise of choice.

Are any foreign people forced or required to enter this country illegally? If the answer is based on economics, ie, to make a better life for themselves, is it truly a requirement to come to America and no other country in the world? If there is any choice in residence, is it not... a choice?

Having voluntarily chosen to reside here, would it then be moral for the illegal alien to continue to purposefully disobey our laws - laws they voluntarily chose to live under in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... My point was, and is, upholding rule by law, <is> not "meek compliance."

I believe there is/was a law in Connecticut that the use of condoms in sex was illegal. Whether there is/was such a law, suppose there was. Or suppose you lived in a country, otherwise reasonably civilized, where the use of any form of contraceptive device or pill were illegal. Suppose in addition you knew that the law had not been enforced in 50 years and the only reason it was still on the books, and likely would remain there, was to appease the Church and the segment of the population which supported it in regard to that issue. Suppose in addition that recent attempts to overturn the law had failed. Would you obey that law?

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... since it appears that the answer to my contention that illegal aliens immorally consume goods and services paid for by the productive efforts of others is simply "taxes themselves are bad so we can't discuss that," I'll have to give up discussing it that way.

Discussing it in what way? You've completely lost me.

Both in my current and former town homeowners without children and without any intention of having children will pay over a period of years 10's of thousands of dollars in school taxes. So are the homeowners with children "immorally consuming goods and services paid for by the productive effort of others" (namely people without children)? In addition, parents with a single child will subsidize parents with two children in schools. Parents who send their children to private schools will subsidize the education of children in the public school system.

If you want to discuss the alleged injustice of "illegal aliens" supposedly not paying for the services they receive, why is it any different from the same injustice which is rife throughout the system?

Furthermore you have completely ignored a number of comments I've made which questions the charge that "illegal aliens" are not paying for these services.

And why are you focusing specifically on "illegal aliens" most of whom, as I understand it, come here to work? Why are you focusing on them when there are Americans who are not productive and who mooch on the system? The problem is not illegal aliens per se. It is the non-productive looting the productive which is the problem.

The reason why I am approaching it in this way and not in your way is because the real fundamental issue is a tax system which penalizes productivity. There may be other issues regarding illegal aliens, some of which Stephen is raising, but it has nothing whatever to do with them mooching on our economy. In fact from everything I know, they are a net positive to the economy.

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe there is/was a law in Connecticut that the use of condoms in sex was illegal.

Fred, we do not base our ethics upon the penetrating question "who gets the last banana when two men are stranded on a deserted island," and we do not base our notion of the rule of law on the penetrating question (pun intended) "do we use condoms in our home if we live in Connecticut?"

Laws which are unenforced or unenforcable hardly affect consideration of rule by law. And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, we obey non-objective laws to the degree that they can be obeyed. And, not, otherwise.

I ended this issue with others because I had made my principles clear and I had no interest in discussing absurd or peripheral issues when it is the fundamental issues themselves that people have really objected to. I started discussion with you on this, fresh, so to speak, but I find myself back where I was before. I abide by the rule of law as a matter of principle, and I do not choose to disobey laws because the government taxes me or establishes legal criteria for entering this country. I really have nothing to add and do want to pursue the issue further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically, if there is a law and you are obeying it, your compliance can never be considered unforced - however unlikely it is that you might get caught.

That is correct of course, in the sense that a threat of force is always there. But a mere threat does not absolve one from being morally responsible for how one reacts to the threat. If it did, there would be no ARI editorials criticizing the administration for trying to fight a "politically correct war." The mere fact that we are being threatened by Iran, Iraq, and other countries does not mean that we are not making choices.

The actions you perform as a result of forceful compulsion are not subject to moral judgment. However, the actions you choose to perform in the moments when that compulsion does not directly affect you ARE your responsibility--including the actions you may or may not take to escape the compulsion.

If an armed robber demands that you give him $100 or your life, you cannot be faulted for giving him the money. However, if a woman in a bikini who claims to be armed--but you see that she isn't--demands the same, you would be a fool if you complied without at least asking her to show her weapon.

But what Stephen is advocating--in my interpretation of his words--is even more than succumbing to merely verbal threats that lack credibility. It appears to me that he is advocating that we subject ourselves to unjust laws even in the absence of any kind of threat at all--which I see as analogous to giving the robber the $100 even before he claims to be armed.

[i have edited the last paragraph to indicate that I am stating my interpretation of Stephen's words, rather than quoting him directly.]

Edited by Capitalism Forever
Link to comment
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...