Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged:Blog Roundup

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I also did write that the "invasion" has to be dealt with, earlier in the thread.

There is a difference in whether you regard the "invasion" as typical or not. If you regard it as typical, if you decide that there are always going to be people trying to invade your country, if you decide that every time you end one invasion another one will start, if you regard every immigrant as a potential invader, then you will design your country as if it is under a permanent state of siege, and this will have implications for your whole society, and freedom will become impossible because it's "too dangerous." This can also become a self-fulfilling prophecy in various ways.

If the "invasion" is the exception rather than the rule, then it should be stamped out. But we need to actually do that, identify the causes of the invasion and put an end to it, rather than planning for a permanent state of siege, just like we would want to end a war decisively, rather than allowing a permanent state of war.

Treating immigration as a permanent invasion is similar to the way leftists deal with gun control. They believe that everybody is evil, everybody is a power-lusting psychopath who would enjoy murdering people for kicks. I guess that's because when they walk around in Washington DC, that's the only kind of person they see, even when they look in the mirror. So they favor a police state where everybody is monitored, speech is carefully controlled, nobody is armed, and so nobody can act out the evils in their souls (but on the other hand people can do anything they want if it's for "social justice," or if their name is Biden, or if they work for the government, in which case the usual rules do not apply).

If you think that people are basically good, if you think that people would only use force in self-defense in most cases, you would not have anything to fear from regular people owning guns, and so you wouldn't support gun control. You would recognize that guns don't kill people, criminals do, and that sometimes self-defense is necessary and proper, so it would be proper to outlaw murder but not gun possession per se. But then the leftists would say that you're hopelessly naïve, that your ideals are entirely theoretical, and with all the mass shootings out there, you need to "deal with reality" and ban guns.

The same kinds of arguments can be used against any form of freedom, whether it's freedom to cross borders or even freedom of speech (which, according to Biden, "kills people").

Edited by necrovore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RFK, Jr spells out how the Mexican drug cartels are bringing people in from around the world, the suffering it is causing and how the cartels "are running US immigration policy."

"We need to close the border right now."

" I was a person who ridiculed Trump's wall. And now I've been down there and talked to everybody down there ... we cannot survive what is happening there now."

The border must be shut down.

It can open back up after the invasion is addressed and those responsible dealth with, if we ever get that far.

RFK Jr. Weighs in on Trump’s Wall (rumble.com)

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2024 at 10:07 AM, tadmjones said:

Lol, we should allow illegal entry into the country of military aged men traveling alone, because only 1 in 20k is an identified terrorism threat. The Pfizer initial Covid gene therapy trials showed that the number to vaccinate to statistically prevent 1 death was 22k, did HB apply the same argument against the introduction of potential harm to 22 k in order to ‘save’ one ? 

Violating the right to freedom of movement is both more clear-cut and much more impactful than requiring people to vaccinate.

Letting germs spread is more dangerous than letting people into the country.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2024 at 10:03 AM, tadmjones said:

Is your right to freedom of hydration violated when Yankee Stadium disallows you to bring beverages into the ballpark?

A ballpark is very different from a country.  People who can't accept Yankee Stadium's policies can just avoid the place.  It is very wrong to argue the same way about the whole country.

If the government granted anyone a monopoly on the sale of beverages, that would violate rights.


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.

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...