Do you agree with Yaron Brook on open borders for the US?

[RobertP]

My understanding is Brook supports open borders in the US that he would never support for Israel. 

I believe that having control over who enters a country is crucial for what I consider obvious reasons. Do you agree with Brook? Why or why not?

Or is my understanding of his position off the mark? 

[DavidOdden]

As a preliminary, I strongly suggest that you frame the question in terms of facts – about what Brook has said – and not conjectures about what he hasn’t said. If you want to pose the question about Israel to him and he give you an answer, then you can share that with us. Secondarily, I abhore the current vaporware policy of speech-only promulgation of ideas. These arguments should be put in print and published. It is bad enough that people misrepresent a position that is written down in a book with page numbers where a real citation can be given and we have no basis for thinking that the commentator has accurately represented a position, it is so much worse when people can get away with saying “X said Y” (no source).

Anyhow, method aside, the essential question is, on what grounds should a person’s right to freely move about be legally abrogated? The answer is, “when he has been properly arrested”. A person may be arrested (held, taken into custody) for myriad reasons such as being a Muslim woman in public without niqab, or murdering their spouse. Not all arrests are proper. A person arrested (under a proper law) may be out of custody because (1) they escaped or (2) they have been exonerated or (3) they have served their sentence. If conditions (2) or (3) hold, there is no valid reason to arrest them again, if (1) is the case, the original facts still exist and it is proper to take them into custody again. You will find that in the US, if a person from Idaho escapes custody but gets to California, he can and will be re-arrested and extradited to Idaho, however, if he was found not guilty or served his time, he cannot be re-arrested and sent back to Idaho.

This defines the sole basis for proper exclusion of an individual from entry into a nation (as well as arrest, once inside the nation). However, criminal inadmissability plays a negligible role in US immigration policy, and even then, the criminal grounds are too broad. Only crimes of rights-violation should be grounds for exclusion. There is a secondary issue which is a real concern, that some countries are so legally corrupt that we cannot know if a person is an escaped murderer. National quotas are the main impediment.

I will leave it to others who want to speak for Brook.

[Dupin]

We can let Yaron Brook speak for himself.  He says
“The solution to illegal immigration is to make it legal.”
in the video ARI uploaded to YouTube on March 17, 2008 “Open Immigration Policy.”  It was divided in parts.  Later ARI removed all but Part 1 and this pithy quote was a casualty.  But even in Part 1 Brook makes it clear he is promoting open borders.

Brook heads the Ayn Rand Institute and many of its people promote open borders.  For example

“The problem of ‘illegal’ immigration can be solved at the stroke of a pen: legalize immigration.”
 ...
“I admire those who broke our rotten, rights-defying anti-immigration laws to come here.”

— Harry Binswanger
“The Solution to ‘Illegal Immigration’”
Capitalism Magazine  May 20, 2006.

More quotes here.

David asks

Quote

... the essential question is, on what grounds should a person’s right to freely move about be legally abrogated?

That begs the question:  Does such a right exist?  Does a foreigner have the right to freely move into the U.S.?  Is there such a right to abrogate?

One needn’t be a pragmatist to admit that pragmatism can sometimes cut to the chase.  Remember the famous line in The Fountainhead, “Don’t bother to examine a folly – ask yourself only what it accomplishes.” uttered by the villain, Toohey.  Some valid points are uttered by Toohey; Rand herself used the quote it in her essays.

We have had de facto open borders rather substantially for many years, and just look what it has accomplished!

 

 

[Boydstun]

2 hours ago, Dupin said:

. . .

That begs the question: . . .

We have had de facto open borders rather substantially for many years, and just look what it has accomplished!

 

Mark Hunter (Dupin): Would you please refrain from using "begs the question" in that ignorant, nerve-grating way? It was stolen from the name of the logical fallacy by the ignorant to sound sophisticated when "suggests the question" was just fine. Have some consideration for the old, took-elementary-logic folk.

"And just look what it accomplished!" Insofar as any of the Mexican laborers who put on our new roof or did big timber work for us entered the USA illegally, they accomplished much good. The Mexicans are the very best workers here. How many is "rather substantially"? Our continual Subjectivist in Chief lately elected Commander in Chief claimed there are now 20 million illegal immigrants in the USA from south of the border. Do you expect to see that many rounded up and deported or do you expect it is not that substantial and was just another Big Lie to fan fear and coals of prejudice to get votes (more completely from the drunken bigot sector)? Do you know anyone buying the idea that we have de facto open borders along Mexico who would be willing to raise our legal quota for Mexican immigrants by say a thousand-fold? Every time I've heard people who are enflamed by illegal crossing of the southern border asked about quotas, they want quotas lowered for Mexicans.

(There is some emigration to Mexico of some of our friends since the recent election here. They have gotten permanent residency there, and they have a Mexican legal certificate for that. Hopefully the US will not be making law against fleeing from here across either border, although a physical barrier that can keep people out can assist an authoritarian US state down the road in keeping people in as well.)

Edited December 15, 2024 by Boydstun

[Dupin]

In the question I quoted, the existence of the right of entry went begging.  It was a loaded question: it assumed that a right of entry existed.  But that existence is the real question.

The very idea of a country is meaningless – just a denatured geographical area – without s border whose entry door is under control.  

If we pay enough we will get the workers we want.  It is not up to us to judge a man’s wages, the market does that.  Stephen Boydstun’s cost for the same quality work would increase – and to hear him tell it, increase drastically – if his Mexicans returned to Mexico.  I could care less if he loves or hates the Mexicans working for him.  

 

[whYNOT]

On 12/14/2024 at 2:32 AM, RobertP said:

My understanding is Brook supports open borders in the US that he would never support for Israel. 

I believe that having control over who enters a country is crucial for what I consider obvious reasons. Do you agree with Brook? Why or why not?

Or is my understanding of his position off the mark? 

The constant question which has debatable merits anywhere in the world, any time. I can relate here where non-legal migrants constantly enter South Africa from North and East, Zim and Mocambique. Great Britain has another set of problems arising now. As well as yes, from the US, especially American citizens living near the border with Mexico. The farmer-intellectual historian- VD Hansen- writes about it. Many years ago my (painstakingly-legally) immigrant friends in LA were struck by a crazed, apparently anti-Anglo, illegal migrant who randomly shot their son at a traffic light, partially paralyzing him, and went on with his shooting - and killing - spree in SoCal for several years until caught; his lack of ID anonymity making him most difficult to identify and track down.

Many untold others have their -personal- experiences.

A query, the person who crosses a border and sets foot onto private land, say a farmer's, is automatically breaking the law, not so? When benevolently tolerated by the landowner, often an informal and growing settlement will gather at that point by a stream of incomers and soon become troublesome for him, stealing his crops and livestock. What then, when in future no land is "public property" but privately owned: any cross-border migrant will be an automatic trespasser, and may even be shot by a landowner when proving violently resistant if the police are not present or turn a blind eye.

It's those (sacrificial) small tales close-up, which are most telling, and I believe I detect much rationalist context-dropping by HB and YB et al, usually ensconced well distant from the reality.

The "self-selection" idea that a migrant, intrinsically, has value - because he\she shows a desire to "come here" doesn't stand up well. *Many* driven to work hard for better lives will have great value, certainly, (but "value" to whom? Their own, first. There's another wrongly-selfserving, statist notion that "we" only/largely permit immigration to those 'good for our country' to fill varying skillsets - see Australia - which defeats any benevolent object but only admits those with large wealth and other abilities) -- while *some* arrive for the 'easy pickings' - through welfare - or criminality, in that well-to-do country. Over here, the draw seems to be the slightly better employment in SA than Zimbabwe which doesn't say much for either.

Edited December 15, 2024 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

On 12/14/2024 at 2:32 AM, RobertP said:

My understanding is Brook supports open borders in the US that he would never support for Israel. 

 

 

Yaron needs to be consistent or will be accused of self-contradiction. (I'm sure he has been asked this, but haven't heard of a reply)

The same principle holds for both countries, (with plenty of omitted measurement).

Is anyone who enters or wants to enter a country to be rightfully admitted "under their own cognizance"? I say not.

No matter how I might decry collectivist "demographics" - to most others, collectivist-majoritarianism is all that matters. For some even, it can be a cynical ruse for the ideological domination of a free and rich country.

Israel stands accused of being an "apartheid state", - mostly by those who wish it to be ~equally~ an 'apartheid state' -- only, for Islamists-Palestinians.

(and btw, even while presently embattled, I heard has more Muslim people applying for immigration than looking to emigrate).

So the majority-Jewish Israeli state would quickly go under, with open borders. How long could America sustain its freedoms - and good will - with unlimited migrants arriving out of S. America, and Africa and Asia?

Edited December 15, 2024 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

A consequence of an immigration policy disaster. When welfarism, religious ideology and gang crime, stretched Sweden's good-will for refugees to its limits. Pay immigrants to "voluntarily" emigrate

https://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/13/world/europe/sweden-immigration-reform.html&ved=2ahUKEwiBv7zJj6qKAxX8WEEAHellD2sQFnoECDAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0zVmSjfzZVuYTQd7PiB3n4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2024 by whYNOT

[DavidOdden]

14 hours ago, Dupin said:

That begs the question:  Does such a right exist?  Does a foreigner have the right to freely move into the U.S.?  Is there such a right to abrogate?

You weren’t paying attention to what I wrote, so let me restate and be more explicit. Every man has the right to freely chose his actions, subject only to the requirement to not initiate force against others. I assert that this has been proven, please read some of the work of Ayn Rand to see that proof. A corollary is that a person has the right to move about and does not require permission to do so. In fact, freedom of movement has even been long recognized as a fundamental right by the US Supreme Court, which is not generally known as a supported of rights as opposed to government power.

It therefore follows that a person has the right to move freely from Pascagoula to Biloxi, or Mississippi to Florida, or Mexico to the US, feel free to add as many specific location pairs until you understand the distinction between a general principle (itself derived from a broader true moral principle) and a concrete instance. Assuming that you now understand the principle, the only question that remains relates to the non-initiation of force proviso. The question that your challenge “begs” is whether rights follow from man’s nature, or are they arbitrary boons granted by a sovereign. The fact of even asking that question is compelling proof that you do not understand the “man’s nature” basis of rights.

While not on topic for the superordinate question, I would also support expansion of US borders to provide protection of individual rights to more people. But currently, Muhammad must go to the mountain, not the other way around.

Tony raises a valid point regarding trespass, in particular the problem that much land is not privately owned. This is a huge problem that has nothing to do with immigration: how do you get from your house to Home Depot, unless your property borders on the Home Depot? You have to trespass on someone else’s land, or, you have to avail yourself of the right to be traverse public property. In a free society, the same mechanism that makes it possible for you to shop for lumber or groceries also makes it possible for a person to go from San Luis Rio Colorado Mexico to Yuma, AZ.

Alas, Tony misses the point that no person is morally obligated to obey an immoral law, and responsibility for trespass rests with the aggressor who prevented the immigrant from using the ordinary public road to enter. We actually have excellent evidence of the consequence of unrestricted immigration, coming from both the US and South Africa! In both cases, these areas (which were not nations at all) were the beneficiaries of substantial immigration from across the globe. In fact, virtually all US residents descended from people who emigrated to the US within the past 500 years. The premise that outsiders intend to destroy the nation is false, but no doubt some outsiders intend to engage in violent acts. The same is true of insiders. In a rights-respecting society, restrictions on an individual are narrowly tailored to compelling cases of actual rights violation.

[DavidOdden]

41 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

A consequence of an immigration policy disaster.

This is not a consequence of an immigration policy disaster, it is a consequence of a reckless socialist hallucination that has infected the north for decades.

[Boydstun]

9 hours ago, Dupin said:

In the question I quoted, the existence of the right of entry went begging. . . .

The very idea of a country is meaningless – just a denatured geographical area – without s border whose entry door is under control.  

. . .

 

Mark, stop that tap-dancing-rationalizing "begging" metaphor-sophistry when what is occurring is merely asking a question. Get on the preservation-of-useful-distinctions wagon. 

Why such concern over the southern border? The dangers seem greater from the northern border.*  (e.g. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/millennium-plot-ahmed-ressam) Perhaps danger from communicable diseases are the same at both borders, but when it comes to dangers from terrorists, the greater number of intercepted plots and watch-listed are from individuals trying to cross at the northern border. Hysteria over ill-intents of illegal immigrants across the southern border seems to be from politically motivated day-after-day lies (covering for racist motivation). The only "waves of invaders" we've had on our land are the deer.

I agree that immigration across our borders should be controlled (though not emigration). I do not think that rounding up and deporting (supposedly) 20 million people who entered the US illegally, and doing so "no matter how much it costs" in line with our incoming LEADER's statement, is the same as controlling border crossing more effectively than so far (which is, by the way, not de facto open borders). 

 

[tadmjones]

43 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

.. Every man has the right to freely chose his actions, subject only to the requirement to not initiate force against others. .. A corollary is that a person has the right to move about and does not require permission to do so. In fact, freedom of movement has even been long recognized as a fundamental right by the US Supreme Court, which is not generally known as a supported of rights as opposed to government power.

It therefore follows that a person has the right to move freely from Pascagoula to Biloxi, or Mississippi to Florida, or Mexico to the US, feel free to add as many specific location pairs until you understand the distinction between a general principle (itself derived from a broader true moral principle) and a concrete instance. Assuming that you now understand the principle, the only question that remains relates to the non-initiation of force proviso. The question .. is whether rights follow from man’s nature, or are they arbitrary boons granted by a sovereign.

 

 

A moral theory of rights is necessarily an abstract concept and applying 'them' by argument to current instantiations of 'man-made ' nation states is Platonic realism, no ?

Us and them are useful recognitions , especially to citizens of nation states.

[whYNOT]

1 hour ago, DavidOdden said:

This is not a consequence of an immigration policy disaster, it is a consequence of a reckless socialist hallucination that has infected the north for decades.

Same thing, I think. I don't see a distinction. Swedes have prided - i.e.  felt good about - themselves as "the moral nation". That many shifted in a single generation to wariness and fear of those refugees whom they'd recently welcomed with open arms, speaks volumes re: good feelings confronting the reality.

Naturally, the present Gvt. that brought in these fairly soft new measures to encourage people to "go home" is being called "far-right", but it is only representative of the changed attitudes of the Swedis people who earlier supported the previous Gvt's migrant-policy disaster in the making.

Edited December 15, 2024 by whYNOT

[DavidOdden]

4 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

A moral theory of rights is necessarily an abstract concept

Yes, in the sense that any theory is "abstract".

4 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

applying 'them' by argument to current instantiations of 'man-made ' nation states is Platonic realism, no ?

I cannot interpret what that means. Unlike the cat, I will attempt to understand what you meant. I think you meant that not every individual or nation grasps the concept of rights, therefore we have absurdities like the right to an education, a car, a garage, and a chicken in every pot. This is a sad truth.

Between the philosophical foundation of rights and the political instantiation in a given nation or time-frame within a nation, there may be more or less adherence to such abstract notions of rights. Even the concept of rights embodied in the US Constitution and reasoning that led to the founding of our nation has politically eroded so that we are coming closer to the Swedish concept of "rights", perverted by the further addition of limits on non-citizens similar to ancient China, Babylonia, Rome, or many current socialist dictatorships with laws against foreigners owning property. Even in our beloved ancient Greece. No question that proper concepts of rights are not understood by most citizens or politicians.

[DavidOdden]

1 minute ago, whYNOT said:

Swedes have prided - i.e.  felt good about - themselves as "the moral nation".

We have, for the entire duration of Objectivism as a philosophy, maintained that the Swedes are deluding themselves as to the nature of morality and rights. Thinking that a horse is a car does not make a horse be a car.

[DavidOdden]

The fundamental question which has been solidly danced around here as though its answer is well-known, namely, under what conditions should a man’s rights be preventatively abrogated? Not just “in an ideal Objectivist utopia”, but in the US as it exists now? If a man has stolen the property of another, should he be prevented from exercising his rights – permanently? Some Objectivists may subscribe to a “lock ‘em up forever” theory of punishment, under the belief that once a man choses to violate the rights of another, he is incapable of rejecting the philosophy that resulted in his evil act. A few “more generous” Objectivists may subscribe to a “two strikes and you are out, forever” view of rights and punishment. Existing US immigration law approximates the two strikes and you are out standard, although inadmissibility can be the result of an act that is not properly a crime (such as profiting from a sex act, or unreported financial transactions).

As I noted above, immigration might properly be prohibited under the “lock ‘em up forever” rights-violation standard. It is also valid to be concerned that some nations do not systematically protect individual rights, so lack of two criminal convictions for murder might not be sufficient evidence that a person is rights-respecting and thus admissible. It is always possible that the individual is indeed a rights-violator who simply bribed (or murdered) officials in his country and escaped punishment, so on the record he looks like a law-abiding citizen.

But such individuals are a tiny minority of those seeking to enjoy the freedom that exists in the US. Why not then have a system that allows the exclusion of rights-violators which allowing the admission of rights-respectors? The answer is that we have adopted the Swedish model of government, whereby the existence of any person in the US forces violation of the rights of all other persons in the US, via increased taxation in order to satisfy the Swedish-model pseudo-“right” to be provided with the means to an unearned good life. The current focus is on eliminating non-citizens as purported intrinsic rights-violators, once we have firmly excluded all foreigners, we can focus on citizen reproduction to cut down on the number of people demanding Public Resources in our emerging Swedish style socialist utopia.

There is another approach to the problem of expanding socialism, as I suppose you might know.

 

[whYNOT]

2 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

 

Alas, Tony misses the point that no person is morally obligated to obey an immoral law, and responsibility for trespass rests with the aggressor who prevented the immigrant from using the ordinary public road to enter. We actually have excellent evidence of the consequence of unrestricted immigration, coming from both the US and South Africa! In both cases, these areas (which were not nations at all) were the beneficiaries of substantial immigration from across the globe. In fact, virtually all US residents descended from people who emigrated to the US within the past 500 years. The premise that outsiders intend to destroy the nation is false, but no doubt some outsiders intend to engage in violent acts. The same is true of insiders. In a rights-respecting society, restrictions on an individual are narrowly tailored to compelling cases of actual rights violation.

 

Ta, but for a dose of reality I'd quote Heinlein's dictum.

“No matter where or what, there are makers, takers, and fakers.”

— Robert A. Heinlein

We are debating a large and concentrated influx of human beings, I think? Within any given number of people the above law comes into effect, a certain proportion of them will ~not~ be beneficial to the society (takers and fakers) --and a country will gain increased numbers of them, over all. 

The whole lot attracted to a wealthy (i.e. free) nation for highly contrasting motives.

Makers, speaks for itself: they who'd be good and lawful citizens, using the new freedom to advance themselves, unaided. The fakers look for the easy ride, e.g. state welfare, placing strain on the system.. "Takers", criminal gangs and sundry other robbers, con artists, petty thieves and crazies etc. who would soon be stretching law-enforcement past its limits, while exacerbating gang-warfare among pre-existing gangs. Add a few terrorists or anti-Western ideologues in their number. 

Here is when "Numbers" do count.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2024 by whYNOT

[Doug Morris]

On 12/14/2024 at 9:21 PM, Dupin said:

We have had de facto open borders rather substantially for many years, and just look what it has accomplished!

Misleading at best.  People get in, but are forced into a limbo of illegality that has lots of destructive consequences.  Many people who get in legally are not permitted to work, leaving them no choice but to become burdens.

 

[whYNOT]

On 12/15/2024 at 6:31 PM, DavidOdden said:

You weren’t paying attention to what I wrote, so let me restate and be more explicit. Every man has the right to freely chose his actions, subject only to the requirement to not initiate force against others. I assert that this has been proven, please read some of the work of Ayn Rand to see that proof. A corollary is that a person has the right to move about and does not require permission to do so. In fact, freedom of movement has even been long recognized as a fundamental right by the US Supreme Court, which is not generally known as a supported of rights as opposed to government power.

It therefore follows that a person has the right to move freely from Pascagoula to Biloxi, or Mississippi to Florida, or Mexico to the US, feel free to add as many specific location pairs until you understand the distinction between a general principle (itself derived from a broader true moral principle) and a concrete instance. Assuming that you now understand the principle, the only question that remains relates to the non-initiation of force proviso. The question that your challenge “begs” is whether rights follow from man’s nature, or are they arbitrary boons granted by a sovereign. The fact of even asking that question is compelling proof that you do not understand the “man’s nature” basis of rights.

 

 

Freedom of action, the positive right according and essential to man's right to life and his nature - rather than Non-initiation of force, a "negative" right - what one should not do - is the foundation of Rand's individual rights I believe. The former implicitly contains the latter. To stress the latter must weigh one towards a "rigid" performance in one's acts perhaps, perhaps not "involving others" at large or the rationally unforeseen effects on "them" - and constrains this very freedom of action.

I have forever been of the strong sense that an individual should be able to choose to cross any of the world's man-made borders at will: to visit, to stay and live, adventuring, studying or working. "The world's my oyster", my sense of life ever asserted. I still rebel against the lengthy, bloody-minded restrictions and demands of personal  information (identification and finances, security and health status) imposed on me by other countries' consulates when applying for a 'simple' holiday. (My travel days will end for this reason alone.)

That youthful idealism could become actual - if individual rights were global. Forget about that for now and the foreseeable future.

What one can have, and properly you in the USA and any free-ish nations have, is unlimited right of freedom of movement--within the borders and jurisdiction of your Gvt.- AND - for US citizens exclusively.  One's free movement within one's country is non-negotiable. (Again, a "positive" right implying the conscious recognition of others' positive rights to -their- choices, actions, ownership, private property and so on).

 But for others, presently outside the borders? Can they have rights and the freedom to "choose" to enter, at will or whim? In advance of gaining their citizenship? This I think is a non-sensible view of individual rights, to extend them universally; which could result (ad absurdum) in the US Gvt. projecting its power outside its country's borders and outside its remit and responsibility to its own people, so enforcing the rights of action of any individuals of other nationalities freely crossing -any- international borders. (As I may dream at times).

The concept of invaluable individual rights will be compromised rather than enhanced, I believe.

Edited December 17, 2024 by whYNOT

[tadmjones]

So now the only left to figure out is whether or not the concept of being a citizen or (what constitutes a citizenry) is a legal and moral relationship between individuals.

[DavidOdden]

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

What one can have, and properly you in the USA and any free-ish nations have, is unlimited right of freedom of movement--within the borders and jurisdiction of your Gvt.- AND - for US citizens exclusively.

If the rights of an individual were a gift from the government, then of course any government could rightfully grant whatever rights it wishes to, to whomever it wants. The US could decide to allow free entry and exit to US citizens, South Africa could decide to allow foreigners and citizens to buy real estate, Kenya could limit that right to citizens, and Tanzania could prohibit permanent ownership of land to all. But that is not the Objectivist view of rights, because rights are protected by governments but not granted by governments. Rights are universal, what isn’t universal is respect for them. Indeed it is a fundamental premise of Objectivist political philosophy that there will always exist the possibility that a person’s rights will be violated, therefore there will always be a need for force to be under the control of objective law – no anarchy!

One can reject the “rights as man’s nature” view of rights as unrealistic, holding that rights are a luxury only affordable in a fully rational society but in the world which we live in we must compromise on rights for safety and the greater good of society. This is the standard rationale for government violating rights, invoked so often that hardly anyone understands what “individual rights” refers to.

As a minor correction regarding freedom of movement in the US (and the EU), the right of free movement is absolutely guaranteed to all, not just citizens. SA did restrict internal movements for certain people, and movement was restricted in the USSR, Vietnam and China, plus is closely monitored in other countries (e.g. Tanzania).

What right does a US citizen have to enter the US from outside, e.g. take a boat from Cuba to Florida? Does a lawful permanent resident have the same right, or are their rights more restricted? How about persons with a valid visa, and how about Canadians (no visa requirement). Under the government-grant theory of rights, the answer can only be found in careful scrutiny of all of the relevant laws passed by Congress and federal agencies. Under the Objectivist theory of rights, all humans have the same rights, even though no government fully recognizes and protects those rights.

[Doug Morris]

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

This I think is a non-sensible view of individual rights, to extend them universally; which could result (ad absurdum) in the US Gvt. projecting its power outside its country's borders and outside its remit and responsibility to its own people, so enforcing the rights of action of any individuals of other nationalities freely crossing -any- international borders. (As I may dream at times).

Recognizing and respecting people's rights with respect to our own territory and borders does not require or imply that we enforce those rights elsewhere.

 

[whYNOT]

8 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

If the rights of an individual were a gift from the government, then of course any government could rightfully grant whatever rights it wishes to, to whomever it wants. The US could decide to allow free entry and exit to US citizens, South Africa could decide to allow foreigners and citizens to buy real estate, Kenya could limit that right to citizens, and Tanzania could prohibit permanent ownership of land to all. But that is not the Objectivist view of rights, because rights are protected by governments but not granted by governments. Rights are universal, what isn’t universal is respect for them. Indeed it is a fundamental premise of Objectivist political philosophy that there will always exist the possibility that a person’s rights will be violated, therefore there will always be a need for force to be under the control of objective law – no anarchy!

 

Governments cannot grant and "gift" rights, absolutely, yet -A- proper government is essential to protect them, agree.

I avoid as best I can, "rights", the floating abstraction. Universal to man, yes, while rarely appreciated and put into action. To be implemented, and sustained, two prerequisites -  a. the highest regard for them by a populace, "consent of the governed" - and - b. an 'agency's' concrete actions and personnel.

The "agency" must (can only, in reality) confine itself to the people within its geographical area, I think.

By the selfsame non-granting of rights by Govt., it consistently and equally cannot/must not open the country's borders to all-comers: "gifting" unlimited numbers of people access to those rights.

[DavidOdden]

7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I avoid as best I can, "rights", the floating abstraction. Universal to man, yes, while rarely appreciated and put into action. To be implemented, and sustained, two prerequisites -  a. the highest regard for them by a populace, "consent of the governed" - and - b. an 'agency's' concrete actions and personnel

If “rights” is a floating abstraction, then I don’t know what a “floating abstraction” is. I suppose it would be “anything that you can’t put in your hand”. A specific cow is a concrete, the genus Bos would be a floating abstraction. Everything in philosophy would be a floating abstraction, but do you avoid everything in philosophy? Or is this avoidance only directed at “rights” (why not also concepts like “good”, “knowledge” and so on)?

“Rarely appreciated and put into action” is also true of “reason” and “virtue”. Does that make those concepts useless and impractical? As a practical consideration, in many countries there is a great range of variation on wealth where 1% have millions of dollars and 80% have maybe a thousand dollars. By confiscating the excess wealth of the 1%, could the government not alleviate great suffering by the 80% by raising their wealth by an order of magnitude? Surely the governed (a majority of the governed) would consent to such a scheme. So it just becomes a simple political question: will a government come to a realization that it can do this, and can easily obtain the consent of the governed? Why not do this?

[necrovore]

9 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

If “rights” is a floating abstraction, then I don’t know what a “floating abstraction” is. I suppose it would be “anything that you can’t put in your hand”.

Floating, as in, the opposite of grounded. Abstractions should ultimately be grounded in reality.

There might not be anything wrong with the abstraction per se; it is possible for an abstraction to become "floating" in the way people are using it, if they lose track of the way the abstraction is connected to reality. This can for example lead to stolen concept fallacies, because if you lose track of how an abstraction is rooted you can use it to contradict its own roots.

Although some abstractions cannot be grounded, and are therefore always floating, "rights" is not one of those concepts.

Edited December 18, 2024 by necrovore