Sad & Disappointed: Immigration
It is clear from the recent discussions that many people on this forum do not understand or care about freedom when it is their pet issue and are clearly not ready for a Gulch. The anti-reason, anti-objectivist positions followed three main threads.
1. Freedom: It is clear that many people do not understand that freedom is a set of ethical principles that apply to all people. It is clear that many of the people here seem to think their rights come from their government or being American. One absurd position being proposed by many was that somehow limiting someone’s right to travel is not limiting their freedom. Then we find the collectivist argument that government is nothing but a bunch of private people getting together and setting rules. These same people fail to recognize that this is exactly the argument for the welfare state. It also follows from these arguments that Kansas or some other state could stop people from other states from entering and in fact this is the goal of these people. Or we should be allowed to get together and agree to stone you to death, or sacrifice virgins.
Some people made the collectivist argument that somehow jobs are owned by the collective – this tribalist mentality is so despicable that I would support removing from the gulch anyone who made the argument twice.
What is particularly sad is when given a pro-freedom solution to immigration issues a number of people rejected it. The pro-freedom solution starts with something anyone who is allowed in the gulch should support, which is the elimination of welfare of all kinds including social security (overtime) and medicare. Next, it would eliminate all drug laws including the FDA. It would also of course enforce private property rights and be serious about crime. These changes would eliminate any legitimate concerns with immigrants entering the United States.
2. Eugenics/racism: It is amazing the number of people who tried to support their anti-freedom stance with the variations of the pseudo-science of eugenics. This puts them in the wonderful company of freedom lovers such Southern slave owners, racists more generally, the socialists of England in the early 1900s or earlier, Nazi Germany, and none other than Margaret Sanger
3. Logic: The opposite of the right to travel freely is imprisonment, no matter how big the prison or that sometimes the guards allow you outside or inside the walls. The inability to follow simple logic in this discussion was amazing. On the more innocent side was confusing immigration with citizenship. The two are not the same. Many people seemed to think that the requirement for IDs at the borders would not logically lead to IDs every time you travel. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue and yes they said you could be required to show ID for just walking down the street. That the need to monitor people at the border, will not lead to needing to monitor people everywhere. Oops that has already happened. That the need to monitor for terrorists will not mean the need to monitor everyone – again that has already happened. You cannot escape the logic of your positions. Require IDs for everyone else but not you. Monitoring for terrorists, but not you. Assuming other people are guilty until found innocent, but not you.
But what was perhaps the most chilling statement I heard was that we had to be practical, we had to deal with reality. Does this remind you of any conversation in Atlas Shrugged? The clear point of this statement is that being practical means abandoning reason, logic, and principles.
It was a VERY SAD week in the Gulch.
1. Freedom: It is clear that many people do not understand that freedom is a set of ethical principles that apply to all people. It is clear that many of the people here seem to think their rights come from their government or being American. One absurd position being proposed by many was that somehow limiting someone’s right to travel is not limiting their freedom. Then we find the collectivist argument that government is nothing but a bunch of private people getting together and setting rules. These same people fail to recognize that this is exactly the argument for the welfare state. It also follows from these arguments that Kansas or some other state could stop people from other states from entering and in fact this is the goal of these people. Or we should be allowed to get together and agree to stone you to death, or sacrifice virgins.
Some people made the collectivist argument that somehow jobs are owned by the collective – this tribalist mentality is so despicable that I would support removing from the gulch anyone who made the argument twice.
What is particularly sad is when given a pro-freedom solution to immigration issues a number of people rejected it. The pro-freedom solution starts with something anyone who is allowed in the gulch should support, which is the elimination of welfare of all kinds including social security (overtime) and medicare. Next, it would eliminate all drug laws including the FDA. It would also of course enforce private property rights and be serious about crime. These changes would eliminate any legitimate concerns with immigrants entering the United States.
2. Eugenics/racism: It is amazing the number of people who tried to support their anti-freedom stance with the variations of the pseudo-science of eugenics. This puts them in the wonderful company of freedom lovers such Southern slave owners, racists more generally, the socialists of England in the early 1900s or earlier, Nazi Germany, and none other than Margaret Sanger
3. Logic: The opposite of the right to travel freely is imprisonment, no matter how big the prison or that sometimes the guards allow you outside or inside the walls. The inability to follow simple logic in this discussion was amazing. On the more innocent side was confusing immigration with citizenship. The two are not the same. Many people seemed to think that the requirement for IDs at the borders would not logically lead to IDs every time you travel. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue and yes they said you could be required to show ID for just walking down the street. That the need to monitor people at the border, will not lead to needing to monitor people everywhere. Oops that has already happened. That the need to monitor for terrorists will not mean the need to monitor everyone – again that has already happened. You cannot escape the logic of your positions. Require IDs for everyone else but not you. Monitoring for terrorists, but not you. Assuming other people are guilty until found innocent, but not you.
But what was perhaps the most chilling statement I heard was that we had to be practical, we had to deal with reality. Does this remind you of any conversation in Atlas Shrugged? The clear point of this statement is that being practical means abandoning reason, logic, and principles.
It was a VERY SAD week in the Gulch.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
Perhaps I am looking at "Objectivist" point of view a bit naively and simplistically however let me take a stab at it anyway.
Correct me if I am wrong, John Galt's credo seems to be short and to the point. The two main points as I see it being that "I do not want to serve anyone nor do I want anyone to serve me and I refuse to produce anything that will be taken from me and the fruits of my labor and given to those who do not produce and do not deserve". Simple! and to the point!
Why does it seem to be made more complicated than that? It does not talk about any of the topics that seem to be thrown into the mix today that are more topical however the do fit into the classic Objectivist worldview I believe.
Nice work!
1) I don't support Trump.
2) I volunteer at the trade school, teaching kids how to be a machinist and how to build cars. I drive a classic muscle car that I completely restored...I know what I'm doing.
3) I've been espousing many of the tenets of objectivism for 30 years or more.
All that I've seen is the system getting worse.
What else?
1. don't support Trump
2. Mike Rowe has an excellent program for training young people in skilled professions that require no college degree
3. disseminate philosophy. spend LOTS of your free time doing it. You invite people to dinner? have this conversation
Practically speaking, where do you suggest we start?
We taxpayers are not really interested in being in the business of providing everything to everyone free of charge. JBrenner has come up with an idea that has merit, which has been declared 'anti-freedom' with no reasoning and no other proposal. Do you want to define it as buying your citizenship as in Ancient Rome? I tend to view it as an exchange of value. The status quo is a complete anathema to the central theme of Atlas Shrugged.
You have the right to travel freely. OK, to where? At whose expense? You are making the mistake of assuming that all immigrants will hold to Objectivist values. Many will not. That is the primary difference between a country and Galt's Gulch.
If an immigrant comes to a new country that provides welfare, medical services to all, and public education to all, there must be an up front compensation, or the country's citizens are almost assuredly going to get the worse of the transaction in the long run. Individual cases of Objectivist immigration would be the exception, rather than the rule. Removing the welfare magnet is a necessary first step, but it is insufficient by itself. I would love to see the assumptions of "a free public education" and the idea of "a right to health care" removed in the United States. That sort of change will not happen, any more than welfare is likely to go away. It is time to write the United States' epitaph. Born 1776, contracted cancer in 1913, died of suicide in 2008 because she no longer wanted to take enough actions to sustain her own life. Some might argue that the US is still on life support. I won't disagree with that, but it has certainly been on life support since the TARP bailout.
As for the "dealing with reality" final statement at the end of the opening to this thread, it does remind me of Atlas Shrugged. However, the analogy you made is not a good one. Those who are disagreeing with you by claiming that you should deal with reality are not endorsing the current American system. The analogy to James Taggart's claims that people had to deal with the current situation expected that those who agreed with Taggart would endorse the looters' reality. Those who are disagreeing with you, db, are saying that the current reality is so distorted that it is beyond repair.
I am not suggesting that the political problem cannot be solved by sticking to Objectivist positions. I am stating it boldly that it cannot be solved that way. There are too many minds to convince that have vested interests in the problem not being solved. It is indeed a sad time. Shrugging and perhaps starting an Objectivist nanosociety are the only logical positions for an Objectivist right now.
This is not particularly attractive unless you get to be the person. Once you have a number of different people who own parts of the valley they have to work out how to handle their interactions. It might be that some person's property is entirely surrounded by other people's -- actually that's quite likely, so now you need a system of easements.
Sooner or later you find out you have a government, because a government starts as a number of people getting together and setting rules.
I think you're right, Tech. That, in my opinion, is what makes discussions between civilized people interesting. Even in the volatile world of politics it's interesting to try to see the issues though the eyes of your opposition. You might not agree, but it's always important to review what you know, as Mr. Holmes would say.
But what happens when the government has ceased to be a rational and consistent defender of its own laws? When many of the laws are anti-freedom? Is immigration the problem we should be trying to unwind from the messy hairball of our society, or is it impossible to tackle and solve coherently while so many other fundamental flaws exist within the country itself? As many wise people have advised before us, I believe our greatest threat--and therefore the greatest focus of our attention--should be the enemies within.
I agree with you that the Government has no rights. It does have duties, though, one of which is to defend our rights. Right? Shouldn't the Government at least know who is crossing our borders, as a first step to protecting us?
Load more comments...