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 4.
No.
You are confusing a government with private property rights A government has no rights. Your response shows that you think of a country or a government as a collective with rights - that is not freedom, that is what gives you the welfare state, the NSA, the TSA, etc.
Incidentally, in one of the other posts, I did ask a few very basic questions, which nobody answered. You merely commented on my ignorance, and gave me some books to read.
I come here to learn. Occasionally I have something productive to contribute. I think even my questions can lead to constructive conversation. But when I post, I hope people will correct me (or answer me), because I want to learn.
You criticize those who limit someone's right to travel. Doesn't anybody who believes in private property limit another man's right to travel on it? Just because an owner of private property may decide to not allow strangers to trespass, that does not violate the freedom of another man (who simply goes around). Does it? If the answer is that it does, please say so. Otherwise, I will continue and draw the implication of the parallel to nations. Just because one nation decides to close its borders to immigrants does not deny the freedom of another man to travel (just travel somewhere else).
Go figure.
If reports are to be believed, there are significant numbers of people crossing the borders smuggling ilicit narcotics into the country. (Should they be illegal in the first place? Are they only illegal because government isn't collecting taxes on them? That's a whole 'nother discussion for another time.) Suffice it to say that whatever the reason that they're crossing the border, innocent people who want nothing more than to live in peace are being murdered. Now in terms of numbers, it might not be significant. But in a situation like that, one is far too many.
The balance of my original post was if the collective known as the Gulch is dictating what members can think and believe, how does that differ from what we're trying to escape from?
Seriously? You want to take the position that ALL immigrants come here to work?
There are moochers in every group, including people born here.
Don't try and argue statistical narrative without solid numbers. Numbers that NOBODY has with proven accuracy.
It has been proven that some work and some draw welfare. Nobody has good numbers on the percentage of each.
I don't like welfare either, or Social Security.
As to the "we have to deal with reality" the problem with that statement is that everyone perceives reality differently. One of the reasons for the discord in the first place, is we do not agree on what reality IS.
The lure of welfare to anyone is causing movement to America that is heavily distorted. Without the lure of welfare the cross border traffic would only be a fraction of what it is now. The position of many is that illegals come in for the largesse of welfare. DB proposes eliminating the welfare, either all at once or phasing in changes.
Does that not change the equation for why people come?
But if there were a real, physical, Gulch, then anyone in the world who wanted to come could do so whether they agreed with the inhabitants or not?
I think that most of the people in America are upset about illegal immigrants coming in are not upset about that alone...it's the fact that the powers-that-be are providing them with property that belongs to others. There are, of course, those who simply don't want (fill in the race of your choice) in "their" neighborhoods, but I believe those are a small minority. So effectively the discussion is more about property rights than anything.
Further, if we are to dictate what those in the Gulch 'must' believe or be expelled, are we not abandoning logic and principles, and becoming what we protest?