Swiss town denies women citizenship because She is Annoying

Posted by  $  Dobrien 6 months ago to Humor
118 comments | Share | Flag

The Swiss immigration policy is not like the cheese.
I selected humor as a category because of the smile on my face from this story.
SOURCE URL: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/swiss-town-denies-passport-to-dutch-vegan-because-she-is-annoying-125316437.html


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  blarman 6 months ago
    The key sentence in the entire article:

    The resident’s committee argued that if she does not accept Swiss traditions and the Swiss way of life, she should not be able to become an official national.

    That should be the basis for ANY immigration policy, with their utility to the nation being the next consideration.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  6 months ago
      Bingo. Annoying is the result of
      UN welcome behavior or meddling.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 6 months ago
        Yes. It is the notion that my ideas necessarily supercedes yours and that my only purpose for joining your association is to push my agenda. I make no attempt to reason with you or demonstrate what might be more advantageous to both of us. In fact, I make no attempt to explain how my membership in your society benefits YOU.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 6 months ago
          Becoming a citizen is not joining an association. Whether or not you agree with her ideas she is advocating for them with her reasons. Suppressing different ideas because the person espousing them is "pushing his own agenda" deemed "offensive" to the tribe is oppressive collectivist ethnicity.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  6 months ago
            I am surprised that you are against a community rejecting citizenship. This guest who is telling them what they should do with the residents private property.
            She has been telling residents to put animal rights ahead of the individual. Anti hunting , anti meat eating. They were not requiring her to engage those behaviors but she was telling them not to.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 6 months ago
              The individual they are oppressing is not and cannot tell them what to do with their private property or make them sacrifice to animals. She is advocating for a position they have (properly) rejected and which she cannot enforce but does have the right to believe and speak for.

              A country or a town "community" is not a private association. It has no moral right to reject citizenship or a passport by the standards of tribalist demands to shut up and submit to its "tradition" or in accordance with what a majority finds "too annoying". That is crude collectivism and subjectivism, not protecting private property. Such communitarianism is anti-reason and anti-individualism. It is the same principle you see in communist and religious societies.

              She is not a "guest" other than being a guest of any individual owner who invites her to stay where she has been living, rents to her, or whatever other voluntary arrangement they have. Being a "guest" of a country is an entirely different concept. It has no bearing on rights to immigrate or become a citizen and obtain a passport as a long term resident, let alone freedom of thought and speech.

              If there is a legitimate reason to deny her citizenship or a passport the article does not mention it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  CBJ 6 months ago
                Citizenship is not a "moral right", and a country has no moral responsibility to grant such citizenship to a person from another country. It is not initiating force by refusing to do so.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 6 months ago
                  Whether or not she should be allowed to attain citizenship, based on the full context after living there since the age of 8, "speaking out" against "tradition" is not a moral standard for rejecting it. They are oppressive tribalists.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  CBJ 6 months ago
                    Governments are morally entitled to reject an application for citizenship for any reason or no reason, as long as they do not violate the applicant's rights by initiating force.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 6 months ago
                      Governments are not morally entitled to do anything they choose. They are supposed to have an obligation to equally enforce objective law to protect the rights of the individual, and must do that. Excluding individuals from citizenship who otherwise qualify is a violation depriving of them of their rights, which certainly is coercive and improper. There is no justification for arbitrarily denying people their rights by "choosing" to suppress them in the name of someone's "tradition". The notion of a government doing anything for "any reason or no reason" is tyrannical.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  CBJ 6 months ago
                        Governments are morally obliged to protect the rights of their citizens and to refrain from violating the rights of non-citizens. They are not morally obliged to turn non-citizens into citizens, and they do not violate the rights of non-citizens by refusing to do so.

                        I never said governments are morally entitled to do "anything they choose."
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 6 months ago
                          You said "Governments are morally entitled to reject an application for citizenship for any reason or no reason". No government has any such right for any action. A proper government does not operate in any realm by any entitlement to do what it pleases for "any reason or no reason". That is statism.

                          Human beings have rights because of the their nature as human beings no matter where they are or where they came from, not from government as the source. Civil rights are supposed to be implementation of rights in law, not arbitrary. When someone comes here from another country he is subject to and protected by our laws, including immigration law. Non-citizens do not lose their rights, which can only be abrogated by injustice. The qualifications for attaining citizenship should be objective, not someone's notion of enforcing "tradition" under the whims of "any reason or no reason".
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  CBJ 6 months ago
                            Declining to approve an application for citizenship is not a government “action”, it is a refusal to act, and such a refusal does not violate the rights of the applicant. And yes, a government can decline to take an action for any reason or no reason, as long as such inaction (1) does not constitute a breach of its duty to protect the rights of its citizens and (2) does not constitute a breach of its limited duty to protect the lives and property of legal residents of its territory.

                            Declining to turn a non-citizen into a citizen does not meet either of these criteria. Citizenship is not a natural right, and nothing in Objectivism suggests that it should be.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 6 months ago
                              "Tradition" as a criterion in any law and government action in any realm for "any reason or no reason" are an authoritarian conservative, tribalist mentality, not Objectivist. Defining and implementing laws is government action. Denying that is evasive sophistry trying to rationalize the arbitrary in government for anti-immigration policies. Nothing in Objectivism suggests or is compatible with such arbitrariness. They are contradictory. Objectivism does not treat people like that. Not every foreigner is ISIS.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by  $  CBJ 6 months ago
                                I see a lot of accusations and name-calling there, but not a lot of logic. In my previous post I said “Citizenship is not a natural right, and nothing in Objectivism suggests that it should be.” I also gave some supporting arguments for this position. Please show me where I’m wrong.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Lucky 6 months ago
            ewv is correct.
            Emotionally I like that story and have a good belly laugh.
            But emotion should not have preference over thinking.
            Now in my country, migrant traditions of cutting off heads of unbelievers,
            abuse of women, and a host of other obscenities, are put aside in the
            name of fighting racism. (!)
            To my mind, the Swiss error is preferable.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  6 months ago
              In the article some one mentions traditions as a reason , that is not a good reason to reject citizenship.
              She on the other hand protested to the owners of private property about how they should care for their property.
              Where are you from Lucky? You said your country.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 6 months ago
                Her protest in speaking out contrary to "tradition" is not grounds for denying citizenship. That standard wasn't just mentioned as what "someone" said, it was the central point of the article. The reporter summed up the voters' rejection in the words of the "president of the local Swiss People’s Party", the populist and dominant political party in Switzerland, who is quoted as saying Ms Holten "has a 'big mouth' and that residents did not want to grant her citizenship 'if she annoys us and doesn’t respect our traditions'."

                This theme has been repeated in several other news articles. This one https://www.theatlantic.com/internati... concludes:

                "If things don’t go her way for the third time, however, perhaps she should consider seeking residency instead in a country that rewards brashness, and idiosyncrasy, and above all media savvy—a country that makes a political virtue out of rankling one’s peers. Holten, after all, who is Dutch by birth, Swiss by choice, but, it seems, very much American by temperament, is already at work on a book..."

                Better to debate with a vegan than be oppressed by a tribe that suppresses debate.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 6 months ago
              You liked the fact that the Swiss community reacted with the proper values and sense of life against an obnoxious person of the kind we are commonly demanded to tolerate in thought as well as action. But the tribalist "traditionalists" are not preferable, they are a false alternative farther along in the imposition of their ethnicity imposed by government.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 4 weeks ago
            Uh, yes, it absolutely is about joining an association. It is no different than gays wanting to join the Boy Scouts. One group has their own rules and culture and an outsider is demanding that they change those to accommodate her. The argument itself is largely irrelevant.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
              A country is not a private association. Your oppressive anti-individualism on behalf of tribalist "tradition" in this case is based on the same false premises of your insistence that reglionists can hijack the legal system to impose their beliefs. All of your "arguments" are "largely irrelevant" to this forum. The woman the tribe tried to oppress in Switzerland is not even an "outsider"; she ha lived there legally since the age of 8 and has two Swiss children. "Outsider" to you is someone who rejects your religionist ideology.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                Sure it is. Citizenship is a mark of association membership. Associations get to select their members based on criteria they set. It's really that simple.

                Disagree? Your opinion is noted, but not substantiated. Tell me why I should adopt your reasoning.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                  You are equivocating between a nation and a private association as you evade essential distinctions in circular reasoning. Citizenship is not a "mark of association membership". They are different concepts. "It's really that simple".

                  "Don't bother to examine a folly. Ask yourself only what it accomplishes."
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                    I don't equivocate, I reject your entirely arbitrary definitions, unsubstantiated assertions, and personal mischaracterizations of me.

                    I hold that nations verily are associations and have given numerous examples to underpin those assertions - none of which you have refuted. States are associations. Communities and towns are associations. Show me what definition of "association" does not conform to any of the examples listed above. Are not towns incorporated with bylaws and rules of conduct? Yes. Can someone who violates those rules of conduct be ostracized and even evicted? Yes. And the same applies to States and Nations. Citizenship in a nation is an example of a specifically recognized and important form of membership in an association.

                    Get your definitions in order and re-examine your premises - if you have the personal integrity to do so. Put away the malice and envy and meaningless attacks on those who differ in opinion with you.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 6 months ago
      "Tradition" is not the basis of a proper government. Conservative "tradition" and "utility" to the collective are anti-individualism and anti-reason.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  CBJ 6 months ago
    UPDATE: "Woman deemed 'too annoying' to get Swiss citizenship wins battle for passport"
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wor...
    This article is from last May, so the news has been out for a while.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 6 months ago
      I had seen that article but didn't notice the dates. The philosophical issue lives on, as we see from conservatives all the time. I disagree with all her ideas about animal rights but am glad she got her citizenship against the tribalists.

      If there were a large horde of foreigners seeking to move in and change the country farther from individualism it would be a matter of invasion and conquer, not immigration. That is a big topic in Switzerland and there is a big movement properly resisting such invasion, especially by Muslims, in the name of immigration.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  CBJ 6 months ago
        There are many valid Objectivist (not conservative) arguments for using a person's behavior, as well as his or her principles, as criteria for citizenship. To denigrate the Swiss as "tribalists" is to render the term meaningless in the age of ISIS.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 6 months ago
          This has nothing to do with ISIS. The woman targeted by the local town as being "too annoying" in challenging their "tradition" is not an ISIS terrorist. There are no rational arguments, from Objectivism or anywhere else, for citizenship of an individual based on "tradition" as voted by a local clique. Whatever else they do in their lives, that is tribalist.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  CBJ 6 months ago
            So existing citizens have no right to establish criteria for others seeking to become citizens? Even though this does not involve initiation of force? Show me anything in Objectivism that says citizenship is a natural right.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -1
              Posted by ewv 6 months ago
              Establishing criteria for citizenship does not mean it is arbitrary. Rejecting people for "tradition" is irrational tribalism, not Objectivism.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  CBJ 6 months ago
                Performing an irrational act (or failing to perform a rational one) does not constitute an initiation of force. Swiss citizens have the right to behave as "irrational tribalists" as long as they are not initiating force by doing so.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 6 months ago
                  "Initiation of force" employed as a floating abstraction is not an argument. It is a-philosophical libertarianism. If you were not allowed to vote or have a passport your rights would be violated, too, whether or not you could stare at a force on the perceptual level and proclaim "here now initiation of force" with no conceptual understanding o the governmental injustice. You know better than that.

                  There are no tribal rights and government must not act arbitrarily. The woman who was denied citizenship by a local "vote" for speaking out contrary to local "traditions" was deprived of her civil rights by government action, which the government eventually recognized when it overruled the local clique. It was mob "democracy" at its worst, based on conservative tribal "tradition" as a primary.

                  Tribal "traditions" are not an argument for government policy or the injustices they promote by individuals, yet that irrationalism is being cheered by conservatives and libertarians both as grounds for motivation and government action. It is not Objectivism and it is appalling.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  CBJ 6 months ago
                    If I were a non-citizen, being denied the vote or a passport would not be a violation of my rights. My mere physical presence in a country in which I am not a citizen does not entitle me to any positive action by the government of that country, beyond basic protection of my life and property while in that country. You still have not provided a shred of evidence that citizenship is a natural right. If it is not, then no rights are violated when a government declines to grant citizenship to a non-citizen. This position is totally consistent with Objectivism.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 6 months ago
                      Citizenship is a civil right with qualifications to meet standards under objective law. That has never been at issue; employing it as a strawman is a diversion. As I have said many times arbitrary government actions "for any reason or no reason" are not proper in any realm and neither are subjectivist "votes" by a local clique employing the tribal premise of their "annoyance" by someone exercising freedom of speech in opposition to their "traditions", which is the central topic of the article. That is most certainly not consistent with Objectivism and neither are the a-philosophical libertarian rationalizations trying to excuse it.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                        Re: "Citizenship is a civil right with qualifications to meet standards under objective law. That has never been at issue . . . " Certainly it has been (and still is) at issue. Please show me anything Ayn Rand said to this effect.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                          I did not say that there are no qualifications required for becoming a citizen. The requirement that there must be standards has not been at issue. I did not support allowing anyone to become a citizen simply because he wants to in the name of a "natural right". That is your strawman. I reject your arbitrariness in asserting that government can act "for any reason or no reason", and so did Ayn Rand. It is no justiication for the tribalist rejection of citizenship due to being "annoyed" that their "traditions" have been questioned through freedom of speech.

                          Immigration and freedom of movement is a natural right, but natural rights do not imply anarchy. Ayn Rand supported objective standards for all laws. She supported natural rights as philosophical principles, codified in the form of law. That is what valid civil rights do. Ayn Rand was a strong supporter of immigration, based on individualism. She rejected all forms of tribalism and arguments from "tradition". She immigrated and became a citizen of this country, and became an outspoken defender of individualism contrary to widespread collectivist, altruist traditions she abhorred. Under your standards she would have been deported back to the Soviet Union for a mindless "any reason or no reason", with no protection.

                          Your advocacy of government arbitrariness "for any reason or no reason" in denying citizenship in support of the Swiss tribalists is not an "Objectivist argument". You can believe whatever you want to but please stop promoting it as Objectivism.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                            Immigration and citizenship are two separate issues. You made a clear-cut statement: "Citizenship is a civil right with qualifications to meet standards under objective law.” You have not at all established that this statement necessarily follows from the Objectvist philosophy. Ayn Rand never said anything to that effect. You can believe what you want, but that doesn’t make it Objectivism.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                              We know the difference between immigration and citizenship; your instructions leading off the topic again are not constructive. Everything in law is supposed to be objective, defined by objective standards, including laws for obtaining citizenship. Individual citizens are free to act except for what is forbidden; proper government does what it must do. There is no realm of government in which it can act "for any reason or no reason". That is not an "Objectivist argument".

                              Ayn Rand's principles are clear and so is the context; she did not have to apply them to every detail on every topic and often deferred further elaboration as a specialized topic, such as philosophy of law, outside the realm of general philosophy. Countries around the world provide for citizenship so that permanent residents have the same role in government. People do become citizens under law, which must not be arbitrary. Ayn Rand became a citizen and obviously supported it. She did not have to spell out every detail for you in order to head off your rationalizations.

                              Your wandering off into citizenship versus immigration again dodges the central topic of the abuse of a woman who has legally lived in Switzerland since the age of eight, who supports the country, applied for citizenship under normal Swiss law, and was denied by a clique of local tribalists who found her exercise of free speech in opposition to "tradition" to be "annoying". That is not a model for this country and flatly contradicts Ayn Rand's philosophy in several ways.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                                Ayn Rand’s principles are clear: Citizenship is not a natural right. "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." – Ayn Rand. Declining to confer citizenship to a non-citizen does not violate his or her rights. It’s true that government cannot properly act for any reason or no reason, but it can properly decline to act for any reason or no reason, provided no rights violations are involved. The Supreme Court does this routinely when it declines to hear certain cases without stating a reason. I’ve never heard any Objectivist speak out against that.

                                A person’s behavior is an objective fact that can properly be considered when that person applies for citizenship. “Normal Swiss law” allows local residents to vote whether to approve or disapprove individual applications for citizenship, so it is no more “arbitrary” than any other law permitting a public vote. Are you objecting to the process or to the outcome?
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                                  A right as a moral principle is a philosophical matter. A civil right is an implementation in law. The right to move around is in part implemented by immigration law.

                                  You are still evading that an arbitrary government choice and action to "not act" is a government action with legal consequences.

                                  "Allowing" a local mob to vote to deny someone citizenship because it is "annoyed" at someone for speaking out against "tradition" is horrendous on several grounds, including the subjectivism and its imposition in law.

                                  The entrenchment of subjectivism (and worse with the explicit tribalist, "traditionalist" premise) in law does not make their motives, choices and the law itself anything other than subjective. A legal standard that a mob can decide whatever it wants is not objective. Representative government in which leaders are selected and occasionally laws are accepted or rejected in referenda is not the same principle as allowing a mob to "vote" on the fate of an individual by any criteria it feels like. The fact that they have an entrenched power to get away with it does not make it "objective".

                                  If you don't understand by now that the whole affair -- from the mob-rule law, to the motives of the crowd, to the intended outcome for this woman -- is "objectionable" then nothing else is likely to help.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • CBJ replied 5 months, 4 weeks ago
  • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago in reply to this comment.
    My post was appropriately responsive to labels such as “authoritarian conservative, tribalist mentality” and “evasive sophistry”. I neither said nor implied that every foreigner is ISIS. And you haven’t addressed my earlier statement that “Citizenship is not a natural right, and nothing in Objectivism suggests that it should be.”
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
      Your evasive, context dropping misrepresentation is not a defense of the indefensible government action "for any reason or no reason" or the tribalist mentality of that Swiss local clique oppressing someone over her "annoying" freedom of speech disagreeing with their "traditions".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago
        So you have no response to my clear, in-context, objective, properly worded statement that “Citizenship is not a natural right, and nothing in Objectivism suggests that it should be”?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
          You have had several clear responses despite the fact that your posts have been evasive rationalizations ducking the central topic and dropping context. No, you are not "objective".

          "Your evasive, context dropping misrepresentation is not a defense of the indefensible government action 'for any reason or no reason' or the tribalist mentality of that Swiss local clique oppressing someone over her 'annoying' freedom of speech disagreeing with their 'traditions'". That does not mean I "have no response".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Delete | Permalink
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago
            First of all, not conferring citizenship is not a “government action,” it is a government declining to act, and I have spelled out the difference several times in previous posts. Second, no one was “oppressing” her since none of her actual rights were violated. Third, Swiss law permits local residents to vote on pending citizenship applications, and that’s exactly what they did, in accordance with the law. Fourth, her freedom of speech was never an issue, she was as free to speak out after the vote as before it. Fifth, she knew, or should have known, that her neighbors were legally empowered to vote on her citizenship application, and it was her decision alone to pursue a course of action that made it more likely that a majority of them would vote to turn her down.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
              You attempt to deny that government choices to not act in ways that have consequences for individuals under the law is sophistry. The woman -- and everyone else targeted by this tribalist "traditionalist" mentality -- certainly is oppressed. Citizenship matters.

              Swiss law "permitting" the tribalism is not self-justifying. "She should have known" is not an argument or an excuse for the abuse. Libertarian pandering to multi-culturalism also contradicts Ayn Rand's principles.

              Her freedom of speech most certainly is an issue. She was punished for exercising it. You are an apologist for the abuse.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                Citizenship matters, but that does not make it a right. Government declining to give a non-citizen something that she is not entitled to by right is not oppression, abuse or punishment. Do you believe that the U.S. Supreme Court should not have the choice to refuse to hear every case submitted to it, since every such case “has consequences for individuals under the law”?

                And your arguments appear to endorse the very multiculturalism you claim to oppose, since her expressed values supposedly should not be a factor in evaluating her application for citizenship.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                  This has nothing to do with justices deciding a legal case. Please stay on the topic. The clique's arbitrary rejection of the woman's application for citizenship based on their demands for "tradition" is a denial of her rights and the rights of the individual on principle, which they superseded by tribalist dictates punishing freedom of speech. That was confirmed legally when the Swiss government overturned the tribalists' "vote".

                  There are no group rights. Individualism does not endorse multiculturalism and neither do I. Your latest excursion claiming otherwise makes no sense. You grasp for yet another rationalization in yet another diversion pretending to be logical refutation while we are supposed to ignore the central point of the tribalist mentality in that Swiss town. You dodge and wander with misconstruals, misrepresentations, strained analogies and rationalizations around the edges as you evade the obvious contradiction in the central topic.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                    The mentality of the so-called “tribalists” is no more the central topic of the article than the issue of whether citizenship is a right. The article covers many topics besides the one you prefer to call “central”. The Swiss government’s overturning of the local vote proves nothing except that it disagreed with their decision. Both the vote and its reversal were legitimate implementations of Swiss law.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                      You continue to evade the moral evaluation of the tribalism in their motive and action. The oppression due to a clique being "annoyed" by someone speaking out contrary to its "traditions" is the central point. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

                      That Swiss law allowed them to do it is not self-justifying and is no justification for the drive to make it a "model" here. A-philosophical libertarian multiculturalism and endless rationalizations are irrelevant, and not an "Objectivist argument" for something that is fundamentally contradictory to Ayn Rand's principles.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                        Ayn Rand’s bedrock political principles are that governments are instituted to protect individual rights, and that no person or government has the right to initiate force. Declining to confer citizenship, which is not an individual right, does not violate these principles. Show me one instance in which I endorsed “multiculturalism”. And far from being “a-philosophical”, my arguments are grounded in Objectivist philosophy. If you are going to label my views, please show some actual examples of why you think my views fit those labels.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 6 months ago
    I think I would find the woman annoying myself,
    but that is not really a good reason to deny citizen-
    ship. Has she been asked if she would accept the Swiss constitution? (Or do they have one? Or is it
    written?) I believe people who take American citizenship are asked that; and have to pass a test on American government.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 4 weeks ago
      There is more to a nation than their legal system. Tradition does come into play here. It's one thing to disagree with tradition as part of the community but quite another to advocate for change as an outsider by demanding she be accepted into their community despite rejecting their values.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
        Did you read the article? She is not an "outsider", has lived there legally since the age of eight, has two Swiss children, and considers herself to be pro-Swiss. The central point of the article is a local clique of tribalists trying to deny her citizenship and a passport because they think her ideas are "annoying" in rejecting their "traditions" -- they demand conformity of thought. That is oppressive, not a model for what you want to impose as the "basis for any immigration policy". It is just as bad as the rest of conservative anti-intellectualism based on "tradition" and illustrates what that leads to as it circles back to its oppressive tribalist premise in action.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  5 months, 4 weeks ago
          Hmmm , weather she judged herself to be Pro-Swiss would be as valuable a criteria as A collectivist saying they are for the greater good.
          Your labeling of The people as tribalist is bs they are natural citizens. You might not agree with them and you are not a Swiss citizen but they never demanded conformity of thought. They did not want to grant her citizenship at the local level be cause they knew her and did not think she would be an asset.
          Of course at the Swiss federal level they knew better?
          I don't think traditions are good or bad. Forcing those traditions on others is another story.
          I have a tradition on Thanksgiving Day
          I cook a feast of turkey for my family and we share thanks for the year just passed. We don't expect or tell anyone else to celebrate. By the same token
          I won't accept any person that would deny my right to stuff and eat a turkey no matter how they revere a bird.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
            Not being an "outsider", as Blarman falsely accused her, does not mean "collectivist".

            The clique who tried to oppress her are tribalists because they employed as a standard their "annoyance" that she dared to speak out in opposition to their "traditions". That is not "bs"; it is what they said as reported internationally in the mob-bites-dog news articles. Following that article it has also been embraced by conservatives seeking to duplicate it as a "model" for us.

            Trying to explain away their actions and motives as the target "not being an asset" is not what they said, but even that conservative slogan would be indefensible, as Ayn Rand explained when she emphatically supported the right of immigration against a conservative protectionism argument.

            People immigrate in pursuit of personal values for their own lives. No one immigrates or becomes a citizen to "be an asset" to a group, which requirement is collectivism. Individuals who are productive (and otherwise honest, etc.) become an asset to others as a consequence, but that is not their purpose nor a standard superseding the rights and goals of the individual. An individual who is not considered an "asset" is still legitimate as long as he is not a burden on those unwilling to support him. That the Swiss who oppressed the woman were already citizens does not justify their tribalist mentality and does not justify the equally anti-immigration agenda of conservatives in this country. Being a citizen does not imply arbitrary power over others.

            Of course traditions can be good or bad. The good is defended for what makes it good and the bad rejected accordingly. Nothing is good because it is tradition and no good can be defended because it is a tradition. You can accept or reject any one you please at your holidays; the nation and other people's rights are not a private dining table celebration to dictate to.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 4 weeks ago
          That's the very same argument made by those who support the Dreamers. It is entirely irrelevant whether or not she has lived there as a guest or as an illegal. She is applying for membership in that nation. And some of the citizens of that nation have voiced their opposition to her being granted membership - which is entirely their right. There is no right to citizenship - it is a voluntary and mutual agreement and it can't be forced on either side - contrary to the demands of this woman.

          You don't have to like the reasons they have for rejecting her application. It's irrelevant. Only members of an association, in this case citizens of the nation of Switzerland - have any say on who they decide to allow into their association. They created their association based on shared values and culture and they expect those who want to join their little "clique" to share those same values. And if they don't share those values, they are welcome to go elsewhere.

          Or to put it another way - claiming membership in an association in which you have not been formally recognized is theft. It is theft of intellectual property and identity which you have not earned. Care to dispute that?

          Here's another example: should Americans demand that potential immigrants abandon Sharia Law because it conflicts with the Constitution and American values? Absolutely. Just as anyone wanting to become British accepts the Monarchy. Just as anyone who wants to become Venezuelan adopts Communism.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
            This case has nothing to do with Sharia law or ISIS. The existence of legal standards rejecting those who seek to overthrow the government does not imply tribalism or conservatives' collectivism following the Swiss incident as a "model" for their anti-individualist anti-immigration policy.

            Your premise that a nation is and should be regarded as an "association" controlling its members is as false now as the other times you repeated it. You are a collectivist. The Swiss woman was not "applying for membership" in a club; she is a legal long-time permanent resident who wants to be recognized as having the same rights as other permanent residents.

            Anyone can criticize or denounce tribalism anywhere. The principles are not "irrelevant" and neither are the thoughts of individuals not in the tribe who reject it. Your claim that they are irrelevant reveals you as an anti-intellectual tribalist yourself.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 4 weeks ago
              "Your premise that a nation is and should be regarded as an "association" controlling its members is as false now as the other times you repeated it."

              Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth, eh Goebbels? I also love the insinuation you add in there

              If you had given one shred of proof to support your statement (repetition doesn't count), you might have a leg to stand on. But you don't. All you can do is rant and try to introduce red herrings and ad hominem and misrepresent my statements.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
      Yes she is very much pro Swiss, has lived there since the age of eight, and the Swiss government overruled the tribalists. Objective requirements to demonstrate knowledge of a nation's history and legal system to qualify for citizenship that you refer to have nothing in common with the primitive collectivism and subjectivism of a small clique with a tribal premise denying national citizenship because they find her freedom of speech disagreeing with their "traditions" to be "annoying".

      The broader significance here is how conservatives on this forum so stridently support that as a model for the mentality and policy they want to impose on this country.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago
        The broader significance here is the broad claim that citizenship is a right, without any evidence from Ayn Rand's writings to support such a claim.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
          Citizenship is not a principle of philosophy at all. The way people are properly treated is governed by philosophic principles. Laws for attaining citizenship by specified procedures are already in place for those becoming permanent residents in another country for obvious reasons. Ayn Rand became a citizen because she supported that.

          The broader significance to this case is the mentality of the people who support what happened to that woman in Switzerland and want to impose it here as a "model", based on the same oppressive tribalist premise and whatever their "tradition" is as self-justifying. It is thoroughly incompatible with Objectivism on several grounds.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago
            Ayn Rand became a citizen because the law permitted it and because it was in her self-interest to do so. She never said or implied that it was the government’s responsibility to provide her with a path to citizenship. The broader significance of this case is the attempt to stretch the concept of individual rights beyond its proper boundaries.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
              Ayn Rand recognized that attaining citizenship by a permanent resident who supports the country is entirely proper as a matter of principle under laws properly relating the people to the government as part of the legal structure of the nation. She did it on principle because she loved the country and wanted to fully participate, as she had a right to do, not out of pragmatism. The right to immigrate and become a citizen under objective standards is not "stretching" individual rights. The procedures for becoming a citizen are a civil right properly formulated in law in support of the rights of the individual. Under the tribalist premise illustrated by the Swiss case, the logical consequences for Ayn Rand would have been not only being barred from citizenship but returned to the Gulag.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                No, the logical consequence would have been delay or denial of citizenship, nothing more. The Swiss woman's neighbors made no attempt to deport her. Your assertion that citizenship is a civil right does not make it so.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                  That is a concrete-bound evasion of the tribalist premise and it's full meaning. Its consequences do not stop at "citizenship", as the conservative anti-immigration agenda already illustrates, leaping to embrace the "traditionalist" tribalism as a "model" to control people. If a clique acting on the primacy of "annoyance" over someone speaking out as a challenge its "traditions" will "vote" to oppress someone applying for citizenship then it will sooner or later invoke the same false fundamental premise to oppress anyone for anything to the extent they can get away with it.

                  Philosophical premises matter. A-philosophical libertarians see only neighbors who didn't get that far. Don't be concrete bound. You know better than that. During the 1930s people were already treated worse than denial of citizenship. Ayn Rand would have been killed for expressing her views in Soviet Russia and would not have fared much better here if people could be legally oppressed for being "annoying" with views that challenged the prevailing "tradition" of a pack of subjectivist collectivists.

                  Procedures for attaining citizenship are already in law as a civil right. You want them to be violated by arbitrarily ignoring them "for any reason or no reason".
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                    Procedures for attaining citizenship are already in law. This does not make their most favorable outcome a “civil right.” The Swiss townspeople did not “ignore” the procedures, they implemented them. And it is not in the spirit of Objectivism to morally condemn a group of people because they “might” violate someone’s rights in the future, based on the fact that a different group of people did so in the past.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 5 months, 4 weeks ago
    If citizenship has value, then by what right, or ethics, or values, or by what part of a
    Francisco speech should it be denied? (by an Objectivist)

    I posted earlier to say that I find that type of person really annoying just as the locals did,
    but that hardly qualifies for denying something presumably important such as citizenship.

    If the state allows driving only with a driving license, then by what philosophy
    are annoying people denied that license, even if they otherwise qualify, and
    even if a majority vote has given the state that right?
    I reckon, under an Objectivist constitution, passing a driving test could be a requirement
    for a driving license, but, a rule on not-being annoying could not have effect.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago in reply to this comment.
    A is A. Government action is government action. Government non-action is its opposite, the absence of government action. Different rules apply, in principle and in practice. Governments may not act in a manner that violates individual rights. Governments may not refuse to act if such inaction violates their duty to protect the rights of their citizens, or their limited duty to protect the lives and property of legal residents of their territory. Under objective law, governments may properly set up mechanisms for citizens to vote on matters that do not violate individual rights. Citizenship is not an individual right. Therefore, if permitted by law, Swiss citizens may legitimately vote on whether to grant citizenship to a non-citizen, regardless of whether or not you or anyone else agrees with the voters’ values or motives.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
      This repetition of a rambling sequence of non sequiturs, equivocations and floating abstractions trying to rationalize the tribalism looks like something out of the Medieval Scholastics trying to deduce the number of angels on the head of a pin. All of it has already been refuted. It is not an "Objectivist argument". Calling such an excursion "A is A" as an Objectivist slogan is a parody of logical thought, as it is often exploited by those attacking Ayn Rand for a supposedly meaningless "A is A".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago
        My post above is a series of clearly stated logical statements in support of my point of view. Show me any place where it attempts to “rationalize tribalism”. And show me where it contains any equivocations, non sequiturs and floating abstractions.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
          No. It is has been explained to you many times. But no explanation is ever enough for the endless pattern of ever expanding, superficial, wandering rationalizations and sophistry evading the central fact that is staring you in the face but which you will not directly address: a clique oppressing someone under law by the standard that her speaking out contrary to "tradition" "annoys" them. The rationalizations are not "Objectivist argument".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago
            I have addressed what you consider to be the “central fact” several times. I have given reasons why I don’t consider the Swiss townspeople’s actions to be “oppression”, a violation of her rights. It is likely that some of the townspeople have a “tribalist” mentality and some don’t. The 30% vote in the woman’s favor appears to support this view. The mentality of the townspeople and the question of whether they violated the woman’s actual rights are two separate issues. Both issues are relevant to your “central point”.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 6 months ago
    Switzerland- people have enough to eat, medical care is easy, water is safe to drink, federal and regional
    governments are not swamped in debt, the streets are clean and all the rest of it.
    Wait a mo- there are annoying people complaining about cows forced to wear heavy bells.
    How do we here in the Gulch respond to this (micro) catastroscope?

    Here in Australia there are what we call the serial whingers, it is a national sport.
    So I was pleased to see the Swiss suitably putting one down.
    Interesting tho' how so many responses are from the conservative side, almost only ewv refers to
    Objectivist principles. This case appears to be one where the problem is due to 'the sanction of the
    victim', we allow ourselves to be unduly bothered by trivia.
    First world problems.

    To get a different kind of feel in the gut, not a belly laugh but sickening retch, look at-
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articl...
    what_i_learned_in_peace_corps_in_africa_trump_is_right.html
    (all one line)
    Senegal. Africa. Peace Corps. Jan 1 2018.
    and the paper-
    http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/14...
    'Why Foreign Aid Fails'
    which is referenced in the above.
    The topic goes to the core of what this site is about, it should have its own thread.

    Not by me today anyway, it is Sunday, places to go, people see, cans to demolish... See you later.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CBJ 6 months ago
      “Interesting tho' how so many responses are from the conservative side, almost only ewv refers to Objectivist principles.” I don’t know if you included me in that group, but I was responding from the Objectivist side, not the “conservative” side. I don’t see that any Objectivist principles were being violated by the initial refusal to grant her citizenship. Which Objectivist principle states that citizenship is a natural right? Which Objectivist principle states that a government has a positive duty to confer citizenship upon any immigrant? Which Objectivist principle states that existing citizens have no right to establish criteria for others seeking to become citizens? Which Objectivist principle states that denying a person citizenship is an initiation of force? I’m all ears.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 6 months ago
        Rationalizations for the arbitrary in government and trying to defend their tribalist "traditions" challenged in freedom of speech as a criterion are not "from the Objectivist side".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago
          Interesting non-answer to all of my questions above. These questions regarding the relationship between citizenship and rights (as defined by Objectivism) are certainly from the Objectivist side.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
            You don't have "questions". Your pseudo quetions have been a-philosophical libertarian rationalizations that have all been answered. You have been trying to rationalize arbitrary government decisions "for any reason or no reason" in defense of this example of the tribalist mentality denying a person citizenship on the grounds that a small clique finds freedom of speech contrary to their "traditions" to be "annoying". There is no excuse for that and anyone can see that it is not Objectivist.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago
              "Anyone can see" is certainly airtight logic. Please show how my questions above are "pseudo questions." A definition of "pseudo questions", differentiating them from real questions, would also be helpful.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                Your posts are non-responsive and evasive. You cannot defend the oppression of the Swiss woman who was denied citizenship because a clique of tribalists were "annoyed" at her exercising freedom of speech to challenge their "traditions". Demanding that someone show you 'here now initiation of force' without regard to conceptual understanding is an evasive pseudo-question. There is no defense for the "traditionalist" actions reported in the article.

                Yes, anyone who knows anything about Ayn Rand can see that "rationalizing arbitrary government decisions 'for any reason or no reason' in defense of this example of the tribalist mentality denying a person citizenship on the grounds that a small clique finds freedom of speech contrary to their 'traditions' to be 'annoying'" is not an Objectivist argument.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                  Assertions are not logical arguments. You have not demonstrated that the now-Swiss woman was oppressed. "Anyone can see" is not a useful way to promote or defend Objectivist principles. And since we both have a conceptual understanding of the issues involved in this topic, my question "Which Objectivist principle states that denying a person citizenship is an initiation of force?" is a real question and not a pseudo-question (whatever that means).
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                    Anyone can read the article to understand what they were doing to her and how she was oppressed. If citizenship made no important difference there would not have been a controversy.

                    "Anyone can see" the clash between what they did and Ayn Rand's principles emphasizes the difference between you and anyone else reading this on this forum who has any understanding of Ayn Rand. In repeatedly fixating on the common phrase "anyone can see" while ignoring the context you keep leaving out what it is that is contrary to Ayn Rand that we see while you pretend that nothing has been said other than a meaningless "anyone can see" regardless of context.

                    You keep leaving out the central point of what it is that is contrary to Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and individualism: "rationalizing arbitrary government decisions 'for any reason or no reason' in defense of this example of the tribalist mentality denying a person citizenship on the grounds that a small clique finds freedom of speech contrary to their 'traditions' to be 'annoying'".

                    Observing that clash is not to "defend Objectivist principles" against your assertions. It presupposes very basic knowledge. If you don't understand the clash, it is too late to go back to the beginning and explain the whole philosophy to you. The clash involves much more than politics or a specific 'here now government act'.

                    Your repetitious "question" about "initiation of force" -- which has already been addressed -- is a pseudo-question because it is anti-conceptual. It is an attempt to deflect and reduce the discussion to the standards of libertarian psychology, evading the topic. Everything about government concerns force, directly or indirectly. Reducing everything to "thump, here now initiation of force" at the perceptual level is not a requirement or possible. We have concepts to achieve understanding beyond the perceptual level, including the entire hierarchical and interconnected actions of government and their consequences. Every single event is not reduced to an immediate instance of physical force. A-philosophical libertarians who treat "initiation of force" as a floating abstraction reifying a percept as the basis of everything are missing that.

                    You do not "have a conceptual understanding of the issues involved in this topic". Those who understand the original article and the significance of the outcome to the woman abused by the tribalists know very well that it was an atrocious abuse of government power through mob action and the horribly tribalist mentality of "traditionalist" mental stagnation employed as the basic standard that was behind it.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  5 months, 4 weeks ago
                      Your hyperbole of "atrocious abuse, mob action and horribly tribalist mental stagnation" .Shows your temperament. We are social animals. We have evolved to depend on our tribes, literally, for our safety and survival. As Jane Howard, biographer of anthropologist Margaret Mead, put it “Call it a clan, call it a network, call it a tribe, call it a family: Whatever you call it, whoever you are, you need one.” We may not be aware at the conscious level of the influence tribalism has on us, but then, most of human cognition happens below the radar of consciousness, and is driven not so much by the goal of getting good grades or winning Nobel Prizes as it is, first, to survive. Small wonder that this ultimate imperative dominates so much of how we behave, how we think and act, and how we treat each other. And it’s hardly surprising that the more unsettled and uncertain we feel and the less we feel we have control over how things are going - feelings that make us feel threatened - the more we circle the wagons and fiercely fight for tribal success, looking to the tribe to keep us safe.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                      Re: “Every single event is not reduced to an immediate instance of physical force.” I never said it was. My question was "Which Objectivist principle states that denying a person citizenship is an initiation of force?" It’s a straightforward question that deserves an answer. If the answer is complex, fine, but any such answer should follow a rigorous path of logical statements, and should apply, in principle, to other comparable situations. The fact that, in this instance, a group of Swiss voters do not share Ayn Rand’s values is irrelevant to that question.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                        The fact that the Swiss tribalists are morally wrong, along with conservatives who want to impose it as a "model" for this country, are not irrelevant. The central point of the article staring everyone in the face contradicts Objectivism whether or not you are ever able to figure out how to conceptualize where it goes wrong in various tangential excursions. Nothing else is required, but all of the relevant principles have already been explained to you. You are rationalizing as you evade the central topic.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                          What “central topic”? The article is descriptive and lays out the situation without drawing any moral conclusions whatsoever. Whether citizenship is a right is just as “central” a topic as the alleged “tribalism” of the voters. And by the way, the vote was 144 to 62, hardly indicative of a tight-knit group of “tribalists” marching in lockstep.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                            The central topic is the fact that a small town voted to deny a woman national citizenship because they were "annoyed" at her for speaking contrary to their "tradition". That is the fundamental philosophical issue and the theme of the article and this thread.

                            The headline of the article is "Swiss town denies passport to Dutch vegan because she is ‘too annoying’". The headline of this thread is "Swiss town denies women citizenship because She is Annoying". That is what we are discussing, except for you who will not address the motives and actions described and which obviously contradict individualism.

                            The number of people voting is not relevant to what they did and why. It is another tangent to avoid confronting the contradiction between the tribal mentality and individualism.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 4 weeks ago
                              There’s nothing to “confront”. Obviously most of these Swiss townspeople are not individualists. The same is true of most people in the world and most Americans. However, lumping them all in a category you call “tribalists” oversimplifies the issue. About 30% of the Swiss townspeople supported the woman. Those that refused to support her did not attempt to deport her or prevent her from speaking. There was no violation of her actual rights, only the refusal to grant her a legal status to which she was not automatically entitled.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 6 months ago
      The significance is not the micro catastrophe (except to the victim) but rather the "tradition" tribalist mentality, whose scope is much larger. In particular it is throughout conservative anti-immigration.

      As for Trump's remark on African shole countries (is that like the Shihara Desert?) -- that is exactly what they are. Why does anyone think their residents are so desperate to get out if they have any ambition for their own lives at all? Their "foreign aid" is only welfare statism further entrenching their national mentality while doing nothing to improve the ideas of the people there. "The solution is not to bring Africans here" is true about the problem of sholeness there in Africa, but it is a solution for any individual who wants to make something of his life (as opposed to seeking better welfare here)..
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 months ago
    Local towns denying citizenship for holding independent ideas not following "tradition", right down to the level of cow bells, is oppressive collectivist conservativism. Under that standard no individualist, especially an Objectivist, could ever become a citizen.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 4 weeks ago
      There's no difference between this example and being allowed to stay in Atlantis. Why was Dagny told she had to leave? Because she hadn't taken on the Oath - she hadn't accepted the cultural norms of the society living in the Gulch. She didn't (at that time) want to become a part of their culture and their association of her own free will and choice.

      Your argument is simply that you don't like the culture of the Swiss - not that it violates some Objectivist rule. Nations are the epitome of Associations and to respect the right of Association is to respect the rules under which that Association chooses to operate - whether you like them or not. Why? Because you can always choose another Association - or create one yourself.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
        The Valley in Atlas Shrugged was private property. The people in it were there by invitation of the owner. You have also misrepresented why Dagny did not stay in the Valley.

        The Valley was not a country. A nation is not a private association and unlike theocracy may not arbitrarily impose rules. You have no understanding of and are a crude collectivist antagonist to Ayn Rand's philosophy of individualism.

        My opposition to the Swiss tribe imposing it's "traditions" punishing freedom of speech are not "just don't like their culture" because of "some Objectivist rule". You are ignorant of Ayn Rand and her philosophy that you are so hostile to and you don't understand and misrepresent what you read here. This is not a religious conservative forum.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 4 weeks ago
          "The people in it were there by invitation of the owner."

          Which is precisely what a nation is. Citizenship is a notation of ownership, rights, duties, and obligations.

          And no, I didn't at all misrepresent why Dagny was told she couldn't stay. Galt made it very clear that until she was willing to say the Oath and live by it, she was there as a temporary guest but not a community member. That was the prime condition of membership in the Gulch. She had to agree to live by a moral code that everyone in the valley shared and had committed to - had associated with.

          "You have no understanding of and are a crude collectivist antagonist..."

          Blah, blah, blah. Flagged for ridiculous ad hominem and marked down. You can't offer a better argument, just your disagreement.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 months, 4 weeks ago
            The people invited to the private Valley by the owner were not "precisely what a nation" is. They were not a nation at all. Your repetition of arbitrary assertions are circular. Private property and a nation are different concepts. You may not treat this country as an organization you control. A nation is not a "notation" of anything, let alone a hodge podge of "ownership, rights, duties and obligations". You have no right to impose your desired conservative duties and obligations for your religious conservative agenda on anyone. You have no understanding of what a free country is, let alone Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and individualism.

            You did not even understand the plot in the novel. Dagny did not leave the Valley because "she hadn't accepted the cultural norms of the society living in the Gulch". It was not about conservative rhetoric of "cultural norms". She fully accepted and lived their philosophy, which is why she was invited and wanted there, but had to leave because she could not abandon her fight for her values in the outer world. You have misrepresented the novel as you try to twist it into a confirmation of your own conservative ideology. The novel and the story of the Valley are not a confirmation of your conservative anti-immigration agenda.

            You are in fact antagonistic to Ayn Rand and you do not understand her ideas, as you demonstrate repeatedly. You admitted that you won't read the non-fiction because you find it "boring", while you announce that Islam is a "beautiful religion" that you can't immerse yourself in only because you "can only serve one Master".

            That is not "blah blah blah ridiculous ad hominem". It is your own record here. You don't know what "ad hominem" means either. You try to dismiss the ideas you reject but do not understand or want to understand as meaningless "blah blah blah". That does not belong here.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 4 weeks ago
              You claim appeal to authority from Rand yet you can't cite a single thing she said that supports your position. I cite a prime example from right out of Atlas Shrugged and you claim that somehow I'm misinterpreting it. No, I wasn't. Dagny was told point blank by Galt that she couldn't stay until she was willing to recite the Oath and mean it. She couldn't at that time and admitted it. That's culture and commitment to association enforced by the hero of the book: John Galt himself. Dagny was at least honest enough to admit that she wasn't ready to be a member of the community - to accept the values and standards that came with the Gulch. Why didn't Galt just throw open the doors of the valley to anyone and everyone? Again, because he wanted only like-minded people. He wanted a community with a specific culture and homogeneous set of values. And you want to tell me that's not an association? Only a person who divorced himself from reality would claim any such.

              That desire to build up communities of their own was what prompted so many groups to leave Old Europe and travel to the New World. Take the American Revolution - was that not a revolt against the culture of the monarchy and the foundation of a new nation built on individual rights - a specific culture? Yes, it was. Why do you think the Founding Fathers ensconced Association as one of the prime Rights of Citizens of the United States? It was because they, too, wanted to build and preserve not just a community, but a nation with a core set of values including hard work, individuality, respect for law, respect for conscience, and the freedom to associate with those of like mind.

              Here's a news flash: if you can't cite Rand to support your ideas, you know less of her than you think. If you can't support your ideas with anything more than repeated assertions of your own opinions and diatribes full of false statements, innuendo, and personal attacks on others (ad hominem), it's because it's an idea with no logical foundation or support! It's a losing argument - just like this one.

              And I never said Islam is a beautiful religion. Quite the contrary, I find it abhorrent and deviant, denying human rights and antithetical to Constitutional government. Your attribution to me of things I have never said is just more of your personal crusade - or should I say jihad - with all the dishonesty and vitriol that comes from a person enslaved to hatred. Again, flagged and sent to the Admin.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  6 months ago
      The Swiss will give your money "a home" but not you.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 6 months ago
        From what I have read the IRS has so interfered with and intimidated Swiss banking over the last several years that Swiss banks have imposed restrictions on American money, too. They no longer want you to have a Swiss account as a home for your money.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  6 months ago
          Banking in Switzerland is regulated by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA), which derives its authority from a series of federal statutes. The country's tradition of bank secrecy, which dates to the Middle Ages, was first codified in the Federal Act on Banks and Savings Banks, colloquially known as the Banking Law of 1934. The regime of bank secrecy that Swiss banks are famous for came under pressure in the wake of the UBS tax evasion scandal and the 1934 banking law was amended in 2009 to limit tax evasion by non-Swiss bank clients.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 6 months ago
            The impact of regulations is broader than Swiss law because the banks have overseas branches and foreign customers. That is how the IRS harassed and intimidated them. Swiss privacy laws could not stop the US government from crushing them, with threats of more to come. One result was Swiss bank policies excluding or discouraging American investors.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo