Swiss town denies women citizenship because She is Annoying

Posted by Dobrien 7 years, 5 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.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
    • CBJ replied 7 years, 5 months ago
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo