Swiss town denies women citizenship because She is Annoying
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.
I selected humor as a category because of the smile on my face from this story.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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?
"Don't bother to examine a folly. Ask yourself only what it accomplishes."
"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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Load more comments...