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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

Not me, but I could probably tell you who it was. To me, this is a discussion of old fashioned American values! :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

Your post is non responsive. The logic you missed is not "name calling". Name are for identification.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

“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.

"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.

Establishing criteria for citizenship does not mean it is arbitrary. Rejecting people for "tradition" is irrational tribalism, not Objectivism.

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.

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.