Harry Binswanger on Open Immigration


Roger Bissell

Recommended Posts

Wolf seems to be arguing for eminent domain.

It would be difficult for anyone to enjoy private property without roads, community water pipes, sewerage, electric utilities.

One starts out with basic political theory then throws in Hamlet and Horatio. The other way around opens the zoo's doors and all the animals run out.

--Brant

and you end up with no theory either; you're running after the animals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One starts out with basic political theory then throws in Hamlet and Horatio. The other way around opens the zoo's doors and all the animals run out.

--Brant

and you end up with no theory either; you're running after the animals

Sorry. I can't decode what you meant. Can we stick to customary terms with obvious definitions?

"If roads are needed, communities have local bankers, landlords, and employers to determine and pay for local development. Ditto schools and hospitals. Every example of American philanthropy was an Andrew Carnegie or Sam Walton "rags-to-riches" story. My proposal is very simple. Do not let these men (or anyone else) compel obedience via legislation. Make the law of society de jure anarchy and promulgate the idea that some will govern more than others, not by virtue of piecrust campaign promises and balloon drops at a party meeting, but as a consequence of diligence, effort, savings, and sobriety." [Laissez Faire Law, p.40]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One starts out with basic political theory then throws in Hamlet and Horatio. The other way around opens the zoo's doors and all the animals run out.

--Brant

and you end up with no theory either; you're running after the animals

Sorry. I can't decode what you meant. Can we stick to customary terms with obvious definitions?

"If roads are needed, communities have local bankers, landlords, and employers to determine and pay for local development. Ditto schools and hospitals. Every example of American philanthropy was an Andrew Carnegie or Sam Walton "rags-to-riches" story. My proposal is very simple. Do not let these men (or anyone else) compel obedience via legislation. Make the law of society de jure anarchy and promulgate the idea that some will govern more than others, not by virtue of piecrust campaign promises and balloon drops at a party meeting, but as a consequence of diligence, effort, savings, and sobriety." [Laissez Faire Law, p.40]

This seems a backdoor approach--or backing in approach--to an argument for anarchy. Keep the law, get rid of government? By "law" I mean law generally. By "government" I mean government force monopoly a la Rand. Underneath it all seems a better view of people as people than I've experienced, especially in how they use their brains department and their consequent deportment (in small communities?).

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anarchocapitalism?

Great idea! Gang warfare? Check

Monopolies based truly on who has the best weaponry?

Check.

Anarchy is about the dumbest anti mind ideology ever dreamed up.

It has absolutely no provisions for protection against fraud, coercion, theft or initiation of force.

A might is right system if ever there was one.

Now a minarchist government that steers us as close as possible TO anarchy and is there ONLY to enforce the protection of individuals against the "big 4 no no's" on the other hand would be ideal.

Heck you wouldn't even really need elections if certain criteria were met!

Is the president good at his job?

Is he efficient?

Is he not yet bored out of his skull?

Is he attempting to steer the boat towards forced association again? No? Ok might as well let him carry on for another 4 years so productive people can also carry on doing what they do best.

Contrary to what anarchists might wish for government IS needed to protect us from rape, murder, assault, theft AND the threats from foreign powers.

Oh.. And to keep "Dirty canadian oil out of the hands of other productive people that might actually have a use for it!!" Couldn't have people making up their own minds after all whether they want something that is of value to them or not right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep the law, get rid of government? By "law" I mean law generally. By "government" I mean government force monopoly a la Rand. Underneath it all seems a better view of people as people than I've experienced, especially in how they use their brains department and their consequent deportment (in small communities?).

 

--Brant

 

 

Considering how things have progressed in government force monopoly, use of brains and deportment by Congress, the Executive and a politicized Judiciary, are you satisfied with a scheme devised 200 years ago and modified by Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Obama?

 

Forget right and wrong. Just asking if you're happy with the sovereign state nowadays.

 

obamacare.jpg       GAY+FLAG.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unmodifying it and restoring it as it was written would not be a bad idea.. Just saying.

You can't get there from here. Too many cooks in the kitchen with completely different ideas with hardly any idea of the Lockean tradition.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep the law, get rid of government? By "law" I mean law generally. By "government" I mean government force monopoly a la Rand. Underneath it all seems a better view of people as people than I've experienced, especially in how they use their brains department and their consequent deportment (in small communities?).

--Brant

Considering how things have progressed in government force monopoly, use of brains and deportment by Congress, the Executive and a politicized Judiciary, are you satisfied with a scheme devised 200 years ago and modified by Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Obama?

Forget right and wrong. Just asking if you're happy with the sovereign state nowadays.

obamacare.jpgGAY+FLAG.jpg

I assume your questions are rhetorical and not an insult.

Your homophobia is noted. So is your prior rationalizing it away as something else.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume your questions are rhetorical and not an insult.

Your homophobia is noted. So is your prior rationalizing it away as something else.

Not trying to insult you, nor asked rhetorically. It's a problem to be faced dispassionately. I'm not a mind reader, and I couldn't make head or tail of your comment about Hamlet and animals escaping from a zoo. Are you saying we should keep American democracy as it stands?

Secondly, a "phobia" is an unreasoning fear, and using it glibly amounts to a smear that equates perverts with nursing mothers.

Heinlein and Churchill used rational arguments to buttress the innate paternal impulse to cherish and defend the family. Good men see the joy of life in every child and every mom, with a charity and happy exception that is seldom extended to grown men, our competitors and rivals in life. I trust that my remarks are plain enough although obviously out of step with contemporary indifference that masquerades as unearned universal love and respect for all, regardless of age, sexual orientation, or parenthood.

The politically correct mantra of good vibes for all is completely out of phase with the chivalry of Churchill and Heinlein. It is my unpleasant duty to emphasize that fact and direct your attention to it. "Women and children first" is negated by inclusion of childless adult homosexuals and footloose metrosexuals among the group of precious innocents that our soldiers and marines are dying to defend.

I am not in sympathy with or supportive of revealed religion or straight-laced conservatism. I have no particular complaint about the modern world or its flirtation with barren amusements. What is at issue rather is the armed defense of innocent liberty, particularly the welfare of women and children secured by men in uniform.

"Flag, Faith and Family Values" (2005) http://freeliberal.com/archives/001256.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a vision of your nation that is worth aiming for once again.

But the principle has been overtaken by reality, seemingly - in between what was, and what will come again - seems Binswanger is out of touch with now.

This is what Binswanger said a few months ago on Forbes.com:

Immigrants are a natural constituency for the Republican Party. Yes, the Republican Party–because foreigners come here to participate in the American dream. It takes independence and courage to leave the familiar hearth and home and venture to a new land. Republicans, not the “You didn’t build that” Democrats, have at least some appreciation for the American can-do spirit and the self-made man.

Where does Binswanger get his ideas on the values that immigrants hold? I've read that Hispanics have a negative opinion to the concept "capitalism" and 2/3 support affirmative action.

-NP

Neil, He very well describes the immigrant friends I mentioned, but evidently he is dreaming, regarding the majority of immigrants, presently. I think it's a matter of confusing the order of causality: the USA's predominant independent spirit and morality is what brought about the noble ideal for repressed emigrants who sought that freedom. Not the reverse. One can't however recover that individualist morality by way of a noble ideal - and open immigration policies. If there is anything Binswanger as a prominent O'ist should be aware of, it's that no rationalistic and rationalized ideal is worth self-sacrificing for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is anything Binswanger as a prominent O'ist should be aware of, it's that no rationalistic and rationalized ideal is worth self-sacrificing for.

And the other realization that he needs to become aware of, is, that he is an idiot on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, "actual liberty" is all about Wolf's "freedom to travel" anywhere he wishes and the "right" to use others' property against their will

Don't be such a damn dope. You act like you've never heard of a road or a navigable river.

Pup, is public ownership of roads, rivers, etc., the only option that you can conceive of? You remind me of Soviet citizens who could not comprehend where food would come from if the government wasn't in charge of its production.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolf seems to be arguing for eminent domain.

It would be difficult for anyone to enjoy private property without roads, community water pipes, sewerage, electric utilities.

Seriously, Pup?!! This moment, right now, is the first time you've ever been exposed to the concept of private ownership of roads, water and sewerage, utilities, etc.?!!!

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Jonathan.

You don't get a vote.

Pup, I think that you should consider signing up over at http://forum.objectivismonline.com/

It's got a lot of over-sensitive, overly self-important kids who, like you, aren't very intellectually mature yet or good at dealing with criticism of their ideas. You should hang out there for a while, and pose and preen and refuse to talk to certain people to your heart's content. Get it out of your system. Then, once you decide to get serious and learn to stop peeing like a pup, you can come back here and run with us big dogs.

Good luck!

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume your questions are rhetorical and not an insult.

Your homophobia is noted. So is your prior rationalizing it away as something else.

Not trying to insult you, nor asked rhetorically. It's a problem to be faced dispassionately. I'm not a mind reader, and I couldn't make head or tail of your comment about Hamlet and animals escaping from a zoo. Are you saying we should keep American democracy as it stands?

Secondly, a "phobia" is an unreasoning fear, and using it glibly amounts to a smear that equates perverts with nursing mothers.

Heinlein and Churchill used rational arguments to buttress the innate paternal impulse to cherish and defend the family. Good men see the joy of life in every child and every mom, with a charity and happy exception that is seldom extended to grown men, our competitors and rivals in life. I trust that my remarks are plain enough although obviously out of step with contemporary indifference that masquerades as unearned universal love and respect for all, regardless of age, sexual orientation, or parenthood.

The politically correct mantra of good vibes for all is completely out of phase with the chivalry of Churchill and Heinlein. It is my unpleasant duty to emphasize that fact and direct your attention to it. "Women and children first" is negated by inclusion of childless adult homosexuals and footloose metrosexuals among the group of precious innocents that our soldiers and marines are dying to defend.

I am not in sympathy with or supportive of revealed religion or straight-laced conservatism. I have no particular complaint about the modern world or its flirtation with barren amusements. What is at issue rather is the armed defense of innocent liberty, particularly the welfare of women and children secured by men in uniform.

"Flag, Faith and Family Values" (2005) http://freeliberal.com/archives/001256.php

You didn't ask me to make sense of "Hamlet," so I let it go. You told me too.

I think homosexuals in our armed forces are about as common as in civilian life, especially among one-term enlistees. 30 years ago I was told that about 1/3 the enlisted men in the air force were. I didn't believe it, but that branch of service is probably most tolerant of them. In my experience in the army in the 1960s there wasn't the slightest intimation from anybody about that, but back then the issue was culturally buried. Some members of my Special Forces Training Group (1965) spoke of going up to Raleigh and "rolling" queers when they left their bars. (I think most of those guys failed training.)

The impression I've gotten from you is that since gays--publicly--are for left-wing this or left-wing that you come down on them generally which sweeps them all up into an agenda-driven bunch. One could say the same about members of other groups, not that I think you do, but we can focus on and celebrate individualism or let that be obscured with the other focus. This has nothing to do with PC, which I can't stand. Since you are now animadverting on "perverts" I'm not backing off "phobia" except maybe it's without "fear" or maybe you could suggest a better appellation. "Perverts" and "nursing mothers" are human beings. How's that for equivalence? The only de-equivalencing factor I can imagine is a moral one visited on all "perverts," which is collectivist at the core. The nursing mother needs a husband and the pervert needs a partner or they're both fucked. That's more equivalence for you.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Perverts" and "nursing mothers" are human beings. How's that for equivalence? The only de-equivalencing factor I can imagine is a moral one visited on all "perverts," which is collectivist at the core.

 

I don't doubt -- have never doubted -- that you're an honorable man. I always listen closely to what you think or choose to say. This time we have different understandings of collectivism. I think also that equivalence (or moral leveling) of perverts and nursing mothers fails, just as "person" fails to distinguish killer and victim, thief from owner, general over cannonfodder. Personhood is only useful in the colorblind doctrine of common law standing to sue or be sued, prosecute or defend. Even so, the character of a witness or defendant matters. Due process and fair trial does not automatically exonerate the culpable. Guilt and negligence are vital questions, presumption of innocence notwithstanding.

 

Privately I extend presumption of moral innocence to nursing mothers and children, none at all to perverts, killers, thieves, or generals.

 

What others do is their business. But I think it's important to size people up, take a dim view of flamboyant behavior that revels in leering debauchery and solipsism. Disciplined employment and entrepreneurship is fine. Swaggering, unearned privilege is a socialist red flag.

 

Doesn't change anything if I'm "outvoted" by a thumping majority of smiling Democrats.

Tell me you can't see the difference.

Webster Groves, population 23,000, is a "pretty town of old elms and deep porches" and a "mix of $90,000 cottages and $750,000 homes, young marrieds and old-line families and transient middle managers assigned to a stint in the St. Louis office who are looking for a comfortable place to settle and keep their kids on the track toward prosperity." [Wikipedia, quoting Time Magazine]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Perverts" and "nursing mothers" are human beings. How's that for equivalence? The only de-equivalencing factor I can imagine is a moral one visited on all "perverts," which is collectivist at the core.

I don't doubt -- have never doubted -- that you're an honorable man. I always listen closely to what you think or choose to say. This time we have different understandings of collectivism. I think also that equivalence (or moral leveling) of perverts and nursing mothers fails, just as "person" fails to distinguish killer and victim, thief from owner, general over cannonfodder. Personhood is only useful in the colorblind doctrine of common law standing to sue or be sued, prosecute or defend. Even so, the character of a witness or defendant matters. Due process and fair trial does not automatically exonerate the culpable. Guilt and innocence are vital questions, presumption of innocence notwithstanding.

Privately I extend presumption of moral innocence to nursing mothers and children, none at all to perverts, killers, thieves, or generals.

What others do is their business. But I think it's important to size people up, take a dim view of flamboyant behavior that revels in leering debauchery and vanity. Disciplined employment and entrepreneurship is fine. Swaggering, unearned privilege is a socialist red flag.

Doesn't change anything if I'm "outvoted" by a thumping majority of smiling politicians.

Tell me you can't see the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Personhood is only useful in the colorblind doctrine of common law standing to sue or be sued, prosecute or defend. Even so, the character of a witness or defendant matters."

So in your eyes what you are implying is that the testimony of a homosexual is somehow less relevant or somehow suspect as to its integrity because that person is a homosexual?

Seems much in line with sharia law in that a woman's testimony only counts as having 1/4 weight as that of a man.

What's next? Are you going to somehow validate the "Twinkie Defence?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Perverts" and "nursing mothers" are human beings. How's that for equivalence? The only de-equivalencing factor I can imagine is a moral one visited on all "perverts," which is collectivist at the core.

I don't doubt -- have never doubted -- that you're an honorable man. I always listen closely to what you think or choose to say. This time we have different understandings of collectivism. I think also that equivalence (or moral leveling) of perverts and nursing mothers fails, just as "person" fails to distinguish killer and victim, thief from owner, general over cannonfodder. Personhood is only useful in the colorblind doctrine of common law standing to sue or be sued, prosecute or defend. Even so, the character of a witness or defendant matters. Due process and fair trial does not automatically exonerate the culpable. Guilt and negligence are vital questions, presumption of innocence notwithstanding.

Privately I extend presumption of moral innocence to nursing mothers and children, none at all to perverts, killers, thieves, or generals.

What others do is their business. But I think it's important to size people up, take a dim view of flamboyant behavior that revels in leering debauchery and solipsism. Disciplined employment and entrepreneurship is fine. Swaggering, unearned privilege is a socialist red flag.

Doesn't change anything if I'm "outvoted" by a thumping majority of smiling Democrats.

Tell me you can't see the difference.

Webster Groves, population 23,000, is a "pretty town of old elms and deep porches" and a "mix of $90,000 cottages and $750,000 homes, young marrieds and old-line families and transient middle managers assigned to a stint in the St. Louis office who are looking for a comfortable place to settle and keep their kids on the track toward prosperity." [Wikipedia, quoting Time Magazine]

Assuming for a moment for the sake of argument the first photo (I don't know why the quote feature doesn't bring the photographs) is garbage persons and the second is wonderful persons, do we assume there are/were no heterosexual serial killers by your lights?

I've seen in photos what I think are disgusting public deportments by homosexuals--not several good looking young guys in bathing suits as you show here above (ever been to the beach? [that's rhetorical])--but why no heterosexual sheeted mobs lynching a darkie?

I, btw, am a killer. Cambodia, 1966. Vietnam? I only tried. Maybe yes, maybe no. I'll never know. I also ran medical patrols. I got a medal for being a warrior and another for being a medic. Nothing to brag about either way. Just pointing out I was a killer-medic. The only one--SF type--recognized back then under the Geneva Convention as a combatant combat medic. Try to groak that. I can't, but that's what I was. It simply switches back and forth in my mind but I can't combine. I'm still capable--each way. Women and children get behind me. So will the gun control nuts if the shit hits the fan. In the meantime, need some save-your-life first aid?

I'm basically heterosexual--my birthright anyway--but I did plow a man up the ass over 30 years ago, the only time I ever did that. No joy. Too much sense of my dick moving in its skin, not in his ass. That was being a pervert, I suppose, but I didn't rape him. Is heterosexual rape not perversion? If not rape is it perversion if a man pops his wife in the ass? If a man sucks a dick is that perversion? A woman? If a woman has oral sex with a woman is that perversion? If a man goes down that way on a woman is that perversion? You cannot tell me one thing a man does to a woman he can't do to a man all else being equal sans that pussy. Do you agree with Ayn Rand who said--about homosexuality (FHF)--that, "If you want my opinion, I think it's disgusting!"? My opinion is that a lot of homophobia is displaced closed bedroom door heterosexual heterophobic people afraid of all the disgusting heterosexual things coming home to them so the queers get turned into their whipping boys. They're the disgustings doing the disgustings! (Queers pull off the covers, queers open the bedroom doors.) This is a general statement, not necessarily applicable to any particular homophobe, a lot of whom are also either repressed homosexuals or are terrified occassional homosexual feelings means they are queer--they may even be "innocent." People are different. People are strange. People are complex. As for you, I no longer think you're a homophobe. I think you are trapped in your basic cultural suppositions wrapped up in complex chains of thought. I've got some of such a problem. I'm quite uncomfortable seeing two men kiss in public in a way I'm not with a man and a woman doing the same and I had an almost 18 year relationship with a man--until he killed himself. Crazy and moronically destructive on methamphetamine, he did himself in in the master bedroom bathroom before the deputies could get to him by jabbing scissors into his right carotid artery. It took me three days to sponge up the blood--the floor, the walls, the ceiling--it was everywhere. It cured my perversion, though, I suppose: I loved him so much I'll never be able to run another man in to take his place. A woman? Maybe. I'm 70. I might have to settle for raising enough money for a really high class whore--the kind who completely sublimates the money part. I remember trying to buy a whore in Las Vegas in 1978. I thought I had settled on the money with the guy who came into the hotel room first to check me out, but when she came in she wanted more. A lot more. I guess she was an "independent contractor." There went the fantasy. My dick might as well have been attached to me as a hundred yo. She was very nice. She looked like Rebecca De Mornay in "Risky Business." Same age. I have no idea how Tom Cruise in real life would have ever popped his cherry on that setup. I gave her ten bucks and sent her on her way. Of course, when I arrived in Vietnam I went to a whorehouse with some fellow soldiers--for the same reason I kept smoking--I thought there was a good chance I was going to be killed so WTF? My dick worked great then. (The beer probably helped.)

I would guess you don't think much of General George Washington.(?) You keep throwing ~bad~ people into ~bad~ categories dressed up with a big squirt of implicit moralizing for the category and you put all whom you can fit into the category and it's a bunch of squares into round holes. There are, of course, quite acceptable exceptions. We can start with Nazis. Oops! There was a Nazi in China who saved a lot of Chinese from Japanese killers--a lot of Chinese--during the rape of Nanking. God damn him for being a Nazi!

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now