Harry Binswanger on Open Immigration

[anthony]

I find it impossible to see how open immigration could be a generally Objectivist conviction, when it a-contextually ignores the present situation and has intrinsicist overtones. Value- for whom, and why? The value once of becoming a US citizen was when the nation more greatly dealt from a position of moral strength. People from all over tacitly sought its individualism and personal liberty - even if they didn't voice it as such - and benevolence accompanies strength, they are interdependent. Like were attracted to like. Now, it's a different kind of alikes. It will take some dragging back to return to the US's moral exceptionalism again, after the late erosions. Who can doubt it will happen, though.

There's a causal reversal, far as I can tell: might HB believe that manually wagging the dog's tail will bring the dog back to health?

[Mikee]

I find it impossible to see how open immigration could be a generally Objectivist conviction, when it a-contextually ignores the present situation and has intrinsicist overtones. Value- for whom, and why? The value once of becoming a US citizen was when the nation more greatly dealt from a position of moral strength. People from all over tacitly sought its individualism and personal liberty - even if they didn't voice it as such - and benevolence accompanies strength, they are interdependent. Like were attracted to like. Now, it's a different kind of alikes. It will take some dragging back to return to the US's moral exceptionalism again, after the late erosions. Who can doubt it will happen, though.

There's a causal reversal, far as I can tell: might HB believe that manually wagging the dog's tail will bring the dog back to health?

Agreed. Open borders is like advocating world anarchy. You either have countries with defined principles and borders competing on the world stage or...nothing. Sometimes I think "philosophers" are trying to be bureaucrats, making rules rather than defining principles. Their self interest (reputation among their "peers") more important than principle. They certainly don't care if anyone beyond their tiny group understands what in the hell they are saying.

[Selene]

Agreed. Open borders is like advocating world anarchy.

Anarchy is the absence of government.

Like selfishness, I have always, since reading Ayn, chosen to make a point when a key word is used in it's negative connotation.

I would prefer your statement said "world chaos."

George might have a better statement on anarchy and the way you employed it.

A...

needing all the help I can get ...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sometimes I think "philosophers" are trying to be bureaucrats, making rules rather than defining principles. Their self interest (reputation among their "peers") more important than principle. They certainly don't care if anyone beyond their tiny group understands what in the hell they are saying.

Mike,

That is astute. Especially here in O-Land. But it applies to all the bubbles out there.

I had not thought of this, but you are spot on.

Here in O-Land, man do we live in a subculture that is under a dome.

Michael

[Mikee]

I think 'anarchy' is synonymous with 'chaos' except with an assigned cause: absence or non recognition of authority.

I think the best defense of anarchism is David Friedman's and even he is not convinced that it could be a stable working system except for brief periods in defined settings where universal agreement exists for settling disputes. And where non-conformists of the criminal kind can be banished permanently. Even an imperfect government can create enough stability where people can thrive.

[Peter]

I would agree that no (discernible) government works at some level, as on an Indian reservation, exempt from State and Federal laws, or a community like the Amish with many families living on a large parcel of private property. Both groups keep order through their cultures and if someone does wrong, the entire community might shun them. Japan does that too. But anarchy will not lead to laissez faire capitalism.

[Brant Gaede]

I find it impossible to see how open immigration could be a generally Objectivist conviction, when it a-contextually ignores the present situation and has intrinsicist overtones. Value- for whom, and why? The value once of becoming a US citizen was when the nation more greatly dealt from a position of moral strength. People from all over tacitly sought its individualism and personal liberty - even if they didn't voice it as such - and benevolence accompanies strength, they are interdependent. Like were attracted to like. Now, it's a different kind of alikes. It will take some dragging back to return to the US's moral exceptionalism again, after the late erosions. Who can doubt it will happen, though.

There's a causal reversal, far as I can tell: might HB believe that manually wagging the dog's tail will bring the dog back to health?

Ayn Rand was way too smart to ever endorse such a thing absent a perfect world--an impossible world. Principles are one thing only here. Application of principles many things with many caveats.

An Objectivist's conviction is one thing, an Objectivism conviction doesn't exist about anything for that would be doctrine. Thinking is not a doctrine, for instance. Everybody thinks. That's a fact. Free will is not thinking or not thinking. Free will concerns what you choose to think about. Doctrine is too close to dogma. An Objectivist thinks in principles suffused with adduced facts: reality plus reason, and don't get fancy calling even that a "doctrine." Leave your doctrines with the sheriff before entering the ratiocination saloon. You might run into George H. Smith, or someone like him.

--Brant

just made that shit up--I love making up shit

[Selene]

I would agree that no (discernible) government works at some level, as on an Indian reservation, exempt from State and Federal laws, or a community like the Amish with many families living on a large parcel of private property. Both groups keep order through their cultures and if someone does wrong, the entire community might shun them. Japan does that too. But anarchy will not lead to laissez faire capitalism.

What about gangs?

[Brant Gaede]

A gang is a proto tribe. They are or try to be outside the law using their own proto law. This is regression to a low mean. Our Greg, as an individualist, chose to "regress" to a high mean. Both Greg and the gang have some use for the average, in between, extant society. Greg for trade, the gang for stealing (or drug dealing). The gang is in your face, blatant and violent. Greg is private. The mafia type criminal organization is more sophisticated than the street gang. You can fuck with a street gang if they don't know who you are. Do a drive by with a machine gun, toss a few grenades and never come back. [BULLSHIT ALERT] Don't do that with the mafia. They will track you down. They will find you. They will take you to [BULLSHIT ALERT] the negotiating table and create [BULLSHIT ALERT] a new reality for you and them. (I know this because I saw the Godfather movies and Casino and Goodfellows and Scarface and A Bronx Tale.)

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Hi Brant. Doing my quadrennial house call.

I am particularly eager to uphold and defend the fundamental right of innocent liberty, which implies unrestricted immigration and some public property (roads and rights-of-way) to get from point A to point B unhindered. [Laissez Faire Law, p. 186]

Justice is the armed defense of innocent liberty. Keep in mind that there are five terms involved in that proposition. The easiest one to grasp is the term being defined: justice. Broadly speaking, justice is an action. It doesn't happen by itself. People have to do it willfully and thoughtfully. Now, what kind of action? Armed defense. That means kicking somebody's butt, like George III, Adolph Hitler, or a garden variety thug. Why? In defense of innocent liberty. Not everybody's liberty, just the innocent (mostly women and children). Why defend the innocent? Because they can't successfully defend themselves.. [An Eggshell Armed With Sledgehammers, forthcoming, ms.p. 63]

Twenty-five years ago, Robert Heinlein addressed the cadets of Annapolis... Heinlein impressed upon them the imperative of national survival contained in an ancient aphorism: "Women and children first!" He explained that a nation can sacrifice the lives of numerous men, nearly all of them, and yet survive as a viable society if their women and children remain unharmed. It is undeniably true, that men are properly warriors and breadwinners, to safeguard and nurture the next generation. While we hope that men, too, might be spared from peril, the primary meaning and unequivocal horror of "war crime" refers to war on civilian women and children, who are almost universally deemed noncombatants and exempt from battle. Death and dismemberment of defenseless children is categorically evil at all times and everywhere on earth. {Laissez Faire Law, p.139]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wolf!

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Hi, Wolf. I see you arguing logically off a radical base. I try to argue off the extant base. Your problem is getting to an extant base you can work off. I'm already there. The worldwide homogenization of economies, ideas, values, philosophies that could give rise as a final step into the shoes you now occupy is hundreds if not thousands of years away. The final step--if possible and if desirable--would be identified and acted or not acted upon by those then living, now unborn. I merely advocate moving in the direction of more freedom as a basic political action principle. For illegal immigration, for starters from that context, I suggest just cutting off benefits. Then they'd only come to do productive work. The cry of "Give them benefits" is then countered with the cry to cut and eliminate "benefits" (over time) of citizens getting them. You need a lot more freedom before people can begin to grapple with your philosophy as stated. In that sense ideas follow substance then they lead substance. Back and forth. The ideas being worked on if not off of right now are classical libertarian/Objectivist in the political realm. You are trying to present the goods of freedom in a different way. It's too much too soon assuming utilitarian value. But, like libertarians generally, you are centered on political philosophy while Objectivists eat "ethics" as the primary locus of their focus. Politics derives from an ethical base and the ethical base you embrace is only the part in and implied to be in your politics. NIOF. (I may have you somewhat wrong because I can't quite get "defense of innocent liberty" into my head. It doesn't catch on my mental hooks.)

I could go on in this vein of what I call "doable now," but I would just be chewing on the turf. But for one example: give out work cards doubling as ID cards that let illegals come and go freely across our borders to work and go home as they want. Thus they lose their illegal status. They're checked in and out. What you do not do is let them become citizens unless they fall into defined classes of exceptions. Do not let them vote. One problem with voting is they will vote for people who would give them benefits. Of course I am leaving pages of details off the table.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

The US electoral college confines fraud state to state and makes candidates campaign for each state.

National borders make a state among the world's states and confine conflicts and differences state to state. If not all wars would be world wars.

At this stage of human social and political evolution we need the electoral college and countries with defined and enforceable borders for the value of a state is in its just governance and that's helped achieved by competition and the practical limit of size. There cannot be a United States of the world. There can hardly be a United States as it is but it is, but the US can set an example enlightening the world. It's not doing that now. First its house must be put in moral order.

--Brant

[Peter]

Welcome back Wolf. I agree with everything you said. You must be a big Trump fan. Just kidding on both points.

Brant wrote but I will edit: At this stage of human social and political evolution we need . . . defined and enforceable borders . . . (Or) . . . there cannot be a United States . . . .
End of cobbled quote

Ain’t it wunnerful having an editor, Brant? Thank you Norma Zimmer, our Champagne lady. From the top, a one, a two . . .

Wolf wrote: I am particularly eager to uphold and defend the fundamental right of innocent liberty, which implies unrestricted immigration and some public property (roads and rights-of-way) to get from point A to point B unhindered. [Laissez Faire Law, p. 186]
end quote

Let’s all sing, We are the world, we are the children.

You’re darn right I would sneak across the border to better my life. I sneak across the border into neighboring Delaware to avoid paying the Maryland sales tax. If a person works here and obeys the laws then their self improvement is a noble cause. I seem to remember Ayn Rand had relatives in America who sponsored her. Yet, I view the idea of no restrictions on immigration or an “Objectivist Government,” and the abolition of taxation as Platonic ideals. They could be a reality . . . someday . . . when Government and the State wither away, when the world is at peace, when all human’s respect individual rights and when Atlantis (or Eden) is once again found on earth. But not today.
Peter

[Mark]

The world ought to be divided into independent nations, along cultural lines if not racial, and an essential aspect of that independence is control of the borders.

Mass Third World immigration is an attack on American women and children. The migrants come from cultures that disrespect – or despise or hate – women, and they bring that culture with them.

Google Sweden muslim crime

For another strong point of diversity Google “immigrant mass murder”.

Mark

ARIwatch.com

[Marcus]

^ Mark, give it a rest. We get it. We get your MO. We really do.

The world is already divided by racial and tribal lines. This is the been rule not the exception of humanity, since time immemorial.

America is the first country to break this "rule" and raise human aspirations out of tribal warfare into a civil, tolerant, prosperous, pro individualist society. Or at least into the closet thing so far.

We will never be Iceland (99% white) or Nazi Germany. If you want that move there. Immigration is happening from all over the world and it's going to continue to happen. Deal with it.

[Jules Troy]

Hey Wolf!

[Mark]

Re Marcus’s last:

M.O. is for criminals. I’ve committed thoughtcrime. Repeat offender.

Interesting word tolerate. You tolerate only what you do not like. If you like something you don’t use the word tolerate.

America never was the color-blind utopia Marcus makes it out to have been. As for today, just look at the news.

I think Wolf is mistaken about immigration. I gather he would do away with countries, that they’re undesirable, that what countries there are should have no effective borders. Open the gates of Vienna and defend women and children on a local basis. I can’t follow him there.

By the way, I want to say I like Wolf. He’s smart; writes really, really well; has done lots of interesting things. What I say is not a personal attack.

[Peter]

Troy wrote: Hey Wolf!
end quote

Let’s all sing with Warren Zevon. Aaahoo!

I saw a werewolf with a Chinese menu in his hand
Walkin' through the streets of Soho in the rain
He was lookin' for the place called Lee Ho Fooks
Gonna get a big dish of beef chow mein
Aaahoo! Werewolves of London
Aaahoo!
Aaahoo! Werewolves of London
Aaahoo!

Ya hear him howlin' around your kitchen door
Ya better not let him in
Little old lady got mutilated late last night
Werewolves of London again
Aaahoo! Werewolves of London
Aaahoo!
Aaahoo! Werewolves of London
Aaahoo!

He's the hairy handed gent, who ran amok in Kent
Lately he's been overheard in Mayfair
You better stay away from him
He'll rip your lungs out Jim
Huh, I'd like to meet his tailor
Aaahoo! Werewolves of London
Aaahoo!
Aaahoo! Werewolves of London
Aaahoo!

Well, I saw Lon Chaney walkin' with the queen
Doin' the werewolves of London
I saw Lon Chaney Jr. walkin' with the queen
Doin' the werewolves of London
I saw a werewolf drinkin' a pina colada at Trader Vic's
And his hair was perfect
Aaahoo! Werewolves of London
Draw blood
Aaahoo! Werewolves of London

[Brant Gaede]

I hope the fever subsides soon. After four hours seek immediate medical help.

--Brant

maybe for both ends (it'd be a two-fer)

[Brant Gaede]

The world ought to be divided into independent nations, along cultural lines if not racial, and an essential aspect of that independence is control of the borders.

Mass Third World immigration is an attack on American women and children. The migrants come from cultures that disrespect – or despise or hate – women, and they bring that culture with them.

Google Sweden muslim crime

For another strong point of diversity Google “immigrant mass murder”.

Mark

ARIwatch.com

Damn Irish!

Fuck the Italians!

Screw the Indians!

But what has this to do with libertarianism or Objectivism?

--Brant

some people don't know where they are or totally confuse destructive analysis with constructive input implicitly claiming the latter while doing the former, illuminating nothing so much as themselves actually destroying nothing but the pretense of their value and production (unlike our Greg, frankly)

Unrestricted immigration causes real problems that need to be known and considered and dealt with rationally over time through changes in policies and laws--the radical solution is to tear down all barriers now, which, of course, will tear down the United States as we know it in the name of a Utopian justice while changing not one other country, not one other, qua country, wanting to emulate state suicide being states unto themselves

(the spell check says "libertarianism" is not a word--nor is "Objectivism" [nor is "traveller" --all bow dwn to the spel chocker! (I hate Nazis!)])

[Brant Gaede]

Welcome back Wolf. I agree with everything you said. You must be a big Trump fan. Just kidding on both points.

Brant wrote but I will edit: At this stage of human social and political evolution we need . . . defined and enforceable borders . . . (Or) . . . there cannot be a United States . . . .

End of cobbled quote

Ain’t it wunnerful having an editor, Brant? Thank you Norma Zimmer, our Champagne lady. From the top, a one, a two . . .

Peter

You bet! Once you get to work I know what's already done is set to go!

--Brant

[Mark]

“Unrestricted immigration causes real problems that need to be known and considered and dealt with rationally over time through changes in policies and laws ...”

We haven't much time left!

“... the radical solution is to tear down all barriers now, which, of course, will tear down the United States as we know it in the name of a Utopian justice ...”

Radical solution in the sense of leftist. Our radical solution can begin with an immigration moratorium, deportation of illegals, an end to birthright citizenship, automatic denaturalization of convicted felons – they would be deported after serving their sentence, etc.

Mark

ARIwatch.com

[Peter]

Donald Trump . . . ooops, I mean Mark yelled into the Grand Canyon: Our radical solution can begin with an immigration moratorium, deportation of illegals, an end to birthright citizenship, automatic denaturalization of convicted felons – they would be deported after serving their sentence, etc.
end quote

Hear that echo? Mor . . ., Mor . . ., Morator . . ., Deport, deport, deport . . . anchor, anchor, anchor . . . I am NOT amazed at the backlash to the notion that a country should have no enforceable borders. We aren’t talking about Mosquitos here, we are talking about the loss of identity, liberty, and property.

One exception to a strict immigration policy might be refugees, especially if they are OUR allies, like the diplomats and government workers who were there at the fall of Saigon, Vietnam. That debacle was immoral.
Peter

[Brant Gaede]

“Unrestricted immigration causes real problems that need to be known and considered and dealt with rationally over time through changes in policies and laws ...”

We haven't much time left!

“... the radical solution is to tear down all barriers now, which, of course, will tear down the United States as we know it in the name of a Utopian justice ...”

Radical solution in the sense of leftist. Our radical solution can begin with an immigration moratorium, deportation of illegals, an end to birthright citizenship, automatic denaturalization of convicted felons – they would be deported after serving their sentence, etc.

Mark

ARIwatch.com

"Immigration moratorium"?--no, not if you mean "all."

"deportation of illegals"?--some yes and some no.

"end to birthright citizenship"?--no, but deport the mother (the baby can't petition family members in unless he's 21yo as per current law)

"automatic denaturalization of convicted (sic) felons"?--not "automatic" for there are a bunch of really shitty laws and everyone should be individually evaluated.

If you cannot integrate freedom and human rights into your analyses on this and other issues, you are essentially inchoate conservative cultural noise. Moral policies need moral ideas and anti-Ayn Rand needs better Ayn Rand not no Ayn Rand for that's to us only no-ideas except ideas as policies.

--Brant