5 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Hi Darrell.

I don’t dispute any of the above. I just wanted to add something to tie it all up, something more than just your “He has also been ...”

My observation has always been that he is patient until he gets obnoxious shit. Then he returns fire. Not just sometimes he’s this way, sometimes that, no. I’ve never seen him go at someone who didn’t earn it. Others may not know the previous interactions and they may think they are seeing Jonathan rip into people unearned and from nowhere, but they are just uninformed about what came before what they are seeing.

Everyone deals with obnoxious shit differently and that’s ok. Some ignore it resolutely and politely carry on with the discussion, even though the other side is not doing so. Some worship civility and beg of others that they would see its eternal, intrinsic importance. Some refuse to continue, saying why and expressing disappointment. Jonathan returns fire. They are all reasonable, defensible responses to obnoxious shit.

Hi Jon,

Perhaps I was too hasty since I haven't been reading all the posts on OL, but I just noticed that some people are quick to engage in name calling. I'm not an absolutist when it comes to being polite. If someone is being flagrantly rude and disparaging, I'll sometimes get down in the gutter and engage in a little tit-for-tat. However, I generally dislike being impolite just because someone else doesn't seem to understand something, frustration notwithstanding.

Cheers,

Darrell

5 hours ago, anthony said:

Hi Darrell, believe me, I put in some time playing around with books and bottles and canisters!

What I assume we are doing here is re-creating a wheel+wheel, experimentally,  by means of other objects. I understand that a cone also has a greater and smaller diameter. However, it is unsuitable for experiment in that it has an inherent bias. You try to force it to roll it straight - but the only way is by inducing slippage. The built-in "bias" biases the effects. So to say.

So the cylinder is the closest to an "extruded" wheel, which rolls straight and true. One cylinder will roll on a surface after it's pushed, in a straight line. Connect another cylinder, of lesser diameter, and repeat - the same outcome. (No slip)

Now place the small cylinder on a 'ledge' of sorts so that both cylinders are supported on surfaces.  "All things being equal" - all the factors I've mentioned have to be precisely right -  there is no reason whatsoever why the cylinder combination(e.g. a wine bottle) will not roll as it did without a second platform--straight and slip-less. The 'rule of tangential velocity' equally applies here, to both 'wheels'.

All it is is an accurate reproduction of what we all know a rolling bottle does when without a 'track'. Bottle plus neck rolls - one rotation - with no slippage. Add a track, and albeit some friction/drag which has to be equalised on both wheels, one can reproduce the same scenario. 

By that standard of reality, IF one finds slippage, IF the bottle rolls skew, we know the setup of the experiment is imprecise.

 

Hi Tony,

The "bias" is that one end is bigger than the other. That's the whole point. If two wheels that matched the sizes of the ends of the cup were rigidly connected to each other by means of an axle the same length as the height of the cup, the assembly would have the same "bias" as the cup. It wouldn't roll straight unless it was forced to roll straight by inducing slippage. But, Aristotle's paradox says that it will roll straight. That's the problem.

You say that if the bottle rolls skew, the setup of the experiment is imprecise, but it is the fact that of the bottle rolling skew that proves the point. It isn't a bug. It's a feature. The fact that the bottle rolls skew proves that Aristotle's paradox is a paradox --- an impossible contradiction.

Darrell

9 hours ago, anthony said:

Yes, Darrell - if you mean the two wheels are separate, rolling independently.

Back to the wheel in a wheel:

The entire paradox is premised on the pesky small wheel which pops up at the end, having (we see) rolled only once--and having traveled at an identical forward speed (transitional velocity) to its big brother (self-evidently) and ending up in its exact original location within the large wheel.

How did it get there?

Why has it laterally traveled further than its own circumference, in a single revolution? "Surely" - some will believe - "It has to have skidded/etc./etc. to have moved so far in its one (smaller) revolution, in the same time?".

1. Such "slippage" contradicts the identity of the wheel. And one's experience in reality. 2. The explanation (how and why) is clear when one accepts (as one induces from experience -and- formally learns) that any inner circle/wheel/point within a wheel, is turning slower than any other circles, (etc.) outside of its circumference - up to and including the main wheel.  Therefore, it is able to rotate once, slower, (in the same period the big wheel rotates once, a little quicker) -- while moving a distance a few or several times its length of circumference.  A distance determined by the large wheel's circumference.

To look at this in reverse, if the (erroneous) assumption is made by casual observation, that the small wheel 'turning-speed' and the big wheel 'turning-speed' are identical, then the paradox remains a paradox. Although one knows, self-evidently, that the wheels always 'work', in reality, one can't explain this phenomenon.

Relative *tangential velocity* is the full explanation for the paradox.

(I suspect more than ever, the second 'track' was added in later. Not just to complicate, but more to attempt to justify "slippage" where there is none ).

Hi Tony,

No offense, but it does seem as though you're having trouble visualizing what is happening, so I am attempting to take you through a logical progression of steps in order to prove the point. Please forget about what your eyes are telling you and focus on the inescapable logic of the derivation.

1. You agreed that if a big wheel and a small wheel rolled independently N times, then the big wheel would roll farther than the small wheel. Correct?

2. Now, if the big wheel and small wheel were rigidly connected to opposite ends of an axle, then the big and small wheels would have to turn the same number of times. Correct? So, if the big wheel turned N times then the small wheel would also have to turn N times. Right?

You said earlier that if a person were to roll a tapered glass or party cup on the table or floor, it would veer off to one side. Correct? The reason the cup would veer off to the side is that the large end rolls farther than the small end.

3. Similarly, if two wheels that were the same sizes as the ends of the cup were rigidly connected by an axle the same length as the height of the cup and both were in contact with a flat surface so that they rolled without slipping, they would veer off to the side. That follows logically from facts (1) and (2), namely (1) that the big wheel will travel farther than the small wheel and that (2) that the wheels are rigidly connected. Correct?

4. Now, if the small wheel is placed on a support so that the axle connecting the small wheel to the big wheel is parallel to the ground, the same thing would happen as in statement 3, namely the wheel assembly would veer off to the side. That follows from the fact that placing the small wheel on a support doesn't alter the fact that it won't travel as far as the big wheel nor does it change the fact that the wheels are rigidly connected. Therefore, since (1) and (2) are still valid, the pair of wheels must veer off to the side. Correct?

Aristotle's paradox implies that a pair of wheels joined by an axle won't veer off to the side. It implies that they will both roll the same distance without slipping. See how that contradicts the logic of the proof? That's why it is a paradox. It asserts a contradiction. In reality, either the small wheel must slip or the big wheel must slip or the wheel assembly must veer off to the side.

Darrell

6 hours ago, merjet said:

LOL. A jeer from the peanut gallery. Your double standard is clear. You are upset that I vastly improved Wikipedia. But you have no complaints about an obnoxious ignoranus, lying, contradictory, reality-faking jackass named Jonathan. And apparently you were also duped by Jonathan and believe that gratuitously adding a second surface isn’t “beyond the pale.”

I bet you couldn’t find any errors in my solutions!

Hi Merlin,

I agree that Jonathan is sometimes an obnoxious jackass, but the fact of the matter is that his analysis of Aristotle's paradox is correct. He has also been very patient at times, going out of his way to produce illustrative videos. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for that. And, so far as I know, he hasn't taken this dispute outside of OL. You really should put the Wikipedia page back the way it was or let us do it.

Since you laid down the gauntlet, I'll take a look at your solutions later, when I get the chance.

Cheers,

Darrell

2 hours ago, anthony said:

You mean this gear train "cannot roll at all"? I've seen gears fixed solidly onto larger gears, and run on racks.

Double reduction gear[edit]

 

Double reduction gears

A double reduction gear comprises two pairs of gears, as single reductions, in series.^[3] In the diagram, the red and blue gears give the first stage of reduction and the orange and green gears give the second stage of reduction. The total reduction is the product of the first stage of reduction and the second stage of reduction.

It is essential to have two coupled gears, of different sizes, on the intermediatelayshaft. If three gears were used, the overall ratio would be simply that between the first and final gears, the intermediate gear would only act as anidler gear: it would reverse the direction of rotation, but not change the ratio

I think Max was thinking of something more like this:

But with two concentric circular gears and two linear gears or "pinions."

Darrell

1 minute ago, william.scherk said:

Darrell's link is an animation ...

 

 

I guess the only way to make it work is to drag and drop from another window. If I click "Insert other media" it doesn't work.

Darrell

What happened?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_and_pinion#/media/File:Rack_and_pinion_animation.gif

I need to test some things.

media

This isn't working.

That worked.

1 hour ago, anthony said:

My point also, made without your impeccable math. I gave one example of a children's simple merry go round, and the speed greater at the edge, reducing proportionately towards the middle. 

Right. I remember that. So, okay, that means that if you have a large wheel turning at N rotations per minute and a small wheel turning at N rotations per minute, the large wheel will travel farther than the small wheel. Right?

Darrell

19 minutes ago, anthony said:

The "give" is their different circumferences. They both exactly reach the end point after the same duration - because - the slower has a smaller rotation, the faster a greater one. Longer/shorter circumferences equals them out. No?

Hi Tony,

The one with the longer circumference also has the greater tangential velocity. In fact, it has a greater tangential velocity because it has a longer circumference. The circumference is proportional to the radius. The greater the radius, the greater the circumference. The same thing is true of the tangential velocity. The tangential velocity is proportional to the radius. The greater the radius, the greater the tangential velocity. So, if R = 2r for example, then C = 2c and V = 2v where R, r = radius, C, c = circumference and V, v = tangential velocity of the big and small wheels respectively.

If that doesn't make sense to you, stand up with your arms outstretched and turn around. Your hands move both farther and faster than your elbows or shoulders. See what I mean?

Darrell

15 minutes ago, anthony said:

Thanks Darrell. It won't be credited but I was first to mention the differing tangential velocities in a wheel as the probable explanation. I misnamed this "rotational" speed, since corrected it. 

 

Hi Tony,

Yes, I remember that you mentioned that. But, if V > v, that means that one wheel is rolling faster than the other. If one wheel is rolling faster than the other, then they can't get to the end point at the same time. Or something else has to give.

Darrell

56 minutes ago, anthony said:

Darrell, The tapered glass is conical, which will, sure, roll in a curve off to one side on a flat surface. Until you raise the smaller diameter end to the same level (as the larger) on a second track.

To reproduce a wheel inside another wheel in motion, a simpler demonstration is 2 cylindrical shapes connected. I.e. a wine bottle, and many others. And again, to compensate for the 2 different diameters, the 2 tracks need to be adjusted precisely to support the bottle, one slightly above the other. Or a skew to one side recurs.

Hi Tony,

You are correct that the glass will roll off to one side. But, there is nothing special about a level surface. If the surface were tilted, what do you think would happen? Imagine that the surface is tilted so that the ends of the cup are straight up and down. Won't the glass continue to curve in the same direction as long as it doesn't slip?

You can create the same effect by just putting the small end of the cup on a book of the appropriate height. Try it. You don't need any fancy scientific equipment.

Darrell

35 minutes ago, Darrell Hougen said:

Hi Max,

Maybe "resolve" (my word) or "solve" isn't the right term. Of course, Aristotle's paradox cannot be "resolved" if all of the conditions are enforced. It is impossible for two wheels that are rigidly attached to each other to turn without slipping on two different tracks if the radii are different. I was simply trying to point out that mathematically, there must be slippage somewhere in the system. Formally, it is impossible to have:

V = RW

v = rw

V = v

W = w 

and

R > r

where V, v = tangential velocities of the big and small wheels respectively, W, w = their respective angular velocities, and R, r = their respective radii.

That is what Aristotle's paradox demands.

Darrell

Or, in terms of the original statement of the paradox, it is impossible to have:

X2 - X1 = R * (T2 - T1)

x2 - x1 = r * (t1 - t1)

X2 - X1 = x2 - x1

T2 - T1 = t2 - t1

 and 

R > r

where X2 - X1 and x2 - x1 are the distances traveled by the big and small wheels, respectively, T2 - T1 and t2 - t1 are the angles  (theta) that both wheels rotate (e.g. 2pi radians) and R and r are the radii.

That is a mathematical statement of Aristotle's paradox.

Darrell

7 hours ago, anthony said:

The bottle (and other things) was what I was testing months ago, and because of minor inconsistencies - the elongated neck (a lo-ong 'inner wheel') whose leverage exaggerates the slightest level and pressure discrepancies, and the slippery nature of glass - were inconclusive.

I think you will agree that the purpose of experiments is to bring all factors to neutral, i.e. reproduce what we see and know in nature (i.e., here, of a bottle rolling alone, unaided, straight and true) - and only then, to add or subtract variables and note whatever changes take place. Home experiments are not rigorous enough to draw any conclusions from. This requires a lab experiment, controlled conditions, utilizing laser measurements and constant downward force, etc. etc.

The closest I got to rolling evenly on twin tracks, was using a squat round object like a jar or canister having a short lid and almost no neck, the "inner wheel". I could give it a push and it rolled quite evenly - close to how it does normally - and on two surfaces. But the height and weight adjustments - and especially the grip on both surfaces - are essential to get as 'perfect' as possible.  

Go back to the auto wheel - having identical "grip" of the large AND small wheels is most critical. When that grip differential is just slightly out, you introduce a bias, and then slippage occurs in one wheel. If it means also fitting a rubber tread to the small (extended inner rim) wheel, and using an identical (road) surface for it to run on-- grip has to be equal for both wheels, and critical also, they are rolled on two precisely compensated levels. If the wheel combination is given a push and it turns smoothly, the inner track has made no difference to the outcome - one we know and accept from observation of all wheels, which is that an inner wheel/circle will travel laterally a distance in excess of its circumference - without slip - when the outer rolls once. The added track is then a superfluity.

Hi Tony,

Actually, I don't think you need laboratory conditions. The effect of having wheels of different sizes is very pronounced. In fact, you could perform an experiment with an ordinary drinking glass. Find a glass that is tapered so that the two ends have different diameters and roll it on the table or floor and watch what happens. A simple Dixie cup or party cup should work just fine. You don't have to roll it fast.

Darrell

8 hours ago, Max said:

But that doesn't solve Aristotle's paradox, it's avoiding it by changing the conditions. That there is no paradox when two concentric wheels can rotate independently from each other, Aristotle no doubt could have also figured out, but that wouldn't have helped him solving his paradox. The two wheels forming one rigid body can easily be realized in a physical system, no contradiction there. The contradiction emerges when you suppose that both wheels can roll without slipping/both circles can trace out their circumference at the same time. That is the essence of the paradox.

Hi Max,

Maybe "resolve" (my word) or "solve" isn't the right term. Of course, Aristotle's paradox cannot be "resolved" if all of the conditions are enforced. It is impossible for two wheels that are rigidly attached to each other to turn without slipping on two different tracks if the radii are different. I was simply trying to point out that mathematically, there must be slippage somewhere in the system. Formally, it is impossible to have:

V = RW

v = rw

V = v

W = w 

and

R > r

where V, v = tangential velocities of the big and small wheels respectively, W, w = their respective angular velocities, and R, r = their respective radii.

That is what Aristotle's paradox demands.

Darrell

22 minutes ago, anthony said:

First, go see a wheel and tyre in motion. Observe and establish that an 'internal' wheel does, indeed, "traverse a distance greater than its own circumference". Always.

I.e. it traverses the distance of the outer tyre's circumference, which exceeds its own. Without slipping. 

There's this "objectivist buzzword" called "reality" - what it is (and does). HOW it happens is something further. I suggested the differing tangential speeds as the cause.

Hi Tony,

After reading MSK's post from Nov. 22nd --- I'll catch up eventually --- I realized that there are two ways to resolve the paradox. Perhaps the second way is easier for you.

Let R, W, and V be the radius, angular velocity and tangential velocity of the big wheel. Then V = RW.

Define r, w, and v similarly for the small wheel so that v = rw.

Then, if R > r either V > v or w > W. Either the tangential velocity of the big wheel is larger or the angular velocity of the small wheel is larger. So, another way of resolving the paradox is to say that the wheels are actually separate wheels that turn at different rates. If that is easier for you to visualize, that works too.

Darrell

30 minutes ago, anthony said:

Darrell, yeah. I later accepted for the sake of argument and to prove a point, that there is a track.

Yet, I maintain that in practice a wheel will rotate the same as it always does, as we experience it to act, and as it does in theory (a circle diagram). You can observe a car wheel turn normally - and, let us say, you delineate the metal wheel rim to be the 'inner wheel'. Now extend that rim outwards. Now place a track for the extended rim to roll on. 

Now, you roll the car wheel for a revolution. What is possibly going to occur which did not occur when it was simply a car wheel and tyre on the road? No difference - surely? The entire wheel rolls forwards, on two tracks, where there was before just one surface. Assuming the weight on each track is carefully and evenly distributed, the outcome will be what the diagram denotes: the large wheel (tyre) rolls its circumference; the inner wheel (rim) rolls one revolution--but far past its circumference. It does not 'slip', it doesn't need to. The wheel assembly acts now exactly as it did on a single surface. Nothing essential has changed, inner and outer wheels keep integrity. 'Slippage' would contradict and destroy that. For this reason, the 'track' was put in as a red herring, imo.

Hi Tony,

The inner wheel is fixed relative to the outer wheel. That is true. However, either the inner wheel or outer wheel must slip relative to its track.

At one point you wrote that both the inner wheel and outer wheel rotate at the same angular velocity. That is true. However, if the wheels rotate at the same angular velocities, then their tangential velocities must be different.

The tangential velocity is the linear velocity of a point on the outside of the wheel. If V and v are the linear velocities of points on the big and small wheels and omega is their shared angular velocity, then V = R * omega and v = r * omega. So, if R > r then V > v.

If the vehicle to which the wheel is attached is moving with velocity = V, then the outer wheel will maintain rolling contact with the road while the inner wheel will skid while rolling on its track.

I like Jon's suggestion of experimenting with a bottle. However, I would like to suggest performing a slightly different experiment. After finding a book that is the right height to support the neck of the bottle, press down on both the body and neck of the bottle simultaneously while trying to roll it. In other words, apply enough force to make sure that both the body and neck of the bottle remain in rolling contact with their respective surfaces. See what happens.

Darrell

On 11/18/2018 at 9:24 AM, anthony said:

Aristotle's wheel paradox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Jump to navigationJump to search

Aristotle's wheel paradox is a paradox or problem appearing in the Greekwork Mechanica traditionally attributed to Aristotle.^[1] A wheel can be depicted in two dimensions using two circles. The larger circle is tangent to a horizontal surface (e.g. a road) that it can roll on. The smaller circle has the same center and is rigidly affixed to the larger one. The smaller circle could depict the bead of a tire, a rim the tire is mounted on, an axle, etc. Assume the larger circle rolls without slipping for a full revolution. The distances moved by both circles are the same length, as depicted by the blue and red dashed lines. The distance for the larger circle equals its circumference, but the distance for the smaller circle is longer than its circumference: a paradox or problem.

The paradox is not limited to a wheel. Other things depicted in two dimensions show the same behavior. A roll of tape does. A typical round bottle rolled on its side does -- the smaller circle depicting the mouth or neck of the bottle.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

SHOW me the "slippage". You guys would be lost without an inner track, there is no "track" in the diagram and no possible slippage.

Quote: "The distance for the larger circle equals its circumference, but the distance for the smaller circle is longer than its circumference: a paradox or problem".

The dotted lines are distances. Not 'tracks". The crux of the paradox is different wheel circumferences, but identical distance traveled.

Once more, I point out that every and any point marked within the large circle will show that same dotted line, same distance moved from its 1st to its 2nd position. 

Enter a smaller, miniscule circle instead, and the dotted line will be the same length. WHY? because the circumference of the small circle is irrelevant. The distance moved by the entire wheel is all that counts, dictating the motion of its contents.

With that taken care of,

HOW does the small circle rotate once, precisely equal to the large circle's single rotation? It rotates relatively slower. At least 4 times I've explained that, not once has anyone acknowledged or argued it.

Enough with the nonsense. You've been chasing a red herring.

Tony,

Merlin edited the Wikipedia page so that it no longer contains an accurate description of Aristotle's paradox. The figure has also been edited and is no longer illustrative of the paradox.

Darrell

On 11/10/2018 at 3:58 AM, merjet said:

The Wikipedia page about Aristotle's wheel paradox (link) has been vastly improved!

By me. I included an image that shows (a) the circles before and after rolling one revolution and (b) paths of motion for three points. The image thus helps to show why the smaller circle moves 2*pi*R -- the path of motion of every point on the smaller circle is shorter and more direct than the path of motion of any point on the larger circle.

Unbelievable! I don't know why I'm reading this thread, but I cannot believe you actually edited the Wikipedia page to support your argument. People can say whatever they want on here, but taking this fight outside of OL is way beyond the pale. No one outside of OL asked to be part of this dispute.

--- Darrell

On 8/19/2018 at 1:12 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That was quick:

Except Prager has only been talking about PragerU's banning and shadowbanning issues on Facebook for a couple of months or longer.

 

 

 

Michael

 

Wow! Good news anyway. I saw the banning but didn't know they had been restored.

I wonder if youtube is still keeping Prager videos in the adult content section --- meaning they can't be viewed in schools, for example.

Darrell

On 8/16/2018 at 6:32 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Darrell,

Absolutely.

The tech giants want to be regulated. That will shut out startups over time (except for crony startups run by people with pull). And this, as you say, is even more reason to oppose regulation.

We agree on that.

I have probably been writing poorly if that has not been clear.

But there is an idea I want to add to this, so let me try it this way.

The argument generally given on the O-Land side, which in this context I mean including libertarians and some conservatives, is that tech giants are private property and they have the right to determine who can use their platform and who cannot. But people use this argument to justify ignoring the bullying of Alex Jones by crony corporatists and the deep state. This bullying will inevitably lead to regulation of the Internet in some form--through antitrust laws, declaring social media platforms a public utility, etc., all of which have enough grounds in law to happen. Maybe even racketeering. It all depends on what prosecutors, disgruntled people with lawyers, and politicians can dream up.

I believe that is a bad thing.

And the fact that people in O-Land present their argument so sanctimoniously and dismiss all else just because they dislike Alex Jones shows they are blinded to this risk, thus they are not really thinking in principles, although it sounds like they are.

Is that clear, now? I want to be understood before I am judged.

 

Seriously, if you have any doubt about any lack of clarity there may be in my words, please let me know.

Michael

Hi Michael,

I guess I was a little confused about your argument, so thank you for setting the record straight. There is certainly enough sanctimony among Objectivists, but that sort of goes with the territory.

Darrell

I can't watch the video right now, but I heard the news the other day. I don't know much about the case, but my feeling is that this is another ridiculous result. Chemicals have side effects. If we ban all chemicals, we'll be overrun by weeds and insects. There are always trade-offs.

5 hours ago, anthony said:

To be clearer, Darrell, the problem of "principle or context" I raised was not at all involving of the individual. For him they blend (are "integrated"), which is the hallmark of objective epistemology/ethics, you'll know. Here, there's no distinction between one's principles (or virtues) and factual context, an Objectivist can and does hold them simultaneously, applying conceptual method and principles to real things, continuously.

Multiply the one person by many millions, however, and he or she doesn't have that ultimate control over his own liberty and his life, as he does in his own thinking and acts. Society and Government are not the individual's to steer (although he is not completely powerless to persuade). This, the public arena and the standard of individual rights and the proper form of govt.we know is right, is where I believe a breach between principle and fact enters w.r.t. Objectivists, especially, and where ARI has often taken the purist, rationalist high road - like their advocacy of 'open borders' (ignoring several contexts) - criticizing or dismissing any positive steps in the US taken recently - regardless of the fact that we are "not there yet". "There" is not going to arrive soon. "We"/you have to work with what is there, exists, right now. While holding/propagating those standards. Gradually, many millions will have to see the value of those ideas themselves for the right outcome.

Anthony,

I don't think that principles are out-of-context absolutes, even for an individual. Context always matters. For example, Ayn Rand held honesty to be a virtue. However, it is a virtue in the context of peaceful coexistence. As Tara Smith has pointed out, it is even a virtue when the person one is dealing with isn't entirely rational in his reasoning. On the other hand, it isn't hard to construct scenarios involving criminals or acts of war in which it is perfectly reasonable to lie --- where, in fact, honesty would be foolish. So honesty is a virtue within a particular context.

With respect to immigration the same thing is true. While the right to liberty, or specifically, the right to freedom of movement, is a right, it is not an out-of-context absolute. One generally doesn't have the right to access another person's property, for example.

There is also the right to free association --- the right to voluntarily join together with other people for moral and proper purposes. One of the proper purposes of association is for mutual self defense. So, it is right and proper that people form a country with a government and restrict the people that can enter and the purposes for which they can enter. The right to liberty can't trump the right to freedom of association. The two principles can only be understood by looking at how they interact for the purpose of protecting human life --- the act of expending one's own effort for the furtherance of one's own survival and prosperity.

While it is true that people all over the world have the right to liberty, it is also true that they don't have a right to demand that other people provide the conditions necessary for the protection of that right. If mass immigration undermines the ability of a group of people to form an association for the purpose of mutual self defense, then the right to liberty cannot be interpreted as superseding the right to association. Such an interpretation would undermine the right to life.

The right to liberty is not an out-of-context absolute. The only way that ARI and other objectivists can justify open borders is through massive context dropping. In the full context of human existence, it seems imminently reasonable to put limits on immigration.

Darrell

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Darrell,There was a moral panic over Cambridge Analytica by the left, so yes, some people deleted their Facebook accounts. But the effect out here in reality of Cambridge Analytica on the election was practically nonexistent. I doubt it swayed a single voter to switch over to Trump. There simply wasn't enough time even if they could have. Well... maybe one or two... But then... Nah... It didn't sway anybody.

 

On the other hand, the COBS covert persuasion strategies Obama employed during his two runs actually did sway voters.

Michael

Michael,

I'm not saying that Cambridge Analytica had a significant effect on the election or that their use of Facebook data was even a scandal. The point is that the left considers it a scandal and it is the left that is outraged over the actions of Facebook and it is the left that is driving regulation of social media as a result of that outrage.

Conservatives (and classical liberals, libertarians, objectivists, etc.) have also complained about mistreatment by platforms like Facebook, but we're used to being mistreated. Besides, the owners of Facebook don't really care about us anyway. However, they do care about how they are perceived on the left and that is why they have been cracking down on right-leaning "fake news" while ignoring the fake news pumped out daily by big left-leaning media companies.

Darrell