tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post3933454973902645635..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: Frightened TurtlesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-67428668567505174182014-09-20T22:03:47.459-04:002014-09-20T22:03:47.459-04:00Excellent article. Thank you. I posted it on my FB...Excellent article. Thank you. I posted it on my FB wall.lilarose4truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05580076951122298952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-74524844200880771022014-09-14T10:43:53.536-04:002014-09-14T10:43:53.536-04:00Michael Nebel et al.: I might have added to the co...Michael Nebel et al.: I might have added to the column some remarks on how our domestic and foreign policies via the INS (and now the DHS) have incorporated a demonstrably racist practice of favoring "dark skinned" immigrants over white. It takes years for Europeans, once they apply for entrance, to wait in line and actually arrive here to begin their climb to citizenship. Coming here with a green or residence card helps, and also marrying an American citizen, but those routes are also subject to censure by the INS. In the meantime, the flow inward of Muslims is unabated. Some enter with two or more wives, or acquire up to four who are put on welfare, as well as the "husbands." Then there's the racket practiced by Mexicans and other Latinos, as well as Muslims, of "anchor babies." The Supreme Court ruling that illegals and foreigners can't be denied American welfare benefits really doesn't help, either. But all these tactics and subterfuges are grossly unfair to foreigners and others, regardless of their skin color or ethnicity, who have invested years trying to obtain American citizenship. The Social Security Administration has been handing illegals from the south American passports and SS numbers, according to some non-MSN news outlets. Topping it all off, of course, is Obama's literal invitation to an invasion over the southern border. Edward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-9373036171382288802014-09-14T10:25:35.585-04:002014-09-14T10:25:35.585-04:00Good incisive article. It's not easy to challe...Good incisive article. It's not easy to challenge some ideas held by those one admires and respects. But it must be done if cognitive clarity is to be achieved.<br /><br />I will only add that for decades if not generations, immigration policy has been treated almost exclusively as a domestic policy problem. It isn't. It's also a foreign policy problem. The question must be asked why don't the nations south of us create in their nations the conditions i.e. the political conditions that exist here in our country so that their people don't have to come here in droves? This and related questions must be asked. Once the answers are written down on paper they can then be addressed.<br /><br />I do agree though that in a nutshell, in order to have an open door policy we must have a house with a door that can be opened. We don't have that now. That is what needs to be discussed in our halls of Congress both in terms of domestic and foreign policy,Michael Neibelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15321103608597264855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-19239844867855314282014-09-13T02:33:57.527-04:002014-09-13T02:33:57.527-04:00The open borders advocates focus on the rights of ...The open borders advocates focus on the rights of immigrants and ignore-or blank out-the fact that few of them have any regard for our rights (as evidenced by how they nearly all vote for statists when they can). The question has elements in common with the dubious claim that we are not at war with Islamic terrorists and must confront them as ordinary criminals to be tried in the criminal justice system rather than killed in war. But the fact is that we are faced with an invasion that the criminal justice system is impotent to protect us from, as we can plainly see today-one that will destroy us if not stopped. The only solution is closed borders and an orderly immigration system with objective immigration laws.Burkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02091407718797702308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-52592582860237474602014-09-12T23:28:10.469-04:002014-09-12T23:28:10.469-04:00In answer to a correspondent's comment that &q...In answer to a correspondent's comment that "open borders" means letting in the "diseased, the criminal, the terrorists, and the moochers,” I responded with: "Steve: I don't think Yaron Brook and Bernstein and all the supporters of "open borders" have sat back and thought through all the implications and consequences of an "open border" for this country They just want to be "consistent" with Objectivism, but have introduced a dangerous element of rationalism to the philosophy. They don't think "inside the box" of the philosophy, and are advocating breaking out of that box. This is liberatrainism, not Objectivism. A nation that has no will or ability to govern its borders, no longer has borders and is prey to any and all invaders, whether they're "immigrants" or armies, and is no longer an identifiable nation.<br /><br />Case in point: When European settlers began colonizing North America, there were dozens of Indian tribes or so-called "nations" that had no government and no borders. As European civilization grew in North America, the "nations" retreated West, going to war with whatever other Indian tribes they encountered along the way and which had vegetated and remained stagnant for as many centuries as the East Coast Indians had. The thing to remember is that these were tribes, not political entities. The Apaches and Arapahos and Cheyenne were descendants of East Coast tribes. Out West, they made war on the more indigenous and sedentary Indian tribes and wiped them out. But in no instance, not even with the wiped out tribes, were the new-coming Indians a political entity. They were nomads, going where they pleased and warring with other tribes. <br /><br />Environmentalists they weren't; they were slash and burn people when they decided to settle in one spot for a while and grow things, and ran thousands of buffalo off of cliffs to collect just a few hides and chunks of meat. But they did not represent political entities or systems.<br /><br />It's a libertarian notion that freedom is a "spontaneous" phenomenon constrained by government. "Rights" are just there, to be picked out of the air. It's no wonder that they despised Rand, and that Rand despised them. They eschewed any philosophical system on which any political system had to be based, whether it was Anarchy or Nazism or Communism or laissez-faire capitalism. I fail to see how the advocates of open borders can reconcile Objectivism with open borders, but they seem to think they are doing it while denying it's libertarianism and denying any pernicious consequences to this country. <br /><br />I might add, parenthetically, that Muslims are governed by as primitive and anti-intellectual a code of morality as were the American Indians, with the difference being that Islam is from toe to head totalitarian with its Koran-governed plethora of arbitrary diktats, while the Indians lacked even a "holy book" that told them what to do and think. <br />Edward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-40352825041591086502014-09-12T17:54:20.291-04:002014-09-12T17:54:20.291-04:00Burke: Your impression is correct. Go here for two...Burke: Your impression is correct. Go here for two Peikoff podcasts.<br /><br />Leonard Peikoff on non-violent, “average” Muslims and their complicity in terrorism:<br /><br />http://www.peikoff.com/2014/01/02/are-the-large-groups-who-call-themselves-moderate-muslims-really-moderate/<br /><br />Peikoff on immigration:<br /><br />What is the proper government attitude toward immigration? « Featured Podcast « PeikoffEdward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-61710235325284566832014-09-12T17:52:32.643-04:002014-09-12T17:52:32.643-04:00Grant Jones, unable to log into RoR, asked me to l...Grant Jones, unable to log into RoR, asked me to leave these comments which he left on Capitalism Magazine, as well:<br />The fundamental issue is by what standard should the United States base its immigration policy. It's either going to be the national self-interest as determined by the American people. Or, it's going to be the alleged right of foreign nationals to cross the border. There is no middle ground on this. The open immigration advocates think they can support national self-interest as the basic foreign policy while telling the American people they must sacrifice their interests and security in order to accommodate foreigners. The other question is whether the United States is a sovereign nation that has the legitimate authority to control who and what crosses its borders. Or, is the United States some post-modern entity that no longer possesses the fundamental attributes of the nation-state. The left, and their jihadists allies, want to destroy the nation-state. Erasing America's borders is a large step in that direction. Then nobody will have any rights to worry about, including the American people who have been sold out by their "open immigration" elites.<br /><br />"People who work prefer lower taxes." !!! Tell that to the Californians inundating Colorado and other states. All they can think to do is recreate the bankrupt mess they fled. People from cultures saturated in mysticism, altruism and collectivism will support the logically concluding politics. The idea that immigrants are better than Americans and are really Jeffersonian-Republicans yearning to vote libertarian and write checks to the CATO Institute is nonsense.<br />Edward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-86125405242016250382014-09-12T17:48:33.362-04:002014-09-12T17:48:33.362-04:00I got the impression somewhere that Leonard Peikof...I got the impression somewhere that Leonard Peikoff does not subscribe to the "official" Objectivist open immigration view, but I don't recall where.Burkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02091407718797702308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-3009308244447659842014-09-12T14:08:17.961-04:002014-09-12T14:08:17.961-04:00Burke: I couldn't agree with you more. We are...Burke: I couldn't agree with you more. We are at war, with Islam, even though the government and Obama deny that we're at war with Islam. It seems that Obama also wants to repeat the grave error that Reagan made during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan: arm the jihadists to fight jihadists (Reagan armed jihadists to fight the Soviets). One can only scratch one's head over the "official" Objectivist position on immigration. Edward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-53961148232174902942014-09-12T13:34:52.062-04:002014-09-12T13:34:52.062-04:00I asked one prominent Objectivist supporter of ope...I asked one prominent Objectivist supporter of open immigration if his policy should be implemented by Israel. He stated that it should not because Israel is at war. I believe that the open immigration argument begins to fall apart as soon as one analyzes this view and begins to assess the nature and extent of threats that justify any war, including the threat of attacks at the ballot box by social democrats here. Their refusal to reconsider their views on this have reached the point of dogmatism that threatens not only the country but the credibility of Objectivism itself. Burkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02091407718797702308noreply@blogger.com