Illegals could throw the Electoral College towards Hillary
though this is Newsmax (grab your salt shaker) there is
an important fact here::: most of the Electoral College votes
are derived from gross census, which includes illegals. -- j
.
an important fact here::: most of the Electoral College votes
are derived from gross census, which includes illegals. -- j
.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
the contradiction is that individual rights are not the same as "territorial integrity" which is inherently a isolationist position which violates individual rights. A proper govt shall not violate the rights of man. the only exception, Rand argues, is in time of war. the war on terror, the war on culture are anti-concepts.
Dr. Ed Hudgin's on point:
http://atlassociety.org/commentary/co...
Show me a contradiction between individualism and the territorial integrity of a nation.
Please answer the question: When Ayn Rand refers to “national self-interest” and “the country’s interest” with evident praise, is she a collectivist?
In reply to GaltsGulchOnline.com/posts/49ee0683/i...
A wall would not be practical for a border hundreds of miles long, since it would involve multiple property owners, all of whom would have to agree to build and maintain that wall. Individual property owners could build their own walls or enclosures if they wish.
Any government border checkpoint would involve an agreement between the government and the owner or owners of the road beyond that checkpoint, spelling out the terms of access for people crossing the border at that checkpoint.
Within a legal framework designed to protect lives and property, private covenants among existing property owners would govern the sale or lease of their property to prospective immigrants, and the uses to which such property could be put.
More later.
If I lived in the 19th century you could say I wanted to keep America pure. These days in some respects I want to turn back the clock. This position hasn’t been exposed by anyone, it has been proclaimed by me.
You say that any foreigner has a right to enter my country, and I only imagine that I have a right to keep him out. Obviously both rights cannot exist. Since the first alleged right – in effect meaning no borders – leads to the demise of America, the second right must be the correct one.
“History has shown us where that ideology eventually leads to.” Could you be more specific? Regarding your idea of the rights of foreigners, a useful historical analogy is the end of the Roman Empire, gradually undone by the at first peaceful immigration of barbarians.
In reply to http://GaltsGulchOnline.com/posts/49e...
Assuming there was a wall that could limit access to 3 or 4 points upon which we put government checkpoints (assuming this was a legitimate function), we still have 3 or 4 private roads with private owners who, according to your reasoning may refuse entry. To anybody, for any reason. Just like you do in your house or your yard. That is unless, of course, you mean to say that once the government has approved the person then a private owner cannot refuse their entry. Would that still apply to your house? Your yard?
Does it not make sense, then, that the private ownership of public thoroughfares must be treated differently than the private ownership of your home, or your restaurant or other business?
You have repeatedly made it clear that your entire goal is to protect the purity of some definition of America that you have decided is best for everyone. You would use the might of the US government to pick and choose who may come here and you would choose based on race, country of origin, intelligence (measured how?), and, I would bet, physical attributes.
History has shown us where that ideology eventually leads to. And it begins with the willingness to place the rights of one group of people beneath the imagined rights of others.
.
I think the analogy between “isolationist” and “collectivist” – the latter in the context of immigration – holds up quite well.
In any event, when Ayn Rand refers to “national self-interest” and “the country's interest” with evident praise, is she a collectivist?
Your argument only serves to verify my previous statement. You have just stated that the "Real meaning" of collectivism is "Patriotism and national self-interest." This should tell everybody all they need to know about your position. Ayn Rand was very specific about the evils of collectivism. The page on collectivism in the "Ayn Rand Lexicon" is a mile long and easy to find. And while you may be very patriotic it is not the "national self interest" of America that you have in mind.
Some freedom oriented ideas have been suggested, on this post and a few previous posts, that address the concerns you stated. Nobody has suggested "no borders". I don't have time for a lengthy debate these days but if you're truly interested in a pro-freedom solution you might look those up and do some research and some serious thinking.
The following is from Rand’s “The Art of Smearing.” She is writing about the term “isolationism” introduced in the 1930s:
------------------------------------
It was a derogatory term, suggesting something evil, and it had no clear, explicit definition. It was used to convey two meanings: one alleged, the other real – and to damn both.
The alleged meaning was defined approximately like this: “Isolationism is the attitude of a person who is interested only in his own country and is not concerned with the rest of the world.” The real meaning was: “Patriotism and national self-interest.”
What, exactly, is “concern with the rest of the world”? Since nobody did or could maintain the position that the state of the world is of no concern to this country, the term “isolationism” was a straw man used to misrepresent the position of those who were concerned with this country’s interests. The concept of patriotism was replaced by the term “isolationism” and vanished from public discussion.
------------------------------------
Today “collectivism” is a similar bait and switch. The alleged meaning of “collectivism” is not precisely defined but goes something like this: “the attitude of a person who thinks that only groups matter, never individuals.” The real meaning is: “Patriotism and national self-interest.”
“Collectivism” is a straw man used to misrepresent the position of those who are concerned with this country’s interests. Some here are trying to replace the concept of patriotism by the term “isolationism” so we won’t talk about it anymore.
Better to create policy based upon the individual rights of all involved. We've already got the collectivist version.
Have you ever posted: Foreigners have no right to U.S. citizenship because the U.S. has a welfare system. All I see is: Foreigners have a right to U.S. citizenship, period. Which is consistent, after all an authentic right doesn’t exist by whim of you and me.
But even if you answer number 1 (abolish welfare as a precondition to open immigration), I would still disagree. This what you might call “Milton Friedman argument” is suicidal. Even if the U.S. were an entirely free country, open immigration would destroy it in a single lifetime.
How is defending one’s country from conquest by immigration collectivist? In what new sense do you use the word?
Load more comments...