Radio Interrupted 9/18/15
Today’s program was outrageous. The host suggests some sort of collective right of association. He argues for collective values. His attitudes are not objectivist and lead to the idea of national ID cards, the TSA, the NSA, search and frisk. This show does not represent objectivism and is a poor reflection on the gulch.
However, I was talking about Freedom of Association, another First Amendment right, which does include the right to exclude.
If it did not, then please explain to me why the Gulch in Atlas Shrugged was:
1) By invite only
2) Set in a remote location
3) Camouflaged from discovery
4) Peopled by those who:
a) were concerned about how to handle trespassers (Dagny)
b) used the word trespassers
c) flew Dagny out blindfolded
d) requested that she tell no one of the location
Freedom of Association (right to peaceably assemble). Exclusion is an obvious corollary, however the legal system has been ruling inconsistently at best on this.
There are six enumerated aspects/clauses in the first amendment, 3 of them are actively under attack in the courts or in the culture or both.
Free exercise of religion
Peaceably Assemble
Petitioning of governmental redress of grievances
Those three aspects are actively under attack.
Yes it was. Private property with a minarchist government: a system of courts whose job it was to execute the will of the individuals in the Gulch that contracts between individuals be honored. If someone decided to flout those minarchist courts they would be violating the rights of each of the members of the Gulch who delegated their authority to those courts.
Freedom of Association is an implied Constitutional right, yes.
But it was explicit in the Gulch as demonstrated by my previous points.
The minimal government in the gulch is not what we are concerned with. It would be a much better situation for all of us if that is what we had, but with 320 million people and climbing, not what we have or are likely to be able to get to.
Unfortunately, the more people under the aegis of any given government, the larger and more bloated that government becomes. As the founders warned, once the people realize they can vote themselves things from the public treasury, they will do so.
Every new right or entitlement some politico comes up with and gets passed, increases the bloat and cost. And the bigger it grows, the more it feeds the corruption.
If we want to discuss and debate a Gulch government, lets have a thread about it. Dragging it into a discussion about immigration does no good, the situations are not parallel.
Correct.
However, claims were made, quite strongly and without the courtesy of a request for clarification, that my conclusions were drawn from collectivism.
In response, I have provided relevant quotes from Ayn Rand and relevant events in Atlas Shrugged.
And, yes, the situations are parallel.
The situations are NOT parallel. Government in the Gulch, such as it was and what there was of it, was either a true direct democracy or a near anarchy. Likely dependent on what issue you were picking.
So in the case of immigration to the Gulch, immigrants were explicitly selected. Dagny was already selected, but chose not to accept membership at the time. She didn't necessarily realize she had been selected, but she knew people who had been once she trespassed.
Anyway, in her case as well as any foot trespassers, either every member of the Gulch could be directly asked on what to do about her or else a few people would decide for everyone with no consultation.
Everyone asked - direct democracy
Nobody asked - near anarchy since no titles/positions to make these decisions were ever explicitly stated.
Which? I don't think that can be determined from the minimal text on this in the book. Your opinion on that may differ.
In any case it is not relevant.
Dagny as trespasser is dubious. She was already on the list to be invited, she just found them before being asked. Found them through her own abilities I might add. She was an interloper, but not an unwelcome one.
Now the outside world, our government is an mishmash of part republic and part democracy. We also have a population of 320m and climbing.
We don't have someone or even a group of people making invitation lists for specific people to emigrate. We don't even have coherent policies about it.
How are these parallel?
Direct democracy hasn't been seen in the real world representing more than a few hundred or thousand people since the earliest days of Greek city-states as far as I am aware.
Yes, we have.
Thank you for your respect, it is returned in kind.
Once multiple people start to own land on their own you wind up with having to have ways of them interacting other than one man rule.
And, actually, where does MIdas's property rights come from. Did the entity that he 'bought' the property from own it in the first place? At some point back in the chain of ownership a government seized the property by force.
One may purchase and otherwise obtain all of the writings and analysis of AR's thoughts and developed philosophy that one wishes, but that does not an Objectivist make. What ever you imagine an Island in the North Cook Islands, or the lands acquired by the idiots of Oregon, or the mentally deficient that would not only intentionally and knowingly drink poisoned KoolAid but also feed it to the children, you're so far off base as to be in a separate ball game in a separate league.
This is a site for people interested in Ayn Rand, her thoughts, her writings, and her philosophy of Objectivism--not for random, non-sequitur or other ludicrous inputs, or the accumulation of points based on just the addition of a post of stream of consciousness comment.
Maybe such contributors should contribute 'one gold dollar' per each non-Objectivist post or comment.
I seriously doubt that.
"I cannot take another show like that."
We are always looking for other talent to do their own show.
Seriously, this is an option.
interrupted@galtsgulchonline.com
"It was awful today"
I'm sorry you think so.
A couple of of points on that:
1) “When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.” - Ayn Rand
2) This is a link to Howard Roarke's defense speech in the movie The Fountainhead. In it, Roarke explicitly qualifies the word "truth" with "his". Three times. The point being: not even Ayn Rand got her language consistently correct. But, I'm sure, if anyone had taken the time to approach her in a civil manner and ask, she would have been happy to clarify her point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw5YA...
I listened and thought quite professionally down and rather enjoyed the ....learning experience...
Even the 500 pound gorilla gets ripped and rolled once in a while
As for me I was applauding wow myfirst day fully connected and fireworks this is great! And handled so well!
Souond Deguello. Take no prisoners
But I guess these people haven't yet learned the significance of the difference between man and citizen. The founding documents of this country or the thoughts of Ayn Rand, do not restrict the recognition of unalienable rights to only American citizens, but instead emphasizes that all men have those rights through and by their existence, enumerated or not, and regardless of place of birth or locality of residence, and without regard to culture.
There can be no geo-political exclusionary power or right within a society of individual freedom. And attempting to conflate the individual property right with a communal property right denies individual rights that accompany birth. It is a total denial of Objectivism and the founding of this country of free men.
Yes I agree. I am working on one post that describes property rights in more detail related to immigration right now. However, the topic deserves a lot more discussion than I do in that post.
Strangely enough you will get into fights with Os about ownership of self. They will argue that Rand never said that and Piekoff calls the idea circular and nonsense. Actually Rand stated exactly this, not obviously as some sort of axiom, but derived from the nature of man.
Is man a sovereign individual who owns his person, his mind, his life and its products – or is he the property of the tribe …
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, What is Capitalism, p 10.
Most of people think that they know what property rights are, but their ideas are all skewed - confusing multiple different concepts. This includes Os. Rand did not discuss this topic much. The only two essays on point are from Capitalism:The Unknown Ideal. One is on patents and the other is on the airwaves.
For myself it seems so straightforward, as you state, man owns himself, his mind, his life, and the products of and from that ownership. So what's the hang-up in understanding that? Maybe it's in understanding the concept of ownership as compared to altruistic obligations--in someway connected in thinking to the concept of self interested selfishness as compared to self centered selfishness. I know there's a lot of confusion generated in the comparisons of the AS Gulch vs a nation state, and the comparisons of inherent rights vs granted rights.
There's also a lot of conservative self aggrandizement issues as Americans vs non-Americans and group identity vs individual identity. Additionally, the concept of jurisdictional control vs ownership is getting confused and conflated.
I look forward eagerly to your post and let's see if we can move the discussions forward. Txs for the work.
Not according the host.
You know that I respect and appreciate what you say, but I have to ask again how the right to travel you speak of jibes with private property? If someone can come and go on and off your property as they please how is your property private? How is that property, and anything on that land, yours? By extension the US is the private property of the 50 States and every citizen represented by those States, no? Does not the right of private property give the owner(s) of that property the authority to regulate who comes and goes on and off that property? If not, is there really private property all? And if there is no property that is private how is that not the position of classical communism?
Again, I'm speaking about how this topic applies to reality and not theory. I am attempting to understand where you're coming from without condoning the national ID cards, search and frisk, the TSA, or the NSA turning their attention toward the American people.
Travel implies visit.
Migrate implies staying.
https://reason.com/archives/2012/02/1...
Ayn Rand's case gives reason both for the case of unrestricted travel and against it.
The answer on the 50 states is clearly no Governments do not have rights. The only thing a government can do legitimately is protect people's individual rights. Everyone voting to exclude someone I want to interact with violates both my rights and the person who wants to interact with me.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or too the people.
Tenth Amendment - being run roughshod over since at least 1862.
I wouldn't walk into your yard, use your grill (I'll bring my own beef) and pitch a tent without first asking you.
If you, Slug and I lived next to each other and decided, even though our properties are individually walled, to build a wall with a grand gate encompassing all three of our properties, all that space between our houses would become private property, no?
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sel...
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sel...
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/nat...
Thank you.
This discussion is outrageous. You have been provided a valid pro-freedom, objectivist solution to any valid immigration concerns, but you go on with your collectivist justifications for violating other people's rights.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sel...
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sel...
"The right of 'the self-determination of nations' applies only to free societies or to societies seeking to establish freedom" - Ayn Rand in which she acknowledges a right applicable both to a nation and to a society.
"A nation that violates the rights of its own citizens cannot claim any rights whatsoever." - Ayn Rand, in which she specifies that rights apply to citizens.
"In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use." - Ayn Rand in which she recognized a value upon which the individuals of a society agree, i.e. "civilized".
Correct.
Again from the lexicon entry on "Self-Defense" - "The individual does possess the right of self-defense and that is the right which he delegates to the government, for the purpose of an orderly, legally defined enforcement." - Ayn Rand.
"Your logic says I have to have permission to move"
Correct to a point.
If are you saying that your claim of "right to move" trumps Rand's claim of
right to self-determination of a free society, then I disagree.
"[I] want to exclude people because of the accident of where they were born,"
Absolutely untrue, and I challenge you to cite where I have stated as such.
"or some other class category"
Yes. Marxists need not apply.
"which can only be done by violating everyone's rights"
How? Rational immigration policy has existed for years here and elsewhere long before it was broken here.
"people you consider undesirable"
Such as "moochers" and "looters"...
You have called my arguments "collectivist" without doing me the courtesy of actually asking me to elaborate.
Would it be unfair if I responded in kind and called your arguments utopian?
Yes, I did. And yes, there are people here who are leery of so many East Coaster refugees moving in. They call it "The East Infection". I do my best to let each one know that I moved because I share their values and that if I want to petition the local government for change, it is the same change for which they themselves are petitioning.
More to the point of your argument;
1) "absurdity" is an ad hominem: you are completely dismissing that I might have any kind of a point to make. I would appreciate if you would approach me in a more civil manner.
2) The borders of Wyoming, Connecticut, and the rest of the states United States are open to each other because a law, presumably passed by the will of its citizens, has declared them to be so.
3) The United States and Mexico (and any other nation) are sovereign nations with agreed upon borders over which (presumably) the will of its citizens have agreed upon. So, yes, to claim that my desire to ignore the sovereignty of another nation is irrelevant because I choose I it to be is an attack. Wars have been fought over this.
1) Countries have the right to exist.
2) Countries have the right to establish and defend their own borders.
3) Countries, as empowered by their citizens through the legislative process, have the right to establish laws regarding unacceptable conduct. When those laws become excessive, the citizens have the right to take that power away, or to leave.
Those rights are the embodiment of the thoughts and actions of those who fought (word chosen carefully) to earn those rights. These rights are not inalienable. They must be defended from tyrants, looters, moochers, and even people who seem to think that fences or walls mean nothing. If a person will not honor the property rights of a country who puts up a fence or a wall around their country, that person will also not honor the fences or walls that individual citizens put up around their individual properties. A person who does not honor fences or walls must be treated as a ... looter (meant in the traditional, rather than in the Atlas Shrugged sense). I have no tolerance for looters, nor moochers.
A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens— has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense) . . . .
Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations.
“Collectivized ‘Rights,’”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 103
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/nat...
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
From the nation's perspective, an immigrant is an unknown quantity. In its duty to protect the individual rights of people within their borders, they must examine the immigrant's background, reason for coming, etc. using a rational immigration policy that existed in America for many years. You are correct to a point in saying that, as an immigrant, you need permission to move. Eudamonia's explanation was complete on this point. This permission is meant to be a relatively straightforward process. I have gone through customs several times. It was inconvenient, but in the long run, it is a minor inconvenience compared to the peace of mind that comes from knowing that my nation is doing a nation's only legitimate function.
1. Countries have the right to exist - on what authority? How many countries throughout history have been conquered and absorbed or destroyed. Carthage springs to mind, as does Babylonia. Countries come into existence through strife historically. They tend to end the same way.
2. See 1 - establishing and defending borders comes down to force, which was also how they become established initially, and how they end.
3. Many countries do not recognize or grant any rights to their citizens through legislative processes, at least that we would recognize as such. Depending on the place, slavery might still exist, which of course removes any of what we would call rights. Chattel rights are always limited.
Citizens do not always have the rights to either take over or leave. When there is no hope of anything approaching force parity, the citizens cannot effectively fight back, strangling that option.
The right to leave becomes problematic on several fronts. if the country you are trying to flee keeps you in place with force (East Germany, Russian states, etc) fleeing is difficult. If other countries do not allow you in, fleeing is effectively impossible, especially if they repatriate you when they catch you.
The second half of your post I agree with more or less. But you left out the bit about the citizens of the country in question ignoring their own laws. Where do they fall then? Looters? Moochers? Naive?
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/nat...
When a country does not grant rights to citizens, let alone non-citizens, that nation is an outlaw.
Until you understand that basic principle and premise, you are at a loss in attempting to communicate with Objectivists.
I get lost in historical weeds sometimes. Lose track that the discussuin is philosophical rather than geopolitical.
I'll never forget going to the bathroom there. The bathroom had an attendant. I didn't know what on earth he was doing there until my friend said that I was supposed to tip him. I silently wondered why. I had to tip him for the privilege of having him watch me wipe my hindquarters with toilet paper so thin you could see through it and more abrasive than wiping with printer paper. THAT is a restriction on the freedom to travel. People in this forum may say that I am giving up liberty to get security if I say that I would be willing to tolerate pre-9/11 (or perhaps pre-1980) standard immigration security measures. Perhaps. That is a fair amount of security to gain with almost no loss of liberty. It sounds like a good value-for-value trade for me.
Today's security obviously is overdone and ridiculous. Just for the reaction, when asked to remove my shoes, I submit but only under the condition that the TSA agent must smell those shoes. ;)