RoR: Forum

I don't want to detract from slagging Adam, but Scott needs therapy too...

How are we going to instill pro-capitalist, pro-democracy ideals in people who believe their opposites?

Somehow. Disconnect.

I strongly believe in advocacy as the solution.
As you are unconcerned for your moral self-contradiction of using the violence of the state to promote liberty from the violence of the state, consider the practical side. The state indoctrination in capitalist ideology you propose sends the message out that enlightenment and understanding are not important and that what is primary to the flourishing of freedom is not free minds free thinking but compulsory state-fed entrainment. It's as if you think that we don't need to believe in liberty so long as we are sufficiently inured by the slogans of institutionalised propaganda and follow the North Koreanesq dance-by-numbers routine as layed out for us by the official state ideology.
Do you get why that's bad?

How are private citizens who support liberty to influence insular neighbors who share neither church, language, social group, employment?

Through the...somehow. Disconnect.

Through the active participation in media channels. Take back the public understanding of liberty. Post capitalism to the cathedral door of our times- be on TV, on radio and in print. Respond to the statists, don't let them steal the airwaves when we have superior arguments that, in willing hands, can and will disburse anti-freedom doctrines like so many insubstantial vapours. Form clubs and societies, political parties that act. Get involved in a magazine, in blogs. Let's make a podcast. Live your life preaching Objectivism always and, when necesasary, use words.

For goodness's sake, I'm not advocating indoctrination camps or the Hilter Youth.

I think you are, Mine Fuhrer, but you just don't realise you are.

I'm saying that, if we are
requiring something, let's require assimilation and let's teach ideas which support the direction we want to move in.

If I brought up the name 'Dr Mengala' at this point where do you think I'd be going with that Scott?

Listen, the state is an instrument of horrific violence that we only permit because it's all we have to stand against real, but less horrific, forms of criminal violence. But you cannot wield it as an instrument of good, Boromir, and I thought we went over this at the Council of Elrond? Give the ring to Frodo.

Post 61

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 5:35pm

Jeff --

Well first of all I don't think "Objectivist Utopia" is a viable goal. Any government sponsored cultural quality control seeking some ideal cultural uniformity is bound to backfire and is ultimately a collectivist, anti individualist methodology even if it preaches anti collectivist ideals.   I also think the problem of immigrants and their supposed cultural baggage is overrated.   This is a hot button political issue and always has been -- native born people have always been worked up about the latest batch of immigrants. While I don't accuse anyone here of this I think that much of it is based upon xenophobia and racism. I would argue that in most cases native born people are just as ideologically inept as our immigrants.  For reasons I gave above open borders are not a viable option currently though I have no problem with the current government strategy of offering pardons and work permits or turning a semi blind eye altogether to illegal workers. As to your questions here is the general strategy I have in mind.

1. A slow political revolution needs to take place which dismantles the ideology of the American political right -- the religous and traditionalist "Republicans" and this needs to be replaced with a more sturdy libertarian/Objectivist set of ideological underpinnngs that can successfully turn the tide in the battle against the left. All of the intellectual muscle is there, it is simply a matter of making pro capitalist ideas a part of the culture just as the left has made Marxist and altruist assumptions about politics a part of the culture. It is for this reason that the current political conservatives need to be replaced because they are incapable of attacking these core issues head on and instead simply add these assumptions to a wretched cultural morality and cultural quality control agenda. So our main target at the present time ought to be the conservatives with the end goal of creating a second 2nd political party which is based very broadly on the purely classical liberalist approach to government and economics. From there it is a matter of dismantling the government piece by piece. Democracy is a fishy business that doesn't lend itself to quick, revolutionary change.   The very long range goal and final step is to revampt the constitution to severly limit the power of the legislature and their ability to pass laws which violate individual rights. Thus we would move toward "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".

2. Who knows how long such a thing will take? I think this is an important goal but I am not a revolutionary and I am not willing to enact totalitarian measures to bring these goals into place. I would much prefer the current state of affairs in America to some attempt at immediate cultural change through government enforced cultural quality control or through some kind of violent revolution.  This is a long, drawn out battle of ideas. It should also be noted that this isn't merely an American battle of ideas. The world is well on its way to developing an international division of labor and more slowly a more internationally unified culture.   At the moment most of the world's belief systems and ideologies are in unified opposition to these developments and yet after several bumps in the road these devopments continue to proceed. The American and Western expample is simply too strong. So once again our goal should be to inject the culture with notions explaining the virtuous nature of all of these acheivements to ensure that industrialization, capitalism, freedom and individualism develop faster in places in which such development has lagged. We can't demand either utopia or perfectly agreeable neighbors and any efforts to acheive these ends are efforts that proceed in the wrong direction.

Scott --

My answer to your question is contained in the first paragraph of my response to Jeff. And by the way, I appoligize for the angry tone of my earlier posts. You hit a nerve and I went into attack mode.

- Jason

(And I recommend Rick's podcasts.)

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 11/22, 5:37pm)

Post 62

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 5:39pm

And I still can't figure out what your anecdote of the two technicians has to do with this discussion. Talented, productive people are not at issue here.

Reed uses an anecdote because to make a generalization about Mexicans' talents or work habits would be collectivist, racist, scandalous, and treasonous. Since man as a conceptual being relies on generalizations to think and to act, Reed must at least imply them through seemingly arbitrary particulars so as to avoid stating the conclusion he wishes you to draw from them.

(Edited by Scott77 on 11/22, 5:40pm)

Post 63

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 6:10pm

"Teresa - you write, "I suspect a big chunk of subscribers are business people. Business people use statistics for marketing and development. Nothing racist about that."

So business people subscribe to TOC publications for marketing and development. (What do they subscribe to for philosophy? Bloomberg?) And if you believe what you just wrote, Madam, you will believe anything."

Least of all, you, dear sir.

Adam, I understand that you manifest the utmost in linear and tunnel-vision methods of thought, but I'm compelled to break the news: Business people are interested in cultural trends. What do the writers of Navigator write a great deal about?

I don't think it's so much that I'll believe anything, but that you're just so damn eager to accept the worst sans any credible evidence to warrant it. All this flailing around you're doing over nothing is like stirring up a shovel and pitch fork mob to storm the castle housing the infidels who'd publish such stuff. The hyper-sensitivity rivals anything from the PC crowd, Adam. Whats up with that?

All you've got to back up your conclusion is you're own conviction. It's not enough.

I could be wicked and play up to your paranoia and penchant for conspiracy (they're coming after YOU next, Adam, mmmmmmwaaahhahahaha!), but I'm not in the mood.

With Navigtors long history of championing freedom for all people, you're going to have to do better than than make a claim here.

Post 64

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 7:39pm

Jason,
I'll re-read your post more thoroughly tomorrow. My immediate reaction, though, is: too general, too abstract. Give me some practical, implementable suggestions. Something that is both feasible in today's context -- i.e. there's some reasonable chance the average voter will vote in favor of it -- and that leads in the direction of greater liberty.

(I don't agree that the 'religious Republicans' are the chief problem, but let's put that over to the side at least temporarily.)

By all means, don't shoot from the hip. Think about it for a while, if need be.

Post 65

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 7:53pm

Jason, you never need to apologize for taking a strident tone with me. First, I can take it. Second, I have read enough of you to have a pretty good idea that you are a good and intelligent person. I'm not particularly worried that we draw different lines as to the proper role of government in various areas. We probably would agree on the great many other details and ideas, and certainly agree that everyone is better off in a capitalist society.

Jeff, thanks for the support.

Rick, yeah, maybe I need therapy. You rabble-rouser.

Post 66

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 7:57pm

Rick:

"Listen, the state is an instrument of horrific violence that we only permit because it's all we have to stand against real, but less horrific, forms of criminal violence. But you cannot wield it as an instrument of good, Boromir, and I thought we went over this at the Council of Elrond? Give the ring to Frodo."

Are you an anarchist? If you are on Objectivist, would you agree or disagree that government has some proper, limited role? And, BTW, fuck it, I'm going to change my handle to Boromir. And yes, I'd would have been tempted at ther ring...egotistical folly of man...

Post 67

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 8:36pm

Be wary that in your attempt to uphold the individual you don't absent-mindedly embrace multi-culturalism. Some cultures are wrong, DAMNED wrong. Whether we are talking statistically or individually. Reality exists, and there are proper ways for man to live his life qua man. All other "logics", cultures, call them what you will, are WRONG and should not be entertained under the guise of individualism.

Post 68

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 8:59pm

Jeff I would like it if you were to read it again and provide feedback but I would ask that you rethink some of your initial observations -

#1. Why is it that I want to go after republicans? Do I think they are the main enemy? If you would like I can explain this point more clearly. This is the arena in which I would prefer to concentrate ideological and political effort because I think it provides the most bang for the buck.

#2. You're right I don't provide any immediate strategy for getting people to vote for my agenda other then my desire to slowly eliminate the current Republican party and replace it with a more rational, ideologically sturdy alternative. Unfortunately for the moment we are stuck with promoting our ideas at the abstract level. This is in fact a "practical" approach. Do you disagree? And are things really that bad that immediate action in politics is necessary?

- Jason

(I am dead tired and mentally drained today so forgive any typos or grammer errors that I didn't catch)

Post 69

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 12:08am

I would like to thank everyone here for an interesting learning experience. I had no idea how widespread certain misconceptions are, and how much work it might be to answer those misconceptions. In retrospect, it was probably a mistake on my part to submit this article when I don't have time to answer all the deserving comments that it has generated. In any case several comments are cogent and articulate enough to deserve actual articles, rather than mere comments, in response.

Rick Giles and Philip Coates deserve a full exposition of the relevance and irrelevance of statistics in different contexts, of the relation of statistics to individualism, and perhaps also of the semiotics of unstated implicature. Article coming when I have time to write one.

Bill Nevin and Scott77 provided exceptionally lucid articulations of the common fear of "immigration from countries that breed terrorists and/or hostility to individual rights." There is ample historical evidence to disconfirm this fear. Article coming when I have time to write one.

Bill Perry's and Glenn Heppard's comments ask interesting questions about about TOC's "common front" - what Rand called an "unprincipled alliance" - with Euro-Christian chauvinist Bruce Thornton, and others like him, against multiculturalism. Thorton is not merely an opponent of "multiculturalism" - he is also an articulate (and forceful, in all senses of the word) advocate of Western-Christian particularism against Rand's conception of a single, secular, universal human civilization, the universal civilization of Man qua Man on Earth. Article coming when I have time to write one.

Bill Perry and Jason Quintana pose interesting questions about the nature of principles and the proper ways to apply principles in context. Diana Hsieh has made important contributions in this area, and there were very illuminating discussions of this question on her blog. Since she does not post here, I may give it a shot. Article coming when I have time to write one.

I'm glad that my article provoked a lively discussion, and I'm sorry that I can't respond at greater length now.

Post 70

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 12:09am

     I find it unfortunate that in all these posts, the concept 'citizen' seems to be considered extremely irrelevent. Ergo, all arguments will go in circles, spirals, and parabolic tangents; not to mention be mostly on different pages, ergo, irrelevent to most of the others.

     Define (or, argue the worthlessness of so doing) 'citizen,' answer the following questions, and many concerns will fall into place...not the least of which, is that everybody will stop talking at and past each other.

     A 'non-citizen' is, of course, an 'immigrant', and vice-versa. Immigrants can be classified as 'allowed/legal' and 'non-allowed/illegal'. (Whether they should be so distinguished, is, of course another question affecting the whole discussion.)

     Question: should there be an official/legal classification of 'illegal immigrant'?

     If so, 1) how should they be handled...by our legal-system? 2) how should 'legal-immigrants' be treated by our legal-system AND by us 'citizens' (individual or corporate)?

     If not, 1) how should 'non-citizens' be treated...by our legal-system? 2) how should they all be treated by us 'citizens'?

     Finally, the biggee:  What worth should being a 'citizen' be given? If any, what 'legal-requirements' should be met for (il?)legal immigrants to become one?

     Until the 'answers' to these are agreed upon, no solutions will be acceptable to too many 'citizens'.

     Until the 'answers' are clarified, no debating-discussions will be coherent.

LLAP
J:D

Post 71

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 1:13am

Adam,

You wrote:

"I would like to thank everyone here for an interesting learning experience."

De nada, amigo.

You further wrote:

'Bill Nevin and Scott77 provided exceptionally lucid articulations of the common fear of "immigration from countries that breed terrorists and/or hostility to individual rights."'

The violations of our rights currently being perpetrated under "bilingual" education, EMTALA, federal housing subsidies, voting fraud, etc., as well as atrocities committed by armed felons from south of the border, are not merely "common fears" subject to refutation by you. They are actual events you can read about in the newspaper or in journals of ideas.

You do not seem to grasp my complaint that you are criticizing immigration laws that are on the books now, but defending open borders only by reference to how they would benefit us in the abstract. My interest lies in winning the battle for Objectivist ideas here, on planet Earth as it actually exists, not on a hypothetical magnificent capitalist world of the year 2100.

Rather than using future articles to criticize facts that TOC or I have laid out, I would be pleased if you would accept my earlier challenge to illustrate with concretes how the moral is the practical with respect to open borders around the nation we live in now, in 2005, welfare statism and all. And I am not asking you to cherry-pick the examples as in your anecdote of two wonderfully productive technicians. You must deal with the hard cases like whether you think it is a good thing for the US to be a bilingual nation, and whether you think typical (i.e. not cherry-picked) Mexican immigrants in large numbers will be easier or harder to convert to Objectivism that is the native population. And, if harder, how do you intend for us to get out of our current morass of high taxes, elephantine bureaucracy, widespread contempt for reason, virulent religious sects, and a virtual monopoly on the schools by the government?

Vaya con Dios,

Bill

Post 72

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 1:59am

Bill,

I just don't think that there is any such thing as "typical" when that adjective is applied to some unchosen category. I've never met a "typical American," a "typical Pole," a "typical Korean," or a "typical Mexican immigrant." I suspect that "typical" is a category error rooted in a belief in Platonic forms.

I do not know of any mechanism by which the current regime of criminalizing innocent immigrants somehow meliorates any of the evils you list. Take any specific case - like the "atrocities committed by armed felons from south of the border." By criminalizing innocent immigrants, the current regime creates a huge industry in people-smuggling and in forged documents. This industry, in turn, is what enables those "atrocities committed by armed felons from south of the border." Take away criminalization of innocent immigrants, and without the smuggling and forgery industries created by that criminalization, the real criminals will have a much harder time infiltrating themselves across our borders. And similarly, with analogous mechanisms, for every genuine evil on your list.

I would favor a system that would avoid violation of my individual right to employ, and trade with, any innocent person of my choice. This means that, as long as I put up a bond to guarantee that an immigrant whom I chose to sponsor will not incur public costs, and the immigrant does not have ties to terrorists, criminals, or hostile governments, and is not himself a criminal, terrorist, or fugitive from objective justice, the immigrant must be admitted at my risk. This will create a private immigrant-bonding industry, which in a free market will give the advantage to immigrants who have English, develop productive skills, and demonstrate personal responsibility, initiative, and good character. Is there any reason why this could not be done tomorrow? And is there any evil on your list that would not be reduced by this change?

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 11/23, 9:26am)

Post 73

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 1:00pm

Phil Coates and Bill Nevin -- Thanks for your comments! You bring a thoughtful approach to a thread that started not with a mature discussion of immigration questions but with dishonest accusations. I'll add some philosophical points that differentiate many libertarians from Objectivists.

1) We Objectivists understand that a free society, with limited government, can only be sustained in a culture based on a moral code of rational self-interest.

2) The values of a culture are not "out there" or in disembodied abstractions. They exist only in the assumptions, expectations, beliefs, priorities, moral sensibilities, emotions and moral habits, reinforced through practice and interactions with others, of real flesh and blood individuals that are share with others.

3) To understand why we don't have a free society with very limited government is to understand these values and how they are manifest and maintained in the culture and various institutions which, of course, help determine how individuals vote, what political appeals work on them, and what sort of limits on liberty individuals are willing to tolerate.

4) Thus, while I have written a lot about America as a country founded by immigrants and about the strengths they -- including my own Italian family members -- bring to this country as they pursue their self-interest, it is legitimate to ask "What are the effects of a completely open border on the culture of freedom?" A century ago many Americans said that Italians and other Catholics would bring an authoritarian, alien influence into this country. While the concern was legitimate, it was also mistaken.

I suspect that other countries with poorer track records of assimilating immigrants and with lot of immigrants from Muslim countries have more serious problems than we do in terms of the effects of immigrants on culture, especially political culture, the Netherlands, for example. (See my recent piece that deals with this matter and was posted on SOLO: http://solohq.com/Spirit/News/1005.shtml .)

5) The values of immigrants are important. As I've written for those who will but read, before the welfare state immigrants were a self-selected group of just the people we'd want in this country. a) They were dissatisfied with lives of poverty or repression in their own countries. b) They realized they had to get off their butts and do something to change the situation. c) They had to use their wits and their brains to figure out how to get here, find jobs, etc. And d) they were risk-takers because the alternative was to abandon all hope.

While it's preferable that the government not run schools at all, it's better to have government schools not promote multicultural crap that indoctrinates individuals -- immigrants and natives -- to think of themselves not as individuals but as members of accidental groups, that teaches them to think for themselves rather than to swallow the leftist victimhood, envy-based vitriol. It would be far better if governments not have every manner of program based on ethnic entitlement, quotas and the like that teach individuals to think of themselves as barnyard animals rather than unique individuals. Immigrants, because they are initially outsides, are especially vulnerable to this poison.

Ultimately it's through private efforts that the cultural should be changed but we at least want the governments to do no harm so that they don't kill what makes immigrates so welcomed.

6) Today it is legitimate also to ask about the affects of immigration in light of the fact that we have a paternalistic welfare state that encourages individuals, native born or foreign, to abrogate responsibility for their own lives while foisting the costs of irresponsibility on productive individuals and that fosters in adults envy and the moral habits of petulant children. (Phil's point about the horrific situation in black communities in this country points to this fact as well as to the need for a moral and cultural challenge as a means to change the political reality.)

Clearly the combination of a good thing -- immigrants coming to this country for economic opportunity and civil liberties -- with a bad thing, the welfare state, has lead to the shutting of hospitals, higher welfare bills and the like. These are real problems. We should not pretend they don't exist. This doesn't mean we're anti-immigrant; it does mean we're Objectivist realists.

7) There are legitimate security concerns about the border as well. Let's not forget that Germany and the Soviet Union, America's nation-state enemies in the past, maintained their largest embassies in Mexico because they understood that any trouble they could create between us and our neighbor to the south was to their advantage. Terrorists today understand that Mexico is a potential gateway into the United States.

Thus I thank Bill and Phil for their remarks and hope that in the more considered and mature parts of this threat, these Objectivist insights will come into play.

(Edited by Ed Hudgins on 11/23, 2:08pm)

(Edited by Ed Hudgins on 11/23, 2:11pm)

(Edited by Ed Hudgins on 11/23, 4:44pm)

Post 74

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 2:02pm

Adam,

Let's label the current situation of our society 'Point A'. And let's label as 'Point B' a hypothetical future context in which Objectivism is widely understood and practiced in America, everyone's rights are respected, there are no involuntary taxes, all property is privately owned, the criminal justice system operates on a fair and objective basis, there are open borders, etc.

As Objectivists, we would all like to change society from Point A to Point B. The New Individualist published some facts about Mexican immigration to this country that, at first blush, could be interpreted as implying that the road from Point A to Point B is rockier and longer than we had hoped, or even that our progress along it might be threatened entirely. You, otoh, either did not wish these facts to see the light of day or wished that they had not reached the public in a way that left the fingerprints of an Objectivist organization on them. Okay, fine. I can think of a few legitimate reasons for at least this last motivation.

Then I rose to TOC's defense with the claim that they were just citing facts which give us a better idea of what the society around us is like. After all, if we are going to sell Objectivist philosophy, it behooves us to do market research. If we are going to present ideas to the public, we should try to understand our audience so that we can tailor our presentation to it.

Rather than accept my suggestions as to why the statistics might be legitimate to publish in an Objectivist magazine, you have continued to insist, without offering further evidence, that TOC's only possible motives were "collectivism" and "racism".

I pointed out that I agree with you on the open borders issue. But I presented a structured argument that shows why many Objectivists have a hard time reconciling open borders in the near term with our current welfare state and their own desire to move from Point A to Point B as rapidly as possible. This argument included a variety of abstractions anchored in numerous concretes. The concretes are drawn from own experience as a native-born American citizen, native English speaker who reads Spanish, who has traveled widely throughout the hispanophone world, and who lives in a border state in a major city with a large Mexican-American community. I also suggested a number of reasons for hope that large-scale immigration from Mexico might not make it harder to spread Objectivism in this country. And I challenged you to fill in the apparent gap between the moral and the practical by presenting an argument to show these skeptical Objectivists why open borders will not in fact contribute to the problems that they fear.

Rather than refute my argument or accept my challenge, you implied that I was long-winded and unable to think in principles.

Now in post #72 you fault me for using the word "typical" in reference to some immigrants. This was after I had laboriously pointed out that immigrants can be divided into widely divergent categories on the basis of skills, motivations, moral character, ability to assimilate, etc. The context was in estimating how amenable the immigrants in question would be to accepting Objectivism, compared to the two technicians of your anecdote. I explicitly used "typical" as an antonym for "cherry-picked," with respect to sampling a large data set (and therefore not as a synonym for "stereotypical" as you rather snidely implied.) Adam, if you live in the San Gabriel Valley and don't understand why I might think two self-educated bio-medical technicians who outperform a highly credentialed chemist are not "typical" of recent Mexican immigrants with respect to their ability to understand Objectivism, I don't know what I can do for you. Maybe recommend a competent opthamologist?

In your next paragraph you went back to your contention that immigration restrictions contribute to crime by encouraging an infrastructure of smugglers, forgers, etc. that help illegal aliens enter the country and that can also be exploited by terrorists. This is an excellent point, and an excellent step in the direction of meeting my challenge. But there are a bunch more objections to high immigration rates that you have not addressed yet.

In your last paragraph you drifted off into abstraction again with a description of how wonderful open borders would be in an ideal world. That is not in dispute. What we would like is an explanation of how high immigration could be good for our country and good for Objectivism now, given the welfare state and the governmental near-monopoly on the school system.

You ask:

Is there any reason why this could not be done tomorrow?

Yes. Entrenched welfare bureaucracies, motor voters, EMTALA, government school systems, "civil rights" legislation, "civil rights" court decisions, among others. Read my posts above for some more details.

You ask:

And is there any evil on your list that would not be reduced by this change?

Yes. Alien day laborers each having the same voice that I do in the polling booth. Does it bother you that casual laborers and drifters from foreign countries can vote here, in some cases for hire? Do you see why some might be fearful that our representative system of government could become a sham?

Sorry to be so hard on you in this thread, but you have been awfully quick on the draw when firing off serious accusations and awfully slow at showing any sympathy for, or even any grasp of, others' valid concerns.

-Bill

Post 75

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 6:37pm

Jody, why does it bother you if someone wants to come to the US and practice their culture?

Post 76

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 11:01pm

Bill, - to my question, "And is there any evil on your list that would not be reduced by this change?" - you answered in post 74, "Yes. Alien day laborers each having the same voice that I do in the polling booth."

Your claim, that voting with forged documents would not be reduced by changing to the system I outlined in post 72, is unsustainable. Voting with forged documents requires forged documents, which are one of the products of the massive underground industries - people smuggling, forged documents etc. - that only exist because innocent immigrants are arbitrarily criminalized. My proposal would drastically reduce those underground industries. Without a massive document-forging industry, instances of voting with forged documents can only decrease.

The proposed change would be opposed by those who profit from the status quo. But so does every proposed political change. I meant to ask about functional obstacles, not structural ones. If mere opposition from those who believe that they profit from the status quo were an insuperable obstacle, then any change at all would be an impossibility.

As for "typical Mexican immigrants," or "typical Americans," I shall only believe in their existence when I have met some. Could you settle the question by finding one or two for me?

Your other points merely re-state, at great length, the misconceptions that I listed previously - and that I will address with articles when I have time.

Post 77

Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 7:56am

Adam,
There's one point I'll address out of your post, because I think it's worth some exploration. I do, in fact, meet "typical Americans" every day. Typical by any measure you care to name. Income, age, body type, number of children, religious views, sense of life, degree of honesty (or lack thereof), penchant for justice (or lack thereof), political opinions, interest in technology as a means of improving their lives, etc.

The undoubted fact that these individuals are... individuals doesn't gainsay that fact.

There's no collectivism involved in observing that many persons share similar characteristics, and to similar degrees, and treating them in accordance with these actual attributes. After all, what good would having a capacity for abstraction be if we couldn't use it to bring previously learned information to bear when judging a new individual? This ability and knowledge certainly doesn't prevent, or even discourage, a reasonable and fact-oriented, objective person from making valid judgments about those one meets.

Post 78

Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 8:00am

Adam,

My concern on the voting issue is that our current laws hardly require documents for voting, so it is irrelevant whether there is an infrastructure for forgery in place. This is especially true in big cities with corrupt machine politics where there is a demand for a large number of bodies to enter polling booths and pull levers for the Democrats.

To move from Point A to Point B, we have to be able to overcome or sidestep every obstacle in our path, not merely the ones that happen to intrigue you intellectually. Hispanic immigrants are entering the country at a rate that exceeds sales figures for Ayn Rand's books. Now do you see the room for concern?

-Bill

Post 79

Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 9:42am