RoR: Forum

Excellent article, Ed.

I particularly liked this observation:

Third, the choice of most immigrants to come here illegally was morally right and should be applauded. In most cases, poor Latinos face two choices: 1) Stay in their own countries, wallowing in poverty, watching their families suffer, with little opportunity for prosperous, happy lives; or 2) Seek the best life possible for themselves and their loved ones by entering the United States illegally.

Conservatives talk a good game about valuing "life," but unless you're an American fetus, they really don't give a damn.

Post 1

Thursday, June 21, 2012 - 11:53pm

Hi Ed,

I see this issue very differently.

You wrote, "First, the reason so many immigrants come to this country illegally, especially from Mexico and Latin America, is that the federal government has failed for decades to provide an easy means for legal entry for those who want to come here to work."

That is only partly true. The fact is that we have the most open immigration policy (as ugly and irrational as most of it is) of all of the developed nations. We accept more legal immigrants, by far, than any nation. Here are a few statements plucked from Wikipedia: "In 2006 the United States accepted more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined." "Over one million persons were naturalized as U.S. citizens in 2008." "In 1990, George H. W. Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990, which increased legal immigration to the United States by 40%." "Legal immigration to the U.S. increased from 250,000 in the 1930s, to 2.5 million in the 1950s, to 4.5 million in the 1970s, and to 7.3 million in the 1980s, before resting at about 10 million in the 1990s. Since 2000, legal immigrants to the United States number approximately 1,000,000 per year..." Illegal immigration is estimated to be as high as 1,500,000 per year.
-----------------------

You wrote, "Second, minor children were not responsible for their parents� choice to bring them here illegally. Do those kids�many now adults with their own children�deserve to be penalized, their families broken up?"

Everyone I've heard, of all political persuasions, agree that those who were brought into our country illegally when they were children deserve special legal attention. The bill proposed by Senator Rubio, long before this recent Obama Hispanic vote grab, addressed that specifically. (And Rubio is a conservative. Not that I enjoy defending conservatives as a practice). Let me ask some different questions: "Should a nation be able to control immigration at all?" "Should anyone be able to cross our borders, just because they have young children with them?" "Should the president be able engage in selective enforcement?" I think those are the questions that need attention first. This issue isn't being honestly addressed. Some liberals have honest sympathies, but most Progressives want to build a political class for voting purposes and if they can reduce the culture at large to the peasant level of undeveloped countries - but in a way that votes the progressive agenda - they'd do it. And there are many of the far left that hate America and want to change it in any way they can. Obama and the Progressives are using the emotional impact of the plight of these children to attempt to destroy the constitutional nature of our republic (and get votes).
----------------

You wrote, "Third, the choice of most immigrants to come here illegally was morally right and should be applauded..." That doesn't really address the complexity of the immigration issue. Is it morally right for me to want to improve my well being at the expense of violating the law? That's complex because it involves the value of the law as such. Without law, as such, our nation would not have been able to create the prosperity that the immigrants want. And there is an implied understanding - cross the border illegally and you may end up paying the price of deportation.
--------------

Your fourth point seemed to be more emotional than moral or legal or even pragmatic. I maintain that the following positions are justifiable: 1) A nation has the right to control the border to the degree of stopping those who aren't citizens and letting those who aren't citizens in only according to legislated immigration policy. 2) The nation should have rational immigration laws that are designed to benefit the nation. 3) Citizenship should only come from two sources - at least one parent who is a citizen, or is an applicant that meets reasonable standards that relate to voting intelligently, bringing value to our nation, and not being a criminal. 4) There should be a very liberal guest worker program for non-criminals - and that stops some of the immigration mess created by the welfare state.

Post 2

Friday, June 22, 2012 - 1:13pm

Steve - I agree that immigration is a complex issue and there's much to sort out. But the four facts I offer are crucial to the context of any solution and, as explicitly stated, are aimed at conservatives who are coming from the wrong premises.

I'm glad the U.S. is more open than many other nations to immigration. (By the way, I hold that many European countries would be correct to restrict immigration from Muslim countries or take great care concerning who they let in. See the pieces I've written in the subject.) But that still doesn't help some poor Mexican who's limited to the choices I outline in fact 3 and only wants to come here to work.

If you read the longer piece that I reference, you'll see I treat the issue of breaking the law. I put rational self-interest, survival and flourishing first. If a law that mandates lots of paper shuffling rather than prohibits the initiation of force gets in the way, it is morally correct to ignore the law.

And my point about conservatives making the same choice is not just an emotional appeal. It's an appeal to the principles that many of them claim to hold, of limited government and the importance of the individual. I agree generally with your points and would add an important point I made in my longer piece. How about this? Immigrants who came here illegally and who want to stay and become citizens will be "penalized" by never receiving any government transfer payment such as SocSec, Medicare, etc. On the other hand, they will not be required to pay SocSec, Medicare, Unemployment Compensation or other taxes.

Deal?

Post 3

Friday, June 22, 2012 - 10:31pm

Hi Ed,

I'll read the longer piece. I'm concerned about where you write, "I put rational self-interest, survival and flourishing first. If a law that mandates lots of paper shuffling rather than prohibits the initiation of force gets in the way, it is morally correct to ignore the law."

There are laws that are about the machinery of governance, and they don't prohibit the initiation of force - certainly not directly. For example, we have many administrative laws that define structures, like the court systems, and without them, we would not have the machinery (courts in this example) to implement the environment needed to defend against the initiation of force. If we don't respect the laws required to have laws or to have an environment where law can be effective, that is like opposing all laws.

Outright anarchy is simply having no laws (or at least not a single authoritative set of laws). But to toss out all laws except those that specifically address the intiation of force (threat thereof), theft or fraud, would be a kind of anarchy by accident. We need laws that create and maintain the machinery needed to implement the laws that directly derive from moral rights. Voting laws are another example because that ensure just governance (hopefully within, the context of individual rights).

A nation as such is the greatest danger to our liberty, yet needed for its protection. The bigger the nation the greater the danger to its own citizens, yet the danger of aggression by other nations are the measure of needed size. After we broke free of England each of the colonies became individual states (in the origional meaning of the word 'state' - as in like England, France, Spain) and they didn't want to join together but were forced into it by the fact that they couldn't survive attacks in the future without joining together.

That joining, and the nature of law, and the purposes of government give us a lot of baggage - machinery - and structure we must create and maintain. Boundaries come with this... boundaries are fundamental to epistemology and to psychology, and to law AND to politics.

I want to just agree with you, Ed. I do believe in that clean understanding that sorts out nearly all issues so well around individual rights. But just as a person doesn't have the right to cross my boundary (my front door) without being invited. The citizens of a country are the common owners of the machinery, the structure and aspects of the culture. We know what a problem commons create, and there are some commons that we can never escape - this machinery, the legacy of constitutional law, those aspects of cultural respect for the law, and some other things that we own in common. And we much defend those commons (via the citizens forcing the government to defend them).

An individual does not have a right to enter my house uninvited. An individual does not have a right to vote in the election where he isn't a citizen. There are legal rights that a person may not possess despite have their full set of individual rights being respected. Citizenship conveys certain legal rights (privileges?) that are common to a subset of humans. It is kind of like a club membership. The club cannot, morally, make up rules that would violate the rights of an individual, but the individual cannot force the club to accept him. And all laws should objective and just. I understand the plight of a person standing outside our borders and looking in, but he doesn't have the right to enter. That's not an individual right, and he doesn't have a legal right. Not any more than he would have a moral or legal right to enter my house, even if it is cold and harsh outside, even if he is hungry and willing to work for a warm place and food. And I don't have a right of any kind that would entitle me to sneak across the Swiss border and then demand the same privileges and benefits the give their citizens. And it wouldn't matter how great or urgent my needs were, because needs don't create or trump rights.

If I understand your proposal in that last paragraph, you say they come in and don't get any tranfer payments or benefits (except perhaps education which is best cured by making it all private), and they would not pay any of the taxes that support those benefits. I agree with that. I'm in favor of very open Guest Worker doors at the borders. But there should be a tax which is just the "Guest Worker Tax" and it is their payment for all of the good structure that exists and makes possible the environment they so much want to join. (And I'd like to see all federal taxes - including the "Guest Worker Tax" converted to a national sales tax, and then made smaller and smaller). It wouldn't make much sense for you and I to argue this or that detail on taxes since we both want to see them shrink away till we have the bare minimum needed to support a true minarchy.

Post 4

Saturday, June 23, 2012 - 11:10am

Public property isn't like private propery, and laws aren't principles.

Post 5

Saturday, June 23, 2012 - 2:54pm

Teresa, I'm aware that private property and public property are different - see my mention of the problems of the commons. And I'm aware that principles and laws are different and I don't see anything I've written that would indicate otherwise.

Post 6

Saturday, June 23, 2012 - 4:01pm

Then I can't understand your disagreement with Hudgins, then, Steve.

Ed is talking moral principles, i.e. the right to survive by one's own abilities. He's saying that when that moral principle is violated by law, then the moral thing to do is to violate the law!

The right to survive trumps any law giving rights to an invisible line in the dirt which belongs to everyone, and no one.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 6/23, 4:55pm)

Post 7

Saturday, June 23, 2012 - 6:36pm

Teresa,

The "right to survive" isn't a clear formulation of an individual right. It clearly isn't the same as the right to defend one's self against initiated force, fraud or theft. Is it a right to a product or service? It couldn't be because products and services are things created by others and no one has a right to the property of others. If someone is very hungry - even to the point of starving, does that give that person the right to break into my house and eat my food? No, there can never be a right to violate a right. The claim that people of Mexico or Central America are all on the verge of starvation is nonsense. The claim that that we aren't letting in very large numbers of immigrants legally is also nonsense (46 million legal short-term, long-term, and permanent foriegners visited or were granted permanent status last year alone. 1.1 million of those were sworn in as citizens).

No one from our federal government is stopping Mexican citizens from pursuing their survival because they have an entire country to do it in. And no one in America is obligated to fix the problems created for Mexicans by their government.

If you look at that "right to survive" argument, it is really a variant of the life boat argument. Take a look at Rand's Ethics of Emergencies in the The Virtue of Selfishness. The life boat argument says that there can be unusual circumstances where survival requires violation of moral or legal principles, but the entire argument is a kind of epistemological bait and switch where the ethics are derived as if emergencies were the norm, but them pushed out as if they applied to normal circumstances.
--------------------

Because common property is a problem, and because it should be reduced as much as possible, doesn't mean that it isn't property, or that it isn't important or the we don't have moral rights in it, or that we shouldn't have legal rights derived from the moral rights.
---------------------

Here are some other problems with one of Ed's arguments. He wrote, "First, the reason so many immigrants come to this country illegally, especially from Mexico and Latin America, is that the federal government has failed for decades to provide an easy means for legal entry for those who want to come here to work."

But, there is a means for legal immigration and it can't be that hard, because literally millions have followed it and come in legally. But that isn't enough for others who don't want to respect the limits set and don't want to wait. They have the position that it should be unlimited and nearly immediate and that they are entitled to violate the law because our country provides better economic conditions than theirs.

Actually, the reason so many come to this country illegally from Latin countries is because they can. We are closer than Canada or England or France, and because it is easier to sneak into than any other desireable country. And because other countries throw people in prison for violating immigration laws. He talks about prosperity, happiness, and seeking the best lives possible. If those actually stood as solid moral justifications for violating the law, then I could argue that I was morally entitled to engage in theft, regardless of laws to the contrary, to increase my prosperity, give me more happiness and to seek the best life possible (as long as the wealth I was going to steal wasn't being adequately guarded and I wouldn't be tossed in jail if caught). Or, can I only do that if I am poor?
------------------------

Calling a national border an invisible line in the dirt is like calling an individual rights just ideas in some people's minds, or just words on paper.

We cannot have a government without laws and without boundaries we can't have jurisdiction which is a required component of all law. The property lines of the lot my house is on are also invisible, but real, and critical. This is a factor of having nations as opposed to either a global goverment or global anarchy - Nations come with borders and the citizens own the government (and the borders it comes with) and that property which is common to the nation.

Post 8

Sunday, June 24, 2012 - 4:38am

Ed H wrote:

Immigrants who came here illegally and who want to stay and become citizens will be "penalized" by never receiving any government transfer payment such as SocSec, Medicare, etc. On the other hand, they will not be required to pay SocSec, Medicare, Unemployment Compensation or other taxes.

... wahoo! How do I sign up as an illegal immigrant?

Edit: fixed spelling

(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 6/24, 1:36pm)

Post 9

Sunday, June 24, 2012 - 6:02am

Me, Post 6: Ed is talking moral principles, i.e. the right to survive by one's own abilities.

Steve, Post 7: The "right to survive" isn't a clear formulation of an individual right. It clearly isn't the same as the right to defend one's self against initiated force, fraud or theft. Is it a right to a product or service?

(<sarcasm>) I can see how "by one's own abilities" might be confused with "a right to a product or service." (</scarcasm> ) Again, I have no idea what you're disagreeing with, or why you're attempting to introduce ideas that have nothing to do with Ed's article. The point of his article couldn't be more clear: Government caused the current mess.

Ed's 2006 article is exceptionally clear:

Immigration, Liberty, And The American Character

"Poverty and lack of education, political connections, or savvy make it impossible for many individuals to secure legal permission to immigrate to the United States. It would be morally contemptible self-sacrifice for them to wait passively for years until American or Mexican bureaucracies give them the right pieces of paper allowing them to come, when they can simply sneak across the border. While they are breaking American law, they are not violating the rights of anyone else. They come here and exchange their labor for money, acting in accordance with the moral principle of free and just trade."
---------------------------

"When an individual enters the country illegally, that act alone does not initiate force against others, and thus does not as such violate any other individual��s liberties. It is hardly appropriate to direct anger at individuals who are trying only to better their condition by seeking opportunities to exchange their services with willing customers. Such actions are virtuous and should be celebrated."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Steve wrote (blatantly ignoring the premise and context of Ed Hudgins article): It couldn't be because products and services are things created by others and no one has a right to the property of others. If someone is very hungry - even to the point of starving, does that give that person the right to break into my house and eat my food?

No one is "breaking into your house and eating your food," Steve. How zero sum theory is that, anyway? Guess what? Its my house too, and if someone asks to cut my grass, vacuum my floors, paint my windows, or repair my car in return for a reasonable wage, I frankly don't care how they got here. Objectivists call it the Trader Principle, and value for value. Perhaps you've heard of it:

--------------------------------------------------------

"There is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.
The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public, spiritual and material. It is the principle of justice.
A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. He does not treat men as masters or slaves, but as independent equals. He deals with men by means of a free, voluntary, unforced, uncoerced exchange��an exchange which benefits both parties by their own independent judgment. A trader does not expect to be paid for his defaults, only for his achievements. He does not switch to others the burden of his failures, and he does not mortgage his life into bondage to the failures of others.

"In spiritual issues (by spiritual I mean: pertaining to man's consciousness) the currency or medium of exchange is different, but the principle is the same. Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man's character. Only a brute or an altruist would claim that the appreciation of another person's virtues is an act of selflessness, that as far as one's own selfish interest and pleasure are concerned, it makes no difference whether one deals with a genius or a fool, whether one meets a hero or a thug, whether one marries an ideal woman or a slut. In spiritual issues, a trader is a man who does not seek to be loved for his weaknesses or flaws, only for his virtues, and who does not grant his love to the weaknesses or the flaws of others, only to their virtues."

��The Objectivist Ethics,��
The Virtue of Selfishness, 31

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Steve: The claim that people of Mexico or Central America are all on the verge of starvation is nonsense.

Then why do they come here? Can you prove the claim is nonsense? Is there evidence that the claim in nonsense?

Steve: The claim that we aren't letting in very large numbers of immigrants legally is also nonsense (46 million legal short-term, long-term, and permanent foriegners visited or were granted permanent status last year alone. 1.1 million of those were sworn in as citizens).

Then why risk coming here illegally? Because of quota limits, that's why. The Federal government only let in so many from every country each year. I can assure you that far fewer than a million from Mexico are legally permitted in every year. The figure in 2010 was 139,120, and the wait to be one of them was 10 to 15 years.

As Ed Hudgins points out: "Fourth, in the same circumstances as most illegals, most Republicans and conservatives would do exactly the same thing! In the spirit of America, they'd say, "To hell with idiot America lawmakers and paper-pushers. I'm coming here to make money!"

Steve: No one from our federal government is stopping Mexican citizens from pursuing their survival because they have an entire country to do it in. And no one in America is obligated to fix the problems created for Mexicans by their government.

I'll ask for the third time: Then why do they continue to come here illegally? Wouldn't a little understanding of causation be worthwhile to you? I understand that the Libertarian view can be seriously lacking in moral principles, but that's why Libertarians aren't Objectivists. Too many Libertarians tend to think only in political terms and principles, and neglect prior ideas that make their political one's possible.

Post 10

Sunday, June 24, 2012 - 6:44am

Teresa,

For the record, I think that Steve's participation in this thread has been both intelligent and respectful. I don't see the same contextual character-, or intellectual-, deficiencies in him as a person -- or in his words as an argument -- that would lead you to respond to him so aggressively. I'm of the opinion you should cut him more slack.

Ed

Post 11

Sunday, June 24, 2012 - 12:53pm

Thanks, Ed. The border argument is a hard one.

Post 12

Sunday, June 24, 2012 - 2:03pm

Teresa,

I trying to make my position clear. It isn't an easy one to make clear. I understand that you feel strongly about this issue, but I'm asking for less in the area of personal attacks or sarcasm.
-------------------

The premise of Ed's article is that there is moral right to violate this law that makes it illegal to cross the border. He does not see it as similar to the trespass of a private property. From that premise, that context, he does not see any initiation of force or theft in that crossing.

My disagreement takes the form of saying the following:

There is a necessity to have a border,
There is common property that is violated and damaged by illegal immigration, and
That some of Ed's formulation of that "right to survive" is a life-boat type of argument because of the context, and that part of it is hyperbole.

Because the particular common property aspect of this argument is totally unfamiliar to most or even all Objectivists it isn't easy to make. Because my emotional sympathies lie with those who cross the border to make a better life for themselves, just makes it harder. I'm an Objectivist, and I am formulating this argument on Objectivist principles.
------------------------

Let me first try to establish what I know everyone but outright anarchists agree with: The law has value as such. A nation of laws is a good thing. And, that value is such that only a very, very serious moral infraction can justify the outright advocacy of violating the law. You said, "I frankly don't care how they got here."

I know exactly what you are saying, and I understand the trader principle, and I understand the context in which you said that, but you would not mean "I don't care if he had to kill a border guard to get here." I don't believe you would ever say that, and the reason is that you truely don't believe that his death was imminent should he be denied entry, and you truely don't believe that force to keep him out is the same as force used by a thug to take away someone's freedom. You wouldn't, I imagine, believe that border guards deserve to be killed in acts of so-called self-defense of the so-called right to survive being exercised by an illegal immigrant.

If there is some truth in the previous paragraph, then it points to the possibility that this isn't as cut and dried as the view that the illegal immigrant is morally right to violate the this law and that any border guard is initiating force to deny his freedom. If it isn't that cut and dried, then some other principle is in the mix.
--------------------------

You quoted Ed's article, "Poverty and lack of education, political connections, or savvy make it impossible for many individuals to secure legal permission to immigrate to the United States. It would be morally contemptible self-sacrifice for them to wait passively for years until American or Mexican bureaucracies give them the right pieces of paper allowing them to come, when they can simply sneak across the border. While they are breaking American law, they are not violating the rights of anyone else. They come here and exchange their labor for money, acting in accordance with the moral principle of free and just trade."

In the first sentence, Ed makes the claim that it is impossible for many individuals to secure legal permission to enter the United States. But, the only individuals for whom it is impossible are those with criminal records, or those who are unwilling to abide by the quota in place for their country. (I favor a Guest Worker Program along with a quota for permanent status that is merit based, i.e., the top 150,000 or whatever number, measured in the value they bring to the nation.) The next sentence of Ed's would make everyone who wants something they can only get with someone else's permission (in this case, governments) morally contemptible self-sacrificers if they don't just take it instead of waiting. But that statement, which I believe is really rhetorical overreach, depends upon the next statment, which says that breaking the immigration law does not violate anyone's rights.

I'm saying that there is common property - for example, a court house is common property, the White House is common property. I'm saying that some common property is required because there is no way to privatize it and it will exist even in a minarchy. (You could make the government lease privately owned land and buildings for things like courthouses, but the legal rights granted by the lease become common property).

All acts taken to violate common property are unacceptable, and just because the property is held in common, doesn't change that.
-------------------------

You wrote, "I'll ask for the third time: Then why do they continue to come here illegally? Wouldn't a little understanding of causation be worthwhile to you? I understand that the Libertarian view can be seriously lacking in moral principles, but that's why Libertarians aren't Objectivists. Too many Libertarians tend to think only in political terms and principles, and neglect prior ideas that make their political one's possible."

Teresa, I answered the question quite clearly. Look at post #7. I said that they come here illegally because it benefits them economically, because they are willing to violate the law, because they can do it (the border is closer than say the border to Canada or England), because our border is not well guarded, and because the penalty for violating the law is non-existent (unlike other countries). So, I think your accusation regarding my understanding as well as your acusation that I'm not answering you don't hold water.

I don't know why you are addressing what you are regarding as differences between Liberatarians and Objectivists. I'm an Objectivist and have been very consistent on this site that moral principles must underly political and legal principles.
---------------------------

If it is true that there must always be some minimum of common property, then it is encumbent upon us to address what are the moral, political, and legal principles and rights that are logically entailed in that form of ownership.

Post 13

Sunday, June 24, 2012 - 2:45pm

For the record: Aggressive? That's aggressive?

Somebody(s) need to get a thicker skin. Steve in particular much too sensitive to criticism. I thought Teresa's points were well stated, I particular liked the quotes from VOS and I thought Ed's article was spot on and really liked it. I just shrugged off Steve's criticisms but I can see why Teresa pursued them.

I.E. this (from Steve): "The "right to survive" isn't a clear formulation of an individual right."

I can't think of a clearer formulation of the basis of "rights" than the "right to survive".

You wonder (even as you say "I don't care") what I have against you. You are right that in many things we agree, and I believe you are well read, a good reasoner and good exponent for the things we agree on. I have sanctioned your posts many times because of this agreement and I felt you stated the case better than I could. Here is what I have against you: I perceive a "holier than thou" moralist much of the time. As such, you are thin skinned and do not take criticism or argument very well. You tend to attack people you don't agree with to "make them go away". I particularly miss Ted Keer who you attacked vehemently. You seem to not see the value in alternate points of view to your own or some close proximity. I easily tolerate a Brad Trun and wonder what he will say next. Does it occur to you that the responses to posts like Brad's contain thoughts and ideas well worth reading? That a Brad Trun can elicit new ideas and formulations not previously invented in response to him? (I particularly valued Bill Dwyer's responses). And that an intelligent person like Brad might actually change his mind? Does it mean anything to you that Thomas Sowell used to be a Marxist in his younger days? You not only attack Brad without responding to his posts but gratuitously attack whoever sanctioned his posts. What is the purpose? The gratification of your moralistic sense?

Post 14

Sunday, June 24, 2012 - 4:45pm

Mike, I appreciate your directness.

Before addressing your complaints about me, I'll discuss the "right to survival" issue. I don't have a right to survival if that survival is defined or provided in a context that involves violating someone else's right. I wrote at length in several posts above about that context. And I gave examples. My argument was about violating the rights of other with illegal actions.
-----------------------

You critize me as being too thin skinned, too sensitive to criticism. And there may be some truth there. And I see valid points on both sides of this immigration issue. There are some criticisms of immigration law that I've seen that are strong. I'm still making an effort to work out my understanding of what the Objectivist position on this ought to be.

But I don't see as much deep probing of both sides of this issue as I'd like. I think that Ed Hudgin's article was an honest exposition from his position, but I think that Teresa's defense of his article wasn't very strong and didn't address the points I made. You'll notice I didn't attack her. I think that Ed Thompson's reply to Teresa was a good one. She is an Objectivist, I'm an Objectivist and we do better here when we don't resort to sarcasm and personal attacks (which I tend to reserve for racists, anarchists, and militant collectivists).

Mike, I appreciate the complements you gave me. But I wouldn't agree with the "holier than thou" label. I do get on a moral high horse at times. It isn't me claiming to be moral and others not - it is my attempt to raise an issue that I see as high on the moral scale of things, or to point out a position that is immoral.

And I do enjoy lecturing, in the sense of imparting more information than is needed or, at times, even wanted. Part of that is my deficit, and part of it is my desire to work on my ideas here, not just communicate.
-----------------

I do, on occasion, go too far in both of these. But, my attacks on people like Trun are for being a racist. He is using psuedo-science to cloak one of the worst tribalist kinds of mentalities. Here is my take on Trun: He hates blacks and looks for arguments to build an entire attack structure. And he won't change. I think that is closer to the truth and more appropriate than your take on him. Would you easily tolerate him (your words) if you believed he was, at his root, a racist?

Mike you wrote, "You not only attack Brad without responding to his posts but gratuitously attack whoever sanctioned his posts. What is the purpose? The gratification of your moralistic sense?"

I did respond to his posts - in great detail. Look at my remarks on IQ vs Intelligence, and on culture, and on what I saw as logical fallacies in his arguments.
Did I ATTACK those who sanctioned him? or did I express curiousity as to why anyone would sanction him? (Someone may be expressing their own thin skin :-)
My purpose was to take apart his arguments, to show that they were racist, to denouce racism as evil, and to never give any attempt to sneak racism in via psuedo-science a free ride.
I also enjoy working on ideas I see as important, trying to improve my abilities to think and write, and to enjoy how I'm spending my time.

-------------

I thought of myself as a friend of Ted Keer's for a long time (an on-line friend - we never met face to face). I admired him from my first appearance on this site. We defended one another again and again. Then later, we exchanged emails and were fellow warriors in battling the anti-Rand group on Wikipedia. I have enormous respect for his knowledge, his brilliance, and his literacy. But for whatever reason, he began to attack people on RoR. He had always had a sharp tongue - quite fun if you agreed with his position - but his attacks became harsher and harsher and more and more frequent. We fought here. I was defending myself and others and what I thought to be valid points of view. He didn't leave because of me - he was much too strong to be driven off by me. He left because the site's owner decided that he had to moderate him, and many others agreed.

I too value Bill Dwyer's responses, not just to Trun but nearly everywhere. He is one of this site's treasures. He stays very calm and focuses on reason. Please note that I didn't JUST call Trun a racist. I answered his arguments, I formulated logical respones that he didn't or wasn't able to answer. I also believe that much of what I came up with in my answers were entirely new formulations (i.e., regarding functional intelligence).

"Does it mean anything to you that Thomas Sowell used to be a Marxist in his younger days?" Yes, it means two things to me. I would have attacked his positions back then, and that would have been right. And it is but one of the reasons I respect Dr. Sowell so much - that he values truth over personal bias and has a willingness to change. I don't see either of those qualities in Trun.

I'm not claiming to be a perfect paragon of virtue, but I don't think your take on these issues above is as on target as it should be. If I defend myself you're likely to see me as thin-skinned, and if I am strong in my objections to what I see as immoral I'm engaged in driving someone away to serve some kind of psychological need to gratify an overblown sense of moralistic narcissim.

Post 15

Sunday, June 24, 2012 - 6:10pm

Most proposed approaches to so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" include a mix of allowing some legalization while adding some more checks. The main stumbling block to such reform (which would be far from ideal anyway), are those who keep insisting that we need to clamp down on the border first, not as part of any legalization-process.

Post 16

Sunday, June 24, 2012 - 6:14pm

Conservatives fancy themselves as heirs to the Constitution of 1787, but when it comes to immigration, the principles of the one written up in 1793 are evidently more to their liking.

Post 17

Sunday, June 24, 2012 - 6:29pm

Michael,

What do you propose?
(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 6/24, 6:30pm)

Post 18

Sunday, June 24, 2012 - 6:38pm

"An individual does not have a right to vote in the election where he isn't a citizen. There are legal rights that a person may not possess despite have their full set of individual rights being respected. Citizenship conveys certain legal rights (privileges?) that are common to a subset of humans. It is kind of like a club membership."

you're barking up the wrong tree here Steve. Open immigration is not open citizenship. Because of the Leftist premise behind their viewpoint, conservatives fail to distinguish between the two even while citing the Founders who did distinguish between them. the *kind* of immigrants you attract would be the kind that are willing to work. In light of the proportion of native-born moochers, that�s a net improvement.

Post 19

Sunday, June 24, 2012 - 8:13pm