About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Sunday, April 9 - 7:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Ethnicity is a garbage pail concept - all kinds of things tossed in it.  It includes race but without mentioning it.  It includes things like language, which in of itself is certainly not something to judge the character or value of a person by.  Many people share a set of values based upon the culture they identify with and some of those cultures are full of foul values, but we need to pick out and name the undesirable values. 

 

I believe a nation has the right to regulate immigration and to choose those people that will benefit the nation and allow in those numbers that won't overrun our societies ability to absorb and integrate them.  But that is a totally different road to the one where we would let anything like racism or non-essentials start to drive our immigration decisions.  I wish there was a way to look inside people's minds and see if they understand and value individual rights or not and make that the way we decide whether they come in to the country... but we don't, and probably never will be able to do that.

 

All that said, as long as there are many Muslims who would accept Sharia Law over the constitution in a conflict, I don't want those Muslims in this country.  But I don't know how to sort them out from those who willingly put secular liberty ahead of forced Islamic fundamentals.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Sunday, April 9 - 8:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The controversy over the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state motivated me to post this poll.

 

What is special about Jews that allows them but no other "ethnic" group to do this?

 

This is my own poll, but I am not sure yet how even to answer it, hence this discussion.

 

The current mouthpiece of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), Yaron Brook, was born and raised in Israel, and I think that unduly influences his "official" pro-Israel positions advocated in his speeches, podcasts, and writings.  Why "open borders" for every nation but Israel?  No answer.

 

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 4/09, 9:41pm)



Post 2

Sunday, April 9 - 9:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Israel has a lot of bad principles at work.  Lots of socialism and they are fierce in their defense of their race and their religion.  There was some outright terrorism in their beginning.  But I look at that culture today in terms of a long history of horrific anti-Semitic behavior - going back not just centuries but millennia.  And it didn't culminate in the Holocaust - they are still facing nations that want nuclear weapons to erase every single Jew in Israel from the face of the earth.

 

Look past their politics and past the way they stand by what are racist and religionist (is there such a word?) positions (which, by the way are pro-Jew, not anti some other race or religion) and there stands a nation that embraces life, independence, courage and intelligence.  For the most part I really like their sense of life. 



Post 3

Tuesday, April 11 - 9:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Right now I am leaning toward "no" because of the many questions begged, namely those of marriage and reproduction outside the "sanctioned" ethnicity.

 

A rational nationalism would center on life-affirming secular virtues any average person can practice, not unchosen traits like race.



Post 4

Tuesday, April 11 - 10:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

It is not morally defensible to establish a government for any purpose other than the protection of individual rights. 

 

Government by its nature can only do these things:

  • Use of force, threaten to use force (including imprisonment) - these are the basic functions of government.
    • They are used primarily to prohibit and confiscate. 

Here is our question: "What purpose will direct government in its exercise of those functions?  Protecting individual rights or violating them?"

 

My book on the Nature of Government (small and unedited though it is) covered just that issue.  Maximize choice for individuals by the way you restrict force in government.



Post 5

Tuesday, April 11 - 11:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

SW observed:

 

"It is not morally defensible to establish a government for any purpose other than the protection of individual rights."

 

Does this make Israel "not morally defensible" since it was established by and for Jews as a nationally privileged class on land they had not occupied in millennia and to which they claimed ownership based in part on mystical Zionism?

 

I really am trying to understand this.  Someone on another forum contended that the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) has devolved into a de facto Israeli Defense Fund.  There is some truth to that.  Something strange is happening here.



Post 6

Tuesday, April 11 - 12:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Luke, "morally indefensible" was intended to apply to the concept of "purpose" or motivation for the forming of a government.  Were the settlers of modern Israel attempting to defend their individual rights?  Given the long history of being attacked and killed for being Jews, I can see why they chose to base their rights in that religous/racial context.  I don't agree with using that context in structuring their government.  But I also don't buy into that progressive anti-Israel stuff that seems to arise out of being pro-Palestinian and is beyond any understanding.

 

Aspects of the Israeli government don't begin to meet Objectivist standards and should be changed.  But those who are attacking Israel in the context of the Arab/Palestinian/Persian Nazi-like hatred for Jews and their totalitarian, terrorist-supporting governments are being absurd.

 

I'm no expert on the ancient history of the middle-east, but I'd say that there were ancestors of the Jews and the Arabs - both - living there from very early times.  But in a clash of civilizations, which is inevitable when one is barbaric and the other is based upon the flourishing of humans in a society that values freedom, we know who SHOULD prevail.  Look at the arguments about the American Indians being here before the European settlers.  Personally, I'm suspecting that all of this anti-Israel furor is to deflect from the immoral nature and aims of their self-declared enemies.



Post 7

Wednesday, April 12 - 11:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I answered "Sometimes" because "some" populations that adhere to "some" key cultural values are morally defensible while all others are not.



Post 8

Monday, April 17 - 3:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"In the United States today, most claims regarding differences between ethnic ‘populations’ in relationship to IQ test performance are based on statistically derived data that relate to scholastic aptitude tests (e.g. Flynn, 2006). With this in mind, and acknowledging the superior educational attainment of African blacks in the United States (and elsewhere) it can thus be argued, because of their superior educational attainment levels, that they must also surmount far more in number and more difficult scholastic aptitude tests, in general, which in turn would require higher level IQs (see Gottfredson, 1998; Ostrowsky, 1999). As whites on average do not, or are unable to attain the same levels of academic achievement within these (their own!) academic institutional frameworks, they must also by the racialist thinking employed by some, possess significantly lower cogitative indices on the group level (e.g. Jensen, 1980; Gottfredson, 1986, 1998). In fact, attainment differences of these ‘grand’ magnitudes would suggest that American whites, in particular, are at a significant intellectual handicap when matched against immigrants of black African, East Indian, and East Asian descent. Incidentally, most American whites themselves are the children or grandchildren of “self-selected,” voluntary immigrants from Europe (Ogbu and Simons, 1998), and thus these trends can not be said to result from immigrant selectivity."

-- and much more here:
https://www.africaresource.com/sci-tech-a-business/genetics/528-race-intelligence-and-iq-are-blacks-smarter-than-whites

 

Lest we make too much of that, I am pretty sure that it was meant as a reductio argument. The point here is that there is no way to pre-select for "favorable" people from a group.  You have to let individuals find their own outcomes.  



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.