What Binswanger did not mention is the "border checkpoints" that lie 100 miles north of the southern border. I was appalled when I had to traverse one on my way from Austin to El Paso. At no time did I leave the state. But to continue on my journey to Arizona I had to show my papers. It's too bad that the Supreme Court considers these interior barriers to be legal. I'm for open borders and private property. Dismantle all the checkpoints. Go Harry!
I only recall them asking if I had any food products (of a certain kind, e.g., poultry or vegetables). Sometimes they didn't even ask that; they just waved me through. I guess it varies depending on the case.
Just as when someone begins a discussion without CONCEPTUALLY defining what he means, I tune out when someone begins a discuusion with personal attacks (the ad hominem fallacy), like "rationalizing" and "playing dumb" or by psychologizing ("in an emotional box") When one beigins with a logical fallaciy FOR WHICH THEY CAN BE PRESUMED TO KNOW BETTER especially if they claim to be Objecitivists. They are automaitcall wrong, as in and for the same reason as, Rand said "When one side in an argument resorts to force they are automatically wrong" Peikoff went into detail in a lecture of how force and fraud are kinsmen Please ofbserve that while my opposition began with ad hominem attacks, psychologizing or claiming that "a formal definition would be superfluos". I went into detail explaining HOW COME the definition used for "open borders" was improper, at one point ENUMERATING them which NOBODY addressed in a rational manner (Anything beginning with an ad hominemn attack or psychologizing went unread for being automatically wrong and not worth consideration). Persons who HAVE mental facilities greater than their she size were probably watching this and notingt the above, so please stop embarrassing yourselves in fron of your betters. You've destroyed any civil discourse we could have and have now just plain pi$$ed me off. I have much more significant and enjoyable things to do, like clip my toenails or go to the dentist Commenting on your first paragraph, you're just plain terribvle. Until you learn to have a civilized; i.e. RATIONL discussion, meaning without personal attacks and psychologizing, do NOT inflict yourself upon me -- or anyone else. You will give Objectivism a bad name. And please do not bring up how many persons disagree with me. Reality is NOT a democracy
I am in disbelief!! We are all created equal is a USA principle, that the US choose to adapt. Why did not others do it? Again, in disbelief of this argument!
This talk was very good, but Harry's support for a poll tax and requiring strict standards for voting is horrific and ignores the valid historical reasons why the poll tax was removed and why voting standards ought to be bare minimum. Strict voting standards allow those in power that setting those standards to abuse power to take away the political agency of people so that they cannot defend their rights, and therefore allow over time the destruction of republican government. Abuse of power against black people in the US was ripe when there were poll taxes and stricter standards such as literacy tests. Poll taxes in principle violate political equality because people with unequal economic power have unequal political power, which violates a separation of economic power from political power, and one's level of economic power is IRRELEVANT to how much one needs to defend his rights to life, liberty, and property. The principle of political equality would demand that taxes ought to have equal economic burden for every person as a cost for equal access to political power, not a poll tax which would exclude people with less economic power from having the political power that is the right to vote. Additionally, taxes as a PRECONDITION instead of a POSTCONDITION could allow government agents to deny people's ability to vote on false claims of not paying taxes. The proper principle for a tax would be that one could not lose one's ability to vote by not paying a tax beforehand, and one shall not lose the ability to vote for not paying a tax, but instead will be penalized in some other form for violating their agreement with the government that voting comes with the condition of paying taxes. The fundamental point is that voting is the political and constitutional means for self-defense of the individual's rights. If every individual has rights, if an individual is excluded from having political power, that individual is at the mercy of all those that have political power. The right to vote is a sacred right because it is the fundamental constitutional defense of a person's rights to life, liberty, and property, and therefore putting limitations on it cannot be taken lightly at all. The power to do good IS the power to do bad, and any proposed law ought to be questioned with "according to whose judgment?" or "according to whose say so?" The law can say one thing, but hopes and dreams don't make people automatically enforce them with good intent or with correct judgment. Stricter voting laws sound good on paper, but if someone is not literate enough to vote, who determines that? People who wish to subjugate others can easily abuse literacy tests and therefore violate people's rights or make a government move towards committing more rights-violations. The only qualifications for voting I find valid are being an adult, being a citizen (through birth or naturalization), and being a resident (instead of being a citizen primarily outside the geographical jurisdiction), and then methods to prove that sufficiently prove that you have those qualifications while having the least potential to be abused. The only qualification that would necessarily place the burden on a potential voter to prove their qualification would be residency, so even then there should not be methods that are too burdensome on voters. Once a person reaches the age of majority, he has full exercise capacity of rights and therefore needs to be able to defend his rights. Citizenship (particularly with respect to naturalization) and residency are important qualifications so that people don't have the ability to easily influence the governance of places by the ease of a one-time temporary visit, especially enemies of the constitutional rule which can unduly influence or actually usurp the constitutional rule by the ease of a one-time temporary visit. Naturalization and residency screen for people who are attached to the governance and the kind of society that the governance produces. Not having naturalization and residency would encourage any person or people to amass a large gang or faction to mass migrate to a region so that they can rule it. On a separate note, citizenship has to also be allowed unconditionally for natives so that a republican government is secured in the region instead of dependent on immigration and so that the people already living in a country have the ability to have their rights secured. In other words, native citizenship must be unconditional so that the government being a republic is unconditional.
I agree with the fact that we should have freer immigration laws but the standard for stopping someone should not be the same as stopping someone in the interior. That’s like saying that the standard for the government arresting someone in Iraq is the same as the standard in NY. There are different laws for outside the country and inside the country. (And the border is still outside the country. Once u pass the border u are inside but before u are outside)
@@Alejandro-cn5yp That is what he is meaning though, if you cross the border into America then you should be treated with the same rights we claim everyone has. We cannot control how mexico treats its citizens but we can control how we treat foreigners coming into our territory
It is not a given that new immigrants will bring in their culture and voting patterns? You take your chances with Arabs, Africans, Chinese, and South Americans, not me.
I’m all for free immigration but we should still have border guards checking people. The laws for outside of a country are necessarily different from within that country. The standard for example for the government searching someone’s home in the US is different then the US military searching someone’s home in Iraq. We need to have different standards for people outside the country or those who are entering the country to protect the rights of those inside the country.
Yet more and more private homes here are invaded by law enforcement, sometimes swat teams, people are taken to jail, not charged and released the following day. And God forbid you have cash at home. It gets seized and never returned. Don't believe it? The FBI just lost a case in California where they seized and kept the contents of safe deposit boxes. The owner who rented them out was under investigation. During the trial it was revieled the FBI intended from the beginning to keep the contents. IJ represented the victims and won.
Before the Kennedy Immigration Bill of 1965, we had a solid, realistic policy of immigration. You could come if you had a sponsor. That was someone who would vouch that you would not end up on the public dole,. That was in the days when welfare was a local matter, before the "Great Society". A sponsor would see to it that the immigrant had a job and would be self supporting. The newcomer often lived in the home of the sponsor while getting up to speed. That happened in my family when my uncle's cousin came over from the Azors. He had a job within a week of arriving. In 2 years he brought the rest of his family over and bought the 3-decker he rented 2 years later. It was the Welfare State that created the problems that we have. 65 years ago we used to brag about how 'open" our borders were. But then, "open borders" did not mean insecure. It meant that there was a process that was quite transparent. You came in where the "WELCOME" mat was and were processed for health and being selfsupporting or ready to be. Most of the imigrants that I have seen came here and made the best of opportunity. Thismade them and the US better and I consider them better than Americans who are always bellyaching about social justice, equity, global warming, and the current buzzword flavor of the month, wanting some governemnt program to "fix" it turning Paradise into Gehenna: Ever notice that there is a directl proportion between the bitchability of something and the amount of government involvement where it sould not be?
We had a better system prior to 1965, It relied on immigrants have sponsors; US citizens who would provide for the incoming person. We also had a better economic system; i.e. more capitlaistic, that would offer many more jobs in manufacturing and construction One of the restricitions on immigration is to see to it that they do not go on the public dole. Another is at what rate we can assimilate them. All my grandparents were immigrants, one set frome Ireland and the other from Canada (French-Canadian on my mother's side( My maternal grandfather fought in the Spanish-American War. At that time, immigrants practically tripped over themselves to assimilate and learn their way around "the Land of Opportunity". Two major things that killed that are the Welfare State, where every noew person is another mouth to feed, and Ecolotry; specifically "the Third Wave/Post-industrial US [which google up]". David Brudnoy saw this as the modern driver for illegal immigration: The Democrats see it as a supply of votes and Pig Busienss (You know the now Woke Corporations) saw these immigrants as a source of cheap labor. Brudnoy, for those not in the know, was an unablashed libertarian, albeit of the better sort and he said that, given the current state (25 years ago), we should stop all immigration until we assimilate what we have, then restart the process allowing only those who will earn their keep The current term, still not conceptually defined here, "open borders" is a buzzword created by the conservatives in contrast to "secure borders" (not "closed borders"). However, that buzzword is the closest we have to a conceptual definition insofar as if you as Sean Hanity or Glenn Beck "What do you mean by 'open borders'", they will give you at least a sime-coherent answer. If THAT is what DR. Binswanger supports (and he did not give us a self-cantained answer, only a reference to an ostensively defined "closed borders") then he is clearly wrong. but I am not going to try and play mind reader. His failure to provide a cogent definition leads to something I would rather not contemplate. I hope at some future time he redeems himself and proves that this was just an error. I have been a fan of his for 4 decades and this grieves me
Interesting talk, by a man I have great respect for. However I want to ask some questions here. This hypothetical reality, where mass immigration happens to coincide with radical capitalist, pro-individualist, and pro-freedom political movements, along with the abolishment of the EPA and so on - how likely is this to happen in reality? Are we to understand that this scenario is in any way likely or feasible, given today's prerequisites? I'm asking because usually, these things do not coincide in practice. Usually, today, mass immigration coincides with mass socialistic politics. Increasing amounts of immigrants is used as a political tool to justify increased taxes and spending. There would have to be some entirely new and unique world first, where these things would all of a sudden start to happen simultaneously, but we aren't there now, are we? So, my main question is, don't you first have to create this new world, before you promote open borders? If you try to follow this program by AR, don't you have to, lets say, successfully reduce govt spending by 20% (as was an example) first, before you double the immigration? Because what if you double the immigration and you don't get the other half of the deal, the reduced spending - what then? Do you keep doubling the immigration and hope for the best, hope the EPA suddenly goes away (or equivalent)? Doesn't freedom have to come first, as an actuality, and only then can immigration increase, as the freedom of the citizens in the country in question is the more important value involved? (Its also the reason anyone wants to immigrate to begin with!).
He addresses this in the talk. The ideal give you a standard to judge actions and potential actions today. If you are clear where you want to go, you can more effectively take the small steps which will get there.
@@BalugaWhale37 Yes, you might promote both capitalism and increased immigration at the same time, and so try to move slowly towards your ideal goal, but my question is: what do you do when the capitalist part is unsuccessful? (As right now and many years into the future) Do you keep promoting increased immigration then, still? Would this still be a net gain in terms of justice? Or isn't it the case that you need the freedom first and foremost?
@@-whackd My argument is not at all parallel to what you're saying. I was merely repeating the hypothetical scenario presented in this video, where mass immigration coincides with radical pro-capitalist politics. This scenario was presented in the video as a good path towards a more open border and more free immigration. I asked the question how likely is this hypothetical scenario to occur in reality, and what is the proper political path forward if it does not occur in reality as presented, but rather if increased immigration does not coincide with a corresponding increase in pro-capitalist politics? This has nothing to do with "perfect freedom first" since the scenario in the video about which I was speaking was about a gradual step by step process towards freedom.
How interesting to have these ideas involving open borders, put under the light of reason. As you outline, these complex factors have to be pulled apart and dealt with in a principled way - the only way to resolve such a broad set of issues. I so enjoyed having the sanity part of my brain being fed a rational feast.
@@hermanessences if you're actually interested in the argument, you might want to do that. He provides a pattern to slowly move towards more immigration. Even in the case of US, the argument is not to immediately open borders tomorrow without making other changes first.
6:10 These definitions of life and liberty are too abstract. They need grounding in concretes. Fundamentally, life means the body and liberty means movement (and rest). Crimes that violate them are poisoning (incl. by pollution), assault, maiming, murder; and obstruction, capture, and harassment. Note the physical and sensible quality of the rights and related crimes. Easy enough for a 5 year-old to understand.
To reduce the right to life to your body drops the context that what is being talked is life qua human being, which includes your mind: mental, intellectual, emotional, life as well. Not mere survival, but also flourishing.
Harry, I'd like to come visit and discuss this topic with you personally so, please publish your your home address and there better be a welcome mat for me too or you'll have to answer for that insult also!
This is a perfect example of how a collectivist thinks. Property lines are defensible borders. And I'm sure he's insured against menacing thugs like you by Smith & Wesson.
There is no case for open borders. The issue isn’t identifying a collective of people. It is about identifying the individual. And yes, we can prevent individuals from entering the country. We do have open borders. Anyone who shows up at the southern border with proper identification can enter freely. The logical contortions he went through in this speech is just painful. This is a terrible use of Ayn Randy’s name.
Denial is not an argument. Way to miss the boat on every other point, too. Your second to last sentence is a projection. And your last sentence is ironic.
I left after the first 5 minutes. It was a shocking display of irrationality 1. Anti-conceptual: Seeking to define "open borders" he semply referred to "closed borders". This is a definition by negation rather than a coceptual definition of open borders. Conceptually, what are open borders? Blank out 2. Appeal to Emotion; listing things like "gun control, economic control and political control" as results of border control.. Had me fooled I thought the advocates of open borders (albeit secretly) were the SUPPORTERS of the other controls. Silly me: that's the last time I'll observe the facts of reality. I guess A is not A. Blank out 3 A Picture is worth a thousand words" Despite the fact that Leonard Peikoff said otherwise. Notice that the guns that are brought up are pointed OUTWARD. I always thought that dictatorships like the aforementioned Nazis pointed their guns primarily INWARDS. Blank out 4 Cause and effect. Even Joe Biden said "Don't come yet" So what is the cause of the migrants being in the sweltering heat. ICE did not go to Central and South America and drag them kicking and screaming to the border, plunk them down and say "There: Now roast!", Did they? Blank out From THE ROMANITIC MANIFESTO: "and it is the "blank out''s [evasions] that are the blackest marks on a human soul Let me propose a thought experiment. China is a Communist dictatorship. Yes or No? China has over a billion persons: Yes or no? Would it be irrational to think that, if we had thise undefined "open borders" the Chinese governemtn could move 50 million persons, of whom they would have control, into the major cities of the US in ways to form powerful voting blocks to, over time, move the government to comply with their wishes. Perhaps driving the US into more debt than it has now and installing politicians that would look favorably on joining the Belt and Road? Their population is such that they would not miss the 50 or so million. From "sanctuary cities" to "Belt and Road cities" David Brudnoy, a strong libertarian, said in the late 1990's "We should close the borders entirely for about 20 years until we assimilate what we have now" Can you imagine what would happen if we just let it all come in? To understand where this goes, look at the most heavily immigrated-to cities and what THEY are like. I hope you guys love love love bi-lingualism and socialism like the various Peoples' Republics of CA, NY, MA and the USSRI Broudnoy's model for his view was CAMP OF THE SAINTS Do you leave the doors of your home open 24/7/52? Why not?
If you left after 5 minutes, how do you know your objections weren't addressed later? I've just started the talk so I don't know. I usually find this kind of a review to be appalling (stop reading/watching something at the first sign of it contradicting your views), but you seem to be well read, so I'd like to know on what basis you inferred that the rest of the talk won't address your objections.
@@YashArya01 My objectis were to the METHOD. Irrational methods are an AUTOMATIC deal-breaker. And they had to be quite egregious as I have been a fan of Dr. Binswanger over the past decades. Since he brought up defining "open borders" it was incumbent upon him to give a CONEPTUAL definition of what he meant IMMEDIATELY. The only thing I got was an ostensive (child's) definition of closed borders from which I was to infer the definition of open ones. In an adult conversation, that is inexcusable and in an OBJECTIVIST conversation, that is intolerable. Actually I wouold have been within my rights to leave right then and there
@@SpacePatrollerLaser "1. Anti-conceptual: Seeking to define "open borders" he semply referred to "closed borders". This is a definition by negation rather than a coceptual definition of open borders. Conceptually, what are open borders? Blank out" Definition is not the start, but the end of concept formation. It starts with differentiation & integration. Binswanger differentiated it from a closed border, and in the end said he'd like to see an open border with a "Welcome to America" the same way there's a board when entering Texas from Okhalahama that says "Welcome to Texas." What specifically about this was unclear? This comment, along with point 3, makes me believe you have Rationalistic tendencies (I also struggle with it. I'm going through Peikoff's Understanding Objectivism again to combat it.) "2. Appeal to Emotion; listing things like "gun control, economic control and political control" as results of border control.. Had me fooled I thought the advocates of open borders (albeit secretly) were the SUPPORTERS of the other controls. Silly me: that's the last time I'll observe the facts of reality. I guess A is not A. Blank out" Yes, typically the advocates of open borders are supporters of other controls. They are wrong, and they are hypocrites. His point is that in order to be consistent one must be both pro-gun-freedom and pro-open-immigration. Did you look up the earlier talk he was referring to? In any case, you can very well proceed with talk without that tangential remark. Later on he talks about "paired de-control" that you might find interesting. 3 A Picture is worth a thousand words" Despite the fact that Leonard Peikoff said otherwise. Notice that the guns that are brought up are pointed OUTWARD. I always thought that dictatorships like the aforementioned Nazis pointed their guns primarily INWARDS. Blank out In order to induce a definition you need to look at concretes first. You don't start with a floating definition without looking at the units subsumed under the concept. In a presentation, images are well suited for this purpose. They are not by themselves an argument (which is what Peikoff's Fold Hall talk was about). I do agree with your observation that the guns point outward, as against dictatorships where they point inwards. But we wouldn't be having a conversation about open borders if we weren't in the context of people wanting to enter the US. 4 Cause and effect. Even Joe Biden said "Don't come yet" So what is the cause of the migrants being in the sweltering heat. ICE did not go to Central and South America and drag them kicking and screaming to the border, plunk them down and say "There: Now roast!", Did they? Blank out But nobody claimed there were legally in the right. The whole point of the talk is whether a more open immigration policy would be win-win, instead of what happened in that case, which is, although you may not agree, a lose-lose (granted, they lost more). All of your objections are answered by the ~44 minute mark. The talk ends at ~50. As one example, he talks about not giving immigrants the right to vote for the first 25 years. I highly doubt anyone who gets to move out of a dictatorship and live in a free country for 25 years would want to destroy it. They would more likely be better defenders of freedom than the liberal art graduates today. He also talks about doing it in phases, not all at once. The point is not to either take Binswanger's case as-is or reject it entirely. Maybe *you* could improve on it if you didn't dismiss it so easily.
@@YashArya01 Definitions are the start and a pre-existing necessity for a discussion. Tell me what a "Persian cat" is WITHOUT knowing what a cat is. You cannot have a meaningful discussion without a definition becuase you...erm...Kant know what you are talking aobut. You might as well try to discuss lemon meringue gasoline or tiara dioxide for all the sense it would make Aside from being non-conceptual it fails by making us try to apply the Law of Identity to a negative. It goes like this: ME: Let's talk about cats YOU: What is a "Cat" Me: A cat is a non-banana YOU: WTF does that mean ME: Figure it out for youreself, will try this a cat is the opposite of a dog. Does that Help? The REAL fail is that this mess is at the root of the discussion. So we are having a discussion about something that is not defined to the point where I can apply the Law of Identity to it (try applying A is A" to a negative. That is why one cannot prove a negative). The root of a discussion is its major premise so we are trying to have a discussion without a clearly (conseptually) defined premise. The pattern is "Factual premises and valid reasoning yield true conclusions". We VALIDATE reasoning (show the PROCESS is correct) and we VERIFY premises (show that it is a fact of reality, existing apart from and prior to, our knowldege, thoughts, feelings or wishes) How can anything with a negative at its root be a fact or any reality? To have a rational discussion, you have to state (or check) your premises to be sure you HAVE premises otherwise you are talking about deydrated water and solid opque transparency and that's ony if I feel like it Without a knowlably factual premise to anchor it to the here and now, the whole thing devolves into word salad without even Russian dressing (or any dressing). Just a series of floating abstractions
@@SpacePatrollerLaser Definitions are necessary for a discussion but they are not the start. Concept formation is the start. Then you come to definitions. Then you proceed from there. If you don't agree that definition is the end of the concept formation, that is not something I am up to discuss. Those are basics you should understand from ITOE and OPAR. In this regard I also highly recommend Binswanger's four OCON courses on epistemology. I agree that he did not precisely define it positively, but you need to point out specifically what about the differentiation from closed-borders and ostensive definition was insufficient for you. Frankly I think you could very well fill in that gap yourself and proceed with the talk, improving on the overall case for open immigration. The relationship between a cat and a banana is not the same as the relationship between closed open borders. One is not the opposite of the other in your case. What seems more likely to me is that you simply don't want open immigration and so are not open to arguments in favor of it. Some of the things you showed about your attitude towards bi lingualism are irrational as stated and hint towards collectivism/xenophobia. I expect better from Objectivists, but I'm not sure if you are one.
A "Closed Border" is not a physical barrier. It is a defined understanding between individuals of neighboring countries (territories) brought to life via mutual respect of the law and well established boundaries. Having a lock on your front door and a fence surrounding your property will never keep those who have no respect for private property or the law from trespassing intentionally.
His point is to compare and contrast the various borders that surround the state of Texas. There is clearly a physical barrier present in the closed case.
@Thomas Hägg So the guy jumping over your fence in the dark of night should be given the benefit of the doubt that he's probably just lost or confused about boundaries? Got it.
@Thomas Hägg A country which has established law (as most every county does) is not "prematurely deciding" to lock anyone in or out. It has established law for crossing borders which is clearly understood by all. My guess is that there isn't a single illegal immigrant who doesn't understand they are breaking the law of a sovereign country when they breach the international border uninvited.
How long does it usually take to move to, live, & work freely the US legally? I believe the answer is infinity. See Reason magazine's "what about illegal do you not understand?"
@@YashArya01 I heard a well known and often cited criminologist on C-SPAN years ago and he poo-pooed the idea that it was drug laws that were responsible for the number of people in prison... but I do not know the actual percentage AND I'd be suspicious of what googling will tell us.
Remember Sirhan- Sirhan was a Palestinian immigrant
Absurd.
What Binswanger did not mention is the "border checkpoints" that lie 100 miles north of the southern border. I was appalled when I had to traverse one on my way from Austin to El Paso. At no time did I leave the state. But to continue on my journey to Arizona I had to show my papers. It's too bad that the Supreme Court considers these interior barriers to be legal. I'm for open borders and private property. Dismantle all the checkpoints. Go Harry!
California has interior border checkpoints.
I only recall them asking if I had any food products (of a certain kind, e.g., poultry or vegetables). Sometimes they didn't even ask that; they just waved me through. I guess it varies depending on the case.
Just as when someone begins a discussion without CONCEPTUALLY defining what he means, I tune out when someone begins a discuusion with personal attacks (the ad hominem fallacy), like "rationalizing" and "playing dumb" or by psychologizing ("in an emotional box") When one beigins with a logical fallaciy FOR WHICH THEY CAN BE PRESUMED TO KNOW BETTER especially if they claim to be Objecitivists. They are automaitcall wrong, as in and for the same reason as, Rand said "When one side in an argument resorts to force they are automatically wrong" Peikoff went into detail in a lecture of how force and fraud are kinsmen
Please ofbserve that while my opposition began with ad hominem attacks, psychologizing or claiming that "a formal definition would be superfluos". I went into detail explaining HOW COME the definition used for "open borders" was improper, at one point ENUMERATING them which NOBODY addressed in a rational manner (Anything beginning with an ad hominemn attack or psychologizing went unread for being automatically wrong and not worth consideration). Persons who HAVE mental facilities greater than their she size were probably watching this and notingt the above, so please stop embarrassing yourselves in fron of your betters. You've destroyed any civil discourse we could have and have now just plain pi$$ed me off. I have much more significant and enjoyable things to do, like clip my toenails or go to the dentist
Commenting on your first paragraph, you're just plain terribvle. Until you learn to have a civilized; i.e. RATIONL discussion, meaning without personal attacks and psychologizing, do NOT inflict yourself upon me -- or anyone else. You will give Objectivism a bad name. And please do not bring up how many persons disagree with me. Reality is NOT a democracy
I wonder if he supports open borders for Israel.
Thank you for making this lecture available to those of us who weren’t able to make it to the conference. I look forward to seeing more.
Thank you for donating on our behalf!!!
I am in disbelief!! We are all created equal is a USA principle, that the US choose to adapt. Why did not others do it? Again, in disbelief of this argument!
Awesome talk! Hopefully I'll see you at the next OCON!
Do the big donors to the Ayn Rand Institute support open immigration? I wonder. Dr. Peikoff made a contradictory statement regarding immigration
This talk was very good, but Harry's support for a poll tax and requiring strict standards for voting is horrific and ignores the valid historical reasons why the poll tax was removed and why voting standards ought to be bare minimum. Strict voting standards allow those in power that setting those standards to abuse power to take away the political agency of people so that they cannot defend their rights, and therefore allow over time the destruction of republican government. Abuse of power against black people in the US was ripe when there were poll taxes and stricter standards such as literacy tests. Poll taxes in principle violate political equality because people with unequal economic power have unequal political power, which violates a separation of economic power from political power, and one's level of economic power is IRRELEVANT to how much one needs to defend his rights to life, liberty, and property. The principle of political equality would demand that taxes ought to have equal economic burden for every person as a cost for equal access to political power, not a poll tax which would exclude people with less economic power from having the political power that is the right to vote.
Additionally, taxes as a PRECONDITION instead of a POSTCONDITION could allow government agents to deny people's ability to vote on false claims of not paying taxes. The proper principle for a tax would be that one could not lose one's ability to vote by not paying a tax beforehand, and one shall not lose the ability to vote for not paying a tax, but instead will be penalized in some other form for violating their agreement with the government that voting comes with the condition of paying taxes.
The fundamental point is that voting is the political and constitutional means for self-defense of the individual's rights. If every individual has rights, if an individual is excluded from having political power, that individual is at the mercy of all those that have political power. The right to vote is a sacred right because it is the fundamental constitutional defense of a person's rights to life, liberty, and property, and therefore putting limitations on it cannot be taken lightly at all.
The power to do good IS the power to do bad, and any proposed law ought to be questioned with "according to whose judgment?" or "according to whose say so?" The law can say one thing, but hopes and dreams don't make people automatically enforce them with good intent or with correct judgment. Stricter voting laws sound good on paper, but if someone is not literate enough to vote, who determines that? People who wish to subjugate others can easily abuse literacy tests and therefore violate people's rights or make a government move towards committing more rights-violations.
The only qualifications for voting I find valid are being an adult, being a citizen (through birth or naturalization), and being a resident (instead of being a citizen primarily outside the geographical jurisdiction), and then methods to prove that sufficiently prove that you have those qualifications while having the least potential to be abused. The only qualification that would necessarily place the burden on a potential voter to prove their qualification would be residency, so even then there should not be methods that are too burdensome on voters.
Once a person reaches the age of majority, he has full exercise capacity of rights and therefore needs to be able to defend his rights. Citizenship (particularly with respect to naturalization) and residency are important qualifications so that people don't have the ability to easily influence the governance of places by the ease of a one-time temporary visit, especially enemies of the constitutional rule which can unduly influence or actually usurp the constitutional rule by the ease of a one-time temporary visit. Naturalization and residency screen for people who are attached to the governance and the kind of society that the governance produces. Not having naturalization and residency would encourage any person or people to amass a large gang or faction to mass migrate to a region so that they can rule it.
On a separate note, citizenship has to also be allowed unconditionally for natives so that a republican government is secured in the region instead of dependent on immigration and so that the people already living in a country have the ability to have their rights secured. In other words, native citizenship must be unconditional so that the government being a republic is unconditional.
Great talk.
I agree with the fact that we should have freer immigration laws but the standard for stopping someone should not be the same as stopping someone in the interior. That’s like saying that the standard for the government arresting someone in Iraq is the same as the standard in NY. There are different laws for outside the country and inside the country. (And the border is still outside the country. Once u pass the border u are inside but before u are outside)
@@Alejandro-cn5yp What government would be arresting someone in Iraq?
@@Alejandro-cn5yp That is what he is meaning though, if you cross the border into America then you should be treated with the same rights we claim everyone has. We cannot control how mexico treats its citizens but we can control how we treat foreigners coming into our territory
THANK YOU DR B & ARI. Good premises. $
It is not a given that new immigrants will bring in their culture and voting patterns?
You take your chances with Arabs,
Africans, Chinese, and South Americans, not me.
he just said he wouldnt give them voting rights or citizenship. But they are allowed to work.
Don't care if they bring in their own culture you xenophobe
I’m all for free immigration but we should still have border guards checking people. The laws for outside of a country are necessarily different from within that country. The standard for example for the government searching someone’s home in the US is different then the US military searching someone’s home in Iraq. We need to have different standards for people outside the country or those who are entering the country to protect the rights of those inside the country.
Yet more and more private homes here are invaded by law enforcement, sometimes swat teams, people are taken to jail, not charged and released the following day. And God forbid you have cash at home. It gets seized and never returned. Don't believe it? The FBI just lost a case in California where they seized and kept the contents of safe deposit boxes. The owner who rented them out was under investigation. During the trial it was revieled the FBI intended from the beginning to keep the contents. IJ represented the victims and won.
Before the Kennedy Immigration Bill of 1965, we had a solid, realistic policy of immigration. You could come if you had a sponsor. That was someone who would vouch that you would not end up on the public dole,. That was in the days when welfare was a local matter, before the "Great Society". A sponsor would see to it that the immigrant had a job and would be self supporting. The newcomer often lived in the home of the sponsor while getting up to speed. That happened in my family when my uncle's cousin came over from the Azors. He had a job within a week of arriving. In 2 years he brought the rest of his family over and bought the 3-decker he rented 2 years later. It was the Welfare State that created the problems that we have. 65 years ago we used to brag about how 'open" our borders were. But then, "open borders" did not mean insecure. It meant that there was a process that was quite transparent. You came in where the "WELCOME" mat was and were processed for health and being selfsupporting or ready to be. Most of the imigrants that I have seen came here and made the best of opportunity. Thismade them and the US better and I consider them better than Americans who are always bellyaching about social justice, equity, global warming, and the current buzzword flavor of the month, wanting some governemnt program to "fix" it turning Paradise into Gehenna: Ever notice that there is a directl proportion between the bitchability of something and the amount of government involvement where it sould not be?
@Alejandro If a person is peaceful, should he be let in?
We had a better system prior to 1965, It relied on immigrants have sponsors; US citizens who would provide for the incoming person. We also had a better economic system; i.e. more capitlaistic, that would offer many more jobs in manufacturing and construction
One of the restricitions on immigration is to see to it that they do not go on the public dole. Another is at what rate we can assimilate them. All my grandparents were immigrants, one set frome Ireland and the other from Canada (French-Canadian on my mother's side( My maternal grandfather fought in the Spanish-American War. At that time, immigrants practically tripped over themselves to assimilate and learn their way around "the Land of Opportunity". Two major things that killed that are the Welfare State, where every noew person is another mouth to feed, and Ecolotry; specifically "the Third Wave/Post-industrial US [which google up]".
David Brudnoy saw this as the modern driver for illegal immigration: The Democrats see it as a supply of votes and Pig Busienss (You know the now Woke Corporations) saw these immigrants as a source of cheap labor. Brudnoy, for those not in the know, was an unablashed libertarian, albeit of the better sort and he said that, given the current state (25 years ago), we should stop all immigration until we assimilate what we have, then restart the process allowing only those who will earn their keep
The current term, still not conceptually defined here, "open borders" is a buzzword created by the conservatives in contrast to "secure borders" (not "closed borders"). However, that buzzword is the closest we have to a conceptual definition insofar as if you as Sean Hanity or Glenn Beck "What do you mean by 'open borders'", they will give you at least a sime-coherent answer. If THAT is what DR. Binswanger supports (and he did not give us a self-cantained answer, only a reference to an ostensively defined "closed borders") then he is clearly wrong. but I am not going to try and play mind reader. His failure to provide a cogent definition leads to something I would rather not contemplate. I hope at some future time he redeems himself and proves that this was just an error. I have been a fan of his for 4 decades and this grieves me
@Dan Norton how do you test for "peaceful"
a simple question : is deportaion ever proper?
Greetings, fellow white people. This is an excellent talk and us whites should definitely listen to this talk.
* rubs hands *
Interesting talk, by a man I have great respect for. However I want to ask some questions here. This hypothetical reality, where mass immigration happens to coincide with radical capitalist, pro-individualist, and pro-freedom political movements, along with the abolishment of the EPA and so on - how likely is this to happen in reality? Are we to understand that this scenario is in any way likely or feasible, given today's prerequisites?
I'm asking because usually, these things do not coincide in practice. Usually, today, mass immigration coincides with mass socialistic politics. Increasing amounts of immigrants is used as a political tool to justify increased taxes and spending. There would have to be some entirely new and unique world first, where these things would all of a sudden start to happen simultaneously, but we aren't there now, are we?
So, my main question is, don't you first have to create this new world, before you promote open borders? If you try to follow this program by AR, don't you have to, lets say, successfully reduce govt spending by 20% (as was an example) first, before you double the immigration? Because what if you double the immigration and you don't get the other half of the deal, the reduced spending - what then? Do you keep doubling the immigration and hope for the best, hope the EPA suddenly goes away (or equivalent)?
Doesn't freedom have to come first, as an actuality, and only then can immigration increase, as the freedom of the citizens in the country in question is the more important value involved? (Its also the reason anyone wants to immigrate to begin with!).
He addresses this in the talk. The ideal give you a standard to judge actions and potential actions today. If you are clear where you want to go, you can more effectively take the small steps which will get there.
@@BalugaWhale37 Yes, you might promote both capitalism and increased immigration at the same time, and so try to move slowly towards your ideal goal, but my question is: what do you do when the capitalist part is unsuccessful? (As right now and many years into the future) Do you keep promoting increased immigration then, still? Would this still be a net gain in terms of justice? Or isn't it the case that you need the freedom first and foremost?
@@BalugaWhale37 Can you answer me please? He did not answer or adress my question in the talk as you falsely stated here.
@@-whackd My argument is not at all parallel to what you're saying. I was merely repeating the hypothetical scenario presented in this video, where mass immigration coincides with radical pro-capitalist politics. This scenario was presented in the video as a good path towards a more open border and more free immigration. I asked the question how likely is this hypothetical scenario to occur in reality, and what is the proper political path forward if it does not occur in reality as presented, but rather if increased immigration does not coincide with a corresponding increase in pro-capitalist politics?
This has nothing to do with "perfect freedom first" since the scenario in the video about which I was speaking was about a gradual step by step process towards freedom.
How interesting to have these ideas involving open borders, put under the light of reason. As you outline, these complex factors have to be pulled apart and dealt with in a principled way - the only way to resolve such a broad set of issues. I so enjoyed having the sanity part of my brain being fed a rational feast.
Should Israel also have open borders, Harry?
Did you see the talk?
@@YashArya01 No.
@@hermanessences if you're actually interested in the argument, you might want to do that. He provides a pattern to slowly move towards more immigration. Even in the case of US, the argument is not to immediately open borders tomorrow without making other changes first.
@@hermanessences So, you don't want to know the answer to this question?
Is the U.S. surrounded by countries that want to exterminate it?
Awesome talk, Harry Binswanger!
You don't need a degree in epistemology to see this would be a disaster. A little common sense will do.
It would be a disaster with current welfare and regulations.
6:10 These definitions of life and liberty are too abstract. They need grounding in concretes. Fundamentally, life means the body and liberty means movement (and rest). Crimes that violate them are poisoning (incl. by pollution), assault, maiming, murder; and obstruction, capture, and harassment. Note the physical and sensible quality of the rights and related crimes. Easy enough for a 5 year-old to understand.
To reduce the right to life to your body drops the context that what is being talked is life qua human being, which includes your mind: mental, intellectual, emotional, life as well. Not mere survival, but also flourishing.
Harry, I'd like to come visit and discuss this topic with you personally so, please publish your your home address and there better be a welcome mat for me too or you'll have to answer for that insult also!
This country is not your private property. You have no more right to live in this country than anyone else.
This is a perfect example of how a collectivist thinks. Property lines are defensible borders. And I'm sure he's insured against menacing thugs like you by Smith & Wesson.
Did you see the talk?
Complete BS
Awesome.
There is no case for open borders. The issue isn’t identifying a collective of people. It is about identifying the individual. And yes, we can prevent individuals from entering the country. We do have open borders. Anyone who shows up at the southern border with proper identification can enter freely. The logical contortions he went through in this speech is just painful. This is a terrible use of Ayn Randy’s name.
Denial is not an argument. Way to miss the boat on every other point, too. Your second to last sentence is a projection. And your last sentence is ironic.
Wanger you say?!!
I left after the first 5 minutes. It was a shocking display of irrationality
1. Anti-conceptual: Seeking to define "open borders" he semply referred to "closed borders". This is a definition by negation rather than a coceptual definition of open borders. Conceptually, what are open borders? Blank out
2. Appeal to Emotion; listing things like "gun control, economic control and political control" as results of border control.. Had me fooled I thought the advocates of open borders (albeit secretly) were the SUPPORTERS of the other controls. Silly me: that's the last time I'll observe the facts of reality. I guess A is not A. Blank out
3 A Picture is worth a thousand words" Despite the fact that Leonard Peikoff said otherwise. Notice that the guns that are brought up are pointed OUTWARD. I always thought that dictatorships like the aforementioned Nazis pointed their guns primarily INWARDS. Blank out
4 Cause and effect. Even Joe Biden said "Don't come yet" So what is the cause of the migrants being in the sweltering heat. ICE did not go to Central and South America and drag them kicking and screaming to the border, plunk them down and say "There: Now roast!", Did they? Blank out
From THE ROMANITIC MANIFESTO: "and it is the "blank out''s [evasions] that are the blackest marks on a human soul
Let me propose a thought experiment. China is a Communist dictatorship. Yes or No? China has over a billion persons: Yes or no? Would it be irrational to think that, if we had thise undefined "open borders" the Chinese governemtn could move 50 million persons, of whom they would have control, into the major cities of the US in ways to form powerful voting blocks to, over time, move the government to comply with their wishes. Perhaps driving the US into more debt than it has now and installing politicians that would look favorably on joining the Belt and Road? Their population is such that they would not miss the 50 or so million. From "sanctuary cities" to "Belt and Road cities"
David Brudnoy, a strong libertarian, said in the late 1990's "We should close the borders entirely for about 20 years until we assimilate what we have now" Can you imagine what would happen if we just let it all come in? To understand where this goes, look at the most heavily immigrated-to cities and what THEY are like. I hope you guys love love love bi-lingualism and socialism like the various Peoples' Republics of CA, NY, MA and the USSRI Broudnoy's model for his view was CAMP OF THE SAINTS
Do you leave the doors of your home open 24/7/52? Why not?
If you left after 5 minutes, how do you know your objections weren't addressed later? I've just started the talk so I don't know.
I usually find this kind of a review to be appalling (stop reading/watching something at the first sign of it contradicting your views), but you seem to be well read, so I'd like to know on what basis you inferred that the rest of the talk won't address your objections.
@@YashArya01 My objectis were to the METHOD. Irrational methods are an AUTOMATIC deal-breaker. And they had to be quite egregious as I have been a fan of Dr. Binswanger over the past decades. Since he brought up defining "open borders" it was incumbent upon him to give a CONEPTUAL definition of what he meant IMMEDIATELY. The only thing I got was an ostensive (child's) definition of closed borders from which I was to infer the definition of open ones. In an adult conversation, that is inexcusable and in an OBJECTIVIST conversation, that is intolerable. Actually I wouold have been within my rights to leave right then and there
@@SpacePatrollerLaser "1. Anti-conceptual: Seeking to define "open borders" he semply referred to "closed borders". This is a definition by negation rather than a coceptual definition of open borders. Conceptually, what are open borders? Blank out"
Definition is not the start, but the end of concept formation. It starts with differentiation & integration. Binswanger differentiated it from a closed border, and in the end said he'd like to see an open border with a "Welcome to America" the same way there's a board when entering Texas from Okhalahama that says "Welcome to Texas." What specifically about this was unclear? This comment, along with point 3, makes me believe you have Rationalistic tendencies (I also struggle with it. I'm going through Peikoff's Understanding Objectivism again to combat it.)
"2. Appeal to Emotion; listing things like "gun control, economic control and political control" as results of border control.. Had me fooled I thought the advocates of open borders (albeit secretly) were the SUPPORTERS of the other controls. Silly me: that's the last time I'll observe the facts of reality. I guess A is not A. Blank out"
Yes, typically the advocates of open borders are supporters of other controls. They are wrong, and they are hypocrites. His point is that in order to be consistent one must be both pro-gun-freedom and pro-open-immigration. Did you look up the earlier talk he was referring to? In any case, you can very well proceed with talk without that tangential remark. Later on he talks about "paired de-control" that you might find interesting.
3 A Picture is worth a thousand words" Despite the fact that Leonard Peikoff said otherwise. Notice that the guns that are brought up are pointed OUTWARD. I always thought that dictatorships like the aforementioned Nazis pointed their guns primarily INWARDS. Blank out
In order to induce a definition you need to look at concretes first. You don't start with a floating definition without looking at the units subsumed under the concept. In a presentation, images are well suited for this purpose. They are not by themselves an argument (which is what Peikoff's Fold Hall talk was about). I do agree with your observation that the guns point outward, as against dictatorships where they point inwards. But we wouldn't be having a conversation about open borders if we weren't in the context of people wanting to enter the US.
4 Cause and effect. Even Joe Biden said "Don't come yet" So what is the cause of the migrants being in the sweltering heat. ICE did not go to Central and South America and drag them kicking and screaming to the border, plunk them down and say "There: Now roast!", Did they? Blank out
But nobody claimed there were legally in the right. The whole point of the talk is whether a more open immigration policy would be win-win, instead of what happened in that case, which is, although you may not agree, a lose-lose (granted, they lost more).
All of your objections are answered by the ~44 minute mark. The talk ends at ~50.
As one example, he talks about not giving immigrants the right to vote for the first 25 years. I highly doubt anyone who gets to move out of a dictatorship and live in a free country for 25 years would want to destroy it. They would more likely be better defenders of freedom than the liberal art graduates today. He also talks about doing it in phases, not all at once.
The point is not to either take Binswanger's case as-is or reject it entirely. Maybe *you* could improve on it if you didn't dismiss it so easily.
@@YashArya01 Definitions are the start and a pre-existing necessity for a discussion. Tell me what a "Persian cat" is WITHOUT knowing what a cat is. You cannot have a meaningful discussion without a definition becuase you...erm...Kant know what you are talking aobut. You might as well try to discuss lemon meringue gasoline or tiara dioxide for all the sense it would make
Aside from being non-conceptual it fails by making us try to apply the Law of Identity to a negative. It goes like this:
ME: Let's talk about cats
YOU: What is a "Cat"
Me: A cat is a non-banana
YOU: WTF does that mean
ME: Figure it out for youreself, will try this a cat is the opposite of a dog. Does that Help?
The REAL fail is that this mess is at the root of the discussion. So we are having a discussion about something that is not defined to the point where I can apply the Law of Identity to it (try applying A is A" to a negative. That is why one cannot prove a negative). The root of a discussion is its major premise so we are trying to have a discussion without a clearly (conseptually) defined premise. The pattern is "Factual premises and valid reasoning yield true conclusions". We VALIDATE reasoning (show the PROCESS is correct) and we VERIFY premises (show that it is a fact of reality, existing apart from and prior to, our knowldege, thoughts, feelings or wishes) How can anything with a negative at its root be a fact or any reality? To have a rational discussion, you have to state (or check) your premises to be sure you HAVE premises otherwise you are talking about deydrated water and solid opque transparency and that's ony if I feel like it Without a knowlably factual premise to anchor it to the here and now, the whole thing devolves into word salad without even Russian dressing (or any dressing). Just a series of floating abstractions
@@SpacePatrollerLaser Definitions are necessary for a discussion but they are not the start. Concept formation is the start. Then you come to definitions. Then you proceed from there. If you don't agree that definition is the end of the concept formation, that is not something I am up to discuss. Those are basics you should understand from ITOE and OPAR. In this regard I also highly recommend Binswanger's four OCON courses on epistemology.
I agree that he did not precisely define it positively, but you need to point out specifically what about the differentiation from closed-borders and ostensive definition was insufficient for you. Frankly I think you could very well fill in that gap yourself and proceed with the talk, improving on the overall case for open immigration.
The relationship between a cat and a banana is not the same as the relationship between closed open borders. One is not the opposite of the other in your case.
What seems more likely to me is that you simply don't want open immigration and so are not open to arguments in favor of it. Some of the things you showed about your attitude towards bi lingualism are irrational as stated and hint towards collectivism/xenophobia. I expect better from Objectivists, but I'm not sure if you are one.
A "Closed Border" is not a physical barrier. It is a defined understanding between individuals of neighboring countries (territories) brought to life via mutual respect of the law and well established boundaries. Having a lock on your front door and a fence surrounding your property will never keep those who have no respect for private property or the law from trespassing intentionally.
His point is to compare and contrast the various borders that surround the state of Texas. There is clearly a physical barrier present in the closed case.
@@BalugaWhale37 Yes, but as I said, it doesn't change one's philosophical perspective for the respect of that boundary.
@Thomas Hägg So the guy jumping over your fence in the dark of night should be given the benefit of the doubt that he's probably just lost or confused about boundaries? Got it.
@Thomas Hägg A country which has established law (as most every county does) is not "prematurely deciding" to lock anyone in or out. It has established law for crossing borders which is clearly understood by all. My guess is that there isn't a single illegal immigrant who doesn't understand they are breaking the law of a sovereign country when they breach the international border uninvited.
How long does it usually take to move to, live, & work freely the US legally? I believe the answer is infinity. See Reason magazine's "what about illegal do you not understand?"
define a country. define a nation. define a citizen.
This was clear to me from the talk.
I do not think that you are correct when you say that 80% of crime is due to illegal drugs.
How much do you think it is?
@@YashArya01 I heard a well known and often cited criminologist on C-SPAN years ago and he poo-pooed the idea that it was drug laws that were responsible for the number of people in prison... but I do not know the actual percentage AND I'd be suspicious of what googling will tell us.
@@drstrangelove09 Even if it's 33%, or whatever, it just makes a difference in degree, not in the principle.
@@YashArya01 OK, fair enough... just saying it's likely not as big an issue as Harry may think.
Disagreement is not an argument, you lazy twit. Do 1% of Dr Binswanger's research, come back, and tell us what you found.
The case for immigration:Receive funding from fracking billionaires who want cheap labor
Sounds good to me!
Fine by me 😁