Francisco Ferrer

In a laissez-faire society exactly what filters do you envision the government applying to the flow of immigrants? Vaccinations, right? Certain education level or marketable job skills, right? Beyond the need to discourage additional welfare recipients, is it appropriate for the government to administer a cultural or social values test on the applicant? If so, then what principle stops the government from imposing such tests on those already here? If you start with the premise or rationale that no one comes in without the permission of the federal government--which is the legality anyway--then you can work on the premise of stripping away the restrictions one by one considering the entire socio-economic and geo-political context over time. There are a billion more Chinese in China than the entire population of the United States. If these were the only two countries on earth do we suddenly say let all who want go where they want and ten years later there are a billion Chinese in China and the US population has exploded to 7 to 800 million? You have to be practical about these things, for that would be as indigestible as Thanksgiving diner three times a day every day and you gotta eat everything. --Brant Okay, let's be practical. Suppose, by some hypothetically rational method, that the good folks we've granted the power to rule over us decide that there may be one million legal immigrants to the U.S. each year. Now, the question is, what are the criteria for selecting that million lucky foreigners? Should we have a lottery like Powerball and let a ping pong ball blower or computer pick some bunch at random? Or do we have a competition, where the applicants take a test and write an essay, as if they're trying to get into Yale? Mr. Parille expressed some doubt about whether current immigrants share our "values and motivations." Now if those highly qualified men and women in Washington can decide what values new arrivals to these shores must have, on the same principle why couldn't they dictate what values should be taught to newborns (uterine immigrants) as they mature?

When "free" care is part of the package deal, naturally you grab what you're "owed." What's ridiculous is the idea that Sovietized medicine will work as long 100% red-blooded Amuricans are running the show.

In a laissez-faire society exactly what filters do you envision the government applying to the flow of immigrants? Vaccinations, right? Certain education level or marketable job skills, right? Beyond the need to discourage additional welfare recipients, is it appropriate for the government to administer a cultural or social values test on the applicant? If so, then what principle stops the government from imposing such tests on those already here?

Vets went to hospitals built, owned and run by the government, and were treated by doctors and nurses hired, paid and supervised by the government. The only surprising thing about this story is that people seem surprised by the outcome.

Do what? Am always touched by the concern of others. Thank you. To make sure that arguments advanced against the enemies of capitalism are strong, not weak. Have no position on dead horses other than to acknowledge they make good dog food.

Wow you could form your own secular doomsday cult on that one babes! And your suggestion to correct this is....: 1)____________________ 2)____________________ 3)____________________ Let's just start with three (3), shall we? Go... A... Two hundred years of compromises, betrayals, and surrenders are not corrected 1, 2, 3. But if a stand-on-one-foot explanation is what you want, a fundamental reversal in the American political structure will come only after a philosophical revolution.

PDS is correct. The case against a politician or a political candidate doesn't rest on what particular demographic group likes or dislikes him. The Guilt by Association fallacy is covered here. Ayn Rand discusses its use in her essay "'Extremism' or the Art of Smearing." Obama's opponents (of whom I am a proud member) should know better than to employ this tactic, given the fact that it has most often been used by the left. Consider the attempt last year to link the Tea Party and Nazis. Or this commercial from 1964:

There will be no removal of Obama from office for the same reason Clinton remained in power and for the same reason there has not been a rollback in government size in modern times. The state is a monopoly on force, the two-party system is a monopoly on choice, and the role of elected officials is to keep tax loot, federal contracts, and special privileges flowing in a steady stream to the elite or--for those who are shocked by that word--we'll use Rand's phrase, "pressure groups."

It took me 40 years to turn into an insufferable snob. How tragic to see it in one so young.

Then the Framers would have to be held morally accountable for providing the Constitutional means to keep men, women and children in a lifetime of bondage by requiring all state governments to enforce slavery at taxpayers' expense, even in places where no one or most residents did not own slaves. “They [Africans] certainly must have been created with less intellectual power than the whites, and were most probably intended to serve them, and be the instruments of their cultivation.” – Charles Pinckney, Constitutional delegate and author of the Fugitive Slave Clause

Good point; the same thing has occurred to me as well. Paine was widely criticized for catering to the "common man" by dumbing down his ideas, and the style of his writing was attacked as crude. Yet a lot of college students would have trouble following him today. Ghs The quality of literature in an age varies inversely with the rate of literacy.

Free will was not a dominant literary idea in the 19th century novel, even before the arrival of naturalism. Fate as either a malevolent or moral force is common in the American novels of Nathaniel Hawthorne and Herman Melville, the British novels of Charles Dickens, George Eliot, and Thomas Hardy, and the French novels of Prosper Mérimée and Gustave Flaubert. In fact, when Rand writes that "The Romantic writers did not regard man as a plaything of unknowable forces," it is hard to imagine whom she has in mind other than Victor Hugo. And even with Hugo, fate plays a significant role in his plots.

Ellen PS: See this post (#467) on the "Apples..." thread for Rand's discussion of esthetic judgment from that talk. Here is yet another example of Rand writing history as it could be, ought to be. The fact that the Greeks made their gods in the image of beautiful men and women does not alter the fact that in ancient Greek theology fate was firmly in control of the universe and of man's destiny. Against these supernatural forces, man was indeed "weak, helpless, terrified." For an excellent discussion, see The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. The Randian history lesson would also have us believe that the Renaissance represented a return to the sort of rational thinking Rand approved of. In fact, the Renaissance saw the revival of Rand's old bête noire, Platonism. See "Platonism in the Renaissance." In particular, Michelangelo, through Plotinus, was an excellent practitioner of Neo-Platonist idealism. See Liana De Girolami Cheney, Neoplatonic Aesthetics. As for the Romantic Age, I have already discussed the militant anti-rationalism of that school. The novel was not an innovation of the 19th century or even of the late eighteenth century. Its provenance goes back as far as Petronius in the reign of Nero. Even if we stick to English literature, to accept Rand we'd have to ignore the masterpieces Robinson Crusoe (1719), Moll Flanders (1722), Pamela, or Virtue Rewarded (I, 1740; II, 1741), Clarissa (1747-48), Joseph Andrews (1742) and Tom Jones (1749). Don Quixote, a chronicle? "A factual written account of important or historical events in the order of their occurrence"? I admire Rand, but this is just embarrassing.

Yes it is... but being a secular libertine, you haven't the foggiest notion of what that means. Well, I had just said that you're clueless, and your comment confirms it yet again. That actually means that an individual is constantly held morally accountable for their actions. Both you and I are getting exactly what we each deserve as the consequences of our own actions. That is what it means to be morally accountable. Our two views on this will always differ. I'm just stating my view to clearly contrast it to yours. That's the liberal view of subjective feelings of comfort determining your morality. You're firmly in their camp on that topic. The behavior of an extreme right wing secular libertine is indistinguishable from that of a radical leftist libertine. Greg Now we're getting somewhere. If an "individual is constantly held morally accountable for their actions," then the slaveholders of 1789, whose property in human chattel was protected and preserved by the original makers and designers of this republic, can be judged for their violations of the rights of men, women and children and properly described as immoral. Therefore, the following statements are false: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --John Adams "The American system of government was designed to work only for decent people." --Moralist The Constitution, the American system of government, which explicitly included the means to force runaway slaves back into involuntary servitude, was made, designed to work not only for moral people, but for violators of human rights on a grand scale.

Because morality is a constant process of growth. Do you know what that means? The self correcting mechanisms within the Constitution allow for the moral growth of a nation should it choose to walk that upward path. You know, I could just as well be talking with a secular leftist libertine. Your view is indistinguishable from theirs. Nevertheless I find it to be entertaining. It's interesting to watch you go on about how "evil" the founders of America were. How they didn't live up to your imaginary utopia of ideological purity. Many people who fail in their own lives excuse their own failure by tearing down others instead of learning and growing to become better people themselves... ...and this is why you don't understand that morality is a constant process of growth. Greg "Morality is a process of growth"? That must mean that an individual cannot be held morally accountable until he's had sufficient time to grow accustomed to a moral code. We can't, for example, expect people to follow the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Steal," until they've gotten comfortable with the idea. Perhaps no punishment even for third offenders. And maybe there should be no penalties for those still practicing human sacrifice. They're still growing, aren't they? According to your argument, that means that slavery was justifiable at the time of the Founding because Americans had not grown up to be big boys and girls yet and rejected it. Ownership of human beings: perfectly legitimate in 1787; a heinous crime in 1865. Three points: First of all, none of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were minors and thus hardly exempt from the responsibility of making moral judgments. Secondly, most of the 13 original states abolished slavery within a dozen years after the Constitution went into effect. The fact that it remained intact in the South (and was protected by the Constitution) had nothing to do with with slowness of moral growth but with political power and the preservation of wealth in human chattel. Finally, speaking of "secular leftist libertines," the process of growth argument is relativistic nonsense and can be used to justify any horror. We could argue with as much merit that genocide in Russia, China and Cambodia happened simply because the backward rulers there, poor things, hadn't had the opportunity to "grow" yet. To conclude, if the moral growth argument means that those that benefited from the original Constitution and its Fugitive Slave Clause were "a moral and religious people," then it would follow that slaves had no right to run away from their bondage to these godly folk, and that those who sought to help runaways escape were violators of property rights. Slavery is legitimate as long as the slaveholder has not yet had sufficient time and space to grow yet. Then, apparently, the size of government today must be perfect: exactly big enough to give the welfarists and the socialists what they deserve. One who believes in justice would therefore have to oppose any reduction in the size of government for such reduction would render the government ineffective at delivering just deserts.

The validity of an argument exists independently of one person's perception of it,

Spot on, Adam. Frank's head is stuck up his past. For him there is still slavery. There was no Civil War. And there have never been any Amendments to the Constitution. People who live in the past are failures at properly dealing with the present. Wisely included within the Constitution are self correcting mechanisms. Now whether those mechanisms are used for good or for evil purposes is totally dependant on the morality of the nation. The size of the US government today is a living tribute to peoples' utter failure to govern themselves. You can't even blame it for that, because government is only responding to a nation of fukups who are demanding it to make someone else to pay their bills. Greg Very well, let's take a look at one of those amendments. If the original Constitution was "made only for a moral and religious people," why was it necessary to have a Thirteenth Amendment? Weren't all the "moral and religious people" being treated as decently as they deserved by the Constitution that was made for them and for them only? "The size of the US government today is a living tribute to peoples' utter failure to govern themselves," you say. Now if it is true, as you have often claimed, that people get the government they deserve, then the size of the government today must be exactly right. If it were any smaller, it could not perform its function of serving up just deserts, of which you apparently approve. Furthermore, since you "have no complaints about how the government treats" you, then government must be close to perfect.

Yes, you can use Google's picture search and find photos of Black standing out among the other high court members because of his white robe. Cute response and evasive. I have admired some of Black's opinions, Engel v. Vitale was not one of them. If you did not want to pray at least have the balls to stand up and not pray, or, refuse to even stand up. You made no declaration of your position. I did. I was supported by my parents and I was willing to take whatever "penalty" the local school system intended to hand out. Wound up that the school acted as if nothing happened. Nothing did except folks who wanted to stand and pray stood and prayed. Folks who did not, did not. A... Evade the fact that Black once was a Klansman? Hardly. Perhaps if more legal scholars examined Black's early political associations they'd see just what's wrong with Engel v. Vitale. (That's why I never trusted former liberal Ronald Reagan. Once wrong, forever wrong.) Yes, shamefully I did not stand up for myself in elementary school. If I had, doubtlessly that the local school board, fundamentalist Protestants all, would have the seen inescapable logic of my objection and ended school prayer on the spot. I did not take the road less traveled by and that has made all the difference. Much later in life I was delighted to see the Ten Commandments removed from the place where I have to do legal business from time to time. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Phooey. Good riddance.

I urge you to see the film even if you are a doubter (as I was when I entered the theatre). The theme of the movie is human ingenuity, both Vermeer's and Jenison's. Jenison argues that a camera reads color and shade in a way that the human eye cannot, and that Vermeer's method was to use a lens to focus/capture the image one fraction of an inch at a time, but (pre-invention of light-sensitive plates) to use his own paintbrush to record it. Let me hasten to add that the subtlety of light gradation is only one of Jenison's reasons for the conclusion that Vermeer used a lens. There are other, more convincing proofs--but I would prefer that you see them for yourself in the film. It's part of the fun to watch Jenison's "Ah-hah" moments along the way.

No it doesn't. The fat bloated corrupt unconstitutional government bureaucracy you see today only exists because people aren't moral. Greg No one has made any statements in this thread about the causes of "corrupt unconstitutional government bureaucracy." I have. Yes it is. The unconstitutional immorality of government today is directly linked to the immorality of the populace. People have created the immoral government they deserve in their own immoral image. Greg Answer the question: If the Constitution was "made only for a moral and religious people," then why did it explicitly protect and preserve slavery through the Fugitive Slave Clause? Slave-holding members of the Constitutional Convention Richard Bassett (DE) Jacob Broom (DE) John Dickinson (DE) George Read (DE) William Houstoun (GA) William Few (GA) William Samuel Johnson (CT) Daniel Carroll (MD) Luther Martin (MD) John Francis Mercer (MD) Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer (MD) William Livingston (NJ) William Blount (NC) William Richardson Davie (NC) Alexander Martin (NC) Richard Dobbs Spaight (NC) Pierce Butler (SC) Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (SC) Charles Pinckney (SC) John Rutledge (SC) John Blair (VA) James Madison (VA) George Mason (VA) Edmund Randolph (VA) George Washington (VA) George Wythe (VA) Robert Morris (PA)

Yes, you can use Google's picture search and find photos of Black standing out among the other high court members because of his white robe.

Under penalty of law. I agree. Statist dogmas remained in public education even after the Little Lord Jesus was booted out of the curriculum. (The socialist-penned "Pledge of Allegiance," which I have not uttered since high school, is a form of prayer to the gods in the District of Columbia.) However, if my goal is to counter Moralist's claim that "The American system of government was designed to work only for decent people" or that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people" and that such a system holds true today, all I have to do is show that individuals who are either non-religious or immoral or both have controlled or benefited from government power in America. I do not know how thoroughly non-religious the plaintiffs in Engel v. Vitale were (did they refuse to engage in American Flag idolatry?), but I can tell you the closeted atheist in me derived considerable relief from not being made to bow my head to that imaginary being "Our Father" each morning. For another example, we have to go no further than the saintly John Adams himself, who signed into law and enthusiastically enforced the Sedition Act which restricted speech critical of the federal government. Under that Act, if on the books today, most of the words on http://www.objectivistliving.com/ would be censored. I suppose people who were truly "decent" (i.e. kept their mouths shut) didn't have to worry about prison time.

No it doesn't. The fat bloated corrupt unconstitutional government bureaucracy you see today only exists because people aren't moral. Greg No one has made any statements in this thread about the causes of "corrupt unconstitutional government bureaucracy." The issue is your claim that the Constitution was "made only for a moral and religious people" and such a condition holds true today. I am an atheist. I do not pray and I do not wish to be in a group that is led in prayer--most emphatically not on a daily basis. As a child, due to compulsory attendance laws, I was forced to be a party to prayer in schools. The Supreme Court's 1962 Engel v. Vitale decision held that prayer as an activity for public school children violated the Constitution's Establishment Clause. Wrote Mr. Justice Black for the majority: "We think that, by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause." This decision ended organized prayers in my school. Thus, 136 years after Adams's death, the Constitution was used to defend the rights of a non-religious person (me). In order to prove the idea that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people" and that such a condition remains true, you would have to prove that a) I was actually a religious person in 1962, or b) The Constitution was not invoked in the Engel v. Vitale decision. Good luck with that. Also, good luck with proving that the Constitution's requirement that slaves be returned was designed for moral people.

Galt's wrong. --Brant that's why we missed out on General Thrmonuclear War by compromising with Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War--true, two of the three were "evil," but WTF? is this that old "excluded middle" fallacy? the old "We don't negtiate with terrorists" public consumption crap from Galt Rand to you In the context of forcing free men to do the bidding of dealers in human chattel, Galt's words ring true. The abolitionists were right, the slaveholders were wrong, and the compromise that forced non-slave states to return men to their bondage was evil. There was no Fugitive Slave Clause under the Articles of Confederation.

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil." --John Galt