Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Loyalty To Humanity In General Is Not Known To Possess ANY Attributes Of Sovereignty

Loyalty to fellow citizens over against the foreigner, in at least that case, in which a foreigner increases the level of aggression within the borders, by entering; does have attributes of sovereignty. A nation which is claimed to be an idea, but in which citizens somehow do not owe loyalty to each other over against the foreigner entering with aggression, would not then be known still to possess attributes of sovereignty. When it is said that there is "injustice" in not giving the same protections and privileges to incoming foreigners as to citizens, that is not known to be a valid use of the term justice. It may be a 'justice is equality' misconception, as in Plato's Republic, but 'to each his own' would apply, yielding differential treatment as the just kind. The citizen owns his claim on the loyalty of fellow nationals to be on his side, when the foreigner enters in a way that builds up the level of aggression, but the foreigner is a supplicant when he asks that the government be extended out to him. On such assumptions as the openness-valorizing one, border defense becomes apartheid fencing, as if all had claims on foreign governments from their species character alone. Craig Biddle challenges us to disprove his statement that: "Arguments against open immigration abound, but all of them are invalid. None of them names a principle (i.e., a general truth) by reference to which limiting immigration is a requirement of human life—and each of them calls for actions that violate individual rights." We don't violate the undemonstrated right of foreigners to have our government extended to them, by not doing so. The prevention of an open-ended increase of aggression within a sovereign territory is a necessary condition for good human life, since aggression can increase from lack of border control relative to foreigners whose entry would occasion that increase, and to the point that mass deaths would follow within the area of responsibility of our nation and its officials. It is, on a long-term consideration, a life-requirement that officials and citizenry not increase the level of aggression WITHIN the jurisdiction FOR WHICH the decision is to be made. We don't decide for the world, and it goes against life-requirements to try to globalize our responsibilities. What would become of human life here if social security, or our federal police agencies, were globalized? Equality of rights between citizen and foreigner would yield that result, if it didn't matter where the foreigner lives. Further, the continuity of the advancement of civilization requires that we not go backwards in terms of standards, as of productivity and others which are threatened by mass immigration of low quality. If too much supply of menial labor at the same or lower wage, is not known to be compatible with the increase of productivity long-term, life is threatened even throughout the world, as the failure to move onward to higher levels is not known to allow for warding off the onset of a new dark age condition, where technique goes backwards. This has already happened with transport technology, from the 9-11 immigrants' bringing down of the twin towers, resulting in the cessation of supersonic civilian scheduled transport. Applying openness-valuing claims to America is easily quite misleading; since, if one substituted Israel, Hellenic Cyprus, Taiwan, South Korea and Thailand for America in those claims, the existential threat of open immigration would be seen more clearly. The existential threat from Islamic demographic expansion, through valuing openness to mass immigration into civilized nations, should be manifest, to those who would propose the invasion of several such countries, and in a certain order. Similarly, national sovereignty is not known to be reasonably regarded as disposable, where the claims of prospective immigrants were given precedence over the need to maintain minimal conditions for the furtherance of good life within a national territory. This brings us back to the initial consideration of whether humanity in general may have attributes of sovereignty, and thought of the several countries mentioned above, should convince that the loyal nation is what can protect life, but the species in general includes too broad a range for the minimum requirements of survival in advanced societies. Loyalty to and through the nation, allows for individual rights to be protected and to exist in the first instance, for that matter; but this loyalty must be exclusionary and organized around the need to defend against even quite small, increments of aggression from the incoming foreigner.
If the nation possess attributes of sovereignty sufficient to refuse entry to foreigners on grounds such as disease, terrorist associations and more; the prospective immigrant applies for privilege and not for recognition of his right from species-membership alone.
Additional criticisms of Biddle's arguments are to be found on Saturday's post, entitled:
The Citizenry Is Not Known To Be A Juridical Person Of Penal Responsibility Relative To The Prospective Immigrant


Anonymous said...

I have one word against the Objectivist-nut-job-Laguna-Calipornia-living-'author'-Craig Biddle's arguments:


The PEOPLE goddammit, want the border wall built and our laws enforced. If there were a ballot initiative for a twenty year moratorium on new immigration nationwide, it would easily pass. What the people want in a democracy, they are supposed to get. They have not been getting what they have wanted for a long long time. Its amazing to me to see a dumbass like Biddle embrace people who are going to vote for pure-blue-socialism in ensuing elections and for raising taxes back to Carter-era-levels on incomes over 100K. He will bitch to high heaven about it then.

Did you even see on his "article" how he advocated delcaring war on Iran immediately????!!!!!!!!!! He also said "repeat as necessary" for any other nation that dares develop a nuclear program. What a nut-job. I dont take such people seriously at all. We cannot fight the whole damned world. Neo-cons and Randites are just as dangerous (hell, much more dangerous) than the hippies of the late sixties were. Their "model" for civilization would fail just as badly as the hippies proscriptions for how we should all live would.

Democracy..............where citizens vote and their voice is heeded, is the best model for civilization.

John S. Bolton said...

I take these people seriously, especially when they give very explicit arguments for radical proposals. Normally we get 'suppressed major premisses', making it harder to argue. When you infer the underlying idea and its radical further conclusions, often the consequences are denied. With Biddle, though, even though you dismiss it as crazy, which I don't, the 'principle' of openness to any sort of immigrants is applied all the way. Even if we have to go to war with one large country after another,'repeat as necessary', the openness to Islamic immigration is treated as a POSITIVE value. Presumably this means that terrorists can't do much if they don't have state sponsors. If I answered with one word it would be loyalty rather than democracy. Openness to enemies is disloyal under any system, democracy or not. Anti-discrimination would be mentioned, but why discriminate against our citzens and the net taxpayers here, treating them as a holistic super-entity, damaging the 'rights' of Islamic enemies to swarm in, why not give our people the presumption of innocence, if they ae to be charged with violating some hostile foreigners pretended rights?

John S. Bolton said...

Your answer of democracy, though has some strengths to it. It puts the other guy on the defensive, having to explain why he doesn't believe in democracy. If he's saying people need to have freedom to decide, why should it be forbidden to vote on who gets to share in the government, among foreigners? If foreigners and citizens all have equal rights to take from our government, but the citizens don't get to say no democratically, the foreigner would seem to have actually more rights here, since his position has representation that voting wouldn't be allowed to touch. The founding fathers didn't say 'for ourselves and the foreigner'. they weren't trying to establish world government.

Anonymous said...


I keep in mind writers like Biddle are basically paid shills for the entities that underwrite them. They provide the globalist propaganda for globalists who are power greedy beyond their own eyesight. Its obvious they are being paid to provide ideological cover for a corporate-dominated world government in the future. The elite have hoodwinked themselves into thinking this will run smoothly, but I beg to differ, it simply wont and I propose the same elite will be awed by just how hard it is to extricate group think from the new citizens who have not been beaten down with anti-western guilt trips, race guilt trips, sexist guilt trips and the like.

We, the west, are the only people on the planet playing by the 'new' rules. Everybody else is loyal to their own races.

The ancient Greek Democracies and the Roman Republic would have both fallen way way way sooner if they had shipped in tons of sub-saharan Africans and we both know it, and we both know why. Its astonishing to me that the globalists, who live in lilly white areas and send their kids to lilly white schools, DARE to attempt to cloak themselves in civil rights gibberish while trying to take over the world to make a corprate utopia from within by using the US military to subdue any who would resist. Whats really almost comically sad is that it isn't going to work. China, India, Indonesia (220 million people), Pakistan (170 million people) and Russia, and Arabia are not going for it. People around the world are getting fed up with "us" John. I can see it, and Im sure you can too.

John S. Bolton said...

The one-worlder propaganda does have to use smears, and in a cynical one-way pattern, against those who have something to lose. It still makes sense to find out where exactly the lies or mistakes are when its presented from the far right. Biddle says no one owns the U.S. government, while proceeding as if the whole world does. It is actually the citizenry which owns it, and has every right to object to foreign undesirables being given a share. Our children inherit, but the world in general does not. The owners in posession are legitimate presumptively. Those who say we are not the legitimate owners have the burden of proof. We're looking at attempted disposession by foreigners, who've got some short-sighted right-wing people on their side. As you suggest, the foreigners will drop any talk of universal brotherhood, equality, ant-racism, anti-discrimination,etc. as soon as they are in posession.