Comments Elsewhere

Kennedy,

That again begs the crucial question: Is America the collective property of it’s citizens?

No more so than saying “You’re using democratic mysticism to justify aggression against innocent dissenters” begs the question. Of course you need to have some further argument to demonstrate that democratic mysticism is wrong, and that the consent of 50%+1 isn’t binding on any of the 50%-1, but if you’ve got a general case that political collectivism as such is wrong, then a fortiori you’ve got a case that democratic mysticism is wrong, and with that case in hand, there’s nothing wrong with pointing out that “You’re using democratic mysticism to excuse aggression against innocent dissenters” is indeed the structure of the argument. I’m just saying that it works the same way when people use racial, class, national, religious, or other forms of bigotry to excuse aggression.

As far as premises behind anti-immigration arguments go, I think that the claim that America is collectively the property of its citizens is only one among many, although it’s a very common one, especially amongst people who like to play at libertarian. But it’s not the only one. For example, a lot of the Law-and-Order types more or less explicitly operate on a premise of collective punishment, to the effect that if some illegal immigrants commit crimes against person and property, then the government is entitled to force all of them to submit to ex ante screening, searches, etc. with or without probable cause, on the excuse that it’s a defensive measure (even though they would never accept that kind of treatment for, say, anyone who happened to come from the same state as Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph).

In either case, though, operating from a premise that all and only members of a particular national group are either (1) collectively entitled to control land that has neither been freely given to them nor homesteaded by them, solely in virtue of their nationality, or else (2) are fair game for collective punishment and preemptive violence without probable cause, solely in virtue of their nationality, just means operating from a bigoted premise. Specifically, both premises are instances of some of the cruder and more militant forms of nationalist bigotry.

Describing the argument as “bigoted” may or may not be persuasive in a given context (in fact it’s usually not, since it raises people’s hackles), but it can be an accurate description of the content of the premises, and not just an attempt at psychoanalysis of the motives behind them, as you seem to suggest. Since the point of describing the structure of a bad argument is not always persuading the person who made the argument not to make it anymore, I can’t see what’s wrong with the procedure.