Wow, I didn't know you were such an extreme leftist.

I'm not really a leftist. I'm an extreme Objectivist. See what I wrote about it. Many people tend to view the political map as us, the left-winged "the good ones" vs. them, the right-winged, the "bad ones". However, Objectivists (and other Libertarians), dislike left-winged people for thinking there should be a government control on the Economy, and right-winged people for thinking that one can compromise on individual rights. And they are certainly not "middle-of-the-roaders" who tend to be pragmatic on both.

In regards to my political views (individual rights, etc.), I may be construed as extreme leftist, but like I said, I also support Economical freedom. I oppose laws that are meant to protect businesses against competitors or their customers (e.g: the DMCA), and also don't think that consumers should be limited in choice or otherwise protected from the "malevolent" producers (e.g: a compulsory FDA-like medicine control). These are all both sides of the same coin.

A country does have a right to prevent people from immigrating to it. States are a way of protecting the interests of a particular group, and one of these interests can be maintaining a certain culture. The USA has immigration laws, other countries have immigration laws. I know of very few countries that don't have them.

A country does not have such right. The fact that countries did that since the beginning of history to some extent does not make it right. (For example, Women have also been constitutionally discriminated against for much of history, yet they deserve equal rights.)

Then you say "States are a way of protecting the interests of a particular group, and one of these interests can be maintaining a certain culture.". Naturally, countries are Nature's way of making sure that when disaster happens in one place in the world, it will be limited in scope, geographically.

Countries should also protect other interests of their citizens, either by using the government or by voluntary or commercial organisations within them. But the "maintaining a certain culture" argument is ridiculous. "Oh my god! My precious culture! How should I protect it from the influence of the evil foreigners who come and bring their own different cultures. What shall we do?..." Get real.

Countries should protect the life, liberty and happiness of the people living within them, not their "culture". People who are alive, free and happy can create, maintain and evolve a rich culture, that will be heavily influenced from many other external sources. A static culture is a dying culture, and even in a place without a lot of external influences a culture evolves. But like I said, life, individual rights and freedoms and the happiness of the individuals are much more important than "culture". I hope you agree.

=====================

Wow, I didn't know you were such an extreme leftist.

I'm not really a leftist. I'm an extreme Objectivist. See what I wrote about it. Many people tend to view the political map as us, the left-winged "the good ones" vs. them, the right-winged, the "bad ones". However, Objectivists (and other Libertarians), dislike left-winged people for thinking there should be a government control on the Economy, and right-winged people for thinking that one can compromise on individual rights. And they are certainly not "middle-of-the-roaders" who tend to be pragmatic on both.

In regards to my political views (individual rights, etc.), I may be construed as extreme leftist, but like I said, I also support Economical freedom. I oppose laws that are meant to protect businesses against competitors or their customers (e.g: the DMCA), and also don't think that consumers should be limited in choice or otherwise protected from the "malevolent" producers (e.g: a compulsory FDA-like medicine control). These are all both sides of the same coin.

A country does have a right to prevent people from immigrating to it. States are a way of protecting the interests of a particular group, and one of these interests can be maintaining a certain culture. The USA has immigration laws, other countries have immigration laws. I know of very few countries that don't have them.

A country does not have such right. The fact that countries did that since the beginning of history to some extent does not make it right. (For example, Women have also been constitutionally discriminated against for much of history, yet they deserve equal rights.)

Then you say "States are a way of protecting the interests of a particular group, and one of these interests can be maintaining a certain culture.". Naturally, countries are Nature's way of making sure that when disaster happens in one place in the world, it will be limited in scope, geographically.

Countries should also protect other interests of their citizens, either by using the government or by voluntary or commercial organisations within them. But the "maintaining a certain culture" argument is ridiculous. "Oh my god! My precious culture! How should I protect it from the influence of the evil foreigners who come and bring their own different cultures. What shall we do?..." Get real.

Countries should protect the life, liberty and happiness of the people living within them, not their "culture". People who are alive, free and happy can create, maintain and evolve a rich culture, that will be heavily influenced from many other external sources. A static culture is a dying culture, and even in a place without a lot of external influences a culture evolves. But like I said, life, individual rights and freedoms and the happiness of the individuals are much more important than "culture". I hope you agree.

There are actually countries that don't allow citizenship to anybody except their own ethnic group. Example? Japan. Their citizenship law is similar to our "Hok Hashvut" - if you are a descendent of some ancient Japanese and can prove it, you can be Japanese. Otherwise, tough shit. You can be a resident, not a citizen (exception is when the emperor grants you honorary citizenship, but that doesn't happen very often). That's not good. Many past and present Japanese have immigrated to the US, to Europe and elsewhere, and gained citizenship, yet people who originated from these countries cannot become citizens in Japan? Of course, Israel is not better, and that's not good either. The law should be changed in both Israel and Japan. But we should look at our own back yard rather than try to say that we can be bad just because other countries are as bad. A person or a country should grow independently of others, while having the ideal man as his ideal. See