Hypocritical position of Ayn Rand Institute on immigration and nation-state
Having read Fountainhead and on my way to read Atlas Shrugged, I have to some degree become obsessed with reading about Ayn Rand’s philosophy. Being a budding libertarian, her views have really echoed with me, with certain restrictions of course. While my agreements and disagreements on her views can be worthy of many articles, I was particularly perplexed by her Institute’s position on immigration and nation-state. Basically they are pro-immigration and anti-nation in case of Europe but have the opposite positions respectively in case of Israel. First, the sum of her views:
“You don’t know my conception of self-interest. No one has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force, which is what you’re suggesting. You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living — which isn’t true, though if it were true, you’d still have no right to close the borders. You’re not entitled to any “self-interest” that injures others, especially when you can’t prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can’t claim that anything others may do — for example, simply through competition — is against your self-interest. But above all, aren’t you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn’t be alive today if our borders had been closed?”
And here, a member Yaron Brook is advocating for open immigration:
Ayn Rand Institute on Israel’s Right of Existence:
“ Israel has had to fight five wars — all in self-defense — against twenty-two hostile Arab dictatorships, and has been repeatedly attacked by Palestinian terrorists…Like any victim of aggression, Israel has a moral right to control as much land as is necessary to safeguard itself against attack. The Palestinians want to annihilate Israel, while Israel wants simply to be left alone. If there is a moral failing on Israel’s part, it consists of its reluctance to take stronger military measures.”
“Only Israel has a moral right to establish a government in that area — on the grounds, not of some ethnic or religious heritage, but of a secular, rational principle. Only a state based on political and economic freedom has moral legitimacy… As to the rightful owners of particular pieces of property, Israel’s founders — like the homesteaders in the American West — earned ownership to the land by developing it. They arrived in a desolate, sparsely populated region and drained the swamps, irrigated the desert, grew crops and built cities. They worked unclaimed land or purchased it from the owners. They introduced industry, libraries, hospitals, art galleries, universities — and the concept of individual rights.”
So to sum it up,
Europe
>Restricting immigration is self-interest pursued by law, even if for security purposes
>Bad, bad
Israel
>Has the right to nationhood
>Can restrict immigration on basis of religion (hardly a secular concept)
If you’re wondering, Brooks turned out to be Israeli. Hypocritical much?
Now, I do not advocate open borders for any country as long as there exists even one country in the world denying reciprocity. So if Israel wants to restrict immigration, even if on a basis I vehemently oppose, it’s fine. But then why should Mr. Brooks preach others on having an open borders policy? Take a uniform stance. Your principles should be secular and universal, like much of Ayn Rand’s philosophy.
