Libertarian position on immigration and border control

[Catatonic]

I've done some reading about the libertarian argument for wide open borders, but I've never seen it addressed as a national security issue.

Are libertarians okay with letting people with criminal records in and out of the county whenever they wish? How is this justified?

[heavenlyboy34]

I've done some reading about the libertarian argument for wide open borders, but I've never seen it addressed as a national security issue.

Are libertarians okay with letting people with criminal records in and out of the county whenever they wish? How is this justified?


The reason we cannot secure the borders now is that much of the land is government-owned. If it were privately owned, people could develop it and defend the borders themselves. This would also diminish the power of the State and prevent criminals from entering (people would defend their property from criminals). :cool:

[emazur]

YouTube - Bob Barr on Immigration 5/24/2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_QWmZV30pc)


The reason we cannot secure the borders now is that much of the land is government-owned. If it were privately owned, people could develop it and defend the borders themselves. This would also diminish the power of the State and prevent criminals from entering (people would defend their property from criminals). :cool:

This wouldn't work if there were people who owned land along the borders who decided they could make a very comfortable living by taking bribes from the illegals so that they would look the other way when crossing the borders onto their land and then into the rest of the US. If not bribery, Mexican sympathizers could purchase land along the borders and not only look away, but perhaps actively help the Mexicans. Hell, Mexican sympathizers could create a whole town next to the border.

I suppose you could say there could be vigilantes patrolling the areas adjacent to these hypothetical towns and smuggling areas, but that would quickly devolve into vigilantes demanding "your papers, please" every time they saw a brown skinned person, even from Asians who just happened to look Hispanic.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Immigration and border control are two different issues. You can have unlimited immigration and still know who is coming and going.

[heavenlyboy34]

YouTube - Bob Barr on Immigration 5/24/2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_QWmZV30pc)



This wouldn't work if there were people who owned land along the borders who decided they could make a very comfortable living by taking bribes from the illegals so that they would look the other way when crossing the borders onto their land and then into the rest of the US. If not bribery, Mexican sympathizers could purchase land along the borders and not only look away, but perhaps actively help the Mexicans. Hell, Mexican sympathizers could create a whole town next to the border.

I suppose you could say there could be vigilantes patrolling the areas adjacent to these hypothetical towns and smuggling areas, but that would quickly devolve into vigilantes demanding "your papers, please" every time they saw a brown skinned person, even from Asians who just happened to look Hispanic.


This doesn't change or defeat anything I said, as anyone can purchase sufficient protection in a libertarian society. Even if illegal alien sympathizers purchased a whole town, anti-illegal folks can purchase whole towns too and keep them out. Whoever owns the land can do whatever they want with it. The current system will never totally defeat the illegal alien problem because there is economic demand for them on both sides of the border.

Since all property is privately owned in a libertarian society, this provides disincentive for illegals to commit crimes-as people will defend their lives and property to the fullest extent possible. :cool: w00t for freedom! :D

[emazur]

We don't have a libertarian society now, and we do have public property like roads. We have anti-illegal immigration laws too. Given all this, do you believe it's acceptable for a person to purchase land next to the border, and deliberately allow illegals to cross onto his land and then use the public roads to make their way into the rest of the United States? Or should the local or federal government take action against such an individual?

Furthermore, let's suppose all public roads were abolished and were private. An American facilitates illegal aliens who cross the border onto his property, loads the illegals into his van and then drives down this private road so he can dump them into the next city, or county, or state, or whatever. Would you recommend some sort of check point so that ALL people who drive down this private road are subject to searches by the road owner, who is concerned about illegal immigration? At such a checkpoint, let's suppose the checkers thought one of the persons in the car was an illegal, but in actuality was not, and as a US citizen doesn't think he/she should have to prove her American citizenship to anyone when traveling within her own country, and just wants to be left the fuck alone so she can continue on her merry way. And let's suppose that this is just the checkpoint of one private road, there's another by the owner of the next private road, and another and another after that. Who would possibly want to live in such a society? Having to be subject to prove one's citizenship within one's own country at one checkpoint is bad enough, but being subject to such checkpoints throughout the state, if not the entire country, would be damn nightmare of a society to live in.

[Deborah K]

The reason we cannot secure the borders now is that much of the land is government-owned. If it were privately owned, people could develop it and defend the borders themselves. This would also diminish the power of the State and prevent criminals from entering (people would defend their property from criminals). :cool:

There are plenty of ranch owners who have tried to defend their land that butts up against Mexico. They regularly get sued for millions for doing it. :(

[tremendoustie]

There are plenty of ranch owners who have tried to defend their land that butts up against Mexico. They regularly get sued for millions for doing it. :(

Well, we're not exactly free, are we. They should be able to defend their property. Borders are not important -- property rights are.

[Bradley in DC]

Immigration and border control are two different issues. You can have unlimited immigration and still know who is coming and going.

Many of us think that's the only what to know who's coming and going--look at the drug war for analogies.

[Sandman33]

There are plenty of ranch owners who have tried to defend their land that butts up against Mexico. They regularly get sued for millions for doing it. :(

You should legally be able to shoot them if they are on YOUR property. And the border should absolutely be sealed. It should have been done 20 years ago.

[tremendoustie]

You should legally be able to shoot them if they are on YOUR property. And the border should absolutely be sealed. It should have been done 20 years ago.

People have a right to let anyone on their property they choose. If the border folks, or a guy in nebraska for that matter, want to let someone from Mexico on their property, that's their business. If they don't, they have a right to use force if necessary to keep them off. The government has no right to say who you can or cannot allow on your property.

[LibertyEagle]

People have a right to let anyone on their property they choose. If the border folks, or a guy in nebraska for that matter, want to let someone from Mexico on their property, that's their business. If they don't, they have a right to use force if necessary to keep them off. The government has no right to say who you can or cannot allow on your property.

True enough. But, just make sure they STAY on your property. :)

[heavenlyboy34]

We don't have a libertarian society now, and we do have public property like roads. We have anti-illegal immigration laws too. Given all this, do you believe it's acceptable for a person to purchase land next to the border, and deliberately allow illegals to cross onto his land and then use the public roads to make their way into the rest of the United States? Or should the local or federal government take action against such an individual?

Furthermore, let's suppose all public roads were abolished and were private. An American facilitates illegal aliens who cross the border onto his property, loads the illegals into his van and then drives down this private road so he can dump them into the next city, or county, or state, or whatever. Would you recommend some sort of check point so that ALL people who drive down this private road are subject to searches by the road owner, who is concerned about illegal immigration? At such a checkpoint, let's suppose the checkers thought one of the persons in the car was an illegal, but in actuality was not, and as a US citizen doesn't think he/she should have to prove her American citizenship to anyone when traveling within her own country, and just wants to be left the fuck alone so she can continue on her merry way. And let's suppose that this is just the checkpoint of one private road, there's another by the owner of the next private road, and another and another after that. Who would possibly want to live in such a society? Having to be subject to prove one's citizenship within one's own country at one checkpoint is bad enough, but being subject to such checkpoints throughout the state, if not the entire country, would be damn nightmare of a society to live in.

This is not at all how this would pan out. You must have missed the thread where I posted Walter Block's discussion about private roads and we all debated it at length.

There would likely be no checkpoints in a private road system, because people who need to be checked (i.e. "criminals") wouldn't want to pay the fee to use the roads. Further, the owners would have incentive to keep the roads safe and could sell billboard space, etc. to further profit.

Your argument fails also in that having the right to travel does not give you the right to roads at others' expense. This is simple morality. (Just as the right to eat does not give you the right to food at others' expense) If you want to travel for free in a private road system, you can always be a pedestrian and plan your life accordingly.

Like other things, the free market would help us find the most practical way of managing the roads. It seems most likely that a subscription-type system would arise, where the drivers pay a flat subscription fee to the owners.


Further reading-
(http://mises.org/story/3416)A Future of Private Roads and Highways (http://mises.org/story/3416)


Private Roads Work (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/frazier3.html)

[constituent]

True enough. But, just make sure they STAY on your property. :)

that's fair. ;)

[erowe1]

People have a right to let anyone on their property they choose. If the border folks, or a guy in nebraska for that matter, want to let someone from Mexico on their property, that's their business. If they don't, they have a right to use force if necessary to keep them off. The government has no right to say who you can or cannot allow on your property.

That's true. But they would also have to be allowed on anyone else's property who welcomes them. And there should be no government owned property, such as roads, on which it would ever be necessary to travel between the privately owned properties on which these people are welcome. There also should be no laws affecting what kinds of economic exchanges can be made between any two parties while these people are on these privately owned properties, such as them having jobs.

[constituent]

That's true. But they would also have to be allowed on anyone else's property who welcomes them. And there should be no government owned property, such as roads, on which it would ever be necessary to travel between the privately owned properties on which these people are welcome. There also should be no laws affecting what kinds of economic exchanges can be made between any two parties while these people are on these privately owned properties, such as them having jobs.

agreed, but in lieu of that...

[Brian4Liberty]

I've done some reading about the libertarian argument for wide open borders, but I've never seen it addressed as a national security issue.

Are libertarians okay with letting people with criminal records in and out of the county whenever they wish? How is this justified?

From the Libertarian Party Platform:


3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.

http://www.lp.org/platform

[erowe1]

From the Libertarian Party Platform:

That's the position of the Libertarian Party. But it isn't the small-l libertarian position, which, as the OP correctly observed, is the position that national borders are just imaginary lines. The word libertarian gets thrown around awfully casually by Ron Paul supporters, most of whom (myself included) are not small-l libertarians in the strict sense.

[Elwar]

In a libertarian society people would be assetts, not burdens. More people would mean more productivity, everyone bringing something to the table...if they had nothing to bring, they'd get nothing in return from a free market society.

It'd be like a wide open farmer's market...everyone bringing fruit of some sort...people either bring unique fruit, or they bring the same as someone else and competition brings the prices down. It benefits the market over all.

We do not live in a free market society. Most libertarians are for open borders but not under our current US socialist system of society creating a "safety net" for everyone and their brother leaving the burden to the productive members of society.

Ideally, open borders promote freedom and prosperity...but most libertarians are willing to accept immigration control under the current socialist system.

[Peace&Freedom]

That's the position of the Libertarian Party. But it isn't the small-l libertarian position, which, as the OP correctly observed, is the position that national borders are just imaginary lines. The word libertarian gets thrown around awfully casually by Ron Paul supporters, most of whom (myself included) are not small-l libertarians in the strict sense.

No, the "imaginary lines" idea is a staple of anarchistic or anarco-capitalist libertarians, who presume their position is the 'real' small-l libertarian position. Since anarcos reject the concept of nations or the legitimacy of government force, they naturally reject the idea there are national borders to protect.

Most libertarians are minarchists (believe the state has legitimate power so long as it is strictly limited to defending rights to life, liberty and property) and so believe in the defensive use of force as practiced by individuals, or as delegated to the state. This means the state has the right to define and protect its borders, as far as such action defends the basic rights of its citizens.

[erowe1]

No, the "imaginary lines" idea is a staple of anarchistic or anarco-capitalist libertarians, who presume their position is the 'real' small-l libertarian position. Since anarcos reject the concept of nations or the legitimacy of government force, they naturally reject the idea there are national borders to protect.

Most libertarians are minarchists (believe the state has legitimate power so long as it is strictly limited to defending rights to life, liberty and property) and so believe in the defensive use of force as practiced by individuals, or as delegated to the state. This means the state has the right to define and protect its borders, as far as such action defends the basic rights of its citizens.

Right, but minarchists aren't necessarily libertarians in the strict sense. They may populate the Libertarian Party, but that's something different.

A libertarian in the strict sense adheres to the zero-aggression principle, which is a corollary of the belief in self-ownership.
http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html

An-caps are one kind of libertarian. Whether or not there are others is beside the point (though I suspect there are, not really having bothered to work out the whole taxonomy of libertarianism, since, after all, like Ron Paul, I'm not one).

The concept of people being forced against their wills to recognize borders as defined by any state is contrary to libertarianism in the strict sense, despite the fact that some minarchists and self-professed libertarians may accept the idea. Mind you, I'm not saying that we should cease to recognize borders, only that as long as we don't, we aren't being libertarians in the strict sense.

There is also nothing wrong with using the term "libertarian" in a relative sense, such that Ron Paul is relatively more libertarian than Paul Broun, and Paul Broun is relatively more libertarian than Jim Demint. But when used in that sense, the term has no absolute objective meaning, and so is not useful in being able to say who is and isn't a libertarian. It's like arguing about who is and isn't tall.

[YumYum]

True enough. But, just make sure they STAY on your property. :)

Let's say I want to bring a bunch of illegals on my property. Can I walk them across your property if there is no other way, and I have an easement allowing me to cross your property? Can you stop me from bringing them on my property?

[Flash]

I've come to the conclusion that an open border would be harmful for America. Even in an Anarchist 'society' open borders (which would be the norm) would be a horrid idea. Mostly Aztlan & La Raza radical groups would migrate en masse and set up new countries (oh believe me, they will) and start their own society. Slowly America will be taken over.

Under a Libertarian/Minarchist state, I would still be in favor of closed borders. I don't see how welcoming mass amounts of immigration would be helpful for our country. Why should we accept people who WILL just change our ideas on government through voting? We learned that the hard way through the Catholic big-government types that swarmed here in mass numbers.

[erowe1]

Let's say I want to bring a bunch of illegals on my property. Can I walk them across your property if there is no other way, and I have an easement allowing me to cross your property? Can you stop me from bringing them on my property?

I assume that when you say "can" you mean, would it be ethical. No, assuming a libertarian perspective, which is what the OP asked about, it would not. My property is mine, and you should have to get my permission before bringing those so-called illegal aliens through it. However, with my permission (which I may give you at a price) it would be completely wrong for any government to force you not to bring those so-called illegal immigrants through my property and onto yours or to force me not to allow it or to accept money in exchange for doing that. At least, that is, from a libertarian perspective.

Edit: Oh wait, I just reread what you said and saw the part about the easement. If you have an easement, then that easement is your property, so it's not an issue. Or if the easement is such that we have some kind of contractual arrangement defining what it can be used for, then the rightness or wrongness of the action would be defined by the contract.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Hans-Hermann Hoppe gives the thesis on why "open borders" is a bad all around idea. Personally, I wouldn't be as against it if there were zero Government subsidies (Meaning, no "safety net", no public schools, no grants, no "freebies"), because at least then they would have to be a productive member of society. As it is now, they just mass immigrate here and live off the taxpayers dollar (mostly), and have a better life than they otherwise would have in their native country. This in turn creates a system that is all but enivatable to collapse and when it does we then have social strife because of the drastic differences in culture.

Let me see if I can find it....

I believe it's in this:

YouTube - The Advantages of Small States and the Dangers of Centralization (Hans Hoppe) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBg23AqZlJI)

[Brian4Liberty]

That's the position of the Libertarian Party. But it isn't the small-l libertarian position...

Granted, there are a lot of different people that call themselves "libertarian". I am not yet ready to completely dismiss the platform of the "Libertarian" Party as not being "libertarian" though.



A libertarian in the strict sense adheres to the zero-aggression principle, which is a corollary of the belief in self-ownership.
http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html


One guy's opinion.



There is also nothing wrong with using the term "libertarian" in a relative sense, such that Ron Paul is relatively more libertarian than Paul Broun, and Paul Broun is relatively more libertarian than Jim Demint. But when used in that sense, the term has no absolute objective meaning, and so is not useful in being able to say who is and isn't a libertarian. It's like arguing about who is and isn't tall.

What was the point again? You seem to have gone in a circle. Should we say that the "Libertarian" party is more libertarian than any other Party?

Are an-caps more libertarian than Libertarians?

[erowe1]

What was the point again? You seem to have gone in a circle. Should we say that the "Libertarian" party is more libertarian than any other Party?

Are an-caps more libertarian than Libertarians?

I haven't gone in a circle. Being a Libertarian (a member of a particular party) has nothing to do with being a libertarian (an adherent to a philosophy), any more than being a Republican means being republican, or being a Democrat means being democrat, or being a Green means being green. There are libertarians as well as non-libertarians in the Libertarian party, but considerably more of the latter than the former. There are an-caps in the Libertarian Party. So I don't think that one can say whether an an-cap is more libertarian than a Libertarian, since those are not mutually exclusive categories. However, I explained the need for using an absolute definition, such as that widely accepted one by Neill Smith that I provided, when it comes to the question of who is and isn't a libertarian. Such absolute questions, demanding a simple yes or no answer, only work with absolute categories. An alternative definition that I've seen is that a libertarian is someone who holds consistently to the principle of self-ownership, which is another way of presenting the same idea as Smith's widely accepted definition. At any rate, the question in the OP wasn't about what the Libertarian position is (or if it was, I stand corrected), it was about what the libertarian position is. In this case, the official position of the Libertarian party is not the strictly libertarian position on this issue.

To answer your question of whether the LP is the most libertarian party, my understanding is that it is not. I believe the Boston Tea Party was created to be a more libertarian party (although I do not know if they are strictly small-l libertarians or not). And one can quibble about whether or not the Constitution Party is more libertarian than the Libertarian party. At the very least, their presidential candidate in 2008 ran on a more libertarian platform than the LP candidate that year did. But neither were libertarians.

Similarly, it may be fair to describe Ron Paul as a libertarian, when speaking only in comparison to other candidates. But if someone asks the simple yes or no question, "Is Ron Paul a libertarian?" then that question can only be understood in the absolute sense if it is to have any clear answer (otherwise its allowable answers are just as variant as if someone were to ask if he's tall). In the absolute sense, the answer, at least as far as the policies he supports officially, is clearly, no, he is not. My observation has been that, usually, when members of the media casually label him as a libertarian, it's used as a way to marginalize him.

[YumYum]

I assume that when you say "can" you mean, would it be ethical. No, assuming a libertarian perspective, which is what the OP asked about, it would not. My property is mine, and you should have to get my permission before bringing those so-called illegal aliens through it. However, with my permission (which I may give you at a price) it would be completely wrong for any government to force you not to bring those so-called illegal immigrants through my property and onto yours or to force me not to allow it or to accept money in exchange for doing that. At least, that is, from a libertarian perspective.

Edit: Oh wait, I just reread what you said and saw the part about the easement. If you have an easement, then that easement is your property, so it's not an issue. Or if the easement is such that we have some kind of contractual arrangement defining what it can be used for, then the rightness or wrongness of the action would be defined by the contract.

I don't know enough to ask meaningful questions. Do you have a site that addresses these views. This is a complex issue and it raises another question for me: Do Libertarians want a new form of government, or do they want to keep the one we have got under the Constitution? If we keep the Constitution we will be back where we are now. Also, the only reason we have "government lands" is that this land was the land that nobody wanted. You can't grow crops on a mountain property, even when it is breathtakingly beautiful. This was the old school of thought. Somebody posted that Lincoln didn't do anything important as president. One thing he did do that would be considered favorable by Libertarians was the Homestead Act. He was trying to turn government land into private property. Lincoln was for property rights(except for those who were against the North).

[Brian4Liberty]

Being a Libertarian (a member of a particular party) has nothing to do with being a libertarian (an adherent to a philosophy), any more than being a Republican means being republican, or being a Democrat means being democrat, or being a Green means being green. There are libertarians as well as non-libertarians in the Libertarian party, but considerably more of the latter than the former
...
My observation has been that, usually, when members of the media casually label him as a libertarian, it's used as a way to marginalize him.

I agree. The use of either "libertarian" or "Libertarian" is a code word for "wacko" in the eyes of the general public. Of course the public opinion is shaped by the mainstream media...

Assuming that you are correct about the "Libertarian" party, a name change would be highly recommended, as it would be both inaccurate and damaging.

[NYgs23]

Hans-Hermann Hoppe gives the thesis on why "open borders" is a bad all around idea. Personally, I wouldn't be as against it if there were zero Government subsidies (Meaning, no "safety net", no public schools, no grants, no "freebies"), because at least then they would have to be a productive member of society. As it is now, they just mass immigrate here and live off the taxpayers dollar (mostly), and have a better life than they otherwise would have in their native country. This in turn creates a system that is all but enivatable to collapse and when it does we then have social strife because of the drastic differences in culture.

Walter Block and Anthony Gregory wrote a rebuttal Hoppean position that swung me to an anti-immigration control position: On Immigration: Reply to Hoppe (http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:OoW-Eds0vE0J:mises.org/journals/jls/21_3/21_3_2.pdf+walter+block+%22reply+to+hoppe&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNH9csQMJipvQGWN3DPruCYf9W2bnA).

[Sandman33]

Our country is being invaded by foreign enemies that intend on destroying our country from the inside out like the BORG.

Yet we're in Afhanistan....

[misterx]

Our country is being invaded by foreign enemies that intend on destroying our country from the inside out like the BORG.

Yet we're in Afhanistan....

We are the Borg. Demanding that every nation and culture assimilate until everyone is the same.

[nobody's_hero]

Get rid of the welfare state and the immigration issue will likely go away.

[Flash]

Get rid of the welfare state and the immigration issue will likely go away.

I doubt that to be honest. The lack of government handouts didn't stop Irish & other Catholic groups from moving in and largely changing the political scene. Close the borders-- no more mass immigration.

[tremendoustie]

I doubt that to be honest. The lack of government handouts didn't stop Irish & other Catholic groups from moving in and largely changing the political scene. Close the borders-- no more mass immigration.

No, eliminate arbitrary lines in the sand formed by governments. The only lines in the sand that matter are property lines. You have a right to let anyone on your property you want, and keep anyone off of it that you want. Governments have no right to tell you how to use your property.

[tremendoustie]

I assume that when you say "can" you mean, would it be ethical. No, assuming a libertarian perspective, which is what the OP asked about, it would not. My property is mine, and you should have to get my permission before bringing those so-called illegal aliens through it. However, with my permission (which I may give you at a price) it would be completely wrong for any government to force you not to bring those so-called illegal immigrants through my property and onto yours or to force me not to allow it or to accept money in exchange for doing that. At least, that is, from a libertarian perspective.

Edit: Oh wait, I just reread what you said and saw the part about the easement. If you have an easement, then that easement is your property, so it's not an issue. Or if the easement is such that we have some kind of contractual arrangement defining what it can be used for, then the rightness or wrongness of the action would be defined by the contract.

You got it :).

[constituent]

I doubt that to be honest. The lack of government handouts didn't stop Irish & other Catholic groups from moving in and largely changing the political scene. Close the borders-- no more mass immigration.

Immigration isn't a bad thing when balanced with emigration. When you create disincentives for leaving (like extreme difficulty in returning), you get people who no longer visit, do business and go home, but rather people intent on not getting caught as long as possible (and often "by any means necessary" much to the detriment of everyone else).

[heavenlyboy34]

No, eliminate arbitrary lines in the sand formed by governments. The only lines in the sand that matter are property lines. You have a right to let anyone on your property you want, and keep anyone off of it that you want. Governments have no right to tell you how to use your property.


You'd think so, but these boards are full of establishmentarians who disagree. :(

[Andrew Ryan]

YouTube - James Traficant on illegal aliens (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti0X3DJZWTY)

[Catatonic]

I'm not really looking at this as an issue of immigration, just crime, terrorism and national security. Whether or not you take these things seriously, like it or not its an issue for a lot of people.

So I've seen libertarians speak about all the advantages of open borders, I'm just not clear as to whether they're talking about just an open immigration policy, or literally unregulated borders.

I realize that in a libertarian system immigration would drop significantly, and even if it didn't it wouldn't pose an economic burden. I'm just looking at this as a national security issue. What do libertarians think of defending our borders?

[nobody's_hero]

You'd think so, but these boards are full of establishmentarians who disagree. :(

Because one might believe in the sovereignty historically associated with borders does not make that person an 'establishmentarian.'

Imagine the U.S. without borders between the states. There's no sovereignty there, just a big central government with tyrannical overlord powers.

Imagine the whole world without borders between countries . . . and you have the U.N./NWO complex.

[catdd]

"Imagine the whole world without borders between countries . . . and you have the U.N./NWO complex."

By Jove, I think you've got it!

[Peace&Freedom]

No, eliminate arbitrary lines in the sand formed by governments. The only lines in the sand that matter are property lines. You have a right to let anyone on your property you want, and keep anyone off of it that you want. Governments have no right to tell you how to use your property.

Logically and logistically, if governments have no authority to define or protect their own borders, then they have no authority to define or defend your property lines either. Property lines are also 'arbitrary' depending on who is disputing what, and if the state has authority to settle disputes, they also have have to know, or have the power to resolve where their geographic jurisdiction for doing so ends, and another state's begins. They either have the delegated power or they don't, and if they do, their power applies to both individual and national lines.

[Bucjason]

We could control the flow of immigration by simply enforcing current laws, and denying benefits to illegals.

First you get rid of the incentives that make business owners want to hire illegals, like minimum wage, insurance mandates, etc. Then you ENFORCE current laws , and strictly punish any business caught hiring illegals. Finally, don't allow illegals the means to buy/rent a home , access to public schools , access to hospitals. If you did all this , you wouldn't need more border control , because all the illegals would GO HOME ON THIER OWN. They would either have to cross legally , or stay in Mexico.

As far as the security threat , that is something you have to live with in a FREE society. It's a trade off. Building a wall around yourselves is not something a "free" people do. If you people are willing to sacrifice liberty for increased security , then you should support the Patriot Act also...

[erowe1]

We could control the flow of immigration by simply enforcing current laws, and denying benefits to illegals.

First you get rid of the incentives that make business owners want to hire illegals, like minimum wage, insurance mandates, etc. Then you ENFORCE current laws , and strictly punish any business caught hiring illegals. Finally, don't allow illegals the means to buy/rent a home , access to public schools , access to hospitals. If you did all this , you wouldn't need more border control , because all the illegals would GO HOME ON THIER OWN. They would either have to cross legally , or stay in Mexico.

As far as the security threat , that is something you have to live with in a FREE society. It's a trade off. Building a wall around yourselves is not something a "free" people do. If you people are willing to sacrifice liberty for increased security , then you should support the Patriot Act also...

I'm with you on a lot of this. But what right does the government have telling businesses whom they can and can't hire? Since when is it business owners' job to enforce federal laws? Also, what means are these business owners supposed to use to tell who is here legally? Check some paper that the government issues to people with some unique number that tells us we're allowed to be here and make economic exchanges with one another that it has no business issuing in the first place?

[tremendoustie]

Logically and logistically, if governments have no authority to define or protect their own borders, then they have no authority to define or defend your property lines either. Property lines are also 'arbitrary' depending on who is disputing what, and if the state has authority to settle disputes, they also have have to know, or have the power to resolve where their geographic jurisdiction for doing so ends, and another state's begins. They either have the delegated power or they don't, and if they do, their power applies to both individual and national lines.

I think a person has the right to defend their own property lines, and they also have a right to designate others to help them do so. Everyone has a right to defend property rights, just as everyone has a right to self defense, or to defend innocents. I don't think the U.S. government should have a monopoly in this regard, or therefore, that there needs to be a set of designated borders which define which organization will have a monopoly on protecting person in property in that area.

Monopolies always do a poor job at a high price. The business of property and self protection is no different.

[tremendoustie]

Because one might believe in the sovereignty historically associated with borders does not make that person an 'establishmentarian.'

Imagine the U.S. without borders between the states. There's no sovereignty there, just a big central government with tyrannical overlord powers.

Imagine the whole world without borders between countries . . . and you have the U.N./NWO complex.

Well, if the alternative to nationalism is international government, then I agree, that would be no improvement. That's not the only alternative, however.

[tremendoustie]

I'm not really looking at this as an issue of immigration, just crime, terrorism and national security. Whether or not you take these things seriously, like it or not its an issue for a lot of people.

So I've seen libertarians speak about all the advantages of open borders, I'm just not clear as to whether they're talking about just an open immigration policy, or literally unregulated borders.

I realize that in a libertarian system immigration would drop significantly, and even if it didn't it wouldn't pose an economic burden. I'm just looking at this as a national security issue. What do libertarians think of defending our borders?

I think anyone should be able to let anyone on their property they like, and prohibit anyone from it, and I'm no fan of public property -- so, if we're talking about peaceful immigrants, that's the only issue. If you mean a literal invasion, of people trying to harm us, then I certainly hope we can all band together to repel them.

[Bucjason]

I'm with you on a lot of this. But what right does the government have telling businesses who they can and can't hire? Since when is it business owners' job to enforce federal laws? Also, what means are these business owners supposed to use to tell who is here legally? Check some paper that the government issues to people with some unique number that tells us we're allowed to be here and make economic exchanges with one another that it has no business issuing in the first place?

US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion"

I don't have a problem with the government passing laws that says you can't hire people who have been SNEAKING (invading) into our country illegally.

Businesses will know who they are hiring because all thier workers will be required to provide either thier social security number , or a temporary work visa they recieved at the border.

I don't see any of this as an infringement on our liberties , but a way to protect them , so that illegals don't recieve unfair advantages at getting jobs, or services provided at our (the TAX Payers ) expense.

[erowe1]

Businesses will know who they are hiring because all thier workers will be required to provide either thier social security number

And you don't have a problem with that? What right does the federal government have to tell me I have to get this number from them before I'm allowed to get a job in this country where I was born?


so that illegals don't recieve unfair advantages at getting jobs, or services provided at our (the TAX Payers ) expense.

Of course they shouldn't receive services at the expense of other tax payers. But neither should anyone at all, illegal immigrant or not. As far as unfair advantages, the only things that might fit that category exist because of the government burdening other workers in ways it has no business doing, such as by requiring us to offer our labor at above minimum wage, requiring us to wait until we're 16 or whatever to get jobs, and prohibiting us from being able to get jobs in conditions that don't meet countless regulatory standards by OSHA and other unconstitutional agencies. The problem is the existence of those burdens. If anybody out there (illegal immigrant or not) has succeeded at getting along under the radar in a black market economy without having to subject themselves to them, then I say more power to those people.

[Bucjason]

And you don't have a problem with that? What right does the federal government have to tell me I have to get this number from them before I'm allowed to get a job in this country where I was born?



Of course they shouldn't receive services at the expense of other tax payers. But neither should anyone at all, illegal immigrant or not. As far as unfair advantages, the only things that might fit that category exist because of the government burdening other workers in ways it has no business doing, such as by requiring us to offer our labor at above minimum wage, requiring us to wait until we're 16 or whatever to get jobs, and prohibiting us from being able to get jobs in conditions that don't meet countless regulatory standards by OSHA and other unconstitutional agencies. The problem is the existence of those burdens. If anybody out there (illegal immigrant or not) has succeeded at getting along under the radar in a black market economy without having to subject themselves to them, then I say more power to those people.



We already DO get a social security number when we are born ,and I really don't have a problem with it. It's basically just a way to prove I'm a legal citizen and entitled to protection under the constitution.

In what way does that violate any of your rights?? I'd argue that helps to protect them...

[erowe1]

We already DO get a social security number when we are born ,and I really don't have a problem with it. It's basically just a way to prove I'm a legal citizen and entitled to protection under the constitution.


I don't see how you could not have a problem with that. You're born here. It's not some privilege you have to codify in order for the right to be alive and relate to other living people around you to be yours. You honestly think that the government has a right to require you to register your kids with them, and if you don't do that then your kids can't get jobs and anyone who hires them is a criminal on account of it? You seriously think that's fine? You really think that when FDR forced social security upon us that it was an improvement of our freedom? You shouldn't have to prove you're a citizen to anyone. And you shouldn't need a Constitution to tell you you're entitled to your basic rights as a human being. Nor should anyone have the right to take those rights away from you for the lack of some piece of paper you are supposed to have gotten from them in order for them to "protect" you (i.e. allow you to exercise the rights that are inherently yours). That sounds like the Mafia.

[Bucjason]

I don't see how you could not have a problem with that. You're born here. It's not some privilege you have to codify in order for the right to be alive and relate to other living people around you to be yours. You honestly think that the government has a right to require you to register your kids with them, and if you don't do that then your kids can't get jobs and anyone who hires them is a criminal on account of it? You seriously think that's fine? You really think that when FDR forced social security upon us that it was an improvement of our freedom? You shouldn't have to prove you're a citizen to anyone. And you shouldn't need a Constitution to tell you you're entitled to your basic rights as a human being. Nor should anyone have the right to take those rights away from you for the lack of some piece of paper you are to have gotten from them in order for them to "protect" you. That sounds like the Mafia.

It's not the number itself I'm worried about , because taking money out of my check each week to put into a social security account I'll never see is unconstitutional.

My concern is having a way to PROVE citizenship. Being able to prove you are a citizen is an important PROTECTION of your rights , not vice-versa. If you'd rather use an unforgeable birth certificate of some sort , that is fine with me also.

[erowe1]

My concern is having a way to PROVE citizenship. Being able to prove you are a citizen is an important PROTECTION of your rights , not vice-versa. If you'd rather use an unforgeable birth certificate of some sort , that is fine with me also.

I can't fathom this kind of thinking. This sounds like something from maoist China. Your rights are yours. You are born with them. You don't owe anyone any proof in order for your rights to be yours. They aren't some privilege that is bequeathed on you by some constitution. You really think that we need this number that FDR came up with in order to protect our God given rights? How do you think America got along so long without it?

[Deborah K]

We already DO get a social security number when we are born ,and I really don't have a problem with it. It's basically just a way to prove I'm a legal citizen and entitled to protection under the constitution.

In what way does that violate any of your rights?? I'd argue that helps to protect them...

You mean aside from the fact that you don't use your SSN until at least the age of 16?

There is a law that is still on the books that states that your SSN cannot be used as a form of identification. In fact, up until fairly recently that was even stated on your SS card. It read: Not to be used for identification purposes.

I don't know about you, but being tagged with a number at birth makes me feel like chattel.

[erowe1]

And really, what are the rights that are protected by the government forcing you to get a number from them before you can get a job?

It certainly doesn't protect your right not to pay them income taxes. It doesn't protect your privacy, so that you can do whatever work you want, making whatever you make, being married to whomever you want, having whatever kids you have, without having to tell anybody. It doesn't protect your right to hire anybody you want for a job and pay them whatever compensation you agree upon.

The more I think about it, the social security number is a very powerful tool for giving the government control over so many aspects of our lives that it wouldn't control without that. What rights does it protect for us?

[Bucjason]

I can't fathom this kind of thinking. This sounds like something from maoist China. Your rights are yours. You are born with them. You don't owe anyone any proof in order for your rights to be yours. They aren't some privilege that is bequeathed on you by some constitution. You really think that we need this number that FDR came up with in order to protect our God given rights? How do you think America got along so long without it?

So when all our medical insurance premiums go up because illegals are claiming they are Americans and entitled to medical care , that isn't a violation of your rights??

When an illegal gets a job before you , a job that you are more qualified for , because he doesn't have to pay him as much , that isn't a violation of your rights??

But simply being able to prove you are a citizen (and entitled to due process) if the government decides to throw you in a dungeon and forget about you, IS a violation of your rights?? THAT"S what you are afraid of ?? Proof of citizenship?? I can't understand YOUR line of thinking....

[constituent]

You mean aside from the fact that you don't use your SSN until at least the age of 16?

There is a law that is still on the books that states that your SSN cannot be used as a form of identification. In fact, up until fairly recently that was even stated on your SS card. It read: Not to be used for identification purposes.

I don't know about you, but being tagged with a number at birth makes me feel like chattel.

I agree with you on this 100%.

[erowe1]

So when all our medical insurance premiums go up because illegals are claiming they are Americans and entitled to medical care , that isn't a violation of your rights??


That is a violation of my rights. But that has nothing to do with whether or not the recipients are here legally or illegally. It's every bit as much a violation of my rights when legal citizens are "entitled" to medical care. The violation is entirely contained in the so-called entitlement and not at all contained in the question of where the recipients of it were born or whether they went through some government based procedure to "entitle" them to something that nobody at all is actually entitled to.



When an illegal gets a job before you , a job that you are more qualified for , because he doesn't have to pay him as much , that isn't a violation of your rights??

Of course that's not a violation of my rights. What right does that violate? The right to get paid whatever I want and not have to compete with people offering to do the work for less? There is no such right.



But simply being able to prove you are a citizen (and entitled to due process) if the government decides to throw you in a dungeon and forget about you, IS a violation of your rights?? THAT"S what you are afraid of ?? Proof of citizenship?? I can't understand YOUR line of thinking....

No. If the government throws me in a dungeon, that is a violation of my rights. Period. With or without any proof of my citizenship. In fact, if the government comes up with some way that they demand I prove my citizenship in order for them not to throw me in a dungeon, then that is purely a violation of my rights, and in no possible way, a protection of them.

[constituent]

And really, what are the rights that are protected by the government forcing you to get a number from them before you can get a job?

It certainly doesn't protect your right not to pay them income taxes. It doesn't protect your privacy, so that you can do whatever work you want, making whatever you make, being married to whomever you want, having whatever kids you have, without having to tell anybody. It doesn't protect your right to hire anybody you want for a job and pay them whatever compensation you agree upon.

The more I think about it, the social security number is a very powerful tool for giving the government control over so many aspects of our lives that it wouldn't control without that. What rights does it protect for us?



You, sir, just advanced the debate.

That's a very good question.

[Deborah K]

And did you know that businesses, medical offices, schools, etc. don't have any legal right to know your number and you can refuse to give it to them? The only entity that was ever supposd to get your number was your employer. Then we became a debt based society and it was used to obtain credit. Now, everybody and their mother asks for it.

[Deborah K]

So when all our medical insurance premiums go up because illegals are claiming they are Americans and entitled to medical care , that isn't a violation of your rights??

When an illegal gets a job before you , a job that you are more qualified for , because he doesn't have to pay him as much , that isn't a violation of your rights??

But simply being able to prove you are a citizen (and entitled to due process) if the government decides to throw you in a dungeon and forget about you, IS a violation of your rights?? THAT"S what you are afraid of ?? Proof of citizenship?? I can't understand YOUR line of thinking....

Illegals get fake SSNs. SSNs shouldn't be used as proof of citizenship.

[angelatc]

Illegals get fake SSNs. SSNs shouldn't be used as proof of citizenship.

SO we need the REAL ID? :eek: At least, that's what they tell us.

Pffft. Just stop the subsidies.

[Deborah K]

SO we need the REAL ID? :eek: At least, that's what they tell us.

Pffft. Just stop the subsidies.

NOOOOoooooo! God forbid. NO Real ID. They need to fix the system and make it easier for illegals to work over here so that they don't have to sneak over. I HATE the sneaking over.

[Bucjason]

That is a violation of my rights. But that has nothing to do with whether or not they are here legally or illegally. It's every bit as much a violation of my rights when legal citizens are "entitled" to medical care.




Of course that's not a violation of my rights. What right does that violate? The right to get paid whatever I want and not have to compete with people offering to do the work for less? There is no such right.



No. If the government throws me in a dungeon, that is a violation of my rights. Period. With or without any proof of my citizenship. In fact, if the government comes up with some way that they demand I prove my citizenship in order for them not to throw me in a dungeon, then that is purely a violation of my rights, and in no possible way, a protection of them.


Yes no one should be entitled to health care, but it's an even worse crime when someone who does not even pay taxes or is a citizen is entitled to it .

It IS legal for the government to throw you in a dungeon , so long as you are given due process and a speedy trial...something a non-citizen could more easily be denied !

Besides , you are forgetting that I am arguing for identification as an easy means of controlling illegal immigration , rather than trying to build a 20 foot barbwire wall around us, with armed gaurds at every 50 yards.
What exactly are arguing for ? A New World Order where we have no borders and no citizenship and all live under a peaceful global anarcho-capitalist government ??

I'm looking for real life simple solutions and you seem to be arguing unrealistic utopian principles.

[erowe1]

Yes no one should be entitled to health care, but it's an even worse crime when someone who does not even pay taxes or is a citizen is entitled to it .


That is the nature of most entitlement programs. They redistribute wealth from those who pay the most taxes to those who pay no income tax at all. Again, this aspect of welfare in all its forms is always the case, with or without illegal immigration.



It IS legal for the government to throw you in a dungeon , so long as you are given due process and a speedy trial...something a non-citizen could more easily be denied !


Basic human rights are just that. They are not something that belong to us based on citizenship.




Besides , you are forgetting that I am arguing for identification as an easy means of controlling illegal immigration , rather than trying to build a 20 foot barbwire wall around us, with armed gaurds at every 50 yards.
What exactly are arguing for ? A New World Order where we have no borders and no citizenship and all live under a peaceful global anarcho-capitalist government ??

I'm looking for real life simple solutions and you seem to be arguing unrealistic utopian principles.

You're right that I'm arguing from principles. Basic principles of right and wrong don't change every time the government tells us it's too hard to follow them. I see nothing unrealistic about being opposed to something that we didn't even have here until 70 years ago. And, no, we didn't have a borderless NWO world back then either. The centralization of power over us in the hands of a distant government that the SSN has facilitated has not pushed that world farther off into the future, it has brought us closer to it.

Are you for Real ID as well? If not, why not?

[Bucjason]

Being able to prove citizenship has NOTHING to do with centralized power. We've had birth certificates since the countries FOUNDING. Should we ban birth certificates also to complete the circle of your paranoia, and need to be completely anonymous??

Proof of citizenship can help to protect your rights at home AND abroad. You have YET to explain to me how proof of citizenship is such a huge infringement of all our human and individual rights.

It isn't , and you even started this conversation by saying you agreeded with most of my immigration solution. You got side-tracked by your opposition to the social security program itself , which I don't disagree with.

[erowe1]

Being able to prove citizenship has NOTHING to do with centralized power. We've had birth certificates since the countries FOUNDING. Should we ban birth certificates also to complete the circle of your paranoia, and need to be completely anonymous??

Proof of citizenship can help to protect your rights at home AND abroad. You have YET to explain to me how proof of citizenship is such a huge infringement of all our human and individual rights.

It isn't , and you even started this conversation by saying you agreeded with most of my immigration solution. You got side-tracked by your opposition to the social security program itself , which I don't disagree with.

The opposition to the SSN that I've expressed here has been entirely focused on its use as a means of proving citizenship, which is not a sidetrack. That is the issue. The SSN clearly has been used to infringe against our rights and offers no protection of them in any way. The whole idea that you have to prove citizenship as a subject under the authority of some distant government in order to have rights that are already yours inherently, so that that government doesn't take them away, is completely anti-freedom. Birth certificates are not a federal program. Nor should we be required to get them. I don't know if there exist laws today that do require us to get birth certificates (I certainly wouldn't doubt it if there are). But if there are, there shouldn't be. And I'm quite certain that there weren't any such laws at the nation's founding, as you say. And without there being laws requiring people to get birth certificates so as to prove their citizenship, then the mere existence of such a piece of paper that some people got and others didn't is in no sense analogous to your demand that we have a government issued paper proving our citizenship in order for us not to have that government forcibly deny us our basic human rights.

[Catatonic]

I think anyone should be able to let anyone on their property they like, and prohibit anyone from it, and I'm no fan of public property -- so, if we're talking about peaceful immigrants, that's the only issue. If you mean a literal invasion, of people trying to harm us, then I certainly hope we can all band together to repel them.

Suppose a man in Mexico gets out of jail after serving a sentence as a serial rapist, should we just let him into our country?

Or suppose he's at large in Mexico but hasn't been caught, so he comes here. Is that okay?

[tremendoustie]

Suppose a man in Mexico gets out of jail after serving a sentence as a serial rapist, should we just let him into our country?

Or suppose he's at large in Mexico but hasn't been caught, so he comes here. Is that okay?

Good question. I think people will have to determine if he's a continuing threat to others, and if so, put him in some sort of secure environment. If he hasn't yet made restitution to the victim, I think he should be forced to do so.

[LibForestPaul]

Illegals get fake SSNs. SSNs shouldn't be used as proof of citizenship.

No they get LEGAL TINs.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/apr/irs-gives-illegal-aliens-billions-refunds

The Internal Revenue Service has allowed more than one million foreigners—many in the U.S. illegally—to improperly claim tax credits that they don’t qualify for and it will end up costing the government close to $9 billion.

The best part is that the IRS knowingly permitted the exorbitant tax credits even though workers did not provide valid Social Security numbers on their returns, but rather the alternative Tax Identification Number (TIN) popular among illegal immigrants but not valid to work in the U.S.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back1202.html

Through its issuance of Individual Tax Identification Numbers (ITINs), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) appears to be blind or indifferent to the reality that it has:

*

created an official U.S. tax number that illegal aliens are using as identification, thereby making it easier for them to meld unnoticed into our society;

*

endangered homeland security by issuing ITINs to illegal aliens, without adequately ensuring that they are denied to terrorists, criminals on the FBI database, and those under deportation notices;

*

exceeded its traditional role as a tax receiver and processor by marketing the ITIN to illegal immigrant communities;

*

failed to provide adequate safeguards to prevent illegal aliens from receiving tax benefits to which they are not entitled;

*

subverted U.S. immigration laws by withholding information from the INS and SSA about fraudulent activity of illegal aliens;

*

provided an ID vehicle that advocates hope will be used to "regularize" illegal aliens; and

*

withheld from public review data that is relevant to determining the economic contribution of illegal aliens to U.S. society.

[Bucjason]

The opposition to the SSN that I've expressed here has been entirely focused on its use as a means of proving citizenship, which is not a sidetrack. That is the issue. The SSN clearly has been used to infringe against our rights and offers no protection of them in any way. The whole idea that you have to prove citizenship as a subject under the authority of some distant government in order to have rights that are already yours inherently, so that that government doesn't take them away, is completely anti-freedom. Birth certificates are not a federal program. Nor should we be required to get them. I don't know if there exist laws today that do require us to get birth certificates (I certainly wouldn't doubt it if there are). But if there are, there shouldn't be. And I'm quite certain that there weren't any such laws at the nation's founding, as you say. And without there being laws requiring people to get birth certificates so as to prove their citizenship, then the mere existence of such a piece of paper that some people got and others didn't is in no sense analogous to your demand that we have a government issued paper proving our citizenship in order for us not to have that government forcibly deny us our basic human rights.

Rule of Law Definition: "The rule of law, also called supremacy of law, means that the law is above everyone and it applies to everyone. Whether governor or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law."

"What is the Rule of Law?

The rule of law does not have a precise definition, and its meaning can vary between different nations and legal traditions. Generally, however, it can be understood as a legal-political regime under which the law restrains the government by promoting certain liberties and creating order and predictability regarding how a country functions. In the most basic sense, the rule of law is a system that attempts to protect the rights of citizens from arbitrary and abusive use of government power."



"Without the Rule of Law , there is no freedom"- Ancient Greeks


The rule of law does not impower government , it restricts it. It does not impose on our rights , it protects them. This is why anarchy does NOT work. This is why allowing illegal immigrants to remain above the law does NOT work.

[erowe1]

Rule of Law Definition: "The rule of law, also called supremacy of law, means that the law is above everyone and it applies to everyone. Whether governor or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law."

"What is the Rule of Law?

The rule of law does not have a precise definition, and its meaning can vary between different nations and legal traditions. Generally, however, it can be understood as a legal-political regime under which the law restrains the government by promoting certain liberties and creating order and predictability regarding how a country functions. In the most basic sense, the rule of law is a system that attempts to protect the rights of citizens from arbitrary and abusive use of government power."



"Without the Rule of Law , there is no freedom"- Ancient Greeks


The rule of law does not impower government , it restricts it. It does not impose on our rights , it protects them. This is why anarchy does NOT work. This is why allowing illegal immigrants to remain above the law does NOT work.

I don't know what you're replying to. I'm not an anarchist and have said nothing against the rule of law, just against the idea that our liberty ever has been served or ever will be served by the recent development (historically speaking) of the use of individualized numbers and papers to be used as means of proving our citizenship to the government that subjugates us so as to protect our right to live our lives with the rights that are already inherently ours, with or without any such proof of citizenship. This development was not the invention of patriots seeking a tool to protect freedom, it was the invention of tyrants seeking to increase their power. And that is all that it ever has or ever will be used for. The same can be said for the next logical (and by your reasoning, unimpeachable) development of this concept, Real I.D.

When you reply to this bequeathing upon you of a SSN in saying, "Thank you, King Roosevelt for developing this hoop I have to jump through in order to prove to you that I'm a citizen so that you don't put me in a dungeon, and giving me the privilege of jumping through this hoop, without which my freedoms would be totally lost under your thumb," you're playing the role of what Lenin called a useful idiot (his term, not mine).

[Bucjason]

The statment you made here implies that you don't believe in the rule of law :

"The whole idea that you have to prove citizenship as a subject under the authority of some distant government in order to have rights that are already yours inherently, so that that government doesn't take them away, is completely anti-freedom."

That is EXACTLY what you seem to be arguing for, no rule of law. Rights are "inherently yours" in Cuba also, but good luck excercising them.

If we are going to have basic services like "roads , fire dept. , and police paid for by tax payers, then workers who are sneaking over illegally and not paying taxes are violating the contract that the REST of us made with our represenetive Republic. That's why we support taxation , as long as it is with REPRESENTATION.

If you want to argue that there should be no taxes either , that is for another debate. The debate here is how to enforce laws(immigration) meant to PROTECT citizens. By ignoring law, you are denying my freedom to compete for a job on a level playing field in my own country. By issuing a birth certificate when you are born, I am denying you NOTHING, I am protecting you.

Geeez , you just don't get it...

[erowe1]

The statment you made here implies that you don't believe in the rule of law :

"The whole idea that you have to prove citizenship as a subject under the authority of some distant government in order to have rights that are already yours inherently, so that that government doesn't take them away, is completely anti-freedom."


No it doesn't. Believe it or not, we did have rule of law here before we all had the "privilege" of getting unique identification numbers that we could be required to show government agents as a prerequisite for them acknowledging our God given rights.

Also, there are lots of so-called illegals who pay taxes, and lots of so-called citizens who don't. Having a government issued social security number has nothing to do with whether or not someone pays taxes.

And I'm not sure how this issue of representation is relevant anyway. If anything it may detract from the force of your argument. I assume that by representation you mean a vote. But as it is now, we have 4 categories of people (probably more, but for the sake of simplicity): 1) legal citizens who have the right to vote and pay taxes, 2) legal citizens who have the right to vote and do not pay taxes, 3) illegal immigrants who do not have the right to vote and pay taxes, 4) illegal immigrants who do not have the right to vote and do not pay taxes. I don't see how that means we should all relinquish our God given rights unless we get a number from the government.

You say the question of taxation is a separate issue. But it appears that the only actual injustices you can come up with as examples of why we need social security numbers are injustices that are inherent to taxation and government bureaucrats deciding how other peoples' money is to be spent. If those are the injustices, then fight those injustices for what they are. Don't use them as a pretense for the additional injustice of making me forgo my God given rights if I don't submit to getting a government issued ID.

[Bucjason]

No it doesn't. Believe it or not, we did have rule of law here before we all had the "privilege" of getting unique identification numbers that we could be required to show government agents as a prerequisite for them acknowledging our God given rights.

Don't use them as a pretense for the additional injustice of making me forgo my God given rights if I don't submit to getting a government issued ID.


Like I said , move to Cuba and explain to them that your rights are "god given" . See how far that gets you....

Why would you not submit to a legal document that simply says " I, insert your name here, am an American Citizen" ?? What harm does that do you??

It would be like a college student refusing to submit to recieving his diploma at his/her graduation. It's just stupid. Your argument makes no sense to me.

[erowe1]

Like I said , move to Cuba and explain to them that your rights are "god given" . See how far that gets you....

Why would you not submit to a legal document that simply says " I, insert your name here, am an American Citizen" ?? What harm does that do you??

It would be like a college student refusing to submit to recieving his diploma at his/her graduation. It's just stupid. Your argument makes no sense to me.

I don't see Cuba as an example of the kind of state I think the federal government ought to emulate.

You never answered my question about Real ID. Given your argument so far, it appears that you are all for it. Is that correct?

[Bucjason]

I don't see Cuba as an example of the kind of state I think the federal government ought to emulate.

You never answered my question about Real ID. Given your argument so far, it appears that you are all for it. Is that correct?

I don't want us to emulate Cuba either. It doesn't matter . If your theory is correct , you should be able to march into Cuba , declare your human rights "god-given" , and defy all thier oppressive tactics, correct?? WRONG . The fact is our rights ARE god-given , but we are not free to recieve them until they are enforced by the Rule of Law.

As fas as Real ID : I don't know. I've never really read the "Real ID ACT" and what exactly the restrictions on the government for it's use were, and how they planned on implementing it . But I'm not against the general idea of an ID card issued at birth, in theory. I just don't see how being able to easily prove you are a citizen, or here legally , is such a huge infringement on our liberty. I've heard all the scare tactics about Nazi Soldiers saying, "show me your papers" , but it wouldn't have to be that way. A police officer can not stop you without probable cause and ask for your identification today , he wouldn't be able to do so with your national identification either. All the same rules would apply. You wouldn't even be required to carry it around . You'd only have to show it if applying for a job or some government service provided by the tax payer.

We basically do this already with SSN's and Birth Certificates. This would just be a version that couldn't be easily forged. Are you really so paranoid as to think that your Birth Certificate was a violation of your privacy rights??

[tremendoustie]

I don't want us to emulate Cuba either. It doesn't matter . If your theory is correct , you should be able to march into Cuba , declare your human rights "god-given" , and defy all thier oppressive tactics, correct?? WRONG . The fact is our rights ARE god-given , but we are not free to recieve them until they are enforced by the Rule of Law.

As fas as Real ID : I don't know. I've never really read the "Real ID ACT" and what exactly the restrictions on the government for it's use were, and how they planned on implementing it . But I'm not against the general idea of an ID card issued at birth, in theory. I just don't see how being able to easily prove you are a citizen, or here legally , is such a huge infringement on our liberty. I've heard all the scare tactics about Nazi Soldiers saying, "show me your papers" , but it wouldn't have to be that way. A police officer can not stop you without probable cause and ask for your identification today , he wouldn't be able to do so with your national identification either. All the same rules would apply. You wouldn't even be required to carry it around . You'd only have to show it if applying for a job or some government service provided by the tax payer.

We basically do this already with SSN's and Birth Certificates. This would just be a version that couldn't be easily forged. Are you really so paranoid as to think that your Birth Certificate was a violation of your privacy rights??

We're free to exercise our God given rights as long as some thug doesn't violate them. More often than not, it's "the law" doing the violation. And yes, one of our God given rights is the freedom to travel. It seems like you're all in favor of your thugs violating that one.

[Bucjason]

We're free to exercise our God given rights as long as some thug doesn't violate them. More often than not, it's "the law" doing the violation. And yes, one of our God given rights is the freedom to travel. It seems like you're all in favor of your thugs violating that one.

you have the right to travel legally, yes ...I don't have the right to steal your car and your credit card in order to do that traveling. I don't have the right to sneak into your bedroom and sleep for free when I need a break from those travels either...

[tremendoustie]

you have the right to travel legally, yes ...I don't have the right to steal your car and your credit card in order to do that traveling. I don't have the right to sneak into your bedroom and sleep for free when I need a break from those travels either...

How does "illegal" immigration inherently constitute theft or trespass? The government does not own the country, if that's what you mean by the "sneak into your bedroom" bit.

[Bucjason]

How does "illegal" immigration inherently constitute theft or trespass? The government does not own the country, if that's what you mean by the "sneak into your bedroom" bit.

For example: anytime an illegal goes into an emergency room and gets medical care that they aren't required to pay for, they are stealing from us by raising our insurance premiums.
The government does not own the country , but one of thier jobs is to protect us , the rightful owners , from invaders.

US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

James Madison: "When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses … aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying at the same time all the advantages of citizens…"

[constituent]

Like I said , move to Cuba and explain to them that your rights are "god given" . See how far that gets you....

yawn.

[erowe1]

I don't want us to emulate Cuba either. It doesn't matter . If your theory is correct , you should be able to march into Cuba , declare your human rights "god-given" , and defy all thier oppressive tactics, correct?

Are you sure you don't want to emulate Cuba? From everything you've said here, it looks like you do, and you're upholding their example as the one you think we should follow here.

Yes. Of course I ought to be able to go to Cuba without some government agents there oppressing me and defying my God given rights by enforcing unjust laws with illegitimate authority. The fact that I can't do that is to the discredit of the government of Cuba. And the day I can't walk around my own country freely without being oppressed by government agents here unless I show them a piece of paper issued to me by the government will be a similar example of unethical tyranny on the part of our own government. That is not the kind of thing that I think most Ron Paul supporters would call good.

[constituent]

US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion



Credit to someone else who found and posted this (I forgot to command+c your name, sorry)



State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380; 6 S. 602 (1889)

"A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right to declare who are its citizens.

[Bucjason]

Are you sure you don't want to emulate Cuba? From everything you've said here, it looks like you do, and you're upholding their example as the one we should follow here.

Yes. Of course I ought to be able to go to Cuba without some government agents there oppressing me and defying my God given rights by enforcing unjust laws with illegitimate authority. The fact that I can't do that is to the discredit of the government of Cuba.

No, I am arguing for Rule of Law. There is no Rule of Law in Cuba. The Castros are above the law, and they do not live under the same conditions as the laws they subject thier people too. Thier laws are also unjust and inconsistent, and they are enforced without representation . It's totally different.

Since you seem to be confusing the argument AGAIN , let's take it to the other extreme, anarchy... Move to Somalia and tell this to one of the War-Lords that is running your neighborhood. When he comes to collect his protection money , tell him your rights are "god given" . He is going to send you to to meet your Giver.


Enough of this . Since you believe valid birth certificates are such a horrible autrocity against human rights : How do you propose we fix illegal Immigration ?

[Bucjason]

Credit to someone else who found and posted this (I forgot to command+c your name, sorry)

Good qoute...problem is the states aren't claiming these leeches as citizens either, and they are crossing FEDERAL borders in order to invade these states. So how do we solve this ???

[constituent]

Enough of this . Since you believe valid birth certificates are such a horrible autrocity against human rights : How do you propose we fix illegal Immigration ?

Immigration should be left to the states. The federal government can Naturalize (or not) anyone it wants.

[constituent]

Good qoute...problem is the states aren't claiming these leeches as citizens either.

Depends on your definition of citizen, and what you're trying to make it mean to suit your purposes.

Also, you're scapegoating. It is unbecoming of you, and does nothing to advance the debate. Not all immigrants (not even all the "illegal" immigrants) are leeches. in fact, many are productive citizens of their respective communities.

[erowe1]

Enough of this . Since you believe valid birth certificates are such a horrible autrocity against human rights : How do you propose we fix illegal Immigration ?

That's easy. Instead of devising big government programs as bandaids to put on problems that are the result of big government programs, we repeal those programs that caused the problem in the first place. There was no illegal immigration problem before the War on Poverty. Get rid of the entitlements.

Your ideas are great examples of why government always continues to grow. Every time it causes a problem, it demands that we give it a new power to solve that problem. These new powers cause new problems, and become the pretext for new government based solutions, and so on.

Also, I never said that the mere existence of birth certificates is bad, only that it would be bad for the government to require me to have one as a prerequisite for having the privilege of living in this country of my birth and exercising my God given rights. If getting a birth certificate is merely an option that some people choose to take and others not, with the government imposing no negative consequences on those who don't, I see nothing wrong with that.

[tremendoustie]

For example: anytime an illegal goes into an emergency room and gets medical care that they aren't required to pay for, they are stealing from us by raising our insurance premiums.
The government does not own the country , but one of thier jobs is to protect us , the rightful owners , from invaders.

US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

James Madison: "When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses … aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying at the same time all the advantages of citizens…"

The hospital should not be required to provide treatment -- that's the problem, not the fact that those people happen to be from another country. The welfare system itself is theft by the government in the first place, it doesn't matter where the beneficiary is from.

And someone certainly could immigrate without using these services -- immigration only implies travel, so again, you're conflating the issue and advocating the use of violence against people just for exercising their God given right to travel.

[tremendoustie]

Good qoute...problem is the states aren't claiming these leeches as citizens either, and they are crossing FEDERAL borders in order to invade these states. So how do we solve this ???

Get rid of the imaginary lines in the sand, and stop requiring people to wade through reams of paperwork to exercise their God given right to travel. Oh, and eliminate the welfare state and fire the bureaucrats. There's your economic stimulation.

[tremendoustie]

No, I am arguing for Rule of Law. There is no Rule of Law in Cuba. The Castros are above the law, and they do not live under the same conditions as the laws they subject thier people too. Thier laws are also unjust and inconsistent, and they are enforced without representation . It's totally different.

Since you seem to be confusing the argument AGAIN , let's take it to the other extreme, anarchy... Move to Somalia and tell this to one of the War-Lords that is running your neighborhood. When he comes to collect his protection money , tell him your rights are "god given" . He is going to send you to to meet your Giver.


Enough of this . Since you believe valid birth certificates are such a horrible autrocity against human rights : How do you propose we fix illegal Immigration ?

There are tyrants in Cuba, and tyrants in Somalia, and tyrants here. The fact that a law is supported by a majority does not make it any less tyrannical -- slavery was supported by a majority -- and lol at the implication that laws here are "consistant" or "just". All I'm looking for you to do is to stop advocating tyranny yourself. Then we can work together on ways to stop it.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The hospital should not be required to provide treatment -- that's the problem, not the fact that those people happen to be from another country. The welfare system itself is theft by the government in the first place, it doesn't matter where the beneficiary is from.

And someone certainly could immigrate without using these services -- immigration only implies travel, so again, you're conflating the issue and advocating the use of violence against people just for exercising their God given right to travel.

And, once again, public property is antithesis to liberty and inalieable rights, as inalieable rights are founded in private property. So, actually, you can say currently every immigrant is in fact, in collusion with the Government breaking the rights of the homesteader which had his property appropriated from him. In fact, ironically, everyone here who uses anything on public land is.

What a festering cesspool of a system. Use stolen property (money), to purchase at gun-point confiscated land, and then, reap upon the population taxation to maintain the stolen land. Lovely.

No one has a "right" to travel. Such absurdity. I have no such right to trespass on another's property do I? :rolleyes:

[erowe1]

I have no such right to trespass on another's property do I? :rolleyes:

No. But you do have a right to welcome any guests onto your property that you choose, regardless of where those guests were born and whether or not those guests have a piece of paper from the government saying they are allowed to be within the borders of the country that is being subjugated by that government. And you have a right to enter into any economic exchanges with those guests you choose, including giving them jobs and paying them whatever you agree on, without having to answer to the government for doing that. And all other property owners have those same rights, such that those guests should be able to travel freely over any property of people who welcome them. And if these property owners charge a fee for those guests to travel over their property, again without regard for where those guests were born or whether they have a permission slip from the government, that is their right as well. And it should not be the case that there exist any government owned property, including roads, over which the government would have a say concerning who can and can't be there.

[Bucjason]

There are tyrants in Cuba, and tyrants in Somalia, and tyrants here. The fact that a law is supported by a majority does not make it any less tyrannical -- slavery was supported by a majority -- and lol at the implication that laws here are "consistant" or "just". All I'm looking for you to do is to stop advocating tyranny yourself. Then we can work together on ways to stop it.

Absolutely it is less tyrannical if it is supported by the majority , by it's very definition it is .

Tyranny: "1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly"

But we also have a bill of rights to determine what the majority WILL NOT rule on . But even those rights were decided by a majority( a much larger majority) when they were created, which is why some things were left out (slavery as you mentioned), and the constitution was then amended to reflect the will of the people . I'm not saying that some of the things that are done are never wrong , or changed too late, but that is not Tyranny, that is a Republic in action....and it's the best possible form of government we can hope for, unless you can find a secret Utopia where 100% of people agree and are moral. If Nationalized Health Care passed tomorrow it would be wrong and unconstitutional , but it will not have been forced on us by a Tyrant. We still have the opportunity to change hearts and minds and vote for people who would overturn it.

Oh , and the fact that you admit there are "tyrants" in Somalia , where there is virtually NO government, proves my point about the need for a Rule of Law. If you think I am supporting "Tyranny" because of that , then no , we can never work together.

[randolphfuller]

All arguments for open immigration fall if a welfare state is in place.

[Bucjason]

No one has a "right" to travel. Such absurdity. I have no such right to trespass on another's property do I? :rolleyes:

In the anarchists world you do... In thier world, your only right is to be free from government control - everything else is a free-for-all....

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

In the anarchists world you do... In thier world, your only right is to be free from government control - everything else is a free-for-all....

Wrong. Anarcho-Capitalism is only a Stateless society. Law, Order, etc. can all exist and did under anarchy.

[constituent]

All arguments for open immigration fall if a welfare state is in place.

and so you are arguing for what exactly?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No. But you do have a right to welcome any guests onto your property that you choose, regardless of where those guests were born and whether or not those guests have a piece of paper from the government saying they are allowed to be within the borders of the country that is being subjugated by that government. And you have a right to enter into any economic exchanges with those guests you choose, including giving them jobs and paying them whatever you agree on, without having to answer to the government for doing that. And all other property owners have those same rights, such that those guests should be able to travel freely over any property of people who welcome them. And if these property owners charge a fee for those guests to travel over their property, again without regard for where those guests were born or whether they have a permission slip from the government, that is their right as well. And it should not be the case that there exist any government owned property, including roads, over which the government would have a say concerning who can and can't be there.

I agree. Though in reality, people wouldn't be "walking over real estate property", they would be using private roads to travel, by which I would imagine, paying a toll. All perfectly acceptable, moral, and a-ok. :D

In reality, I see anarcho-capitalism working much like Celtic Ireland, with groups of people coming together to form whatever society they so fathomed, under which you agree to their law. This was extremely beneficial as each vie and compete with each other in a Capitalist system. The worst systems would crash, and the best systems would spread. I however, take a somewhat Hoppean approach. In that, you don't have a right to "travel", you pay to travel. Open-borders will never work in our system and anyone advertising for it, in this sytem is out of their mind. Work to transform the system FIRST, then implement.

[erowe1]

I agree. Though in reality, people wouldn't be "walking over real estate property", they would be using private roads to travel, by which I would imagine, paying a toll. All perfectly acceptable, moral, and a-ok. :D


Yes. Of course. But I would say that those roads ARE real estate property. That was kind of an underlying idea to how I expressed myself in that post.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Absolutely it is less tyrannical if it is supported by the majority , by it's very definition it is .

Tyranny: "1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly"

But we also have a bill of rights to determine what the majority WILL NOT rule on . But even those rights were decided by a majority( a much larger majority) when they were created, which is why some things were left out (slavery as you mentioned), and the constitution was then amended to reflect the will of the people . I'm not saying that some of the things that are done are never wrong , or changed too late, but that is not Tyranny, that is a Republic in action....and it's the best possible form of government we can hope for, unless you can find a secret Utopia where 100% of people agree and are moral. If Nationalized Health Care passed tomorrow it would be wrong and unconstitutional , but it will not have been forced on us by a Tyrant. We still have the opportunity to change hearts and minds and vote for people who would overturn it.

Oh , and the fact that you admit there are "tyrants" in Somalia , where there is virtually NO government, proves my point about the need for a Rule of Law. If you think I am supporting "Tyranny" because of that , then no , we can never work together.

Ugh. We need to get rid of the State forced fallacy. In an all voluntary society, there would still be law, order, and justice. It however, would all be consented upon. Check out Celtic Ireland for an example (However many times I need to bring this up). In their system they had "groups" or voluntary societies within the nation whole (The Nation was merely the geographic term for that region). By you voluntarily agreeing to membership, you came under all laws. If you disagreed with a law, or laws, you could voluntarily remove yourself, be independant, or join another. It is well established by every person the right of self-defense, the ultimate law. This is coherent with Natural Law, which is the inherent rights all of us have upon birth and no one can legally agress upon. This is the foundation, and it ultimately understood by everyone, even if they don't agree with it.

It isn't utopian, because there would still be crime, still be civil courts, still be those who agress. Anarcho-Capitalist society would still have courts, police, and yes, defense. However, it would be an all voluntary society, unlike ours today which is forced and coerced.

Republic is also not the "best form of Government". All a Government is, and should be, is the voluntary arrangement to form a group. In this sense, a Confederacy is the only legitimate, and ultimately, best form of Government.

[Bucjason]

Ugh. We need to get rid of the State forced fallacy. In an all voluntary society, there would still be law, order, and justice. It however, would all be consented upon. Check out Celtic Ireland for an example (However many times I need to bring this up). In their system they had "groups" or voluntary societies within the nation whole (The Nation was merely the geographic term for that region). By you voluntarily agreeing to membership, you came under all laws. If you disagreed with a law, or laws, you could voluntarily remove yourself, be independant, or join another. It is well established by every person the right of self-defense, the ultimate law. This is coherent with Natural Law, which is the inherent rights all of us have upon birth and no one can legally agress upon. This is the foundation, and it ultimately understood by everyone, even if they don't agree with it.

It isn't utopian, because there would still be crime, still be civil courts, still be those who agress. Anarcho-Capitalist society would still have courts, police, and yes, defense. However, it would be an all voluntary society, unlike ours today which is forced and coerced.

Republic is also not the "best form of Government". All a Government is, and should be, is the voluntary arrangement to form a group. In this sense, a Confederacy is the only legitimate, and ultimately, best form of Government.

We would all volantarily agree to the SAME laws ( for the 1st time in human history 100% agreement), and to voluntarily contribute enough of our own earnings to support things like a community defense, even if that defense was against our best intertest (which , for some, may be taking advantage of others for our own benefit)?? HA! You are right , this world is not Utopian , it's impossible . The only law would be that which was enforced by mafia and crime bosses . Much like Somalia. But , hey, you'd make a great pirate my friend.

Maybe you should remove all your Thomas Jefferson qoutes if you think I am wrong . He helped to give us a Republic , not Anarchy, which he could have asked for if he wanted. He was smart enough to know Anarchy would not protect his god-given rights either...


By the way: I hate getting into this debate , because I eventually always get painted into a corner and called a Statist . For the Record, I am constitutionalist for a limited government republic

[Bucjason]

and so you are arguing for what exactly?

sounds like he is arguing for realism to me...

[erowe1]

The only law would be that which was enforced by mafia and crime bosses .

That's what we have right now.

Let me get this straight. You're FOR this?

[Bucjason]

That's what we have right now.

Let me get this straight. You're FOR this?

No, I'm for adhering to the constitution , my man.

I know you will say my stance on ID cards makes me a hypocrite to the 10th amendment , but I believe there would be a smart way to do it and not violate states rights.

Or the better option would be as Constituent implied: End the welfare state completely....but that will never happen in our life-time , so I was just looking for a real solution, and I don't see a proof of citizenship as an infringement on any liberty of mine , so it's something I'd be willing to consider...

[constituent]

No, I'm for adhering to the constitution , my man.

I'm sorry, what's your position on immigration? From what I gather, your stance is in direct opposition to the constitution.

[tremendoustie]

We would all volantarily agree to the SAME laws ( for the 1st time in human history 100% agreement)


No, we would enforce legitimate laws, against initiating violence against others or their property -- e.g. murder, rape, theft, assault, etc. I don't care if Ted Bundy opposes it, these rules should be enforced -- because each of us has a right to self defense, and to defend innocents. You don't need consent for self defense.

If a person is not harming others, they have a right to make their own choices about their lives and finances.

Also, people have a right to make their own rules how their property is to be used.



and to voluntarily contribute enough of our own earnings to support things like a community defense, even if that defense was against our best intertest (which , for some, may be taking advantage of others for our own benefit)??

Americans gave over 300 billion dollars to charity last year, and that was in their overtaxed and overregulated state. And many services would be paid for by subscription, not charity. Of course services like protection would be provided -- people demand it. In any case, the solution to funding problems for a favorite program of yours is not to hire goons to extort money out of the neighbors.



The only law would be that which was enforced by mafia and crime bosses . Much like Somalia. But , hey, you'd make a great pirate my friend.



The number of people who would simply wish to live and trade peaceably vastly outnumber the wannabe gangsters, and the economic power of this majority vastly overpowers that of the gang. Therefore, legitimate protection agencies will be far more powerful than these gangs -- for the same reason government is stronger than these gangs now. The fact that average people demand gang protection from government shows they want it, and the fact that the average taxpayers have the financial ability to fund it shows they have the means to get it. Simply switching the provider from a coercive monopoly to a set of competing agencies would only increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the defense.

You have two sets of rules -- when you are considering the idea of no government, you imagine that society is basically full of power hungry violent thugs, and that good people will be impotent against them. Then, when you consider the idea of government, you assume that it will somehow be miraculously free of these same power hungry violent thugs, when the reality is, it will be especially full of them.

It's frankly silly. As we know there are both kinds of people in society -- peaceful people and the power hungry. Again, I ask: Is creating an organization with the ability to use aggressive violence against peaceful people without consequence more likely to help protect those who wish to live peacefully, or more likely to help the evil or corrupt who wish to rule coersively over others? Who is such a tool more likely to be wielded by? The answers are indeed obvious.




Maybe you should remove all your Thomas Jefferson qoutes if you think I am wrong . He helped to give us a Republic , not Anarchy, which he could have asked for if he wanted. He was smart enough to know Anarchy would not protect his god-given rights either...



He took a giant step forward for liberty for his time, from what existed before. For that I give him great credit. For signing on to an arrangement where innocent people's property is stolen from them? Not so much.


By the way: I hate getting into this debate , because I eventually always get painted into a corner and called a Statist . For the Record, I am constitutionalist for a limited government republic

You're still supporting the extortion of money, by threat of violence, from innocent people.

[Bucjason]

I'm sorry, what's your position on immigration? From what I gather, your stance is in direct opposition to the constitution.


I stated exactly what I would do already. From my 1st post in this thread:

"We could control the flow of immigration by simply enforcing current laws, and denying benefits to illegals.

First you get rid of the incentives that make business owners want to hire illegals, like minimum wage, insurance mandates, etc. Then you ENFORCE current laws , and strictly punish any business caught hiring illegals. Finally, don't allow illegals the means to buy/rent a home , access to public schools , access to hospitals. If you did all this , you wouldn't need more border control , because all the illegals would GO HOME ON THIER OWN. They would either have to cross legally , or stay in Mexico.

As far as the security threat , that is something you have to live with in a FREE society. It's a trade off. Building a wall around yourselves is not something a "free" people do. If you people are willing to sacrifice liberty for increased security , then you should support the Patriot Act also..."

I dare say none of this is unconstitutional at all...

[heavenlyboy34]

I stated exactly what I would do already. From my 1st post in this thread:

"We could control the flow of immigration by simply enforcing current laws, and denying benefits to illegals.

First you get rid of the incentives that make business owners want to hire illegals, like minimum wage, insurance mandates, etc. Then you ENFORCE current laws , and strictly punish any business caught hiring illegals. Finally, don't allow illegals the means to buy/rent a home , access to public schools , access to hospitals. If you did all this , you wouldn't need more border control , because all the illegals would GO HOME ON THIER OWN. They would either have to cross legally , or stay in Mexico.

As far as the security threat , that is something you have to live with in a FREE society. It's a trade off. Building a wall around yourselves is not something a "free" people do. If you people are willing to sacrifice liberty for increased security , then you should support the Patriot Act also..."

I dare say none of this is unconstitutional at all...


People build wall around themselves all the time. There are walls around every backyard in my neighborhood, for example. The old saying is "good fences make good neighbors". I don't support the "Patriot Act", but I do support people's right to build walls along the border if they own the property. (thus far, the current walls have been built with the owners' permission)

You're right that the State plays a major role in the problem, tho. :p

[heavenlyboy34]

Ugh. We need to get rid of the State forced fallacy. In an all voluntary society, there would still be law, order, and justice. It however, would all be consented upon. Check out Celtic Ireland for an example (However many times I need to bring this up). In their system they had "groups" or voluntary societies within the nation whole (The Nation was merely the geographic term for that region). By you voluntarily agreeing to membership, you came under all laws. If you disagreed with a law, or laws, you could voluntarily remove yourself, be independant, or join another. It is well established by every person the right of self-defense, the ultimate law. This is coherent with Natural Law, which is the inherent rights all of us have upon birth and no one can legally agress upon. This is the foundation, and it ultimately understood by everyone, even if they don't agree with it.

It isn't utopian, because there would still be crime, still be civil courts, still be those who agress. Anarcho-Capitalist society would still have courts, police, and yes, defense. However, it would be an all voluntary society, unlike ours today which is forced and coerced.

Republic is also not the "best form of Government". All a Government is, and should be, is the voluntary arrangement to form a group. In this sense, a Confederacy is the only legitimate, and ultimately, best form of Government.

QFT!! :cool::) Thanks for educating folks.

[Bucjason]

Private fences on the border won't do any good because they can just walk to the end of your property and cross...thier goal is not to get onto your land, it's to get into the country. There would be too many gaps in the wall.

As for the fallacy of Confederacy being the best government. Not true at all .

A little history lesson : we tried a confederation . It was called the Articles of Confederation . IT FAILED. Our founders then reconviegned for the 2nd continental congress and a Republic was born-- one that has done a better job of protecting liberties than any other government in history....until recently .... But it could be great again, as Ben Franklin once said, "if we can keep it ".

[tremendoustie]

Private fences on the border won't do any good because they can just walk to the end of your property and cross...thier goal is not to get onto your land, it's to get into the country. There would be too many gaps in the wall.

As for the fallacy of Confederacy being the best government. Not true at all .

A little history lesson : we tried a confederation . It was called the Articles of Confederation . IT FAILED. Our founders then reconviegned for the 2nd continental congress and a Republic was born-- one that has done a better job of protecting liberties than any other government in history....until recently .... But it could be great again, as Ben Franklin once said, "if we can keep it ".

Actually, we've been on a pretty steady slide towards tyranny since the constitution. The AOC didn't fail, they just didn't give the power hungry bureaucrats like Hamilton enough power.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Private fences on the border won't do any good because they can just walk to the end of your property and cross...thier goal is not to get onto your land, it's to get into the country. There would be too many gaps in the wall.

As for the fallacy of Confederacy being the best government. Not true at all .

A little history lesson : we tried a confederation . It was called the Articles of Confederation . IT FAILED. Our founders then reconviegned for the 2nd continental congress and a Republic was born-- one that has done a better job of protecting liberties than any other government in history....until recently .... But it could be great again, as Ben Franklin once said, "if we can keep it ".

You show a distinct lack of historical knowledge. If this republic is so great and grand to the protection of liberty, then why merely 10 years after the Constitution was penned, were there this little thing called the Alien and Sedition Acts? In an Anarcho-Capitalist society, if you didn't agree to those laws, then you could voluntarily leave and would hitherto not have to abide by their laws. The Union, was still a Confederacy up until 1865, as it was widely known that you could voluntarily leave the Union. This is what the Southern States did, because they no longer consented to the laws of the Government or, group. If you truely, do support the Constitution as so vehemently you prescribe, then you have to agree to this fundamental fact. Any person, state, or group can voluntarily remove themselves from the Union. If you can't, how does this check the power of the so-called Union?

It then becomes not a Union, but a Totalitarian State. Remember, prior to 1865 common defense was provided by Militia, or private citizens coming together for the common defense. This is exactly how it would be in an Anarcho-Cap state, contrary to many of my An-Cap brethren who believe people would pay for security firms, I disagree. Each person in the voluntary society would provide the common defense. This is how America WAS until the Civil War. This is why there were such units as the First Alabama Infantry (These men came from the same area in Alabama, hence Militia), Army of the Potomac, First Georgia Artillery, etc. These militia, had at the time, the best military arms you could purchase including mass cannons, frigates, etc. Did these militia constantly fight for dominance and control of their neighbors? No. Why do you suppose that is? If people have the right of self-defense, and the State isn't intruding on that right, then obviously those "Gangs" and "Criminals" have nowhere to easily commit their extortion, criminality, etc.

Secondly, when everyone is armed, this provides a huge disincentive for most crimes. Who is going to risk their livelihood for a few hundred dollars? What about few thousand? Check out the real history of the "Wild Wild West". It was largely crime free. Towns hired voluntarily, sherriff's to police their laws. They also policed the law and everyone Open Carried, had a weapon, etc. Why do you think there were only a handful of people even brave or stupid enough to transgress these laws and attempt wholesale robbery? Even these people did not last long.

You buy into the Hobbesian myth, which history has proved is false over and over. Of course An-Cap won't work in every society. If you try to implement this in a society that is brutal, thuggish, and has no tradition of property rights, etc. then it will be infinitely harder to see this succeeding, but no one can say for certain. I have no doubt An-Cap would flourish and strive in America if we so happened to ever adapt it. It would have to be phased in, like everything, to reduce violence from bad economic situations brough on by YOUR STATE.

Yes, of course, it "failed". We only won the American Revolution under such a system. Why do you think it was mostly the Hamiltonians who convened for the Constitution? They didn't like the fact that there was no central authority. It was disadvantageous to the power hungry. Did you know that the Anti-Federalists; Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, George Mason, etc. were vehemently against the Constitution? Did you know that convening was to amend the AoC and not replace it? Did you know when they found out it was being replaced many of them stormed out? Did you know the Constitution originally didn't have the Bill of Rights? Who do you think fought for the Bill of Rights? I will never forgive Thomas Jefferson for supporting the Constitution after they fought for, and eventually got the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. He, of anyone, should have known that a piece of paper will never secure your liberties. Only people can. And this is why An-Cap is the only true defense of liberty. The Constitution gave the power to do whatever the State wanted. Who's going to fight against it? Look at what the Constitution allowed Washington to do with the Whiskey Rebellion...Look at what it allowed in the War of 1812 where we tried to invade and annex Canada...

When people look at an overseer for protection you get no liberty. The only reason we had a semblence of liberty up until the Civil War was precisely because of Militia's, and no standing Federal Army. I bet you support whole-heartidly Federal Standing Armies. How about instead of grossly supporting a piece of paper, you start supporting what is right, and just. Natural Law, Self-Defense, Self-Determination, Right of Association, Non-Aggression Axiom, etc.

Economics proves the fallacies of those who are Statists wrong. History proves them wrong. If the Constitution, the greatest document to preserve liberty absolutely shredded liberty, and the people the greatest to fight for liberty, didn't fight to preserve that liberty, then when will the State ever be the protector of liberty rather than the usurper? The State only serves one purpose. To grow in power. Why give it the tools in the first place? Do you honestly fear your fellow neighbor more than the State? Do you honestly believe the State can protect you better than you and your neighbors can protect yourselves?

When people have an economic interest, they rarely if ever, aggress. If you believe greed is inherent, then why would people generally commit acts to reduce their economic interests? This is one foundational human nature inherent in An-Cap. I also disagree with some assertions by the leaders in An-Cap theory. For one, I see small nations forming (All-Voluntary) to protect their economic interests. Mostly this would be about common defense. It's much cheaper and more reliable to protect your own property than to pay others to do it. Anyways, I would recommend to you, to read some history, especially American History and you will learn that in every decade the State transgressed grossly on our supposed "liberties". It was never meant to protect them. You have bought into the illusion, but it's no wonder, we are brainwashed from birth to believe that the State protects us, and we cannot protect ourselves.

[Bucjason]

<yawn>

A little Thomas Jefferson history lesson for the hypocrite with the Thomas Jefferson qoutes:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html