Does a nation-state have the right to limit or restrict immigration?

[Anti Federalist]

Trying to get this all included in one sentence...

Does a nation/state, have the right to restrict, limit or entirely shut down immigration or asylum into the nation/state based on any reason or no reason at all?

Not a real "hot button" issue for me, until now.

When I see who is aligned against this concept, my answer has gone from "meh" to a yes.

[MallsRGood]

The question, in other words, is: does the state have the right to fine/imprison/otherwise-punish individuals for non-aggressive actions?

The answer is, obviously, no.

[69360]

Of course they do. It's their right. Should they is a different question.

[CaptainAmerica]

YES from non citizens. does the state have the right to expatriate? NO. does the state have the right to detain without a trial?NO

[MallsRGood]

Of course they do. It's their right. Should they is a different question.

Why's that?

Majority rules? Individual rights be damned?

[William Tell]

When you say entirely shut down immigration, does that include forbidding all citizens from leaving said country?

[Christian Liberty]

I don't know if my answer is a no with an if or a yes with a but or a don't care. I voted for the former, but really my view isn't really any of these.

My view is Biblical theonomy, which as applied to this issue essentially says that anyone who wants to come and live in the nation.... BUT...

1. Certainly if someone is actively, provably, a threat to the lives of people living in the nation, allowing that person to come in is a violation of the sixth commandment. That needs to be proven, not merely stated.

2. According to Biblical law, anyone can come in (except see #1) BUT citizenship or "belonging" in the nation is based on a religion, belonging to a national church or at a bare minimum confessing a national creed (which at bare minimum would be the Nicene Creed, but should probably be more than this. I'd like to see submission to elders in a church that confesses the Westminster Standards.) So Muslims could come here and work, etc. but they couldn't be citizens or influence our political process. The same applies to any Mexican immigrants (or any other immigrants for that matter) who wouldn't be Christians/confess the creed/join the church.

3. While such people could come in to work and live, the laws would prohibit worship of false gods or setting up of false places or worship. So essentially, if they wanted to worship whatever false god they wanted, they'd have to do so in secret where nobody could see. Anyone who did so in a context where there were two or more witnesses, or equivalent evidence, would be severely punished. If they were citizens to begin with (see Deuteronomy 17) they'd be executed. Anyone who proselytized for a false religion would also be executed, no matter who they were (Deuteronomy 13.)

4. Most property would be privatized in a Biblical nation, only that directly necessary to enforce the Biblical laws and punish crime would be owned by the State. So even if the State cannot prevent people from crossing its borders, private property owners living on the border certainly can prevent immigrants from using their property to cross.

I don't expect any of that to really fly on this board, but this is the context where the Biblical verses about loving the sojurner and immigrant, etc. came in. There's nothing like a modern border patrol for vetting people envisioned in the Bible. However, its not like modern or libertarian "open borders" either.

So the question is, seeing that we're in a nation that rejects God and his laws, what's the next best "religiously neutral" alternative. Well, honestly, I don't care. i'm definitely glad that Trump is prioritizing Christian refugees. No matter how bad their theology is (and I certainly wouldn't expect our nation in its current state to be vetting theology) that's more likely to be my brothers and sisters than any Muslim, none of whom are my brothers and sisters in any kind of theological sense. It also, of course, presents dangers. But ultimately I see my nation and all others I can think of as being judged for their violation of Psalm 2, and so I don't think any policy of worldly wisdom, whether that be tight-knit borders or totally loose borders can really fix that problem. However I can say, from a worldly perspective, Trump's policy definitely makes more sense to me as compared to letting just anyone in, letting those just anyone's speak their minds and openly promote/try to turn people to worldviews that are even more anti-Christian than the ones we already have (the West, for all its problems, is running on borrowed Christian capital, and Islam won't help that situation). I also don't think two wrongs particularly make a right, so while I think this is probably wiser than the "on the table" alternative, I can't really promote it either.

Make of that what you will :)

[Christian Liberty]

When you say entirely shut down immigration, does that include forbidding all citizens from leaving said country? Yeah, that definitely shouldn't be in play no matter who you are.

[Anti Federalist]

When you say entirely shut down immigration, does that include forbidding all citizens from leaving said country?

No, for the purposes of this exercise, lets assume that any exits are totally without restriction, at least as far as the country being left behind is concerned.

[Anti Federalist]

The question, in other words, is: does the state have the right to fine/imprison/otherwise-punish individuals for non-aggressive actions?

The answer is, obviously, no.

No...no prison, no incarceration other than whatever time would be involved to be escorted out.

[MallsRGood]

No...no prison, no incarceration other than whatever time would be involved to be escorted out.

Oh, I see...

No imprisonment, just kidnapping.

[oyarde]

Late at night , while having my bourbon and contemplating invaders , I think ; What would Danke do ?

[Anti Federalist]

Oh, I see...

No imprisonment, just kidnapping.

No, no kidnapping...I would not expect ransom to be required.

[presence]

Does a nation/state, have the right


NO

Unless all the terms are dropped & we recognize that only an individual has rights,
the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found.
The longer we lack of definition of rights,
the worse the economic and social problems will be.

-Ron Paul, Freedom Under Siege, 1987

[Anti Federalist]

Late at night , while having my bourbon and contemplating invaders , I think ; What would Danke do ?

I'm assuming you chose:


Don't know/Don't Care/Must consult Danke

[oyarde]

I'm assuming you chose:

Yes I did , I wanted the Texan to be proud of me for voting .

[MallsRGood]

No, no kidnapping...I would not expect ransom to be required.

Grabbing someone, forcing him in a van, driving him to another country, and kicking him out =/= kidnapping?

Shall we just be permitted to do this to one another at will?

Someone does this to you, taking you back to...England, Ireland, Germany, Poland...wherever you're from...

Cool? No crime there? No objections?

[enhanced_deficit]

Not a fan of foreign interventionism, but if we are to be engaged in occupations/invasions in places like Iraq, Syria, Gaza, Yemen etc. , our interventions planners and agencies need all the tools including US safe haven relocations incentives for locals who help our war efforts as translators, enablers of certain groups etc.
McCain, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Schumer and others neocons have a valid point here.

[donnay]

Article IV, 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; and on application of
the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against
domestic violence.

[Anti Federalist]

NO

Unless all the terms are dropped & we recognize that only an individual has rights,
the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found.
The longer we lack of definition of rights,
the worse the economic and social problems will be.

-Ron Paul, Freedom Under Siege, 1987


I think seeing what 30 years of open borders has done, has since made him re-consider:


Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president

End all incentives and amnesty for illegal immigrants

Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border.

Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project.

Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment.

Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules.

Sponsored bill banning student visas from terrorist nations.

Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration.

Rated 83% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance.

Government services in English only.

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

[Anti Federalist]

Grabbing someone, forcing him in a van, driving him to another country, and kicking him out =/= kidnapping?

Shall we just be permitted to do this to one another at will?

Someone does this to you, taking you back to...England, Ireland, Germany, Poland...wherever you're from...

Cool? No crime there? No objections?

No, it's not "kidnapping". If done illegally it would be "abduction".

No, not at will.

If you try to enter the country without permission.

[Brian4Liberty]

Every individual, and every group of individuals (a nation) have a natural right to try to defend their territory. They can and do lose in that endeavor.

[ghengis86]

When you say entirely shut down immigration, does that include forbidding all citizens from leaving said country?

No, bc that would be emigration.

[specsaregood]

When you say entirely shut down immigration, does that include forbidding all citizens from leaving said country?
I believe that would be emigration, not immigration.

[MallsRGood]

Every individual, and every group of individuals (a nation) have a natural right to try to defend their territory. They can and do lose in that endeavor.

How does that group make decisions?

Suppose 51% decide to kill and eat the other 49%?

[ghengis86]

If someone trespasses on private property, does that violate the NAP? What remedy does one have to protect their home?

[RJB]

Every individual, and every group of individuals (a nation) have a natural right to try to defend their territory. They can and do lose in that endeavor.

That's what it all comes down to.

[ghengis86]

How does that group make decisions?

Suppose 51% decide to kill and eat the other 49%?
Should have voted harder I guess.

[MallsRGood]

No, it's not "kidnapping". If done illegally it would be "abduction".

No, not at will.

If you try to enter the country without permission.

Whose permission?

And why should one have to have it?

[ghengis86]

Whose permission?


The landowners?

[MallsRGood]

Should have voted harder I guess.

Only idiots vote, of course.

...this is a Socratic dialogue, type deal.

[Krugminator2]

Why's that?

Majority rules? Individual rights be damned?

What rights? Immigrating to the United States isn't a right. It is a privilege and only people who can support themselves and who don't undermine basic Western values should live here.

Immigration should only take place to the extent that it benefits in aggregate the people already living here. Refugees who aren't immediately capable of sustaining themselves without government must be turned away in a free society.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Pale face replaced the redskin. Coloreds and the yellow man replace pale face. You can "should" it all you want, but it's just a reality. Wheel of life and all that.

[MallsRGood]

What rights? Immigrating to the United States isn't a right.

It isn't?

Should your neighbors (however one might define that group) vote on whether you're permitted to attend your next-door neighbor's BBQ?

Are you a bolshevik?


It is a privilege and only people who can support themselves and who don't undermine basic Western values should live here.

What do you think you own? How do you imagine you obtained property rights in your neighbors property?


Immigration should only take place to the extent that it benefits in aggregate the people already living here. Refugees who aren't immediately capable of sustaining themselves without government must be turned away in a free society.

No, immigration should be permitted as long as it benefits human beings in general, which is to say, always.

[MallsRGood]

The landowners?

Exactly right

And that's what free immigration is; each individual landowner is quite free to allow any particular beaner on his property, or not.

...as opposed to the state violating said landowners' property rights by prohibiting them from allowing certain people on their property.

...or from employing them, or selling things to them, or renting them apartments, etc, etc.

[Anti Federalist]

Whose permission?

And why should one have to have it?

The citizens of the country in question.

Doesn't matter, just as I have to give no reason why I do not want a stranger sitting on my couch when I come home.

[Anti Federalist]

No, immigration should be permitted as long as it benefits human beings in general, which is to say, always.

Ask these folks whether or not unlimited immigration of a hostile and a vastly larger bloc of immigrants of an alien culture, worked to their benefit?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2f/68/de/2f68deefc25a3a6253e4710fee1d0981.jpg

[spudea]

The question, in other words, is: does the state have the right to fine/imprison/otherwise-punish individuals for non-aggressive actions?

The answer is, obviously, no.

Trespassing on property rights is aggressive.

[ghengis86]

If someone trespasses on private property, does that violate the NAP? What remedy does one have to protect their home?


Trespassing on property rights is aggressive.

That's right.

[MallsRGood]

The citizens of the country in question.

So, by voting?

You think that who a property owner should be permitted to have on his own property should be a matter of voting?


Doesn't matter, just as I have to give no reason why I do not want a stranger sitting on my couch when I come home.

Exactly, you shouldn't have a give a reason.

The difference is...you don't own MY COUCH.

Can you dig it?

[Brian4Liberty]

How does that group make decisions?

Suppose 51% decide to kill and eat the other 49%?

How does any group make decisions? It varies. A lot of ideas out there, some have happened in the past, some happen every day in real life, some are what might possibly be. Most groups work on some combination of consensus and top down leadership.

As far as what's for dinner, I remember having some say on what I wanted when I lived in an absolute dictatorship, but mom made it, so she always had final say.

[Krugminator2]

No, immigration should be permitted as long as it benefits human beings in general, which is to say, always.

Really? So the majority of people in Sweden and Germany are better off for having refugees? I don't think they are. I don't they are seeing those gains from an increased division of labor.

"Only 53 percent of refugees found a job after 10 years" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-30/refugees-welcome-to-sweden-you-ll-get-a-job-in-a-decade

[MallsRGood]

Ask these folks whether or not unlimited immigration of a hostile and a vastly larger bloc of immigrants of an alien culture, worked to their benefit?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2f/68/de/2f68deefc25a3a6253e4710fee1d0981.jpg

My American history may be a tad fuzzy, but I'm fairly certain that they weren't done in by people trying to mow their lawns for $1.50/hour.

...to characterize their problem as one of immigration is silly.

They weren't immigrated-to-death; they were conquered, militarily.

[MallsRGood]

Really?

Yea, really.


So the majority of people in Sweden and Germany are better off for having refugees? I don't think they are. I don't they are seeing those gains from an increased division of labor.

The marginal productivity of labor is higher in Europe than in Africa/MENA; hence the wages are higher; hence they go there.

A guy working a donkey to grow potatoes in Mozambique produces far fewer potatoes per hour labor than a guy working a tractor in Bavaria.

The result of immigration is higher total output (donkey guy becomes tractor guy).

With population remaining the same, that means higher output per person, i.e. higher living standards per person.

[William Tell]

No, bc that would be emigration.

Right, but procedures and funds for that sort of thing are often used going both ways. On one of the state border security bills there was some opposition to it from the liberty folks because it funded southbound checkpoints. Letting people is a different issue than letting people out, but they are closely connected.

[MallsRGood]

How does any group make decisions? It varies. A lot of ideas out there, some have happened in the past, some happen every day in real life, some are what might possibly be. Most groups work on some combination of consensus and top down leadership.

As far as what's for dinner, I remember having some say on what I wanted when I lived in an absolute dictatorship, but mom made it, so she always had final say.

So, you're admitting that you're a communist, or what?

...not sure what you mean.

[Anti Federalist]

So, by voting?

You think that who a property owner should be permitted to have on his own property should be a matter of voting?

If there was a system in place, like there is in Canada, for instance, where somebody would need a sponsor or means by which to obtain "his own property", then maybe we could talk.


Exactly, you shouldn't have a give a reason.

The difference is...you don't own MY COUCH.

Can you dig it?

Sure.

Now, if you erected a hog rendering plant on your property, that resulted in a curtain of grease, smoke, and hog drippings covering everything on my property, I would have legal reasons to sue you.

Who do I sue when when my property is rendered worthless by an upheaval of the entire society caused by the demographic warfare of unfettered immigration?

[MallsRGood]

Now, if you erected a hog rendering plant on your property, that resulted in a curtain of grease, smoke, and hog drippings covering everything on my property, I would have legal reasons to sue you.

Who do I sue when when my property is rendered worthless by an upheaval of the entire society caused by the demographic warfare of unfettered immigration?

Gee whiz...

You better call the EPA, libertarian, about all those turrible turrible externalities.

I'm sure there's a regulation to protect you.

Whatever we do, though, let's not try a market economy and property rights; that'd be dangerous.

[Anti Federalist]

My American history may be a tad fuzzy, but I'm fairly certain that they weren't done in by people trying to mow their lawns for $1.50/hour.

...to characterize their problem as one of immigration is silly.

They weren't immigrated-to-death; they were conquered, militarily.

Not at first, no.

At first it was exactly what it is now, trade, usually one sided, which is why it went on for so long.

Then it became hostile.

Then it became demographic warfare.

Then it became all out military conquest.

And who controlled the military?

[Krugminator2]

Yea, really.


The marginal productivity of labor is higher in Europe than in Africa/MENA; hence the wages are higher; hence they go there.

A guy working a donkey to grow potatoes in Mozambique produces far fewer potatoes per hour labor than a guy working a tractor in Bavaria.

The result of immigration is higher total output (donkey guy becomes tractor guy).

With population remaining the same, that means higher output per person, i.e. higher living standards per person.

Marginal productivity isn't higher. It is lower. Only working immigrants raise marginal productivity and even then it is by a small amount. At the same time tou are confiscating resources from producers in a productive society who would put that money to other productive uses and giving it to 47% of refugees to not work for a decade.

And these same non working refugees are prone to commit crime which further takes resources away from a productive economy. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-crime-idUSKCN0YT28V

[Anti Federalist]

Gee whiz...

You better call the EPA, libertarian, about all those turrible turrible externalities.

I'm sure there's a regulation to protect you.

Whatever we do, though, let's not try a market economy and property rights; that'd be dangerous.

Where did I mention anything about government regulations?

Are you saying I do not have a right to sue you for damages if your actions on your property have a direct and deleterious affect on mine?

Unless I'm wrong, I thought that is the very cornerstone of libertarian property rights vs. heavy handed government regulations.

[Anti Federalist]

Wait a minute...am I arguing with eduardo?

[MallsRGood]

Marginal productivity isn't higher. It is lower. Only working immigrants raise marginal productivity and even then it is by a small amount.

A. The vast majority of immigrants work; their employment rate is higher than for natives.

B. That has no effect on the DMRP of labor. It is what it is, based on capital accumulation.


At the same time tou are confiscating resources from producers in a productive society who would put that money to other productive uses and giving it to 47% of refugees to not work for a decade.

Virtually all welfare in this country goes to natives.

Now, as you might imagine from what I've said, I'm for eliminating all welfare, for everyone, period.

...but to pretend that the welfare-state is an immigrant problem, as we all suck up our SS/Medicare/etc is a disgusting joke.

The welfare state was born here decades before third world immigration.

...and it will die here, in a hyper-inflationary disaster, w/ or w/out immigrants.


And these same non working refugees are prone to commit crime which further takes resources away from a productive economy. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-crime-idUSKCN0YT28V

Yea, anecdotal evidence, blah blah blah.

Violent crime (and property crime) is near all time lows.

...You're running out of excusing to shit on immigrants.

[fisharmor]

Did I miss something, or did nobody offer this conclusive answer to the question?

Absolutely not. Because states do not have rights. States can only have powers.

Donnay already appealed to the federal government's power to repel invasions. This is authorized by the US Constitution - namely, the power to call forth state militias to repel invasions. In both cases where the constitution discusses invasions there is a clear military implication, and as MallsRGood already pointed out, no invasion ever succeeded by cutting grass or hanging drywall for a substandard wage.

If you want the federal government to have the POWER to limit or restrict immigration, then get a constitutional amendment granting it that power. Otherwise the power to do so reverts to the states, provided the residents of those states then either have or pass their own constitutional power to do it.

This is a 10th Amendment issue. If it's not, and if you want to expand the word "invasion" to mean things it clearly does not, then you're no better than those who use the phrase "commerce among the states" to get away with making it impossible to dig a pond on your property.

In short: Either immigration is a 10th issue, or NOTHING IS.

[MallsRGood]

Where did I mention anything about government regulations?

You've been advocating for governmental regulation of property throughout this entitle thread; that is what immigration control means.


Are you saying I do not have a right to sue you for damages if your actions on your property have a direct and deleterious affect on mine?

Not at all. You certainly have that right.

What you most definitely don't have a right to do is to preemptively forbid me to deal with a certain class of people.

...based on nothing more than your dislike of chalupas.


Unless I'm wrong, I thought that is the very cornerstone of libertarian property rights vs. heavy handed government regulations.

If you thought state regulation of property rights was a cornerstone of libertarianism, I'm afraid you never understood libertarianism at all.

[Krugminator2]

A. The vast majority of immigrants work; their employment rate is higher than for natives.



Except that isn't true in the context of Muslim refugees, which is all that I am talking about and what is relevant right now in the news. I am not talking about any other immigrant group. The unemployment rate is over 50% among Muslim refugees in Sweden even after living in the country for a decade.

And Muslim refugees don't perform much better in the US. 92% of Muslim refugees are on food stamps. http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/9/more-than-90-of-recent-middle-eastern-refugees-on-food-stamps-almost-70-on-cash-welfare

[Anti Federalist]

...and it will die here, in a hyper-inflationary disaster, w/ or w/out immigrants.

Precisely why I do not want a huge bloc of hostiles inside.

When that happens, things will get ugly and it never turns out well for the displaced demographic.


...You're running out of excusing to shit on immigrants.

Nobody's shitting on anybody.

People are trying to justify this, when no justification is needed.

No reason is needed to limit or stop immigration.

[LibertyEagle]

Exactly right

And that's what free immigration is; each individual landowner is quite free to allow any particular beaner on his property, or not.

...as opposed to the state violating said landowners' property rights by prohibiting them from allowing certain people on their property.

...or from employing them, or selling things to them, or renting them apartments, etc, etc.

That would be ok with me as long as you personally were held responsible for any harm they did and any money they sucked from your fellow citizenry. That includes any use of public property for which we paid.

The consequence of them doing so would be for you to pay back all the money and stand in front of a firing squad if they harmed one of your fellow citizens.

You game?

[LibertyEagle]

Precisely why I do not want a huge bloc of hostiles inside.

When that happens, things will get ugly and it never turns out well for the displaced demographic.



Nobody's $#@!ting on anybody.

People are trying to justify this, when no justification is needed.

No reason is needed to limit or stop immigration.

+1

Common sense. Something in rare supply around here these days.

[UWDude]

Nations should just let armies cross their borders, as long as the armies promise to be good. NAP!

[timosman]

+1

Common sense. Something in rare supply around here these days.

Common sense isn't common.:cool:

[UWDude]

Wait a minute...am I arguing with eduardo?

More like Revolution3.0

[MallsRGood]

That would be ok with me as long as you personally were held responsible for any harm they did and any money they sucked from your fellow citizenry. That includes any use of public property for which we paid.

The consequence of them doing so would be for you to pay back all the money and stand in front of a firing squad if they harmed one of your fellow citizens.

You game?

Right, so how about...law?

You are aware that if citizen A causes harm to citizen B, A is liable to B?

Why need that vary based on the country of origin of the people in question?

How about just...law?

I know, I know, that's crazy...

Deys Messicuns N R Bad N Stuff...

[MallsRGood]

Precisely why I do not want a huge bloc of hostiles inside.

Are you under the impression that your "fellow citizens" will behave well when the freeshit runs out?

...personally, I'd rather hang with beaners post SHTF than 'Muricans.

For beaners, it's just...Tuesday.


No reason is needed to limit or stop immigration.

No reason is needed to deport you to Antarctica.

You're dangerous, because a majority of the people living within an arbitrarily defined geographical area around you say you are.

Vaya con dios

[LibertyEagle]

Right, so how about...law?
You mean like IMMIGRATION LAW? Like that?


You are aware that if citizen A causes harm to citizen B, A is liable to B?
Uh huh and if you want to break our immigration laws and bring an illegal alien onto your property, you are responsible for their actions. Remember that principle about being responsible for your own damn actions? Yeah that one.

[Anti Federalist]

You've been advocating for governmental regulation of property throughout this entitle thread; that is what immigration control means.

I was referring to the specific example of environmental damage in the previous post.


...based on nothing more than your dislike of chalupas.

It's more based on the fact that I have watched, over the past month, millions of frothing fanatics take to the street, who, for all intents and purposes want me and my family dead, many of them from this pool of immigrants, migrants, refugees and other "wretched refuse".

That was a real opener to me, I don't think I've ever seen such an outpouring of hate and vitriol in my life.


If you thought state regulation of property rights was a cornerstone of libertarianism, I'm afraid you never understood libertarianism at all.

No, I thought the right to protect your property was.

I do not want this:

http://www.visitingnewengland.com/PageMill_Resources/downtown-hanover-nh.jpeg

To become this:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/94/259775735_8b919d436d.jpg?v=0

[Anti Federalist]

More like Revolution3.0

Pretty sure I got a sock, just wish they'd be honest.

[LibertyEagle]

Are you under the impression that your "fellow citizens" will behave well when the free$#@! runs out?

...personally, I'd rather hang with beaners post SHTF than 'Muricans.

For beaners, it's just...Tuesday.
Then move to Mexico. If they will have you, that is.


No reason is needed to deport you to Antarctica.

You're dangerous, because a majority of the people living within an arbitrarily defined geographical area around you say you are.
He's a citizen of this country. He has no reason to leave.


Vaya con dios
You leaving? :D

[MallsRGood]

Nations should just let armies cross their borders, as long as the armies promise to be good. NAP!

Yea, boy

http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20150515&t=2&i=1048616261&w=&fh=545px&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=LYNXMPEB4E0OA

That's an army.

Ima scurred!

Aren't youa scurred?!

:rolleyes:

[UWDude]

Pretty sure I got a sock, just wish they'd be honest.

they can't be honest. Sock puppets to bypass bans are a bannable offense. revolution3.0 was banned, I think.
I think it's revolution3.0 because he posted at a frenetic pace, just like this sock.

[Anti Federalist]

Are you under the impression that your "fellow citizens" will behave well when the freeshit runs out?

...personally, I'd rather hang with beaners post SHTF than 'Muricans.

For beaners, it's just...Tuesday.

That right there is the very worst indictment you could make, and proves my point.

No, I don't think because a lot of these people are not "my fellow citizens".

And yep, just another Tuesday: sloth, crime, corruption, government tyranny and waste.

Time for siesta.


No reason is needed to deport you to Antarctica.

You're dangerous, because a majority of the people living within an arbitrarily defined geographical area around you say you are.

Vaya con dios

Again, precisely why I'm concerned.

Gonna be enough to do dealing with "fellow citizens" and not have to worry about a "fifth column".

They think "democracy" grants the right to do just that.

[UWDude]

Yea, boy

http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20150515&t=2&i=1048616261&w=&fh=545px&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=LYNXMPEB4E0OA

That's an army.

Ima scurred!

Aren't youa scurred?!

:rolleyes:

But we are delving into philosophical now, about freedom of movement and such. So since all humans are free, are armies allowed to just march around wherever they want?

And BTW, the vast majority of immigrants from the seven banned nations are young, able bodied men, and many of them are ISIS sleeper agents, as ISIS said they would do. Furthermore, many of them are trained CIA stooges retreating from their loser wars, especially Syria. Many of them literally are soldiers and rebels who have nowhere else to go, working with elements of the CIA who still see their violent proclivities as an asset.

[Contumacious]

Trying to get this all included in one sentence...

Does a nation/state, have the right to restrict, limit or entirely shut down immigration or asylum into the nation/state based on any reason or no reason at all?

Not a real "hot button" issue for me, until now.

When I see who is aligned against this concept, my answer has gone from "meh" to a yes.

Firstly, the Trump EO was arbitary designed to provoke Iran.

It only bans shiite Muslims affiliated with Iran.

While those affiliated with Saudi Arabia - which has been helping the CIA in Syria is EXEMPTED. Even though all the 09/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia.


Fedgov has no constitutional authority to interdict and deport.

That right was retained by the states.

.

[Anti Federalist]

Yea, boy

http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20150515&t=2&i=1048616261&w=&fh=545px&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=LYNXMPEB4E0OA

That's an army.

Ima scurred!

Aren't youa scurred?!

:rolleyes:

Nope...but this is an angry mob...which can be just as dangerous.

http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/AP_SAN_TRUMP_SAN2_DC_4x3_992.jpg

http://downtrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/cops56-640x375.jpg

[MallsRGood]

I was referring to the specific example of environmental damage in the previous post.

...better call Al Gore.

There are lots of bolsheviks out there (of indeterminate gender, apparently), on whose sleeves you could wipe your enviro-tears.


It's more based on the fact that I have watched, over the past month, millions of frothing fanatics take to the street, who, for all intents and purposes want me and my family dead, many of them from this pool of immigrants, migrants, refugees and other "wretched refuse".

Well, gee whillickers, why do you think Teh Messicuns might be angry at GOPers at the moment?

...must be totally unprovoked.

Can't be like, a reaction to GOPers talking about mass kidnapping and deportation er nuttin...

..nawwwwww


That was a real opener to me, I don't think I've ever seen such an outpouring of hate and vitriol in my life.

You must be young. I've seen lots of retarded anger over the years. It's usually based in economic problem created by the giant leech sucking us all dry (i.e. the federal government), but with the anger cleverly redirected by agents of said leech (i.e. politicians) who set us (not me, of course) against one another for the purpose of distraction. But, yes, throw out the Messicuns, her der, nevermind that 50% looting tax rate.


I do not want this:

http://www.visitingnewengland.com/PageMill_Resources/downtown-hanover-nh.jpeg

To become this:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/94/259775735_8b919d436d.jpg?v=0

Then stop supporting left-liberal clowns like Trump.

And stop allowing such idiots to sucker you into voting for them by "Teh Messicuns Dun Did It Her Derrrr."

[Christian Liberty]

My American history may be a tad fuzzy, but I'm fairly certain that they weren't done in by people trying to mow their lawns for $1.50/hour.

...to characterize their problem as one of immigration is silly.

They weren't immigrated-to-death; they were conquered, militarily. You probably have a point when it comes to Mexican immigration, but I definitely don't think its true for Islamic. Islamic immigrants definitely want Sharia law in this country, or at least, a lot of them do. Which is consistent with their religion.

[nobody's_hero]

When I see who is aligned against this concept, my answer has gone from "meh" to a yes.

That's the rub for me as well.

[MallsRGood]

You mean like IMMIGRATION LAW? Like that?

Uh huh and if you want to break our immigration laws and bring an illegal alien onto your property, you are responsible for their actions. Remember that principle about being responsible for your own damn actions? Yeah that one.

Remember that principle about not initiating violence against innocent people? ...yea, that one.

[Contumacious]

You probably have a point when it comes to Mexican immigration, but I definitely don't think its true for Islamic. Islamic immigrants definitely want Sharia law in this country, or at least, a lot of them do. Which is consistent with their religion.

Sharia Law in this country?

Shirley , you jest.

.

[timosman]

That right was retained by the states.

The states have absolutely no resources to do that. :cool:

[MallsRGood]

Nope...but this is an angry mob...which can be just as dangerous.

http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/AP_SAN_TRUMP_SAN2_DC_4x3_992.jpg

http://downtrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/cops56-640x375.jpg

And...?

There are lots of angry mobs.

Is that ^^^ going to actually affect anything in a meaningless way, or is it just FOXPORN?

I think you know the answer.

[TheTexan]

Duh. Only some kind of weird anarchist would think that government doesnt have a right to forcefully remove people from other people's lands

[TheTexan]

Yes I did , I wanted the Texan to be proud of me for voting .

I voted yes, but only as it pertains to Muslims

[Contumacious]

The states have absolutely no resources to do that. :cool:

Then the Constitution ought to be amended. But that is what was decided 1787.

[MallsRGood]

But we are delving into philosophical now, about freedom of movement and such. So since all humans are free, are armies allowed to just march around wherever they want?

Why, yes, of course...

http://amayberrystateofmind.com/attachments/Image/gomer16.jpg


And BTW, the vast majority of immigrants from the seven banned nations are young, able bodied men, and many of them are ISIS sleeper agents, as ISIS said they would do. Furthermore, many of them are trained CIA stooges retreating from their loser wars, especially Syria. Many of them literally are soldiers and rebels who have nowhere else to go, working with elements of the CIA who still see their violent proclivities as an asset.

Well, damn, you must be shaking in your pussy.

[timosman]

Sharia Law in this country?

Shirley , you jest.

.

Ha ha ha :cool: -rep

[timosman]

Why, yes, of course...




Well, damn, you must be shaking in your pussy.


ha ha ha :cool: -rep

[timosman]

Then the Constitution ought to be amended. But that is what was decided 1787.

All right genius. I think we are done here. :cool:

[UWDude]

Ima scurred too....

Knowing the history of the CIA and false flags, you should be.

[nobody's_hero]

How does that group make decisions?

Suppose 51% decide to kill and eat the other 49%?

Let 'em into the country until they reach 51% and you'll find out.

[Contumacious]

All right genius. I think we are done here. :cool:

Proud to be a government school victim?

.

[MallsRGood]

Let 'em into the country until they reach 51% and you'll find out.

How's the current 51% working out for ya?

[nobody's_hero]

How's the current 51% working out for ya?

Brother, I don't even think I have 51% on my side, but I've no inclination of throwing my hands up and letting the rest through the gates.

[Anti Federalist]

...better call Al Gore.

There are lots of bolsheviks out there (of indeterminate gender, apparently), on whose sleeves you could wipe your enviro-tears.

So you think that eliminating regulations and allowing private property owners to sue people who damage their property is "left wing, Al Gore Bolshevism"?


Well, gee whillickers, why do you think Teh Messicuns might be angry at GOPers at the moment?

...must be totally unprovoked.

Can't be like, a reaction to GOPers talking about mass kidnapping and deportation er nuttin...

..nawwwwww

Not sure, they've been at it while, long before Trump and make it abundantly clear, that if they win, white Europeans will be forcibly evicted.

http://www.independentsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/reconquista_1.jpg

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j11/pelham92807/1la_raza2_zps6wi3q0la.jpg

https://constitutionwarrior.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/la-raza-protest-ca.jpg

https://constitutionwarrior.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/la-raza-illegal-aliens-racism.jpg


You must be young. I've seen lots of retarded anger over the years. It's usually based in economic problem created by the giant leech sucking us all dry (i.e. the federal government), but with the anger cleverly redirected by agents of said leech (i.e. politicians) who set us (not me, of course) against one another for the purpose of distraction. But, yes, throw out the Messicuns, her der, nevermind that 50% looting tax rate.

LOL - I'm old enough to be your father more than likely, possibly grandfather.

Distraction? If anything I was distracted away from this issue.


Then stop supporting left-liberal clowns like Trump.

And stop allowing such idiots to sucker you into voting for them by "Teh Messicuns Dun Did It Her Derrrr."

I did not support and did not vote for him.

I'm supporting him based on the actions I've seen so far.

[Anti Federalist]

And...?

There are lots of angry mobs.

Is that ^^^ going to actually affect anything in a meaningless way, or is it just FOXPORN?

I think you know the answer.

Yes, because the mobs, combined with that fatalistic apathy you yourself described, lead to this:

ETA - I was going to post some pictures of Mexican cartel murders, but they are, literally, too gruesome.

[MallsRGood]

So you think that eliminating regulations and allowing private property owners to sue people who damage their property is "left wing, Al Gore Bolshevism"?

No, I think that having the state fine/cage people for renting/selling to Mexicans is bolshevism.

Just replace Mexican with kulak.

...point is, it's an egregious violation of private property rights.

Period. There is no possible counterargument.

If you think violating property rights in this instance is good, caging people for non-aggressive acts is good, well okay.

But it is what it is; don't pretend it's anything else.


Not sure, they've been at it while, long before Trump and make it abundantly clear, that if they win, white Europeans will be forcibly evicted.

Yea, forcible eviction is bad...

(therefore, let's forcibly evict people)


I did not support and did not vote for him.

I'm supporting him based on the actions I've seen so far.

Well, when in a few years he fucks you to the point that even you cannot ignore it, I will have no sympathy.

That's the end of the story.

[Contumacious]

Grabbing someone, forcing him in a van, driving him to another country, and kicking him out =/= kidnapping?

Shall we just be permitted to do this to one another at will?

Someone does this to you, taking you back to...England, Ireland, Germany, Poland...wherever you're from...

Cool? No crime there? No objections?

American Indians had an extreme vetting immigration policy.

No whites in the black hills.

They were slaughtered like dogs.


.

[timosman]

No, I think that having the state fine/cage people for renting/selling to Mexicans is bolshevism.

Just replace Mexican with kulak.

...point is, it's an egregious violation of private property rights.

Period. There is no possible counterargument.

If you think violating property rights in this instance is good, caging people for non-aggressive acts is good, well okay.

But it is what it is; don't pretend it's anything else.



Yea, forcible eviction is bad...

(therefore, let's forcibly evict people)



Well, when in a few years he fucks you to the point that even you cannot ignore it, I will have no sympathy.

That's the end of the story.

WTF is wrong with these people(?)? :cool:

[MallsRGood]

Yes, because the mobs, combined with that fatalistic apathy you yourself described, lead to this:

ETA - I was going to post some pictures of Mexican cartel murders, but they are, literally, too gruesome.

Right, and this is obviously because Messicuns R Bad.

It has nothing to do with drug prohibition.

It's not like Italians, for instance, ever behaved this way.

[timosman]

American Indians had an extreme vetting immigration policy.

No whites in the black hills.

They were slaughtered like dogs.


.

They were too naive. Mentality of 12 year olds. Just like open border supporters.

[Contumacious]

They were too naive. Mentality of 12 year olds. Just like open border supporters.

I know who you are .......Charles Manson.

Thought you were dead.

But I recognize the style.

.

[nobody's_hero]

Right, and this is obviously because Messicuns R Bad.

It has nothing to do with drug prohibition.

It's not like Italians, for instance, ever behaved this way.

You're not going to get very far in your arguments if you continue to make everything about race.

I see you arrived in Dec, 2016, and I feel obligated to inform you that many here have tried, and have failed, to make all of their arguments devolve into race-baiting and of those many have either left the forum, or outgrew their immature 'debating' skills and now offer much more substantive arguments based on the issues.

In other words, if all you can come up with is, 'brown people blah blah blah' . . . F*#% off.

[Anti Federalist]

No, I think that having the state fine/cage people for renting/selling to Mexicans is bolshevism.

That's not what you said, but that's OK.


Just replace Mexican with kulak.

You have your analogy bass ackwards.

We are the native Ukraine "kulaks" being forced out of our lands, our customs, our economies and our way of life, at the hands of globalist tyrants, by way of hostile demographic invasion from foreign nations.

If anybody could claim the title of displaced kulak, it would be the American Indians I posted before, that you dismissed as a "silly" proposition.


...point is, it's an egregious violation of private property rights.

Period. There is no possible counterargument.

If you think violating property rights in this instance is good, caging people for non-aggressive acts is good, well okay.

But it is what it is; don't pretend it's anything else.

Well, then, let's not cage anybody.

Build a wall.


Yea, forcible eviction is bad...

(therefore, let's forcibly evict people)

Forcible eviction of a rightful property owner is bad.

Forcible eviction of a criminal squatter is not.


Well, when in a few years he fucks you to the point that even you cannot ignore it, I will have no sympathy.

That's the end of the story.

That's nice...I don't recall ever asking for any, however, it is just another display of "tolerance" and "love trumping hate".

Very mild, from what has been unleashed from other sectors.

I'll re-evaluate frequently, have no fear, and will jump on things when he is wrong.

[specsaregood]

LOL @ arguing about the right of a nation/state with a bunch of anarchists.

[Contumacious]

LOL @ arguing about the right of a nation/state with a bunch of anarchists.



Exactly.

That's something the fascists and socialists love to talk about.


.

[Anti Federalist]

Right, and this is obviously because Messicuns R Bad.

It has nothing to do with drug prohibition.

It's not like Italians, for instance, ever behaved this way.

It has a great deal to do with drug prohibition.

That does not change the fact that a large part of the reason for this lies in the political sloth and apathy of the Mexican people, you yourself described.

[cindy25]

yes, but>>>

if a visa is issued, and paid for it should be regarded as a contract. rules shouldn't be changed in the middle of the game.

[Anti Federalist]

LOL @ arguing about the right of a nation/state with a bunch of anarchists.

Well, I figured I'd throw it out there...funny when you think about it, because I "identify" as an anarchist myself.

In that I believe that the time will come where people will be able to live without rulers.

We are far from that point.

[Anti Federalist]

yes, but>>>

if a visa is issued, and paid for it should be regarded as a contract. rules shouldn't be changed in the middle of the game.

Yes, this, very much true.

[timosman]

yes, but>>>

if a visa is issued, and paid for it should be regarded as a contract. rules shouldn't be changed in the middle of the game.

LOL :cool: You have no idea what you are talking about. The entry to the country was always a subject to the final approval of the border immigration officials.

[LibertyEagle]

I hate the term "nation state". Isn't that a UN construct?

[UWDude]

Basically, this question is asking if nations should exist. The answer is yes. A borderless planet, with no laws, no government, is utopian fantasy. Nothing less.

[Superfluous Man]

A state doesn't have any rights at all.

A state is wrong the moment it exists.

[Superfluous Man]

Brother, I don't even think I have 51% on my side, but I've no inclination of throwing my hands up and letting the rest through the gates.

You have no right to stop them.

[UWDude]

A state doesn't have any rights at all.

A state is wrong the moment it exists.

There will always be a government. There will never be a utopia of people undivided. People are animals, and tribal by nature.

[Superfluous Man]

Basically, this question is asking if nations should exist. The answer is yes. A borderless planet, with no laws, no government, is utopian fantasy. Nothing less.

So if you don't limit immigration, that means there are no nations, no borders, no laws, and no government?

How do people manage to think this way? There is just no logic to that train of thought.

[Superfluous Man]

There will always be a government. There will never be a utopia of people undivided. People are animals, and tribal by nature.

In the post you quoted I didn't even use the word government.

[timosman]

A state doesn't have any rights at all.

A state is wrong the moment it exists.

GTFO :cool:

[LibertyEagle]

You have no right to stop them.

Wrong.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5wZjdEl9F8

[Superfluous Man]

Well, I figured I'd throw it out there...funny when you think about it, because I "identify" as an anarchist myself.

In that I believe that the time will come where people will be able to live without rulers.

We are far from that point.

I agree that we are far from that point. And I am not optimistic that it will ever arrive.

But that doesn't change the laws of right and wrong.

The poll question is a question of ought, not is.

[Superfluous Man]

GTFO :cool:

Too libertarian for you?

[LibertyEagle]

In the post you quoted I didn't even use the word government.

You didn't need to. It's obvious you are in anarchy la la land.


Too libertarian for you?

What you are advocating isn't libertarian at all.

[timosman]

How do people manage to think this way? There is just no logic to that train of though.

Finally something I can agree with you upon. :cool:

[Superfluous Man]

You didn't need to. It's obvious you are in anarchy la la land.

That doesn't mean no government.

[UWDude]

In the post you quoted I didn't even use the word government.

state and government are synonymous. You can not have an area of political control without a structure of political control.


In that I believe that the time will come where people will be able to live without rulers.

Highly unlikely. People want to be ruled. They crave rulers. Freedom is too damn hard. And many people absolutely need rulers, they are simply too incompetent to do things on their own. I myself was employed most of my life by someone else. If you are employed, you have a ruler, because you cannot do the business yourself.

[Superfluous Man]

state and government are synonymous.

No they aren't.

I oppose the institution of the state. I don't oppose government. Government exists wherever any group of more than one person interact with each other. The state is a group of people who rules over another group of people without their consent through threats of violence.

[UWDude]

No they aren't.

I oppose the institution of the state. I don't oppose government. Government exists wherever any group of more than one person interact with each other. The state is a group of people who rules over another group of people without their consent through threats of violence.

Yeah, let me know when you are finished with your own personal dictionary.

[Superfluous Man]

Yeah, let me know when you are finished with your own personal dictionary.

You can't have been here since 2010 and not seen the distinction between state and government raised yet.

It's not my own personal dictionary. I'm using the distinction I learned from A. J. Nock's, Our Enemy, the State. You should read it.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

It's the wrong question to ask. There is only one right: the right of might. A state has a right to do whatever it wants, as long as it maintains the monopoly on force within its borders. There is no actual limit on the sovereign.

The real question is, does a state have the power to limit immigration. And the truth is, we don't know and we won't know until the state tries to do it. A government can lose powers through lack of use. A power that hasn't been used in a long time might, in reality, no longer be usable.

[UWDude]

You can't have been here since 2009 and not seen the distinction between state and government raised yet.

It's not my own personal dictionary. I'm using the distinction I learned from A. J. Nock's, Our Enemy, the State. You should read it.

I have tended to avoid the philosophical discussions on these boards about anarcho-capitalism vs minarchism vs voluntarism and all that mumbo jumbo. every single one is based on the idea of some kind of utopia flowering from everyone's own personal idea of a greater future. Worse, instead of thinking for themselves, they read books on other people's thoughts, and suggest them to each other, to create an air of intellectualism, to further bolster their beliefs that their pet system and philosophy will finally cure the ills of mankind. I am not interested in books of thought and philosophy on governments and political systems.

they talk about what systems "work" and "do not work", without ever defining what "works" means. Come to find out, everybody has different opinions on what is good, and what is bad.

I have simply been on this planet long enough, and interacted with too many people, as well as got a history degree, to believe there is any kind of cure all for the human condition. My early libertarianism was about stopping the drug war mostly. My anti-war feeling arose form empathy for the destroyed. My only guiding principle is reality as I have experienced it.

[Anti Federalist]

I hate the term "nation state". Isn't that a UN construct?

From wiki:

The idea of a nation state was and is associated with the rise of the modern system of states, often called the "Westphalian system" in reference to the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). The balance of power, which characterized that system, depended on its effectiveness upon clearly defined, centrally controlled, independent entities, whether empires or nation states, which recognize each other's sovereignty and territory. The Westphalian system did not create the nation state, but the nation state meets the criteria for its component states (by assuming that there is no disputed territory).

Yeah, it is a clumsy term.

But clearly we are not a "nation" anymore.

[LibertyEagle]

From wiki:

The idea of a nation state was and is associated with the rise of the modern system of states, often called the "Westphalian system" in reference to the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). The balance of power, which characterized that system, depended on its effectiveness upon clearly defined, centrally controlled, independent entities, whether empires or nation states, which recognize each other's sovereignty and territory. The Westphalian system did not create the nation state, but the nation state meets the criteria for its component states (by assuming that there is no disputed territory).

Yeah, it is a clumsy term.

But clearly we are not a "nation" anymore.

I never heard it used to describe sovereign nations, until the UN. I don't choose to further their crap. Our government officials aren't following the Constitution, either, but that doesn't mean I am willing to throw it out.

[Superfluous Man]

they talk about what systems "work" and "do not work", without ever defining what "works" means. Come to find out, everybody has different opinions on what is good, and what is bad.


That is a pet peeve of mine too.

Before worrying about whether or not something works, the more basic moral question of whether it's right or wrong has to be asked.

Since it's morally wrong for one subset of America's population to dictate to all the rest of us who we can and can't welcome onto our own property, that settles the question of the OP.

Fortunately, it also happens to be the case that free markets are economically beneficial. But that practical benefit is secondary to the moral imperative.

[Superfluous Man]

I never heard it used to describe sovereign nations, until the UN. I don't choose to further their crap. Our government officials aren't following the Constitution, either, but that doesn't mean I am willing to throw it out.

But you obviously are willing to throw it out.

[LibertyEagle]

But you obviously are willing to throw it out.

No, that would be you, Rev3; the guy who advocates for world government.

[LibertyEagle]

Open Borders are an Assault on Private Property

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/lew-rockwell/open-borders-assault-private-property/

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I love foreign women. Except when they play head games.



http://www.rhino.com/sites/default/files/headgames.jpg

[UWDude]

Since it's morally wrong for one subset of America's population to dictate to all the rest of us who we can and can't welcome onto our own property, that settles the question of the OP.


So because it is private property, a citizen can welcome anyone there? Rapist sympathizers have a right to allow a rapist to live on his land? Perhaps a pedophile sympathizer can set up a sanctuary on his land for pedophiles who risk going to prison for past crimes.

ISIS just needs to buy up land in the US, and they can have a haven for ISIS members there?

[phill4paul]

By now everyone should know that increasing the size and/or scope of the Federal government in any way always leads to unintended consequences and abuse of power.

[Dangergirl]

A curiosity about America is that we've never had an invasion. The closest we've come was an occupation by the British when we were a colony. Other then that we've never fanthomed an infiltration or invaders on our soil. We've been proud of our freedoms and prosperous way of life that we'd never think anyone would ever argue against our principles. Even when our government had been infiltrated by neocons and corporatists, we the people couldn't imagine the worldwide affect of our leaders actions would rub other nations and nationalities wrong. They would love us if they knew us. They would all embrace our way of life and liberty if they came here.

But the truth of the melting pot is that cultures don't mesh easily. It's only after a couple generations in that traditions fade and assimilation begins. Influxes will throw that off. It may not be a military invasion but a cultural infiltration that we've been too arrogant in our American influence to recognise.

When elements arise within communities that defy Constitutional principles, then we have a right to preserve our communities as much as a forum mod can ban a troll. It's not just radical muslims, we have socialists, corporatists, La Raza, street gangs, organized crime and cartels. America has a problem of tolerating crime as long as it stays in compartmentalized spaces. We view crime as isolated incidents.

We've been in a state of war with certain factions for several years and we can't pretend that we've always been the good guys. There's a time where credentials matter. Where people can be asked to accept a culture of Constitutional conformity inorder for a nation to maintain it's sovereignty.

[nobody's_hero]

By now everyone should know that increasing the size and/or scope of the Federal government in any way always leads to unintended consequences and abuse of power.

Unfortunately, so does letting in hordes of more folks who view the state as a benevolent master, and that seems to be where we are at on this map.

On the one side of me I have open-border libertarians telling me that it is immoral to restrict free movement across borders (philosophically speaking, they are correct). On the other side of me are the globalist elites who are in complete agreement with the libertarians (though for entirely different reasons). And here I am, stuck in the middle, trying to figure out the paradox that libertarian philosophy is translating into a reality that seems to mostly benefit TPTB. Quite the double-edged sword.

As Anti-Federalist mentioned in the opening post, when you look at who really benefits from open-door immigration, it's kind of hard not to feel like libertarians are naively playing backup singer to those who pull the strings, though that is not their intent at all.

I don't think the solution is as easy as building a wall. But I think one day we're going to wake up as many Europeans have and wish there was something that could have been done before it gets to the point that we're shamed or even punished for having the belief that sovereignty means anything.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/03/eu-to-fine-countries-that-refuse-refugee-quota/


The European Commission will impose fines of hundreds of millions of pounds on countries that do not take in refugees.

Jean-Claude Junker is tomorrow expected to unveil plans to impose a penalty of around €250,000 euros per rejected refugee, in a bid to salvage his botched migration quota scheme.

The European Commission is expected to propose on Wednesday that an emergency scheme to distribute 160,000 people around the bloc following the massive influx last summer be put on a permanent footing, with a quota system of allocations that kick in if there is another vast wave of migrants that overwhelms a country.

[Anti Federalist]

Unfortunately, so does letting in hordes of more folks who view the state as a benevolent master, and that seems to be where we are at on this map.

On the one side of me I have open-border libertarians telling me that it is immoral to restrict free movement across borders (philosophically speaking, they are correct). On the other side of me are the globalist elites who are in complete agreement with the libertarians (though for entirely different reasons). And here I am, stuck in the middle, trying to figure out the paradox that libertarian philosophy is translating into a reality that seems to mostly benefit TPTB.

As Anti-Federalist mentioned in the opening post, when you look at who really benefits from open-door immigration, it's kind of hard not to feel like libertarians are naively playing backup singer to those who pull the strings, though that is not their intent at all.

That's where I am as well.

[dean.engelhardt]

I have not read the entire thread, but I voted no. States/Nations/Governments do not have rights, they have laws. People have rights.

I sure this has already been stated numerous times.

[phill4paul]

Unfortunately, so does letting in hordes of more folks who view the state as a benevolent master, and that seems to be where we are at on this map.

On the one side of me I have open-border libertarians telling me that it is immoral to restrict free movement across borders (philosophically speaking, they are correct). On the other side of me are the globalist elites who are in complete agreement with the libertarians (though for entirely different reasons). And here I am, stuck in the middle, trying to figure out the paradox that libertarian philosophy is translating into a reality that seems to mostly benefit TPTB. Quite the double-edged sword.

As Anti-Federalist mentioned in the opening post, when you look at who really benefits from open-door immigration, it's kind of hard not to feel like libertarians are naively playing backup singer to those who pull the strings, though that is not their intent at all.

I don't think the solution is as easy as building a wall. But I think one day we're going to wake up as many Europeans have and wish there was something that could have been done before it gets to the point that we're shamed or even punished for having the belief that sovereignty means anything.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/03/eu-to-fine-countries-that-refuse-refugee-quota/

The Federal government is viewed as a benevolent master because the size and scope was increased and along with it came unintended consequence and abuse of power. The violence inherent in the drug trade and the rise of cartels is a direct result of an increase in size and scope of the Federal government and it's unintended consequences and abuse of power. Everything that has been demanded of it by outraged individuals for cause A or B has ended in a steaming pile of shit. And, I guarantee, asking it to increase it's size and scope WRT immigration control will end in the same. Just my 2 cents, FWIW.

[Anti Federalist]

The Federal government is viewed as a benevolent master because the size and scope was increased and along with it came unintended consequence and abuse of power. The violence inherent in the drug trade and the rise of cartels is a direct result of an increase in size and scope of the Federal government and it's unintended consequences and abuse of power. Everything that has been demanded of it by outraged individuals for cause A or B has ended in a steaming pile of shit. And, I guarantee, asking it to increase it's size and scope WRT immigration control will end in the same. Just my 2 cents, FWIW.

Nope, can't argue with that, we're in a nine line bind no matter how you cut it.

I don't have any good answers, I just see what is coming.

[phill4paul]

Nope, can't argue with that, we're in a nine line bind no matter how you cut it.

I don't have any good answers, I just see what is coming.

Yeah, I agree it's frustrating and there may not be any good answers, or easy one's, anyway.

[Suzanimal]

Trying to get this all included in one sentence...

Does a nation/state, have the right to restrict, limit or entirely shut down immigration or asylum into the nation/state based on any reason or no reason at all?

Not a real "hot button" issue for me, until now.

When I see who is aligned against this concept, my answer has gone from "meh" to a yes.

I've always leaned open borders, myself. Personally, I believe the immigration issue would sort itself out if we abolished the welfare state, quit bombing other countries, and got rid of restrictions on business so entrepreneurship could thrive once again. And I still try to focus on those things when I'm discussing the issue with folks in the real world because I truly believe those are real solutions.

HOWEVER, I acknowledge the things I would like to see happen probably won't until the state collapses or there's a mass awakening in this country and I don't think either will happen in my lifetime. I'm not a complete idiot.:) Honestly, I'm torn. On the one hand, I completely get the points of folks on here that argue for immigration control but I have hard time reconciling that with my tendency to err on the side of smaller government.

BTW, I voted to ask Danke. Not because I think he has the answers but because I miss him and am looking for a reason to summon him. Maybe I'll stop at Bojangles today and pick up a biscuit to leave on my porch.:)

[nobody's_hero]

Nope, can't argue with that, we're in a nine line bind no matter how you cut it.

I don't have any good answers, I just see what is coming.

I just watch Europe. They're ahead of the USA on the immigration obstacle course and I want to see how they handle the flaming hoops and alligator pits, so I know what to expect.

[presence]

Good Governance

has a a single purpose:

To make individual victims of theft or violence whole by bringing individual perpetrators to justice before their peers.

That's it.

Anything beyond that is not a "right" but a violently enforced edict of entitlement; theft, itself a crime.

Just because the slave state,
stirred by witty profiteering masters,
and held ransom by a myriad of unjust edicts,
has the mere might to act and/or the ill weighed votes of a pitchfork mob
does not mean it; a collective deluded contrivance,
possesses natural rights to the same.

[Origanalist]

Problem, reaction, solution, here we go again. Guess who wins?

[CaptUSA]

The problem with the question is that you ask if a nation has a "right". Obviously no. Nations do not have rights.

However, individuals can group together to use a "nation" to defend their individual rights. If there was a real threat to individual rights from foreign actors, then ostensibly, these people would have a reasonable "right" to prevent those actors from trespassing on their property. If those people banded together to prevent those actors from trespassing on any of their properties, that's an extension of the first right.

However, however... The real question is whether this is even smart. The enemies in this case aren't people, but ideas. And you can't stop ideas from crossing borders no matter how hard you try. The only real impact this type of decision does is to further inflame those ideas.

[Anti Federalist]

I've always leaned open borders, myself. Personally, I believe the immigration issue would sort itself out if we abolished the welfare state, quit bombing other countries, and got rid of restrictions on business so entrepreneurship could thrive once again. And I still try to focus on those things when I'm discussing the issue with folks in the real world because I truly believe those are real solutions.

HOWEVER, I acknowledge the things I would like to see happen probably won't until the state collapses or there's a mass awakening in this country and I don't think either will happen in my lifetime. I'm not a complete idiot.:) Honestly, I'm torn. On the one hand, I completely get the points of folks on here that argue for immigration control but I have hard time reconciling that with my tendency to err on the side of smaller government.

BTW, I voted to ask Danke. Not because I think he has the answers but because I miss him and am looking for a reason to summon him. Maybe I'll stop at Bojangles today and pick up a biscuit to leave on my porch.:)

Yes, that's my default setting as well: less government.

The fact of the matter is that we'll end up with much more government, of the worst sort, as the tensions of competing immigrant and refugee groups, bringing their own wars and sectarian violence, in addition to the justified hatred they have for us to begin with since we're the reason they are in this mess, if this is not brought under control.

The law and order crowd, along with the celebrate diversity crowd, will align themselves to petition for even more enforcement and heavy handed policing to "stop the carnage".

Result: more cops, more laws, more surveillance, more police state.

[Anti Federalist]

Yes, I realize that, and that is how I worded the question initially, but it was just too clumsy.




The problem with the question is that you ask if a nation has a "right". Obviously no. Nations do not have rights.

However, individuals can group together to use a "nation" to defend their individual rights. If there was a real threat to individual rights from foreign actors, then ostensibly, these people would have a reasonable "right" to prevent those actors from trespassing on their property. If those people banded together to prevent those actors from trespassing on any of their properties, that's an extension of the first right.

However, however... The real question is whether this is even smart. The enemies in this case aren't people, but ideas. And you can't stop ideas from crossing borders no matter how hard you try. The only real impact this type of decision does is to further inflame those ideas.

[tod evans]

Yes, that's my default setting as well: less government.

The fact of the matter is that we'll end up with much more government, of the worst sort, as the tensions of competing immigrant and refugee groups, bringing their own wars and sectarian violence, in addition to the justified hatred they have for us to begin with since we're the reason they are in this mess, if this is not brought under control.

The law and order crowd, along with the celebrate diversity crowd, will align themselves to petition for even more enforcement and heavy handed policing to "stop the carnage".

Result: more cops, more laws, more surveillance, more police state.

See how great America can be?

[Origanalist]

See how great America can be?

The greatest, you've never seen this much greatness.

[nobody's_hero]

The Federal government is viewed as a benevolent master because the size and scope was increased and along with it came unintended consequence and abuse of power. The violence inherent in the drug trade and the rise of cartels is a direct result of an increase in size and scope of the Federal government and it's unintended consequences and abuse of power. Everything that has been demanded of it by outraged individuals for cause A or B has ended in a steaming pile of $#@!. And, I guarantee, asking it to increase it's size and scope WRT immigration control will end in the same. Just my 2 cents, FWIW.

I certainly agree with it being a problem before immigration came into the picture, I'm just at a loss for how more immigration alleviates the issue. As state earlier, I'm torn between the evil of growing the state and the evil of doing nothing while socialists wave more of their friends through the border. Maybe the latter isn't 'evil' because 'doing nothing' in this case includes 'not initiating force', but the outcome is the same. The state will grow, with or without my help. And yet, it's kind of hard for me to just dust my hands off and say, at least I didn't do anything wrong. :(

It's like I'm in a life boat trying to steer away from a sinking ship and flaming oil on the surface of the water. There's room for 21, we're at capacity, and about half the folks in this boat want to go away from the sinking ship and flames of death, and half want to steer back to the fire (God doesn't even know why). In the water are countless numbers of survivors, at least for the moment. I know it's risky to take on more at the moment, and have reservations, and don't think it's particularly wise to do so. Half the folks in the boat want to pull as many survivors out of the water as possible because they believe they can convince them to help steer the vessel back into the fire. And to top it off, the 21st person in our midst is a libertarian saying we have no right to deny people entry into our life boat, lol. (And yes it would have been much better if we'd taken better care of our ship to start with so that there would have been no need for lifeboats, but nonetheless, this is the situation we find ourselves in)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Jan2017]

Entry into a sovereign nation-state for even travel let alone immigration and full permanent resident status
is not any fundamental right or constitutional right imho -
I'd regard it rather as a privilege but probably with some treaty reciprocity and restrictions though.

[presence]

Entry into a sovereign nation-state for even travel let alone immigration and full permanent resident status
is not any fundamental right or constitutional right imho -
I'd regard it rather as a privilege but probably with some treaty reciprocity and restrictions though.

so what you're saying is


pitchfork might and ill conceived perceived authority of the collective > natural rights of individuals


seems like 666 to me

[Jan2017]

so what you're saying is


pitchfork might and ill conceived perceived authority of the collective > natural rights of individuals


seems like 666 to me

Nah . . . not saying that at all.
There are definitely some "fundamental rights" (aside from the constitutional rights) that courts will protect from getting trounced by the State.

There actually is a recognized fundamental right to "interstate travel" btw, fwiw - probably derived from "life, liberty. and property" protection.
But a nation-state's sovereign border is kinda the line.

[presence]

There are definitely some "fundamental rights"
[]
There actually is a recognized fundamental right to "interstate travel" btw,
fwiw - probably derived from "life, liberty. and property" protection.
But a nation-state's sovereign border is kinda the line.

5592

[Brian4Liberty]

Unfortunately, so does letting in hordes of more folks who view the state as a benevolent master, and that seems to be where we are at on this map.

On the one side of me I have open-border libertarians telling me that it is immoral to restrict free movement across borders (philosophically speaking, they are correct). On the other side of me are the globalist elites who are in complete agreement with the libertarians (though for entirely different reasons).
...

Dig deep enough, and you will generally find a self-serving, hidden agenda.

As one example, La Raza does not want "freedom of travel" and mass immigration for the benefit of cheap labor seeking establishment. Even though they may cite freedom as their reason, their agenda isn't terribly hidden, but it is specifically meant to benefit them, to the detriment of others. A self-serving agenda, that is not really about "freedom".

[CaptUSA]

Nah . . . not saying that at all.
There are definitely some "fundamental rights" (aside from the constitutional rights) that courts will protect from getting trounced by the State.

There actually is a recognized fundamental right to "interstate travel" btw, fwiw - probably derived from "life, liberty. and property" protection.
But a nation-state's sovereign border is kinda the line.

Lol, where do you come up with this stuff?!

[Jan2017]

Lol, where do you come up with this stuff?!US case law . . . I think it was a Texas case in federal court for one that specifically mentioned the "right to interstate travel".
I'll try to get the citation fer ya' . . . and the judges name and all even if ya' give me 24 hours.

First . . . there are some fundamental rights apart from constitutional rights recognized in courts . . .
"Courts will apply "compelling state interest" standard to test statutory enactment and regulations which interferes
with fundamental or basic rights, even though such rights are not expressly or specifically enumerated in the Constitution"
Keker v. Procunier 398 FSupp 756 (E.D. Cal. 1975)

[jllundqu]

Your question can get bigger and bigger the more I think about it. I answered Yes. A nation is not a nation without borders. That being said, in a purist sense, borders are imaginary lines created by 'the state' and a person wishing to cross said line is not harming anyone, per se. The minarchist in me still clings to the idea that we are still a nation state with borders and the current state of affairs in geopolitics has led me to believe that we better damn well control who comes in this country... maybe in a thousand years when anarchists and purist libertarians can live in an open border world, I might change my mind... but for now? Fuck yes we should control the borders.

[presence]

a person wishing to cross said line is not harming anyone, per se

I think u confused per quod / per se ?

[jllundqu]

I think u confused per quod / per se ?

Per Haps you are correct.....

[Dr.3D]

I guess it all has to do with the intent of the person who is crossing the border.

[Superfluous Man]

On the one side of me I have open-border libertarians telling me that it is immoral to restrict free movement across borders (philosophically speaking, they are correct).

Given that you acknowledge that, that's all you should need to know.

[Scrapmo]

The debate, to me at least, seems to be a case of idealism vs. pragmatism.
In a perfect world where everyone was educated in liberty philosophy, where everyone not only valued thier own freedom but also valued the freedom of others over their own self intrest, borders would meaningless because of NAP.
But that will never exist, because people, in thier natural state, do not typically give two shits about the rights of others, especially if and when an individual or group of individuals can use force to improve their own quality of life.
How long would a free nation, an ideal Libertarian utopia, remain free and ideal if that nation allowed a mass influx of people who did not value those same freedoms, who did not fight and bleed for that autonomy and freedom? My guess would be a generation or two (maybe more if there is no political vehicle to enact change) until it devolved into the same madness infecting most of the worlds nations today.
Ideally im an ancap. Pragmatically I am a minarch.

Philosophy aside, as far as immigration here is concerned, I cant imagine the people coming here hate freedom anymore than your typical red blooded American does. Has anyone tried talking to the average joe about the nature of rights? What is a right and what isnt? They look at you like you just crapped the bed or like your some kind of con man.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Yes, that's my default setting as well: less government.

The fact of the matter is that we'll end up with much more government, of the worst sort, as the tensions of competing immigrant and refugee groups, bringing their own wars and sectarian violence, in addition to the justified hatred they have for us to begin with since we're the reason they are in this mess, if this is not brought under control.

The law and order crowd, along with the celebrate diversity crowd, will align themselves to petition for even more enforcement and heavy handed policing to "stop the carnage".

Result: more cops, more laws, more surveillance, more police state.

The first rule of using a crystal ball is to not let it's forecast drive you to harm liberty, in order to "save liberty".

[P3ter_Griffin]

The debate, to me at least, seems to be a case of idealism vs. pragmatism.
In a perfect world where everyone was educated in liberty philosophy, where everyone not only valued thier own freedom but also valued the freedom of others over their own self intrest, borders would meaningless because of NAP.
But that will never exist, because people, in thier natural state, do not typically give two shits about the rights of others, especially if and when an individual or group of individuals can use force to improve their own quality of life.
How long would a free nation, an ideal Libertarian utopia, remain free and ideal if that nation allowed a mass influx of people who did not value those same freedoms, who did not fight and bleed for that autonomy and freedom? My guess would be a generation or two (maybe more if there is no political vehicle to enact change) until it devolved into the same madness infecting most of the worlds nations today.
Ideally im an ancap. Pragmatically I am a minarch.

Philosophy aside, as far as immigration here is concerned, I cant imagine the people coming here hate freedom anymore than your typical red blooded American does. Has anyone tried talking to the average joe about the nature of rights? What is a right and what isnt? They look at you like you just crapped the bed or like your some kind of con man.

How are these mass influx of people providing for themselves? Where did they move to? Why did they move there? Is immigration a group or an individual process? What is the difference between a baby being born within a nation and a immigrant moving to a nation? Ought we have reproduction restrictions until a time that the NAP is widely excepted and everyone a libertarian philosopher?

[Scrapmo]

How are these mass influx of people providing for themselves? Where did they move to? Why did they move there? Is immigration a group or an individual process? What is the difference between a baby being born within a nation and a immigrant moving to a nation? Ought we have reproduction restrictions until a time that the NAP is widely excepted and everyone a libertarian philosopher?

All good questions, all different answers depending on the nation, individuals, groups etc.

And no to the last. It's amazing how we leap from not wanting a borderless nation straight into eugenics.

I can also get lost in these discussions as to whether we are discussing what is or what ought. On that same note I already stated the idealist is for open borders, the idealist in me is for all kinds of things that are never going to happen.

[P3ter_Griffin]

All good questions, all different answers depending on the nation, individuals, groups etc.

And no to the last. It's amazing how we leap from not wanting a borderless nation straight into eugenics.

I can also get lost in these discussions as to whether we are discussing what is or what ought. On that same note I already stated the idealist is for open borders, the idealist in me is for all kinds of things that are never going to happen.

I don't seek to be hyperbolic in the statement. I think the parallels are similar, meaning a principled person okay with one I do not think can oppose the other (while remaining principled). I think that is because at its root, whether we are talking about reproduction restrictions or immigration restrictions, it is giving the power to the state to control the population. If you can show me its not an apt comparison then I won't use it.

There are paths that even if not perfect would guide us in a much better direction. For instance, it would be better to have government control who gets the socialism then to control the population. You do not have to be an idealist to recognize that.

[oyarde]

I see my vote gets to 4.4 % . Reminds me of this guy I used to vote for who ran for President .

[Scrapmo]

There are paths that even if not perfect would guide us in a much better direction. For instance, it would be better to have government control who gets the socialism then to control the population. You do not have to be an idealist to recognize that.

Would you mind fleshing out this some more? What do you mean by "gets the socialism"? I think it would be helpful to see what the "better paths" would look like in an open border nation. I haven't seen anyone offer a tangible alternative and I would like to have a better understanding. You make some fair points.

[Contumacious]

Would you mind fleshing out this some more? What do you mean by "gets the socialism"? I think it would be helpful to see what the "better paths" would look like in an open border nation. I haven't seen anyone offer a tangible alternative and I would like to have a better understanding. You make some fair points.

We had open borders fro 1798 until 1889.

.For three years from 1789-1800 we had an immigration law but it was allowed to expire after James Madison (the author of the Constitution) and Thomas Jefferson opposed the same because


THE STATES RETAINED THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE IMMIGRATION - THE AUTHORITY TO INTERDICT AND DEPORT WAS NEVER GRANTED TO FEDGOV.


.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Would you mind fleshing out this some more? What do you mean by "gets the socialism"? I think it would be helpful to see what the "better paths" would look like in an open border nation. I haven't seen anyone offer a tangible alternative and I would like to have a better understanding. You make some fair points.

Understand that 'perfect' is the absence of forced socialism.

What I'm saying is that, if it is in fact 'idealistic' to think that we can ever shed socialism, as many who support giving the government control over immigration say is their reasoning for not supporting open borders, a better path than advocating that government should control immigration is advocating that government should control who gets the socialism- meaning preventing immigrants from having access to public dollars. That could be done by, just for an example, making any citizen who wants to use public dollars having some sort of identification proving that they are in fact citizens. Its not perfect. Its not the abolition of socialism. But better than giving government control over the population.

[Scrapmo]

Understand that 'perfect' is the absence of forced socialism.

What I'm saying is that, if it is in fact 'idealistic' to think that we can ever shed socialism, as many who support giving the government control over immigration say is their reasoning for not supporting open borders, a better path than advocating that government should control immigration is advocating that government should control who gets the socialism- meaning preventing immigrants from having access to public dollars. That could be done by, just for an example, making any citizen who wants to use public dollars having some sort of identification proving that they are in fact citizens. Its not perfect. Its not the abolition of socialism. But better than giving government control over the population.

Thanks for fleshing that out. I think Ron Paul said something similar during one of the debates.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Thanks for fleshing that out. I think Ron Paul said something similar during one of the debates.

Indeed. Hot off the presses:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?507027-A-Better-Solution-Than-Trump%92s-Border-Wall

[LibertyRevolution]

Open border libertarians really bother me. We are a sovereign nation, that cannot exist without borders, deal with it.

[UWDude]

Problem, reaction, solution, here we go again. Guess who wins?

again. they win with border restriction, or open borders. Because they have the power. because they win. Winners make the rules. Thems the real rules. Welcome to reality.

[otherone]

There are paths that even if not perfect would guide us in a much better direction. For instance, it would be better to have government control who gets the socialism then to control the population. You do not have to be an idealist to recognize that.

In a republic, it would be left to the states. As it was intended. The march to centralization while bleating "democracy", is disturbing.

[Feeding the Abscess]

The government can't competently deliver mail. The DHS has done much worse than incompetently deliver goods; it's caused anguish, ruined lives, and even killed. I'm really not gung-ho for the idea of giving that bunch of goons more power.

Even if you are a true believer in Trump, and honestly think he or his administration or the army of bureaucrats under his employ wouldn't exceed, alter, or disregard the boundaries of his plans, the next president and their administration may feel very differently.

[P3ter_Griffin]

In a republic, it would be left to the states. As it was intended. The march to centralization while bleating "democracy", is disturbing.

I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. I do agree that it was intended for the states to control immigration. As it was said at the WI constitutional convention: ~'It is the role of the federal government to prescribe citizenship, and for the states to prescribe property rights'. I'd be saying the same thing though as you quoted if we were talking about individual states: that if someone is so offended by immigrants receiving welfare that they'd like their state to control immigration, a more liberty oriented approach would be to limit the immigrants access to welfare. Because, even though it was said at the WI constitutional convention, and I think you'll agree with me here, states should not prescribe property rights (who can have them, and so on). The only legitimate cause a government may have is to defend property rights.

[Pericles]

Grabbing someone, forcing him in a van, driving him to another country, and kicking him out =/= kidnapping?

Shall we just be permitted to do this to one another at will?

Someone does this to you, taking you back to...England, Ireland, Germany, Poland...wherever you're from...

Cool? No crime there? No objections?

I'll just set up my tent in your backyard while we discuss the matter. It will be much more convenient for me.

[MallsRGood]

I'll just set up my tent in your backyard while we discuss the matter. It will be much more convenient for me.

I own my backyard, hence I have the right to exclude you from it.

The state doesn't own my backyard, hence it doesn't have the right to exclude my gardner Jose from it.

See the difference?

[timosman]

I own my backyard, hence I have the right to exclude you from it.

The state doesn't own my backyard, hence it doesn't have the right to exclude my gardner Jose from it.

See the difference?

Here we go again. Such a clever argument has never been made on this forum.:rolleyes:

[MallsRGood]

Here we go again. Such a clever argument has never been made on this forum.:rolleyes:

So you agree with Pericles that the state owns all land in the country?

[otherone]

Here we go again. Such a clever argument has never been made on this forum.:rolleyes:

Either one believes in private property rights or one believes in collective property rights.

[Zippyjuan]

Either one believes in private property rights or one believes in collective property rights.

Can there be both? Private lands and community lands? Like farms which belong to private owners and a commons area everybody can freely use -which basically everybody and nobody owns?

[pcosmar]

No

States have no rights.

Human beings have rights.

[Zippyjuan]

All rights are created by people.

[otherone]

Can there be both? Private lands and community lands? Like farms which belong to private owners and a commons area everybody can freely use -which basically everybody and nobody owns?

common land does not give a collective rights.

[Superfluous Man]

Here we go again. Such a clever argument has never been made on this forum.:rolleyes:

You're right. That argument has been made a lot.

But no counterargument has ever been presented. Can you come up with one?

Or just more emojis?

[otherone]

You're right. That argument has been made a lot.

But no counterargument has ever been presented. Can you come up with one?

Or just more emojis?

The most compelling argument put forth thus far has been calling those who believe in freedom "dumbasses".

[pcosmar]

All rights are created by people.

Wrong.

Human beings are endowed with rights.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[otherone]

All rights are created by people.

Rights come from the axiom of self-ownership.

[Zippyjuan]

Wrong.

Human beings are endowed with rights.

What rights are endowed? What is the source of this endowment? Where are they listed? Yes, the Declaration of Independence claimed that men were "endowed with certain inalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" but men wrote that- and it didn't apply to everybody (it didn't apply to women or slaves or natives).

Your having rights depends on others agreeing you have them. You can be denied life if somebody decides to kill you. You can be denied your right to property if somebody takes it from you. You can be denied the right to liberty if you are kidnapped or thrown in jail.

[Ender]

What rights are endowed? What is the source of this endowment? Where are they listed? Yes, the Declaration of Independence claimed that men were "endowed with certain inalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" but men wrote that- and it didn't apply to everybody (it didn't apply to women or slaves or natives).

Your having rights depends on others agreeing you have them. You can be denied life if somebody decides to kill you. You can be denied your right to property if somebody takes it from you. You can be denied the right to liberty if you are kidnapped or thrown in jail.

You are endowed these rights by God, Zip; yes others can take them away, but they are still inherent rights given to ALL mankind.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Your having rights depends on others agreeing you have them. You can be denied life if somebody decides to kill you. You can be denied your right to property if somebody takes it from you. You can be denied the right to liberty if you are kidnapped or thrown in jail.


Someone taking your right is not the same as possessing that right. Someone can steal your watch, but you still have a right to the watch.

[Superfluous Man]

Your having rights depends on others agreeing you have them. You can be denied life if somebody decides to kill you. You can be denied your right to property if somebody takes it from you. You can be denied the right to liberty if you are kidnapped or thrown in jail.

That's true. All those things can happen.

But the question is, would those people be morally wrong to do those things. If the answer is yes, then moral right and wrong exists independently of anyone's agreement with it.

[Zippyjuan]

Which rights? Are they in the Bible? The Torrah? How do we know we are supposed to have certain rights?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Which rights? Are they in the Bible? The Torrah? How do we know we are supposed to have certain rights?


Substitute ZippyJuan.

[Superfluous Man]

Which rights? Are they in the Bible? The Torrah? How do we know we are supposed to have certain rights?

Yes, they are in the Bible.

But that doesn't really matter. We would be able to know them even without the Bible through natural law.

[MallsRGood]

Your having rights depends on others agreeing you have them. You can be denied life if somebody decides to kill you. You can be denied your right to property if somebody takes it from you. You can be denied the right to liberty if you are kidnapped or thrown in jail.

Well sure.

The state can do whatever it likes to you.

The question is whether it should do those things to you.

Can the state act as if it owns your property and fine you for employing Jose the gardner? Sure.

Should it? No.

[Zippyjuan]

Yes, they are in the Bible.

But that doesn't really matter. We would be able to know them even without the Bible through natural law.

Through men agreeing what rights men should have.

[timosman]

So you agree with Pericles that the state owns all land in the country?

It doesn't? Try not paying your property tax for 5 years.

[pcosmar]

Your having rights depends on others agreeing you have them.

Having my rights removed depends upon others infringing on my rights.

Rights are God Given,, Man has no righteous say in the matter.

[Ender]

Which rights? Are they in the Bible? The Torrah? How do we know we are supposed to have certain rights?

2nd Great Commandment- straight fro the mouth of Jesus:

LOVE YOUR BROTHER AS YOURSELF.

[Superfluous Man]

Through men agreeing what rights men should have.

No. Morality doesn't depend on people agreeing with it.

[Superfluous Man]

It doesn't? Try not paying your property tax for 5 years.

The difference between you and us Ron Paul supporters is that we don't see property taxes as the hallmark of good law.

[Zippyjuan]

Having my rights removed depends upon others infringing on my rights.

Rights are God Given,, Man has no righteous say in the matter.

Then no man can take the right from you. But if I can take your property, you don't have a God given right to it.

[Zippyjuan]

2nd Great Commandment- straight fro the mouth of Jesus:

LOVE YOUR BROTHER AS YOURSELF.

That is a Commandment- not a right. (and wasn't that God the Father through Moses- not Jesus?)

[pcosmar]

Through men agreeing what rights men should have.

No Zippy.. (misinformed as usual)

Our Constitution codifies certain rights (while recognizing them as only a portion),, and was intended to protect those rights from ANY infringement.
Most especially,, by the Government.

It does not confer rights, only recognizes their existence.

[MallsRGood]

It doesn't? Try not paying your property tax for 5 years.

...echoing my last post to Zippy.

If you're claiming that the state can violate my property rights, well of course it can.

The question is whether it should.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

But if I can take your property, you don't have a God given right to it.


Sure he does. You just prevented him from exercising that right.

Real Zip would not argue this poorly. What did you do with him?

[pcosmar]

Then no man can take the right from you. But if I can take your property, you don't have a God given right to it.

Come and take it. We will see.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

ZippyJuan tonight sounds like a younger intern, not the mid-fifties Zip.

[Superfluous Man]

Then no man can take the right from you. But if I can take your property, you don't have a God given right to it.

The fact that the moral law derives from God doesn't mean that it is impossible to commit wrongs. It just means that you're wrong when you do.

But if the moral law doesn't derive from God, there's no such thing as anything anyone ever does actually being wrong.

[pcosmar]

Real Zip would not argue this poorly. What did you do with him?

I think there have been several,, some keep up better than others.

[Zippyjuan]

No. Morality doesn't depend on people agreeing with it.

But there isn't a universal morality. Different religions have different moral principles. Which one should we use? Some say love your enemies. Some say kill them. Some say you should not have personal property. Others say it is fine. Some say killing anything is wrong. Some demand killing to please the gods. Some say one wife. Some say you can or should have many wives. Even within the Bible morality changed from the Old to the New Testament. Abraham was told to kill (sacrifice) his own son by God (yes as a challenge to his faith). God told Moses "thou shalt not kill". "An eye for an eye" became "turn the other cheek".

[Superfluous Man]

But there isn't a universal morality. Different religions have different moral principles. Which one should we use? Some say love your enemies. Some say kill them. Some say you should not have personal property. Others say it is fine. Some say killing anything is wrong. Some demand killing to please the gods. Some say one wife. Some say you can or should have many wives.

You're arguments don't support your conclusion.

There is universal morality, and you know this innately. Everyone does.

But that doesn't mean that everyone will always agree on every point of the universal moral law, just like people disagree about what is entailed by the laws of logic, math, or the physical sciences.

We should be open to correction in our apprehension of morality, and as we learn more to change our views to accord with that learning.

[Zippyjuan]

You're arguments don't support your conclusion.

There is universal morality, and you know this innately. Everyone does.

But that doesn't mean that everyone will always agree on every point of the universal moral law, just like people disagree about what is entailed by the laws of logic, math, or the physical sciences.

We should be open to correction in our apprehension of morality, and as we learn more to change our views to accord with that learning.


Exactly. Man decides. If it came from God and was irrefutable, all men would agree on it.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I think there have been several,, some keep up better than others.



Yeah, the guy who posts in the NFL thread is the original Zip. Very different style of writing than some of these other posts.

[pcosmar]

But there isn't a universal morality. Different religions have different moral principles. Which one should we use? Some say love your enemies. Some say kill them. Some say you should not have personal property. Others say it is fine. Some say killing anything is wrong. Some demand killing to please the gods. Some say one wife. Some say you can or should have many wives. Even within the Bible morality changed from the Old to the New Testament. Abraham was told to kill (sacrifice) his own son by God (yes as a challenge to his faith). God told Moses "thou shalt not kill".

Flaunting your own ignorance. are ya proud of it?

There is a difference between morality and given rules.

Some have no morality, just rules.
Some have no rules, just morality.

[Superfluous Man]

Exactly. Man decides. If it came from God and was irrefutable, all men would agree on it.

How in the world do you think your conclusion logically follows from that?

In fact, moral law does come from God, and all men do not agree on it. And both of those facts are fully compatible with one another.

[Zippyjuan]

Morality is a list of rules. Men get together and write those rules. And they get together and decide what rights they should have among themselves too.

[pcosmar]

Exactly. Man decides. If it came from God and was irrefutable, all men would agree on it.

NO,,
They would not.

Man has a very long history of opposing God. and following His enemy.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

This Zip would be radical atheist Zip. LOL

[pcosmar]

Morality is a list of rules.

No it is not.

Do you really want people to think you that dim? Why type that?

or are you that damn clueless?

[Zippyjuan]

So nobody has yet come up with a list of these "universal God given rights" and a source I can look at them? Other than "everybody knows"?

[Zippyjuan]

Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
Morality is a list of rules.

No it is not.

Do you really want people to think you that dim? Why type that?

or are you that damn clueless?

How would you define morality? Rules to abide by, right? Love thy neighbor. Don't steal. Don't cheat. Don't kill. Go to Church. Don't drink. Isn't that how you know what is moral? A list of rules you should follow?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

This ZippyJuan is an imposter!


https://www.gardenamerica.com/store/imageuploads/imposter%20racoon.jpg

[pcosmar]

This Zip would be radical atheist Zip. LOL

Denying the existence of gravity is stupid too. Has consequences.

But to be so sure of ones own ignorance... it boggles

[pcosmar]

How would you define morality? Rules to abide by, right? Love thy neighbor. Don't steal. Don't cheat. Don't kill.

Again,, rules only codify what is known.

It is wrong to murder.. This is natural law..known to all.
It is wrong to steal.
It is wrong to lie.

It is the difference between right and wrong.,,and knowing that difference. That is morality.

Laws should reflect the morality they are based upon.. but they do not alter

[Ender]

That is a Commandment- not a right. (and wasn't that God the Father through Moses- not Jesus?)

From Jesus, Dude.

And when you love your brother as yourself, you do not interfere with others rights.

We have all been given free agency to live and discover as we choose and grow. Some of us make stupid choices, some do not. But that's our right.

[Zippyjuan]

Again,, rules only codify what is known.

It is wrong to murder.. This is natural law..known to all.
It is wrong to steal.
It is wrong to lie.

It is the difference between right and wrong.,,and knowing that difference. That is morality.

Laws should reflect the morality they are based upon.. but they do not alter

Known because they were written down as being wrong. In the Bible and on the tablets given to Moses.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

There's an entire set of rules here, Intern Zip: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989


You might think about following them after 9 years. Here is one for starters:


3) Support our Mission.

• No promoting agendas that counter our Mission.

[pcosmar]

From Jesus, Dude.

And when you love your brother as yourself, you do not interfere with others rights.

We have all been given free agency to live and discover as we choose and grow. Some of us make stupid choices, some do not. But that's are our right.

I just realized the problem.
Some of us know this because we are free.. some here are not.

I'm not really sure they can even grasp the concept of morality. I was pretty shaky on that,, as my history proves.

[Zippyjuan]

From Jesus, Dude.

And when you love your brother as yourself, you do not interfere with others rights.

We have all been given free agency to live and discover as we choose and grow. Some of us make stupid choices, some do not. But that's are our right.

So freedom to choose. That seems to be the one true right. We may not always like the options presented, or always make the best choice, but always have the right to choose. The other things we sometimes think of as rights- are given by man and can be taken away by man but we always have choice.

[pcosmar]

Known because they were written down as being wrong. In the Bible and on the tablets given to Moses.

Known because they are written within us.
Encoded in DNA. Part of us..

I knew I was wrong when I stole.. I did it anyway. it was immoral,,, aside from being illegal.
The law should follow morality. Often it does not.

Very often Laws are immoral..

so it is not law that creates morality.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So freedom to choose. That seems to be the one true right. We may not always like the options presented, or always make the best choice, but always have the right to choose.


Guess you didn't get the memo that told you people not to discuss these topics.

[pcosmar]

Known because they were written down as being wrong. In the Bible and on the tablets given to Moses.

It was known, before it was written on tablets.

and in other distinctly different places others codified the same things..
Murder, Theft and Dishonesty are universally known to be wrong,, except to a small percentage of psychopaths.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Government is the liberal's god. The liberal worships government. Everyone needs a higher purpose. The law of first causes for the liberal stops with government.

Some people say "I need God more in my life." The liberal says he needs more government:



Why We Need More, Not Less, Government

Increased government efforts could do much more to improve our lives in significant ways.

In the face of increasing threats to our wellbeing and the inability of the market or individual efforts to effectively address them, we need to expand public sector programs.


http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=8

[Zippyjuan]

So freedom to choose. That seems to be the one true right we have. We may not always like the options presented, or always make the best choice, but always have the right to choose. The other things we sometimes think of as rights- are given by man and can be taken away by man but we always have choice. That is our God given right.

Cheezy bumping of my own post.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Cheezy bumping of my own post.



You get paid by the post now? :confused:

[timosman]

...echoing my last post to Zippy.

If you're claiming that the state can violate my property rights, well of course it can.

The question is whether it should.

My question to you my friend would be: there are so many beautiful properties on the internets where you could troll. Who do you choose to troll here?

[MallsRGood]

My question to you my friend would be: there are so many beautiful properties on the internets where you could troll. Who do you choose to troll here?

You're obviously the one trolling, but that's some good troll reverse psychology voodoo you got there.

And I don't mind, by the way, troll on; it's mildly amusing.

[timosman]

You're obviously the one trolling, but that's some good troll reverse psychology voodoo you got there.

And I don't mind, by the way, troll on; it's mildly amusing.

I call it a graceful exit. Nicely done. :cool: