Hmmmm ... I guess it depends on what areas of live in marxist crap they are ...Originally Posted by Danke
Does a nation have the right to deny entry to people/groups? Yes or No?
So why add more of them? Do you not see how you would benefit from reducing immigration?The premise of this thread (see OP) is that immigrants won't be receiving any welfare benefits of any kind.
My nation is already filled to the brim with such people.
You and your fellow Trump voters, for instance.
More over what would do to you?
We would decrease the tax burden you face, remove people who vote against you, who will limit your rights, I mean if anything you should be thanking us. You are welcome by the way.
No, since a nation has no rights at all. Only individuals have rights.
How about answering my question?
Q. Does property ownership entail the right to decide who can or cannot enter that property?
Thank you for proving my point that open border supporters are insane and have to mocked out of public life and public office
Well since a nation has no rights, it has not right to defend itself, so your property will be taken away by some invading army and the issue is moot.
That makes no sense.
When the state restricts immigration, it is violating private property rights.
When the state deters/defeats foreign attack, it is defending private property rights.
Do you believe that the act of immigrating itself cannot be invasive in nature, as presented in The Camp of the Saints ? Particularly when said immigrants (through no fault of their own, its eminently important to add) receive benefit at the coerced expense of private property.
What is immigration? I suppose I think of it as a thing that occurs when a human being crosses an arbitrary national border in order to settle on the other side of said border.
Also, in our earlier exchange I was just rolling with your analogy. It is an interesting question to me: Is a person responsible for the actions of their guests when those actions affect a third party? I think so, regardless of any legal precedents that might apply. If I invite someone into my house, they then leave my house and enter yours--without your consent--and harm you in any way, I believe I should shoulder some of the responsibility for their actions.
But I've been wrong before.
The premise of the thread is that immigrants receive no welfare benefits, so that's moot.
It is the movement of a person from one place to another.What is immigration?
A movement from place A to place B violates no one's property rights if the owner of B consents.
On the contrary, for a third party to prohibit such a movement violates the property rights of both place B's owner and his guest.
If you'd like to invite your cross-border Canadian neighbor to a BBQ, neither I, nor your other neighbors, nor the state have any right to interfere.
RightI suppose I think of it as a thing that occurs when a human being crosses an arbitrary national border in order to settle on the other side of said border.
In order to prohibit someone from inviting people onto his property, wouldn't there have be some rather compelling evidence that they're a threat?Also, in our earlier exchange I was just rolling with your analogy. It is an interesting question to me: Is a person responsible for the actions of their guests when those actions affect a third party? I think so, regardless of any legal precedents that might apply. If I invite someone into my house, they then leave my house and enter yours--without your consent--and harm you in any way, I believe I should shoulder some of the responsibility for their actions.
But I've been wrong before.
Suppose that Canadians have a marginally higher crime rate than Americans.
Would that be sufficient to justify the state prohibiting you from inviting your cross border pal to your BBQ?
Or, regardless of borders, suppose blacks commit more crimes per capita than whites.
Would that then justify the state prohibiting you from inviting your fellow American (but black) neighbor to your BBQ?
You just said states have no rights, including the right to self defense, air-ago you have no means of defending your property rights from outside threats or even domestic threats. This is the logical outcome of your opinions.
But to cut to the meat of the matter, no limiting immigration is not a violation of anyone`s rights but I guess you have to tell yourself that while ignoring the current effects of mass immigration. 100 Billion a year stolen from us every year to pay the welfare of people who are not meant to be here, and about 50 Billion of legal immigration, have fun paying!
National borders are not arbitrary, they are lines of separation that divide cultures, peoples, nations, and preserve them and their uniqueness. Do not believe me? Cross into Mexico, China, North Korea, etc.
Well we live in the real world, and they get welfare...So what now?
And when it inflects harm or burden onto others?It is the movement of a person from one place to another.
A movement from place A to place B violates no one's property rights if the owner of B consents.
And Jose the MS13 murder, Joe the Jihadist come over and rise all manners of Hell and no one is to blame?If you'd like to invite your cross-border Canadian neighbor to a BBQ, neither I, nor your other neighbors, nor the state have any right to interfere.
Having a non compatible culture/political values is a clear threat.In order to prohibit someone from inviting people onto his property, wouldn't there have be some rather compelling evidence that they're a threat?
Those are Americans, living inside the United States, the fact you can not see a difference between them really does prove that meme true that some LIBs are clearly autistic.Would that be sufficient to justify the state prohibiting you from inviting your cross border pal to your BBQ?
Or, regardless of borders, suppose blacks commit more crimes per capita than whites.
Would that then justify the state prohibiting you from inviting your fellow American (but black) neighbor to your BBQ?
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
You are misunderstanding me. I am saying that no one has a right to prevent you from having guests, but should you choose to and should those guests aggress against someone else, I am saying that you would bear some of the responsibility, regardless of any ignorance you might have had regarding their character or immanency of any threat they might present.
I would draw a pretty high line regarding a third parties right to interfere before the fact. Perhaps a blatant threat coupled with the ability to carry out the threat.
So, you are having a BBQ. You invite a bunch of people. None of those people have made any threats (directed at me) thus cannot have shown an ability to carry them out. I have no right to prevent any of those people from attending your barbeque. You, however, run out of food at the BBQ and your guests decide to break into my house and address the culinary deficit with the contents of my pantry(without your knowledge, counsel, or consent). Should the analogy be presented in this way, I am saying that I believe you should, none-the-less and ignorance withstanding, be culpable for the aggressive actions of your guests-Since, without your BBQ they would not have been there to aggress against me in the first place.
s
I am saying that I believe you should,
none-the-less and ignorance withstanding,
be culpable for the aggressive actions of your guests-
Since, without your BBQ
they would not have been there to aggress against me in the first place.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ComplicityTo be deemed an accomplice, a person must assist in the commission of the crime by "aiding, counseling, commanding or encouraging" the principal in the commission of the criminal offense.
[]
The prosecution must show that the defendant provided assistance, and intended to assist the perpetrator.
I think you're going to have trouble convincing people that by feeding someone before they do something criminal you somehow become an accomplice.
For there to be crime there must be an ACT and an INTENTION.
If you feed someone BBQ knowing they are fueling up to commit a crime... that would constitute an act and intention of complicity.
If you feed someone BBQ and they do something bat$#@! crazy afterwards that you were not expecting... that's not complicity.
the accomplice must act for the purpose of helping or encouraging the principal to commit the crime.
Last edited by presence; 07-26-2016 at 09:01 AM.
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
Agreed, I wrote poorly. I suppose my contention arises from the hyperbolic nature of the original analogy: A person inviting millions of people to a BBQ (assuming it would be impossible to feed 1 million people at a single BBQ). The people that show up to the BBQ have a reasonable expectation to be fed, yes? But since there are a million of them, no BBQ in the world could possibly feed them all. The remaining people, who perhaps counted on that BBQ for their evening meal, remain hungry. In their need they decide to raid the neighbor's pantry. Did not the original host encourage this by inviting a large number of people to a BBQ that he/she had no ability to actually feed (as promised, or at least implied by the invitation)?
Last edited by BV2; 07-26-2016 at 08:53 PM.
You also did not think of people that will prove them BBQ if they vote for them.
I disagree with the principle that a host should be responsible for the behavior of his guests.
But even if we accept that principle for the sake of argument, how would that justify immigration restrictions?
All it would do, it seems to me, is justify prosecutions of landowners who had unwittingly hosted criminals (immigrant or native).
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 07-27-2016 at 10:38 AM.
Because after the fact is all that matters.
Your analogy involved a bbq, not immigration. As a BBQ involves guests who will ostensibly be departing once the meal is finished, perhaps we should seek a different, more accurate, analogy before going further.
Immigration, as is, involves the arbitrary seizure and redistribution of resources. This is not a development achieved by immigrants, though perhaps they take advantage of it. ie they are not responsible for the incentive, but it affects their actions (as regards future valuation) none-the-less.
I believe that a host IS responsible for the actions of his guests--as those actions concern third parties. Just as I believe a property owner is responsible for the functions of his property as concerns third parties. IE- A man that pollutes a stream is liable for the damage said pollution causes those downstream. In the current political atmosphere this is ridiculous, since a vast majority of the laws only involve property rights in-so-far as they allow those rights to be breached.
Such a belief should lead me to accept, as guests and friends, only the highest caliber of people. If many believed as I did, becoming a high caliber person would become more and more valuable, thus leading more people to aspire to such. And yes, I believe I am qualified to decide what constitutes high character.
Heh,heh,heh. That's where the NAP comes in.
Perhaps we should do away with analogy altogether, and speak of only what we mean. (Not that I am against any literary device, indeed I love them like life) But it may be that they are not always appropriate. (Maybe/May be being a favorite term of mine.) It may be. It might exist. Its extantcy could be imminent. Its possible is truism. It may be is nuanced.
Last edited by BV2; 07-28-2016 at 12:34 AM.
Sorry for the double post, but I have no idea what this is means. Do you mean provide in the stead of prove? I will assume that is the case, since its the only likely correction that gives the sentence sense.
I think the foul tyranny of the ballot is an issue on which nearly all the voters agreed. Decentralize power and the ballot loses as much in arbitrary, symbolic, relevance as it gains in demonstrable, actual, affect.
How can you get that system with people importing welfare voters?
Both of which involve a person moving from one piece of private property to another.
The only difference is the crossing of a national border in the course of that movement, which is of no consequence for libertarian ethics.
I'm not sure why it would matter how long a guest stays.As a BBQ involves guests who will ostensibly be departing once the meal is finished, perhaps we should seek a different, more accurate, analogy before going further.
But, in any event, it's not as if an immigrant arriving from Mexico goes to an apartment, rents it, and then never leaves.
He's moving about from one place to another (apartment ->> factory where he works --> grocery where he shops --> etc) like anyone else.
...again, not sure why this matters though.
As I think you know, that's not a problem of immigration per se.Immigration, as is, involves the arbitrary seizure and redistribution of resources. This is not a development achieved by immigrants, though perhaps they take advantage of it. ie they are not responsible for the incentive, but it affects their actions (as regards future valuation) none-the-less.
One could (as the OP is proposing) have free immigration without any redistribution of wealth via the welfare-state.
The issues are conceptually distinct.
This would apply to everyone or just immigrants?I believe that a host IS responsible for the actions of his guests--as those actions concern third parties. Just as I believe a property owner is responsible for the functions of his property as concerns third parties. IE- A man that pollutes a stream is liable for the damage said pollution causes those downstream. In the current political atmosphere this is ridiculous, since a vast majority of the laws only involve property rights in-so-far as they allow those rights to be breached.
Such a belief should lead me to accept, as guests and friends, only the highest caliber of people. If many believed as I did, becoming a high caliber person would become more and more valuable, thus leading more people to aspire to such. And yes, I believe I am qualified to decide what constitutes high character.
If everyone (as would seem to be the only consistent application of your principle), then this doesn't justify any special restrictions on immigrants.
As I said, this would only justify prosecuting landowners who'd invited guests (of whatever nationality) who subsequently harmed 3rd parties.
It would not justify the government preventing your Canadian guest from crossing the border to visit your BBQ.
....at least not without compelling evidence that that specific Canadian posed some kind of threat to third parties.
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 07-28-2016 at 11:53 AM.
No, immigration involves settlement. BBQ involves eating an leaving. Its a bad analogy. I'll address the rest later.
Thank you! Its like comparing a pizza to motor oil, total non sequitur.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us