Why are many libertarians against all government?

[Superfluous Man]

I don't.

But what about public property?

You have no say over any property except your own. If you and other private property owners want to enter a contract of some kind with one another, by unanimous consent, you can do that too. But outside of the property that all of you together actually own, you have no say over where the people you irrationally call "illegal immigrants" go.

You don't like the fact that the rest of us want to be able to hire them to work for us, or rent or sell our property to them, or let them shop in our stores, etc.? Tough.

And if these people want to come homestead on the unowned land that you call "public property," that is as much their right as anyone else's.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

I don't think it's evil for you to have any kind of idea. On the contrary, you are convinced that people with what you consider "evil" ideas should be kept out of our borders so they won't "vote away our liberty."

Yep. Pretty much.

I think it's a really bad idea for the government to do your or my bidding at the expense of anyone.

Why?

Remember, its the peoples bidding. There is a quote from Thomas Jefferson that said that "the people" are usually right.

But it's not evil to have an idea.

Sure. But what if that idea is to harm someone?

[Ron Paul in 2008]

My property is out of your purview.

I guess I agree with that. But I do agree with having a government of the people establishing an immigration policy to ensure that the people who come into the country are not criminals or dangerous enemies. Once the immigrant is screened and let in you are free to have him on your property.

[Superfluous Man]

I guess I agree with that. But I do agree with having a government of the people establishing an immigration policy to ensure that the people who come into the country are not criminals or dangerous enemies. Once the immigrant is screened and let in you are free to have him on your property.

Screened how? By whom? Using whose criteria?

The government shouldn't even have the means to do that. There shouldn't even exist passports or paperwork that would facilitate it. Like Ron Paul (the guy whose name you're using in your handle) says, people ought to be able to cross borders and move freely, get jobs, and live, wherever they want by means of free exchanges with other people, without the government even having any awareness that it's happening.

Even the founders, whose statism and racism you admire so much, wouldn't dare to support the kind of immigration regulation you promote.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

You have no say over any property except your own.

Right.

If you and other private property owners want to enter a contract of some kind with one another, by unanimous consent, you can do that too.]

Isnt that kind of what I am doing by voting? What if we all vote to keep our certain people? Don't we have a say in our government?

But outside of the property that all of you together actually own, you have no say over where the people you irrationally call "illegal immigrants" go.

I see what you are saying.

You don't like the fact that the rest of us want to be able to hire them to work for us, or rent or sell our property to them, or let them shop in our stores, etc.? Tough.

I believe the people have rights. IF the people vote for "illegal immigrants" then I will respect that. But I do have a right to voice my belief and vote against that too.

[Brian4Liberty]

I see your logic. However, we have a country and rights only extend to American citizens, not the whole world.

Now you have stepped into the talk radio zone, where two wrong positions are given as the only possible options.

Apply common sense. Everyone has "God given" rights, and the right to exist and try to survive. What you are talking about is rights as defined by the government. The rule of law applies. If you are under the control or "subject to the jurisdiction" of a government, then the rule of law must by definition apply. If a government is holding you, they must adhere to their own laws. It becomes more complex from there. Are you a prisoner of war in the hands of a government? Then the Geneva Convention and other rules apply. Are you accused of a crime? Then standard Contistitutional rights apply. If the crime you are accused of is being in a country illegally, then you can be deported. Rights always apply. The government is not free to do whatever it wants at any time.

I don't like taking in immigrants because I believe they threaten my liberty because most of them are not coming here with the right moral values.

That is hard to define or implement at a realistic and practical level.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Screened how? By whom? Using whose criteria?

It will be in a law passed by our representatives in congress.

The government shouldn't even have the means to do that. There shouldn't even exist passports or paperwork that would facilitate it. People ought to be able to cross borders and move freely, get jobs, and live, wherever they want by means of free exchanges with other people, without the government even having any awareness that it's happening.

I think I am starting to understand your view. But I think I am against this because everyone in the world wants to come to America and we don't have the resources to let everyone come. That is why I think there should be some regulation.

[Superfluous Man]

It will be in a law passed by our representatives in congress.

I have no right to impose such a law on anyone else with respect to any property but my own. So neither can anyone else who is ostensibly acting as my representative.

[Superfluous Man]

But I think I am against this because everyone in the world wants to come to America and we don't have the resources to let everyone come. That is why I think there should be some regulation.

The free market is the way to allocate scarce resources through freely moving prices, not central management by the state.

When it comes to your own resources that you actually own, you don't have to sell them to anyone if you don't want to. And if you do want to, you don't have to sell them at a price any lower than you choose.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Everyone has "God given" rights, and the right to exist and try to survive.

Of course. But I just worry their rights conflict with mine.

What you are talking about is rights as defined by the government. The rule of law applies. If you are under the control or "subject to the jurisdiction" of a government, then the rule of law must by definition apply. If a government is holding you, they must adhere to their own laws. It becomes more complex from there. Are you a prisoner of war in the hands of a government? Then the Geneva Convention and other rules apply. Are you accused of a crime? Then standard Contistitutional rights apply. If the crime you are accused of is being in a country illegally, then you can be deported. Rights always apply. The government is not free to do whatever it wants at any time.

Of course.

[heavenlyboy34]

Why not?

Government is antithetical to liberty.

What is the difference between a libertarian and this?

Someone with those beliefs has only accepted parts of the libertarian "programme" (to borrow a Misesian term).

[Ron Paul in 2008]

The free market is the way to allocate scarce resources through freely moving prices, not central management by the state.

That sounds good.

[undergroundrr]

Why?

Pragmatically, because Elizabeth Warren can do stuff back to you when she's in power. Morally, golden rule.

Remember, its the peoples bidding. There is a quote from Thomas Jefferson that said that "the people" are usually right.

And he's differentiating from the state there. He also said "all men are created equal." Your idea of using the state for your selfish ends is antithetical to Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Locke, et al.

Sure. But what if that idea is to harm someone?

What if you have the idea to harm an illegal immigrant? Should I use state force to have you deported?

We look to the US Constitution as the one device that might restrain government from being a force for evil. Importantly, ideas and their free communication are protected by the constitution from government interference.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Government is antithetical to liberty.

Of course. I know. But I have never really come across an argument that proves we don't need at least some government for things like a military for example.

Someone with those beliefs has only accepted parts of the libertarian "programme" (to borrow a Misesian term).

What would you classify me as?

I mean, even Ron Paul didn't advocate abolishing the government but just strictly following the constitution which is something I agree with.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Pragmatically, because Elizabeth Warren can do stuff back to you when she's in power. Morally, golden rule.

If that is the will of the people, I don't see the problem. That is what representative democracy is all about.

And he's differentiating from the state there. He also said "all men are created equal." Your idea of using the state for your selfish ends is antithetical to Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Locke, et al.

I think I am starting to understand everyones points.

But I have to add that Jefferson supported limited government like I do and agreed with the 1790 Naturalization act.

What if you have the idea to harm an illegal immigrant? Should I use state force to have you deported?

If its just an idea that I think privately, no. BUt if I speak it out loud and intend to follow through with it by making a threat then yes I should be locked up.

We look to the US Constitution as the one device that might restrain government from being a force for evil. Importantly, ideas and their free communication are protected by the constitution from government interference.

Yes.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

I have no right to impose such a law on anyone else with respect to any property but my own. So neither can anyone else who is ostensibly acting as my representative.

I think I kind of understand.

[heavenlyboy34]

Of course. I know. But I have never really come across an argument that proves we don't need at least some government for things like a military for example.



What would you classify me as?

I mean, even Ron Paul didn't advocate abolishing the government but just strictly following the constitution which is something I agree with.

RP is a pragmatic anarcho-libertarian. He should be much more radical, but I accept him for what he is.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

You don't have to be an anarchist to recognize that government is evil. Whether or not you find it a necessary evil in certain circumstances is another matter.

That is what I meant.

[timosman]

That is hard to define or implement at a realistic and practical level.

Not true, all you have to do is ask 'Are you a good person?' to determine if a person has the right moral values.

[fisharmor]

I guess I agree with that. But I do agree with having a government of the people establishing an immigration policy to ensure that the people who come into the country are not criminals or dangerous enemies. Once the immigrant is screened and let in you are free to have him on your property.

The people who established this "government of the people" did not think to put control of immigration in the US Constitution. Moreover, all the immigration laws passed up until 1921 involved attempts to keep specific people out: Chinese, the mentally retarded, prostitutes, and so on.
So there was no original intent to blanket keep people out, and the whole notion was born of racist bull$#@!.

If the crime you are accused of is being in a country illegally, then you can be deported. Rights always apply. The government is not free to do whatever it wants at any time.

You are contradicting yourself. Rights always apply - and you said that everyone has God given rights, inherent to their humanity.
If I, as a US citizen, have a right to be here, but non-citizens do not have this right, then we're not talking about rights.
So you've just pigeonholed yourself into one of three positions.

1) Rights are not inherent to humanity,
2) There is no right to reside in the US at all, or
3) Only US citizens are humans.

[Brian4Liberty]

Rights always apply - and you said that everyone has God given rights, inherent to their humanity.
If I, as a US citizen, have a right to be here, but non-citizens do not have this right, then we're not talking about rights.
So you've just pigeonholed yourself into one of three positions.

1) Rights are not inherent to humanity,
2) There is no right to reside in the US at all, or
3) Only US citizens are humans.

You got it. Number 2 is correct. I made it clear there is a distinction between God-given rights and rule of law. As a human, you have right to strive to live wherever you want. But there is no guarantee of an outcome. You have a right to strive to earn $1 million a year. It's not a right to get $1 million a year. You have a right to try to purchase a house, it is not a right for you to purchase a given house. You have a right to try to obtain healthcare, it is not a right for it to be provided to you.

[Superfluous Man]

Not true, all you have to do is ask 'Are you a good person?' to determine if a person has the right moral values.

Or better yet, wait until people are actually guilty of a crime before you punish them for it, rather them implementing a Trumpian pre-crime enforcement scheme.

[tod evans]

I see your logic. However, we have a country and rights only extend to American citizens, not the whole world.

I don't like taking in immigrants because I believe they threaten my liberty because most of them are not coming here with the right moral values.

Are you talking about Beeners?

I've known many, individuals and families and I can honestly say that as a group their "moral values" have outshined my fellow 'Murkins, not even close...

I can't speak for the rag-heads or dot-heads or even the slant-eyes I've not known enough to comment on.........

Limeys I've known quite a few over the years and they too were good moral people who worked hard..

It's us Hillbillies you really need to be concerned about! There's not many of us who respect big-city ways....

[brushfire]

Thomas Jefferson believed government was a necessary evil, but acknowledged the need to turn the soil in order to control the weeds that will inevitably take root wherever there is government.

We need a sunset amendment on all law that is not the constitution. That way the federal government is consumed with keeping only the most relevant laws.

Government is basically the antithesis of liberty. Seems like most things that are useful in life though, there can be potential effects. Unfortunately "the people" are too distracted with rose giving bachelors and kim kardashian's a$$ - something along the lines of a mass famine would be required to get them engaged. Political participation is much like religion - nobody gives a sh!t when times are good, food is on the table, and all one needs to worry about is how to spend one's idle time. So with folks preoccupied with kim's a$$, the soil goes unturned.

[fisharmor]

You got it. Number 2 is correct. I made it clear there is a distinction between God-given rights and rule of law. As a human, you have right to strive to live wherever you want. But there is no guarantee of an outcome. You have a right to strive to earn $1 million a year. It's not a right to get $1 million a year. You have a right to try to purchase a house, it is not a right for you to purchase a given house. You have a right to try to obtain healthcare, it is not a right for it to be provided to you.

Ok so before I lay into you, let me get a clarification. You've said two different things.
First, you said that there is no right to reside in the US.
Second, you said some completely unrelated stuff about positive vs. negative rights.

Please clarify that for me: you have stated that nobody, not even natural-born US citizens, have a right to reside in the US.
Did I get that correct?

[undergroundrr]

As a human, you have right to strive to live wherever you want. But there is no guarantee of an outcome. You have a right to strive to earn $1 million a year. It's not a right to get $1 million a year. You have a right to try to purchase a house, it is not a right for you to purchase a given house. You have a right to try to obtain healthcare, it is not a right for it to be provided to you.

None of these have anything to do with whether I have the right to invite a non-citizen onto my property that happens to be located within a national border. The government has absolutely no "right" to prevent me from it. To the extent it does, it's an aggressor to its own citizen.

[tod evans]

None of these have anything to do with whether I have the right to invite a non-citizen onto my property that happens to be located within a national border. The government has absolutely no "right" to prevent me from it. To the extent it does, it's an aggressor to its own citizen.

Might ought to get a bigger gun then..

All this philosophy goes out the window when the men with guns come telling you what their laws are....

[shakey1]

Or better yet, wait until people are actually guilty of a crime before you punish them for it, rather them implementing a Trumpian pre-crime enforcement scheme.

[Brian4Liberty]

Ok so before I lay into you, let me get a clarification. You've said two different things.
First, you said that there is no right to reside in the US.
Second, you said some completely unrelated stuff about positive vs. negative rights.

Please clarify that for me: you have stated that nobody, not even natural-born US citizens, have a right to reside in the US.
Did I get that correct?

Are we limiting the discussion to the US, or a more generalized description? Every nation has different rules on what it takes to become a citizen. Some nations denaturalize or exile people, which essentially takes away their citizenship. Obviously, a citizen of a nation has the right to reside in that nation, unless they are denaturalized.

Anyway, I'm not going around in circles on this as we have done a hundred times already.

[CaptUSA]

But I just worry their rights conflict with mine.

Impossible. Anyone who understands what rights are would know that this is impossible. True rights cannot conflict. If you think they do, then you need to consider what you are deeming to be a "right".