Trump Administration to Send Thousands of ICE Agents to Target Sanctuary Cities

[Swordsmyth]

By bopping them over the head, shooting them, etc: violence =/= aggression.

The non-aggression principle is not a manifesto of pacifism.

Actions which would otherwise be prohibited are justified in defense of property rights.

Property rights includes national territory.

[r3volution 3.0]

Property rights includes national territory.

Whose property is this "national territory"?

[Swordsmyth]

Whose property is this "national territory"?

It belongs to the group of citizens in the same way that partners in a partnership jointly own their tools of their trade etc.
In your preferred system it would belong to the king.

[r3volution 3.0]

It belongs to the group of citizens in the same way that partners in a partnership jointly own their tools of their trade etc.

So you're a communist?

In your preferred system it would belong to the king.

No. Every piece of land belongs to the individual who homesteaded it or obtained it by voluntary transfer from someone else.

That doesn't depend on the form of government.

As for the form of government: no state, of whatever form, owns the land it rules. However, every state worthy of the name controls the land it rules - that is the meaning of sovereignty. The advantage of monarchy over democracy (and I'd rather not go off too far on that tangent just now) is that the monarch has better incentives in exercising his control - it has nothing to do with who actually owns the land. By way of analogy, if I steal your car and am confident that I'll never get caught and have the car taken away, I'm not the owner, but I have ownerlike incentives with respect to the car (to maintain its value, do oil changes, put on new tires etc), contra a thief who fears losing the property he stole (he'll neglect it). In neither case does the thief actually own the car.

Who owns what, and the incentives of thieves with respect to their stolen property, are unrelated issues: one ethical, one economic.

[Swordsmyth]

So you're a communist?



Every piece of land belongs to the individual who homesteaded it or obtained it by voluntary transfer from someone else.

That doesn't depend on the form of government.

As for the form of government: no state, of whatever form, owns the land it rules. However, every state worthy of the name controls the land it rules - that is the meaning of sovereignty. The advantage of monarchy over democracy (and I'd rather not go off too far on that tangent just now) is that the monarch has better incentives in exercising his control - it has nothing to do with who actually owns the land. By way of analogy, if I steal your car and am confident that I'll never get caught and have the car taken away, I'm not the owner, but I have ownerlike incentives with respect to the car (to maintain its value, do oil changes, put on new tires etc), contra a thief who fears losing the property he stole (he'll neglect it). In neither case does the thief actually own the car.

Who owns what, and the incentives of thieves with respect to their stolen property, are unrelated issues.

There are different levels of ownership, you are calling the higher level weaker kind of ownership "control".
So the Nation "controls" the national territory, foreigners who enter without permission are trespassing.

[r3volution 3.0]

There are different levels of ownership, you are calling the higher level weaker kind of ownership "control".
So the Nation "controls" the national territory, foreigners who enter without permission are trespassing.

The state's only legitimate function is to secure the property rights of its subjects. Unfortunately, to do this, it must violate its subjects' property rights to some extent: at least by collecting minimal taxes. In less than ideal circumstances, the state may have to commit yet other violations to fulfill its function; but in all circumstances, no violation it commits can be justified on any ground other than the necessity of preventing some larger violation from some third party.

It wouldn't be wrong to characterize the state's legitimate power as a property right (i.e. a right to use something), but that right is strictly limited: somewhat analogous to an easement that one might have one someone else's land. This is all entirely independent of the form of government. The form of government is best which will in practice most closely adhere to these ethical limitations on its legitimate power. Your democratic state has the same strictly limited "property rights" as a monarchical state; it doesn't entail some magical transformation of all land into communal land. If a state steps outside its limits, as it would by enforcing immigration restrictions, it's committing property rights violations without justification, aggression.

[Swordsmyth]

The state's only legitimate function is to secure the property rights of its subjects. Unfortunately, to do this, it must violate its subjects' property rights to some extent: at least by collecting minimal taxes. In less than ideal circumstances, the state may have to commit yet other violations to fulfill its function; but in all circumstances, no violation it commits can be justified on any ground other than the necessity of preventing some larger violation from some third party.

It wouldn't be wrong to characterize the state's legitimate power as a property right (i.e. a right to use something), but that right is strictly limited: somewhat analogous to an easement that one might have one someone else's land. This is all entirely independent of the form of government. The form of government is best which will in practice most closely adhere to these ethical limitations on its legitimate power. Your democratic state has the same strictly limited "property rights" as a monarchical state; it doesn't entail some magical transformation of all land into communal land. If a state steps outside its limits, as it would by enforcing immigration restrictions, it's committing property rights violations without justification, aggression.

No it is not, nations hold territorial sovereign rights to territory, foreigners military or civilian are trespassing if they enter without permission.
You can no more invite an illegal to live on your land than you could invite a foreign military to build a base on it.

[r3volution 3.0]

nations hold territorial sovereign rights to territory

a. What does "nation" mean?

b. What specifically are these "territorial sovereign rights"? Do "nations" have the right to do anything at all within their territory?

[UWDude]

a. What does "nation" mean?

Reality.

All the john Lennon songs in the world are not going to erase the realities of religions and nations.

[r3volution 3.0]

Reality.

All the john Lennon songs in the world are not going to erase the realities of religions and nations.

I'm just asking you to define this entity that you claim has these rights (and to define what those rights are).

Is "nation" equivalent to the majority of the population of some region (nevermind how you divide up regions)?

[Swordsmyth]

a. What does "nation" mean?

A community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government .

A territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status

A large area of land that is controlled by its own government

A tribe or federation of tribes

b. What specifically are these "territorial sovereign rights"? Do "nations" have the right to do anything at all within their territory?

No, See the U.S. Constitution and Common law etc.

[Swordsmyth]

Is "nation" equivalent to the majority of the population of some region (nevermind how you divide up regions)?

It is equivalent to all of it's citizens not just the majority, hence it's need to be limited in it's powers to prevent the majority from infringing the rights of the minority.

[r3volution 3.0]

A community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government .

A territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status

A large area of land that is controlled by its own government

A tribe or federation of tribes

And this group of people exercises its alleged rights by majority vote?

No, See the U.S. Constitution and Common law etc.

Does that include Art. V?

So, for instance, if the majority passed an amendment outlawing Christianity and paying Pakistanis $10,000 to immigrate, you would approve?

It is equivalent to all of it's citizens not just the majority, hence it's need to be limited in it's powers to prevent the majority from infringing the rights of the minority.

See question above

[UWDude]

I'm just asking you to define this entity that you claim has these rights (and to define what those rights are).

I am not going to define nation for you, Swordsmyth did just fine.

But i can tell you what the rights of a nation are:
The rights of a nation are whatever that nation wants to do within it's own borders. That's what borders are for. A nation also has the right to exert influence outside it's borders, be it through trade or force. That is where "laws" come in. Not written laws, laws of human nature.

Like war, all rules for nations are based only on what they can get away with. Might makes rights.
That is reality. The reason nations exists is for one group of people to defend themselves from the might/rights of other nations.
I don't give a flying pigs left nipple about all your utopian hypotheses and theoretical books about rights. I care about reality.
Being John Lennon, and "imagining" is not going to change anything.

If you are getting mugged, you can claim you have the right to your safety, the right to your property. That is fantasy. When getting mugged, you have no rights. The only "right" you could possibly have is might.

Might is rights.

[r3volution 3.0]

The rights of a nation are whatever that nation wants to do within it's own borders.

...

Like war, all rules for nations are based only on what they can get away with. Might makes rights.

Well, there's one vote for totalitarianism.

I don't give a flying pigs left nipple about all your utopian hypotheses and theoretical books about rights. I care about reality.

Ethics are statements expressing one's desire for how the world should be. To not have ethics is impossible.

It's not that you don't have ethics and only "care about reality," it's just that your ethics are...odd.

"Any action is just provided a majority of my ethno-cultural tribe voted for it."

Hyper-nationalistic democratic socialism - NAZIsm with elections.

[Swordsmyth]

And this group of people exercises its alleged rights by majority vote?

That depends on the nation, but the majority SHOULD be limited.

Does that include Art. V?

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

So, for instance, if the {super} majority passed an amendment outlawing Christianity and paying Pakistanis $10,000 to immigrate, you would approve?

I would advocate secession, and in the event of that failing in it's inception or it's conclusion, I would seek to emigrate elsewhere.

[r3volution 3.0]

I would advocate secession, and in the event of that failing in it's inception or it's conclusion I would seek to emigrate elsewhere.

So then it seems like the Constitution (which does not permit secession) isn't really your ethical bedrock.

Yet at the same time, you do have some ethical bedrock beyond "whatever the tribe wills."

I'd like to figure out just what that is, and how it differs from mine ("life and property").

And I think you'll have a hard time juggling the rights of nations and individuals.

...gotta give UWDude props for not even trying! At least his homicidal mania is consistent! LOL

[UWDude]

Well, there's one vote for totalitarianism.

It's called reality.
It doesn't have to be totalitarian. But stop pretending that rights come from a mythical creator. They don't. It sounds pretty in the declaration of independence, but it simply is not the truth. As Jefferson was writing that, the people of the US were preparing gunpowder and musket for war. Rights came from the Americans taking the rights/might away from the british. Without the might of the Americans, they would have no rights, except those given to them by the might/rights of Britain.

It's not that you don't have ethics and only "care about reality," it's just that your ethics are...odd.

I have come to the conclusion that mankind's desire to stop war and violence, is the biggest cause of war and violence. There is always some utopia where war and violence no longer exists in the idealist's mind. The only problem is the idealist does not have the power to enforce a territory where such a utopia, free of war and violence exists. So the idealist seeks power. And that step alone, no matter how the idealist seeks power, is the beginnings of war and violence.

"Any action is just provided a majority of my ethno-cultural tribe voted for it."

Votes are worthless, unless there is force to enforce the will of the vote winner.

"Force, my friends, is violence, the supreme authority, from which all other authority derives. Naked force has settled more issues in history than any other factor. The contrary opinion, that violence never solves anything, is wishful thinking at its worst. People who forget that always pay."

Or as Mao put it more succinctly:
"Power flows from the barrel of a gun."

That is why the second amendment is the second one.

[Swordsmyth]

So then it seems like the Constitution (which does not permit secession) isn't really your ethical bedrock.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Yankee.

Yet at the same time, you do have some ethical bedrock beyond "whatever the tribe wills."

I'd like to figure out just what that is, and how it differs from mine ("life and property").

Not very different.

And I think you'll have a hard time juggling the rights of nations and individuals.

Nothing in life is easy, correct philosophy in particular.

...gotta give UWDude props for not even trying! At least his homicidal mania is consistent! LOL

Like Nathanael, he does have the virtue of being without guile.

[r3volution 3.0]

It doesn't have to be totalitarian.

The point is that your ethics approve of totalitarianism. If a majority your tribe voted to exterminate the minority and then establish an Orwellian communist dictatorship for themselves, you would -by your own stated ethical principles - have no grounds for complaint. Either you actually feel that way (i.e. are truly fine with anything, so long as it was voted in by your tribe) or your ethics are confused and you need to rethink them.

But stop pretending that rights come from a mythical creator. They don't.

In which post did I mention a deity? Ethical propositions (e.g. "I have a right to do X") are nothing more than expressions of desire, as I said earlier in the thread. The difference between your ethics and mine are that we desire different things (I desire prosperity and liberty, you desire whatever your tribe wills) - either that or you don't understand the horrific implications of your own ethics and need to rethink them.

It sounds pretty in the declaration of independence, but it simply is not the truth. As Jefferson was writing that, the people of the US were preparing gunpowder and musket for war. Rights came from the Americans taking the rights/might away from the british. Without the might of the Americans, they would have no rights, except those given to them by the might/rights of Britain.

"Might makes right" is obviously true in a description sense (i.e. who has the guns does in fact determine who gets to do/not do what). That has nothing to do with ethics. You can acknowledged that "might makes right" and still object to how the mighty behave, and then try to change the situation. On the other hand, if you adopt "might makes right" in an ethical sense (i.e. whatever the mighty do is good), then of course you cannot criticize anything they do or ever try to change anything.

I have come to the conclusion that mankind's desire to stop war and violence, is the biggest cause of war and violence. There is always some utopia where war and violence no longer exists in the idealist's mind. The only problem is the idealist does not have the power to enforce a territory where such a utopia, free of war and violence exists. So the idealist seeks power. And that step alone, no matter how the idealist seeks power, is the beginnings of war and violence.

Ideology rarely determines the course of events, but that's another topic.

Votes are worthless, unless there is force to enforce the will of the vote winner.

"Force, my friends, is violence, the supreme authority, from which all other authority derives. Naked force has settled more issues in history than any other factor. The contrary opinion, that violence never solves anything, is wishful thinking at its worst. People who forget that always pay."

Or as Mao put it more succinctly:
"Power flows from the barrel of a gun."

That is why the second amendment is the second one.

But if whatever the mighty do is good, what's your basis for objecting and wanting to use the second amendment to change things?

...do you now see the problem with "might makes right" as an ethical principle?

[r3volution 3.0]

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

a. That doesn't authorize secession.

b. Even if it did, it can itself be amended/repeated via Art. V (which action you would have to approve).

Yankee.

LOL - note that, for me, whether something is Constitutional has no bearing on whether it's ethical.

Not very different.

Nothing in life is easy, correct philosophy in particular.

If you figure out how to reconcile the rights of nations and individuals within a consistent framework, let me know.

Like Nathanael, he does have the virtue of being without guile.

Aye

[UWDude]

The point is that your ethics approve of totalitarianism.

What I approve of is irrelevant. I do not approve of the wars. I do not approve of my taxation for the enrichment of the lazy and sanctimonious. I do not approve of my taxation for American imperial wars. Where are my rights? I don't have any. That is reality. Because MIGHT determines my rights. The only way I could ever haev the right not to have my money taken for the largesse of politicians and the glory of generals is if I could FORCE the US government to let me keep what is mine.
Since I can not, I have no rights. Where are the rights endowed to me by my creator? That's empty poetry. I have no rights, unless I can enforce my rights.

If a majority your tribe voted to exterminate the minority and then establish an Orwellian communist dictatorship for themselves, you would -by your own stated ethical principles - have no grounds for complaint. Either you actually feel that way (i.e. are truly fine with anything, so long as it was voted in by your tribe) or your ethics are confused and you need to rethink them.

Why do you keep on bringing up something as nebulous as ethics into a discussion about reality?
Do you remember how this conversation started? Basically, you started to try to guide it into your fantasy land, where nations do not exist, and have no rights.
Welcome to reality. Nations do exist, and they do have rights. Those rights are determined by what they can keep from the interference of other nations.

(I desire prosperity and liberty, you desire whatever your tribe wills)

-

I desire prosperity and liberty as well. And I recognize that prosperity and liberty come not from a creator, but from my ability to defend my prosperity and liberty. If I can not defend them, they WILL BE TAKEN.

How do I know this?

Ever been in line in traffic, a long line, and then see someone zoom all the way to the front, and cut in, slowing everyone else down, causing compression waves, red lights and brakes on down the line?

either that or you don't understand the horrific implications of your own ethics and need to rethink them.

Once again, this has nothing to do with ethics. You tried to claim nations have no rights.
I am pointing out nations have the exact same rights as you. Both you and nations only have the rights which they can enforce.

I am not saying might makes right. I am saying might makes rights.
One is an ethical statement. One is an observation about human nature.

"Might makes right" is obviously true in a description sense (i.e. who has the guns does in fact determine who gets to do/not do what). That has nothing to do with ethics.

yes.

You can acknowledged that "might makes right"

I do not acknowledge that. The term "right" is an ethical term. Ethics are almost entirely predisposed on the idea of community and non-violence.

But if whatever the mighty do is good,

Who said that?

I said rights come from force. I said nothing about good or evil.

...do you now see the problem with "might makes right" as an ethical principle?

I never said might makes right. I said might makes rights.

If you figure out how to reconcile the rights of nations and individuals within a consistent framework, let me know.

There is no reconciliation. There will always be a structure and hierarchy (above 250 people, give or take a few dozen).

You are the one who openly advocates for global government.

There is no way to reconcile the rights of a family and an individual, or a town and an individual, or a county and an individual, or a state and an individual, or a nation and an individual.

And each step up the heirarchy, the individuals rights that the group has the might to give him, become less and less.

A family can grant a child quite a few rights, within the framework of the tribal enforcement, within the framework of the community enforcement, within the framework of the state and national framework.

And you are foolish enough to think a global government could ever possibly give even more rights to the individual than a nation. No. Not possible.

[Swordsmyth]

a. That doesn't authorize secession.

b. Even if it did, it can itself be amended/repeated via Art. V (which action you would have to approve).

I do think secession is a more fundamental right, not just a constitutional one, The Declaration of independence predates the Constitution and sets the precedent in American history.

LOL - note that, for me, whether something is Constitutional has no bearing on whether it's ethical.

True, it is theoretically possible for something to be Constitutional and not ethical

If you figure out how to reconcile the rights of nations and individuals within a consistent framework, let me know.

The philosophical problems of groups vs. individuals are some of the most difficult to deal with, especially since we have no choice in where and when we are born.
I am working on creating a rational theory to deal with them but it is far from complete, at the moment I must start with the practical side of life and then apply ethics and morality to it to determine how it should/could be made right. Nations exist, if they were suddenly eliminated they would soon form again, therefore I must determine how they should behave not whether they should exist, the exact details of justifying their existence is of lesser importance and is much more complex.

[r3volution 3.0]

I am not saying might makes right. I am saying might makes rights.

One is an ethical statement. One is an observation about human nature.

And, since I already stated that I agree that "might makes right" in a factual sense, and never said anything to the contrary, what's your point?

[r3volution 3.0]

True, it is theoretically possible for something to be Constitutional and not ethical

The USPS would be one simple example: most everything the States do another.

The philosophical problems of groups vs. individuals are some of the most difficult to deal with, especially since we have no choice in where and when we are born. I am working on creating a rational theory to deal with them but it is far from complete, at the moment I must start with the practical side of life and then apply ethics and morality to it to determine how it should/could be made right. Nations exist, if they were suddenly eliminated they would soon form again, therefore I must determine how they should behave not whether they should exist, the exact details of justifying their existence is of lesser importance and is much more complex.

Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to the existence of nations, only to granting them rights distinct from those of their members, as individuals.

[UWDude]

And, since I already stated that I agree that "might makes right" in a factual sense, and never said anything to the contrary, what's your point?

If might makes rights, and nations have might, nations have rights.

[Swordsmyth]

The USPS would be one simple example: most everything the States do another.

How is the existence of a postal service not ethical?

Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to the existence of nations, only to granting them rights distinct from those of their members, as individuals.

In general perhaps, but they must have some, territorial control is one of them and taxation is another.

[r3volution 3.0]

If might makes rights, and nations have might, nations have rights.

If you're speaking only in a descriptive sense (as opposed to an ethical sense) here's what that statement means:

"Nations have the ability to control their own territory."

Yup, that's true.

And?

Are you under the impression I argued against that at some point? I didn't.

My argument that nations have no rights is an ethical one; I'm saying they should have no rights.

[r3volution 3.0]

How is the existence of a postal service not ethical?

Their existence does not serve the end of protecting individual's property rights, and it violates them.

Same as a state owned bank, railroad, shipping company, whatever.

In general perhaps, but they must have some, territorial control is one of them and taxation is another.

The state must have certain powers (rights if you want to call them that), as explained earlier, but the state need not = the nation.

[Swordsmyth]

The state must have certain powers (rights if you want to call them that), as explained earlier, but the state need not = the nation.

If the state need not = the nation, what is the alternative?