Do you support unlimited immigration into US

[r3volution 3.0]

Reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where Kramer adopts a highway so he can widen the lanes.

And it should end similarly.

[Mach]

Go dig into all of the European immigration to see the future and try to find some positive points, and not Official ones put out by the pusher governments... here, a one on one from an Irish guy.

[Swordsmyth]

Ownership is the exclusive right to use a thing. Hence, only things capable of being used (i.e. physical things) can be owned. I know what you mean, but it's confusing to talk about "ownership" of abstractions like the border or the administration of justice. What you're really saying is that the group has property rights in the land (limited property rights, the right to do only certain things with it) and also possibly in the people themselves (i.e. in their bodies, which are things capable of being used and thus capable of being owned).

That established, where do these alleged property rights of the group (in the land and/or people) come from? Homesteading? Voluntary exchange?

In ancient times families grew into tribes and then tribes became kingdoms, down through history people have chosen to submit to governments for mutual protection and the administration of justice, their descendants were born into the systems they created, in our case the colonists un-submitted from the English crown and struck out on their own.

[r3volution 3.0]

In ancient times families grew into tribes and then tribes became kingdoms, down through history people have chosen to submit to governments for mutual protection and the administration of justice, their descendants were born into the systems they created, in our case the colonists un-submitted from the English crown and struck out on their own.

Has every person in the US chosen to submit to the US government?

Obviously not, and so, for them, how did that government acquire property rights in their land/bodies?

[Swordsmyth]

Has every person in the US chosen to submit to the US government?

Obviously not, and so, for them, how did that government acquire property rights in their land/bodies?

It had territorial rights before they were born into it's territory, and they have partially submitted in that they haven't risen up in insurrection, life isn't perfectly fair because we aren't born in distinct batches as the last generation dies and we are saddled/endowed with what our ancestors built unless we succeed at changing it.

We aren't all born with the same amount of money, intelligence, health or much of anything including power over the government we live under or choice of the group we are living among but we just have to deal with it.

[r3volution 3.0]

It had territorial rights before they were born into it's territory

Which it acquired how?

Are you suggesting that, at some point in the past, there was a literal 'social contract'?

And, even if there were, why ought that bind the living? Ought I be allowed to sell my grandchildren into slavery?

[timosman]

I find the noise level unacceptable.

[Swordsmyth]

Which it acquired how?

Are you suggesting that, at some point in the past, there was a literal 'social contract'?

At some point when the world was composed of families and tribes there was a "social contract" and/or familial authority.
Since that time other governments have imposed themselves on some peoples and others have formed through full or partial voluntary agreement, but the primary bonds that governments hold on each person is that they are needed, that they exist, that they can't be avoided, that we were born under their authority and that we haven't changed them.

And, even if there were, why ought that bind the living? Ought I be allowed to sell my grandchildren into slavery?

You bring your children into the "club" you live in because you live under it's authority, if you don't want to you will have to move to another one, get your area to secede and make a new one or become independent and establish your own.

You can't exempt your children from gravity either.

[r3volution 3.0]

Just to be clear, the question here isn't whether governments are justified (I agree that they are, though for quite different reasons than you've cited), but why they are justified, and in particular what they are justified in doing (e.g. restricting immigration or not).

At some point when the world was composed of families and tribes there was a "social contract" and/or familial authority.
Since that time other governments have imposed themselves on some peoples and others have formed through full or partial voluntary agreement, but the primary bonds that governments hold on each person is that they are needed, that they exist, that they can't be avoided, that we were born under their authority and that we haven't changed them.

That would appear to justify any government at all (whatever its behavior).

Why is the present US government, behaving as it does, not justified on that basis?

[Swordsmyth]

Just to be clear, the question here isn't whether governments are justified (I agree that they are, though for quite different reasons than you've cited), but why they are justified, and in particular what they are justified in doing (e.g. restricting immigration or not).



That would appear to justify any government at all (whatever its behavior).

Why is the present US government, behaving as it does, not justified on that basis?

I'm not sure what you mean so I will do my best to cover the topic and you can tell me if I missed your point.

By definition government has duties as well as powers and rights, one of those duties is the protection of it's subjects/citizens from outsiders and another is to use it's powers within it's rights for the maximum benefit of them, in order to fulfill those duties it must limit and control immigration.

[r3volution 3.0]

I'm not sure what you mean so I will do my best to cover the topic and you can tell me if I missed your point.

By definition government has duties as well as powers and rights, one of those duties is the protection of it's subjects/citizens from outsiders and another is to use it's powers within it's rights for the maximum benefit of them, in order to fulfill those duties it must limit and control immigration.

When I asked you how a government acquires property rights in the land/people, you basically said "because they exist."

At some point when the world was composed of families and tribes there was a "social contract" and/or familial authority.
Since that time other governments have imposed themselves on some peoples and others have formed through full or partial voluntary agreement, but the primary bonds that governments hold on each person is that they are needed, that they exist, that they can't be avoided, that we were born under their authority and that we haven't changed them.

So, my question is why that same reasoning can't be used to justify the government doing anything at all.

That is, if a government can acquire the right to collect taxes by virtue of the fact it does collect taxes (and we're born under that regime and we haven't changed it), why doesn't it acquire to right to enslave redheads in virtue of the fact that it does enslave redheads (and we're born under that regime and we haven't changed it), or redistribute wealth from righties to lefties in virtue of the fact it does in fact do that (and we're born under that regime and we haven't changed it), etc?

The implication of your theory for how the government acquires rights is that it has the right to do whatever it's doing.

[Swordsmyth]

When I asked you how a government acquires property rights in the land/people, you basically said "because they exist."



So, my question is why that same reasoning can't be used to justify the government doing anything at all.

That is, if a government can acquire the right to collect taxes by virtue of the fact it does collect taxes (and we're born under that regime and we haven't changed it), why doesn't it acquire to right to enslave redheads in virtue of the fact that it does enslave redheads (and we're born under that regime and we haven't changed it), or redistribute wealth from righties to lefties in virtue of the fact it does in fact do that (and we're born under that regime and we haven't changed it), etc?

The implication of your theory for how the government acquires rights is that it has the right to do whatever it's doing.

No, government has a purpose and that purpose defines it's rights, powers and duties.
If it exceeds it rights or powers or fails in it's duties it is tyrannical and illegitimate.
Any theory of morality theistic or otherwise must include the purpose, rights, powers and duties of groups as well as individuals.

[r3volution 3.0]

No, government has a purpose and that purpose defines it's rights, powers and duties.
If it exceeds it rights or powers or fails in it's duties it is tyrannical and illegitimate.
Any theory of morality theistic or otherwise must include the purpose, rights, powers and duties of groups as well as individuals.

But, once again, where do those rights come from? Your earlier answer was: the state has a right to do X because it can do X, has been doing X for a long time, people haven't revolted against it doing X, etc. There's nothing in that theory of how the state gains rights that would prevent it from gaining rights other than those you want it to have. If it can enslave redheads, has been enslaving redheads for a long time, people haven't revolted against this, etc why doesn't it have the right to do so? You're trying to give a "realpolitik" explanation for how the state acquires rights, while picking and choosing which rights you want it to have. That doesn't work.

[timosman]

No, government has a purpose and that purpose defines it's rights, powers and duties.
If it exceeds it rights or powers or fails in it's duties it is tyrannical and illegitimate.
Any theory of morality theistic or otherwise must include the purpose, rights, powers and duties of groups as well as individuals.

IOW, what have you done for me lately?

[timosman]

But, once again, where do those rights come from? Your earlier answer was: the state has a right to do X because it can do X, has been doing X for a long time, people haven't revolted against it doing X, etc. There's nothing in that theory of how the state gains rights that would prevent it from gaining rights other than those you want it to have. If it can enslave redheads, has been enslaving redheads for a long time, people haven't revolted against this, etc why doesn't it have the right to do so?

Whoever is paying you to post this BS I am sure we can double.

[Swordsmyth]

But, once again, where do those rights come from? Your earlier answer was: the state has a right to do X because it can do X, has been doing X for a long time, people haven't revolted against it doing X, etc. There's nothing in that theory of how the state gains rights that would prevent it from gaining rights other than those you want it to have. If it can enslave redheads, has been enslaving redheads for a long time, people haven't revolted against this, etc why doesn't it have the right to do so? You're trying to give a "realpolitik" explanation for how the state acquires rights, while picking and choosing which rights you want it to have. That doesn't work.

Because it must follow moral laws, morality governs everything, people are able to justly form governments because it is moral to do so, if it were immoral they would have no right to do it.

Governments are an extension of moral law, their purpose is to protect the rights of people as defined by morality, therefore by definition the can't be justified in doing anything immoral.

[r3volution 3.0]

Because it must follow moral laws, morality governs everything, people are able to justly form governments because it is moral to do so, if it were immoral they would have no right to do it.

Governments are an extension of moral law, their purpose is to protect the rights of people as defined by morality, therefore by definition the can't be justified in doing anything immoral.

The whole issue is why certain state actions are moral and others not.

Let me try it this way...

Communist: "The state has the right to control all people and property in totalitarian fashion, central planning the economy, etc."

You: "Where did it acquire that right?"

Communist: "At some point when the world was composed of families and tribes there was a "social contract" and/or familial authority.
Since that time other governments have imposed themselves on some peoples and others have formed through full or partial voluntary agreement, but the primary bonds that governments hold on each person is that they are needed, that they exist, that they can't be avoided, that we were born under their authority and that we haven't changed them."

You: [insert explanation of why the communist's argument is wrong]

[Swordsmyth]

Let me try it this way...

Communist: "The state has the right to control all people and property in totalitarian fashion, central planning the economy, etc."

You: "Where did it acquire that right?"

Communist: "At some point when the world was composed of families and tribes there was a "social contract" and/or familial authority.
Since that time other governments have imposed themselves on some peoples and others have formed through full or partial voluntary agreement, but the primary bonds that governments hold on each person is that they are needed, that they exist, that they can't be avoided, that we were born under their authority and that we haven't changed them."

You: [insert explanation of why the communist's argument is wrong]

My moral system says that men as individuals are the purpose of creation, therefore the state can't have a right to control them and their property beyond what is necessary for the defense of their rights against enemies foreign or domestic and the administration of justice.

[Swordsmyth]

The whole issue is why certain state actions are moral and others not.

Let me try it this way...

Communist: "The state has the right to control all people and property in totalitarian fashion, central planning the economy, etc."

You: "Where did it acquire that right?"

Communist: "At some point when the world was composed of families and tribes there was a "social contract" and/or familial authority.
Since that time other governments have imposed themselves on some peoples and others have formed through full or partial voluntary agreement, but the primary bonds that governments hold on each person is that they are needed, that they exist, that they can't be avoided, that we were born under their authority and that we haven't changed them."

You: [insert explanation of why the communist's argument is wrong]

Now it is your turn.

Explain your moral system's rules regarding the limits of government. (Or does it have any beyond the self interest of your monarch?)

[r3volution 3.0]

My moral system says that men as individuals are the purpose of creation, therefore the state can't have a right to control them and their property beyond what is necessary for the defense of their rights against enemies foreign or domestic and the administration of justice.

That's fine, but it has nothing to do with the historical justification you gave earlier (because that can be used to justify any state at all).

I see two possible justifications for your immigration views:

1) The Consequentialist: acknowledging that immigration restrictions always violate property rights, you could argue that they are nonetheless necessary at times to prevent even greater violations of property rights (a perfectly liberal argument, the same as any minarchist would use to justify the existence of the state at all).

2) The Deontologist: the national group (however that might be defined) simply has a right to control access to "its" territory, period (this would be a principle, having no further justification [no need to talk about any fictional social contract, what tribes were up to in 800AD, etc]).

I think you actually take the second approach.

I just want you acknowledge that and acknowledge that it conflicts with liberalism.

...the whole liberal program, but then an asterisk at the end: "except immigration."

Now it is your turn.

Explain your moral system's rules regarding the limits of government. (Or does it have any beyond the self interest of your monarch?)

If you're asking how I justify liberalism, first there's deontology (liberal ethical principles as just that, principles, without any further justification), then there's the consequentialist argument (adherence to liberal ethical principles maximizes prosperity [that prosperity is good is also a principle, with no further justification]. Again, same as yours, except for that asterisk.

[Swordsmyth]

That's fine, but it has nothing to do with the historical justification you have earlier (because that can be used to justify any state at all).

I see two possible justifications for your immigration views:

1) The Consequentialist: acknowledging that immigration restrictions always violate property rights, you could argue that they are nonetheless necessary at times to prevent even greater violatiosn of property rights (a perfectly liberal argument, the same as any minarchist would use to justify the existence of the state at all)

2) The Deontologist: the national group (however that might be defined) simply has a right to control access to "its" territory, period (this would be a principle, having no further justification [no need to talk about any fictional social contract, what tribes were up to in 800AD, etc]

I think you actually take the second approach.

I just want you acknowledge that and acknowledge that it conflicts with liberalism.

...the whole liberal program, but then an asterisk at the end: "except immigration."



If you're asking how I justify liberalism, first there's deontology (liberal ethical principles are just that, principles, without any further justification), then there's the consequentialist argument (adherence to liberal ethical principles maximizes prosperity [that prosperity is good is also a principle, with no further justification].

Like you I cite both the Consequentialist and Deontologist justifications, because of the Consequentialist justification the group exists and controls territory, once the group exists and controls territory then it has a Deontological right to control access to that territory and membership in the group.

[r3volution 3.0]

Like you I cite both the Consequentialist and Deontologist justifications, because of the Consequentialist justification the group exists and controls territory, once the group exists and controls territory then it has a Deontological right to control access to that territory and membership in the group.

But you're claiming that these alleged group rights aren't justified only by their consequences, right?

The group has the right to restrict immigration, regardless of the consequences?

[timosman]

But you're claiming that these alleged group rights aren't justified only by their consequences, right?

The group has the right to restrict immigration, regardless of the consequences?

What consequences?

[Swordsmyth]

But you're claiming that these alleged group rights aren't justified only by their consequences, right?

The group has the right to restrict immigration, regardless of the consequences?

Just as the head of a household has a right to determine who may enter his home.
A total ban on immigration would violate nobody's rights since the foreigners don't have a right to join the group and the natives don't have an individual right to induct them.

[r3volution 3.0]

Just as the head of a household has a right to determine who may enter his home.
A total ban on immigration would violate nobody's rights since the foreigners don't have a right to join the group and the natives don't have an individual right to induct them.

Right, so, as I said, you have taken up this nationalist idea not as a means to achieving some end, but as an end in itself: a principle.

And it conflicts with (or is an exception to) liberal principles.

[timosman]

And it conflicts with (or is an exception to) liberal principles.

Could you be more specific?

[Swordsmyth]

Right, so, as I said, you have taken up this nationalist idea not as a means to achieving some end, but as an end in itself: a principle.

The end is the protection of the group from many different kinds of threats (the primary purpose of the group), this end creates the principle.

And it conflicts with (or is an exception to) liberal principles.

I deny that it is either, but you could think of it as an exception required by the purpose of the group (the protection of the members) if it so pleased you.

[r3volution 3.0]

The end is the protection of the group from many different kinds of threats (the primary purpose of the group), this end creates the principle.

I deny that it is either, but you could think of it as an exception required by the purpose of the group (the protection of the members) if it so pleased you.

Above you talk about consequences, but you just said:

A total ban on immigration would violate nobody's rights since the foreigners don't have a right to join the group and the natives don't have an individual right to induct them

Meaning, a total ban would be justified even if it had nothing to do with protecting the group from any threat, right?

The group has the right to do this, period, regardless of consequences?

As a property owner has the right to exclude someone from his property for any reason whatsoever?

[Swordsmyth]

Above you talk about consequences, but you just said:



Meaning, a total ban would be justified even if it had nothing to do with protecting the group from any threat, right?

The group has the right to do this, period, regardless of consequences?

Whether there is or isn't a threat to be protected against is a subjective judgement that must be made by those entrusted with the power by the group, only those members of the group who are in charge of designating those to be entrusted with that power (either directly or indirectly) have a right to debate whether the determination is being made properly or improperly. (in our Republic all adult citizens have that right)

Practically speaking there always have and always will be plenty of external threats capable of justifying a total ban if it is judged that the benefits of allowing immigration are less than the threats, therefore the legitimate debate is always about the relative size of the benefits vs. the threats, such a debate is always complex and composed of apples vs. oranges questions and therefore is always subjective.

[r3volution 3.0]

Whether there is or isn't a threat to be protected against is a subjective judgement that must be made by those entrusted with the power by the group, only those members of the group who are in charge of designating those to be entrusted with that power (either directly or indirectly) have a right to debate whether the determination is being made properly or improperly. (in our Republic all adult citizens have that right)

Practically speaking there always have and always will be plenty of external threats capable of justifying a total ban if it is judged that the benefits of allowing immigration are less than the threats, therefore the legitimate debate is always about the relative size of the benefits vs. the threats, such a debate is always complex and composed of apples vs. oranges questions and therefore is always subjective.

If the group decides to restrict immigration for some reason having nothing to do with a threat, they are justified in doing so, or not?

If so, then, once again, you're setting up this nationalism as a principle, in opposition to liberal principles.

...contra merely a means to a liberal end (like preventing violence etc).