Immigration and Individual Rights

Posted by khalling 9 years, 8 months ago to Philosophy
56 comments | Share | Flag

Most arguments we have been discussing are included in this article: including how public lands shall be protected. From the article:

"There are two kinds of property in America: private property and so-called “public” property. Whereas private property is owned by individuals and corporations, “public” property, which is allegedly “owned by everyone in general,” is actually owned by no one in particular. This is why no one in particular can dictate how it will or will not be used. Consider that if citizen Jones insists on permitting immigrants to enter “his” portion of “public” property, but citizen Smith insists on prohibiting immigrants to enter “his” portion, the conflict cannot be justly resolved. Someone’s “right” to “his” portion of the property “owned by everyone in general” is going to be violated. This and the countless similar conflicts arising from the notion of “public” property point to the invalidity of such property—property which, by its very nature, violates individual rights and generates an endless stream of irresolvable rights disputes."

All Comments

  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree on what is unsalable land and what is salable land. The mineral and oil rights to much of what the government considers its land (and Objectivists do not) would be worth quite a lot in many cases.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In an Objectivist society, all or nearly all government-owned land would be salable (although some of it would be nearly unusable and would bring very low prices). Unsalable land might include military bases and other land used for structures housing legitimate government functions, such as courthouses, legislative meeting places and administrative headquarters.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How much non-salable federal land is there? I thought Alaska and Nevada were mostly federal lands.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That would be required if the land sale were to proper Objectivist standards. I like your thinking. Make your land a "reservation" like the Native Americans have.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The judges were appointed by the politicians. If they hadn't been reliable for the pols goals they wouldn't have been appointed. Game's rigged.
    This is not your grandfather's America.
    Even grandfather's America was corrupt to a somewhat lesser extent.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Could the right to secede be included with the purchased land ? THAT would be interesting. Otherwise, it's just real estate with a never ending "debt service" (taxes.)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Nice, I never thought of doing the math, and I usually do. So selling off the land wouldn't cure the national debt. I think that converting it to productive use would certainly help with the process.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    At an average value of $2,000 per acre (a generous estimate, since this includes quite a bit of inaccessible desert land and tundra), the 600 million acres or so of salable federal land would net the government only about $1.2 trillion, or about 7% of the current national debt. I think that selling off most of the federal land to private individuals is a great idea for many other reasons. It’s just not a magic bullet for paying off the national debt.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Perhaps the US has sprung out of ideas because all people who generate ideas have shrugged and/or moved. ;)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    the US sprung out of ideas. There were plenty here who did not like it: ie slave owners and slave owners who set it up for their economic fail.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Still does - part of the "If you want to have a say in this, you have to have a physical stake in this".
    It's not unlike the proposal that to vote or hold office, you have to have had some type of either military or public service. You want to have a say in this thing, you have to have a stake in it as well.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 9 years, 8 months ago
    I have read the article and agree with the reasoning and the conclusions, but,
    there is the matter of timing.
    If Objectivism does not predominate in both source and destination nations, to allow would be migrants a right to entry is a suicide wish, worse it sends your family, your culture, and your nation as well to slavery or death.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 8 months ago
    Good points but aren't 'WE' supposed to be the government? I know today and for the past 125 years at least, we haven't been...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Karl Marx called for this in his Communist Manifesto "...In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property..."

    BTW it was Obama who said "you didn't that..."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    OK, so you sell enough land to pay down the debt. Regarding Sorosland, by then, I will have bought my own small portion of the US, and you might consider paying me for a portion (or adjacent lot). I might name it ... Galt.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Suzanne43 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Boy, if I had BP medication, I'd be taking it. My baseball team is in last place, and talking about property rights, the commissioners in my small town have voted to permit a huge hotel to be built on the beach. It will practically be in my backyard. All the property owners in the neighborhood are up in arms. No one, not even the zoning board wanted this to happen. BTW, remember Elizabeth Warren said that you didn't build that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    +1 for "entitled" me too! We've had to work you know what off just to have what we've got. And these illegals are entitled to our production! Time to take my BP medication.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Suzanne43 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, it should have merit. And I'm so naive that I thought one Social Security card was all that you were entitled to. BTW, I hate the word, "entitled."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    According to Wiki, 28% of the total land mass (2,27 billion acres) is owned by the Federal government roughly 636 million acres. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...
    I doubt if there is enough money on earth to buy but a fraction. And besides if George Soros buys Nevada and renames it Sorosland, would we have to pay him fees to cross his land? :-)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually you did have to be a property owner to vote until 1792 in Kentucky and until 1856 in North Carolina. The idea had merit then, and still has merit.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I seem to remember reading that when the Constitution was being written several proposals were put forth that would have allowed only property owners to vote. They were defeated of course but I wonder if this idea has merit for our time?
    Oh and I guess that you and I have only one Social Security card each:-)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Suzanne43 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your story about the Latina woman really got me thinking about my rights as an American citizen who has contributed greatly to this country because I have worked hard and obeyed its laws. I own property in two states. Why can't I vote in both states? I pay taxes in both. Being able to vote in any state in which you own property would give property owners more clout.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo