I posted elsewhere that I went through TSA Homeland Security humiliation going through the US on the way to Europe. I got off the plane in Germany and walked into the sunshine. no questions, welcomed.

Somehow I missed this comment before. Or maybe I saw it but it didn't register.
" All men are free, or none are." This is the basic idea that I had to keep inserting into my thought path to get this straight.
++++++ Well, all you get is the 1. :)

actually, under the law that is not correct. Private property rights are not unlimited. This has been stated probably 20 times on this post. You do not have the right to shoot a man for stepping foot on your property. That is not necessarily a use of force on the man's part Now that is different than saying, a free man (whether illegal or not) shall not violate others' property rights. Remember property rights are discussed in philosophy as the basis for law. this is a philosophical post, and I think it's less confusing to stick there so we haven't discussed what ifs legally much on this post. ex: but the person has come here illegally, so is that not an initiation of force? In this post we refer to all men as free, since they own them selves. A proper government should be limited, regardless of delegated authority. ie: we delegate govt to draw and quarter anyone who steals a loaf of bread

Truly, I just went through the same thing. Glad to help. Yes, working it out in your own mind is the only way to get it.

Advice while your doing it if you're interested; Accept no compromises. Right and wrong are absolute. Enjoy.

in the meantime, Dale is unable to comment further on his post, as he has been suspended for several days now due to violations of the Code of Conduct. Thanks for all your patient work on this post, Zen

Agreed about nations not having private property.

The private ownership of roads seems right to me. But I know I have a lot to learn about this concept. For example, normally when talking about someone's private property, and someone's business, I think he should be allowed to discriminate as he sees fit. Most roads probably need to function differently, the way you described them. But I don't think the logistics of roads are on point. I do see the point you are making, and it applies beyond just roads. In the other threads, they used the example of strangers on a sidewalk. We don't have the right to demand ID, so neither should the State.

I'll think on this more. Part of me still feels that knowing who is crossing our borders is the first step to defending our citizens against known threats (or threats that should be known, and would be known if we had that control). Unlike me stopping traffic to check papers on private roads, this is a delegated responsibility. I have the right to regulate my private property, and make sure I can reasonably believe my visitors have peaceful intentions. Right now, I think the State rightly does this for the land that we citizens have claimed as our nation, worthy of protection. Obviously, I'm still working this out in my own mind. Thanks for helping.

Two of your posts show an hour difference but both just showed up. I will continue the discussion on this one to simplify as it also follows my imprisonment statement.

Roads exist for the purpose of travel. If I have no right to use force to prevent my neighbor from using the road without suspicion of a crime then I have no right to use force to prevent an immigrant from using the road without suspicion of a crime. If I do not have this right then the nation cannot have this right. The nation does not own private property.

But I think that the moral principle you object to regarding nations limiting one's ability to travel, is the same principle that you just affirmed (freedom of travel does not supersede my right to private property).

I have the right to use force to make sure that people do not enter my land without my permission (a first step will be to make sure I know their intentions are peaceful). Since that is true, I am willing to explore the idea that a nation may do the same thing with delegated authority (as others have argued).

The concept of imprisoning someone in the "whole rest of the world" is where I was troubled the worst. But imprisoning someone is the act of initiating force to limit their ability to travel, whether it is via a cage in the basement or an armed guard on a public road. Immigration status doesn't change that.

How refreshing. And I think over the years that Germany's had a great deal more terrorism than the US, going back to the PLO and the Red Brigade.

Okay, well, I think we mean the same thing, but are saying it differently.

We agree that our "right to travel freely" does not apply to certain places (e.g., private property). I call this a limitation on the right. You say it is not limited, it is just the proper understanding of the right. Fine, I'm willing to adopt that language.

The bottom line is that the right to travel freely is secondary to (i.e., does not supersede) our right to private property. A right will never contradict another right.

The right to travel freely does not imply a contradiction with the right to private property. With this understanding, I am willing to entertain the idea that there is a parallel to the national level. Not that the State owns "private" property, but that it does have the obligation to protect its citizens. This may involve restricting the "free travel" into our nation by some people (e.g., violent criminals). Morally, I don't see why this limitation would be any worse than that of actual private property.

Yes, an absolute and unrestricted right to travel freely. A right does not and cannot grant a claim to the product of another mans labor. Therefore that absolute right to travel does not include your kitchen or your yard. Since that right to travel does not include your kitchen you are not limiting his right to travel freely.

I apologize for the incorrect link. The new one appears to go to the correct spot.

No, I did read that part too. Also very good. But I'm still missing something. I look forward to your separate comment.

Well, that's because I gave you the wrong link. Having a lot of trouble with that today. Here is the correct one;
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

I'll continue in a separate comment.

If that is what you conclude from Zen's statements then we can conclude from yours that you have no intention of even attempting to understand what he said?

Wow. Love that last one.

I love these quotes. Especially the last one.

NO, you may not. You may conclude that Individual Natural Rights are absolute. Borders are lines in the sand and any law made that infringes on Individual Natural Rights are immoral.
A couple of quotes that I'm reminded of in these discussions:
"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive." —Albert Einstein .
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius—and a lot of courage—to move in the opposite direction." —Albert Einstein
And:
"I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air— that progress made under the shadow of the policeman’s club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave." —H. L. Mencken

AAANnnnnddddd now I have to go look up the troll under the bridge.
This was a looonnnnggg time ago. :)

Hopefully by now you have realized where I stand and that I am no longer conflicted over this. It is entirely possible that I missed some of yours and DB's earlier statements. And the points that I saw, that you just put all in one place, were scattered throughout at least 4 posts and hundreds of comments, a lot of which were off topic or just distracting.

I admitted to my pragmatism and to put it clearly, for the record, I never had a logical argument for my contradictions. Hell, I didn't even realize I had contradictions until I heard you on the radio. then there was continued commenting on a page that I can't even find now. Not too sure how I got there in the first place. But it got me interested and thinking. I tried to follow it but it went everywhere. I tried my usual approach when I'm stumped, find the go-to guys and see what they're saying. but by then they were already frustrated and not answering well. that's where I had to jump in and start asking questions.

I think it was the concept of imprisoning someone to the entire rest of the world that was the hardest to figure out. I didn't get what I needed from DB's article. Remember, you guys live this topic. I've been to Canada once. Twenty years ago. You accept it as simple. You take it for granted. I had to go through the process. Now I'm glad I did.

I only tell you all this to make this point; There is a small group of people I look for on issues that stump me. I don't usually need to ask questions, someone usually clears things up nicely before I need to. But I'm the majority on this site and this subject wasn't easy for me.

My first thought;
That is how we know ISIS is still winning.

I read the threads. Some very good discussion. I don't see how it addresses my critique, or explains why we should not be seeing a spectrum in our understanding of "prison." I'm still not sure at what point my position becomes controversial.

1. Prohibiting a stranger to camp in my privately owned kitchen limits his "right to travel freely." [And according to DH, I gather, puts them in prison.]

2. If you believe that a stranger has the "right to travel freely" even onto my private property, even against my will, then you are limiting my private property rights (i.e., self-ownership). [I find this controversial.]

I'm okay with the first position. I think my self-ownership (and consequent private property rights) trump another person's "right to travel freely" onto it. So I believe that the right to travel freely is limited. I also think that there is a parallel with delegated rights on the national level. The rest of my post was trying to maintain that, while also still respecting people's freedom to move and live where they freely choose (and are allowed).

I still hope DH will reply. But what about you? Do you affirm an absolute and unrestricted right to travel freely, even into my home if they so choose? If not, are you not limiting a man's right to travel freely?

I did not know we were the only country with these extreme security procedures. I have never travelled outside of the US or it's territories. I hate the TSA so much that me and my husband bought an old RV and fixed it up so we can travel in peace around our country. With Mom and our rescue doggies.

Tx

Thumbs down for racism.