12

The Flawed Private Property Argument Against Immigration

Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 7 months ago to Politics
438 comments | Share | Flag

Private property rights can never be used to imprison people.

All Comments

  • Posted by a59430802sojourner 9 years, 6 months ago
    This is not about property rights; however it does address unlawful immigration. First offense without committing any other crime: Charge with felony and sent to prison,(prison being deported to anywhere outside the US and its territories); wait ten years and lawful application can be made for immigration and when approved the felony is dropped; return to US or its territories prior to lawful immigration is an escape from prison and can be shot on sight. Charged with crime when in the US or its territories: Automatic felony and sent to prison as outlined above with no possibility of returning lawfully; and again escape from prison may be shot on sight.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -3
    Posted by MarkHunter 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How on earth does pointing out that today’s immigrants are (by and large) documented and undocumented democrats echo the Bolshevik murder of 60 million people?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by conscious1978 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your premise is disgusting, and it echoes the worst moments in human history. Playing fast and loose with numbers to group people by gender, race, geography, or supposed intelligence shreds any regard for their rights and identity as individuals.

    Pick any genocide of the past; you will find your premise was one of the stones that paved the road to it. You can cloak and qualify your 'Bell Curve' ideas all you want, but their jack booted, white robed, faceless results are all too familiar.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Managing or contributing. I suppose with no job experience, no provable education, nothing to bring to the table except a record of absenteeism whoever was pulling the strings did a remarkable job. Minus the first seven years. The handlers clearly had there hands full.

    I would object to categorizing him as a racist though. Unless it was against his own. He clearly lived up to the oath of office especially the phrase, 'to the best of my ability.'

    Given the evidence of the first four years one can hardly blame the man for the second four years. The voters take that one in the shorts. Deservedly. I thought no one could out Carter the peanut. Not in my life time. Ii feel sorry for him.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -2
    Posted by MarkHunter 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    When you find yourself in a hole the first thing you do is stop digging. I would like to see a reinstatement of the Immigration Act of 1924, which was in effect from then until 1968.

    Trump’s plan is a big step in the right direction.
    DonaldJTrump.com/positions/immigratio...

    Yes, I want to turn back the clock as much as possible.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This is more evidence of ObeyMe's management of the decline, as several of his lieutenants/czars promised in 2009.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -4
    Posted by MarkHunter 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I’m surprised that here of all places such an Alinsky type reply would get voted up (+6 as I write this).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -4
    Posted by MarkHunter 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Collectives, that is groups, exist and are sometimes relevant and useful. What is wrong with the following statement:
    “If you bring in masses of whatever group having an average of whatever attribute, the country will change towards that average.”
    Or as Ann Coulter says:
    “If you pour vinegar into a bottle of wine, the wine didn’t turn, you poured vinegar into it. Similarly, liberals changed no minds. They added millions of new liberal voters through immigration.”
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'll give you the bad news or good news for both posts. According to our government, AND the local people down here south of the border it's reverse migration figures now. 1. No jobs. Despite Obey Me's protest to the contrary. What do expect in an economy Gallup now lists as having -13% confidence. 2. Cost of Living (which includes eating is to high.) I noticed a couple of years ago people sending money north not the other way around. As a recent example exchange rate is now an actual after fees 16:1 when I arrived it was 12:1. That $300 air conditioner I wanted but passed up last May is now $200 in US Dollars needed to purchase the exact same made in Mexico item. Good for the expats and visitors. No change for the locals. But I notice the Dollar Stores and WalMart the prime shopping grounds for trips aross the border are now more like $2.00 stores and my favorite bicycle inner tubes are now 40% more though still cheaper than the rest of the suppliers at WalMart.

    The problem you outline maybe solving itself....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by MarkHunter 9 years, 7 months ago
    From ARIwatch:

    There is an intriguing part of Galt’s speech that might be applicable. It begins:
    -----------------------------
    “You have reached the blind alley of the treason you committed when you agreed that you had no right to exist. Once, you believed it was ‘only a compromise’:”
    -----------------------------

    Rand then lists examples of the form “it was selfish to live for the group X, but moral to live for the larger group Y” – using “selfish” in the common negative sense. In each example you have a legitimate interest in Y, but as the list progresses X becomes larger and your interest in Y less, until the interest disappears into total self-immolation:
    -----------------------------
    “Now, you are letting this greatest of countries be devoured by any scum from any corner of the earth, while you concede that it is selfish to live for your country and that your moral duty is to live for the globe.”
    -----------------------------

    This was published in 1957 when our immigration rate was almost zero, so despite the “from” in the phrase “from any corner of the earth” she may have been thinking of foreign aid.

    On the other hand, giving residency to scum from any corner of the earth is foreign aid taken to the last degree.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I find it doubly ironic that you asked me to read your post. First, because if you had read my post, you would know that I did read your post (and appreciated it). I quote myself: "I read your article, and think it has helped my understanding." Also, if you had read my post, you would know that I already agreed with you that there must be legal means to traverse property (e.g., easements, roads, whatever). Again, quoting me: "I agree with you, that there should be provision for people to travel to any place they are welcome. For example, if someone needs to traverse privately owned land in order to access his own (or a friend's) property, there should be a way for him to do that."

    http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

    The second reason I find it ironic that you asked me to read your post is because apparently you did not read your own comment here. I quote you: "as the post explain you [sic] private property..." Again: "Thus no property rights can be used to travel in a reasonable manner...." I think you meant that private property rights may not prevent travel.

    But now, getting past the irony to the substance. You said, "1) No." Okay, so that means you do believe prohibiting a stranger to camp in my kitchen does not limit his right to travel freely. I don't understand. In this, would you not be saying, "You may not occupy this space [e.g., my kitchen], you are limited to the prison of all the other space available"? Does he have a right owed to him to freely travel into my kitchen or not?

    Then you said, "2) No, but....you [sic] private property is not unlimited." For something to be "not unlimited" means that it is "limited." But this was precisely my second point: "You are limiting my private property rights." So if you say "No" to my point that private property rights are limited, and then affirm that my private property rights are "not unlimited," that sentence is a contradiction. But again, I think you meant "Yes," the exact opposite of what you wrote. And I think we agree on that, that our private property rights are limited.

    I'm not sure that I do disagree with your article. I agree that private property rights are not unlimited. I'm merely pointing out that neither is our right to travel freely unlimited. Even if we agree that there needs to be legal means to traverse property, that still needs to be by the owner's consent. Either the owner makes his own provision for legal crossing, or the State dictates the manner of that crossing, and the owner abides by that. But in any case, the owner has the right to say, "No, you do not have the right to travel through my kitchen." I really don't understand why this is so controversial.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Glad I could give you a smile. I reached the point in this debate that I must laugh or I will cry. I totally, completely, absolutely understand the frustration. :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "The US can let in masses of race X having a lower than US average intelligence, and even though that will result in a lower US average intelligence it will have no affect on US politics, culture, and way of life?"
    Everything that happens has some effect. Politics, culture, and way of life are always changing. So I won't say no effect to anything.

    Should intelligence be a criterion to reside in the US?
    I say no.
    Should we consider the average attributes of people's identity groups?
    Hell no. Test the individuals' attributes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    1) No
    2) No, but as the post explains you private property is not unlimited. It is clear that private property without the ability to travel to and from private property makes it meaningless. What would it do to have a farm on which you could never leave and if you did leave you could not come back.
    Thus no property rights can be used to travel in a reasonable manner to and from other people's property. If this were not the case the continental railroads would have been able to stop anyone from traveling between the northern and southern part of the US. That would absurd.

    That was the whole point of the post. Please read it and point to specifically why you disagree.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think you miss the point. Not everyone is like you, not everyone respects what you do. If there were a physical Gulch of say 300 people, and 150 people passively entered the area and put down roots and, over time their numbers swelled to 600 people while Gulch natives expanded to 375, how long do you figure before they are no longer passive and tell you what to do and how its to be done. How long before the beauty of what you value is distorted to satisfy their wants? Do you assimilate? Do you again run to form another Gulch, abandoning what you've built and leaving behind whatever you can't carry?

    Welcome to what will be Arizona and the US. The Gulch will be a collective society like every other society ever conceived and it will eventually be forced to protect what it values or forever be running to find somewhere where it can't be easily found - or make a forcefield to stay hidden. If you have to hide are you free?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo