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

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 9.
  • Posted by ycandrea 9 years, 7 months ago
    You know, I have been reading all of these posts for days now, and it occurs to me that some are making this issue of Property Rights seem so complicated when it really isn't. Just check your premise. Objectively speaking, no one has the right to force anyone to do anything unless they are violating your personal rights to your life and your property. You can throw all the extreme examples at this that you want, but the truth still remains the same. We are not talking about "laws of the land" here as we all know that some laws are corrupt and do not represent Objectivist ideals. We are talking about what is right and what is wrong. A is A. 1 + 1 = 2. No one can change that no matter how complicated things become.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, just as any other business. Don't want to hire someone of a particular race? You will pay the price when the best possible candidate happens to be of that race. Or your customers may ditch you when they find out. Either way, the market makes you pay and govt. interference is not necessary.

    But where this is different is you have the possibility of having the only route available or possibly the only thing within many miles. This would effectively eliminate competition. How do you deal with that? Specifically if someone can't pay. I realize this looks like nitpicking details but If you're wondering why some people are having difficulty with this subject (I AM NOT BLARMAN!) here it is. I can't back something if I can't follow it through as far as I can see it going.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think the issue is self evident. Public thoroughfares are exactly what the words used to describe them say. They are built and maintained on land that is either un-owned, purchased, donated, or taken to provide a way to travel without going through your neighbor's yards for use by the public (all the people outside of your private property).

    AR advocated for a system of laissez faire, free market capitalism. In that case, an individual/group rather than a government sets up a thoroughfare through land that he/they owns, buys, or receives from donations and then operates and maintains it as any other business would operate. The business owner makes contractual arrangements to connect to other owners' thoroughfares. It's a simple affair until government gets involved, or some authoritarian wants to use travel restrictions to control people.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's your toll road, operate it however you want and face and accept the consequences, except that you're not allowed to initiate force to your customers.
    Customers will decide if they want to go through your conditions, or find another route, or a competitor will offer different conditions for use that draw your dissatisfied customers away.
    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.
    We should be against immigration anarchy and for an immigration moratorium like the one we had between 1924 and 1968, a facet of American history that immigration enthusiasts ignore.

    We should be for Objectivism, not every single utterance of its fallible developer.
    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.
    My partial but still inexcusable mistake it wasn't The Court but a three Judge panel at the circuit court level on the second amendment decisions which extended the 2008 and recent decisions on the carry laws in Heller vs. DC in favor of Heller Still it came out in our favor.

    On the 100 mile exclusion of the Constitution which affects 2/3rds of the country (Borders and coastlines) they turned down a DOHS bid to broaden their powers. Another small step for mankind.

    The 100 mile from the border or coastline means every major city except what Chicago and St. , Minneapolis, St. Paul, Denver and St. Louis? has the partial suspension of the Constitution in effect. Discussed elsewhere in another post in more detail.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    At what point do you have the right to know if it is a criminal or a drunk driver that is paying the toll? Remember - only the retaliatory use of force is permitted. And you face this every day. On every road.

    What if a person can't pay the toll? He/she can barter, trade or make a deal of some kind. But that relies on the willingness of the owner or a third party to help. What if none of these options work out? The right to travel cannot be a claim on the product of someone else's labor. Yes, it is a legitimate question deserving of a legitimate answer. No doubt the market will find an answer. Most likely a third party or a charity. DB? Zen? Thoughts?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The whole issue of public thoroughfares is a legitimate topic of debate on this forum, especially considering that Ayn Rand stated that streets and roads should be "privately owned and privately run." The rights of the owners, and the limitation of such rights in regard to public access, have not yet been spelled out in detail in terms of Objectivist ethical and political theory, and are not self-evident.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 7 months ago
    And it is exploited by traditional conservatives to promote statism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Whatever one thinks of db's essay, Blarman's typically rambling, rationalistic wanderings do not address the argument.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You and the "ariwatch" polemic you appeal to are distorting what Ayn Rand said and why in answer to the specific question. No one as hargued "Ayn Rand said it therefore it is true", that is your own polemical madness. The reasons she gave for her answer were clear.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    She gave a definite answer to the question she was asked at the Ford Hall Forum in 1973 about restricting immigration for government economic protectionism. She rejected it. She did not endorse or discuss an "invasion" in the name of immigration encouraged to come for welfare and take over the country, which was not the immigration controversy at the time. They are two different issues.
    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.
    Of course. You are in the third group. Best decision is Rand's quote on 'walking away.' Even when third group people go at it it's with good will and a desire to do something. You and I and others would simply recognize the problem and get off the tracks.
    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.
    As I recall the Supreme Court pulled that 100 mile abililty last week or the week before. Along with a couple of second amendment decisions. The subject of a thread topic no one read. Living south of you on the other side the golden rule is never live within fifty miles of the border. I'll see if i can dig up those Court cites.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't mind discussing just about anything with anyone, I can always learn something. I draw the line when someone I respected starts dismissing what I say offhand by question my ability comprehend, to think, and to rationally look at a subject. Nothing I stated was "emoting", there was no sense in continuing to talk with such a set and inflexible mind.
    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.
    Remember the three types. The Righteous, The Debaters and those who seek to find and apply an acceptable practical answer to the problem whatever it is. the rest will be sitting by the wayside babbling when the train comes down the track.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 7 months ago
    here's a true life story from the sixties. I-5 in Southern Oregon just north of Grants Pass, Josephine county. A parcel of land was eminent domained to make the freeway or back then National Defense Highway System. The owner a guy named Stumbo. His family famous for being somewhat more than stubborn especially about 'rights.'

    So the free is built but the government never pays Stumbo. he didn't agree with the amount but never mind that they weren't paying anyway.

    One day Stumbo rolls out some 55 gallon drums filled with concrete and rocks and lines them up along his property line including the unpaid for portion which effectively blocks I-5 north bound to one narrow section on the shoulder If i remember correctly. slightly more than civil disobedience perhaps but in that genre.

    there were some other factors. He and his sons sitting on the hillside with hunting rifles didn't help but no shots fired.

    Stumbo stories were alwaysfloating around the county but no matter what else they did I always admired the way he marched to the beat of a different drum-mer.


    Since my memory is probably a tad bit faulty here's the sources on how one dude enforced property rights.
    Search Results

    [PDF]Blockade of freeway struck blow for the common man ”
    web.thedailycourier.com/eedition/2010...

    Stumbo brothers — Josephine. County ... In 1960, the Ore- gon Supreme Court upheld the ... meets Interstate 5 bears the family name. ... THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2010 • DAILY COURIER, GRANTS PASS, OREGON — 3 E. By Shaun Hall.
    Grants Pass - James Loewen
    sundown.afro.illinois.edu/sundowntown...
    2 + 5: (to stop spam). Email: ... "I've lived in Oregon for 30 years now and people from Grants Pass proudly proclaim that Grants Pass was ... Later, I did find the local law officials less than friendly even in the 1960s when I drove through such ...
    U.S. Route 199 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Ro...
    South of downtown Grants Pass, US 199 meets OR 99 and OR 238 and splits .... (I-5 here was built in the early 1960s, but US 99 remained on the old alignment.) ...
    Transcript - the Southern Oregon Historical Society Online ...
    sohs.pastperfectonline.com/.../930B70......
    5. Shale City by Marjorie O'Harra ( 1922 shale beds in Ashland foothills) 6. ... The Stumbo Brothers by Marjorie O'Harra (Blockade of Hwy. ... George Tweed by Marjorie O'Harra (Grants Pass man survives WWII on Guam, 1940s) 22. ... Lindy's on Highway 99 by Dawna Curler (Honky-tonk south of Roseburg, 1945-1960s) 56.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Concrete examples of AJ's hypothetical example have occurred in numerous cities throughout Europe and some in America (such as Dearborn, MI) with regard to Muslim populations. I have a large number of Muslim friends (> 1000), probably more than anyone in the Gulch, who will be celebrating Eid tomorrow. Their religious text has specific instructions with regard to how to do precisely what AJ suggested.

    As for rules being made by that group and they insist on things being done their way, I am expected by my university to have a special class for the 20 Muslim students (out of 120 total students in the class) on Friday to make up the content that students will miss on Thursday for their religious holiday. I am willing to do so, because both my university and the Muslim students (and their they pay me quite well.

    The loss of ideology by population saturation will happen in less time even than AJ thinks.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Is it okay to let escaping criminals or drunk drivers use the road if they pay the toll? And can the owner leave a person trapped if he or she can't pay the toll?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo