The only valid role for a federal government is to protect its citizenry from invasion, which is partly fulfilled via the passport/visa process. The police state has been presented as a false solution to the problem. On that, you are correct.

Where are you incorrect is that those on the southern border would no longer be besieged. They would continue to be besieged. 1) There is too much profit for the drug lords to go away even if we do not pursue them. 2) The Sonoran Mexicans still think that Arizona is theirs, and will fight in any way possible to regain what was lost in war > 100 years ago.

On this point, you are being the pragmatic one, and I am being the idealist. Here is a case where being pragmatic is right, so I concede this point. The government's intent should be to protect the territorial integrity of this nation (and was until the early 1960s), but those in power have no self-interest in doing that task now.

Okay, given that the welfare state, the income tax, and the war on drugs are not going to end anytime soon, what moral solution do you have to offer to (1) affected landowners and (2) state and local governments responsible for protecting these landowners and their property?

Admittedly, I am bit paranoid, but when you have burned as many times as I have, you should be paranoid. I have been audited a couple of times, and then last year my government told me that my identity had been exposed via their database. Go through an audit, and you will be paranoid, too.

Moreover, people have taken advantage of my good will countless times. At one point in my life, I thought it was my job to save the world. Then I realized the errors of my altruism. I am not paranoid within my own county, but outside my county, I am somewhat paranoid. I would be far less paranoid if the federal government did its only valid job, and only its only valid job.

Zenphamy's point about feminization and your point about groping of 90 year old women and 6 year old children is completely correct. However, I ask you, isn't that feminization intentional, so that we would need them more?

hear, hear

Excellent again.

True. So true.

America already has a police state trying to deal with the immigration situation. And yes, it is purely politically driven but it is enabled by everyone thinking pragmatically about a solution. And the "one and only valid role" you keep referring to (I am assuming you are still referring to Passports and visas and controlling the border) is part of that police state. And to promote that pragmatic solution is to deny and condemn the only valid solution.

Now imagine what would happen if ALL the people who are clamoring to close the border and deport the illegals would stand up and say "end the welfare state, end the income tax, and end the war on drugs", placing the blame where it rightfully belongs. Those property owners on the border wouldn't be besieged for much longer. But this doesn't happen because we have decided to go the route of the Immoral Pragmatic Solution instead. The pragmatic solution got us into this mess. How is a pragmatic solution going to get us out of it

I don't mean offense, kevinw, because I agree that ending the welfare state, the income tax, and the war on drugs would help greatly. I don't think that even such a dramatic change in our favor solves the problem, however.

A very large number of people did exactly what you proposed. They were called the Tea Party. I was among them and in fact, a local leader. My friend and county-wide Republican Party chairman Jason Steele was targeted by the Republican Party of Florida and denied a position at the RPOF table even though we had duly elected him. At the same time, President Obama was targeting the Tea Party at the national level through the IRS. The former story about my friend Jason Steele was when the final tumbler (reference to Hank Rearden) clicked into place that a) America was no longer worth saving, and b) my friends and I (even though we made significant changes at the county level) were incapable of making the necessary changes at any higher level. At that point it was time to shrug.

Even your three-pronged solution is insufficient because the financial incentive for looters and moochers would still exist through the crony K street system that Speaker Boner is now going to. We have a many-headed hydra to slay, but the biggest head is the cronyist system. When you have a solution to this problem, then I think I will reconsider.

Probably most of us on this site are more, I hate to say "paranoid", how bout "aware of our surroundings or situation" than the average Joe. This is not likely to change no matter how big a wall we build or how many guards we post. No matter how many innocent people we fingerprint, photograph or spy on. No matter how many 90 year old women and/or 6 year old children we grope in the name of security. And a serial killer or a gang banger would come from within that wall.

Don't you see? You are arguing to bring on the police state at one moment and against it the next. And I'm starting to think it's your paranoia driving you to it.

In this, you are absolutely correct. This is upside down and backwards and is a direct result of inappropriately directed thought searching for a solution without considering the root cause of the problem. IE, immoral pragmatic thinking. How is more of that going to solve anything?

If that private property is fenced and marked, yes it is trespassing. There are proper places to cross the border and for some reason we line those with cops and guns but we leave the local property owners to fend for themselves to deal with a situation we have created via an immoral pragmatic solution. No, not all pragmatic solutions are immoral but this one is and I am defending that position.

Now imagine what would happen if ALL the people who are clamoring to close the border and deport the illegals would stand up and say "end the welfare state, end the income tax, and end the war on drugs", placing the blame where it rightfully belongs. Those property owners wouldn't be besieged for much longer. But this doesn't happen because we have decided to go the route of the Immoral Pragmatic Solution instead. The pragmatic solution got us into this mess. How is a pragmatic solution going to get us out of it.

No, Kevin. We did that. We did

kevin; I think you've hit on a really key concept and one that I think fits entirely into Objectivism. We stand in fear of the need to implement our own individual self defense at any moment, even against the moochers and looters, much less the takers including our own government and its actors. The ideals of this country's founding and Objectivism can not exist without that key element.

The 'politically correct' on the site will jump my ass over this, but we have allowed ourselves to become so 'feminized' that we are paralyzed in fear with the idea that everybody is out to get us, to harm us, to take advantage of us. We spend so much time thinking of ways to prevent danger, even discomfort, that when we see something as simple as parents wanting their children to be 'free range', the immediate response is to think and describe them as unusual, strange, different, even wrong.

"Passports and visas, TSA, walls and border patrol and checkpoints, all these things are symptoms of our failure to properly protect ourselves." To some extent this is true. The cause of the problem is too many government officials winking and looking the other way.

Moreover, if a private landowner on or near the border has trespassers on his/her property and takes automated action (such as a zap from an electronic fence), it is the landowner is currently deemed to be the one using undue force. This is the reverse of what it ought to be.

When I am in a familiar place like my campus and don't know people, I am the rare person who actually does come up to welcome them. When I am in an unfamiliar place even in my own state, I do actually look for the next serial killer or gang banger. Given the unwillingness of the federal government to do its job, why should I do otherwise? I have to assume "the law of the jungle" applies. This has a tremendous unmeasured negative effect on many things.

But force can be assumed merely by crossing a line if it involves crossing a line onto private property without permission. In other words, trespassing. This occurs 24/7 across the southern U.S. border, and has become a constant threat to property owners there. Most people crossing the border have no idea whether they are entering private property, and likely couldn't care less. Besieged property owners in the area should not be held hostage to the government's "failure to address the real problems." And pragmatic solutions are not automatically immoral, it depends upon the context of the situation and what other choices are available.

this.

America does not need a police state to deal with the immigration situation. There are relatively few people who actually want to even have a border, let alone do what is necessary to protect it. Between the Democrats wanting undocumented Democrats (as someone else in this forum put it) and certain crony business interests and their paid off looter politicians, Joe and Kate America have to wonder why

A partial solution to this problem would be to eliminate the drug war and the welfare system, but it would not be particularly hard for the US government to do its one and only valid role ... if it only were in the self-interest of those in power.

They do revel in their victory. They have won that victory because our government refuses to do its job and prosecutes anyone who tries to do it for them (See former Arizona governor Jan Brewer, for example.).

I don't expect much of government. This is their only valid responsibility, and they blow it off.

Having trouble working the links today. Here is the second one;
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

Hi Kevin, both of your links lead to the same post, could you repost the private property link?

A reasonable statement. Challenge accepted

Look at this reply to jbrenner just a couple comments down from here;
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

This one was my thought process, written out, in a discussion with DB. You may have seen it, It was on a thread I believe you started on his post. I was intentionally writing out my thought process so others on both sides of the debate could follow it. This is just one part of it;
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...


The first addresses the border issue. The second addresses the private property.
Force cannot be assumed merely by crossing a line. The results of failure to address the real problems appropriately cannot be justification for an immoral, pragmatic solution.

Regarding "Such government and government actors are restricted by Objectivist thought and by the Constitution of the US, to only retributive force, while preventive force is only available to individuals exercising properly understood private property rights derived from individual and natural rights."

Does this mean that if a neighbor threatens you or your family but does not cross your property line, neither yourself nor government agents acting on your behalf can take any action against that neighbor until he or she has actually carried out that threat?