blarman, think through this carefully.

Really? Where? The fact is that there were essentially no rules about immigration in the US until the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?...

A little knowledge would go a long way

You appear to be incapable of reading. The parts under the Declaration are exact quotes.

They would also be required to allow invited visitors onto his land.

Sovereignty is also something bestowed on a government by its people for the express purpose as described by Rand as posted previously (and will again).

"Ayn Rand - The Virtue of Selfishness “Collectivized ‘Rights,’”

A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense) . . . .

Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations."

Whether our country is or isn't functioning within its mandate is another matter (Convention of States) the reality is there is still a nation for the American people, still a border to define our lands and our governing philosophy, and still a throng of people hell bend on violating our territory (including far too many complicit within).

Assuming a fact not in evidence, that the word "debt" implies only currency for recompense. Prison sentencing is another option as are hanging and ostracism and a Scarlet Letter.

My issue is that the system is fair, transparent, open, and not tainted with corruption within the judicial process.

Most of the cases I've heard that convicted and punished (death sentence) someone, involved judicial corruption within the process. That corruption "stole" something from the person and the sanctity of the system. That "theft" should be punished and anyone convicted of that "theft" should die.

Hear hear

That makes it sound as if all crimes (including
murder and rape) can be paid for with currency, as
in the case of a civil suit. Some crimes are so
horrendous that even death is insufficient. (Still,
I have some reservation about the death penalty
because of the possibility of executing an inno-
cent person by mistake).--But it irritates me
when people deny that they are seeking venge-
ance. Revenge is a very important part of jus-
tice. Not the whole of justice, but still a part.

Once you work the previously ownerless land and
make it yours, it's yours. I do think one thing. If a
bunch of landowners got together around one per-
son's yard and refused to let him cross any one
of those pieces of land to get to the store, or to a water source elswhere, etc., this would amount
to false imprisonment, and so they would be ob-
ligated to allow him a right-of-way to get back
and forth (at least to the extent of getting in and
out)--not necessarily to cross all of their lands,
but at least to get in and out.

Mostly right, but where in the h*** did you get
Number [3]?!

"A -- philosopher's -- got to know his limitations" apology to Clint Eastwood.

Re: effects and causes. Too many are focused on the product, not the processes..

Par 1 you're right.

Par 2, as a pseudo-philosopher, I know of now way of dealing with such. Mankind has this way of treating effects rather than causes, which leaves us largely helpless.

I agree, a proper government doesn't have different laws for citizens and non-citizens, once they use the appropriate channels to get here. The getting here part is the gray area for me. If seems to me a completely wide open, come as you are boarder policy could allow a country to be overrun by anything and everything.

Could you clarify what you mean by US & Canada? I haven't been to Canada since the 1990's but both times we were scrutinized at the boarder before we could enter. We saw vehicles crossing that had everything laying out on the ground. I guess I don't see that as free travel. Am I confused on their policy?

You got THAT right!
The older I become, the more muddled my thinking becomes. So today I much prefer writing, because this will at least allow me to check and correct my thoughts. But either way, the communication is not working well toward accomplishing something!

Not restored, but that is only one option in achieving recompense. I have often thought that "and eye for an eye" should be incorporated into the collection of debts. A person that commits murder has forfeited they right to life: kill'em

In many cases (the holocaust) the debt can never be paid. You philosophers can deal with that.

Free travel does not mean a country does not have a border. There is a clear border between Nevada and California, but no boarder guards. The same has been true with the US and Canada throughout most of history. The border defines which country has legal jurisdiction, and has nothing to do with border guards.

A proper government does have different laws for citizens and non-citizens other than potentially the right to vote or hold some political office

In my earlier years, I tried in conversation or debate to explain the nature of freedom and self-reliance. It took me a short while to realize that freedom and self-reliance were way too scary for people that I'd talk to. Rely without any help? Isn't that dog-eat-dog? etc.etc.

A "proper" government of force is but a pipe dream

If Life be "stolen" by murder, it cannot be restored by "law".

Four Stars.

All of us have been "preaching" freedom/liberty throughout our sorry lives but no real implementation results.

Now and what would constitute a "proper" government except with such having unlimited powers of Force? This eliminates "citizens" from having any possibility of refusing consent!

"Sovereignty" is a primary and natural Individual Right. Only with that can man insist upon his Right to Life.

It is a simple concept and implemented with little effort or control. The problem with living thus is that almost all people prefer slavery. They subscribe to either the will of theocracy or the will of the state believing it will provide because they don't want to believe that they must provide for themselves. From that premise flows all the regulations and authority that people believe that all must be subject too. The socialists will never leave the libertines alone.

I agree that property rights begin with individual rights. The real question is whether or not individuals delegate to their government the abilities to protect those rights. The Founders argued that they absolutely could, and that this was the primary function of good government. Where the article trails off is in acknowledging that the Founders also agreed that part of Natural Rights were their extension as delegated through good government: national protection of individual property rights through the Armed Forces. They recognized that foreigners who wanted to come to the United States were subject to Immigration policies strictly and explicitly granted to Congress to oversee. They recognized that national boundaries were part and parcel of the establishment of government and that the individual States and their Peoples were entitled to self-rule until and unless they joined to form a "United" States in which they agreed to let some governmental power to the Federal government - including territorial rights, right of entry into the Union, etc. The entire notion of a State specifically denotes positively-asserted national boundaries over which a governing body has been granted authority to protect and ensure rights.