I believe that "all crime" is a form/version of THEFT. The rights to life, liberty,and property can all be stolen. Murder is the theft of life, robbery is a theft of property, rape is a theft of innocence and free will, slavery is a theft of freedom, etc.

A THEFT creates a DEBT to the victim.

The "law" evolved to determine JUSTICE.

I define JUSTICE in three words: A DEBT PAID.

Legal processes evolved to determine:
1. Is there a debt?
2. What is the debt?
3. Who is responsible for the debt?
4. How will the debt be "paid?"
5, How will the debt payment be enforced/collected?

The failure of the system to get a debt paid is INJUSTICE.

Your arguments are such stretches they are beneath your level of logic and intelligence and frankly, I'm quite shocked you would put any such out there.

The Declaration of Independence complained to King George that the States themselves under their own charters had the right to police immigration and that Parliament and King George were trampling on that grant of power - among many. And Free Trade does not mean Free Travel anywhere in the world under no restrictions whatsoever.

The Barbary Wars weren't about free travel. They were about the piracy and forced enslavement of US merchant traders to Islamic pirates. It was about protection of private property and the lives of US citizens in international waters. When Tripoli refused Jefferson's entreaties, Jefferson sent in the Leathernecks and they sacked and occupied Tripoli in response, giving rise to one of the key elements of the Marine's fight song. I would also point out that there was a significant element of religious ideology at play here as well, as the Barbary pirates were Muslim and held that piracy was perfectly acceptable under Islamic law.

The War of 1812 was Britain seeing weakness in our political system due to States Rights controversies. A contributing factor most certainly was France's aid to us during the Revolutionary War, but in a twist of politics the US refused to back France in their war with England at that time - to Jefferson's dismay. It started out as a trade war conducted by British-backed privateers impressing American merchant ships' crews, impounding their ships, and stealing their cargo. Then it escalated into an attempt by Britain to conquer the United States one by one. Remember, they pillaged and burned Washington, D.C. But our primary trading party at the time wasn't France, but England itself!

WW I was a result of the European politics. We agreed to stay neutral and Germany treated us as such as long as we weren't supplying arms to either Britain or France. The Lusitania was sunk because it was a covert arms shipment. And many argue that it was designed to force the US to get involved in the War. We violated our agreement of neutrality and so Germany retaliated by sinking the arms shipment.

WW II was the result of the egregious demands for reparations from WW I by England and France on Germany. Again, we tried to stay neutral for a time, but were forced to join the war after the Japanese bombing of Pearly Harbor. But politically we sided with England and France in the imposition of the WW I reparations, so Germany viewed us as an enemy to begin with - and not without good reason. It didn't help that many of the nations of the world were ruled by dictators and tyrants.

But let's not stop there.

The Korean War was also a trade war. Oops. No, it was a war of ideology: western democracy and free market economics vs communism. Northern Korea invaded Southern Korea and the US went to the aid of their ally. What is also interesting to note is that much of this war was a proxy war of the United States vs Mao Zedong's Communist Chinese, who had taken control of China because the US failed to get involved in favor of the Chinese Nationalist Party led by Chiang Kai-Shek - a general and ally during WW II. Seeing China lost to Democracy and the spread of the USSR, the US acted to push back against the tide of Communism sweeping across the globe.

The Vietnam War was a trade war. Again, no. It started out again as an ideological proxy war between the pro-communist North Vietnamese or Viet Cong (backed again by China and Russia) and the US-backed South Vietnamese. This war ended in disaster because it was prosecuted by politicians instead of military personnel and because of protests led by pro-Communist groups in the US. It ended with the defeat and slaughter of the South Vietnamese after the US pulled out. Only recently did Vietnam regain its position as a free market under a democratic system nearly 40 years later. I would also point out that it was precisely because the politicians didn't want to violate the borders of neighboring Cambodia (where the VC would commonly retreat to) that the war stalled.

The Gulf War was a trade war. Maybe, but predominantly it was a US response to a call for aid from aggression. Iraq invaded Kuwait because it wanted the rich oil industry there. But the US already had access to oil from both nations. And the invasion of Iraq left their oil fields burning - hardly exploitable by the conquering American capitalists.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal right of others. I do not add"within the limits of the law" because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violated the rights of the individual." Thomas Jefferson

I agree with Ed.
However, to my chagrin, I have come to believe that the majority of citizens of the USA have no idea as to what freedom is and therefore cannot teach it or implement it. So while I enjoy the discussion and debate, there can be no real implementation until people become knowledgeable in the ways of freedom/liberty.

"A proper government has the interests of its people at heart and not the interest or welfare of the world.” A proper government safeguards the [rights of] the people who formed it [provides for the common defense]. A “proper” government that has the interests of the people “at heart” is a dangerous thing! Whose interests? What interests? At heart?

I agree, it is in people's best interest to be able to cross from one place to another. The part that most confuses me is how we could have a country with no borders at all. To me is seems that citizen's have earned the right to travel freely and non-citizen's earn the right to travel by entering through proper channels via a travel visa or approved immigration. What am I missing?

"You can charge a fee, but not deny access."

but not deny access.

What you champion is not ownership in reality or philosophically sound (at least outside of socialism and/or communism)

If in my time on this earth own something (land) then while I'm here, while I invested my money on said land, and whether or not I put labor into the use of that land, the land is mine to do with as I wish. You, she, or anyone else has no standing to tell me what I can and can't do with my land while I own it and you sure has hell can't pass through without my permission, even for a fee.

If the government (state or federal) wants my land they buy it from me or condemn my property as blight and seize it (another matter to discuss). Why buy it from me if I don't own it? If they could simply pass through at will?

You may note in Rand quote I used her points were made for "citizens' (aka those who legitimately belong to that society) and not anyone who just happened to want to be there.

ps

Trans con railroad BOUGHT a lot of land to make those lines, it was legally purchased (sometimes through coercion).

Thank you for you anti-conceptual attitude.

I’m looking for a positive statement from Ayn Rand to support your explicit position that “Private roads would have to allow every person to travel on them freely, unless they are a criminal.” Your interpretation of what Ayn Rand would or would not say is not really the same thing. Ayn Rand made it clear many times that “The right to property is the right of use and disposal,” and she explicitly said that roads and streets should be private.

This would be a misunderstanding or property rights and Rand never said otherwise. You can charge a fee, but not deny access.

Rand would never suggest that private property can be used to make prison. Imagine you position applied to the transcontinental railroad. No one can go north or south over the the railroad. How is that freedom?

Re: “Private roads would have to allow every person to travel on them freely, unless they are a criminal.” Please show me anything Ayn Rand ever said that would support such a statement. I doubt that she would. Thousands of private roads exist today that exclude the general public for all kinds of reasons. A “private” road that leaves its owner with no control over its use and access would not be private at all. “The right to property is the right of use and disposal.” --Ayn Rand, The Fascist New Frontier.

Yes and no. Obviously taxes are the initiation of force. However, if you start to say farm some land that is not owned you have property rights in that land. However, people had the right to travel over that land before you started to farm it. So they have some rights to travel and your right to farm cannot completely cut off that right to travel. Interestingly in ancient Rome the land owners had to maintain the road or people could travel wherever they wanted to. In the US when we had a homesteading act, roads were built into the law. What good would it be to own land, but not able to leave it or transport your goods?

Dale, I have a question. Isn't a public thoroughfare an initiation of force? I'm not sure about a city, but in Wisconsin, property owners pay tax to the centerline of country roads. And there is no choice which I concluded to be an initiation of force. And also isn't a proper government to gain it's power from the governed?

You are confused. Private roads would have to allow every person to travel on them freely, unless they are a criminal. Your idea that property rights allow you to do anything you want to your property is childish. Your property rights are limited to the value you created. If I create a baseball bat, that does not allow me to do anything I want to with my bat - for instance hit you in the head.

"Not only the post office, but streets, roads, and above all, schools should all be privately owned and privately run." --Ayn Rand, Playboy Interview

In other words, public thoroughfares should not even exist.

Your cookie crumbles when you refuse the legitimacy of a national border.

Rand said a nation has a right to its territorial integrity for the exact reasons I've explained ad nauseam and yet you refute it?

Mentioning a restriction (putting up a sign) is force? Building on land I own is force?

Out of respect I won't draw the = sign to what this is, how you aligning yourself. And you can keep taking points if it cathartic, it doesn't change reality.

Duh you are stopping people from traveling on a public thoroughfare

So, on our land, building a passive wall, again on our land, and placing 'keep out' signs is force?

Saying 'Stop' is force?

"...has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government." Legitimate or otherwise we have a nation and it has legitimately established territorial integrity (please remember that not everyone is an O).

And you say I'm peddling BS? I'm the one lacking basic logic? Or are you the one hell bent on trying to push a concept?

What is amazing that the US fought several (five) wars in part over the right to travel/trade freely.

Declaration of Independence – Revolutionary War 1) Restricting immigration to the Colonies “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.” 2) Restricting Free Trade/Travel. “For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world”

Barbary Wars This was about the right to travel/trade freely in the Mediterranean

War of 1812 The US wanted to trade/travel with many nations, particularly France, and the British stopped our ships for no reason – except they were at war.

WW 1 The US wanted to trade/travel with many nations, particularly England, and the German’s stopped our ships for no reason – except they were at war.

WW 2 The US wanted to trade/travel with many nations, particularly England, and the German’s stopped our ships for no reason – except they were at war.

Yes it is amazing you are unable to read or understand basic logic. A group of individuals cannot stop other individual from traveling or trading. Sovereignty does not mean you can stop me at the border - that is initiating violence.

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. alt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 183

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.

Her words not mine. You are wrong.

Dale, I cannot believe that you cannot see the flaw in your thinking. Again, if you own something you have all right to regulate it. Deny this you deny private property in all its forms. The Founders, and I'd wager immigrant Rand, supported national borders.

AJ believe your own BS, just don't pretend it has anything to do with Objectivism or the Founding principles of the US

A proper government has the interests of its people at heart and not the interest or welfare of the world.

A border is as legitimate as a fence around my property and the same restrictions apply. Why? Because my property is part of a town, city county and state which, by my consent, authorizes the federal government to legitimately create and defend the border from outsiders seeking entry - a legitimate role. The authority comes from the bottom up.

Force, I contend, is from the illegal immigrant since he/she is FORCING his way into a place where he/she is not invited. If that person requested and received permission to enter, and there is a process in place, then there would be no issue (no force). It is because of this illegal trespass that this is an issue at all, the reason why an act of force is needed.

Immigration is not the issue, its invading someplace that is the issue. A sovereign nation has the right to regulate its immigration.

My conclusion is valid because it is the only true way to actually have property rights and it is also reality.

AJ it is a simple syllogism

1) A proper government cannot initiate force
2)Stopping someone on a public thoroughfare is initiating force
3) A proper government cannot stop someone on a public thoroughfare.