What's your favorite justification for The State? Roads? "Drunk" driving? The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs? "National defense" [sic]?
Apparently, for a lot of "liberty-lovers", it is "borders" and "protecting us from illegal immigrants".
That's just sickening.
There is no such thing as an "illegal" person. Rights don't depend on where you were born. Governments can't "own" anyone. Private property lines are legitimate; "borders" violate those property lines and the property rights of the real owners.
How can a person claim to value liberty with one breath, and then hop on the Joe Arpaio fan bus with the next breath? The two are mutually exclusive. But tell that to those who have been sucked into his cult of personality.
Sorry, but if you think of some people as "less than" because of where they were born, or because of the counterfeit "laws" they violate, then you are NOT a supporter of liberty. At least not in that particular case. If you grasp at all the "statistics" that attempt to prove how horrible "illegal immigrants" are to the economy (ignoring the free market solution of getting rid of ALL welfare, minimum wage "laws", and violations of the right of association), or if you blame them all for the aggressive acts of a few, then you are advocating a bigger, stronger State, and rejecting liberty. Own it.
.
Don't forget, Joe Arpio used to be a major player in the "sin" laws against the so-called illegal drugs. He's being true to form as an anti-rightist. Those who applaud what he did and is doing are anti-rightists also.
ReplyDeleteProperty rights include exlusion of others.
ReplyDeleteBorders are the boundaries at which the exclusion occurs.
And repeat offenders claiming property onto which they tresspass?
I argue that the state exists because people constitued it, and charged it with the protection of borders against invadersers, even a few tresspassers at a time. People who claimed territory as property voluntarily created an entity to keep others out. Hired neighborhood security, writ large.
Is the claim that protecting property against tresspass is amoral?
Or that people may not voluntarily constitute a protection serviceto secure their property?
For surely if there is property, then it follows that protection of that property is a necessary consequence.
Sorry I couldn't follow theargument against property...
"Property rights include exclusion of others."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely right.
"Borders are the boundaries at which the exclusion occurs."
Right again.
"And repeat offenders claiming property onto which they tresspass?"
Not really sure what this has to do with it... maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Their "claim" is worthless if they are trespassing.
"...the state exists because people constituted it..."
Not me. Those who did are long dead. Their agreements are not binding on anyone who didn't explicitly agree.
"People who claimed territory as property voluntarily created an entity to keep others out."
So, let them. And let them bear the entire financial burden and allow other property owners to opt out.
"Is the claim that protecting property against tresspass is amoral?"
Not at all. What is amoral- no what is immoral is telling other people how they are allowed to use their own property. This is what "national borders" propose to do. If I am not allowed to have someone visit my property because you claim to control my property, then you have violated my property rights. It would be exactly like me saying you have no choice but to allow a particular person onto your property against your will, just because I write a "law" that says you do. It's just like saying if I work for the ATF I am allowed to ransack your house looking for guns, whether or not you consent. Two sides; same coin.
"For surely if there is property, then it follows that protection of that property is a necessary consequence."
Yes. But at YOUR expense, and not implemented in such a way as it violates anyone else's right of association.
It's not an "argument against property", it is an affirmation of property rights in the face of collectivism that seeks to trump those rights.
I'm not going to bother with an email for this quickie: Here's how your property and 4thA rights are...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/03/portland_cops_had_right_to_ent.html
Read the very last line. The arrogant ignorance of the cops make you want to puke.
Yeah, Steve, that is pretty sick and twisted. But all too typical. No matter what the reavers do it is "within departmental guidelines" and, of course, "never" violates the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteKent-What I was missing was "If I am not allowed to have someone visit my property because you claim to control my property, then you have violated my property rights."
ReplyDeleteThat works for me.
But that person needs to get to your property. That's where illegals trespass.
=-=-=-=-
Our Forebears constituted this government. "Those who did are long dead. Their agreements are not binding on anyone who didn't explicitly agree." Not quite.
It is impossible for each person to constitute a separate voluntary agreement with every other, and modify it continuously as situations evolve. So societies constitute 'standard agreements'.
I'm guessing we all agree on limited enumerated powers for our (necessary) security contractors. But even that- We'd never agree on exactly the same limits/powers. So what to do? Never have a society protect itself because everyone cannot agree.(?)
Small groups and tribes come to local agreements for mutual benefit. Beyond that, with larger territory/populations it becomes unmanageable. So people do what they can, and it's never great- just necessary. And that power is applied against everyone, whether they agree or not, because that's the nature of the necessary.
I haven't reasoned it out, or explained it well. But voluntary agreement isn't asked from newborns. The power exists, whether you agree with it or not. And that power is necessary for security.
OK, I've rambled. But I think the state has a legitimate role to provide macro-security. When they fail in that role, then societies are over-run like ours today. No society can survive without physical security. It seems the only hope to is constitute a security force with specific limited enumerate powers and to document specific exclusions (bill of rights).
I haven't figured it out yet. Please come up with a better formulation for the necessary evil, and we can base our next society on that. (Because the last one fell apart and we haven't replaced it yet.)
"But that person needs to get to your property. That's where illegals trespass."
ReplyDeleteOnly if they cross privately owned property that they don't have permission to cross. Yes, they probably do, but you can't trespass if you have permission from the owner or if the property is not privately owned. No "State" can own property- not really. Governments possess nothing they didn't steal or buy with stolen (or counterfeited) money. A thief doesn't own that which he possesses. So, it's a case of is this person really trespassing at this moment? You can't paint it with such a broad brush by claiming that just because the US government (unconstitutionally) claims they are "illegal" that they did something wrong.
"It is impossible for each person to constitute a separate voluntary agreement with every other, and modify it continuously as situations evolve. So societies constitute 'standard agreements'."
It's why I signed the Covenant of Unanimous Consent. It gets around that huge flaw in "societal constitutions". It's also why I follow the ZAP. It is one-sided. No one else is forced to agree. It only tells me how I will relate to others, and what they can expect if they choose to attack me.
"Never have a society protect itself because everyone cannot agree."
Societies can not protect themselves anyway. There is no such entity as "society"; there are individuals. "Society" is a useful concept until you try to start giving it rights. Individuals have rights and if you respect the rights of all individuals, then "society" will protect itself just fine.
"Please come up with a better formulation for the necessary evil..."
If something is necessary it can't be evil, and if it is evil it can't be necessary. I don't "need" the State or any of its manifestations. And neither do you.
thank you again for your thoughtful replies.
DeleteAs I see the need for macro security against external threats, I maintain that a limited gov't with few specific enumerated power is necessary. Since it is necessary, it cannot be evil.
The trouble is defining limits and enforcing those limits against your own security forces.
Kent,
ReplyDeleteI'm not able to add anything here. I just wanted you to know that I agree with you on this one. A man oughta be able to move anywhere on this planet that he thinks will better his situation.
Dave
How can you do those things without violating the property or liberty of individuals? If you can't, it is evil. If it is evil it can't be "necessary".
ReplyDeleteit's what I struggle with, and do not have a reasoned proposal. seeing eastern europe, africa, and asia- macro external security is a necessity.
ReplyDeleteNecessity. That's the problem. individuals and small tribes cannot withstand organized assaults. on this continent, we see organized cartels capturing the wealth of millions, and enslaving captured populations.
it's slavery, unless a force able to project more power can change things.
Why not a voluntary militia? No "taxation" needed. Organization doesn't require coercion or "government". Mutual defense of private property. Any who wish to opt out will not be punished. If they later change their minds and want in, they will be welcomed. If bigger, more expensive tools are needed, resources can be pooled- or funds can be raised- voluntarily.
ReplyDeleteThis current way of doing it is just wrong. And I think more people would see that if they didn't believe "it's how it has always been done" and other nonsense.