The Flawed Private Property Argument Against Immigration
Private property rights can never be used to imprison people.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Previous comments...
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.
Further, I would point out that one's virtual presence is facilitated by the payments one makes to their ISP - a consideration and appropriate recognition of property rights and valuable services.
My ex was forced by a judge to pay for half our fully paid up house and lot. Having made a profit I invested in a boat and a new set of scuba gear. Boats have no property rights insofar as warrant less searches are concerned. But that's back in the USSSSR strike that USA.
Best and only property investment I ever made. It's never been a problem since I swore off gambling.
The problem you outline maybe solving itself....
I would object to categorizing him as a racist though. Unless it was against his own. He clearly lived up to the oath of office especially the phrase, 'to the best of my ability.'
Given the evidence of the first four years one can hardly blame the man for the second four years. The voters take that one in the shorts. Deservedly. I thought no one could out Carter the peanut. Not in my life time. Ii feel sorry for him.
I pithy way to describe what the “crony capitalists” (who aren’t really capitalists) who lobby for food stamps etc. are doing is: socialize costs, privatize profits.
I now envision a spectrum where you have the right to travel freely on one hand, and on the other hand a solitary confinement prison cell. You are arguing that if we do not have the absolute and unhindered right to travel freely (e.g., not allowed to travel to X), then we are implicitly a prisoner (at least to some degree; the prison cell of everything that is not X). And, if I am understanding you correctly, any movement toward being a prisoner is an unacceptable limitation on our liberty.
If I am understanding you correctly on that, I do wonder if you are consistent in your insistence on that principle. Does a man have the right to camp on your land, even against your will? Does he have a right to walk into your home uninvited? If not, are you not limiting his "right to travel freely"? Are you not saying, "You may not occupy this space, you are limited to the prison of all the other space available." So I suggest that you too limit a person's right to travel freely. So the question is not whether we limit that "right," but how and where to draw the line on the spectrum between free travel and prison. I believe we ought to recognize a range that respects private property, and yet does not constitute a prison.
I agree with you, that there should be provision for people to travel to any place they are welcome. For example, if someone needs to traverse privately owned land in order to access his own (or a friend's) property, there should be a way for him to do that. But even here there are limits; he must do so as the property owner allows (e.g., he may not just barge through a person's house, claiming that he is just freely traveling across the property). Likewise, I would probably even agree with you that a person ought to be allow to travel through a nation in order to get to another nation (especially a landlocked one). But here too, I would say, there ought to be limits based on the nations immigration rules. We would disagree on that. But I think our disagreement should not be seen as one of principle (we both affirm private property is good and prison is bad), but merely where we draw the line on that spectrum.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
I think you are making a mistake in your comment as you appear to be setting up degrees of imprisonment. This would allow for an unnecessary and completely arbitrary line to be drawn between freedom and imprisonment. A line over which the argument would never end. The apparent contradiction between "freedom to travel" and "private property" is worked out within that thread and you have touched on it in your own comment as well. But don't allow yourself to get drawn into that attractive "gray area."
1. Prohibiting a stranger to camp in my privately owned kitchen limits his "right to travel freely." [And according to DH, I gather, puts them in prison.]
2. If you believe that a stranger has the "right to travel freely" even onto my private property, even against my will, then you are limiting my private property rights (i.e., self-ownership). [I find this controversial.]
I'm okay with the first position. I think my self-ownership (and consequent private property rights) trump another person's "right to travel freely" onto it. So I believe that the right to travel freely is limited. I also think that there is a parallel with delegated rights on the national level. The rest of my post was trying to maintain that, while also still respecting people's freedom to move and live where they freely choose (and are allowed).
I still hope DH will reply. But what about you? Do you affirm an absolute and unrestricted right to travel freely, even into my home if they so choose? If not, are you not limiting a man's right to travel freely?
I apologize for the incorrect link. The new one appears to go to the correct spot.
We agree that our "right to travel freely" does not apply to certain places (e.g., private property). I call this a limitation on the right. You say it is not limited, it is just the proper understanding of the right. Fine, I'm willing to adopt that language.
The bottom line is that the right to travel freely is secondary to (i.e., does not supersede) our right to private property. A right will never contradict another right.
The right to travel freely does not imply a contradiction with the right to private property. With this understanding, I am willing to entertain the idea that there is a parallel to the national level. Not that the State owns "private" property, but that it does have the obligation to protect its citizens. This may involve restricting the "free travel" into our nation by some people (e.g., violent criminals). Morally, I don't see why this limitation would be any worse than that of actual private property.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
I'll continue in a separate comment.
I have the right to use force to make sure that people do not enter my land without my permission (a first step will be to make sure I know their intentions are peaceful). Since that is true, I am willing to explore the idea that a nation may do the same thing with delegated authority (as others have argued).
Roads exist for the purpose of travel. If I have no right to use force to prevent my neighbor from using the road without suspicion of a crime then I have no right to use force to prevent an immigrant from using the road without suspicion of a crime. If I do not have this right then the nation cannot have this right. The nation does not own private property.
The private ownership of roads seems right to me. But I know I have a lot to learn about this concept. For example, normally when talking about someone's private property, and someone's business, I think he should be allowed to discriminate as he sees fit. Most roads probably need to function differently, the way you described them. But I don't think the logistics of roads are on point. I do see the point you are making, and it applies beyond just roads. In the other threads, they used the example of strangers on a sidewalk. We don't have the right to demand ID, so neither should the State.
I'll think on this more. Part of me still feels that knowing who is crossing our borders is the first step to defending our citizens against known threats (or threats that should be known, and would be known if we had that control). Unlike me stopping traffic to check papers on private roads, this is a delegated responsibility. I have the right to regulate my private property, and make sure I can reasonably believe my visitors have peaceful intentions. Right now, I think the State rightly does this for the land that we citizens have claimed as our nation, worthy of protection. Obviously, I'm still working this out in my own mind. Thanks for helping.
Advice while your doing it if you're interested; Accept no compromises. Right and wrong are absolute. Enjoy.
2) No, but as the post explains you private property is not unlimited. It is clear that private property without the ability to travel to and from private property makes it meaningless. What would it do to have a farm on which you could never leave and if you did leave you could not come back.
Thus no property rights can be used to travel in a reasonable manner to and from other people's property. If this were not the case the continental railroads would have been able to stop anyone from traveling between the northern and southern part of the US. That would absurd.
That was the whole point of the post. Please read it and point to specifically why you disagree.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
The second reason I find it ironic that you asked me to read your post is because apparently you did not read your own comment here. I quote you: "as the post explain you [sic] private property..." Again: "Thus no property rights can be used to travel in a reasonable manner...." I think you meant that private property rights may not prevent travel.
But now, getting past the irony to the substance. You said, "1) No." Okay, so that means you do believe prohibiting a stranger to camp in my kitchen does not limit his right to travel freely. I don't understand. In this, would you not be saying, "You may not occupy this space [e.g., my kitchen], you are limited to the prison of all the other space available"? Does he have a right owed to him to freely travel into my kitchen or not?
Then you said, "2) No, but....you [sic] private property is not unlimited." For something to be "not unlimited" means that it is "limited." But this was precisely my second point: "You are limiting my private property rights." So if you say "No" to my point that private property rights are limited, and then affirm that my private property rights are "not unlimited," that sentence is a contradiction. But again, I think you meant "Yes," the exact opposite of what you wrote. And I think we agree on that, that our private property rights are limited.
I'm not sure that I do disagree with your article. I agree that private property rights are not unlimited. I'm merely pointing out that neither is our right to travel freely unlimited. Even if we agree that there needs to be legal means to traverse property, that still needs to be by the owner's consent. Either the owner makes his own provision for legal crossing, or the State dictates the manner of that crossing, and the owner abides by that. But in any case, the owner has the right to say, "No, you do not have the right to travel through my kitchen." I really don't understand why this is so controversial.
Markings on a map, yes. Arbitrary, no.
Do you possess the right to dictate, or protect, the cultural norms of your city? What identity of your city do you have the right to protect by force? By the act of posting guards to question everyone who wishes to enter?
At what point does a nation acquire those rights that you (or your city) do not possess?
There is an intriguing part of Galt’s speech that might be applicable. It begins:
-----------------------------
“You have reached the blind alley of the treason you committed when you agreed that you had no right to exist. Once, you believed it was ‘only a compromise’:”
-----------------------------
Rand then lists examples of the form “it was selfish to live for the group X, but moral to live for the larger group Y” – using “selfish” in the common negative sense. In each example you have a legitimate interest in Y, but as the list progresses X becomes larger and your interest in Y less, until the interest disappears into total self-immolation:
-----------------------------
“Now, you are letting this greatest of countries be devoured by any scum from any corner of the earth, while you concede that it is selfish to live for your country and that your moral duty is to live for the globe.”
-----------------------------
This was published in 1957 when our immigration rate was almost zero, so despite the “from” in the phrase “from any corner of the earth” she may have been thinking of foreign aid.
On the other hand, giving residency to scum from any corner of the earth is foreign aid taken to the last degree.