What Rand said about the rights of nations
A majority of Gulchers either have never read this or have chosen to ignore it because it does not fit their understanding of Objectivism.
From the Ayn Rand lexicon, under National 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."
“Collectivized ‘Rights,’”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 103
From the Ayn Rand lexicon, under National 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."
“Collectivized ‘Rights,’”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 103
These attempts to find within AR's statements, justification or rationalization for beliefs in exclusionary border controls and the application of pre-emptive force to individuals arriving at those borders, can only be pursued by denying (or misunderstanding) the 'first principles' of Objectivism (which is egoistic and individualistic), or by attempting to work backwards from a desired conclusion, illogically.
One of the best examples of the above is the previous posts' comparison of 'Galt's Gulch' and a nation (the U.S.) and attempts to derive from that, justification for an exclusionary and preemptively forcable immigration activity. The two entities bear no comparable identity. Galt's Gulch was private property of Midas Mulligan working with John Galt to 'hide' it's existence from the rest of the world, and intended to be and operate as a refuge for the productive of the world. Galt and the other operatives of 'The Gulch' operated well within the Objectivist ideals of 'property rights' of an individual in their invitations to selected others and in selling or renting portions of Gulch property to those others, including mutually recognized and accepted contractual obligations and terms.
That description bears no resemblance to a geo-political, bounded nation, inhabited by 'free men' owning or renting their own private property with the right to change their properties and locals, and providing for their mutual defense a government for the strict purposes of applying retributive force against jurisdictional violators of individual rights, and against extra-territorial violators of those same individual rights and freedoms. 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.
When anyone can set himself/herself up as being able to re-interpret what Rand meant rather than stick to what she said or wrote, we wind up with what William Shipley wrote, "And now Ayn Rand is not an Objectivist."
You're right that Rand explained what she meant in terms of her own principles. I quoted it directly just so that this wouldn't be deemed out of context. If you are going to quote Rand's philosophy like a Bible thumper, you had better expect that when others do the same, to be held to the same standards.
I have read The Virtue of Selfishness now, and my quote was not a misrepresentation. It was in context. When I make my own interpretations, I say so.
In order to continue to learn and progress, but also to communicate with others working within your science, you relied on that language and definitions and first principles. You certainly did not rely on a chemistry handbook to do more than be a memory jogger for a definition or a formula or a device you hadn't used since undergrad.
With the above in mind, please define or illustrate for me where you think I've mis or re-interpreted the application of a 'first principle' of Objectivism and why you believe that. I make no claim to any particular expertise on the life and quotations of Ayn Rand, but I am a well studied and erudite student of Objectivism and it's principles, particularly as applied in life and factual reality. Even saying that, I'm always interested in learning--so please elucidate.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
I disagree. . we are being invaded by illegals daily, and we
defend this nation as our own, as Rand said. -- j
.
You have claimed to be an Objectivist. If you reject the point of this thread, then while I disagree with you, I must applaud you for having come to this conclusion on your own, instead of just following Objectivist orthodoxy.
The place and time was the Ford Hall Forum, Boston 1973. [8] There is a gap in the recording when the audience member asked his question. The moderator repeats the question in his own words:
“What is your attitude towards open immigration and what is your attitude towards the effect it may have upon the standard of living in this country? And does not this require that the answer is that you are, uh, opposed to both—”
At this point the original questioner interrupts to repeat the second part of his question: “Aren’t you asking a person to act against his own self-interest ... [inaudible].” The moderator repeats, not too coherently:
“Aren’t you asking a person to act in connection with his own self-interest in connection with his decision as to what to advocate?”
“You don’t apparently know what my position on self interest is.
“I have never advocated that anyone has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force. If you close the border to forbid immigration on grounds that it lowers your standard of living – which certainly is not true, but even assuming it were true – you have no right to bar others. Therefore to claim it’s your self-interest is an irrational claim. You are not entitled to any self-interest which injures others, and the rights of others, and which you cannot prove in fact, in reality to be valid. You cannot claim that anything that others may do – not directly to you but simply through competition let us say – is against your self interest and therefore you want to stop competition dead. That is the kind of self-interest you are not entitled to. It is a contradiction in terms and cannot be defended.
“But above all, aren’t you dropping a more personal context? [At this point she begins to become intense.] How could I ever advocate that immigration should be restricted [becomes very intense] when I wouldn’t be alive today if it were.”
And yes, I come to the same conclusion without reference to her quote and I don't count it as orthodoxy, but rather logical from 'first principles'. These are not insignificant matters for an Objectivist or a believer in individual freedom.
Some things to think about.
At what point does your crossing a border become an act of force? Is it an act of force to go across town? Or maybe to the next town? Is it an act of force to go into the next county? Or state? Why would it become an act of force when it is the border of a country?
If someone is walking down the sidewalk, at what point do you have the right to know who they are or where they come from or are going? Their immigration status? That would mean guilty until proven innocent. You are a trespasser until you prove you are not. Maybe it is their intentions that give you that right? I hope I do not need to rebut that one. If you have no right to know this information, where does the state get this right?
Thought experiment: Assume you live in an Objectivist nation in which essentially all property is private, including streets, highways and airports, and all property along the border. Re-ask the questions above. You may come to a quite different conclusion.
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.
In the UK, what I said is true.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...
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.
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.
Boner is gone. Don't give up on the Tea Party. It is still young. The message is not yet solid and consistent. That's what I like to think we're doing here. I notice that we all make the mistake of thinking that this is a new battle we're losing. But it is not a new battle. 1776 was only the beginning of this battle. And we are only now seeing it for what it really is.
Thanks for letting me get that out there.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
Passport or visa checks at the border, port of entry, or international airport are the means by which a nation's government can reasonably assure its citizenry that the nation's government can do its only acceptable purpose (as defined earlier by dbhalling).
When a military crosses an international boundary, it is act of force. It is what starts wars. Mexican military control southern Arizona as if it is theirs and will tell you that it should be theirs based on claims prior to the Mexican-American War. When an individual crosses an international boundary without declaration of intent, most host nations call such a person a spy. When an individual crosses an international boundary with declaration of intent, that person should be welcomed. When a person crosses an international boundary without declaration of intent, it is only logical for the host nation to consider such a person to be of ill intent. Does anyone want to do business with someone who has already shown that they will willingly violate a country's laws? If they do that, then expect deception in your transactions with that individual as well.
Crossing internal boundaries does not start wars.
"When a military crosses an international boundary, it is act of force. It is what starts wars."
Is it not more accurate to say that a military crossing a border signifies the beginning of a war? Since the war must have been already started in somebodies mind for said military to push across a border. And do we really want to be looking to other countries for examples of how to set our border policies? What country is so worthy of that honor, that we should drop our own principals and take up theirs?
If a nation's government has allowed/created a situation where it needs to check a passport at the border to protect it's citizenry, hasn't that government already failed in that duty? How can any amount of police state fix that? How can the solution be more government power?
Well the government did fail us. And more government power with an increased police state is not the answer. So what is the answer?
We should not look to other countries for examples of how to set our border policies. The right of a nation to defend itself is derived from the individual's right to self-defense.
Going back to the earliest civilizations of man, man has built walls, moats, citadels, etc. to defend himself and his family against invasion. Were walled cities in medieval times restricting the right to travel of immigrants? Of course they were, and the citizens of such walled cities were doing so in their own self-interest. At that point in human history, invaders would band together and take cities (and later nations) by force. National defense was a sad (dare I say, pragmatic) acknowledgement that some people do not respect property rights. As for the concept that an individual's freedom to travel trumps a free nation's right to self-defense, there are at least two flawed premises.
a) All individuals are not always rational and will not necessarily follow just laws.
People of faith are not always rational. Particularly, adherents to any faith that expects a government to be a theocracy, including the Muslim faith, can be expected to violate just laws if they think that doing so is being consistent with their religious expression. The extreme case in this example would be Muslim suicide bombers. They are not the only such example, only the most recent.
In any society, a certain percentage of any population will use force to commit burglary, murder, rape, etc. In such circumstances, is not the society correct in limiting the freedom to travel of such individuals, even in the most limited of cases such as an electronic tether or having to occasionally report to a probation officer? Anyone who disagrees with this last concept is an anarchist, and cannot expect a reasonable society to exist precisely because the percentage of individuals in a population who will commit such acts of force is higher in a society where such acts are not retributively acted upon by the society.
b) What precondition is necessary for the presumption of innocence?
You may say none, but I will show you why I disagree.
Requiring passports and visas at the border does not mean that the government has failed in its only valid mission of protecting its citizens from invasion. It means that it is correctly doing its only valid task.
Why do you think that America has the presumption of "innocent until proven guilty"? Whenever one encounters a complete stranger, does one automatically walk up to that person and welcome him or her? Most people do not, out of a fear that the stranger might not be a person of good will. This fear is derived from any animal's most basic concept of self-defense. The admission of strangers (immigrants) to a nation is no different, athough Objectivists will likely disagree. The nation's citizens have no knowledge a priori of the good will of the immigrant. This is precisely why the passport/visa process is necessary. After a straightforward discussion with the prospective immigrant, if the immigrant appears to be of good will, then the nation accepts (and perhaps even welcomes) the immigrant. At that point, after the immigration service has executed its duty properly, a citizen can have a reasonable expectation that the immigrant is "innocent until proven guilty" and can expect to have value-for-value exchanges with that immigrant.
If, however, the immigrant does not do the host nation the courtesy of announcing his/her presence, then that immigrant must be presumed to be of ill intent, and therefore, unworthy of value-for-value transactions.
Is there any nation on Earth that does not have an unlawful entry law? If so, it missed the point of the last two paragraphs.
Consider how your freedom to travel would be restricted if the nation does not fulfill its proper role regarding passports and visas. Do you really want to go around being suspicious of people rather than unsuspicious? The passport/visa process is liberating for the citizens of the host nation precisely because they should have no basis for suspicion when a nation's government does its only proper role. When immigrants went to Ellis Island to announce their desire to come to America, some Americans did show biases against certain ethnicities, but overall those immigrants were assimilated into America quite well. Legal immigrants today are likewise generally welcomed. I welcome all legal immigrants. I talk with at least 100 per day who are on student visas from all over the world. Because they have honored our visa laws, I welcome them with open arms and engage in value-for-value exchange with them, regardless of faith (or lack thereof), ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, etc. The passport/visa process results in increased freedom of travel for a nation's citizens, better welcoming for the immigrants, and better commerce for all involved in value-for-value exchange.
Police should have NO responsibilities to enforce immigration. Police's role should be at the local level, and perhaps at the state level, but definitely not at the national or international level. No police state can or should fix an immigration problem. If police are forced (word chosen carefully) to intervene because the federal government has not, then that is an indication that the federal government has failed us. Such a failure does not mean that more government power is needed. It does mean, however, that those in command (such as President Zero) need to be replaced by those who are interested in the one valid role of a federal government. That is your answer.
Let me begin by saying that the only reason I started this with you is that the explanations and reasoning you were receiving were not working for me either. I had to do some serious reflecting and ask some questions in a different way to get the answers I needed. I am hoping that a different presentation may allow you to be less defensive and think about it differently. I too shared the pragmatic solution of sealing the border to stop the bleeding and then work out a solution from there but I could not reconcile that with the knowledge that most of those coming here from Mexico are trying to improve their lives and we would be interfering with that on the basis of what? Our fear.
We already have passports and visas. We already have the TSA. We already have walls, and border patrol and security checkpoints. Why are we still in fear? We have the most powerful military on the face of the planet. Our police are more militarized than ever. (overly so) We have "a rifle behind every blade of grass". Yet we still live in fear. Why? We have reversed cause and effect. Passports and visas, TSA, walls and proder patrol and checkpoints, all these things are symptoms of our failure to properly protect ourselves.
The three things, eliminate welfare, end the war on drugs and end the income tax. Welfare only brings some of them here. The income tax alienates them all and keeps them out of the system, adding to the welfare numbers. And the war on drugs brings the violent ones or encourages them to be violent. Eliminate those and who is left? Only those we are truly at war with and we have oceans between us and them. No, that will not stop them, but it does slow them down and decrease their numbers. But why do we even still fear them? With our military, and our rifle behind every blade of grass they should be afraid to show their heads from under the rocks they live under. But they grow braver and braver and the fact that we want to try to stop them at the border is evidence that we have utterly failed to beat them and protect ourselves. And the police state we create to hold them back is just proof that they are still winning. Still advancing, even.
When you walk down a busy sidewalk it's not tens, but hundreds or even thousands of strangers you will walk past. You do not attempt to greet them. But you don't cross the street to avoid them. It is not fear that stops you. You don't look at each one wondering who is the serial killer, or a gang banger (do people still use that term?) or even more dangerous, a liberal. Why, then, is their immigration status so important?
I cannot argue with your last paragraph. It only reenforces everything I've said here. The only thing I can say is that I cannot figure out for the life of me how you can say everything you said up till then, and still come to that conclusion.
There is an enemy out there. And some of them are here as well. And they aren't afraid of a passport check or a border security checkpoint. They revell in it. That is their victory. The very thing that encourages them to keep pressing forward. The more we impose, the more they've won. The only thing that stops them from standing up en masse and shouting allahoo ackbar (or whatever it is they shout) is the threat of devastating retaliation, and that is all but gone. We're to busy arguing about our damn borders.
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.
The rationality of his views is a whole new debate.
He doesn't have the authority but his voice would be heard far and wide. And his evidence of the destructive nature of the laws would be irrefutable.
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
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.
The downside is we'd probably just ruin all the good vacation spots.
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.
As for "free range" I enjoyed that as a youth growing up on Long Island, NY. If my children were permitted to be "free range" here in Phoenix as I was growing up in NY they would be accosted or worse. Yes, I've chased off a broken-english speaking pervert in pickup truck who asked my daughter and her friend to help find his lost puppy. Yes, I've had mail stolen from my mailbox by a Spanish only speaking 4 year old boy in diapers. Yes, I've had my cable taken out by the Spanish-only speaking neighbors who lived (9 of them) next door for 6-months, (never made a payment, trashed the house, lowered my property value).
Added: I had a bank, Bank One it was called, insist I use a spanish language deposit slip in the drive through. I asked for English and the broken English teller told me there were none. I went inside and there were plenty. I made my deposit, spoke to the branch manage and reminded her that my business does a lot of transactions and I expect my banking document them in English in the United States.
I'm in no way politically correct. I see and react to what I see. Living in NY I was never armed. In Arizona I'd be a fool not to be.
I've been shot twice, clubbed, and knifed. I was robbed once and peeped once (chasing the guy down the alley in my underwear), but the first man to ever try to kill me was my stepfather at 14 years old in my home. Reality can bite.
The idea that we can live without danger in our lives is not rational and it never has been. Nor do I expect, or even want government to protect me, for what I'd have to give up. I've taught my two sons and two stepdaughters the same things and done all I could to prepare them for a life that has danger in it.
Kinda glad I'm not able to form a visual. :)
AJAshinoff made a comparison. He compared two degrees of danger, one high with a large number of Hispanics and one low with a small number.
He did not say we can always “live without danger in our lives.”
By the way, do free range children taste better than caged?
I have no issue with people's race, religion, or language. I never did care for, and still don't, pig-headed people, stupid people, slow people, or racists.
In the summer, I would take my bike out at 7 am while my mother slept. I would ride all day without my mother having to worry (much). This was before cell phones and before I had much money in my pocket (calls were a dime on the pay phone). I would leave town on my bike, visit the local airport to watch small planes, hang around and under the old bridge to watch trains and if I really felt adventurous go swimming in one of the two lakes in Yaphank or pay a visit to the LI game farm. Yes, there was an element of danger but nothing like what there is today.
The people, my neighbors. were decent hard working folks who worked just to be here, to be American. This mentality is completely absent in today's America and its a sign of the decay representing who we've become and what we've allowed ourselves/our children to be subjected to. Its obnoxiously disgraceful to our heritage and criminal to our kids.
Zephamy, we can take care of ourselves, lethally if need be. It shouldn't need be that way for children. Unfortunately my kids grew up with no trace or understanding of the freedom I enjoyed in what most would perceive a much more hostile place.
There are areas of downtown Glendale, Arizona where there are spanish only signs on stores where if you speak english they look at YOU funny. Hell, I had a guy the other day, in broken english, panhandle me for peso's outside of a supermarket - yes he actually asked for peso's 200 miles north of the border. It's just that real.
We don't need more law enforcement, we need less government influence and intrusion.
And everything you would do just adds to the destruction. And the american culture you would fight so hard to defend will be destroyed by your own hand.
I have ZERO issue with legal immigration. I have ZERO tolerance for lawlessness and illegal immigrants.
I did my part, suspended my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for a time to ensure this nation is here for my children. Standing by why politicians and illegal aliens decimate every conceivable aspect of what I defended is not something I am willing to do.
"The three things, eliminate welfare, end the war on drugs and end the income tax. Welfare only brings some of them here. The income tax alienates them all and keeps them out of the system, adding to the welfare numbers. And the war on drugs brings the violent ones or encourages them to be violent. Eliminate those and who is left? "
You comment as if doing those three things will accomplish nothing. The reason these people don't assimilate is because WE separate them. The only reason they're illegal is because WE demand it be so. The only thing that makes them lawless is because WE put them outside the law. We do this to ourselves. But you want to do something "Right Now". Isn't that where most of our bad laws come from? "We've Got To Do Something!!!" is shouted over any rational voice and laws are passed and on down the hill we go.
We are losing the immigration debate but that is because our message is inconsistent at best and somewhat self destructive. You are arguing to deprive human beings of their rights. Where is it that you get that right from?
I thank you for your service, but if what you are advocating is why you served then I can't put my heart behind it.
As to becoming feminized, do you suppose this is due to laziness, complacency, or something far more sinister, as jbrenner suggested, an intentional guided path?
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.
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?
I am not in favor of the drug wars, but Mexican military patrol southern Arizona as if it is theirs. That, by definition, is an invasion that provides an example to your "The lack of a proper retaliation is why we are still in a war."
Regarding the military crossing signifying the beginning of a war, I will answer, "Maybe". Sometimes the war has been started prior to that. The Quran is quite explicit about the stages that Muslims should take when they are small or large in numbers in a nation. The concept of sleeper cells is consistent with the Quran. Though I have not read the whole Quran, I have read much of it because I deal with dozens of Muslims per day. They pay me quite well, and I count most of them as friends. The majority of those who have cheated on my exams are Muslim, however. Some can be trusted, and some cannot. I treat them as individuals.
Nor did Reagan the spender who raised taxes (four to 11 times, depending how you count) and increased the federal workforce by 324,000 people, raised the debt ceiling 18 times and almost tripled the federal debt.
Nor did Reagan the retreater who withdrew from Lebanon after terrorists killed 248 US marines, leaving the country to civil war, or Reagan the negotiator who reached out to the “evil empire”, or the Reagan who signed California’s liberal abortion law, the Brady gun law, collective bargaining for local government workers and amnesty for almost 3 million undocumented people."
This thinking that if only we elect the 'right ones', that they'll save us will eventually end us. It's up to each of us individually.
The failure is ours.
But hey, I was young. :)
Thanks for keeping me on track.
That's an entirely different topic.
If you wish to fly from your home in Florida to another state next year and don't have the proper ID, guess what. You won't be able to. How does that have anything whatsoever to do with the territorial integrity of this nation.
I think that damn near the entire state of Florida is within 100 mi from the country's border, so the 4th Amendment doesn't even apply to you. Does that have much to do with the territorial integrity?
Has all that ID checking and elimination of the 4th stopped any terrorist attack or done anything to strengthen the supposed territorial integrity.
As for Florida, a driver's license will continue to be sufficient, and a passport will still not be required for those traveling on Caribbean cruises that start and end here.
I have to deal personally with the ID checking requirements more than most Gulchers because about 5 times per year I have to write letters on behalf of my students to extend their visas so that they can finish their degrees. That is a pretty small price to pay to know that America's territorial integrity is being protected.
As for TSA screening, I turn it into something more enjoyable by asking the agents politely to sniff my shoes if they ask me to take them off.
Regarding the freedom to travel, I hear about many road trips from my many international students. They do not consider themselves restricted once they get through the passport process and the once per year requirement to check in with my university's International Students office to fill out 10 minutes of paperwork.
It is our job individually to protect ourselves from real dangers, not imagined ones or ones the entertainment news tells us about. There wasn't then and isn't now, a BOOGIE MAN under the bed.
Ayn Rand did support an open immigration policy.
Ayn Rand did say that the potential for economic competition was not a valid reason to restrict immigration.
Ayn Rand did not say that immigration to America (or any other specific country) is a right.
She did not say that everybody is entitled to immigrate, regardless of criminal history, health status (such as having an infectious disease), ability to financially support oneself (or obtain support from a sponsor), or ties to terrorists or dictators.
She did not say that the government has no right (and no responsibility to its citizens) to investigate the background or current status of persons wishing to immigrate.
She did not say that the U.S. government assumes an unchosen obligation to uphold and protect the rights of anyone who shows up here, regardless of circumstances.
Based on everything we know about her personal history and political ideology, we can reasonably infer that Ayn Rand likely would have supported a system that would have encouraged legal immigration by anyone meeting reasonable qualifications following a thorough background check by the government.
She would likely not have supported a policy of wide-open borders without government checkpoints, especially since such a policy would have permitted unrestricted access to America by agents of the country from which she had escaped.
"If you have a counter to anything within my comment, please reply."
To fully grasp the right to travel, one has only to begin at AR's nature of man and from that move into an Objectively moral man acting in society (with other men). Rand fully understood and expected that, rather than having to list and explain every right imaginable, that one followed the same path of rational and logically reasoned thought that she had, comes to the same conclusion. It's just not that complicated. Its a little like having to understand axioms before you can move beyond arithmetic into mathematics.
If you put as much effort into understanding Rand's thought development as you seem to in finding one of her conclusions that you don't like, then trying to twist her logic around to fit your preconceived beliefs, you might discover the world of free men.
No individual has ownership of the land you discuss and therefor had or has no right to cede to government what was never his in the first place.
That's enough of this conversation. Time for a new post if you wish to continue a discussion on this topic.
You say “No individual has ownership of the land you discuss . . .” However, Ayn Rand says, “Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal) She also says a government has “the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task.” (The Virtue of Selfishness.) She also says that “’public property’ is a collectivist fiction.” (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal)
Taken together, these statements by Ayn Rand fully support my contention that no one can cross the border into an Objectivist country, unannounced and uninvited, without violating the property rights of one or more of that country’s citizens.
You cannot understand Objectivism by selecting out of context quotes from The Ayn Rand Lexicon without a systematic, integrated understanding of previous explanations, paragraphs or even the same paragraph. When she used the phrase "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" she based it on what she meant by those terms and had just explained. She could not repeat every explanation in every sentence. Governments do not have rights.
2) I am assessing whether or not such an Atlantis would be self-destructive or not. At this point, I have to conclude that it would be. If just anyone has the right to enter a nation I would create, then I know that such a nation will not work in this era.
3) If, in the process of new opportunities presenting themselves, I run across a Midas Mulligan, I am gathering data to present a business plan in conjunction with several others to present to Mulligan. If my result from 2) continues to be as it is, I will not be able to present such a business plan in good conscience.
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?
every right, as a nation, to select those who are admitted
and to reject those whom we pass over. . that is the meaning
of sovereignty. -- j
.
.
that objectivism differs with Rand's statement above.
it appears to me that Zen is claiming that objectivism
and its grounding in personal property rights demands that
a national border be defended only when there is personal
property involved, and a specific offense against the property owner
has taken place. . no pre-emptive defense, no general defense.
thus, if a national park bounded the national boundary,
no defense would occur until the park had been crossed
and a specific property owner was offended. -- j
.
"I" am the citizen the park is my property. Tress pass at your own peril."
"I am the citizen the park does not belong to the government they are only temporary employees."
"I am citizen if the employees didn't perform their job and keep you off my property what good are they? Sack them."
"I am the citizen who is an employee in the government. thanks for the job and the responsibility. I've never seen a park this big."
"I am the citizen my park is fifty states wide and one district deep."
I think we're getting confused between a few concepts here--being ownership and proofs of ownership, jurisdiction, geo-political nation/states, and inherent rights of the individual vs the authority granted to a jurisdictional government by the individual property owners.
As to waging war, again a country is not an entity. The individuals that are citizens within that geo-political area are entities that can wage war and within Objectivism can only do so to stop aggression against the citizens of the country and to resolve jurisdictional disputes with countries that want to aggress with force instead of work through agreed upon court systems of venue.
If you purchase the empty lot next to your house and leave it vacant because you like the room, can I build a house on it, thereby making it more productive and "developing ownership"?
In fact, isn't this the argument behind "eminent domain" where the government decides that someone else would make more productive use of the land than you?
And it usually works the other way around. You get possession of the land and then put it to productive use. You have to get possession of it from someone who owns it, or if you can't bring yourself to accept that a government can own land then someone who controls it to the extent that they have mutually accepted right to grant ownership.
.
.
Ayn Rand would not agree. In The Virtue of Selfishness she writes, "Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent “rights” of gang rulers. It is not a free nation’s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses."
I'll even say it the Mark Hamilton way: "The only valid purpose of government is protection only".
All else is governed by the individual and the markets the individual creates.
The individual has a right of self protection so a group of individuals defined by property in common has that same right is what I think she was getting at.
Whatever you do, don't ever, ever tell that cop (who pulled you over a for a tail light) the truth about carrying a large sum of money in your car.
Don't ever open a bakery if you are the type of Christian someone into PC would call a homophobe.
If you own a lot of land, think twice about turning that creek into a catfish pond.
If you have a kid, make sure he does not point a finger at another kid during recess and say, "Bang! Bang!"
Do not give your kid lemonade for a lemonade stand beside the street.
I'm still thinking of stuff . . .
One of the objective things one can determine by studying reality is that not everyone agrees philosophically. Reason indicates that this is likely to continue. Another thing that one can observe is that the majority can, by the initiation of force, impose its will on the minority if it is not inhibited in doing so. You may have binding documents and agreements inhibiting it from doing this but if a sufficient majority of the population can be convinced, they will implement a "new deal" and the old deal will be ignored.
A consequence of this is that it is not sufficient that a nation founded on Objectivist principles form a government constrained by those principles, it must also, somehow, assure that the people who believe in those principles remain a sufficiently large percentage of the population that they can maintain the integrity of those constraints.
This is one of the reasons the fictional gulch was hidden and controlled access. Because it was obvious that if the looters could enter in numbers, they would impose their own philosophy by force of arms.
This remains an issue.
If there is no such thing as a right of a nation to self-determination, then what is the basis of the moral outrage held by so many Gulchers (including myself) to United States interventionist foreign policy?
What you have said thus far, ewv, is not inconsistent with what Rand wrote.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/nat...
The context that you seek goes back to the month-long argument between the Hallings vs. several others, including myself, regarding the freedom to travel vs. national sovereignty. Ayn Rand did recognize national sovereignty for what she defined as free nations. The point came to a head on Friday when Eudaimonia during his broadcast agreed with me, instead of the Hallings and Zenphamy.
I just posted on who is and who isn't liberal which describes that exact procedure of giving up rights.
However let me know which statement put me i don't mind re-examining at this point. I'll either defend it or investigate the nature and discuss it without spin or speaking in tongues.
The one recently this past week thrown out by the Supreme Court was a suspension of the entire Constitution anywhere with a 100 mile area centered on the borders. DOHS argued for that.
The second replaces The Bill of rights in large part and with it any part they don't want by excluding a group of civil liberties. All of Miranda warnings through sentencing with no sentence guidelines.
The gist of it is replacing the requirement for probable cause with something called 'suspicion of'' Suspicion of was not defined, nor limited in anyway at least to my due diligence searching and others and the procedure and outcomes were left up to those apprehending . That includes attorney, court, judge and all of that.
It wasn't a well kept secret yet through three Presidential Elections Bush the second time and Obama twice the perps were re-elected.
That's how they signaled the government hey we will give up our rights. I think the phrase was 'just keep us safe.'
Through those years when I tried to show that to people it was 'huh?'
I'd like to find something annuling or even speaking out but not a whisper.
The sick part was the agent using suspicion of had to show no proof much less obtain a signed warrant. Might have got out of bed on the wrong side that morning. Other than any required internally.
It wasn't tossed out by the Supreme Court.
That's what I call voluntarily giving up rights.
I don't recall using the word immolation.
Your turn
In it are a small group managing the decline of civilization on mars. They told John Carter, an earthling, that they didn't create the fall, but managed it and did it by empowering the most barbaric with power and technology only because they could be controlled by this group.
I see many parallels in regards to today's world.
Applied to Rand and Hamilton, initiatory force is justified when initiatory force has been applied. In this case a non-free nation against a free one controlled by those that are managing their decline.
As many imply here in their comments, we are the aggressor and controller but that is not true.
We've all observed, our decline is being managed. Islam is a real threat but they are the barbarians controlled by barbarians whom manage the decline of civilizations. I wonder whom controls them.
Thought you'd enjoy this mind twister...and a bit of truth. It's not America, It's not the U.S. nor 'us'. I written before: America was not a conspiracy but she sure has been the subject of many.
Many here don't get it...WE are the victim, the subject of a world 180° opposed.
Your points are correct.
A nation's policies are technically driven by its citizens, if it is a "free" nation, a dictatorship on the other hand is driven by the dictator. In neither case is self-determination for the nation possible.
Is the outrage against interventionism a moral one or are there other reasons?
If it is a moral issue, what is the moral?
Which is the controlling moral imperative?
To intervene in a situation of great loss of life?
or
To not intervene and allow the nation its own path?
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." - Ayn Rand
“Collectivized ‘Rights,’”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 103
Ayn Rand Lexicon
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/nat...
“Collectivized ‘Rights,’”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 104
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sel...
She was not giving a nation a free ride on self determination.
That's an interesting claim.
More to the point, my initial question: If there is no right to the self-determination of nations (which Rand stated was limited to nations in which free citizens have voluntarily delegated their right to self defense, but regardless...) then why should anyone care who invades whom? There are no countries, correct? They are just artificial entities with no rights, not even the ones delegated to them by a free citizenry, correct? So, why the agitation?
Is the response, "because war is bad"?
Ok, war is bad.
But not all United States interventionist policy is war.
Some are nation building, some are leadership toppling, some are influencing elections, some are embargoes.
Why then, are any of these immoral?
Because the United States has no right to impose its will on other people?
But they are not, they are imposing their will on a Government which you claim has no rights, including the one which Rand states of their free citizens delegating to them their individual rights to self defense?
So why get all outraged?
It's just a non-entity with no rights applying force to another non-entity with no rights.
You are putting words in my mouth here, enough.
The definition of "scare quote" from wiktionary:
A quotation mark deliberately used to provoke a reaction or to indicate that the author does not approve of the term, rather than to identify a direct quotation.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scare_...
I'm not one of the outraged ones on this issue.
We seem to be at loggerheads here and I have no desire to keep butting heads like a pair of rams over it.
I see enough acrostic conversations as it is.
This was not intended specifically for you, but rather for others who would like to address my question.
I can not answer your questions because I do not agree with the premise: a free and just nation does have the right to self defense and self determination as (as you have noted) it is delegated to representatives for it by its citizens.
If this point is granted, then the outrage has basis: citizens believe that their representatives are not acting in their best interest - especially if the other nation is also free and just.
Denying this point brings up a set of unresolvable contradictions - which I tried to elaborate in my list of clarifying question.
Sad that you take responsibility away from them and place the blame on us. They reason they are here is because they chose to come not because we brought them here and set them apart. No one "puts" anyone anywhere. People gather, for the most part, with those like themselves because its familiar - hence the barrios; this is natural. This has nothing to do with us. Their being outside the law IS ONLY THEIR FAULT since they violated the law to come here. Had they come legally they wouldn't be in the situation they are in at all.
The blame America philosophy doesn't comfort anyone, let alone those hurt by illegal immigration.
"You are arguing to deprive human beings of their rights. Where is it that you get that right from?"
I deprive nothing - they violate the law and come into our country. I don't even tell them not to come, simply how to come and they choose not to. Again blame America first.
Rights are given by God. Yeah yeah, you disagree - I already know that.
I've had enough of saying the same things repeatedly. These conversations about the Right to Travel vs. Private Property have been expensive, they have harshly tainted and diminished my view of objectivism.
The law is unjust. It is immoral to violate the rights of human beings and the law does so solely on the grounds that they were not lucky enough to have been born here.
Most of these people are trying to better their lives. Most of them are not looking for handouts. They can't get here legally. We don't let them. Only a select few are allowed. If I was in their shoes i would do the same thing. You would too and you know it. But you're not in their shoes, you're on this side of the border. And you think somehow that gives you the right to make a law that says they can't come in. Again, where do you get that right? You have violated their rights by making that immoral law. Where do you get that right? Did god give you that right? Because that's the only place you could have gotten it. It didn't come from the facts of reality.
Your view of Objectivism is completely irrelevant. The only thing relevant is that you have tried to twist Objectivism to fit your preexisting belief system with no intention of adjusting that belief system to fit the reality discovered by the application of Objectivism.
I don't blame America. America still stands for certain values and ideals. I blame the people who have perverted those ideals and twisted those values to fit their own needs. A lot of people have been hurt by the perversion of those ideals. A lot of blood has been shed over those twisted values. People are responsible for that. Those people have blood on their hands. I blame those people. And I blame myself for not stopping them.
Pick a damn side.
Yes, you are blaming America first and, remarkably, stripping away individual responsibility and accountability from those violating a just law. Each person is responsible for his her own conduct, yes? If so, then each person coming into this country has voluntarily violated the law - the reason is irrelevant.The blame for their lawlessness is their own - they didn't have to, nor were they made to violate the law.
You can't have it both ways - Is property private or not? If yes, then people's movements are restricted (they can go around). If no, then you advocate open borders, the erasure of national sovereignty, and one world governance or no governance. I'd even speculate that if you're against private property you're against ownership in general.
My side is clear..America has her right to her border and who comes in and out. Private property TRUMPS right to travel. The Founding Fathers were for state/national sovereignty and private ownership. If private ownership is something Objectivism is set against then I'm in the wrong place.
It does not matter how many false alternatives you use, how much you reverse cause and effect, or attempt to abuse an unearned moral high ground, you change nothing. Everything I said stands. Your rights are no more important than anybody else's.
Private property rights and the right to travel freely are on equal ground. Understanding that takes deep thought. That takes effort. It also takes a willingness to set aside preconceived notions and put in that effort to find the truth. Yes your position is perfectly clear. You have the right to violate the rights of those who happen to be from outside the US borders and the US government is your tool to enforce that position.
Private property rights and the right to travel freely are not at odds here. This is Objectivism and you have refused to acknowledge even a single point so... Maybe.
The right to travel is flawed and incorrect.
The 'right to travel freely' is corollary to the right to life itself and the right to earn one's needs for life. In the Constitution, it also derives from the right to 'the pursuit of happiness'. I don't know about canonical, but the right is essential to Objectivism.
Unfortunately, the right to "the pursuit of happiness" is often used to justify all manner of welfare state measures such as "free public education" and subsidized medical care. This diminishes its usefulness in promoting the Objectivist concept of rights.
The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men."
To me that means that if I'm born into a society, culture, or country that restricts or even punishes a man's right to life, then I have the right to take a rationally selfish action to exercise my right to life, to travel away from there. And since the only proper role of US government is the protection of the individual's rights, it must not use force, (physical corruption, coercion, or interference) to prevent me from exercising that right. And for arguments of any having to only do that for men under it's jurisdiction, If I can make it to that border or across it, I'm under it's jurisdiction and it must morally protect my rights.
As to 'pursuit of happiness' being misinterpreted and misused, I won't argue that point, but will point out that most of the oppressive law enacted in the country's history, it's been 'The General Welfare Clause' and National Security that have been the prime factors.
I hope that helps to clarify.
I like the topic, and think that it is relevant to my topic. However, your topic is probably going to generate enough responses that it merits being a separate discussion thread.
Thanks,
jbrenner
There can be no moral right to deny others the right to life or travel, but there's no need to build a fence. If there are enough individuals that determine it's in their self-interest, OK---if not the refugees will go back home or move on to somewhere else.
You say that “the only proper role of US government is the protection of the individual's rights”. This is not quite accurate, as far as Objectivism is concerned. Ayn Rand said, “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.” This is a subtle but crucial distinction. If a complete stranger suddenly shows up in your country, does he automatically have the right to be there? If the country is governed by Objectivist principles, the stranger is either on private property without permission (trespassing), or he is on property the control of which was specifically ceded to the government by its citizens to carry out specific functions for the benefit of the citizens that authorized it. The stranger cannot claim the right to be on this type of property either. (He may obtain permission to be there, but that is a separate issue. We are talking about rights.) He also does not have a valid moral claim upon the government to protect his rights. This would saddle the government with an unchosen obligation, and Objectivism does not permit the creation of unchosen obligations.
To allow such a stranger free access to the country would also put at risk the citizens that the Objectivist government was formed to protect and defend. The stranger could claim to be a political refugee, but he could just as easily be a spy for a foreign dictatorship, a terrorist or a sleeper agent of the kind that carried out the 9/11 attacks. To allow such a person an unrestricted “right to travel” within the country, until and unless he overtly initiated force, would be a major breach of the government’s obligation to protect the safety and property of its citizens.
The above says nothing about whether or not we should advocate a more open immigration policy. It may well be in our self-interest to do so. But no one can claim a “right” to immigrate to a specific country. I doubt that even Ayn Rand would support such a right, and she was an immigrant.
First, I think we're confusing or conflating some terms here that are getting us into much of these disagreements. A nation/state is not a government and vice versa. It is a geographical/political/cultural area. It's a creation of man, but can have no rights. It's not alive and not a man.
A proper government is created by the people of such an area for the purpose of providing uniform and objective retaliatory force against those that use force to infringe on a man within the government's jurisdiction. The only proper 'prevention' it does or 'safety' it provides is through the assurance that it will apply Objective retaliatory force to those that try to or do infringe.
As to property, the government, since it is not an individual man cannot have a property right. Only the individual can have that, and to the public property you imply, which individual owns that property which he has asked the government to protect.
As to citizens, they are merely individuals that their fellows have agreed that have authority to vote, but he has no more rights than does any other man. There are many other people within the area called a nation.
As to bad individuals that come into the country, until Objective, rationally verified evidence is obtained that the bad individual is in the process of, begins to, or has committed an offense, no one has a right to deny him his natural rights.
That is the basis of the founding of this country--that the individual had unlimited and unalienable rights and the only source of jurisdiction and authority for those in government, while acting as government, was those specifically given it by the individuals that place themselves subject to such authority.
I've already listed Rand's statement of immigration restriction earlier in this post. She was adamant that she didn't agree to it.
You say, “As to bad individuals that come into the country, until Objective, rationally verified evidence is obtained that the bad individual is in the process of, begins to, or has committed an offense, no one has a right to deny him his natural rights.”
If this policy were adopted and strictly implemented, it would allow an ISIS leader and any number of his followers to enter and travel around the country unhindered, openly or covertly, as long as they appeared to remain peaceful. And even if the government became aware of their existence and their beliefs, it would not be able to effectively monitor their activities to obtain “rationally verified evidence” of criminal intent, lest their 4th Amendment “rights” be violated. The results would likely be catastrophic. I don’t think that a nation exhibiting any semblance of rationality and desire for self-preservation would permit its government to even consider adopting such a policy.
This further reinforces my argument that the right to travel freely for immigrants at least indirectly and substantially (financially) translates to a requirement that the nation's citizenry must be altruistic.
If they're traveling on a road, they're either in an automobile, which means someone's bought gas and paid the tax, or they're walking which I don't think really accrues any cost to anyone, other than cost to build it originally which you and I didn't participate in anyway.
Nobody can make you stay and fight it. Atlantis sounds great. But I can't go yet. I haven't got my 2 decades in yet. :) So I'm staying to fight it. And I'm going to make sure I've got my message right, and consistent. Somebody got to me. Maybe I can get to somebody else.
I just took it a step further. Your turn.
"It's all fun & games till someone loses an eye."
The far simpler solution would be to start over somewhere else, like the earliest colonists did. This is why I had shown interest in a physical Atlantis.
I do not doubt that at some point in the next 20-30 years we are going to have to face an existential conflict. On its face it will be a war with Islam, but at its heart it will be about freedom vs slavery. The question will be whether or not enough people are willing to stand up for freedom across this world and reject the slavery and oppression embodied and embraced and supported by everyone from bankers to one-world idealists to religious zealots. And mark my words, but we will have to fight for our rights - not with words, but with force.
I call that the after you Mr. President Rule.
"Say What? it's my duty? "
"You reneged first. Have a nice day. Don't forget to take safety off."
The passage is clear that people have rights and that nations do not have rights. When we speak of the rights of a nations, we are talking about the rights of the people that make up that nation.
"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."
Your unwillingness to recognize this point was my main reason for starting this thread.
edit for clarity.
Those who disagree with The Virtue of Selfishness quote at the top of this thread are arguing that the rights of the citizenry to delegate their defense to their nation must be abrogated in favor of non-citizens' right to travel. Moreover, when they deny the reason for the nation to exist, they are ultimately denying its right to exist. In doing so, Objectivists are guaranteeing that there will be no nation that honors Objectivist values. Those who argue that the right to travel supercedes a nation's rights to exist and defend itself are arguing for ... anarchy. If a free nation, as defined by Rand, cannot defend its own territory and make laws consistent with Objectivism via its social system and form of government, then it must provide sanction to its own immolation.
Borders are delineations of control or dominion, are they not? We claim ownership over our own bodies, but at best the concept and control of thought emanates from the physical regions of the brain rather than the foot or the hand, which are appendages. Thus our claim to sovereignty even over our own bodies (which argument we take for granted) is an argument for recognized boundaries of personal dominion/exclusive control. When we speak of personal property, our bodies are first, but not the only property over which we claim ownership. We claim not only the products of our minds, but land, homes, vehicles, etc. as being those things purchased or gained as a result of our productivity. Those things become portions of our dominions, do they not - extensions of our wills, tools of our intellects to carry out specific purposes?
In a nation of like-minded individuals who respect property rights and ownership claims, what are we actually respecting? The rights of a person to retain the fruits of his or her industry for their further use and purpose. Can the rights of protection of property rights be delegated to a national authority for prosecution? Absolutely. It is the primary purpose for government - or such is the argument. And the government's authority to protection of property extends only insofar as the summation of the individual properties of the people represented by that government, but within those boundaries it is as absolute as the individual's property rights.
Our bodies are bounded or limited by our skin. Everything within that skin is deemed to be controlled by our minds. Everything outside our skin is deemed to be separate and apart from the immediate control of our minds and must be manipulated via extensions (hands, fingers, arms, legs, etc.) or tools (wrenches, saws, pliers, automobiles, ships, airplanes, etc.). We use tools and extensions to manipulate the universe around us, but we do so with the inherent recognition that we are not the tool - that it exists separate and apart from us. When we wield a tool, we claim ownership or dominion over it for that time as we directly control it. If we have purchased the tool, our ownership claim extends even to the passive existence of the tool, and our permission - or delegated authority - is required for someone else to lawfully use the tool.
And why? Because of the concept of property rights. Our properties - be they tools, land, etc., are bounded by either physical or logical delineations or boundaries expressing the limits of our direct or indirect control over them. But to dismiss that these boundaries exist is not only to deny property rights, but to deny the ability to separate one's self from the rest of reality.
formed by citizens and anointed with a degree of "personship" by law.
thus, I may appropriate the cable company's truck as my own
when I feel free, without recourse, in this world of the new view. -- j
.
been paved. . I wonder if the voice and stake in the operation
is pro-rated according to stock ownership. -- j
.
There is a partial maybe exception. Genghis Khan sometimes went straight over one country to get to another - even so he gave them a choice and the choice was made under some duress. Give up or stack skulls.
On the other hand what other empire has guaranteed under pain of instant execution for those tried to deny religious freedom and simultaneously kept all of them out of his government except his own occasionally not even them? He was way ahead of his time in many ways.
Like any other RICO activity sooner or later someone will drop a dime or two on the equally guilty law breaker. They may be donors to the party coffers but that will be fast forgotten it the tar brush starts to spread and no it' s not just one or the other party. It's ONE party in a ONE party system. Damn circular argument again. Which is exactly why nothing will be done.
Unless the general public does it 's little act come voting day. If they don't it's a de facto situation just like happened with Patrioit Act and the rest of it. Nothing to be done. Deal with it.