The Law: Foundations
In this post I discuss the foundation of Law
Laws are the implementation of political philosophy.
All law and rights theory starts with property rights law.
Laws are the implementation of political philosophy.
All law and rights theory starts with property rights law.
Question? Do you actually mean it?
You can't have it both ways.
Shout me down again, call me names again, push me out again, but I cannot believe that you are sincere about property rights.
Why? National sovereignty to define and defend a border.
Millions of people via common agreement and consent extending their ownership authority to form towns, cities, counties, states and a nation - the reason for our federal government.
If you own something you have legitimate right to regulate it, lend it, rent it, or enter into agreement for its use. Property rights.
1) A proper government cannot initiate force
2)Stopping someone on a public thoroughfare is initiating force
3) A proper government cannot stop someone on a public thoroughfare.
A border is as legitimate as a fence around my property and the same restrictions apply. Why? Because my property is part of a town, city county and state which, by my consent, authorizes the federal government to legitimately create and defend the border from outsiders seeking entry - a legitimate role. The authority comes from the bottom up.
Force, I contend, is from the illegal immigrant since he/she is FORCING his way into a place where he/she is not invited. If that person requested and received permission to enter, and there is a process in place, then there would be no issue (no force). It is because of this illegal trespass that this is an issue at all, the reason why an act of force is needed.
Immigration is not the issue, its invading someplace that is the issue. A sovereign nation has the right to regulate its immigration.
My conclusion is valid because it is the only true way to actually have property rights and it is also reality.
A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense) . . . .
Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations.
Her words not mine. You are wrong.
The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. alt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 183
Saying 'Stop' is force?
"...has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government." Legitimate or otherwise we have a nation and it has legitimately established territorial integrity (please remember that not everyone is an O).
And you say I'm peddling BS? I'm the one lacking basic logic? Or are you the one hell bent on trying to push a concept?
Rand said a nation has a right to its territorial integrity for the exact reasons I've explained ad nauseam and yet you refute it?
Mentioning a restriction (putting up a sign) is force? Building on land I own is force?
Out of respect I won't draw the = sign to what this is, how you aligning yourself. And you can keep taking points if it cathartic, it doesn't change reality.
In other words, public thoroughfares should not even exist.
Rand would never suggest that private property can be used to make prison. Imagine you position applied to the transcontinental railroad. No one can go north or south over the the railroad. How is that freedom?
but not deny access.
What you champion is not ownership in reality or philosophically sound (at least outside of socialism and/or communism)
If in my time on this earth own something (land) then while I'm here, while I invested my money on said land, and whether or not I put labor into the use of that land, the land is mine to do with as I wish. You, she, or anyone else has no standing to tell me what I can and can't do with my land while I own it and you sure has hell can't pass through without my permission, even for a fee.
If the government (state or federal) wants my land they buy it from me or condemn my property as blight and seize it (another matter to discuss). Why buy it from me if I don't own it? If they could simply pass through at will?
You may note in Rand quote I used her points were made for "citizens' (aka those who legitimately belong to that society) and not anyone who just happened to want to be there.
ps
Trans con railroad BOUGHT a lot of land to make those lines, it was legally purchased (sometimes through coercion).
Declaration of Independence – Revolutionary War 1) Restricting immigration to the Colonies “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.” 2) Restricting Free Trade/Travel. “For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world”
Barbary Wars This was about the right to travel/trade freely in the Mediterranean
War of 1812 The US wanted to trade/travel with many nations, particularly France, and the British stopped our ships for no reason – except they were at war.
WW 1 The US wanted to trade/travel with many nations, particularly England, and the German’s stopped our ships for no reason – except they were at war.
WW 2 The US wanted to trade/travel with many nations, particularly England, and the German’s stopped our ships for no reason – except they were at war.
The Declaration of Independence complained to King George that the States themselves under their own charters had the right to police immigration and that Parliament and King George were trampling on that grant of power - among many. And Free Trade does not mean Free Travel anywhere in the world under no restrictions whatsoever.
The Barbary Wars weren't about free travel. They were about the piracy and forced enslavement of US merchant traders to Islamic pirates. It was about protection of private property and the lives of US citizens in international waters. When Tripoli refused Jefferson's entreaties, Jefferson sent in the Leathernecks and they sacked and occupied Tripoli in response, giving rise to one of the key elements of the Marine's fight song. I would also point out that there was a significant element of religious ideology at play here as well, as the Barbary pirates were Muslim and held that piracy was perfectly acceptable under Islamic law.
The War of 1812 was Britain seeing weakness in our political system due to States Rights controversies. A contributing factor most certainly was France's aid to us during the Revolutionary War, but in a twist of politics the US refused to back France in their war with England at that time - to Jefferson's dismay. It started out as a trade war conducted by British-backed privateers impressing American merchant ships' crews, impounding their ships, and stealing their cargo. Then it escalated into an attempt by Britain to conquer the United States one by one. Remember, they pillaged and burned Washington, D.C. But our primary trading party at the time wasn't France, but England itself!
WW I was a result of the European politics. We agreed to stay neutral and Germany treated us as such as long as we weren't supplying arms to either Britain or France. The Lusitania was sunk because it was a covert arms shipment. And many argue that it was designed to force the US to get involved in the War. We violated our agreement of neutrality and so Germany retaliated by sinking the arms shipment.
WW II was the result of the egregious demands for reparations from WW I by England and France on Germany. Again, we tried to stay neutral for a time, but were forced to join the war after the Japanese bombing of Pearly Harbor. But politically we sided with England and France in the imposition of the WW I reparations, so Germany viewed us as an enemy to begin with - and not without good reason. It didn't help that many of the nations of the world were ruled by dictators and tyrants.
But let's not stop there.
The Korean War was also a trade war. Oops. No, it was a war of ideology: western democracy and free market economics vs communism. Northern Korea invaded Southern Korea and the US went to the aid of their ally. What is also interesting to note is that much of this war was a proxy war of the United States vs Mao Zedong's Communist Chinese, who had taken control of China because the US failed to get involved in favor of the Chinese Nationalist Party led by Chiang Kai-Shek - a general and ally during WW II. Seeing China lost to Democracy and the spread of the USSR, the US acted to push back against the tide of Communism sweeping across the globe.
The Vietnam War was a trade war. Again, no. It started out again as an ideological proxy war between the pro-communist North Vietnamese or Viet Cong (backed again by China and Russia) and the US-backed South Vietnamese. This war ended in disaster because it was prosecuted by politicians instead of military personnel and because of protests led by pro-Communist groups in the US. It ended with the defeat and slaughter of the South Vietnamese after the US pulled out. Only recently did Vietnam regain its position as a free market under a democratic system nearly 40 years later. I would also point out that it was precisely because the politicians didn't want to violate the borders of neighboring Cambodia (where the VC would commonly retreat to) that the war stalled.
The Gulf War was a trade war. Maybe, but predominantly it was a US response to a call for aid from aggression. Iraq invaded Kuwait because it wanted the rich oil industry there. But the US already had access to oil from both nations. And the invasion of Iraq left their oil fields burning - hardly exploitable by the conquering American capitalists.
A proper government does have different laws for citizens and non-citizens other than potentially the right to vote or hold some political office
Could you clarify what you mean by US & Canada? I haven't been to Canada since the 1990's but both times we were scrutinized at the boarder before we could enter. We saw vehicles crossing that had everything laying out on the ground. I guess I don't see that as free travel. Am I confused on their policy?
make it yours, it's yours. I do think one thing. If a
bunch of landowners got together around one per-
son's yard and refused to let him cross any one
of those pieces of land to get to the store, or to a water source elswhere, etc., this would amount
to false imprisonment, and so they would be ob-
ligated to allow him a right-of-way to get back
and forth (at least to the extent of getting in and
out)--not necessarily to cross all of their lands,
but at least to get in and out.
"Ayn Rand - The Virtue of Selfishness “Collectivized ‘Rights,’”
A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense) . . . .
Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations."
Whether our country is or isn't functioning within its mandate is another matter (Convention of States) the reality is there is still a nation for the American people, still a border to define our lands and our governing philosophy, and still a throng of people hell bend on violating our territory (including far too many complicit within).
However, to my chagrin, I have come to believe that the majority of citizens of the USA have no idea as to what freedom is and therefore cannot teach it or implement it. So while I enjoy the discussion and debate, there can be no real implementation until people become knowledgeable in the ways of freedom/liberty.
The older I become, the more muddled my thinking becomes. So today I much prefer writing, because this will at least allow me to check and correct my thoughts. But either way, the communication is not working well toward accomplishing something!
A THEFT creates a DEBT to the victim.
The "law" evolved to determine JUSTICE.
I define JUSTICE in three words: A DEBT PAID.
Legal processes evolved to determine:
1. Is there a debt?
2. What is the debt?
3. Who is responsible for the debt?
4. How will the debt be "paid?"
5, How will the debt payment be enforced/collected?
The failure of the system to get a debt paid is INJUSTICE.
murder and rape) can be paid for with currency, as
in the case of a civil suit. Some crimes are so
horrendous that even death is insufficient. (Still,
I have some reservation about the death penalty
because of the possibility of executing an inno-
cent person by mistake).--But it irritates me
when people deny that they are seeking venge-
ance. Revenge is a very important part of jus-
tice. Not the whole of justice, but still a part.
My issue is that the system is fair, transparent, open, and not tainted with corruption within the judicial process.
Most of the cases I've heard that convicted and punished (death sentence) someone, involved judicial corruption within the process. That corruption "stole" something from the person and the sanctity of the system. That "theft" should be punished and anyone convicted of that "theft" should die.
of an innocent person morally deserves death.
In many cases (the holocaust) the debt can never be paid. You philosophers can deal with that.
Par 2, as a pseudo-philosopher, I know of now way of dealing with such. Mankind has this way of treating effects rather than causes, which leaves us largely helpless.
Re: effects and causes. Too many are focused on the product, not the processes..
Denying national sovereignty denies individual ownership (property rights) by telling the "owner" you can't do this with what you possess because others say so.
I threw into the conversation solely because I find it ironic that Dale posts a solid piece on property rights when he undercuts his argument with the philosophical right to travel.
What if I am a property owner near the border, and I have a business -- maybe a restaurant or market -- and I want Mexicans to come shop there without having to apply for immigration? What if I have friends who are Mexican citizens and I want them to come visit me? Having guards at the border preventing my potential customers or friends from coming to my private land is telling me I can't use my property as I see fit. Closed borders violate citizens' rights; open borders allowing access into "the country" at large -- but not to any individual's private property -- cannot violate anyone's legitimate property rights. You do not have a positive right to control the use of my property and exclude my invited guests and customers.
Nothing revolutionary or new there. Also, check out the Bracero program.
A little knowledge would go a long way
Look at the Articles of Confederation. In those, each of the States was treated according to how they saw themselves: as separate, sovereign entities or States. They had all the same legal authority as France or Britain within their geographical areas. That was why when they formed the Articles of Confederation, each State had a single vote - they were treated by each other as sovereign nations - not as part of some indiscriminate (national) whole. In very fact the word confederation is taken from a compounding of sovereign nations - not merely an amalgam under a single national head. That was also why when they were given the Constitution to ratify, the States were left to themselves as to how to either ratify or disassociate.
I would also note that the States themselves codified their own immigration rules. Massachusetts wrote into its own Constitution (which pre-dates the Constitution) a denial of slavery - and slaves were imported (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constit.... Just because the entire body of Confederated States did not agree on a single policy which applied to all of them prior to the Chinese Exclusion Act did not mean that the individual States had not already taken upon themselves the rights and obligations of sovereignty defined by specific geographic boundaries.
Yet another example I would submit is the existence of various extradition treaties between the States up to and even following ratification of the Constitution. The very notion of extradition for crimes wholly hinges upon sovereignty within geographical boundaries and recognized jurisdictional authority.
Number [3]?!
image: https://facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1...