Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that's a quote but I can't remember who said it.
In any case the premise is erroneous. Liberty and freedom in an organized society is always limited, by definition, and has nothing to do with property unless you happen to be living in the 19th Century. The only alternative is Anarchy, which is politically unsustainable.
Free individuals make choices that nearly always interfere with the choices of other free individuals. Government restricts those choices, or at least minimizes the possibility of violent resolution to conflicts, which is why we sue people rather than kill them.
I think that's a quote but I can't remember who said it.
In any case the premise is erroneous. Liberty and freedom in an organized society is always limited, by definition, and has nothing to do with property unless you happen to be living in the 19th Century. The only alternative is Anarchy, which is politically unsustainable.
Free individuals make choices that nearly always interfere with the choices of other free individuals. Government restricts those choices, or at least minimizes the possibility of violent resolution to conflicts, which is why we sue people rather than kill them.
Yes, this is my point. (I think we're on the same page.)
Libertarianism, as seemingly expressed by the OP, calls for no regulation of property use. Well, "without harm to others" is an obvious restriction, but who defines "harm?" As you state, virtually all choices can be seen as harmful to someone. For every person hired by a company, several others are denied employment.
IMO, it's not the duty of government to impose morality, which is why I can discriminate against anyone entering my house. It is the duty of government to provide for the general welfare, however, which is why a business requires licensing, and among other things, cannot discriminate based on the well-known criteria.
Libertarian property rights seem to trump national borders, local and state jurisdictions and spheres of influences, and even the will of the People. Again as you state, we already tried this; it didn't work. And as seen by the 75-80% who oppose illegal "immigration," it won't work now.
BECAUSE they have no rights in this country, no more than I would have rights somewhere else. Their only right is to be deported, if they crossed over illegally. Do you think MEXICO would give ME rights, if I crossed over there and demanded my so-called "rights" in their country of which I was not a citizen?
The founders declared that ALL men are created equal, not just Americans. All individuals should be allowed to own and use their own property as they see fit, and should have their contractual relationships protected. Personally, I don't care to emulate Mexico and their corrupted government.
You can't "trample" on freedoms that don't exist. Foreign citizens are NOT free to do everything Americans can do, in the US. This, I think, is the mistake you're making in presenting your case. We don't deny 12-year olds the "freedom" to enter into legal contracts--that "freedom" doesn't exist
. I don't feel that I must repeat every single qualification in every post. I stated early on that contracts are between consenting adults. I hope that I don't need to repeat this. I would think that this would be a given, I guess not. I also don't include animals or cartoon characters.
Quote:
In the broadest stretch of the term, I suppose ALL of us are denied many freedoms, every day. I, for example, am not free to practice medicine--or to enter the Ladies' Restroom---or to build a house in the middle of a city park, or to park in the 'handicapped' zone. But I don't think of these as "freedoms denied", in any realistic sense of the term.
Here we go. I suspect I must explain differences which many consider obvious. Anyone can practice medicine on themselves. However, if they are trained they would be considered dangerous to others.
Entering a ladies room is not a right but a privilege provided by merchants or organizations and is not the property of the patron.
A city park is not the your property, so you should have no right to build there.
Handicapped zones are not your property and you have no right to park there. However you are provided the privilege of parking in other spaces.
Quote:
The very fact that there ARE such designations as "citizens" and "aliens" speaks to the fact that, of course, inherent in these terms are differing levels and degrees of "rights".
This is exactly the contention. There shouldn't be such designations since we are all humans.
Quote:
I, and every American citizen, "own" the Nevada Test Site. Yet, were I to enter upon it, I would be subjected to immediate arrest and a jail sentence. A little problematic, perhaps, but I certainly can understand the purpose of such laws..
Yet another obvious poor example. The Nevada TEst Site cannot be considered your property since all taxpayers fund it.
Please try to provide better examples that are a bit more relevant.
When liberty is defined by property, only property holders are free.
Ah yes, what a world that would be. Jim Crow? Feudalism, anyone?
Property is still powerful. Freedom for all within a nation requires a temperance on the power of property, not a boost.
Property is the only constant, consistent, and concrete means of providing rights. You seem to be confusing real estate with property. One's body, one's inventions, one's speech are all considered property, as well as real estate.
I think that's a quote but I can't remember who said it.
In any case the premise is erroneous. Liberty and freedom in an organized society is always limited, by definition, and has nothing to do with property unless you happen to be living in the 19th Century. The only alternative is Anarchy, which is politically unsustainable.
Free individuals make choices that nearly always interfere with the choices of other free individuals. Government restricts those choices, or at least minimizes the possibility of violent resolution to conflicts, which is why we sue people rather than kill them.
Unrestricted property rights and limited government can and should coexist to prevent individuals from using their property in violation of others' property rights.
The founders declared that ALL men are created equal, not just Americans. All individuals should be allowed to own and use their own property as they see fit, and should have their contractual relationships protected. Personally, I don't care to emulate Mexico and their corrupted government.
The founders ALSO gave the federal government the power of immigration.
That would seem to be at odds with your hypothesis that they didn't intend for property rights to be restricted in the way you are claiming they are when illegal immigrants aren't allowed to live on land they own.
But again, you are STILL mixing up two different areas of the law. Eminent domain and property rights have NOTHING to do with foreigners being able to live on their property.
The "property rights" issue is whether the foreigner can use the land for residential purposes. Those rights are not affected by the purchaser's legal status. They can rent out the property, build a house on it, flip it. By definition, an illegal immigrant isn't even supposed to be within the borders of the United States at all... so unless you suggest an easement by necessity from airport to parcel of property, the foreigner can technically not even REACH his land legally, let alone live on it.
The personal rights issue is whether the foreigner can live in the United States at ALL. THAT is where the foreigner's rights are limited, whereas the citizen's right is unlimited.
Yes, this is my point. (I think we're on the same page.)
Libertarianism, as seemingly expressed by the OP, calls for no regulation of property use. Well, "without harm to others" is an obvious restriction, but who defines "harm?" As you state, virtually all choices can be seen as harmful to someone. For every person hired by a company, several others are denied employment.
Individuals have no right to any job, therefore, being denied the job is of no harm.
Quote:
IMO, it's not the duty of government to impose morality, which is why I can discriminate against anyone entering my house. It is the duty of government to provide for the general welfare, however, which is why a business requires licensing, and among other things, cannot discriminate based on the well-known criteria.
Can you not now see the slippery slope? Once government is given the authority to make sure everyone is treated fairly, at what point will restaurants be required to provide all types of food so that any group will have access to their own ethnic food? When will retail stores be required to provide interpreters for any customer who cannot speak the language of the owner? When will thieves be allowed to sue property owners when they get hurt breaking in? When will radio stations be required to provide all sides of an issue during a commentary? When will governments be able to declare an individuals property condemned to be able to provide it to a property developer?
Quote:
Libertarian property rights seem to trump national borders, local and state jurisdictions and spheres of influences, and even the will of the People. Again as you state, we already tried this; it didn't work. And as seen by the 75-80% who oppose illegal "immigration," it won't work now.
Fortunately, the U.S. currently adhers to the Bill of Rights, which supposedly protects minorities from the will of the majority. Individual property rights SHOULD be immune to government borders and jurisdictions. Why should Americans have the right to live on one's land and others should not?
The personal rights issue is whether the foreigner can live in the United States at ALL. THAT is where the foreigner's rights are limited, whereas the citizen's right is unlimited.
Exactly. But why should this be the case. Why are Americans better than non-Americans and privvy to more rights?
Exactly. But why should this be the case. Why are Americans better than non-Americans and privvy to more rights?
No one says Americans are "better" than non-Americans. Americans collectively "own" America. It is a legal entity. It has borders and is generally acknowleged to exist. Its citizens own it. This doesn't make them "better" than others--in fact, it's entirely possible that Americans could be WORSE than others. This doesn't alter the fact that American citizens have rights and privileges in America that others do not share.
"Better" is a term frequently used--and abused--in this type of argument. It's tempting, but it doesn't work. Illegal immigrants are often held up as "better" people--or harder workers--or more 'sincere'--than many jaded, unappreciative, lazy Americans. This may be entirely true--and in many cases, it IS. It STILL, though, doesn't mean that illegals aren't violating the law. There are MANY cases in which 'nice', and deserving people are 'kept out' of places because of laws. I can't live in YOUR house, because you own it...it doesn't matter how much 'nicer' I am, the law is on your side.
Countries, in every sense of the word, are 'owned' by their citizens. The citizens of a country get precedence in the rights and privileges of living there. It has nothing to do with who's 'better', or who is the nicer person.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Their only right is to be deported, if they crossed over illegally. Do you think MEXICO would give ME rights, if I crossed over there and demanded my so-called "rights" in their country of which I was not a citizen?
