Are you for open borders?

[Dunedain]

encourage his neighbors to build fences on the "border" between their property and his property?

Once the illegals are onto the first piece of private property at the border they simply use the public road system to go wherever they want. Now we have people illegally in the country because private border "security" failed.

 

[Dunedain]

La Raza would be accountable for damages done if found guilty of a crime.

This is getting rediculous now...but I'll walk a little further into the fantasy land to prove my point. So to recap, La Raza has purchased a piece of border property and refuses to call the police when illegal immigrants walk across their land onto the public road system.

Now immigrant is arrested by the police for assaulting someone (for instance) and is damaging me (personally) for using the police service and draining tax dollars. Now I am supposed to take La Raza to court? How are they responsible? They were just on vacation and immigrants were running through their back yard.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yes, it does. Once again, if you allow people in the door faster than they can be assimilated, and in some cases, some who have no interest in becoming Americans at all, it will assure that any semblance of our founding principles will be drowned out completely. This of course is what the globalists want, which is why illegal immigration has been promoted and little has been done to stop it.

You have failed to account for why the NE is a liberal haven when they are predominantly 90%+ whites descended from anglo-saxon Europeans. Try again.

On the contrary I've met many people from Eastern Europe and they love liberty and freedom more than 98% of American "citizens".

 

[Dunedain]

Please respond to my questions above if you can. Here are my responses to your questions.

]
Do you agree with unbridled private property ownership? Do you agree that private property is the basis for our rights? Do you agree once you leave the realm of unbridled private property ownership that you venture into the realm of arbitrary considerations and therefore your consideration is no more just than any other?

I believe the vast majority of property should be owned by private individuals. I don't see a problem with groups of people owning something in common (like a beach or a post office). I do believe in limited government ownership of things like roads and border crossings and the buildings for their staff to work. I believe by unbridled you mean TOTAL...no property own by government. I don't believe in that (see next).

I do believe the right to own property is one of the things that keeps us free.
I will agree with you that the vast amount of things the government owns they do so without merit. But I am not an anarchist and I do see a role for SOME government however small and they will need a place to work (property) and they will need to be paid (taxes). It is the EXTENT of the taxes and

I think our contention is your last point. We venture into the realm of arbitrary considerations whether the government owns the property or private citizens do. At least I can influence the government to grant me use of something. If a private citizen owns the road in front of my house and doesn't like my religion shall I never be able to leave my house? At least I can organize people to vote the government out of office or I can run myself if I don't like how they manage their property.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I believe the vast majority of property should be owned by private individuals. I don't see a problem with groups of people owning something in common (like a beach or a post office). I do believe in limited government ownership of things like roads and border crossings and the buildings for their staff to work. I believe by unbridled you mean TOTAL...no property own by government. I don't believe in that (see next).

I do believe the right to own property is one of the things that keeps us free.
I will agree with you that the vast amount of things the government owns they do so without merit. But I am not an anarchist and I do see a role for SOME government however small and they will need a place to work (property) and they will need to be paid (taxes). It is the EXTENT of the taxes and

I think our contention is your last point. We venture into the realm of arbitrary considerations whether the government owns the property or private citizens do. At least I can influence the government to grant me use of something. If a private citizen owns the road in front of my house and doesn't like my religion shall I never be able to leave my house? At least I can organize people to vote the government out of office or I can run myself if I don't like how they manage their property.

This is why Democracies and tyrannies will exist. The fallacy of choice. (Oh hai, tragedy of the commons, tyranny of the majority, all that jazz...yeah, I mean, hell who wouldn't want that?)

As to your assertion about you getting fenced in, no one would sign a contract that didn't stipulate you had the freedom of travel and the easement to use the roads in front of your property. More than all likely, the property would include those roads, therefore you would be buying the roads also. Not only that, private roads all ready exist. They are called the parking lots in front of companies. It is advantageous for the free travel of individuals to businesses (Excepting of course, highways, bridges, thoroughfares, and other major connectors due to price and resource consumption, therefore businesses would arise to meet the needs of the consumer. Roadways would be far better managed, and far cheaper in a total free-market system.).

Please, read Walter Blocks Privatization of Roads it answers every single socialist/Statist rebuttal.

Also, do you believe that our rights are derived from private property (AKA Natural Law), and any violation of Natural Law, is a violation of our Natural Rights? As I said before, once you violate and legitimize that violation to our rights, there is nothing to stop even more encroachment to our rights. This is why any violation of Natural Law is an arbitrary violation, and also why States always increase in power and never decrease. There is no legitimate violation of our rights, period.

 

[Dunedain]

You have failed to account for why the NE is a liberal haven when they are predominantly 90%+ whites descended from anglo-saxon Europeans. Try again.

This is why the blame is not on the illegal immigrants but on the people who let them in.

You will find that the majority of people in EVERY NE state don't support illegal immigration). Sure there are a enclaves of self-hating whites in the NE and many of them quite wealthy who would benefit from illegal immigration. It is our leaders would are the traitors not only on the illegal immigration front but in every other issue we discuss on this forum.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This is why the blame is not on the illegal immigrants but on the people who let them in.

You will find that the majority of people in EVERY NE state don't support illegal immigration). Sure there are a enclaves of self-hating whites in the NE and many of them quite wealthy who would benefit from illegal immigration. It is our leaders would are the traitors not only on the illegal immigration front but in every other issue we discuss on this forum.

You don't understand the context of my rebuttal. Read LE post, then read mine. Her assertion that open borders would never work because those crossing would inherently be "less liberty" minded than citizens of the US is fallacious. In fact, I find quite a bit of immigrants to be more liberty loving than most American citizens. Hell, I'd rather live next to an enclave of ex-Eastern Europe bloc persons, than a majority of American citizens with descendants harkened back to the 1700s.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Your welcomed.
I wonder how he would analyze the situation today.

He seemed downright prophetic, with all the writing about "change" merely being a term for socialism.

Then we had Obama coming in with "change."

 

[Dunedain]

This is why Democracies and tyrannies will exist. The fallacy of choice. (Oh hai, tragedy of the commons, tyranny of the majority, all that jazz...yeah, I mean, hell who wouldn't want that?)

As to your assertion about you getting fenced in, no one would sign a contract that didn't stipulate you had the freedom of travel and the easement to use the roads in front of your property. More than all likely, the property would include those roads, therefore you would be buying the roads also. Not only that, private roads all ready exist. They are called the parking lots in front of companies. It is advantageous for the free travel of individuals to businesses (Excepting of course, highways, bridges, thoroughfares, and other major connectors due to price and resource consumption, therefore businesses would arise to meet the needs of the consumer. Roadways would be far better managed, and far cheaper in a total free-market system.).

Please, read Walter Blocks Privatization of Roads it answers every single socialist/Statist rebuttal.

Also, do you believe that our rights are derived from private property (AKA Natural Law), and any violation of Natural Law, is a violation of our Natural Rights? As I said before, once you violate and legitimize that violation to our rights, there is nothing to stop even more encroachment to our rights. This is why any violation of Natural Law is an arbitrary violation, and also why States always increase in power and never decrease. There is no legitimate violation of our rights, period.

I believe you are trying to square a circle. Your solutions cause more problems then they solve.

When I go take someone to court to enforce my contract to use the road in front of my house, who will own the courthouse? Will a private person own that too? Further, how will I even drive to court if they are illegally blocking my road access? What if I don't have the money to go to court? Do I starve to death in my house because I can't afford high priced lawyers. Obviously, you are not in favor of a public defenders, otherwise where would they work? No public dee You may not be able to see the tyranny that is waiting for us should your vision of the world come to pass but it is quite obvious to me.

I think we'll need a completely separate thread to debate this. We're getting of the open borders issue.

What if I could use the road in front of my house but the road-own blocked me from using it up the street?

 

[nobody's_hero]

When I go take someone to court to enforce my contract to use the road in front of my house, who will own the courthouse?

The highest bidder, of course.

 

[Dunedain]

You don't understand the context of my rebuttal. Read LE post, then read mine. Her assertion that open borders would never work because those crossing would inherently be "less liberty" minded than citizens of the US is fallacious. In fact, I find quite a bit of immigrants to be more liberty loving than most American citizens. Hell, I'd rather live next to an enclave of ex-Eastern Europe bloc persons, than a majority of American citizens with descendants harkened back to the 1700s.

Whites may or may not support liberty. Minorities almost never do whether they are citizens or not (google liberty protests and ron paul rally). Bringing in the third world is a sure way to dillute liberty. So LE is right on the money.

All of the Ron Paul protests and liberty gatherings are made up of mostly all-white people in the NE also. Pretty much devoid of any minorities whether they are citizens or not. So your point about "citizens" not uniformly supporting liberty is correct. It is more of a racial thing than a citizenship thing based on the empiracal evidence).

BTW Eastern Europeans are white also (unless they decended from people who AREN'T originally from Eastern Europe).

 

[Dunedain]

Also, do you believe that our rights are derived from private property (AKA Natural Law), and any violation of Natural Law, is a violation of our Natural Rights? As I said before, once you violate and legitimize that violation to our rights, there is nothing to stop even more encroachment to our rights. This is why any violation of Natural Law is an arbitrary violation, and also why States always increase in power and never decrease. There is no legitimate violation of our rights, period.

I wasn't planning on getting into classical realism today but you have some interesting ideas so I'll throw out my thoughts....

It is obvious that private property is in line with natural law. All things being equal, it is easier to defend your property than it is to take someone's property from them. Western civilization from the Greeks through the Christian Stoics right up to present day has support that this system works and has demostrated it is in line with natural law over time (a few thousand years).

At the same time, throughout history, government ownership of limited means has not caused any conflict with the theory of natural law and private ownership. We can still have our right to property even if the government "owns" other property. And by "government" I mean "we the people" and by people I mean "citizens".

Illegal immigration is the biggest threat to private property of "we the people". They come, they utilize.

 

[constituent]

Yes, it does. Once again, if you allow people in the door faster than they can be assimilated, and in some cases, some who have no interest in becoming Americans at all, it will assure that any semblance of our founding principles will be drowned out completely. This of course is what the globalists want, which is why illegal immigration has been promoted and little has been done to stop it.

So what's your solution?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This is getting rediculous now...but I'll walk a little further into the fantasy land to prove my point. So to recap, La Raza has purchased a piece of border property and refuses to call the police when illegal immigrants walk across their land onto the public road system.

Now immigrant is arrested by the police for assaulting someone (for instance) and is damaging me (personally) for using the police service and draining tax dollars. Now I am supposed to take La Raza to court? How are they responsible? They were just on vacation and immigrants were running through their back yard.

Why is it ridiculous? They are already arrested for crimes they commit when caught. I think your scenario was ridiculous to begin with, so I didn't have much to work with. It was the equivalent of asking a 19th century American what to do if the Barbary Pirates bought property and so forth. You didn't even explain in your original hypothetical how someone with no citizenship could acquire property, so I did the best I could with what little you gave me. :o

As to taking La Raza to court, this is possible and has been done, as I understand, by sheriffs here in border States. see here for example.

 

[JustinTime]

Which "La Raza" do you mean? There is an advocacy group by that name as well as a common gang. In the case of the former, it would be a civil issue to be handled in a court. La Raza would be accountable for damages done if found guilty of a crime.

Who will find them guilty and enforce any judgement against them? Government? We're back to square one.

 

[Met Income]

Yes, it does. Once again, if you allow people in the door faster than they can be assimilated, and in some cases, some who have no interest in becoming Americans at all, it will assure that any semblance of our founding principles will be drowned out completely. This of course is what the globalists want, which is why illegal immigration has been promoted and little has been done to stop it.

As long as someone isn't violating anyone's property rights, it shouldn't matter what they do in this country.

 

[Dieseler]

As long as someone isn't violating anyone's property rights, it shouldn't matter what they do in this country.

Absolutely ridiculous statement.

 

[rp08orbust]

Absolutely ridiculous statement.

Name something that does no physical harm to anyone or their property that should be outlawed.

 

[Mike4Freedom]

I dont like illegal immigration at all. If we did not allow them to get any State benefits whatsoever I don't think the problem would be as bad.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

On the contrary I've met many people from Eastern Europe and they love liberty and freedom more than 98% of American "citizens".

Every one is an individual, so obviously generalizations do not apply to everyone. I can say that almost every immigrant I have known (no matter where they are from) is here in the US for economic liberty and freedom.

There are some generalizations that can be made about groups. I have found that a very high percentage of Eastern Europeans and Russians tend towards neo-conservatism. They often support foreign interventionism and our current wars.

Since LE mentioned Chinese immigrants, there is a tendency there towards authoritarianism and "communal" socialism.

There are quite a few aspects of American freedom that are not shared by a lot of the world. If the US takes on a huge number of immigrants, it will also take on some new tendencies. For example, an increase in racism, discrimination, and classism could very well result, as these are much more common and accepted in other parts of the world. They are not dropped at the border.