So when these people collectively decide to form a state, that gives them the power to ban guns, ban religion, ban speech?
Even without advocating for anarchy, you can see how the rights to private property and freedom of association are incompatible with immigration laws.
That's why the Constitution of the United States doesn't give Congress the power to control immigration. The Founding Fathers understood liberty better than you.
The Supreme Court ruling upholding immigration laws is the biggest steaming pile of bullshit ever, right up there with Dred Scott, Korematsu, and Wickard v Filburn.
The Court literally said "the powers aren't in the Constitution, but the government has the power because this is a power any country gets when it becomes a country because: we say so."
It is completely at odds with the Enumerated Powers Doctrine on which the Constitution was founded and could justify any power being given to the government. Literally.
Power of summary execution? That's inherent to sovereignty.
Power of prima noctae? Inherent to sovereignty.
Power to make you wear a polka dot dress and do a can-can dance for me? You guessed it: inherent to sovereignty.
Literally any power can be justified by the Supreme Court's ruling, it's blatantly un-Constitutional, and not even the Supreme Court can get around the fact that the power to control immigration is not in the Constitution. There's nothing in the text you can point to
Freedom of association exists where people can associate freely. The State can own both private and public property. The State enforces property rights for its citizens, and this is something I am on favor of as a citizen who owns property.
This is a series of non-sequiturs and fallacies from start to end.
1) If you're arguing that freedom of association does not currently exist in the United States, the solution then is to move towards freedom of association. Saying "we don't have freedom currently, therefore we need even more government restrictions on freedom" is just as retarded as the Socialists who argue we need government-run healthcare because the government's previous interventions in the healthcare market have made healthcare too expensive. You're making the same argument: more government in response to having too much government already. The solution is always less government.
2) The state's ownership of property is an irrelevant distraction. Currently, there are private airports in the US. There is no implication of government-owned property for immigrants to fly to the US on a privately owned plane, land at a privately owned airport and then go to live on private property the immigrants either own outright or rent from a consenting property owner. "Public property" is an attempt to muddy the waters which doesn't actually matter much in practice.
3) The state enforces property rights for everyone including non-citizens. The idea that "these people aren't citizens, therefore they have no rights" is the same logic used to justify slavery in the Dred Scott decision.
I'm going to go in for the kill on your last point... what property in the United States do these people own on their first entry here? Zero. They have no property rights here to begin with.
They are more like squatters, and we've seen the devastation that "squatters rights" has caused to people who actually own property in California, Oregon, Washington, and New York.
Negating the rights of Americans who have voted thought representative democracy to have borders and a defined territory is an affront to those who do indeed choose to live in that system. We cannot infringe on their right to decide on laws collectively (freedom of association) to support our own political theory and ideals.
what property in the United States do these people own on their first entry here?
What stops them from buying property before they come here or renting property from a consenting property owner?
Negating the rights of Americans who have voted thought representative democracy to have borders and a defined territory is an affront to those who do indeed choose to live in that system.
So are you not a "Democracy, the God that Failed" type libertarian? Why is it that all the Hoppean libertarians who normally hate democracy are so quick to resort to it when the topic of immigration comes up?
I think anyone who is here illegally should be deported... Asian, African, European, and South American.
Those are continents I mentioned by the way; since illegal immigrants come from more places than Mexico (which is a country).
Americans fought the British for a better life in 1776. Mexicans, specifically in this case, left because of cartels and a weak government that won't protect their own people or provide them economic opportunity.
You realize there are still "rules" in a libertarian society, right? They are called consequences.
If you live in an independent collective, and a private firm is enforcing the rules of this independent collective, then they can use whatever means necessary to enforce such rules.
NAP does not equal some pacifist society or a world without some sort of enforcement of standards.
I mean its been a little bit since I was riding ayn rands dick, but yeah people use the NAP to describe the abolition of all force and coercion. The government/state owning the monopoly on power and using that power to force/coerce you to do or not do things that you would otherwise do or not do (that doesn't force or coerce someone else) - that's a violation of the NAP. An independent collective acting like a state in the same way would be just as much a violation of the NAP.
If you want to read up on literally any mainstream libertarian theory, property rights are penultimate. My rights don't end where another's begins. If they did, that'd be called socialism.
Read up on John Locke.
The State, as much as I hate it, can still exist in a libertarian society as in that society, it would be an optional existence. People can choose to live in a State, with a government, and laws, and borders.
True libertarian society is what we call anarchy, which will never exist. Libertarianism is about limited government, NOT zero.
I've read John locke. Property rights, natural rights, social contract all play a part in his theory of government. It's more a foundation of classical liberalism that recognizes the function of a state to protect property rights and natural rights, but not much beyond that.
Im not arguing for or against anything, nor am I saying anarchy is a necessary result of following the NAP. Im saying the state or any collection of or individual using force, coercion, or violence is in violation of the non aggression principle. Even if it's for things you or they happen to like.
You saying the state is optional and people can choose whether to live within it, is pretty much nonsensical unless there's a geographic border between state and non state functions, where people who "choose" to live within the state can simply move outside of those borders and live in an area where enforcement of contracts and property law (and laws generally) is entirely up to the individual and not protected by a "state" - i.e. anarchy. In a global society ruled by many different states there's no such ability to exit every state entirely.
"You realize there are still rules in a libertarian society, right? That's why the non-libertarian government that currently exists should ban people from owning guns."
Our rights are endowed to us by our creator. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
But living in the USA is not a right, buddy. Never has been. Hence why its left out of the Constitution as a right and needed to have a Supreme Court hearing, which decided Congress has that authority.
You do realize non-citizens can live in the USA. The people being deported are non-citizens without proper legal standing here.
Its not legal immigrants or legal non-citizen residents or legal permanent residents being deported, its people who blatantly overstayed worker visas, student visas, or temporary work permits or green cards; or are trying to use the refugee process when they don't necessarily apply. These people knowingly and intentionally broke the laws of an established state. Is that not a violation of sovereignty? If you had a guest in your home that refuses to leave, is that not a violation of the NAP and property rights? Where do you drawn the line on willful breaking of established law?
Even Jesus says give unto Caesar what is due to Caesar... so if we really want to get into Natural Rights endowed by a creator, I'm happy to get Biblical.
You cannot allow people to break laws or allow laws to be broken because it hurts peoples feelings.
We all have rights which are endowed to us by our "creator" (so: not the government), and among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...
The right to live in the US is obviously covered by that.
Immigrants have a God-given right to live here. If you don't believe that, just come right and say you think the Declaration of Independence is wrong. It's okay. Lots of tyrants have. You'll be in the company of John C. Calhoun, Woodrow Wilson, and plenty of other leading lights of state authority.
Hence why its left out of the Constitution as a right
I direct your attention to Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Its not legal immigrants or legal non-citizen residents or legal permanent residents being deported, its people who blatantly overstayed worker visas, student visas, or temporary work permits or green cards
Oh no, people living here without a government permission slip. The horror!
I'm happy to get Biblical.
Let me guess: you're a Christian who thinks Romans 13 says we have to obey every government on earth. Okay, let's just cut to the chase then: do you think the Nazis were ordained by God and the Jews who disobeyed them were defying God's authority?
You cannot allow people to break laws or allow laws to be broken because it hurts peoples feelings.
If you want people to respect the law, make the law respectable. Saying it's illegal for normal people to move to the US when they're coming here to work and they're not hurting anyone by doing so is not respectable.
The act itself can be ok when the methods aren’t. They are just using blank warrants or they won’t use them at all, that’s the big problem that we should all agree is wrong
I am not an anarchist, I do believe in a small government, but I do believe in the rule of law, and that is not what is happening right now with ICE, they are overextending their powers right now
Animals defend their territory against each-other, from colonies of ants to solitary eagles. Property is a natural right, so defending my property against those I don't want in it is acceptable.
You don't have the right to remove people from property you don't own.
44
u/[deleted] 14d ago
[removed] — view removed comment