Well, I suppose that perjury resulting in the death
of an innocent person morally deserves death.

Your failure to define your terms when asked politely, and reverting to the progressive tactic of attacking the person to evade an "honest" discussion is at the very least irritating. It could indicate something much worse but since I don't know you, I won't go there.

thanks

Interesting. I'll look forward to your thoughts.

Well said, indeed!

HI Zen, I have decided to shift my focus from economics to law. My goal is to look at the structure of the law broadly at first.

Would not an "honest" discussion include answering my two questions rather than an incorrect analysis of my motives?

db; A very good topic and well written essay. It's just such a shame that this site is no longer one which welcomes or appreciates a discussion centered and grounded in logical reasoning and the very essentials of the thinking of Rand and Locke, as well as the source of the Founders' dreams of a nation based on the supremacy of the rights of the Individual man over that of nations, politics, and the petty jealousies of the social man.

First of all it is not the rights of citizens, it is the rights of anyone in the territory (Jurisdiction) of the government. I have been very clear on point and your little devious slight of hand shows that you are not interested in an honest discussion. You also have no concept of Objectivist political theory or individual or natural rights. Your a collectivist pretending to be interested in freedom. Thanks for being a useful pawn.

I wonder what your definition of "a proper government" is? Your whole discussion depends upon understanding that meaning. What mechanism does a government use to "protect the rights" of it's citizens, if not the threat of overwhelming force?

You have not read the Constitution and you do not understand the definition of a proper government. The constitution and proper government have to protect the natural rights of all people under there jurisdiction. Although your argument is great if you want to support private slavery.

The owner of each piece of private property is free to decide for himself or herself who may enter. However, there are problems of access, such as otherwise land-locked property, which will have to be addressed. The law currently provides for "easements by necessity," and this seems like a fairly workable solution.

then they cross the border with permission, through a valid check point, as they always have to shop and then go home.

Nothing revolutionary or new there. Also, check out the Bracero program.

What if in "the country at large" all property were private, as it would be in an Objectivist society?

You said, "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 think it's exactly the opposite. No one in favor of open borders is saying private landowners can't exclude whomever they choose from their own private property. Do I own my property, or does "the government" own it?

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.

If you're riding the railroad, you must buy a ticket. Hoboes are thrown off. There is no free ride. Similarly, if you sneak into the country, when there are legal avenues for doing so, you're violating the laws that have been set up for allowing visitors (and those wanting to stay) to enter. If you're snubbing the law, before you even set foot into the country, ipso facto, you're a criminal. BTW, if you're sneaking into the country, it's very unlikely that you have a business arrangement set up.

This only applies to those who are CITIZENS, people who AGREE to the rules established by that government. If you refuse to agree, then you become a criminal, forfeiting any right to consideration, especially if you're TRESPASSING on someone else's property.

Important to recognize here is the concept of "voluntary" and the definition of "ownership" for this "conversation". Public infers "government" where as private infers "Individual".

The reason this happens is that the goal seems, each time, to invalidate national sovereignty in an attempt to allow people to travel wherever they wish, whenever they wish, and regardless of whether some other people claim a land as their own. This is exactly why this philosophical discussion topic reverts to borders each time.

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.

I didn't object to you citing those as two of the seventeen reasons cited in the Declaration of Independence. I merely corrected you on all your other supposed examples because you erroneously attempted to attribute reasons for those wars when a simple look at history says that these were tertiary results - not causes.

Then kindly state your objections. db cited several wars and opined about how they all originated from a single moral cause. I simply corrected him because in all cases (except potentially the Revolutionary War), travel was not the primary cause. Even in the case of the Revolutionary War, travel and trade were two of the seventeen points listed as infringements upon the rights of the Colonists. Others included the right of trial by jury, trial by peers, taxation without representation, quartering of soldiers, and more. db attempts to ignore the others and focus solely on the ones he believes bolster his opinion as if they were the only relevant ones. That's nonsense. Jefferson states very clearly that it was the sumum bonum of all the infractions - not merely one or two - that led to the break-up.

You are correct: 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.

LAW IS AN I.Q. TEST ! ! !
image: https://facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1...

This whole post, once again goes to immigration. Asking people to integrate concepts and apply them in other areas. Might be a helpful step here.

Dean, Man is not "sorry lives"