Immigration and Individual Rights
Most arguments we have been discussing are included in this article: including how public lands shall be protected. From the article:
"There are two kinds of property in America: private property and so-called “public” property. Whereas private property is owned by individuals and corporations, “public” property, which is allegedly “owned by everyone in general,” is actually owned by no one in particular. This is why no one in particular can dictate how it will or will not be used. Consider that if citizen Jones insists on permitting immigrants to enter “his” portion of “public” property, but citizen Smith insists on prohibiting immigrants to enter “his” portion, the conflict cannot be justly resolved. Someone’s “right” to “his” portion of the property “owned by everyone in general” is going to be violated. This and the countless similar conflicts arising from the notion of “public” property point to the invalidity of such property—property which, by its very nature, violates individual rights and generates an endless stream of irresolvable rights disputes."
"There are two kinds of property in America: private property and so-called “public” property. Whereas private property is owned by individuals and corporations, “public” property, which is allegedly “owned by everyone in general,” is actually owned by no one in particular. This is why no one in particular can dictate how it will or will not be used. Consider that if citizen Jones insists on permitting immigrants to enter “his” portion of “public” property, but citizen Smith insists on prohibiting immigrants to enter “his” portion, the conflict cannot be justly resolved. Someone’s “right” to “his” portion of the property “owned by everyone in general” is going to be violated. This and the countless similar conflicts arising from the notion of “public” property point to the invalidity of such property—property which, by its very nature, violates individual rights and generates an endless stream of irresolvable rights disputes."
First - I disagree that the government has the right to control public lands to the extent of being able to sell it.
Second - No way would the resulting monies be used to pay down the debt.
I still do not grant the government that right. I also realize the government doesn't see it that way.
The public lands, even those the government purchased, belong to the people. They used OUR money, they have none of their own beyond what they take from us.
The revenues would be used to buy votes, pure and simple. It wouldn't solve anything.
However, given how politics works they would give it to their supporters for pennies on the dollar.
I doubt if there is enough money on earth to buy but a fraction. And besides if George Soros buys Nevada and renames it Sorosland, would we have to pay him fees to cross his land? :-)
there is the matter of timing.
If Objectivism does not predominate in both source and destination nations, to allow would be migrants a right to entry is a suicide wish, worse it sends your family, your culture, and your nation as well to slavery or death.
Every country in the world expects that visitors produce a visa, passport, etc. for permission to enter their country, and expects that visitors obey their laws once they have arrived. To suggest that this is an unreasonable burden upon the visitor or immigrant, or to suggest that anyone who expects this little from their government is "anti-freedom" is not reasonable. It is no more unreasonable than expecting that someone should produce a photo ID in order to vote. Yet both are being attacked for being unreasonable expectations, the former within this forum and the latter outside this forum.
As for the article, I chose to write the way I did because I wanted to do so. My arguments are mine, because I am my own highest authority, just as you are your own highest authority.
As for proper government roles:
Welfare, the Patriot Act, etc. were intentional violations of the Constitution that served to empower those who passed them at our expense. When politicians willfully violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution, the citizenry can a) vote the bums out, b) revolt, or c) shrug. a) hasn't worked. We probably lack sufficient resources to win at b). That leaves c).
This is not your grandfather's America.
Even grandfather's America was corrupt to a somewhat lesser extent.
Let's say that an amendment is passed that prohibits the Federal Government from owning land at all (with the exception of Embassies and Consulates in foreign nations). Any land they want to build a building on, etc., outside the District of Colombia must be leased or rented from the State in which it is located.
Now one can say that all this does is devolve the burden down to the States, it doesn't necessarily eliminate the problem with "public" property. The problem is that in any situation where ownership of land is by a group (so-called public land fitting this description) there must be caretakers assigned for that land, empowered with ownership rights. Even when this is a government agency, the land still has certain conditions of use associated with it and penalties for abrogation. In the case of public properties, that abrogation can amount to a crime instead of merely a dispute between citizens and as such would be decided in a criminal rather than a civil court proceeding. But it is not individual citizens, but rather the property's caretakers who must bring the suit.
The underlying problem is that this is being used as an argument that anyone should have access to "public" land, and this just isn't the case. As is pointed out even today, with "public" land, the government is charged with overseeing its use. Deference is given to citizens with respect to its lawful use, but the fallacy is in associating unlimited rights or passage through or use of that land. No such thing exists in today's world. The only way one might claim such would have been prior to the US' annexation of those territories when there truly was no owner, no authority, and no force of law in those lands.
Oh and I guess that you and I have only one Social Security card each:-)
BTW it was Obama who said "you didn't that..."
It's not unlike the proposal that to vote or hold office, you have to have had some type of either military or public service. You want to have a say in this thing, you have to have a stake in it as well.
property" in certain limited cases: courthouses,
military bases, police stations, etc. But even then,
the "public property" ultimately belongs to the citi-
zens.
And suppose a hypothetical case: suppose
Smith, Jones, Robinson, and Brown all get to-
gether,and because Green's land is among all
those, they all agree not to let him get out to
go to work, go to the store, fetch water, etc. I
think that in that case, if no one allowed Green
a right-of-way to get out, it would amount to
false imprisonment. Perhaps that is not really
quite relevant to the immigration debate, but it
is something I think about sometimes.
All the ownership does is allow us to select people who have the authority to run it -- which happens to be the two of us. Because of that we can decide how it is run.
While I don't remember the corporate details from AS, I assume neither Hank Rearden nor Dagny Taggart were sole owners of the companies they ran.
Ownership and control can easily rest in separate hands.
In many countries, certainly in the U.S. the citizens of the country vote to give control to the politicians who have the control over the assets subject to the constitution (if they read it).
Publicly traded stock can be bought by anyone. But once you own the stock you own a portion of the corporation.