Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 10 months ago
    here's a true life story from the sixties. I-5 in Southern Oregon just north of Grants Pass, Josephine county. A parcel of land was eminent domained to make the freeway or back then National Defense Highway System. The owner a guy named Stumbo. His family famous for being somewhat more than stubborn especially about 'rights.'

    So the free is built but the government never pays Stumbo. he didn't agree with the amount but never mind that they weren't paying anyway.

    One day Stumbo rolls out some 55 gallon drums filled with concrete and rocks and lines them up along his property line including the unpaid for portion which effectively blocks I-5 north bound to one narrow section on the shoulder If i remember correctly. slightly more than civil disobedience perhaps but in that genre.

    there were some other factors. He and his sons sitting on the hillside with hunting rifles didn't help but no shots fired.

    Stumbo stories were alwaysfloating around the county but no matter what else they did I always admired the way he marched to the beat of a different drum-mer.


    Since my memory is probably a tad bit faulty here's the sources on how one dude enforced property rights.
    Search Results

    [PDF]Blockade of freeway struck blow for the common man ”
    web.thedailycourier.com/eedition/2010...

    Stumbo brothers — Josephine. County ... In 1960, the Ore- gon Supreme Court upheld the ... meets Interstate 5 bears the family name. ... THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2010 • DAILY COURIER, GRANTS PASS, OREGON — 3 E. By Shaun Hall.
    Grants Pass - James Loewen
    sundown.afro.illinois.edu/sundowntown...
    2 + 5: (to stop spam). Email: ... "I've lived in Oregon for 30 years now and people from Grants Pass proudly proclaim that Grants Pass was ... Later, I did find the local law officials less than friendly even in the 1960s when I drove through such ...
    U.S. Route 199 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Ro...
    South of downtown Grants Pass, US 199 meets OR 99 and OR 238 and splits .... (I-5 here was built in the early 1960s, but US 99 remained on the old alignment.) ...
    Transcript - the Southern Oregon Historical Society Online ...
    sohs.pastperfectonline.com/.../930B70......
    5. Shale City by Marjorie O'Harra ( 1922 shale beds in Ashland foothills) 6. ... The Stumbo Brothers by Marjorie O'Harra (Blockade of Hwy. ... George Tweed by Marjorie O'Harra (Grants Pass man survives WWII on Guam, 1940s) 22. ... Lindy's on Highway 99 by Dawna Curler (Honky-tonk south of Roseburg, 1945-1960s) 56.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 10 months ago
    Yes. Our property rights don't give us the right to stop other people from getting together and trading with one another if they so desire.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 10 months ago
      Depends on where they want to conduct business. They don't have the right to do it on my front lawn without my permission. They certainly don't have the right to do it on my front lawn and demand that I provide food and water for them and then clean up the mess they leave when they're gone.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 10 months ago
        I agree with this, but it's become less important as the things people want to trade can be transmitted over computers without regard to where the market participants are located.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 10 months ago
          Agreed, but that isn't what the discussion is about - it's about travel - physical movement.

          Further, I would point out that one's virtual presence is facilitated by the payments one makes to their ISP - a consideration and appropriate recognition of property rights and valuable services.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 5 years, 10 months ago
      Yes. Omg we agree
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 10 months ago
        I love the smell of burning intellectuals in the morning! Enough kindling in this one to keep a 12 room house in Minnesota warm all winter. Now that I've offended everyone????? Good here's your points.

        My ex was forced by a judge to pay for half our fully paid up house and lot. Having made a profit I invested in a boat and a new set of scuba gear. Boats have no property rights insofar as warrant less searches are concerned. But that's back in the USSSSR strike that USA.

        Best and only property investment I ever made. It's never been a problem since I swore off gambling.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 10 months ago
    From your article, "No armies are crossing our border." Go to southern Arizona, and then you will find out that your premise is flawed. Type "Mexican army in Arizona" into Google, and you will get over 1.2 million hits, mostly from April to June of 2014. Talk to AJAshinoff and his sister, and it will take a more personal slant.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What we have been discussing is whether removing the welfare state is enough. If you can also remove the crony state, then we're talking about a place worth living in. This is the first time in this argument that I had heard anyone other than myself discuss removing the cronyists. They provide the financing that makes the illegal immigration situation possible. They pay a few million to looters to look the other way, while they save tens of millions in wages, while leaving Joe Citizen to pay for the "public" services that those immigrants use but don't pay for. The only losers in this are taxpaying citizens.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 10 months ago
      I'll give you the bad news or good news for both posts. According to our government, AND the local people down here south of the border it's reverse migration figures now. 1. No jobs. Despite Obey Me's protest to the contrary. What do expect in an economy Gallup now lists as having -13% confidence. 2. Cost of Living (which includes eating is to high.) I noticed a couple of years ago people sending money north not the other way around. As a recent example exchange rate is now an actual after fees 16:1 when I arrived it was 12:1. That $300 air conditioner I wanted but passed up last May is now $200 in US Dollars needed to purchase the exact same made in Mexico item. Good for the expats and visitors. No change for the locals. But I notice the Dollar Stores and WalMart the prime shopping grounds for trips aross the border are now more like $2.00 stores and my favorite bicycle inner tubes are now 40% more though still cheaper than the rest of the suppliers at WalMart.

      The problem you outline maybe solving itself....
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 10 months ago
        This is more evidence of ObeyMe's management of the decline, as several of his lieutenants/czars promised in 2009.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 10 months ago
          Managing or contributing. I suppose with no job experience, no provable education, nothing to bring to the table except a record of absenteeism whoever was pulling the strings did a remarkable job. Minus the first seven years. The handlers clearly had there hands full.

          I would object to categorizing him as a racist though. Unless it was against his own. He clearly lived up to the oath of office especially the phrase, 'to the best of my ability.'

          Given the evidence of the first four years one can hardly blame the man for the second four years. The voters take that one in the shorts. Deservedly. I thought no one could out Carter the peanut. Not in my life time. Ii feel sorry for him.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -1
      Posted by MarkHunter 5 years, 10 months ago
      Because (lower wage) employees can go on food stamps (SNAP), get negative taxes (EITC) etc. a business is able to pay them lower wages than otherwise. In effect some of your tax money paying for those programs goes to the employer.

      I pithy way to describe what the “crony capitalists” (who aren’t really capitalists) who lobby for food stamps etc. are doing is: socialize costs, privatize profits.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 5 years, 10 months ago
    I wanted to ask you again about your position. I read your article, and think it has helped my understanding.

    I now envision a spectrum where you have the right to travel freely on one hand, and on the other hand a solitary confinement prison cell. You are arguing that if we do not have the absolute and unhindered right to travel freely (e.g., not allowed to travel to X), then we are implicitly a prisoner (at least to some degree; the prison cell of everything that is not X). And, if I am understanding you correctly, any movement toward being a prisoner is an unacceptable limitation on our liberty.

    If I am understanding you correctly on that, I do wonder if you are consistent in your insistence on that principle. Does a man have the right to camp on your land, even against your will? Does he have a right to walk into your home uninvited? If not, are you not limiting his "right to travel freely"? Are you not saying, "You may not occupy this space, you are limited to the prison of all the other space available." So I suggest that you too limit a person's right to travel freely. So the question is not whether we limit that "right," but how and where to draw the line on the spectrum between free travel and prison. I believe we ought to recognize a range that respects private property, and yet does not constitute a prison.

    I agree with you, that there should be provision for people to travel to any place they are welcome. For example, if someone needs to traverse privately owned land in order to access his own (or a friend's) property, there should be a way for him to do that. But even here there are limits; he must do so as the property owner allows (e.g., he may not just barge through a person's house, claiming that he is just freely traveling across the property). Likewise, I would probably even agree with you that a person ought to be allow to travel through a nation in order to get to another nation (especially a landlocked one). But here too, I would say, there ought to be limits based on the nations immigration rules. We would disagree on that. But I think our disagreement should not be seen as one of principle (we both affirm private property is good and prison is bad), but merely where we draw the line on that spectrum.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by kevinw 5 years, 10 months ago
      If you haven't already done so, start with this comment and follow the threads. It goes a couple different directions but follow them through. Most of what you're saying is worked out.
      http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

      I think you are making a mistake in your comment as you appear to be setting up degrees of imprisonment. This would allow for an unnecessary and completely arbitrary line to be drawn between freedom and imprisonment. A line over which the argument would never end. The apparent contradiction between "freedom to travel" and "private property" is worked out within that thread and you have touched on it in your own comment as well. But don't allow yourself to get drawn into that attractive "gray area."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by nsnelson 5 years, 10 months ago
        I read the threads. Some very good discussion. I don't see how it addresses my critique, or explains why we should not be seeing a spectrum in our understanding of "prison." I'm still not sure at what point my position becomes controversial.

        1. Prohibiting a stranger to camp in my privately owned kitchen limits his "right to travel freely." [And according to DH, I gather, puts them in prison.]

        2. If you believe that a stranger has the "right to travel freely" even onto my private property, even against my will, then you are limiting my private property rights (i.e., self-ownership). [I find this controversial.]

        I'm okay with the first position. I think my self-ownership (and consequent private property rights) trump another person's "right to travel freely" onto it. So I believe that the right to travel freely is limited. I also think that there is a parallel with delegated rights on the national level. The rest of my post was trying to maintain that, while also still respecting people's freedom to move and live where they freely choose (and are allowed).

        I still hope DH will reply. But what about you? Do you affirm an absolute and unrestricted right to travel freely, even into my home if they so choose? If not, are you not limiting a man's right to travel freely?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by kevinw 5 years, 10 months ago
          Yes, an absolute and unrestricted right to travel freely. A right does not and cannot grant a claim to the product of another mans labor. Therefore that absolute right to travel does not include your kitchen or your yard. Since that right to travel does not include your kitchen you are not limiting his right to travel freely.

          I apologize for the incorrect link. The new one appears to go to the correct spot.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by nsnelson 5 years, 10 months ago
            Okay, well, I think we mean the same thing, but are saying it differently.

            We agree that our "right to travel freely" does not apply to certain places (e.g., private property). I call this a limitation on the right. You say it is not limited, it is just the proper understanding of the right. Fine, I'm willing to adopt that language.

            The bottom line is that the right to travel freely is secondary to (i.e., does not supersede) our right to private property. A right will never contradict another right.

            The right to travel freely does not imply a contradiction with the right to private property. With this understanding, I am willing to entertain the idea that there is a parallel to the national level. Not that the State owns "private" property, but that it does have the obligation to protect its citizens. This may involve restricting the "free travel" into our nation by some people (e.g., violent criminals). Morally, I don't see why this limitation would be any worse than that of actual private property.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by kevinw 5 years, 10 months ago
          Well, that's because I gave you the wrong link. Having a lot of trouble with that today. Here is the correct one;
          http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

          I'll continue in a separate comment.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by nsnelson 5 years, 10 months ago
            No, I did read that part too. Also very good. But I'm still missing something. I look forward to your separate comment.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by kevinw 5 years, 10 months ago
              The concept of imprisoning someone in the "whole rest of the world" is where I was troubled the worst. But imprisoning someone is the act of initiating force to limit their ability to travel, whether it is via a cage in the basement or an armed guard on a public road. Immigration status doesn't change that.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by nsnelson 5 years, 10 months ago
                But I think that the moral principle you object to regarding nations limiting one's ability to travel, is the same principle that you just affirmed (freedom of travel does not supersede my right to private property).

                I have the right to use force to make sure that people do not enter my land without my permission (a first step will be to make sure I know their intentions are peaceful). Since that is true, I am willing to explore the idea that a nation may do the same thing with delegated authority (as others have argued).
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by kevinw 5 years, 10 months ago
                  Two of your posts show an hour difference but both just showed up. I will continue the discussion on this one to simplify as it also follows my imprisonment statement.

                  Roads exist for the purpose of travel. If I have no right to use force to prevent my neighbor from using the road without suspicion of a crime then I have no right to use force to prevent an immigrant from using the road without suspicion of a crime. If I do not have this right then the nation cannot have this right. The nation does not own private property.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by nsnelson 5 years, 10 months ago
                    Agreed about nations not having private property.

                    The private ownership of roads seems right to me. But I know I have a lot to learn about this concept. For example, normally when talking about someone's private property, and someone's business, I think he should be allowed to discriminate as he sees fit. Most roads probably need to function differently, the way you described them. But I don't think the logistics of roads are on point. I do see the point you are making, and it applies beyond just roads. In the other threads, they used the example of strangers on a sidewalk. We don't have the right to demand ID, so neither should the State.

                    I'll think on this more. Part of me still feels that knowing who is crossing our borders is the first step to defending our citizens against known threats (or threats that should be known, and would be known if we had that control). Unlike me stopping traffic to check papers on private roads, this is a delegated responsibility. I have the right to regulate my private property, and make sure I can reasonably believe my visitors have peaceful intentions. Right now, I think the State rightly does this for the land that we citizens have claimed as our nation, worthy of protection. Obviously, I'm still working this out in my own mind. Thanks for helping.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by kevinw 5 years, 10 months ago
                      Truly, I just went through the same thing. Glad to help. Yes, working it out in your own mind is the only way to get it.

                      Advice while your doing it if you're interested; Accept no compromises. Right and wrong are absolute. Enjoy.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by khalling 5 years, 10 months ago
                      I posted elsewhere that I went through TSA Homeland Security humiliation going through the US on the way to Europe. I got off the plane in Germany and walked into the sunshine. no questions, welcomed.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 5 years, 10 months ago
                  actually, under the law that is not correct. Private property rights are not unlimited. This has been stated probably 20 times on this post. You do not have the right to shoot a man for stepping foot on your property. That is not necessarily a use of force on the man's part Now that is different than saying, a free man (whether illegal or not) shall not violate others' property rights. Remember property rights are discussed in philosophy as the basis for law. this is a philosophical post, and I think it's less confusing to stick there so we haven't discussed what ifs legally much on this post. ex: but the person has come here illegally, so is that not an initiation of force? In this post we refer to all men as free, since they own them selves. A proper government should be limited, regardless of delegated authority. ie: we delegate govt to draw and quarter anyone who steals a loaf of bread
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years, 10 months ago
          1) No
          2) No, but as the post explains you private property is not unlimited. It is clear that private property without the ability to travel to and from private property makes it meaningless. What would it do to have a farm on which you could never leave and if you did leave you could not come back.
          Thus no property rights can be used to travel in a reasonable manner to and from other people's property. If this were not the case the continental railroads would have been able to stop anyone from traveling between the northern and southern part of the US. That would absurd.

          That was the whole point of the post. Please read it and point to specifically why you disagree.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by nsnelson 5 years, 10 months ago
            I find it doubly ironic that you asked me to read your post. First, because if you had read my post, you would know that I did read your post (and appreciated it). I quote myself: "I read your article, and think it has helped my understanding." Also, if you had read my post, you would know that I already agreed with you that there must be legal means to traverse property (e.g., easements, roads, whatever). Again, quoting me: "I agree with you, that there should be provision for people to travel to any place they are welcome. For example, if someone needs to traverse privately owned land in order to access his own (or a friend's) property, there should be a way for him to do that."

            http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

            The second reason I find it ironic that you asked me to read your post is because apparently you did not read your own comment here. I quote you: "as the post explain you [sic] private property..." Again: "Thus no property rights can be used to travel in a reasonable manner...." I think you meant that private property rights may not prevent travel.

            But now, getting past the irony to the substance. You said, "1) No." Okay, so that means you do believe prohibiting a stranger to camp in my kitchen does not limit his right to travel freely. I don't understand. In this, would you not be saying, "You may not occupy this space [e.g., my kitchen], you are limited to the prison of all the other space available"? Does he have a right owed to him to freely travel into my kitchen or not?

            Then you said, "2) No, but....you [sic] private property is not unlimited." For something to be "not unlimited" means that it is "limited." But this was precisely my second point: "You are limiting my private property rights." So if you say "No" to my point that private property rights are limited, and then affirm that my private property rights are "not unlimited," that sentence is a contradiction. But again, I think you meant "Yes," the exact opposite of what you wrote. And I think we agree on that, that our private property rights are limited.

            I'm not sure that I do disagree with your article. I agree that private property rights are not unlimited. I'm merely pointing out that neither is our right to travel freely unlimited. Even if we agree that there needs to be legal means to traverse property, that still needs to be by the owner's consent. Either the owner makes his own provision for legal crossing, or the State dictates the manner of that crossing, and the owner abides by that. But in any case, the owner has the right to say, "No, you do not have the right to travel through my kitchen." I really don't understand why this is so controversial.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 5 years, 10 months ago
    You are basically arguing that a nation is just arbitrary markings on a map, that a nation has no identity or common culture or norms. If this was so it would have no right to impose conditions upon those entering it. As I see it your argument only works if you ignore Ihe law of identity.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by kevinw 5 years, 10 months ago
      Hello sjatkins,
      Markings on a map, yes. Arbitrary, no.
      Do you possess the right to dictate, or protect, the cultural norms of your city? What identity of your city do you have the right to protect by force? By the act of posting guards to question everyone who wishes to enter?

      At what point does a nation acquire those rights that you (or your city) do not possess?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 5 years, 10 months ago
    A person no more has the right to enter a country at will with the country having no right to limit or question their access than a person has the right to walk into my house without my approval. They are quite analogous.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 10 months ago
    I'm not sure that I don't go back to Friedman's concept of being "compelled into contract" that takes away something from one (or many), which was never accepted. Perhaps there is no legal basis for this, but it seems logical.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by MarkHunter 5 years, 10 months ago
    From ARIwatch:

    There is an intriguing part of Galt’s speech that might be applicable. It begins:
    -----------------------------
    “You have reached the blind alley of the treason you committed when you agreed that you had no right to exist. Once, you believed it was ‘only a compromise’:”
    -----------------------------

    Rand then lists examples of the form “it was selfish to live for the group X, but moral to live for the larger group Y” – using “selfish” in the common negative sense. In each example you have a legitimate interest in Y, but as the list progresses X becomes larger and your interest in Y less, until the interest disappears into total self-immolation:
    -----------------------------
    “Now, you are letting this greatest of countries be devoured by any scum from any corner of the earth, while you concede that it is selfish to live for your country and that your moral duty is to live for the globe.”
    -----------------------------

    This was published in 1957 when our immigration rate was almost zero, so despite the “from” in the phrase “from any corner of the earth” she may have been thinking of foreign aid.

    On the other hand, giving residency to scum from any corner of the earth is foreign aid taken to the last degree.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo