tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post1395768140456193654..comments2024-01-29T17:58:00.974-05:00Comments on Galileo Blogs: Galileo Blogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02592692929747610846noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-80275212554124808132007-11-02T20:59:00.000-04:002007-11-02T20:59:00.000-04:00An interesting and thoughtful discussion of immigr...An interesting and thoughtful discussion of immigration can be found on the One Minute Case blog:<BR/><BR/>http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/open-immigration/<BR/><BR/>Be sure to read the comments from HeroicLife. They are good.Galileo Blogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02592692929747610846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-77323755171354518132007-10-21T00:08:00.000-04:002007-10-21T00:08:00.000-04:00I see.I will let my last post stand as my final ar...I see.<BR/><BR/>I will let my last post stand as my final argument in this discussion. There is nothing else that I wish to add. Thank you for an interesting and educational discussion.<BR/><BR/>GBGalileo Blogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02592692929747610846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-42439061375605152662007-10-20T22:17:00.000-04:002007-10-20T22:17:00.000-04:00"On what basis, then, is the authority of the immi...<I>"On what basis, then, is the authority of the immigration officials properly and morally limited?"</I><BR/><BR/>For the zillionth time: <I>the rights of the <B>citizens</B></I>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-9072018081678739662007-10-20T08:01:00.000-04:002007-10-20T08:01:00.000-04:00Airports are private property, or should be in a l...Airports are private property, or should be in a laissez faire society. The example is meant to illustrate the impracticality and injustice (therefore, absurdity) of requiring Americans to ask permission from their government in order to invite someone over here. I think the example is entirely valid.<BR/><BR/>If the government is to exercise its policing function with respect to immigration, they would do it at normal border checkpoints, as they do now (and conceivably with requiring visas at foreign locations in certain instances, before traveling here). Americans should not have the prior restraint on their dealings with foreigners or anyone else that they would if they had to ask permission of their government to interact with a foreigner.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I have answered your question clearly before: Yes, citizens delegate their policing function over admission of foreigners to their government. In the same manner, they also delegate to their local police the function of protecting against criminals, and to the military the function of protecting against foreign invaders.<BR/><BR/>The part that I will add, as I have also made clear before, is that the government in taking on such functions is limited in what it can do. That limiting factor is that it cannot violate the rights of individuals, all individuals, period. There are no exceptions at any time, in any circumstance.<BR/><BR/>The only proper use of force is in retaliation as an act of defense of the rights of Americans (and residents). I see the immigration function of government as squarely falling within this realm. It really is no different fundamentally than the policing or military functions of government. In fact, it is a hybrid of those two roles.<BR/><BR/>The potential scope of action in defense of our rights is greatest for the military, and most restrained for the police, given the nature of these functions. In my opinion, immigration falls somewhere between the two, functioning much more as a policing function in peacetime, and taking on more of a military function in wartime.<BR/><BR/>In wartime, our military can bomb cities and kill civilians, if justifiably necessary for our country's self-defense. As you observed before, the responsibility for those deaths lies with the aggressor. Our military's action is justifiable then, but to do the same thing in peacetime would be a violation of rights. Whose rights? The rights of the foreigners whom we killed. Our soldiers or generals could be rightfully prosecuted in such an instance.<BR/><BR/>The same principle applies to police work (a policeman can search without a warrant if he has probable cause, but it is illegal to do so without such cause) and in immigration. Immigrants can be kept out if it is a necessary act required for our self-defense. Otherwise, their rights (and, incidentally, the rights of Americans with whom they are dealing) are violated.<BR/><BR/>It really isn't that complicated, in my opinion.<BR/><BR/>However, if you say that a foreigner's rights are not violated if immigration unjustifiably keeps him out, then all sorts of problems emerge. On what basis, then, is the authority of the immigration officials properly and morally limited?<BR/><BR/>How does the same principle apply to the military?Galileo Blogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02592692929747610846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-78428094868758436752007-10-20T00:05:00.000-04:002007-10-20T00:05:00.000-04:00Now you're just being snarky. And begging the ques...Now you're just being snarky. And begging the question again.<BR/><BR/><I>"So, if the foreigner buys a plane ticket on travelocity.com, travelocity.com has to check with the government first before it sells him the ticket??"</I><BR/><BR/>Honestly, this is a matter of details, not of philosophy. I think airports are considered international soil or something similar. The point is that it's not the government's fault if you hastily get involved in contracts that, if you had checked beforehand, were not valid. The citizens <I>delegate</I> their right to give permission to their government. If it's delegated to the government, they can't just willy-nilly hand it out any more than you could become a vigilante.<BR/><BR/>What this comes down to is the fact that the foreigner proceeds by permission and not by right. Permission of the citizen property-owner, or - if the citizen has delegated it - permission of the citizen's government. This is the one point that you simply have not addressed. Yes or no: can citizens delegate their right to invite foreigners to their government?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-42414820690127675832007-10-19T20:31:00.000-04:002007-10-19T20:31:00.000-04:00"The foreigner's rights never get involved unless ..."The foreigner's rights never get involved unless there is some confusing scenario."<BR/><BR/>I'll have to admit, my scenario is confusing because it shows the absurdity of saying immigrants have no rights, in my opinion. It is absurd to think that in the situation I described, only Americans would have cause against the injustice of arbitrarily denying entry to the traveler/immigrant.<BR/><BR/>"And if the foreigner just jumped the border, then he has violated rights...so he is in no position to complain if the government acts to enforce the borders."<BR/><BR/>We're not talking about this situation, are we? We're talking about whether immigrants/travelers who have been unjustly denied entry have had their rights violated.<BR/><BR/>"You're still jumping the gun - assuming that the citizen has the right to grant such permission before he has consulted with his government"<BR/><BR/>So, if the foreigner buys a plane ticket on travelocity.com, travelocity.com has to check with the government first before it sells him the ticket??<BR/><BR/>These absurd situations develop when we remove rights from a discussion of whether and when it is appropriate to restrict immigration. If a foreigner does retain his rights, including his right to travel/immigrate/move, it becomes much easier to describe a rational immigration policy.Galileo Blogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02592692929747610846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-42607554285540343942007-10-19T00:30:00.000-04:002007-10-19T00:30:00.000-04:00"The question then becomes: Is a foreigner's right...<I>"The question then becomes: Is a foreigner's right violated if he is arbitrarily denied entry? So, if he has permission to enter from a property owner (i.e., he bought a plane ticket), he is peaceful, and he is not from a hostile country, yet the government has barred his entry, can the foreigner demand entry because his rights have been violated?</I>"<BR/><BR/>You're still jumping the gun - assuming that the citizen has the right to grant such permission before he has consulted with his government - which is the entity to whom he delegated that right (because it must be placed under objective control).<BR/><BR/>As I said, if things got to that point, where the foreigner was granted permission and then spent money and became involved, then you could say that his rights could be violated. But it's not a matter of that.<BR/><BR/>Primarily, it's a matter of whether the property owners are right to offer that permission in the first place. This is something that the government is delegated. Yes, the government can act improperly in this regard, but that is a matter between it and its citizens. The foreigner's rights never get involved unless there is some confusing scenario.<BR/><BR/>And if the foreigner just jumped the border, then <I>he</I> has violated rights (whether or not he would have been let in under a proper government) - so he is in no position to complain if the government acts to enforce the borders which it has a right to establish (derived, of course, from the rights of its citizens)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-22569395600232312612007-10-18T22:01:00.000-04:002007-10-18T22:01:00.000-04:00Inspector said:"The right to be in a particular pl...Inspector said:<BR/><BR/>"The right to be in a particular place depends on who owns that place, and their permission. In this case, the property owners own the place, and they have delegated their permission in part to their government."<BR/><BR/>I accept this formulation (and always have). A government acts as the delegated agent of its citizens.<BR/><BR/>But in so doing, the government must adhere to certain limits. In particular, the government cannot violate the rights of individuals, whether they are citizens or not.<BR/><BR/>The question then becomes: Is a foreigner's right violated if he is arbitrarily denied entry? So, if he has permission to enter from a property owner (i.e., he bought a plane ticket), he is peaceful, and he is not from a hostile country, yet the government has barred his entry, can the foreigner demand entry because his rights have been violated?<BR/><BR/>Or, is the only party who has standing to demand redress the American who was harmed because the foreigner was denied entry, say the owner of the hotel at which the foreigner was going to stay or a business associate he was going to meet, etc.?Galileo Blogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02592692929747610846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-68041995393931230382007-10-18T20:32:00.000-04:002007-10-18T20:32:00.000-04:00"I think we agree on what government can do with r...<I>"I think we agree on what government can do with respect to foreigners. Where we differ is in the reason why. I am troubled by the idea that one’s actual *rights* differ depending on which side of a border one stands on."</I><BR/><BR/>No, you're misunderstanding me again. It's not that the foreigner doesn't have rights or that our government isn't obliged to refrain from violating them. It's that matters of immigration are not, strictly speaking, a matter of rights. Or not <I>their</I> rights, anyway. It's a matter of the permission of the citizens, which is delegated in part to the government.<BR/><BR/>To be more specific, it is a matter of the fact that the citizens of the nation have agreed - for security purposes - to not invite certain people in (as determined by their government).<BR/><BR/>And John - I wouldn't substitute Galileo's formulations of my position for my position itself. He hasn't fully understood it yet.<BR/><BR/><I>"However, all it would require for the foreigner to get that permission is to buy a plane ticket, and then pay for a cab ride, a hotel room, etc."</I><BR/><BR/>I didn't say it wouldn't be easy. But the point is that anyone can't just wander across the border at will. They do actually have to prove that they have business here.<BR/><BR/><I>"I think we agree on what government can do with respect to foreigners. Where we differ is in the reason why. I am troubled by the idea that one’s actual *rights* differ depending on which side of a border one stands on."</I><BR/><BR/>It's not so troubling when you consider the <I>particular</I> rights in question. The right to <I>be</I> is derived from the right to life. The right to be <I>in a particular place</I> depends on who owns that place, and their permission. In this case, the property owners own the place, and they have delegated their permission in part to their government.<BR/><BR/>The idea that their "rights are different" on different sides of a border comes entirely from the way in which you have formulated "rights" to cover <I>everything</I>. This is why I called your formulation of rights "sloppy." Especially because you omitted the part in parentheses.<BR/><BR/>Under your definition, I could say that I have a right to be on my property, and you don't. Our "rights are different" on two "sides of a border." (my property line) This is <I>technically</I> true, although misleading. In the same way and for the same reason that your <I>formulation</I> is technically true, although misleading.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-6022064187349577392007-10-18T18:17:00.000-04:002007-10-18T18:17:00.000-04:00"I think we agree on what government can do with r..."I think we agree on what government can do with respect to foreigners. Where we differ is in the reason why. I am troubled by the idea that one’s actual *rights* differ depending on which side of a border one stands on."<BR/><BR/>I have been following this discussion since the start and I think this is a good summary. I think that you and Inspector would agree on all the practical details of dealing with foreigners. I think you are wrestling with theoretical formulations, ultimately those dealing with the nature of man's rights. And properly defining the limitations of man's rights in the context of immigration is no easy thing. And I too am uneasy with many of Inspector's formulations and I suspect many Objectivists would be as well.<BR/><BR/>John KimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-5669032083096827012007-10-18T08:58:00.000-04:002007-10-18T08:58:00.000-04:00Inspector,Your reply is very thoughtful and persua...Inspector,<BR/><BR/>Your reply is very thoughtful and persuasive.<BR/><BR/>I more or less agree with the several examples you give of how a government can and should act with respect to foreigners. I still do not agree with the idea that foreigners do not have rights when they are in our country, or that a government is under no obligation not to violate those rights.<BR/><BR/>The fact is, no foreigner can enter without permission of some private property owner (in a laissez faire society). However, all it would require for the foreigner to get that permission is to buy a plane ticket, and then pay for a cab ride, a hotel room, etc. Any entry by a foreigner implies permission from a domestic property owner unless the foreigner is, in fact, trespassing.<BR/><BR/>As for the obligation to obey the laws of our country, any traveler should know that he is subject to the laws of the country he enters, just as any American knows he is subject to the laws of the state he enters.<BR/><BR/>In a certain sense, although not literally, I agree with your formulation that foreigners, if they do have rights when they are here, do not have them in the same manner as we do. Foreigners are subject to expulsion or denial of entry, whereas citizens (at least in nearly any conceivable instance) are not subject to the same restrictions.<BR/><BR/>However, the reason that foreigners are subject to such governmental actions is not because they lack rights when they are here or that their rights are different or inferior to those of citizens. These actions are a legitimate retaliatory and defensive use of force by our government that is an exercise of its function to provide for our military defense and protection from criminals.<BR/><BR/>In that regard, a border guard is part policeman and part soldier. If we are at war with Iran, as an act of military self-defense, he can keep out Iranian nationals, as per the instructions of the President and/or Congress to do so. In the same manner, in this case acting like a policeman, the border guard can keep out a criminal.<BR/><BR/>By implication, such authority would extend to rounding up and kicking out foreign nationals who are here, for those reasons.<BR/><BR/>But in all cases, the foreigner does have the same rights that we do. To illustrate this point differently, if an American citizen were a spy, our government would have the right to round him up and imprison him. In a wartime situation, because it is impractical to individually identify which foreign national is a threat, it is appropriate to prevent the entry (or perhaps even kick out) all of them.<BR/><BR/>Interestingly, our Constitution even provides for such drastic action against American citizens in time of rebellion or civil war.<BR/><BR/>I think we agree on what government can do with respect to foreigners. Where we differ is in the reason why. I am troubled by the idea that one’s actual *rights* differ depending on which side of a border one stands on.Galileo Blogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02592692929747610846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-15406351729897152262007-10-18T03:51:00.000-04:002007-10-18T03:51:00.000-04:00"The rights that I mention are rights that are der...<I>"The rights that I mention are rights that are derivative from the central right, the right to life. Even the right to property is a derivative of the right to life."</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, but it isn't appropriate to just enumerate an endless list of "right to this" and "right to that." It's like saying that I have a "right to pizza (provided that I've paid for it)." Yes, that's true. But it's sloppy, and doubly so if you omit the part in parentheses.<BR/><BR/><I>"In the example you give, I would say that the heir's rights are violated."</I><BR/><BR/>But then you could say that <I>his</I> heir, who would also inherit money, has had his rights violated, and so on and so forth. But that is foolish; a potential is not an actual. If the foreigner <I>already</I> had a contract that permitted him entry, and had paid his end of the bargain, and a government acted improperly to terminate the contract then yes you could say that his rights were violated. But it's not <I>about</I> that because it never reaches that level. It's about the property owner's right to <I>offer</I> it in the first place. That comes first, before any consideration of the foreigner comes into play.<BR/><BR/>If you change your formulation of "Respecting an immigrant's right to live here is respecting our own right to life" just slightly, then you're really on to something: for it is precisely respecting our own rights that is the reason why our immigration policies should be rational. But this does not mean that foreigners have "a right to live here," strictly speaking.<BR/><BR/>But there are important and troublesome implications to formulating it backwards, as you have. I.E. in saying that foreigners have "a right to be here," in the <I>exact same</I> sense that the citizens do.<BR/><BR/>Note that under my formulation, we would have a right to stop a foreigner who had, say, a communicable disease from entering because this is in protecting the rights of the citizens. But you could not engage in such preemptive action with a citizen. He would be free to travel, although liable for the damages he causes. There could be stricter (although still necessarily rational) standards in place, because the purpose of a government is the protection of its citizens, specifically. No, it ought not violate the rights of non-citizens, but that is all derived from the fact of protecting the rights of the citizens. In other words because violating the rights of others is also a threat to the rights of the citizens, not because the government ought in the least to be concerned with the rights of foreigners <I>as such</I>.<BR/><BR/>Also note that under my formulation a foreigner would require a <I>specific invitation</I> to enter, as well as pledging to accept the jurisdiction of the government here. They couldn't just wander across the border for no reason under a claim of "right to free action."<BR/><BR/>Understand that this is part of the nature of a government as an <I>actual agency</I>, and not just a floating abstraction of "rights protectors."<BR/><BR/>Remember that governments and their jurisdictions are things which must actually <I>be established</I>. Property owners, who own the physical area of the proposed jurisdiction, must actually and voluntarily <I>create</I> a government by pledging (delegating) their rights to it, and thus turning over jurisdiction to it. A border would have to be established specifically so that people would understand that they were entering a jurisdiction, and agreeing to abide by it (to preserve the rule of law). The citizens, as owners of this jurisdiction and members of the "club," are free to move about in it, yes. But not people who are not members. They would have to proceed under certain conditions and controls (limited by the purpose of protecting the rights of the citizens), because the jurisdiction <I>is not theirs</I>.<BR/><BR/>For instance, a citizen truly does have a "right to be here." If he commits a minor crime, we can't just kick him out. But a foreigner we can and sometimes ought to.<BR/><BR/>As another example, you've agreed that it is a legitimate security concern to keep out people from Iran if we are at war with Iran. But what about just a known intellectual supporter of Jihad such as a Islamist Imam who is from England? If he was a citizen, he would have a right to be here and the limits on what we can do to stop him are strict. But <I>not if he is a foreigner.</I> Our government could act (objectively) to protect the citizens by denying him entry, even if he hadn't done anything that could get a citizen kicked out.<BR/><BR/>There is an important sense in which a nation is a private club. This country <I>is</I>, in a very real sense, <I>ours</I>. We are members of our country - it is responsible for protecting us and we are responsible for what it does. This is why I pointed to "innocents in war;" because it is a concept that Ayn Rand understood.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-85269292003759008612007-10-17T13:32:00.000-04:002007-10-17T13:32:00.000-04:00CORRECTION:"Other times it is contractual, such as...CORRECTION:<BR/><BR/>"Other times it is contractual, such as between a renter and a landlord."<BR/><BR/>It should read:<BR/><BR/>"Other times it is explicit, such as between a renter and a landlord."Galileo Blogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02592692929747610846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-48500668788036329822007-10-17T13:15:00.000-04:002007-10-17T13:15:00.000-04:00Inspector,The rights that I mention are rights tha...Inspector,<BR/><BR/>The rights that I mention are rights that are derivative from the central right, the right to life. Even the right to property is a derivative of the right to life.<BR/><BR/>All sorts of rights are derivative. For example, one of them is the freedom to enter contracts. That is derivative of the right to property. If a foreigner has a contract that enables him to enter someone else's property, his freedom of contract is violated if someone forcefully and unjustifiably prevents him.<BR/><BR/>Freedom of speech is a derivative of the right to life and property. Ayn Rand pointed out that freedom of speech in the absence of property rights is an impossibility.<BR/><BR/>The point is that you are free to do what you want with your life, as long as you don't interfere with others' rights. The entire range of action possible to humans constitutes our rights. All of them are fundamentally derivative from our right to life or our right to property, which itself is derivative of the right to life.<BR/><BR/>This would include the freedom of association, right of assembly, freedom of travel, etc.<BR/><BR/>In the example you give, I would say that the heir's rights are violated. A denial of property one is to receive in the future is a denial of the heir's property rights. In fact, with the death of the bequeather, I am not sure if the bequeather's rights *are* applicable at that point. It may be that upon the death of the bequeather, it is *only* the heir's rights that are applicable. (Of course, the existence of a death tax does violate the bequeather's rights while he is living, since it interferes with his right to freely dispose of his property.)<BR/><BR/>***<BR/><BR/>I would like to make another point regarding the use of someone else's property. If I use someone else's property, there is always a contractual relationship. Usually, it is unspoken and implicit, as in when I walk into a store to buy something. There is an implicit contract that I can walk about the store while I browse for something to buy and that if I am not creating havoc, I can stay in the store, etc.<BR/><BR/>Other times it is contractual, such as between a renter and a landlord.<BR/><BR/>In all cases, the contract applies to both parties and if the property owner violates his contract with the person using his property, he has violated his rights.<BR/><BR/>Your discussion of property fails to acknowledge the contractual relationship between the user of property and the property owner. Your discussion acts as if "rights" only applies to one party, the property owner. That is not true.Galileo Blogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02592692929747610846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-75489822516168210532007-10-17T11:19:00.000-04:002007-10-17T11:19:00.000-04:00"Consider an example: A property owner, say an air...<I>"Consider an example: A property owner, say an airport owner, extends permission to a foreigner to enter his property. If the foreigner does not represent a security threat and the border police prevent him from entering the airport, the rights of both parties are violated.<BR/><BR/>In both cases, their freedom of association is violated, as is the airport owner's property right and the foreigner's freedom to travel."</I><BR/><BR/>With "Freedom of association" and "freedom of travel," you're just adding more <I>words</I>. The only right involved here is the right of the property owner to dispose of his property as he sees fit. That the foreigner stands to benefit from the citizen's using it as he sees fit does not necessarily mean that the foreigner's rights are involved.<BR/><BR/>This is like with the death tax: fundamentally, the right that the government violates with the inheritance tax is the right of the <I>property owner</I> to dispose of his property as he sees fit, by choosing his heir. It is not the <I>heir's</I> rights, per se, that are being violated.<BR/><BR/>Yes, he stands to lose from it. But it's not about <I>him</I> in that instance.<BR/><BR/>Notice that, either way, the government's immigration policies violate rights. The distinction I am making here is far more subtle than you initially thought, isn't it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-86699261995490621242007-10-17T10:16:00.000-04:002007-10-17T10:16:00.000-04:00Inspector said:"You would not be able to claim tha...Inspector said:<BR/><BR/>"You would not be able to claim that the foreigner's rights are violated when he is refused permission to enter property that is not his."<BR/><BR/>The foreigner's rights *are* violated if a *government* or any other *third party* improperly prevents his entry.<BR/><BR/>Consider an example: A property owner, say an airport owner, extends permission to a foreigner to enter his property. If the foreigner does not represent a security threat and the border police prevent him from entering the airport, the rights of both parties are violated.<BR/><BR/>In both cases, their freedom of association is violated, as is the airport owner's property right and the foreigner's freedom to travel.<BR/><BR/>The freedom to travel does not imply the "freedom to trespass." That is not an implication of my statements. Entering someone's property without that property owner's permission is trespassing.<BR/><BR/>To make the point clear about authority that is delegated to government, if the government official (whether a border official or a policeman or whatever) acts improperly, he violates the rights of the offended party, in every instance.<BR/><BR/>It makes no difference whether that offended party is a foreigner or not, which gets back to my point that rights are individual attributes. The individual is sovereign above any government. Governments only get their authority from their role in protecting *individual* rights. If the government ends up violating an individual's rights, it has acted improperly. For redress, it can be sued in the courts for restitution and/or the responsible official(s) can be punished.Galileo Blogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02592692929747610846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-34918999488452040852007-10-16T22:27:00.000-04:002007-10-16T22:27:00.000-04:00"I can only see a re-hash of old ground here."Yes,...<I>"I can only see a re-hash of old ground here."</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, as I said in large part due to the straw-manning of my position, much of which I illustrated in my previous post.<BR/><BR/><I>"My response to your second sentence is, "but of course." Permission to use someone else's property is an implication of the concept of rights. It in no way negates it."</I><BR/><BR/>If this was truly your position, then it would be impossible to use the argument of "rights" in the way that you are. You would not be able to claim that the <I>foreigner's</I> rights are violated when he is refused permission to enter property that <I>is not his.</I><BR/><BR/><I>"The idea of a club can be an analogy to government, but its usefulness only goes so far."</I><BR/><BR/>While this statement is true, it does not mean that there are not ways in which the analogy <I>does</I> apply, and my use of it falls within that category.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-44819473794372906012007-10-16T21:53:00.000-04:002007-10-16T21:53:00.000-04:00Inspector,I can only see a re-hash of old ground h...Inspector,<BR/><BR/>I can only see a re-hash of old ground here. For the record, I will stress two key points that I think you are missing. The first is the concept of rights. As I believe I have made clear, a right is simply a freedom of action in a social setting. Its main characteristic is a negative obligation on others not to interfere with it. However, because everyone has the same rights, this obligation applies to everyone. So, everyone has the obligation not to interfere with others' rights.<BR/><BR/>In the context of property rights, this means that everyone requires permission from everyone else to cross into everyone else's property.<BR/><BR/>This requirement does not change or negate one's rights. One's right doesn't end at a property line, as when you say, "Your right to free travel stops at your property line. From there, there is only the permission of the property owners"<BR/><BR/>My response to your second sentence is, "but of course." Permission to use someone else's property is an implication of the concept of rights. It in no way negates it.<BR/><BR/>The second key point I want to re-emphasize is the difference between a government and a club. The idea of a club can be an analogy to government, but its usefulness only goes so far. There is a fundamental difference between the the two: the ability to use force. A government can force people to do things; a club cannot. Because governments can use force, the rules that apply to a government will be different than those that apply to a club.<BR/><BR/>GBGalileo Blogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02592692929747610846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-62682586346087812812007-10-16T20:02:00.000-04:002007-10-16T20:02:00.000-04:00"The private club idea, on the other hand, implies...<I>"The private club idea, on the other hand, implies that whatever standard chosen by the "club members" does not violate the foreigner's rights, because they have no right of travel."</I><BR/><BR/>That's correct, which is not to say that it does not violate the rights of <I>the citizens</I>...<BR/><BR/><I>"Incidentally, I just don't see how the right to travel freely is any different from the other sundry rights we have that are a corollary of our right to life, such as:<BR/><BR/>*Freedom of association<BR/>*Freedom of speech<BR/>*Freedom to enter contracts<BR/>*Freedom to trade<BR/><BR/>Etc."</I><BR/><BR/>When I say that one does not have "a right to travel freely," I mean it in the way that you have formulated. I believe that your formulation is the equivalent of those advocates of "free speech" who claim the right to take the private property necessary to print a newspaper or similar.<BR/><BR/>If you like, you can re-formulate my statement thusly: Your right to free travel stops at your property line. From there, there is only the permission of the property owners... or those to whom the property owners delegate that permission. Note that the meaning of my statement has not changed.<BR/><BR/><I>"I would like to emphasize another point. The club idea also implies that it is okay to violate the rights of its own club members."</I><BR/><BR/>No, that is most emphatically <I>not</I> true. My examples have been operating under the context that the club's explicit purpose is to protect the rights of the citizens. To make that statement, you've had to drop the context of what we're talking about here.<BR/><BR/>"<I>So, if the majority wants to keep out [insert name of ethnic group here], it is too bad for the minority who wants to admit them into the country.</I>"<BR/><BR/>This is what I'm talking about when I voice frustration about you and others <I>not reading</I> what I have to say. How many times have I had to REPEAT the phrase "if a government acts improperly in this respect, it is a matter between it and its citizens." YES, I have said, bad immigration policy DOES violate rights - <I>it's just that it's not the rights of the foreigners that are being violated</I>.<BR/><BR/>Failure to grasp this point of mine has led to yet still more straw-manning of my position.<BR/><BR/><I>"A private club is a voluntary association of people and it has no authority to use force against anyone. A polity on the other hand, is an involuntary association of individuals, unless someone wishes to emigrate."</I><BR/><BR/>This is a false dichotomy, based on the coercive governments of today. A truly capitalist government <I>would indeed be</I> a voluntary association of people.<BR/><BR/>"<I>A government's ability to use force is why its powers must always be circumscribed.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Are you suggesting that I have made an argument otherwise? If so, then you <I>really</I> haven't understood what I have said.<BR/><BR/><I>"No one's rights are alienated because they cross a border."</I><BR/><BR/>We've already been over this ground, and yet you're continuing to characterize my position as making that claim?<BR/><BR/>Honestly, I'm starting to find this insulting. If you can't bother to take the time to give a response that <I>seriously</I> considers the statements of your opponent, then don't bother responding. Perhaps you're used to dealing with idiot socialists or conservatives who can't string a few concepts together properly and don't merit serious consideration. But <I>I am not one of those</I> and to treat me like one is something I should not have to put up with.<BR/><BR/>You seem like a nice guy, Galileo, so I will assume that you don't realize what you've been doing to me here. But these are not the kind of conditions under which I am willing to carry out a debate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-16863582085397120342007-10-16T18:04:00.000-04:002007-10-16T18:04:00.000-04:00"Observe another serious conceptual deficiency of ..."Observe another serious conceptual deficiency of the "club" idea. A private club is a voluntary association of people and it has no authority to use force against anyone. A polity on the other hand, is an involuntary association of individuals, unless someone wishes to emigrate. Unlike a club, it has the power to use force against both its members and non club members."<BR/><BR/>That's one of the arguments that Binswanger made. Its a good argument. <BR/><BR/>Thank you for further elaborating your position. My thinking is very unsettled on this. I need to do a lot more thinking and reading on it. For years Binswanger has argued for his version of open immigration and I always thought it was too lax especially given the dangers presented by Islam. But now I am beginning to think differently. So this discussion was greatly appreciated.<BR/><BR/>John KimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-17205553840154514812007-10-16T17:24:00.000-04:002007-10-16T17:24:00.000-04:00John,Thank you for your comments.To make my positi...John,<BR/>Thank you for your comments.<BR/><BR/>To make my position clear, I do not accept the false alternative of "private club" on the one hand and "anyone can waltz across the border" on the other.<BR/><BR/>An administrative procedure to check the passports of foreigners entering the country is entirely consistent with the right to travel freely, in my view. Such a procedure is similar to the process of being examined through a peephole after knocking on someone's door. Verifying your identity and that you are not a threat does not interfere with your rights.<BR/><BR/>The private club idea, on the other hand, implies that whatever standard chosen by the "club members" does not violate the foreigner's rights, because they have no right of travel. Inspector explicitly stated that no such right exists in his last post. I disagree with that.<BR/><BR/>If a right to travel freely exists, then there is a rigorous standard that applies to the actions of border agents. They can only keep out foreigners who represent an objective threat of physical harm to residents of America. That's it.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, I just don't see how the right to travel freely is any different from the other sundry rights we have that are a corollary of our right to life, such as:<BR/><BR/>*Freedom of association<BR/>*Freedom of speech<BR/>*Freedom to enter contracts<BR/>*Freedom to trade<BR/><BR/>Etc.<BR/><BR/>I would like to emphasize another point. The club idea also implies that it is okay to violate the rights of its own club members. A majority of club members can impose an arbitrary standard on the minority of club members, and it's just too bad for them. So, if the majority wants to keep out [insert name of ethnic group here], it is too bad for the minority who wants to admit them into the country.<BR/><BR/>Observe another serious conceptual deficiency of the "club" idea. A private club is a voluntary association of people and it has no authority to use force against anyone. A polity on the other hand, is an involuntary association of individuals, unless someone wishes to emigrate. Unlike a club, it has the power to use force against both its members and non club members.<BR/><BR/>A government's ability to use force is why its powers must always be circumscribed. The concept of rights helps to delineate the proper exercise of government power.<BR/><BR/>No one's rights are alienated because they cross a border.Galileo Blogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02592692929747610846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-16793318135485780562007-10-16T16:12:00.000-04:002007-10-16T16:12:00.000-04:00This has been an intense and highly informative di...This has been an intense and highly informative discussion. I have a number of related points.<BR/><BR/>As I understand Inspector's argument, it is that no foreigner has the unlimited right to just waltz into America without first undergoing some administrative procedure to assess his security risk. Bypassing that procedure is a crime against the delegated right of self defense on all of America's citizens because there is someone among us who may be an objective threat. Inspector is arguing that in order for that foreigner to set foot on American soil he must undergo that administrative procedure. I think that is a concretization of what he means when he says foreigners have no right of free movement. I think Galileo disagrees with this although I'm not certain.<BR/><BR/>I once held this view strongly. Now I still favor it but I am not as certain. The reason is that I had an e-mail exchange with Dr. Binswanger where I made similar arguments as Inspector. Needless to say, Dr. Binswanger shot them all down. HB does not agree with the country club (or private corporation as he puts it) view of government. He says that is a typical conservative argument and riddled with collectivism. HB's arguments are very in line with Galileo's: rights do not stop at borders, delegated rights of self defense are not so restrictive on foreigners, etc. If Inspector is a member of HBL I suggest that he raise this subject on that forum and make his well articulated arguments. But be prepared, as he will be going up against Binswanger. <BR/><BR/>In the end, I think that this boils down to a debate over theoretical formulations which, while extremely important, are less so for the general points that both Inspector and Galileo agree on; namely that immigration is vitally important for the nation's health, non-threatening foreigners should be admitted freely and the welfare state - which is the real source of the problems - should be eliminated.<BR/><BR/>John KimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-6305808334304991512007-10-16T11:27:00.000-04:002007-10-16T11:27:00.000-04:00As I believe we are at an impasse, rather than rep...As I believe we are at an impasse, rather than repeat myself either, I will retire from this discussion.<BR/><BR/>I have enjoyed and learned from it. My thanks to Inspector and Burgess for their participation.<BR/><BR/>Of course, if either of you feels you have an important new point to raise, by all means do so!Galileo Blogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02592692929747610846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-36482617273278628842007-10-15T19:58:00.000-04:002007-10-15T19:58:00.000-04:00"I agree with this. It is all the more reason to r...<I>"I agree with this. It is all the more reason to repeal the unjust law that prompts so many people to come here illegally in the first place."</I><BR/><BR/>I agree with that. But note that if you agree with me, you agree that illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. It is not appropriate to advocate it - even if it is quite appropriate to advocate changing the law.<BR/><BR/><I>"With that argument, you are claiming that an individual’s right to freedom of movement is somehow different than all of the other rights that he possesses. It is different in such a way that it gets stripped from him when he crosses from his home country to a foreign country."</I><BR/><BR/>No, you're mistaken. I do not claim that "freedom of movement" is a right that for some reason stops at the border. I am claiming that "freedom of movement" <I>is not a right at all!</I> As I have said repeatedly above, there is no such right - there is only the permission of the property owners... or those to whom the property owners delegate that permission.<BR/><BR/>I could go on, but I'd be repeating myself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-45449778928624802042007-10-15T11:03:00.000-04:002007-10-15T11:03:00.000-04:00Inspector,I go back to Burgess’s most recent post ...Inspector,<BR/><BR/>I go back to Burgess’s most recent post (10:02 AM, October 17): “Where I balk is in your nationalistic claim that rights stop at the border.”<BR/><BR/>This is the key point of your argument, and I don’t agree with it. With that argument, you are claiming that an individual’s right to freedom of movement is somehow different than all of the other rights that he possesses. It is different in such a way that it gets stripped from him when he crosses from his home country to a foreign country.<BR/><BR/>Let’s extend that idea to other rights:<BR/><BR/>Trade: A foreigner buys goods from a citizen; the goods cross the national boundary. Does the foreigner have an equal contract right to those goods as the citizen, or does his right to contract stop at the border?<BR/><BR/>Protection of intellectual property: Can a foreigner’s patent claim have equal standing as a citizen’s in the citizen’s courts?<BR/><BR/>Claims for redress of damages: Does a foreigner who is injured by a citizen have the same standing as a citizen in the citizen’s courts?<BR/><BR/>Etc.<BR/><BR/>The first point is that all of these rights -- freedom of travel, trade, protection of intellectual property, the right for redress of damages in a courtroom, to name a few examples -- are all aspects of the fundamental right of individuals: the right to life. A man has the right to his own life and to take whatever actions are necessary to sustain his life. This includes all of these subsidiary rights and many more. None of them are an anti-concept; they are corollaries of the basic right to life.<BR/><BR/>The second point is that always implicit in the concept “right” is that one does not violate the rights of others. So, when we say one has the right to paint one’s house whatever color one chooses (part of the right to property), he can do so unless his paint is somehow toxic and hurts his neighbor. When someone has the right to speak freely, it means he can say whatever he wants, until it becomes libelous, etc.<BR/><BR/>The right to travel is part of one’s right to life. It is an aspect of ownership of one’s own body. It is one of those key “self-sustaining actions” required to sustain oneself. One needs to travel to work, purchase goods, etc.<BR/><BR/>Implicit in the right to travel is that one does not violate the rights of others. So, it always means that one is either traveling either on one’s own property or the property of another with the owner’s permission. The fact that the owner may or may not grant that person permission to travel on his property does not in any way negate or change his right to travel. The same applies to the owner’s delegated authority, whether it is a homeowner association “chief” (your example) or a police force.<BR/><BR/>If any third party improperly denies your freedom to travel, he has violated your rights. If a policeman denies you entry into a building, mistakenly thinking you are trespassing or simply because he doesn’t like you, and you have permission of the property owner to enter the building, your rights are violated.<BR/><BR/>If the border police arbitrarily denies you entry, and you are entering with the permission of some private property owner (e.g., the airport, hotel, home of a friend, etc.), your rights are violated.<BR/><BR/>I don’t think you can separate out the right to travel freely from all the other subsidiary rights that are part of one’s right to life, and say that it is somehow negated by an international border. A person’s rights are always his, as are the subsidiary and corollary rights he possesses. They can be violated, but never alienated.<BR/><BR/>***<BR/><BR/>Regarding another point you made, that illegal immigrants, by violating the immigration law, even an unjust law, “[violate] our right to evaluate them objectively from a security perspective.” I agree with this. It is all the more reason to repeal the unjust law that prompts so many people to come here illegally in the first place.<BR/><BR/>Since a reasonable, legal means of entry is denied them, immigrants flood our borders illegally. Part of the solution to this security problem is to repeal the unjust law so that travelers and immigrants can enter legally. Surprisingly, weeding out the terrorists and others who threaten us will be made easier by having an orderly, rational immigration policy.Galileo Blogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02592692929747610846noreply@blogger.com