RoR: Forum

I wrote, "There is such a thing as common property -- e.g., a marriage, partnership, corporation, and home-owners' association -- but these are forms of private property, because they entail voluntary, contractual agreements among the various parties. A country like the United States is not anyone's property, let alone the common property of its citizens. It is a territory of private property owners that is presided over by a government, but that territory is not the common property of its residents with the government as its "manager."

Steve replied, "I agree - totally."

You do? Then I take it that you're retracting your earlier argument against open immigration for anyone who is not a threat to the people living here. Great! I appreciate your honesty and your willingness to change your mind, which is not something one sees very often on this forum, but thankfully, it does happen! :-)

As to your other argument that government buildings still qualify as common property, I would say that if the government exists simply to perform various services, whose purpose is to secure the rights of its citizens, then in order to perform these services, it requires physical capital, e.g., buildings, machinery, weapons, etc., which it must finance non-coercively through various means. In doing so, it acquires ownership of these capital goods. Therefore, the government buildings, courthouses, etc. are not the property of the consumers of the government's services -- of the citizens who use them -- but are instead the property of the providers of those services -- the government itself.

But even if they were considered the property of the citizens who use and consume the government's services, the important point in all of this is that the citizens do not own the entire geographical area of the country in which they reside. Each citizen owns only his own private property (including common property that is voluntarily acquired and agreed to).

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 5/06, 6:38pm)

Post 21

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 6:57pm

Steve:

Under your arrangement, the government is stopping people at the border, without any probable cause of having violated anyone's rights and subjecting them to questioning. Then the government is denying some people entry into the country when those same people, if they were already in the country, would not be denied entry into public malls, government buildings, or be impeded in anyway, and have not violated anyone's rights.

Well wait a minute, let's examine the principles at work here. American citizens who are criminals and terrorists do not have the same freedom of movement that innocent Americans have, because there is a presumption here that once you have committed a crime, you have demonstrated an unwillingness to respect the rights of others so therefore no obligation is needed to respect the rights of the criminal. But then we have an epistemological problem at work here for suspected criminals and terrorists, we may initially not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that's where due process comes in to try and alleviate this epistemological problem. When there is reasonable suspicion, we do have a right to restrict the freedom of action for a suspected criminal, including doing such things like search and seizure, preventing the suspect from leaving the jurisdiction, etc, so there's no reason not to extend that to restricting the freedom of movement of suspected criminals and terrorists INTO our country.

. As a mental experiment, imagine that Arizona was successful in seceeding from the union, and that every single property owner in the state was offered citizenship in the new country and asked to sign an agreement (kind of like the covenant that one agrees to when moving into a planned community. Imagine that those who were reluctant were bribed with large sums of money.) This agreement states that they agree that no one will be accepted as a citizen without agreeing to the government's laws, including very restrictive immigration, and to a state tax. Now, in this imaginary situation, an entire country has become just like a planned community where the government is a government, but it has an element that is like a homeowner's association - everybody has agreed to a set of terms, and is given a fractional ownership of all of the property controlled by the government.

Notice that a would-be immigrant in Mexico would be the same in every way before and after this transformation in Arizona. But after the transformation he has no right to come into the new country except according the rules created by those who own the common property - the citizens. This is what tells me to look in the area of legal rights as opposed to individual rights when dealing with immigration.

Ok but like you said, everyone would have to agree with this, you wouldn't be able to force people into some giant home association contract. Every single individual would have to voluntarily enter into such a contract for it to work, and I don�t see that ever happening. Plenty of businesses are more than willing to accept immigrants into their workforce and plenty of apartment owners are willing to rent to them. No business wants to turn down a sale, nor does any business want to turn away a worker that is more competitive. Given the reality of economics, you won�t ever get 100% of the citizens to along with what you propose, so to implement that you would have to use force.

(Edited by John Armaos on 5/06, 6:59pm)

Post 22

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 7:02pm

Bill,

You wrote, "...I take it that you're retracting your earlier argument against open immigration for anyone who is not a threat to the people living here. Great! I appreciate your honesty and your willingness to change your mind, which is not something one sees very often on this forum, but thankfully, it does happen! :-)"

It was nice to see the smiley face at the end that paragraph since it lets me say, thank you for the complements... and I'm glad that you understand that my agreement doesn't mean I accept open immigration. :-)
-------------

For a period of time I was on the board of directors for a homeowners' association. That organization (the 'government') managed the common property, and the homeowners (the 'citizens') who own the common property, were the ones who elected the board, AND were the consumers of the services provided by the association. Communities like mine can organize in different ways. They can have the common property be legally regarded as belonging to the homeowner's fractionally. As in a place with 2000 homes, each homeowner owns 1/2000th of the swimming pool, and the clubhouse, etc. Or, they can have the Homeowner's association 'own' the common property and then the homeowner has 1/2000th of the Homeowner's association (more like shares). (Like all common ownership, there are lots of limitations, frustrations, and inefficiencies).
--------------

I agree that common property does NOT include the geographical area of the country.

Post 23

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 7:17pm

Bill writes (post 14): �If a private business is willing to hire a worker from another country, by what right do you or does anyone else tell him that he has no right to come here and work.�

John writes (post 18): �If you have an immigrant that wants to come here and is not a suspected criminal, suspected terrorist nor does he have a communicable disease, is offered employment by a business on American soil, and buys housing for himself from a private property owner, under what principle can anyone say this immigrant should not have the freedom to do this?�

Both of you stipulate a job is waiting (and even purchased housing, in John�s case.) Is this just to make your case more salable, or are these real stipulations�such that your position changes when they change? I.e., if transport became vastly cheaper and ten million newcomers were showing up per month, would your position, (principled as it seems on the right of movement) would it change then, or no? If a Greek collapse causes a worldwide collapse and influx from around the globe�will the right of movement remain absolute?

(Edited by Jon Letendre on 5/06, 7:39pm)

Post 24

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 7:33pm

John,

I agree that once someone becomes a rights violator, they don't have the same rights they once had - whether this is an American or a would-be immigrant. And if there is a reason to suspect someone plans to violate rights (ie, a would-be terrorist), then that is justification to investigate them further even if it impedes their freedom to some degree.

But here, you are advocating holding people at the border and questioning them... guilty until proven innocent. There is no probable cause because there is no reasonable doubt, because nothing has happened... no broken tail-light, no weaving in traffic, nothing. Just someone standing there at the gate. It isn't a guy that looks like a picture of known terrorist, it is everyone that is questioned and examined. And not everyone who is rejected has violated anyone's rights and doesn't intend to.

And, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is only required to convict someone of a crime. Here we don't have even a suspicion - just a person standing there. Do we have a right to investigate? To demand documents, ID, or answers to our questions? If so, where does it come from?

That is the problem, because from your position, you don't have any reason to suspect that a right has been violated, or that there is a threat to violate a right.

If I can't justify stopping people on the street here in the States and making them show ID, confirm they don't have a contagious disease, show that they don't have a criminal record then where does my justification come from when it is done at the border?

With my concept of minimal property rights inherent in common property, we can establish justification for controlling who we allow to enter the country - without a violation of an individual's rights.
----------------

Yes, my thought experiment with everyone agreeing had that element of near fantasy because there are so many people in Arizona. But if it were a much, much smaller area it would be possible. Imagine that it is a single, sparsely populated county and remember that it is a thought experiment.

So, like I said, the would-be immigrant in Mexico would be the same in every way before and after this transformation in that small, sparsely populated, Arizona county. But after the transformation he has no right to come into the new country except according the rules created by those who own the common property - the citizens. This is what tells me to look in the area of legal rights as opposed to individual rights when dealing with immigration.

Post 25

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 7:41pm

What I see behind Jon's post is that there is a threat to our country that is tied to the nature of immigration (in his case it is the number of immigrants in a period of time - and if a million a month doesn't change anyone's mind, try 10 million a month. There are lots of people in the world.)

Both Bill and John believe the country is justified in protecting the country at the border from allowing in known terrorists, criminals or people with contagious diseases. If we take that as an acceptance of the principle of protection from harm, then what is the principle that we use to draw the line? Why wouldn't the country protect against massive overcrowding, damage to the culture, overwhelming of all of the legal structures, etc.?

Post 26

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 7:49pm

Jon:

Both of you stipulate a job is waiting (and even purchased housing, in John�s case.) Is this just to make your case more salable, or are these real stipulations�such that your position changes when they change?

No Jon they are not stipulations, they are what any human being would have to do to survive, so I'm extending that naturally to an immigrant would likely to do. I'm assuming the physical reality of existence doesn't change for an immigrant when he comes to the United States, and that he still needs to seek shelter and find some way to trade for that. Wouldn't you agree? Don't you do the same? Are you aware of any instance where this is not the case? I don't presume that an immigrant has the right to violate anyone's rights while he's here. So I don't know what you're getting at. Do you or do you not agree that humans have the freedom of movement? What would be your argument for preventing someone from trading with another human being and restricting freedom? I'm curious to hear that.

Post 27

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 8:02pm

Steve:

But here, you are advocating holding people at the border and questioning them... guilty until proven innocent. There is no probable cause because there is no reasonable doubt, because nothing has happened... no broken tail-light, no weaving in traffic, nothing. Just someone standing there at the gate.

Well wait a minute, questioning someone does not meet the criteria for saying someone is guilty until proven innocent. As far as probable cause, you would have that if say the immigrant showed up on a database as having committed a crime in their country of origin, or if they popped on a government list of suspected terrorists. But even so, the whole idea of probable cause stems from an epistemological problem of knowing whether someone is a criminal or not. You can't assume that in any kind of context this due process should be exactly the same, it must be reasonable within the context we're dealing with. Don't assume I'm saying there should be no due process whatsoever, and that a government border agent would use any arbitrary whim to stop someone from entering. The problem here again is epistemological, and it is worse for an immigrant waiting at the border than what it is for a citizen.

Post 28

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 8:02pm

If transport became vastly cheaper and ten million newcomers were showing up per month, would your position, (principled as it seems on the right of movement) would it change then, or no? If a Greek collapse causes a worldwide collapse and influx from around the globe�will the right of movement remain absolute?

Post 29

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 8:05pm

Jon

If transport became vastly cheaper and ten million newcomers were showing up per month, would your position, (principled as it seems on the right of movement) would it change then, or no?

No it wouldn't change. I don't see why it would. Those tens of millions of newcomers (which I would welcome) would still have to respect the rights of others.

Post 30

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 8:08pm

Well, yes, you�re right. They would have to.

Post 31

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 8:09pm

By oath.

As a condition.

Post 32

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 8:11pm

Sure.

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 8:12pm

And get their PhDs, too. Wouldn't you?

Post 34

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 8:15pm

I don't understand.

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 8:15pm

From Steve�s post 25:

�Both Bill and John believe the country is justified in protecting the country at the border from allowing in known terrorists, criminals or people with contagious diseases. If we take that as an acceptance of the principle of protection from harm, then what is the principle that we use to draw the line? Why wouldn't the country protect against massive overcrowding, damage to the culture, overwhelming of all of the legal structures, etc.?�

Post 36

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 8:22pm

LOL, overcrowding? That's absurd. That's just a variation of malthusian economics, that we're doomed to run out of resources. I'm surprised to hear you guys subscribe to that notion. There is no shortage of land, and whenever there became a shortage of land in any particular area, we just started building up:

As far as how densely populated the United States, it is one of the least densely populated countries in the world.

There's also no such thing as violating the rights of a culture, where as the whole idea of a criminal is that he is one because he has violated the rights of the individual. Only by that criteria can you justify using force.

When did you guys turn into Malthusians and Tribalists?

Post 37

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 8:39pm

Right, no perps in the mix, no downside (even when our population expands by a third per year)�just skyscraper builders!

You�ve held your position valiantly.

Always a pleasure, John.

Post 38

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 8:45pm

Some history on immigration laws. Before the immigration act of 1924, it was nearly impossible to come here as an illegal immigrant. The United States experiencing the Industrial Revolution experienced a dramatic increase in wealth before this law was enacted. Cheap labor coming in from abroad drove American manufacturing that lead to the boom in wealth we had experienced.

The Immigration Act outlined restrictions for immigration based on Eugenics reasoning. Many of the lawmakers that wanted the law was influenced by Eugenicist Madison Grant who wrote 'The Passing of the Great Race' which outlined his 'racial hygiene theory'. He proposed that the superiority of Northern European races was evident, and that mixing of these races with inferior people would lead to inferior children. Other lawmakers wanted the law to protect union labor, and otherwise just keep the ethnic status quo. The motivation was one of xenophobia and fear of labor competition, not because of possible overcrowding, overwhelming legal structures, but they certainly sought to preserve their notion of an ideal ethnic culture.

According to the law, each country of origin had a maximum allowed quota of immigrants to come here based on the number of current residents from that country of origin. If you examine the history of immigration law, I don't see how any freedom loving individual would not appalled by it.

Post 39

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 8:45pm