Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Friday, November 21, 2014

TGIF: Unjust Immigration Law Is Not Law

I know better than to think that Obama’s executive order is the start of something big. But that is no reason not to rejoice. Because of his action, some human beings won’t be torn from their children by jackbooted immigration thugs. I can’t see how that’s not a good thing.
Read it here.

8 comments:

DJF said...

There is nothing unjust about the immigration system, the parents got their children into the situation and if they wanted they could take the children back to their home countries.

You don't believe in borders so why is it important which side of the border they are on.

Mexico for example is part of the New World, filled with resources, they can return to it and make their life there.

Sheldon Richman said...

"You don't believe in borders so why is it important which side of the border they are on."

If they are on the side they don't want to be on, then it matters -- because freedom matters. Why didn't you think of that? Why bothers you?

DJF said...

"""because freedom matters""

There is no right to travel in a world run by markets.

You only have the right to travel on property that you own

You could get limited rights to travel on other peoples property if you negoicate with them and arange an exchange

You have no right to travel on other peoples property and they may put any restriction on travel they like.

It is only the massive use of government force that gives the elusion of the right to travel. In a market world there are up to 7 billion borders, one for each person, governments have forced people to consolidate borders down to the present 200 or so. However it is borders that are legitimate, not any right to travel anywhere.

Sheldon Richman said...

"You have no right to travel on other peoples property and they may put any restriction on travel they like."

This is addressed in the article. Did you read it?

DJF said...

“”””(I hope no one thinks the principle of trespass furnishes justification for government control of immigration. The claim that free immigration constitutes “forced association” is nonsense. In a freed society, newcomers would be welcome on the property of many people looking for fellowship, customers, tenants, and services, as well as on nonstate public property.)”””

So you just dismiss it as nonsense, how convenient. But in fact people are being forced into association by the lack of immigration laws because government has consolidated borders from a possible 7 billion down to 200. To dismiss this is to dismiss the rights of people to not associate which is just a great a right as the right to associate. You take advantage of this consolidation to get your preferred association rights and ignore the loss of rights of others.

The market is used to bring agreement between people where agreement is possible and allows disagreement to continue when no deal is struck. It balances rights and interests. Where is your balance of association and disassociation in this matter? You dismiss one side with a wave of the hand.

It is true that newcomers would be welcome by some but few would be given a right to use that property and instead there would be restrictions on all aspects of that use. Giving away a right to use is giving away the property, ownership is based on your ability to restrict others use in your property.

The same applies to what you call nonstate public property. Just because a town people have agreed that certain land is to be used in common does not mean that anyone in the world could use that land.

Sheldon Richman said...

I would hardly call that a dismissal. I countered that new arrivals would not have to trespass on private property to come to the "United States." I referred to the economic and other incentives for the welcome they would receive. That's an argument, not a dismissal.

You are free not to associate with whomever you want. Why do you want to stop me from associating with whomever I want? You cannot shoehorn immigration control into libertarianism, however hard you try.

DJF said...

“””You cannot shoehorn immigration control into libertarianism, however hard you try””

Of course I can, the vary nature of private property demands that immigration be controlled and limited or the property owner will soon find themselves without property. If you give unlimited rights to immigrants then the property owner loses their own unlimited rights

Try traveling from Chicago to Mexico City in a world of private property and its borders. How many borders would you have to cross, ten thousand or even more? Each border would have some restrictions on your crossing, whether payment, or limits on what you can carry or total refusal or whatever.

Your immigrants today have taken advantage of the Mexican and US governments consolidation of those borders down to one. They use government force to mandate that people who don’t want to associate with them or who want to force a higher payment or a restriction on what they can carry to instead accept them at the governments demand. And don’t think that you are standing up to government when you oppose immigration control, the leadership of the US government is fully on board with reducing immigration restrictions, its only that they fear being thrown out of office do they pretend to support borders.

Travel is not a right unless its on your own property

Borders are not a government invention and in fact government destroy borders and anyone advocating a borderless world is a socialist. The answer to getting rid of government borders is to return to individual borders and those taking advantage of the governments force to destroy individual borders are not advocating freedom but instead supporting thief.

Just because one group of people decide that certain land is nonstate property does not mean that they have agreed that everyone in the world can use it. Agreements only are binding on those who have made the agreement.

Sheldon Richman said...

You can keep plunging ahead as though I have not answered you, but readers see what you're doing.