Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because that's the law. You are getting far afield and into the anarchy stuff from the topic of non-citizens not having the right to intrude on another's territory.
Well, that's why I'm an anarchist. I believe in natural law. You believe in man-made law.
But unfortunately it is and has been happening to the US and much of the West at an somewhat controlled and limited rate. It's not even really debate of should it be happening or not but of rate. Let's face facts. Our current immigration policies for a while now is mass, global movement plus illegal movement into the US.
Thats how a free country should work. If a country doesn't allow immigration, then emigration will eventually stop, that doesn't sound like a free society to me and not one I would want to be a part of.
Everything is good in moderation, no immigration is just a bad as open borders, both would end a society. Communists like to close off borders to migration, looks at how that turns out. Ending migration in a free capitalist society can't happen, it would destroy the whole system. Free migration goes hand in hand with freedom and capitalism, but that does not mean it should not be regulated. Everything in moderation.
Well, that's why I'm an anarchist. I believe in natural law. You believe in man-made law.
What, no... an anarchist who is against state control of borders, so confusing.
Not saying I agree with you, since I am stubborn statist, but I agree with you to an extent. Freedom of movement is important for capitalism and a free society, but I also believe the state can use force to restrict things, like borders and how fast we want to burn down a forest.
Thats how a free country should work. If a country doesn't allow immigration, then emigration will eventually stop, that doesn't sound like a free society to me and not one I would want to be a part of.
Everything is good in moderation, no immigration is just a bad as open borders, both would end a society. Communists like to close off borders to migration, looks at how that turns out. Ending migration in a free capitalist society can't happen, it would destroy the whole system. Free migration goes hand in hand with freedom and capitalism, but that does not mean it should not be regulated. Everything in moderation.
I don't agree with anything you're saying. Japan doesn't have much immigration but does well. Many countries don't allow much immigration and do very well.
Continuous population growth isn't sustainable anyway. But if a country wanted to grow it's population it should do it with native births.
So self defense isn't a natural right? -interesting.
Correct. There is no right to self-defense. Unless we create it as men and agree to it. A right is not determined by anything other than men. Nature does not confer rights, and no rights exist without men to invent them, implement them, respect them, observe them, etc. You don’t get rights by being alive. There are no natural rights at all. There are no God given rights. Rights are an agreement by men to curtail behaviors in an effort to engage in social cooperation. We are rational and social animals, and rights are a tool that we invent to make society work.
There are plenty of natural rights, but they pretty all much centre around a person being an individual foremost, and not being beholden to some communistic cave ape group mentality
Incorrect. Rights are social agreements. They don’t exist in nature or outside of Man as a rational and social animal. And that is pretty obvious really.
Correct. There is no right to self-defense. Unless we create it as men and agree to it. A right is not determined by anything other than men. Nature does not confer rights, and no rights exist without men to invent them, implement them, respect them, observe them, etc. You don’t get rights by being alive. There are no natural rights at all. There are no God given rights. Rights are an agreement by men to curtail behaviors in an effort to engage in social cooperation. We are rational and social animals, and rights are a tool that we invent to make society work.
Sounds like commie BS -someone comes at you you with an axe in a foreign country, I doubt you'll be spending time inquiring as to the social cooperation status of trying to defend yourself.
You'll be implementing probably the oldest right there is - the right to survive. Although after reading this nonsense you just posted, you'll probably try and respond with hugs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
Incorrect. Rights are social agreements. They don’t exist in nature or outside of Man as a rational and social animal. And that is pretty obvious really.
Natural rights are different -the right to life, self defense,food, shelter, liberty etc are yours for the taking -the slave is always justified in killing the slaveowner, regardless of what your little cooperative agreements say.
Correct. There is no right to self-defense. Unless we create it as men and agree to it. A right is not determined by anything other than men. Nature does not confer rights, and no rights exist without men to invent them, implement them, respect them, observe them, etc. You don’t get rights by being alive. There are no natural rights at all. There are no God given rights. Rights are an agreement by men to curtail behaviors in an effort to engage in social cooperation. We are rational and social animals, and rights are a tool that we invent to make society work.
Wow.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.