Leaderboard

Speak for yourself, brother! Nicky is correct* America is founded on the premise that all individuals have an inherent right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The moral limitation to such a right is non-aggression. Simply put, you are free to take actions that further your life so long as those actions don't impede another individual's equal right. A moral society (of individuals) doesn't create this right; it secures it. It certainly does not prohibit others from enjoying it based on nationality. It is both legally and morally proper for a land owner to prohibit unwelcome use of their property, but of course that doesn't entitle them to assert who is or isn't welcome on another individual's land. America as such, is "owned" by consensus, which is why issues like illegal immigration remain contentious. Farm owners, landlords and businesses tend to view non-citizens as potential workers, tenants and customers, whereas supporters of Darkwing Donald, et al, tend to view non-citizens as potential threats. The problem is the argument cannot be resolved in terms of potentials, because either you risk tossing the baby out with the bathwater, or allowing a fox into the hen house. The proper social context for using force is to respond to actual aggression against individual lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness, and not those conjured up by jingoists. -- * http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/14/ayn-rand-was-an-illegal-immigrant