Immigration Law in Arizona

[SapereAude]

Freedom of action within a social context has to be defined as "to guarantee the actions that would be possible out of a social context are not impeded by force in the social context" or, in other words, that no one stop you from doing something you could do if you were in isolation.

The fact that you cannot shoot another man in the head is not "limit" on your freedom of action - because freedom of action does not include, has never included and cannot include killing other men. Out of a social context there are no other men to kill. In a social context killing other men is a crime. In both cases it is an action which is not within your rights (in the first case by impossibility, in the second by the fact that it violates rights). Yet, even though this act is not permitted and is barred by force, you are as free in (an Objectivist) society as you would be in isolation. Respecting another's rights is not a reduction of one's freedom.

Not entirely so.

That is where externalities come in.

[freestyle]

A person who evades taxes and uses government services IS a parasite... a moocher, a leech...

I don't care how many times you repeat it, it won't make it true. It is total nonsense to define a parasite as someone who manages to not be robbed.

What are you having trouble reconciling? My statement is one of fact, I'm not sure that it can be any clearer. Are you just ignoring the part about using government services? The person (defined above) is not paying an equivalent or greater amount of taxes compared to the value of the public services they are taking. Mooch. The statement shouldn't be even mildly controversial in an Objectivist's forum.

It is total nonsense to define a parasite as someone who manages to not be robbed.

Of course that is total nonsense. What is causing you to think it is mine (or anyone's) argument? That's a pretty arbitrary straw man definition to throw out there.

[freestyle]

... Someone on this forum accused them of being thieves, and another person of being parasites.

I refuse to believe either accusation, without logical proof, and I am irritated by anyone's attempts, including yours, to defend that baseless accusation with maybe's, rationalizations and fallacious arguments.

That's all. If you don't have time to prove something, shut up about it.

Argument by emotion. Now I see.

You are responding as a collectivist. You took my defined statement about how individual tax evaders are parasitic to our mixed economic system and applied it directly to an individual that you know and like... and became "irritated".

In your emotion you missed the whole point about how, for many individuals, it can be the best moral choice for them to leave a bad place and come to a better one -- after weighing the potential legal risks they're assuming.

[softwareNerd]

I thought you were referring to two different people: first, the identity theft victim, and second, the non-citizen (illegal) being disallowed entry into a country. Were you only referring to the first?

No, I'm referring to both. The one who is forced to stay away unless he sneaks in, and the one who is harmed by the former's attempt to circumvent the immoral law.

I don't think man's rights, properly understood, can contradict.

To the extent I defend illegal immigrants, I do not speak of how they ought to act under a proper system. I'm speaking of the actual U.S. system, not a hypothetical one. So, I'm speaking of a system where the the immigration law goes way beyond any reasonable checks on bad guys, and instead purposely tries to keep out people who have no motive other than to earn a living. We're not simply talking about a less-than-ideal system, where some people have to pay a little more, or wait a little longer, and so on. Rather, we're talking about a system that is the analogous of China's one-child policy: i.e. a system that deprives some people of extremely important values that make a huge difference to their lives.

So, if a group of individuals create an institution (and then call it government), and then (within that institution) they form rules and laws for the protection and lawful use of the property they have laid claim to (as a government), then -- Why would you say they do not have a right to hire a watchman to stand at the border and get documentation from anyone who wishes to enter?

Majority rule is not the route to moral government. A moral government is not one where a majority are like shareholders who can vote for to do anything they feel like. Clearly, there are many thousands, if not millions, of American citizens who want to to deal with illegal immigrants. Majority rule might win out, but that does not make it moral. (A more fundamental response is that a government is different from a private group, and that there is no contract among citizens, but my majority-rule response will do for this thread.)

[agrippa1]

This is wrong, and it causes no end of confusion.

Freedom of action within a social context has to be defined as "to guarantee the actions that would be possible out of a social context are not impeded by force in the social context" or, in other words, that no one stop you from doing something you could do if you were in isolation.

The fact that you cannot shoot another man in the head is not "limit" on your freedom of action - because freedom of action does not include, has never included and cannot include killing other men. Out of a social context there are no other men to kill. In a social context killing other men is a crime. In both cases it is an action which is not within your rights (in the first case by impossibility, in the second by the fact that it violates rights). Yet, even though this act is not permitted and is barred by force, you are as free in (an Objectivist) society as you would be in isolation. Respecting another's rights is not a reduction of one's freedom.

Actually, identity theft is fraud. It is misrepresenting yourself to be that which you are not. Of course you may commit theft while under the guise of another person's name - but that is a second, additional, crime.

You're kidding, right? You're saying that because killing another person is metaphysically impossible outside of a social context, that is why it is denied to you in a social context? So, is voluntary trade likewise denied to you in a social context? What principle allows voluntary trade in a social context, but not murder, given that both are metaphysically "denied to you" outside of a social context?

To address this from the other side, outside of a social context, it would not be metaphysically denied to you to burn down the house and to set fire to the trees around it. In a social context, however, where the concept "property" has a meaning, the laws of causality would inform you that the actions you take directly, as well as the consequences of those actions on others and their property, need to be considered when determining the proper limits of your freedom.

You are committing the ultimate act of context-dropping here, dropping all context and expecting to divine some truth about "rights" and "freedom" from the absence of context, without realizing that "rights" and "freedom" have no meaning or existence, outside of that context. As Peikoff points out:

Whenever you tear an idea from its context and treat it as though it were a self-sufficient, independent item, you invalidate the thought process involved. If you omit the context, or even a crucial aspect of it, then no matter what you say it will not be valid

And actually, identity theft is theft from the person whose identity is being used. It is fraud when it results in obtaining material values without their owner’s informed consent, under the pretense of the assumed identity. If I use your identity to perform acts for which you are held responsible, that is theft. If I default on a loan that was based on your credit record, it is fraud against the person making the loan.

[Grames]

You're saying that because killing another person is metaphysically impossible outside of a social context, that is why it is denied to you in a social context? So, is voluntary trade likewise denied to you in a social context? What principle allows voluntary trade in a social context, but not murder, given that both are metaphysically "denied to you" outside of a social context?

The reason why murder is denied to you in a social context is not the reason you proffered. It is rights, as he specified. There is no reduction of freedom in comparing "cannot murder" with "should not murder". The possibility of voluntary trade increases your freedom. Actually murdering a person decreases your freedom by eliminating the possibility of trade.

[Trebor]

When you say inalienable, what do you mean exactly?

Inalienable (from dictionary): Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor; absolute, sacrosanct; untransferable, nontransferable, nonnegotiable; Law indefeasible (not able to be lost, annulled, or overturned)

"The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. (Atlas Shrugged) "Man's Rights" [bold mine]

Man's nature sets the requirements, the conditions for his life as man. These conditions or requirements are inseparable, inalienable to his nature. Given what is right for man by his nature as an individual human being, it is right, it is proper, that these inalienable requirements or conditions set by his nature are recognized, as a fundamental guiding principle of social relationships, by the government that men institute, as inalienable, individual rights.

See: Inalienability

[aequalsa]

See: Inalienability

From above...

When we say that we hold individual rights to be inalienable, we must mean just that. Inalienable means that which we may not take away, suspend, infringe, restrict or violate—not ever, not at any time, not for any purpose whatsoever.

This is the part I was wondering about. Clearly, they can be taken away. They are by governments, criminals, and jailors all the time. So do you hold that as meaning rights ought never be taken away? That there is not moral justification for the removal of rights? Or just that they ought not be taken away for an arbitrary reason?

Edited May 14, 2010 by aequalsa

[Grames]

This is the part I was wondering about. Clearly, they can be taken away. They are by governments, criminals, and jailors all the time. So do you hold that as meaning rights ought never be taken away? That there is not moral justification for the removal of rights? Or just that they ought not be taken away for an arbitrary reason?

The only way to reconcile inalienability with the fact that men can be killed, jailed, etc. is the normative sense. They ought not be taken away.

[Trebor]

This is the part I was wondering about. Clearly, they can be taken away. They are by governments, criminals, and jailors all the time. So do you hold that as meaning rights ought never be taken away? That there is not moral justification for the removal of rights? Or just that they ought not be taken away for an arbitrary reason?

An individual can reject the principle, renouncing his own rights, throwing them away, by initiating force against another individual, but others can't take them away.

The right to life includes or implies the right of self-defense. It would be a contradiction to hold that one has a right to life, but that one doesn't have a right to defend one's life against an aggressor.

There's no right to violate the rights of others. If someone initiates force, attacking you with deadly force, you have the right to use deadly force in self-defense because you have a right to life. You're not violating his rights. He has rejected his claim to rights, any claim to have his rights recognized and respected.

[aequalsa]

An individual can reject the principle, renouncing his own rights, throwing them away, by initiating force against another individual, but others can't take them away.

The right to life includes or implies the right of self-defense. It would be a contradiction to hold that one has a right to life, but that one doesn't have a right to defend one's life against an aggressor.

There's no right to violate the rights of others. If someone initiates force, attacking you with deadly force, you have the right to use deadly force in self-defense because you have a right to life. You're not violating his rights. He has rejected his claim to rights, any claim to have his rights recognized and respected.

So, inalienable in the above context means that no one cannot violate the rights of others and be just at the same time, except in self-defense? Self-defense usually only applies in the moment of the attack. Do you include retaliation on the part of the government under the umbrella of self-defense?

edit: Examples would be imprisonment, capitol punishment, retrieving stolen goods and the like.

Edited May 14, 2010 by aequalsa

[Trebor]

So, inalienable in the above context means that no one cannot violate the rights of others and be just at the same time, except in self-defense? Self-defense usually only applies in the moment of the attack. Do you include retaliation on the part of the government under the umbrella of self-defense?

edit: Examples would be imprisonment, capitol punishment, retrieving stolen goods and the like.

Self-defense is not a violation of the rights of the initiator, nor of the initiator's inalienable rights. The initiator has implicitly stated, "To hell with your rights," which means, in principle, "To hell with rights; I reject them." It would be a contradiction for him to say, "Look, I have a right to initiate force against you, even to kill you, but you do not have the right to use force against me to defend yourself." What principle is he to invoke? His right to be free from the initiation of the use of force? He's rejected that.

An individual has a right to life, but he can throw away his inalienable rights, just as he can throw away his life.

Yes, I do view the proper role of government as being under the umbrella of the right of individuals to self-defense. The idea is to have the government, with its monopoly on the use of force (objectively delimited to using force only in retaliation against the initiation of force), use its force only in defense of rights.

Our right of self-defense is the only right we have with respect to using force against others. It's our right to the use of force in self-defense, and it's only that right, that we can delegate to the government. We can't, properly, rightfully, "hire" the government to violate the rights of others.

The government has no more right than any individual to use force. The whole point of having a government, a proper government, one that is restricted to using force only in retaliation against the initiators of force, is to place the use of retaliatory force under objective control, for the protection of individual rights.

The consent of the governed is the consent of all individual to have the government do for them what they have a right to do, protect their right to life, their right to be free of the initiation of force, their right to self-defense. It's not, what seems to be today's view, the "right" of the majority, or some influential group, to have the government use force to their benefit, initiating force, violating the rights of others.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Trebor

[Grames]

An individual has a right to life, but he can throw away his inalienable rights, just as he can throw away his life.

I've been down this road before, but throwing away an inalienable right is a contradiction. Throwing away life is throwing away the right to life, and it is the only way it can be done.

[Trebor]

I've been down this road before, but throwing away an inalienable right is a contradiction. Throwing away life is throwing away the right to life, and it is the only way it can be done.

I don't see it, but perhaps I'm missing your point.

Have you expanding on your view somewhere here, in one of the threads?

Is it your view that you can initiate force against someone else, yet when they defend themselves with force, they are violating your rights? If so, how is that not a denial of their right of self-defense, of their own right to life?

Edit for clarity

Edited May 14, 2010 by Trebor

[aequalsa]

The only way to reconcile inalienability with the fact that men can be killed, jailed, etc. is the normative sense. They ought not be taken away.

I agree with that, but I would go further and agree with Locke that they can be taken away or given up, but not for "arbitrary," reasons. You can give them up by not respecting the rights of others, for example, and police can arrest you(withhold your liberty), find out they were mistaken and then let you go without it being unjust. Unfortunate, but not unjust. I see this sort of potential inconvenience as an unavoidable aspect of the application of rights theory in practice.

[agrippa1]

The reason why murder is denied to you in a social context is not the reason you proffered. It is rights, as he specified. There is no reduction of freedom in comparing "cannot murder" with "should not murder". The possibility of voluntary trade increases your freedom. Actually murdering a person decreases your freedom by eliminating the possibility of trade.

You're making my point, which is that you don't have freedom or rights outside of a social context, and you don't derive rights from what you would be free to do if you were completely alone. Which is what he was trying to assert.

[aequalsa]

Self-defense is not a violation of the rights of the initiator, nor of the initiator's inalienable rights. The initiator has implicitly stated, "To hell with your rights," which means, in principle, "To hell with rights; I reject them." It would be a contradiction for him to say, "Look, I have a right to initiate force against you, even to kill you, but you do not have the right to use force against me to defend yourself." What principle is he to invoke? His right to be free from the initiation of the use of force? He's rejected that.

An individual has a right to life, but he can throw away his inalienable rights, just as he can throw away his life.

Do you not agree with the definition you originally gave, then?

Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor;

Yes, I do view the proper role of government as being under the umbrella of the right of individuals to self-defense. The idea is to have the government, with its monopoly on the use of force (objectively delimited to using force only in retaliation against the initiation of force), use its force only in defense of rights.

Do you believe that this process sometimes removes the rights of individuals, at least temporarily?

Our right of self-defense is the only right we have with respect to using force against others. It's our right to the use of force in self-defense, and it's only that right, that we can delegate to the government. We can't, properly, rightfully, "hire" the government to violate the rights of others.

The assumption is that the government is not violating their rights, but that they have given them up in committing pr seeming to have committed a crime. I understand that and think it is a fair characterization

The government has no more right than any individual to use force. The whole point of having a government, a proper government, one that is restricted to using force only in retaliation against the initiators of force, is to place the use of retaliatory force under objective control, for the protection of individual rights.

Here, I am not sure what you mean by 'no more right.' If the government is granted that right to retaliate and individuals do not have that right, wouldn't it be correct to say that the government has a right that individuals do not....by which I mean, a moral justification to act freely in a way restricted to individuals?

The consent of the governed is the consent of all individual to have the government do for them what they have a right to do, protect their right to life, their right to be free of the initiation of force, their right to self-defense. It's not, what seems to be today's view, the "right" of the majority, or some influential group, to have the government use force to their benefit, initiating force, violating the rights of others.

I'm pretty certain that no one here thinks otherwise.

[Trebor]

The only way to reconcile inalienability with the fact that men can be killed, jailed, etc. is the normative sense. They ought not be taken away.

I agree with that, but I would go further and agree with Locke that they can be taken away or given up, but not for "arbitrary," reasons.

Well, I disagree with the both of you.

Violating someone's rights does not take away their rights. It violates them. If violating someone's rights took their rights away, then suddenly, right after their rights were violated, their rights wouldn't exist, and the violation would no longer be a violation.

I don't remember where, but if I remember correctly, Dr. Peikoff made the point that were force able to change a mind, there would be no argument against initiating force. But that's not the case. Force is not an argument. Force does not convince a mind. If I remember correctly, his example was, if a mugger pulled a gun on you and demanded, "Your money or your life," and you forked over your money to save your life, you are not then convinced that the money now rightfully belongs to the mugger.

An individual has rights, inalienable rights, by virtue of choosing to live as a human being. There's no inalienable right to live as a brute, violating the rights of others.

"Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational." (Atlas Shrugged)

His proper survival. Not his survival as a brute.

[aequalsa]

Well, I disagree with the both of you.

You had said before that they could be given up, so I think I may be misunderstanding you.

When someone criminally violates the rights of another and you, or the government retaliates, are you then removing his rights or "violating" them or has he "given them up"?

[Grames]

You're making my point, which is that you don't have freedom or rights outside of a social context, and you don't derive rights from what you would be free to do if you were completely alone. Which is what he was trying to assert.

A difference between our understandings is that I see freedom does describe something real outside of a social context. Your freedom is the alternative actions possible to you. Rights define the freedom of action within a social context, and there is freedom of action outside a social context. Rights do derive in part from what you would be free to do if you were completely alone, for example being productive.

[Trebor]

You had said before that they could be given up, so I think I may be misunderstanding you.

When someone criminally violates the rights of another and you, or the government retaliates, are you then removing his rights or "violating" them or has he "given them up"?

No, you're not removing the initiator rights. There's no right to initiate the use of force, to violate the rights of another.

"You" or the government are acting in self-defense against their violation of rights. Self-defense is not the violation of right, but the defense of rights.

Not all violations of rights warrant the death penalty. Retaliatory force should be proportional to the violation of rights.

[aequalsa]

No, you're not removing the initiator rights. There's no right to initiate the use of force, to violate the rights of another.

"You" or the government are acting in self-defense against their violation of rights. Self-defense is not the violation of right, but the defense of rights.

Not all violations of rights warrant the death penalty. Retaliatory force should be proportional to the violation of rights.

So the you would agree that the person who violates the rights of others, in effect gives up his rights?

[Trebor]

Do you not agree with the definition you originally gave, then?

You quoted this portion: "Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor;"

That dictionary definition was an uncritical copy-paste: "Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor; absolute, sacrosanct; untransferable, nontransferable, nonnegotiable; Law indefeasible (not able to be lost, annulled, or overturned" I do not find it satisfactory. What I meant was in what followed the quote from Miss Rand:

"Man's nature sets the requirements, the conditions for his life as man. These conditions or requirements are inseparable, inalienable to his nature. Given what is right for man by his nature as an individual human being, it is right, it is proper, that these inalienable requirements or conditions set by his nature are recognized, as a fundamental guiding principle of social relationships, by the government that men institute, as inalienable, individual rights."

Do you believe that this process sometimes removes the rights of individuals, at least temporarily?

No. There can be errors in law enforcement, but they don't remove rights. If the police arrest you arbitrarily, without cause, that's a violation of your rights. There needs to be some probable cause, some evidence to detain or arrest you. If there's probable cause, but it's cleared up that you're not guilty, then I think that is just the price one has to accept in the name of justice.

Here, I am not sure what you mean by 'no more right.' If the government is granted that right to retaliate and individuals do not have that right, wouldn't it be correct to say that the government has a right that individuals do not....by which I mean, a moral justification to act freely in a way restricted to individuals?

I'm pretty certain that no one here thinks otherwise.

The government is only exercising the rights of individuals to self-defense. It is the individual's right of self-defense that the government is acting on. That's what I mean, but perhaps I didn't say it well. We delegate to the government our right of self-defense. Because we have that right, the government, as our agent of self-defense, may act to protect individual rights. It has no right to violate rights, to initiate the use of force.

[Trebor]

So the you would agree that the person who violates the rights of others, in effect gives up his rights?

Gives up his right to what? There's no inalienable right to violate the rights of others. There's only the inalienable right to life, liberty, property, etc.

There's no right to be free of retaliation from others for violating their rights, no right to violate the rights of others, but demand that they not retaliate.

Inalienable means that man's rights are due to his nature. His rights are not gifts from God or society.

[aequalsa]

What I meant was in what followed the quote from Miss Rand:

Thanks, that cleared up your stance for me.

No. There can be errors in law enforcement, but they don't remove rights. If the police arrest you arbitrarily, without cause, that's a violation of your rights. There needs to be some probable cause, some evidence to detain or arrest you. If there's probable cause, but it's cleared up that you're not guilty, then I think that is just the price one has to accept in the name of justice.

If rights are things which cannot rightfully be taken away, but they can be given up or rightfully violated in carrying out justice, then it seems that they have little in the way of inviolability to me.

So if we take it as a given that immigrants have a right to cross the border at will, is the government morally justified in violating their rights if they have reason to believe that there are pose a security risks inherent in their so doing?

The government is only exercising the rights of individuals to self-defense. It is the individual's right of self-defense that the government is acting on. That's what I mean, but perhaps I didn't say it well. We delegate to the government our right of self-defense. Because we have that right, the government, as our agent of self-defense, may act to protect individual rights. It has no right to violate rights, to initiate the use of force.

Acting to protect rights though, does end in accidental violations of rights, which are then morally justified.