Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence

Rate this topic


Yes

Recommended Posts

On 4/9/2023 at 11:16 AM, tadmjones said:

given the level of our current welfare structure (social security and medical funding) unlimited immigration would be a more politically palatable situation if immigrants were charged a one time fee equivalent to a fair estimation of the average payroll/income tax a citizen would have contributed by the age of emigration. Along with a similar scheme for property taxes on a local level.

It might be appropriate to require that they pay a fee and/or pay taxes for a while before they can receive such benefits.

On 4/9/2023 at 11:16 AM, tadmjones said:

One obstacle (among others) in implementing such a system would be large business concerns that pay wage earners , citizens using valid identification , social security numbers , would have a portion of their labor costs rise at least 6% overnight. FICA and Medicare payroll deductions to wage earners are matched by the employer. In some instances this means currently wage payers to ‘undocumented’ employees , not only can hide the non contribution of the matching portion but can also deduct the taxes , an instant ‘rebate’. Large business concerns wield ‘more’ political power than citizens , currently, as illegal immigration is a net gain for their labor costs the status quo will probably perpetuate.


Does this mean the good old boys club is responsible for maintaining legal strictures for entry/immigration? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

Unless their entry is involuntary or physically endangers someone, imposing legal strictures on entry or immigration violates their moral rights to freedom of movement and trade.

 

Governments are instituted, optimally, to protect the individual rights of the citizens , those who live in the jurisdiction of the government, how would a government violate the rights of those not 'in' its jurisdiction?, as a legal matter, again, as government is optimally its laws.

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Governments are instituted, optimally, to protect the individual rights of the citizens , those who live in the jurisdiction of the government, how would a government violate the rights of those not 'in' its jurisdiction?, as a legal matter, again, as government is optimally its laws.

Neither government nor any other institution may violate anyone's rights.

Everyone has the moral right to move and trade freely across jurisdictional lines.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 3/12/2023 at 3:37 PM, Boydstun said:

Tad,

(source – Black's Law Dictionary)

Incitement of resistance to lawful authority can rise to the level of sedition under American law, and it does not have to be insurrection to be sedition. Seditious Conspiracy Convictions

Insurrection is a second sort of sedition. An insurgent is one who opposes the execution of law by force of arms, or who rises in revolt against the constituted authorities. Insurrection consists of any combined resistance in the lawful authority of the state, with intent to the denial thereof, when the same is manifested, or intended to be manifested, by acts of violence.

"Rebel" is often taken as an insurgent who engages in extralegal resistance to the government in a cause unjust and untimely. So we would say that Confederates in the American Civil War were rebels, whereas the French Underground Resistance (e.g. Sartre) against the German occupation would be only insurrectionists.

I'd say an insurrection that succeeds in halting a government becomes de jure if they are in position, capable of enforcement, to make the replacement laws, including one making their violent inception lawful.

 

Four Oath Keepers Found Guilty of Seditious Conspiracy Related to U.S. Capitol Breach

Jury Convicts Four Leaders of the Proud Boys of Seditious Conspiracy Related to U.S. Capitol Breach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to the seditious conspiracy count, all four were found guilty of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding, and conspiracy to prevent Members of Congress from discharging their official duties. Hackett was also found guilty of destruction of evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2023 at 1:27 PM, tadmjones said:

Are nation states a priori immoral ?

What is your answer to your own question?

On 4/10/2023 at 1:27 PM, tadmjones said:
On 4/10/2023 at 12:39 PM, Doug Morris said:

Neither government nor any other institution may violate anyone's rights.

Everyone has the moral right to move and trade freely across jurisdictional lines.

 

Are nation states a priori immoral ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question was a response or rather lack of a response to the distinction between  a moral action and a legal one.

How can a government infringe on noncitizen legal rights by defining strictures and requirements for entry? The idea or remedy for such an infringement presupposes a morality based  entity ‘higher’ than the country’s sovereignty over ‘itself’ and its laws.
If this is the argument then I assume morality supersedes legal institutions, ipso facto , nation states are a priori immoral, no ?

Edited by tadmjones
Changed verbiage legal/moral entity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, tadmjones said:

How can a government infringe on noncitizen legal rights by defining strictures and requirements for entry? The idea or remedy for such an infringement presupposes a morality based  entity ‘higher’ than the country’s sovereignty over ‘itself’ and its laws.
If this is the argument then I assume morality supersedes legal institutions, ipso facto , nation states are a priori immoral, no ?

Governments can act immorally, and noncitizens can be victims of such immoral action.  This does not make nation states a priori immoral.

Such immorality needs to be remedied by citizens reforming their own government, not by some "morality based  entity ‘higher’ than the country’s sovereignty over ‘itself’ and its laws".  What does that even mean?

14 hours ago, tadmjones said:

 

How can a government infringe on noncitizen legal rights by defining strictures and requirements for entry?

It is an infringement on the noncitizens' moral rights, not on their legal rights, which in the morally infringing country are defined by the morally infringing country.

On 4/10/2023 at 3:39 PM, Doug Morris said:

Neither government nor any other institution may violate anyone's rights.

Everyone has the moral right to move and trade freely across jurisdictional lines.

In my second sentence I made clear that I was talking about moral rights, not legal rights.

The word "may" in the first sentence also refers to morality, not legality.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2023 at 8:13 PM, Easy Truth said:

What is your answer to your own question?

 

I do not think the concept of a nation state is immoral.

I recognize that there are many pragmatic and concrete reasons for it to be morally appropriate for geographic and jurisdictional boundaries to be instituted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We may grant that jurisdictions are not, in and of themselves, immoral. But it's another question whether it is moral for a jurisdiction to use force to stop people from entering the jurisdiction when the people are not using force against anyone in the jurisdiction. (Not considering certain categories such as certain violent criminal escapees, etc.)

Edited by InfraBeat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2023 at 1:29 PM, tadmjones said:

Governments are instituted, optimally, to protect the individual rights of the citizens , those who live in the jurisdiction of the government

I don't know about optimally, but I take it that you agree that jurisdictions should protect that rights of citizens, non-citizen residents, and non-residents. In a rights-protecting jurisdiction, one doesn't have impunity to murder a non-resident or even an illegal resident or illegal non-resident.

Then the question is whether it is moral for a jurisdiction to use force to stop people from entering the jurisdiction when the people are not using force against anyone in the jurisdiction.  (Not considering certain categories such as certain violent criminal escapees, etc.)

Edited by InfraBeat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, InfraBeat said:

I would think that jurisdictions should protect that rights of citizens, non-citizen residents, and non-residents. In a rights-protecting jurisdiction, one doesn't have impunity to murder a non-resident or even an illegal resident or illegal non-resident.

True , but now you are talking about the difference between rights/moral violations and administrative laws. Resident, non-resident are descriptions of individuals and their relation to a jurisdiction. Aside from honor killings , I think murder is a crime in all jurisdictions.

And non residents are not afforded the right to murder by claiming to not 'fall under this or that jurisdiction' by virtue of not 'belonging' to it.

 

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

now you are talking about the difference between rights/moral violations and administrative laws. Resident, non-resident are descriptions of individuals and their relation to a jurisdiction. Aside from honor killings , I think murder is a crime in all jurisdictions.

I don't see that you've made any qualification to what I said.

Just to be clear: Laws are one thing. Morality is another. I take it we agree that there are immoral laws. 

And the fact that murder is illegal in all jurisdictions does not vitiate my point that jurisdictions should protect the rights of anyone who happens to be in the jurisdiction, even people illegally in the jurisdiction.

But I don't think you would disagree?

So the issue of contention is whether it is moral for a jurisdiction to use force to stop people from entering the jurisdiction or to use force to eject them from the jurisdiction (and in this context, I'm putting aside such categories as escaped violent criminals, etc.). 

Edited by InfraBeat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, InfraBeat said:

I don't see that you've made any qualification to what I said.

Just to be clear: Laws are one thing. Morality is another. I take it we agree that there are immoral laws. 

The fact that murder is illegal in all jurisdictions does not vitiate my point that jurisdictions should protect the rights of anyone who happens to be in the jurisdiction, even people illegally in the jurisdiction.

I agree that laws are one thing and morality another, which is a point I was trying to discuss with DM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

I agree that laws are one thing and morality another, which is a point I was trying to discuss with DM.

Yes, and he agrees also.

So the question is, even granting that jurisdictions are not immoral in and of themselves (i.e. granting that anarchy is not morally required), is it moral for a jurisdiction to use force to prevent people from entering the jurisdiction or use force to eject people from the jurisdiction? (Putting aside, as I will throughout in this context, certain categories such as escaped violent criminals and extraditions for violent crimes, etc.)

 

Edited by InfraBeat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, InfraBeat said:

Yes, and he agrees also.

So the question is, even granting that jurisdictions are not immoral in and of themselves (i.e. granting that anarchy is not morally required), is it moral for a jurisdiction to use force to prevent people from entering the jurisdiction and use force to eject people from the jurisdiction. (Putting aside, as I will throughout in this context, certain categories such as escaped violent criminals and extraditions for violent crimes, etc.)

 

Yes it would be moral for a jurisdiction to implement entry strictures to non citizens and enforce them.

Why would it not be ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Why would it not be ?

A person who thinks it is not, may argue that it is a right of a person to go from point A to point B as long as the person is not thereby using force against other people, so it is immoral for a jurisdiction to use force against free exercise of that right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a property owner can say "no trespassing" then a group of property owners can join together into a "jurisdiction" and also say "no trespassing."

If, on the other hand, I own property, and I want to allow people to cross it if they want to, then the government is infringing both their rights and mine by prohibiting it.

(That being said, I probably cannot legally be a party to people trespassing on the land of other people.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, InfraBeat said:

A person who thinks it is not, may argue that it is a right of a person to go from point A to point B as long as the person is not thereby using force against other people, so it is immoral for a jurisdiction to use force against free exercise of that right. 

If point B is my living room , would they be using force to walk into my house through an unlocked front door and sit on my couch? I don’t see them walk down my driveway so I haven’t be able to explain to this stranger that I don’t want them in my house , have they initiated force by simply entering a dwelling without permission? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, necrovore said:

If a property owner can say "no trespassing" then a group of property owners can join together into a "jurisdiction" and also say "no trespassing."

If, on the other hand, I own property, and I want to allow people to cross it if they want to, then the government is infringing both their rights and mine by prohibiting it.

(That being said, I probably cannot legally be a party to people trespassing on the land of other people.)

Note: In this thread, I am not speaking on behalf of any particular philosophy or even any particular position on this matter. Rather, I am interested in what is entailed by, or on the contrary, what is inconsistent with certain right-protecting, non-collectivist premises. So, as much as is practical, I use 'If-then' constructions, and where I forget to do that, hopefully it will be understood as tacit. 

If I understand, you agree that a jurisdiction does not have a moral right to use force to stop people from entering private property within the jurisdiction when the private property owner allows it. So if Smith owns property on a border, then the jurisdiction does not have a right to use force to stop Smith's friend from stepping across the border onto Smith's property. 

But, if I understand, you claim that a jurisdiction does have a moral right to use force to stop people from entering public property in the jurisdiction.

Some people claim that governments do not have a moral right to own property except for purposes of protecting rights (police, courts, prisons, military, etc.). In that case, a fortiori, governments do not have a moral right to use force to stop people from entering public property not used for purposes of protecting rights. I mean, if governments do not have a right to own such property, then at least governments shouldn't make it worse by both owning the property and using force to stop people from entering the property. 

Even if we allow that governments do have a moral right to own property except for purposes other than protecting rights, the moral right to not be stopped by force from moving from point A to point B is a human right not just a right of citizens of particular jurisdictions. Since all humans have that right, it would be arbitrary to violate that right for some people but not others, including non-citizens. And if arbitrariness is allowed, then violation of that right of movement of even arbitrary classes of citizens would be allowable. If a jurisdiction rules that non-citizens may not enter public property, then that jurisdiction may rule that, for example, left-handed people may not enter public property. The accidental attribute of not being born within certain jurisdictional borders does not exclude the moral right of movement. If the purpose of governments is to protect rights, then that includes protecting the right of movement within the jurisdiction and into the jurisdiction. 

Moreover, if a jurisdiction has a moral right to use force to keep people from entering the jurisdiction, then that would apply at any jurisdictional level, including - as with the United States - states, counties and cities. With that principle (aside from Constitutional provisions that are legalities but necessarily morally mandated), a state would be moral to restrict people from all other states from entering, and similarly at any jurisdictional level no matter how small. And every jurisdiction could do that, so that people would not be able to leave their city of residence. And that could be international, so that citizens of the Vatican City would not be able to leave that .17 square miles for a lifetime. 

It seems to me that a non-collectivist, rights-advocating person, would not allow a collectivist moral right to stop people from freedom of movement. 

Edited by InfraBeat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

If point B is my living room , would they be using force to walk into my house through an unlocked front door and sit on my couch? I don’t see them walk down my driveway so I haven’t be able to explain to this stranger that I don’t want them in my house , have they initiated force by simply entering a dwelling without permission? 

I think we should take it for granted that the notion of force includes that kind of trespassing into a person's home. Is the answer to your question a point in an argument you have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...