Immigration In A Purely Capitalist Society

[Capitalism Forever]

Sorry, can you please clarify this for me then. Since limiting immigration and access to labour is clearly a regulatory economical force effecting both the internal citizens of the Objectivist country, and those outside, are you in favour of regulatory force against the people in this "proper" country?

I am not in favor of any kind of force directed at any innocent people.

What I am in favor of, though, is a voluntary agreement among the landlords to establish a set of criteria for whom they allow on their respective properties.

As a very simple scenario, if you and I became the owners of adjoining blocks of land in an area where a government has yet to be established, I think we would both benefit from signing an agreement on:

• how we will cooperate to defend our properties from aggression, should the need arise;
  
• how we will settle our disputes;
  
• a limitation of whom we will allow on our respective properties (e.g. no jihadists, etc.)
  

Such an agreement would be a very primitive form of what I consider a proper government. By right, we as individuals have the full sovereignty over our lands, but we voluntarily trade away a well-delimited portion of that sovereignty in exchange for a more effective protection of our rights--we give up a lesser value in exchange for a greater value.

As you can see, there is no initiation of force involved at all; it is not forceful regulation, but voluntary and self-interested self-regulation.

[Capitalism Forever]

I read this three times, and cannot make any sense out of it.

Sorry for the messy formulation. Let me try to rephrase it in a clearer way:

There would be two kinds of laws:

• Those which define crimes; and
  
• Those which define the criteria for immigration.
  

The former kind of laws would apply to everyone within the country. Murder is murder and theft is theft, no matter who did it.

The latter kind of laws would only restrict the behavior of the landlords who have agreed to be restricted by such laws. The restriction would consist of disallowing the landlords from accepting any visitors who do not meet the criteria for eligibility for immigration.

A landlord would join the nation by subscribing to its constitution and agreeing to be restricted by the immigration laws. The boundaries of the nation would be defined by which landlords have joined it.

If a landlord does not agree to be bound by the immigration laws, he will not enjoy the protection of the police and military. "If you agree to keep jihadists away from your land, we will protect your rights. If you refuse to do as much, you will have to do your own self-defense." It's a quid pro quo.

[stephen_speicher]

Sorry for the messy formulation. Let me try to rephrase it in a clearer way:

There would be two kinds of laws:

• Those which define crimes; and
  
  
  
  
  
• Those which define the criteria for immigration.
  

The former kind of laws would apply to everyone within the country. Murder is murder and theft is theft, no matter who did it.

The latter kind of laws would only restrict the behavior of the landlords who have agreed to be restricted by such laws. The restriction would consist of disallowing the landlords from accepting any visitors who do not meet the criteria for eligibility for immigration.

A landlord would join the nation by subscribing to its constitution and agreeing to be restricted by the immigration laws. The boundaries of the nation would be defined by which landlords have joined it.

If a landlord does not agree to be bound by the immigration laws, he will not enjoy the protection of the police and military. "If you agree to keep jihadists away from your land, we will protect your rights. If you refuse to do as much, you will have to do your own self-defense." It's a quid pro quo.

I do not know what sort of cockamamy scheme you are creating here, but these notions have strayed so far from what I thought the context was -- immigration under a proper Objectivist government -- that the subject seems unrecognizable to me.

Your "landlords" do not get to decide whether or not they are bound by some particular laws instituted by a proper government. They do not "subscribe" to the constitution as one would subscribe to the Ladies' Home Journal. Either a proper government has sole jurisdiction over the geographical area that it covers, or you have some bastardized form of anarchy.

Just to be clear in my mind: Are you an anarchist or an Objectivist? I ask because I no longer spend time discussing politics with anarchists.

[oldsalt]

The whole scheme sounds very libertarian to me.

Children are not citizens? What? Do children, under your scheme, have no rights? And who is it that decides who is and who is not rational? If a child doesn't meet whoever's criterion for rationality, does it mean the child gets the boot? Will you have tests for this? And where, pray tell, do you propose to send these non-citizens?

I don't understand this proposal. It seems to negate even the legitimate functions necessary for a stable government and a society of free men. If you don't explicitly sign a contract with the government, you are stateless by definition, regardless of the fact that you were born and raised in this "rational" country.

Have you ever read the Federalist Papers? Do you understand what it means to set up a government, or what government means? We have government to organize society in such a way that the individual is protected within that society. We aren't talking about the wild west here, when every rancher was a law unto himself. The kind of thing you are talking about would quickly descend into gang warfare between those born here who are citizens and those born here who are not citizens. We wouldn't have to worry about immigrants because no one would want to live in the chaos.

No thanks.

[Capitalism Forever]

Either a proper government has sole jurisdiction over the geographical area that it covers

Please point out the exact location where I have suggested otherwise.

Just to be clear in my mind: Are you an anarchist or an Objectivist? I ask because I no longer spend time discussing politics with anarchists.

I am certainly not an anarchist. I am a student of Objectivism, and so far I have not found any portion of Objectivism that I disagree with.

However, I have noticed that there is a disagreement between you and me regarding the moral foundation of a proper government. I believe that each individual has certain inalienable moral rights, which no man or law can take away; and that consequently it is morally OK for an individual to insist on his rights in whatever way he finds practicable--whether that be by getting an unrightful law repealed or by simply ignoring the unrightful law when he can get away with it. You, however, appear to believe that it is very immoral for him to ignore the unrightful law:

With all the moral indignation I have towards laws that are unjust, invalid, or non-objective, I reserve greater moral indignation towards those who who do not respect and abide by the rule of law.

Until we have settled this disagreement, we cannot say that we have the same basis upon which to discuss the functioning of a proper government, therefore we cannot have a meaningful discussion of immigration in a properly governed society.

I should note that it is my position that seems to be compatible with Objectivism; see jrshep's reference to Gary Hull's five-hour Introduction to Objectivism on the other thread.

[Capitalism Forever]

The whole scheme sounds very libertarian to me.

It is very un-libertarian.

Children are not citizens?  What?  Do children, under your scheme, have no rights?

I believe that every individual has an inalienable right to his life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of his own happiness. He has these rights regardless of his citizenship status in any nation.

A person who is not a citizen could not vote or serve on a jury. That's all the difference between a citizen and a non-citizen.

And who is it that decides who is and who is not rational?

The decision, as far as immigration is concerned, is about who is eligible for a visa. The criteria for this are defined by law, which is approved by the citizens. If the citizens are rational enough, one can hope that the criteria will be such that they filter out the dangerously irrational candidates for immigration.

If a child doesn't meet whoever's criterion for rationality, does it mean the child gets the boot?

No.

The kind of thing you are talking about would quickly descend into gang warfare between those born here who are citizens and those born here who are not citizens.

What motivation do you think they will have for engaging in gang warfare, and why do you believe the police will not succeed in stopping them?

[stephen_speicher]

Please point out the exact location where I have suggested otherwise.

You said: "The latter kind of laws would only restrict the behavior of the landlords who have agreed to be restricted by such laws."

For a proper government to have sole jurisdiction in a geographical area, its laws apply to all of those within its jurisdiction. Your "landlords" do not get to choose about being "restricted by such laws."

I am certainly not an anarchist.

That is good to know. I asked because there are those who attempt to combine anarchism with governmental rule by law. One way this is attempted is to introduce pockets of people who feel no need to be bound by the governmental jurisdiction, thereby introducing, in effect, the notion of competing governments. Or, at least, competing legal authority. These sort of notions are not consistent with the concept of a proper government.

As to the rest of your post: I have made it clear that I will not discuss a certain issue with you any further. If you cannot abide with that -- if you continue to directly confront me, and, as you did here, to dredge up a post from a week ago -- I will just stop discussing anything with you, entirely. That is not meant as threat, but simply a statement of fact.

[Guest jrshep]

If my memory serves me, I remember that Miss Rand actually praised Americans who willingly and knowingly broke the law with respect to Prohibition. Does anyone remember if this is true and where it was that she said it, if in fact she did?

[Betsy]

If my memory serves me, I remember that Miss Rand actually praised Americans who willingly and knowingly broke the law with respect to Prohibition. Does anyone remember if this is true and where it was that she said it, if in fact she did?

She wrote:

Defiance, not obedience, is the American's answer to overbearing authority. The nation that ran an underground railroad to help human beings escape from slavery, or began drinking on principle in the face of Prohibition, will not say "Yes, sir," to the enforcers of ration coupons and cereal prices. Not yet.

[The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 5 December 6, 1971, Don't Let It Go--Part II]

My own view is that the rule of law is undermined, and anarchy is promoted, most of all when the law is flouted by the government or by those who can properly wield government force. When a judge or jury, sworn to apply the law, lets off a law breaker because they don't approve of the law he has broken or when a policeman or border guard looks the other way when he sees an action the law says he should be stopping, it breeds disrespect for all laws, even the proper ones.

As for individual citizens breaking the law, even to defend a more important principle, that is an action that requires very serious thought. Force can and may be used against you. You stand to lose your liberty and property. It may have huge effects on your future.

If you want to fight an unjust law, then wage an intellectual battle. Argue for repeal, lobby your legislators, speak and write against it. In a free society, that is much more likely to bring about change than breaking the law and/or becoming a martyr to it.

[Capitalism Forever]

For a proper government to have sole jurisdiction in a geographical area, its laws apply to all of those within its jurisdiction.

For a government to have sole jurisdiction in a geographical area, it must be the only government making laws in that area.

A government that has sole jurisdiction in an area can still make a law that applies only to, say, people younger than 20, or people who own a car, etc. The scope of a law is something completely independent of the question of sole vs. shared jurisdiction.

I should only note that there are at least THREE governments having jurisdiction in the geographical area of any American city: the local, the state, and the Federal government. Since the boundaries of their jurisdictions are well-delimited, no anarchy has resulted.

That is good to know. I asked because there are those who attempt to combine anarchism with governmental rule by law. One way this is attempted is to introduce pockets of people who feel no need to be bound by the governmental jurisdiction, thereby introducing, in effect, the notion of competing governments.

What I hope to introduce is a large and contiguous area of land owned by people who DO feel a need to be bound by the laws of a just government--including the laws aimed at denying entry to people who can be suspected of disrupting the rule of law.

As to the rest of your post: I have made it clear that I will not discuss a certain issue with you any further. If you cannot abide with that -- if you continue to directly confront me, and, as you did here, to dredge up a post from a week ago -- I will just stop discussing anything with you, entirely.

It was not my intention to be confrontational; if I sounded like that, I apologize. I was hoping to get along with you, and although we do not seem to agree on everything right now, I still hope we will resolve our differences. But of course it is up to you whether or not you want to talk to me; I will accept whatever decision you make.

[Guest jrshep]

She wrote:

Defiance, not obedience, is the American's answer to overbearing authority. The nation that ran an underground railroad to help human beings escape from slavery, or began drinking on principle in the face of Prohibition, will not say "Yes, sir," to the enforcers of ration coupons and cereal prices. Not yet.

[The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 5  December 6, 1971, Don't Let It Go--Part II]

Thank you Betsy.

I had tried to find those very comments. I had even skimmed, twice no less, through both parts of "Don't Let It Go," thinking that would have been one of the most likely places for it, yet I missed it completely.

I agree basically with everything else you said, but I would add that the rule of law is also undermined by virtue of corrupt laws themselves, laws which pit an individual's rights against the law. People are good primarily because of their moral views and their sense of life, not because of laws that command obedience, proscribing their behavior.

Of course, the trail goes back to corrupt philosophy and the purveyors of the corruptions. I believe that Miss Rand said that it is philosophy that has gotten us into this mess, and it's only philosophy that will get us out of it.

No individual tacitly agrees to abide by laws that violate his rights. The rule of law is not just rule by some or any code of law, but by a proper code of laws, laws that recognize and respect individual rights. An individual should certainly be willing to delegate the defense of his or her rights to a just government, but not be willing to submit to a government that violates them. How to resist is a question that revolves primarily by identifying the nature of the corruption. I think Ayn Rand did so quite well.

You said: "As for individual citizens breaking the law, even to defend a more important principle, that is an action that requires very serious thought. Force can and may be used against you. You stand to lose your liberty and property. It may have huge effects on your future."

And I agree with you profoundly on that. Anyone giving any consideration to violating an unjust law had better know that it's still the law, and it is backed by force, unforgivingly so. If one doesn't respect some unjust law, one had better still respect the force that government does hold and the damaging consequences that may well result. One can be dead right, as the saying goes.

What's troubled me of late is the view that obedience to the law is moral as long as one's government is fundamentally rights-respecting, and that one's only recourse, morally, is to break the law only if one is doing so publicly in order to make a test case of it. As others have pointed out, one needs to know how to determine whether or not one's government is fundamentally rights-respecting. Else, accepting that view would tend to fly in the face of the historically important and individualistic, American sense of life expressed as "Don't push me around!"

[stephen_speicher]

For a government ...

For the third, and last time .

You said: "The latter kind of laws would only restrict the behavior of the landlords who have agreed to be restricted by such laws."

And I replied: "For a proper government to have sole jurisdiction in a geographical area, its laws apply to all of those within its jurisdiction. Your 'landlords' do not get to choose about being 'restricted by such laws.'"

You are saying that your laws apply to those who "have agreed to be restricted" and I am saying that their agreement is irrelevant to whether the law applies to them or not.

[Capitalism Forever]

You are saying that your laws apply to those who "have agreed to be restricted"

I am saying that "my" immigration laws apply only to those who own land within the country. The laws prohibiting the initiation of force apply to everyone.

[Capitalism Forever]

When a judge or jury, sworn to apply the law, lets off a law breaker because they don't approve of the law he has broken or when a policeman or border guard looks the other way when he sees an action the law says he should be stopping, it breeds disrespect for all laws, even the proper ones.

The experience in the formerly Communist nations (one of which I am a citizen of) shows that if the people are fundamentally rights-respecting, they will be able to distinguish between the just laws and the unjust ones, although the distinction will not always be very clear. In Hungary, the government was generally held in very low regard in the final years of Communism--but everyone knew that theft, murder, rape, etc. are wrong, and people supported the police when they were prosecuting such crimes.

In mixed economy of today's Hungary, everyone who makes money tries to minimize his taxes, by various means. I have dealt with many people who talked openly about "cheating" the tax authority. First I wondered if they would also cheat me--but eventually I found them to be honest and fair-dealing people with a clear sense of right and wrong.

On the other hand, there was one guy who thought that the attempt to minimize one's taxes was "sleazy" ; he often paid more attention to the various dictates of our government bureaucracy than to actually making money. As it happens, he turned out to be a rather untrustworthy person who had an incredibly muddled sense of right and wrong.

---

The ideal state, of course, is one where are laws are just, and respected by the people. A tyrannical law diminishes the respect for the law in general; I would say that the moral responsibilty for this lies with the people who have made the tyrannical law, and with those who, pointing at the bad law, begin to disrespect the good laws as well. After all, it is these two groups of people who initiate the use of force.

[ex_banana-eater]

I am saying that "my" immigration laws apply only to those who own land within the country. The laws prohibiting the initiation of force apply to everyone.

So a man with a differing ideal has no right to own land in said country? (Say he wants to buy land from a man who signed the contract)

[Capitalism Forever]

So a man with a differing ideal has no right to own land in said country? (Say he wants to buy land from a man who signed the contract)

The original owner has no right to sell it to such a person.

[AshRyan]

The original owner has no right to sell it to such a person.

What? What if I own land and I want to rent it to someone from a different country, and I don't agree to be restricted by your "immigration laws" (since you said that they apply only to those landlords who agree to be restricted by them)? I have no right to rent it to "such a person?" Who is such a person? Who are we talking about here? Exactly what standard are you using to determine who can immigrate into the country? Are you proposing that some government bureaucrat gets to decide who is rational and who isn't? How is that not a violation of the rights of everyone involved? From what I understand of your position so far (and it's pretty vague), this seems quite bizarre.