On 9/13/2019 at 9:41 AM, MisterSwig said:
You’re conflating two separate issues. First, there is the issue of border control: do we have the right to stop people at the border and question them? My justification for that is based on property rights and our need to protect the people inside the border from objective threats attempting to enter the country. Second, there is the issue of socialist activists already within the country, let’s make them citizens of this nation demonstrating and espousing their beliefs on a public street corner. My justification for banning such activity on public property has to do with the taxpayer’s ownership of that property and our right to democratically establish and enforce public codes of etiquette, per Ayn Rand’s argument for banning pornographic displays in public. See my post on that here.
Yeah but you have argued for banning socialist ideas on the basis that they’re objectively dangerous. It was a much stronger case than “we should ban them because they’re offensive”; they are actually dangerous ideas.
And both cases boil down to “but what if X happens”, which is not the proper question to ask.
On 9/13/2019 at 9:41 AM, MisterSwig said:
So you would need to argue against our right to control the border, not our right to enforce laws. Prove that such laws are wrong
I believe Harry Binswanger already did.
On 9/14/2019 at 4:27 AM, DonAthos said:
The appropriate procedural delay I discuss above has nearly nothing to do with modern or historical immigration policy, which is usually a mish-mash of xenophobia, economic protectionism and various other assorted collectivist ideas. If the border checkpoint were delimited to what I’ve briefly outlined, it would look far, far different than our own border today.
And what you outlined is the best argument I’ve heard so far for having a somewhat-controlled border. I’ll have to chew on that while I’m at work today.