--- On Tue, 7/1/08, goat! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
By advocating open borders for the rest of the world, such advocate
extending that positive right outside of any property right even
further than that already extended to citizens.
Very Marxist really, rather than just liberal as it was to extend it
to citizens.
It is a bit more complex than I described though, by law, as
after use by the public, there is a claim of adverse possession too.
Some will claim adverse possession an evil, but indeed, that was
how private property was acquired out of nature to begin with,
and is a very real part and necessity of natural law.
By allowing trespass, such as open borders, there is a very
real chance that another government could bring suit for adverse
possession, and those who think they have private property will not.
I find it interesting, that some open border advocates will justify one
wrong (trespass) by their perceived wrong of controlling border
crossings. Perhaps they do think two wrongs make a right?
Goat
-------------------------------------------------
So then not allowing restrictions on access across a border is the same as
theft of land? A border is then a common except where it is a private property
border and then it is up to the property owner? But then what responsibility
would they have for those they allowed the unrestricted access to?
BWS
