Ok. I like the idea of making them pay upfront. An ounce or 5 of silver or
even gold is a good idea. But first we have to eliminate the main draw - the
welfare state.
BWS
---------------------------------------------
From: goat! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I wouldn't call it theft of land, as a land
owner has a duty to stop trespassers (such is
after all how private property is held),
though that is made very difficult when some try to do it.
So one might consider it theft by an illegitimate government.
A border may be commons one nation or the other,
such that lays on either side of it, and to the inclusion
of those who are citizens of such sides. Whether
it is commons to the citizenries of the other side of the border,
depends on if it is wished to extend that positive right to such or not,
is suppose to be determined by the citizens who's commons it is.
Certainly an invading army (either under flag or covert) intent
on destruction, theft or death, most would agree should be protected
against, well, except some libertarians it seems. Such distinction
of ownership and right of use is what all borders are,
whether they be private, as on you own property, or commons.
It is one of the more simple fictions of law that reflects
pre law / state, that some seem loath to acknowledge. I suspect mainly
because they have a very lot invested in the position otherwise,
then to admit it is perfectly libertarian and purely a property rights
argument, whether we wish to involve government in the equation or not.
I do however agree with the opposing side on some issues,
that being that no entity should have the right to own
as much as they can legally say they own (especially when that was made
possible by fraud or force), though I am in most aspects an absolute
property rights advocate with regard to property that is within
a persons means of protecting or use.
I'm not even against letting as many people cross the border, as long as
they pony up a silver dollar to cross orderly, or 2 for trespassing
on the commons (that is over the border). But I'm willing
to allow the vote to determine policy, as long as it doesn't make us all
prisoners by locking us in or violating our rights to privacy.
As we are heading that way is the only real reason I propose what I do
about the issue, but the open border advocates would rather have
nothing, then something that would actually solve our other problems of
a fictional monetary system too, while being perfectly private, enforced
by the people, would create jobs, and satisfies the compliant that
people coming over the border haven't paid their fair share to come here.
The open borders people would rather be intent on on shouting dogma,
and having no solution, then promoting a solution that would work.
Goat
