Tresha91203
Platinum Member
In a way it is. The 'public domain' is nothing more than land that we all own. I have a right to cross it under most circumstances as I am one of the 300 million owners. Random man in China however does not - they have no rights over that land and are not one of those owners. The same can be said in reciprocation.
Oh, come on. You know you are pushing the limits of what it means for lands to be part of the public domain, and I say that because you and I both know that the only thing making you and I "own" the U.S. public lands is a set of man made laws, not natural laws. I see your remarks above as academic, and for this discussion, they are surely intriguing for the sake of intellectual debate, but as a practical thing, which is what immigration amounts to, not so much.
Property laws are man made, not natural. I have the natural right to move about freely across the globe, including your basement. My natural right to freedom trumps your man made right to own a patch of dirt.
FFS, even Canada selects who improves their country and rejects those who may burden it. Only in the US do we take in waves that do burden us while we make the educated immigrants with means wait to get in. It took years for my degreed, self-sufficient MIL to gain entrance to the US from Canada and 2 more years to gain citizenship. My Canadian BIL was actually deported back to Canada in 2012, from a sanctuary city.
Red:
Property laws are man made, but the right to real property being held by specific individuals is not; that too is among our natural rights. How does one know this? Let's keep it simple and see...Remove all man-made laws concerning property and stand on the ground somewhere of your choosing.
Now I ask you this.
- Do you have the right to stand there peacefully? Of course you do, and as long as you're standing there, every other being on the planet that (1) cannot share that spot with you, (2) doesn't view you as an easy meal, or (3) that, upon seeing your refusal to yield, is unwilling to kill you or battle you for that spot will respect your right to stand there and make themselves comfortable with a different "patch of dirt."
- Did you insist on standing on the ground another individual occupied or did you select one that was unoccupied? In respect of other individuals' claims, most likely you picked an unoccupied spot instead of engaging in battle over an already occupied one.
- Perhaps you saw a spot that to reach you had to traverse around other individuals standing on their own patch of dirt. If so, did you push them off their spot, -- did you insist on "going through their basement" -- in order to get to your destination, or did you go around them to get to the spot you wanted? Again, you likely made yourself content going around the people already standing on their own spots, making no effort to "go through their basements."
From the very simple example above that removed all man-made laws, one can easily see that natural law grants each of us the right to move freely and the right to property. One can also see that every creature on the Earth understands the limits of both natural laws and it's not a matter of one trumping the other; the two coexist quite happily and every creature is perfectly capable of complying with both. One also sees that those natural rights exist and are adhered to even in the absence of political (man made) boundaries, or any laws that have been codified by men.
- Did you need any mand laws to tell you that you are free to move to the destination of your choosing? I'm sure you did not.
- Did you need any man made laws to tell you that the spots on which others stood are spots you (1) cannot and should not claim as your own, unless you want to fight them for it, and (2) must go around to get to your desired destination? Again, you almost certainly did not.
So what then do man made laws pertaining to property occupation/ownership do? Those laws merely allow us to extend the limit of the spot of land that each individual has a natural right to claim. Instead of our being able to claim just as large a spot as we can physically occupy at one instant, we have devised property ownership laws that allow us to claim, say, the land area of a house and its immediately surrounding land.
Now you might ask, "What if I want to claim an area larger than I can even see in its entirety?" Well, that's exactly what property laws make possible. Even as they make that possible, those man made laws should and must, if they are to be good laws, function in observance of natural laws, not usurp them. Thus, as goes the thread's question, though its framed within a context that exists only in the presence of man made laws, the circumstance of one being being or not being free to move from place to place, as well as to claim for themselves an unoccupied spot (permanently or temporarily) exists absent those laws.
So, yes, people from other places absolutely have the right to come to, "stand in," and move through this place, just not the exact spot that you or I happen to occupy at a given moment. But look around, there's no shortage of individually unoccupied spots.
You are connecting 2 unrelated things. Standing on property is not the same as owning property. Owning property is is not natural (see NA culture). Others cannot stand on you, not because you own that dot, but because it is already occupied. People who own nothing still dont get stood on.
I plan to move into your basement but I have no intention to stand on you. All good?
Must you really be that literal?I'm real, looking at real consequences of real bad policy. Utopic visions are a waste of time. As soon as you invite everyone else, poof, your vision turns to shit, as everyone has their own agendas.
Pink:
Fine, be "real," but don't be real dense and respond as though you don't understand the difference between an analogy/metaphor and remarks presented in a literal context.
You're the one pushing dangerously bad policy and using the analogy to justify it, but I'm the meanie for being too literal? If you didn't mean your post literally, my bad. It appeared to me you believed it and meant it.