Re:Trump’s Next Move on Immigration to Hit Closer to Home fo...
by DarkKomunalec on Monday January 30, 2017 @07:37AM
(#13520654)
Good question. I would say, collective ownership. A country can be thought of as 'owned' by its people, with the rules of ownership agreed upon by the owners themselves (everyone owns an equal share -> 1 person 1 vote, ownership may not be transfered, but is given upon being born in the country or to an owner, and so on). This way, a country reduces to property. Should not the owners of property be free to manage it in their own favour?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Trump’s Next Move on Immigration to Hit Closer to Home fo...
by yummyfajitas on Monday January 30, 2017 @08:12AM
(#13520820)
In that case, I suppose it's reasonable for a historically white suburb (with all white owners) to create rules for themselves that keep blacks out?
That way, a municipality reduces to property. Should not the owners of property be free to manage it in their own favor?
Re:Trump’s Next Move on Immigration to Hit Closer to Home fo...
by DarkKomunalec on Monday January 30, 2017 @08:48AM
(#13521082)
It is not. Nothing in the thought experiment implies the laws of the country are not superior to those of the municipality. And as those laws require the country to treat all its citizens equaly and/or explicitly forbid discrimination, a municiaplity could not legally create such rules.
This is not a hypothetical - the collective ownership way of thinking applies just fine to the US, where such discrimination was ruled illegal.
Re:Trump’s Next Move on Immigration to Hit Closer to Home fo...
by yorwba on Monday January 30, 2017 @09:13AM
(#13521285)
Sure, but why stop the collective ownership at the border? Why not have everyone have a share of the whole world?
What is the fundamental difference that makes "municipality : country" nonanalogous to "country : world"?