Re:Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)
by coldtea on Sunday March 12, 2017 @12:54PM
(#13851590)
>You think you are so clever to come up with this argument that you imagine will end the discussion, isn't it?
No, I just think the argument I responded to was obviously half-thought, to put it mildly.
Mine is not particularly clever, not very original. It's just a statement of fact.
>In the following passages you recognize that it is difficult to know who is the "right" owner of something, but before you were saying that the State de facto owns everything. So what is it?
I fail to see the contradiction. Confused much?
The fact that, as I acknowledged, it's difficult to know who is the "right" owner of something, e.g. some land, it's totally orthogonal to my other point.
I didn't say the State enforces the "right" ownership. Just that it enforces the existing ownership rights -- whether they are "right" (ultimately justified) or not. It's a fact that the State has the power to, and does, enforce the property rights currently in existence in the US. That's a statement of fact.
Second, I never said that "the State de facto owns everything" (although they could). Just that they de facto enforce all property rights. Anyone claiming to own a piece of land in the US, must pass through the state procedures to prove so -- else it is not considered theirs, and is taken away from them.
No, I just think the argument I responded to was obviously half-thought, to put it mildly.
Mine is not particularly clever, not very original. It's just a statement of fact.
>In the following passages you recognize that it is difficult to know who is the "right" owner of something, but before you were saying that the State de facto owns everything. So what is it?
I fail to see the contradiction. Confused much?
The fact that, as I acknowledged, it's difficult to know who is the "right" owner of something, e.g. some land, it's totally orthogonal to my other point.
I didn't say the State enforces the "right" ownership. Just that it enforces the existing ownership rights -- whether they are "right" (ultimately justified) or not. It's a fact that the State has the power to, and does, enforce the property rights currently in existence in the US. That's a statement of fact.
Second, I never said that "the State de facto owns everything" (although they could). Just that they de facto enforce all property rights. Anyone claiming to own a piece of land in the US, must pass through the state procedures to prove so -- else it is not considered theirs, and is taken away from them.