|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 15, 2019 11:26:27 GMT -5
Okay. I addressed your other points. Now why don't you address my points here? Does anyone have the right to enter your apartment without the permission of either you or your roommates? After all, you just said that apartment is not your property. You are forgetting that a rent contract enables me to use the apartment and any improvements that are inside, even if I am not myself the legal owner, and a purchase enables me to use whatever stuff I bought. So if a burglar or stumbling drunk is going to steal something inside my home, they're still stealing my stuff, or using my stuff without proper compensation, without asking me or my co-habitants. So how is this theft in any way analogous to immigration? What do you believe immigrants are "stealing" from you when they cross the border? Okay. Let's say that someone just wants to move into your apartment without taking any of your personal property. They just bring in a blanket to sleep on and they spread it out on the floor. The apartment isn't your property so what possible complaint can you have? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 12:50:22 GMT -5
So what you are argueing is that you, personally, should be able to decide who gets to enter the United States of America, because you already live there. Correct?
Okay. Let's say that someone just wants to move into your apartment without taking any of your personal property. They just bring in a blanket to sleep on and they spread it out on the floor. The apartment isn't your property so what possible complaint can you have? I explained that in the post you just quoted: You are forgetting that a rent contract enables me to use the apartment and any improvements that are inside, even if I am not myself the legal owner, and a purchase enables me to use whatever stuff I bought. So if a burglar or stumbling drunk is going to steal something inside my home, they're still stealing my stuff, or using my stuff without proper compensation, without asking me or my co-habitants.Did you sign a rent contract for living in the United States of America? What does this contract look like? Who is the landlord when you're ostensibly the "owner" as well?
You still haven't told me what rights you can exercise as co-owner of the United States of America, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 15, 2019 15:42:04 GMT -5
So what you are argueing is that you, personally, should be able to decide who gets to enter the United States of America, because you already live there. Correct? Nope. But I do have a vote in that matter every two years. So in effect, the place you live IS your property as long as you pay rent. But Austria isn't your property. Therefore you would have no objection to a terrorist group from another country moving in to plot their next attack even if they were to move right next door to you. Correct? I didn't have to sign any contract. The Constitution of the USA already granted me that right 124 years before I was born. Technically the Federal Government is not the landlord. It is only the agent of the citizens who are the true landlords. I have the right to vote and to freely express my opinions on this subject (and any other subject as well) without any government interference. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 21:42:15 GMT -5
So what you are argueing is that you, personally, should be able to decide who gets to enter the United States of America, because you already live there. Correct? Nope. But I do have a vote in that matter every two years. Really? You vote every two years on who gets to enter your country? No, it's not my property, it's a rented place. Have you heard of rent, or is that a foreign concept in America? Non sequitur. Because Austria isn't my property, my objection would be entirely irrelevant anyway. What I am argueing in this thread is for our governments to uphold basic human rights, such as the human right to freedom of movement. Human rights should be valid everywhere, don't you think? From Wikipedia:
Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property, which may be an object, land/real estate or intellectual property. Ownership involves multiple rights, collectively referred to as title, which may be separated and held by different parties.
On Real Property:
Real property is unique because there are multiple rights associated with each piece of property. For example, most U.S. jurisdictions recognized the following rights: right to sell; right to lease; right to acquire minerals, gas, oil, etc. within the land; right to use; right to possess; right to develop; etc. These multiple rights are important because owners of the real property can generally do what they choose with each right. For example, the owner could choose to keep all the rights but lease the right to drill for oil to an oil company, or the owner could choose to keep all the rights but lease the property to a tenant. In other words, the owner can elect to keep, lease or sell the rights to the land.
So which of these rights do you exert over your share of the United States of America, exactly? I'm guessing none of the above, correct? In other words, you cannot actually exercise any of your supposed rights as a property owner. In effect, your claim to ownership is completely meaningless and irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 15, 2019 22:54:53 GMT -5
Nope. But I do have a vote in that matter every two years. Really? You vote every two years on who gets to enter your country? No. We all get a chance to vote every two years on issues that interest us. Immigration has not been on the top of the list for many voters until recently. That will probably change this year. Yes. Rent. That means you and your roommates have the legal right to be there and other people do not unless you or your roommates grant them permission. It's a little different with a nation. So many people to keep track of. So citizens through their elected representatives set the rules of who may enter and how. Then the appropriate agency follows those laws. What's wrong with that? Yes, Austria isn't your property. Neither are all the other apartments in your building. Therefore you would have no objection to a foreign terrorist group moving next door to you to make bombs. After all, your "objection would be entirely irrelevant anyway." Yes. I am 100% in favor of Freedom of movement. This is what we have now as long as people fill out the proper forms. I had to fill out forms to take trips to other countries. So what? It takes a few minutes, that's all. What's the big deal? Does "Freedom of Movement" give someone the right to move into your apartment without the permission of you and your roommates?
If two people jointly own a property, they both have to agree on how to handle it. Correct? When more than two people own a property, they can choose how to handle it by majority vote. That's exactly how a nation handles its property. When millions of people vote for a policy, they are exercising ownership.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2019 9:51:34 GMT -5
It's a little different with a nation. So many people to keep track of. So citizens through their elected representatives set the rules of who may enter and how. Then the appropriate agency follows those laws. What's wrong with that? You reject this approach for public services and health care. Why are you fine with it here? Is it because only foreigners will ever suffer from its downsides? You once posted something about "death panels" as a possible danger of public healthcare, but you don't seem too bothered with locking up immigrants without proper food or healthcare.
Is that because you approve of it? So you are equating immigrants with dangerous criminals. What do you mean by "proper forms"? And why is that necessary before you are allowed to exercise your freedom of movement? Are you okay with locking people up with no proper trial if they failed to fill out these forms? If yes, then why do you think it is just to deny people their human rights out of these petty bureaucratic reasons?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 24, 2019 15:58:52 GMT -5
It's a little different with a nation. So many people to keep track of. So citizens through their elected representatives set the rules of who may enter and how. Then the appropriate agency follows those laws. What's wrong with that? You reject this approach for public services and health care. Why are you fine with it here? Is it because only foreigners will ever suffer from its downsides? You once posted something about "death panels" as a possible danger of public healthcare, but you don't seem too bothered with locking up immigrants without proper food or healthcare. Is that because you approve of it? Yes, I reject government-run health care because private companies can do a better job. Would you like to see private companies handling immigration? No. I'm saying that the government has the obligation to do what it can to keep violent people from entering a country. If a violent person entered a country and killed people, people would ask why the government didn't do something to prevent it. And they would be right. According to what you have said here though, you would have no objection to a foreign terrorist moving into the apartment next to yours and making bombs. Complex Question Fallacy. You are assuming I have a right to enter another country anytime I want without permission of its government. But I don't have tha right any more than I have the right to enter anyone else's home without their permission. From the fact that the government is grossly inefficient and treats people like dirt, it Does Not Follow that regulating border crossings is not a legitimate job for government. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2019 1:52:21 GMT -5
You reject this approach for public services and health care. Why are you fine with it here? Is it because only foreigners will ever suffer from its downsides? You once posted something about "death panels" as a possible danger of public healthcare, but you don't seem too bothered with locking up immigrants without proper food or healthcare. Is that because you approve of it? Yes, I reject government-run health care because private companies can do a better job. Would you like to see private companies handling immigration? Do you approve of it, yes or no? Who are these "violent people"? Why does their existence justify denying people the right to move across borders? Yes, you are correct. I am assuming that there is a human right to freedom of movement. So far, you have insisted that you acknowledge such a human right. But do you, actually? If people don't have the right to cross national borders, and it is the government's job to keep people from crossing borders, then any arbitrary bureaucratic barrier to keep them from doing so is legitimate, and so is any punishment for disobedience against those arbitrary bureaucratic barriers.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 27, 2019 14:23:51 GMT -5
Yes, I reject government-run health care because private companies can do a better job. Would you like to see private companies handling immigration? Do you approve of it, yes or no? Of course I reject locking up anyone without without proper food or medical care. The government is obligated to take good care of anyone it locks up. A small percentage of the people trying to cross the border might have a criminal history. The government has an obligation to the people already here to deny them entry. Exactly where is this "right to move across borders?" I couldn't find it anywhere, not even in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Freedom of Movement there is defined as "...the right of individuals to travel from place to place within the territory of a country, and to leave the country and return to it." There is no mention of a "right" to enter another country. Yes, I do recognize such a right...once we have a World government. In the present situation though, this policy can only lead to problems, as it already has. Your second premise is false. It's not a government's job to keep people from crossing borders.It's their job to keep people from illegally crossing borders. And your conclusion is false. Most of the restrictions on immigration are not arbitrary. Immigrants have to demonstrate that they are not carrying contagious diseases or have a criminal record. How is that "arbitrary?" Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2019 14:56:10 GMT -5
Yes, I do recognize such a right...once we have a World government. In the present situation though, this policy can only lead to problems, as it already has. So you don't acknowledge that there is a human right to free movement. Thanks for clearing that up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2019 14:57:53 GMT -5
Your second premise is false. It's not a government's job to keep people from crossing borders.It's their job to keep people from illegally crossing borders. And your conclusion is false. Most of the restrictions on immigration are not arbitrary. Immigrants have to demonstrate that they are not carrying contagious diseases or have a criminal record. How is that "arbitrary?" Bob But if you have no right to cross a border, then government officials can deny you entry for any reason they choose, or no reason at all.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 27, 2019 15:10:07 GMT -5
Yes, I do recognize such a right...once we have a World government. In the present situation though, this policy can only lead to problems, as it already has. So you don't acknowledge that there is a human right to free movement. Thanks for clearing that up.
Free movement to leave a nation? Yes. That is a Human Right. In fact, it is guaranteed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
Free movement to enter another nation? No. That is like entering someone else's house without their permission.
And that "right" is not mentioned in the Declaration of Human Rights or anywhere else that I could find.
Perhaps you have some source for this "right." Could you please post the link?
And thank you in advance for clearing that up.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 27, 2019 15:12:15 GMT -5
Your second premise is false. It's not a government's job to keep people from crossing borders.It's their job to keep people from illegally crossing borders. And your conclusion is false. Most of the restrictions on immigration are not arbitrary. Immigrants have to demonstrate that they are not carrying contagious diseases or have a criminal record. How is that "arbitrary?" Bob But if you have no right to cross a border, then government officials can deny you entry for any reason they choose, or no reason at all.
No. In a Constitutional Democracy, they are limited by law.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2019 3:37:09 GMT -5
According to your argument, the law says that there is no human right to cross a border.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2019 3:39:43 GMT -5
So you don't acknowledge that there is a human right to free movement. Thanks for clearing that up. Free movement to leave a nation? Yes. That is a Human Right. In fact, it is guaranteed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
Free movement to enter another nation? No. That is like entering someone else's house without their permission.
So people have the right to flee, but they don't have anywhere they can legally find refuge. What a triumph for the humane treatment of other people!
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 28, 2019 12:15:34 GMT -5
Free movement to leave a nation? Yes. That is a Human Right. In fact, it is guaranteed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
Free movement to enter another nation? No. That is like entering someone else's house without their permission.
So people have the right to flee, but they don't have anywhere they can legally find refuge. What a triumph for the humane treatment of other people!
Don't look at me! Take it up with the United Nations. I'm sure they will give your complaint all the attention it deserves.
Nations can be totally overwhelmed by sudden mass migrations. National governments not only have the right to prevent this. They have the obligation to their present citizens.
Apparently you think that people who want to enter a nation have more rights than the people who already live there.
Hey, why don't you and your roommates take in some refugees form other countries? Do your part to alleviate the refugee crisis.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Apr 29, 2019 8:56:18 GMT -5
This one is more tangled than most. 17 US intelligence agencies found evidence that Russia interfered with the US 2016 election. Obama knew this in the summer of 2016 and did nothing about it. Bad on him. The Justice Dept, under Trump, appointed a life-long Republican (Mueller) to investigate what happened. Mueller's target was Russia, not the pres, but so many of Trump's people and family had had contacts with Russian instigators during the campaign that it soon included them. After much chaos, Mueller decided that neither Trump nor any of his people knowingly conspired with the Russians (although several were dupes and had been used by the Russians). Mueller also said that there was some evidence that Trump tried to hide the contacts of his people, but there wasn't enough evidence to charge Trump with obstruction of justice in a regular court of law, since he is a sitting president. Mueller said that it's up to Congress to decide whether to attempt to impeach Trump based on this evidence.
Since impeachment trials take place in the Senate and the Republicans control that, there would be no point in attempting an impeachment without more evidence. Congressional Democrats are continuing with other investigations, not under the control of a Republican, to see whether such evidence exists. Several non-Federal laws also seem to have been broken by Trump, his family, and his staff, and various states and cities are looking into those and what to do about them. As pres, Trump can pardon Federal crimes, but not state or city crimes. (Trump has already been dinged for running a scam university and a scam charity, which resulted in fines but no jail time. But some of his other scams may yet do him in.)
So, at this point, there's a legal battle going on between the Democratic House and the White House. These fights will likely end up in the Supreme Court, which is also ruled by Republicans. On the other hand, Trump is not very popular and the Republican Party would much rather see VP Pence running for pres in 2020, so they will stab Trump in the back if they can see a chance to do it and blame the Democrats. So will the Republican Party scrap criminal investigations into Trump et al? Maybe. And Trump also has to worry about charges against him AFTER he leaves office. Much easier to prosecute.
But the BIG question is the 2020 election, which really doesn't crank up for another year, even though many candidates, both Dem and Rep, have already declared they're running for pres. Trump is 72, obese, unhealthy, and highly stressed these days and it's possible he may not be physically capable of dealing with another 1.5 years of conflict. Plus, who knows what other "secrets" of his will come out between now and then. Polls show that if the election were held today, Trump v. Unnamed Dem, the Dem would win. The party in power gets the most bribes, so the Reps don't want to lose the pres AND the senate next year, and they will kill their own children to prevent that. No point in being a professional politician if you can't stay in office for the rest of your life.
So back to the question, can American crooks scrap investigations? Sometimes. If they have enough political power. Like I said, right now all is chaos and screaming heads. And it will only get worse in the spring of 2020. Meanwhile, China, Russia, and other foes are having a good time watching Western Democracy devour itself. 8-<
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2019 12:38:56 GMT -5
So people have the right to flee, but they don't have anywhere they can legally find refuge. What a triumph for the humane treatment of other people! Don't look at me! Take it up with the United Nations. I'm sure they will give your complaint all the attention it deserves. So, that's not your opinion? What do you think, then?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 29, 2019 13:29:49 GMT -5
Don't look at me! Take it up with the United Nations. I'm sure they will give your complaint all the attention it deserves. So, that's not your opinion? What do you think, then?
I think the U.N. has it right. People have a right to flee a country any time they want to. But they have no right to demand that any country has an obligation to let them in.
That would mean the people who already live in that country have no ownership rights at all, only obligations.
How much room do you have where you are living now? I'm sure you could fit in a homeless refugee or two. After all, isn't it your obligation to be humane to other people?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2019 2:06:48 GMT -5
So, that's not your opinion? What do you think, then? I think the U.N. has it right. People have a right to flee a country any time they want to. But they have no right to demand that any country has an obligation to let them in. Do you think it is a good thing when refugees starve to death in the Sahara, or drown at sea, because no country wants to pick them up? This is not hyperbole by the way, this is based on events that have already happened or are currently happening.
How much room do you have where you are living now? I'm sure you could fit in a homeless refugee or two. After all, isn't it your obligation to be humane to other people? Bob
That's the same argument Neonazis used during the refugee crisis. Anyone who supported the state granting asylum to Syrian refugees, they argued, must take a refugee home. They claimed that anyone argueing for a right to asylum would be a hypocrite bent on destroying Europe and European culture.
Do you agree?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 30, 2019 14:12:13 GMT -5
I think the U.N. has it right. People have a right to flee a country any time they want to. But they have no right to demand that any country has an obligation to let them in. Do you think it is a good thing when refugees starve to death in the Sahara, or drown at sea, because no country wants to pick them up? This is not hyperbole by the way, this is based on events that have already happened or are currently happening. The fact that someone else has a "need" does not automatically give them a right to anyone else's time and effort. That would turn the provider into a slave to other people's "needs." LOL! The "Guilt by Association Fallacy!" Bad people use this argument. Therefore the argument is false.
Sorry McAnswer but you are going to have to do a lot better that. Why not try a valid reason? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2019 1:19:30 GMT -5
Do you think it is a good thing when refugees starve to death in the Sahara, or drown at sea, because no country wants to pick them up? This is not hyperbole by the way, this is based on events that have already happened or are currently happening. The fact that someone else has a "need" does not automatically give them a right to anyone else's time and effort. That would turn the provider into a slave to other people's "needs." So your argument is based on the premise that it is immoral to ensure the safety and protection of others, even though you have no moral qualms when your fellow citizens are being forced to pay for your own safety and protection. Why would you feel guilt? These Neonazis made the morally correct choice, did they not?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 1, 2019 13:28:50 GMT -5
The fact that someone else has a "need" does not automatically give them a right to anyone else's time and effort. That would turn the provider into a slave to other people's "needs." So your argument is based on the premise that it is immoral to ensure the safety and protection of others, even though you have no moral qualms when your fellow citizens are being forced to pay for your own safety and protection. Where did I say that it is immoral to insure the safety and protection of others? I didn't. What I did say is that I am under no moral obligation to donate my time and effort simply because someone else has a "need." Payment for safety and protection is, by contrast, something that I do gladly. It's obviously easier and cheaper if everyone gets together and contributes to safety and protection. But I don't feel any guilt. That's the point. Your false argument is only designed to produce Guilt, not to reach a valid conclusion. That's why it's a Fallacy. Being a neo-Nazi makes a person morally evil, but it does not mean that everything they do and every conclusion they reach is wrong. Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that mean all vegetarians are Nazis just like Hitler? Those neo-Nazis you mentioned were evil. But that doesn't mean their argument here is evil, does it? If it does, then you had better start a Crusade against vegetarians. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2019 21:46:42 GMT -5
So your argument is based on the premise that it is immoral to ensure the safety and protection of others, even though you have no moral qualms when your fellow citizens are being forced to pay for your own safety and protection. Where did I say that it is immoral to insure the safety and protection of others? I didn't. What I did say is that I am under no moral obligation to donate my time and effort simply because someone else has a "need." And yet, you are fine with forcing people to donate time and effort because of your need for safety and your need to protect your property. Of course you have no problem when other people are being forced to pay for your safety and protection. Why wouldn't you, you're the main beneficiary. But if it is immoral to make people pay for other people's safety, then it is immoral to make people pay for your safety as well. So you gladly pay for police to protect other people, but you wouldn't pay to house refugees. Why not? Are the lives of foreigners of intrinsically lower moral value than those of your fellow citizens? But I don't feel any guilt. That's the point. Your false argument is only designed to produce Guilt, not to reach a valid conclusion.[/quote] Actually, I asked you a question. Do you agree that everyone who wanted the government to shelter refugees was a selfish hypocrite for not personally sheltering them?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 1, 2019 23:27:03 GMT -5
Where did I say that it is immoral to insure the safety and protection of others? I didn't. What I did say is that I am under no moral obligation to donate my time and effort simply because someone else has a "need." And yet, you are fine with forcing people to donate time and effort because of your need for safety and your need to protect your property. Only in your imagination. When did I ever make a claim like that? I never did. You made it up. Unh, McAnswer. I do pay for other people's protection. I pay taxes for that. And their taxes pay for my protection. It's a mutual thing, something like insurance. But I deny that citizens of one country are under any obligation to pay for the protection of people from any other country just as they are under no obligation to pay for mine. Do you have any good reason why they should? Those fellow citizens are also paying for my protection. People in other countries are not paying for mine. Why should I be forced to pay for theirs? Some of them, yes! Many of these are people who are very generous with other people's money. But the rest are under the spell of the false doctrine of Altruism. Why does the fact that other people have "needs" impose an obligation on everyone else to supply those needs? What is the nature of this "obligation?" Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 1:52:41 GMT -5
And yet, you are fine with forcing people to donate time and effort because of your need for safety and your need to protect your property. Only in your imagination. When did I ever make a claim like that? I never did. You made it up. So you are not fine with other people paying for security forces that protect your life and your property? What are you doing about it? So wouldn't pay for the protection of poor people who don't pay taxes? You'd rather see poor Americans killed by criminals than step up to pay for their protection? Yes. Everyone has a human right not to starve, drown, or die of exposure. Those fellow citizens are also paying for my protection. People in other countries are not paying for mine. Why should I be forced to pay for theirs? Because it is a simple fact that no human being can survive on their own, at any point in their life.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 2, 2019 13:40:30 GMT -5
Only in your imagination. When did I ever make a claim like that? I never did. You made it up. So you are not fine with other people paying for security forces that protect your life and your property? What are you doing about it? What am I doing about it? Why gladly paying my fair share, of course! Again, this is a special situation. People who cannot pay taxes for police protection have to be included. If they aren't, criminal organizations will dominate the poor and then use that base to attack the people who do pay taxes. So the poor who cannot pay for protection have to be included by those who do pay out of simple self-interest. Who gave those "rights?" God? If not God, then what is the basis for those "rights?" Those fellow citizens are also paying for my protection. People in other countries are not paying for mine. Why should I be forced to pay for theirs? Sorry but I don't see the connection here. From the fact that human beings cannot survive on their own, it does not follow that there is any obligation on the part of some people to take care of others just because they have a "need." The Free Market works just fine because people trade with each other to satisfy their own needs. And for those who want to voluntarily give there are plenty of private charitable organizations available. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2019 14:50:34 GMT -5
Hades: Why do we build the wall, my children, my children? Why do we build the wall?
Chorus: Because we have, and they have not; because they want what we have got.
The enemy is poverty, and the wall keeps out the enemy, and we built the wall to keep us free.
That’s why we build the wall: We build the wall to keep us free
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 6, 2019 17:19:06 GMT -5
Hades: Why do we build the wall, my children, my children? Why do we build the wall?
Chorus: Because we have, and they have not; because they want what we have got.
The enemy is poverty, and the wall keeps out the enemy, and we built the wall to keep us free.
That’s why we build the wall: We build the wall to keep us free
Is this supposed to demonstrate that there is some sort of obligation?
Sorry but I don't see the connection. Could you please explain further?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 22:40:11 GMT -5
Freedom is always negative: Wealth is freedom from poverty; freedom from poverty is in the absence of poor people. Keeping poor people out increases freedom. The Wall keeps us all free of poverty.
|
|