"A" (not "the") libertarian argument against immigration laws.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/stevens/stevens4.html
If we accept this argument, is there no such thing as an illegal murderer?
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 106 reads
Mr. Stevens article is flawed in a few ways. We can start with a look at what a few great minds had to say on this matter. The philosopher John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Civil Government - consent and political obligation, talked about the social contract in terms of the original compact which is the basis of our obligation to the state - our obligation to obey the laws enacted by a majority of its citizens. Lockes idea of tacit consent ,which is implied and unspoken states that by living in a state for even a short time, we may be said to have implicitly agreed to the authority of the government.
With all of this in mind, it is fairly easy to justify the term illegal immigrant. We, as citizens, have agreed to this social contract. We give up some of our ultimate freedoms and obey the laws (and pay taxes for) of the government in exchange for security from criminals, invasion, or even starvation. Illegal immigrants can be said to be living here without having agreed to this contract.
David Hume, on the other hand, believes nations are formed by force, war, or revolution. He also dismisses the idea of tacit consent because we do not always have the option to leave. But that is another story...
[duplicate comment deleted]
Explain to me again how sheeps bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
stretch it all the way, big enough to hold land plates together, and it'll resist most of the shock due to elasticity.
Coercion seems to be the central theme in this article, that
governments based on coercion are not legitimate, and
therefore simply a popular delusion, even a mass hallucination.
I say such governments are simply criminal. Unfortunately,
that seems to be the only type in existence.
If coercion hadn't been such an widespread practice in human
history heretofore, we probably wouldn't be experiencing this
annual influx of three million workers now. Selective enforcement
only exacerbates the pain of the American people. In my town,
the illegals get free medical care, hands off treatment by the
police vis a vis drivers licenses and insurance, and certainly
don't treat Americans particularly well. They have the attitude
of conquerors, but I just see them as pawns of the new slave
state of America.
They'll beg to be chipped, and those who refuse the chip will
be the new 'illegals'.
Who wouldn't?
Only religious nutjobs who think they're created by God and not evolved from apes would be so spoiled to not appreciate the convenient technology, our rights to be involved in this beautiful handout government?