Over the past week, we have had an ongoing discussion on the issue of borders and, personally, I would like to move on. However, it will not do to leave the issue without posting a note regarding the singular rebuttal that has been repeatedly offered. We have made it clear that the moderators on this page are opposed to open borders. And, while we have presented hard evidence ranging from the increased risk of contagious disease and violent crime, to the economic impact of open borders in support of our position, we have had only one argument presented as a rebuttal. That being, “You have no right or claim to dictate to people where they can or cannot reside, absent ownership of a particular place.” For those of you, who hold this position; let me say the following. This is the conclusion of an argument, but it is lacking premises that support it. Particularly, what do you mean by “right?” Where do the rights of people to live wherever they choose come from? What is the evidence supporting their existence? How do you know that I have no right to have borders with laws governing their crossing? In addition, as a logical extension to the idea of property rights and ownership, there are some necessary questions regarding public property. These ideas regarding rights have their origin in natural law. If natural law is your ideology and the source of your idea that people have a right to live wherever they choose, then not only do you have an obligation to support your conclusions on borders, you are going to have to show how your argument is consistent within the framework of your own ideology. Specifically, the foundational premises of natural law are as follows, “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” ~ John Locke – Second Treatise of Government Every philosopher who followed Locke and who has ascribed to the ideology of natural law, from Frederick Bastiat to Murray Rothbard, has built on these foundational principles. Further, the argument providing for the rights of a collective within this framework, have long been accepted as an extension of the right to liberty. As Bastiat stated, “If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly…And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute.” – The Law Based on these rights of a collective, which is a necessary extension of the right to individual liberty, there are questions that people supporting open borders based on these principles must answer. Specifically, if I have the right to life, may you use your liberty to carry a deadly disease into my proximity thereby placing my health and life at risk against my will? If I have the right to liberty, may you use your liberty to force me to integrate into my nation people with whom I do not wish to associate? Finally, if I have the right to property, may you use your liberty to invite any would-be criminal to live in my nation, thereby putting my property at risk of theft or damage against my will? The answer ought to be obvious. While you may argue that stepping out my front door is a risk I take every day, this does not support your idea that you somehow have a right to elevate my risk of contracting a deadly disease against my will. And that is what you do when you invite disease-infected immigrants into my nation. While it goes without saying within the framework of this ideology that you have the right to associate with whomever you choose, and place your own life and property at risk as you will, it is neccessarilly true that your liberty ends where mine begins. This is a built-in stipulation. For that reason, the freedom of exit is a natural extension of this ideology. You can certainly argue that you have the right to associate with whomever you choose and you have the liberty to leave any time you wish. Nevertheless, your position in support of open borders, based on the notion of rights, is inconsistent with the framework of your own ideology. It is a contradiction. If I have the right to live, it follows that you may not use your liberty to kill me or to bring into my proximity a deadly contagious disease that places my life at risk. If I have the right to liberty, it follows that I may choose to not associate with whomever I choose to not associate. If I have the right to property, then it follows that I have the right of exclusive access to my property. Finally, if it is true that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly, then all these rights (including the right of exclusion) extend to the entire group. Further, this collective right of common defense is an essential element of natural law due to the nature of public property. There are numerous things, including roads, bridges, waterways, ports of trade, etc…that are not considered private property because they are utilized by everyone. Traditionally, these have been the collective property of all, placed in the public trust, and governed by the rule of law enforced by the governing body of the people. While the current state of affairs is such that the existing state has vastly over-reached its authority and has become a tyrannical government; as a “thing” in and of itself, this arrangement concerning public property has proven to be effective and functional. However, as the current state of affairs demonstrates, civil law that is based on the ideology of natural law is only functional within a society where the population is in agreement with it. A nation is a group of people united around common principles, beliefs, religion, culture, and/or ethnicity and race. That is why the act of unmitigated mass migration, which necessarily involves a clash of cultures, has historically led to the complete destruction of several civilizations. This is an indisputable historical fact, as any credible historian will be happy to inform you. Further, mass migration occurs for a variety of reasons so it is not a sound argument to suggest that changing one thing (such as eliminating the welfare state) will limit the migrations of people. It is another reality of the world in which we live that the western notions of rights stemming from our political and legal ethics, and informed by our theological beliefs, are not shared by the entire world. The idea of invasion for the sole purpose of conquest does not offend the sensibilities of the vast majority of the world’s population. Further, these ideas of rights are rooted in Christian ethics and western traditions. They are only as good as the people who believe in them. Nevertheless, law of some sort is a necessary foundation for a healthy and functional society. Human beings interact. Because of this, and because our interactions have a direct effect on those with whom we interact and an indirect effect on others with whom we do not directly interact, it is necessary that we have laws governing our interaction. If every man was an atomized island completely cut off from all other human beings and it was impossible for any of his actions to have an effect on others, law and questions of ethics would not be an issue. However, this is not the nature of reality. Our actions have consequences effecting the lives of other human beings. Therefore, law is an essential component of civilization. If natural law is your preference as a foundation for the civil law of the nation, it follows that your nation will have to be inclusive of only others who share your belief in this ideology. As we have repeatedly demonstrated on this page this week, an open border policy guarantees that the lives, liberty, and property of the people within a nation will be violated. It follows that an open border policy is itself a rights violation within the framework of natural law. Therefore, if you ascribe to the ideology of natural law, and support an open borders policy, you contradict yourself and violate the necessary limits of natural law, which stipulate that your rights end where the rights of another begin. If you are one of these supporters of natural law and an open borders policy, these are the challenges to your assertions. Unless and until you can answer them, all you have is your completely unsupported opinion. Samantha PS. There have been several theories presented in support of the private ownership of what is currently deemed public property (such as roads, bridges, etc…) and I am fully aware of them. However, I want to point out that public vs. private property is only one aspect of the above challenges, and not the most important. These challenges must be taken as a whole. For that reason, it would be pointless to make the issue of private ownership of what is currently public property the focus of a rebuttal unless the rest of these issues are also addressed.
Posted on: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 00:51:10 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015