4 ms·

Simplify the interpretation. One has the right to leave their own abode, house, etc. at any time, for any reason. One does not have the right to enter anoth

Simplify the interpretation. One has the right to leave their own abode, house, etc. at any time, for any reason. One does not have the right to enter another’s house without an explicit invite. The other’s house is maintained and paid for by that individual. Immigration is no different. One may leave their own country. Whether any other country will allow their entry is another question. The US and Western Europe are violating the rights of their own citizens by allowing mass immigration. It ends as it always has with the destruction of the host country. And sadly for many, that is exactly the goal.

Avtomatk 5y ago
Have the right to leave, but not the right to enter? It is the same as not having the right to leave if you cannot enter any place. The analogy of the house does not fit very well (countries do not invite foreigners, they simply accept or reject their entry), it seems to me better to take it as a "party", at a party you are going to accept well-behaved guests and you are going to to turn away guests who misbehave. The guest will pay the same taxes as the citizens, so the house is also paid by him. Again, I did not find any arguments from the philosophy behind the current migration system
- Blackstrat 5y ago
  Agreed, the analogy isn’t perfect but sufficient. I suppose one could extend Nozick’s arguments as justification for the current immigration system. Though I think doing so is a misreading, i.e., his position on the minimum state to protect the rights of individuals and that individuals should be to able to transact with anyone isn’t, at least in my view, a justification for mass immigration. Mass immigration is a collective action by governments not a transaction between individuals. Thus the government is larger than necessary and explicitly violating the rights of individual citizens.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    >>Mass immigration is a collective action by governments not a transaction between individuals. Thus the government is larger than necessary and explicitly violating the rights of individual citizens. This isn't good reasoning. Each immigrant still has own motives and his own thoughts. A large number doesn't render these individual immigrants as a part of collective formless blob or a de facto invading army. Consider that not all immigrants leave their home countries because of their governments. Many leave because of religious/cultural persecution from one's local community (e.g. homosexuals) or unacknowledged rights (e.g. abortion) in an otherwise secular and ostensibly stable country. I think you're misreading Nozick. Nozick would suggest open borders, extenuating circumstances notwithstanding. The argument for closed borders would imply that any authority over a country's or state's territorial holdings would belong to the nation's government rather than its people.
    - Blackstrat 5y ago
      You’re looking at the situation from the immigrants perspective. Who is the individual in the host country initiating the transaction. Nozick, to my knowledge, never explicitly addresses the immigration issue in his writings. Most, such as yourself, would interpret him as pro-open borders, as most libertarian philosophers are. I would suggest that creates an unreconcilable conflict within libertarian philosophy.
melenaboija 5y ago
Where does the European invasion of America go in your analogy with homes?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- neckardt 5y ago
  I assume you are asking about this line: > The US and Western Europe are violating the rights of their own citizens by allowing mass immigration. I don't think GP was talking about Europeans invading America. Instead I think he was talking about two examples of immigration crises: 1. Immigrants crossing the US's southern border arriving in the United States 2. Immigrants from Eastern Europe arriving into Western Europe. I believe GP is implying that immigrants don't pay their fair share for the house.
- Georgelemental 5y ago
  Yeah, that invasion was pretty terrible for the native Americans. So the wise choice is to avoid repeating that history
JoeAltmaier 5y ago
Hyperbole? What is being 'destroyed' by immigration? Sounds like sewing FUD.

Avtomatk 5y ago

Have the right to leave, but not the right to enter? It is the same as not having the right to leave if you cannot enter any place. The analogy of the house does not fit very well (countries do not invite foreigners, they simply accept or reject their entry), it seems to me better to take it as a "party", at a party you are going to accept well-behaved guests and you are going to to turn away guests who misbehave. The guest will pay the same taxes as the citizens, so the house is also paid by him. Again, I did not find any arguments from the philosophy behind the current migration system

Blackstrat 5y ago
Agreed, the analogy isn’t perfect but sufficient. I suppose one could extend Nozick’s arguments as justification for the current immigration system. Though I think doing so is a misreading, i.e., his position on the minimum state to protect the rights of individuals and that individuals should be to able to transact with anyone isn’t, at least in my view, a justification for mass immigration. Mass immigration is a collective action by governments not a transaction between individuals. Thus the government is larger than necessary and explicitly violating the rights of individual citizens.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  >>Mass immigration is a collective action by governments not a transaction between individuals. Thus the government is larger than necessary and explicitly violating the rights of individual citizens. This isn't good reasoning. Each immigrant still has own motives and his own thoughts. A large number doesn't render these individual immigrants as a part of collective formless blob or a de facto invading army. Consider that not all immigrants leave their home countries because of their governments. Many leave because of religious/cultural persecution from one's local community (e.g. homosexuals) or unacknowledged rights (e.g. abortion) in an otherwise secular and ostensibly stable country. I think you're misreading Nozick. Nozick would suggest open borders, extenuating circumstances notwithstanding. The argument for closed borders would imply that any authority over a country's or state's territorial holdings would belong to the nation's government rather than its people.
  - Blackstrat 5y ago
    You’re looking at the situation from the immigrants perspective. Who is the individual in the host country initiating the transaction. Nozick, to my knowledge, never explicitly addresses the immigration issue in his writings. Most, such as yourself, would interpret him as pro-open borders, as most libertarian philosophers are. I would suggest that creates an unreconcilable conflict within libertarian philosophy.

melenaboija 5y ago

Where does the European invasion of America go in your analogy with homes?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
neckardt 5y ago
I assume you are asking about this line: > The US and Western Europe are violating the rights of their own citizens by allowing mass immigration. I don't think GP was talking about Europeans invading America. Instead I think he was talking about two examples of immigration crises: 1. Immigrants crossing the US's southern border arriving in the United States 2. Immigrants from Eastern Europe arriving into Western Europe. I believe GP is implying that immigrants don't pay their fair share for the house.
Georgelemental 5y ago
Yeah, that invasion was pretty terrible for the native Americans. So the wise choice is to avoid repeating that history

JoeAltmaier 5y ago

Hyperbole? What is being 'destroyed' by immigration? Sounds like sewing FUD.