14th Amendment Birthright Abuse

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
What if you invite someone in to your private property and that person decides they want to play loud music all day or night? Or what if that person chooses to spy on me with their binoculars? You may say I can then contact law enforcement, but isn’t that contradictory to minding my own business? Where does your responsibility to me end?
[/quote]

The thing about being a property owner is that one has the right (or should have the right) to evict bad tenants.

Maybe “minding one’s own business” is not the right way to put it. Rather, enabling someone else to use aggression on your behalf is what I really had in mind – institutionalized aggression. This only applies if no aggression had been committed on you. An easy example I have in mind would be “the war on drugs” – which enables law enforcement to commit aggression on drug users/dealers on the behalf of taxpayers prior to any original aggression on the drug user’s/dealer’s part. If you are the victim of a crime it would not be unacceptable to ask for assistance; however, it is wrong for you to expect non-victimized taxpayers to pay for it.

The peeping tom issue, as undesirable as it may be to be peeped on, is not a form of aggression unless one gains access to your property (see above, re: bad tenants). Keep your blinds closed.[/quote]

Peeping is a crime, an enforceable crime just like jerking off in public.

Could you explain a part of your post to me?

Are you suggesting people should enact their own punishments or that they should be billed by whatever responding agency comes to their aid after victimization of a crime?

What is your stance on your having the option to opt out of being a citizen here if the conditions are not those that are of your conviction? Or are you here to participate and vote for change and express your opinion? In which case you are voluntarily participating in the system?

62

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

uh noooo not external. Talk about reaching. Keep your hands to yourself.

Stop trying to relate how your muscles moving make it an internal event even though the subject of what might be objectionable would be the effect OF the external impact or influence[/quote]

I think you’re reaching differentiating internal vs external. And I’m not sure why it makes a difference. All actions have both internal and external components.

And I do believe that the physical baby is external to the mother. That isn’t a reach. That would mean the woman acting in a way that effects the child is an “external” consequence. The physical body of the baby is external to the body of the woman.

63

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

uh noooo not external. Talk about reaching. Keep your hands to yourself.

Stop trying to relate how your muscles moving make it an internal event even though the subject of what might be objectionable would be the effect OF the external impact or influence[/quote]

I think you’re reaching differentiating internal vs external. And I’m not sure why it makes a difference. All actions have both internal and external components.

And I do believe that the physical baby is external to the mother. That isn’t a reach. That would mean the woman acting in a way that effects the child is an “external” consequence. The physical body of the baby is external to the body of the woman.[/quote]

I’m not going to respond to this. It isn’t the topic of this thread.

I know you folks have more than enough of those threads in this forum, you don’t need me to create another one.

64

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

uh noooo not external. Talk about reaching. Keep your hands to yourself.

Stop trying to relate how your muscles moving make it an internal event even though the subject of what might be objectionable would be the effect OF the external impact or influence[/quote]

I think you’re reaching differentiating internal vs external. And I’m not sure why it makes a difference. All actions have both internal and external components.

And I do believe that the physical baby is external to the mother. That isn’t a reach. That would mean the woman acting in a way that effects the child is an “external” consequence. The physical body of the baby is external to the body of the woman.[/quote]

I’m not going to respond to this. It isn’t the topic of this thread.

I know you folks have more than enough of those threads in this forum, you don’t need me to create another one.
[/quote]

HAH! That was a response. And I enjoy de-railing PWI threads.

65

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

uh noooo not external. Talk about reaching. Keep your hands to yourself.

Stop trying to relate how your muscles moving make it an internal event even though the subject of what might be objectionable would be the effect OF the external impact or influence[/quote]

I think you’re reaching differentiating internal vs external. And I’m not sure why it makes a difference. All actions have both internal and external components.

And I do believe that the physical baby is external to the mother. That isn’t a reach. That would mean the woman acting in a way that effects the child is an “external” consequence. The physical body of the baby is external to the body of the woman.[/quote]

I’m not going to respond to this. It isn’t the topic of this thread.

I know you folks have more than enough of those threads in this forum, you don’t need me to create another one.
[/quote]

HAH! That was a response. And I enjoy de-railing PWI threads.
[/quote]

foiled you hijacker

66

but… . back to the topic

Study: Eight Percent of U.S. Births to Illegal Immigrants

Eight percent of all babies born in the U.S. in 2008 belonged to illegal immigrant parents, according to a groundbreaking analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center. Under the 14th amendment to the Constitution, each child obtained U.S. citizenship at birth while one or both of the parents remained undocumented.

The study sheds new light on a group of Americans at the center of a hot political debate in recent weeks. Some Republican lawmakers have proposed revising birthright citizenship to bar U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants from obtaining legal status.

Pew estimates 340,000 of the 4.3 million newborns in U.S. hospitals in 2008 belonged to illegal immigrant parents. In total, 4 million U.S.-born, citizen children of illegal immigrants currently live in the country, according to the study.

67

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

but… . back to the topic

Study: Eight Percent of U.S. Births to Illegal Immigrants

Eight percent of all babies born in the U.S. in 2008 belonged to illegal immigrant parents, according to a groundbreaking analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center. Under the 14th amendment to the Constitution, each child obtained U.S. citizenship at birth while one or both of the parents remained undocumented.

The study sheds new light on a group of Americans at the center of a hot political debate in recent weeks. Some Republican lawmakers have proposed revising birthright citizenship to bar U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants from obtaining legal status.

Pew estimates 340,000 of the 4.3 million newborns in U.S. hospitals in 2008 belonged to illegal immigrant parents. In total, 4 million U.S.-born, citizen children of illegal immigrants currently live in the country, according to the study.

[/quote]

holy shit.

68

So how does this get resolved? Who would have standing to bring this to the Courts for review? Can any citizen do it? I know you can sue anyone for the cost of the filing fee, but what would keep it from being kicked out?

69

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
So a woman owns her own body and has complete dominion over her body?
[/quote]

As long as it doesn’t bring harm to anyone else.[/quote]

ah so only a man always has complete dominion over his person, at least in some people’s opinions

[/quote]

As long as it doesn’t bring harm to anyone else. A child also has full dominion over their person. However, some people have a problem with that too.

I know where the argument leads to, it leads to objecting to my personal opinion that abortion is wrong. Well my view is that all people even the unborn have rights, that includes the elderly, the middle aged, the young adult, the teenagers, the children, the toddlers, the babies, and the unborn. They all can do as they please, as long as what they do with their property does not violate someone’s right to private property, either.

I also make it more complex since that is my point of view as a economist, however as a Devout Catholic, the rules I live by are more stringent. Like my view on marriage, sexual intercourse, hospitality, attendance at Church, submission to Bishops and Councils, drinking (that is always an awesome subject to talk about), following the laws, &c.

One of those things I hold as a virtue (which I try to work on myself) is temperance. Temperance as most virtues is a double edged sword. It is not, like the teetotalers claim, about alcohol. It is about consuming or enjoying material things. Ex. It is okay to drink, and is good to drink, however drinking too much to the point of being drunk is wrong. However, this comes with not judging others in situations, which you do not hold the same view. As if, I do not drink, it would not be temperamental of me to judge those that drink just because I do not drink.

70

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
So a woman owns her own body and has complete dominion over her body?
[/quote]

As long as it doesn’t bring harm to anyone else.[/quote]

ah so only a man always has complete dominion over his person, at least in some people’s opinions

[/quote]

The limit of “doing harm to others” limits everyone’s rights to do as they wish with themselves.

[/quote]

really? so what would be the scenario within your own body as a man? [/quote]

I can’t free extend my arm if someone is standing infront of me. I cannot yell the word “fire” in man situations. The physical actions of everyone are limited by that rule.[/quote]

no… not the same thing as a pregnancy. It isn’t within your own body.
[/quote]

Let’s not pretend that men and women a homogeneous. Women have a very important role in society, they bear children for their families. With position comes responsibility, and that responsibility extends to their children. Women being the only one’s that can have a human grow inside them, does not mean that the principle of private property does not extend to the baby inside of a woman. The baby still, just like everyone else, has the right to private property. And since the women has the obligation not to violate someone’s private property rights, that means no abortion.

14th Amendment > Black’s could be citizens and have the same rights as citizens > Private Property Rights > Bodily Private Property Rights > Babies are cute!!!

71

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

So how does this get resolved? Who would have standing to bring this to the Courts for review? Can any citizen do it? I know you can sue anyone for the cost of the filing fee, but what would keep it from being kicked out?
[/quote]

Well, I personally do not care about the immigrants, except for those crazy Muslims, however an effective move I would say if someone would want to get rid of these people is, well since their children are legal citizens of America, the children can stay. However the rest of them should be arrested and taken out of the country. Like Operation Wetback, that got rid of a lot of them. A good chunk actually. Another thing would be to get rid of the welfare options for these goons.

72

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

So how does this get resolved? Who would have standing to bring this to the Courts for review? Can any citizen do it? I know you can sue anyone for the cost of the filing fee, but what would keep it from being kicked out?
[/quote]

Well, I personally do not care about the immigrants, except for those crazy Muslims, however an effective move I would say if someone would want to get rid of these people is, well since their children are legal citizens of America, the children can stay. However the rest of them should be arrested and taken out of the country. Like Operation Wetback, that got rid of a lot of them. A good chunk actually. Another thing would be to get rid of the welfare options for these goons.[/quote]

Wouldn’t it be great if you had to prove citizenship to get those benefits?

To some extent I would also like them to lose or have diminished benefits if they are found guilty of a crime. (apparently I am a real had ass)

73

[quote]John S. wrote:
You must remember that a private army would be made up of many different companies. [/quote]

Why would it? A single large company has much greater economies of scale than multiple small companies. As such it can provide much greater levels of protection.

If there are a small number of large defense/army companies then each one will have the funds to purchase advanced weaponry like stealth bombers.

On the other hand if there are a large number of small defense/army companies then each one will have much lower levels of technology.

Naturally the large company could walk all over the small company. Hence there is a solid reason that rational people would invest in the larger/largest company and in turn make it even bigger. Consolidation in this case is entirely rational.

And as soon as you get a large private army…well you end up with large sections of land under the complete control of a single private army. And that in turn allows the private army to do whatever they want, including setting up their own nation.

74

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

So how does this get resolved? Who would have standing to bring this to the Courts for review? Can any citizen do it? I know you can sue anyone for the cost of the filing fee, but what would keep it from being kicked out?
[/quote]

Well, I personally do not care about the immigrants, except for those crazy Muslims, however an effective move I would say if someone would want to get rid of these people is, well since their children are legal citizens of America, the children can stay. However the rest of them should be arrested and taken out of the country. Like Operation Wetback, that got rid of a lot of them. A good chunk actually. Another thing would be to get rid of the welfare options for these goons.[/quote]

Wouldn’t it be great if you had to prove citizenship to get those benefits?

To some extent I would also like them to lose or have diminished benefits if they are found guilty of a crime. (apparently I am a real had ass)

[/quote]

Don’t worry, I advocate hanging child molesters and I’m a Catholic. You should see the utter shock on people’s faces when people confront me with that in person. However I personally advocate no government forced benefits.

75

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
You must remember that a private army would be made up of many different companies. [/quote]

Why would it? A single large company has much greater economies of scale than multiple small companies. As such it can provide much greater levels of protection.
[/quote]

You forget that at a certain point economies of scale make’s it inefficient for companies to operate competitively.

Why would there need to be steal bombers if it was a defense company.

Which would likely happen, just like every other growing market. However, it wouldn’t need to be any certain way.

[quote]
And as soon as you get a large private army…well you end up with large sections of land under the complete control of a single private army. And that in turn allows the private army to do whatever they want, including setting up their own nation.[/quote]

Good idea, except they would be under jurisdiction with the companies that hire them if they pull something like that, here comes PUNISHMENT!

76

[quote]John S. wrote:
Your body is your property, as long as it is not physically/financially harming anyone elses(oppressing their property rights) it is fine.
[/quote]

Ok how about this hypothetical: Now lets assume that a baby is born to a mother with a small amount of land and a loan on that land of more than the lands value. Now the mother dies soon after the birth of the baby. Hence the baby is at the complete mercy of whoevers private property it was born upon.

So what happens to the baby?

[quote]John S. wrote:
Everyone owns their body, hence everyone owns property.[/quote]

Yes, but owning your body alone is not enough to be free, or even to survive.

77

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You forget that at a certain point economies of scale make’s it inefficient for companies to operate competitively.
[/quote]

It does indeed. But in a practical sense companies can still grow to the point they can become a problem.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Why would there need to be steal bombers if it was a defense company.
[/quote]

Because I have a factory that is pumping out tanks to attack you. I’m an aggressive man. Ideally you need to attack and destroy my factory.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Good idea, except they would be under jurisdiction with the companies that hire them if they pull something like that, here comes PUNISHMENT![/quote]

And how would they punish them? The only people with serious firepower in the region is…well the private army.

Now sure they could certainly move. But that is also the case with the current system.

Of course in reality moving is an expensive endeavour. Hence in practice the private companies will be able to restrict freedom for people living under them.

78

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You forget that at a certain point economies of scale make’s it inefficient for companies to operate competitively.
[/quote]

It does indeed. But in a practical sense companies can still grow to the point they can become a problem.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Why would there need to be steal bombers if it was a defense company.
[/quote]

Because I have a factory that is pumping out tanks to attack you. I’m an aggressive man. Ideally you need to attack and destroy my factory.
[/quote]

A pre-emptive attacks are against libertarian principles.

The competition.

[quote]
Now sure they could certainly move. But that is also the case with the current system.

Of course in reality moving is an expensive endeavour. Hence in practice the private companies will be able to restrict freedom for people living under them.[/quote]

I think you need to go read your private-defense and private-law books again. Competition alone would prevent that.

79

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
A pre-emptive attacks are against libertarian principles.
[/quote]

Ok then I’m attacking you. I’m just continuing to pump more tanks out of my factory to continue to attack you. You need to destroy my factory.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The competition.
[/quote]

And if the incumbent allows no competition? Remember war is expensive.

Where is the economic rational for a private army to intervene?

Clearly only if the future benefits from the customers (or potential customers) are more than the cost of war + opportunity costs. However if the incumbent is even slighly competitive then the costs of defense will be significantly higher after a war.

In fact it is likely to be prohibitively expensive unless the vast majority of people within the area agree to give you a monopoly. And then once that happens they are locked into the new private army.

Hence the consumer only stands to economically lose by initiating a war.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I think you need to go read your private-defense and private-law books again. Competition alone would prevent that.[/quote]

Evidently you have read the books. So why don’t you explain how competition alone would prevent that? Why didn’t competition stop the creation of current nations?

80

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
A pre-emptive attacks are against libertarian principles.
[/quote]

Ok then I’m attacking you. I’m just continuing to pump more tanks out of my factory to continue to attack you. You need to destroy my factory.
[/quote]

Okay, then you are being an aggressor and justification in stopping you is there.

And if the incumbent allows no competition? Remember war is expensive.
[/quote]

If this is anarchy, how would there be an incumbent to not allow competition?

Intervene where?

I think you need to read up on some theories on private-defense. Because the direct customers (as it is now) of private defense firms (besides government) is insurance companies. And if someone’s property was being threatened, the firms would be called in, either a lesser level like cops or, on a higher level like the armies and platoons.

Where is your logic sir, why would it be prohibitively expensive? I’ve talked to my cousin who is sitting on an oil line for the next 4.5 months. Guess what? That 500 mile line has two different private defense firms on a pipeline that spans 500 miles by 20 feet wide at the widest.

War will always end up in an economic lose, what is your point?

[quote]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I think you need to go read your private-defense and private-law books again. Competition alone would prevent that.[/quote]

Evidently you have read the books. So why don’t you explain how competition alone would prevent that? Why didn’t competition stop the creation of current nations?[/quote]

Monarchs and lack of knowledge.