[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If this is anarchy, how would there be an incumbent to not allow competition?
[/quote]
By initially being much better than the competition and rising to become the incumbent.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
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.
[/quote]
And what stops and insurance company and a private-defense company acting in cahoots?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
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.
[/quote]
And how much is he paying them? It will be a bucketload. But of course its oil so he will be able to pay it.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Monarchs and lack of knowledge.[/quote]
Monarchs? How did Monarchs remove competition?
Do you think we currently have enough knowledge to make it work?
I wonder if any other country has the problem of “birth tourism”?[/quote]
HK and Singapore have fairly draconian laws to prevent this. People are willing to do a bunch of crazy shit in SE Asia to get to places where they can find work. It really made me wish America allowed more legal immigration, because people genuinely want to work hard to provide a better life for their children, and the shitty governments they usually have don’t allow for too much of that.
But yeah, it wouldn’t require an amendment, simply a court decision that ecapsulates what the writers of the 14th amendment actually intended.
[quote] George Will writes:
A parent from a poor country, writes professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, “can hardly do more for a child than make him or her an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state.” Therefore, “It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry.”
Writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, Graglia says this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” What was this intended or understood to mean by those who wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868? The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration.
If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration – and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration – is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not. [/quote]
I wonder if any other country has the problem of “birth tourism”?[/quote]
I’m not sure if this is addressed later in the thread, but Singapore has specific policies to avoid this, and they’re fairly draconian about it. [/quote]
I am unaware of Singapore’s policies.
It does seem as if most countries policies in regards to immigrant birth are pretty strict.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If this is anarchy, how would there be an incumbent to not allow competition?
[/quote]
By initially being much better than the competition and rising to become the incumbent.
[/quote]
Well with education, no one would pay attention to you, so there ya go. I can play what if all day baby, this is my world.
And what stops and insurance company and a private-defense company acting in cahoots?
[/quote]
Competition and regulatory bodies.
And how much is he paying them? It will be a bucketload. But of course its oil so he will be able to pay it.
[/quote]
I’m not sure how much he’s paying them, but they have attacks everyday from he tells me. I do know what my friend makes though, not what his company makes.
[quote]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Monarchs and lack of knowledge.[/quote]
Monarchs? How did Monarchs remove competition?[/quote]
How did Monarch remove competition, the same way legislation removes competition.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Well with education, no one would pay attention to you, so there ya go. I can play what if all day baby, this is my world.
[/quote]
So your system only works when everyone (or the majority) is highly educated and rational.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Competition and regulatory bodies.
[/quote]
Regulatory bodies don’t seem to do a good job at the moment. Nor does competition because working tightly together can minimize costs.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
How did Monarch remove competition, the same way legislation removes competition.
[/quote]
I don’t understand. So if regulation can remove competition and so can powerful individuals what stops:
A) Corporate bodies from implementing regulation?
B) Powerful people from removing competition?
As far as I can see it only works when everyone is motivated, educated, and rational. I.e. Not in the real world.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
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?
[/quote]
Insurance. Under a free market of justice insurance would fill the gap. One either could be covered under their own policy or their employer’s/landlord’s policy. All property owners should have insurance, anyway.
I believe in the concept of nullification. No one should be forced to be part of an association they do not want to.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
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?
[/quote]
Insurance. Under a free market of justice insurance would fill the gap. One either could be covered under their own policy or their employer’s/landlord’s policy. All property owners should have insurance, anyway.
I believe in the concept of nullification. No one should be forced to be part of an association they do not want to.[/quote]
I agree with this, but in reality is not as straightforward as it would seem, some would argue if you want to pay taxes, don’t work, don’t buy, that by living here and doing thses actions you are voluntarily agreeing to those tennants.
Sorry OG, for hijacking your thread, what do you think about anchor babies?
P.S. Phaethon, start up a thread about private defense, and regulations if you want to discuss this. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is just going to make it so I am posting a wall of text and that is unfair to OG and her thread.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
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?
[/quote]
Insurance. Under a free market of justice insurance would fill the gap. One either could be covered under their own policy or their employer’s/landlord’s policy. All property owners should have insurance, anyway.
I believe in the concept of nullification. No one should be forced to be part of an association they do not want to.[/quote]
I agree with this, but in reality is not as straightforward as it would seem, some would argue if you want to pay taxes, don’t work, don’t buy, that by living here and doing thses actions you are voluntarily agreeing to those tennants.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
some would argue if you want to pay taxes, don’t work, don’t buy, that by living here and doing thses actions you are voluntarily agreeing to those tennants.
[/quote]
They would be wrong.
How can I be said to be voluntarily agreeing to something that is coerced upon me?
Furthermore, why should I have to run away to be free? That is a contradiction.
I don’t want to pay taxes but they are needed to run the government, I may not like how my taxes are spent but I I do use the services and roads they provide.
[/quote]
Why do you need the government to provide these services?[/quote]
I don’t know if I would trust a private army or a private sector to negotiate treaties and tariffs.
As for roads, I don’t know the cost of a road.
In San Diego we used to out source our data processing but then found that it was cheaper to create a department that handles the data. That saves my tax money.
[/quote]
The US already uses private contractors as an army and to provide a huge number of services and has been doing that for a while. Blackwater, Haliburton, Dyncorp, etc.
Blackwater even employ foreign nationals and use them as front line troops in US wars.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
This was not the purpose of the 14th Amendment.
[/quote]
Ok, so here is another perspective. I had couple of friends a few years back who were terrorists – at least officially.
See the issue was that when Castro took over, he implemented policies in the country-side that were extremely unpopular. My friend Manuel and his wife Maria ended up opposing him and were labelled terrorists. Manuel was thrown in jail but she was not because she was pregnant. Fast forward a couple of months and Castro offers to release them as a part of a “humanitarian effort” for his 10th anniversary, which means they get a one way ticket to Miami – take it now and go or stay in prison. (Castro deported his problems to the US rather than simply executing them.) They hadn’t been in the US but a week when their first son was born. Their legal status was initially unclear, but since they were now the proud parents of a US citizen, they were permitted to stay, which they did and settled here. Both of them to this day are very, very thankful for this law.
I’d say this is a pretty good use of the 14th amendment, wouldn’t you? What’s more, I lived in Europe many years and an awful lot of their social problems with Turks, Algerians and others is because it is almost impossible to get citizenship there. As a result, everyone claims to be a refugee which does not make them citizens, but puts them in another category which effectively precludes integration (so in Germany, e.g., you can be a 2nd or 3rd generation Turk and still not be a citizen). Those riots in France a couple of years back were by the kids and grandkids of Algerians who fled to France and got shoved in ghettos.
Now I don’t have the answer for the same reason I don’t have an answer about things like abortion: every case is different. Are there potentially outlandish abuses? Sure. But having the extreme drive the mean is a bad idea.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
This was not the purpose of the 14th Amendment.
[/quote]
Ok, so here is another perspective. I had couple of friends a few years back who were terrorists – at least officially.
See the issue was that when Castro took over, he implemented policies in the country-side that were extremely unpopular. My friend Manuel and his wife Maria ended up opposing him and were labelled terrorists. Manuel was thrown in jail but she was not because she was pregnant. Fast forward a couple of months and Castro offers to release them as a part of a “humanitarian effort” for his 10th anniversary, which means they get a one way ticket to Miami – take it now and go or stay in prison. (Castro deported his problems to the US rather than simply executing them.) They hadn’t been in the US but a week when their first son was born. Their legal status was initially unclear, but since they were now the proud parents of a US citizen, they were permitted to stay, which they did and settled here. Both of them to this day are very, very thankful for this law.
I’d say this is a pretty good use of the 14th amendment, wouldn’t you? What’s more, I lived in Europe many years and an awful lot of their social problems with Turks, Algerians and others is because it is almost impossible to get citizenship there. As a result, everyone claims to be a refugee which does not make them citizens, but puts them in another category which effectively precludes integration (so in Germany, e.g., you can be a 2nd or 3rd generation Turk and still not be a citizen). Those riots in France a couple of years back were by the kids and grandkids of Algerians who fled to France and got shoved in ghettos.
Now I don’t have the answer for the same reason I don’t have an answer about things like abortion: every case is different. Are there potentially outlandish abuses? Sure. But having the extreme drive the mean is a bad idea.
And as always, I might just be full of shit…
– jj [/quote]
No, it is not. 14th Amendment was created so black people living here or were forced over here would be considered citizens and treated like ones. Not so that people could leach onto the system. Although most Cubans are very entrepreneurial.
[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.[/quote]
Private institutes such as churches or who knows what else would spring up would take care of the baby, in the free market a demand will create a supply. If you are worried about the baby(and I would be too) you would give money to a group to take care of them.
Do you really think we need a government to take care of this?
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
some would argue if you want to pay taxes, don’t work, don’t buy, that by living here and doing thses actions you are voluntarily agreeing to those tennants.
[/quote]
They would be wrong.
How can I be said to be voluntarily agreeing to something that is coerced upon me?
Furthermore, why should I have to run away to be free? That is a contradiction.[/quote]
Never said I agreed did I.
But all our actions are technically coerced by something whether internal or external.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
some would argue if you want to pay taxes, don’t work, don’t buy, that by living here and doing thses actions you are voluntarily agreeing to those tennants.
[/quote]
They would be wrong.
How can I be said to be voluntarily agreeing to something that is coerced upon me?
Furthermore, why should I have to run away to be free? That is a contradiction.[/quote]
Never said I agreed did I.
But all our actions are technically coerced by something whether internal or external.
[/quote]
That is a perversion of the meaning of the word coercion.
Coercion is the use of force or the threat to use force to bring about compliance.