Thoughts? Anyone else think non-citizens should be able to file a lawsuit in the above matter. Frankly I don’t see how they walk into this courtroom everyday and are not arrested and turned over to ICE.
I guess they don’t feel lucky enough to just be here and still be alive. This sets a terrible precedent even allowing this to go to trial.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
Thoughts? Anyone else think non-citizens should be able to file a lawsuit in the above matter. Frankly I don’t see how they walk into this courtroom everyday and are not arrested and turned over to ICE.
I guess they don’t feel lucky enough to just be here and still be alive. This sets a terrible precedent even allowing this to go to trial.
[/quote]
He probably would have been better off shooting them.
I thought this was America!
As I recall he was criminally prosecuted for capturing these criminals, we have two different trains of thought here in AZ. I feel he was doing the Border patrol a service , I think the Border Patrol would have every cowboy with a gun down there if they did not do something about it . I hope criminals do not win
In general anyone should be able to sue anyone no matter where they happen to be from. I know if I were traveling in an other country I would expect the same rights.
Whether this case will result in a favorable decision for the boarder crossers is doubtful. They were apprehended while tresspassing on someone’s property so they can hardly feel wronged.
In general, I am against the idea of stopping people from crossing boarders. In fact, without the notion national boarders immigration would be handled as a property issue. No one would be able to cross property lines without permission from the owners. No one could be anywhere without permission from anyone if where they happened to be was not their own property.
Also, these boarder patrol agents are just plain cocksuckers that serve no purpose.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
In general anyone should be able to sue anyone no matter where they happen to be from. I know if I were traveling in an other country I would expect the same rights.
Whether this case will result in a favorable decision for the boarder crossers is doubtful. They were apprehended while tresspassing on someone’s property so they can hardly feel wronged.
In general, I am against the idea of stopping people from crossing boarders. In fact, without the notion national boarders immigration would be handled as a property issue. No one would be able to cross property lines without permission from the owners. No one could be anywhere without permission from anyone if where they happened to be was not their own property.
Also, these boarder patrol agents are just plain cocksuckers that serve no purpose.[/quote]
Would you travel to another country illegally?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Would you travel to another country illegally?[/quote]
You mean by risking my life to do so…? Probably not under the current circumstances but I do not know what the future may hold in store for me. There may come a time when I need to flee somewhere else with my family. I only hope no one will try to stop me from protecting my family and attempt to shoot my while I am doing it.
In general, I reject the idea of asking permission of government to move. Government has no rights. Though, I would not trespass on someone else’s property either.
In times long forgotten travelers used to have much more freedom to move. In fact, property owners would not become so indignant when people attempted to cross their property lines. They might have stopped travelers and asked them their business as any prudent person might do but it was always assumed that “right-of-way” would be upheld under common law. After all, there were no notions of property easement until government came in and stole land for “public use” from property owners.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Would you travel to another country illegally?
You mean by risking my life to do so…? Probably not under the current circumstances but I do not know what the future may hold in store for me. There may come a time when I need to flee somewhere else with my family. I only hope no one will try to stop me from protecting my family and attempt to shoot my while I am doing it.
In general, I reject the idea of asking permission of government to move. Government has no rights. Though, I would not trespass on someone else’s property either.
In times long forgotten travelers used to have much more freedom to move. In fact, property owners would not become so indignant when people attempted to cross their property lines. They might have stopped travelers and asked them their business as any prudent person might do but it was always assumed that “right-of-way” would be upheld under common law. After all, there were no notions of property easement until government came in and stole land for “public use” from property owners.[/quote]
The article said he claimed He’d been having his house broken into and his property destroyed.
Also private ownership of property is only facilitated by a governmental authority. Otherwise it’s only yours until some bigger and strong takes it from you.
Ownership is a legal state, the concept is completely erroneous without an authority.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Would you travel to another country illegally?
You mean by risking my life to do so…? Probably not under the current circumstances but I do not know what the future may hold in store for me. There may come a time when I need to flee somewhere else with my family. I only hope no one will try to stop me from protecting my family and attempt to shoot my while I am doing it.
In general, I reject the idea of asking permission of government to move. Government has no rights. Though, I would not trespass on someone else’s property either.
In times long forgotten travelers used to have much more freedom to move. In fact, property owners would not become so indignant when people attempted to cross their property lines. They might have stopped travelers and asked them their business as any prudent person might do but it was always assumed that “right-of-way” would be upheld under common law. After all, there were no notions of property easement until government came in and stole land for “public use” from property owners.
The article said he claimed He’d been having his house broken into and his property destroyed.
Also private ownership of property is only facilitated by a governmental authority. Otherwise it’s only yours until some bigger and strong takes it from you.
Ownership is a legal state, the concept is completely erroneous without an authority.[/quote]
Let me save you some time and aggravation.
Don’t waste your time trying to apply logic with that guy. Somehow he got this absurd anarchist bent that there is no reasoning with. As much as I generally believe in a supremely limited government, there is only so much you can break it down until we descend back into tooth-and-claw cave dwellers. The notion that man would somehow be productive and peaceful if there were a complete lack of governmental structure is nothing but fantasy.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Would you travel to another country illegally?
You mean by risking my life to do so…? Probably not under the current circumstances but I do not know what the future may hold in store for me. There may come a time when I need to flee somewhere else with my family. I only hope no one will try to stop me from protecting my family and attempt to shoot my while I am doing it.
In general, I reject the idea of asking permission of government to move. Government has no rights. Though, I would not trespass on someone else’s property either.
In times long forgotten travelers used to have much more freedom to move. In fact, property owners would not become so indignant when people attempted to cross their property lines. They might have stopped travelers and asked them their business as any prudent person might do but it was always assumed that “right-of-way” would be upheld under common law. After all, there were no notions of property easement until government came in and stole land for “public use” from property owners.
The article said he claimed He’d been having his house broken into and his property destroyed.
Also private ownership of property is only facilitated by a governmental authority. Otherwise it’s only yours until some bigger and strong takes it from you.
Ownership is a legal state, the concept is completely erroneous without an authority.
Let me save you some time and aggravation.
Don’t waste your time trying to apply logic with that guy. Somehow he got this absurd anarchist bent that there is no reasoning with. As much as I generally believe in a supremely limited government, there is only so much you can break it down until we descend back into tooth-and-claw cave dwellers. The notion that man would somehow be productive and peaceful if there were a complete lack of governmental structure is nothing but fantasy. [/quote]
There’s no evidence from any point in history of anarchy being productive. Usually, brief periods of anarchy come after the collapse of one government or another. Then, the vacuum of power is filled by a strong man or whoever else can suppress the criminals.
South Africa and Zimbabwe are in states of anarchy, more or less. You have a 90% chance of getting away with murder in SA. What a garden spot! How about Somalia? Lots of anarchy there with all of the Islamists, pirates, and warring clans vying for control. Any takers for a vacation to Somalia?
If there were ever ‘anarchy’ in the US, all of the ex-military guys would quickly establish their own areas of control, much like the retired soldiers living on the edge of the Roman empire as it collapsed established their own feudal states.
Crim-aliens should not have any rights - excpet to back to where they came from. If they would like to come here legally, I am sure many of us would welcome them to their new land (once they got a job and contributed to society of course.)
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The article said he claimed He’d been having his house broken into and his property destroyed.[/quote]
In which case I would agree the trespassers are in the wrong.
[quote]
Also private ownership of property is only facilitated by a governmental authority. Otherwise it’s only yours until some bigger and strong takes it from you.
Ownership is a legal state, the concept is completely erroneous without an authority.[/quote]
This notion cannot be more incorrect. Property rights came long before the nation state. Similarly, I do not need govenment to tell me my income is mine. It is mine because I voluntarily contract with an employer who provides me a predetermined wage. Government has nothing to do with this rightful contract.
Indeed though, you are unintentionally correct when you say someone bigger can come along and take what it wants. Our government does just that and they use democracy (mob rule) as the ultimate ideal of ethics to justify it. Other governments have made similar asinine ethical arguments for the same purpose – e.g., Lenin and Hitler, etc.
The State is an agency that exercises a monopoly of ultimate arbitration in cases of conflict involving itself; it is never in the wrong, by definition. Even more insulting is the idea that it must steal from me in order to grant me this “privilege of justice”.
You use the “might makes right” argument to justify government authority. If this were the case then civil society would not exist. There would never have been a large segment of society that recognized the idea of property rights. We would be living in a complete slave state and not the USA if this were the case.
Be ready to embrace the anti-USA, bizzarro world where government is good and just and individualism is immoral…here it comes.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
In general anyone should be able to sue anyone no matter where they happen to be from. I know if I were traveling in an other country I would expect the same rights.[/quote]
I guess I missed the part of the article where it mentioned they were tourists.
I did see the part of the article where it mentioned the landowner acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998. When you live in a major “tourist” entry point, protecting your property is a full time job. I wonder if a few well placed “no trespassing” signs would work.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
The article said he claimed He’d been having his house broken into and his property destroyed.
In which case I would agree the trespassers are in the wrong.
Also private ownership of property is only facilitated by a governmental authority. Otherwise it’s only yours until some bigger and strong takes it from you.
Ownership is a legal state, the concept is completely erroneous without an authority.
This notion cannot be more incorrect. Property rights came long before the nation state. Similarly, I do not need govenment to tell me my income is mine. It is mine because I voluntarily contract with an employer who provides me a predetermined wage. Government has nothing to do with this rightful contract.
Indeed though, you are unintentionally correct when you say someone bigger can come along and take what it wants. Our government does just that and they use democracy (mob rule) as the ultimate ideal of ethics to justify it. Other governments have made similar asinine ethical arguments for the same purpose – e.g., Lenin and Hitler, etc.
The State is an agency that exercises a monopoly of ultimate arbitration in cases of conflict involving itself; it is never in the wrong, by definition. Even more insulting is the idea that it must steal from me in order to grant me this “privilege of justice”.
You use the “might makes right” argument to justify government authority. If this were the case then civil society would not exist. There would never have been a large segment of society that recognized the idea of property rights. We would be living in a complete slave state and not the USA if this were the case.
Be ready to embrace the anti-USA, bizzarro world where government is good and just and individualism is immoral…here it comes.[/quote]
First, I never argued that it was right, or that “might makes right” only that a contract has to be enforceable by an authoritative 3rd party. Otherwise, it isn’t a contract. You could have a promise between you and your employer, but there are not enforceable consequences of breaking a promise.
Contracts are LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE promises. A third party organization of some sort is required to enable a contract.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
There’s no evidence from any point in history of anarchy being productive.
[/quote]
Your notions are completely illogical.
What you mean to say is that you have not bothered researching the history of anarchy for any proof because it would crush your world view.
On the contrary, it is government that stops productive citizens from being productive. What could be less productive than wars caused by government? In the history of civilization no one has gone to war in the name of “anarchy”. The same cannot be said for government. What is even funnier is that your government would trick you into believing its causes are your own and you would willingly die for them.
That is the joke of a lifetime.
Let us also not talk about every single technological innovation in the history of mankind that was made possible by productive, anarchic cooperation. Everyone’s lives has been made better by these things.
What does government bring to the table? atomic bombs and mars/moon landings? Nothing that betters the individual’s life.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
There’s no evidence from any point in history of anarchy being productive.
Your notions are completely illogical.
What you mean to say is that you have not bothered researching the history of anarchy for any proof because it would crush your world view.
On the contrary, it is government that stops productive citizens from being productive. What could be less productive than wars caused by government? In the history of civilization no one has gone to war in the name of “anarchy”. The same cannot be said for government. What is even funnier is that your government would trick you into believing its causes are your own and you would willingly die for them.
That is the joke of a lifetime.
Let us also not talk about every single technological innovation in the history of mankind that was made possible by productive, anarchic cooperation. Everyone’s lives has been made better by these things.
What does government bring to the table? atomic bombs and mars/moon landings? Nothing that betters the individual’s life.[/quote]
What inventions are you talking about specifically? (just curious)
The government (or contractors) have provided means for many technological improvements.
You ridicule the space program and probably wear Velcro shoes. Sorry, I know that was a bit of a low blow, but I couldn’t help myself.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
First, I never argued that it was right, or that “might makes right” only that a contract has to be enforceable by an authoritative 3rd party…[/quote]
You implied “might makes right” by saying government needs to exist to protect weaker people. And I offer a counter-argument that if this were the case then society would not exist as we know it.[quote]
Otherwise, it isn’t a contract. You could have a promise between you and your employer, but there are not enforceable consequences of breaking a promise.
Contracts are LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE promises. A third party organization of some sort is required to enable a contract.[/quote]
Strictly speaking, contracts do not have to be in writing. Anytime you make an agreement with someone it is a contract.
A good firm handshake can seal the deal in some instances.
Keeping a promise is still a voluntary arrangement that cannot be enforces because people have the right to change their mind.
I agree however, that there needs to be a 3rd party means to enforce contract.
I think they should be able to file a law suite but would hope that they will lose.
If this guy used more than minimum force and hurt someone then he was in the wrong but using reasonable force to protect his property and notifying the authorities of people breaking the law seems like his civic duty not a criminal act.
Hopefully common sense will prevail but I wouldn’t put any money on it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What inventions are you talking about specifically? (just curious)[/quote]
All of them, but to name a few:
the controlled use of fire; the wheel; the smelting of iron, bronze, and steel; the printing press; the engine and motor; the wing; the transistor; the computer; the integrated circuit chip; the interwebz…do I need to keep going?
[quote]
You ridicule the space program and probably wear Velcro shoes. Sorry, I know that was a bit of a low blow, but I couldn’t help myself.[/quote]
But you have no way of knowing or even proving that these “innovations” would not have come about on their own with out government interference.
All you can say with any certainty is that government did interfere and as a result we have them. What could we have had instead? We cannot say.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
There’s no evidence from any point in history of anarchy being productive.
Your notions are completely illogical.
What you mean to say is that you have not bothered researching the history of anarchy for any proof because it would crush your world view.
On the contrary, it is government that stops productive citizens from being productive. What could be less productive than wars caused by government? In the history of civilization no one has gone to war in the name of “anarchy”. The same cannot be said for government. What is even funnier is that your government would trick you into believing its causes are your own and you would willingly die for them.
That is the joke of a lifetime.
Let us also not talk about every single technological innovation in the history of mankind that was made possible by productive, anarchic cooperation. Everyone’s lives has been made better by these things.
What does government bring to the table? atomic bombs and mars/moon landings? Nothing that betters the individual’s life.[/quote]
Plenty of scientific breakthroughs that have benefited the general population have come from warfare and the space race so your last point is not entirely correct. I also think you may have strayed slightly away from the OP.