If an island is owned by one person then just immigration to that island is dependent on the will of the owner.
If a group of islands is owned by one person then just immigration to those islands is dependent on the will of the owner.
If a group of islands is owned by a group of people then just immigration to those islands is dependent on the will of the owners.
New Zealand is a group of islands owned by a group of people – Just immigration to New Zealand is dependent on the will of the owners.
Immigration is dependent on ownership.
Freedom is only relevant if it is the owners’ will (or duty).
Let’s see where this goes…
15 thoughts on “Immigration is dependent on ownership”
Where there are multiple stake holders, millions in the case of New Zealand, decission making is of necessity delegated to elected representitives. This exposes one of the weaknesses in democracy, as the representitives have to take into account the opinions and feelings of both the informed and the ignorant alike – both votes carry equal weighting.
I support democracy, but I’m also conscious of its limitations.
I support democratic principles as a just way to manage communal property… but with democracy you don’t always get what you want.
No one or group owns the whole country and therefore there is no vidication to Ban immigration into the country… as Immigration does not negate a persons rights or control over his own property, yet a prohibition prevents those land owner whom wish to allow migrants on their land, or to trade with them, or employ them, associate with them, etc to do so.
Therefore Justice is wholly on the side of allowing immigration.
Do you agree in principle that immigration is dependent on ownership?
i.e. If an island is owned by one person then just immigration to that island is dependent on the will of the owner.
So if someone owns land on the coast, they can bring in however many immigrants they want by sea? Is this is an identical situation to the privately owned island, or does the presence of adjoining properties negate the right of the landowner to control immigration on his own land?
The surrounding sea here is owned.
… and on the will of the owner of the surrounding sea?
… and on the will of the owners of any available transportation.
Trying to keep it simple and real.
If a person owned a property on a border it would be wrong for them to help people trespass on to property owned by others.
Nek minnit … global Islamic caliphate ruled by Sharia law.
Are you trying to use fear as an argument Richard?
I believe you can set conditions for entry… for example That Migrants will abide by the Libertarian Constitution.
They only have the right to enter the country as long as they have no criminal intentions.
Overthrowing our government and imposing a religious tyranny qualifies as one of the greatest crimes possible.
There is no reason to ban Muslims from entering, and the have the same rights and liberties as everyone else… and may impose Sharia law *upon themselves* as individuals…. but not on anyone else…. They dont even have to participate of contribute to ‘the system’, and yet the system will still protect their rights, liberties, and property… because everyone is equal in the eyes of the Law.
The only condition is they must not impose their own views upon others by force.
Of course I’m dreaming of New Free Land.
As things stand The Sheeple of NZ can and do impose their own follies and Tyranny at will…. upon any victim sector of our society they fear or hate.
Where does this authority to set conditions come from if not from property ownership?
It comes from everyone’s Right to self defence of their lives and property.
Anyone not willing to agree to the condition of respecting the equal rights and liberties of citizens may be deemed to be a legitimate threat… and denied entry.
Conversly anyone willing to agree to those terms and conditions ought to be allowed to enter the country.
What is key to these restrictions as that they are consistent with the fundamental Social contract that unperpins the free society as a whole… ie it is not imposing restrictions upon visitors which are not also applicable to the natives…. maintaining the principle of equality before the Law.
This is what a Constitutional Free society is all about.
Not anarchy but a minimum of Just law.
Even if a person chooses to ‘opt out’ of the system…. as long as they respect the rights and liberties of the citizenry/ individuals within the domain, they may freely go about their own affairs.
If you’ve done nothing wrong you’ve got nothing to fear … from a global Islamic caliphate ruled by Sharia law. 😉
Tim, try this one.
P1. A gated community can, based on the principle of ownership, justly deny access to whoever it chooses.
P2. NZ is a gated community.
C. Therefore, NZ can, based on the principle ownership, justly deny access to whoever it chooses.