|
>> Collective and personal property rights not analogous Oh, so MacDonald's have no right to refuse entry to anyone because their
restaurants are collectively owned? Right. Come to think of it, my house
is collectively owned by the wife and I. So we can't refuse entry to anyone?
Get real. >> No other Australian has a "right" to stop me allowing people to enter land I
>> own, this is merely a state enforced violation of property. And vice
>> versa. Australia at large cannot be told what to do with it's property by me. I am happy for you to house as many Asylum Seekers on your land as you
like. Provided you accept my right to shoot them as soon as they step out of
your property. We have such systems here already. They call them 'detention
centers'. Unfortunately I have to subsidize them. >> Strawman; you are being completely and blissfully ignorant of Arrow's
>> impossibility theorem. A convenient assumption? Arrows Impossibility Theorem: It can be proven that you can't guarantee to
satisfy all the people all the time. I am well aware of that result before I read the thesis, but thanks for the
tip: I can now sound more important when I state the very obvious. >> The most given reasons for immigration controls are quarantine and security. Therefore they are also my reasons? Talk about arguing the straw man! [Irrelevance deleted] >> If your problem is access to welfare, then fine. It is a violation of property,
>> inefficient, and if it were to be kept and made available only to citizens, it
>> should be reformed anyway (NIT). And when it is, then I will be willing to reconsider the issues in open
immigration. As long as these people step off the boat and put their hands
straight in my pocket, then I will am not willing to.
| 
