|
>> Collective ownership is NOT analogous to joint ownership (private property
>> rights). The Commonwealth of Australia is a corporation we cannot opt out
>> of. Untrue. You can opt out of it whenever you like - by leaving. We may both
agree that in a perfect world we wouldn't have to make such a drastic change,
but we currently live in a gated community run by a really shitty corporate
body full of people who make really shitty decisions. Bringing in more shitty people to make even more shitty decisions will not
improve it. >> It is not consistent with the role of Government I define (and probably
>> you) - it exists to defend our rights. Untrue. I define government
here. Democratic governments exists because people see them as a good means
to control other people. Both of us may agree that a legitimate government will merely
protect people's property rights, but that's different. .. sorry to nit pick, but fuzzy logic leads to fuzzy conclusions. >> Your definition of a national
>> corporation merely points out how our property rights are violated by such a
>> system. Yes they are, and I am choosing the lesser of the evils. >> Why do you state you have a right to deal with trespassers? Even when the
>> definition of property that allows this destroys private
property? I will recognize your right to keep as many asylum seekers on your land as
you like, just as soon as you recognize my right to shoot them as soon as they
cross your boundary fence. And you have to pay for the bullets. >>Someone on
>> crown land who is not a citizen isn't the same as someone on your land. Again the rule is quite simple: owner decides. In the case of my land, it's
me, in the case of crown land, it's all Australians (via the government). >> Crown
>> land is at present a violation of property rights, and you use majoritarianism
>> (within a very poor electoral system) to decide what is done with them. What
>> about those who want to take them in or make them leave
>> immediately? See comments about bullets above. >> Surely you
>> do not judge someone's trespasser status on if the Federal Government
>> authorises them being here? That's exactly how I would define trespass on Crown land. Permission must
be obtained from the owners (shareholders via the executive), or it's trespass.
I would like to see Crown land ownership split off from the main company
(Australia Inc), but until that is done, then I will recognize the government
as the owner. >> What are YOUR reasons then eh? Country's full? Is it welfare then? >> Is your primary concern about social security asylum seekers getting Medicare,
>> not the coercion and welfare loss it entails? I could go into great lengths about the reasons for border protection, but
you are missing the point - that I don't have to. The point about property
ownership is that the owner(s) don't have to justify their decisions about
utility. That's what makes it ownership. I don't have to justify my decision to keep someone out of my lounge-room.
Australians to not have to justify (to non Australians) why they want a
closed-border policy. Their property, their decision. As Australians, we may argue passionately about which policy to adopt. Just
as shareholders in Macdonald's may argue passionately about whether to introduce
a Garden or Caesar salad, but they have no obligation to justify their decision
to anyone else. Further, a MacDonald's shareholder doesn't even have to justify their
decision to another shareholder. They can try to get a majority vote on
Garden vs Caesar however they like provided they don't initiate force in doing
so.
| 
