Looks Like I have to do Your Job For you -- for inquiring small minds

[sirs]

Does an individual have a right to own real estate?

Does an individual real estate owner have the right to forbid other persons to cross his boundries without permission?

Yes, and yes.

If the answers of the first two of these is yes , and yes then;  Does a large group of persons have property right simular to an individual?

Sure. What they don't have is a right to prevent others from exercising their own rights.

And has it not been you, many a time, accurately opining that one's rights are sacrosanct, as long as they don't impact/infringe on another's?  Plane demonstrated, to which you have conceded as well, that Americans have a right to their real estate and a right to keep others out of it.  How is it wrong that they exercise their rights?

You can't have it both ways, Prince

[Universe Prince]

Feel free to point out where I said someone is/was wrong to exercise his or her rights.

[sirs]

oy, here we go again         Lemme see if I can make this out without having to figure out what Prince is actually saying

Is America, its people, its "home", infringing on someone else's rights of someone trying to sneak into their home, without their permission??

If yes, how do you explain your double standard
If no, how is America preventing someone from exercising their rights, when they're simply exercising their own rights

[Universe Prince]

Is America, its people, its "home", infringing on someone else's rights of someone trying to sneak into their home, without their permission??

If yes, how do you explain your double standard
If no, how is America preventing someone from exercising their rights, when they're simply exercising their own rights

That is... just... a mess. Let me see if I can clean this up into something sensible.

Is America infringing on someone's right to sneak into the country without permission?

No, but then I never said anyone had a right to sneak into the country without permission. I will categorically state that no one has a right to sneak into the country without permission.

If yes, how do you explain your double standard?

Well, it would not have been my double standard because you asked me about something I never said.

If no, how is America preventing someone from exercising his rights when America is simply exercising its rights?

That question assumes that the U.S. is merely and only exercising its rights. I do not agree with that assumption. I believe the U.S. government is over stepping its bounds to attempt to so strictly control immigration.

If this discussion now starts to descend into some sort of attempt to claim I meant something I did not say and/or accusations of "non-answers" I reserve the authority to not bother responding.

[sirs]

Is America, its people, its "home", infringing on someone else's rights of someone trying to sneak into their home, without their permission??

Is America infringing on someone's right to sneak into the country without permission?

No, but then I never said anyone had a right to sneak into the country without permission.

Though, you seem to give those who do, justification.  No?

If yes, how do you explain your double standard?

Well, it would not have been my double standard because you asked me about something I never said.

The double standard is clear....one's personal property, their "home", is off limits to any and all who would try to enter without permission.  That would include law enforcement without a warrant.  Period, end of story, or so your position has been, in the past.  Yet, illegal immigrants do precisely that....they enter without permission, but they largely get a pass by you, because of your issues with the "home owner" and their onnerous rules for entering their "house"

If no, how is America preventing someone from exercising his rights when America is simply exercising its rights?

That question assumes that the U.S. is merely and only exercising its rights. I do not agree with that assumption. I believe the U.S. government is over stepping its bounds to attempt to so strictly control immigration.

Yea, how dare the home owner be so abusive to those trying to sneak in without permission.  Damn property owners

[Plane]

author=Universe Prince
".......I never said anyone had a right to sneak into the country without permission. I will categorically state that no one has a right to sneak into the country without permission.][/table]

Our elected representative legislatures have enacted law that forbids persons from crossing our boundry without gaining permit.


Could you restate the nature of our disagreement? I kinda agree with you here.

[Universe Prince]

No, but then I never said anyone had a right to sneak into the country without permission.

Though, you seem to give those who do, justification.  No?

Sometimes, yes, I do. When people desperate to improve their lives find risking death preferable to the immigration process, something is wrong with the immigration process.

The double standard is clear....one's personal property, their "home", is off limits to any and all who would try to enter without permission.  That would include law enforcement without a warrant.  Period, end of story, or so your position has been, in the past.  Yet, illegal immigrants do precisely that....they enter without permission, but they largely get a pass by you, because of your issues with the "home owner" and their onnerous rules for entering their "house"

[...]

Yea, how dare the home owner be so abusive to those trying to sneak in without permission.  Damn property owners

The nation is not a house. It is not owned like a house. It is not run like a house. It does not exist like a house. The fault lies not in my position, but in the analogy.

[Universe Prince]

Our elected representative legislatures have enacted law that forbids persons from crossing our boundry without gaining permit.

Could you restate the nature of our disagreement? I kinda agree with you here.

You're letting the rhetoric of others confuse you about my position. Despite what others may try to claim or imply, my position is not and has never been that people should be allowed to break the law. My position is that the law should be changed.

[sirs]

No, but then I never said anyone had a right to sneak into the country without permission.

Though, you seem to give those who do, justification.  No?

Sometimes, yes, I do. 

Regardless the excuse you use, I appreciate the concession

The double standard is clear....one's personal property, their "home", is off limits to any and all who would try to enter without permission.  That would include law enforcement without a warrant.  Period, end of story, or so your position has been, in the past.  Yet, illegal immigrants do precisely that....they enter without permission, but they largely get a pass by you, because of your issues with the "home owner" and their onnerous rules for entering their "house"
[...]
Yea, how dare the home owner be so abusive to those trying to sneak in without permission.  Damn property owners

The nation is not a house. It is not owned like a house. It is not run like a house. It does not exist like a house. The fault lies not in my position, but in the analogy.

The anaology is dead on, which is why you're struggling with it.  No the U.S. is not a house that 1 person buys, with over a million bedrooms and 2 million bathrooms, it's OUR house, in where we live, yours, mine, Plane's, Ami's, Xo's, etc.  That's why it's an anology and not a specific X<-->X comparison.  If some country were to try and take over our "house", we'd fight them, to the death if necessary, just like any armed intruder.  We have laws that give specific provisions on how one can enter our house.....literally our permission, by way of following those laws.  You provide example after of law enforcement, over stepping their bounds, by way of unlawfully or accidentally entering someone's private residence.  You make it clear your absolutely support of private property, and the right to own that property.

The U.S. is our private property.  We have laws, that you obviously don't like, that are largely no different than the rules that limit/prevent someone(s) from entering any one's private property.  So the fault here is your double standard, not the analogy

[Universe Prince]

The anaology is dead on, which is why you're struggling with it.

Who's struggling? The analogy is weak at best.

No the U.S. is not a house that 1 person buys, with over a million bedrooms and 2 million bathrooms, it's OUR house, in where we live, yours, mine, Plane's, Ami's, Xo's, etc.  That's why it's an anology and not a specific X<-->X comparison.

I know what an analogy is. But this analogy is sort of like this joke I heard from a friend many years ago: "Is that your car? My car is just like that one. Well, it's a sedan rather than a coupe. And it's brown, not blue. And it's got six cylinders instead of four. And it's newer. And it's a different model made by a different car company. In fact, it's totally different. But other than that, it's exactly like your car." The U.S. is like a house, except totally different. One may live in a house and in a country, but after that the similarity quickly ends.

it's OUR house, in where we live, yours, mine, Plane's, Ami's, Xo's, etc. [...] The U.S. is our private property.

No, it isn't. The citizens of the U.S. do not collectively own the U.S. If the citizens collectively own the nation, then the whole notion protection of individual rights collapses like a house of cards in a strong wind. Imposing things like a "fairness doctrine" or taking over businesses or telling you what you can and cannot eat or, to go to an extreme, rounding up citizens it decides are threat and revoking their citizenship without trial, all of that becomes permissible. Because if the nation is owned collectively, then you don't actually own your land or your business or your possessions. The people do. And your individual rights are trumped by the supposed rights of the collective nation. Essentially any protection of individual rights is undermined. Which means, if the nation is owned collectively, you don't own yourself either. In which case, BT's argument becomes correct, and all rights are illusion because they are merely privileges granted at the whim of others. I'm not saying this is a slippery slope. I'm saying this is exactly what the ramifications are right now of the idea of the nation being collectively owned.

We have laws, that you obviously don't like, that are largely no different than the rules that limit/prevent someone(s) from entering any one's private property.

That is almost completely not true. The only part that is true is the part about me not liking the law. It's actually a lot different than rules that prevent someone from entering one's private property. It's more like rules that allow someone else to determine for you where you are allowed to live, where you can work, where you can look for work and who you are and are not allowed to to have on your property.

So the fault here is your double standard, not the analogy

I don't have a double standard. But maybe you do. I am not the one arguing in favor of collective rights trumping individual rights.

[Plane]

The citizens of the U.S. do not collectively own the U.S. If the citizens collectively own the nation, then the whole notion protection of individual rights collapses like a house of cards in a strong wind.

Hey that is interesting.

And I highly disagree .

I don't suppose your contention is that >nothing< is collectively owned?

The government is the official owner of hundreds of parks and millions of acres of rangeland and mountains. Is that improper or dangerous?

Navagable waters and most roadways ,even air lanes are communally owned and often this is the best alternative.

Radio Frequencys are publicly owned , but usually rented by private persons, corporations.

Why does it naturally follow that when we own some things in common that we then own each others rights? I am not seeing it that way.

There are a few persons who own real estate that crosses the border , such that the back yard is under the laws of one nation and the frount is under the laws of the other, the border itself in this case would be a bit of land with no width , an abstract but not the property of the land owner it is the demarkation of the diffrence between the lawfull reign of one nation on one side and another nation on the other.

[BT]

What happens if you don't pay taxes on your private property?

[Universe Prince]

Hey that is interesting.

And I highly disagree .

I don't suppose your contention is that >nothing< is collectively owned?

I am sure somethings are collectively owned. The Green Bay Packers comes to mind.

The government is the official owner of hundreds of parks and millions of acres of rangeland and mountains. Is that improper or dangerous?\

Dangerous, possibly not. Improper, possibly yes.

Navagable waters and most roadways ,even air lanes are communally owned and often this is the best alternative.

Are they, and why do you think such is the best alternative?

Radio Frequencys are publicly owned , but usually rented by private persons, corporations.

Owned by the government, basically because it said so.

Why does it naturally follow that when we own some things in common that we then own each others rights?

That is not what I said.

[Universe Prince]

What happens if you don't pay taxes on your private property?

That de.... Oops! You almost got me. You clever man.

[Plane]

Why does it naturally follow that when we own some things in common that we then own each others rights?

That is not what I said.

Please expand on what you did say so that I can spot my mistake.