Starchild wrote:
SC) But why should migrants have to pass a hurdle (sponsorship) that other human beings do not have to pass in order to exercise their rights? (SC
I'm proposing precisely the same "hurdle" for everyone. My position is that people do not have the "right" to introduce arbitrary numbers of new people into a community that provides congestible network network natural monopolies (roads, pipes, wires) or provides free-ridable public goods (protection of life and liberty) or has a consumable/pollutable commons (air, water).
SC) Or are you suggesting that parents should likewise have to prove to a government that they can assume responsibility for any children they might have before being allowed to have them? (SC
No, I'm saying instead there is a rebuttable presumption that they can assume responsibility for the people they bring into the community via their uterus. I hope you are not suggesting I have the right to call 1-800-ORPHANS, order 100 infants, and then leave them on a sidewalk when the novelty wears off a few hours after they're delivered.
SC) Of course I think your position is a lot fairer than the nationalist/collectivist idea that only persons recognized by the government of a particular jurisdiction as citizens deserve the wealth of that jurisdiction. (SC
There is indeed tons of elbow room between 1) the strawman position that a 51% majority gets to exclude whomever they're prejudiced against and 2) the naive position that any service or right-of-way that is offered to the community must be offered to the entire species. This is just a special case of Holtz's Law Of Libertarian Polemics: every dispute among libertarians includes a strawman or a fallacy of the excluded middle.
