Debate on immigration

[MaineShark]

If a person is indeed an individual and has rights as an individual, as I believe they do, and that a group of individuals as a group have no rights other then their rights as individuals, and that the power wielded by a group can not be more then what one individual in the group has, that the idea that a group of people can lay claim to an area of space and say, this is ours, is incorrect. A individual may have the right to own property, but the group has no right to say, 'this is ours', only the individuals in that group can say, 'this is mine.' So to say that a Country has a right to defend an area of space, or to lay any claim to it is incorrect. Groups have no rights, only individuals have rights. Groups are not tangible and therefore nonexistent in reality. In fact to claim that the group exists or to give it rights is actually an idea that is part of collectivism to which Communism and Socialism belong to. To place a flag apon something does not make it yours. Only by maintaining and using that thing makes it yours. As soon as you stop maintaining it, it is no longer yours. This idea comes from Locke(I am still learning about him, so I may be incorrect). An individual has a right to property in so much as he continues to maintain it. Once he no longer maintains it, it is no longer his property. So to say that you have the right to have property, that is to say 'you have the right to an area', is not correct. To say you have the right to create property, is correct. To say you have the right to not have the property you have taken from you, is also correct. Again, the right to have property, has never been established, in my opinion.

All rights are inherently property rights.

You own your body.  Every other right derives some that, including the right to own land.

Ownership is achieved by expending labor to homsestead a piece of land.  By the labor of homesteading, you have created property out of nothing.  Not that there wasn't something there, but it was not anything within the realm of human interaction until you homesteaded it.  By that act, you brought it into the human realm, where it could be interacted-with on a moral level.  Prior to that, any interaction had no moral value.

You can continue your claim, sell your claim, or abandon your claim.  But abandonment does not mean "ceasing to maintain it according to someone's arbitrary standards."  It means either directly saying "I am leaving here and no longer wish to own this place" or dying with no heirs of any sort.

Joe

[cyberdoo78]

Thanks Joe,

I'm still learning like I said, perhaps I was reading a tainted version of Locke's documents. What I read was the formation of my statement. If I read it wrong, then my statement was wrong.