Oddbean new post about login | logout I'm talking if someone packs up, moves to your town, rents a house, looks for work etc.. why is it a problem? Regardless where they are from?
Again, you are assuming anyone needs to answer to you. They don't need a "good" reason to protect their own land.
It's just a discussion, no one says you need a good reason to protect your land. But that's not what you are doing. You are saying people shouldn't be allowed to cross borders and move freely if they like, only you can.
Only the people who own the land have the right to cross the land. Everyone else has to ask for permission and their request may be rejected for any reason. This does not change, merely because the people who own the land are a group.
Using the same logic, I can choose not to recognise your ownership of the land.
Yes, so come and take it. Property rights don't need to be recognised to exist. That is why they are natural rights.
Damn
So is freedom of movement.
Natural rights have natural consequences. Move across my land without permission and see what happens.
I'm just a traveling Bard, I can sing a song . https://image.nostr.build/10c6f81881214063a1e506bbf5edcb3fbf5fb86e400b26da4706bd8e0a22ac74.jpg
And this is usually why some form of government, preferably very limited in scope is required. Every one has a right to move freely. Every also has a right to property. The US has often ignored the right to movement. Property owners can prohibit others from their property entirely. And driving is treated a "privilege" that can be revoked. Other nations try to strike a balance. Where one can traverse a property but not damage it or cause a permanent change. Rights WILL conflict with another. Some rights take priority over other rights. Some rights only exist as a consequence of other rights (for example, life is the ultimate right. Without it no other right can exist). The proper role of government is to protect one's rights. Part of this is solving the conflicts that occur when rights conflict with one another.
Individually? Itβs not. When youβre talking about doubling, or more, the population over the course of 20 years it becomes a problem. That person should also accept that they arenβt a part of the community in the way that someone from there is and they need to accept being treated differently by people until they assimilate which might take a few years, a few decades or a few generations. Iβm not even saying they need to be forced out. Just donβt expect people to like their community changing or be nice and accepting of the people doing the changing. I would be down with anyone trying to force that acceptance being forced out.
There are usually natural limits such as housing and number of jobs.
Tell that to the people who are coming in and putting in 1000s of houses every year. In the county I live in I mean. Hell the mayor in one of the small towns near me is *bragging* about getting ready to double the population in a 5 year period. Why shouldnβt the locals feel a certain way about that? The ones that arenβt getting kick backs from land developers I mean.
Isn't that an issue with the mayor then?
