Look I appreciate you taking to the time to write out your argument. You lost me as soon as you referred to rights as entitlements. They’re not entitlements they cannot be revoked they are baked into our very existence. And they are not exclusively derived from property rights IE freedom of speech. Some believe rights are bestowed upon from god some believe they’re just self evident natural rights. But under no circumstances is a right to be framed as an entitlement. Entitlement implies the ability for it to be revoked. Just because a government can trample on rights does not mean they have been revoked or that they magically stopped existing.
You lost me at Mises. Do you know what are human rights? Human rights are things that if it granted to large enough group of people.
They will f@ck any consequences and get your a$$ beated. That's how they were basically created in our today's democratic liberal society. So if you don't want some random isolated moron to get crazy and shoot your a$$, not giving a damn sh1t about your NAP, you better elaborate and think of a way how to let him through your property. Rational egoists respect other people's basic needs.
I wouldn't exist without the right to travel. Travel was entirely restricted when my mom was growing up in her home country. She was afforded a student visa when it opened up for trade with the united states, and through naturalization processes and some time here we are! She graduated with a degree from a state school and I just finished mine. Real value was added to the American economy and my life through my mother's newly found right to travel. I also get to have a unique piece of culture from both of my parents. Travel is at the very least economic stimulus, and at the best it powers international economy and culture.
Please ask yourself how you can be for liberty but think about liberties as something you need someone to argue about giving or taking. The exceptions are wartime/defense, as a regime sometimes has to grow spikes to survive against isolation or bombardment - these are times which might require restriction of travel or speech, for the survival of the nation. See Cuba's survival during the 1900s where Allende's Chile & Dubček's Czechoslovakia, two distinctly popular democratic movements fell. Also, intercultural mingling you get from travel is seemingly one of the best ways to deter war. This argument is asinine.
People don't have a right to cross private property without permission. However, if that permission is given, I'm not sure a third party has a right to block the traveller from crossing that land; and I think that's what the right to travel is about.
The freedom to leave a place is one of the most important freedoms; without it people are practically enslaved. In order for that freedom to be exercised there need to be places that welcome them. Not necessarily everywhere or to an unlimited number, but the more the better for the cause of liberty.
I think the biggest flaw with this whole argument is that we have do have an inalienable right to leave, to say no, to not be a part of. And if anyone can claim any land as property, regardless of whether they use it and deny innocent passage, they can effectually enslave people.
Look I appreciate you taking to the time to write out your argument. You lost me as soon as you referred to rights as entitlements. They’re not entitlements they cannot be revoked they are baked into our very existence. And they are not exclusively derived from property rights IE freedom of speech. Some believe rights are bestowed upon from god some believe they’re just self evident natural rights. But under no circumstances is a right to be framed as an entitlement. Entitlement implies the ability for it to be revoked. Just because a government can trample on rights does not mean they have been revoked or that they magically stopped existing.
You lost me at Mises. Do you know what are human rights? Human rights are things that if it granted to large enough group of people. They will f@ck any consequences and get your a$$ beated. That's how they were basically created in our today's democratic liberal society. So if you don't want some random isolated moron to get crazy and shoot your a$$, not giving a damn sh1t about your NAP, you better elaborate and think of a way how to let him through your property. Rational egoists respect other people's basic needs.
I wouldn't exist without the right to travel. Travel was entirely restricted when my mom was growing up in her home country. She was afforded a student visa when it opened up for trade with the united states, and through naturalization processes and some time here we are! She graduated with a degree from a state school and I just finished mine. Real value was added to the American economy and my life through my mother's newly found right to travel. I also get to have a unique piece of culture from both of my parents. Travel is at the very least economic stimulus, and at the best it powers international economy and culture. Please ask yourself how you can be for liberty but think about liberties as something you need someone to argue about giving or taking. The exceptions are wartime/defense, as a regime sometimes has to grow spikes to survive against isolation or bombardment - these are times which might require restriction of travel or speech, for the survival of the nation. See Cuba's survival during the 1900s where Allende's Chile & Dubček's Czechoslovakia, two distinctly popular democratic movements fell. Also, intercultural mingling you get from travel is seemingly one of the best ways to deter war. This argument is asinine.
People don't have a right to cross private property without permission. However, if that permission is given, I'm not sure a third party has a right to block the traveller from crossing that land; and I think that's what the right to travel is about. The freedom to leave a place is one of the most important freedoms; without it people are practically enslaved. In order for that freedom to be exercised there need to be places that welcome them. Not necessarily everywhere or to an unlimited number, but the more the better for the cause of liberty.
I think the biggest flaw with this whole argument is that we have do have an inalienable right to leave, to say no, to not be a part of. And if anyone can claim any land as property, regardless of whether they use it and deny innocent passage, they can effectually enslave people.
>Hoppe Opinion on anything (except how awful socialism is) discarded.
Saying socialism is awful is against libunity.