This article is a prime example of missing the point, which I was certainly guilty of at one point when I accepted these arguments. Few "confuse the public and private square", so the author does little more here than strawman. Then the author objects to the "more sophisticated" (ie, the actual) version of the collective property defense argument not by saying it's illegal or unprecedented, but that it's unjust. What's his moral argument for this?
There are multiple moral arguments for this, beginning with America's role on the global-historical stage that has displaced countless persons from their home country--or America's capacity for supporting countless displaced persons.
If the extent of our moral outlook is "why should I do this," then we've abdicated any obligation we have to other human beings. Seeing as we live in a world comprised of many individuals from many countries, I don't think morality reduces to what's best for the
unit.
Private property rights exist within the bounds of the borders of the jurisdictional authorities which secure those rights, which is something you've certainly argued before, although not explicitly in this application; there are no inherent rights. You (and I mean both you yourself and other US citizens) have no private property rights in Mexico, or China, etc. In practice, you don't even have personal property rights in most other countries. You have rights in this country as a citizen. Illegal immigrants are not citizens, and therefore have no rights other than that which may or may not be granted by said authorities. If you're arguing for the degree of rights which may/should be granted based on moral grounds, that's another matter/argument.
They do have personal property in this country, whether they're here illegally or not: their bodies are their property. Citizenship doesn't grant them autonomy or agency; they have that already. They can use that agency to legally work, purchase items, send their children to school, etc. None of those things are rendered illegitimate simply because they entered the country illegally. They have personal agency that extends beyond what the United States grants (or doesn't grant) them.
More intentional definition obfuscation and goal-post moving.
Not sure how I'm moving the goalposts when I'm just responding. Feel free to point out how you think I've adjusted my stance and I'll clarify.
Never said that all of their actions are illegitimate, but all of their actions are committed while simultaneously illegitimately residing within our country.
You described their existence as illegal. Maybe you didn't mean their actions were illegitimate, but that's a vague statement.
Furthermore, their illegitimate residence (if we can call it that) doesn't necessarily outweigh the legitimacy of paying rent, paying taxes, and obeying local laws. They haven't "trespassed" for the purposes of stealing anything, which is why that analogy falls flat. In fact, they're contributing to social development. It's misleading to think of them as trespassing.
I'm curious what your position is on the benefits of single-payer vs multi-payer healthcare. I'm fairly certain that most legitimate businesses would strongly disagree that simplicity is not desirable. (Illegitimate businesses, e.g. complex fraudulent investment schemes, would side with you, however.) Every scientist starts with a complex network of data and tries ideally to derive a simple model from it. The reason you believe that simplicity isn't desirable is because you don't seek understanding of the world, you just engaging in philosophical windowgazing and write fiction about it. Story-telling is the only legitimate profession I can think of where complexity sometimes wins out.
I said that simplicity isn't
necessarily better than complexity; it's certainly sometimes more desirable, as in the case of single-payer.
I also find it ironic that you use science as the example here for desirable simplicity, when the twentieth century marks the major shift in the sciences from simple mechanics to complex systems (although this shift was already underway in the nineteenth century with figures like James Clerk Maxwell and Hendrik Lorentz). And many scientists would say that complexity is the more desirable model.
With the rise of relativity, quantum physics, autopoiesis in biology, chaos theory, string theory, etc. science increasingly admits not only the complexity of its models, but the unstable, uncertain, and in many cases unpredictable quality of its findings (or predictable only within a given dimensionality). Furthermore, it's not merely that science attempts to impose simple (or simpler) explanations onto complex phenomena, but that complexity is a fundamental feature of modern science.
The science of science actually has a broader scope than an already existing discipline called scientometrics which mainly involves measuring scientific impact, understanding scientific citations, mapping scientific fields and developing indicators for decision makers [
4]. Specifically, SOS uses models to more deeply probe the mechanisms driving science, from knowledge production to scientific impact, distinguishing predictable patterns from random ones. It has more ambitious and diverse purposes, such as modeling the dynamics of research activities; revealing the rules underlying in scientific discoveries; predicting the development of science; and reformulating policies to stimulate innovations. To this end, one has to systematically investigate the complex structures, dynamics and evolution mechanisms of entire science systems. The emerging complexity science provides effective tools toward achieving the ultimate purposes of SOS.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157317303289
If simplicity favors those who make the laws, why has American legal code exploded in complexity over the last several decades?
Because we have a system in place that attempts to provide equity in terms of legal distribution. Simplicity favors those who make laws, but that doesn't mean that lawmakers necessarily simplify things. Depending on the political system in place, lawmakers might opt for complexity in order to cover a wider range of potential subjects.
Is this another case of the left projecting their bigotry onto other whites in defense of minorities or do you have actual examples that "their status is closer to that of immigrants than white Americans, which is why they're on constant defense" is true?
The fact that our national history basically tells Native Americans they're unwelcome except for on specified areas of land that we've graciously gifted to them isn't enough?
I mean, during colonialism indigenous peoples were granted no rights to land or property; only Europeans had those rights (who, ironically, were the immigrants at that point).
Today, Trump says that we're no longer a country of immigrants... so what does that mean for Native Americans? If Europeans are now the "indigenous people" of America...?
Also, I think it's pretty healthy to live with a consistent suspicion and defensiveness towards the national government. This is a big reason why so many people fight to uphold their right to bear arms while the tankies lick the state's balls and try to disarm everybody.
I'd agree. But it's funny that the right to bear arms is something people feel the need to fight for. Trump just repealed an Obama law demanding background checks on mentally ill gun purchasers.
But I disagree, Native American sovereign nations opposing illegal entry in 2018 is completely comparable to Americans opposing illegal entry into America, I really don't give a shit about your progressive stack worldview and neither does anybody else.
Okay then. History is probably irrelevant anyway.
