Re: Cards and Permits

From: Technotranscendence (
Date: Thu Oct 25 2001 - 19:52:39 MDT

On Thursday, October 25, 2001 10:17 AM Mike Lorrey
> Ah, but this is a bit incomplete. I refer you to Article 1V of the US
> Constitution, primarily Sections 1 and 2 which deal with the 'Full faith
> and credit' and 'privileges and immunities' clauses. These are the
> lynchpins of the bank of trust that the citizenship has in their fellow
> individuals.


> There is no basis for a government requiring that a person get a permit
> in order to exercise their natural human rights, as those rights exist
> irrespective of the existence of that government. However, under the
> 'full faith and credit' clause, Congress is empowered to regulate how
> the federal and state governments are to determine who is and is not a
> citizen residing in the several states.

Such determination is really, from the point of view of natural rights,

> While being a citizen or not is irrelevant to an individuals basic human
> rights, it is highly relevant to whether one can exercise the privileges
> and immunities of being a citizen. A citizen, for example, is immune to
> deportation, while a non-citizen is not. Being able to operate dangerous
> equipment, like a motorized automobile, an aircraft, or a steamship, is
> a privilege that citizens must pass a threshold of qualifications to
> hold. Being able to carry a concealed weapon is considered in many
> states to be a privilege that only citizens can have (while otherse
> consider it a right that only citizens have).

Actually, all these things you note are just there because of government
interference with the natural order. If roads, waterways, and airways were
privatized, there would be no need for government regulation of any of
these. The owners of them would decide who gets to operate what on them and
would pay the penalties for any damage to other people's property because of
any negligent or wreckless management.

As for deportation, again, if the government did not interfere with private
property, the owners of such property would decide who to invite and who not
to invite onto their property. Immigration would then be a matter of mutual
consent -- not government policy.

> The difficulty is delineating between rights and privileges. Just
> because we live in a free society does not mean that every action is a
> right. Essentially you could lay the boundary at the line between
> swinging one's fist and hitting another's nose. Being able to smack
> someone else in the snoot is a privilege that you can obtain only with
> the permission of the snoot-holder. It isn't your right. Being able to
> pollute is a privilege you can obtain via the permission and payment of
> fees to the elected/appointed representatives of the rest of the people
> who's surroundings you pollute. It isn't your right.

I agree that there is no right to destroy another's property, BUT this does
not make government a legitimate representative of the property rights of
others. Pollution, e.g., should be handled by the polluting either getting
consent or getting taken to [a private] court.

> Similarly, placing increased risk of injury and/or death on others by
> operating dangerous equipment demands permission to exercise a privilege
> (the sole exception being that equipment covered under the 2nd
> Amendment).

See above.

> Finally, Article IV only covers the rights, privileges, and immunities
> of citizens of states of the Union. It recognises no rights of
> non-citizens, therefore it is the Congress' job to impose some means of
> allowing the reliable determination of which group an individual belongs
> to, so as to allow the individual to be treated in the proper legal
> manner as befits their status as a citizen or non-citizen.

That is the Constitution, but it is not the natural order -- the order of
individual natural rights. In the natural order, governments don't count.
Citizenship doesn't count. The proof of whether someone belongs in a given
area is whether she or he owns that area or is invited by the owner of that
area. (In the case of unowned areas, there is no need for proof. Public
property creates a problem here, but the goal then should be to privatize
public property -- in most cases, returning it to its rightful owners.)


Daniel Ust
    Check out:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:16 MDT