Hi Starchild,
Are we going round and round? Seems to me we are. You are smart as heck, so I have no doubt you have completely understood my position. Right? I may not be as smart as you, but I am equally hard headed!! So, there is no way in tarnation you will change my mind, in spite of you sincere efforts based on your sincere views.
Marcy
Ron,
Innocent people certainly have been shot by U.S. government agents patrolling the Mexican border -- mainly undocumented migrants, but U.S. Marines engaged in border patrol duty (itself a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act prohibiting use of the military in law enforcement) shot and killed a young goat herder who was a U.S. citizen (see http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/340318.shtml).
Corruption within the Border Control and other agencies is also a growing problem (see e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/us/27border.html?_r=1). You report that this rancher's brother had already reported some drug smugglers to the authorities. If the rancher caught some border patrol agents engaged in smuggling, don't you think they might have had motive to kill him? According to this NPR story -- http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/border_corruption/ -- dozens of new border control corruption cases are opened each year, and "those are only the most high-profile cases, because there are limited resources to investigate every allegation."
By the way, here is a site with a solidly libertarian take on the Border Patrol -- http://deporttheborderpatrol.com/.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Marcy,
I understand the words you're typing, except where I've noted ambiguity, as with the discussion of "legitimate", but I don't understand how you square the things you're saying with your libertarian views. Owning property by the U.S.-Mexico border, and crossing that border to come to the U.S. without the permission of the U.S. government, are both peaceful, non-aggressive choices consistent with libertarianism -- choices that often have unjust and undeserved consequences. But you appear to regard people who suffer those consequences as innocent victims in one case, but as somehow to blame in the other case. How do you reconcile this logical inconsistency? Given its existence, I'm not sure I completely do "understand" your position.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Hi Starchild,
Sorry, but I do not believe you do not understand. OK, one last attempt -- LP "motto", "Personal freedom. Personal responsibility." **Personal** means **Personal**. I am not responsible for the choices you make. You make choices. You live with choices. You walked desert, you live with blistered feet. You bought house in forsaken Arizona desert, you die patrolling your property, shotgun in hand.
Simple. Obvious. Straight forward. Right?
Marcy
Marcy,
It sounds like you're agreeing that the property owners no less than the migrants are making personal choices. I heartily concur; that was the main point of my last message. But it also sounds like you're suggesting here that property owners should not be able to expect any help from society (i.e. government) in keeping their justly acquired property from being violated. That surprises me, because I didn't think you espoused anarchist views. Even I would not go that far -- I think if someone calls the police to report trespassers, the police *should* respond and render assistance in upholding legitimate property rights -- although of course I also think the authorities should respect freedom of movement and allow free passage via public lands (if this were allowed, there would be few migrants trespassing on private property, as it would be an unnecessary risk).
Are you as okay with undocumented migrants carrying guns during their journeys to new homes in the United States, by way of taking responsibility for protecting their rights? Given your other comments in this thread I find that hard to believe, but it would seem to be in keeping with your call for personal responsibility. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I really *don't* understand what you're trying to say here!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Hi Starchild,
If after 95 e-mails you claim you do not understand my position, what can I say? I understand yours just fine. Thus, I am ready to simply accept the fact that you and I disagree on this particular subject, and will always disagree on this particular subject. Which is perfectly OK.
See you at the next meeting? It's at the library, a government institution : - )
Marcy
Dear Marcy
will you be wearing a paper bag over your head so no one will recognize you as you go into that taxpayers supported government institution building??? LOL
Starchild please be aware -- The Border Patrol and ICE both patrol the borders of the Main Library looking for illegals who don't have the proper Library ID card for entrance to the Library. They also conduct sweeps of the Library interior demanding people show proof of having a valid Library Card or else they will get arrested for being illegally in the Library for nefarious purposes like book smuggling. LOL
Your library Card - don't leave home without it!!!
Ron Getty
Dear Ron,
I do feel soooo uncomfortable inviting folks to come to our *Libertarian* Party meeting at a high profile tax-payer supported building, with more rules to get in, get out, and stay than Heaven above. But, I can't come up with a better idea, so I go!
Starchild *will* be accosted indeed, because, as I said previously, I ended up saying Starchild was out of the country just so they would let me fill out the application that Starchild probably had already filled out and they lost!! EEEESHHHH!!
Marcy