[lpsf] Re: [ba-liberty] Starchild speaking at protest over Palantir's collaboration with Trump on surveillance technology

I have been watching this back and forth with amusement at the way Starchild chooses to make up laws or the non existence of laws. Laws are laws. They are written down somewhere. One can choose to abide by them or not abide by them on a personal level. But I find it strange to pretend laws simply do not exist. And, yes, indeed, let's not any of us pretend we speak for all Libertarians.

Marcy

Marcy,

  Yes indeed, statutes are "written down somewhere"! But that does not necessarily make them legal, let alone moral. As the Supreme Court majority stated in Marbury v. Madison, "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

  For my part, I find it strange to pretend that the U.S. federal government has either the legal authority, or the moral authority, to violate the Constitution meant to bind it, or to pretend that arresting and deporting people who are not alleged to violated anyone's life, liberty, or private property, simply for being on the "wrong" part of the earth's surface, is not a clear violation of the Non-Aggression Principle, and therefore un-libertarian.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

"Repugnant" to whom, Starchild? Again, if you are speaking for yourself, great. If you are speaking for the rest of us, not so much.

Marcy

To what Marcy, not to whom. Did you read my message too quickly? I was quoting a Supreme Court ruling that recognized the invalidity of "laws" that are unconstitutional, as the federal anti-immigrant statutes are.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

No, to whom is correct. Laws that are repugnant to "whom." Example: Sanctuary laws should be null and void because in the view of Suzy Smith they are repugnant to the Constitution. You see, the Supreme Court has not ruled for or against sanctuary laws, so it is up to Suzy Smith to decide for herself whether they are repugnant or not, and act accordingly on her own behalf. Although, even if the Court does rule on the subject, Suzy is perfectly free to choose for herself whether she cares about the Court's decision or not.

The idea of open borders, one world, humanity, rights, everybody has a right to [fill in the blank] is a personal one. If ones chooses to speak out on the idea's behalf, fantastic! If I choose to join you in speaking out, great! But all stays a matter of personal choice.

Marcy

Okay, I see what you mean. But the Constitution is a list of powers delegated to the federal government, and regulating who enters the country (except for the importation of slaves after 1808) is not one of the powers so delegated. So I say the anti-immigrant statutes are repugnant to the Constitution, and therefore already null and void by the Court's own logic, without any further ruling. I also think they are indisputably un-libertarian. Of course, Michael Edelstein wisely pointed out that the libertarian solution in a given situation is not always necessarily the best solution, but in this case (open borders) I believe it is. Open border opponents almost invariably look at the question through the lens of nationalism and keeping "others" out of "their" country, rather than trying to see the matter objectively.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

End the freebies and enforce private property rights and "they" won't come. Only the ones who are willing to work hard and respect private property rights will come, and they are quite welcome.
Nina Don’t threaten or initiate force, or ask politicians to do it for you.

In law, there is such a thing as decisions by courts that become constitutional interpretation. This is what happened in the case of the federal government jumping from the listed power to determine who is a citizen to the sovereign nation's power (the law books' term) to determine who comes in and how. Anybody can challenge any law in court. So if you don't like that law, file your case in court. Pretending the law is not there won't fly with most folks.

Marcy

Marcy,

  You seem to be conflating a law being there (i.e. a statute existing on the books, or being enforced by government personnel) with its being legitimate. The latter does not follow from the former, and this is true regardless of whether the statute is challenged in court or not. I think most folks would agree with this, even if they differ on the particulars of which laws are illegitimate.

  So why not file a court case? Because I have very little confidence in the current courts in this country to reach correct conclusions in such matters (Marbury v. Madison is from 1803). Just look at how they misrule on the Constitution's "commerce clause", the "general welfare clause", the 2nd Amendment, etc. A libertarian would have to be either very ignorant of all that, or extremely optimistic to the point of delusion, to put any faith in such a lawsuit generating a reasonable ruling.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

What in tarnation is a legitimate law?! I have come to the conclusion that we are living in parallel universes, you and I. So you are welcome to live in yours.

As someone in this discussion mentioned earlier, there are real fights to fight. Those are the ones I have moved on to fight.

Marcy