Everyone has the right to choose who to hire. If you want to hire only Americans (or rich college-educated Americans) that's your right. But it's wrong of the government to ban me from hiring who I want for my private business, or who I rent out a home to.
Same thing for a theoretical private city state. You can invite whoever you want.
Everyone has the right to choose who to hire. If you want to hire only Americans (or rich college-educated Americans) that's your right. But it's wrong of the government to ban me from hiring who I want for my private business, or who I rent out a home to.
Same thing for a theoretical private city state. You can invite whoever you want.
What's the big difference between organization hiring and an organization deciding who can reside on land owned by the organization? Almost everywhere, no one but governments has allodial title to land. The land owner can do what he wants with his land and the ultimate owner of the land is the corporate entity we call a government.
The difference is that the government doesn't own the land. The government doesn't own my house. I do. They assert their authority over me without my consent and may pretend like they own my house, but they don't. Just because they conquered or declared authority over my land years ago through force doesn't give them the right over my property and who I can associate with on my property.
If you don't like it louisiana-purchase some land and start a new government. But existing governments aren't obligated morally or legally to conform to your preference of having no borders.
Where is the land? Antarctica? The ocean? Somewhere else it is unreasonable to live?
"If you don't like me banning you from associating with people, you can move" isn't a good excuse. If anyone (the mafia, a normal citizen) were to do that to you, it would be called a rights violation. The government has an obligation to conform to this preference of no freedom of association restrictions.
Everyone has the right to choose who to hire. If you want to hire only Americans (or rich college-educated Americans) that's your right. But it's wrong of the government to ban me from hiring who I want for my private business, or who I rent out a home to.
Same thing for a theoretical private city state. You can invite whoever you want.
What's the big difference between organization hiring and an organization deciding who can reside on land owned by the organization? Almost everywhere, no one but governments has allodial title to land. The land owner can do what he wants with his land and the ultimate owner of the land is the corporate entity we call a government.
The difference is that the government doesn't own the land. The government doesn't own my house. I do. They assert their authority over me without my consent and may pretend like they own my house, but they don't. Just because they conquered or declared authority over my land years ago through force doesn't give them the right over my property and who I can associate with on my property.
If you don't like it louisiana-purchase some land and start a new government. But existing governments aren't obligated morally or legally to conform to your preference of having no borders.
Where is the land? Antarctica? The ocean? Somewhere else it is unreasonable to live?
"If you don't like me banning you from associating with people, you can move" isn't a good excuse. If anyone (the mafia, a normal citizen) were to do that to you, it would be called a rights violation. The government has an obligation to conform to this preference of no freedom of association restrictions.