This is a weird argument. If you accept the premise behind the analogy—that the territory of the country as a whole is effectively collective property—you are already pretty straightforwardly not proceeding from any recognizably libertarian principle.
https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/1430528840795705348
I’d hope this would be obvious, but nothing about this form of argument limits it to immigration restrictions; you can use it to license ANY majoritarian policy. “I can forbid marijuana in my home, therefore the government can forbid marijuana smoking within its borders…”
Reading “freedom of association” to mean “the government can make any rule within its territory that a homeowner could enforce on their property” just yields straight-up authoritarianism if you take it seriously.
Yeah, of course. You need to engage in some serious mental contortions to get to the view that “freedom of association” means the government must forbid me from offering certain people housing or employment.
https://twitter.com/otherBrianMoore/status/1430611493503000583
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
