There are close to 7 billion people on our planet. I’d like to know how the libertarians answer this question: Does each individual on the planet have a natural or God-given right to live in the U.S.? … I believe most people, even my open-borders libertarian friends, would not say that everyone on the planet had a right to live in the U.S.Left-libertarian Roderick Long answers simply
yes, of course each individual on the planet has the right to live anywhere she chooses, so long as she violates no one’s rights.Foseti responds incredulously,
I don’t know what Long thinks happens when you become a US Citizens, but in reality, you do get a lot of other "rights" that you didn’t have when you were a citizen of, for example, Zimbabwe.Foseti is wrong.
Reactionary-types who believe in the power of the state should give up on "rights" discussions. Given the Moldbugian sovereignty bit, rights are a contradiction. Either the state has sovereignty or not.
Rights are a topic from ethics, specifically political ethics and apply only in the case that the individual is properly due something from other individuals, whether or not they are giving it.
Trying to mix ethical rights-theory with neo-realist power-politics makes for much incoherence.
There are a bunch of privileges that the US Government calls "rights" that are granted to you once you become a US Citizen...this much is true...
But the entire history of rights-theory and the foundational documents of the US of A don't see it the way Foseti talks about it at all. Rather, rights theory, and American government are founded on the notion that rights inhere in individuals, and indicate what should not be done to them by any other human or group of humans. The rights exist because they are human beings, not based on where they were born...and not based on whether their government is run by rights-violating Dictators or Kleptocrats.
Indeed...the strongest (not saying much) libertarian argument for the Iraq war was that Saddam was violating the rights of the Iraqi people, and it was appropriate to defend them against his rights-violations. If you'll note, this justification only makes sense if the rights belong to the individuals, and have NOTHING to do with what the government is actually doing.
Of course, Professor Rod Long knows all of rights-theory history since the Icelandic sagas, and so he wouldn't be surprised by my explanation, but Foseti might be.
His simplest response is to give up the notion of rights as nonsensical...which in a neo-realist world it is.