I really enjoyed your interview yesterday—it was both insightful and thought-provoking. Your point about the spectrum of property rights, where the state holds some but not to the extent of a private citizen, was particularly clarifying for me. It highlights how people often fall into the false dilemma of viewing state authority as either absolute or nonexistent, when in reality, the gradations matter.
I also appreciated your caution against expanding state power in that domain—it's a classic slippery slope, and history shows that once granted, government authority tends to expand rather than contract. Like Dave and Bob, I lean more toward anarcho-capitalism or voluntarism over minarchism, but pragmatically, I believe any reduction in the scope of the state is generally a step in the right direction.
In particular, I see removing federal management of non-immigrant visas—except for screening health risks, public charges, or criminals—as the most constitutionally compatible solution. This shift would streamline the process, reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies, and align better with principles of individual and market autonomy.
I really enjoyed your interview yesterday—it was both insightful and thought-provoking. Your point about the spectrum of property rights, where the state holds some but not to the extent of a private citizen, was particularly clarifying for me. It highlights how people often fall into the false dilemma of viewing state authority as either absolute or nonexistent, when in reality, the gradations matter.
I also appreciated your caution against expanding state power in that domain—it's a classic slippery slope, and history shows that once granted, government authority tends to expand rather than contract. Like Dave and Bob, I lean more toward anarcho-capitalism or voluntarism over minarchism, but pragmatically, I believe any reduction in the scope of the state is generally a step in the right direction.
In particular, I see removing federal management of non-immigrant visas—except for screening health risks, public charges, or criminals—as the most constitutionally compatible solution. This shift would streamline the process, reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies, and align better with principles of individual and market autonomy.