Ah, my mistake. I meant to specify episodes older than May 2011. The linked page only goes so far back.

Is there any way to view older podcasts? I think I've listened to all of them since I joined, but I did miss the first few anyhow.

It's at least good enough for a book! E,ven better, an Audible book. Write it down and narrate it and I'll throw you $.

Thanks! I'll read up.

Well, you are a lucky father! :)

Thanks for the kind words--and for the new information. One thing I love about Ricochet is that I'm always having my point of view challenged. Helps keep the mind sharp!

So, do you consider the right of movement to be a natural right in the same vein as life, liberty, property?

And, if I may play devil's advocate here, is it fair to say that the state has a duty to prevent other people from using their right of movement in such a manner that would disturb other people's rights? Also, how would you my right of free movement with the state's duty to secure its sovereignty?

Sorry for all the questions.. just trying to flesh this out.

This all strikes me as a bit hyperbolic. You'd be hard pressed to find even the most fanatical border security advocate who would suggest that we purposely kill or harm the people coming across the border.

We don't hate immigrants. We just want our immigration policy to reflect national interest and the border secured. 

To be honest, this may be the first time I've even come across the argument. Maybe you're right that it's merely a long running fiction that exists because we all accept it as reality.

As an aside, the baby you're using for your avatar is far too adorable.

I think her point (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the United States has the ability to secure the border if she chooses to. She obviously wasn't suggesting that the guns face inwards.

Is any border ever 100% effective? Of course not. Do your houses  windows keep out 100% of the cold? They don't? Well, you may as well knock them out because they aren't worth the cost.

No one suggests that we live in a perfect world where everything comes out exactly according to plan. We try to make do with what we have to the best of our abilities. If a secure border means that 90% of the criminals and sex traffickers are stopped then that's a win.

Interesting point. I'm not sure it changes my stance, but it's a very valid point.

Yes and no.

I have the freedom to go anywhere I want without restriction. Except for secure government buildings, private residences, bank vaults, foreign countries, etc. etc.

My point was merely that in practical application, most of us understand that there are limits to our freedom of movement. Nations have a right and duty to preserve their borders. It's common sense to accept that when crossing borders you will have to go through some hoops.

Forgive me for putting words in your mouth. That was just the impression I came away with.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but I come away with different conclusions--funny how that works haha. I agree that our immigration system is backwards and could use some work---I was going to mention that in my comment, but I was limited.

Anyhow, since when do people have the right to move around freely without restriction? Sure, I can do so (within reason) here in my country, but I don't feel that I have the right to walk into Canada and say "welp, this is my new home!" without having to go through the process (even if it's a byzantine system). 

We didn't force her to come here. And, though I don't fault her (and others) from wanting to come to our country, that doesn't mean that we can just accept everyone without reservation.

I was hoping that you would say that the state would ensure that 13 year old children would not be kept as sex slaves. Come on, son. If you're going to legalize it at least have some decent rules.

There are some things in life that you simply can't leave to market forces, no?

Fred, I love seeing that perky feline avatar of yours, but I must disagree.

I reject the premise of your statement; namely, that the girl had a right to cross the border, and that the state is somehow wrong for preventing her from doing so. Our system does allow her to come here. She can apply for citizenship just like millions of others do and have done.

I don't blame the poor girl for wanting to come here. I wish she was able to come here legally and safely. I don't even blame her for crossing illegally--though I truly wish she didn't.

To say that state action caused this is just wrong.

The criminals who lied to, abused, and degraded this poor girl caused this to happen. The failure of Mexico's government to make their state good enough so that her citizen's don't flee, caused this to happen. The people who have a fetish for young girls, caused this to happen. And above all, the sick and fallen nature of man caused this to happen.

The fact that we don't have an open borders policy did not.

Oh, butof course! we wouldn't allowchildren to go into this profession! These slippery slope arguments are nothing more than fear mongering. /sarcasm off

Part of me is amused at the libertarian arguments in favor of legalizing drugs/prostitution. They see no problem with setting up another government agency that will expand the state's control and fill up state coffers. Although, I suppose you could argue that if drugs and prostitution were legalized, that you would no longer need the DEA and other such agencies.

Of course, when has a government agency ever gone away simply because it was no longer needed?

As someone who lives in one of the northern Virginia apartment complexes, I shuddered when I read that post. It's quite possible that one of those girls ended up in my apartment complex.

D.C., your point about how the libertarian argument for prostitution legalization doesn't stand up to the light of day got me thinking. I'll accept that there are many men who, if freed from public shaming and the law, would solicit a prostitute (hell, there were points in my life where I may have) but I don't think that they would be as willing if they knew the girl offering her body wasn't doing so by choice.

The premise of this movie is my nightmare. It would be a much more depressing story if the father involved wasn't an ex spy, but an accountant. What the hell do you do then?!

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what any of you are talking about. Someone link me please.

Edit: Never mind. I found it.