Is "Kick 'em out" preferable to "You can't leave"?

Some answers don't come easy. Even after days of thought. This is one of those. And I still might be way off-base.

I don't remember hearing about the Soviet Union kicking out-- or "inviting to leave"-- the people who didn't like the Soviet Union. People who would have been happy to leave. Instead, they didn't let anyone leave.

I don't remember hearing about Nazi Germany kicking out all the Jews and other "undesirables" instead of putting them in concentration camps or summarily murdering them. I'll bet at that point these people would have left if allowed, no "kicking out" required. But, nope. They didn't let them leave.

They forced those they didn't like to stay. In concentration camps, in mass graves, or in hiding. But the borders were closed to their egress.

Isn't that the way of all the worst states?

It's never good to round up and cage people who aren't violating others.

No, I'm not saying it's good to kick out people who want to stay and who aren't violating anyone-- it's still a rights violation. But I'd probably prefer to be kicked out than to be caged or murdered.

There are those who richly deserve to be kicked out: those who archate. But who would you curse by sending them all the murderers, rapists, Congressvermin, Supreme Courtjesters, police, bureaucrats, muggers, presidents, burglars, arsonists, etc. you're kicking out? That kind of person isn't welcome in my sphere; how could I burden anyone else with them? (Anyone for building Botany Bay 2 on the far side of the moon? Oh, wait... )

Don't worry-- I'm not going to violate anyone by forcibly kicking them off property I don't own. It would be civilized of them to reciprocate, but you know they won't.

As long as a state is kicking people out instead of forcing them to stay as prisoners (or corpses) it's not as bad as it could be, even though it's not good.

Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
Find me on Patreon