Sometimes “bordertarians” argue that the state may restrict immigration because it may dictate how public property—specifically public roads—can be used. On this view, if the state decides that immigrants may not travel on public roads, then immigrants may not travel on public roads.
Of course, the collective of people who pay to keep up public property also collectively should determine its rules and restrictions. Nudists don’t get to sit in on elementary public schools, curfews are designated for public parks, and drivers licenses limited to legal residents
Without having thought about it much, this seems prima facie plausible. It's always struck me as silly the idea that it's anti-libertarian to ban Wokeness from being taught in public schools. That'd be like saying it's anti-libertarian to ban schools from teaching flat earth theory. An account like this could help.
Of course, the collective of people who pay to keep up public property also collectively should determine its rules and restrictions. Nudists don’t get to sit in on elementary public schools, curfews are designated for public parks, and drivers licenses limited to legal residents
Without having thought about it much, this seems prima facie plausible. It's always struck me as silly the idea that it's anti-libertarian to ban Wokeness from being taught in public schools. That'd be like saying it's anti-libertarian to ban schools from teaching flat earth theory. An account like this could help.