Saturday, August 15, 2015

More on Open Borders

This is related to that last post [link] by Sean Gabb. Indeed, it was written by one of the commenters, and it makes perfect sense. If you've read all those comments, and you should, you'll see that the intra-libertarian conflict has to do with the NAP (nonaggression principle), sometimes called the ZAP (zero aggression principle). If the NAP is to be a requirement for libertarianism, then that reduces libertarianism to simple anarchism. Because, you can't have a government without initiating force in order to establish it and maintain it. If you don't believe me, just try it. And I'm not an anarchist, and I therefore don't consider the NAP a requirement. Now, if the NAP is a standard of behavior for people to agree on, that's another story. If you're going to have a polity where it prevails, though, you're going to have to exclude people who don't accept it as a standard. That is, you need a government of some sort to keep those people out.

For those libertarians who require the NAP, they must logically be anarchists, and libertarianism may include anarchism, but it also includes minarchists like me. I'm a libertarian nationalist, and I consider the nation (as an ethnic designation) to be a primary organization unit of humanity, and its existence is both inevitable and positive. And I want a minimalist government to preserve it.

And now this, from Alexander Baron.

This is from http://www.thelatestnews.com/is-there-a-case-for-shooting-illegal-migrants/

Is There A Case For Shooting Illegal  Migrants?

Before anyone flies into a fit at the mere question, here is what someone wrote a few years ago:

4 comments:

  1. Why don't the English hand out some handy easy to understand maps with the directions to Baron Rothchild's estate and family. I'm certain they would like to thank the Rothchilds personally for the great opportunity they have received for a better life. How heartwarming it would be for everyone to see how generous the Rothchild family can be, and they can receive the benefits of diversity they have always so richly deserved!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Even if you think government is illegitimate that does not get rid of borders. Each individual property owner has borders and other people have no right to movement on their property. Getting rid of the US government and its borders ends up with allowing the up to 300 million private property borders in what was the US to regain its powers over use of those properties.

    Just like getting rid of all government in the world increases borders from 300 or so to up to 7 billion.

    The idea that you can wander the world and have a right to movement is a government based right, with the free market on the other hand you have no right to movement but you can negotiate to get permission to move on other peoples property. Just like you have no right to someone else’s tomatoes but you can negotiate with them a deal where you can get some tomatoes. But the tomato owner does not have to make the deal.

    Today government has usurped private property owners right to control their property in the name of free movement of people. To get a so-called borderless world you are not moving toward no government but toward global government, the largest and most powerful form of government since you cannot escape it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "If the NAP is to be a requirement for libertarianism, then that reduces libertarianism to simple anarchism. Because, you can't have a government without initiating force in order to establish it and maintain it."

    You're thinking too small. You can have the NAP as an ideal but be a realist and work politically towards a society that's closest towards it as possible. I think you can make an NAP-based case for restricting immigration based off the fact that the immigrants in question are poised to initiate aggression against the native population of the U.S. based on their majority support of socialism. Restricting the immigration of hostile people is a legitimate act of self-defense.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Borders are just a line on a map. If a bird can migrate why can't a bipedal ape?

    ReplyDelete