Stephen Forde:The closer we can get to an anarcho-capitalist society, the better, whether it is realizable or not.
Agreed. Wasn't my point though. I'm just saying if we reject any argument because it isn't consistent with some utopia then there isn't going to be much of argument at all.
Stephen Forde:Personally, I don't think government is inevitable.
I wish I could agree.
Stephen Forde:I don't think that continuing to live is a legitimating the government.
That's not what I said. I'm just pointing out that it's fruitless to begin with the argument that government is illegitimate since most don't manifest this in their actions. That doesn't mean that government is legitimate.
Stephen Forde:And I think that government tends to arise and evolve more quickly in areas more densely populated with statist humans.
And to that I simply say that in more densely populated areas there will arise more statist humans. It allows for the opportunity exploit others. You're not being mindful of the conditions necessary for effective coercion.
SF:From the fact that the government can't claim the right to exclude people, it does not follow that taxpayers can't claim the right to exclude people...
...and have the government perform that service on their behalf.
Joint-ownership is perfectly legitimate.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan: SF:From the fact that the government can't claim the right to exclude people, it does not follow that taxpayers can't claim the right to exclude people... And I never said it does follow.
Then, do you admit that taxpayers have the right to exclude foreigners from their property and have the government enforce that exclusion?
Juan: ...and have the government perform that service on their behalf. IF the taxpayers had clear property titles to public land, then the state wouldn't exist, can you see that ? If taxpayers really controlled the land they own then we'd be living in a free society and immigration wouldn't be an issue.
Yeah, I can see that if their property titles were recognised and enforced we would have no government. Look, as far as this whole property thing goes, we have two different definitions. I consider property to be posession. You consider property to be rightful title to possession. I think you're wrong, but for the purposes of this discussion, I'll take you're definition for granted, and will simply refer to illigitimately held property (by my definition) as a possession. k, glad we got that out of the way. Now, since the taxpayers have rightful title to public land, shouldn't we recognise that they have a right against tresspass? Or do people not have that right if their property has been expropriated (lost possession)?
Juan:Joint-ownership is perfectly legitimate. I never said otherwise.
Don't many taxpayers have rights to the property titles of roads, since many taxpayers were expropriated to produce them?
Juan:And let's suppose that the borders and roads of a country are jointly owned. And 90% of taxpayers are narrow minded tribalists, 9% don't care and 1% are libertarians who want to let immigrants use their roads - and notice that immigrants pay indirect taxes so they can pay for road usage. How are you going to solve that conflict between the right to exclude of some and the right to not exclude of others ? Voting...?
The Hoppean position (which is libertarian btw) is not that there should be no immigration, that is closed boarders. If someone is invited, they should be allowed to enter. And the person who invited them should be considered their guarantor, and held liable for any damage they do to the property of others. And if the 1% of "libertarians" decide to let anyone in, and attract the predictable menace of property rights violators, the "tribalists" should be allowed to get an injunction to stop them from letting anyone else in, repeal the invitation of the unwelcome guests and expel them, and be allowed to pursue the "libertarians" assets as compensation for any damages.
Does that make sense?
Stephen Forde: The Hoppean position (which is libertarian btw) is not that there should be no immigration, that is closed boarders. If someone is invited, they should be allowed to enter. And the person who invited them should be considered their guarantor, and held liable for any damage they do to the property of others. And if the 1% of "libertarians" decide to let anyone in, and attract the predictable menace of property rights violators, the "tribalists" should be allowed to get an injunction to stop them from letting anyone else in, repeal the invitation of the unwelcome guests and expel them, and be allowed to pursue the "libertarians" assets as compensation for any damages. Does that make sense?
It sounds like you believe that we that WE the citizens own the land when we don't. The "illegal immigrants" are just walking on stolen property. Let them come in I say. We'll just recruit them, make them our brothers in arms! The fact is there will always be "illegal" immigration.
Nick. B:It sounds like you believe that we that WE the citizens own the land when we don't.
No no. We the taxpayersa have ownership rights to government property. After all, we paid for it.
Nick. B:The "illegal immigrants" are just walking on stolen property.
I prefer uninvited, since some of the current illigal immigrants are invited, while many legal immigrants are uninvited. Yes, they are walking on property that legitimately belongs to someone else. If the legitimate owners don't want them on the property, they should travel on it. The fact that the property was produced using expropriated funds doesn't change this in the least.
If someone forces you out of your house, do I have the right to come along and mash it up? Seriously.
Nick. B:Let them come in I say. We'll just recruit them, make them our brothers in arms!
Many third-world peoples (not all) tend to be less principled, and more sympathetic toward the political process than western Europeans. These are the people our current democratic welfare rulers import. In addition, to buy their loyalty, they give them all sorts of privileges at the expense of the domestic population. If you have a strategy that will convert these ppl into our allies, I'd like to hear it. But I'm skeptical.
Nick. B:The fact is there will always be "illegal" immigration.
And there will always be crime. Maybe we shouldn't oppose it.
As I pointed out on page one of this thread, the anti-immigration position is predicated on illegitimate state ownership of land. There's no way to get around this and I've yet to see anyone prove how one can take such a position without legitimizing the state to begin with.
Stephen Forde: No no. We the taxpayersa have ownership rights to government property. After all, we paid for it.
No! The state stole our money through taxes, last time I checked thieves don't give you something in return for what they've stolen.
Stephen Forde: If someone forces you out of your house, do I have the right to come along and mash it up? Seriously.
Yes defintely, if I can't have my house no one will. But in a nation-state nobody "owns" their home...
Stephen Forde: Many third-world peoples (not all) tend to be less principled, and more sympathetic toward the political process than western Europeans. These are the people our current democratic welfare rulers import. In addition, to buy their loyalty, they give them all sorts of privileges at the expense of the domestic population. If you have a strategy that will convert these ppl into our allies, I'd like to hear it. But I'm skeptical.
Exactly! They're desperate blank states. And I posted a reason why I believe we can convert them on the 2nd page of this discussion board. Be my guest and look it up.
Stephen Forde: And there will always be crime. Maybe we shouldn't oppose it.
It all depends what you mean by crime. If you mean drug trafficking, gun trafficking, prostitution, and money counterfeiting; I gladly support that!
Stephen Forde:Then, do you admit that taxpayers have the right to exclude foreigners from their property and have the government enforce that exclusion?
I consider property to be posession.
You consider property to be rightful title to possession.
Now, since the taxpayers have rightful title to public land, shouldn't we recognise that they have a right against tresspass?
Don't many taxpayers have rights to the property titles of roads,
And the person who invited them should be considered their guarantor, and held liable for any damage they do to the property of others.
And if the 1% of "libertarians" decide to let anyone in, and attract the predictable menace of property rights violators,
the "tribalists" should be allowed to get an injunction to stop them from letting anyone else in,
Stephen Forde:Many third-world peoples (not all) tend to be less principled, and more sympathetic toward the political process than western Europeans. These are the people our current democratic welfare rulers import. In addition, to buy their loyalty, they give them all sorts of privileges at the expense of the domestic population.
Juan: Stephen Forde:Many third-world peoples (not all) tend to be less principled, and more sympathetic toward the political process than western Europeans. These are the people our current democratic welfare rulers import. In addition, to buy their loyalty, they give them all sorts of privileges at the expense of the domestic population. That is funny...and deluded. The things is, systems like communism and fascism are creations of western natural elites. In a word, third world governments are as bad as first world ones...and vice versa...As a somehow related note...I've been watching some bush videos and reading quotes. It's truly amazing.http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/georgewbush/a/top10bushisms.htmStephen, do you think that you can explain bush's access to power because of illegal immigration ? Or perhaps WASPs voted for him...?
I'll say it again and this time in capital letters: "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS SHOULD, BE, LIBERTARIANS MAIN FOCUS FOR RECRUITMENT. Stephen you act as if these people are brainless leeches, why can't you see that they're people who like us need something to believe in. Honestly, you want the state to disappear, but, at the same time you want the state to enforce something it really should have no say in. It's mind boggling.
The closest thing one can come to a libertarian anti-immigration position would be to say that you personally prefer to restrict migration on your own legitimate property, and others are free to be more inclusive with their own legitimate property. It reduces to a claim of personal preferance that has nothing to do with libertarianism in any direct sense.
But you cannot, on any libertarian grounds, argue for state-enforced immigration restriction, for immigration restriction as a uniform legal standard. It is not libertarian to make exclusivity with one's own property uniformly compulsory or to support the reineforcement of the state's territorial dominion or legal jurisdiction. The state can not be treated as a legitimate owner in a libertarian analysis, nor is the illusion that the taxpayers are the collective owners of the state defensible or practical (such a thing would be impossible to accurately allocate, especially considering intergenerational issues, and as a matter of state policy it would reduce to a gigantic redistribution scheme if it were attempted to be allocated).
Juan: Look, it's easy. You DON'T need to be a citizen to enter a country. You enter the country as a 'guest' - the state issues some paper which tags you as a 'guest' and that's the end of the story. As a guest you're entitled to no welfare benefits.
Sorry about quoting an old post, I was reading the thread from the beginning and felt like I should respond to this. From a statist's perspective I don't see this as logical because all your rich citizens that you steal the most from would clearly want to take this road. You can see the advantages of being a 'guest' vs being a 'citizen', especially if you are wealthy as you would be able to afford your own food, health care, and all the other things welfare provides. As the rich and upper middle class become 'guests' there is increasing not enough money for the leeches in the society, and the state will run out of money.
Juan:Agreed, such a system wouldn't make sense for a statist because it would show that welfare is really not needed, and that there are people (both rich and poor) willing to do without it. But I offered that as a counterargument to the "can't-have-free-immigration-because-of-the-welfare-state" claim made by libertarians. Libertarians shouldn't worry about the welfare state going broke should they ?
No they shouldn't. In fact they should dance on the street when it happens!
Brainpolice: It is not libertarian to make exclusivity with one's own property uniformly compulsory
Property is automatically exclusive, unless its use by a non-owner is invited.
As for the rest of your argument, lets apply it to violent crime instead of immigration.
The closest thing one can come to a libertarian anti-[violent crime] position would be to say that you personally prefer to restrict [violent crime] on your own legitimate property, and others are free to be more inclusive with their own legitimate property. It reduces to a claim of personal preferance that has nothing to do with libertarianism in any direct sense.
But you cannot, on any libertarian grounds, argue for state-enforced [violent crime] restriction, for [violent crime] restriction as a uniform legal standard. It is not libertarian to support the reineforcement of the state's territorial dominion or legal jurisdiction. The state can not be treated as a legitimate owner in a libertarian analysis, nor is the illusion that the taxpayers are the collective owners of the state defensible or practical (such a thing would be impossible to accurately allocate, especially considering intergenerational issues, and as a matter of state policy it would reduce to a gigantic redistribution scheme if it were attempted to be allocated).
Brainpolice: As I pointed out on page one of this thread, the anti-immigration position is predicated on illegitimate state ownership of land. There's no way to get around this and I've yet to see anyone prove how one can take such a position without legitimizing the state to begin with.
So what? That doesn't mean that the position assumes that that ownership is legitimate. It means that it's predicated on the fact that the state exists. It has effectively expropriated the land and does with it what our political process allows it.
It's premised on the fact that no one effectively challenges the creation of borders via the expropriation of land by the state. It follows from this that we can, a priori, say nothing about whether a pro-immigration or anti-immigration stance is truly libertarian. The immigration argument becomes meaningless in the absence of the state but in its presence, whether that presence is legitimate or not, it is certainly meaningful.
I can say that I believe that anit-immigration is better for freedom (not a priori though), given that the state exists and excercises its power, without at the same time assuming that its existence is legitimate.
I don't see how this is an obstacle to get around.
But the state has no right to the land. And if they enforce the border, they strenghten themselves. Which were adamantly against.
Nick. B: But the state has no right to the land. And if they enforce the border, they strenghten themselves. Which were adamantly against.
If they don't enforce the border than there is no state! If were arguing about whether there should be a state or not than I agree but were arguing about immigration given that the state exists. You could just as easily argue that if the state allows everyone to cross the border they strengthen themselves (which is still enforcement).
edward_1313:You could just as easily argue that if the state allows everyone to cross the border they strengthen themselves (which is still enforcement).
Not if we recruit them and make them enemies of the states.
Brainpolice:Just the opposite: so long as a government commands over a monopoly on land, you cannot take a closed border position without implicitly assuming the validity of that land monopoly.
Why? The government has a monopoly over the production of arbitration services. If one takes the position that the government ought to enforce laws against violent crime, do they implicitly admit the legitimacy of that monopoly?
Brainpolice:You're stuck lapsing into an interventionist, nationalistic kind of reasoning in order to defend it, since you're left with "intervention X exists, therefore we need intervention Y to stave off the effects of intervention X"
Intervention X is the expropriation of private property and intervention Y is the partial return of control over that property. Isn't that libertarian?
Brainpolice:appeals to a nationalistic sense of ownership over the "nation" by legally recognized citezens.
Yeah, it appeals to a national identity. So what? The only rightful owners, are the taxpayers, and what they rightfully own is the property currently in possession of government agents.
Brainpolice:We've beaten this dead horse a million times over now, and clearly the nationalists won't back down.
And neither will the lefty multicultural libertarians.
So what if a thief steals my money, and buys a computer. I am the true owner of the computer, correct? If that is true, I should be allowed to choose who can and cannot have access to the computer. Could you really say the computer is unowned?
You'd think that, but if the state found a bogus charge against you, they have the "right" to seize it from you in the name of the law. Also when they're done they may not give it back to for years to come, so, technically it is unowned, but because of coercive circumstances.
No, you're not the true owner of the computer. The computer would revert to the store and the thief would owe you restitution.
Knight_of_BAAWA: No, you're not the true owner of the computer. The computer would revert to the store and the thief would owe you restitution.
Who made the rules though?
If the computer would revert back to the store owner, would the money the thief used to pay for the computer revert back to me? Or would the computer store owner get to keep the computer and my money? Also, if the computer would revert to the computer store owner, then the computer was not unowned when it was in the possession of the thief, right? It must have been owned by the computer store owner, in which case he should be the one who is allowed to decide who can and cannot use the computer.
Nick. B: Juan: Stephen Forde:Many third-world peoples (not all) tend to be less principled, and more sympathetic toward the political process than western Europeans. These are the people our current democratic welfare rulers import. In addition, to buy their loyalty, they give them all sorts of privileges at the expense of the domestic population. That is funny...and deluded.
Juan: Stephen Forde:Many third-world peoples (not all) tend to be less principled, and more sympathetic toward the political process than western Europeans. These are the people our current democratic welfare rulers import. In addition, to buy their loyalty, they give them all sorts of privileges at the expense of the domestic population. That is funny...and deluded.
Nick. B:I'll say it again and this time in capital letters: "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS SHOULD, BE, LIBERTARIANS MAIN FOCUS FOR RECRUITMENT. Stephen you act as if these people are brainless leeches, why can't you see that they're people who like us need something to believe in.
From my experience, third world immigrants tend to be mostly culturally conservative. They believe in stongly in family and faith. They are polite and carry themselves with dignity and grace. They are also very sympathetic to democracy and redistribution. Many regard whites (mostly correctly) as culturally degenerate. Western intellectuals make various claims, as you know, of white males being oppressors, and many of these immigrants buy into it. So, they already have their beliefs (many, not all. Some have very conservative attitudes toward government) and you're probably not gonna get through to them.
Juan:The things is, systems like communism and fascism are creations of western natural elites. In a word, third world governments are as bad as first world ones...and vice versa...
Actually, third world governments are worse than first world governments, which is why the third world is relatively poorer than the first world. Given that the power of government rests on the consent of the majority, what does this say about the attitudes of third world subjects compared to first world subjects with regard to the state?
Nick. B:Not if we recruit them and make them enemies of the states.
Wow. That sounds realistic.
Knight_of_BAAWA:No, you're not the true owner of the computer. The computer would revert to the store and the thief would owe you restitution
Nick. B:Who made the rules though?
I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest here.
Eric:If the computer would revert back to the store owner, would the money the thief used to pay for the computer revert back to me?
The thief would have to pay you.
Eric:Also, if the computer would revert to the computer store owner, then the computer was not unowned when it was in the possession of the thief, right?
Right.
Stephen Forde:Actually, third world governments are worse than first world governments, which is why the third world is relatively poorer than the first world.
Juan: Stephen Forde:Then, do you admit that taxpayers have the right to exclude foreigners from their property and have the government enforce that exclusion? I fully support the idea that a group of individuals who jointly own property can do whatever they please with it, provided of course they abide by the NAP. However, I don't think that you can use that principle to justify what governments are currently doing. Also, the term 'foreigner' strikes me as nonsensical from the point of view of libertarian social theory.
Of course what government is currently doing is unjust. Right now it is causing both forced integration and forced exclusion, both unjust. A foreigner is someone who is not a taxpayer nor have they established any easement rights to public property. In this respect, we can establish them as non-owners which is entirely relavant.
Ok, so when a government taxes in order to pay for a road, the road would not be considered unowned. Since a computer that was paid for with stolen money is not considered unowned, a road paid for with stolen money shouldn't be considered unowned.
Universal citizenship is an intervention, just like closed borders.
Both represent state intervention so neither can be legitimate, yet Juan and Brainpolice laughably favor one over the other.
Peace
Stephen Forde: Brainpolice: We've beaten this dead horse a million times over now, and clearly the nationalists won't back down. And neither will the lefty multicultural libertarians.
Brainpolice: We've beaten this dead horse a million times over now, and clearly the nationalists won't back down.
Juan: I consider property to be posession. In which case the gov't owns roughly 50% of your income and can do with it and with you whatever it pleases. Thieves own what they steal -- and might makes right. If the state owns public property then you've no argument against anything the state does with its property. You consider property to be rightful title to possession. Yes, which is, I believe, a roughly correct libertarian definition of property.
blabity blah blah blah. I was just trying to establish a set of terms we could agree on, so we could debate in those terms. Why are you being such a stick in the mud? And you still don't grasp the whole is/ought dichotomy.
Juan:Now, since the taxpayers have rightful title to public land, shouldn't we recognise that they have a right against tresspass? Yes, that's technically correct. The problem is that using a collective abstraction as "the taxpayers" is misleading IMO. First, there's by no means unanimous consent among the taxpayers as to what to do with their property. Second the property rights are virtually missing in the sense that there's no way to determine how individual taxpayers own different roads/parks/whatever.
I don't know if "taxpayers" are a collective abstraction. I like to think of us as a class. Government agents are another class. Taxreceivers are another class. Criminals, victims, ect. How else do we go about social analysis in economics, ethics, or sociology than by making class distinctions?
If various taxpayers have disputes over how public property is used, it should be resolved by considering easements, so long as the state exists. In terms of recovering property, I think that each taxpayer has the right to recover up to an amount equivilant to the total taxes he has paid plus interest. And if there's not enough to go around, tough luck for the late recoverers. But all this is a separate issue, and not necessary to resolve this debate.
Juan:Don't many taxpayers have rights to the property titles of roads, Yes, now, 70% of taxpayers want to exclude, say, 'drug users' from their roads - and the rest don't. What's next ? You see, the problem is not only immigration. The right of exclusion can be invoked for any reason or no reason at all.So how would you handle such a situation ? Voting...??
Once again, easement rights. BTW, there should also be restricted migration within the country between various cities and towns for the same reason as between countries.
Juan:And the person who invited them should be considered their guarantor, and held liable for any damage they do to the property of others. I don't think so.
I do. ppl should be held responsible for negligence.
Juan: And if the 1% of "libertarians" decide to let anyone in, and attract the predictable menace of property rights violators, So, you're assuming that immigrants are a horde of barbarians ?
Some of them are, some of them aren't. You think their all angels?
Juan:the "tribalists" should be allowed to get an injunction to stop them from letting anyone else in, sentence first, veredict afterwards ?
If someone is commiting a tort, it is reasonable to get an injunction.
Juan:Well...no. I don't think that people who want to restrict immigration using the state in the current scenario have a logically sound case.
I don't think that people who want to open immigration using the state in the current scenario have a logically sound case.
Juan:The thing is, the 'lefty' libertarians are, well, libertarians. But what about the nationalists...?
They are also libertarians. Libertarians are just ppl in favour of liberty.
Not so sure. The thief owes restitution. But the store is holding money that doesn't belong to them. If the computer can be recovered, the store should have to refund the victim and be allowed to go after the thief for fraud. But what about the case were the someone sells to the thief and can no longer be found. And the thief doesn't have money to pay back his victim. Doesn't it make sense that the computer is an asset that the thief possesses that the victim can go after?
Eric:Ok, so when a government taxes in order to pay for a road, the road would not be considered unowned. Since a computer that was paid for with stolen money is not considered unowned, a road paid for with stolen money shouldn't be considered unowned.
I'm going to suggest you have a read of this: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentyfour.asp
Might help you clear up some ideas.
Stephen Forde:blabity blah blah blah. I was just trying to establish a set of terms we could agree on, so we could debate in those terms. Why are you being such a stick in the mud?
And you still don't grasp the whole is/ought dichotomy.
But all this is a separate issue, and not necessary to resolve this debate.
I don't know if "taxpayers" are a collective abstraction. I like to think of us as a class.