SF: J: 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?
J: So, you're assuming that immigrants are a horde of barbarians ?
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: 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? It is in my nature ?
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?
I don't know. I think you just argue any point you can, whether its relevant or not, and try to gain some traction on some position so that you win the debate in your own mind.
Juan:And you still don't grasp the whole is/ought dichotomy. And I think it is you the one who doesn't.
And you still don't grasp the whole is/ought dichotomy.
Whatever.
Juan: But all this is a separate issue, and not necessary to resolve this debate. On the contrary. It's central to the debate. You want to apply a system that relies on perfectly delimited property titles when in reality those property titles are missing.
But all this is a separate issue, and not necessary to resolve this debate.
How are the property titles missing? Look, the state agents owe a massive debt of restitution to the taxpayers as a result of their crime of mass expropriation. If they are unable to pay, and we can assume this, the creditors, in this case the taxpayers, have a right to go after the states assets. They have a right to public property in proportion to the level of state expropriation. Do you see how the titles to public property rest in taxpayers hands now? Is it not just for there to be a partial return of property in the form of giving taxpayers control over who can use their property? And can we not assume as a general default that if someone is not invited onto property that their uninvited, and a tresspasser?
Lets get this one simple thing out of the way first. Then we can get to more complicated stuff, like easement rights, and the reappropriation of public property. Otherwise you might just make a case against points not essential to your opponents case so that you can turn around and pretend to win the argument.
Juan:I don't think that people who want to open immigration using the state in the current scenario have a logically sound case. Thanks, that shows that your whole argument is a strawman.
I don't think that people who want to open immigration using the state in the current scenario have a logically sound case.
A strawman is when you make up your opponents position, and then attack the phantom position. I think it's obvious that an open boarders position, given the existence of the state, would mean a massive subsidization of migration vis a vis a stateless society. Besides, I was just mirroring your argument back at you to show that it was just an empty assertion with nothing to back it up.
What about uninvited trespassers being guilty by definition? I'm all in favour of invited immigration.
SF:How are the property titles missing?
Look, the state agents owe a massive debt of restitution to the taxpayers as a result of their crime of mass expropriation.
They have a right to public property in proportion to the level of state expropriation.
Do you see how the titles to public property rest in taxpayers hands now?
Is it not just for there to be a partial return of property in the form of giving taxpayers control over who can use their property?
And can we not assume as a general default that if someone is not invited onto property that their uninvited, and a tresspasser ?
Then we can get to more complicated stuff, like easement rights, and the reappropriation of public property.
A strawman is when you make up your opponents position, and then attack the phantom position.
I think it's obvious that an open boarders position, given the existence of the state, would mean a massive subsidization of migration
What about uninvited trespassers being guilty by definition?
edward_1313: Nick. B:Not if we recruit them and make them enemies of the states. Wow. That sounds realistic.
Nick. B:Not if we recruit them and make them enemies of the states.
Wow. That sounds realistic.
Hey it's just as "realistic" as a world without government. But thats what we're fight for right.
Juan:Yours seem to be a clear case of prejudice
When are you going to give up on the ad hominems? Its every thread with you.
Peace
Juan:Because it's not clear -- at all -- who owns what. Is this controversial ?
Its clear who doesn't own them.
Juan:Hey Jon, I even bothered to post a definition of the word prejudice which you graciously left out. What do you think you achieve doing that ?
Maybe I should have included a definition of ad hominem.
Juan:I pointed out that Stephen Forde's claims with respect to immigrants fit the description of 'prejudice' and there's absolutely no fallacy in what I said.
You misunderstand the fallacy.
Explaining why Stephen Forde produced an argument is not a substitute for refuting that argument. An argument is either valid or invalid, the character of the person making the argument has no effect on this.
If Stephen is wrong, show why. Don't try to divine his motives.
Stephen Forde: 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: 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).
Comparing the act of migration as such to violent crime is absurd on its face. Sorry. You're being highly disingenous and evaded the argument entirely.
edward_1313: 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).
Nick. B: But the state has no right to the land. And if they enforce the border, they strenghten themselves. Which were adamantly against.
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).
The logic that "the state exists, therefore intervention X is justified" can be used endlessly to justify whatever statist measure one wants. It's purely pragmatic arbitraryness. It's also interventionism. You are taking an interventionist position.
Intervention X is the expropriation of private property and intervention Y is the partial return of control over that property. Isn't that libertarian?
State migration restriction is not a partial return of control to rightful owners, it is the exercise of illegitimate state control.
You're a functional statist.
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.
There is no way to accurately allocate this to the tax-payers (can I sell my share please?), it is functionally without a legitimate owner, and you are falling back on collectivism. The dejure decider in the scenario is either the state or the state acting on the behalf of a special interest, given that it s unclear who owns what and there are conflicts of preferance among the tax-payers to begin with. This has been pointed out ad nauseum.
And neither will the lefty multicultural libertarians.
The nationalists aren't libertarians to begin with, they function as paleoconservatives.
Jon Bostwick:Explaining why Stephen Forde produced an argument is not a substitute for refuting that argument. An argument is either valid or invalid, the character of the person making the argument has no effect on this.
If Stephen is wrong, show why.
J:So, you're assuming that immigrants are a horde of barbarians ?
SF:Some of them are, some of them aren't. You think their all angels?
The only system that would have no borders would be a world government.
It seems that if you're a cultural marxist the politics follow automatically.
Brainpolice:State migration restriction is not a partial return of control to rightful owners, it is the exercise of illegitimate state control.
Yes it is. Forced integration is the exercise of illegitimate state control.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
JonBostwick: The only system that would have no borders would be a world government. It seems that if you're a cultural marxist the politics follow automatically.
At least one alternative system that would have no borders would be anarcho-capitalism!
... apart if you considers the limits of private properties as borders, of course -;)
JonBostwick:The only system that would have no borders would be a world government.
The only government system. As someone else pointed out, there is the no-government system as well.
This would definitely be a benefit of a one-world government An end to trade barriers and wars.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: As someone else pointed out, there is the no-government system as well.
Well, whoever pointed that out is wrong. A free society would have borders, it's called private property.
Juan:Wrong. A society is just an abstraction. Borders are geographical boundaries. At best individual pieces of land would have 'borders' and it doesn't follow at all that the 'anarcho' nationalism some ppl dream of would be possible.
There would be borders around the different communities.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:State migration restriction is not a partial return of control to rightful owners, it is the exercise of illegitimate state control. Yes it is. Forced integration is the exercise of illegitimate state control.
Your position reduces to forced segregation, and is the exercise of illegitimate state control. To call the LACK of enforcement of the state's territorial claim an excersise of such control is nonsensical. You're the one asking the state to enforce its illegitimate property claim to begin with, and you're buying into the illusion that this is somehow repreentative of the will of the tax-payers when no such uniform will exists. Stop calling yourself an anarchist, you advocate the reinforcement of the state's territorial claim in the name of nationalism. You are a conservative nationalist.
You've accepted the misnomers of the paleocons. No political borders /= world government. No political borders = anarchism. They are worlds apart and you should know better then to confuse the two. A world government doesn't eliminate political borders or jurisdictions, it turns the entire world into the political border, a singular jurisdiction. Libertarian advocates of free immigration aren't for global government, they're for eliminating political borders as such. The logical outcome of that is not global government, but no government.
GilesStratton: Spideynw: As someone else pointed out, there is the no-government system as well. Well, whoever pointed that out is wrong. A free society would have borders, it's called private property.
There is a huge difference between the "borders" of private property and POLITICAL BORDERS. We're talking about POLITICAL BORDERS, and it is highly disingenous to make allusions to private property in the attempt to justify the enforcement of POLITICAL BORDERS, which are not legitimate private property but arbitrary illegitimate property claims made by a state. The "libertarian" anti-immigrationists are constantly flip-flopping between these two things (private owner's right to excude vs. state enforcement of political borders) in a disingenous way. When we're talking about political borders, we're dealing with an arbitrary political jurisdiction that is not representative of actual ownership.
Byzantine:The very essence of property rights is the ability to bar entry.
GilesStratton: Juan:Wrong. A society is just an abstraction. Borders are geographical boundaries. At best individual pieces of land would have 'borders' and it doesn't follow at all that the 'anarcho' nationalism some ppl dream of would be possible. There would be borders around the different communities.
I think you'll be hard pressed to allocate a just owner for the percieved borders of an entire community. At best, there are individual owners within the community, but by no means can you point me to a legitimate owner of the entire community as such. In the attempt to exercise decision-making over the entire community as such, you're stuck with either majoritarianism or some oligarchy deciding how the property of people existing within such percieved borders will be used. Hence the implicit collectivist authoritarianism of the closed borders position.
Juan:Which has nothing to do with 'communities' and other nationalist crap that conservatives love so much.
How does it not?
Byzantine: Juan:The idea of a closed 'society' bound by physical borders is a typical statist belief. As a matter of fact, it's more or less the definition of a nation-state. It's funny to see how some 'anarchists' actually want a state of their own... Where do you get this crap? The very essence of property rights is the ability to bar entry.
Juan:The idea of a closed 'society' bound by physical borders is a typical statist belief. As a matter of fact, it's more or less the definition of a nation-state. It's funny to see how some 'anarchists' actually want a state of their own...
Where do you get this crap? The very essence of property rights is the ability to bar entry.
The very essence of property rights is not the ability to bar entry or passage, it's ability to decide how the property is used in general, which includes being inclusive about entry or open about passage. Barring entry is your personal preferance, not an imperative that comes with the nature of property rights. It is of course true that by the nature of you owning something, others don't own it due to scarcity, but it by no means follows from this that the very nature of the property right is that you completely exclude it's use in all cases and in terms of all property. I can own something and decide to let you use it, I could decide to give it to you, I could decide to share it, I could decide to destroy it, and so on. The degree of exclusivity you are talking about is just your preferance.
Brainpolice:hin the community, but by no means can you point me to a legitimate owner of the entire community as such.
Of course you can, seeing as towns would be owned by single entrepreneurs.The rest of your nonsense follows from that.
GilesStratton: Juan:Which has nothing to do with 'communities' and other nationalist crap that conservatives love so much. How does it not?
Because noone own's a "community" as such in the same way that I can legitimately own a home. The "community" is just an accumulation of individual cases of ownership, but as a whole noone owns it.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:hin the community, but by no means can you point me to a legitimate owner of the entire community as such. Of course you can, seeing as towns would be owned by single entrepreneurs.The rest of your nonsense follows from that.
There will be no towns owned entirely by single enterprenuers in the absence of the unanimous consent of everyone in that town deciding to sell or donate their own portion to them. Good luck finding such unanimous consent, getting literally everyone in the town to sell their land and property to the same person (hint: you can't!). Otherwise, you're stuck recognizing that the town as such is made up of multiple individual owners.
So please explain to me how you can manage to get an entire city, as one exists today, into the ownership of a single entreprenuer without effectively claiming ownership over other people's property within the city. You simply can't.
Do you know what we call towns owned (at least implicitly) by a single entity today? A city-state. The city government effectively claims ownership over the entire city, while in reality there are a multitude of individual owners of individual plots of land and property within that city. There is no way to get such a property claim over the entire city in the absence of state power or some kind of crime.
Brainpolice:You are a conservative nationalist.
And you're a cultural marxist.
Brainpolice:To call the LACK of enforcement of the state's territorial claim an excersise of such control is nonsensical.
You mean lack of enforcement through providing roads and through restricting the use of private property?
Brainpolice:There will be no towns owned entirely by single enterprenuers in the absence of the unanimous consent of everyone in that town deciding to sell or donate their own portion to them. Good luck finding such unanimous consent, getting literally everyone in the town to sell their land and property to the same person (hint: you can't!). Otherwise, you're stuck recognizing that the town as such is made up of multiple individual owners.
Why wouldn't people sell their land to a single entrepreneur? The have no interest in owning land, only in being able to lease it from some owner. Of course if a single entrepreneur didn't own the entire town people wouldn't have any way of ensuring that their property values would not decline due to the neighbours use of their land. Hence the usefulness of the arrangement I pointed out.
No, I'm not a cultural marxist. You use that label to throw at anyone who isn't a rabid conservative.
It is not a restriction on the use of private property for the state to not enforce it's legal jurisdiction or territorial claim. The state NOT putting up walls and putting paramilitary troop's on the edges of its territorial dominion isn't a property rights violation, the state doing that would be a property rights violation, the whole thing is predicated on its illegitimate territorial claim to begin with. The state's territorial claim is what's a restriction on the use of private property (and unowned property), given that it restricts people from homesteading unowned land and being inclusive with their own property. Defending the state's territorial claim in the name of private property is a ridiculous obfuscation.