Juan: Yeah well. But you don't own 'your' street right now. So, the argument that people whom you don't like can be removed because they are trespassers is a flawed argument.
You don't own it either, so you can't allow in anyone you want.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
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:I don't need to 'allow' people in. People have the natural negative right to not be aggressed upon, so they can move in all by themselves. You can't enforce your restrictions without violating the NAP. Not to mention you're assuming that a 'country' is a legitimately owned place people can enter -- which is not the case.
I'm not talking about a country, I'm talking about the land which is owned by the state. You need the state to allow the people you want into the land. In a free market, this would cost too much.
I'm not talking about a country, I'm talking about the land which is owned by the state.
In a free market, this would cost too much.
Juan:The state doesn't own land.
If you were correct, then nothing would stop people from restricting access to roads. One thing does, the state, hence the state owns the land.
My own pick, but the original article is damn right! Free-market and anarchism are based on no borders / absolutely free immigration. Hence, it's difficult to figure why libertarians would go on defending a statist / nationalist position... In an ancap society, the only borders would be those of private properties; so, you can move anywhere you want as long as you find someone willing to sell you her land in the place you'd like to live in. You don't have the right to move in in case nobody wants to, but that's rather unlikely to happen if you're ready to put the appropriate price for it.
Re/ It would be one thing if the immigrants don't recognize the authority of the state when they move to a region. But in most cases, specifically the Canadian and American ones, immigrants come seeking the state, and what the state offers.
This is a straight consequentialist argument, putting what's instrumentally efficient above people's rights (here, their right to move wherever they want, provided they buy / rent their accomodation from willing landowners) not too much in line with Austrian premisses... but if you want to tackle this type of claims, David Friedman (Chicago, granted, but surely no left-libertarian) has written a couple of articles, based on empirical research, precisely refuting this kind of prejudices; actually, immigrants are usually belonging to the most entrepreneurial segments of a society (incidentaly, if they weren't, they wouldn't take the risk of moving from their country of origin) and immigrants to the US are mostly going to low-welfare states, because it gives them more opportunities.
The fact that the welfare is deplorable, as much as any other public theft/coercion-based monopoly, does justify creating more of such monopolies, over land and what-not... on the contrary!
Cheers, M-
Stranger:If you were correct, then nothing would stop people from restricting access to roads. One thing does, the state, hence the state owns the land.
Juan: Your retorting that free-immigration advocates don't own the streets either is irrelevant. Since anti-immigration advocates can't legitimately stop immigration, then free-immigration is the default and morally correct position.
Actually the default is the status quo, which is restricted access to public land. You are advocating repealing immigration controls, meaning you are going to use the force of the state to change the rights of access to public land. And since it is forbidden by the state to appropriate this public land and stop you, (because the state owns it, no matter how much you ask that we look the other way) you are benefitting from the force of the state to impose your program.
Stranger:You are advocating repealing immigration controls, meaning you are going to use the force of the state to change the rights of access to public land.
Juan:Stop the ridiculous sophisms please. You want to murder peaceful people who try to cross political borders.
You're wasting our time and not providing any refutation of the fact that it is forbidden to appropriate public land by the land's owner, the state. Conclusion: it is only reasonable to expect the state to fulfill its duties as a land owner.
You're wasting our time and not providing any refutation of the fact that it is forbidden to appropriate public land by the land's owner, the state.
Conclusion it is only reasonable to expect the state to fulfill its duties as a land owner.
Juan: Here. It's obvious that the state usurps land -- I've no intention to refute such a fact. What you don't get is that from the fact that the state usurps land it doesn't follow that immigration can be legitimately restricted.
So if we could own land privately, we couldn't restrict immigration to our land?
Stranger, what are your thoughts on the original article?
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
I'm sorry, but I don't get what this entire argument is over. Don't people on the border still own their own land? And can't they deny passage to people?
And Juan, you can't say that the sales and payroll taxes that illegals pay make up for road usage, police protection, fire protection, public education, and other public services.
Political Atheists Blog
krazy kaju:I'm sorry, but I don't get what this entire argument is over. Don't people on the border still own their own land? And can't they deny passage to people?
Because the issue, as the article points out, is not about borders. Anyone can get through the border on a visitor's visa. What it is about is the right to settle permanently in communities that the state maintains a monopoly over.
Stranger:So if we could own land privately, we couldn't restrict immigration to our land?
krazy kaju:And Juan, you can't say that the sales and payroll taxes that illegals pay make up for road usage, police protection, fire protection, public education, and other public services.
Hmmm
Re/ Actually the default is the status quo, which is restricted access to public land.
Actually, the default status quo is the welfare-warmongering-state, so that's all right, ain't it?
You can't take a is for a ought, basic logical fallacy and counter-productive (at best) if you want to change the said status quo; which, i'm assuming, any libertarian would...
If the land is privately owned, you can restrict access to it, by selling or refusing to sell it to whomever you want... The state i NOT owning an piece of alnd; hene, can't claim to restrict immigration and/or prevent the rightful owners from selling/renting their property.
I think the that the article ignores Hoppe's rights-based argument.
1. Public property rightfully belongs to taxpayers.
2. Taxpayers have a right to government protection of their property claims.
3. Foreigners who is not invited explicitly can be assumed to be unwanted.
Therefore, government ought to restrict access to all foreigners who are not invited.
Now, rights based arguments are negative only. They only dictate what people ought not to do. They don't say what people ought to do. Consequentialist arguments are positive only. They say what people ought to do. In order to make a strong case for something, you really should have both. If you focus on rights only, your case lacks a compelling reason why you should do anything. So, it makes no sense to only examine his consequentialist argument and then say that "We must analyze the problem on libertarian principles, not solely on consequences" when this is not what is done.
So, overall I'd say that this article completely fails to strike the root.
Juan:People have the natural negative right to not be aggressed upon
Does this right extend to taxpayers, the legitimate owners of public property, not to have uninvited trespassers come on to their property?
Juan:You can't enforce your restrictions without violating the NAP
Or, restricting uninvited foreigners from coming onto public property is really enforcement of the NAP. Who is the rightful owner of property under control of the government?
I think if we take a step back from the wonderful utopia of complete anarchism and realize that over time some sort of coercive monopoly naturally evolves then certain situations lend themselves to a "not-so" dogmatic approach.
I personally subscribe to the idea that government entities tend to arise and evolve more quickly the more densely areas are populated with humans. In our current situation, this argument is certainly in favor of closed borders. Of course, if government is illegitimate to begin with then there is no argument in favor of closed borders since it makes no sense. But if we're to have any sort of practical argument about how things really are and not about some fantastical and unrealizable state where people don't associate with groups and coercive monopolies never arise, than these sorts of arguments are certainly valid. The fact is that most people implicitly validate their governments actions by not killing themselves so that beginning the argument with saying that the government is illegitimate has not practical weight.
I've thought the Soviet Union's actions following its collapse show how maintaining open borders could be manipulated. By sending people out to former satellites and infiltrating them it made it far more difficult to establish and maintain a free state.
Of course, many will counter by saying that fiat money regimes or public schooling could be legitimized using the same rational, but these cases are clearly different. I think it's rather clear that their existence maintains, grows, and entrenches the ruling government, where as with closed borders the government finds itself at a disadvantage (hence, the current political situation). Those who typically desire to immigrate are relatively less wealthy in their homeland. Their arrival into, e.g., the states, provides politicians pandering to the takers and not the givers (the most power hungry) with even more backing and thus ability to grow their interests, i.e., more coercion!!
-1. Public property rightfully belongs to taxpayers.
-> public property is theft; hence, doesn't belong rightfully to nobody! it doesn't exits on legitimate bases...
-2. Taxpayers have a right to government protection of their property claims.
-> gvt protection? why? on which basis?
gvt isn't right-based, it's right-infringing; nobody has a right to protection (or whatever ) in order to violate other people's rights
-3. Foreigners who is not invited explicitly can be assumed to be unwanted.
-> let the free-market decide on that; why would the powers that be be warranted to tell me who is (un-)wanted on MY own piece of property??
PS: sorry for the typos on the previous post, shouldn't probably be writting while bartending at 4am+ EU time
Juan: The state doesn't own land.
Sure it does. There is a difference between description and prescription. It is descriptive to say that the state is the present owner of land, given that it has possession and control over it and that is what ownership is. It is prescriptive to say that the original owner / taxpayer ought to have possession and control over the land.
M-la-maudite:et the free-market decide on that; why would the powers that be be warranted to tell me who is (un-)wanted on MY own piece of property??
They shouldn't. If you want to invite a foreigner, you should be allowed. Of course, you should also be liable should they commit any crimes since they are your guest.
M-la-maudite: public property is theft; hence, doesn't belong rightfully to nobody! it doesn't exits on legitimate bases...
If A robs B's wallet, the wallet rightfully belongs to B, even though it is in A's possession. It would be unintuitive to say that it doesn't rightfully belong to A.
M-la-maudite:gvt protection? why? on which basis?
Well, the whole justification for being compelled to pay taxes is so that we can recieve services from the government. If we are forced to pay, we have a right to the service that we payed for as (at least partial) restitution.
Is that reasonable?
Or, restricting uninvited foreigners from coming onto public property is really enforcement of the NAP.
There is a difference between description and prescription. It is descriptive to say that the state is the present owner of land, given that it has possession and control over it and that is what ownership is.
Stephen Forde: I think the that the article ignores Hoppe's rights-based argument. 1. Public property rightfully belongs to taxpayers. 2. Taxpayers have a right to government protection of their property claims. 3. Foreigners who is not invited explicitly can be assumed to be unwanted. Therefore, government ought to restrict access to all foreigners who are not invited. Now, rights based arguments are negative only. They only dictate what people ought not to do. They don't say what people ought to do. Consequentialist arguments are positive only. They say what people ought to do. In order to make a strong case for something, you really should have both. If you focus on rights only, your case lacks a compelling reason why you should do anything. So, it makes no sense to only examine his consequentialist argument and then say that "We must analyze the problem on libertarian principles, not solely on consequences" when this is not what is done. So, overall I'd say that this article completely fails to strike the root.
The point is that open borders are only a contributing cause of forced immigration. They are not the root cause. Government property and antidiscrimination laws are the root cause. Therefore, advocating closed borders (i.e. addressing the contributing cause) is an inappropriate solution. The libertarian solution is to privatize government property and abolish antidiscrimination laws.
Stephen Forde:Well, the whole justification for being compelled to pay taxes is so that we can recieve services from the government. If we are forced to pay, we have a right to the service that we payed for as (at least partial) restitution.
Since when do anarchists accept the theory of government as the "servant" of the people? It is a criminal gang, plain and simple. If the mafia forces you to pay protection money, does that give you a right to their protection services?
Haven't seen you on the forum in a while. Welcome back.
edward_1313:I think if we take a step back from the wonderful utopia of complete anarchism and realize that over time some sort of coercive monopoly naturally evolves then certain situations lend themselves to a "not-so" dogmatic approach.
The closer we can get to an anarcho-capitalist society, the better, whether it is realizable or not. Personally, I don't think government is inevitable. It is the product of ideas, which can change over time.
edward_1313:I personally subscribe to the idea that government entities tend to arise and evolve more quickly the more densely areas are populated with humans. In our current situation, this argument is certainly in favor of closed borders. Of course, if government is illegitimate to begin with then there is no argument in favor of closed borders since it makes no sense. But if we're to have any sort of practical argument about how things really are and not about some fantastical and unrealizable state where people don't associate with groups and coercive monopolies never arise, than these sorts of arguments are certainly valid. The fact is that most people implicitly validate their governments actions by not killing themselves so that beginning the argument with saying that the government is illegitimate has not practical weight.
I don't think that continuing to live is a legitimating the government. And I think that government tends to arise and evolve more quickly in areas more densely populated with statist humans.
edward_1313:I've thought the Soviet Union's actions following its collapse show how maintaining open borders could be manipulated. By sending people out to former satellites and infiltrating them it made it far more difficult to establish and maintain a free state.
Agreed. A national identity facilitates the emergence of natural elites, who can lead a sucessionist movement. Destoying that identity reduces that threat to the state.
edward_1313:Of course, many will counter by saying that fiat money regimes or public schooling could be legitimized using the same rational, but these cases are clearly different. I think it's rather clear that their existence maintains, grows, and entrenches the ruling government, where as with closed borders the government finds itself at a disadvantage (hence, the current political situation). Those who typically desire to immigrate are relatively less wealthy in their homeland. Their arrival into, e.g., the states, provides politicians pandering to the takers and not the givers (the most power hungry) with even more backing and thus ability to grow their interests, i.e., more coercion!!
I think that alot of the time the state gives privileges to the new immigrants at the expense of the current inhabitants, which causes them to become sympathetic to the state and to support it.
SF: J: People have the natural negative right to not be aggressed upon Does this right extend to taxpayers, the legitimate owners of public property, not to have uninvited trespassers come on to their property?
J: People have the natural negative right to not be aggressed upon
Juan:Stephen, you're just rehashing fallacies which have already been addressed.
Addressed where?
Juan: Or, restricting uninvited foreigners from coming onto public property is really enforcement of the NAP. It is not. Shooting people who want to cross a political border is a violation of the NAP. And a especially disgusting one, if you ask me.
Who said anything about shooting? And what does your disgust have to do with anything I said? And whether or not they have the right to cross the border depends on whether they intend to trespass on public property, namely, roads and parks built with taxpayer dollars.
Juan:There is a difference between description and prescription. It is descriptive to say that the state is the present owner of land, given that it has possession and control over it and that is what ownership is. No. If you were a libertarian, which I take it you are not, then you'd know that for something to be property in the libertarian framework it must have been legitimately acquired. Land usurped by the government is not legitimate property.
I think you have prescription and description completely confused.
Sage:The point is that open borders are only a contributing cause of forced immigration. They are not the root cause. Government property and antidiscrimination laws are the root cause. Therefore, advocating closed borders (i.e. addressing the contributing cause) is an inappropriate solution. The libertarian solution is to privatize government property and abolish antidiscrimination laws.
I would say that open immigration is an element of forced integration. Addressing immigration is a part of the solution to addressing forced integration. It is not a separate issue. In the same way that sucession brings us closer to anarchy, restricted immigration brings us closer to free integration, especially the more locally it is done.
That's the thing. It wasn't the open borders that were being manipulated, but the government property and antidiscrimination laws. It is erroneous to conflate the latter two with open borders. This phenomenon of putting all the causes of forced integration into one "package deal" is hindering the debate. That's why we need to separate the root causes from the contributing causes, and treat them accordingly.
SF:Addressed where?
Who said anything about shooting?
And whether or not they have the right to cross the border depends on whether they intend to trespass on public property, namely, roads and parks built with taxpayer dollars.
first you said:It is descriptive to say that the state is the present owner of land, given that it has possession and control over it and that is what ownership is.
and then:If A robs B's wallet, the wallet rightfully belongs to B, even though it is in A's possession.
Stephen Forde:I would say that open immigration is an element of forced integration. Addressing immigration is a part of the solution to addressing forced integration. It is not a separate issue. In the same way that sucession brings us closer to anarchy, restricted immigration brings us closer to free integration, especially the more locally it is done.
Indeed open borders are an element of forced integration: they are a contributing cause. But advocating closed borders is unprincipled right-opportunism - trying to achieve short-term gains at the expense of libertarian principles. After all, closed borders violate the right of admission, i.e. they cause forced exclusion.
The way I see it, this is about problem solving logic. Addressing the root cause is the best way to solve the problem, while at the same time not sacrificing our principles.
Juan: SF: J: People have the natural negative right to not be aggressed upon Does this right extend to taxpayers, the legitimate owners of public property, not to have uninvited trespassers come on to their property? It is obvious that public roads/borders/etc are not jointly owned property controlled by the taxpayers, but land usurped by the government. Since it is land usurped by the government, the government can't claim the right to exclude people from it.
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.
Juan:Notice that your position is collectivist (well, no surprise there).
Didn't notice that and still don't. No surprise indeed.
Juan:Now, how are these rightful owners going to decide who can use the roads or not ? Ohh the 'anarchists' are going to argue that democracy is not so bad after all ? That's kind of pathetic, you know.
Joint-ownership is perfectly legitimate. Look @ corporations. Now this situation is a little more complicated, but hardly insoluble. What's pathetic?
Sage: That's the thing. It wasn't the open borders that were being manipulated, but the government property and antidiscrimination laws. It is erroneous to conflate the latter two with open borders. This phenomenon of putting all the causes of forced integration into one "package deal" is hindering the debate. That's why we need to separate the root causes from the contributing causes, and treat them accordingly.
But you missed the root cause - land ownership.
Sage: After all, closed borders violate the right of admission, i.e. they cause forced exclusion.
Not if you allow sponsored immigration.
And if there is no forced exclusion, there is no rights violation, hence no sacrifice of principles.
Sage:The way I see it, this is about problem solving logic. Addressing the root cause is the best way to solve the problem, while at the same time not sacrificing our principles.
And I think it is good strategy to be open to steps that bring us closer to the final goal, even if it is not immediately achieved. We should limit injustice as much as possible, as quickly as possible.