Free and open challenge to anti-statists, open borders supporters

[Bryan]

Are there any takers that want to defend the position that there should be no state, or that borders should be open - regardless of other peoples desires? Or a similar position?

If so- please post up to engage in a dialog. Feel free to start off with posting definitions to any important terms such as "state" or what open borders means to you. You can also lead with adding in your position and I would appreciate it if you indicate if that position relates to the study of some philosopher.


Note: I will not moderate this thread, and encourage mods to allow for a good deal of latitude but there is no reason this shouldn't be civil.


So, who is up for it?

[Bryan]

Bump-- still looking for takers to the challenge.

[A Son of Liberty]

Maybe the other voluntaryists/anarchists haven't taken up your challenge because you're a known provacateur; or maybe it's just been a slow day. Either way:

The state: an artificial and wholly unnatural construct whereby some arbitrarily defined assemblage of erstwhile individuals, willingly or otherwise, coalesce to form manufactured corporeal boundaries on the earth within which some elite group of the former claim absolute rule.

I don't think I need to go any further than that, really. That's the state, and that's it's borders. Utterly imaginary and nonsensical.

Proceed.

[heavenlyboy34]

I have a more "nuanced" view of the issue. The border areas should be privately owned, and land owners down there would have incentive to protect themselves from invasion and so forth. Another benefit of this is that if border land owners don't prevent foreigners from sneaking in, they could be held liable for damage that results from their lax enforcement. Here in AZ, several land owners built a relatively simple border fence, which works to an extent. I imagine an industry could arise that would make it practical to build barriers down there and enhance security if the land was private.

[trey4sports]

i think open borders are fine without a welfare state.

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm all for borders. Private ones, that is. My land has borders. So does my neighbors.

[TheDrakeMan]

i think open borders are fine without a welfare state.

Assuming we're talking about a Minarchist state and not an AnCap one, how would open borders work? What happens when the estimated billion people move here and vote for big-government politicians and government handouts?

[Deborah K]

Assuming we're talking about a Minarchist state and not an AnCap one, how would open borders work? What happens when the estimated billion people move here and vote for big-government politicians and government handouts?

This is my issue - among others.

[pcosmar]

Maybe the other voluntaryists/anarchists haven't taken up your challenge because you're a known provacateur;

Huh?
He created a Liberty oriented forum to be a provocateur. Some odd "logic" there.
I am an advocate for limited government. (very limited) but am not an anarchist.

i think open borders are fine without a welfare state.

I tend to agree with this. Welfare is the problem. Without it there would be no issue of free trade and travel across borders.

[pcosmar]

Assuming we're talking about a Minarchist state and not an AnCap one, how would open borders work? What happens when the estimated billion people move here and vote for big-government politicians and government handouts?

I am assuming a Constitutional Republic. And having laws that prohibit the government handouts would be an easy answer.
I would be in favor of adding some clearly worded restrictions to the Constitution.(though presently, it is not authorized)

[Deborah K]

Welfare is not the primary issue. Mexicans live under a very corrupt gov't. They can't get decent work in their own country. Most of them come over here to work, not to sponge. I've lived in the southwestern US my entire life. I've met way more whites sponging off the system than I have illegals. I'm not saying they aren't part of the welfare problem, I'm just saying that as long as they can't get work in Mexico and they can get it here, they're gonna sneak over - welfare or no welfare.

[erowe1]

Are there any takers that want to defend the position that there should be no state, or that borders should be open - regardless of other peoples desires? Or a similar position?

If so- please post up to engage in a dialog. Feel free to start off with posting definitions to any important terms such as "state" or what open borders means to you. You can also lead with adding in your position and I would appreciate it if you indicate if that position relates to the study of some philosopher.


Note: I will not moderate this thread, and encourage mods to allow for a good deal of latitude but there is no reason this shouldn't be civil.


So, who is up for up?

I don't know if I qualify as an anti-statist or not. I try to avoid pinning myself down with labels like that, which people tend to take in varying ways.

But, depending on what you mean by the state, I might be willing to take you up on it.

What do you mean by the state?

[Wesker1982]

Are there any takers that want to defend the position that there should be no state, or that borders should be open - regardless of other peoples desires?

Should you be able to do what you want with your property, regardless of other people's desires?

That is really what the question asks.

And finally, as Clara Dixon Davidson pointed out so cogently many years ago, Spencer’s Law of Equal Freedom is redundant. For if every man has freedom to do all that he wills, it follows from this very premise that no man’s freedom has been infringed or invaded. The whole second clause of the law after “wills” is redundant and unnecessary.

[erowe1]

Welfare is not the primary issue. Mexicans live under a very corrupt gov't. They can't get decent work in their own country. Most of them come over here to work, not to sponge. I've lived in the southwestern US my entire life. I've met way more whites sponging off the system than I have illegals. I'm not saying they aren't part of the welfare problem, I'm just saying that as long as they can't get work in Mexico and they can get it here, they're gonna sneak over - welfare or no welfare.

I agree with you. But I also think the welfare argument still has merit, not because of what does happen, but because of what could happen. If we just essentially hung a sign out to the whole world saying, "Come here, and other people will pay for your necessities and educations, no strings attached." that would be a problem.

[Bryan]

Maybe the other voluntaryists/anarchists haven't taken up your challenge because you're a known provacateur;

Can you support this claim?

The state: an artificial and wholly unnatural construct whereby some arbitrarily defined assemblage of erstwhile individuals, willingly or otherwise, coalesce to form manufactured corporeal boundaries on the earth within which some elite group of the former claim absolute rule.

The state is of course a man-made construct, but if people want to do it, which they have, then how it is artificial or unnatural? I'd suppose we'd have to define "artificial " and "unnatural" - but these are just negative labels you're applying that don't provide substance, IMO.

Question: In what way do you see that individuals are not willing? (I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just asking to expand the discussion)

If an individual wants to stake a claim to keeping people out of the house he builds, is that a manufactured boundary? What about his yard?

Re: "which some elite group of the former claim absolute rule." - do you think that is a requirement for a state, or just an attribute that many / most have?

Thanks for the response.

[angelatc]

Should you be able to do what you want with your property, regardless of other people's desires?

That is really what the question asks.

No. When you bought the property, you agreed to be bound by the terms that same along with it - that it is subject to the rules of the state. Don't like the rules? Don't buy the property, or get elected to an office an effect change.

BUt if you're gonna buy it then spend the next 30 years living next to me whining about some Utopian philosophy....I'm putting up my own damned fence PDQ.

WE live in a nation of laws. Nobody of any real importance cares if you think we shouldn't subject you to our laws.

[angelatc]

I agree with you. But I also think the welfare argument still has merit, not because of what does happen, but because of what could happen. If we just essentially hung a sign out to the whole world saying, "Come here, and other people will pay for your necessities and educations, no strings attached." that would be a problem.

Sure it does. But we've made promises to millions and millions of people regarding certain entitlements, and for that reason alone they're not going to disappear in our lifetime. "Cutting off all the welfare," isn't a politically viable option.

[William R]

i think open borders are fine without a welfare state.

Even without a welfare state it's not a good idea. For example 10 million Muslims decide to come to Michigan and start demanding Sharia law.

We need to have an immigration policy that's good for the country. Not special interest groups. We should end chain immigration and only accept skilled self sufficient immigrants. We've been importing poverty. People that use lots of government services.

[erowe1]

Sure it does. But we've made promises to millions and millions of people regarding certain entitlements, and for that reason alone they're not going to disappear in our lifetime. "Cutting off all the welfare," isn't a politically viable option.

I think there's a good chance they will disappear in my lifetime.

If something can't last forever, it won't.

[heavenlyboy34]

No. When you bought the property, you agreed to be bound by the terms that same along with it - that it is subject to the rules of the state. Don't like the rules? Don't buy the property, or get elected to an office an effect change.

Are you saying the state should have the power to make arbitrary laws that affect others' property willy-nilly? You would be okay with it if I lobby the state legislature to have your neighborhood redistricted so I can start up a nuclear power plant a few yards from you?

BUt if you're gonna buy it then spend the next 30 years living next to me whining about some Utopian philosophy....I'm putting up my own damned fence PDQ.

How is his philosophy any more utopian than yours?

WE live in a nation of laws. Nobody of any real importance cares if you think we shouldn't subject you to our laws.

To an extent. Laws apply to the ruling class and their cronies differently than the rest of us. Were I to organize a group to extort money from you with the threat of imprisonment for non-compliance, I would be a criminal. To the regime, it's SOP. (and that's only one example)

[Sentient Void]

Assuming we're talking about a Minarchist state and not an AnCap one, how would open borders work? What happens when the estimated billion people move here and vote for big-government politicians and government handouts?

Even in a minarchist system, this is not a problem if you eliminate 'democracy' (representative or direct). A minarchist system does not necessarily have to be democratic - and if anything they are incompatible - as our example of the US has shown. For example, you could theoretically have an extremely limited constitutional monarchy as a minarchist government, and then have of course open borders amongst political borders of the nation. Read Hoppe. An example of this to illustrate is the rise of Hong Kong as the freest and most prosperous economy in the world under British monarchy rule (who basically sipped wine all day an left people to their own devices).

[erowe1]

Even without a welfare state it's not a good idea. For example 10 million Muslims decide to come to Michigan and start demanding Sharia law.

If 10 million Muslims want to go to Michigan and live under sharia law there on their own property, why should I stop them?

[Wesker1982]

No. When you bought the property, you agreed to be bound by the terms that same along with it - that it is subject to the rules of the state. Don't like the rules? Don't buy the property, or get elected to an office an effect change.

The rules of the State are illegitimate and arbitrary. The terms that come along with buying the property are dictated by a criminal gang. The terms are on stolen property in the first place. Why should any terms be respected when placed on stolen property? Unless you can prove otherwise (that the property is not stolen), all you have done is proven that the rules are not consensual, and backed by violence.

BUt if you're gonna buy it then spend the next 30 years living next to me whining about some Utopian philosophy....I'm putting up my own damned fence PDQ.

Emotional argument with no relevance to the discussion. But it is worth pointing out the irrationality of being so afraid of someone who advocates non-violence that you put up a fence asap lol. I would never advocate the use of violence to stop you from putting up your fence, btw. It is too bad you don't grant the same respect (respect for property rights) to me.

WE live in a nation of laws.

This is a total non-argument. Slavery was legal, was it to be accepted because it was legal? Because it was the law?

"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." - Bastiat

Nobody of any real importance cares if you think we shouldn't subject you to our laws.

When you get emotional and resort to personal attacks and fallacies (appeal to authority), it makes it blatantly clear that you are insecure about your position.

[Sentient Void]

If 10 million Muslims want to go to Michigan and live under sharia law there on their own property, why should I stop them?

Exactly. Sharia Law is just not a threat to anyone who doesn't practice/believe in sharia law. Its just not the way things work under our legal system and its eholly ignorant of the facts to be afraid of *booga booga* 'sharia law' *booga booga*. Our common law system and the constitution are the law of the land by default.

Of course, US court cases have been documented where judges followed sharia law (and got experts to help with this) in solving disputes for those who the plaintiff and defense request to be tried under sharia law. As it should.

[Bryan]

I don't know if I qualify as an anti-statist or not. I try to avoid pinning myself down with labels like that, which people tend to take in varying ways.

But, depending on what you mean by the state, I might be willing to take you up on it.

What do you mean by the state?

I think a common meaning, in not-so-common language, would be "a group of individuals within a defined geographical area self-organizing as they see fit." At least that's what would fit for a definition of a free state, in which a great deal of people support.

Below is a legal definition. In any case, I do think coming to terms on the definition is important for a discussion, but I also think that it's important to spread a message that uses language that the average person understands which includes definitions that are generally agreed with.

Thanks!

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/state

As a noun, a people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other states. The section of territory occupied by one of the United States. The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed; the public; as in the title of a case, "The State v. A. B." The circumstances or condition of a being or thing at a given time.

As a verb, to express the particulars of a thing in writing or in words; to set down or set forth in detail; to aver, allege, or declare. To set down in gross; to mention in general terms, or by way of reference; to refer.

[erowe1]

I think a common meaning, in not-so-common language, would be "a group of individuals within a defined geographical area self-organizing as they see fit." At least that's what would fit for a definition of a free state, in which a great deal of people support.

Below is a legal definition. In any case, I do think coming to terms on the definition is important for a discussion, but I also think that it's important to spread a message that uses language that the average person understands which includes definitions that are generally agreed with.

Thanks!

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/state

Thanks. That definition makes a difference.

I would say that most states that fit the legal definition you posted don't fit the layman's one you gave. Would you agree?

[Bryan]

Another benefit of this is that if border land owners don't prevent foreigners from sneaking in, they could be held liable for damage that results from their lax enforcement.

I'm not following you here. Why should someone be held liable for doing nothing? Where is the crime? Please explain. Thanks.

[Sentient Void]

What is a State?

I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as "taxation"; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state.

[Bryan]

Thanks. That definition makes a difference.

I would say that most states that fit the legal definition you posted don't fit the layman's one you gave. Would you agree?

From an individualist perspective, I would agree, they don't fit. From a collectivist perspective that many people use, everything fits, more or less.

[erowe1]

From an individualist perspective, I would agree, they don't fit. From a collectivist perspective that many people use, everything fits, more or less.

Isn't the individualist perspective required by your use of the word "individual" in your definition?

For example, I have trouble seeing how North Korea could be considered a group of individuals self-organizing as they see fit.

And for similar, though less obvious reasons, I also have trouble seeing how the USA could be considered a group of individuals self-organizing as they see fit.