Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 544

Thread: Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders?

    We are where we are. Either mass-immigration must be stopped with the means currently at hand, or it will not be stopped. This means passports and visas, and agencies empowered to seek out and return those who slip through the first line of immigration control. Where the refugees in Calais are concerned, it means deporting them to the last non-European country they left, and making sure that no more of them are allowed to reach the northern shores of the Mediterranean.

    This is, I hasten to add, only part of the solution. Our governments must also stop turning much of the Third World into slagheaps soaked in human blood. They must stop veering between support of local tyrants and their more recent insistence on forms of government inappropriate to actual conditions. They must, so far as possible, leave other peoples to work out their own destinies in their own ways. This will, I have no doubt, reduce the outward push behind the migrants. Even so, we must secure our own borders.

    Now, for many of those libertarians who accept the existence of a problem, this solution is itself a problem. An ideology that cannot be followed in extreme cases must be a false ideology. If the non-aggression principle is not to be consistently applied, is it worth applying at all?

    I appreciate the difficulty. At the same time, it is a manufactured difficulty. It would not have been recognised as a difficulty by most of our intellectual ancestors. If many libertarians, when they think about mass-immigration, are now beginning to look like scared ostriches, or the more double-joined Indian fakirs, this is not because of any defect in the libertarian fundamentals. It is because, over the past few decades, libertarianism has been re-interpreted in ways that part company with reality. To be specific, the non-aggression principle has been raised from something to be desired within circumstantial constraints to an abstract and absolute imperative. If the only legitimate use of force is to protect individual rights, all other uses of force are illegitimate, and must be rejected out of hand by libertarians.

    Let us consider how distant this imperative is from reality.
    more....
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Nope, the NAP is the only MUST.

  4. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Nope, the NAP is the only MUST.
    But, then again, you WANT the country to fall.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    But, then again, you WANT the country to fall.
    ...Yes? Is that all you need? Confirmation that I don't give a rat's ass about the blood-soaked false hope that is the United States?

    If you stop drying your eyes with the flag for a second and recognize that a lot of us have no allegiance to the state, maybe our position would make more sense.

    But that would require you to snap out of your Stockholm Syndrome.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    ...Yes? Is that all you need? Confirmation that I don't give a rat's ass about the blood-soaked false hope that is the United States?

    If you stop drying your eyes with the flag for a second and recognize that a lot of us have no allegiance to the state, maybe our position would make more sense.

    But that would require you to snap out of your Stockholm Syndrome.
    No, I know some of you don't. And in my opinion, that puts you in the same bucket as the globalist traitors who are doing everything in their power to bring the country down.

    Just making sure everyone else knows where some of you stand and what you are about. Even Lew Rockwell thinks those of you who believe this way are dumbasses.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    No, I know some of you don't. And in my opinion, that puts you in the same bucket as the globalist traitors who are doing everything in their power to bring the country down.
    You don't post about liberty here. You don't post about freedom.
    All you ever post about is how the country is being brought down.
    You don't fear the county that would come in after. You fear losing the county you have.
    If you concentrated on liberty, and not the flag, then we might have hope of getting liberty after a collapse.
    But you're double barring the door of your cage, and the only reason you do this is because it's your cage.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    No, I know some of you don't. And in my opinion, that puts you in the same bucket as the globalist traitors who are doing everything in their power to bring the country down.

    Just making sure everyone else knows where some of you stand and what you are about. Even Lew Rockwell thinks those of you who believe this way are dumbasses.
    You are an authoritarian so I don't really understand what your problem is with a one world government.

    Is it because you are worried that your postcards won't be delivered to your leaders? (Leaders who don't give a $#@! about what you think regardless)
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Even Lew Rockwell thinks those of you who believe this way are dumbasses.
    Yet Lew Rockwell is an anarchist who does not reject the NAP, as the OP article implies he must.
    (Nor does this necessarily constitute a contradiction on Rockwell's part.)

    And just for the record (so that no one makes a mistaken assumption about what my position on this matter is), I do not take either side of the so-called "open borders" issue. I understand and am sympathetic to the concerns and arguments on both sides of the debate. But within the context of a statist system, there is no viable solution to the problem. Indeed, such problems only manifest as "problems" in the first place because of the nature of the statist systems in which they occur.

    To clarify what I mean by this, consider the analogous "problem" of whether evolution or creationism (or both, or neither, or something else) ought to be taught in so-called "public" schools. This "problem" only exists due to the "publicness" of those schools, with all the things that are necessarily and unavoidably involved with that "publicness" - things such as mandatory attendance laws or the forcible extraction of funding from those who do not agree with whatever is being taught (not to mention the extraction of such funding from those who do not even have any children at all). No matter what "side" of the "evolution vs. creationism in public schools" issue one might take, someone's gonna get screwed. The problem here is not with "evolution" or "creationism," but with "public schools" as such - thus, so long as the context remains that of "public" schools, it comes down to a matter of "pick your poison." The only genuinely viable solution is to remove the issue entirely from the "public" sphere and place it where it belongs - in the realm of individual choice and private property. And likewise for immigration ...

    So long as immigration remains a "public" issue in the context of a statist system, there can be no "solution" that isn't just as problematic as the "problem" it supposedly addresses. The "open borders" side of the issue involves the exacerbation of an already bloated and over-burdened welfare system, the dilution of social cohesion, and the further empowerment of the forces of political progressivism (among other things). The opposing side of the issue involves (among other things) systematic and extensive interferences in the economy (requiring, as it does, the policing of employer-employee relations, to give just one example) and the reinforcement, amplificiation and aggravation of the problems associated with an already overweening "security" state ("Papers, please!"). So once again, it comes down to a matter of "pick your poison."

    The only genuinely viable solution to the immigration "problem" is to remove the immigration issue entirely from the "public" sphere of "open borders vs. state controls" and place it where it belongs - in the realm of individual choice and private property (where "borders" may be as "open" or "closed" as the owners want them to be). This is, essentially, the Hoppean position on immigration (without Hoppe's concessions to "public" property, which I regard as problematic - in short, just as I am opposed to "public schools," I am also opposed to "public immigration," regardless of whether it involves more immigration or less).

    Now, you may object that such a solution is not very likely to be implemented any time soon - and if so, I freely acknowledge that you are probably correct. I don't think that it's very likely, either - at least not under present circumstances. But that does not mean that I am incorrect - it merely means that under present circumstances, no satisfactory resolution of the issue is possible. (This absence of the possiblity of satisfactory solutions is a hallmark of the state. An inherent characteristic of all states is that they usurp the rightful authority of individuals to exercise their property rights in order to resolve ostensible "problems" via mutual, non-violent cooperation - and democratic states especially thrive on the artificial divisions that are fostered and encouraged by such usurpations. The immigration "debate" in America is a perfect example of this.)

  10. #9

    Default

    [B]
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    No, I know some of you don't. And in my opinion, that puts you in the same bucket as the globalist traitors who are doing everything in their power to bring the country down.

    The only treason is the treason to truth, to the natural human rights of the individual. No state or government has a right to exist, it is of worth when it protects the inherent rights of man. Where it violates those rights it is to be dissolved and replaced. The Founding Fathers knew this, Thomas Jefferson knew this, and it was codified into the American Canon in the Declaration of Independence. If you would wake up from your idolatry of the state and actually study the words of those you claim to venerate you would realize that what you call treason is nothing less than loyalty to the ideals America was founded upon.

    Further, if you actually cared about the Constitution and upholding it then you would oppose any form of government regulation of the borders. The Constitution have the federal government the power to decide laws regarding naturalization, the process by which one became a citizen. No where does the Constitution authorize the government to regulate immigration, how and who enters the country.

    Not only is the statist position of immigration regulation anti-libertarian as it violates the NAP, you are initiating violence against someone who has not committed violence against you (note that violating the law nor being economic competition count as violence- otherwise our entire ideology is overthrown), it is anti-liberty as you are regulating not just their right to move across unowned land and are violating the rights of association to those who wish to associate with them, it is unconstitutional on the very face of it, and the Constitution is something you at least pretend to care about.
    Response in bold.
    “Maybe I forgot to mention something to you: I don’t believe in queens. You think freedom is something you can give and take on a whim. But to your people, freedom is as essential as air. And without it, there is no life. There is only darkness.” -Zaheer

    "A man chooses. A slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan

    "There are three things the parasite hates: free markets, free will, and free men."-Andrew Ryan

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    No, I know some of you don't. And in my opinion, that puts you in the same bucket as the globalist traitors who are doing everything in their power to bring the country down.
    Eeeeeeeeeyep. I've concluded that there are times when "libertarians" demonstrate themselves to be equally as tyrannical as the government tyrants themselves.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 01-05-2016 at 12:34 PM.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    ...Yes? Is that all you need? Confirmation that I don't give a rat's ass about the blood-soaked false hope that is the United States?

    If you stop drying your eyes with the flag for a second and recognize that a lot of us have no allegiance to the state, maybe our position would make more sense.

    But that would require you to snap out of your Stockholm Syndrome.
    But doesn't that make you an Anarchist, or a freedomist or whatever.....as opposed to a constitutionalist Libertarian?
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    But, then again, you WANT the country to fall.
    Thing is, it won't fail the way they think it would. One must look at the reality of the situation and respect the fact there will never be NO government.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.3D View Post
    Thing is, it won't fail the way they think it would. One must look at the reality of the situation and respect the fact there will never be NO government.
    True. That is why they are useful idiots.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    True. That is why they are useful idiots.
    Yes, the vacuum of anarchy just sucks in another form of government. One can learn from history that anarchy doesn't last very long. Even an anarchist who wishes to maintain anarchy and fights to keep it, would become the government they despise.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    But, then again, you WANT the country to fall.
    By "the country" you mean the federal government.

    Yeah, I want that to fail.

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    By "the country" you mean the federal government.

    Yeah, I want that to fail.
    The country, as led by the natives, with their voting habits, is doing just swell, amiright?

    Donald Trump is about to be nominated by the white Anglo-Saxon protestant worthies of our party.

    ..while don Hillary'll be nominated by the donkey party.

    Freedom........................................... .......................
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 12-25-2015 at 10:42 PM.
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

    -H. L. Mencken

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The country, as led by the natives, with their voting habits, is doing just swell, amiright?

    Donald Trump is about to be nominated by the white Anglo-Saxon protestant worthies of our party.

    ..while don Hillary'll be nominated by the donkey party.

    Freedom........................................... .......................

    So lets make it worst by importing welfare voters, amright?

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    By "the country" you mean the federal government.

    Yeah, I want that to fail.
    And what happens with those 30 million illegals? Do you think they will support Liberty or a tyrannical goverment that gives them free stuff?

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Nope, the NAP is the only MUST.
    Also not a must. Been over this with you a lot. Doesn't seem to sink in. Libertarianism has more than one ethical theory, and some are amoralists (Stirner Egoists, some nihilists). What matters is the conclusions we draw, and therefore what actions we take, not what theory (or lack thereof) we use to arrive at those conclusions or actions. Someone who coerces a non-victimizers may espouse the NAP, but he isn't very libertarian (and some say they believe in the NAP and call for policies which clearly violate it - although they have their rationalizations, of course). Someone who never coerces a non-victimizer, no matter his theory (or lack thereof) in morality, is very libertarian (and some who don't believe in the NAP are the ones who aren't calling for policies that clearly violate it - with no rationalizations needed, of course). It's a philosophy, and an especially heterogeneous one.

    This litmus test in theories is silly. Either you believe in voluntary association and not coercing the innocent, or you don't. The NAP is one avenue to those stances, not the only one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post

    Yes, I want to force consumers to buy trampolines, popcorn, environmental protection and national defense whether or not they really demand them. And I definitely want to outlaw all alternatives. Nobody should be allowed to compete with the state. Private security companies, private healthcare, private package delivery, private education, private disaster relief, private militias...should all be outlawed.
    ^Minimalist state socialism (minarchy) taken to its logical conclusions; communism.

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ProIndividual View Post
    Either you believe in voluntary association and not coercing the innocent, or you don't. The NAP is one avenue to those stances, not the only one.
    Not coercing the innocent = not aggressing against non-aggressors = Non-Aggression Principle (NAP for short). It's all the same idea. Don't get lost in semantics.

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Nope, the NAP is the only MUST.

    No self preservation is. Open borders means the destruction of your culture/values/ and population.

  23. #22

    Default

    I believe in moderately strong borders.

  24. #23

    Default

    Open borders is what those working toward a one world government would like to see.

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.3D View Post
    Open borders is what those working toward a one world government would like to see.
    This. Believing in open borders is unrealistic and nothing but a libertarian extremist pipe dream.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael1928 View Post
    This. Believing in open borders is unrealistic and nothing but a libertarian extremist pipe dream.
    "Believing in open borders" (whatever that is supposed to mean) is neither here nor there.

    You either agree that the State has property rights, or you do not.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  27. #26

    Default

    I don't think its the immigrants that people are really angry about. Its economic inequality perpetrated by the system. We have a cradle to grave system that is designed to manufacture human beings for use by government and business (youtube: "John Taylor Gatto"). I think immigration is more free than our economic system. I think they should be in balance otherwise doesn't harm come to those who can not game the system thus violating the no harm principle? Isn't that what people are really angry about?

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    I don't think its the immigrants that people are really angry about. Its economic inequality perpetrated by the system. We have a cradle to grave system that is designed to manufacture human beings for use by government and business (youtube: "John Taylor Gatto"). I think immigration is more free than our economic system. I think they should be in balance otherwise doesn't harm come to those who can not game the system thus violating the no harm principle? Isn't that what people are really angry about?
    They do a very good job of hiding it behind threads about being annoyed that people are speaking Spanish and not assimilating into "American Culture."
    Genuine, willful, aggressive ignorance is the one sure way to tick me off. I wish I could say you were trolling. I know better, and it's just sad.

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MelissaWV View Post
    They do a very good job of hiding it behind threads about being annoyed that people are speaking Spanish and not assimilating into "American Culture."
    I deal with those people every day in my job and I freaking hate them. Move to France and don't learn French, and you'll get much the same reception.
    Last edited by angelatc; 12-25-2015 at 04:33 PM.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MelissaWV View Post
    They do a very good job of hiding it behind threads about being annoyed that people are speaking Spanish and not assimilating into "American Culture."
    I agree there is fear of change in there. I think a lot of it is fear of competition for the menial task that America's corporate masters hand out. What options do they have but to compete for those jobs? I maybe wrong and the root of the problem may be more racism instead of anger from economic inequality due to a rigged system. There is a lot of lashing out and the illegal immigrants have suffered at the hands of Empire. If they don't want immigrants to come they would get rid of corporate friendly trade deals such as NATO. That is something the left and right could get behind. It is far too easy to blame "the other" and scapegoat them for what the American people time and time again voted for with money and ballots.

    "Ignorance leads to fear, fear leads to hate, and hate leads to violence. This is the equation." - Averroes. Does this make Yoda Islamic?

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MelissaWV View Post
    They do a very good job of hiding it behind threads about being annoyed that people are speaking Spanish and not assimilating into "American Culture."
    So, Americans should want people entering the country illegally who have no interest in assimilating or in communicating with other Americans? Gotcha.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast





Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •