Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 84

Thread: Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal

  1. #1

    Default Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal

    Please watch before commenting.




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

    Default

    In this video Lew Rockwell to a crowd of guests stands up for the "non-open borders" view and why libertarians should believe it. I personally have floated with the idea of open borders before but I believe in this video Lew makes a great case regarding the government's illegitimate property roles. As an anarcho capitalist myself I think it makes sense for all libertarians to reject open borders as it increases the trampling of rights done by the government exponentially.
    Last edited by Jesse James; 11-24-2016 at 02:05 AM.

  4. #3
    The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    damn, I searched and didn't find it

  6. #5

    Default

    As an anarcho-capitalist I think the State should tax me to generate State revenue to be used to prevent me from freely trading with other people.

    seems legit

    Lets try again.

    As an anarcho-capitalist I consider the role of the any government to tax me and interfere with my free trade to be illegitimate and unlawful.

    As an agorist I will resist and disobey.

    When a goverment takes an unlawful action to control our liberties by taxing and redistributing wealth to entitled groups, our goal and method should be nullification and secession; not requesting moar state power to control who gets to vote.

    The first step is to recognize deep within your soul that a government that taxes, declares legal tender, and purports to possess "public property" is as illegitimate as Santa Claus.

    Our path as libertarians should be to OPPOSE public property: NOT seek to regulate who can use it.
    Our path as libertarians should be to OPPOSE benefits and subsidy: NOT seek to regulate who is entitled to it.

    Public property is ILLEGITIMATE.
    Discrimination restrictions are ILLEGITIMATE.

    We should be seeking libertarian solutions not Libertarianish band-aids.

    Closing borders is economic INTERVENTIONISM; the very thing we should be opposed to at its core.
    Last edited by presence; 11-24-2016 at 08:18 AM.

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jesse James View Post
    damn, I searched and didn't find it
    It's okay buddy. Don't beat yourself up about it.

    Here is a cute puppy:



  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    As an anarcho-capitalist I think the State should tax me to generate State revenue to be used to prevent me from freely trading with other people.

    seems legit

    Lets try again.

    As an anarcho-capitalist I consider the role of the any government to tax me and interfere with my free trade to be illegitimate and unlawful.

    As an agorist I will resist and disobey.

    When a goverment takes an unlawful action to control our liberties by taxing and redistributing wealth to entitled groups, our goal and method should be nullification and secession; not requesting moar state power to control who gets to vote.

    The first step is to recognize deep within your soul that a government that taxes, declares legal tender, and purports to possess "public property" is as illegitimate as Santa Claus.

    Our path as libertarians should be to OPPOSE public property: NOT seek to regulate who can use it.
    Our path as libertarians should be to OPPOSE benefits and subsidy: NOT seek to regulate who is entitled to it.

    Public property is ILLEGITIMATE.
    Discrimination restrictions are ILLEGITIMATE.

    We should be seeking libertarian solutions not Libertarianish band-aids.

    Closing borders is economic INTERVENTIONISM; the very thing we should be opposed to at its core.
    Correct answer. You can close up this one now.

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Correct answer. You can close up this one now.
    Abso-$#@!in-lutely. Next topic: hidden agendas.
    The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

  10. #9

    Default

    I oppose all "public" immigration policies.

    Arguing over "open borders" vs. "closed borders" (or "semi" open/closed borders) is like arguing over "evolutionism" vs. "creationism" in public schools.

    There is no "libertarian" position on such issues - except to make such matters private rather than "public."

    Of course, we don't (yet) live in a world in which such matters are private (more's the pity).

    So many libertarians end up picking one "side" or the other, for any of various reasons.

    That's fine, as far as it goes - but it is a mistake to call either side more or less "libertarian" than the other.

    Properly understood, neither side is libertarian - only relatively "better" or "worse" according to some subjective evaluation.

    IOW: Pick your poison. Just don't call it "libertarian" ...

  11. #10

    Default

    Interesting way to slice it! Shall we now call you Solomon's Banana?
    The rebel of the 21st Century will be old-fashioned.

    No enemies to the right

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Interesting way to slice it! Shall we now call you Solomon's Banana?
    I vote for Occam's Banana Hammock.

  13. #12

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Interesting way to slice it! Shall we now call you Solomon's Banana?
    howzabout:


    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    As an anarcho-capitalist I think the State should tax me to generate State revenue to be used to prevent me from freely trading with other people.

    seems legit

    Lets try again.

    As an anarcho-capitalist I consider the role of the any government to tax me and interfere with my free trade to be illegitimate and unlawful.

    As an agorist I will resist and disobey.

    When a goverment takes an unlawful action to control our liberties by taxing and redistributing wealth to entitled groups, our goal and method should be nullification and secession; not requesting moar state power to control who gets to vote.

    The first step is to recognize deep within your soul that a government that taxes, declares legal tender, and purports to possess "public property" is as illegitimate as Santa Claus.

    Our path as libertarians should be to OPPOSE public property: NOT seek to regulate who can use it.
    Our path as libertarians should be to OPPOSE benefits and subsidy: NOT seek to regulate who is entitled to it.

    Public property is ILLEGITIMATE.
    Discrimination restrictions are ILLEGITIMATE.

    We should be seeking libertarian solutions not Libertarianish band-aids.

    Closing borders is economic INTERVENTIONISM; the very thing we should be opposed to at its core.
    YES.
    There is no spoon.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    YES.
    When are you going to stop this nonsense? Your efforts to accomplish your stated goal so far have been less effective than using a teaspoon to remove water from the Titanic. You can't be this dumb. Why don't you tell us what your real agenda is?
    The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    When are you going to stop this nonsense? Your efforts to accomplish your stated goal so far have been less effective than using a teaspoon to remove water from the Titanic. You can't be this dumb. Why don't you tell us what your real agenda is?
    MY Agenda:



    I've brought many people to Ron Paul's thinking- what have YOU accomplished?
    There is no spoon.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    I oppose all "public" immigration policies.

    Arguing over "open borders" vs. "closed borders" (or "semi" open/closed borders) is like arguing over "evolutionism" vs. "creationism" in public schools.

    There is no "libertarian" position on such issues - except to make such matters private rather than "public."

    Of course, we don't (yet) live in a world in which such matters are private (more's the pity).

    So many libertarians end up picking one "side" or the other, for any of various reasons.

    That's fine, as far as it goes - but it is a mistake to call either side more or less "libertarian" than the other.

    Properly understood, neither side is libertarian - only relatively "better" or "worse" according to some subjective evaluation.

    IOW: Pick your poison. Just don't call it "libertarian" ...
    Arguing for 'open borders' is arguing for an absence of public immigration policies. I'd be willing to hear in what instances that is not the case. But on RPF's at least 'open borders' and 'globalist' have became synonyms for property right advocates. The thing that makes me most bitter about this topic is that it has been presented countless number of times that eliminating the government incentives for immigrants is both more libertarian and more politically expedient than furthering public immigration policies.

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    Arguing for 'open borders' is arguing for an absence of public immigration policies. I'd be willing to hear in what instances that is not the case.
    "open" borders + "public" property = "public" immigration policy

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    "open" borders + "public" property = "public" immigration policy
    Just to be clear, are we talking about roads? I find it to be evident that whether it is roads, rail, or by air, the free market would supply immigrants travel to destinations they wished to travel to. If the public ownership of roads distorts immigration in any way I think it would be towards reducing the levels of immigration compared to what we would have in a free society. Counteracting that-- but a completely separate issue-- is the incentivizations the government provides (forcing hospitals to treat patients, providing their children public education, I'm sure there are more) that may bring about immigrants not looking for the 'American Dream'.

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    "open" borders + "public" property = "public" immigration policy
    "open" reproduction + "public" property = "public" reproduction policy? It is neither libertarian to support or oppose government mandated infanticide because of the existence of public property and welfare?

    no no no no no. The only way you can reach such a conclusion is to assign a collective motive (to either those choosing to reproduce or those choosing to immigrate) justifying collective pre-crime enforcement. The state should not be involved in immigration, period. The state should not be involved in welfare and property ownership, period. The state's involvement in one does not mean that it should be involved in the other (period), nor does it make an individual's opposition to the state's involvement in both --regardless of its involvement in either-- un-libertarian.

    If we think of what you are putting forth as a principle, that the state's involvement in one sector deligitimizes opposition to it's involvement in another, can a libertarian really complain? For instance, 'it is neither libertarian to support or oppose the FDA because the government regulates what produce an individual can produce at home'. 'It is neither libertarian to support or oppose the pre-emptive incarceration of Sub Group X (possibly rationalized because of violent crime statistics pertaining to said group) because the government regulates with what means an individual can defend themselves.'

    People can become nationalist sympathizers as they wish. Personally my recommendation to the true Paulites is to take their (the nationalist's) sobs with a grain of salt just as we do with every other government worshipping group.

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    "open" reproduction + "public" property = "public" reproduction policy? It is neither libertarian to support or oppose government mandated infanticide because of the existence of public property and welfare?

    no no no no no. The only way you can reach such a conclusion is to assign a collective motive (to either those choosing to reproduce or those choosing to immigrate) justifying collective pre-crime enforcement. The state should not be involved in immigration, period. The state should not be involved in welfare and property ownership, period. The state's involvement in one does not mean that it should be involved in the other (period), nor does it make an individual's opposition to the state's involvement in both --regardless of its involvement in either-- un-libertarian.

    If we think of what you are putting forth as a principle, that the state's involvement in one sector deligitimizes opposition to it's involvement in another, can a libertarian really complain? For instance, 'it is neither libertarian to support or oppose the FDA because the government regulates what produce an individual can produce at home'. 'It is neither libertarian to support or oppose the pre-emptive incarceration of Sub Group X (possibly rationalized because of violent crime statistics pertaining to said group) because the government regulates with what means an individual can defend themselves.'

    People can become nationalist sympathizers as they wish. Personally my recommendation to the true Paulites is to take their (the nationalist's) sobs with a grain of salt just as we do with every other government worshipping group.
    The current citizens own the national territory collectively and may collectively decide who to let in.
    Last edited by Swordsmyth; 08-09-2017 at 08:58 PM.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  23. #22

    Default

    I think I recall our mentor Ron Paul saying that closed boarders are not necessary.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    MY Agenda:



    I've brought many people to Ron Paul's thinking- what have YOU accomplished?
    Enjoying being out voted by welfare voter immigrants.

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The current citizens own the national territory and collectively and may collectively decide who to let in.
    so·cial·ism
    ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/

    noun
    a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    so·cial·ism
    ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/

    noun
    a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
    National territory is not "the means of production, distribution, and exchange".
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The current citizens own the national territory and collectively and may collectively decide who to let in.
    That is a different philosophy then my own. Property rights and legitimate access to property come about as a mutual exchange, there is no 'collective' decision making involved.

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    That is a different philosophy then my own. Property rights and legitimate access to property come about as a mutual exchange, there is no 'collective' decision making involved.
    There is when partners own the property, it is the same thing with national territory and the current citizens.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    There is when partners own the property, it is the same thing with national territory and the current citizens.
    A partnership is formed voluntarily. National territory is acquired by plunder, which obviously isn't a 'mutual exchange'.

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    A partnership is formed voluntarily. National territory is acquired by plunder, which obviously isn't a 'mutual exchange'.
    How our ancestors acquired the territory is irrelevant unless you want to argue that others could seize it from us through similar means, in which case we would have the same right to resist as those our ancestors seized the land from, while we control the land we do so collectively as partners who inherited our portion of the title or were invited into the partnership by the owners.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    How our ancestors acquired the territory is irrelevant unless you want to argue that others could seize it from us through similar means, in which case we would have the same right to resist as those our ancestors seized the land from, while we control the land we do so collectively as partners who inherited our portion of the title or were invited into the partnership by the owners.
    The state continues to acquire property today by plundering tax dollars and is reliant on plundering for the upkeep of property already in it's possession. It's unclear to me at this point if you are referring to collective ownership encompassing all land within the nation or land held by the nation itself i.e. interstates, national parks, etc.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 03-08-2017, 12:34 PM
  2. Am I a libertarian if I don't believe in mulitculturalism or open borders?
    By Ron Paul in 2008 in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 140
    Last Post: 08-01-2016, 02:13 PM
  3. Libertarian Open Borders: Oxymoron in Theory and Practice
    By William R in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 05-17-2016, 05:09 PM
  4. Open Borders Are Anti-Libertarian -- They violate private property.
    By Ronin Truth in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 04-23-2016, 07:32 AM
  5. Open Borders Are Anti-Libertarian
    By William R in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-09-2016, 02:18 PM

Posting Permissions

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