Although the state currently enforces a homogeneous policy across the whole of its territory, immigration policy need not necessarily be all-encompassing. While the U.S. immigration policy imposes upon all territories and sub-territories of the U.S. that whatever candidates fit its requirements be admitted into their property, it is entirely possible for these territories and sub-territories to establish their own admittance policy over and above what is imposed upon them by the state (that is to say, beyond the people they are forced to accept, they can decide to accept more people so long as this is not imposed upon other territories).
And so, while an immigrant would most likely prefer to have a United States of America visa or citizenship, and thus earn the right to settle anywhere in the United States, should that not be possible he could, for example, obtain a visa from the State of Iowa alone in order to work as a farm hand, or a visa from the County of Santa Clara to work as a computer engineer. This would of course not entitle him to any of the rights of citizenship of any jurisdictions above that which has granted his visa, and thus would not threaten the political balance of democracy, while providing the economic benefits of an international division of labor.
I’d say a libertarian immigration policy is that the state has no role in immigration. Private owners, of course, should not be forced to accomodate newcomers. However, at present there is public property, which has been either directly stolen, or purchased with stolen money. In either case, it is stolen property, and as such should be treated as available for anyone’s use. The best answer is to eliminate it and anyone coming into the country will need somewhere to go. Failing that, the second best is to allow immigrants access to it.
I don’t think it does. What I do think is that “you can’t steal from a thief” and the government has no cause for complaint about misuse of property it stole.
That’s not what you said. What you said is that government property should be allowed for use to anyone, not that it should be allowed to appropriate by anyone.
Theoretically this makes sense, but I don’t really agree. If I go to central park and cut down trees and destroy the land etc, I think the government has the right to complain about that misuse of property.
If the holder of stolen property cannot complain about misuse of that property – then theoretically couldn’t a native American destroy/misuse land that is rightfully his? I mean, isn’t so much of American land technically “stolen” from Native Americans? If I live on former native american land, then by your theory I would have no cause to complain if a Native American was destroying my “stolen” land.
An interesting idea. Of course, total privatization of public land would be the ideal solution, but like it or not, the state isn’t going away anytime soon. In any case, a system like the one outlined above would certainly be an improvement on what we have now.
That’s how it works in Europe, on a national (not county) level. I currently hold a visa to live and work in France, but I’m not allowed to live or work in any of the other European countries (such as Spain, Italy or Germany).
However, visa’s are primarily a protectionist tool used by socialist governments at the urging of their voters - voters that want a regional “monopoly” on access to employment opportunities. The reason I only have a visa for France is because the other states want visa requirements to be more restrictive - not less so. If the European Union were considered one big block then I’d be able to go get a job in Germany or Austria, where the pay is better. By forcing me to stay in France, only “European citizens” are afforded that privillege and so the job market (and wage competition) remains more closed than it otherwise would.
Let me put it this way: government property is homesteadable. This idea is not communism.
On the contrary, treating government property as the common property of the tax-payers is communistic.
Treating the government as if it were private property is monarchical.
Out of those three options, treating the state as homesteadable property with no current just owners seems the most compatible with libertarianism to me.
Then that would mean that anyone could appropriate a city or county and impose new restrictions on settlement. It would not in any way imply open borders immigration.
In terms of the original appropriation, it would mean that anyone from outside the territory could theoretically come in and homestead government claimed land. So it actually would potentially imply open borders immigration. Certainly people coming from outside the territory are no less capable of or “entitled” to homestead it then anyone else. And I don’t see how one individual is going to appropriate an entire city or county given the existance individuals within those territories who are not willing to sell their individual portions off. It’s not the entirety of the territory that’s homesteadable, it’s the “public property” (I.E. state property) that is homesteadable. Not people’s own private homes and buisinesses.
Furthermore, it does not necessarily follow that the appropriator would have an extremely exclusive policy if they intend to use the property to make a profit from customers. If they actually intend to use the property as a service accessable to others, it would be most profitable for them to have as many customers as possible. Excluding customers would be economic suicide, especially given the existance of competitors with more inclusive policies. It is profitable to have customers to sell or rent houses to. Not to annialate or exclude your own consumer base.
Give up already. Your vision of immigration restriction does not mesh with libertarian economic theories or rights theories. Resistance is futile. Highly restrictive policies are not competitive.
Well, no, I don’t think so. Just because a block of land is called a county doesn’t mean the government owns it. As you know, a good portion of that land is owned by private individuals. Now, parks, roads, etc. - yes, it does follow that someone can appropriate them (although it would immediately be stolen back, in practice) and impose restrictions on who can enter. But the fact is, it hasn’t happened. That means there is land there available for homesteading, which people outside the artificial borders should have access to.
You’re defining homesteading incorrectly, thinking of it as little bits of space. A homestead is a whole property. For example, a city is a whole property, along with all the capital goods and labor contracts necessary for it to work properly. You can’t take little bites out of it without breaking it. The same is true for the post office; you can’t just get into a postal truck and claim it as a homestead. The truck is part of the whole complex of the post company.
So if a private citizen were to homestead a property of the government, he would then gain secure ownership of the whole property, city, county or postal service, and could discriminate on access. That means this owner could restrict who is or isn’t allowed to settle in his new property, and thus that there would be limited, selective immigration, perhaps under even stricter terms than the US government imposes on its properties.
The different levels of government discriminate on how parks, roads, etc may be settled, therefore they de facto own it. It is not a homesteadable situation, where at one point in time no one is valuing a resource and at another point someone determines the resource to be valuable. For government property everyone knows that the resource has a value, and to just let anyone appropriate it will result in a tragedy of the commons, which is why the open borders policy is communism.
I’m sorry, this is absurd. Homesteading state property does not imply that you can literally homestead everything within the territory, including the private homes, buisiness and land already owned by private individuals. We’re not talking about appropriating an entire city, let alone a county or state. It is impossible to appropriate an entire city this way. If there are already existing private owners within that city unwilling to sell off their individual portions, you can’t just (legitimately) lay claim to everything within the territory. In claiming to “homestead” their individual portions, you would effectively be stealing their individual portions. That’s not what I meant when I said that the state is homesteadable. My home and buisiness and land within the city is not the state.
And, once again, it does not logically follow that once such property has been homesteaded it will be employed in an extremely exclusive manner. This is merely your own personal preference for how you might like to employ such property if you were in control of it. Other people do not share your personal preferance. In either case, if the property is intended to be used as a service accessable to customers, an exclusive policy is downright suicidal. You should very well know this. You like to imply that because someone COULD have an exclusive policy, they WOULD. But this is merely an imposition of your own personal preferance. You do not know with absolute certainty that an owner will be highly exclusive about it.
This is disingenous nonsense. Allowing the first-appropriator to homestead it does not mean that everyone commonly owns the property. It means that the original appropriator does. This is no way implies communism. Allowing original appropriation of it does not necessarily imply that everyone will quotally or commonly do so. Amusingly, you just pulled a 180 on us, because just before you were argueing that if people are allowed to homestead it then it will lead to restrictionism. Now you’re argueing that it will lead to communal property. Yet, at the same time, you also have made arguments in the past that amount to the idea that the state should be treated as the common property of the tax-payers, which is truly communistic. So you seem very inconsistant to me.
The depths that you sink to in order to defend your position astounds me.
Once again, you have an incorrect understanding of property rights. Owning a city does not mean that you own all the property in it, just like owning a house does not mean that you own my car if I park it in your driveway. A city is a set of property rights and relationships, which, at least in the past two centuries, were appropriated through the government by force. However this does not mean that these property rights and relationships can be unmade without causing social chaos. They must privatized, that is agreed, but to “homestead” them makes no sense at all. Now, for example, New York City could be privatized tommorow simply by selling off all municipal offices to the highest bidder, and this new owner would then control the rights currently enjoyed by the city, although he would not own the buildings and cars in it that do not belong to the city.
It is my own personal preference and the personal preference of millions of others who desire more or less restrictive covenants depending on their personality and local situations, which is why they clamour from politicians that immigration be restricted. The marketplace will of course provide the good they desire at the cost they are willing to accept. Exclusivity is often quite profitable. For example, many restaurants impose dress codes to exclude potentially disruptive and unpleasant customers from making the experience of other customers less enjoyable.