Hmm. Interesting point. I will think about this further.
I don’t see why your perception of danger entitles you to legislate who may move where.
The item must be returned to the person to whom it originally belonged. If you unknowingly buy a stolen TV from me, you are obligated to return it to the orginal owner. If you want your money back, you have to get it from me.
Obviously the US government is the thief. Welfare queens are not the disease, but a symptom. Increased immigration is the predictable market reaction to government intervention, but opposition to immigration is also a predictable market reaction to that symptom of government intervention. Adding another government policy outlawing this reaction is to make the situtation that much worse.
People who live off government hand outs should not to be villified. But their actions are anti-market, so the market naturally shuns them.
Imagine there was a federal law that required local governments to pay out to illegal immigrants. The obvious reaction to this policy would be the local governments trying to rid themselves of illegal immigrants, in order to stop the expenditures. While Americans are helpless against federal law, through local laws they would achieve a de facto nullification of the requirement to payroll illegals.
Critics might ask, What about the landlords and employers who are victimized by this because they can not rent to or hire illegals?
But what “right” do landlords have to rent to illegals? If their standard of living is being subsidized by the government, then the question is no different than asking if people have the “right” to deal with the government? And likewise, what “right” do employers have to wire someone who is willing to work for a lower wage because their income is being subsidized?
I certainly don’t believe any American has the “right” to sell to the government in exchange for money that does not belong to the government, does anyone here?
By the way, thanks for the debate Brainpolice and Irish. I never really explored the issue any further than the recognition that no government policy is superior to any other. This has really served to flesh out my understand of it.
I’m not sure about that. I say the thief can be made to either repay the owner in kind or, if he doesn’t possess the tv anymore, in money and damages. I don’t see why the purchaser should have to track down the thief.
I don’t understand all the hate for the LP over here.
If Mike Gravel becomes the nominee, I’m definitely not doing anything to help him, but if a quasi-libertarian like Ron Paul gets the nomination, then I’ll do everything to get them as many votes as possible.
Libertarians of all colors need maximum exposure to the media and to the people.
I agree, Gravel joining should not be a reason to hate the LP.
Well, you have to remember that for the most part, the anarchists make up the most radical wing of the party. This is not to approve of the “moderates”, who are basically unprincipled sell-outs (e.g. Wayne Root). However, the anarchists and minarchists should learn to get along, since they have 99% of their goals in common.
Sure. It was Gravel who chose the party, not the other way around. And besides, there are plently of legitimate reasons to hate the LP - foremost, the fact that they are a political party with political goals. And second… well, the first one is reason enough for me.
I admitt that there would be some danger involved in keeping open borders; however, the real question is: is the safety that closing the borders would provide worth the loss in liberty that would go along with it. I say no.
Well, we all say that, but is it true? The minarchists have goals like cut taxation down to x%. Anarchists have only one goal - eliminate the state. So where is the overlap? To put it another way, is it really true that minarchists are closer to anarchists than they are to, say, communists? It seems like it, but minarchists also agree with communists, and disagree with anarchists, on the most fundamental political question.
Libertarians need to work together, except when it comes to supporting a one quasi-libertarian over another? If your going to be the “libertarian” party, don’t support quasi-libertarians.
I would say that actually, the most radical wing of the party would be the reformers. They have purposefully undermined the party and shifted the focus towards attracting republican-lite libertarians. They sure don’t like the anarchists. I have seen lately, especially since the Ron Paul campaign, that the anarchists are just leaving the whole mess behind. I would like to see all the anarchists leave the party personally. It could only be good in the long run.
For the foreseeable future, both miniarchists and anarchists want to move the political spectrum in the exact same direction. Claiming that miniarchists are no closer to anarchists than communists is veering towards moral equivalency.
True, but he did make a good point. Minarchists and communists agree with each other and disagree with anarchists on the most fundamental political question - the necessity and legitimacy of the state.
I would qualify that, however - many minarchists are not anarchists simply because they do not believe an anarchy can result in anything other than another state. They do not hold it as legitimate or necessary - only inevitable. I will gladly call those minarchists my friends, although misguided ones.
But as per Shazam’s point - many minarchists are statists in principle. I do not consider them to be either friends or allies. And unfortunately (but not surprisingly), they’re the sort that comprise the majority of political libertarianism.
But the person who was stolen from should have to track down the thief, even though they knew where their property is? Ha!
Lets say you come home from work and find people living your house. They tell its their house, they just bought it.
There are two options. Either you still own your home and can kick them, or these people now own your home and you are forced to locate whatever person “sold” your house to these people and demand payment from him.
Obviously, you can’t get something from someone who doesn’t own it. These people do not own your home, so you kick them. They made a bad business decision and can not force the consequences onto you, a bystander.
If buying something stolen meant you owned it, then any person found with stolen property will claim to have “bought it.” How convenient.
Because it is compulsory association, and it is every bit an empire, only now it’s a domestic one. The British Empire once consumed raw materials at below-market prices from India and Pakistan. Now that it’s a social democracy and no longer has that option, it imports Hindus and Pakistanis to prop up its welfare state, and any English who dare object over the transformation of their culture face the full wrath of the civil rights bureaucracy. A borderless world will not be a glorious anarcho-capitalist Utopia. On the contrary, it will be a social democracy with a global tax base, and there will be nowhere to hide.
This is why Mr. Bostwick’s point about secession and decentralization is so important. When the central state collapses, do you think Hasidic townships are suddenly going to allow mosques or Amish villages are suddenly going to allow strip clubs? Regardless of whether you think they should, they won’t, and it will no doubt cause the anarchists much grief when they persist in their archaic ways and still show a profit.
A political border represents a compulsory association. Not the lack of such a territorial monopoly. You have it all in reverse. What don’t you understand about the fact that a national border is the very definition of a state’s territorial monopoly? It is not private property, nor is it a voluntary commons. Enforcing it is to enforce the state’s territorial dominion. It is not compatible with free association or market anarchism. This shouldn’t even be up for debate. When we talk about eliminating “borders”, we’re not talking about a global government. We’re talking about eliminating nation-states and replacing them with nothing. So far as I can tell, your position appears to merely be an apologetic for nation-states made up of anti-globalist fears.
To eliminate national borders is not to force association. It is to free it up from the unjust territorial monopoly of nation-states. Nor does it logically follow that upon the elimination of nation-states everyone inherently conglomerates into entirely homogenous groups. This is merely a personal preferance of yours (cultural homogeniety) that you are free to persue, not a uniform result of free association. The notion that the natural result of free association is universal segregation is an absurdity that is easily refuted by the most obvious of principles shown by the economics of discrimination and comparative advantage. Highly exclusive homogenous communities are uncompetitive as compared to more inclusive and pluralist ones. Exclusion is not profitable as compared to inclusion. You’re shooting yourself in the foot by turning down customers.
The personal preferances of nationalists do not really bode well in an actual anarchist society because an actual anarchist society is not a static homogenous utopia, nor does it involve “nations” in any contemprary sense of the term. Nor is nationalism in ideology or practise compatible with anarchism in any sense. It is a statist political ideology that favors state-enforced separatism, forced disassociation and protectionism. It is merely the reinforcement of state-controlled territorial dominions in oppostion to internationalism. It only favors decentralization insofar as it opposes centralization at the global or international level, which is piffle. From the perspective of anarchism and with respect to smaller entities and individuals, it is extreme centralization, not decentralization. There is nothing voluntary about it. Anarcho-nationalism is a contradiction in terms.
Well, ideally his insurance company or security service or whatever would. But, yes, that’s why it’s called being the victim of a crime - because it isn’t preferable. Under your suggestion, the victim gets his property back if we can’t find the thief, but the innocent person who bought it becomes a new victim. All you’ve done is shift the burden. Now, the use of a house as an example is clever. What if it was an umbrella? Would that change your story?
Ok, so the story is, someone stole your house and sold it to these folks. Presumably, there are now two deeds. It seems the most natural way to approach it is for a court to decide which deed is correct. But this is a special case because of deeds. What about an umbrella? If someone steals your umbrella, and then sells it on to the street, to me, and you find me, do I lose my umbrella and the thief goes away with his money?
How exactly do Hasidic townships show a profit? They aren’t businesses.
But the question is a good one. What if some Satmar guy decides to sell his home to a mosque? What then? In other words, what does the township do about it?
This would seem to be a conflict between individual sovereignty and communal authority. If one posits that “the community” has the legitimate authority or decision-making power to force this individual to not sell their property to an “undesirable”, then I think we have exited a libertarian treatment of the situation and have allowed communal or majoritarian authority to usurp the liberty of the individual. In my understanding, a libertarian treatment of the situation would propose that this individual owner is free to sell off their property to whoever they please, and since “the community” or anyone else within is not a legitimate owner of the property they really do not have any legitimate decision-making power to stop them. This is what I mean when I say that a universal or collective restrictionist policy is not sustainable in a free society. So long as so much as one individual on the margin within such a community chooses to associate with and sell their stuff to “outsiders”, the homogeniety will be broken by free association and free trade.