Lol - how did this conversation turned so violent?? Libertarians are supposed to resolve conflicts peacefully!
I appeal to no authority. I am saying that any attempt to prevent my peaceful migration is unjust force. I didn’t say there is no property.
LOL. So a sign gives you a new right to shoot people you don’t want crossing an arbitrary line. This is prosecuting a victimless crime.
All I am asking for is an easement.
I appeal to no authority. I am saying that any attempt to prevent my peaceful migration is unjust force.
Well of course you’re appealing to an authority: whichever authority decides what is “unjust”. I guess in this case the authority is “you”.
I didn’t say there is no property.
Well then you must be aware that you are defining “property” differently than most people. Since in an AnCap society all social institutions - including “property” - are defined via the market and contracts, it is unlikely that a definition that most people do not agree with will become common. Most people think that “property” means “no one can use it in any way unless the owner gives them permission”, which means you can’t just “migrate” over someone else’s property simply because you assert a “right” to. You have to know this, so I’m not exactly sure why you are attempting to be so obstinate.
It’s also so unnecessary. Look around the world and tell me that every single property owner blocks “migration” across their land. In fact, many have specifically purchased land specifically for the purpose of allowing migration, or at least in a society where roads were privately owned, that would be the case.
Ok, then who decides if murder or theft is unjust? How do you prosecute crime?
I don’t see land itself as property.
Ok, then who decides if murder or theft is unjust? How do you prosecute crime?
No offense, but this is standard AnCap stuff; perhaps you haven’t read much of it? I haven’t read a ton, but Friedman is probably a good place to start http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf I certainly can’t explain it better than he and the other excellent AnCap writers have already done.
I don’t see land itself as property.
In an AnCap society, the market will decide what is “property”, so your opinion is only one of 7 billion. You’re welcome to try to convince others to your definition; I just don’t think you’re going to have very good luck, since most people very much see “land” as property. The economist’s explanation for property is that it is a social institution for resolving conflicts over the use/control of scarce goods, and much land is clearly “scarce” in the sense that lots of people would like to use/control it. Property is a solution to that problem that has proven its value throughout history time and time again, and thus has many supporters. I think that definition is going to dominate in the free market over your alternative.
Wait: where did you argue that? Looks to me like you repeated standard rightwing justification for racism, and then simply stated that that’s better than an “American union”.
I did not say that racism is better than an “American Union.” I said that “tight borders” might be better than a “North American Union.” As Ron Paul pointed out during a Presidential debate in 2008, there is a concerted effort on the part of globalist groups like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into an international superstate modeled after the European Union. Like the EU, it will be sold to public in the name of free movement, free trade, and open borders. In reality, it’s just another step on the path to a world police state.
While I can envision an anarcho-capitalistic society in which private property rights solve the immigration problem, unfortunately we’re stuck in the short term with a choice between national sovereignty and global government. I agree with Ron Paul and other conservatives who believe that unrestricted immigration represents a greater threat to our freedom than the restriction of civil liberties in the name of enforcing immigration law.
At the same time, I could also see unrestricted immigration greasing the skids of the decline of the state. The failure of the state to keep up with the provision of social services in the face of a tsunami of immigration could really hasten the exposition of its deficiencies. The more dramatic the collapse, the likelier it is that people’s faith in the institution of the state to protect them will be shaken.
So you accept the use of force so long as the market accepts it? There are no rights except what the market allows?
As a separate argument, isn’t that the world we live in today? Isn’t that what the market has allowed?
I read chapter 29: Police, Courts, and Laws — On the market.
While I can envision an anarcho-capitalistic society in which private property rights solve the immigration problem, unfortunately we’re stuck in the short term with a choice between national sovereignty and global government.
Your assertion that this is our “choice” simply does not make it so; it’s a false dichotomy.
I agree with Ron Paul and other conservatives who believe that unrestricted immigration represents a greater threat to our freedom than the restriction of civil liberties in the name of enforcing immigration law.
Please do not include me in your collectives. I don’t know who you mean by “our” here, but please don’t include me in your “our”. I care about the freedom of people, and sacrificing the freedom of billions of people - they cannot peacefully associate with anyone in your “our”, or buy land from them, or rent from them, or work for them, etc, etc - for the freedom of whatever-sized group you are considering “our” does not look like a net win for freedom to me. In fact, it looks like the kind of special interest favor-granting that statism is so good at. It may be unusual to consider “Americans” a “special interest”, but from a global perspective, that’s exactly what’s being invoked here.
At the same time, I could also see unrestricted immigration greasing the skids of the decline of the state. The failure of the state to keep up with the provision of social services in the face of a tsunami of immigration could really hasten the exposition of its deficiencies. The more dramatic the collapse, the likelier it is that people’s faith in the institution of the state to protect them will be shaken.
I hope you’re right. But the response to government failure in the past has always been more government to “fix” the problem. If this trend continues, a massive government failure would justify a massive increase in government.
I also want to add that the Native Americans didn’t see land as property either. At least not in the way that we do today. For much of human history this has been the case.
Your assertion that this is our “choice” simply does not make it so; it’s a false dichotomy.
Yeah, you’re right. Individuals make choices and all that. But I still think the ideological battle between nationalism and globalism is real and has huge ramifications for the future of human liberty.
I definitely get your argument, and it makes plenty of sense when you release yourself from the statist mindset. Why shouldn’t people be able to move freely about the globe and interact with whomever they please? But I don’t think the issue is that simple, given the political and social realities of the day.
Well, historically, you would be correct that that’s been the typical response to crises, and the cry for more government would perhaps be the most likely outcome. However, by shoring up the state a little longer and letting it take a few more nibbles out of liberty, we run the risk of fostering continued complacency among the people towards the state. I hate to sound like Rahm Emmanuel saying “never let a good crisis go to waste”, but the iron of freedom is as hot as it’s been in generations, and we know where the slow slide of continued statism will eventually take us. Crises are inevitable with government in charge, and if we keep waiting and propping up the state, delaying the inevitable, we could miss our chance to destroy the state before it destroys civilization.
I definitely get your argument, and it makes plenty of sense when you release yourself from the statist mindset. Why shouldn’t people be able to move freely about the globe and interact with whomever they please? But I don’t think the issue is that simple, given the political and social realities of the day.
I just don’t see how propping up the current state is a way to fight against larger states, rather than fighting against states altogether. If we remove border restrictions, we more or less removing borders, and monopoly over contiguous land is one of the main defining characteristcs of government/states. After all, I’m not suggesting opening up the borders only to Mexicans and Canadians, which would, I agree, be dangerously in the direction of a larger state encompassing all of North America; I’m suggesting opening up the borders to everyone.
I realize you’re trying to choose what you see as the lesser of two evils, but I think it’s another case where that’s still just choosing “evil”.
Crises are inevitable with government in charge, and if we keep waiting and propping up the state, delaying the inevitable, we could miss our chance to destroy the state before it destroys civilization.
Good point. Rahm Emmanuel isn’t the only one who could take advantage of a genuine crisis. Maybe if the economy collapsed, the tea partiers would descend on Washington and tear down the White House.
Alternatives_Considered, could you clarify for me?
Do you accept the use of force so long as the market accepts it? Are there no rights except what the market allows?
Do you accept the use of force so long as the market accepts it? Are there no rights except what the market allows?
I really don’t understand what you are asking with these questions. What do you mean “do I accept it?” Do you mean “do I like it”? Do you mean “if I were the dictator of the world, woulc I allow it?” Surely you understand that my acceptance or lack thereof isn’t going to make a difference; I am only one person out of 7 billion.
As for the second question, I think any answer is going to depend on the definition of “rights” that is in use. How do you define it? I have a very narrow definition.
Perhaps the best way of explaining where I think we are not connecting is that I think that you are asking questions of “ought” while I am answering questions of “is”.
This is a question of objective rights? Do rights exist in absentia of the market or are they determined by the market?
How can you say that a market is free if freedom is dependent on the market? Or is there a difference between freedom and rights?
This is a question of objective rights? Do rights exist in absentia of the market or are they determined by the market?
I reject this Platonic concept that there is a thing called “rights” that exists independent of man’s construction and that what we are doing is trying to “discover” the properties of “rights”. Words are defined purely by humans. So what definition do you use?
I think rights are objective and that we can logically derive them.
If we are advocating a “free market”, freedom has to be an objective quality. If freedom is defined by the market, then we already have a free market.