You don’t own it either, so you can’t allow in anyone you want.
I don’t need to ‘allow’ people in. People have the natural negative right to not be aggressed upon, so they can move in all by themselves. You can’t enforce your restrictions without violating the NAP. Not to mention you’re assuming that a ‘country’ is a legitimately owned place people can enter – which is not the case.
I’m not talking about a country, I’m talking about the land which is owned by the state. You need the state to allow the people you want into the land. In a free market, this would cost too much.
The state doesn’t own land.
What would cost too much ?
If you were correct, then nothing would stop people from restricting access to roads. One thing does, the state, hence the state owns the land.
My own pick, but the original article is damn right! Free-market and anarchism are based on no borders / absolutely free immigration. Hence, it’s difficult to figure why libertarians would go on defending a statist / nationalist position… In an ancap society, the only borders would be those of private properties; so, you can move anywhere you want as long as you find someone willing to sell you her land in the place you’d like to live in. You don’t have the right to move in in case nobody wants to, but that’s rather unlikely to happen if you’re ready to put the appropriate price for it.
Re/ It would be one thing if the immigrants don’t recognize the authority of the state when they move to a region. But in most cases, specifically the Canadian and American ones, immigrants come seeking the state, and what the state offers.
This is a straight consequentialist argument, putting what’s instrumentally efficient above people’s rights (here, their right to move wherever they want, provided they buy / rent their accomodation from willing landowners) not too much in line with Austrian premisses… but if you want to tackle this type of claims, David Friedman (Chicago, granted, but surely no left-libertarian) has written a couple of articles, based on empirical research, precisely refuting this kind of prejudices; actually, immigrants are usually belonging to the most entrepreneurial segments of a society (incidentaly, if they weren’t, they wouldn’t take the risk of moving from their country of origin) and immigrants to the US are mostly going to low-welfare states, because it gives them more opportunities.
The fact that the welfare is deplorable, as much as any other public theft/coercion-based monopoly, does justify creating more of such monopolies, over land and what-not… on the contrary!
Cheers, M-
And might is right.
Seriously, your argument was refuted posts ago. The state doesn’t own the streets and people who want to lynch immigrants with the support of the state don’t own the streets either, so they can’t legitimately use force to exclude immigrants – end of the story – provided you believe in the NAP (which, I take it, you don’t…?)
Your retorting that free-immigration advocates don’t own the streets either is irrelevant. Since anti-immigration advocates can’t legitimately stop immigration, then free-immigration is the default and morally correct position.
Actually the default is the status quo, which is restricted access to public land. You are advocating repealing immigration controls, meaning you are going to use the force of the state to change the rights of access to public land. And since it is forbidden by the state to appropriate this public land and stop you, (because the state owns it, no matter how much you ask that we look the other way) you are benefitting from the force of the state to impose your program.
Stop the ridiculous sophisms please. You want to murder peaceful people who try to cross political borders.
I’m suggesting that the thugs who make a living by threatening murder should get a honest job. How can you twist that into meaning that I’ll be “using the force of the state” is beyond me.
You’re wasting our time and not providing any refutation of the fact that it is forbidden to appropriate public land by the land’s owner, the state. Conclusion: it is only reasonable to expect the state to fulfill its duties as a land owner.
Circular nonsense. The state is not a land owner. At best it’s a land usurper.
By the way…why are you using the plural form “our” in “our time” ? Who is “we” ? Or maybe you’re using the majestic plural ?
Premise : I declare pigs fly. Conclusion : It’s reasonable to expect pigs to fly.
Here. It’s obvious that the state usurps land – I’ve no intention to refute such a fact. What you don’t get is that from the fact that the state usurps land it doesn’t follow that immigration can be legitimately restricted.
So if we could own land privately, we couldn’t restrict immigration to our land?
Stranger, what are your thoughts on the original article?
I’m sorry, but I don’t get what this entire argument is over. Don’t people on the border still own their own land? And can’t they deny passage to people?
And Juan, you can’t say that the sales and payroll taxes that illegals pay make up for road usage, police protection, fire protection, public education, and other public services.
Because the issue, as the article points out, is not about borders. Anyone can get through the border on a visitor’s visa. What it is about is the right to settle permanently in communities that the state maintains a monopoly over.
Did I say that ?
Did I say that ?
Hmmm
Re/ Actually the default is the status quo, which is restricted access to public land.
Actually, the default status quo is the welfare-warmongering-state, so that’s all right, ain’t it?
You can’t take a is for a ought, basic logical fallacy and counter-productive (at best) if you want to change the said status quo; which, i’m assuming, any libertarian would…
If the land is privately owned, you can restrict access to it, by selling or refusing to sell it to whomever you want… The state i NOT owning an piece of alnd; hene, can’t claim to restrict immigration and/or prevent the rightful owners from selling/renting their property.