What about people being innocent until proven guilty ? Yours seem to be a clear case of prejudice, as in “any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.”
I don’t know. I think you just argue any point you can, whether its relevant or not, and try to gain some traction on some position so that you win the debate in your own mind.
Whatever.
How are the property titles missing? Look, the state agents owe a massive debt of restitution to the taxpayers as a result of their crime of mass expropriation. If they are unable to pay, and we can assume this, the creditors, in this case the taxpayers, have a right to go after the states assets. They have a right to public property in proportion to the level of state expropriation. Do you see how the titles to public property rest in taxpayers hands now? Is it not just for there to be a partial return of property in the form of giving taxpayers control over who can use their property? And can we not assume as a general default that if someone is not invited onto property that their uninvited, and a tresspasser?
Lets get this one simple thing out of the way first. Then we can get to more complicated stuff, like easement rights, and the reappropriation of public property. Otherwise you might just make a case against points not essential to your opponents case so that you can turn around and pretend to win the argument.
A strawman is when you make up your opponents position, and then attack the phantom position. I think it’s obvious that an open boarders position, given the existence of the state, would mean a massive subsidization of migration vis a vis a stateless society. Besides, I was just mirroring your argument back at you to show that it was just an empty assertion with nothing to back it up.
What about uninvited trespassers being guilty by definition? I’m all in favour of invited immigration.
Because it’s not clear – at all – who owns what. Is this controversial ?
Yes, yes, yes. We agree on all that. What you simply don’t see is that from that premise your conclusions don’t follow.
Again, you’re not telling me anything I don’t know.
Not at all. That’s the problem you fail to recognize but instead consider it magically solved. As I said, before the taxpayers can use their property in order to exclude immigrants or whatever, it needs to be determined who owns what.
Yes, and some want to exclude people and some don’t and I’m still waiting for you to explain how are you going to solve that conflict.
Yes, if we were talking about a society in which all property titles were perfectly defined – which is not the current case.
Look, you don’t need to lecture me on private property theory…
I don’t want to “open immigration using the state” but you seem to suggest I do. You are making up my position.
Another strawman. Immigrants need not use anything provided by the state except roads and as I said two or three times already they pay for road usage through indirect taxes. You are aware I hope that I said that immigrants should have no access to the welfare state ?
Correct, but what the hell has that got to do with your clearly prejudiced statement namely ‘some immigrants are barbarians’ ?
Hey it’s just as “realistic” as a world without government. But thats what we’re fight for right.
When are you going to give up on the ad hominems? Its every thread with you.
Its clear who doesn’t own them.
Hey Jon, I even bothered to post a definition of the word prejudice which you graciously left out. What do you think you achieve doing that ?
Maybe I should have included a definition of ad hominem.
I don’t need a definition of ad-hominem. I know what it is. I pointed out that Stephen Forde’s claims with respect to immigrants fit the description of ‘prejudice’ and there’s absolutely no fallacy in what I said.
Maybe you’re using ad-hominem to mean personal attack ? Well, that may be a popular usage, but I don’t think it’s correct. And let me repeat, Stephen’s claims are prejudiced and I’m pointing out a fact, not insulting him.
You misunderstand the fallacy.
Explaining why Stephen Forde produced an argument is not a substitute for refuting that argument. An argument is either valid or invalid, the character of the person making the argument has no effect on this.
If Stephen is wrong, show why. Don’t try to divine his motives.
Comparing the act of migration as such to violent crime is absurd on its face. Sorry. You’re being highly disingenous and evaded the argument entirely.
The logic that “the state exists, therefore intervention X is justified” can be used endlessly to justify whatever statist measure one wants. It’s purely pragmatic arbitraryness. It’s also interventionism. You are taking an interventionist position.
State migration restriction is not a partial return of control to rightful owners, it is the exercise of illegitimate state control.
You’re a functional statist.
There is no way to accurately allocate this to the tax-payers (can I sell my share please?), it is functionally without a legitimate owner, and you are falling back on collectivism. The dejure decider in the scenario is either the state or the state acting on the behalf of a special interest, given that it s unclear who owns what and there are conflicts of preferance among the tax-payers to begin with. This has been pointed out ad nauseum.
The nationalists aren’t libertarians to begin with, they function as paleoconservatives.
I told you I know what an ad-hominem is. Yes, your description of what an ad-hominem is correct. NO, I made no fallacious (ad-hominem) argument against Stephen’s claims.
I already did. What I’ll do now is show you that there’s no ad-hominem in sight.
Is Stephen saying “Some immigrants are (a horde of) barbarians” ? Yes ? No ? (I assume you realize he’s saying “yes” ?)
Is it a fact that some immigrants are barbarians ? Or is it just something that Stephen believes before having any evidence and therefore is a prejudice ?
Now, please tell me, where on earth is the ad-hominem ?
This is the false premise from which the author begins:
“That is, open government borders are the same thing as no government borders.”
No they are not, because civil rights laws, public education, welfare, and public infrastructure enable immigrants and their patrons to privatize the profits realized from immigration and socialize its costs. In a free society, travel and residency are privileges that must be purchased; rent-seeking is impossible because there is no government around to force it. Also, in the US at least, the 1965 Immigration Reform Act regards diversity as the highest priority, without any consideration of IQ, cultural compatibility, etc. Unskilled laborers from Guatemala can get the same or greater weight as mechanical engineers from Germany. Such absurd results would be unheard of in a free society.
The only system that would have no borders would be a world government.
It seems that if you’re a cultural marxist the politics follow automatically.
Yes it is. Forced integration is the exercise of illegitimate state control.
At least one alternative system that would have no borders would be anarcho-capitalism!
… apart if you considers the limits of private properties as borders, of course -
The only government system. As someone else pointed out, there is the no-government system as well.
This would definitely be a benefit of a one-world government An end to trade barriers and wars.