Well, whoever pointed that out is wrong. A free society would have borders, it’s called private property.
Wrong. A society is just an abstraction. Borders are geographical boundaries. At best individual pieces of land would have ‘borders’ and it doesn’t follow at all that the ‘anarcho’ nationalism some ppl dream of would be possible.
There would be borders around the different communities.
False again.
The idea of a closed ‘society’ bound by physical borders is a typical statist belief. As a matter of fact, it’s more or less the definition of a nation-state. It’s funny to see how some ‘anarchists’ actually want a state of their own…
LOL.
Where do you get this crap? The very essence of property rights is the ability to bar entry.
Which has nothing to do with ‘communities’ and other nationalist crap that conservatives love so much.
Your position reduces to forced segregation, and is the exercise of illegitimate state control. To call the LACK of enforcement of the state’s territorial claim an excersise of such control is nonsensical. You’re the one asking the state to enforce its illegitimate property claim to begin with, and you’re buying into the illusion that this is somehow repreentative of the will of the tax-payers when no such uniform will exists. Stop calling yourself an anarchist, you advocate the reinforcement of the state’s territorial claim in the name of nationalism. You are a conservative nationalist.
You’ve accepted the misnomers of the paleocons. No political borders /= world government. No political borders = anarchism. They are worlds apart and you should know better then to confuse the two. A world government doesn’t eliminate political borders or jurisdictions, it turns the entire world into the political border, a singular jurisdiction. Libertarian advocates of free immigration aren’t for global government, they’re for eliminating political borders as such. The logical outcome of that is not global government, but no government.
There is a huge difference between the “borders” of private property and POLITICAL BORDERS. We’re talking about POLITICAL BORDERS, and it is highly disingenous to make allusions to private property in the attempt to justify the enforcement of POLITICAL BORDERS, which are not legitimate private property but arbitrary illegitimate property claims made by a state. The “libertarian” anti-immigrationists are constantly flip-flopping between these two things (private owner’s right to excude vs. state enforcement of political borders) in a disingenous way. When we’re talking about political borders, we’re dealing with an arbitrary political jurisdiction that is not representative of actual ownership.
You can bar entry to your house or business. You can bar entry to jointly owned property provided there is unanimous consent among owners. However, the idea that it’s possible to bar entry to a ‘society’ is ridiculous – unless by ‘society’ you mean a small town created by fanatics…Something alone the lines of Jim Jones’ little ‘community’…?
I think you’ll be hard pressed to allocate a just owner for the percieved borders of an entire community. At best, there are individual owners within the community, but by no means can you point me to a legitimate owner of the entire community as such. In the attempt to exercise decision-making over the entire community as such, you’re stuck with either majoritarianism or some oligarchy deciding how the property of people existing within such percieved borders will be used. Hence the implicit collectivist authoritarianism of the closed borders position.
How does it not?
The very essence of property rights is not the ability to bar entry or passage, it’s ability to decide how the property is used in general, which includes being inclusive about entry or open about passage. Barring entry is your personal preferance, not an imperative that comes with the nature of property rights. It is of course true that by the nature of you owning something, others don’t own it due to scarcity, but it by no means follows from this that the very nature of the property right is that you completely exclude it’s use in all cases and in terms of all property. I can own something and decide to let you use it, I could decide to give it to you, I could decide to share it, I could decide to destroy it, and so on. The degree of exclusivity you are talking about is just your preferance.
Of course you can, seeing as towns would be owned by single entrepreneurs.The rest of your nonsense follows from that.
Because noone own’s a “community” as such in the same way that I can legitimately own a home. The “community” is just an accumulation of individual cases of ownership, but as a whole noone owns it.
There will be no towns owned entirely by single enterprenuers in the absence of the unanimous consent of everyone in that town deciding to sell or donate their own portion to them. Good luck finding such unanimous consent, getting literally everyone in the town to sell their land and property to the same person (hint: you can’t!). Otherwise, you’re stuck recognizing that the town as such is made up of multiple individual owners.
So please explain to me how you can manage to get an entire city, as one exists today, into the ownership of a single entreprenuer without effectively claiming ownership over other people’s property within the city. You simply can’t.
Do you know what we call towns owned (at least implicitly) by a single entity today? A city-state. The city government effectively claims ownership over the entire city, while in reality there are a multitude of individual owners of individual plots of land and property within that city. There is no way to get such a property claim over the entire city in the absence of state power or some kind of crime.
And you’re a cultural marxist.
You mean lack of enforcement through providing roads and through restricting the use of private property?
Why wouldn’t people sell their land to a single entrepreneur? The have no interest in owning land, only in being able to lease it from some owner. Of course if a single entrepreneur didn’t own the entire town people wouldn’t have any way of ensuring that their property values would not decline due to the neighbours use of their land. Hence the usefulness of the arrangement I pointed out.
No, I’m not a cultural marxist. You use that label to throw at anyone who isn’t a rabid conservative.
It is not a restriction on the use of private property for the state to not enforce it’s legal jurisdiction or territorial claim. The state NOT putting up walls and putting paramilitary troop’s on the edges of its territorial dominion isn’t a property rights violation, the state doing that would be a property rights violation, the whole thing is predicated on its illegitimate territorial claim to begin with. The state’s territorial claim is what’s a restriction on the use of private property (and unowned property), given that it restricts people from homesteading unowned land and being inclusive with their own property. Defending the state’s territorial claim in the name of private property is a ridiculous obfuscation.