Interesting how you conveniently left out the words “state enforced” from my quote to build a disingenous argument. We’re not talking about your land - we’re talking about state-claimed land and blatantly unhomesteaded land. They can cross it all they want and you have no legitimate decision-making power to stop them.
Your arguement is disingenous because (1) you don’t own state-claimed land and (2) not all land is currently in ownership, just or not. It’s also disingenous because you’re using a private property argument in the context of the question of state claimed property. This is a blatant obfuscation of the issue that paleos often engage in.
Of course, you seem to have a preconcieved vested interest in simply being a prick to such people simply because you have a prejudicial bigotry against them.
The state enforcement of state-claimed property is not justified under libertarian principles, and this is what immigration control in the context of political policy is by definition. We’ve been through this a million times. Don’t obfuscate. If you recognize the state-claimed property to be unjust to begin with, you must accept the consequences of this, which is that because it has no clearly defined or just owner at the moment anyone can theoretically cross it. If you wish to still restrict them from crossing it then you implictly must recognize the legitimacy of the state claims to property. You cannot have it both ways.
You said migration restrictions can never be justified under libertarian principles. Since your right to migrate is circumscribed by the rights of other property owners, then obviously you were wrong.
So we’re going to make this personal? I bet I deal successfully with far more people from varied ethnicities and cultures than you.
No, I said that state-enforcement of migration restriction with respect to state-claimed land is not justified under libertarian principles, since the claim to ownership is not justified under libertarian principles to begin with. As usually happens, you proceeded to try to make a private property argument, which simply does not apply in this context. The private property argument does not apply to state-controlled land. The problem is that you’re conveniently switching back and forth between the context of justly aquired private property and state property. This is an obfuscation between political borders and legitimate ownership.
You have openly expressed the bigotry I refer to in plenty of past threads, so I’m merely confirming the obvious: that you have a vested interest in opposing the migration of such people in and of itself.
That’s right. Now take a look at the current financial meltdown. Who are to blame ? Well, wetbacks of course. Obviously greenspan, bernanke and paulson are wetbacks and so are the people who run lehman, GS, AIG, MS, etc. Oh, Roosevelt was a wetback as well - that’s why the new deal can be regarded as a wetback conspiracy. Why did America enter two world wars causing incredible damage to ‘westerners’ ? Well, wilson was a poor illiterate mexican too.
Yes, some racist landlords will refuse to rent to mexicans. And the rest of landlords will not. So, there’s absolutely no way to ‘enforce’ racism in a libertarian society.
edit : Not to mention that racism has nothing to do with libertarianism despite the ridiculous attempts of so called ‘cultural conservatives’ to justify racism by appealing to ‘libertarian’ principles.
So according to your definition what’s the difference between migration and property trespass? and why should it make a difference if its done by mexicans or if its done by anyone else?
It is perfectly possible if a bunch of people decide to cohabit a particular area, who share similar values. There is no such thing as an all-encompassing “libertarian” society, but rather there will be many societies, some of which libertarian, and some of which will have differing restrictions and shared values to other libertarian societies. There is no impossibility to speak of, especially when trade is feasible.
Migration simply means movement. Trespass means you are on another’s property without his consent. If all property is privately owned, then all movement off your own property will require the consent of adjoining property owners and any intervening property owners between you and your destination.
What must also be considered is the costs or loads being imposed by the immigrant(s) on adjoining or commonly owned property. Under state-controlled immigration, these costs/loads are socialized. In a libertarian society, they would be borne by the immigrants and their sponsors.
It depends on the preferences of the owner. If he admits Mexicans but bars Anglo’s, that is entirely up to him.
The acknowledgment that there will be polycentric order, not monocentric order.
You know, there just might be some pockets of conservatism, communism, socialism, anarchism, fascism, liberalism etc. A world without centralized states may surprise you with how it re-organizes in the absence of coercion.
That’s what we have now. A lot of different states imposing what politicians regard as ‘order’.
Well, yes. But what has that got to do with the fact that fascism is not libertarianism, communism is not libertarianism, racism is not libertarianism, etc.
Communism, fascism, conservatism, etc can’t survive without using coercion.
No. What we have now are only coercive systems. There are no uncoercive ones.
Which I believe was Jon’s point. There will be no “universal libertarian” model that conforms to your notion of a free society. The so-called free societies may butt up against statist societies and have to deal with possible threats of violence from those.
Which is why I think we’re a long way from a world without coercion.
I’ve never blamed the financial crisis on Mexicans, your post hasn’t addressed a single point I made and only reveals your total ignorance of the argument I make. Perhaps you should examine some of your own prejudices and take some time to read up on the main libertarian restrictionist arguments before getting emotionally unbalanced and engaging in a pathetic attempt at character assassination.
In a free society there is no such thing as a right to immigrate only the rights of property owners to include and exclude whomever they see fit. Property owners have an economic incentive to be inclusive to the extent that being inclusive raises the economic value of their property. Accordingly Airports and Shopping malls will be very inclusive, on the other hand private residential areas will tend to be very exclusive with restricitive covenants to prevent the phenomenon known as ‘urban flight’ where undesirable neighbours move into an estate causing a decline in property values. Their presence deters desirable neighbours from buying houses in the neighbourhood at the original price. The lower price tends to attract more undesirable neighbours further lowering the value of property until it reaches a certain critical mass when the original neighbours realise their neighbourhood has gone down hill and sell their properties at a fraction of the original price.
The point is that today the state has largely taken away the right of exclusion from domestic property owners and seized it for itself coercively deciding whoom to include and whoom to exclude through its immigration policy. Such arbitary centralised decision making by its nature will inflict damage on property owners, but the nature of the states immigration policy will determine the degree of the damage inflicted.
A non-discriminatory open borders approach would be the worst possible choice allowing the worst elements to impose themselves on domestic property owners and lead in time to social, economic and political collapse due to the complete free-for all on property owners. The prefered choice, absent the destuction of the state, would be an entirely discriminatory one restricting immigration to only those individuals whoom propety owners we estimate would willing include as they would add to the value of their property, for instance an English surgeon.
My post is a sarcastic reductio-ad-absurdum of your totally wrong characterization of “the West”
Those ‘restrictionist’ arguments are not libertarian.
Well, I don’t know where you get the ‘emotionally unbalanced’ part from but I’ll certainly engage in ‘character assassination’. You said somewhere else that you’re an ex-stormfronter, correct ? Maybe the ‘ex’ particle is not needed to describe your character ?
No. And there’s no way to restrict immigration either - as is shown by debunking the ridiculous notion that all property owner will ‘agree’ to be racist bigots.
Debatable.
Ah yes. The barbarians are at the gates. So, I’ll repeat - How do you explain the current financial collapse and the overall decline of freedom in the West…without scapegoating immigrants ? Hint : the welfare state was created by WASPs for WASPs.
And why shouldn’t the current authoritarian political system collapse? why are you trying to defend it? and about society and economic collapsing due to immigrations I have no idea how could that hapend.Just because some state decided to put an arbitrary line in the ground does that mean the they have the right to decides who gets to pass the line and who doesn’t? not even people who own property inside those imaginary lines have that right, because borders do no delimitate legitimate property.
And how would property owners decide who are they going to let inside “their” imaginary lines (aka. borders, witch are not legitimately owned property )?, through democracy? because the majority is right, right?
What do we agree on? From reading the responses I almost feel as if people have a disagreement over migration on privately owned property.
In an anarchist society all property is privately owned (or unowned). This automatically opens the doors for people to “knee-jerk react” to other cultures\societies\races etc and many people might adopt the mindset that they want to exclude the Mexicans\Canadians\Chinese\Muslims. While some people might not care, most will care if this mindset is adopted, so there will be very little migration through these privately owned areas on account that most people will exclude.
I think we all agree on this, am I correct? We might have different ideas of what people should do with their property to maximize what the market can do, but as we know everyone has subjective values and some might see it better to exlude atheists and Mexicans because they believe it to be harmful to themselves, their family etc.
I just want to make sure we’re all clear on this point and in agreement. I think this is the libertarian immigration aspect we should all be in agreement with. If we are, then let’s set the record straight we are referring to trying to be “most libertarian” in a world of States when we argue about ‘immigration policy’ and such.
Conservatives are trying to hijack libertarian principles to justify bigotry - that’s what’s going on.
That’s a far fetched scenario. A society where the majority is composed of narrow-minded bigots will hardly subscribe to the libertarian ideal of no state and no coercion.
That’s a tautology. Yes, if the majority of people are racists they will act accordingly.
Maybe, but the point is there will be migration anyway. So the racists will have to stand it. And again, a free society in which the majority of people are racist (collectivistic that is) sounds very unlikely.