Open borders is not the same as no property lines.
Forbidding communities from establishing their own residency policies, however, is.
For most of the reasons sarcastically quoted by wombatron. They will come here, demanding ‘civil rights’, welfare, more socialism, etc. I dont see why it should simply be ignored. Note that it is just an observation, I do not advocate a closed border police state like paleocons want.
And how do you figure these immigrants get from place to place? State owned roads. Furthermore these communities can’t reject these individuals because the state won’t allow them. In fact, most businesses are forced to do business with the immigrants they don’t want there in the first place. If all property were private then somebody would have to be invited somewhere to be able to reside there. Due to open borders they don’t, they can go anywhere they like as a result of state owner roads and no community can kick them out because of the state.
Not entirely no. However, the state allows individuals into the country who would never be allowed in if it were contingent upon certain things, as it would be in a free society.
Moreover, they get from place to place using state owned roads and state owned public space.
Wait. I thought only lazy intellectual and middle class people who don’t understand where the money come from demand such things. I guess my collectivist thinking is shot now.
Ironic, coming from someone who defended the traffic code for punishing people for having snow on their license plates. He seems to only mind the parts of the trafic code that allow Mexicans into the country.
Mind you I dont know why a Mexican equals immigrant so much that a topic about Mexico has to be about immigration. Isnt a hill billy moving into a city as much of an immigrant? You know, provided that you are an anarchist.
Who’s rejecting them? Some hypothetical white dudes that hate migrant workers because they took jobs away from them, which is by the way, a bunch of HOGWASH.
If American farmers want a cheap source of labor, let them have it! Screw border patrols and high walls!
Who here advocated border patrols or border fences?
Wow, I see so much bias in this post. You talk about being an “anarchist” but your words reek of protectionism.
For one thing, if roads were private owners would charge a toll to use them. I am pretty certain the road owner wouldn’t care who used the road as long as they paid their toll. If they did care well, their loss of money and I’m sure there would be plenty of non bigoted road owners that would love their business.
If a property owner decides to sell or rent their property to one of these "unwanted’ how would this community reject them? In my experience someone selling their house doesn’t care who buys it as long as they have the money. If they are renting out the property, of course, you would be a bit more selective because you don’t want any damage done to your property, this is done through criminal checks, etc. If they do care who buys or rents the house, well, their loss again, as I’m sure there would be somebody else perfectly willing to sell or rent them a place. In this case how does the community get rid of them? They can’t as it would violate their property rights.
Businesses are forced to do business with immigrants? HA. Businesses want to do business with anyone that gives them money. They also love the cheap labor that immigrants provide. The free flow of labor is important to any free society.
I must be in a different realm of what a free society is. Because to me a free society is completely open and free. But I guess to some a free society is an “us vs them, let’s wall up in closed paranoid xenophobic communities.” I am sure there would be some of this in a completely free society but I hope that my vision is closer to what the reality would be, because I would hate to live in such a world as I dont’ see that to be any better then the nationalism we face today.
Maybe you missed that the whole debate was sparked by this:
Actually both debates are part of a bigger picture, I’m of the opinion that the state should act as a buisness to the greatest extent possible. I’d quite like to see you disagree with that stance since the conclusion is that the state ceases to be a state.
The fact is that the state should act in the best interest of those that reside within “its” (for lack of a better word) territory. This means preserving their property values, and I hate to break it to you but immigrants generally don’t do wonders for house values.
Yes, but that’s not the point here.
Now, can we drop the petty race baiting? We all know I’m a racist here (really, I am).
Are you really telling me that people are fine with immigrants?
Protectionism? Try reading what I’m saying, at least if you don’t agree with my arguments you’d do me the favour of not misrepresenting me. No, my argument has nothing to do with protectionism, nor statism, rather it has to do with property rights. By the way, as a side note, I’m quite keen on dropping the term anarchist.
You’re quite correct, Hoppe makes this point in fact. Owners of ports, roads, airports generally wouldn’t be too restrictive in regards to who they let on to their roads. The problem comes when they try to get off the road and into a community. So they could quite easily drive on the roads as far as they like, it’s just the getting off the roads that may prove problematic. Moreover, if we grant that communities will be restrictive in regards to who they let in (which they will, if they like the value of their property, which they do) they’re not going to be too content with roads letting “immigrants” use them, and since these roads will largely rely on such communities they’re going to take that into consideration.
Communities will generally be owned by a single entrepreneur. But this isn’t the place for this particular discussion, search for the topic “Feudal Land Arrangements Under Anarcho Capitalism” for that discussion.
That’s where contracts come in handy.
Yes, once again, you’re correct. But this isn’t necessarily the case with business such as restaurants, where allowing immigrants will irritate the more regular customers.
Once again, you’re correct, but it doesn’t follow that from wanting to do business with somebody you’ll want to live with them. In any case, you’re going off on a tangent.
Well that’s where you’re wrong.
Poor american employers are being forced to employ cheap labor instead of over-paid,over-regulated cartelized labor. It’s such a tragedy.
Some people like me are fine with them. I don’t see what so scary about a Catholic hispanic family that live down the street, do you?
I would wager that most Americans are just indifferent. They don’t really know who is their next door neighbors anyway.
Perhaps I am biased. After all, I am an immigrant, myself. I certainly did not have to endure crossing scorching desert to find jobs and evade border patrols but I know what it like to be poor and living in a very foreign land(Not that I remember all that well). I am sympathatic to them.
Yes it is a part of a bigger picture. And you commit a fallacy in the bigger picture that then has consequences in specific scenarios. Your mistake is that implicitly lend the state some validity. You are not being doctinarian enough. You are tricked into putting outcomes before principles.
Yes I agree with the conclusions many libertarians make that a stateless society would see less and different migration than we see today, but for that to lead you to attacking “open borders” is fallacious. The borders should not only be open they should be erased. To speak for closed borders (or defend the people that do so) is commiting a fallacy.
No the state should most definetely not act in the best interest of those that reside within its territory, the state should be destroyed! Right now! The state should be opposed in doing anything that is illegitimate and that includes closing the borders. Principles before outcomes. That is the only way to defeat the state rather than implicitly lend it support and legitimacy (provided it is pursuing the outcomes you approve of).
The fact is that the state actually does sometimes suceed in outcomes, sometimes even where free society could not. It can rapidly industrialise a huge country (at a great cost in human suffering and institution of slavery), it can send a man on the moon (at a far too great cost monetary cost) it can socialy engineer a new nation in a matter of decades (unfortunately). Thus you can not consistently oppose the state on the basis of outcomes, only on basis of principle.
It has squat all to do with race. Im pointing out the inconsistency of your thinking. If the state should not keep the federal border open, then it should not keep the state borders open, the city limits open, the county limits open and the borough limits open. Close them all. Keep the hillbilly immigrants out, theyre violating property rights or something. They`re using state roads, the horror!
Do you honestly beleive that there would be as much ‘immigration’ if the state didnt exist? How about when George Bush starts little colonies of Iraqis in towns that dont want them? Or is that another instance of the state ‘suceed(ing) in outcomes’?
You’re missing the point. By and large most people tend to view with immigrants with suspicion. Perhaps you come from a family that behaves different to most, I don’t know.
Without the state it would have not been so easy for you to find a property and to move in.
Yes, and I’d wager that that is a result of the state.
I take it you did not read my post in whole. Had you done so you would have seen I already anwsered: