/liberty/ - Liberty

>>102947

Ok so I guess would it be whatever system you subscribe to ( ancap, mutualists, ancom and etc.) You can leave and switch for another as if it were a service of some sort? I apologize for sounding like a retard. The concept sounds interesting from what little I've read of it I just want to understand the mechanics of it better.

>>102877

>What is in your opinion the best political system in the world

Whichever one gets everyone off my property and lets me constitute 80% of my house into a very nice bathroom.

>>103074

>You can leave and switch for another as if it were a service of some sort?

i think so

>>103091

If they wanted to, sure. But nukes are very expensive to build and maintain, so likely only wealthy entrepreneurs would bother. Then, to cover maintenance costs, they sell McMAD insurance to their neighbors, promising to retaliate if a nuclear capable state ever violates their property rights.

democracy doesn't even work so why are you asking?

>>103613

>doesnt work

what do you mean?

>>103639

It does work for the state, not so much for everyone else

>>103689

Say that to Romans and Spartans, snow nigger.

>>103700

I see their civilization is doing great nowadays

>>103700

Snow nigger here. Didn't we smash the fuck out of you?

Libertarianism with closed borders, or very little immigration. And don't let low-IQ third worlders in.

>>103734

Libertarianism is built in on private property, freedom of association, and exclusion. An anti-immigration stance is implicit within it. The only people who think libertarianism is about open borders are faggot communists who wandered into the movement expecting free weed and threesomes.

>>103738

>>103736

At least in the past, libertarians that I heard from didn't mind a lot of people crossing the southern border. I got the impressing that most in the camp were socially "liberal." That may have changed to some extent, but it's cetainly true for magazines like Reason and the Libertarian party.

>>103739

>it's cetainly true for magazines like Reason and the Libertarian party.

Those organizations, the LP in particular, are to whom I refer when I say, "faggot communists who wandered into the movement expecting free weed and threesomes." These people aren't libertarianism and they never were, they're libertines with a poor understanding of the label they've adopted. As for the past, this behavior was no less accepted then, either. In fact, the opposition was there from the start. Murray Rothbard called these people "modal libertarians"—useless human filth that seek freedom from authority, consequences, and human decency. It's also due to this historical precedent why libertarians who acknowledge the practical implications of private property norms are called paleolibertarians. The reason it seems like this socially conservative view is a recent development is because it's only recently that libertarians have had to be explicit about their traditionalism. Before, it was simply assumed to be the case. But, since the LP and others have stated to encouraged libertine behavior in an ill-advised attempt to gain popularity, and people in general now have such short attention spans you need to spoonfeed them everything, what was once implicit must now be affirmed explicitly.

>>103736

Closing borders is a violation of right of throughway, a necessary quality of property.

>>103753

No such quality of property exists. You are not entitled passage through another man's property. You are not entitled the ability to travel wherever you please. If you cannot find someone willing to allow you to pass through his private property and beyond, then tough shit, you're out of luck.

>>103754

>No such quality of property exists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_way

Without such a property, I could be landlocked within my own property surrounded by other property owners denying access. This is why we have sidewalks along perimeters.

>>103758

That some people want it to exist is not proof of its existence. Positive rights do not exist. Demanding that other property owners oblige your trespass is a positive right. In order to be enforced, it requires other people to provide you with property or services. A negative right is a right which only necessitates that others fail to aggress upon you. Only negative rights are natural rights because only they exist in a state of nature. Any attempt to construe a positive obligation as a right is just poorly disguised rent-seeking.

Your extremely unlikely scenario unlikely because market forces heavily discourage encirclement of this type is answered with a simple truism: let the buyer beware. If your property becomes totally encircled, it's your own fault for not vetting it and access to it beforehand. You could have invested in some form of access insurance, either implicit or explicit, but you didn't. If you did these things, and still managed to draw such great ire from every single one of your neighbors, despite the very real deleterious effects they would suffer in the future from such an action, you must have had it coming somehow. Actions have consequences. Deal with them.

>>102964

In what world is direct democracy favorable over republicanism or representative democracy?

>>103760

>That some people want it to exist is not proof of its existence.

I posted a link where such a quality is put in practice. Mises had an article regarding this called the

>Positive rights do not exist.

I agree, but what do positive rights have anything to do with inherent qualities of property?

>trespassing

Travelling along the perimeter of a property is not trespassing. Trespassing requires entry.

>You could have invested in some form of access insurance, either implicit or explicit, but you didn't.

What benefit does such insurance allow in my scenario?

Also, what if the border happiness to be along my property? Will you prevent my neighbor from entering my property?

>>103774

And you will notice in the places where such things are practiced that it is a policy on public, state-owned property. This should be indicative of its nonexistence within private property norms. The article on mises to which I'm sure you're referring has already been refuted by Block and others. The author has ignored private property norms to the benefit of some fanciful "freedom of movement" which flies in the face of property rights, and therefore in the face of liberty. He makes his argument from aesthetics, not first principles, and so he is wrong. It is a positive right because you are making a demand of property owners to oblige you–to grant you passage through their property. You try to circumvent this by intimating that travel along a border is not trespassing. This is an impossibility. Lines have one dimension, you cannot travel "along" a line without spilling over into one side or the other. Therefore you will be trespassing unless you receive the consent of the property owner, which he is under no obligation to provide. Such insurance has no benefit in your scenario, it is to prevent such a scenario from happening. If this scenario does happen to you–which, as I have said before, is unlikely and not practical within the market–tough luck. The world isn't fair, sometimes bad things happen to good people.

>Also, what if the border happiness to be along my property? Will you prevent my neighbor from entering my property?

I don't know what you are trying to say here.

>>103772

I'm not sure that needing a 90% majority to agree with something to pass a law is bad.

>>103776

It's just fucking inefficient for a government to do anything without getting literally everyone onboard with something first, that's why it better than representative democracy and republicanism. However, it's a still a shitty democracy.

>>103775

>And you will notice in the places where such things are practiced that it is a policy on public, state-owned property.

Not sure why you assume this since It has been part of customary law for centuries (as shown in the article). It is only in modern times, do we see public access laws and easements.

>The article on mises to which I'm sure you're referring has already been refuted by Block and others

Source? The only thing close that I could find was that Block stated that if someone were to enclose a strip of property that encircles unowned land, then the owner is obliged to allow a path across it (and his /her property) to gain access to the unowned land:

http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-children.pdf

>It is a positive right because you are making a demand of property owners to oblige you

Right-of-way is implicit when buying/homesteading property so no such demand exists mainly because that section of the perimeter has been generally recognized either due to existing public access (a visible pathway prior to purchase/homestead) or by custom law. The only way around this I could see if it was some kind of gated community, but that still does not change the fact that implicit access must exist around the community for someone to travel “across” it.

>I don't know what you are trying to say here.

Suppose I want to invite someone onto my property and that person lives across a border. Closed borders prevents that person from reaching my property even if the border is along my property.

>>103778

The wikipedia article you posted speaks specifically about public land. Regardless, historical precedent of state control is irrelevant. That the state has enforced breaking the NAP for a long time does not change the nature of the NAP. This is not an argument. This Block piece is to what I refer:

https://mises.org/library/van-dun-freedom-and-property-critique

He correctly points out that there is no such thing as a "right to access."

>Right-of-way is implicit when buying/homesteading property

Wrong. The closest thing to right-of-way that exists is the principle that one cannot block access to unowned property to others. And even then, this is not because of "right of way", or any other positive entitlement granted.

>The only way around this I could see if it was some kind of gated community

All communities are gated communities, that's what private property implies. No public goods truly exist. If someone does not wish to allow entry onto their property, it is their right as a propertyowner to do so. Your personal desire does not remove their right as landord.

>has been generally recognized either due to existing public access

There's no such thing as public access. That's not how private property works. You walk on a road at the behest of the owner of the road. If the owner of the road does not wish for you to remain on it, you are not entitled to remain on it as a trespasser. This is foundational to private property ethics.

>but that still does not change the fact that implicit access must exist

No, it musn't. It is *preferable* that it exist. This does not make it a moral ought. The NAP cares not for aesthetics.

>Suppose I want to invite someone onto my property and that person lives across a border. Closed borders prevents that person from reaching my property even if the border is along my property.

Now you're conflating state-created borders with private ones. Establish to which you are referring. If the border is along your own property, then of course, you're allowed to invite someone onto your property if that is your wish. This should be self-evident to anyone versed in private property ethics. If someone else's property lies between yours and your prospective guest, tough shit. Your preferences do not obligate anyone else to allow passage through their territory

>>103777

Thank God the government is inefficient. Can you imagine how much worse things would be if the NSA, CIA, and military were efficient?

>>103786

It would be more of a totalitarian hellhole than it is right now.

>>103780

>The wikipedia article you posted speaks specifically about public land.

Not completely: "today these rights underpin opportunities for outdoor recreation in several of the Nordic countries, providing the opportunity to hike across or camp on another's land (e.g. in Sweden for one or two nights), boating on someone else's waters, and picking wildflowers, mushrooms and berries."

>The closest thing to right-of-way that exists is the principle that one cannot block access to unowned property to others.

This principle is literally an example and a primary purpose of right-of-way. The fact that you admit that this principle exists contradicts your earlier statement that an owner is not obliged to allow someone to access their property. Once that unowned parcel becomes owned (such as my scenario I mentioned above), does that access point just disappear? It is not restricted to just only top unowned land -as stated in the article: “The freedom to roam, or "everyman's right", is the general public's right to access certain public or privately owned land, lakes, and rivers for recreation and exercise.”

>All communities are gated communities, that's what private property implies

Not when there are roads going through them without strictly-controlled entrances.

> There's no such thing as public access.

Ignoring the existence of easements, there are numerous examples of public access along or sometimes through private land: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

>This does not make it a moral ought.

How does morality apply? NAP is an ethical stance,

>Now you're conflating state-created borders with private ones. Establish to which you are referring.

Both. Closed Border advocates want restrictions on state-controlled imaginary lines, lines which the state has no legitimate claim to. Hence, if my property line and my neighbors happens to be one of these state controlled lines, what gives you the right to restrict it?

> If someone else's property lies between yours and your prospective guest, tough shit.

See above regarding Block’s example. Once that unowned parcel becomes owned, now what?

>>103805

>This principle is literally an example and a primary purpose of right-of-way

No, it's not, because it only applies to unowned property, like I said. And honestly, I think Block is being too permissive even there.

>Not when there are roads going through them without strictly-controlled entrances.

Nope, even that's a gated community because the road owner reserves the right to make those entrances strictly controlled at any time.

>there are numerous examples of public access along or sometimes through private land:

Look bud, I don't give a shit about your wikipedia articles. Like I already said, historical precedent of the NAP being broken is not sufficient to eliminate property rights.

>Once that unowned parcel becomes owned, now what?

Once that unowned land becomes owned, the owner of it reserves the right to block entry to it from anyone, for any reason, becasue it's his. This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

>>103810

> it only applies to unowned property

This ignores the instance when the unowned property becomes owned, and even in the case that it is unowned there is still public access through the property, contradicting your earlier statement that no such obligation exists.

> Nope, even that's a gated community because the road owner reserves the right

The road I was referring to was a public road. The state is not going to impose strict controls for people accessing these roads. Hell, even pedestrians that do not pay taxes have access on these public roads. The only restrictions are minor such as construction, speed limits, drivers licenses, etc. but none of these would be considered "strict" by the contemporary definition of a gated community.

> historical precedent of the NAP being broken is not sufficient to eliminate property rights.

Where in this historical precedent was there an initiation of force? Where have property rights been eliminated?

> Once that unowned land becomes owned, the owner of it reserves the right to block entry

How can the owner of the encircling property (Owner A) suddenly block entry when the unowned property becomes owned by Owner B? Owner B is still using that access route to conduct business, and because it is in use by Owner B, Owner A cannot make a claim to it (except as an easement until Owner A dies or sells the property to someone who consents to give up access.

>>103964

>and even in the case that it is unowned there is still public access through the property

We've already established that there's no such thing as public access, so no contradiction exists.

>The state is not going to impose strict controls for people accessing these roads.

Good for the state, the biggest violator of the right to discriminate in existence. State actions prove nothing about property rights.

>Where have property rights been eliminated?

Allow me to break it down for you:

<I want to cross your land to get over there

>Tough shit, I don't want you to. Fuck off.

<Excuse me sir, but we have decreed that this is a public thoroughfare and you must allow this individual to pass. Kindly do so, if you refuse we'll shoot your dog.

>This is my land, this route is on my property and I don't want anyone walking on my property.

<Do it or we shoot the pupper.

>[TREADING INTENSIFIES].jpg

>How can the owner of the encircling property (Owner A) suddenly block entry when the unowned property becomes owned by Owner B? Owner B is still using that access route to conduct business

The fact that Owner B is using that access route is irrelevant if he does not own the land on which that route resides. Owner A owns the route, and if he decides to cut it off that is his prerogative. This is the same principle under which a landlord may evict his tenants at any time, for any reason, from any motivation. The fact that is tenant is "using" the space he rents is irrelevant. The inconvenience to the tenant is irrelevant. The tenant does not own the property he rents, and he retains no use rights for it the moment the owner withdraws his consent. The rights of a traveler are no different from that of the tenant.

>>103790

im going to china soon

i hope i will be able to post on /liberty/ from there :D

>>103985

Xi Jinping == Winnie the Pooh

1989 Tienanmen Square best day of my life

Have fun with that social credit score.

>>103990

what about vpn?

>>103754

How are you defining these borders? Who's enforcing them?

>>104037

They're enforced by the property owner and defined by the title he holds to his property. Who else would define them?

>>104038

So immigrants would be free to settle anywhere provided they weren't trespassing upon any particularly individual's property?

>>104040

No, you commie faggot. Immigrants have no legitimate claim to state-owned land. Neither does the state, for that matter, as said land was se purchased using tax dollars, which are stolen from the taxpayer. Absent a proper libertarian order, the land therefore belongs to the net taxpayers, who reserve the right to keep shitskins off their property and prevent them from consuming services paid for by their tax dollars. This is an imperfect solution, but a necessary one so long as the state exists and violates men's freedom to association by forcing them to associate with the shitskins. Since citizens are unable to exercise their freedom to associate once the shitskins have entered the country, their only recourse to exercise the freedom of association is to keep immigrants out.

>>104044

>commie

Wow rude.

>absent a proper libertarian order

I'm talking about how borders would be organized under your ideal system, obviously. I'm just wondering what you're going to do when McDonald's decides to Airbus in the whole of Somalia to drive the cost of labor into oblivion.

This would be a stateless society, yes?

>>104063

McDonalds would be taken to court for every rape, theft, and murder committed by their Somalians, no one wants to take responsiblity for a nigger, fuck off with your lame questions.

>>104064

How would a court operate in an anarchist society?

>>104065

>>104063

Like the other guy said, without the Civil Rights Act and other nonsense getting in the way of justice McDonald's would be culpable for every action taken by their pet niggers. Which brings us into the question as to why McDonald's would even want to Airbus in Somalians anyways. There's no Section 8 housing to stick them in, no one in respectable neighborhoods would voluntarily rent to a nigger, and even if they did the niggers couldn't afford the rent. Since whatever slum apartments you build for your niggers have to be far away from the civilized neighborhoods, and the roadowners won't allow someone who can't read the roadsigns to drive on their road, you're going to have to arrange transportation for them as well. To make sure they don't escape from the slum and start terrorizing the countryside, McDonald's is going to have to hire security as well. "Cheap" labor is only cheap when the taxpayer is subsidizing all of the implicit costs of dealing with cheap labor. Without that subsidy, there's nothing profitable in it.

>>103965

> We've already established that there's no such thing as public access

If no such public access exists, then no one would be able to homestead the encircled land except Owner A.

> Excuse me sir, but we have decreed that this is a public thoroughfare and you must allow this individual to pass.

Ignoring your reduction ad absurdum about shooting dogs, where is the NAP violation? Where is the initiation of force?

> Owner A owns the route

He never legitimately owned it since he never claimed the encircled property. If he homesteaded the route after the encircled land becomes owned, then yes he would own it. But as it is in continuous and in current use by Owner B, Owner A cannot claim it until Owner A abandons it.

> This is the same principle under which a landlord may evict his tenants at any time, for any reason, from any motivation.

This is not even a relevant analogy. Tenants are bound to a contract with their landlord for use of a landlords property. No such contract exists (physical or implied) for someone seeking to claim that unowned encircled land.

>>105019

>then no one would be able to homestead the encircled land except Owner A.

Then fine, let's say no one would be able to homestead it except owner A. I was never that attached to Block's argument anyways, if anything the idea that you can encircle something without homesteading it contradicts Hoppe's emborderment principle. So, we'll throw Block's exception out, and rule that Owner A has homesteaded the encircled land by virtue of encircling it, as that's what emborderment theory implies.

>not knowing about dogshooting

Lurkmoar.

>Where is the initiation of force?

PROPERTY BEING USED WITHOUT CONSENT YOU DOUBLENIGGER, THAT'S WHERE

>>105021

>Then fine, let's say no one would be able to homestead it except owner A.

Now apply this to a cabal of property owners encircling a large tract of unowned land.

>Lurkmoar.

Not an argument.

>PROPERTY BEING USED WITHOUT CONSENT

Right-of-way and freedom-to-roam are long-established common law rights and you consented to them by contractually engaging in commerce with these societies (anarchic and polycentric societies I might add). You could ignore common law but may have to pay compensation or be ostracized by these societies.