/liberty/ - Liberty

>>72353

Government shouldn't exist. You don't get to tell who can enter property that is not your own, nor who they can make deals with.

The border debate is a trick question for anyone wanting to end the state. State borders or not, by giving the state control of any property, you reinforce the notion that the state should have the possibility of control.

The only borders should be private borders enforced by the owner. Any and all associations should be voluntary.

The assholes who hire immigrants should be forced to pay for their welfare. Then hung for treason.

>>72368

>>>/pol/

Labor is a market as well.

>>72353

no

>>72353

ideally no

however since they appropriated the right to voluntary association, the original, rightful owners have the best claim to the now government 'owned' voluntary association. thus its perfectly legit for them to say no.

we can also talk about a scenario where state border control is a given. meaning unchangeable. in such a situation, what is better: compeltely open border, or somewhat closed borders? how closed?

>>72427

I'm surprised if this doesn't become a meme like ancap ball.

>>72427

kek'd

Surprised there hasn't been a border meme where the U.S. wags its finger at some illegal immigrant saying Swiper no Swiping.

No government

>>72472

esto

I think it is necessary for a democracy to have a defined voter base, because otherwise people who do not have to live with the consequences can influence the vote

I think it is important for a socialist state for all the people to pay taxes, because otherwise where is the free shit coming from?

for these reasons the border in the USA should be tight as long as it exists in those modes

ultimately I would wish for a state with no gibs or even better no state, but alas, this will not happen in my lifetime without some cataclysmic event

No. Dissolve all borders and all nations.

Smash any limit to the freedom of trade commerce and the movement of labor.

>>72648

I agree, but the borders can only go once the state is gone. Until all taxes have been completely cut, and all "public property" held by the state has been put back in the hands of the taxpayers who were forced to pay for it, opening a nation's borders is equivalent to forcing your neighbour to keep his front door unlocked.

There will never be a need for a political push to get a nation to open its borders, because by the time that nation's government has atrophied to the point that opening the borders wouldn't be a violation of the property rights of everyone within those borders, those borders would have already stopped being a relevant concept.

>>72662

>borders can only go once the state is gone Until all taxes have been completely cut, and all "public property" held by the state has been put back in the hands of the taxpayers who were forced to pay for it

Not true. State borders have be ignored and even withered away with their states still standing, such as with Sykes-Picot, the West Bank border with Israel and Somaliland's border with Somalia. State borders are to be dismantled just as much as other government programs.

>opening a nation's borders is equivalent to forcing your neighbour to keep his front door unlocked.

Closing a nation's borders, or in non-euphamized terms, initiating force against someone for crossing an imaginary illegitimate line, is the equivalent of forcing your neighbor to not invite his friends over to his property because they live a hundred miles away from your town, and you think you have an entitlement to other people's land.

>by the time that nation's government has atrophied to the point that opening the borders wouldn't be a violation of the property rights of everyone within those borders, those borders would have already stopped being a relevant concept.

It's not and will never be a violation of property rights. The core of the problem is the welfare state, not people moving from one place to another while crossing an imaginary line of a gang's territory. This is like supporting gun control because the war on drugs exacerbates crime. One act of aggression does not justify another.

>>72353

The libertarian position is that there should be far more borders which are far more strictly enforced than they are now. It's just that those borders are the borders of every single owned piece of land and they are enforced by the landowners and whoever they contract with to protect it.

As long as the state exists, using it to strictly enforce national borders is a lesser evil than allowing people in who will commit crime and exploit the welfare state.

>>72664

Yes, it's certainly possible to erode a state's borders while leaving the state intact; I'm saying that it's unethical to do so, and goes against the idea of liberty. Those borders may be imaginary lines, but they are no less legitimate than the property lines bordering a person's house. Everything that was paid for by taxes is the rightful property of the taxpayers, to the degree that they paid for it. Someone who has not paid for any of it at all has absolutely to claim to make use of it. If you want to invite someone to your country, and let them use your share of the roads, power lines, parks, hospitals, etc., then please do so. However, you have absolutely no right to offer the use of someone else's share of these things, because they paid for that, not you. Of course, public property can't feasibly be divided up into "this part's yours, that part's mine", so the only real solution is to restrict its use to only those who've contributed, at least until the whole "public property" quagmire can be eliminated once and for all.

If opening the borders right now wouldn't be a violation of property rights, I have to ask: who does the public property belong to? The only possible answer in that case would be "everybody" (and I mean literally everybody in the entire world). How does that work, though? Public property was paid for through taxes - taxes which were paid involuntarily, under threat of violence. Welfare isn't the only problem here. Literally every asset that the government calls its own rightfully belongs to the taxpayers who were forced to pay for it. Public property is stolen property, and instead of returning it to its original owners, you'd invite the whole world to line up and grab a slice.

>>72670

>Everything that was paid for by taxes is the rightful property of the taxpayers

Taxes are not legitimate and this whole thing blows up.

>>72672

Yes, I agree; taxes are illegitimate and need to be ended ASAP. That said, it doesn't change the fact that those taxes have been paid. That tax money was, and still is, the rightful property of the people who were forced to pay those taxes. The money itself isn't around any more - it's already been spent - but much of what it's been spent on is still around, being used every day. Do the people who've had their hard-earned money stolen from them no longer deserve to see it returned to them?

>>72648

Anarchy has no trade

>>72706

stop spamming you fucking faggot

>>72706

What happens when there are some people that want to trade will they be put down?

>>72798

>criticizes open border ancaps

>uses Hoppe of all people for this

You realize Hoppe hates open border libertarians right?

>>72740

Don't tell me what to do

>>72857

He's most well known for being against open borders, though. That's what makes him iconic, so if people see him on a caricature, they'll expect to see his most iconic feature retained, not turned around completely. Do you say that someone is like Hitler because he would never hurt a fly? You wouldn't, because even though Hitler is an animal lover, he's also an antisemite and a cruel dictator, and if you ignore that, everyone will think you' have severe autism.

I swear, this is like explaining the basics of human communication to a robot.

Also:

>absolute fucking retard

Does it hurt to retain a minimum of civility, you ogre?

>>72869

Tutturu~