/liberty/ - Liberty

>>84113

They won't exist in ancapistan because no property will be public and it would be trespassing.

>>84114

And would you support open borders in our current situation?

All property should be privately owned and there would be no separate nations. Therefore whether borders of private properties would be open would be entirely up to the owners of the property. Most property would either be closed with fences or charge a travel fee to pass through. However it is possible some property owners would permit free passage, for the good of charity.

Only Nazis want closed borders.

>>84117

Bullshit. I want to exercise my share of control of public property such that I can make it most profitable for me. Importing welfare hordes is not a libertarian concept. I will use my share of authority to stop this.

Private property is the most secure, restrictive border there is, and property owners have a right to be as discriminatory or as open as they wish with their own property. To that end, I'm against open borders. As far as national policy goes, I would say that I am hesitantly in favor of them, conditional on the fact that the welfare system is eliminated (including medicare and the like), public schools are eliminated, minimum wage is eliminated, and any anti-discrimination legislation is eliminated. I'd be a little less hesitant if democracy were eliminated as well. Given the likelihood of even one of those things happening, let alone all of them, I am for all intents and purposes pro-closed or restricted borders.

>>84118

>public property

BEGONE STATIST

>>84120

>BEGONE STATIST

<Importing welfare dependents is not Statism

Look anon if we get rid of the government thats nice and all but until then I want to make sure the State violates the NAP as little as possible.

Acceptable only if:

1. the government is not democratic, so as to prevent them from obtaining power and killing liberties

2. there is no government welfare of any kind, so as to prevent them from being leeches on the society

then the fact that the incoming immigrants are mostly stupid and poor keeps them in ghettos away from respectable people, and they can provide cheap labor or maybe even slaves if you allow indentured servitude. If one of the immigrants is actually talented the meritocracy will allow them to rise above their rancorous ilk.

>>84122

>not abolishing all welfare

>instead spending billions on armed military guards and fences

>while continuing to increase spending on welfare

yes let's totally do everything to engorge the government more spending more welfare more MORE MORE

No state, no borders. Borders, no free trade.

>>84113

Open borders are a deeply anti-libertarian concept, with only a few exceptions.

All systems with private property had some type of right-of-way access.

>>84147

It's a question of the overton window, anon. Eliminating social security is firmly outside of it, and given the number of senior voters it's likely to stay there for the foreseeable future. Immigration is still mainstream enough that you can expect statesmen to do something about it, however superficial the net effect may be.

>>84117

What if the migrants were Nazi?

>>84168

Checkmate, leftycucks.

>>84113

>public property

There's your answer. As long as you own it or the owner agrees with you, you can choose who gets to enter your property and who does not. Nothing more or less.

>>84113

>>84115

Get the fuck off my property, nigger.

>>84147

> more spending more welfare more MORE MORE

If you let in millions of welfare whores with voting children nothing will ever stop. Controlling immigration is something that has SOME CHANCE of being successful. Billions on guards and fences is an absolutely trivial amount of money in comparison to the cost of immigration and the permanent changes it causes.

The basic problem is taxing and printing, not spending.

>>84179

Commie

>>84276

The greentext means I'm against it. Commies don't support any sort of exclusion, neither public nor private.

Logically, it immediately follows that an anarcho-capitalist society would be "open-border", as defined in its most popular usage. I see it as a cop-out argument to say that an ancap society would be closed-border due to its respect for private property, because when people are referring borders in this argument, they are (almost always) referring to national borders.

If some South American guy and a North American guy want to trade, and they do so without trespassing on other's private property, there really is no ethical or practical conflict to be had within a free-market context.

>>84350

>and they do so without trespassing on other's private property

You mean if their properties are right next to each other and physically touching? Because otherwise they are trespassing or have contracted to use someone elses land.

>>84352

You do know most land is unclaimed, right? Overcrowding/lack of wildlands is pretty much strictly a European problem.

>>84362

>You do know most land is unclaimed, right

If you mean the ocean.

>>84117

No one cares what retard anacaps think

The fucking earth is nobody's property you moron. Some imaginary lines traced by some dead or (((alive))) rich fuckers don't make any difference

>>84365

Spotted the European or Eastern United States faggot.

>>84419

The only spot not claimed on this planet are a tiny section of Africa and chunks of the Ocean.

>>84370

>Some imaginary lines

Are nuclear weapons imaginary too anon? Are words imaginary?

>>84113

Bit of an oxymoron, dontcha think?

Gumballs.

>>84420

>The only spot not claimed on this planet are a tiny section of Africa and chunks of the Ocean.

Not claimed as in "not part of a nation-state's territory", perhaps. Not claimed as in "not being lived on or exploited for resources" in fact refers to about 90% of land.

>>84425

>Not claimed as in "not being lived on or exploited for resources" in fact refers to about 90% of land.

You don't have to live on land to own it m9. If I buy shit from you and then never go to it its still my land. In early American where no one lived outwest it was not uncommon to have absolutely massive plantations with large chunks of land bought up by one family. All land will be owned in Ancapistan.

>>84426

Either way it applies. There are vast chunks of land that aren't private property and are only de facto state property.

>>84427

>There are vast chunks of land that aren't private property

Because the government is stopping any potential owners. When the land is not government land it will become private land.

>>84430

Of course it will eventually become claimed, I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing this idea that unused landmass is this incredibly scarce resource, making overcrowding an ever-present concern.

>>84478

>making overcrowding an ever-present concern.

Over crowding is not even related

>is this incredibly scarce resource

If its not scarce then one man will own hundreds of miles.

>>84352

Isn't that an issue for everyone traveling in an Ancap society? I think its a given that profit-seeking services will provide transportation infrastructure.

>>84426

>All land will be owned in Ancapistan.

According to who? In order to own land in an anarcho-capitalist system, you would have to provide some sort of justification to DRO's seeking to enforce property rights. Obviously, a DRO that you've personally hired would be incentivized to protect your claim to the best of its ability (regardless of its validity), however, that does not stop other DRO's from seeking to dispute it. Ridiculous claims that go against cultural property norms are inevitably going to cause more disputes than socially accepted ones, and if the claim is ridiculous enough (by the standards of the surrounding populace), no one will be willing to represent it.

You are thinking in the current framework of the modern US, where there is only one enforcer of property rights, and any claim is valid as long as Uncle Sam agrees. I reject that idea that ancap property norms are simply US property norms, but with private police.

>>84506

>enforce property rights

Listen up guys, if you cant afford a personal army its okay to violate the NAP against you. Thats the law of ancap apparently.

>>84114

That doesn't really mean anything though. Even with all property privately owned, many owners will still allow transit for a small fee. The true answer in by mind is more complicated. Of course, we should be rid of the welfare state, subsidized institutions like public schools and hospitals, and discrimination laws. But even then, allowing people from other countries (which almost universally have socialist mentalities, especially the ones people are fleeing), is very dangerous. Any libertarian society won't last long under such conditions.

We could severely curtail and even eliminate democracy, but even then a popular uprising could easily undo that. Therefore, while I am a supporter of worldwide free trade, I oppose open borders for people. I would only want to admit only those who share our ideals, but unfortunately there isn't really an easy way to verify that. At the very least, admitting people from other strongly libertarian countries would be fine, as on average we would be admitting way more libertarians than statists.

>>84510

DRO's are "personal armies" in the same way that health insurance companies are personal armies, so sure, why not.

>>84546

Basically, you're trying to control the right of access to people's property which you do not own, nor would you realistically have an agreement with.

>>84113

Open borders are fine, as in "anyone should be able to come to the physical landmass of North America regardless of the location of their birthplace and be free to settle without state interference." As far as whether those immigrants can find homes for rent or sale is up to those selling.

>>84855

>health insurance companies are personal armies,

you mean the way health insurance companies are health insurance companies

>>84362

So where is all of this expanse of unclaimed land where I can build a house and live in peace? All I see is private property, and BLM/Forest Service land that I'll be thrown off of unless I manage to live on it for 30 years or whatever without being caught.

hecka gay

>>86444

>Because pretty well all immigrants are on welfare.

IDK if you are joking or not but just the cost of educating a single child is a massive amount. Illegals get all that free socialized education which is from 8 to 12 grand a year per student (high end and low end). That's avg of 120 grand for each kid in JUST school.

>The Aboriginals might have a few disputes.

Its theft all the way down. They stole it from someone else and so on.

>>86470

Likely like natives, most immigrants work; ergo they pay taxes.

Is that 120G a year?

>Its theft all the way down. They stole it from someone else and so on.

Good excuse to steal current property, huh.

Go to Confederate-flag guy's land—earlier post here—and occupy his land—as it was stolen earlier. As he's likely to resist, shoot-to-kill him before he kills you. No need to negotiate.

>>86480

>Likely like natives, most immigrants work; ergo they pay taxes.

Not nearly enough to pay for themselves.

>Is that 120G a year?

I did the math there for you I don't how you can confuse this.

>No need to negotiate.

American Indians voluntarily signed away their land via legal contracts in exchange for goods. They did not value their land highly as the population density was very low.

Open borders only work when there is no welfare state to attract/retain unproductive people. There are easily a billion people in the world right now who would love to live in the US on current welfare, and most of them are low-IQ and would be hard to assimilate to the US in any realistic manner anyways (especially en-masse)

>>87856

same applies to europe