Are you for open borders?

Are you for open boarders?

  • Yes

    Votes: 102 32.1%
  • No

    Votes: 199 62.6%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 17 5.3%

  • Total voters
    318
Why do the left libertarians not understand this?

They're more anarchists than libertarians, and anarchism is never really anyones goal, its step one in a two-step plan.

Step one- destroy the old system

Step two- replace it

Libertarians also want to destroy the old system and replace it, but we actually admit step two exists.

State or no state, those who have sufficient numbers have the power, and borders and concepts like citizenship control the numbers.
 
Nationalist governments are like guns. If no one else has one, you don't need one. But what would happen if America was the only industrialized country in the world to completely open its borders? You'd get a humongous flood of people wearing Che Guevara t-shirts flooding in and believing they have the moral mandate to redistribute your wealth, violently if necessary. At the same time, nations like Japan and Switzerland would abstain from cheap labor, invest in technology instead, and the upcoming robotics revolution would pass America by.

Awesome point! I think an Objectivist government would find Japan and Switzerland very appealing. I am beginning to see how an objectivist government would be different from a radical libertarian one.
 
They're more anarchists than libertarians, and anarchism is never really anyones goal, its step one in a two-step plan.

Step one- destroy the old system

Step two- replace it

Libertarians also want to destroy the old system and replace it, but we actually admit step two exists.

State or no state, those who have sufficient numbers have the power, and borders and concepts like citizenship control the numbers.

Anarchists are libertarians. Free-Market anarchism is a lot of peoples goals, especially 98% at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and 90%+ of all Austrian Economists.

We also believe in a two-step plan:

Step one - destroy the State (old system).
Step two - Replace with Market-Anarchism (Voluntaryism -- voluntary society)

Anarchists admit steps one and two. Think of citizenship and borders as contracts with judicial agencies and the border being all those who have voluntarily signed up with them. Hey, it's been done and tried before and worked for 1,000 years -- Called a TUATH. (I bet you can't name me one Nation-State that even lasted for a 1,000 years, let alone one that protected liberty and didn't violate it in its very creation)
 
Last edited:
We should be learning from them, not condemning them. We need more Agora, not less! Makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Besides this crazy notion that they don't pay any taxes whatsoever, is absurd. It's hard to get around sales tax, property tax, income tax, etc. For those who do get around it, learn from them and do it yourself! We should not be beholden to the tyrannists, just because they create laws that favor them. Have we so soon forgotten Jefferson? The laws most often are not used to protect our liberties, but to steal them and to consolidate the power of the Tyrants. DOWN WITH ALL TAXATION.

I am for agorism but I do not know a network that exists for it now other than random black market DIYers.


However, if I want a good job in the US I can't get around having payroll taxes deducted. Illegals working in construction or in the restaurant usually just get paid cash. I used to work in a restaurant and saw it regularly. They don't pay income taxes.

I also favor a nation of law and a constitution to total anarchy, which again will lead to tyranny or despotism (where we began in tribes) at the best.
 
I am for agorism but I do not know a network that exists for it now other than random black market DIYers.


However, if I want a good job in the US I can't get around having payroll taxes deducted. Illegals working in construction or in the restaurant usually just get paid cash. I used to work in a restaurant and saw it regularly. They don't pay income taxes.

I also favor a nation of law and a constitution to total anarchy, which again will lead to tyranny or despotism (where we began in tribes) at the best.

I too believe in law. I however reject Social Contract Theory and the belief that one must violate liberty to protect liberty. Law should protect liberty and all private property rights; not violate it like taxation does.

I would advise you to watch this objectively, it sums up my views pretty well:

YouTube - A Private Law Society (by Hans Hoppe)

When I hear people say they believe in a Nation of Law, it is code word for I believe in arbitrary monopolist dictatorship. The law is whatever the political caste rules. The Constitution has never bound politicians nor will it ever, nor can any Constitution because it defies Economic realities. Only market-forces can bind violation. It is the law of Economics.
 
Anarchists are libertarians. Free-Market anarchism is a lot of peoples goals, especially 98% at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and 90%+ of all Austrian Economists.

We also believe in a two-step plan:

Step one - destroy the State (old system).
Step two - Replace with Market-Anarchism (Voluntaryism -- voluntary society)

Anarchists admit steps one and two. Think of citizenship and borders as contracts with judicial agencies and the border being all those who have voluntarily signed up with them. Hey, it's been done and tried before and worked for 1,000 years -- Called a TUATH. (I bet you can't name me one Nation-State that even lasted for a 1,000 years, let alone one that protected liberty and didn't violate it in its very creation)

Tuaths? Ancient Irish councils, similar to Athenian Democracy? Im not too familiar with it, but didnt they have slaves in ancient Celtic Ireland under the rules of these Tuath councils?

The problem with "pure" democracy is that the majority rules, no matter what. If 50% + 1 votes that 49.99999% of population pays all taxes, or gets lined up and shot, its happens.

As far as open borders goes, lets just say one US state was overtaken by people who want the maximum amount of freedom and broke away from the US. This new state (or just a stateless territory) had totally open borders. What stops the "old country" from simply taking it back by altering the demographic?
 
Tuaths? Ancient Irish councils, similar to Athenian Democracy? Im not too familiar with it, but didnt they have slaves in ancient Celtic Ireland under the rules of these Tuath councils?

The problem with "pure" democracy is that the majority rules, no matter what. If 50% + 1 votes that 49.99999% of population pays all taxes, or gets lined up and shot, its happens.

As far as open borders goes, lets just say one US state was overtaken by people who want the maximum amount of freedom and broke away from the US. This new state (or just a stateless territory) had totally open borders. What stops the "old country" from simply taking it back by altering the demographic?

First off the Tuath was not a direct democracy, if it was it would have been a Co-op or of a syndicalist nature. Anyone was free to join and leave any tuath. Voluntary. So, if you don't like their law, then leave and join a different or make your own. The point was, a voluntary society has been shown to work before and work for a 1000 years fighting off the British for 200 years at that.

Tuaths were nothing like Athenian Democracy. As for the slaves, no, they didn't. They didn't however observe total Natural Law, but they did adhere pretty strongly to private property rights. I'm not trying to emulate their system, it was a point made that voluntary societies do indeed work, and flourish!

I think a little investigation on your end would be an immense help to better understanding a voluntary society and its implications. A good stop would be the video I embedded above, and another is this:

http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_1.pdf

Would you please take a look at both and then respond in kind?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
First off the Tuath was not a direct democracy, if it was it would have been a Co-op or of a syndicalist nature. Anyone was free to join and leave any tuath. Voluntary. So, if you don't like their law, then leave and join a different or make your own. The point was, a voluntary society has been shown to work before and work for a 1000 years fighting off the British for 200 years at that.

Doesnt sound that bad to me, I like the idea of relatively small, self governing communities, with people free to go if they choose. Id only be against allowing people to join just as freely, as its could destablize the community and end up totally changing it.

Tuaths were nothing like Athenian Democracy. As for the slaves, no, they didn't.

Doesnt sound like it from what you posted here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2487656&postcount=311

"Freemen"... as opposed to what other type of men?

They didn't however observe total Natural Law, but they did adhere pretty strongly to private property rights. I'm not trying to emulate their system, it was a point made that voluntary societies do indeed work, and flourish!

I think a little investigation on your end would be an immense help to better understanding a voluntary society and its implications. A good stop would be the video I embedded above, and another is this:

http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_1.pdf

Would you please take a look at both and then respond in kind?

Thanks.

Thats interesting but an awful lot to absorb right now.
 
Last edited:
As I recall from How the Irish Saved Civilization, slavery was abolished in Ireland at the time of St. Patrick, so they had neither chattel slavery nor political slavery for about 1000 years.
 
Doesnt sound that bad to me, I like the idea of relatively small, self governing communities, with people free to go if they choose. Id only be against allowing people to join just as freely, as its could destablize the community and end up totally changing it.



Doesnt sound like it from what you posted here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2487656&postcount=311

"Freemen"... as opposed to what other type of men?



Thats interesting but an awful lot to absorb right now.

The best and only government is the smallest -- government of one's self. No one has the right to govern anyone else against their will.
 
Oh boy.

Freedom means people have a right to see things differently, and will therefore desire to live under different systems, have different cultures, and different ways of seeing things, etc.

You have a right to see things differently. You do not have a right to use violence to promote your system/culture.


Who is going to make the welfare state go away? When? It seems we are heading away from that, and I do believe unassimilated immigrants are a big part of it.

When total slavery existed, I'm sure no one thought we could get rid of it on a broad scale. It happened. We're still partial slaves now. I don't know how it will get done -- if it happens, it will come through the market, and that's much more intelligent than you or I will ever be.

You just keep repeating "Make the welfare state go away", but cant you see the ever growing numbers of people coming here seeking a welfare state make it less and less likely to go away?

Right. And recognizing that the State is the cause of our and immigration is the effect is the first step to improving our society. Violent theft is wrong, traveling isn't.

An analogy here would be if the Titanic decided its course via election, and the "free riders" were slowly tipping the balance to sailing at the iceberg.

This isn't a good analogy, because the people who paid for their trip still want us to slam into the iceberg. You're missing the point. We're going into the iceberg either way, and it's not because of "free riders". It's because we're forced on the Titanic, instead of being allowed to sail our private boats.
 
When total slavery existed, I'm sure no one thought we could get rid of it on a broad scale. It happened. We're still partial slaves now. I don't know how it will get done -- if it happens, it will come through the market, and that's much more intelligent than you or I will ever be.

Curious.

What makes you think partial slavery will be ended by the market when total slavery was ended through Executive proclamation?
 
Curious.

What makes you think partial slavery will be ended by the market when total slavery was ended through Executive proclamation?

You cannot be a slave in an all voluntary society. You could contract out for indentured servitude, but I don't know anyone that would ever do such a thing. In an involuntary society we are all slaves to the State. We are subjects. We are not sovereign.
 
You cannot be a slave in an all voluntary society. You could contract out for indentured servitude, but I don't know anyone that would ever do such a thing.

Yes, you can.

Name your price. If it was starvation or slavery, many folks would voluntarily choose slavery. Do you have a family? We would all sacrifice our own lives for our freedom, but would you sacrifice the lives of your wife and children?

Hard, fast, abstract statements about Anarchism say nothing of the difficult choices that must often be made. We'd all like to be individualist patriots, but not when there are innocents in the crossfire.

In an involuntary society we are all slaves to the State. We are subjects. We are not sovereign.

As for my earlier question, this does not address it. If slavery was ended through law by the State, then that means it was not ended through the market.

Now, I know we could go on forever about how there never really has been a true, purely competitive free market in the world, but that sounds quite reminiscent of the Communists referring to the success rate of egalitarian communes.

I know all of these buzz-phrases sound good, but like Communism, they don't work in real life. People need law and order. Sometimes, people need to be executed. Markets are good, and they generally work. But even markets need limitations - the Founders believed our national borders were the best limit for our markets, and that is why they imposed tarriffs on goods coming in.
 
Yes, you can.

Name your price. If it was starvation or slavery, many folks would voluntarily choose slavery. Do you have a family? We would all sacrifice our own lives for our freedom, but would you sacrifice the lives of your wife and children?

Hard, fast, abstract statements about Anarchism say nothing of the difficult choices that must often be made. We'd all like to be individualist patriots, but not when there are innocents in the crossfire.



As for my earlier question, this does not address it. If slavery was ended through law by the State, then that means it was not ended through the market.

Now, I know we could go on forever about how there never really has been a true, purely competitive free market in the world, but that sounds quite reminiscent of the Communists referring to the success rate of egalitarian communes.

I know all of these buzz-phrases sound good, but like Communism, they don't work in real life. People need law and order. Sometimes, people need to be executed. Markets are good, and they generally work. But even markets need limitations - the Founders believed our national borders were the best limit for our markets, and that is why they imposed tarriffs on goods coming in.

Well, too bad the CSA was conquered. They outlawed all duties and imposts; tariffs, and they also outlawed all subsidies for internal improvements. The CSA was also on its way to freeing many of the slaves.

Anyways, Free-Market anarchism builds on human nature. Have you ever read Human Action? We are not trying to make a new man, an egalitarian man, like the Communists and Socialists. Free-Market Anarchism is an exculpation of man. Why do you think the Old West was largely peaceful and cooperative, even though there was little to no influence from the State.

Hobbes has so ingrained his brainwashing through five centuries, it's going to take a lot of work to undo his malice. How do you explain Celtic Ireland?
 
Dr. Thomas E. Woods, a Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute, addresses this subject in his book, "33 Questions on American History You're not Supposed to Ask". It's a great book, if you haven't already read it. One of the 33 questions, dealt with immigration.
http://www.amazon.com/Questions-Abo...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215645455&sr=8-1

Here is an article he wrote about the subject.

Founding Fathers Were Immigration Skeptics
Jul 23, 2007 by Woods, Thomas E Jr

The American people continue to be involved in a long-overdue national discussion of immigration. And yet, during the debate over the immigration bill that recently died in the Senate. I do not recall hearing the views of the Founding Fathers-even it' only out of curiosity-considered, pursued or even raised.

Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration. If the United States lacked people with particular skills, then the Founders had no objection to attracting them from abroad. But they were convinced that mass immigration would bring social turmoil and political confusion in its wake.

In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia. Thomas Jefferson posed the question. "Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?"

What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind-ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

"Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?" Jefferson asked. "If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here."

Alexander Hamilton was even more blunt. He invited his fellow Americans (o consider the example of another people who had been more generous with their immigration policy than prudence dictated: the American Indians. Hamilton wrote, "Prudence requires us to trace the history further and ask what has become of the nations of savages who exercised this policy, and who now occupies the territory which they then inhabited? Perhaps a lesson is here taught which ought not to be despised."

Hamilton was likewise unconvinced that diversity was a strength. The safety of a republic, according to him. depended "essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family." He then drew out the implications of this point: "The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is allimportant, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency."

George Washington contended in a 1794 letter to John Adams that there was no particular need for the U.S. to encourage immigration, "except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions." He continued: "The policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (1 mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or had) which they bring with them."

Rufus King, a Massachusetts delegate to the Constitutional Convention, wrote in 1798 that emigrants from Scotland had typically brought with them certificates from "the religious societies to which they belonged" that testified to their good character. King proposed that something similar be required of all those wishing to settle here.

And the list goes on.

The problem here is not that the question-"Did the Founding Fathers support immigration?"-is usually answered incorrectly or badly. The problem is that it is never raised in the first place. (That's why it's the very first entry in my new book, 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask.)

The Founding Fathers were not infallible, of course, and they were sometimes wrong. But on a matter as critical as this one. shouldn't we at least be aware of what they thought?

FOUNDING FATHERS Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were both skeptical of immigration and warned against allowing immigrants to easily flow into the country unencumbered.

That is a great book. Some of what you quoted would get a poster in trouble with some of your fellow mods.if he posted it here. In fact, that book, by a fellow of the Mises Institute, contains a plethora of statements that would raise the hackles of many here.

What Woods is saying is that the founders disagreed with the preposterous position taken by some who are attached to the Liberty Movement, that humans are fungible. That approach is fatal for liberty.

Our local paper carried the news last week that the last remaining book store in Laredo, a city of 210,000, had closed. Try preaching the message of individual liberty to 210,000 people who don't read enough to keep a single book store open.

Lest someone raise the old canard of "Lack of education," let me say that the amount spent per pupil, as a result of all the Fed money directed at them by virtue of their membership in what our government officially calls a "Favored group," Laredo spends more per pupil than the state average.

La Raza is very strong in Laredo.:mad:
 
You cannot be a slave in an all voluntary society. You could contract out for indentured servitude, but I don't know anyone that would ever do such a thing. In an involuntary society we are all slaves to the State. We are subjects. We are not sovereign.
You don't know that anyone would ever voluntarily contract for indentured servitude? Have you ever read any history outside of the government approved school texts?

Tell that to Old Ben Franklin and the millions of others who voluntarily entered into indentured servitude. Sheesh!
 
Tell that to Old Ben Franklin and the millions of others who voluntarily entered into indentured servitude. Sheesh!

Plenty of Irish came to America through indentured servitude. And they were happy to get the opportunity!

I know I'm glad they did it.
 
Back
Top