Free and open challenge to anti-statists, open borders supporters

[Bryan]

Okay, so...

The Libertarian Open-Borders advocates seem to be arguing that all land should be privately owned and managed on a contractual basis.

The opponents to Open-Borders are arguing what, exactly?

An argument against open-borders is that if a state is a group of people in a geographical area that consent to the terms of the state, then those people can control the use of the land within that state, as they own it. Thus, to enter the border of that state without permission would be akin to trespassing.

 

[erowe1]

None-the-less, this isn't a counter that there should be no state.

That's true. I'm not going to give any counters that there should be no state until we agree on what a state is. If a state can exist with the consent of all the governed, then I'm not interested in arguing against such a thing.

But you said you wanted to use the definition the general public used, and you also keep trying to use a definition of a state based on voluntary association. I don't think the general public uses the word that way.

 

[ClayTrainor]

As said, I am presenting the term as the general public sees it, as best possible. I think that is valuable if you want to take a message to them.

I don't know who you're claiming to represent with that definition, but virtually everyone I know in "the public" understands that when you use the term "the state" you am referring to the organization that collects taxes, also known as "the government".

When I say, "the roads are owned by the state" they understand that the organization that collects taxes owns the roads. I admit, It annoys me that this is a point of contention in this thread, and i would suggest that we don't even use the term to explain concepts, if we're just going to argue over its definition.

Defining who owns the border property is the crux of this debate, and if you are essentially saying that peopel should freely organize under voluntary contract to establish property lines, than I feel you are essentially making the same argument as open border advocates.

 

[ClayTrainor]

An argument against open-borders is that if a state is a group of people in a geographical area that consent to the terms of the state, then those people can control the use of the land within that state, as they own it.

Thus, to enter the border of that state without permission would be akin to trespassing.

And if 1 or more persons in that geographical area does not consent to the terms of the contract?

 

[Bryan]

That's true. I'm not going to give any counters that there should be no state until we agree on what a state is. If a state can exist with the consent of all the governed, then I'm not interested in arguing against such a thing.

In theory, why shouldn't that be possible?

But you said you wanted to use the definition the general public used, and you also keep trying to use a definition of a state based on voluntary association. I don't think the general public uses the word that way.

What I'm saying is that I think the general public has the perception that the state is a voluntary association since you can always "just leave if you don't like it". The reality however is that, by large accounts, it isn't voluntary since there are no "reasonable" alternatives- but most don't think in those terms so they see it as voluntary. For this, I maintain that the definition of state can include one that is voluntary... and if there can be a voluntary state, then why should there never be a state?

 

[Bryan]

I don't know who you're claiming to represent with that definition, but virtually everyone I know in "the public" understands that when you use the term "the state" you am referring to the organization that collects taxes, also known as "the government".

I've never claimed to represent anyone, I just trying to make an argument that many people in the public do think that a state can be voluntary, this is based on their responses to certain things. Why can there not be a state that is purely voluntary?

When I say, "the roads are owned by the state" they understand that the organization that collects taxes owns the roads. It really annoys me that this is a point of contention in this thread, and i would suggest that we don't even use the term to explain concepts, if we're just going to argue over its definition

Part of my argument is that it is counter productive to tell people in the general public that there should be no state, or to otherwise take a position of being anti-state. This is based upon their definition of what a state means to them.

 

[Bryan]

And if 1 or more persons in that geographical area does not consent to the terms of the contract?

Then they shouldn't have purchased the land that had the strings attached that they would consent to the terms of the contract.

 

[dannno]

Welfare is not the primary issue. Mexicans live under a very corrupt gov't. They can't get decent work in their own country.

Actually we live under a much more corrupt government which is really the main drive behind their problems.

NAFTA wasn't just a bill that passed here, it had to pass in Mexico as well. However, NAFTA was much, much worse for the people of Mexico, most Americans don't realize it. They had to completely change their Constitution. Pre-NAFTA, the PEOPLE of Mexico owned their land, lived in agricultural communities and subsisted on their own. NAFTA essentially let the government steal all of this land from the people and sold it to the highest bidding corporations.

After NAFTA was passed in the early 90s, millions of Mexicans were kicked off of their land. This included the Zapatistas. The Zapatistas rose up with guns blazing and tried to fight for their land that was stolen from them. They went up against the Mexican Military, which was BACKED by the U.S. Government. Many people died. The tyranny of the Mexican government is an extension of the tyranny of the U.S. Government.

After NAFTA, the poverty rate in Mexico doubled from around 30% to around 60%. Now you might ask yourself, why have millions of Mexicans come to America? That's why. Because they were kicked off their land, they knew it was NAFTA, they knew it was OUR government who was at fault, WE are the ones ignorant of the situation. They also knew they could come up here, get jobs, get free government programs. It was almost like an invitation to your worst enemy's wedding, but hey, there's going to be a free meal, dessert and dancing.

I don't blame migrant workers one bit for their situation. There is NOTHING they could have done AS INDIVIDUALS to stop this all from happening, and they are making the best of a shitty situation.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...town-El-Paso&p=3325990&viewfull=1#post3325990

 

[ClayTrainor]

I've never claimed to represent anyone, I just trying to make an argument that many people in the public do think that a state can be voluntary, this is based on their responses to certain things.

Well, I suppose there can be if you want to assert the definition of the word "the state", basically means "free-market". Is this what you're suggesting?

Why can there not be a state that is purely voluntary?

Can there be a state that isn't financed by taxation? If yes, than can we call my local convenience store, a state?

Part of my argument is that it is counter productive to tell people in the general public that there should be no state, or to otherwise take a position of being anti-state. This is based upon their definition of what a state means to them.

If you tell the public there should be "no taxes", you'll get pretty much the same response as when you say there should be "no state". This is because virtually everyone understands they mean the same thing. The state is an organization financed by taxes. This doesn't mean they all believe taxes can be "voluntary", like you seem to be trying to assert with the term "state".

i.e.

If you say you're anti-state... the public will say "b...b...but who will build the roads?"

if you say you're anti-taxes... the public will say "b..b..but who will beuild the roads?"

 

[ClayTrainor]

An argument against open-borders is that if a state is a group of people in a geographical area that consent to the terms of the state, then those people can control the use of the land within that state, as they own it.

Thus, to enter the border of that state without permission would be akin to trespassing.

And if 1 or more persons in that geographical area does not consent to the terms of the contract?

Then they shouldn't have purchased the land that had the strings attached that they would consent to the terms of the contract.

We're talking about forming a contract between existing people in a geographic region.

What if one or more of the people in that geographic region does not consent to the state ownership of border land, before the state establishes "ownership" of them?

 

[Bryan]

Well, I suppose there can be if you want to assert the definition of the word "the state", basically means "free-market". Is this what you're suggesting?

I'm saying that there is the possibility that a state can be free-market, but not all will- that, based on the definitions understood by the general public.

Can there be a state that isn't financed by taxation?

Yes, why would a state, by definition, have to be financed by taxation?

If yes, than can we call my local convenience store, a state?

My purpose was to use definitions understood by the general public, I don't think they'd understand this. As well, the local store might have a contract against it from calling it it's own state, with that contract being it's membership as part of an already existing state.

If you tell the public there should be "no taxes", you'll get pretty much the same response as when you say there should be "no state". This is because virtually everyone understands they mean the same thing. The state is an organization financed by taxes. This doesn't mean they all believe taxes can be "voluntary", like you seem to be trying to assert with the term "state".

i.e.

If you say you're anti-state... the public will say "b...b...but who will build the roads?"

if you say you're anti-taxes... the public will say "b..b..but who will beuild the roads?"

Exactly, you're making my case. This is why the message of anti-state, and anti-taxes fails. When asked the question: "b...b...but who will build the roads?" the simple reply is: "Those who want them and will use them. Why should anyone else be forced to pay for something they don't use?" When speaking out against taxes, be sure to qualify it as "forced taxation". That might seem redundant, but it makes a clear point.

The point that people are making by saying "b...b...but who will build the roads?" is that they want a state to build the roads, and that is based on their consent.

 

[Bryan]

We're talking about forming a contract between existing people in a geographic region.

What if one or more of the people in that geographic region does not consent to the state ownership of border land, before the state establishes "ownership" of them?

Then there would be clear moral problems for them to force their will onto them.


Nothing I've seen negates the possibility of a state that is voluntary based.

 

[ClayTrainor]

I'm saying that there is the possibility that a state can be free-market, but not all will- that, based on the definitions understood by the general public.

Would you describe the US Government borders as they exist today, are free-market entitites?

My purpose was to use definitions understood by the general public, I don't think they'd understand this.

This is the second time you've used "Definitions" as plural. How many definitions are you referring to?

As well, the local store might have a contract against it from calling it it's own state, with that contract being it's membership as part of an already existing state.

And if it called itself a "state", how would that make it fundamentally any different from calling itself a "business"?

Are you saying, in this particular case, business and state mean the same thing, and the owner of his business may choose whether to call it a business or state?

This is why the message of anti-state, and anti-taxes fails.

speak for yourself, my experience has been the exact opposite. It certainly doesn't fail any harder than the message of "Limited and/or Constitutional statism", at least in my experience.

I have had a far more success explaining the coercive nature of the state and taxation to friends and family, than I ever have explaining limited state and limited taxation.

When asked the question: "b...b...but who will build the roads?" the simple reply is: "Those who want them and will use them. Why should anyone else be forced to pay for something they don't use?" When speaking out against taxes, be sure to qualify it as "forced taxation". That might seem redundant, but it makes a clear point.

If you haven't defined the difference between taxation and voluntary trade, than there is no point discussing "roads", "open borders" or any thing else related to Statism vs Free-Markets.

If someone is using the term "taxation" to mean some form of "sharing", "trade" or a "voluntary donation" than they are bastardizing the term, and it essentially becomes meaningless for discussion unless you can correct them.

The point that people are making by saying "b...b...but who will build the roads?" is that they want a state to build the roads, and that is based on their consent.

Yea, statists consent to the state. Who woulda thunk it? This argument could be used to describe virtually any statist policy as "consensual".

I really fail to see any kind of refutation of the open borders position here, other then some confusing semantics. Here's my fundamental claim with an attempt to avoid the unclear definitions we're debating in this thread...

Legitimate Property lines ought to be established on a voluntary and consensual basis as possible, regardless of what you label them. A Contract is an agreement between people. If these people don't all agree to the terms of the contract, than it is not a valid contract.

Agree or disagree?

 

[ClayTrainor]

Nothing I've seen negates the possibility of a state that is voluntary based.

Well, that ultimately comes down to semantics, unfortunately. If you define it as some kind of an entity that can exist 100% voluntarily and contractually, than yes, it can obviously be voluntary based.

If you define it in the same way it is defined in social sciences, with regards to politics, (which I think most people accept)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)

In the social sciences, a state is the compulsory political institution of a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.

than it's a lot hard to argue that it's voluntary.

I tend to regard "the state" as a compulsory organization that is financed by taxation, because virtually everyone I talk to understands that taxes are compulsory and are paid out to an organization known as the state and/or "the government". I think to say most people in the public don't understand this interpretation is kind of absurd, with regard to my own experience.

Anyways, I don't really see this as a principled discussion on "open/private/capitalist borders" vs "state/national/public/socialist borders" since we can't really seem to get past the semantics of the most fundamental terms.

It's kind of like trying to discuss atheism vs theism without a clear definition of God.

 

[Sentient Void]

Nothing I've seen negates the possibility of a state that is voluntary based.

The problem here is that you've merely arbitrarily asserted that there can be a 'state' that has the complete voluntary consent of all those governed. You've asserted it, but not provided any a priori nor empirical evidence to suggest it as such. You've made the positive assertion, so the burden of proof is on you - just like it would be on any other individual or 'the general public' if they've made such claims.

If someone asserts something, and can't back it up with reasonable evidence (empirical nor a priori), then their position is an emotional one and not one based in reason. If they continually refuse to do this - then they are being irrational and it is honestly a waste of both your time to continue. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

IMO, in the context of our discussion, this would illustrate a clear 'Stockholm syndrome to the state'. It's like prisoners asserting that their relationship with their oppressors is or can be 'voluntary', simply because their oppressors might let them choose the prison they can be transferred to.

As for your claim in regards to 'who would build the roads' meaning thatthey want 'the state to build the roads' - I don't think this is true and I don't see any reason to believe that to be the case. I think people jut want *someone* to build the roads. They just ignorantly and incorrectly think that only the state can effectively do that.

As ClayTrainor pointed out, a lot of this is a semantic discussion when it really doesn't need to be.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sentient Void again." Shit. IOU 1 +rep for that ^^ SV.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Damn, this thread got away from me!

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sentient Void again." Shit. IOU 1 +rep for that ^^ SV.

I can help you with that.

 

[erowe1]

What I'm saying is that I think the general public has the perception that the state is a voluntary association since you can always "just leave if you don't like it". The reality however is that, by large accounts, it isn't voluntary since there are no "reasonable" alternatives- but most don't think in those terms so they see it as voluntary. For this, I maintain that the definition of state can include one that is voluntary... and if there can be a voluntary state, then why should there never be a state?

I'm not sure if that's the case. But if it is, then you ought to be able to express that in a definition that both includes all of the entities that the general public considers states and excludes all of the entities they don't consider states. I don't think you've done that yet. On the other hand, the definition that says that a state must involve rule over people without their consent does seem to me to fit the bill.

Also, if you do want to use so broad a definition of "state" as to include completely voluntary associations, then I don't think you've found anyone here who would qualify as anti-state (though I could be wrong about that).

 

[Wesker1982]

@ Clay and SV

and erowe1

 

[Bryan]

Would you describe the US Government borders as they exist today, are free-market entitites?

Based on the use of eminent domain and forced taxation, certainly not- and those need to end. The issue is still more complex than that, but that doesn't mean that a state can not exist on a voluntary basis either.

This is the second time you've used "Definitions" as plural. How many definitions are you referring to?

Sorry, just a typo- should be just "definition".

And if it called itself a "state", how would that make it fundamentally any different from calling itself a "business"?

Are you saying, in this particular case, business and state mean the same thing, and the owner of his business may choose whether to call it a business or state?

If one owns property that has no contractual limitations then they can call it whatever they want. From a practical POV however people might not understand calling it a state and it really comes down to convoying a matter of intent.

If you haven't defined the difference between taxation and voluntary trade, than there is no point discussing "roads", "open borders" or any thing else related to Statism vs Free-Markets.

If someone is using the term "taxation" to mean some form of "sharing", "trade" or a "voluntary donation" than they are bastardizing the term, and it essentially becomes meaningless for discussion unless you can correct them.

I think part of the problem is that with currently accepted definitions, "taxation" can describe both involuntary and voluntary associations. That's why I say when you speak of taxation it's best to qualify it's meaning.

I really fail to see any kind of refutation of the open borders position here, other then some confusing semantics. Here's my fundamental claim with an attempt to avoid the unclear definitions we're debating in this thread...

Legitimate Property lines ought to be established on a voluntary and consensual basis as possible, regardless of what you label them. A Contract is an agreement between people. If these people don't all agree to the terms of the contract, than it is not a valid contract.

Agree or disagree?

Agreed.

The refutation of the open borders position is that individuals that compose of a contracted geographical area can use contracts to make part of their land open-access to specific individuals, per the terms of a contract. This can be done for the use of road-ways and more. Thus, any individual that does not have contractual permission to use the land is trespassing. This would be no different than a developer building a 100 houses with some common roads on the developers private land, that were private and only to be used by the owners of the 100 houses, per contracts. Take that principle, and expand the scale of the land mass.

The main points against anti-statism still stand as well since states can be both voluntary and involuntary. There has been no proof that states can not be voluntary, and certainly there are possible ways to make states voluntary. If a state can be voluntary then it would be tyrannical to attempt to deny other people from self organizing a state.