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

[Wesker1982]

In a nut-shell- based on the voluntary association of a free state, those who own the property of that state can set aside land to be used for all members of that state, for purposes of travel, recreation, etc. Anyone not a member of that state would be considered trespassing if they entered onto that property.

Without getting into the definition of the State (whether one could even be voluntary or not), how is this any different than say a homeowners association?

If the property is legitimately acquired (i.e. not stolen), they can set up whatever system of governance they want and this would not contradict the open border position. Advocating open borders is not the same as advocating trespassing.

What I would have a problem with is someone arbitrarily claiming border rights to a piece of property they do not own.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

They haven't been refuted, you just keep asserting a definition of a voluntary 'state' that does not, nor has never, existed. You're redefining the word 'state' to suit your ends of claiming it as a potential voluntary institution.

What actually needs to be done is for you to point to any 'state', in history, that could be considered completely 'voluntary' by all of it's subjects.

You're going to be waiting many, many, many moons for an example of that.

 

[Bryan]

First off, let me start out by saying I agree with your post. One of the things I've tried to iterate to anarchists here is that there can be voluntary associations within a state, and I think you've explained how that can be the case.

Thank you.

Secondly, I think anarchists have a major problem with how funds are allocated from citizens to keep the state going. Most, if not all, anarchists start off with the assumption that taxation is theft. Though I agree that the method by which taxes are taken is in some ways theft, I would disagree with them that taxation, in and of itself, is theft, especially if people voluntarily agree that some of their money should be used for taxes.

IMO, if there is some "reasonable" choice to the taxation, then I would not consider it theft. If there is no choice then I would see it as theft.

Another piece to that is if an anarchist decides he doesn't want to participate in the State by withdrawing himself from the system, he knows agents of the State will come to harass him and get him to comply with the laws of the land, as it were. Once again, that is another involuntary element of the State, from their perspective.

Which is certainly a legitimate issue, IMO.

 

[Bryan]

Without getting into the definition of the State (whether one could even be voluntary or not), how is this any different than say a homeowners association?

You can see my post here as to how a state can be voluntary:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...s-supporters&p=3368359&viewfull=1#post3368359

As to it being similar to a homeowners association, in some ways it is the same, others not. It is similar in that it is a group of people mutually agreeing to specific terms. It is different than a classical homeowners association since a homeowners association is not an organic law as it is based upon the use of another system in place (ie: the state).

If the property is legitimately acquired (i.e. not stolen), they can set up whatever system of governance they want and this would not contradict the open border position. Advocating open borders is not the same as advocating trespassing.

What do you see as the difference between advocating open borders vs. trespassing?

What I would have a problem with is someone arbitrarily claiming border rights to a piece of property they do not own.

I agree with you completely.

 

[Bryan]

They haven't been refuted, you just keep asserting a definition of a voluntary 'state' that does not, nor has never, existed. You're redefining the word 'state' to suit your ends of claiming it as a potential voluntary institution.

You're going to be waiting many, many, many moons for an example of that.

That's right, because the argument is a logically fallacy to try to disprove my proof- so I reposted my proof. This would be no different than me saying that to prove that a state can not be voluntary that Sentient Void must research and report on every like institution that ever existed and show how they were all involuntary. We'll be waiting many, many moons for that too. Actually, he would also have to prove that they could never exist in the future either.

Remember, this is a philosophy forum, not a history one. I put forth a philosophical argument. Cheers!

 

[Wesker1982]

What do you see as the difference between advocating open borders vs. trespassing?

I don't have a problem with someone crossing a "border" where no one actually owns the property that is being traveled to.

 

[ClayTrainor]

I don't have a problem with someone crossing a "border" where no one actually owns the property that is being traveled to.

Something that is worth pointing out... "States" have rarely bought land. Throughout most of history, they've killed, plundered and imprisoned those who seriously contest their claims, and terrified just about anyone else into submission. This is not the same thing as buying land and putting up no trespassing signs.

The problem I'm personally having with this debate is that the distinction between private property and state property that Bryan is using, is not clear to me. (If there is a distinction, that is)

Can pretty much anyone or group of people who want to define property lines or put a fence around their land collectively be defined as a state? if a couple of farmers want to fence in their land, is that a state? What if a couple of factory owners want to fence in their property, and only allow workers, shippers (trucks, trains and planes) and the occasional visitor in, is that a state? What if one family wants a white picket fence around their house, are they a state? What's the difference?

 

[Wesker1982]

The problem I'm personally having with this debate is that the distinction between private property and state property that Bryan is using, is not clear to me. (If there is a distinction, that is)

Right. If advocating open borders is equal to advocating trespassing on legitimate (i.e. not stolen) property, then I would not advocate "open borders".

 

[Bryan]

Something that is worth pointing out... "States" have rarely bought land. Throughout most of history, they've killed, plundered and imprisoned those who seriously contest their claims, and terrified just about anyone else into submission. This is not the same thing as buying land and putting up no trespassing signs.

States definitely have done this, as well as a lot of other entities- and it is tyrannical of the highest order. However, I have yet to see how this is a proven requirement of a state.

The problem I'm personally having with this debate is that the distinction between private property and state property that Bryan is using, is not clear to me. (If there is a distinction, that is)

Who owns the land under the control of the US federal government? The people in Greece? No, it's the American people, and they get to set the policies for its usage. The "state property" is still private property, but it can be used by certain people under certain terms. This isn't unclaimed "open" territory.

Can pretty much anyone or group of people who want to define property lines or put a fence around their land collectively be defined as a state? if a couple of farmers want to fence in their land, is that a state? What if a couple of factory owners want to fence in their property, and only allow workers, shippers (trucks, trains and planes) and the occasional visitor in, is that a state? What if one family wants a white picket fence around their house, are they a state? What's the difference?

If the property in question is already bound by terms of a state contract, then it would be likely that that contract would prevent any formation of a new state. If the property in question is not bound to a state, then any new law would be organic and could be considered a state. Granted, the attributes of that state may be very weak in what one normally thinks of how a state typically looks, but those attributes are a bit arbitrary.

BTW, good to see you back.

 

[Bryan]

Right. If advocating open borders is equal to advocating trespassing on legitimate (i.e. not stolen) property, then I would not advocate "open borders".

That is the argument being put forth. The second part is that the "state" property was property that was originally private and legitimately acquired, and then transferred to a consortium (ie: a state) based on specific terms of a contract.

 

[Wesker1982]

That is the argument being put forth. The second part is that the "state" property was property that was originally private and legitimately acquired, and then transferred to a consortium (ie: a state) based on specific terms of a contract.

For arguments sake, lets assume it was unquestionably legitimately acquired first by private owners, and then the State purchased it or made some sort of deal.

What happened then is the land was bought by a bandit gang using stolen goods, whatever is purchased with the stolen property does not rightfully belong to the thieves (the original property owner is now a victim of fraud if he is unaware he was paid with stolen goods).

For the criminal has no natural right whatever to the retention of property that he has stolen; the aggressor has no right to claim any property that he has acquired by aggression. Therefore, we must modify or rather clarify the basic rule of the libertarian society to say that no one has the right to aggress against the legitimate or just property of another.

You cannot make a legitimate contract using stolen property. A contract is only legitimate when the agreement is on a voluntary basis with all parties. When the "State" makes a contract, it is arbitrarily binding non-voluntary participants (the victims of the legal plunder).

So the State: 1. uses stolen property to make exchanges, and 2. it binds people to agreements who have never consented to the terms. Point one would be enough to make any property the State has acquired as illegitimate (from a libertarian viewpoint), point 2. would invalidate any contract the State makes. For any of the State's arrangements with private (rightful) owners to be regarded as legitimate, it cannot fulfill either of these criterion.

This is in the context of how things are now, though. If when you say "state" you mean a completely voluntary organization (who purchased land from a legit owner), then I have no problem.

If you get 50 friends together to buy a piece of farm land in Montana from a legit owner, and then decide to declare yourselves a State, I don't think any Voluntaryist would have a problem with it.

Now the question will probably be: Assuming State acquired land is illegitimate, what about people who bought property from the State, shouldn't the original owner of the stolen goods get their property back?

In theory, yes. But only if it is possible. If the current property owner is a non-criminal who bought the goods from a criminal (the State), and the original owner cannot be identified, then the property in effect becomes in a state of no ownership, and the first person to make use (homestead) of the property, becomes the legit owner. This would lead to the legitimate ownership of the current possessor of the property.

The long answer:

But now suppose that a title to property is clearly identifiable as criminal, does this necessarily mean that the current possessor must give it up? No, not necessarily. For that depends on two considerations: (a) whether the victim (the property owner originally aggressed against) or his heirs are clearly identifiable and can now be found; or (b) whether or not the current possessor is himself the criminal who stole the property. Suppose, for example, that Jones possesses a watch, and that we can clearly show that Jones’s title is originally criminal, either because (1) his ancestor stole it, or (2) because he or his ancestor purchased it from a thief (whether wittingly or unwittingly is immaterial here). Now, if we can identify and find the victim or his heir, then it is clear that Jones’s title to the watch is totally invalid, and that it must promptly revert to its true and legitimate owner. Thus, if Jones inherited or purchased the watch from a man who stole it from Smith, and if Smith or the heir to his estate can be found, then the title to the watch properly reverts immediately back to Smith or his descendants, without compensation to the existing possessor of the criminally derived “title.” Thus, if a current title to property is criminal in origin, and the victim or his heir can be found, then the title should immediately revert to the latter.

Suppose, however, that condition (a) is not fulfilled: in short, that we know that Jones’s title is criminal, but that we cannot now find the victim or his current heir. Who now is the legitimate and moral property owner? The answer to this question now depends on whether or not Jones himself is the criminal, whether Jones is the man who stole the watch. If Jones was the thief, then it is quite clear that he cannot be allowed to keep it, for the criminal cannot be allowed to keep the reward of his crime; and he loses the watch, and probably suffers other punishments besides.

But suppose that Jones is not the criminal, not the man who stole the watch, but that he had inherited or had innocently purchased it from the thief. And suppose, of course, that neither the victim nor his heirs can be found. In that case, the disappearance of the victim means that the stolen property comes properly into a state of no-ownership. But we have seen that any good in a state of no-ownership, with no legitimate owner of its title, reverts as legitimate property to the first person to come along and use it, to appropriate this now unowned resource for human use. But this “first” person is clearly Jones, who has been using it all along. Therefore, we conclude that even though the property was originally stolen, that if the victim or his heirs cannot be found, and if the current possessor was not the actual criminal who stole the property, then title to that property belongs properly, justly, and ethically to its current possessor.

When Rothbard here says: Thus, if Jones inherited or purchased the watch from a man who stole it from Smith, and if Smith or the heir to his estate can be found, then the title to the watch properly reverts immediately back to Smith or his descendants, without compensation to the existing possessor of the criminally derived “title.”

He means Smith (original rightful owner) does not owe compensation to Jones. Jones, however, would deserve compensation from the thief who sold him the watch. This is assuming the watch was sold to Jones under a false pretense (i.e. fraud), but if Jones knew the watch was stolen then he deserves no compensation because he knowingly took the risk that the original property owner might attempt to claim the property.

 

[Bryan]

For arguments sake, lets assume it was unquestionably legitimately acquired first by private owners, and then the State purchased it or made some sort of deal.

What happened then is the land was bought by a bandit gang using stolen goods,

Why do you say this? My argument isn't based on the history of any one particular state, it's general theory- and not everything has to revolve around stolen goods or the use of force.

You cannot make a legitimate contract using stolen property. A contract is only legitimate when the agreement is on a voluntary basis with all parties.

Agreed.

When the "State" makes a contract, it is arbitrarily binding non-voluntary participants (the victims of the legal plunder).

So the State: 1. uses stolen property to make exchanges, and 2. it binds people to agreements who have never consented to the terms. Point one would be enough to make any property the State has acquired as illegitimate (from a libertarian viewpoint), point 2. would invalidate any contract the State makes. For any of the State's arrangements with private (rightful) owners to be regarded as legitimate, it cannot fulfill either of these criterion.

This is in the context of how things are now, though.

If a particular state is not voluntary, then there is validity in this. However, I have made augments here to show a proof that a state can by voluntary, thus, this doesn't apply.

Keep in mind that, when you say " it binds people to agreements who have never consented to the terms." - that anyone who purchases land that had already been entered into a state contract will have the owner agree to the terms.

If when you say "state" you mean a completely voluntary organization (who purchased land from a legit owner), then I have no problem.

This is exactly what I mean, and only what I mean. And the point of it then is that being strictly anti-state is problematic, it's OK to not want to be in a state, but not OK to tell others to not be in one.

Now the question will probably be: Assuming State acquired land is illegitimate, what about people who bought property from the State, shouldn't the original owner of the stolen goods get their property back?

In theory, yes. But only if it is possible. If the current property owner is a non-criminal who bought the goods from a criminal (the State), and the original owner cannot be identified, then the property in effect becomes in a state of no ownership, and the first person to make use (homestead) of the property, becomes the legit owner. This would lead to the legitimate ownership of the current possessor of the property.

I see this as a completely different issue, within the whole scope of what I am talking about, nothing should ever be illegitimately acquired. There are some other good topics of discussion here, I'll start a new thread on that later.

 

[Wesker1982]

This is exactly what I mean, and only what I mean. And the point of it then is that being strictly anti-state is problematic

Then by this particular understanding of the word, virtually all (basically any proponents of private property) Voluntaryists are closed border advocates. But by "closed borders" in this context we are talking only about legitimately acquired property.

When I (and prob all Voluntaryists) say we are anti-state, it means we are anti:

I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as "taxation"; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area.

Which means being anti-state is not problematic at all. Using this definition, I would advocate "open borders" for a State because I would not respect the boundaries that a criminal gang has set on stolen property.

it's OK to not want to be in a state, but not OK to tell others to not be in one.

And it is not OK to use violence to make people join a state. If we are talking about completely voluntary organization, there is no disagreement.

The debate is really the same as Is the Name “Capitalism” Worth Keeping? and Anarchy, Government, and the State. In other words, there seems to be a general agreement on principles but a misunderstanding on the definitions of words (anarchy,capitalism,State,government).

Assuming a State = a voluntary organization, the title of the thread is really challenging no one around here.

The way you are defining the word "state", the thread title could just as well say: "Free and open challenge to opponents of voluntary organization, open borders supporters."

The debate isn't even about open vs closed borders, because everyone agrees with you that people should be able to voluntarily organize and defend their legitimately acquired property. The debate is really about defining "state", and whether or not it is worth using it this way or that way because the average person might equate the word with governance or they might view the state as voluntary etc. (see SV's blog)

In short, we are pro open border for stolen land, anti-trespassing on legitimately acquired property. Take away the word "State", and there is no confusion.

 

[Bryan]

Then by this particular understanding of the word, virtually all (basically any proponents of private property) Voluntaryists are closed border advocates. But by "closed borders" in this context we are talking only about legitimately acquired property.

Great, we agree on this.

When I (and prob all Voluntaryists) say we are anti-state, it means we are anti:

I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as "taxation"; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area.

Which means being anti-state is not problematic at all.

By being anti-state, are you saying that you are opposed to being a part of this, or are you saying that you don't think they should exist at all? If people agree to the taxation and defense service, then what is the problem?

This is part of my point of the problem with saying one is "anti-state", because it's not clear on what it means to others. Does it mean you don't want to be a part of a state, or that states shouldn't exist at all? Saying one is a Voluntaryist and that you don't want to be a part of a state is perfectly clear and OK. Saying that the USA should be abolished is clear in the other way, but it is very problematic since it doesn't take others into account.

Using this definition, I would advocate "open borders" for a State because I would not respect the boundaries that a criminal gang has set on stolen property

It seems you are falsely equating taxation to being stolen property. Again, if all the people within the state agreed to be fleeced every week, then how is it stolen? It's no more stolen than a home owners associate fees could be (don't pay, you lose your home).

And it is not OK to use violence to make people join a state. If we are talking about completely voluntary organization, there is no disagreement.

Totally agree on this.

The debate is really the same as Is the Name “Capitalism” Worth Keeping? and Anarchy, Government, and the State. In other words, there seems to be a general agreement on principles but a misunderstanding on the definitions of words (anarchy,capitalism,State,government).

I agree definitions are a big part of it, and as I stated earlier in this thread, one should use definitions of the audience they are trying to reach- this is where saying you are for anarchy, or are anti-state become problematic because it isn't clear if you are saying you want that for yourself or if you are trying to impose that on others as well.

Assuming a State = a voluntary organization, the title of the thread is really challenging no one around here.

Most specifically, that a state can be voluntary, but certainly not all are.

The way you are defining the word "state", the thread title could just as well say: "Free and open challenge to opponents of voluntary organization, open borders supporters."

The debate isn't even about open vs closed borders, because everyone agrees with you that people should be able to voluntarily organize and defend their legitimately acquired property. The debate is really about defining "state", and whether or not it is worth using it this way or that way because the average person might equate the word with governance or they might view the state as voluntary etc. (see SV's blog)

In short, we are pro open border for stolen land, anti-trespassing on legitimately acquired property. Take away the word "State", and there is no confusion.

Fair enough. Ultimately I think what can be seen from this thread is that states can be viewed as voluntary, and it is thus problematic to be strictly anti-state (meaning no states at all, for anyone)- and that the language one uses is important.

 

[Wesker1982]

By being anti-state, are you saying that you are opposed to being a part of this, or are you saying that you don't think they should exist at all?

Does it mean you don't want to be a part of a state, or that states shouldn't exist at all? Saying one is a Voluntaryist and that you don't want to be a part of a state is perfectly clear and OK.

If a State is a voluntary organization with the goal of providing common services, I would probably be a part of some sort of "state". But I don't define voluntary organizations as a state. When I say anti-state, I am using the word "state" in the way Rothbard defined it. I understand people might get the wrong idea because they don't see the distinction between government, state, governance, etc. and it is a problem that admittedly needs work. Again, as SV's blog points out, this problem leads to a lot of people talking past each other. We are aware.

If people agree to the taxation and defense service, then what is the problem?

When a Voluntaryist says taxation, they equate it with legal plunder (i.e. it is not voluntary). If it is voluntary, it is not taxation. There is no problem if people voluntarily agree to fund common services. Why not just say: If people agree to the pay the service fee for services X,Y,Z etc. There is no reason to use the word taxation if it is voluntary. There is a distinction between a tax and a price (see: Rothbard's Power and Market).

If all the people within the state agreed to be fleeced every week, then how is it stolen?

It isn't stolen any more than agreeing to pay for a magazine subscription. When we pay the price for any sort of voluntary subscription service, we don't call it a tax, we call it a subscription price. The distinction between a price and a tax is critical.

It's no more stolen than a home owners associate fees could be (don't pay, you lose your home)

Agreed. I advocate voluntary contracts and respect for property rights.

This is part of my point of the problem with saying one is "anti-state", because it's not clear on what it means to others.

No disagreement here.

Saying that the USA should be abolished is clear in the other way, but it is very problematic since it doesn't take others into account.

Others can do whatever they want. If they take into account, if they respect the fact that others do not want to be apart of their "state", then there is no problem. I don't want to abolish voluntary organizations, but I would advocate the abolition of all slavery.

I agree definitions are a big part of it, and as I stated earlier in this thread, one should use definitions of the audience they are trying to reach- this is where saying you are for anarchy, or are anti-state become problematic because it isn't clear if you are saying you want that for yourself or if you are trying to impose that on others as well.

I agree. I try to use language that is best understood by the person I am talking to. I would not tell the average person that "the State should be abolished" or I am an anarchist because most people would not be understanding these words as a Rothbardian would.

I hope you don't assume the way I talk to people on RPF is the way I talk to the average person. I think we can agree that people around here are not average people!

Ultimately I think what can be seen from this thread is that states can be viewed as voluntary

I am aware that the majority of people view the State as voluntary. If they didn't the State (the involuntary kind that the U.S.A is right now) would not exist.

and it is thus problematic to be strictly anti-state (meaning no states at all, for anyone)

This depends on who you are talking to. I don't think I have ever told a person IRL that I am anti-state unless I already know they understand what I mean when I say "state".

But it is definitely not problematic to be anti-"involuntary institutions".

 

[Carson]

Anyone against a theater being allowed to sell and check for tickets or do you also believe the exits should be left open for the vandals and allow them to call the tune of the movies to be watched?

 

[ProIndividual]

All the evidence you need is here:

Statist Economic Fallacies: Breaking Through the Nonsense (Part I) (Part 2-3 are linked at the top of the page you are being linked to now)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41436


And if you want more proof, I can provide it...but just use google and you'll find it. Got to be looking for it in the first place, that may be the issue.

 

[ProIndividual]

Also, let me add the inevitable debunks to the Hans-Hermann Hoppe arguments.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?300180-Criticism-of-Hoppe-s-Immigration-Ideas

 

[Conza88]

I didn't read past page 1. More than likely, that was a great decision .

On Free Immigration and Forced Integration

"In an anarcho-capitalist society there is no government and, accordingly, no clear-cut distinction between inlanders (domestic citizens) and foreigners. This distinction comes into existence only with the establishment of a government, i.e., an institution which possesses a territorial monopoly of aggression (taxation). The territory over which a government's taxing power extends becomes "inland," and everyone residing outside of this territory becomes a foreigner. State borders (and passports), are an "unnatural" (coercive) institution. Indeed, their existence (and that of a domestic government) implies a two-fold distortion with respect to peoples' natural inclination to associate with others. First, inlanders cannot exclude the government (the taxman) from their own property, but are subject to what one might call "forced integration" by government agents. Second, in order to be able to intrude on its subjects' private property so as to tax them, a government must invariably take control of existing roads, and it will employ its tax revenue to produce even more roads to gain even better access to all private property, as a potential tax source. Thus, this over-production of roads does not involve merely an innocent facilitation of interregional trade - a lowering of transaction costs - as starry-eyed economists would have us believe, but it involves forced domestic integration (artificial desegregation of separate localities).

Moreover, with the establishment of a government and state borders, immigration takes on an entirely new meaning. Immigration becomes immigration by foreigners across state borders, and the decision as to whether or not a person should be admitted no longer rests with private property owners or associations of such owners but with the government as the ultimate sovereign of all domestic residents and the ultimate super-owner of all their properties. Now, if the government excludes a person while even one domestic resident wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion (a phenomenon that does not exist under private property anarchism). Furthermore, if the government admits a person while there is not even one domestic resident who wants to have this person on his property, the result is forced integration (also non-existent under private property anarchism)."​

/thread

 

[Conza88]

Also, let me add the inevitable debunks to the Hans-Hermann Hoppe arguments.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?300180-Criticism-of-Hoppe-s-Immigration-Ideas

Oh wow, well I'll be. Did the caliber of this forum improve in my absence? Interesting!... though slightly disappointing given the first 6 paragraphs could be deleted for their lack of argument (none).

/tldr, but more accurately - underlying everything in the post makes it pretty much unreadable.. which is probably why it has 0 reply's, not because of it containing any "knock-down" arguments.

Let me know when the said text becomes legible. Cheers.