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

[Sentient Void]

Assuming we're talking about a Minarchist state and not an AnCap one, how would open borders work? What happens when the estimated billion people move here and vote for big-government politicians and government handouts?

Even in a minarchist system, this is not a problem if you eliminate 'democracy' (representative or direct). A minarchist system does not necessarily have to be democratic - and if anything they are incompatible - as our example of the US has shown. For example, you could theoretically have an extremely limited constitutional monarchy as a minarchist government, and then have of course open borders amongst political borders of the nation. Read Hoppe. An example of this to illustrate is the rise of Hong Kong as the freest and most prosperous economy in the world under British monarchy rule (who basically sipped wine all day an left people to their own devices).

 

[erowe1]

Even without a welfare state it's not a good idea. For example 10 million Muslims decide to come to Michigan and start demanding Sharia law.

If 10 million Muslims want to go to Michigan and live under sharia law there on their own property, why should I stop them?

 

[Wesker1982]

No. When you bought the property, you agreed to be bound by the terms that same along with it - that it is subject to the rules of the state. Don't like the rules? Don't buy the property, or get elected to an office an effect change.

The rules of the State are illegitimate and arbitrary. The terms that come along with buying the property are dictated by a criminal gang. The terms are on stolen property in the first place. Why should any terms be respected when placed on stolen property? Unless you can prove otherwise (that the property is not stolen), all you have done is proven that the rules are not consensual, and backed by violence.

BUt if you're gonna buy it then spend the next 30 years living next to me whining about some Utopian philosophy....I'm putting up my own damned fence PDQ.

Emotional argument with no relevance to the discussion. But it is worth pointing out the irrationality of being so afraid of someone who advocates non-violence that you put up a fence asap lol. I would never advocate the use of violence to stop you from putting up your fence, btw. It is too bad you don't grant the same respect (respect for property rights) to me.

WE live in a nation of laws.

This is a total non-argument. Slavery was legal, was it to be accepted because it was legal? Because it was the law?

"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." - Bastiat

Nobody of any real importance cares if you think we shouldn't subject you to our laws.

When you get emotional and resort to personal attacks and fallacies (appeal to authority), it makes it blatantly clear that you are insecure about your position.

 

[Sentient Void]

If 10 million Muslims want to go to Michigan and live under sharia law there on their own property, why should I stop them?

Exactly. Sharia Law is just not a threat to anyone who doesn't practice/believe in sharia law. Its just not the way things work under our legal system and its eholly ignorant of the facts to be afraid of *booga booga* 'sharia law' *booga booga*. Our common law system and the constitution are the law of the land by default.

Of course, US court cases have been documented where judges followed sharia law (and got experts to help with this) in solving disputes for those who the plaintiff and defense request to be tried under sharia law. As it should.

 

[Bryan]

I don't know if I qualify as an anti-statist or not. I try to avoid pinning myself down with labels like that, which people tend to take in varying ways.

But, depending on what you mean by the state, I might be willing to take you up on it.

What do you mean by the state?

I think a common meaning, in not-so-common language, would be "a group of individuals within a defined geographical area self-organizing as they see fit." At least that's what would fit for a definition of a free state, in which a great deal of people support.

Below is a legal definition. In any case, I do think coming to terms on the definition is important for a discussion, but I also think that it's important to spread a message that uses language that the average person understands which includes definitions that are generally agreed with.

Thanks!

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/state

As a noun, a people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other states. The section of territory occupied by one of the United States. The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed; the public; as in the title of a case, "The State v. A. B." The circumstances or condition of a being or thing at a given time.

As a verb, to express the particulars of a thing in writing or in words; to set down or set forth in detail; to aver, allege, or declare. To set down in gross; to mention in general terms, or by way of reference; to refer.

 

[erowe1]

I think a common meaning, in not-so-common language, would be "a group of individuals within a defined geographical area self-organizing as they see fit." At least that's what would fit for a definition of a free state, in which a great deal of people support.

Below is a legal definition. In any case, I do think coming to terms on the definition is important for a discussion, but I also think that it's important to spread a message that uses language that the average person understands which includes definitions that are generally agreed with.

Thanks!

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/state

Thanks. That definition makes a difference.

I would say that most states that fit the legal definition you posted don't fit the layman's one you gave. Would you agree?

 

[Bryan]

Another benefit of this is that if border land owners don't prevent foreigners from sneaking in, they could be held liable for damage that results from their lax enforcement.

I'm not following you here. Why should someone be held liable for doing nothing? Where is the crime? Please explain. Thanks.

 

[Sentient Void]

What is a State?

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. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state.

 

[Bryan]

Thanks. That definition makes a difference.

I would say that most states that fit the legal definition you posted don't fit the layman's one you gave. Would you agree?

From an individualist perspective, I would agree, they don't fit. From a collectivist perspective that many people use, everything fits, more or less.

 

[erowe1]

From an individualist perspective, I would agree, they don't fit. From a collectivist perspective that many people use, everything fits, more or less.

Isn't the individualist perspective required by your use of the word "individual" in your definition?

For example, I have trouble seeing how North Korea could be considered a group of individuals self-organizing as they see fit.

And for similar, though less obvious reasons, I also have trouble seeing how the USA could be considered a group of individuals self-organizing as they see fit.

 

[Wesker1982]

What is a State?

Yeah, this is important. If everyone defines the State differently then the discussion will just be chaos (but not anarchy ).

 

[Bryan]

What is a State?

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. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state.

On the assumption that this is a good definition, how does it make a "there should be no state" position valid?

 

[Wesker1982]

If you hold the position that initiated physical violence is undesirable, then it is self-evident (using the Rothbard definition) that the abolition of the State is desirable.

 

[erowe1]

If you hold the position that initiated physical violence is undesirable, then it is self-evident (using the Rothbard definition) that the abolition of the State is desirable.

How did desirable and undesirable get into this? If we're using those criteria then there's no debate to be had. He might as well have issued a challenge to anyone who thinks they can prove that chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla.

 

[Bryan]

Isn't the individualist perspective required by your use of the word "individual" in your definition?

Yes. I'm certainly not agreeing with the collectivist view, just noting it.

For example, I have trouble seeing how North Korea could be considered a group of individuals self-organizing as they see fit.

This starts to get more to the root of the issue, and in some ways, things aren't totally cut and dry. The questions that have to be asked are, can the individuals leave North Korea? What are their "reasonable" alternatives? Also, what are their grievances that make this an issue?

And for similar, though less obvious reasons, I also have trouble seeing how the USA could be considered a group of individuals self-organizing as they see fit.

The same questions apply IMO, what are the "reasonable" alternatives? What are their grievances that make this an issue?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Huh?
He created a Liberty oriented forum to be a provocateur. Some odd "logic" there.

First I didn't know he was the founder of this forum. Second, his second post was a bump, waiting for takers - I didn't know why other anarchists weren't taking up his challenge, and was merely speculating.

 

[erowe1]

Yes. I'm certainly not agreeing with the collectivist view, just noting it.


This starts to get more to the root of the issue, and in some ways, things aren't totally cut and dry. The questions that have to be asked are, can the individuals leave North Korea? What are their "reasonable" alternatives? Also, what are their grievances that make this an issue?



The same question applies IMO, what are the "reasonable" alternatives?

I would offer as one alternative that your layman's definition isn't really a definition of the word "state" but of the word "government." As already mentioned, that definition would exclude North Korea and other similar entities. On the other hand, it includes things like neighborhood groups, churches, and so on, which are not normally considered states.

Alternatively, I would offer as a definition of a state the following (which might need tweaking, since I'm going off the cuff):

Any group of people that rules over other people within a given territory without the consent of all of the governed.

This definition might not be ideal either, since it would include street gangs. But then, the initial bias I have against broadening the definition of "state" to include street gangs may not be valid. Truth be told, I can't think of a good reason not to call them states.

 

[Bryan]

The rules of the State are illegitimate and arbitrary.

Says who?

The terms that come along with buying the property are dictated by a criminal gang.

Are you saying this is true for every state, or just some / most?

 

[Bryan]

First I didn't know he was the founder of this forum.

Co-founder, but, it's no big deal you didn't know, I don't care either. None-the-less, you did make a claim that I asked you to support.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Can you support this claim?

It isn't a "claim"; I'm new around here and that sort of thing seems to happen regularly enough. You seemed to be wondering why you didn't have any takers...

The state is of course a man-made construct, but if people want to do it, which they have, then how it is artificial or unnatural? I'd suppose we'd have to define "artificial " and "unnatural" - but these are just negative labels you're applying that don't provide substance, IMO.

I will always define any iteration of any real or imagined state negatively, because I want nothing to do with being ruled over in any way by anyone else, nor do I have any interest in ruling over anyone else, in anyway.

Question: In what way do you see that individuals are not willing? (I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just asking to expand the discussion)

You can't find 100% consensus between two people, let alone some number greater than that. Any state is going to require the submission of rights of at least one individual living within its bounds.

If an individual wants to stake a claim to keeping people out of the house he builds, is that a manufactured boundary? What about his yard?

An individual defining his justly acquired property is a far different thing from the state arbitrarily defining "its" territory.

Re: "which some elite group of the former claim absolute rule." - do you think that is a requirement for a state, or just an attribute that many / most have?

I think it's inevitable that, once this entity within society is allowed to exist there will be those who will seek to use its power for his or her own ends, however limited they may be, at first.

Thanks for the response.

Cheers. Thanks for the question.