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

[teacherone]

When one purchases land within a states boundaries, that was sold with strings attached (you will be ruled under the state) then they agree to those terms.

Again, that is not an argument that there should be no state.

so only land owners can consent. guess that's why they used to be the only ones able to vote.

 

[erowe1]

As I said prior, I think the important definition is that of the general public since they are the ones to be reached out to with a message.

I like this goal. But even still, that doesn't make the definition obvious. If I try to put aside things I've read from people with axes to grind and just ask myself what it is that makes something a state in a sense that the general public uses the word, and if I make sure to define this word in a way that excludes home owner associations (as I think the general public would) and that includes North Korea, I honestly don't know what the essential elements of the definition have to be, but one reason I'm drawn to the key characteristic of consent is that it seems to work.

You yourself admitted that you couldn't think of an example of a free state. On the other hand, the examples we have of things that do have the consent of the governed are all things other than states. These two facts immediately suggest to me that governing people without their consent is a defining feature of a state. I'm not going to stubbornly cling to this. But if you want to use a definition that is what the general public uses, and you're not going to use that in the definition, you need to come up with something better that both includes all the things the general public means to include in the word "state" and excludes all things they don't mean to include.

 

[Bryan]

There's already a term for that, and it's called a contract. The State and a Contract are not the same thing.

The definitions are debatable, but again, I think the important definition is that of what the general public thinks, in the context that you want to present them with a message.

Derogatory or not, what you are advocating (State/American/National/Whatever ownership of land) is consistent with the working definition of socialism. Those who are advocating for privatization of border property are arguing in favor of Capitalist theory of property ownership, under the workign economic definitions.

You reject this?

If you call what I am saying is a contract, then how is land that is used as part of a contract socialism?

 

[erowe1]

Congress writes laws.

Does Congress have the authority to write laws that I as an individual don't have the authority to write? If so, who gave Congress that authority, and where did they get it?

 

[William R]

Does Congress have the authority to write laws that I as an individual don't have the authority to write? If so, who gave Congress that authority, and where did they get it?

Yes they do!

 

[erowe1]

Yes they do!

Who gave them that authority? And where did that person get it?

 

[ClayTrainor]

The definitions are debatable, but again, I think the important definition is that of what the general public thinks, in the context that you want to present them with a message.

I don't want to get into semantics over how to define "the state" means, because that completely misses the point.

Instead of using the term state, let's use the term "organization of people financed by taxation". This is fundamentally what you're arguing for, right? An organization, which is financed by taxes, should own the border land.

Correct?

If you call what I am saying is a contract, then how is land that is used as part of a contract socialism?

If only 1 person the contract claims to represent rejects the terms of the contract, than it is not a valid contract.

 

[Bryan]

I like this goal. But even still, that doesn't make the definition obvious. If I try to put aside things I've read from people with axes to grind and just ask myself what it is that makes something a state in a sense that the general public uses the word, and if I make sure to define this word in a way that excludes home owner associations (as I think the general public would) and that includes North Korea, I honestly don't know what the essential elements of the definition have to be, but one reason I'm drawn to the key characteristic of consent is that it seems to work.

I think the best definition can be derived by understanding how the general public responses to issues with regard to the "state". For example, when people argue against there being a state it can often alienate others because they want to have a state.

That leads to the question, why should one not fully recognize others ability to self-organize, and call their entity whatever it is they want, be it a "state" or otherwise?

When many hear "there should be no state" they feel that someone is trying to take something away from them, and their ability to self-organize. In is in this way that I derive my definition of state- and one that is important to use when reaching out to the public.

You yourself admitted that you couldn't think

It wasn't an admission, just an analysis. I'm not defending a fixed position.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Also, Bryan.

Are you arguing FOR privatization of land known as "the border", or against it?

 

[Bryan]

I don't want to get into semantics over how to define "the state" means, because that completely misses the point.

Instead of using the term state, let's use the term "organization of people financed by taxation". This is fundamentally what you're arguing for, right? An organization, which is financed by taxes, should own the border land.

Correct?

Nothing has been said about taxes, so no. I'm defining a state as a people self-organizing how they see fit. Unfortunately the semantics are key to this.

If only 1 person the contract claims to represent rejects the terms of the contract, than it is not a valid contract.

Agreed- but that doesn't counter my point.

 

[Bryan]

Also, Bryan.

Are you arguing FOR privatization of land known as "the border", or against it?

The position is that individuals have a right to land ownership and can control the border of that.

 

[pcosmar]

a state formed by consent can only last one generation.

Unless those born into it choose to continue along that path. (thereby consenting)

 

[Bryan]

so only land owners can consent. guess that's why they used to be the only ones able to vote.

I haven't researched that in-depth, but I think the gist is that they are the ones that have skin in the game, so to speak- likely a guard against "spreading the wealth".

 

[erowe1]

I think the best definition can be derived by understanding how the general public responses to issues with regard to the "state". For example, when people argue against there being a state it can often alienate others because they want to have a state.

I agree. But when people do want a state, it's worth asking what it really is that they want. It might be the case that they want something that rules people without their consent.

That leads to the question, why should one not fully recognize others ability to self-organize, and call their entity whatever it is they want, be it a "state" or otherwise?

This is entirely different. You said you wanted the definition of the general public. People have the right to use the word with other definitions. But the purpose of your criterion wasn't to open up all possible definitions, but to limit the possibilities to a single best definition.

Since every example of a thing that the general public calls a state that you and I can think of is one that rules people without their consent, and since every example of governance we can think of that derives its powers solely from the consent of the governed is something that the general public does not consider a state, it seems to follow that ruling people without their consent is an essential part of the definition of a state as the general public uses that word.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Nothing has been said about taxes, so no.

Should the US Government own the Border Land?

I'm defining a state as a people self-organizing how they see fit.

It sounds like you're trying to re-define the state to mean "free-market", lol.

Unfortunately the semantics are key to this.

If we can't agree to a term, than there is no value in using it. If we're just going to constantly argue over what terms mean, than there is no real value to this discussion, as far as i'm concerned.

 

[teacherone]

I haven't researched that in-depth, but I think the gist is that they are the ones that have skin in the game, so to speak- likely a guard against "spreading the wealth".

so if only landowners signed a contract with the state consenting to follow the state's laws, should non landowners be outside of the state's jurisdiction?

 

[ClayTrainor]

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?

 

[Bryan]

I agree. But when people do want a state, it's worth asking what it really is that they want. It might be the case that they want something that rules people without their consent.



This is entirely different. You said you wanted the definition of the general public. People have the right to use the word with other definitions. But the purpose of your criterion wasn't to open up all possible definitions, but to limit the possibilities to a single best definition.

I completely agree- and this is an important talking point. People need to understand the unintended consequences for their actions.

Since every example of a thing that the general public calls a state that you and I can think of is one that rules people without their consent, and since every example of governance we can think of that derives its powers solely from the consent of the governed is something that the general public does not consider a state, it seems to follow that ruling people without their consent is an essential part of the definition of a state as the general public uses that word.

I will agree with you in-so-much that the ruling without consent is a modern day reality that the general public isn't taught to think about, and it requires some independent, critical thinking to come to this conclusion. The counter is that, despite this, there is still a perceived notion that if someone wants to be a part of a state that they should be able to. My argument is that this needs to be respected, but the consequences of others actions needs to be expressed in understandable terms.

As an example, there are valid counter-argument to when people say "If you don't like it, leave". For one, this country claims to be a free society, with citizens often taking a pledge that says "with liberty .... for all". How is a position of telling someone to leave if they don't want to be forced to do something in support of that pledge? Also, where is one to leave to? If the only "reasonable" option is akin to torture then how it their position morally sound, and not an ideology that would generate war?

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

 

[Bryan]

Should the US Government own the Border Land?

Only if it was justly acquired.

It sounds like you're trying to re-define the state to mean "free-market", lol.

I'm not trying to define anything, I'm merely expressing my perspective on what it seems the general public views it as. None-the-less, you do bring up an excellent point- it would seem that the general public does think there are correlations to the state and free-markets. So to them, if you attack the possibility of there being a state, you attack the free-market.

If we can't agree to a term, than there is no value in using it. If we're just going to constantly argue over what terms mean, than there is no real value to this discussion, as far as i'm concerned.

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.

 

[Bryan]

so if only landowners signed a contract with the state consenting to follow the state's laws, should non landowners be outside of the state's jurisdiction?

That would depend upon the terms in which they agreed to when entering the private property.