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

[Anti Federalist]

Glad to see the tax issue got brought up, since I cannot get around the fact that "taxation is theft".

Which is why, among other reasons, I am for no taxation and instead, am for tariffs.

 

[cjm]

Glad to see the tax issue got brought up, since I cannot get around the fact that "taxation is theft".

Which is why, among other reasons, I am for no taxation and instead, am for tariffs.

So if someone buys a piece of property in any of the United States today, do you consider that an acceptance of property tax and not theft?

 

[erowe1]

Secession seems to be the measure of how voluntary any organization or state is. If I buy land free and clear I can always include secession provisions in any contracts or covenants. But what if I buy land under a restrictive covenant where a state exists and one of the strings attached is that I have to pay property taxes on it? One might argue that since all property in today's world is subject to eminent domain and taxes, those purchase agreements are made under duress -- for what are the options?

All of the colonists here in Virginia purchased land under a restrictive covenant (eminent domain of the British Crown) but in 1776 decided to secede from that authority. Was that secession illegitimate? Sure, the Parliament was being a pain and King George wasn't any help, but Virginians were still subject to their original agreements, weren't they?

Sorry, no answers here, just more questions for folks to think about.

I think contracts like you described aren't valid since people made them under duress.

If I voluntarily enter a contract with my neighbors where we agree only to sell our properties to people who sign the same contract, then from the outset I think that contract would be valid and remain binding for those who voluntarily choose to buy property there in the future. But if I go to my neighbors with a gun and say, "Sign this contract or I'll kill you," then that contract is invalid, including any provisions that the property may only be sold to people who sign the contract in the future.

 

[erowe1]

I will stick with my original definition of "a group of individuals within a defined geographical area self-organizing as they see fit." And this can be completely voluntary based on my prior statement of "If someone laid claim to an unclaimed area, and then others did the same next to them, then they could voluntary agree to form a state."

OK. Well, that's not something I want to argue against.

But I don't think that definition meets the two criteria:
1) describes all entities the general public considers "states," (e.g. North Korea),
2) does not describe any entities the general public does not consider "states" (e.g. neighborhood associations).

 

[Deborah K]

I know you don't agree with NAFTA, but one of your statements was similar to the "they have a corrupt government, they should stay there and fix it" argument that I hear a lot. The point is that we shouldn't blame them for their corrupt government when it was our corrupt government that pressured them into taking anti-property rights actions that doubled their poverty rate and made their country much worse.. and there is literally nothing the people of their country could do because their military had the backing of the U.S. govt.

Basically your argument is that a people cannot be blamed for their corrupt government. Does that apply to us? Because I would disagree wholeheartedly with that assertion. How many times in history have people thrown off their government? It's happening in the middle east right now. And I have my doubts that the U.S. gov't would dare to quash a revolt in that country.

Where are your stats that the poverty rate has doubled since NAFTA?

 

[Kade]

Are there any takers that want to defend the position that there should be no state, or that borders should be open - regardless of other peoples desires? Or a similar position?

If so- please post up to engage in a dialog. Feel free to start off with posting definitions to any important terms such as "state" or what open borders means to you. You can also lead with adding in your position and I would appreciate it if you indicate if that position relates to the study of some philosopher.

Note: I will not moderate this thread, and encourage mods to allow for a good deal of latitude but there is no reason this shouldn't be civil.

So, who is up for it?

As always, I would be willing to defend the position of open borders.

 

[Kade]

Maybe the other voluntaryists/anarchists haven't taken up your challenge because you're a known provacateur; or maybe it's just been a slow day. Either way:

The state: an artificial and wholly unnatural construct whereby some arbitrarily defined assemblage of erstwhile individuals, willingly or otherwise, coalesce to form manufactured corporeal boundaries on the earth within which some elite group of the former claim absolute rule.

I don't think I need to go any further than that, really. That's the state, and that's it's borders. Utterly imaginary and nonsensical.

Proceed.

I don't remember Bryan being a provocateur.

In a previous thread, I discussed in minor depth the role of group rights versus individual rights. The concept of the State in this sense follows similar logic, about the protection of rights in general. I find it extremely ironic that "conservative" minded folks seem so willing to accept a State's role in preventing people from openly traveling and living where they please. These arguments tend to skim the borders of liberal and statist arguments for protections and benefits derived governments. You want a limited government, but you allow for a sizable force and physical infrastructure to limit the free movement of peoples. Interesting. Freedom is oft misunderstood methinks.

I'd like to hear the argument as it really stands: "I'm free to be _______ from these Mexicans, Chinese, etc..."

No you really don't. Remember how strongly these same people argued against my Freedom From Religion threads?

 

[Anti Federalist]

So if someone buys a piece of property in any of the United States today, do you consider that an acceptance of property tax and not theft?

No, it still equates to theft, of the worst sort, since it turns you into a serf, a tenant renter, a sharecropper on a government farm.

 

[Bryan]

I will stick with my original definition of "a group of individuals within a defined geographical area self-organizing as they see fit." And this can be completely voluntary based on my prior statement of "If someone laid claim to an unclaimed area, and then others did the same next to them, then they could voluntary agree to form a state."

OK. Well, that's not something I want to argue against.

So then we can agree that a state can be (but not always be) a voluntary agreement, and with that, it would be tyrannical to prevent those people from self-organizing, and thus, it is problematic to take a position of being strictly anti-state.

But I don't think that definition meets the two criteria:
1) describes all entities the general public considers "states," (e.g. North Korea),
2) does not describe any entities the general public does not consider "states" (e.g. neighborhood associations).

You're right, it doesn't describe all, just some. Certainly most states are not voluntary, some because you are prevented from leaving, others since there are no "reasonable" alternatives- see my prior post to ClayTrainor for a definition of that.

 

[Bryan]

But what happens if some of the people in the reasonable-alternative-area voluntarily decide to form a state?

Sorry I missed this prior. This is an excellent question. I think there is an axiom of morality that says "people who are born with a state, and declare their personal independence, that they need to be given "reasonable" alternatives to be free from the state contracts, or any state contracts at that, if they so choose."

This needs to be maintained. If at some point all the "reasonable-alternative" land is spoken for, then the state has one of three choices:
1) Pool together some resources to create new reasonable-alternative land.
2) Assure that the state only supports the liberty of those who wish to be free of it (see my prior listing of three kinds of states)
3) Endorse an ideology that produces war, and ignore the desires of those who wish to be free from the state contract.

The choice is theirs.

 

[erowe1]

So then we can agree that a state can be (but not always be) a voluntary agreement, and with that, it would be tyrannical to prevent those people from self-organizing, and thus, it is problematic to take a position of being strictly anti-state.

We agree that a state, as you have idiosyncratically defined the word, can be a voluntary agreement. This is tautological, since you have made the provision of being voluntary a part of your definition.

But if we were to return to your earlier mentioned goal of defining "state" in a way that fits with the usage of the general public, then no, I don't think we agree yet.

 

[Bryan]

We agree that a state, as you have idiosyncratically defined the word, can be a voluntary agreement. This is tautological, since you have made the provision of being voluntary a part of your definition.

But if we were to return to your earlier mentioned goal of defining "state" in a way that fits with the usage of the general public, then no, I don't think we agree yet.

It might be best to break down some of the common attributes of a state. By most accounts, a state can have some, or all of the following:

+ An executive or executive committee of some kind.
+ A system to create laws.
+ A system to catch / stop law breakers.
+ A court/justice/jail system to deal with law breakers.

Let me know if there is anything that should be added. What is important however is that all of these are sovereign, and not within the domain of another entity.

So the question is, can these things be mutually agreed upon by consent outside the context of another state? I say yes, based on the possibility of if someone laid claim to an unclaimed area, and then others did the same next to them, then they could voluntary agree to these terms, and they could call it a "state". Why could they not self organize? Why could they not call this a "state"?

I am proposing that this is a logic proof that a state can be voluntary. If you disagree, show that it is not possible for this to happen.

Further, if you ask someone in the general public if they want to have the above listed attributed you will get many affirmative responses. This is similar to people saying "I don't want anarchy", "there needs to be some law and order" -- these are statements people make indicating their constant to the attributes of a state, and ultimately, is part of their definition.

With this, I am proposing that a good part of the general public is willing to consent to a state, thus making it being voluntary a possibility.


I would further note, that people can define things how they wish, and if the general public wants to say that a state can be voluntary then so be it- that is their free choice. If anarchists/anti-statists want to define that a state must have involuntary elements to it, then that is their choice. The problem however is that if they use their language within the general population it will cause confusion because of the differences. Worse, it can be viewed in a negative light because by saying that you are "anti-state", to them it can mean that you are trying to prevent them from a voluntary association with a state, or an entity that has the above listed attributes.

I would further question any axiom that it is impossible for a state to be voluntary, and in some way must have some involuntary element to it. Why should it be necessary to have to include some involuntary element? Here's another example- we should agree that the USA is a state (in the broader sense). Say that everyone within the USA that did not voluntary agree to the state just disappeared, moved out, or whatever- thus only leaving people who agreed to the voluntary association with the USA, should it then no longer be considered a state? That doesn't make sense. As well, why can't one call it a state in the example of "if someone laid claim to an unclaimed area, and then others did the same next to them, then they could voluntary agree to terms of their choice." Would they have to force one person into involuntary association with it to rightfully call it a state? This just doesn't make sense either.


Don't get me wrong, this isn't cheerleading for tyranny, it's a matter of how you deal with the general public and on how you work towards solutions to the problems. If you talk with terms of being anti-state then you can become an enemy since you can be seen as making others vulnerable because you are perceived as wanting to deny them the ability to self-organize a defense. Further, if you advocate for the abolishment of the state they are in, you are attacking something that doesn't necessarily need to be attacked-- but that doesn't mean you submit to tyranny either, one has to understand good and acceptable solutions and articulate them as to why the situation is not just.

 

[Bryan]

Can anyone point to any anti-state, open border argument in this thread that hasn't been refuted?

Looking for more takers on the challenge...

 

[Sentient Void]

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.

 

[Wesker1982]

I need specifics. Please come back when you have time. Thanks!!

I know you replied to this, but I am a bit lost. I am not sure if I understand your answer to:

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?

 

[axiomata]

Can anyone point to any anti-state, open border argument in this thread that hasn't been refuted?

Looking for more takers on the challenge...

I will take the challenge if you change the terms such that the argument I must support allows for a minimalistic state and a liberal immigration policy requiring minimal checks into the criminal and health records of the immigrants.

 

[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.

To make this claim, please deconstruct this post, point for point:

It might be best to break down some of the common attributes of a state. By most accounts, a state can have some, or all of the following:

+ An executive or executive committee of some kind.
+ A system to create laws.
+ A system to catch / stop law breakers.
+ A court/justice/jail system to deal with law breakers.

Let me know if there is anything that should be added. What is important however is that all of these are sovereign, and not within the domain of another entity.

So the question is, can these things be mutually agreed upon by consent outside the context of another state? I say yes, based on the possibility of if someone laid claim to an unclaimed area, and then others did the same next to them, then they could voluntary agree to these terms, and they could call it a "state". Why could they not self organize? Why could they not call this a "state"?

I am proposing that this is a logic proof that a state can be voluntary. If you disagree, show that it is not possible for this to happen.

Further, if you ask someone in the general public if they want to have the above listed attributed you will get many affirmative responses. This is similar to people saying "I don't want anarchy", "there needs to be some law and order" -- these are statements people make indicating their constant to the attributes of a state, and ultimately, is part of their definition.

With this, I am proposing that a good part of the general public is willing to consent to a state, thus making it being voluntary a possibility.


I would further note, that people can define things how they wish, and if the general public wants to say that a state can be voluntary then so be it- that is their free choice. If anarchists/anti-statists want to define that a state must have involuntary elements to it, then that is their choice. The problem however is that if they use their language within the general population it will cause confusion because of the differences. Worse, it can be viewed in a negative light because by saying that you are "anti-state", to them it can mean that you are trying to prevent them from a voluntary association with a state, or an entity that has the above listed attributes.

I would further question any axiom that it is impossible for a state to be voluntary, and in some way must have some involuntary element to it. Why should it be necessary to have to include some involuntary element? Here's another example- we should agree that the USA is a state (in the broader sense). Say that everyone within the USA that did not voluntary agree to the state just disappeared, moved out, or whatever- thus only leaving people who agreed to the voluntary association with the USA, should it then no longer be considered a state? That doesn't make sense. As well, why can't one call it a state in the example of "if someone laid claim to an unclaimed area, and then others did the same next to them, then they could voluntary agree to terms of their choice." Would they have to force one person into involuntary association with it to rightfully call it a state? This just doesn't make sense either.


Don't get me wrong, this isn't cheerleading for tyranny, it's a matter of how you deal with the general public and on how you work towards solutions to the problems. If you talk with terms of being anti-state then you can become an enemy since you can be seen as making others vulnerable because you are perceived as wanting to deny them the ability to self-organize a defense. Further, if you advocate for the abolishment of the state they are in, you are attacking something that doesn't necessarily need to be attacked-- but that doesn't mean you submit to tyranny either, one has to understand good and acceptable solutions and articulate them as to why the situation is not just.

 

[Bryan]

I will take the challenge if you change the terms such that the argument I must support allows for a minimalistic state and a liberal immigration policy requiring minimal checks into the criminal and health records of the immigrants.

Fair enough. Proceed...

 

[Bryan]

I know you replied to this, but I am a bit lost. I am not sure if I understand your answer to:
The opponents to Open-Borders are arguing what, exactly?

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.

 

[Theocrat]

Some Involuntary Points to Consider

It might be best to break down some of the common attributes of a state. By most accounts, a state can have some, or all of the following:

+ An executive or executive committee of some kind.
+ A system to create laws.
+ A system to catch / stop law breakers.
+ A court/justice/jail system to deal with law breakers.

Let me know if there is anything that should be added. What is important however is that all of these are sovereign, and not within the domain of another entity.

So the question is, can these things be mutually agreed upon by consent outside the context of another state? I say yes, based on the possibility of if someone laid claim to an unclaimed area, and then others did the same next to them, then they could voluntary agree to these terms, and they could call it a "state". Why could they not self organize? Why could they not call this a "state"?

I am proposing that this is a logic proof that a state can be voluntary. If you disagree, show that it is not possible for this to happen.

Further, if you ask someone in the general public if they want to have the above listed attributed you will get many affirmative responses. This is similar to people saying "I don't want anarchy", "there needs to be some law and order" -- these are statements people make indicating their constant to the attributes of a state, and ultimately, is part of their definition.

With this, I am proposing that a good part of the general public is willing to consent to a state, thus making it being voluntary a possibility.


I would further note, that people can define things how they wish, and if the general public wants to say that a state can be voluntary then so be it- that is their free choice. If anarchists/anti-statists want to define that a state must have involuntary elements to it, then that is their choice. The problem however is that if they use their language within the general population it will cause confusion because of the differences. Worse, it can be viewed in a negative light because by saying that you are "anti-state", to them it can mean that you are trying to prevent them from a voluntary association with a state, or an entity that has the above listed attributes.

I would further question any axiom that it is impossible for a state to be voluntary, and in some way must have some involuntary element to it. Why should it be necessary to have to include some involuntary element? Here's another example- we should agree that the USA is a state (in the broader sense). Say that everyone within the USA that did not voluntary agree to the state just disappeared, moved out, or whatever- thus only leaving people who agreed to the voluntary association with the USA, should it then no longer be considered a state? That doesn't make sense. As well, why can't one call it a state in the example of "if someone laid claim to an unclaimed area, and then others did the same next to them, then they could voluntary agree to terms of their choice." Would they have to force one person into involuntary association with it to rightfully call it a state? This just doesn't make sense either.


Don't get me wrong, this isn't cheerleading for tyranny, it's a matter of how you deal with the general public and on how you work towards solutions to the problems. If you talk with terms of being anti-state then you can become an enemy since you can be seen as making others vulnerable because you are perceived as wanting to deny them the ability to self-organize a defense. Further, if you advocate for the abolishment of the state they are in, you are attacking something that doesn't necessarily need to be attacked-- but that doesn't mean you submit to tyranny either, one has to understand good and acceptable solutions and articulate them as to why the situation is not just.

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.

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.

I suppose anarchists see the problem in that if they choose to not pay taxes anymore, then the State comes in with a gun to force them to pay. That is where they see the involuntary element of the State. I actually think there are alternatives to what the penalties should be for not paying taxes, and I do not believe the State has to use force in order to get their tax revenues from those who would not pay them.

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.