Hornberger on the Hot Seat: Fleshing Out the Libertarian Position on Open Borders

[PAF]

One can only ever have an unconditional "right to travel" upon or across (or to access, use, etc.) land which is unimproved (i.e., land with which no others have mixed their labor).

Fed.gov sticking a sign in the ground that says "you are subject to arrest/search/seizure/getthefuckout", many hard-core restrictionists advocate for that precedent.

 

[TheTexan]

Fed.gov sticking a sign in the ground that says "you are subject to arrest/search/seizure/getthefuckout", many hard-core restrictionists advocate for that precedent.

"mixed labor" lol

Probably $5,000* at least to put in such a sign. That's a lot of labor

(*lets be real it would be way more than that)

 

[PAF]

"mixed labor" lol

Probably $5,000* at least to put in such a sign. That's a lot of labor

(*lets be real it would be way more than that)

May as well grow the fed.gov way bigger than it is, hire tons more government workers to do all of that mixed labor, raise taxes super-incredibly high to pay for it all, with the privilege/honor of having your papers be demanded.

And even if you don't travel to/from or live in that locale, you get the added privilege of knowing that your taxes went to a good cause.

 

[TheTexan]

May as well grow the fed.gov way bigger than it is, hire tons more government workers to all of that mixed labor, raise taxes super-incredibly high to pay for it all, with the privilege/honor of having your papers be demanded.

You're a smart guy, I assume you're familiar with the concept of local and global maximums.

It's possible to reduce something so that it can be increased later, and vice versa

 

[PAF]

You're a smart guy, I assume you're familiar with the concept of local and global maximums.

It's possible to reduce something so that it can be increased later, and vice versa

You're a smart guy too, so maybe you just forgot: Government always grows and has no interest in downsizing itself - unless it can be done "efficiently" by Technocrats in order to centralize even more power to the elites.

 

[TheTexan]

You're a smart guy too, so maybe you just forgot: Government always grows and has no interest in downsizing itself - unless it can be done "efficiently" by Technocrats in order to centralize even more power to the elites.

If government grows but the coloreds are kicked out

I consider that a fair trade

 

[Occam's Banana]

I wouldn't say the "right to travel" is unconditional. But I would say that you have an unconditional right to "travel with conditions".

One of those conditions might be that you pay $x to cover expenses associated with the right to travel. Or that you can only travel with an approved armed escort. (and pay for the privilege)

But to say that a property owner has an unconditional right to refuse someone's travel (besides some arbitrary distinction of "improved" or "unimproved"), would result in numerous situations where people are literally trapped and cannot leave. I'm against imprisonment in all of its forms -- and that's one of the forms. (I would add: this is basically what Israel is doing to Gaza)

If a property owner doesn't have such an unconditional right, then he is not really a property owner. The authority to include or exclude is fundamental to property rights, just as the liberty of (dis)association is fundamental to secession rights (in fact, those are really just manifestations of the same principle).

The problem of "imprisonment" is a possibility, of course - but I suspect it's likely to be a transient edge case that market incentives will find a way to resolve in one way or another (such as by your suggestion of paid escorts or the like). And when there are degenerate cases where that doesn't happen for whatever reason (such as the absence of any adequately functional market system), then (as always) either submission or forceful violence is the ultimate resort. In situations in which some agents (such as Israel, for example) are hell-bound and determined beyond all reason or incentives to the contrary to imprison (exterminate ?) others, then from where else shall the authority to enforce "travel with conditions" come?

 

[TheTexan]

If a property owner doesn't have such an unconditional right, then he is not really a property owner. The authority to include or exclude is fundamental to property rights, just as the liberty of (dis)association is fundamental to secession rights (in fact, those are really just manifestations of the same principle).

The problem of "imprisonment" is a possibility, of course - but I suspect it's likely to be a transient edge case that market incentives will find a way to resolve in one way or another (such as by your suggestion of paid escorts or the like). And when there are degenerate cases where that doesn't happen for whatever reason (such as the absence of any adequately functional market system), then (as always) either submission or forceful violence is the ultimate resort. In situations in which some agents (such as Israel, for example) are hell-bound and determined beyond all reason or incentives to the contrary to imprison (exterminate ?) others, then from where else shall the authority to enforce "travel with conditions" come?

If you like, you can consider it as very good advice to grant people an easement of necessity, rather than an "unconditional right".

Because as you rightly pointed out, there is always the implicit right to do what you feel is necessary and just deal with the consequences.

But then we get into the philosophical territory of rights don't exist and we're all just doing what we can get away with, which is definitely true - but also not very useful as a tool for modelling how society should function

Just as a general rule, if your behavior is putting people in a position where their only choice is to use violence against you, you're probably doing something wrong

 

[TheTexan]

If a property owner doesn't have such an unconditional right

I would also point out that there is no such thing as an unconditional right for anything.

There are exceptions and conditions for everything.

I'm obviously a huge fan of secession and even that isn't unconditional.

So no -- property owners don't have unconditional rights.

Because there is no such thing.