Libertarians Are Worthless IF......

AutoDas said:
We already have a closed border policy that somehow lets millions of so called illegals into this country already so why are you bitching at us? It's your xenophobic policies that have failed because libertarians do not constitute a majority in this country otherwise we would not just have open borders but no entitlement programs to entice unskilled labor. Libertarianism is against a national border because it hinders free trade and the Government has no right to determine who is allowed into this country, but it respects property rights so long as you can defend your property from these invaders.
Click to expand...

this is from anarcho-capitalism, not libertarianism.
 
erika said:
Interestingly enough it's in the Communist Manifesto to erase borders.

Also in their is that a central bank is needed.

Thanks (fools)libertarians. No wonder you're not popular here.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. Communists seek to erase borders in order to create a communist state. Libertarians seek to diminish the power of the state to its legitimate functions. You sound more like a troll all the time, erika. Here's some Bastiat for you to read-http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/

Get back to us when you do your reading on Libertarianism and grow out of your silly ad hominem attacks, empty rhetoric, fallacies, and false claims.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to pose the question, to those who support controlled borders : what exactly is negative about open borders?
 
As long as protective tariffs the welfare state and forced integration are in place, open borders are akin to national suicide.:)
 
Number19 said:
I'd like to pose the question, to those who support controlled borders : what exactly is negative about open borders?
Click to expand...

In itself, nothing. However, in the modern world, some men desire tyranny. They would exploit the weakness of the inherent anarchy of a borderless world to instill fear in the masses. This tool would be used to make people DEMAND a one-world government of some sort.

The benefit of borders is that it promotes private ownership by giving people a sense that such and such land is "theirs". An organized state only becomes a problem only when governments organize to rule over people. (IMHO)
 
heavenlyboy34 said:
In itself, nothing. However, in the modern world, some men desire tyranny. They would exploit the weakness of the inherent anarchy of a borderless world to instill fear in the masses. This tool would be used to make people DEMAND a one-world government of some sort.

The benefit of borders is that it promotes private ownership by giving people a sense that such and such land is "theirs". An organized state only becomes a problem only when governments organize to rule over people. (IMHO)
Click to expand...
I'm not an anarchist. I guess I have a naive belief that free men and women are capable of keeping their freedom.
 
Number19 said:
I'd like to pose the question, to those who support controlled borders : what exactly is negative about open borders?
Click to expand...

Unchecked movement of criminals and dangerous materials.

Unchecked movement of destructive and invasive species.

Unchecked movement of communicable pathogens.

Unchecked mass human migrations, which can adversely effect environmental carrying capacity, and existing social order.
 
SeanEdwards said:
Unchecked movement of criminals and dangerous materials.

Unchecked movement of destructive and invasive species.

Unchecked movement of communicable pathogens.

Unchecked mass human migrations, which can adversely effect environmental carrying capacity, and existing social order.
Click to expand...
Something substantive. Thanks for the input.

Criminals and dangerous materials? This is not a concern to me.

Human migration, carrying capacity, social order? Not a concern.

Communicable pathogens? A little more thought here; but not a concern. I have "faith" ( I generally don't like to use this word ) in the field of medicine to control problems here.

Move of destructive and invasive species? Now this is something I haven't heard before. Being in an area that has a bad fire ant problem, this gives me pause to think twice. Still, I don't think it is a good enough reason to take away an individuals inherent freedom. Controlled borders work in two directions.
 
It could be devastating if someone immigrated in who had a devastating new disease that transferred person-to-person.

The trouble is that even under "closed" borders, there would be no way to prevent a swarm of immigrants trying to escape the plague who may or may not already be infected.
 
SeanEdwards said:
Unchecked movement of criminals and dangerous materials.

Unchecked movement of destructive and invasive species.

Unchecked movement of communicable pathogens.

Unchecked mass human migrations, which can adversely effect environmental carrying capacity, and existing social order.
Click to expand...


This kludge charactor is a vile globalist scumbag. imho
 
erika said:
If it doesn't negatively impact and hurt other people, that could be acceptable possibly.
Click to expand...

Oh please explain that logic to me. LOL

You obviously have no understanding of basic economics.

Go read Economics in One Lesson. Educate yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Right-Wing Obtuseness on Immigration
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
15K
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
C
Why Libertarians Loathe Tariffs
Replies
3
Views
892
TheTexan
TheTexan
PAF
The Nervousness of Corporate Surveillance Pseudo-Libertarians
Replies
0
Views
776
PAF
PAF
Occam's Banana
"It's the communism, stupid."
Replies
0
Views
559
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
PAF
Javier Milei Versus the Antiwar Cause
Replies
7
Views
1K
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Back
Top