Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders?

[Cabal]

Not offering illegals welfare is statism? Not offering illegals birthright citizenship is statism? Not allowing hordes of people to come over the border and
overrun the school & medical systems is statism?

No, your argument was that 'because welfare' we must accept State violence to those wishing to cross a State-defined land border--i.e. since <this> statism exists, we must have <that> statism, too, 'or else.'

Straw manning me isn't making you look any more intelligent, either, btw.

I believe history & pudding shows that what you strive for increases the power of the state, MUCH more than what I advocate.

You're advocating for more, sustained statism, so I'm not sure how you have conned yourself into believing that will decrease the power of the State. Your argument is quite literally a rationalization for the right of State violence. Or is it that you are advocating State violence while knowing it doesn't have the right? In which case, what would that make you?

 

[TheNewYorker]

when you subsidize something, you get more of it.

When the government provides a supply-side subsidy to the producers of a product, the supply curve shifts to the right and the demand curve remains the same. Because they are being subsidized, producers are encouraged to produce more of a product and are able to do so for less.

Because consumers will be paying less, producers can actually increase the price because producers can charge more and consumers are being artificially encouraged to purchase more products, producers are encouraged to produce more. The price and the quantity produced both increase.

 

[otherone]

Not offering illegals welfare is statism? Not offering illegals birthright citizenship is statism? Not allowing hordes of people to come over the border and
overrun the school & medical systems is statism?

Think a little deeper please, your ignorance is costing me money AND growing the power of the state.

I believe history & pudding shows that what you strive for increases the power of the state, MUCH more than what I advocate.

BULLSHIT. Theye will police YOUR immigrants by policing MY private business. "Conservative" idiots fail to grasp that this is EXACTLY like 2nd amendment restrictions. The criminals won't be affected; the law abiding will. Bend over and spread 'em, idiot.

 

[Dianne]

That was temporary housing for the wave of unacompanied children who came in last summer. Most are now in other housing such as charities or volunteers or deported.

You live in a fantasy world.. Not a one of those deported.

 

[Dianne]

Not offering illegals welfare is statism? Not offering illegals birthright citizenship is statism? Not allowing hordes of people to come over the border and
overrun the school & medical systems is statism?

Think a little deeper please, your ignorance is costing me money AND growing the power of the state.

I believe history & pudding shows that what you strive for increases the power of the state, MUCH more than what I advocate.

Wait until Cabal applies for social security benefits after paying into the system for 20 or 30 years, and the Republicrats tell him "Sorry son, we spent your money". Of course, by then they will be speaking in Spanish and he won't have a fricken clue what they are saying.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Wait until Cabal applies for social security benefits after paying into the system for 20 or 30 years, and the Republicrats tell him "Sorry son, we spent your money". Of course, by then they will be speaking in Spanish and he won't have a fricken clue what they are saying.

Maybe we need more illegal immigrants to help pay for that. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/29/how-immigrants-will-save-social-security.html

How Immigrants Will Save Social Security

Illegal immigrants have already paid about $1 trillion into social security. And that’s helping the system stay afloat.

Contrary to the myth advanced by opponents of reform that illegal immigrants don’t contribute their fair share in taxes, and drain government benefits, the reality is that undocumented workers are helping to keep the social security trust fund in the black. They do this because they are paying into the system typically with false social security numbers, which means they will never collect benefits. Their money, often collected for many years, helps keep the system afloat and benefits flowing to aging baby boomers.

 

[Cabal]

Wait until Cabal applies for social security benefits after paying into the system for 20 or 30 years, and the Republicrats tell him "Sorry son, we spent your money". Of course, by then they will be speaking in Spanish and he won't have a fricken clue what they are saying.

A. Social security has always been bad, and always will be bad on its own--just as any coercive redistribution of wealth is--regardless of how many Mexicans have or haven't crossed an imaginary border on a map.

B. Like Lord Xar, you're just straw manning. I'm not promoting welfarism. I'm not advocating welfarism. I'm not saying welfarism is good, or right. I'm very aware of the role that welfare and other externalities play in relating to this topic. I'm simply rejecting the nonsensical argument that <this> State violence justifies <that> State violence.

None of you seem to be able to reconcile that with your alleged promotion of liberty.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Wait until Cabal applies for social security benefits after paying into the system for 20 or 30 years, and the Republicrats tell him "Sorry son, we spent your money". Of course, by then they will be speaking in Spanish and he won't have a fricken clue what they are saying.

What a convincing argument.

If it saves my social security then pissing on rights is the way to go. Never mind me being robbed to pay for it in the first place, or that it was destined to fail from the beginning, or that anyone who put faith in the government were unfortunate and ignorant, or the modern branding of American workers/subsequent violation of rights by way of bastardizing contracts, it is possible welfare checks that ought decide ethics and morality.

And if everyone is speaking Spanish, they'd understand each other. Not to mention I communicate with many I can't understand through simple gestures.

And again social security is/was a failed, wealth redistributing, ponzi scheme that was ordained to fail. Call it God's wrath on evil practices if you want.

 

[DamianTV]

My two cents on the topic in general: Open Borders themselves are not the problem. Open Borders + Welfare is a BIG problem. So is Open Borders + a country that has pissed off nearly every other country on the planet to the point where we would end up in war with them very quickly is another damn big problem.

Flip the Coin.

Walls arent intended to keep Immigrants or other countries out, they will be put up to keep us in. Doors and walls work both ways.

 

[The Gold Standard]

My two cents on the topic in general: Open Borders themselves are not the problem. Open Borders + Welfare is a BIG problem. So is Open Borders + a country that has pissed off nearly every other country on the planet to the point where we would end up in war with them very quickly is another damn big problem.

Did you notice that those two problems you mentioned are big problems even if you leave out the words "open borders"?

 

[ProIndividual]

Nope, the NAP is the only MUST.

Also not a must. Been over this with you a lot. Doesn't seem to sink in. Libertarianism has more than one ethical theory, and some are amoralists (Stirner Egoists, some nihilists). What matters is the conclusions we draw, and therefore what actions we take, not what theory (or lack thereof) we use to arrive at those conclusions or actions. Someone who coerces a non-victimizers may espouse the NAP, but he isn't very libertarian (and some say they believe in the NAP and call for policies which clearly violate it - although they have their rationalizations, of course). Someone who never coerces a non-victimizer, no matter his theory (or lack thereof) in morality, is very libertarian (and some who don't believe in the NAP are the ones who aren't calling for policies that clearly violate it - with no rationalizations needed, of course). It's a philosophy, and an especially heterogeneous one.

This litmus test in theories is silly. Either you believe in voluntary association and not coercing the innocent, or you don't. The NAP is one avenue to those stances, not the only one.

 

[ProIndividual]

I don't believe in open borders. It's a form of theft.

See what I mean?

 

[Dr.3D]

Sure wouldn't want those Munchkins to cross the border and invade Fantasyland.

 

[ProIndividual]

Yes, the vacuum of anarchy just sucks in another form of government. One can learn from history that anarchy doesn't last very long. Even an anarchist who wishes to maintain anarchy and fights to keep it, would become the government they despise.

So let me get this straight....I force you, with guns to head, into a monopoly on law and defense. Then, it collapses. You blame anarchy for the chaos, not the threats of violence that kept out competing alternatives and which limit tort liability for the coerced monopoly and its cronies.

It's like saying I hold a gun to you and tell you that if you stand anywhere, or try to sit, but on a rug in the middle of the room, I'll shoot you. You can't stand off the rug, not even one foot. You can't sit on the rug or off of it. You can't hang a rope from the ceiling which you attach to a harness you have on, to protect you from a fall. Then I pull the rug out from underneath you, and you fall and break your tail bone. You blame the lack of rug, not the forced aspects that caused the injury. Meanwhile, if you had been allowed those alternative means of support, there would have been no chaotic fall when the rug was removed from under your feet/the room.

Stop blaming a lack of rug (lack of state). Blame the coerced monopoly on where you can stand (state), which inevitably ends badly. Go to the root of the problem, and quit the cult of statism already.

 

[Dr.3D]

So let me get this straight....I force you, with guns to head, into a monopoly on law and defense. Then, it collapses. You blame anarchy for the chaos, not the threats of violence that kept out competing alternatives and which limit tort liability for the coerced monopoly and its cronies.

It's like saying I hold a gun to you and tell you that if you stand anywhere, or try to sit, but on a rug in the middle of the room, I'll shoot you. You can't stand off the rug, not even one foot. You can't sit on the rug or off of it. You can't hang a rope from the ceiling which you attach to a harness you have on, to protect you from a fall. Then I pull the rug out from underneath you, and you fall and break your tail bone. You blame the lack of rug, not the forced aspects that caused the injury. Meanwhile, if you had been allowed those alternative means of support, there would have been no chaotic fall when the rug was removed from under your feet/the room.

Stop blaming a lack of rug (lack of state). Blame the coerced monopoly on where you can stand (state), which inevitably ends badly. Go to the root of the problem, and quit the cult of statism already.

Man, you lost me with the rug, floor etc... just say what you are trying to say, without all of extraneous garbage mixed in.

How can one fight to maintain a state of anarchy without losing that anarchy in the process?

 

[misterx]

No! You shouldn't force someone to accept people he doesn't want into his home or nation.

 

[Zippyjuan]

No! You shouldn't force someone to accept people he doesn't want into his home or nation.

How do we decide who gets accepted into the nation? Do we vote? Do we have to vote on everybody who applies to come here? Does that include those who want to come on vacation or to attend schools or work? You can decide who enters your home.

 

[Dr.3D]

How do we decide who gets accepted into the nation? Do we vote? Do we have to vote on everybody who applies to come here? Does that include those who want to come on vacation or to attend schools or work? You can decide who enters your home.

Well, when I visited Mexico, they put stickers on the windows of the car saying, "Tourist" Guess they didn't want the local police bothering the tourists.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Either you believe in voluntary association and not coercing the innocent, or you don't. The NAP is one avenue to those stances, not the only one.

Not coercing the innocent = not aggressing against non-aggressors = Non-Aggression Principle (NAP for short). It's all the same idea. Don't get lost in semantics.

 

[Lord Xar]

BULLSHIT. Theye will police YOUR immigrants by policing MY private business. "Conservative" idiots fail to grasp that this is EXACTLY like 2nd amendment restrictions. The criminals won't be affected; the law abiding will. Bend over and spread 'em, idiot.

Well, lets look at California - let that be your barometer... tool. And if you do not think there is a correlation between
open borders/welfare/progressivism and ANTI-LIBERTY, move out of your moms basement.