Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders?

[otherone]

That's a false dichotomy.

followed by irony.

 

[erowe1]

followed by irony.

Explain?

 

[otherone]

Explain?

You assumed that my prior comment claimed the LP was the only authority on libertarianism.
My ass-pulling comment was based on the dearth of ANY references in this thread.

 

[The Free Hornet]

When did I ever say I was for a "100% sealed border"? Hint: I didn't.

Your dichotomy is bullshit, zippo. It's nothing new to care about who entered the country, whether they were carrying any diseases, whether they could support themselves or were sponsored by another American, etc.

The false dichotomy is implied somewhat in the title of your effing thread. Or one might call it 'false association'. Maybe your cut-n-paste screed is intended to disuade people of a myth, but it reinforces the dichotomy.

Read, reread, and then summarize in YOUR OWN words the Banana Razor post guy:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Open-Borders&p=6079554&viewfull=1#post6079554

And your comment about "It used to be law." I'd site Poe's Law but unfortunately the odds of it being sarcasm are 0.0001%. Geesh!

 

[erowe1]

You assumed that my prior comment claimed the LP was the only authority on libertarianism.
My ass-pulling comment was based on the dearth of ANY references in this thread.

I didn't assume that. I only assumed that you treated the LP as AN authority on libertarianism, not that it was the only one.

In fact the LP has very little to do with libertarianism. If they happened to stumble onto a libertarian idea, it was probably an accident.

 

[Lord Xar]

It's the "angle" that every time the state reacts to people's fears, it's the liberty of it's own people that is violated.
Patriot Act
Gun Control
NSA
CIA
FBI
BLAH
BLAH
BLAH
BLAH
BLAH

Ok I am on board with this - I never wasn't. I never insinuated otherwise. But this is precarious situation.
IF we do NOT get rid of the welfare & dependency state while having very porous borders -- there is a
an issue there -- so, we continue the welfare/dependency AND open borders.... which, imho, means more
statism, never less. More lovers of statism, never less.

IF the controllers will not turn off the spiket, what choice is there? I can't answer that... but rather than advocating for
"SEAL THE BORDERS" -- I go the route of "TURN OFF THE SPIKET" -- that does not mean one wants to seal the borders.

 

[otherone]

I didn't assume that. I only assumed that you treated the LP as AN authority on libertarianism, not that it was the only one.

Then in what way did I create a false dichotomy?

 

[erowe1]

Then in what way did I create a false dichotomy?

The dichotomy between accepting the LP as an authority on libertarianism or else pulling something out of my ass was a false one.

 

[otherone]

The dichotomy between accepting the LP as an authority on libertarianism or else pulling something out of my ass was a false one.

WRONG. Hence my irony comment. I never claimed that. I never disputed anyone's SOURCE.
The ass comment was because there were NO sources cited. Don't like my LP source? FINE. REFERENCE ANOTHER. Otherwise, you're pulling it out of your ass.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Ok I am on board with this - I never wasn't. I never insinuated otherwise. But this is precarious situation.
IF we do NOT get rid of the welfare & dependency state while having very porous borders -- there is a
an issue there -- so, we continue the welfare/dependency AND open borders.... which, imho, means more
statism, never less. More lovers of statism, never less.

IF the controllers will not turn off the spiket, what choice is there? I can't answer that... but rather than advocating for
"SEAL THE BORDERS" -- I go the route of "TURN OFF THE SPIKET" -- that does not mean one wants to seal the borders.

Your apparent presumption is that those sealed off within the borders - a problem in and of itself - are favorably disposed to limited government. They're demonstrably not, unless you want to posit that the expansion of government over nigh 150 years has been a consequence specifically of immigration. I presume you do not.

While I sympathize with the idea that uninhibited immigration doesn't necessarily diminish the authority of the state, there doesn't seem to be anything which suggests it particularly empowers it. And while in an ideal world we'd see the retrenchment of the welfare state, I do not see any reason to advocate the retrenchment of the rights of the individual until further time as those particular goals are achieved. On those grounds, then, do you?

 

[erowe1]

FINE. REFERENCE ANOTHER. Otherwise, you're pulling it out of your ass.

And that right there is a false dichotomy.

See? I was right after all, as usual.

 

[angelatc]

Ok I am on board with this - I never wasn't. I never insinuated otherwise. But this is precarious situation.
IF we do NOT get rid of the welfare & dependency state while having very porous borders -- there is a
an issue there -- so, we continue the welfare/dependency AND open borders.... which, imho, means more
statism, never less. More lovers of statism, never less.

IF the controllers will not turn off the spiket, what choice is there? I can't answer that... but rather than advocating for
"SEAL THE BORDERS" -- I go the route of "TURN OFF THE SPIKET" -- that does not mean one wants to seal the borders.

Me too. I would much rather live in a nation with no welfare and open borders. But that isn't an option these days.

I hate what "closing the borders" entails. I means living in a "Papers, please!" environment. There really isn't a win/win to be had here.

 

[erowe1]

Me too. I would much rather live in a nation with no welfare and open borders.

I don't see why these are so often put together like this.

No welfare is always better than welfare, regardless if the borders are open or closed. And open borders are always better than closed borders, regardless if there's welfare or not.

The way to fix any government created problem is always to undo or reduce whatever government intervention caused it in the first place, not to add on top of it some new government solution that's going to cause more problems. And if you can't undo the first problem, it's still better not to add on those additional ones.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Me too. I would much rather live in a nation with no welfare and open borders. But that isn't an option these days.

I hate what "closing the borders" entails. I means living in a "Papers, please!" environment. There really isn't a win/win to be had here.

Strategically speaking, it strikes me as unwise for those with the proclivity to oppose the welfare state to instead call for closing the borders because of the unlikely possibility of the shrinking or abolition of the welfare state. That only serves to make the notion of eliminating the welfare state even more unrealistic, and what we're left with is an increase in state power and size, as you pointed out in your post - the opposite (presumably) of the wants of those who wish to see the welfare state wither away.

 

[angelatc]

Strategically speaking, it strikes me as unwise for those with the proclivity to oppose the welfare state to instead call for closing the borders because of the unlikely possibility of the shrinking or abolition of the welfare state. That only serves to make the notion of eliminating the welfare state even more unrealistic, and what we're left with is an increase in state power and size, as you pointed out in your post - the opposite (presumably) of the wants of those who wish to see the welfare state wither away.

Strategically speaking, it strikes me as unwise for those with the proclivity to oppose secured borders to instead call for ignoring or bankrupting the welfare state because of the unlikely possibility of the shrinking or abolition of the welfare state.

Adding more citizens to the benefits list only serves to make the notion of eliminating the welfare state even more unrealistic, and what we're left with is an increase in state power and size, as you pointed out in your post - the opposite (presumably) of the wants of those who wish to see the welfare state wither away.

 

[angelatc]

I

The way to fix any government created problem is always to undo or reduce whatever government intervention caused it in the first place, not to add on top of it some new government solution that's going to cause more problems. And if you can't undo the first problem, it's still better not to add on those additional ones.

But we already have a welfare state and an immigration policy. The only thing that's getting added are welfare recipients.

 

[The Gold Standard]

Adding more citizens to the benefits list only serves to make the notion of eliminating the welfare state even more unrealistic

Actually, it is the only way to make it realistic. Make it so big the government bankrupts itself. And you can accomplish that without violating the rights of everyone already here any further by checking their papers and keeping them from leaving.

 

[navy-vet]

Maybe some feel it's better to try to fix what we already have, rather than hope we get something better from the rubble of a collapse.

Yes sir, I'm in that boat myself.

 

[misterx]

How do you justify mixing together home and nation like that? The one is a person's property. The other isn't. What right do I have to dictate to other people in my nation whom they can and can't allow onto their own property?

That's exactly what you're trying to do though. If you want to live in Mexico then move there instead of forcing the rest of us to change our country into Mexico. Why don't you just admit that you don't believe in nations. You are opposed to the very idea of the nation state, and your only aim is to dismantle it. You are a marxist disguised as a libertarian.

 

[misterx]

And that right there is a false dichotomy.

See? I was right after all, as usual.

Your arrogance is unbecoming.