Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders?

[AmericanSpartan]

By "the country" you mean the federal government.

Yeah, I want that to fail.

And what happens with those 30 million illegals? Do you think they will support Liberty or a tyrannical goverment that gives them free stuff?

 

[AmericanSpartan]

The country, as led by the natives, with their voting habits, is doing just swell, amiright?

Donald Trump is about to be nominated by the white Anglo-Saxon protestant worthies of our party.

..while don Hillary'll be nominated by the donkey party.

Freedom..................................................................

So lets make it worst by importing welfare voters, amright?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Ask the Cherokee or Apache people what they think of "open borders".

 

[angelatc]

Ask the Cherokee or Apache people what they think of "open borders".

Its ok. We "gave" them some land to live on. And casinos!

 

[thoughtomator]

Replies in underlined bold. I think you're confusing libertarian for minarchist.

I'm not confusing libertarian for minarchist. You and others who are not comprehending what I am saying are confusing libertarian for something other than minarchist. A libertarian would be a subset of minarchist, should any other types of minarchist (not motivated by preservation of liberty) actually exist.

Let's make this simple.


If you are a libertarian you are a minarchist.

If you are an anarchist you are not a libertarian.

If you are a libertarian you are not an anarchist.



Why anarchists are so dissatisfied with being called anarchists is beyond me; you believe it, you should own it. Regardless, what you are not allowed to do is redefine a very distinct and different term to shoehorn it into your belief system because it has more positive connotations than the correct word for your beliefs.

A libertarian is someone who believes the fundamental principle expressed in the Declaration of Independence: that government should exist for the sole purpose of protection of liberty - and should have no other role. NOT that government shouldn't exist at all. Yes this requires a monopoly on the lawful use of violence within a defined territory (which is the definition of sovereignty). This is the "necessary evil" part of the libertarian description of government.

What makes it necessary is that this arrangement provides for maximum human liberty, far more than the every-man-for-himself anarchist approach, where the only liberty you really have is your natural right to violence. Which will make for a bloody affair, by the way, as everyone else will also have theirs as well, and if you understand human beings at all you know they will use it liberally and without conscience.

If you believe government should not exist at all, there is a perfectly good word already available for you to use: "anarchist". It literally means absence of government, and if that's what you believe in, that's what you are.


Also, "individual sovereignty" is the same thing as anarchism, it's just a more complicated way to say it.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

Blah, blah, blah. Another useful idiot to the globalists.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Its ok. We "gave" them some land to live on. And casinos!

I think we made them build their own casinos though. And then told them what kinds of gambling they were and were not allowed to do in them.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

Its ok. We "gave" them some land to live on. And casinos!

So you assume because we took mercy on them and allowed them to exist the same thing will happen to us?

Why not avoid being put in such a position to begin with.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

I'm not confusing libertarian for minarchist. You and others who are not comprehending what I am saying are confusing libertarian for something other than minarchist. A libertarian would be a subset of minarchist, should any other types of minarchist (not motivated by preservation of liberty) actually exist.

Let's make this simple.


If you are a libertarian you are a minarchist.

If you are an anarchist you are not a libertarian.

If you are a libertarian you are not an anarchist.



Why anarchists are so dissatisfied with being called anarchists is beyond me; you believe it, you should own it. Regardless, what you are not allowed to do is redefine a very distinct and different term to shoehorn it into your belief system because it has more positive connotations than the correct word for your beliefs.

A libertarian is someone who believes the fundamental principle expressed in the Declaration of Independence: that government should exist for the sole purpose of protection of liberty - and should have no other role. NOT that government shouldn't exist at all. Yes this requires a monopoly on the lawful use of violence within a defined territory (which is the definition of sovereignty). This is the "necessary evil" part of the libertarian description of government. What makes it necessary is that this arrangement provides for maximum human liberty, far more than the every-man-for-himself anarchist approach.

If you believe government should not exist at all, there is a perfectly good word already available for you to use: "anarchist". It literally means absence of government, and if that's what you believe in, that's what you are.


Also, "individual sovereignty" is the same thing as anarchism, it's just a more complicated way to say it.

I do not understand how people can not understand the difference?

 

[otherone]

So you assume because we took mercy on them and allowed them to exist the same thing will happen to us?

lol

 

[AmericanSpartan]

lol

Yeah, because stating history and not wanting to repeating makes a person a Fascist.

 

[thoughtomator]

I do not understand how people can not understand the difference?

They want YOU to not understand the difference so as to attempt to convert libertarians to the anarchist cause. Sadly, the defense of liberty also requires wariness of ideologies which may have a lot of surface appeal, before you consider how exactly they may play out in the real world.

Personally I think most anarchists are just staggeringly naive about human nature. They think their anarchic world will mean liberty for them, rather than being the express superhighway to another form of tyranny. It should be self-evident... after all, look at the tyrannies people are crying out for in the absence of lawful government. A deliberate absence thereof would be nothing but a very brief interregnum, all it really represents is a random roll of the dice. Given that human nature leads most probably to pretty nasty outcomes and that the concept of liberty itself is a grand achievement of humanity that took nearly our entire existence to express in clear terms, the outcome of anarchy is astronomically unlikely to result in liberty.

Anarchists don't understand this, and view themselves as more liberty-oriented than minarchists, when they are really simply not well-versed in just how ugly human behavior is in our natural state and how forbidding to liberty such a situation would genuinely be.

 

[otherone]

Yeah, because stating history and not wanting to repeating makes a person a Fascist.

Nah, bro.
You said "we" in reference to events that happened over a century ago. The fascinating thing is that you have positive rep on THIS site. Trump might get elected yet.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

Nah, bro.
You said "we" in reference to events that happened over a century ago. The fascinating thing is that you have positive rep on THIS site. Trump might get elected yet.

Yes, I do as open border/mass immigration only destroys a nation.

 

[thoughtomator]

Nobody took any mercy on the natives of this continent. When we got here they ruled a third of the world's land mass, now their culture exists only in a grossly stunted form on tiny aboriginal reservations carved from the worst lands that could be ceded to them. Every agreement they made with Europeans was broken, without exception.

It should be a warning to anyone who would welcome a wholly foreign culture to a) take root here; and b) outpopulate the people who were here when they arrived.

The American Indians are an object lesson in how immigration can go very very very wrong, and why open borders is a suicidal policy. They had open borders - now they're gone. So will you be, if you have the same.

 

[Wilf]

The American Indians are an object lesson in how immigration can go very very very wrong, and why open borders is a suicidal policy. They had open borders - now they're gone. So will you be, if you have the same.

This has nothing to do with open borders. Instead, this has to do with the fact that the Americans indians chould adapt to the adversities that face their societies. No one says that the China collapsed because of open border but it was there conservative nature that prevented them to make reforms (reducing state agression) in order to compete with other countries.

 

[Cabal]

Enslavement, eh?

Like how we are all effectively indentured serfs to the State by way of taxation?

Human capital, eh?

As in tax livestock and cannon fodder for the State, with which it may continue to leverage greater, and greater sums of debt; with which it may continue to indefinitely perpetuate wars both domestically and internationally?

This same State whose borders (read: claim to property) you're trying to rationalize?

Or is that truth too inconvenient?

 

[Occam's Banana]

[Liberty] requires a monopoly on the lawful use of violence within a defined territory (which is the definition of sovereignty). This is the "necessary evil" part of the libertarian description of government.

What makes it necessary is that this arrangement provides for maximum human liberty, far more than the every-man-for-himself anarchist approach, where the only liberty you really have is your natural right to violence. Which will make for a bloody affair, by the way, as everyone else will also have theirs as well, and if you understand human beings at all you know they will use it liberally and without conscience.

Anarchists don't understand this, and view themselves as more liberty-oriented than minarchists, when they are really simply not well-versed in just how ugly human behavior is in our natural state and how forbidding to liberty such a situation would genuinely be.

The reason I find it impossible to take arguments like this seriously is that the people who make them so obviously do not take them seriously, either.

You can make as many breathlessly Hobbesian pronouncements on the matter as you like - but you don't get to have it both ways.

If what you are pleased to call (and to so contemptuously regard as) "human nature" is as ugly, vicious, conscienceless and "every man for himself"-ish as you need it to be in order to prop up your thesis, then it is grotesquely absurd to declare that this can be mitigated by placing sole and exclusive authority to employ violence in the hands of some few of those miserable wretches whose nature you say is so ugly, vicious, conscienceless and "every man for himself"-ish. Indeed, to the extent that "human nature" is as depraved as you assert, then far from the amelioration of the consequences of that nature, the existence of a monopoly on the use of force can serve only to aggravate and magnify those consequences ...

The debate between statists and anti-statists is in my judgement not evenly matched. Defending the continued existence of the state, despite having absolute certainty of a corresponding continuation of its intrinsic engagement in extortion, robbery, willful destruction of wealth, assault, kidnapping, murder, and countless other crimes, requires that one imagine non-state chaos, disorder, and death on a scale that non-state actors seem completely incapable of causing.

 

[thoughtomator]

Here is a very timely example of how migrants from a foreign culture destroy liberty, with specific respect to the topic of open borders.

In Europe, the "Schengen Area" is - or I should say was - exactly what the open-borders advocates on this thread hope for. Visa-less passage across national borders, no checks whatsoever, not even the showing of ID.

Well, thanks to their counterparts in Europe letting their minds be so open their brains fell out, opening the borders to foreign migrants has directly resulted in closed borders between similar cultures where there was previously conflict-free free passage.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35218921

Thanks to "open borders" insanity over there, the Schengen Area is rapidly falling apart, with border checks now going up in quite a number of European countries.

Yeah, open borders with culturally similar peoples IS good and DOES work. But note the prerequisite. Now in Europe, nations which are extremely friendly and culturally similar can no longer securely permit free passage thanks to the poison of the foreign culture being injected into the people stream.

Wake the hell up and cut out this "open borders" nonsense, if you value your own liberty.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

This has nothing to do with open borders. Instead, this has to do with the fact that the Americans indians chould adapt to the adversities that face their societies. No one says that the China collapsed because of open border but it was there conservative nature that prevented them to make reforms (reducing state agression) in order to compete with other countries.

Apples and Oranges.