Immigration and Donald Trump and the Anarchists who are sure they're right but actually dead-wrong 😃
So, Donald Trump thinks XYZ thing about immigration.
Liberals hate it, conservatives generally agree with it. Anarchists (and I mean voluntary-anarchists, in the mold of @larkenrose etc) typically also oppose it. On the grounds that it's a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle to restrict someone from traveling to somewhere.
But they're wrong. They're incorrectly applying the NAP.
The violation of the NAP is the government's claim to ownership over the land in the first place.
If you accept their claim as valid, then it follows that they can decide who can enter, even at arbitrary, in the same way you can decide who enters your house.
So the disagreement should be at the root of where they claim ownership (that no, George Washington sticking a flag in the ground 300 years ago doesn't somehow constitute legitimate ownership for this group of people).
With some heroic exceptions, like those of @stefan.molyneux, the anarchist community seems to generally miss the mark on this topic.
From the prism of accepting the state's claim to ownership over the land, you can have your opinions about Trump's policies and subjectively prefer different ones, but the only objective case you have is at the point where the US government claims the land.
After that it's essentially like installing traffic lights on the roads.
Your point of objection is when they taxed to fund the roads. After that, it follows that they (the owner of the roads) can make the rules for them. (And you actually prefer that they do, because taxing and then not making vaguely decent rules for the road would be even worse.)
Same with immigration. One central body claiming to own billions of acres of land is absurd. But it doesn't mean stripping them of the mechanism to filter access (which is naturally attached to the idea of ownership) would be better.
Voluntary World
Consider that in a voluntary society there would be some mechanism to determine who can enter.
There are different ways to visualize what a voluntary world would look like, and nobody really knows. But you wouldn't want it to be like people join your community willy nilly, with no mechanism to filter out bad apples or to select for the people who fit best.
A side-effect of the US government claiming all this land is that they have a large tax base and are using it to make lots of enemies around the world. So stripping them of the ability to filter access (going after this symptom rather than the root of where they initiate aggression) seems like an accident and really bad outcomes waiting to happen. You have to attack the root, or it's not balanced.
The NAP is a silly philosophical abstraction when it's applied to land. Historically, even in the absence of a state, people of similar biology (i.e. race) voluntarily organize to unofficially form a nation (a nation is not a state), and a nation claims ownership of land. (Yes, nations are formed at a primitive level, although America has strived to create a nation based on principles following the 1965 immigration act, but I digress).
A nation keeps other nations (tribes) out of their land. Group ownership of land has always existed to some degree and will always exist to some degree. What most anarchists don't seem to understand is that even if they some how eliminate the state, they will never eliminate nations.
People will organize and people will determine who can come onto the land and who cannot. And the people who don't organize will get run over and plundered by the people who do organize and want your wealth and resources. The best shot an anarcho-community would have to remain an anarcho-community would be to form an anglo-saxon style militia.
The ancappers are little too holier-than-thou with their philosophical abstractions, and you don't hear very many pragmatic solutions in anticipation to real problems that their community would face.
When an anarchists refuses to admit that they will have to still be a part of some kind of nation, it just becomes magical thinking.
The correct way to be in anarchist is to ask "How can we form a nation, without that nation becoming a state?" From there, we can start talking about technology etc.
One more thing:
If the state did stop enforcing the border (like literally stopped enforcing it, the way these anarchists want, which is different than even what most liberals want), it probably would end the state, in the sense that the tax revenue is gobbled up immediately.
And it would be chaotic. And a different state would re-form, because that's the mindset of the people right now. And it would probably be much worse than now.
It's basically a softer version of the way other "anarchists" throw rocks thru windows and stuff, and expect real change to happen that way.
Oh man this made me laugh, to the point of shedding a tear.
I started looking at some of your older posts to get a better idea of your views. I prob won't be able to look at much of it as I'm rather "limited" in my time. Caring for babies is a very time consuming endeavor, well worth it though.
This was a very interesting dialog. I really appreciate how open minded and logically consistent your interactions go. That is a fairly rare quality these days. I would probably engage in much more conversations with people on "meaningful" subjects if more people were willing to utilize your approach.
I have not "studied" the NAP, but believe that I have at least a rudimentary understanding of it. As far as I understand I agree with it, but where people get confused i think is the interpretation of aggression.
Like in the strip club analogy. If someone was to purchase land in a community under false pretenses and then turn around and start a strip club or a brothel, where it wasn't welcomed. Wouldn't that be aggression against their neighbors property? Would it not in turn open the door for retaliatory aggression against the original offender? I don't personally see this as violating the NAP.
I just couldn't imagine people would every be able to live in close proximity without agreeing to abide by some level of voluntary restraint concerning their property. Now out in the country if it's 40 or 100 ache plots or something, it may be a different story. But still if someone was bringing "troublemakers" into a community(without personally dealing with them), that would also be a violation of the NAP and would give grounds for people to act in defense.
Of course this is just my thoughts on NAP. What do you think? Am I not understanding the NAP?
I think you're understanding it correctly.
One thing is that it will be so easy for the strip club people to go where they're perfectly welcome, like it doesn't make any practical sense to build it where they stick out like sore thumb and where they aren't welcome. (Some potential customers might feel weird about pulling up in a suburban neighborhood.) It would be better to have it in a different type of area. So whether or not it's an act of aggression, it probably isn't wise. Whatever you're doing to lower their property values probably isn't a +EV economic decision for you either.
And especially in the future you could even use blockchains to prove residence in a certain area and how you feel about a business being next to you, and it could be a criteria that people considered, as a way of essentially doing p2p zoning. (Like knowing that there isn't a govt doing it, we'd know we should be sensitive to this metric.)
It just depends what exactly a stateless world looks like.
I tend to think land could be collectively owned, like it's voluntary to be a part of that collective, but you own it as whole communities. And so then there's just some internal mechanism that they'd have in place that they use to determine what is built where. And if it didn't have overall consensus then they'd just know they couldn't build it.
The NAP basically just means it's never correct to initiate aggression. I have a hard time seeing the strip club thing as an act of aggression, but it probably would always break a protocol or norm of a decentralized community and be "governed" by those plus the natural incentives of it probably not being a +EV idea.
I tend to think like 20 levels into things. So I thought of a bunch of reasons it could be considered aggression primarily because what I would perceive a "Strip club" would be in that sort of world, and who it would draw in.(Which prob isn't fair, nor accurate.) But those are all theoretical and it would take far to long to write out...
So If I may present a a simpler scenario...
A new guy moves in next door. He proceeds to throw massive parties, blaring very loud music all throughout the night. This prevents you from being able to sleep, mixed with the fear that his unruly highly intoxicated/high guests will attempt to harm those in the neighborhood. The people have tried to plead with him to stop this but he refuses stating that it's his house and he can do what he pleases, and it's not his fault what his friends do to anyone else.
Is it acceptable for the neighborhood to react with aggression to his (psychological?) act of aggression to them?
Ok, so ya, something like "stripper comes outside drunk and naked in front of 10-year-olds playing football" is a specific thing that might correctly be considered an act of aggression. I was taking "the strip club situation" more generically as just an example of something that's built that most people don't want to be built.
I think generally speaking you'd firstly want to regard this person as a nuisance and anti-social etc. Someone who is a disturbance to other people. And so (1) if it's a situation where land is collectively owned/used by a group of people like I described before, the consequence for him would be he won't be welcome in this group anymore and will have to leave. If (2) it's like we all own individual plots of land, then there'd probably be a need for a robust social ratings score. And maybe like when it's shown to the utilities companies who provide water and electricity to these houses, that look, everyone is pissed off (and maybe you prove that this music playing is really occurring, so that they know it's not just a baseless conspiracy), maybe the utility company knows that they should cut him off, and if they don't that the rest of the neighborhood will be ready to switch providers.
So whether or not his music playing would be an act of aggression....
Even if it isn't, it's still the kind of thing that's disturbing and generally not desirable and should be dealt with. You wouldn't have to respond with an act of aggression (you don't need to fight fire with fire even if it was an act of aggression), but you could respond with peaceful mechanisms that discourage the behavior and make it impractical.
Basically, it's naturally against your interests to do things that make life worse for other people. The state basically provides sanctuary for people to be #*%@s. But when we're living freely and p2p you basically have every reason in the world not to want to piss off your fellow people.
These mechanisms to encourage the right behavior would be important even for more nuanced and subjective things like what degree of nudity a community finds acceptable. Different communities will probably have different standards, and even if there isn't an objective "right" way to do it, it seems bad to walk around naked in a community who doesn't want it. So you'd want some way of socially enforcing whatever is thought to be improper behavior.
And this music player for example can find somewhere to live where they don't mind loud music at all hours of the night.
The music thing maybe could technically be considered an act of aggression, because the sound waves are physically occurring. (A more extreme example would eventually reach the point where it hurts your ears.) But even if it's not, it's still something that would need to be dealt with. If you did want to respond with aggression, I think taking away their stereo equipment seems justifiable. (But then they can just buy more; so having a social mechanism in place to police this stuff is more important and the better way to stomp it out.)
Good point. So I wonder, if the government would ever dissolve is the land divided amongst the populace?
Hmm, good question.
I think basically (say you flip a switch and the government dissolves overnight -- which isn't realistic, but suppose), seems like it would make the most sense that everyone keeps their current property claims, with the only difference being that now you actually own it and don't owe property taxes to anyone.
And then all unclaimed land is up for grabs, and now can be settled and used without having to pay the government for it.
(Which I actually think is really important, like near and dear to my heart.)
There maybe would be no such thing as poverty, almost overnight, if you could settle new land without having to buy it first, which is the natural order of things. The worst case scenario is you and your friends go somewhere and grow food, and you have the beginning of a sustainable community.
But in today's world that's thrown out of balance, because you randomly have to pay the government if ever you were to start fresh somewhere.
Yeah, man. Lit article again. :D
Generally, imo the world should be a place where nearly everyone can be/go anywhere he wants to because non of us owns the world and borders/states... were created by humans. Of course this is just a probably (nearly/quite) impossible "wish-situation", wishful thinking. Why? Because the world is far away from this perfect situation/status. Everyone would have to be nice/friendly/cooperative/social... no one must have the "desire and respectively intention" to hurt or kill anyone else and so on.
I think you know what I am trying to tell here. It is way too unrealistic (, right now haha).
So that is why "filtering" is important, on our planet, I guess.
However, I mostly agree with you bro!
Thanks!
I agree!
BUT..
The way we get this situation, where everyone can go everywhere, is to dissolve of the idea that these people own the land.
After the fact of them owning it, it's just a function of what ownership entails that they can restrict access to it.
And they can even do other things internally, like make you pay if you want to claim unused land somewhere, which is kind of like a softer version of restricting.
Sort of. But eventually there comes a point where there's an overwhelming incentive to be peaceful. And if people are treated peacefully (especially as children) they're very unlikely to want to be violent. So the eggshell peels pretty quick.
And the few bad apples can just be dealt with and barred from civil society somehow. We don't need to institutionalize layers of violence just because there may never be absolutely no violence everywhere.
Cheers Gandalf!
As always, you are welcome!
But it is not only the government, but I know what you mean. Ownership originated thousands of years ago - and I dont think that it is bad; I think it is necessary and good. You need your own area where you can chill (you want an own house maybe even with a garden and so on)... but we are probably talking about ownership regarding the politicians etc. - the "powerful people"; borders and stuff.
However, I have to mention that those people do not own the land and they do not rule it (I mean, often there is the law which says what is allowed and what is not; and "we" created the law - but you cannot generalize that because some states are/were not that democratic while making law, I believe).
Ah, I am sorry. That is too sketchy right now. I am just throwing some phrases/words around haha - this topic is very difficult/special. It probably would take me hours to write all my thoughts down. ;D
Presumably "consensus" would be a keyword here.
Some laws need to be "re-issued".
All in all, I fully understand you and share your opinion. Although I am writing quite unstructured right now...
And yeah, there will never only be peace - at least it seems very surreal to me haha.
Cheers!
Oh, it's all good, it's fine to throw out loose thoughts sometimes! And I sort of follow.
"Ownership" of land is an interesting topic
Unlike other things like pencils and automobiles, the land is just here. It's not created by anyone, it's not a byproduct of anyone's life energy. So I actually don't think it necessarily follows the same rules as pencils and automobiles, and subscribe to the idea that you "claim" land when you actively use it.
You claim the right to use the land, but not to own it per se in the same way that we own a pencil (usually it will work out the same, but I think with some exceptions in the outermost circumstances).
I actually tend to think that a voluntary world would result in collective "ownership" (use) of land. Whatever community you're a part of uses the land, and then inside of that, you know "ok, john sleeps over there" and keep track of it casually similar to what you'd do in a family environment.
Haha, good.
Indeed.
Uhm... Yeah we do not own it for real, but we own it if we are the owner (at least law says so - of course in a more formal way haha).
"I actually tend to think that a voluntary world would result in collective "ownership" (use) of land. Whatever community you're a part of uses the land, and then inside of that, you know "ok, john sleeps over there" and keep track of it casually similar to what you'd do in a family environment."
Yeah, that is right. We only say that a certain person/the state... owns a part of the land because we need to live/work/... somewhere. And of course because of some other reasons, eg. structural reasons (person A lives there, person B next to him,...).
your views are definitely never boring, or conventional, man. I'll give you that.
ya! seems accurate, lol
Just like Trump says “use common sense” You definately have to have control over who enters the country and who doesn’t. You have a great points here. I completely agree with you!
Thanks milano! It's a sort of obscure topic, but I think really interesting. It's surprising to me how often anarchists/libertarians tend to jump to the wrong conclusion with this stuff.
Hihihi😁
Sometimes I want to see donald trump on horseback, surely many people also want to see it.
Good job bro
you're just BEGGING for me to get on my photoshop game 😄
You mean I just use your post to get paid😆
Ohhh, nonono. "begging" sounded like that, but no... so like, I know English probably isn't your first language...
"begging" doesn't always mean begging for money
I meant that when I read your post, I was really tempted to make a photoshop image of Trump on a horse.
(you were "begging" me to create that funny image. sorry for the confusion.)
Of course you DO want to get paid 😄😄 but that's not what I meant, I didn't mean you were begging in that sense.
Sometimes everyone thinks not like you, those who do not appreciate someone's business.
But you can get a little positive about it all, very good thought your friends
Sometimes I think so but I also have to work with my ability
you do a good job and I get it!
Thank you very much,
Your words motivate me to struggle👍👏👏
@full-measure Thanks for sharing your ideas in this post. Well the American nation has developed in function to the immigration motivated to the American dream. Donald Trump is a descendant of those first immigrants. So it's a complex and difficult issue to deal with. Best regards.
best regards to you too @felixgarcia! thanks for stopping by
Amazing post mr. @full-measure
Nice👍
Wow ...Really very beautiful your post [email protected] for sharing steemit
sooo many pretty word in the post.keep it up.hope everyone will be like on this.go ahead
tyyyy 😊😊 i so pretty 🌸🌼🌺