Get ready, this is going to be a tad less smooth and pretty, and a lot less gentle than some other stuff I write. And so should it be.
Here are 7 reasons I'm not for "closed borders"
(a euphemistic phrase which means: using the threat of deadly force to STOP people from moving from one patch of dirt to another patch):
~*~
1. I'm not an authoritarian collectivist who thinks an entire 3.8 million square miles of land is "mine", nor do I think an entire neighborhood block is "mine", nor do I think anything other than my body and the fruits of my labor, and my immediate property I live on are mine.
2. I defend against DIRECT, real, threats of force that happen directly TO ME.
3. I am not insane, so I DO NOT feel a need to defend against:
thought experiments where I imagine if some humans somewhere, who might be evil, might eventually move nearby me and might harass me.
4. I DO NOT think I need to defend against random individuals who I don't even know yet specifically, nor do I think I should go stand at a line in the dirt and use force to stop every single person who "looks like" whoever I think MIGHT someday try to harm me from moving from one patch of land to another.
5. I live in reality, where I wake up every day, and no one is aggressing against me, almost ever, EXCEPT where I run into the government itself, which IS the real enemy, as it impedes my movement by force, and uses force to make sure I pull over and stop what I'm doing in the middle of my day.
6. In the everyday reality I live in, I can plainly see the enemy for who they are--the aggressor is the one using actual force on me, and other slaves trying to move from their plantation to MINE do NOT deserve to be harassed, caged, or stopped, simply because they like the plantation I am on better than theirs. Nor do I believe I get to use force to stop them from moving over to 'relatively close by to me' simply because the Massuh might 'give them' some of the 'rewards' for being 'good' that the Massuh 'allows me'. I understand that iniating deadly force against another victim of the state because the master on this patch of dirt might give him some of what that master stole from EVERYONE on the plantation, is just as immoral as what the Master does.
7. My problem is the fucking masters, not the other slaves, and FEAR of other slaves and what they MIGHT DO, does not make it moral for me to join my Master OR CHEER HIM ON in using deadly force to stop other slaves from coming to the plantation I live on.
FUCK all "borders", fuck all WALLS around entire land masses backed by the guns of a ruling class; all humans are born with the right to be free.
Using FEAR of what some humans from some belief system MIGHT choose to do with their freedom as a REASON to use deadly force against A BUNCH OF STRANGERS I DO NOT KNOW, is called
VIOLATING FREE WILL, and IT IS WRONG.
You are NOT about freedom if you support FORCING a bunch of humans you do not know away from an entire half of a continent because a few of them might someday hurt someone.
~*~
Anyone in LIFE might someday hurt you. If it's about what some might someday do, you can justify slaughtering everyone else but yourself.
In the distance ... the sound of ... rustling jimmies.
I like it.
muh "Libertarian" Nationalism!!
Not voting for Trump then?
I need a big strong man like Trump to save me.
/sarcasm
I don't vote for other people to run my life or the lives of others.
It's part of this whole "being an adult" thing, with self responsibility.
Open borders combined w/a massive welfare state and democratic-wealth-redistribution system is a disaster...you should write an essay about what happens if/when people from foreign cultures who don't mesh w/the natives and who have little-to-no economic value (like the 10,000 Syrians the Obama admin just brought here) come to the USA and begin taking advantage of the many 'free' public services/welfare programs that exist and then begin voting to take the natives' property from them...
The disagreement between anarchists is, while the state exists, whether some state enforced border controls can be preferable to none at all.
I believe some such controls can be preferable. In the sense that there is likely to be a set of such controls, for every taxed population, that minimises injustice (beyond the injustices the state already creates).
Here's the idea: The indigenous population have preferences about who they wish to associate with. And who they would allow into their territory, if they were not ruled by the state. The closer the state border controls approximate the wishes of the subjugated population, the less injustice exists. By enforcing border policies that align with the preferences of the victim population, partial restitution is being given to that population. Which is better than no restitution at all.
I call it the argument from imperfect restitution. Kinsella put it like this:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/09/stephan-kinsella/a-simple-libertarian-argument/
Your post calls people who find this argument compelling 'immoral, fearful idiots' (me included) but hasn't addressed it.
One can be an anarchist but think that while the state exists, having border control would help to improve the citizens' lives in the short term. The problem is that having border control can also strengthen the state, and I am not willing to risk that.
That's possible. Whether any specific border control policy for any specific state will end up strengthening that state is an empirical question (about which reasonable people can disagree without name-calling).
Very true. I think it would in the case of the U.S. (but that's a separate argument) and I think it perpetuates nationalism and other current attitudes.
can't have freedom because collectivist coercion still exists? ... seems like faulty logic.
The time for justice/voluntary exchange is always right now. Not in the future when you think it's suitable for every party...If an anarchist is going to be consistent rather than a hypocritical statist, then they should promote voluntary exchanges at all time. Regardless of your fears.
I haven't made that claim. So that's a straw man.
I'm saying {state + state enforced border control} is not necessarily a less libertarian outcome than {state with 'open borders' policy}.
The time for restitution (part of justice) is right now too of course. And state border control can be a form of restitution to the people subject to that state's predations. A consistent anarchist needs to recognise that, regardless of their fears.
I'm down w/AnCaps, but far too many of them operate under the delusion that a stateless society already exists...
People aren't as uninvolved and unaffected as that. Immigration en masse is highly destructive. If someone breaks into your property using force to respond isn't groundless.
except a country isn't anyone's property, it is a geographical location in which some of the property is owned by private civilians and the other parts are unowned or claimed to be owned by a gang of criminals.
The state may be immoral, but it's still the state's property no? Legitimate question. And I think more than just a claim because they have the power to possess and enforce it.
My serious answer is it depends on what form of government your society has created. The USA enforces private property rights, you buy land, you own it, but we als have public land, like national parks, military bases, highways?
You cannot own land in the USA. You either pay rent to the government or armed thugs will take it from you.
no, the State does not legitimately own any property. Ownership comes about by either 1. Homesteading or 2. voluntary transaction. the State did not acquire ANY land through EITHER of those means.
The way you anarchists talk is sophistry of the highest order. Your entire school of thought assumes humans will act a certain way if there is no government when all evidence we have, see history, suggest the opposet reaction is in fact most likely.
Further you assume that believing in any government is a misdiagnosis of ethics, rather than an informed ethical choice.
You have just lived the same way for to long. Informed ethical choice? right so lets look at the history of the governments you are "ethically chosing" So every proxy war with the USA nd russia was part of that informed choice? 250,000 children being slaughtered by the U.S and U.K since the invasion was that part of the informed choice? How about Vietnam? 70 million native americans slaughtered? we have done it your way and it just causes mass murder.
The governing way has caused nothing but death and destruction. You can't give a small group of people power. It is dangerous. History suggest nothing if you haven't actually read any history. The native americans for the most part were doing pretty well without governing bodies till a bunch of people with a governing body decided to commit genocide.
China's genocide of 120 million i believe. The emperor was responsible. Your system is fucking shit and many have had enough. Anarchy is doing it without permission. So if i think something is unjust i do something about it regardless of law and regardless of who's governing. I have a royal family that bleed my nation dry. These systems are fucking poison and we have become far to accustom to it.
Pray tell, what do we assume humans will act like when there is no government? I generally assume humans will act like humans. Humans are capable of being assholes and are also capable of being decent human beings.
At least some of those parts claimed to be owned by the state (currently called 'public property') are the rightful property of those that the state taxes. So to the extent that the taxed would prefer a given immigrant demographic not to use their property state-imposed immigration restrictions with the same outcome are just - effectively partial restitution by the state towards its subjects.
... your property...
I wish I could upvote this 10 more times!! the "Closed Borders" camp literally make arguments that sound like arguments being made by a communist or being made by a normal Statist saying that we need government because somebody somewhere MIGHT commit an evil act.
I am a illegal immigrant and I support this....No Victim No Crime
Its so funny they want to build a wall, because you know they are laughing like we have 289 tunnels to get to your country :)
Nah, Trump just said we're developing "tunneling technology."
Thats what ground penetrating radar and explosives are for
@dragonanarchist
borders are silly because they are arbitarily drawn lines on a rock floating through a desolate space
I guess we all have our opinions, but my guess is Kate Steinle would disagree with you if she had survived the gun shot from Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. He was the undocumented felon that had been deported 5 times before that incident. Borders might not be the best thing, but then not all people have the high morals you do. If they did, we probably wouldn't have any crime in the first place.
Is it possible for an individual from one place to harm a person in another place? Yes, it might happen, which the article addresses.
"But then not all people have the high morals you do." I think articles like this help us all to realize where we can start developing these morals, rather than relying on the fear that the government creates in order to forfeit your rights to them for security enabling a monopoly on violence.
Sure, undocumented felons rape, murder and steal...but so do our own citizens. Really, your comment makes no sense Caliman. Nearly all of North America's worst serial killers and mass shooters have been home-grown legal citizens. Borders are pointless as proven by the constant flow of drugs and sex trafficking between our countries--drug lords succeed in evading capture or discipline partly because their crimes are supported in one way or another by people in high power.
@caliman5899
Believing that borders solve crime is like believing that cars are good drivers
Borders won't solve crime, of course. Just like banning guns won't solve crime. But borders can create a check point. When you look at the number of people that try to come into the US on a daily basis, and just open the border and let them in, consider all the jobs, housing, health service, and any other needs one needs to live here. This country is in such debt that if/when the fed raises rates, this country will quite possibly go bankrupt. We are hard pressed to even cover interest. Add undocumented immigrants or refugees to the mix and your asking .. begging for trouble. bringing in immigrants at a pace where we can absorb them into the culture and make sure their background doesn't include terrorism or crime is about the only way to insure people have a prosperous life. If that sounds like I'm xenophobic, just look at the trouble that Germany is going through.
If the big guys shared more with everyone and didn't keep it all to themselfs the world would be better place
From the holocaust to thought experiments, to Dawson's Creek? to ... who or what is "Massuh". CURATORS SHOULD ACTUALLY READ WHAT THEY ARE UPVOTING! :)
Anyway .. my fellow white people can be soooo silly sometimes - a night on the wrong side of town would make them wish there were borders and walls up 'in their own city'. But I am all for opening the floodgates .. get ready to "I DEFEND!"