Open Borders vs. Closed Borders: A Market Anarchist Perspective
I really wish this discussion would go away. Calling it a "debate" is a misnomer. "False dichotomy" would be more apt. Here's why:
FOR MARKET ANARCHISTS/VOLUNTARYISTS THE ONLY LEGITIMATE BORDERS ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY LINES.
This idea is so foundationally elemental to the libertarian philosophy that I am flabbergasted to see anyone missing it. And a lot of people are.
Libertarianism/Voluntaryism/Anarchism begins with the self-evident, axiomatic, immutable reality of individual self-ownership. From this solid foundation it extrapolates to establish norms for legitimate and illegitimate property based on homesteading, voluntary transaction, inheritance, etc.
This being so, any "property line" or "border" that is not private property is by definition illegitimate. Saying "open state borders" are anarchist in nature is like saying Pepsi Cola is pretty much water. That's bullshit. Conversely, saying closed state borders are legitimate is like saying Nazism is needed to preserve liberty.
Both open and closed STATE borders are violent.
What!? you may say, How are open borders violent?
Open state borders force association. They force tax slaves to pay for the transportation of people and goods they did not voluntarily consent to on the roads and property they have been paying for via being extorted (taxation). Of course this is the fault of the state, and not the immigrants. That is exactly what I am saying. The state, not the "open borders" is illegitimate.
Open state borders preclude legitimate private property owners from making decisions about how to use their property. The state decides who can cross property lines, ultimately, and how property must be used. Any person living on the border who wishes to prohibit someone from entering their property is told "too bad." "Do it."
Open state borders prohibit individuals from homesteading property owned by no one on the border itself. Open state borders say "bake the damn cake" to the Christian shop owners who are on property deemed "public" by the state. Violence (the application of force to non-violent individuals) is necessary to enforce all of these actions.
Closed borders restrict the free and full use of private property as well. Closed borders tell the farmer in Texas he cannot hire his friend in Mexico, allowing him to live and work on his private property. Closed state borders, like open state borders, prohibit individuals from homesteading freely.
There are a million other reasons why both open and closed state borders are illegitimate, but the most obvious one is this:
STATE. BORDERS.
STATE. BORDERS.
S-T-A-T-E.
STATE.
ANARCHISM IS INCOMPATIBLE, BY DEFINITION, WITH STATISM!!!!!!!!!!!!
Would open state borders still be preferable to closed state borders absent complete privatization? I think anything that strips away the state is good.
Here is a link to my debate with Jared Howe on the topic.
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as Facebook and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
But does anarchism advocate private property? I have seen many debates about this, I found this one on anarchism.net, I'm just copying something, I actually have no definite conceptions about this:
PROPERTY IS A TROUBLESOME issue. It is not only a matter of definition, but a matter of values. Some anarchists value property as a guarantee for freedom and prosperity, whereas other anarchists see property as a means of oppression and therefore wish to see it abolished completely. And there are other anarchists taking a “middle stance”--both pro and con--through advocating only possession.
Excellent point. Yes, market anarchists and Voluntaryists base their whole conception of anarchism on property, stemming from the fact that each individual owns himself.
Anarcho-communist thought holds this to not be the case.
You could also say anarcho-Marxist or voluntaryist-Marxist or agorist-Marxist thought.
Commies get a bad rap. And often should. Communism is pretty shit, and pretty much always has been since it forked from socialism. It started out as a just-okay idea, pushed on the world by the elites, etc. And of course it all got corrupted as hell. It's just another totalitarian state system like western capitalism.
People like Richard D. Wolff and Yanis Varoufakis are self-proclaimed Marxist economics professors who study capitalism and communism and do not like them. They have newer ideas about cooperating at the grass roots level - voluntarily and fairly. These ideas include turning (not by force) an existing capitalist business enterprise into a worker directed cooperative to democratize the workplace rather than just be the boss's dictatorship. From privatized interests to community/social/cooperative interests.
Turning privatized interests into voluntary cooperative ones presupposes individual ownership of the means of production, which also requires that individuals have the ability to exclude others from utilizing their owned means of production. That seems to be something that gets lost in translation a lot, I've noticed. Communism and socialism cannot be voluntary; if they are voluntary, by definition they cannot be communism or socialism, as both of them preclude individuals from excluding others from their property.
Yes-ish.
This is the problem. We all see it. Everywhere. Capitalism is certainly no better.
Voluntaryism, Marxism, "free-marketism" - they are all fantasies well worth striving for, but ultimately its a practical balance because some tribal people want or need the state systems and gang "leaders". There's just no escaping them - they're everywhere!!!
Communism, a socialist fork, is totalitarian, like western capitalism.
Socialism is so vague some forms CAN be voluntary and participatory, to some degrees. Try Burning Man for example.
Writing my previous comment I was going to throw in an example that I'll now illustrate, a peaceful, voluntary, transfer of power, from privatized to cooperative: A successful business man owns a shoe factory filled with employees. He has two kids who with a fine education decided to go into other careers and his kids have no interest in running or owning an inherited shoe factory. He cares for his employees and community and does not want to shut down the factory and all those jobs - so with lawyers, bankers, community leaders, and all of the factory employees they create a worker's cooperative to receive the factory and hand him a fat check.
If I understand your argument, anyone off the street cannot voluntarily just walk in that factor and make their own shoes, because the privatized "coop club" now owns it rather than the "boss". With that coop foothold in the community they can start other cooperative coops to make dishwashers, furniture, etc. and maybe that guy can work there...
Mondragon is the best example where a poor region collected together successfully in a new bottom up system. I've never been but would really like to see it. I wouldn't expect it to be perfect, but they have a good thing going.
https://www.google.com/#q=mondragon
It's not perfect. But it's better than what we've got, better than welfare and/or the universal basic income trap - or just starvin. Or war for profit.
I'm all for coops, but they presuppose the right to exclude. Like you said, Joe Smith can't just walk into the factory and start using it to make his shoes unless the property owners - the coop - are fine with that. I don't like differentiating private and cooperative, because they're not mutually exclusive; private property can be owned and operated cooperatively. All private property does is seek to reduce conflict over resources by assigning use claims. It's something we all do, and it's intuitive.
As long as it's all voluntary, I'm all for it. Consent is king.
I like that: "Consent is king."
Coops are a HUMONGOUS step better.
A democratic workplace that serves your interest versus working for a dictator who exploits you to the legal maximum and may fire you at any time.
Cooperatives aren't violent so far as I know.
A boss who threatens to fire you is not cool.
Maybe if someone came in and started some shit in a coop I suppose they'd call the state in. Communism has a state monopoly on violence just like capitalism. Thug police.
How could you have something that doesn't "exclude."
Would it be possible to fuse coops with voluntaryism? An open-coop?
Also, I wrote a new post:
OSAPAP 003 - Project Concepts And Limitations For The Open Source Anti Propaganda Animation Project
Voluntaryism doesn't preclude private property. Again, the only moral way for people to engage with each other is by consent, which requires the ability to exclude (freedom of association). Coops, so long as they're consensual, are by definition voluntary.
Working for someone isn't inherently bad or unjust; you agree to provide your time and perform tasks in exchange for something that's worth more than your time doing something else. A coop is no more required to employ you or let you use their cooperatively owned resources than a traditional boss is.
Quoting again from The Notebooks of Lazarus Long,
"Political tags-such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative and so forth-are never basic criteria.
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number.
The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism.
But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."
Robert Heinlein wrote that quite a while ago and I question the motives of those people today who want to do the controlling.
This debate is endless :)
Now, here's a reason why state actors are likely s**ting their pants these days:
As personal flying machines are developed and become widespread, it will become harder and harder to maintain "border control."
The state is always the problem, never the solution...
Thanks for another clear and revealing post.
😄😇😄
"there are no legitimate state borders"
😂😂🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽
when you've said "no legitimate state borders" and somehow they heard "no legitimate private property boundaries"
Literally the same feeling I have when I've said "no legitimate state borders" and somehow they hear "open state borders are the same thing as no state borders."
Hi just a person here on planet Earth ..
Really I can't go over there without asking someone "REALLY"
Hmmm I am going to go inhabit the 80% of the planet with no people on it I think lmao
bon voyage
This is a very interesting perspective. Without the imbalances caused by the State, we wouldn't be having such large migratory fluxes because people would be happy in their respective countries, at least to some extent.
I need a place to stay....can I move in with you? Will you feed me and take care of me?
after all..there are no BORDERS...right?
we seem to pop up in a lot of the same haunts lol
I must say this is just to much fun ...cant wait to get a comp set up on the boat maybe do a live stream from the bay some Friday night .. no better not might loose all my followers after a few rum lol
As for a place to stay... looking for crew so you can come sailing lol...but was looking for more of a Bikini clad crew though...
Clearly private property lines are different than arbitrary state boundaries established illegitimately.
Well done
Thank you my friend, your day is beautiful
Muito bom! @dioneaguiar