RE: Do you want open borders? Okay, how about you open your firewall wide open first?
This conversation is a red herring. It's like asking, "Do you want rapists to have knives?"
Well, let's see... I'm not into denying people knives - it's not my right to do so - but obviously rapists with knives is worse than rapists without them... Why do I feel like this is a trick question?
Because an inseparable aspect of a larger issue is being separated out and evaluated from an absurd perspective. Rape is the problem, not knives.
"Closed borders" is a euphemism for "People with weapons threatening or enacting violence upon presumably innocent people for trying to move across an imaginary boundary". It only becomes "closed borders" in the irrational, erroneous, immoral context of a governmental claim to ownership over a huge area of land that no person (or body of people) legitimately own.
All such "issues" are petty distractions. There is one major issue that's making everything else a confusing mess: the false belief in the non-existent phenomenon called "valid external authority".
In this case, the invalid external authority purporting itself as valid is government. In the "ol' slavery days" the invalid authority was the slave master. It's no different. Voting is just choosing a master; it doesn't validate the authority of the master in any way. No one has a right to inhibit the free movement of innocent individuals - case closed. But to interpret this as an "open border policy" by placing this sane, moral notion in the insane, immoral context of nations and governments is to attempt mixing oil and water.
Then we wonder why something seems amiss and people can't figure out (or at least agree upon) what the right thing to do is. There is no right thing to do in a system that's all wrong. We've got to understand causal factors and why we have the problems we have; not just keep shoveling the shit around and expecting the place to smell better.
I don't have a yay-or-nay opinion on the invalid "policies" of an imaginary "national authority". I have knowledge of moral law. That answers for all; but not if you're going to try to make that beautifully round peg fit in a fucked-up, half-trapezoidal, half-elliptical hole.
No it isn't.
It is very similar to putting up walls to a house and having a door that you expect visitors or people moving in to come through. It is that simple.
And yes the people in the house likely are ARMED for those that choose to break in, crawl through a window, or otherwise enter uninvited.
To think otherwise is just word play, fantasy, and stupidity.
I like the idea of NOT having STATE borders. Yet I am not naive enough to pretend that because I realized ideally we should not need them I should just take them down and ignore the fact there are those wanting to prey upon this.
You first need to eliminate the danger from predators, parasites, and other negative things that can be stopped by the barrier. If you have eliminated those things then you can talk about it.
Yet then again if you believe in property rights at all that indicates BORDERS. Imaginary or not. We solve a lot of complex problems with imaginary numbers. They matter. Without them Calculus would not exist. So something being imaginary can still have a use.
Many concepts are imaginary and still are actively useful.
Yet if you believe in no borders then you believe in no property.
To which I say go away Communist. I have my property that I create, and it is not your right to simply take it, or anyone else for that matter. Yet the fact I created it only puts an imaginary border around it that indicates it is mine.
I despise communism, and socialism. So trying to convince me that property should not exist is likely to go nowhere unless you can convince me of a way either of them can be accomplished 100% voluntarily.
As to a red herring. You need to go reread what a red herring is. What I wrote certainly was not that.
I'm not denying the concept of property; in fact, my entire argument is based upon a thorough understanding of that concept.
There is no valid owner of the half-continent called "The United States" (or any other "nation"), and thus no valid defense of its "borders". Each parcel of private property may be validly owned and defended accordingly, but "national borders" imply ownership where none exists. Point to the person who may make this valid claim to ownership - there is none.
The border issue is definitively a red herring, as it distracts from the real causal factors of the issues underlying this discussion. People are being disarmed and encouraged to abdicate their natural responsibility for their own defense - something that can never be, as this responsibility is unalienable.
This is an issue that resides in a previous position along the logical chain that leads to the border dispute. It is causal to "necessity" of border defense, and therefore must be addressed before anything else further down the chain can be considered with any rationality. Any moment spent focused on borders carries the opportunity cost of not addressing the causal factors. Further previous in the chain of causation is the issue of this ubiquitous, false, religious belief in external authority (government) which lies at the foundation of all of this.
There are many such issues that must be adequately resolved before even approaching the topic of borders (which would be obviated long before its would-be appearance if those previous issues were addressed with clarity, making the entire topic entirely moot and not worthy of mention).
National borders are just another divide-and-conquer diversion created by those who benefit from such distractions. Nowhere in this public debate are the real issues brought to the table. Any attention drawn to this decoy is serving the furtherance of man's worldwide enslavement by validating the illusions that make true forward progress toward freedom impossible.