RE: Do you want open borders? Okay, how about you open your firewall wide open first?
"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".
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.