especially for Israel, which has some of the most draconian border control and citizenship requirements in the worlds, even worse than the United States. The native Palestinians must have their freedom of movement restored.
Open borders are fine, so long as you don’t want to or need to maintain any specific culture or type of civilization, and as long as you don’t mind the eventual war among the various differing subgroups that result from open borders (whether the fault-lines turn out to be tribal, political, cultural, racial, religious or whatever)…
Do borders help stop wars?
If my thesis is correct, the answer is yes. On the other hand, if “diversity and proximity” don’t cause conflict (e.g. blacks & whites in South Africa; Hutu’s & Tutsi’s in Rwanda, Catholics & Protestants in Northern Ireland, Muslims & Hindus in India, Muslims & Buddhists in Burma, etc.), then the answer is no. This is assuming that borders are utilized to maintain a “commonality of culture”, such as Hungary is doing today, and Switzerland and New Zealand have always done. If borders function as nothing other than enhancing state power and thievery—as is the case in most places today and throughout history—then no, they don’t prevent wars at all, and haven’t done so in the past. This is because psychopathic, power-lusting scum always rise to the top in any polity, and that group-type does cause wars by their aggression, imperialism and incessant lust for more power, borders-or-no-borders. But that doesn’t have anything to do with the utility of borders in preventing internal conflict, i.e. “little wars”, within defined borders. And the lack of borders would arguably enhance chances for conflict, just as the lack of private property enhances conflict wherever that right doesn’t exist (if you don’t own your own house and land, then anyone and everyone else has just as much right to live in it and on it as you do). This is why many libertarian theorists—e.g. Walter Block—state that in a libertarian world, borders would exist…because all property would be privately owned (and thus all property owners could enforce their “property-borders” against all others).
I think this is the most intelligent reply I’ve ever read on this site
Doesn’t New Zealand have 2 cultures?
so you recommend borders around your property?
How many other borders should there be?
Earlier question first: Yes, New Zealand does have a minority Maori culture. Hungary has a minority Roma culture, Japan (which by law doesn’t allow Moslems to imtmigrate and reside in the county) has its Ainu minority, etc. But those are indigenous minority cultures—in the same way that the U.S. has an “American Indian culture”—and are insignificant compared to the power of the majority culture. Hence “border controls” apply are often erected to block “outsiders” who challenge, or even do not share or embrace the majority culture (there is the separate environmental question of “too many people” in high-value places like Monaco or Switzerland, which comes from different foundations). These are all non-exclusive reasons that some countries—not all, just some—have strong border controls. Why else would such official immigration restrictions be put in place other than to prevent the current dominant culture from being supplanted? Racism? Meanness? Xenophobia? Many people argue “yes” to those, and state that those “bad reasons” have nothing to do with defending or extending a reigning culture.
Regarding “borders and private property”, I neither recommend nor condemn borders around my property or the property of others. I was pointing out that some libertarian theorists (including Walter Block, Hans Herman Hoppe) assert that in a libertarian world there will be borders…by virtue of all property being privately owned, and people who own property have the innate right to build fences and walls around their property if they want (this may be why Robert Frost famously wrote that “good fences make good neighbors”). Me? I’m personally sympathetic to those who want to maintain borders in order to protect their own ways of life… “Africa for the Africans!” was the anti-colonialist battle-cry in the 1950’s and 1960’s in Africa, to expel the foreign European colonial cultures. American Indian reservations in the U.S. are strongly hostile to interlopers who don’t share the native American culture. New Orleans was called “a chocolate city and it’s going to stay that way” in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. These are all examples of people erecting “types of borders” in order to assert and protect their ways of life, i.e. their cultures. Whether these and other types of borders “should” be, or are illegitimate, is another question. Since it appears historically true that acute diversity in close contact creates conflict, I think there are well-founded reasons for establishing and maintaining national borders.
so do the american indians have a right to wish we were not here?
so you understand why other people have borders … do you think you should have borders on your property?
Do you think the US should have strong borders and keep certain people out?
Absolutely yes: The plight of the American Indians is a cautionary tale about what we’re discussing. What happened to them is what happens when you don’t have borders. In came the Europeans, who eventually outnumbered the natives, overwhelmed them and nearly extinguished them.
As for borders on my property, “it would depend”. In a libertarian society where everyone respected everyone else’s natural rights, including property rights, there would be no necessity for borders around anyone’s private property. In today’s society? In the United States? Um…it’s probably a good idea in many instances and many places.
Regarding the question about whether the U.S. “should have strong borders and keep certain people out”, my answer is “yes”. Why? Because I don’t want to see today happen to the indigenous population what happened to the American Indians in the past.
The real question is “How do you decide what ‘certain people’ to keep out?”—right? My answer: Anyone who doesn’t believe in, refuses to recognize, and won’t uphold the NAP. That seems reasonable.
The NAP is a piss poor excuse to not defend yourself against being controlled. Being controlled is as bad as being attacked.
I don’t understand, Samm. How is restricting a defined geographical area—whether it be a village, a province, or my farm—to people who believe in, abide by, and uphold the N:AP, negatively “controlling”? Are you saying that any anti-NAP thug or criminal has the right to enter and live in a territory established, defended and restricted to those who require upholding the NAP?
It’s got nothing to do with borders. If you want razor wire around your place, do it.
It’s all to do with the NAP: 2 types currently upholding the NAP: 1) Those OK with being controlled, yet against being physically assaulted. 2) Propaganda artists working for the state
Is it contrary to the NAP to oblige people to abide by the NAP if they desire to live in a defined area (i.e. one with “borders”) where it is required that you agree with, uphold, and abide by the NAP?
Or do you have to accept all comers into your community, province or village and wait until the NAP is violated (and someone is harmed) before taking action to enforce the NAP?
For instance, “illegal alien” Cristhian Rivera has admitted to following, attacking and murdering Mollie Tibbet recently when she was jogging in rural Iowa. Rivera came into the U.S. by crossing the “border” (such as it is) without permission. If the U.S. was a NAP-requirement jurisdiction, and Rivera stated upon crossing the border that he didn’t believe in and would not abide by the NAP…would we still be obliged to let him cross that border and then wait to see if he actually violated he NAP (such as raping and murdering Mollie Tibbets) before taking action to enforce the NAP?
That’s all that NAP supporters are doing in the usa: Waiting for violence to come their way so they can defend themselves. The controllers loooove this. The controllers don’t need to use violence on you to get you to stay enslaved. Keep waiting, because they don’t want to harm you. They just want to CONTROL YOU…COMPLETELY. They need you to be ok with being controlled. Nothing more. The ability to resist is going to be difficult.
are property rights natural rights?