Russell asked if property rights are natural rights. Answer: A preliminary question must be answered: Do you believe in or agree with natural rights theory?
An important article has just came out addressing the open borders question from a libertarian standpoint. Lew Rockwell (founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute) bases his conclusions on positions held by Murray Rothbard and Hans-Herman Hoppe. You can read the articled HERE.
1 Like
Why is this article âimportantâ? What effect will it have?
1 Like
t shows that according to leading libertarian writers and theorists, âopen bordersâ is not a viable libertarian position (this is an âappeal to authorityâ and designed to get âopen-border libertariansâ to re-think their position regarding this issue).
âNational bordersâ is what is under discussion hereâŚright?
1 Like
Who do you think should defend your property rights and how?
The first line of defense of self, family and property is oneself, of course. But like most people who arenât accomplished at being badass, I would contract out my personal-and-property defense to people who specialize in providing that service. If I was an anarchist, that would mean a private defense service of some kind, probably related to an insurance company and linked policy. However, because long-term functioning anarchism has been shown to be impossible I would opt for a representative republic form of government to provide such services (with the government system protected and perpetuated by a written constitutionâperhaps like that of New Hampshireâand a very heavily restricted franchise (permitting voting only by educated, literate, historically-and-politicallyâknowledgeable people who own property and pay voluntary âtaxesâ and who are individually committed and sworn to follow, protect, and uphold the constitution). Thatâs about the best that can be done, I thinkâŚ
1 Like
Which has proven to âlimitâ what the controllers are capable of more ?
A âconstitutionâ for them to abide by.
Or the amount of technology available to them ?
Theyâd be doomed ,with what people know now, if their tech. went away.
Samm
Point taken. The written constitution of the U.S. hasnât done squat to limit the power-hungry psychopaths. It only slowed them down for a century or so. Because of the dangers, besides strictly limiting the franchise Iâd also limit what kind of people are allowed to inhabit government and access those levers of powerâŚup to and including choosing people randomly to be in office for limited periods of time. (But I have to say also thatâŚgiven the way human beings are, there may be no foolproof solution to âwho will watch the watchers.â Weâve had a few thousand years of attempts to fix that problem, and none have worked so far.)
1 Like
Why do so many people who spend so much time âintellectualizingâ consistently fall into this trap of intellectual dishonesty?
Not only has anarchism not been shown to be impossible, itâs essentially impossible to prove that it is impossible. Flight was impossible before the Wright brothers. Humans walking on the moon was impossible until 1969. Cell phones were impossible before microchips.
And, I imagine, governments were impossible 45,000 years ago.
Hell, it was only 50 years ago that the smallest particle of matter was the atom. And that was still being taught in high school 30 years ago.
IâII admit I only skimmed the paper you linked, but I found no proof of the impossibility of anarchy in it. The closest it came was-
Every place in the world is ruled by government. The evidence shows that anarchy, no matter how desirable in theory, does not constitute a realistic alternative in practice, and it suggests that if government ever were to be eliminated anywhere, predators would move in to establish themselves as one by force.
But, as Iâve just demonstrated simply because something has not yet occurred does not mean it is impossible for it to occur. Things, including humans and their behavior, evolve over time.
As for the rest of the article all I saw was âso-and-so said thisâ while âso-and-so argued thatâ. If there is any actual evidence to the impossibility of anarchy in that paper, please provide us with a more direct citation.
1 Like
I assure everyone, Iâm not trying to be intellectually dishonest here, I just believe that Prof. Holcomb has shown that anarchism is impossible given the nature of human beings. In short, âitâs in our biologyâ. Namely, predatory behavior (by most human beings some of the time, and by some human beings all of the time)âŚis part of the human condition. Mandated by our evolutionary history, Iâm sorry to say.
would you support NH secession and a new border?
Yes on NH secession when and if it needs to become a redoubt for capitalists and other liberty-loversâŚas the American Empire implodes (talk about a change of heart in me!) into socialist-egalitarian savagery and chaos. Yes on the borders also, but donât assume that having a border means keeping everyone out. Only people uncommitted to and inimical to an orderly capitalistic civilization should be excludedâŚ
(Uh oh. I think I hear the sound of cannonsâŚswiveling cannons.)
1 Like
if NH builds a wall, how do you keep from being left on the outside?
As our wonderful President says, âthere will be a big, beautiful doorwayâ in the wall (probably lots of them). And letâs face it, âwallâ is not accurately descriptive; the company(s) providing the border security services will probably mainly use double-fence arrangements supplemented by barbed wire, concertina, electronic measures, and furry cuddly dogs and doglike robots. Actual walls will be resorted to only in appropriate terrain (e.g. densely packed urban and high-population suburban areas).
For those not convinced of the legitimacy or efficacy of border-maintaining barriers, just look at the compounds inhabited by liberty-lovers such as the heads of Google and Facebook, not to mention George Soros and other anti-border globalists⌠
Besides, when New Hampshire is a shining polity of liberty and freedom, will we really want to allow people to live among us who say, âI do not believe in the NAP, I will not abide by the NH Constitution, and as a social justice warrior Iâm going to help bring more people like me into New Hampshire who will fight to change your way of life and impose lots of rules to enforce our social justice valuesâŚstarting with laws against *hate speechâ? Hmmmm, all you libertarians?
Iâve enjoyed border crossing through gaps in the security grid between countries before.
What kind of force would be used against someone who is deemed âillegalâ by the security forces?
"What kind of force would be used against someone who is deemed âillegalâ by the security forces? "
None in an independent new hampshire I hope!
1 Like
As Hans Herman Hoppe has pointed out, a secure national border isnât necessary where all property is privately owned and there is no welfare state. In the absence of those two exigencies, a secure border is necessary, just as a secure border on your own private property is justified if you donât want others coming onto it, living on it, and utilizing resources that belong to you. Thus, you can answer the question yourself by stating what level of force is justified in ejecting unwanted incursions onto your own private property by those who are not invited.
Yeah but mortals normally are charged with kidnapping and murder unlike national endorsed security forces so no, respectfully, youâre wrong in answering my question of how a national border might be enforced in a âfreeâ society.
For example if just one authorized owner of the shared road allows migration, what right do the enforcers have to stop guests from visiting? On my private road, my neighbors have no legal right to detain or hinder my guests.
According to Hoppe, in a free society all property would be privately owned. Thus, if you want to allow people to come onto your property, utilizing your road, no one else has a right to stop you. Itâs when uninvited people come onto my property that I have a right to use force to eject them. In the U.S. today having an open border is equivalent to you owning private property where you invite anyone who wants to come onto it and use its resources as they please. Or, better yet, you have an obligation to support anyone when they come onto your private property; of course, if thatâs the way you want to proceed, you have that right. On your own property.