Political Theory

Re: Resolved yet? The immigration debate

Nick. B — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:13:51 GMT

Borders are stolen property and, well, we're not going to get it back by stopping "illegal immigration". The only way we'll get it back is a) we gain a larger influence and dismantle the state. or b) The nation-states magically decide to dismantle themselves. "a" is the only way. So I say we began to recruit these migrants because the fact is nothing gonna happen in the next four years. And also public property is nobody's exept the state's property,and therefore enemy property. It's basically up for grabs when the state is gone.

Re: Resolved yet? The immigration debate

Stephen — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:43:27 GMT

Brainpolice:

Intervention X is the expropriation of private property and intervention Y is the partial return of control over that property. Isn't that libertarian?

State migration restriction is not a partial return of control to rightful owners, it is the exercise of illegitimate state control.

You're a functional statist.

State migration restriction, excepting invited migration, is return of control to rightful owners. Plain and simple. It leaves the choice in their hands. The state no longer exercises its discretion in the matter.

Brainpolice:
There is no way to accurately allocate this to the tax-payers (can I sell my share please?), it is functionally without a legitimate owner, and you are falling back on collectivism. The dejure decider in the scenario is either the state or the state acting on the behalf of a special interest, given that it s unclear who owns what and there are conflicts of preferance among the tax-payers to begin with. This has been pointed out ad nauseum.

No way according to who? This is a problem solved by sucession and desocialization. Or do u lefties have a theory that covers this?

Brainpolice:

And neither will the lefty multicultural libertarians.

The nationalists aren't libertarians to begin with, they function as paleoconservatives.

They seem to be more in favour of liberty than u.

Re: Resolved yet? The immigration debate

Stephen — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:09:10 GMT

Brainpolice:

Stephen Forde:

Brainpolice:
It is not libertarian to make exclusivity with one's own property uniformly compulsory

Property is automatically exclusive, unless its use by a non-owner is invited.

As for the rest of your argument, lets apply it to violent crime instead of immigration.

The closest thing one can come to a libertarian anti-[violent crime] position would be to say that you personally prefer to restrict [violent crime] on your own legitimate property, and others are free to be more inclusive with their own legitimate property. It reduces to a claim of personal preferance that has nothing to do with libertarianism in any direct sense.

But you cannot, on any libertarian grounds, argue for state-enforced [violent crime] restriction, for [violent crime] restriction as a uniform legal standard. It is not libertarian to support the reineforcement of the state's territorial dominion or legal jurisdiction. The state can not be treated as a legitimate owner in a libertarian analysis, nor is the illusion that the taxpayers are the collective owners of the state defensible or practical (such a thing would be impossible to accurately allocate, especially considering intergenerational issues, and as a matter of state policy it would reduce to a gigantic redistribution scheme if it were attempted to be allocated).

Comparing the act of migration as such to violent crime is absurd on its face. Sorry. You're being highly disingenous and evaded the argument entirely.

Your argument is not very good. You use arguments against restricted immigration that could be applied to other issues, and yet arrive at different conclusions for the same arguments. I'm not being disingenuous at all. I just think that, assuming that you are in favour of government enforcing laws against violent crime, you have an overall inconsistent position. I'm just using a roundabout method to bring it out.

Re: Resolved yet? The immigration debate

Juan — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:07:08 GMT

SF:
Less.

So, how many (as if it mattered much...) ? And how can you explain that the oh so civilzed westerners burn people alive as a passtime (it's called firebombing I think).

Re: Resolved yet? The immigration debate

Juan — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:05:06 GMT

I think I've already showed it's inconsistent with private property.

No you haven't. I showed that there a few problems with 'libertarians' using the state to enforce their 'libertarian' immigration policy.

Re: Resolved yet? The immigration debate

Stephen — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:59:56 GMT

Juan:
I'd only point out that since third world governments are exceedingly inefficient they also fail at organizing mass-murder

Rwanda, Ethiopia, Sudan, China?

Juan:
unlike the american, german, british, etc, governments, which have collectively killed...what ? A hundred million of their own 'citizens' in wars ? More ?

Less.

Juan:
Are you going to show that my previous posts are fallacious ?

I think I've already showed it's inconsistent with private property.

Re: Resolved yet? The immigration debate

Libertine Joseph — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:35:20 GMT

It is up to individuals to defend what they claim as their property. The government, neither federal or state, has no right to maintain any border policy.

Re: Resolved yet? The immigration debate

Stranger — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:18:38 GMT

Brainpolice:

I know exactly what I'm talking about, and you're stonewalling my challenge to your views. If you're going to be advocvating individual ownership over an entire city, then you're going to have to explain how the multiplicity of current individual owners within the city are going to transfer their property to this individual.

They aren't because we're not even talking about the same property.

Re: Resolved yet? The immigration debate

Brainpolice — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:57:47 GMT

Stranger:

Brainpolice:

Who in their right mind would just give up their home so that some single person can achieve more dominion over the city? Good luck doing that without something along the lines of imminent domain. Sorry, I'm going to keep my home, I like it. I'd prefer not to pass ownership of my home over to some man in an ivory tower, and as soon as he tries to claim ownership over my home I am going to resist him and view him as a criminal.

Brainpolice:
why the hell would everyone in the city voluntary sell their property to this single person?

Conclusion: you do not know what you are talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about, and you're stonewalling my challenge to your views. If you're going to be advocvating individual ownership over an entire city, then you're going to have to explain how the multiplicity of current individual owners within the city are going to transfer their property to this individual.

Re: Resolved yet? The immigration debate

Stranger — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:57:00 GMT

Brainpolice:

Who in their right mind would just give up their home so that some single person can achieve more dominion over the city? Good luck doing that without something along the lines of imminent domain. Sorry, I'm going to keep my home, I like it. I'd prefer not to pass ownership of my home over to some man in an ivory tower, and as soon as he tries to claim ownership over my home I am going to resist him and view him as a criminal.

Brainpolice:
why the hell would everyone in the city voluntary sell their property to this single person?

Conclusion: you do not know what you are talking about.

Re: Resolved yet? The immigration debate

Brainpolice — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:51:52 GMT

Stranger:

Brainpolice:
Right. My understanding of market anarchism is a bit more aterritorial in that the option of which organizations or associations to join or patronize isn't as tied down to chunky territories. I could theoretically live next door to someone who patronizes a different defense association then me. The whole point is to have free competition and hence choice, not monopoly.

Why do you keep talking about houses as if that's relevant? You're not even talking about the right thing. You have absolutely no idea how land is produced and organized. You have no ground to provide any opinion on the topic of land ownership. You don't even know how roads are made.

What the hell are you talking about?

I have no idea how land is produced and organized (land isn't technically produced, btw, it's improved upon or transformed)? The basis for what I'm saying is in fact Rothbardian property rights theory, which inherently involves ethical questions of legitimacy in terms of the aquisition and transfer of property titles. I don't think the views expressed by me in this thread are particularly deviant from Rothbard's expressed views on questions of land monopoly in The Ethics of Liberty.

I don't now how roads are made? You mean the specific mechanics of the entire process of production? I don't need to know that in order to understand the application of general economic principles. However, this isn't a purely utilitarian economic matter, despite your apparent tendency to treat it as such. This is a question of libertarian ethics that you keep brushing aside.

Re: Resolved yet? The immigration debate

Stranger — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:25:03 GMT

Brainpolice:
Right. My understanding of market anarchism is a bit more aterritorial in that the option of which organizations or associations to join or patronize isn't as tied down to chunky territories. I could theoretically live next door to someone who patronizes a different defense association then me. The whole point is to have free competition and hence choice, not monopoly.

Why do you keep talking about houses as if that's relevant? You're not even talking about the right thing. You have absolutely no idea how land is produced and organized. You have no ground to provide any opinion on the topic of land ownership. You don't even know how roads are made.

Re: Resolved yet? The immigration debate

Brainpolice — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:14:28 GMT

Juan:
As a side note, this private city uh stuff is not what the libertarian 'inventor' of market anarchism, Molinari, advocated. A private city is not the same thing as competing PDAs operating on the same geographical area. A private city is simply monarchy, not anarcho-capitalism. And the claim that a private city can be built and maintained on a voluntary basis is highly dubious.

Right. My understanding of market anarchism is a bit more aterritorial in that the option of which organizations or associations to join or patronize isn't as tied down to chunky territories. I could theoretically live next door to someone who patronizes a different defense association then me. The whole point is to have free competition and hence choice, not monopoly.

Re: Resolved yet? The immigration debate

Juan — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:13:09 GMT

why the hell would everyone in the city voluntary sell their property to this single person?

Also, where would a monarch like Stranger get the money to buy a city...? Let's see...I'd like to buy Dresden or maybe Berlin...How much would that cost ?

Re: Resolved yet? The immigration debate

Stranger — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:08:37 GMT

Brainpolice:

As a whole, they aren't. I see it more as a somewhat interconnected accumulation of individual cases of ownership. A voluntary city isn't owned by someone, it's the emergent product of multiple interactions. Different people own different portions of it; in short, the city is decentralized and simultaneously maintained as a whole through a degree of voluntary federation, but noone has a legitimate claim to the city as such.

That's not an answer to how roads are to be owned.