If you're for open-borders...

The Pen Thu, 01/21/2016 - 00:55
+1
+1
-1
Forums: 

surely you are for open-gates, rather the ridding of fences that emulate a property-owners privacy. I would like to see a poll that addresses this. If you are for little or no border security for whimsicalities of multiculturalism-fantastique and 'love' for all, then surely you are for tearing down the fences that line your property and welcoming a detriment and destruction to your own rightful privacies.

Something to consider.

Peace and Love always.

What is the category of this post? (choose up to 2): 
The Pen's picture
About the author
Patriots Unite!
The Pen's picture
+1
0
-1

I think we need to agree on what 'open-borders- means. Just because there is scrutiny of those entering doesn't mean I'm against open borders. I'm not saying I'm for shutting down immigration altogether, but why not be cautious? This country doesn't even require vaccinations for those entering, albeit we as citizens are made to feel almost criminal and conspiratorial for refusing them for ourselves.

Patriots Unite!

mwstroberg's picture
+1
+3
-1

You are not analyzing this correctly. Neither you nor I own all the property in this country.

I believe in PRIVATE property rights. This means that you have the right to determine who enters your property, but have no right to determine who enters mine. If I own a piece of property on the border, and I wish to let a Mexican immigrant cross the border onto my property, the socialist federal government should have nothing to say about this. Likewise, if you own a piece of property on the border, you should have the right to exclude that Mexican immigrant if you so choose.

Now let's extend this further. I and a group of businessmen who wish to hire Mexican immigrants because we believe they are hard workers, buy up consecutive pieces of property from the Mexican border into a town 10 miles in from the border and build a road on it. We then permit Mexicans to cross the border on our road and come into our town to work, live, go to school, etc. Or we own an airport and allow Mexicans to fly into our town. Or we own a seaport, and allow them to transport in by boat. Do you see where I am going with this? It is obvious that, were the government to tell us we could not bring these Mexicans in using our property and resources, that that would be a violation of OUR property rights.

If you analyze this logically, you would see that open borders is the only position consistent with protection of private property rights. No one has the right to use government violence to make decisions for everyone.

.

The Pen's picture
+1
-1
-1

I'm speaking theoretically. Those who are for open borders, rather less scrutiny for those entering this country (especially from countries aligned/associated/known for terrorist activity) is not separate from myself as a private property owner deciding to do the same. I was trying to make the point that those who are against more scrutiny are not necessarily against more scrutiny when it comes to their own borders (fences), regardless if private property or not. I understand the comparison is inherently faulted, however for those who appreciate their privacy they should also realize that the nation we reside within should exercise caution (like any nation should) before allowing anyone to enter, just as you would do as a private property owner.

Patriots Unite!

mwstroberg's picture
+1
+1
-1

see that you see mine. I define "Open Borders" loosely as "no quotas," meaning that there is no numerical limitation on who can come here. The issues of diseases and terrorism are something else entirely. I would prefer, and believe it is practically possible, for these issues to be handled by the free market.

And, of course, just because our government requires vaccinations of some citizens (an unjust requirement in my book), it does not logically follow that the same flawed laws should extend to everyone. It is my opinion that instead of extending bad laws, we should be repealing them.

I see strong reasons for not excluding people based on a criminal background check, as what passes for "criminal" by our and other governments, is most of the time totally non-aggressive behavior. Such laws as those against "treason" could, in rougher times, be altered to include "showing even mild opposition to existing government policy" as an act of treason. These pie in the sky dreamers who wish what amounts to an "ideology test" before allowing an immigrant in are extremely naive if they think our tyrannical federal government would use such a test to favor liberty lovers.

As far as "terrorism" goes, it is unrealistic to think that the government can ever protect us against terrorism. And your odds of getting killed by terrorists are significantly less than being killed by lightning, so should we ban people from going out in a thunderstorm? What the government can do to thwart terrorism are these two:

1. Alter foreign policy to quit producing terrorists.

2. Respect people's right to bear ams so that they can defend themselves.

I get extremely depressed when seeing even self-described libertarians be so quick to say "there ought to be a law." The problem is not too few laws, the problem is too many.

.

Freedom Express's picture
+1
-2
-1

This talk was delivered at the Mises Circle in Phoenix, AZ, on November 7, 2015. And, I have heard Dr Paul state the same reasons Rockwell talks about.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/lew-rockwell/open-borders-assault-private-property/

.

mwstroberg's picture
+1
+3
-1

on which Lew Rockwell opposes a consistent protection of private property rights. I can guess all day as to what prejudices he harbors that demand that he call for statist violations of liberty on this one issue, but that would be fruitless. I like Lew, but it really left a sour taste in my mouth when I read in the LA Times an editorial by him defending the police beating of Rodney King.

.

Freedom Express's picture
+1
-1
-1

This talk was delivered at the Mises Circle in Phoenix, AZ, on November 7, 2015. And, I have heard Dr Paul state the same reasons Rockwell talks about.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/lew-rockwell/open-borders-assault-private-property/

.

Tbone's picture
+1
+2
-1

Using your flawed method of thinking, since you are for border enforcement, you are also for the government restricting you to staying on your own land.

nickm ron paul 08's picture
+1
+1
-1

Oh jeez.  You are arguing that there is no unowned land in america?  On my property I own I can put a fence on it.  Property that isn't owned by anybody can be bought or claimed by anybody, even if they're from another country.  Its really pretty simple.  The government does not own the country the people do, but the people also do not own every bit of land inside of the country.  Open borders has nothing to do with the majority of individuals private property.  Unless you own property on the border, you then could put up a tiny fence around your property, essentially closing a tiny part of the border.  You can not infringe on another individuals right to enter or buy unowned property.

The Pen's picture
+1
0
-1

"On my property I own I can put a fence on it" - You might want to rethink your idea of property ownership. The fact that you pay something called property taxes should give pause that you truly do not own your land, you simply rent it from the government. Unless I've missed something in my eight years of 'home ownership', I truly own nothing if I refuse to pay my property taxes for three consecutive years. Foreclosure proceedings begin after three years of delinquent property taxes. So, do you truly own the land you reside upon?

Patriots Unite!

mwstroberg's picture
+1
+2
-1

exist, we should promote other violations of property rights?

.

The Pen's picture
+1
0
-1

Do you believe scrutinized borders = violation of property rights?

Patriots Unite!

mwstroberg's picture
+1
+2
-1

and I see nothing wrong with a property owner making their own decisions, and doing their own scrutinizing, in regard to who they feel comfortable letting on their own property. The federal government, with the possible exception of NASA, has proven itself incompetent at doing virtually any useful task, so why do we think it would be any better than a private individual or business at determining who is, and is not, a potential terrorist or other violent individual? What if I have made the decision that I wish to allow someone on my property, evaluating my own risks, but the government will not allow me to because they have determined that there is too high a risk that this individual may harm me? You're damned right that's a violation of my property rights!

There is a strong practical, although theoretical, case for not having the federal government vet immigrants for terrorist tendencies. That is, do we really wish to give government this power, knowing that they could use it in secrecy and arbitrarily to exclude ANYONE for ANY REASON that they wished? What if they excluded the next Murray Rothbard? You don't think the feds are that corrupt, or that they couldn't become that corrupt? For God's sake, look at reality!

National borders do serve a useful purpose, but that purpose is not to keep people or goods and services out of a country. Their legitimate role is to keep the influence of the national government in a country, never allowing the depredations of that government to be applied to any territory outside of those borders.

How many times have we given the government a certain power, and that power has been used in a way we didn't plan, for committing outright atrocities? I think you'll agree with me that the answer is "too numerous to count."

.

stm's picture
+1
+1
-1

comment.

You wrote:

“What if I have made the decision that I wish to allow someone on my own property, evaluating my own risks, but the government will not allow me to because they have determined that there is too high a risk that this individual may harm me?”

 

But what if your neighbor wishes to allow several people on their property who intend to blow up you and the town you live in? And then they do. Now that you’re dead, it’s up to the surviving property owners to find the murderers – if they didn’t blow themselves up, too – and bring them to justice. Or maybe they won’t because their properties – and lives – are still intact and therefore their property rights weren’t violated.

 

You seem to be assuming everyone has good intentions at heart and for those that don’t, it just has to be left up to chance.

The fact that governments are nefarious and work towards their own advantage does not negate the justification for vetting those entering the country. Your argument that the government could exclude the next Murray Rothbard is better suited to the pro-life proponents who could use it against abortion – what if the child murdered in/out of the womb would have been the next Murray Rothbard? You see how that works? We don’t need Murray to be physically present in the country for his ideas to flower but we do need a Murray to be born and live to expound such ideas in the first place. A Murray Rothbard can be excluded from entering the country because his ideas cannot be stopped at any border. The only way to stop him from coming up with and expounding at all is to kill him. For this reason I reject your argument on that point.

Laugh. It makes you feel good.

mwstroberg's picture
+1
+1
-1

No, but I assume that the risks are no different than for people crossing the California/Nevada border, so why don't we handle it the same way? Or is your basic assumption that somehow foreigners are morally inferior to Americans, so the same rules don't apply?

There is also your underlying implied assumption, which I think is totally fallacious, that somehow our federal government, which has proven itself incompetent at virtually everything it has set out to do, is somehow competent to determine who is, and is not, a risk for violent activity. And you call me unrealistic?

.

stm's picture
+1
-1
-1

You see how foreign ideas brought in by foreigners have diluted founding principles yet you go off on a tangent about morality - which is different with everyone. It's not about morals and you know that - it's about cultural differences and how those cultures developed political ideas that went on to create governments. Stick to the subject at hand and stop injecting tangents. And especially stop throwing out there unfounded and made up suppositions about me. I've already told you my ideas come from the fact that I have a body - border #1, I own property - border#2, I am a resident of a town - border #3, that town is in 'my' state - border #4, that state is 'my' country - border #5. By being a person in a society I have 'ownership' in all those things, got skin in all those games because my money - taken by force through taxation - pays for the services and upkeep created by the fictions called a 'town, a 'city', a 'country'. All those 'things' need protection of some sort - a thick coat when it's cold outside, a fence and a gun, I'd prefer a citizen's militia to a police force any day of the week. But I can't patrol the town/city/country border on my own 24/7 so I authorize someone to do that for me, just like I'd authorize someone to fix my roof if I was unable to do that. Can I trust who's doing the border protection now, at this point in time? No. But that doesn't mean I don't want it done. I feel a sense of community, a sense of place in my town/state/country. I feel like they're 'my people'. I feel 'this is my country'. Perhaps you don't and that fine - from your perspective. You may be gagging right now on mine. But it is mine. And it is the prevailing perspective of people wherever they live. 'Don't Tread on Me' wasn't about a singular small holding - it pertained to a country. That feeling espoused in those words persists to this day. I want the borders of my country protected and I want those entering vetted. boom

 

 

Laugh. It makes you feel good.

stm's picture
+1
0
-1

"National borders do serve a useful purpose, but that purpose is not to keep people or goods and services out of a country. Their legitimate role is to keep the influence of the national government in a country, never allowing the depredations of that government to be applied to any territory outside of those borders."

What about a free exchange of ideas? What's depredation to some is heaven for others. A nation is only as good as its citizens. Many like some of the aspects of Nanny States and want them here - like BOcare. Ideas from governments from across the various ponds constantly influence everybody everywhere. No border can stop the inflow or exportation of ideas and no one can decide for an entire people which ones will be accepted or rejected. If we accept the fact that all governments are evil - and at this point in time they are a necessary evil, unfortunately - then it's basically a given that any government's influence will be felt all over, be it rejected or accepted. The idea will still be out there. Pandora's Box got opened.

I just can't accept your definition/reason why national borders exist. Government isn't a thing, it's made up of people and most of those people are beasts and they are difficult to contain, even in the best of circumstances.

 

Laugh. It makes you feel good.

mwstroberg's picture
+1
+1
-1

nonintervention, militarily, economically and in general any type, in terms of other countries. When I say "depredations of the government," I do not mean cultural depredation by the people of America, I mean explicit initiated violence such as the overthrow of Gaddafi or the imposition of economic sanctions against Iraq. Of course, nothing can prevent bad ideas and cultural effects from leaving a country, nor would it be right to attempt to stop this legally. If we could get all the nations of the World to accept this principle, we'd be half way to a libertarian World.

.

stm's picture
+1
+1
-1

I don't understand this stance at all.

So other governments can send in agents of disruption into the US but the US government is not to be allowed to vet them because that somehow interferes with your private property rights?

I skipped a whole bunch of thought in between the 'government is not allowed to vet' and 'interferes with your private property rights' because that's all back and forth that proposes suppositions.

Although I don't agree with how you worded it, what I interpret you saying is that national borders are there to keep other governments from attacking... is that correct? Well, we all know that rarely, if ever, works. If the people elect or are taken over by a cut-throat government/person, war is inevitable and the borders will mean nothing. And if you let anyone in willy-nilly, especially those who don't posses any knowledge of Liberty and property rights, the country falls from within.

Laugh. It makes you feel good.

mwstroberg's picture
+1
+2
-1

but exactly how do you intend to determine who has knowledge of liberty and property rights? Again, you seem to be calling for an ideological litmus test. You really are naive and foolish enough to give our corrupt federal government the power to determine what is an acceptable ideology? What in Heaven's name gives you the idea that they would select liberty as that acceptable ideology? What the Hell do most of the people in our government know about liberty? Not to mention, an ideological litmus test is what countries like the former USSR would use. It is quite a totalitarian concept.

.

Pages