If you're for open-borders...

who you allow onto your property.

NB: this is in reply to MW's post way on the bottom of the page, I though I hit 'reply' first. Oh well....

You've claimed over and over that you should be able to allow any foreigner, because it would have to a foreigner if the govt was keeping them out, into your home and that you would determine who that is yet you have never said how you would make that determination. Use your criteria and apply that to a govt - that's how the govt can vet.

What you let be known in your reply to MC way up top, is that you are an anarchist at heart, that no govt at all is your goal. This discussion isn't really about borders for you, it's about the erradication of govt. Unfortunately for you, people will always look for leaders. I became aware of that when I was about 11yo and watched the dynamics of the group I was hanging with. There's always been one who stood out of the crowd, one who the others in the group specifically sought out to give direction of some kind, even something as ridiculous as which movie to see that afternoon. I remember this one incident from high school in particular - we were trying to decide something - the something I don't remember - but a couple of people said that we had to consult X first before we did anything. I blew up, yelled that we don't need X's input on everything, that we had our own minds.... but I was dismissed, they were going to wait for X. X finally shows up and is asked blah blah and to my absolute satisfaction X said they didn't need him to tell them what to do. I knew X better than any of them really, and I knew he was sick and tired of being to go-to guy, but he had that... charisma or whatever it is that made people see him as something more special than they are... except me. In my eyes, X and I were on par. But I don't look for 'leaders', I lead myself. That, though, is rare. So very frickin' rare yet you assume the majority seek self reliance, have the confidence in their own thoughts, words and deeds - NO. Watch The Seven Samurai again, or for the first time if you haven't, watch how the farmers seek someone to protect them. Most people are like those villagers. They need something over them. 'Government' of some kind will always be created. And if you think a group of anarchists will ever get together and rules won't be made and that no one will stand out out even amongst you all, you truly live in a fantasy world. Either a group seeks out a leader of a leader emerges from a group - this is what my observations since being a 12yo have confirmed again and again.

This country does have a Constitution and no matter how bad it is, and I know aspects of it are terrible, the fact that it's totally dismissed by the politicos in office is what is causing the havoc in the political scene and therefore in this country.

We do have a culture here in America yet you look at what's happening in Europe now that they've allowed a very different culture to flood its borders and you seem to think that good. It's an open border after all, so it must bring with it the highest and noblest ideals. pffft

Let's look at what happens when a free-for-all is sanctioned, in these cases by a government:

Since implementing multicultural policies, Sweden has become the rape capitol of the West where the incident of rape has increased 1,472% with 80% of those rapes committed by immigrants.

Across Europe no-go zones have been set up by immigrants.

In June, last year, a school issued letters to parents advising them that their daughters must dress more modestly because 'the sight of too much skin' was offending Syrian refugees.

And the latest 'news', migrants were assaulting women at a pool in Germany, masturbating in public and defacating in the kids' pool and are now banned from the facility.

But you try to make 'open borders' sound like a Heaven on Earth. Where is that place? If you can look at what's happening in Europe and tell me that 'open borders' are creating robust and sound societies and improving the economy then I'll tell you I got a lovely snow-covered bridge to sell to you.

And please don't throw out that tired xenophobic slur. There's good and bad in all communities, cities, countries and cultures but some cultures are just incompatible with others and if you can't admit that then IMO you have no grasp of reality.

On another note, if that person you were so desperate to bring into this country was denied the visa or whatever, why didn't you just move to that person's country since it's obvious you were desperate to be with him/her? I'm taking a grand leap thinking you tried to do this and were denied and that's why you can't see passed your opinion.

Anyway, you can keep your property rights, but I have no problem giving a government the authority to keep those kinds of people out of the country in which I live even if it means you can't bring them in - despite your claim of having superior vetting processes I know you don't because no one or thing is perfect. How dare I, you might ask with all the indignation you can muster. How dare I not, is my reply.

The border should not exist, because the government that created it should not exist. Remember, Passports, Show me YOUR PASSPORTS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw_GqL3pW84

It's all about private property, respect that, not government. Also, if there was no incentive for the border crossers, like free shit, then maybe they wouldn't cross as often. Oh YEAH, where does that incentive come from (you know FREE SHIT) oh Right, the order followers extort half us to give give to them and millions already here, FREE SHIT. Government is sooooo Gooood ! They threaten, extort, rob, kidnap, and kill just to be able to exist. Then they go on to create all of these other problems, and we all sit around and beg master to fix it all. Begging master to fix your slavery is a wee bit preverted EH?

Those open border proponents don't believe people can come together to create a nation because the kind of border security/control Pen is writing about belongs to a nation, state or country, whatever ya want to call it.

So after the War for Independence when treaties were signed and borders determined, the OB people would have opposed the latter. The spankin' brand new United States should not have determined any borders.... the States, nee Colonies, should have also been erased because those indicate a bordered area. Once the war was called off all that should have been done was... nothing. If the Brits wanted to stay, let 'em. Whoever wanted to come in, let 'em. The Confederacy should have dissolved and left nothing but private property owners in its place. No need for cities of any kind because there would no longer be towns called Boston or Philadelphia or New York - how dare those socialist government types confine private property owners within something as outrageous as a city limit. Each private property owner would be the law unto themself. I d'know, would private property owners be able to form their own corporation in order to secure their collective pieces of land? Wouldn't that be setting up a form of government? Could they make a law that said if one person sold their property, the new owner would come under the jurisdiction of that corporation? I guess the the right to form communities would also be abolished.

Of course, the idea of a group of say... Mongols riding in and taking over pieces of land and determining that land a country right smack dab in the space between two friendly neighbors, well? Too bad. Those two neighbors didn't have the foresight to see that some group may come in, grab the land as their own, set up a form of government and completely ruin the view those two neighbors once had because they never thought of buying up that piece of land from.... well, HECK! Who would they have bought it from? Hm. They should have just extended the fencing or something. Wait a second, I had read something about that, how in the early days there were those land-grabbers just taking everything and claiming it was theirs... Locke wrote something about that:

Section 31 ... As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy. And thus, considering the plenty of natural provisions there was a long time in the world, and the few spenders; and to how small a part of that provision the industry of one man could extend itself, and ingross it to the prejudice of others; especially keeping within the bounds, set by reason, of what might serve for his use, there could be then little room for quarrels or contentions about property established.

Unless you're a greedy #&@^ and want to amass great quantities of land. But OB's have dissolved all things that might reek of socialist governments - governments in general, no sociatal compact allowed because that's how governments come into being and as we know, all government is evil. A free for all is a much better bet. OB's assure us that everyone has everyone else's best interest at heart, that no one, not even the OBers themselves would descend to land-grabs or sniping or name-calling or throwing out ad homs or try to make anyone take sides (unless it's their side) because they are pure and virtuous and so therefore everyone else must be, too.

Nope, OBers cannot fathom that a group of people can come together and hold land in their collective name, that some land is privately owned and the rest held in common under their name and because of such can exclude anyone who does not belong to that common name.... namely a member (or citizen) of some other country.

As I've written before, all OBers offer me are fantastical utopias where rainbows arc over skies, unicorns roam freely, greed and power hungry people don't exist and no one ever does any harm to anyone else - not in thought, word or deed. Not even in comments they may reply to.