"Borders" are a boundary violation. Supported by people who don't understand their boundaries and don't respect the boundaries of others.
This isn't to say that those who cross "borders" understand or respect boundaries any better. Many of them don't; trespassing on private property, littering, stealing, and otherwise archating. But how can boundary-violating hypocrites preach respect for boundaries at anyone else with any credibility?
They can't.
THIS is where I go against "Libertarianism" 's beliefs.... borders are 100% ethical, all the libertarian arguments against them completely IGNORE the FACT that a country (a large group of humans in a geographic area are called countries) can ethically have borders, it is the EXACT same thing as 3 or 4 (or more) neighbors fencing off their properties together and controlling who can come onto that shared fenced area.... no libertarian loopholes can make that any different than an entire country doing the same thing.... I just cannot fathom the mind block libertarians have on this subject.... everything else they supposedly stand for is extremely logical and ethical, but this subject makes them so illogical and hypocritical it is laughable....
ReplyDelete"it is the EXACT same thing as 3 or 4 (or more) neighbors fencing off their properties together and controlling who can come onto that shared fenced area"
DeleteONLY if it is done by unanimous consent, no one else is required to help fund it, it doesn't violate the right of association, and no one is fenced in who doesn't want to be fenced in.
Borderism is collectivism in the exact same way that "gun control", government schooling, and any other Big Government welfare program is.
An uncompromising respect for property rights (and personal/property defense) might just end "immigration" [sic] more completely than the "border" welfare program, but do so ethically. This is something no government program can ever do.
Borders are imaginary lines that determine which set of violent edicts you'll be subjected to. They are essentially gang territory. They are to say that reality will be XYZ and the people will be TUV and pay W within these boundaries. They are violent coercive terms and conditions on land.
DeletePrivate property is different. Humans have a natural need for a domicile and/or territory to support themselves. Private property is rightful and the 'borders' of which are a voluntary nonviolent contract with your neighbors/community.
Private property doesn't violate rights. National boundaries do.
choice is between unrestricted gangs, and slightly moderated gangs (state goons). the moderation is slight, and varies over time and place and cultures; but in many instances is a necessary evil because of the much worse certainty of the unrestricted gangs.
ReplyDeleteboth types are cartels abusive violent thieves.
but historically, to improve chance of survival, when geographic separation is not possible- most prefer the slightly moderated gangs.
hence, city/states and borders.