How 'bout neither

Statists love the false dichotomy. Such as the one above. You either accept government violating you or Venezuelan gangs violating you. There is no third option of not being violated.

I'm protecting the identity of the "libertarian" minarchist who posted it. Whether I should or not.

I waded in where I knew I wouldn’t be welcome.

I pointed out that "No gangs would be taking over anything had government not whittled away the natural human right to defend life, liberty, and property with the most effective modern tools available. Government is the problem; more government is not a solution."

Instead of addressing my point, he said: "Yet here we are, in the real life world. Not a philosophical thought experiment in a vacuum."

Me: "So you believe a real world tighter border wouldn’t require a much stronger, bigger government than currently exists? In real life? I’m talking real world, not utopian 'necessary government' delusions."

Him: "I subscribe to the minarchist view on this, that pragmatically, securing a border is one of the few “legitimate” functions of govt in our current reality. Allowing culturally distant, militant, organized, criminal, communist people or organizations to come free is suicide" There's that evil "pragmatism" again-- the belief that anything is excusable if you can make the argument that it "works".

Me: "Are you a libertarian or a minarchist? There are libertarian solutions and there is statism. The gulf between the two is unbridgeable. 
https://kentmcmanigal.blogspot.com/2024/08/it-seems-almost-intentional.html"

He stopped replying, but someone else jumped in: "Given that our government is already the most overblown, powerful force in the history of the world I think we could conceivably direct some of that power to the border without 'expanding it'”

Me: "'Could conceivably'… But they wouldn’t. Nothing in the history of government gives any indication that they would."

Person 2: "So you’re fine with millions of people from 3rd world countries pouring in who cost taxpayers billions a year, who do not share your values whatsoever and who will cement a permanent one party state if they are naturalized, as long as the gov doesn’t get a little more power?" Mind reading must be such an exciting superpower... if only they could do it well.

Me: "Read the blog post I linked to and you’ll find the answer."

And so it goes. Of course, I eventually got blocked. I get it- I'm frustrating. I'm the tar baby. I have patience and I've heard it all before.
Anyway...

If government can get you to beg them to save you- with legislation or border control- they win. And you won’t actually be saved.

To those who believe government holds the answer, the statist approach is always the "pragmatic" way, even if you know government will never do it. Government might close the borders, but if they do, it won't be to make you safer or make your life better in any way. It will be to trap you. To control you. You'll still need to take up arms to defend your own life, liberty, or property.

To them, the libertarian approach, even when it’s no more far-fetched than the statist approach, is “philosophical” and not realistic. Just because they seem to believe so strongly in government. Even when both approaches are on equal footing as far as the state agreeing to the conditions. (It won't.)

"Close the borders", using the government power that already exists so you don’t end up with more powerful government, knowing that this isn't how government has ever worked, and it's not going to magically change now. It might work this time?

But respecting the natural human right to defend life, liberty, and property? The ONLY thing that has ever worked or ever will? This is unrealistic. You've got to beg government to save you from the conditions it created and sustains with its illegitimate power.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?