-12 votes

AnCap Foolery on Immigration

I know it's not quite Thursday Fight night, but nevertheless, the stupidity is deafening.

On AnCap / propertarian / localism, it is the local land owners around the border who decide what inflow and outflow they want, or do not want, on their roads.

Our stable of anCap fools is actually championing the federal government use violence against local property owners to keep the borders open against their will.

Such clowns. Not even consistent with their own, admittedly silly, ideology.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Are you recommending the other NAP.

The No Aggression Principle. No resistance to tyrannies.

I have not followed the dialogue closely, but are you advocating something similar to what Leo Tolstoy put forward in "The Kingdom of God is within you."

Thanks to permaculture for the link

Free includes debt-free!


The position you talk of isnt an "An-Cap" position. Most all "An-Cap" people I know believe strongly in property rights. You must mean "open border advocates" which are generally libertarians, not Anarchists.
I think I could go back through all my posts here at the DP for the last 6+ years and not find but maybe once or twice when I have used the "T" word. But, your posts are almost always the very definition of a Troll post. Your'e looking to aggrivate others and pick a fight, nothing more. And that makes everything you post completely irrelevant.

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy

I sat out the immigration hoopla

until an anCap post was front paged making specious arguments. The point being, open borders is in contradiction to ancap, yet its champions will ignore that little contradiction to latch onto a politically correct position.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Clean up your language Bill

Or take it somewhere else.

Apparently you misunderstand. Fight club isn't about calling people fools.

You're part of the biggest faction of all, the all encompassing one. It is called the


faction. Every faction is a subset of the I'M RIGHT faction.

Don't you find it odd? Everyone is a member, and yet everyone disagrees. It is a paradox of the highest order.

Each sub faction has its own pet issue. We all know where the AnCaps stand. We all know where you stand. You're two sides of the same coin. Yet with this short post, you take it a step further: Not only are you going to play the "I'm Right" card, but you'll play the "I'm right, and I'm going to be a dick about it," card.

And what have you proved? You complain and wail and rail and call people fools, and yet, without them, you would have nothing to say. You take your sausage out and swing it around: "You're fools, you're fools! I'm right."

Tsk, tsk. Apparently you still haven't learned. You always manage to raise my hopes, only to crush crush them into dust.

Raise the bar, Bill.

He's the man.

With due respect

and I hope you know how much I do respect you, I think I won't comment further on the issue at all.

Although I think the immigration situation is a serious issue, worthy of thoughtful discussion, it is perhaps one of those topics that is too sensitive for some places.

I respect that! I usually avoid it altogether, unless it is rubbed in our faces. But I won't pretend it's an issue of language.

In the very post to which this one is a riposte, the article ends "go back to sleep, sheep" and denigrates people who are not in favor of open borders as evil and foolish.

Many of my posts have called things foolish, and you've lauded them. Fool is one of my favorite words; yours too, I imagine, from the fool card.

It's the issue, not the language. I typically avoid the topic, unless a position I strongly disagree with is spotlighted, as in the case of the dwalters post.


P.S. I do have one request.

In the event that you do cut me loose, I would hope you allow me to access at least my poetry posts. The rest can go to the dogs.

I love

I love how I can tell a Bill3 post just by the title ;)

*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*


and I love how I can tell a Marcclair comment by the love.

Seems like...

...some higher principles are being violated if you use your property rights as a blockade to prevent a person, other than a violent aggressor, from being able to come and go in the marketplace of the world, to interact and trade with others.

I would characterize

many of those coming as violent aggressors. First, many are actually criminals, so it makes sense we would want to regulate the flow. Those who break through that regulated flow are breaking our law, trespassing, and disrespecting our way of life before even getting here.

Once here, many will seek to live at taxpayer expense.

Others will become the voting numbers to approve further redistribution and violation of rights.

So on every rational ground, communities will seek to regulate the inflow of people.

If someone wants to cut through your property, and you don't want to let them because you don't know who they are or trust them, and they try to force their way through, they are aggressors.

Neighbors voluntarily...

...coordinating and maintaining appropriate thoroughfares for visitors and travelers, and securing the areas that are not appropriate for such use, would be a lot different than blocking such travel altogether, in an AnCap society.

Of course, with things like taxpayer expense, redistribution, etc. existing due to State coercion, that complicates things, adds incentives and subsidies that distort what the flow would otherwise be in a free market.

Not arguing against people having property rights -- just thinking there are some ways of using such property which are more in line with the Golden Rule than others. On the other hand, the travelers and passersby should also respect others, per the Golden Rule. A two-way street, as with everything...

You have a way of

sharing your point of view that deserves comment.

Your view is novel, well grounded, honest, self consistent for the most part.

The problem I have is that you set up your view as if it were a support or advocacy for one side in a generally two sided debate, when it really isn't.

In the first place, ancaps don't have a higher principle, Love, justifying their views. They hold axiomatic positions on property and rights without reference to Love or higher principles.

On ancap, property owners can exclude trespassers by right, regardless of Love, or even harm, to the one excluded. So it makes no sense for you to come to the aid of the ancap position, when you don't hold that position.

In an ancap society, people could definitely block all trespass, whatever their motives.

In the second place, we aren't talking hypotheticals, but the actual situation. Controlling and regulating the inflow and outflow of people on a border with another country, where we don't know who is coming in, disease, criminal background, etc.

It is within reason and within property owners rights to regulate that inflow and outflow according to their best interests and wishes, and it is the federal government preventing them from doing so with force, dictated from 1,000 miles away.

Appreciate the...

...kind words; am sure there are yet quite a few inconsistencies in my outlook that need challenging/resolving.

I think it's incorrect, though, to categorically state "ancaps don't have a higher principle, Love, justifying their views." Instead I'd say ancaps may or may not embrace such a higher principle.

The Silver Rule of old is that you should not do unto another as you would not have done unto yourself. This is very similar to the NAP -- against aggression; don't hurt people or take their stuff.

The Golden Rule goes beyond this to the positive notion that you should do unto others as you would have done unto you.

A libertarian tends to embrace the Silver Rule. A libertarian may optionally also embrace the Golden Rule, although it is not required in order to be a libertarian. The Golden Rule is not necessarily inconsistent with the Silver Rule; it just goes beyond it to give a fuller picture of what it means to Love your neighbor (or even your enemy) as yourself.

I see a key component of Love for another as giving them the space, the room to voluntarily choose whether to Love, or not, themselves. Indeed, this is what the Creator has done for us -- voluntarily creating us and giving us the room to exercise free will to in turn voluntarily participate in Love, or not. It is up to us to choose to complete the circle and give of ourselves back.

I see the respect of property rights as a foundational Silver Rule type platform, to provide the space for people in Liberty to learn to go beyond this and exercise positive charity, or the Golden Rule, in their interactions with all.

So where ancaps push back against a coercive State, which violates the Silver Rule, I am sympathetic to it as a subset or a component of my larger worldview, even if it's not the entire picture. Does that make any sense?

It's basically just saying that you agree that people should have Liberty, even if you don't endorse all the things they do with it; and beyond that trying to persuade others to use their Liberty for the deeper, richer purposes of Love.

As for your last two paragraphs, I agree with much of what you said, although with slight modification, it isn't incompatible with a voluntarist society, with neighbors facilitating travel while maintaining security. Certainly, there should be no federal government using force to prevent others from maintaining that needed security.

But its not true

Self ownership, NAP, property rights, are ethical claims defining individual relationship to society. It doesn't demand the individual refrain from doing to others what he would not want done to him. For example, I would not want anyone to say nasty things about me. Nothing in these anarchist ethical principles is against it. They are claims of a different kind, and a different moral system. Rothbard said parents have a right to starve their children. He didn't know about your silver rule, so you're just forcing syncretism where there isn't any.

Yeah, to clarify...

...I'd say that rather than NAP being equivalent to the Silver Rule, it is contained within it, or one component of it -- just as the Silver Rule is itself not the complete picture of 'Love thy neighbor', but a part of it.

So whereas NAP does not cover the general category of saying nasty things about someone, nonetheless choosing to voluntarily aim higher than the NAP by not saying nasty things is not a violation of the NAP. Violently aggressing against others, though, is a violation of all the higher principles as well -- not just the NAP.

I think someone has a woefully low bar set for themselves and their life ambitions if they only seek to not violate NAP. We should aspire to more, but voluntarily -- not at the point of a gun forcing us to do so.


It is in service to higher principles that we often use aggression. I could commit aggression by invading Murray Rothbard's property and feeding his kid. He says he has the right to not feed his kid and you aren't allowed on his land. NAP is foolishness.


...violent aggression against your neighbor, not out of self-defense or the defense of another against aggression, but blatantly initiating it -- that is in sync with loving them? Surely not. And with all due respect to Rothbard, deliberately starving a kid is aggression against them.

I suspect that you really do agree with the NAP for the most part, but just have this and that caveat you want to attach to it before accepting it. Surely, the bulk of violent aggression people have in mind when they think of the NAP are not things you would defend as praiseworthy?

Rather than just trash the entire concept of the NAP, why not salvage what you agree with from it and explain what your own principle is when it comes to discerning the appropriate use of force in society?

Is that what you believe

is currently happening at our border? Children wish to enter the marketplace of the word to interact and trade with others? As what? Toys for perverts?

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Just an...

...observation, in general. Children who should be with parents/guardians should be helped to return to them, whether they come from down the street or many miles away.

What ancap is championing federal violence?

Or any non defensive violence for that matter?

You are either making stuff up or there is someone calling themselves an ancap that is rather confused.

In all events open borders is the default position, simply because borders are immoral per se, as borders are a violation of rights.*

That said, as we have them, and we have a welfare state in place, I think a self defense case can be made to exclude immigrants who we know will access public services.

The first cause of the immorality is the government, but since they will steal more from us due to the immigrants and we can't stop that immediately.

On the other hand, if an ancap, or anyone else, repudiates the use of funds stolen from them to keep the borders closed, I can't say they don't have grounds to do that as well. It's wrong to force someone to pay for something they find reprehensible.

I think that position is a bit simplistic myself, but they have every right to that position.

Either way it's academic at this point in time. None of us can do anything about what the feds will do either way.

I agree with you on this one on consequentialist grounds.

But you're rude, and arguably not too bright, for insulting all ancaps generally, and needlessly.

*I'm pretty sure I need to add, that fences are not wrong. Borders are wrong because borders are maintained by stolen resources and are themselves a violation of natural rights.

To keep the borders open

requires the continuation of state aggression against property owners. That is presumably what open borders advocates like dwalters and yourself support. That is the only thing keeping the border opened.

Keeping the borders closed requires the same

and worse. That is not a valid argument to keep out the illegals. I will however try to do better to provide one.

States and the aggression and borders they create are immoral, destructive, and only exist by violating rights.

That said, my position is that since the evil exists we have to consider who the evil gets used on and what it gets used for. What we know for sure is the evil will do something because that is it's nature.

Since we know illegals will employ the evil and be employed by the evil to cause more rights violations and social destruction, I reluctantly take the side of keeping out illegals since they will be a cause for violating somewhat more innocent peoples' (us) rights.

They have the right to move anywhere they wish, but they don't have the right to steal from us or provide votes to 'legitimize' stealing from us. (and I'm talking about taxes, not jobs). Since the evil will not allow us to make these things separate, we have a bad choice. That being the case I broadly agree with you on this point.

Dwalters has a more principled position and I certainly respect that, I just don't agree here. If our opinion on the matter made the least bit of difference I would be sure to study his position more carefully.

I can say this. If the feds poofed tomorrow and had no ability to steal from us to give to them, or use them as a pawn in the democratic process, I would not lift a finger to hinder them, and the concept of 'illegal' would be meaningless.

I would certainly agree with anyone who didn't want to employ them or allow them on their land. And I would certainly agree with anyone who did want to employ them and allow them on their land.

How does permitting property owners

to make their own decisions about who to let in or not on their own property count as "state aggression against property owners"? Bill, are you really that dense?

Permitting property owners to make

such decisions would result in much more tightly controlled immigration. It is the forceful prevention of this that keeps immigration open. When they try to defend their property, your friends in DC stop them. It seems to me you support this.

If you are against the government keeping open borders against the will of the property owners, you should say so. Otherwise we have to assume you support it, and desire more of it.

Cyril's picture

Yes, apparently.

Yes, apparently.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Question to you and Faction3: do you think I can ask a refund

Do you think I'm entitled to ask the feds about a refund for my time, energy, and money I had to abandon to them, when I immigrated legally, playing by all the rules - every single one of them?

I mean, ya know, in the light of these recent news about this recent, new AMERIKAN generosity.

Thanks in advance for your tips! :)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Faction 3. Due to the Lou Reed picture

you just went up another notch in my book.

Thanks my man

And I've followed your comments, like what I read. While Smudge Pot probably has a different view on this topic, he is also a Russel Means guy, so there's lots of overlap along with the discontinuity.

Cyril's picture

What - I - find mind boggling

What I, personally, find absolutely mind boggling is how (almost) everybody seem so obsessed to tackle the open vs. close borders argument, while, AFAIC, that ought to rather be:

WHOM to let in vs. WHOM to keep out, and WHY exactly.

I came to America at my own expenses after finding a job even before setting foot on this land, complied with the USCIS procedures for 2 years, and a dozen pounds of paperwork they required - and after 40 years spent in my country without a single misdemeanor / law suit from anybody.

Oh, and yeah, I also had, undiscontinued to date, the privilege from day one, ever since 5 years ago, of paying my state and federal taxes, "no question asked".

Does that make sense / give a clue where I am going?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Dear president/King Obama is sending me a strong message

Dear president/King Obama is sending me (along with many others) a strong message:

Cyril, you could as well have been a cheater, to save yourself time, energy, and money.

Oh, and Amerika doesn't care if you had a criminal record, anywayzzz...

But hey, that's Amerika.

SCREW America.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius