• 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.

  • just mad

    because larken rose is scared to come on the DP.

  • That's what we need around here

    Mohush from you.

    But yeah, learn how english works, great language. :D

  • paece

    baby boo.

  • Yes

    but the rest of the property owners also have the right to withdraw legal protection from dissenters who violate their norms and rules.

    If one property owner out of 99 decides to flout their will, and become a conduit to invasion, they can then lift the protection of law from that individual, and he will be left to his own defenses. If other proper owners punish him for his defection, no one will step in to prevent it.

    That is how the state-less Icelanders handled defectors. These being the Icelanders who David Friedman and other ancaps champion as anarchists.

  • It's natural that you should

    want me to chase a red herring, but I won't. Make a post about the minimum wage, if it's interesting I'll add comments. But I don't indulge people in argumentative tactics that undermine sound discussion.

    To your next question, there is no contradiction between supporting both voluntary and cultural norms, as well as legal enforcements. They are complementary. The cultural and voluntary norms are the basis for any just laws that compel individuals in a given area to abide by the rules of that area.

    But to comment further here would be to chase another red herring, because it's not the topic we were focusing on.

  • My comment wasn't about you.

    Right off the bat you don't know how to argue.

  • It's good to see you retreat into a more defensible perimeter

    Anyway, the state is the only thing preventing border enforcement.

  • Your hate for

    property owners?

    The love is strong too. Your love for the policies of Lindsey Graham, Obama, McCain, Reid, and the rest of the DC crowd. Don't be so abashed, when you support a policy just speak up and say so. These are your champions, why not throw them a bone?

  • Yes


  • Mexican government

    actively assists border crossers north. The US government permits most of this traffic and currently assists much of it.

    There are checkpoints in some high traffic regions, mainly to harass US citizens, enforce regulations and taxes, tolls and commercial traffic. But the overall flow of people north is permitted, and so the borders are open in that overarching sense.

    As it applies to the question of whether open borders = more people, the answer is obviously, more for one side, less for the other.

  • Shouldn't it be triple speak?

    Anyway, there's not much to argue about.

    If the USG got out of the situation entirely, then local property owners would control the situation better than what the most hardline immigration restrictionists call for the government to do. As long as you open borders advocates don't use aggression against the actual property owners and local communities, you're of no danger to anyone.

    If you oppose government involvement, you should be vocally opposing the State prohibiting local owners and volunteers from controlling the invasion of their personal property and the public areas between their holdings which they also own.

    Your article opposing restriction is a nonsensically pointless article, since the government is actively engaged in using aggression against property owners and local communities to prevent immigration control, and using force to maintain open borders over federal roads and holding pens. If they ceased to do so, there would be very well regulated borders, controlled by the property owners immediately at the border.

    Also, every local community along the route north could also control who passes on their roads, so each town could decide what citizenship it required for travelers.

  • In the English language

    we use the plural to denote many people. It does not mean all. Free tip.

  • where

    did I say I was, derelly?

  • That isn't what marginal utility means

    Marginal utility means that we price things on the basis of a marginal unit. The price of a banana is based on how each person values a marginal unit of bananas. I value each banana differently. I might spend a dollar on the first banana, 65 cents on the next banana, and might not buy a third banana at all unless it was .10 cents.

    Everyone else values items them same way, in marginal units. Each marginal unit has a different utility. Marginal utilty + subjective value is the birth of modern value theory in economics, also called the marginal revolution.

    Menger, Walras, and Jevons each discovered the principles of marginal utility and subjective value around the same time in the latter quarter or so of the 19th century (or so the traditional story goes. Very few people read their works or know the context and background. Rothbard shines here as a gumshoe economic historian of the highest caliber, even if wrong on principles, ethics, and theory.)

    Menger is the first Austrian economics figure.

    You would benefit from a quick study on the austrian school, especially since it informs most modern libertarian thinking, even if only the narrower descendant schools of Mises and rothbard.

    But if you have a 'weakest area' I'd say it is good economics.

    But be careful, don't get sucked into the Austrian cult. It is very stifling.

  • 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.

  • Self described atheists exhibit anger

    at God all the time in their public rhetoric. It is par of the course. They rail and rave against how evil God would be, as some ind of argument. It makes one wonder if their main motivation for disbelief is anger, rather than conclusions from sound arguments.

  • Well, as you know, I'm an evil

    supporter of force, so I'm not beholden to the 100% voluntary principle. But it's hardly naive to think people would form cultural norms about what constitutes an acceptable standard of living, and enforce it via boycott, exclusion or positive law. It's not mere possibility, it's historical and present reality.

    We don't want walking scum like from Goldman Sachs looting our economy and selling the middle class down the river to line their dirty pockets for a temporary benefit, while they rot out and dismantle the long term economic and political stability of the country.

    You guys support that because you're chasing a phantom ideology and selling yourself to real Devils to pay for fake utopias.

    Minimum wage laws are not the topic. Focus.

  • If you take off the politically correct

    goggles, you would see that person A does not have the right to trespass on person B's land. If person A and person C have designated a shared roadway between them, they can prevent person B from entering it because it is their shared property. What level of force they can use to resist trespass is a different subject, but that property owners can repel trespass is hardly a disputed claim.

  • Liceboy

    is "hard of thinking." The lice have eaten into his troll brain.