• Don't mind raceboy

    He has confused the word "troll" with anyone who has a differing opinion from himself, which is nearly everyone in the world, so you're in good company.

    While I'm not an ancap, I agree with your view that immigration control would be increased, not decreased, in a system where property owners and their decisions is moral central.

    I don't think property is sacrosanct or inviolable, I do think people have "a right" to attack property if the owners of property set up a system that is extremely unjust, or concentrated in power. I don't subscribe to an inviolable NAP or natural rights view.

    But I don't see living in a country of people who don't want open immigration as a right. If people want to fight for it, that's fine, but it's just trespassing and vandalism, and should be resisted.

    I might side with immigrants escaping persecution, refugees, etc., in some cases, it's not a black or white thing. I just don't think wholesale invasion to abuse public services and send money to home country and undercut poor American workers is a right to be defended with force.

    If the America people decided, either democratically or in a purely ancap system, to prohibit any incoming refugees or desperate people, I might support the refugees, even if they used force. So I'm not dogmatic on any point. It's just that it's clear what's going on today is a political program, orchestrated centrally, to replace the American middle class with a pliable, manageable third world population that won't make any demands either for liberty, justice, or a decent standard of living.

  • Even if we accept a normative theory of property

    as a given, it still is not force/aggression to convince someone through words to voluntarily part with their possessions.

    NAP supporters are typically rothbardian title-transfer contract supporters, where you can only enforce contracts that involve property transfer. and you can't physically force violators to abide by their contract, since they didn't use violence. you can only use civil penalties to collect. there's no prison in NAP for someone who can't pay their bills.

    all the fraud cases where no contract is violated would just be voluntary interaction. if you get tricked into a bad deal, it's not theft. your responsibility to be vigilant.

  • well sir

    in the absence of central state interference, the borders would be sealed tighter than john jays backside in a male rapist penal colony.

    so if you oppose the state and support local property owners, you support immigration control. the only way to prevent it is to use outside force to keep local roads "federally owned and open."

  • lol

    what evidence do you have that the labor cost input into the income statements of our agribiz companies are unduly impacted by a 5 dollar an hour difference?

    what evidence do you have that our export of agriciultural products is a crucial factor in our overall income?

    we run a huge trade deficit anyway, so how is this even relevant?

    come on Sea, i like you, but you know economics is not your subject. why even talk about it, it's ridiculous.

  • Not really

    It could be done de-centrally by a voluntary labor movement and property owners agreeing to patrol their common borders, under a constitutional republic, to prevent invasion by socialistic, illiterate, unskilled, never ending populations, fleeing their own failed socialistic states.

    Central economic planning is a Hayekian concept, and really applies to trying to control complex economic systems where diffused information cannot be centrally accessed. Only a free market can provide functional price signals for firms, investors, borrowers, people risking capital.

    It doesn't really apply to a simple operation like constraining the supply on one side (labor). That does not attempt to micromanage information rich systems, it doesn't risk messing up signals to capital investment, or interest rates, or other highly sensitive prices.

    You can easily restrict labor and know exactly what will happen; labor price goes up. This is usually a good thing for liberty, for distributed political power, for a society of people who are invested, as property owners, in the sanctity of property, law, contracts, and freedom.

    Broke slave laborers are prone to become socialists and will be a constant source of political instability and support for violence against law, property, contracts. All they need is sufficient numbers, and you and your property will make a nice meal for them.

  • Yeah

    that's what we need to do. Dismantle every public service down to local garbage pickup and one room schoolhouses, or else be held hostage to an invasion of welfare state pawns and drones. Good idea, Ed. Keep coming up with the strategic stuff.

  • Bingo

    its nice when there's someone with enough of a head on their shoulders that when I sign back in, the opposition has been handily dispatched. Good to meet you!

    Seamusin, you disappoint me. You're supposed to be a left anarchist, but sound like a shill for corporatocracy.

  • stop with the scare tactics

    migrant workers coming and going to pick fruit and vegatables, took place for decades and decades, without meaning permanent residence, citizenship or exhausting public services.

    and in the rest of the country, people picked fruit and veggies themselves.

    anyway, most people want immigration controlled. most importantly, the property owners and residents on the border want to control it, and no one in DC or NY, or on the dailypaul, should try to stop them from exercising their rights. stop with the support for central government control over distant local communities.

    there are few macro scale things, short of war, that are more obviously 'aggression' than forced, unnatural population replacement, like that which USG is engaged in. it is very much in line with the behavior of the soviet regime in using demographics and population as a weapon against subjected people.

  • Important

    That we realize what he meant by state. He was talking about the new (at the time) democratic / national State, capital S. The officialdom, the parade, trumpery, all the things Nietzsche despised about modern European politics and culture. I think he saw the State as a parasitic growth on the culture, mediocritizing everyone, the mass against strong individuals.

    But we shouldn't confuse this meaning of the modern European State with its democracy, patriotism and egalitarian ethos, with 'state' in the sense of political governance. Nietzsche was an elitist, favored aristocracy, and NOT because he saw it as best for serving the people, or for utilitarian reasons. He saw the purpose of the state in the higher value of the ruling class, to be served by the people.

    He admired antiquity for its open and unabashed slavery, admired the ruling personalities and families of Renaissance city states.

    For his real thought on political relations, try reading chapter 10, What is Noble, of Beyond Good and Evil. It puts a more different light on things, as Huck Finn would say.

    http://www.authorama.com/beyond-good-and-evil-10.html

  • your comment is a red herring

    the local property owners don't want the invasion. maybe they do want some social welfare or hospitals. not for you to judge. what you support is the establishment overclass 1,000 miles away using force to prevent people from defending their own property and roads.

  • anyways

    someone below already corrected your economics. mexico's border to the USA is open from the mexican and the american side. if it means more people for one side, means less for the other. thusly, open borders don't mean more people. people don't just spawn in the desert between.

  • Politician-corporate overlord complex

    would not get its cheap labor / population replacement if it didn't provide enough goodies to make 6 dollars an hour attractive. We already have the welfare state, you guys are just supporting the establishment using force to prevent local communities from defending their roads and environs from invasion.

  • Will you finally admit

    that freemasonic pandas molested you, and stole your bike?

  • Those local property owners own the roads.

    Not you, not the owners of Monsanto, or John Mccain, or Obama, or Harry Reid, or your other compatriots.

    They can defend their local roads from invasion like anyone would. It's not my proposal, it's just common sense and property rights.

  • false on many counts

    an open border doesn't necessarily mean more people. mexico's border is open, and people leave.

    more people doesn't necessarily mean more productivity. more people could exist at the same level of productivity per capita. you seem to have no understanding of economics.

    if 15 billion people arrived in space ships willing to work at subsistence (15 dollars a day?), forever, then all wages would be depressed for hundreds of years.

    we'd be fully justified in saying, fly away home, that's not how we do things.

    think a bit, and you won't be confused.

  • You've made a false connection

    I didn't say illegals collect social security. I don't know if they do. I said they live off public services.

    I said that a person could be in favor of social security without supporting illegal immigration. A person could support some level of social welfare without supporting open borders.

    You implied that my comment was merely rebuking entitlements and not about immigration. I disagree. Sweden is a welfare state. That doesn't mean Sweden needs genital mutilating illiterates sucking off the public teet and parasiting on social capital paid in by citizens.

  • Proof enough

    for me. Good work as always john.

  • I didn't propose it

    But the property owners along the border, and volunteers, easily could. They are prevented from doing so by your friends in DC who want population replacement. It's the same strategy Stalin favored.

  • Nonsense

    You can support social security, for example. It is funded by the payroll taxes of people who work, legally, and receive income sufficient to live comfortably and contribute to pensions and taxes.

    This does not oblige you to support open borders, where people break the law, work for dimes and live off public services without contributing, so that rich people don't have to pay living wages for menial work, and so the state gets pliable barely literate new voters.

    Stop your support for easily controlled slave labor and political pawns, and for violating the desires of the property owners who pay for and fund the public spaces and roads being invaded.

  • Fraud is lying

    with the purpose of getting the deceived person to part with money or property, or sign something over on false pretenses.

    The victim always takes the action voluntarily because they were tricked or trusted the deceiver. No force is used, just cunning and deception.