• 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.

  • downvoting

    is for losers.

  • you don't have to be for or against

    immigration control. it is the default position in the absence of state interference, as it is what property owners around the border want and would do if your friends did not prevent them with force. all you need to do is stop supporting obama, reid, mccain, bush and the leave it alone, and the invasion would be stopped.

  • your interpolation of

    regulations into the discussion is a red herring, as its not the topic.

    with or without regulations, an endless supply of cheaper labor, succored by public dole, will force down wages for menial work.

    your statement is also a straw man argument, since i never claimed that regulations do or don't affect wages, or that cheap labor is the sole cause of low wages. i didn't even claim we have bad wages generally, so that's another red herring mixed in the the straw man.

    it's like a big smelly fishy scarecrow.

    if people were not forced by the central govt to yield their property to federally controlled roads and holding pens, then local property owners would defend their property and their public roads from invasion. that is the voluntarist position. not supporting the federally implemented invasion.

  • your anecdote

    is a red herring. it's good that you're learning what red herring means.

  • Supply control

    is not a price control, lol.

    Price is the consequence of supply. Controlling the supply does not require centralized coercion.

    It would just require an ethos or cultural standard, a belief in a certain standard of living as minimally acceptable, and the boycott/exclusion of anyone who violates this norm.

    Same as enforcing any other norm via voluntary association and property interaction.

    You are deeply confused, as usual.

    The persons in your scenario who you proposition for transporting workers might refuse on moral grounds, because they don't want to support undercutting decent living standards, or don't want to suffer the consequences of violating cultural norm.

    In a voluntary system, they could still do it, but the rest of the people could boycott them, strip them of any mutual defense services, and, as the Icelanders did (who anarchist seamusin claims were anarchists), make these people guilty of "outlawry" -- outside protection of the law.

    So anyone could use force against them without penalty, because they chose to violate cultural norms, and not receive punishment from the rest of the society, who withdrew its shield.

    Maybe you and Sea should debate about whether outlawry is valid.

    Done.

  • Liceboy

    You seem to have posted a video instead of an argument.

    What's so hard to understand about the fact that the property owners who own the public land around the border would control it more, not less, than the federal government, and are only prevented from so doing by central government force from your pals in DC?

  • Marginal utility

    just means that each extra unit of a good has a different subjective value than each other unit. Like.... I value grapes at 5 dollars a bushel, but once I have three bushels, each extra bushel has zero value to me.

    Your invoking the phrase marginal utility is meaningless, does not apply, and just misleads readers who like yourself don't know what it means.

    Your question about a 60 billion dollar hit to our trade balance is frankly absurd. The labor cost portion of expenses is already miniscule. We are talking about a 20-35% change in that expense category for the profit and loss margin of the corporations. It wouldn't impact their prices, they could just eat the cost in their profits. The profits of shareholders might be reduced, but the trade balance would not be effected; the increased wages would just go to the workers, in America, not to lost trade.

    Besides, the impact of higher prices from such a tiny input cost would not be 60 billion. Neither of us have done the math, so stop the pretense.