My Standing Challenge To Open Border Libertarians

Having argued with open border libertarians (outside of this site) for long enough, I’ll leave a simple challenge from now on:

First, I’ll define “open borders” as: The unrestricted flow of humans on state-controlled land in and out of a political jurisdiction, irrespective of the internal and external factors involved.

So here’s the question (heh):

If open borders are the proper libertarian position and will result in greater freedom within the defined area where said open borders exist, why do Progressives and Leftists, i.e. people who favor greater government control over all aspects of life, adamantly support open borders for the USA and make it a major plank of their party platform? Why did Hillary Clinton say (in private) “I support open borders”?

There are only three possible hypothesis:

  • Because in this rare instance they actually favor reduced government control for a variety of potential reasons.
  • Because they mistakenly think it will lead to greater government power, when it won’t.
  • Because they act in self-interest and believe (as all evidence shows) that open borders results in people entering the jurisdiction of the USA who are more likely to support and vote for their preferred policies expanding the power of the state.

In other words, it’s Occam’s Razor v. Open Border Libertarians.

I could also ask them how open borders has worked toward making California a libertarian paradise, but that would simply belabor the point.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in borders, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to My Standing Challenge To Open Border Libertarians

  1. Nice. The last option is of course the correct one.

    I like the challenge that Bionic Mosquito has given them as well: advocate open borders for Israel. I guess a lot of the open border libertarians are Jewish.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The Question says:

      I like the challenge that Bionic Mosquito has given them as well: advocate open borders for Israel. I guess a lot of the open border libertarians are Jewish.

      As I’ve said many times in private conversations, once you take the open borders debate to a country outside the West, you see the coding in the Matrix and realize the scam being played. Westerns are simply held to totally separate standards than anyone else in the rest of the world, ironically by the same people who claim everyone is the same.

      Liked by 1 person

    • The Question says:

      The sad truth is that much of the discussion is rooted in one side unwilling or intentionally hiding their true opinions. Secure border advocates point out all the problems with open borders, and open border advocates are quietly thinking “well, I don’t think that’s really such a bad thing because such and such happen to so and so people, so this is recompense.” But they can’t say that, so they rationalize or re-frame the discussion.

      But it’s also why they don’t care about the borders or immigration policy of any non-Western nation.

      By the way, we saw this with Trump’s “shithole countries” debate. The same people who cried bloody murder over it and insisted those countries aren’t shitholes are the same ones who insist people from those countries be allowed in. If I live in a nice house, why am I so anxious to enter my neighbor’s home to the point where I sneak in illegally?

      Liked by 1 person

      • “If I live in a nice house, why am I so anxious to enter my neighbor’s home to the point where I sneak in illegally?”

        Exactly. Anywhere there is net emigration rather than net immigration, probably is either a shit-hole or it is on the way to becoming one. Illinois, for example, is certainly on it’s way.

        People from other countries will cry about how great their culture is even when they themselves abandoned it, often leaving family and friends (especially mothers and fathers to fend for themselves into old age), just so they themselves could have a better life.

        Like

  2. Pingback: The Notion of “Common Property” Is Inherently Communist | The Anarchist Notebook

  3. Pingback: Karl Marx On Free Trade | The Anarchist Notebook

  4. Joshua Bennett says:

    Well, as a matter of fact, there is something to some of these “shithole” countries being the way they are because of U.S. foreign intervention. Syria, for example, had beautiful cities. Thanks to the U.S., not any more. Iraq didn’t have ISIS chopping off heads and making millions of people flee their homes, until the U.S. invaded.
    Even South America, with the U.S. war on drugs, making peoples lives there miserable, by making drugs big money in the black market. There are a lot of crappy countries that people didn’t mind at all living in, until the U.S. destroyed them.

    You first question isn’t very straight forward, I’ve never heard a “open border” Libertarian say that open borders will bring more Libertarianism. I do find it quite interesting to see so-called Libertarian/Anarchist calling for more State power. Since when has more State control and power over any border resulted in more freedom and Libertarianism?

    Like

    • The Question says:

      I’ve never heard a “open border” Libertarian say that open borders will bring more Libertarianism.

      That says something, doesn’t it? Because it does the opposite, which is why I’m opposed to it.

      I do find it quite interesting to see so-called Libertarian/Anarchist calling for more State power. Since when has more State control and power over any border resulted in more freedom and Libertarianism?

      I’m not calling for more state power. I’m acknowledging a situation in which the state through coercion maintains control of land used to determine who is subject to their jurisdiction and is granted access to stolen wealth via taxation and possibly later can vote to take more wealth and even rights from the people currently living in that jurisdiction. As long as the state is going to control borders, I want its management of that property to best protect the rights of people already living in the country.

      The situation reminds me of that old SNL skit with John Belushi as the manager of a restaurant that only serves cheeseburgers and Pepsi. I want pizza and root beer, but it’s not on the menu. That I want my cheeseburgers well done and my Pepsi ice cold doesn’t mean I’m abandoning my preference for pizza and root beer. In the same way, I’d love for a purely libertarian option, but it’s not a viable option.

      If someone has a preferable alternative that is actually implementable, I’m all ears.

      Like

      • Joshua Bennett says:

        “In the same way, I’d love for a purely libertarian option, but it’s not a viable option.”
        Neither is asking the State to become less of a State.
        The State is the institution that gives the means to the illegal immigrant. Asking the State to “do it’s job” to protect us from foreign invasion of immigrants is ridiculous because the State’s job is not and has never been to protect you. The State is doing exactly what States do. Give itself more power. And if that means paying off immigrants and minorities with welfare for votes and power, a bigger war machine for republican votes and power, degradation of societal norms for democrat votes and power, that’s exactly what it will do.
        The cheeseburger and Pepsi stand will sell pizza and root beer if enough people want it, the State could care less what you want, so why bother?
        I am a Hans Hoppe fanatic, but I think it misses the mark to say that because we are taxed we have the right to demand the stuff we “pay” for be protected for our interest. The State land isn’t yours, either is the national park. Your labor was taken by force, and used for the purpose that the thief decides, not you. Try claiming ownership of a State owned pickup and using it to get a load of fire wood. You will get thrown in prison, if not shot, for stealing, because it is not yours.
        The reason I don’t go for folks like Vox Day and the like, is they ARE statist, they want to be in charge of the State, and to fully implement what they want for border control, requires MORE STATE.
        The State is our enemy. Don’t go asking it for help.

        Like

      • The Question says:

        Asking the State to “do it’s job” to protect us from foreign invasion of immigrants is ridiculous because the State’s job is not and has never been to protect you.

        By that argument, we should not be pushing for decentralization of government power by advocating states’ rights, because it’s not “the job” of the states to protect us from federal tyranny. As Tom Woods has said before, the states are crummy, but they might as well do something useful while they’re there.

        The cheeseburger and Pepsi stand will sell pizza and root beer if enough people want it, the State could care less what you want, so why bother?

        Open border advocates speak of a situation in which the state does not control the border. That is not the situation and will not be the situation. So why bother speaking of a scenario that doesn’t exist, instead of the scenario that does?

        I am a Hans Hoppe fanatic, but I think it misses the mark to say that because we are taxed we have the right to demand the stuff we “pay” for be protected for our interest.

        As opposed to it being used to oppress us even further and deprive us of even more rights?

        I’ve touched on this before, but that is like saying homeless Americans have a right to take over public spaces in Mexico, because they have just as much “right” to them as the Mexicans who live there.

        The State land isn’t yours, either is the national park. Your labor was taken by force, and used for the purpose that the thief decides, not you.

        I’m confused. So because the thief decides what is done with wealth stolen from me, it doesn’t belong to me?

        Stolen wealth doesn’t become communal property. If that is the case, we’re creating incentives for people who don’t have something to encourage others to steal stuff from those who do, so then somehow becomes “everyone’s.”

        Try claiming ownership of a State owned pickup and using it to get a load of fire wood. You will get thrown in prison, if not shot, for stealing, because it is not yours.

        I’m confused. So now we’re saying that the government has no duty to protect me or my rights, but things it steals from me it now owns?

        If I take a government truck and they shoot me in the process, it’s not because they have a just claim to the truck. It’s because they can shoot me and get away with it.

        The reason I don’t go for folks like Vox Day and the like, is they ARE statist, they want to be in charge of the State, and to fully implement what they want for border control, requires MORE STATE.

        This demonstrate my point once more; the state already has control of the borders and always has. It already imposes an immigration policy that, since 1965, has been utterly destructive to the American nation. It already enforces citizenship laws.

        Your argument is framed as though the state does not have that power yet and I’m advocating that they be given it. I clearly am not. I’m saying they have the power, they are exercising it, and they’re going to have it for the indefinite future. As long as they do I want that policy to reflect the private sector as much as possible.

        Like

  5. Joshua Bennett says:

    HAHA, well, I tried to reply like you are doing using italics and such so I can separate the points, but I can’t figure out how too? So, it looked like a mess, and we both know we Anarchist don’t like disorder 🙂 and I erased it. Can you give me some pointers on how you changed the fonts and stuff? I am using a Mac.
    Thanks!

    Like

    • The Question says:

      Yeah, I have the same trouble when I’m commenting on other people’s sites. When I’m commenting on my own site I have the feature options available to do it; I’ve seen commenters on other sites do it, but I haven’t figured it out.

      Like

  6. Pingback: Rules For Immigration | The Anarchist Notebook

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s