So my last post was about borders and how I think some voluntary-anarchists incorrectly extrapolate from the NAP.
It's kind of esoteric and tedious, and I want to sum up my thoughts like this:
It would be consistent to say "borders shouldn't be a thing", that they shouldn't exist.
But not enforcing the border while simultaneously claiming the border makes no sense, and is not what the NAP is saying to do.
So if you mean "you shouldn't enforce the border because it's not a valid claim and you should surrender the claim", okay.
But this doesn't mean that in practice you want the US government to stop enforcing the border. You want them to give up their claim to the border.
There's no principled objection to the enforcement. The NAP doesn't care who you allow on land that's validly yours. (So it's that national borders shouldn't be a thing or recognized as valid, not that we actually should want states to decide "everyone can cross". That's not principled, that they maintain their claim but happen to have this particular threshold.)
Consider that it would not be principled to say "the interest rate should be X%". The principle is that it shouldn't be centrally determined. What exactly the best centralized decision would be is not a point of principle.
Enforcing it seems similar to spending tax revenue. It's a function of having taxed. At that point they can spend it and the NAP doesn't tell you otherwise. The NAP tells you that they can't tax. That's where the principle is broken. The objection isn't at the point where they spend it.
I'd love to know why I'm wrong about this.
You're not wrong about this point, we "anarchists" (I was elected to speak on behalf of the collective at the last anarchist meetup) believe in Property Rights and Free Movement and aren't the ones incentivizing people to 'illegally' cross the border, that's the free government handouts they reward them with once they get here. Unfortunately, the majority in America are still educated in government school's, so this is only a theoretical argument for autodidacts, not a populist question since they really don't even understand our theories or freedom whatsoever.
Right, the handouts tip the scales.
Plus to whatever extent there's a worry about terrorists, it's because of wars.
(Of course it doesn't mean everyone comes because of handouts and because they're a terrorist, but some people do, so now the water is muddied in this way.)
Without the state there wouldn't actually be this issue, where people want to come join you but it's like a contentious thing that you have to be skeptical about. So the state can sort out their own mess and decide how to draw the line. But we as anarchists can object that you can't validly claim billions of acres of land that you aren't using.
that I think is where the objection is. Some anarchists seem to think that US policy actually should be that anyone can cross the border. To me that seems to be accepting the state's claim of the land while simultaneously rejecting the idea that they can restrict entry. I think you have to take a full-measure and reject their claim in the first place :p
(and then there aren't wars and the handout system)
I agree with you. We need borders. Anyone can argue about this, but common sense tells you to make sure and know who enters your country. I can feel your frustration about this. There are so many people calling for open borders. I’m not sure what is in their mind, but for example let them leave the door of their house open. Should they really do it to risk their and their family well being?
haha right, if you lock your door then you should get why a state locks its door
you can argue against there being a state, but you don't in practice expect there to be a state and they don't lock their doors
lol
I'm not too worried about open borders actually happening, because the state knows that it gets run over in that case. It's basically a chaotic way to end themselves. I think there's an ideal ratio for them, where they want it to be open enough but not completely open.
But it's frustrating to me the way some people incorrectly think border enforcement breaks NAP, when it actually doesn't
Well said, i am totally agree with you.
Sometimes I can’t stand this hypocrisy. “Build the bridges not the walls”. Look at Vatican for example. Why pope says not to build walls since his home is only about the walls. Why left say “let everyone in”, but lock their homes to make sure no stranger gets in.
We are only just beginning to understand the power of love because we are just beginning to understand the weakness of force and aggression....
enforcing border is okay but spending billions of money on it is just worst . at least that can be used for the welfare of the people. which could improve their standard of living.
Very interesting! You write with great ability.
Hopefully the problem quickly ends without anyone being harmed.
Greetings of peace!
Hopefully the problem is going quickly find the best solution
Do you use some sort of AI automated response kind of thing? (Another person commented something very similar, "hopefully the problem quickly ends".)
Maybe that's another account of yours?
My post though doesn't really talk about any "problem" really, just a disagreement on theory and terms. So I wonder why there are multiple people commenting that they hope the problem ends quickly.
No, I only comment with this account only, it's honest I have another account but I do not comment dipostingan you, maybe it was someone else who made the same comment with me.
If my comments interfere you are really sorry, and I promise not to comment on your post.
I'm sorry as big as I am @shifaadi
May you always succeed friends👍
no worries no worries! I am just curious. Like where some of these comments come from and stuff, I always wonder.. if it's a bot program people use, or who knows, the language is often similar, I always wonder where the wording comes from. Was just curious and figured I'd ask!! Nothing ever bothers me tho, keep commenting!
Thank you very wisely, why I say so because I do not want to be someone who interferes with other people's posts
Friends, do not you wrong yourself, because the opinions of others different from our thinkers, others can only see and judge but can not feel it.
Hopefully your post is not the last one I always support your friends
Oh, far from the last...
I hope so work is unlimited😊
I agree with you. We need borders. Anyone can argue about this, but common sense tells you to make sure and know who enters your country. I can feel your frustration about this. There are so many people calling for open borders. I’m not sure what is in their mind, but for example let them leave the door of their house open. Should they really do it to risk their and their family well being
Please stop spamming plagiarized comments onto my posts, you'll keep getting flagged
thanks! very lucky of me