Anarcho-Capitalism is Open Borders. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14934851
PoFo will know me for criticizing the migrant crisis and the islamification of Europe as well as supporting Trump's wall; however, as an Anarcho-Capitalist, I am actually open-borders....So how am I not inconsistent?

Well, as Milton Friedman is attributed to saying; "You can have a welfare state or open borders, but you cannot have both."

Many migrants coming to the U.S. and U.K. are specifically allured to the prospect of free-loading off a system that steals from its populace through taxation and those advocating for this immigration (the left) are advocates for such a theft and various other statist programs. Indeed, these immigrants serve as the voting-power and the justification (as protected minorities) for a whole host of statist programs and policies.

so...

I oppose this immigration because it is statist immigration.

Likewise, I oppose immigration without specific invitation. Anarcho-Capitalism is opposed to a state, any state, and a third-party monopolist of coercion telling property owners who they can hire or what goods they can purchase is contrary to AnCap ethics.

Hence, the AnCap objection to tariffs and immigration, ethically, is that the state is wrongfully preventing a voluntarist invitation for workers or goods through free and non-violent exchange.

However, this also means that property owners have the right to invite no one or buy from no one. Hence, regardless of whether economic and social isolation is a good judgment for a property owner, it is their implicit right to act in such a way.

Hence, the issue of immigration for AnCaps is a matter of what individual property owners want to don't want, its up to them.

So If I am a racist and only want white christians in the town that I own on my property, I can only allow white Christian peoples in and products made by other white Christian states/lands; however, my neighbor has the right for his privately-owned town to have complete free-trade and complete open borders; however, if he invites a bunch of jihadists and they trespass on my property, I also have the right to kill them.

Simple as that.

So am I open borders? Yes.

I am open borders and free-trade in the sense that private property owners should be able to admit whoever and whatever they want onto their own land.

But I supported Trump's wall and oppose islamic immigrations because they are uninvited tools of statism.

So to those lefties who think Ancaps are inconsistent.....

Ban all welfare and make private property and gun rights absolute and then we can talk about dissolving the border (so long as we dissolve tariffs with it).

Not until then.
#14934864
I get it, but I don't like the idea of calling myself "open borders"

There should be a better word for it if its so different from what the lefties want.
#14934897
An-capism isn't open borders, an-capism is landlord rights to determine who may enter his property. He may choose to be permissive or tightly controlling so he can be either open or closed borders or anything in between. However it must be noted that a nation-state is also the land owned by a landlord called the government, so essentially we have the same thing, a landlord deciding who may enter its property, it just has (usually) a bigger property in the case of the "state".

This aspect of ancapism is identical with "statism".
Last edited by SolarCross on 23 Jul 2018 19:08, edited 1 time in total.
#14934906
SolarCross wrote:An-capism isn't open borders, an-capism is landlord rights to determine who may enter his property. He may choose to be permissive or tightly controlling so he can be either open or closed borders or anything in between. However it must be noted that a nation-state is also the land owned by a landlord called the government, so essentially we have the same thing, a landlord deciding who may enter its property, its just (usually) a bigger property in the case of the "state".

This aspect of ancapism is identical with "statism".


Perhaps.

I guess the reason AnCaps feel the need to distinguish themselves is that the state is currently preventing "land-lords" and free-holders from being able to invite workers/persons of their choice by restricting market access via a state-controlled border.

Obviously a monarchy is more just than other forms of government in that the land of the "nation-state" is actually privately owned, and hence monarchs tend to be fairly restrictive of immigration if they feel it will lower their own capital-value (thus they have a vested-interest in being "selective" regarding immigration); however, this is definitely not the case with our current "social-contract" democracies which are "publicly-owned" (Democracies being a soft-variant of communism after all) and have no care about degrading their state's capital-value (as is also seen in their spending practices) and degrading the society's culture (degeneracy tends to mean state-dependency after all).

Statists controlling borders is always uniquely dangerous no matter if they are pro-immigration or anti-immigration. If they are pro-immigration they almost invariably are doing it to bolster statism and such policies have nothing to with allowing land-lords to freely invite persons onto their own land for their own reasons. Rather, the state promotes immigration to increase its oppression of land-owners through its process of organized theft (taxes) and degeneracy (welfare dependence).

However, if statists are closed-borders, the problem is always that they are thereby denying my property rights to market-access of persons.

Hence, the issue isn't really about open or closed borders, but about whose borders we are talking about, who owns them, market-access, and property rights.
#14934914
@Victoribus Spolia
The difference between a free holder and a national government is sovereignty, overruling. The basis of overruling is supreme martial dominance over the property in question. If the ancap wants to convert his freeholding into sovereignty the path is clear: secession. However to make it work you will probably need to win a war and for that you will need a modern armed forces... Sovereignty isn't magic, it grows out the barrel of a gun, to paraphrase Mao.

Be sure your peasant uprising can stand against the heavy cavalry before you defy your lords.

Image

The knights of our time.
Last edited by SolarCross on 23 Jul 2018 16:47, edited 2 times in total.
#14934915
SolarCross wrote: secession however to make it work you will probably need to win a war and for that you will need a modern armed forces... Sovereignty isn't magic it grow out the barrel of a gun, to paraphrase Mao.


Agorism and its counter-economic strategy seems like a plausible method though versus a violent revolution and may well insulate certain ancap groups in preparation for state-collapse.
#14934922
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Agorism and its counter-economic strategy seems like a plausible method though versus a violent revolution and may well insulate certain ancap groups in preparation for state-collapse.

Agorism at its most wildly successful could only induce the governors to jettison a lot of their economic interests, to slim down and become more minarchic. The governors can retreat from taking 45% to 5% of GDP without losing one iota of military capability though. I'd say that is a pretty desirable outcome in itself but you'll never get that last 5% and if you did you would either just end up being taken over by another military (probably a foreign one) or having to become the military that formerly was, thus essentially becoming a new state.
Last edited by SolarCross on 23 Jul 2018 19:09, edited 1 time in total.
#14934933
SolarCross wrote:Agorism at its most wildly successful could only induce the governors to jettison a lot of their economic interests, to slim down and become more minarchic.


I mean as an aspect of secession, not to promote political change in the state.

I don't think states will ever give up power, reduce spending etc., its not in their nature as publicly-owned states.

However, Agorism as a method of secession can enable people to independently collaborate to bypass the state in their own lives and economic interests. An act of non-cooperation with the state that weakens it.

Examples of this would be creating private proprietorship communities (i've thought about this on my own property), avoiding taxes whenever possible, avoid participation in governance, bypassing regulated markets, bypassing regulation in general, etc., Basically seceeding by withdrawing from mainstream society and governance. This is especially possible the larger and more centralized the nation. There comes a point where Washington DC can only care so much about some Ancap community out in the woods "dodging some environmental regs" when it has bigger fish to fry.

A large networked effort to do this could be beneficial long run, I mean, there was point long before Rome officially collapsed that former roman colonies basically became untethered and did their own thing and this was even more the case in rural parts of the empire with free-holders. At some point, when the Vandals were knocking on the gates, no one in the capital really gave a shit about what some property owners were doing to "buck Roman law" on a homestead at the base of Alps.

See what I mean?

This is sort of what Hoppe suggests in Democracy: The God That Failed as the preferable method of secession in light of the state eventually destroying itself under the weight of its own gluttony.
EU-BREXIT

Poor little kitten, doesn't yet know who'll grab i[…]

What is 'Truth' for Marxists?

The more power is concentrated into the hands of […]

Canadian Federal Election

No. Wrong. He's not a full Canadian and can be c[…]

Trump fails at everything and he keeps ending up […]