In a comment on a post on War on Guns I have been challenged by David Codrea to comment on my vision of ridding the world of "borders", and why I think it is necessary.I wouldn't call it a "challenge" so much as an invitation to explain reasoning. Be that as it may, I'm still not persuaded that opening borders to any and everyone would result in anything but disaster and misery.
This is a topic that generates much heat. Let us all endeavor to seek the light.
24 comments:
Read your post Kent, and I didn't see any specifics, only generalities. As for the govt. making decisions for me, the idea of a representative Republic is that large decisions are ceded to the reps, with the trust of the people. If the people disagree with a decision, they have recourse to modifiy, or overturn. If the reps continue, they can be recalled, with new reps to carry out the general will. Doesn't always work well, human nature being what it is. When the border is not secured, from trespass or outright invasion, there is no nation/state. Others whose interest are not the same as the citizens will invade and do as they want. The whole purpose of the nation is to secure the blessings of liberty, desired by the people who banded together, for mutual protection and like minded civil procedures. When others enter, without permission, they change the status quo and conflict results. We,simply put, are not Them. If you want to put a racial or religious or whatever spin on it, go ahead. That's the whole point. If we and they were the same, we wouldn't be we and they. Our interests, outlook and expectations differ. So, we live together because we can, and more or less do things our way.We don't want it changed. So we secure the border. Libertarians sound more like anarchists, and anarchy is not peace.
I don't see a contradiction. Where the right to property is recognized, there are always "borders". Without reading further, I would imagine Kent is merely opposed to arbitrary (political) borders laid down by parasites and thieves (politicians) who don't actually own the property in question.
If usurpers, parasites and thieves, (politicians) presume to cross private property borders, I certainly object, and forcefully if need be. The status of the US has already radically changed, due to people being here that do not have permission.(criminals). Inside its' borders are also citizens who are gaming the public trust and seizing property,money,lives, whatever they can get away with, under color of law and "authoritah". These same people are enabling illegal aliens to both enter and stay, because they know the more harrassed and distracted we are, the more they can steal. They fail to realize that the illegals (or barbarians) are going to take them down as well. I equate illegals with barbarians because they don't speak our language, they are costing us infrastrcture,treasure and our civilizatin, and that's what barbarians do. About 800,000 are criminals, and many are in sanctuary cities, not even considered for deportation. And many who have no lawful right to vote will do it anyway.
I am an anarchist and have never tried to hide that fact. I recognize that Rulers are illegitimate and that there is one real rule to live by: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation."
I prefer anarchy to chaos, which is what we have with government. When the rule applies to "us" but not to the Rulers, which is how it always is and forever will be under government, chaos ensues.
If you want a "specific", ask a specific question. I may have a possible solution, or I may not. Humans are more ingeneous than they are given credit for and they WILL find a solution for anything.
Oh by all means Kent, lets just open the borders.
You'll get all the anarchy you want, and plenty of chaos too.
The problem with anarchistic libertarian fantasies is other people aren't going to play by those rules.
Unfortunately, people have to band together for the common defense and that means you need a government. And, oh yeah, borders. hmmmm.
So, the founding brothers did their best and arguably came up with the BEST ever attempt at instituting a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" (yes, I know thats Lincoln quite a few years later). That it hasn't been a perfect Union ever since doesn't mean it still isn't the best effort yet to "secure the blessings of liberty".
But, all in all, I'll stay in the USA, with ALL of its flaws.
There isn't ANY place else to go thats better, and Kent's anarchy is certainly not something to be desired.
Scott W
Phx, AZ
Anonymous said...
There isn't ANY place else to go that's better, and Kent's anarchy is certainly not something to be desired.
Unless you like Mogadishu...
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
He he..
Ok, Kent, specifically, what would you do about people here who are not citizens, and that did not recieve permission to enter this country? And a follow-up, if I may, what is your definition of National Defense?
I'll take an honest-to-gosh Constitutional Republic over anarchy any day.
"Citizen" is just a way to say that the government owns you. I am not property.
Tne people who are here without government permission are not the problem; people who aggress against others are the problem, whether they have a piece of paper that says they are "legal" or not.
Why should anyone receive government permission to travel or reside somewhere? Trespassing on privately owned land is wrong, but so is claiming ownership of (and control of) land which you do not own, as governments always do. Of course, this same argument destroys the government's claim on your land through "property taxes" as well; something that is used to pay for all that "free" schooling.
Fortunately a free society doesn't depend on the bad guys playing be the rules. They don't do it now, and we still survive even with huge penalties for defending ourselves and our property. Plus, you seem to forget the fact that the worst offenders hide behind their badges or government desks.
People can and do band together without the band devolving into a government. A government is a situation where the Rulers make the rules, but only the ruled are forced to abide by them. That is only a good situation for the Rulers.
Borders, if you are talking about your private proerty lines, are a legitimate thing to protect. Government does not legitimately own ANY land except that specifically allowed by the Constitution, so, therefore its "borders" are bogus. I do not allow my neighbors to tell me what I can do on my property or in my house as long as I am not harming them (neither do I tell them what they can do), why would I allow a government any more power over me?
Just because your spot on the planet is the best you can currently see, it doesn't mean it is the best that can exist. Don't be complacent! Keep making things better.
How long ago did the government unilaterally decide to stop obeying the Constitution and interpreting it to its own advantage? Almost as soon as it was written. A contract that has been nullified by one party might be a nice historical document, but is hardly binding anymore, especially after a couple hundred years of neglact. Yet these usurpers still expect us to obey their "laws". Hmmmm.
I can be a citizen, or not, but my def is one born to a nation, who abides by it's law, and identifies with other citizens in the common defense. Does the govt.own me? Yes and No. Yes, it does from the control it exerts, No, it doesn't from control I still have. What I see in your post is that you intend some sort of tribalism, or hegemony, based on free people banding together, and leaving each other the hell alone.But you of all people should know that tyranny is always better organized than freedom, and if we didn't form a govt., tyranical neighbors would have long ago taken us out. We ourselves must be organized, in a modern world. Where the collection of free land holders come up against the next nation, Mexico in this case, that is our border. That landholder is not able to hold off encroachment by the Mexican Army, and would call on the US Army to help. I know what's currently going on down there, the incursions and incidents. But calling out the local militia would not stop them. It takes organization, money, and people. Unified command. Grant got it in 1863, Lee, not until 1865. I don't want to tell other people what to do either, or how to live. Unless we untie the laws which bind us together, we're bound by laws, and I agree, many of them are hideous. Your anarchy would only survive if parented by a larger, protective union. I don't think it would be every man for himself, but I believe it would be weak as far as civilized.
So, you obey every "law"? That's positively amazing, not to mention impossible.
Tyranny's organization can be its Achilles heel. Recognize that and USE it. Remember militia members picking off the regimented troops of the more organized army in the last American revolution that was won by the good guys.
Once people taste real freedom, they will not submit to a big bully easily. Without the victim disarmament "laws", you and I and our neighbors could be well-armed enough to fight off any invasion or new attempt to "govern".
My property is my property, and it doesn't matter to me if it is also claimed by the US (or any other) government. Their "claim" is an attempt at theft, nothing more. So to worry about whether the next property over is claimed by its rightful owner and by some government is ridiculous. Good neighbors are good neighbors and government is never a good neighbor.
i suppose if you rid the world of governments, then you rid it of borders, as a side effect. sounds alright to me.
Europes been practising something like open borders for awhile now.
Actually, they're going further - they are importing people who actually don't want to just immigrate, they want to DOMINATE.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/
It's going to happen here too. In fact, it already is, but we're maybe 15 years behind Europe. There is already a Mosqe in Michigan blaring the call to prayer 7 times a day.
And when they get to a point where they can start DOMINATING here, they are not going to care about libertarian anarchist fantasies. They will kill you.
Why are you under the delusion that libertarian/anarchists are not willing and able to fight back?
Who do you think (government) has given (government) the dominators the ability (government) to become dominators (government)? Or would government have prevented it from ever happening, if only there were enough government in Europe?
I'd prefer not to have to have to live day to day depending on arms to survive.
(note, I posted about Islam and Europe, sorry for not identifying myself)
Of course, I carry (in the car, at the office, sometimes illegally) but that doesn't mean I expect to use my weapon every single day to survive.
If we were to allow a flood of people into the country, whether they be "immigrants" from Mexico, or imported jihadists from the ME, we run the risk of pretty soon not having a country that resembles what we want.
In the case of the Muslim immigrants that could (I think eventually will) be fatal.
And whether or not Kent, or any other "anarchist" wants to participate in the "defense" of whatever society he is living in (be it this flawed one or his utopian vision of the armed freeholder) it won't matter because the FLOOD of Muslims through an "open border" would sweep him away. History is full of examples of one people conquereing another.
Only by participating in a society, and wanting to maintain that society, does an individual stand a chance. And yes, that society will need government. That government will be responsible for PROTECTING THE BORDER, so that the mogrel hordes don't kill the civilized people.
Unfortunately, our system, though flawed is still the best system of government man has devised.
And more unfortunately, our government has forgotten about the most important reason it exists - to protect the border!
The answer to that is not some utopian dream of a world without borders, but to return government to the purpose for which it was instituted.
Scott W
Phx, AZ
Scott- If you could restrain the government so that it would go back to being fully inline with the Constitution (which means abolishing at least 99.99999% of the government) and have it "protect the border" in some way that does not in any way infringe upon my rights to travel, does not require ID papers or biometrics, and does not harass peaceful non-terrorists who want to travel or migrate here to live, I might consider giving up the fight for real liberty for a while. If not, I submit that I am not the "utopian" dreamer here.
Kent,
Since this country seems to be so at odds with your vision of a society (in another post I've seen you claim that "your" line has been crossed so many times you can't see it in back of you) I wonder why you are still here.
Is there anywhere in the world that you have a chance of living the way YOU want?
Scott
I am not willing to abandon my home to the statists. I am still here because if the good people abandon a place, the bad people win by default.
There is no longer any real frontier that is accessible by average people. This is the first time in the history of the human race that this is the case, and it will have to be resolved or really bad times are ahead.
The pioneers have almost always been those who chafe under government. Those who follow them set up governments and the pioneers move on again. But, no more. It will come to a head if the need of some to live without government oppression is not recognized and accomodated.
Do I obey every law, is like asking if I have ever sinned against G*d. What do you think? I think I can bring this discussion to a conclusion. Kent, name one successful civilization that has existed under your definition. Such as anarchy. And don't forget the "peaceful" people who have migrated here brought 800,000 criminals with them, don't speak our language, don't pay most taxes, use up hospital,welfare, and emergency services, and bring with them the habits of living in one of the most corrupt,brutal,and idiotic govts. on this planet. Averge age of maternity:14. Average education, 5th grade. Ten percent of the males have already seen jail.
Guess what, Sean, the world has changed. A truly free society may not have been possible in the past. (Many people point to various anarchistic societies of the past, but that is a point for you to debate with them.) But what was true yesteryear isn't true anymore. At least on this point. Technology has advanced to the point that government and its borders are now obsolete.
I just wonder what you are truly so afraid of. Is your main objection the need to "protect your culture"? If so, I am writing an answer to that to be published on my blog in the next couple of days.
I have a new post related to this subject: Preserving "Our Culture"
Post a Comment