Privatize the Borders!
I argue that Bryan Caplan isn’t radical *enough* when it comes to immigration. An excerpt:
First let me deal with the question of the libertarian ideal. If politics weren’t an issue, and we could get the society we really want, I think both Bryan and I would want all real estate held in private hands. There would be no such thing as “immigration policy” or “border control,” except for what each landowner decided for his or her property boundary. If the current border between the U.S. and Mexico ended up being divided among 2,870 different people, owning contiguous plots of land that collectively reached from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean, then those individuals would have the legal right to decide whether to build a fence to keep out Mexicans or whether to have a giant neon sign saying, “Hola Amigos!”
Wouldn’t diving the border into many small pieces undermine the whole concept of a border? For example, if New Mexico controls one part and Texas another, then if NM has very lax border control and TX has very strict, then what is to stop immigrants simply entering NM and then going to TX? A border between NM and TX?
borders everywhere, with barbed wire and armed guards everywhere. Passport controls every few blocks. Or ‘freedom’, in Bob’s language.
Bob, I think Philippe has busted you. Soon he will also figure out that you have created genetically enhanced laboratory mice that help you devise plans to take over the world.
it’s funny how you guys manage to believe in completely crazy things whilst simultaneously thinking that you are reasonable and rational.
You have shown your reasonability, rationality and politeness sufficiently with your very generous interpretation of Bob’s idea of freedom above.
I think this is his argument. A large block of the country wants to enforce a border. Imagine we mean the border with Mexico. Right now we can enforce a continuous line. Say we cannot because Roddis gets his wish. Then any interior bit of the country must enforce its own border. It is easy to see how this might lead to more miles of border and more border crossings. Should that come to pass both Bob will certainly say that it’s freedom in action.
Indeed, if the minority of people who actually live on the border, say New Mexico, don’t want it enforced then the why should their freedom be superceded?
The actual miles of border is irrelevant.
There might be good reasons to supercede New Mexico’s desires, but then the same could be said of the Mexico/Guatemala border too. And on and on…
A big problem right now with “the border” is that newcomers get all kind of goodies from the government/taxpayers. If they become citizens, they can vote for “their share” of everyone else’s property because everyone’s property is always there for potential looting by the voting majority thanks to “progressive” interventionist legal theory.
Further, the newcomers don’t exactly have a private place to stay and a main reason they are leaving their homelands is due to economic intervention which includes the drug war.
“The actual miles of border is irrelevant.”
You were talking about Philippe’s imagined proliferation of borders everywhere, right? All those border posts. That was the comment you derided. So that was the point I addressed. And to that point the amount of border and the number of disjoint border sections is relevant.
This is just geometry.
Philippe is predicting this could happen and if it did it would fit with their idea of freedom.
“You were talking about Philippe’s imagined proliferation of borders everywhere, right?”
Right, one can speculate on what the actual border look like all day long, it’s nothing more than that. That doesn’t mean Bob or other ancaps want or expect that particular vision.
And no, I didn’t deride it at all, it might be worthy of derision, but I haven’t the time. The particular number of (and status of) borders just misses the point of why they exist at all.
Right Bob, but if you take the extreme moral route that Caplan does those problems are irrelevant. Immigrants have as much of right as citizens to live here.
Philippe:
You haven’t SHOWN how ANYTHING in anarcho-capitalism is “crazy.”
Yes, our ideas ar far, far more reasonable and rational than yours. Non-initiation of force against person and property is what being reasonable and rational is all about.
The fact that you believe a criminal action turns into moral action if the person is wearing a government badge, should have long ago made you pause and reflect on your, yes crazy, beliefs. Initiating violence is a moral good? You’re crazy.
What evidence do you have that in support of the proposition that if a large consensus of people opposed the initiation of force arose that it would necessarily result in those same people employing “barbed wire and armed guards everywhere. Passport controls every few blocks.”?
If in your answer you try to change the subject by purposefully confusing the concepts of offensive with defensive force, you should be banned for life.
The first paragraph was edited wrong. It should have said:
What evidence do you have to support your proposition that if there arose a large consensus of people opposed to the intiation of force that this would necessarily result in those same people employing “barbed wire and armed guards everywhere. Passport controls every few blocks.”?
what evidence do you have that ancap land would not be like that?
I don’t think ancapistan is really a coherent concept, so any description of what it might be like in reality is faintly ridiculous. The point is that it could be “barbed wire and armed guards everywhere, passport controls every few blocks” and this would be perfectly consistent with Murphy’s use of the word “freedom”.
“if there arose a large consensus of people opposed to the intiation of force”
Your ideology is not about opposition to the initiation of force. That is just stupid rhetoric you use to make it sound nice.
No, it is in fact about opposition to initiation of force. Your ethic is an advocacy of it.
You are in denial.
Yes, but so can statism. In spades. In Auschwitz.
Since under AnCap by definition, people would be physically safe from the initiation of force (due primarily to the society wide consensus regarding that rule), what would cause them to put up barbed wire? It’s just more of your no no no no no no nonsense.
Of course the concept AnCap is cohorent. That’s why you spend all of your time distorting and “deconstructing” well known and well understood (and presently widely operational) concepts of private property and personal intergrity.
And don’t start with your distortion rap again. We’ve all heard it before.
We’ve heard *all* of this before, at least change it up a bit for the sake of bored readers.
Auschwitz is not consistent with my use of the word “freedom”. You apparently agree that “barbed wire and armed guards everywhere, passport controls every few blocks” would be perfectly consistent with Murphy’s use of the word “freedom”.
“That’s why you spend all of your time distorting and “deconstructing”
I’m not distorting or deconstructing anything. My understanding of the nature of property is standard. It’s yours that is highly eccentric.
The real problem is that you do not understand basic logic.
Please read this short article which explains why your pronouncements regarding the initiation of force are vacuous:
http://mattbruenig.com/2013/10/03/non-aggression-never-does-any-argumentative-work-at-any-time/
Theoretically, there would be nothing to stop the entire human race from committing mass suicide under AnCap either.
The issue is why the widespread adoption of the NAP would necessarily result in bad or stupid behaviors AS THE DIRECT RESULT of the adoption of the NAP.
Go away.
Ancapism is not ‘the NAP’.
The NAP tells you nothing about who legitimately owns what property. Nor does it tell you anything about what property rights are.
In order to decide that you need some other theory.
So it should be perfectly obvious to anyone that ancapism cannot logically be just ‘the NAP’.
Philippe, are you honestly saying that you still don’t know what Bob Roddis believes about property rights? Really?
I know what he believes about property rights. The problem is he keeps falsely claiming that his ideology is simply ‘the NAP’. This is obviously not true.
MP
The NAP depends on what A means. Roddis always ignores this point.
I do not ignore what “A” means. I’ve said 25 times that our view of property is virtually identical to what already exists in the US absent the exceptions now granted to the state.
The fact that you pesently own and control your property and body and can rightfully defend against an intruder is not trumped by the fact that a zoning ordinance prohibits you from painting your house pink and that it’s illegal to cook or take meth.
Actually, what Bob believes about property rights isn’t entirely clear.
He claims that in his ideal ancap society everyone’s property rights, as he defines them, would be protected.
But who protects these rights? Who enforces them?
According to Bob it would be private companies, who would sell their services in a market.
But this assumes that there already exists a system of protected and enforced property rights, within which people can purchase the services of companies.
So his argument is circular.
Then there is the question of who decides what these property rights are, and who owns what.
This cannot be determined through a market process, as again that would be circular.
So there must be some legal authority, i.e. a de-facto government, within the ancap territory, which is making these decisions.
ha.
Against my better judgment, I will again feed the troll.
The initial issue (per Philippe) was that the NAP leads to barbed wire. When this was shot down, the “argument” morphed into the continuing nonsense that existing notions of private property and personal integrity are not properly defined. When this was shot down, the “argument” morphed into who is going to protect the private property.
The answer is that notions of private property and personal integrity are concepts that are adopted by human beings. If there is a substantial understanding of these concepts and a consensus that they be enforced, they will generally be enforced. If not, they probably won’t be enforced. That is why imposing our “system” upon Iraq and Afghanistan has failed but seems to have been successful in Germany and Japan. These are cultural norms and concepts.
“The initial issue was that the NAP leads to barbed wire”
No, ancapism is not ‘the NAP’. You agreed that ancap land could fit my description and that this would be consistent with Murphy’s use of the word “freedom”.
“the continuing nonsense that existing notions of private property… are not properly defined”
No, private property is clearly defined in existing law. You don’t like the existing, standard definitions.
Philippe.
What you call “existing standard definition” is just your opinion that you are trying to make more important than other opinions by pretending that the statist definition is the only allowable one.
Private property rights are violated in statism.
Your definition of private property contradicts the principles upon which the concept has the meaning it has.
Private property is not public property. You are just spewing the dogma that public property can be defined as private property.
Philippe:
“Auschwitz is not consistent with my use of the word “freedom”.”
What IS your definition of “freedom”?
CRICKETS CHIRP CHIRP CHIRP
Philippe:
Please explain what your definition of non-aggression is, and be specific.
Note here that under “OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTY” there is a Fee Simple Absolute: An ownership interest in real property that affords the owner the greatest possible aggregation of rights, privileges, and power.
Such a interest in real property is clearly subject to limitations such as eminent domain, zoning and not paying your property taxes etc…
https://www.shsu.edu/~klett/ELEMENTS%20OF%20REAL%20PROPERTY.htm
I have defined real property under AnCap as the essential equivalent of the rights granted by a Fee Simple BUT WITHOUT THE LIMITATIONS, BURDENS AND DUTIES OWED TO THE STATE which are openly admitted to presently exist.
That is not an ambiguous or incoherent definition. Indeed, pursuant to the definition presently in use, the rights of ownership are clearly distinguished from the burdens and duties owed to the state by an owner.
For Philippe to continue to claim that my definition is flawed because real property is presently subject to burdens and duties owed to the state is clearly dishonest.
“What IS your definition of “freedom”?”
look in the dictionary.
“what your definition of non-aggression is”
non-aggression means not aggression.
Philippe:
““What IS your definition of “freedom”?”
“look in the dictionary.”
Googled “Definition:Freedom”…
free·dom
ˈfrēdəm/Submit
noun
noun: freedom
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
“we do have some freedom of choice”
absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
“he was a champion of Irish freedom”
synonyms: independence, self-government, self-determination, self-rule, home rule, sovereignty, nonalignment, autonomy; democracy
“revolution was the only path to freedom”
antonyms: dependence
the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.
“the shark thrashed its way to freedom”
synonyms: liberty, liberation, release, deliverance, delivery, discharge; More
antonyms: captivity
the state of being physically unrestricted and able to move easily.
“the shorts have a side split for freedom of movement”
the state of not being subject to or affected by (a particular undesirable thing).
noun: freedom from; plural noun: freedom froms
“government policies to achieve freedom from want”
synonyms: exemption, immunity, dispensation; impunity
“freedom from local political accountability”
antonyms: liability
the power of self-determination attributed to the will; the quality of being independent of fate or necessity.
synonyms: right, entitlement, privilege, prerogative; More
antonyms: restriction
unrestricted use of something.
“the dog is happy having the freedom of the house when we are out”
archaic familiarity or openness in speech or behavior.
Which definition do you ascribe to? There’s more than one.
“what your definition of non-aggression is”
“non-aggression means not aggression.”
How do you define aggression?
I do not see the point of your questions. I am not proposing any unusual uses for these common words.
Philippe:
“I do not see the point of your questions.”
The point is for me to know what it is you mean when you say what you say. This is so that we can better argue the points being made, rather than trying to address the point by referring to definition choices.
“I am not proposing any unusual uses for these common words.”
I am asking which of the above definition of freedom you ascribe to. There is more than one.
You sound like you’re afraid of something…
I’m only afraid of wasting time on pointless questions from a halfwit.
Better than being a nowit.
I get it now Philippe. You will not answer questions regarding, nor will you mention unsolicited, the details of your own positive convictions.
All you do is antagonize, and contribute nothing.
You get all defensive and pretend that your fear and unwillingness to actually make positive arguments is somehow a result of the fault of others.
You’re engaging in textbook trolling.
bob,
‘pursuant to the definition presently in use, the rights of ownership are clearly distinguished from the burdens and duties owed to the state by an owner”
no, because the rights of ownership are themselves legal constructions that are enforced by the state.
Responding to a zillion of my posts with antagonism, but then claiming you won’t answer simple questions because you don’t want to waste your time, is just another way of saying you agree that all your arguments lack any substance.
Philippe:
No, because something something antagonism and something something I disagree.
mf,
I’ve not made ambiguous statements that might require a clarification of my use of terms such as freedom and aggression.
There is no reason for me to choose one of the dictionary definitions of freedom presented above as they are all fine for different circumstances.
“then claiming you won’t answer simple questions”
I said pointless questions.
Philippe:
“I’’ve not made ambiguous statements that might require a clarification of my use of terms such as freedom and aggression.”
You have not provided any definition for what you mean by those terms.
They are ambiguous by definition.
“There is no reason for me to choose one of the dictionary definitions of freedom presented above as they are all fine for different circumstances.”
What about the circumstance of an ethic for humanity?
“then claiming you won’t answer simple questions”
“I said pointless questions.”
I said simple questions. They are not pointless, as I have determined and decided that there is a point to the questions I am asking. The point is for me to know what you mean when you say certain things.
This is not something that should get you all bothered or dismissive, unless you’re trying to hide something.
Philippe:
In other words, what laws have to exist for each and every individual to have freedom?
“The point is for me to know what you mean when you say certain things”
I haven’t made any ambiguous statements that might require a clarification of my use of terms.
You’re just asking me to define freedom and aggreesion. I don’t need to, the common definitions are perfectly adequate and I am not using those terms in an unusual way which might require clarification. You’re just being an ass.
Philippe:
“I haven’t made any ambiguous statements that might require a clarification of my use of terms.
You have not provided any definition for what you mean by those terms.
They are ambiguous by
definition.
“You’re just asking me to define freedom and aggreesion.”
Right.
“I don’t need to, the common definitions are perfectly adequate and I am not using those terms”
But there is more than one definition in a given dictionary.
One of the definitions includes “Self-determination.” That of course is incompatible with statism, because in statism, self-determination is replaced with social determination or majority determination.
“You’re just being an ass.”
No, I am just being thorough.
Simply asking what you mean by certain terms (I am not asking you to define ALL your terms, because that would be impractical), but just SOME terms.
I am not being an ass. It makes no sense for me to take anything you say critical of anything I write about freedom and about aggression if you refuse to even tell me what you mean by those terms.
I am not afraid to define any term you ask me to define, provided of course that isn’t all you do.
I define freedom as absence of aggression against person and property.
I define aggression as an initiation, or threat of initiation, of physical force against person or property.
I define property as homesteaded land and homesteaded land that is traded, as well as goods produced by homesteaders and free traders.
I just don’t see why you are so hostile about defining merely two concepts, freedom and aggression.
We would save a lot of talking past each other if I knew exactly what you meant. Telling me you use “the dictionary” definitions doesn’t help, because there are more than one.
Philippe:
When you criticize anarcho-capitalism, what definitions of freedom and aggression are you using?
Philippe wrote:
bob,
‘pursuant to the definition presently in use, the rights of ownership are clearly distinguished from the burdens and duties owed to the state by an owner”
no, because the rights of ownership are themselves legal constructions that are enforced by the state.
How dishonest you are. The nature and description of the rights associated with real property are the same regardless of who enforces them, which is a completely different issue.
You sound like a total cultist here, dude. Homesteading is just some archaic relic from Locke’s work.
You did not answer the question. You again dodged a question that you know the reasonable answer contradicts your other premises.
You are not an honest debater.
the question was stupid.
Your questions are often stupid, but I still answer them.
Like any two neighboring countries, the purpose of a border is to define the political area.
(Plus, smaller areas are more manageable, even if NM doesn’t care, other states could still be more effective.)
So when the tumbleweeds blow off this newly privatized 2800 pieces of property onto the next more inward piece of private property, is this trespassing and if so, is there recourse?
If tumbleweed blew between them regularly before they become property, then no. Trespassing usually applies to people, at any rate.
So who stops people from smuggling in plants and animals that could decimate the region’s ecosystem? The externalities are potentially huge.
The people that own the roads could stop that “smuggling”. The insurance companies that insure the roads could do it. The insurance companies that insure whomever.
The Canadian government dug a ditch to connect the ocean with the Great Lakes for dubious political reasons so that they could ship prairie grain on ships docking at Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Nobody thought about invasive species and there is no one to sue because no one owns the lakes and government is always immune.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/30/AR2009083002333.html
Environmental groups have called for a moratorium on St. Lawrence Seaway shipping or even closing the seaway altogether. Oceangoing vessels account for only about 5 percent of Great Lakes shipping, and studies by Grand Valley State University economists found that shifting that cargo to trains and trucks would cost only about $55 million per year and actually result in 1,300 net jobs gained.
“There’s no doubt it was an engineering marvel, but economically it’s been an underachiever and an environmental disaster for the Great Lakes,” said Alexander, the author. “The science shows if we did close the seaway, it would protect the lakes and wouldn’t hurt us much economically. But the shipping industry should be given a chance to prove itself. Let’s set a standard and give them a chance to meet it. If they can’t meet it, it’s time to stop letting these ships in.”
Who’s going to stop this monster from coming into Lake St. Clair?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bob_roddis/4016754003/in/set-72157605866047732
This is an interesting take. You are correct that the phrase “open borders” concedes the existence of a border and therefore a state. Still, I’m never big on arguments from purity. Can’t we open the borders first and abolish them later?
If you don’t mind shameless self-promotion in your comments feed, Bob, I had a discussion with Nathan Smith about the economics of migration and “open borders”/”immigration liberalization” on my little-heard podcast. It’s available here if people are interested: http://t.co/ZP5tm8YZew
Bob,
“both Bryan and I would want all real estate held in private hands. There would be no such thing as “immigration policy” or “border control,” except for what each landowner decided for his or her property boundary. If the current border between the U.S. and Mexico ended up being divided among 2,870 different people, owning contiguous plots of land that collectively reached from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean, then those individuals would have the legal right to decide whether to build a fence to keep out Mexicans or whether to have a giant neon sign saying, “Hola Amigos!””
On the one hand you say there is no immigration or border policy, and on the other you talk about legal rights. These legal rights exist within a jurisdiction, which has a border. So there is in fact an immigration and border policy within that jurisdiction. The policy is that people can freely cross the border and enter the jurisdiction, if the legal private owners of the land along the border consent to it.
There would not be ONE border or immigration policy. There would be as many border and immigration policies as there are individual owners with a different preference. That is just saying there is no border or immigration policy, because no policy would be applicable to all.
Bob is referring to monopolist policies, not an individual choices for their own lands.
I don’t think you understood my comment. Bob is referring to legal rights, which exist within a jurisdiction, which has a border.
I don’t think you understood Bob’s comment,
Bob was not referring to say a homeowner establishing rules on who can and cannot enter their home.
If every individual homeowner (and land owner in general) can choose who to allow and not allow on their land, that is not an example of “immigration policy” or “border policy” that Bob had in mind.
these homeowners live within a jurisdiction within which they have legal rights. This jurisdiction has a border. Whether people can or cannot freely cross the border is as much a part of the law of the jurisdiction as any other law.
Sure, no mischief can come from immigration if there is no government for them to make use of for mischief.
And sure, as long as we are speaking hypothetically about creating the ideal situation all at once, then as a purely academic point I can’t disagree with you.
The problem I think comes when the Caplans of the world-though not really you, sorry to say but I think he reaches a wider audience-are either deluding themselves or being less charitable, are pulling a dangerous trick, in advocating so publicly the great virtues of totally unrestricted immigration. Which is that either they must be unaware of or willfully ignore the purpose their mere intellectual musings of the ideal will be put to by the political class. In this regard Caplan is essentially a Kathedersozialisten for the mainstream of the Republican Party, eager for some unfathomable reason to grant the franchise to tens of millions of people guaranteed to vote against them every single time-or to vote for socialism, at any rate. There are Republican socialists, so I suppose that might be what they have in mind. Not to cut off their nose to spite their face but more to completely excise from the party all opposition to socialism.
This makes advocating for open borders as such a very irresponsible thing to do. In this respect you here take a step in the right direction, I think, in not so much advocating open borders as a policy in isolation (which Caplan seems to explicitly favor, since he does not argue for it publicly as part of a larger system, but for it as such) but rather for essentially abolishing the government that has the nice side effect of privatizing the immigration issue.
I trust you won’t take this as insincere cover for being glad that by taking a more extreme position you make actually achieving the intermediate goal. I would be glad of that if I thought it would work that way. Instead I only fear that in the warped minds of the body politic, you make Caplan look “reasonable by comparison” and actually hasten the adoption of open borders as such, the entire apparatus of the state left otherwise intact.
I like Caplan when he shows contempt for democracy but he seems to want to protect open borders from his views on that, which suggests to me he is determined to see the policy adopted by itself. Again, this is really irresponsible behavior.
It would be far more responsible to foment violent revolution, frankly.
A significant portion of the land along the U.S./Mexican border is already privately owned. And in general the people who own this land aren’t exactly thrilled at the prospect of immigrants crossing their land.
I wonder how Bryan would deal with this issue.
Same as any trespasser I’d imagine, Bryan himself would probably go easier on poor immigrants from the 3rd world though.
I wonder what all this means:
“In case the reader thinks my proposal is just too ridiculous, try this one: “Let the border states set their own policies for immigration.” That would throw most Americans for a loop, wouldn’t it? Instead of thinking about a guy crossing into Texas as being “a Mexican entering the United States,” instead it would be, “This guy entering Texas.” I would much rather get Americans to think through the political implications of decentralization and States rights, rather than the (admittedly also interesting and important) issue of workers’ wages and how they respond to an increase in unskilled immigrants.”
Is this just a very convoluted way of saying that while American national “immigration policy” is awful, a more decentralized policy, based on states rights would be from a libertarian point of view even worse?
A typical PC libertarianism: be always on the safe side, don’t transgress in the least against the open borders orthodoxy, but then, for fun, add some “radical”, fancy, impossible proposal, just to prove that you are something more than a garden variety supporter of open borders and amnesty for illegals.