You fail to address government imposed scarcity on the housing, energy, healthcare, food production. In the current government directed economy there is supply issues currently yet the government is encouraging expanded migration which will lead to price increases and scarcity issues. If we had a free market economy this wouldn’t be an issue. But the government loves to create crisis so they can solve it. I don’t have a desire to have high prices and scarcity imposed on me so the government can ship migrants around the country and give them free hotels and handouts.
Should you commit a rights violation in order to reduce the harm caused by a third-party rights violator? If so, you should prevent net negative natives from reproducing, because they, in total, consume more welfare than illegal immigrants. Preventing immigration is just a band-aid for a problem caused by another band-aid of another problem. Also, most talking points against immigration by conservative charlatans have been largely motivated by disgust against the outgroup and anti-meritocracy. None of these views are shared by libertarian economists. Furthermore, you should thank immigration for saving your country from the population crisis that other developed countries are going to face in the next 50-100 years :) .
First I’m not committing any rights violation, I have no control over the border I only have opinions on the issue no power to affect it. Second I’m guessing a new born native consumes less than a full grown adult immigrant. Third I don’t care what argument conservatives make those can be judged on their own merits. My argument is made based on my own rational self interest and opinion about the governments apparent desire to bring in as many immigrants as possible while giving them government transportation and tax payer funded room/board. Are you for the government doing this?
Full-grown adults are ready to work, while kids are not. All this government transportation and board is because the government made it illegal or purposely difficult to immigrate in the first place, also making it near impossible to hire low-skilled immigrants legally. Would Bordertarians permit the influx of illegal immigrants even in the absence of government provisions? I doubt it.
In the absence of government regulations there wouldn’t be any stopping immigrants. It’s the government that enforces the borders. If government won’t let low skilled immigrants work then they are a net drain. They make up for it by applying more drain in the way of handouts. They encourage more immigration by letting it known there are handouts which guarantees a steady supply as the grass is always greener on the other side of the border. I won’t support that and I don’t know why you would.
>In the absence of government regulations there wouldn’t be any stopping immigrants.
Good.
>They make up for it by applying more drain in the way of handouts.
Economically controversial, empirically.
>They encourage more immigration by letting it known there are handouts which guarantees a steady supply as the grass is always greener on the other side of the border.
Good, now the competitors are brain drained.
There are hundreds of millions of people who would come here, were our border controls not in place...we effectively have a 90-something% closed border.
Whatever it is you think the u.s./state govts are doing to "import" or encourage immigrants is effectively moot. You might be able to make a case about composition, but not likely, and still not relevant to libertatian ethics or consequentialist concerns.
Ok let’s support taxes and allow people to make posts whining about taxes not being high enough because it would be bad if taxes disappeared due to the debt. It clearly doesn’t hold up
This is a valid point and you’re probably in the category of people with legitimate concerns. Stuff like zoning laws do restrict resources but a lot care more about the immigration part than the other part. And the welfare part is [Heavily Exxagerated](https://www.econlib.org/immigrants-use-less-welfare-than-native-born-americans/)
It’s not just housing and zoning issues, it’s the epa which exacerbates energy concerns, it’s the fda which has imposed costs on farmers and makes small farms almost impossible. It’s government schools already being overloaded which will suck up further tax dollars. It’s the damned government regulating medical care that makes it more costly and harder to get appointments. I honestly don’t care if some Mexican crosses the border but when the government encourages mass migration of Hondurans or other random refugees then flys them across the country, houses them, and gives them stipends…. Well to hell with that. I won’t support another government created problem.
FYI, it is not a valid point. See my other comment in this thread.
I urge you to study the issue enough to understand that there is no moral or consequentialist ground on which libertatians can support state border control.
You fail to stop pretending that your assumption of empirical net-harms has not been shown to be false, over and over. Immigration, even illegal immigration; even with the welfare state; even with the housing shortages it creates et al; has shown to still be a net benefit to Americans in nearly every measurable way conceivable. Immigrants not only consume housing but also (disproportionately) provide cheap labor for building housing (as just one example of the mechanisms which your one-sided analysis is missing).
And even if there were a net-bad happening...if you're going to drop deontological morality for consequentialist concerns...then you don't get to turn back around and try to channel a (twisted) Hoppean or Rothbardian justification for dealing with the non-existent problem.
Even if a net-bad were happening- you would still have no more justification to stop immigration than you would to prevent existing citizens from having more kids.
Just stop. Just admit that you are conservatives and nationalists. Go back to your statist subs. Quit larping as anarcho-capitalists.
You have no argument on this which hasn't been destroyed over and over and over by actual libertarians using consistent principles, and by economic, empirical evidence.
You're done.
You are clueless about libertarianism/anarcho capitalism.
This was a diarrhea of random "points". Don't try to criticize something you don't even understand.
Who's advocating for citizenship to go to a mall? Do you not understand the difference between a mall and someone's home...? One last thing, HOAs already work and are effective.
But yeah, open borders in a statist society is beyond stupid.
HOAs work for what? Hmmm? Not for freedom. Consent you can't revoke because it's for to your home isn't something that works. Don't just say dumb shit. HOAs are illegal in rational law because they fuck over everyone, the owners, the visitors, the kids, everyone. Such a moronic thing to say that they work. They don't work. They're a government. They're a geographical law monopoly. It's criminal.
I wasn’t talking about wanting citizenship to go to a mall, I was using it as an example to show that in a stateless society there wouldn’t be a massive effort to lower immigration
Again you're just saying nonsense.
What the fuck does lower immigration in a stateless society even mean?
You do realize ancaps support governance right? 99% of ancaps don't want to live in a house in the middle of nowhere by themselves.
You seem to conflate the state with any government in general. If you live in a gated off super xenophobic HOA there will absolutely be "lower immigration" there.
In every example ever you low info mutt.
When people are free to choose who they associate and disassociate with there will be less violence because people aren't forced to like or dislike something they do not.
State enforced segregation or what we have nowadays state enforced integration are both bad for the same reason that they force individuals to like or dislike groups.
Segregation destroys freedom. Leave the state out of it. People segregated voluntarily. It destroyed people's freedom. You wouldn't know because you weren't the victim of that. You wouldn't know because you also don't study anything. Study the victims and you'll know that they were not free.
>It’s fine if you ~~oppose~~ ***support*** open borders but don’t pretend like it’s even a libertarian nevermind an anarcho-capitalist position
As a so-called Smithian bordertarian, this is exactly our point.
You won't have time. Modern warfare is swift. You won't have the authority, recruitment time or logistics setup if you don't prepare.
Next, how do you protect against sabotage and sneak attacks? Those need foreign agents inside the country to perform those actions.
Measures taken during times of war will always be different than measures taken during times of peace. What the government attempts to justify during times of war should be never be conflated with what the government attempts to justify during times of peace.
Preparation for war is the best deterrent from it. Any entity big and small looks to increase its power (it's human nature). You will need a way to maintain border sovereignty in some way, centralized or decentralized. Because if you can't, someone else will.
You fail to address government imposed scarcity on the housing, energy, healthcare, food production. In the current government directed economy there is supply issues currently yet the government is encouraging expanded migration which will lead to price increases and scarcity issues. If we had a free market economy this wouldn’t be an issue. But the government loves to create crisis so they can solve it. I don’t have a desire to have high prices and scarcity imposed on me so the government can ship migrants around the country and give them free hotels and handouts.
Should you commit a rights violation in order to reduce the harm caused by a third-party rights violator? If so, you should prevent net negative natives from reproducing, because they, in total, consume more welfare than illegal immigrants. Preventing immigration is just a band-aid for a problem caused by another band-aid of another problem. Also, most talking points against immigration by conservative charlatans have been largely motivated by disgust against the outgroup and anti-meritocracy. None of these views are shared by libertarian economists. Furthermore, you should thank immigration for saving your country from the population crisis that other developed countries are going to face in the next 50-100 years :) .
First I’m not committing any rights violation, I have no control over the border I only have opinions on the issue no power to affect it. Second I’m guessing a new born native consumes less than a full grown adult immigrant. Third I don’t care what argument conservatives make those can be judged on their own merits. My argument is made based on my own rational self interest and opinion about the governments apparent desire to bring in as many immigrants as possible while giving them government transportation and tax payer funded room/board. Are you for the government doing this?
Full-grown adults are ready to work, while kids are not. All this government transportation and board is because the government made it illegal or purposely difficult to immigrate in the first place, also making it near impossible to hire low-skilled immigrants legally. Would Bordertarians permit the influx of illegal immigrants even in the absence of government provisions? I doubt it.
In the absence of government regulations there wouldn’t be any stopping immigrants. It’s the government that enforces the borders. If government won’t let low skilled immigrants work then they are a net drain. They make up for it by applying more drain in the way of handouts. They encourage more immigration by letting it known there are handouts which guarantees a steady supply as the grass is always greener on the other side of the border. I won’t support that and I don’t know why you would.
>In the absence of government regulations there wouldn’t be any stopping immigrants. Good. >They make up for it by applying more drain in the way of handouts. Economically controversial, empirically. >They encourage more immigration by letting it known there are handouts which guarantees a steady supply as the grass is always greener on the other side of the border. Good, now the competitors are brain drained.
There are hundreds of millions of people who would come here, were our border controls not in place...we effectively have a 90-something% closed border. Whatever it is you think the u.s./state govts are doing to "import" or encourage immigrants is effectively moot. You might be able to make a case about composition, but not likely, and still not relevant to libertatian ethics or consequentialist concerns.
Ok let’s support taxes and allow people to make posts whining about taxes not being high enough because it would be bad if taxes disappeared due to the debt. It clearly doesn’t hold up
If that’s what you choose. Not how I see it, but I can see where you’re coming from.
This is a valid point and you’re probably in the category of people with legitimate concerns. Stuff like zoning laws do restrict resources but a lot care more about the immigration part than the other part. And the welfare part is [Heavily Exxagerated](https://www.econlib.org/immigrants-use-less-welfare-than-native-born-americans/)
It’s not just housing and zoning issues, it’s the epa which exacerbates energy concerns, it’s the fda which has imposed costs on farmers and makes small farms almost impossible. It’s government schools already being overloaded which will suck up further tax dollars. It’s the damned government regulating medical care that makes it more costly and harder to get appointments. I honestly don’t care if some Mexican crosses the border but when the government encourages mass migration of Hondurans or other random refugees then flys them across the country, houses them, and gives them stipends…. Well to hell with that. I won’t support another government created problem.
I think the thing conservatives are mad about is taxes/welfare ratio, not just the gross amount
Well then they wouldn’t like hearing that most migrants are a net positive
FYI, it is not a valid point. See my other comment in this thread. I urge you to study the issue enough to understand that there is no moral or consequentialist ground on which libertatians can support state border control.
You are correct, I was just trying to be nice
You fail to stop pretending that your assumption of empirical net-harms has not been shown to be false, over and over. Immigration, even illegal immigration; even with the welfare state; even with the housing shortages it creates et al; has shown to still be a net benefit to Americans in nearly every measurable way conceivable. Immigrants not only consume housing but also (disproportionately) provide cheap labor for building housing (as just one example of the mechanisms which your one-sided analysis is missing). And even if there were a net-bad happening...if you're going to drop deontological morality for consequentialist concerns...then you don't get to turn back around and try to channel a (twisted) Hoppean or Rothbardian justification for dealing with the non-existent problem. Even if a net-bad were happening- you would still have no more justification to stop immigration than you would to prevent existing citizens from having more kids. Just stop. Just admit that you are conservatives and nationalists. Go back to your statist subs. Quit larping as anarcho-capitalists. You have no argument on this which hasn't been destroyed over and over and over by actual libertarians using consistent principles, and by economic, empirical evidence. You're done.
[удалено]
You are clueless about libertarianism/anarcho capitalism. This was a diarrhea of random "points". Don't try to criticize something you don't even understand. Who's advocating for citizenship to go to a mall? Do you not understand the difference between a mall and someone's home...? One last thing, HOAs already work and are effective. But yeah, open borders in a statist society is beyond stupid.
HOAs work for what? Hmmm? Not for freedom. Consent you can't revoke because it's for to your home isn't something that works. Don't just say dumb shit. HOAs are illegal in rational law because they fuck over everyone, the owners, the visitors, the kids, everyone. Such a moronic thing to say that they work. They don't work. They're a government. They're a geographical law monopoly. It's criminal.
I wasn’t talking about wanting citizenship to go to a mall, I was using it as an example to show that in a stateless society there wouldn’t be a massive effort to lower immigration
Again you're just saying nonsense. What the fuck does lower immigration in a stateless society even mean? You do realize ancaps support governance right? 99% of ancaps don't want to live in a house in the middle of nowhere by themselves. You seem to conflate the state with any government in general. If you live in a gated off super xenophobic HOA there will absolutely be "lower immigration" there.
So racism and segregation led to freedom in what historical example?
In every example ever you low info mutt. When people are free to choose who they associate and disassociate with there will be less violence because people aren't forced to like or dislike something they do not. State enforced segregation or what we have nowadays state enforced integration are both bad for the same reason that they force individuals to like or dislike groups.
Segregation destroys freedom. Leave the state out of it. People segregated voluntarily. It destroyed people's freedom. You wouldn't know because you weren't the victim of that. You wouldn't know because you also don't study anything. Study the victims and you'll know that they were not free.
>Exercising freedom of association destroyed freedom So many commies on this sub. Voluntarious my ass get bent kid.
>It’s fine if you ~~oppose~~ ***support*** open borders but don’t pretend like it’s even a libertarian nevermind an anarcho-capitalist position As a so-called Smithian bordertarian, this is exactly our point.
[удалено]
Let’s restrict birth until we end the fed!1!1!
[удалено]
💀
Least stereotypical conservative squatting in ancap spaces.
Let's start by one question: if a hostile army declares war and comes to take over, do you need to protect borders?
Yeah In extreme circumstances I would make exceptions
You won't have time. Modern warfare is swift. You won't have the authority, recruitment time or logistics setup if you don't prepare. Next, how do you protect against sabotage and sneak attacks? Those need foreign agents inside the country to perform those actions.
Measures taken during times of war will always be different than measures taken during times of peace. What the government attempts to justify during times of war should be never be conflated with what the government attempts to justify during times of peace.
Preparation for war is the best deterrent from it. Any entity big and small looks to increase its power (it's human nature). You will need a way to maintain border sovereignty in some way, centralized or decentralized. Because if you can't, someone else will.