Posts
Mike Rozeff has re-published at the LRC blog an essay from
Jim Davies: Open
Borders: YES! Davies makes an
argument against Rozeff’s position against open borders. It will shock many of you to know that I
agree with Davies 100% on his open borders position. Please indulge me; from Davies:
My main criticism of [Rozeff’s]
piece is that he did not make explicit his assumption that for the foreseeable
future, America will continue to have cities, states, policing, education
[sic], welfare, disease control, rodent control, proper housing, traffic control
and even taxes – all furnished or imposed by government.
It seems an assumption that one need not make explicitly,
but I do not want to belabor this point.
My premise is quite different, and
I would hope that LRC might share it, since at its masthead appears its claim
to be “anti-state”; my position is that all of those ten, named attributes of
America can and will quite shortly be removed from government hands…
Well, your guess is as good as mine – but we can all have
hope.
Now, “Why,” you ask, “does bionic agree with Davies?” Well, I will tell you:
Assuming then that government no
longer exists, should borders be open? – of course they should, for a border is
an obstacle in the path of human beings who wish to live in a location of their
choice. Indeed, the only “borders” that could exist in such a free society
would be those enclosing private property – and there could be no other
property other than the private kind…
Yes, as long as all property is private, borders should be
open…except for one little problem – noted by Davies but left in some sort of
contradiction: when all property is private, the only borders will be private – hence, all borders
will be closed – or, more precisely, managed
by the property owner.
Now, for one disagreement:
…Prof. Hoppe’s contention that
government land is somehow owned by taxpayers – which rests on the deeply
mistaken view that the payment of a tax is ever a contractual exchange for some
benefit.
I don’t think this is Hoppe’s contention, but I may be
wrong. A thief steals my money at
gunpoint – did we have a contract? Did
the thief promise me some benefit in exchange?
The answer is no to both.
Now, the thief spends the money on “stuff,” and no longer
has my money. Once caught, am I not
entitled to recovering enough “stuff” from the thief to at least offset the
amount he stole from me? Assuming there
are multiple victims of this thief – and also assuming that he no longer has
enough “stuff” to make each victim whole, are not the victim’s entitled to a
pro-rata share of the thief’s “stuff”?
I think this is more along Hoppe’s contention. That the thief is in possession of my property
(or property that the thief received in exchange for my property), I remain the
legitimate owner of that property. This
is certainly my argument.
Returning to Davies, and his assumed 100% private property
world:
Property owners may well exclude
migrants from their land, but some will not so choose.
Again, I agree 100%: private property owners are free to
choose; private property owners will manage
who is and isn’t allowed on their property.
But we are still left with Davies rather important premise: “Assuming
then that government no longer exists….”
He offers:
What remains is the key question,
so often posed in Maine, of how to get from here to there. For example, would
opening the borders today help or hinder the abolition of government?
Davies offers:
…a flood of immigrants in search of
welfare (if that is why most of them come) would overwhelm the government’s
schemes for robbing Peter to pay Paul, and therefore usefully help bankrupt the
whole edifice. That’s an argument worth weighing…
This argument one could describe as the death wish
experiment. An argument worth weighing,
perhaps, but is in an experiment worth attempting?
I offer another argument: common culture and tradition
reduces the demands for coercive government.
As long as we have government as it exists today, open borders will
reduce common culture and tradition…and government will increase. We are living this experiment, and we see
daily the results.
I prefer to leave the death wish in the dustbin, where it
belongs.
I really like the ideas of states controlling their borders as they see fit. Or cities. This is essentially what we had in the USA until the progressives. Along side this loose border enforcement was a system of sponsorship and vetting of people coming in that they didn't have dangerous diseases or were going to depend on charity. Of course if there was a sponsor then charity cases were allowed in but the sponsor was held responsible.
ReplyDeleteI like this idea because of its decentralized nature, the call for individual action, and the opportunity for churches to increase their societal importance through sponsorship programs.
RMB, I have written along these lines in the past - and it was a practice at least for a time in the US (and still is elsewhere): a sponsor who takes responsibility for the immigrants livelihood, living situation, etc., and guarantees that the immigrant will not place a burden on government welfare programs, etc.
DeleteI must point out that the last point you offer from Davies is a complete fallacy. A government will first bankrupt each and every one of its citizens via taxes and seizures long before federal bankruptcy is declared. Opening the borders will hasten citizen bankruptcy while greatly increasing problems like crime and where the family's next meal will be coming from.
ReplyDeleteIncome tax increases are already being implemented here in the US and it's only the beginning of what is going to be added to the current tax burden. Here as in every other state, the fat cats at the top will be fed first.
Governments are inefficient in many things but one thing in which they excel is their ability to deflect blame and spread misery among the populace.
I would not wish the scenario which Davies suggests on anyone!
I just read your latest post "Passing of Empire". I think it supports the point I made here. Indians were part of the empire but because the Indian was an "undesirable", everything was taken from them to support (apparently) almost anyone else. In Davies' scenario, we would be the "Indians" as the state would use the natural gratitude of the immigrants to exploit them at our expense.
DeleteWoody, I have touched on - in the past - the experience of people who have lived as minorities. It rarely is a wonderful experience, and often a painful one.
DeleteI must say, I hadn't thought about it as you just did: in the "colonial" sense. Thank you.
"would overwhelm the government’s schemes for robbing Peter to pay Paul, and therefore usefully help bankrupt the whole edifice."
ReplyDeleteLeftists seem to think that somehow chaos creates order. I personally think they just like the chaos - or they have chaos oriented brains, like moths to the flame. Yes this 'accelerationist' proposition would be cultural and political suicide.
Before the system goes bankrupt, the increasingly desperate and incompetent leaders (elected by new migrants) would resort to ever increasing manipulation of the currency and predations on private wealth. When it finally collapses, the real chaos ensues: guillotines, gulags, and genocide (so what if the last one ruined my alliteration!).
ATL, I agree with your understanding of the "let it all burn" scenario.
ReplyDeleteI would like to offer one alternative though. Secession. Either of individual States, groups of States, or regional militias. It would still be violence but if liberty lovers worked together it is possible that the chaos could be mitigated and a new and better normal could come out of the other side.
That wouldn't be the best scenario. I am not wanting to provoke it through open borders. I want our liberty increase without it. But maybe the worst case wouldn't have to happen either.
RMB,
DeleteI'm all for it. It's the only rational path forward. The one question I've been considering lately is this:
Does it matter, vis a vis the balance of geopolitical power and our end goal of a libertarian world, which of the current states decentralize first? For instance, if all the smaller states of the world breakup into even smaller fragments, while the United States behemoth remains unified (politically at least), will this help bring about a libertarian world or a world ripe for domination by a one world state centered in Washington DC?
Should geopolitical strategy factor into our decision to support each individual secession around the world, or should we favor them all?
I'm leaning towards yes. Fortunately for me, my goal of Texas secession, I believe, factors well into a world geopolitical strategy of balancing power through political decentralization. The US is the biggest and most dangerous, therefore it should be fragmented first.
ATL, we share the same goal! Texas and other friendly States need to form their own association so that we can repel the Federal hordes descending on us to end our production of reliable and cost efficient energy. Maybe that will be the time to act, once the US military has transitioned to wind, solar, battery energy sources.
DeleteI get your point about what States need to decentralize first so that more powerful States can't come in and take over. If you look at history this is in fact the process that has produced large, powerful States. I propose it has been an arms race over the last 2000+ years. You look at Rome and the take over of Gaul. The Gallic tribes almost defeated the Romans through uniting and pooling men/resources together. States/nations have been uniting ever since for the purpose of protecting themselves against foreign States.
To that point, decentralization goes against the historical process, but I think it is possible if and only if, security alliances or confederations built around military capability. That way even if Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, etc. break up into smaller States. Those States still have to have some relationship so that they can repel a large unified State like Russia.
Maybe a world with varying levels of confederations are a way to break up political power but maintain security. I by no means have it all worked out but I have thought about the power consolidation process you see in history for a while.
Let's start with the South and Southwestern oil&gas producing States in North America. I would include Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, and Veracruz too.
Somehow I find this a strange subject. Where do the migrants come from in this scenario? Form a country? but that is impossible, all land being owned privately... maybe a landowner has allowed his tenants to breed uncontrollably? if so, would not his surrounding landowners have punished him long before the situation would run out of hand?
ReplyDeleteRealistically, if a libertarian stateless confederacy ever came into being, it would be surrounded by states, so there would be a 'national border' except that this border would be controlled privately.
DeleteATL: That is one reason this scenario will never happen. There is no way a single landowner could hope to stand against a nation at his border. Hence he would need to cooperate with his neighbours, and their neighbours etc. A logistical nightmare imo.
DeleteBtw: The idea separation of war and migration seems rather new to me? am I wrong?
Rien,
DeleteNeighbors cooperating is a logistical nightmare? I don't see any reason why it should be difficult. If it's in their interests to protect the border, they'll do so.
The border protection association will operate on the properties of those bordering states and will be funded by a collective of those property owners on the border, those adjacent to them, and from those further in the interior who care about such things.
It's not any less feasible than the state actually doing the job it has commandeered from property owners to protect the borders.
Thanks Bionic for your critique; it has one big flaw. You focused on my antepenultimate paragraph instead of on the penultimate one. You skewered the wrong target.
ReplyDeleteI do NOT (repeat, NOT) think that government will collapse because its welfare system will be swamped by immigrants; I merely mentioned that as a possibility worth weighing. You weighed it, found it wanting. Fair enough. It's too bad you didn't continue reading.
Had you done so, you'd have seen this:
"The way to bring about a zero-government society is, rather, to persuade everyone not to work for government. I alluded to that in my LRC article The Fix, and one of the tools available to bring about that revulsion is what I call the QuitGov site, here." Links were given.
I suggest it's self-evidently true that government will vanish when nobody will work for it; for it consists of nobody else. Therefore, our only task is to make it happen. Do you agree, or do you have some other way to bring about a free society? If so, what?
Jim, thank you for the comment. I did keep reading.
DeleteI did not focus on this paragraph because it has nothing to do with open borders, which was the point of my post - and, I assumed, the primary point of yours. I also didn’t focus on it because it is a paragraph I cannot take seriously – this doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong; I just don’t take it seriously. I will explain, since you brought it up.
“I suggest it's self-evidently true that government will vanish when nobody will work for it; for it consists of nobody else.”
True, but poverty will also disappear when everyone is wealthy. The devil, as they say, is in the details.
“Therefore, our only task is to make it happen.”
How?
"Do you agree, or do you have some other way to bring about a free society? If so, what?"
A free society will not come from corrupt people, and we are populated by corrupt people. Corrupt people will always been drawn to corrupt institutions, turning them (the people and the institutions) even more corrupt.
Through this blog, I have taken a long journey to come to the conclusion that as long as Christian churches teach something other than the Gospel (as most do today), there is no chance for a meaningful move to a free society. This might sound hopeless to some, but my faith grounds me in the eventual success of this.
I know this also sounds blasphemous to many so-called believers, and completely contrary to liberty to many libertarians. Well, they are all wrong – and this says something about the task ahead of those of us who wish for a meaningful move toward liberty.
Your key question is "How?"
DeleteIt's really quite easy; find one person willing to learn, and teach him. Provide a libertarian education. Then get him to do the same, and do it once a year. Any good course will do, and one is provided at tolfa.us
Having understood the nature of government and of freedom, no graduate will work for it. (Would you?)
Do it once a year, and by exponential growth the whole literate US population will have taken the course in less than 30 years. One generation.
So, government will run out of employees and cease to exist. I offer an idea of how this would go down in my book "Transition to Liberty", via TakeLifeBack.com
Your alternative method, if I understand it, is first to cause everyone to become Christians; a step which you seem to say is prerequisite to a move to a free society.
I can't see that link, and was myself a Christian for one period of my life. There was no tolerance that I saw, either in myself or in other believers, for contrary though peaceful styles of life; there was an unquestioning faith in government as a provision of God, and the merits of a free market were never even mentioned. I discovered libertarian thought only after leaving, having realized that the cornerstone of the religion (the Resurrection) is not, as claimed, a certainty.
>... A free society will not come from corrupt people ...
DeleteBionic, I think that this idea is one of the main attributes of a free society - that the majority of the populace is not corrupt; that is, they don't seek to promote themselves by hurting others (that's the most basic way I can think of to define "corrupt").
And, perhaps, that's why Christianity has fared so well in promoting human freedom because of the two great commandments - love God and love your neighbor as yourself.
Of course, how to handle those who would hurt others for gain is one of those "devilish details" that still need to be worked out ... :-)
Hi Jim,
DeleteI know you asked Bionic this question, but I hope you'll consider my answer as well. It is a great question. It is THE question for any libertarian qua libertarian.
"I suggest it's self-evidently true that government will vanish when nobody will work for it; for it consists of nobody else."
Yes, but is this transition likely or even possible from the current state of affairs? Given that we currently live under a massive state apparatus, if more and more good people check out of politics (voting, campaigning, running for office, etc.), aren't we just relegating the tools of the state to people that will be more and more likely to destroy liberty and increase tyranny? To couch it in Rothbardian terms, wouldn't we be relinquishing the fight to the side of Power, leaving Liberty undefended? It is the pacifist approach.
To me this is just another culturally and politically suicidal 'accelerationist' position. We might as well vote and campaign for the worst political candidates to further hasten the collapse.
"do you have some other way to bring about a free society?"
I think secession is the only rational path forward. It isn't a perfect path by any means, and in some cases it may lead to further restrictions in liberty rather than the reverse, but I think it is our best hope in the long run.
Encourage a world of smaller and smaller states (restricted to fewer and fewer activities) and bigger and bigger voluntary associations. Eventually the associations supercede the authority of the states, and the states themselves would be 'forced' to transition to voluntary protection organizations.
Basically the plan is to utilize the principle of subsidiarity to encourage autonomy at smaller and smaller (or at least more voluntary) levels of governance until we achieve a 'state' (as in condition) of libertarian freedom, not devoid of government or hierarchy (that's Utopian), but rather comprised of voluntary governing organizations and social hierarchies.
Of course, I don't think any of the above can happen without widespread acceptance and practice of a genuine Christian faith.
"Your alternative method, if I understand it, is first to cause everyone to become Christians..."
DeleteNo, you do not understand it. Nor does your further discussion of this approach what I have meant when you write "There was no tolerance that I saw, either in myself or in other believers, for contrary though peaceful styles of life; there was an unquestioning faith in government as a provision of God..."
In fact, I wrote the opposite: "...that as long as Christian churches teach something other than the Gospel (as most do today), there is no chance for a meaningful move to a free society."
Most Christian churches DO NOT teach the GOSPEL; they teach the other stuff on your list, the stuff that turns you (and many) off.
ATL, you are correct of course: the practical political application of my view regarding Christian teaching is decentralization - as I don't expect everyone to become "Christian" (especially not many that currently label themselves as such).
DeleteWoody: "Of course, how to handle those who would hurt others for gain is one of those "devilish details" that still need to be worked out ... :-)"
DeleteAppoint Chuck Baldwin as Sergeant At Arms. He will figure this out pretty quickly!
Bionic, I agree that many - perhaps most - Christian churches don't teach the gospel, which perhaps we agree is what the Bible presents. However I used to be a Christian in that Biblical sense; the opinion of apostate churches is not at issue. What I now reject is the authentic, Biblical religion and my remarks above relate to it.
DeleteAt http://www.strike-the-root.com/52/davies/davies1.html I posed the question: "'Christian Anarchist;: an Oxymoron?" and gave some reasons why the two world-views actually oppose each other. It also acknowledges that, oddly to me, there exist several fine people who adhere to both.
So with respect, I cannot see that conversion to Christ is in any way a prerequisite to becoming an anarchist or to bringing about a zero government society. Again, the only necessary precondition is that all come to see that government is so evil as not to merit their support as employees. How to bring that perception about, I've already shown.
A Texas Libertarian: Thanks for your comment, and I agree that successive secessions do form a possible way to get from here to there. In theory at least.
DeleteThat process would need to proceed to State, Town, neighborhood, street, house, family and individual and I have a hard time imagining how it could.
In particular, we have the example of not one but thirteen states seceding from the Union and being hammered into submission at the cost of one life in sixty. Government will, we can be sure, oppose such a process with all the brutal force available.
The quiet, simple, decentralized re-education process I propose is not vulnerable to such force, and so is IMHO much preferable.
Do check out tolfa.us
Re: "as long as Christian churches teach something other than the Gospel (as most do today), there is no chance for a meaningful move to a free society."
DeleteAre you using "free" the same way Christ does with reference to the gospel? If so, I don't know how this works. My knowledge of libertarian philosophy is limited, but correct me if I'm wrong here. Doesn't it include the idea of freedom to fail, or free choices? Whereas when Jesus talks about being free, he's talking about being freed from the bondage of sin. Those who don't get the gospel are already free to make mistakes, sin, etc. They're not free from sin though. It doesn't make sense to me to conflate the two meanings. I could be wrong though. I don't claim to have a complete grasp of the gospel myself.
Before Jesus' time there were the ten commandments. Don't steal. Don't kill. Don't sleep with your neighbor's wife. Don't covet your neighbor's possessions or wife. If you apply this universally (especially to those in authority), you get libertarianism (or at least nothing contradictory to it). Jesus' contribution to these commandments was to go even further in the way of restriction of improper behavior (thinking of sinning is sinning) and in compassion for sinners and our enemies.
DeleteJim,
Delete"I cannot see that conversion to Christ is in any way a prerequisite to becoming an anarchist or to bringing about a zero government society."
This really isn't what I am getting at. I have written dozens - maybe hundreds - of posts that have brought me to where I currently stand, but I have never really summarized these.
The best I have seen do this is offered by Hoppe and Ajamian (and these should be read in this order; I have captured these here:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-libertarian-grand-narrative.html
Regarding your post, I will comment on this separately - likely with a new post. I will place the link in this comment thread so you will not miss it.
shnarkle
Delete"Are you using "free" the same way Christ does with reference to the gospel?"
See the link embedded in my comment to Jim, immediately above. I cannot write a better summary than that offered by the two referenced authors.
As someone who works in a niche market of what is essentially government contractors, I can say this idea of getting people to quit working for government is just that much harder, when the government first monopolizes critical infrastructure. How do we transition these away from government hold without downtime? Drinking water is not something we can go without during the transition. It is just a small wrench in the spokes of your plan, but one that needs to be addressed none the less.
DeleteJim / all,
DeleteHere is the link to the promised post:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2019/04/it-depends.html
To all: History has shown lots of cases where something like the shunning of government has been tried. The Jews hated the Roman occupation & burdensome taxation passionately and tax collectors were ostracized. But there was a good supply of Jews enough to collect tribute, even from Jesus. He used one such occasion to point out that taxation is *never* fair.
ReplyDeleteHuman nature is never ever going to give up working for government universally. Don't need the Bible to know that.
Wilberforce used a political tactic relating to war to kill the financial base for the slave-trading lobby, diverted slavery's backers with entertainment to get it passed,and slave trade was crippled fatally. It snuck past the slavery parliamentarians.
In open borders, the tyrannical class is openly using massive immigration intentionally to kill off freedom's resistance, squash libertarian influence. It is deliberate. My wife is from Honduras. A sister was detained with other "asylum" applicants, and the sister says the fellow detainees are indeed among the worst, bullies, thieves, violent, and that's just the women.
One Honduran movie followed a boy escaping a gang who was put in a "cage" to protect him from the other boys.
The hard Left is driving this with billionaire and U. S. government-subsidized NGO money. No more farce of walking; they are piling them into air-conditioned minivans right there in Honduras.
My wife's first reaction to news of "caravans" was that the Left was using them to embarrass Juan Orlando & Honduras. The organizers were soon outed as such.
To all: History has shown lots of cases where something like the shunning of government has been tried. The Jews hated the Roman occupation & burdensome taxation passionately and tax collectors were ostracized. But there was a good supply of Jews enough to collect tribute, even from Jesus. He used one such occasion to point out that taxation is *never* fair.
Human nature is never ever going to give up working for government universally. Don't need the Bible to know that.
Wilberforce used a political tactic relating to war to kill the financial base for the slave-trading lobby, diverted slavery's backers with entertainment to get it passed,and slave trade was crippled fatally. It snuck past the slavery parliamentarians.
In open borders, the tyrannical class is openly using massive immigration intentionally to kill off freedom's resistance, squash libertarian influence. It is deliberate. My wife is from Honduras. A sister was detained with other "asylum" applicants, and the sister says the fellow detainees are indeed among the worst, bullies, thieves, violent, and that's just the women.
One Honduran movie followed a boy escaping a gang who was put in a "cage" to protect him from the other boys.
The hard Left is driving this with billionaire and U. S. government-subsidized NGO money. No more farce of walking; they are piling them into air-conditioned minivans right there in Honduras.
My wife's first reaction to news of "caravans" was that the Left was using them to embarrass Juan Orlando & Honduras. The organizers were soon outed as such.
Anonymous, AFAIK there has been no attempt whatever in history to break free of government altogether. The example of Jews v Romans was merely a bid to transfer authority. The same is true of every revolution until now.
ReplyDeleteTherefore there is no support at all for your claim that "Human nature is never ever going to give up working for government universally". We are, right now, on the cusp of an historically unique process. Carpe diem!
If you are an anarchist, you would refuse to work for the State. Right? - then all you have to do is to find one friend and teach him why he too should repudiate it as a possible employer; and then do the same as you. Result: exponential growth, of government non-employables :-)
Jim,
DeleteYour strategy of universal abstention from government is exactly like saying that we can eradicate gun crime by abstaining from the use of guns. The predictable result is that only good folks will give up their guns and the prevalence of crime will skyrocket. It's the pacifist approach to war. It doesn't work.
That is not to say that education has no place in a worthwhile strategy; it certainly does. It is absolutely essential. People need to be taught what the state is and why it needs to be dismantled in favor of voluntary governing institutions and associations. State employees need to stop executing the unjust laws. They need to stop imprisoning people for victimless crimes and they need to stop killing innocents in foreign lands.
State employees need to help the transition of authority from the state to society if this process is to be peaceful (and maybe that is also wishful thinking).
But the only state employees that will be willing to apply the brakes in these areas of government action are those that will, at least on some level, agree with our ideas on the nature of authority and governance - like Ron Paul.
You have to be in the car to apply the brakes. You are advising everyone in the car to jump out while the car is still moving, and it's moving ever faster as more good people are convinced to jump out. This is a recipe for disaster, for those in the car and for those in the car's path (which, departing the analogy, is everyone who doesn't flee the country).
The Jim Davies strategy is exactly, precisely, identical to the strategy of Saul Alinsky. He said increase the welfare rolls, sign up everybody you can, demand that the capitalist welfare state cover the total maximum under the law, and game the law to expand the commitment. Until the state goes bankrupt and revolution ensues and the result I's socialism.
ReplyDeleteI agree, and it's interesting that without fail (to my knowledge), the libertarian advocates of this accelerationist program, which includes the 'open borders' position, are always culturally leftist (nihilist, atheist, libertine, cosmopolitan, etc.).
Delete"For I, saith Yahweh, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and will be the glory in the midst of her." (Zechariah 2:5)
ReplyDeleteAlthough national borders are biblical (Deuteronomy 32:8, Acts 17:26, etc.) and walls sometimes biblically advantageous (the book of Nehemiah), without Yahweh, God of the Bible, as our primary wall of protection, all other walls will never prove to protect completely protect us from our enemies.
This is especially true if God Himself proves to be our enemy for our sedition against Him as our Sovereign and thus His moral law as supreme. Case in point: the United States Constitutional Republic.
"[B]ecause they have ... trespassed against my law ... they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind...." (Hosea 8:1, 7)
Today's America is reaping the inevitable ever-intensifying whirlwind resulting from the wind sown by the constitutional framers and fanned by hoodwinked constitutional Christians and patriots.
For more, see Chapter 3 "The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH" of free online "Bible Law vs, the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html
Then, find out how much you *really* know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.
Thomas Jefferson negotiated the Louisiana Purchase. So FYI the idea of a 100% private property nation is not only a pipe dream, but entirely unprecedented as a topic when talking about America. Flying cars, pet unicorns and a military composed totally of dragons also sound like great and no less ridiculous ideas. Where are the articles about that. There is a reason that people get a puzzled look when you tell them you are a libertarian: articles like these that are so out of touch that I question my own libertarian bent. We don’t need to spend another 200 years purifying all the fine details of ideas like this that won’t happen in a million years. Do any of you grasp the concept of striving for an ATTAINABLE goal? Like maybe ending asset forfeiture or maybe just first transferring fedgov owned lands back to their respective states? It’s a far more constructive use of time than changing all of reality. Is there a single 100% private property nation anywhere? A single city? A single housing development? Assuming that libertarianism isn’t solely about trying to put yourself squarely on the side that’s losing, I really don’t get the point if this discussion at all. It’s literally nothing more than burying your head in the sand. Or trying to look like you are putting up a fight when you know you already lost. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteDutch, you obviously haven't spent much time here. Just because Jim presented this case doen't mean that it is a generally accepted view - or even possibility - here.
DeleteI suspect this site deals with the intersection of libertarian theory and the reality of custom and tradition (in other words, human reality) more than any other. Perhaps you can start here:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/p/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html