I agree ideally all borders would disappear and everyone would observe the right to life freedom and property. Defense of those rights would be in the hands of a local community. Unfortunately, there's no way currently for this to happen simultaneously around the world. Paraphrasing Milton Friedman you can't have a welfare state with open borders because everyone would raid the cookie jar. I don't even agree with that because everyone inside the border will raid the cookie jar the cookies being provided, through force, by other people AKA taxpayers. Bottom line I agree 100% in principle, but it ain't going to happen anytime soon.
You failed to answer the simple question: given the current state of subsidized immigration, including housing, food, expenses and more... Are you in favor of people who cross the border illegally being given those subsidized items?
It's easy to be a libertarian in favor of open borders WITHOUT subsidized government paying for those people to be here.
There is an argument to be made about "no-particular-orderism," whereby one could say that the principled libertarians stance is to support open borders regardless of the current status of state benefits, due to the moral and ethical reasoning. This is a camp I find myself in.
However, I also am of a mind to believe that the only way to reform the federal system is to see it collapse under it's own weight, so that something new can be born from it's self destruction, and even then, the cost of immigration inducements and welfare spending is almost negligible in the grand scope of government spending when you account for military spending, unfunded liabilities from government pensions, and the massive domestic entitlement programs we already have.
At the end of the day, there is strong data to show that the average immigrant uses far less welfare benefits than the average native born American, and they have outsized economic impacts in filling labor gaps in the domestic economy.
But, to answer the reality with a question about the reality, if all people are created equally and entitled to the same god given rights, then why is it ok to deny those benefits to someone just because of where they were born? If you support closing the border to free travel because of the potential welfare costs, then you must also rationally support the denaturalization and deportation of domestic welfare recipients.
Wow. Delusional. You really don't understand the economic issues.
This is why I left the libertarian party, because half of the libertarians couldn't be consistent and cherry picked their policy positions.
If you aren't aware of the scope of the money spent, the economic results, and worse, you aren't paying attention and aren't reading the facts. Free trade only works among equals... And more and more "Free Trade" is looking less libertarian, when the economic realities are weighed in. But it's the same problem as above: you are cherry picking your viewpoint.
But I'm wasting my breath... You aren't rational, you are illogically inconsistent.
Oh and all of the NGOs who get government funds, or tax breaks, or government penalties others incur and they are offered the chance to pay their debt off towards these NGOs instead... All of that is subsidized money going towards these same things.
You’re a smart guy Justin, and I still have your Substack as one of the “recommended” on my own!
But you should do a follow up post to address Dave’s conflicting perspective -- which is generally shared by Rothbard and other great libertarian/anarchist thinkers who can’t just be dismissed out of hand -- more specifically
I wrote this one to express my own personal beliefs, in response to Dave's perspective. I'm aware of Dave's but I think it relies heavily on the belief in the validity of the state, and as an anarchist, I simply don't share that view. I wouldn't feel right writing it from a perspective I don't share. However, Substack has a new collaboration feature, and if you would like to write it, I would happily publish it accredited to you! DM me on twitter!
I agree with your perspective and focus on property rights as the framework on which to analyze this topic. Regarding your critique of private borders, are you referring to, for example, a case where a property A encircles another smaller property B, and owner A does not allow owner B to travel across property A, thereby prohibiting A from traveling anywhere? Sure, that could theoretically happen, but I expect you’d agree that any solutions must not assume the a-priori right to violate the property rights of owner A.
I don't know what the solution is, which is why I only speak of it as a hypothetical, but I do know of a real world example where a friend has to fight for access to his own property, that is cut off from road access by another's.
the state has solved this issue by creating legal rights known as easements, whereby you have a right to cross another's property to reach your own.
I agree ideally all borders would disappear and everyone would observe the right to life freedom and property. Defense of those rights would be in the hands of a local community. Unfortunately, there's no way currently for this to happen simultaneously around the world. Paraphrasing Milton Friedman you can't have a welfare state with open borders because everyone would raid the cookie jar. I don't even agree with that because everyone inside the border will raid the cookie jar the cookies being provided, through force, by other people AKA taxpayers. Bottom line I agree 100% in principle, but it ain't going to happen anytime soon.
You failed to answer the simple question: given the current state of subsidized immigration, including housing, food, expenses and more... Are you in favor of people who cross the border illegally being given those subsidized items?
It's easy to be a libertarian in favor of open borders WITHOUT subsidized government paying for those people to be here.
But that's not the situation.
Answer the reality not the fiction.
There is an argument to be made about "no-particular-orderism," whereby one could say that the principled libertarians stance is to support open borders regardless of the current status of state benefits, due to the moral and ethical reasoning. This is a camp I find myself in.
However, I also am of a mind to believe that the only way to reform the federal system is to see it collapse under it's own weight, so that something new can be born from it's self destruction, and even then, the cost of immigration inducements and welfare spending is almost negligible in the grand scope of government spending when you account for military spending, unfunded liabilities from government pensions, and the massive domestic entitlement programs we already have.
At the end of the day, there is strong data to show that the average immigrant uses far less welfare benefits than the average native born American, and they have outsized economic impacts in filling labor gaps in the domestic economy.
But, to answer the reality with a question about the reality, if all people are created equally and entitled to the same god given rights, then why is it ok to deny those benefits to someone just because of where they were born? If you support closing the border to free travel because of the potential welfare costs, then you must also rationally support the denaturalization and deportation of domestic welfare recipients.
Wow. Delusional. You really don't understand the economic issues.
This is why I left the libertarian party, because half of the libertarians couldn't be consistent and cherry picked their policy positions.
If you aren't aware of the scope of the money spent, the economic results, and worse, you aren't paying attention and aren't reading the facts. Free trade only works among equals... And more and more "Free Trade" is looking less libertarian, when the economic realities are weighed in. But it's the same problem as above: you are cherry picking your viewpoint.
But I'm wasting my breath... You aren't rational, you are illogically inconsistent.
Oh and all of the NGOs who get government funds, or tax breaks, or government penalties others incur and they are offered the chance to pay their debt off towards these NGOs instead... All of that is subsidized money going towards these same things.
You’re a smart guy Justin, and I still have your Substack as one of the “recommended” on my own!
But you should do a follow up post to address Dave’s conflicting perspective -- which is generally shared by Rothbard and other great libertarian/anarchist thinkers who can’t just be dismissed out of hand -- more specifically
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCipeezeYVA
I wrote this one to express my own personal beliefs, in response to Dave's perspective. I'm aware of Dave's but I think it relies heavily on the belief in the validity of the state, and as an anarchist, I simply don't share that view. I wouldn't feel right writing it from a perspective I don't share. However, Substack has a new collaboration feature, and if you would like to write it, I would happily publish it accredited to you! DM me on twitter!
I agree with your perspective and focus on property rights as the framework on which to analyze this topic. Regarding your critique of private borders, are you referring to, for example, a case where a property A encircles another smaller property B, and owner A does not allow owner B to travel across property A, thereby prohibiting A from traveling anywhere? Sure, that could theoretically happen, but I expect you’d agree that any solutions must not assume the a-priori right to violate the property rights of owner A.
I don't know what the solution is, which is why I only speak of it as a hypothetical, but I do know of a real world example where a friend has to fight for access to his own property, that is cut off from road access by another's.
the state has solved this issue by creating legal rights known as easements, whereby you have a right to cross another's property to reach your own.