How can libertarians support open borders?

This makes zero sense to me. With private property comes the right to exclusion. If all property was private property, then there would be no "freedom of movement" at all. People would be only free to go on private property that is theirs, or in which owners of other properties would allow them. Freedom of movement would require that extensive amounts of land are publicly/government owned, thus "open borders" would actually require an incredibly large government. In fact, you could argue that mass immigration is one of the hallmarks of big government., as it means you are denying people the right to deny others from their property.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=erytcpYpzRk
mises.org/library/open-borders-are-assault-private-property
youtube.com/watch?v=ZZZKSxjAvl8&ab_channel=TheAustrian
cis.org/Cost-Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households
heritage.org/taxes/report/how-the-wealth-spread-the-distribution-government-benefits-services-and-taxes-income
pewhispanic.org/2009/04/14/iv-social-and-economic-characteristics/#income
cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43373-06-11-HouseholdIncomeandFedTaxes.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Muh freedums

The same niggers support free trade and outsourcing as well for muh markets

What? No they don't. Do they? Shit, well I'm out.

Pretty much any libertarian will tell you they love large immigration and you shouldn't be able to deny anyone. Most libertarians who agree have either become an-cap or just plain conservative.

*Most libertarians who disagree

Lolbertarianism.

The same people who think guns are our biggest issue, Marxists might be okay if they're left libertarians and that simply deregulating will solve all things.

Allowing foreign or domestic people to transcend your liberty is not libertarian. Moderate libertarianism is more libertarian than extremist libertarianism.

You're not making sense. No, open borders is not a big government position. Allowing people to move freely across America's illegitimate political borders is the absence of coercion. People already do deny immigrants from their private property. Immigrants aren't barging into your home and staying there. They rent and buy houses and apartments like everybody else.

America's immigration laws has grown tighter as government has grown. There were no immigration quotas up until 1921.

You're not a libertarian, period. Just admit that you want to use government violence against brown people.

>Warms up chopper.

Fuck the Libertarian Party, I want the Meritocratic Party.
"Libertarian" is only useful as a technical qualifier and is literally incomplete Objectivism. Objectivism without the epistemology. youtube.com/watch?v=erytcpYpzRk

They don't. Stop confusing AnCaps for Libertarians

I'd like to modify the argument. Exclusion is the default; you are excluded from someone else's property unless they make an exception and allow you on their land. The government has stolen our property, and they have no right to the land they possess. Since only the owner of the land can permit people to come on to it, and the government does not own it, the government then has no right to allow people in to the country. The only libertarian argument for borders is completely closed borders, only making an exception when a property owner invites someone onto their property (and even then, the immigrant can only step foot on that person's property).

I don't.

The minarchist libertarian party is officially pro open borders. Go ahead and read the party platform. Small government libertarians like Ayn Rand and Ludwing von Mises have always been supporting free migration.

>Ayn Rand and Ludwing von Mises

Guess the ethnicity of these two.

This already happens, dude. Immigrants buy and rent homes from private property owners. They get jobs from willing employers or buy property to set up businesses. If government claiming ownership of land is what bothers you, then demand that the government give up their property. Robbing taxpayers to hire thugs to patrol the border and search all around the country to deport immigrants is just more government violence.

Just from the antagonists she writes in her stories I know that Rand is one of the most anti-kike jews to ever walk the face of the earth.
In any event that user is wrong; Ayn Rand was only *situatioally* pro-open borders. I know because she talks of isolationism in C:TUI completely neutrally. Implying it a valid course for a nation to take. If she were a complete open borders advocate she would attack the concept in the same manner she does pure-anarchism and AnarchoCapitalism.
She didn't.

Post-Alinsky you pose the question to her and she would be full "Reeee build Wall right the fuck NOW"

libertarians do want borders

just like they want personal property and the ability to defend their land

they would rather use a safe and not banks

these are all walls in their own right

Alright bud, ignore the ethical argument and say "muh government violence." The fact is, not all immigrants buy or rent property, and I'd bet that most of them don't set up businesses. Even if most of them bought private property, which they most likely don't, they still go onto public roads,parks, etc., and they use public services (transportation and welfare, among other things). This is immoral; people do not have the right to use or travel on someone's property without the owner's consent. You are arguing for immigrants to be allowed to freely use stolen property, and you're saying it's the moral position. How would you think this?

>I know that Rand is one of the most anti-kike jews to ever walk the face of the earth.

Her entire philosophy revolves around being a self-centered shekel-hoarding cunt. That's about as kike as it gets.

Faggot

Free access to cheap Labour. Open borders are a Libertarian idea.

see

also see

>We need more government violence to solve an issue caused by government violence!

And yes, most immigrants buy or rent private property. Where do you think they live? Are they forcing themselves into private homes?

And who's the ones initiating violence with relation to government property? Immigrants don't vote. Why do you attack immigrants when it's government thugs and the native-born Americans who vote them in who have seized property?

demolish the welfare state first you mongoloid. Im fine with freedom of movement as long as its not incentivised by stealing/wasting tax payer money. To demolish the government system would take a logical succession, and I doubt we even have the culture to accept libertarianism yet
???
judaism is very centered around collectivism and prioritizing jewish community over the individual

>Today I will remind them

...

...

...

...

...

...

>How can libertarians support open borders?

well thats easy :

open borders are only a problem, because of the wellfare system.

libertarians see the state as mafia and want to deduce it resp abolish it, where then it' no problem to not have borders, because noone then will get taxed inequally.

simple as that.

no wellfaresystem, no borderproblem.

leftards should support that ( the abolishment of statism / government )

...

90s Rothbard was worst Rothbard. After decades of failing to popularize libertarian, he tries to ride Pat Buchanan's coattails, of all people.

...

Not all libertarians do. The small libertarian party supports open borders but some bigger names like Ron Paul don't support open borders anymore. Ron Paul stopped believing in open borders when he saw it was a literal invasion of the United States.

>let's allow immigrants to use and travel on stolen property
>Even though the state exists, I'm gonna act like it doesn't
The state is compulsorily opening what should be private borders. It's not violent to exclude people from property, especially since exclusion is the default. By excluding immigrants, the state is actually being less violent than if they were allowing immigrants to travel in the country.

>judaism is very centered around collectivism and prioritizing jewish community over the individual

It's only collectivist in the sense that they push for a distinct Jewish identity and a homeland/communities for Jews to live in. Within those communities, however, it's rife with backstabbing and money-grubbing.

He was the best iteration of Rothbard. He later admitted that Pat screwed up when he tried to attack all free market policies, instead of simply focusing on attacking big government and the (((free trade))) deals like NAFTA.

But


He also supported David Duke and called out "Left-Libertarians" for being frauds, so he was legit. But Sup Forums will disregard all of that because he's a Jew, right?

Native born Americans shouldn't be allowed to move on government roads either by your logic.

>objectivism
AHAHAHAHAHA NICE SPOOKS NERD

We should be taking back the streets from cops. Cops are a bigger threaten to the average person than private criminals.

The RLC>Libertarian party. But we have some things we need to take care of before we focus on liberty.
Like helicopter rides.

It's a dual game wherein they still maintain their ethnocentric scheeming, while the gentiles are encouraged to adopt an ideology that deemphasizes their self-perception as a unique genetic group.

No, they or members of their household are taxed (stolen from), and that money is used to maintain, build, and "improve" government property. Since they invest capital into a government project, voluntarily or not, they are rightfully part owners of that road, park, etc. This means that they have the right to travel on or use that property.

There was really no such thing as immigration policy until after World War One. To move from country to country was not considered a big deal, aside from the time and expense involved in actually moving your family around.

Now, CITIZENSHIP is another, very different matter. But until the 1920s, a Mexican could up and move to the US with very little difficulty.

i got here via liberal -> moderate republican -> libertarian -> ancap -> conservative republican

This doesn't cohere with libertarian property theory as i understand it. You acquire property if you homestead it or someone who legitimately owned the property voluntarily exchanged it to you. No such homesteading or exchange occurred, so no, nobody are "part owners" of roads, parks, etc. Even if we accept your logic, unemployed working age adults don't have permission to travel government roads. No free travel for children, elderly either. Not to mention that most immigrants do in fact work and pay taxes too.

just admit it. you didn't have a trump card so you played the race card.

notice the big L

This is why Natcap exists, because some people want economic freedom and secure borders.

Libertarians are just another Jewish poison to destroy any drive towards nationalist socialism.

>People would be only free to go on private property that is theirs, or in which owners of other properties would allow them.
well...yeah. how else should it be? remember, the mall, grocery stores, parking lots, parking garages are frequently privately owned, and they frequently allow strangers like you onto their property.

>Bill pays workers to build a road
>Bill somehow does not own that road
What? Assuming the workers homesteaded the road, they'd be exchanging the road for the payment they received.

>not free travel for children, elderly either.
I can understand why you would think that there's no travel for children, but your argument for elderly people makes no sense. In response to the one about children (and I suppose this counts for elderly people as well): They tax households, so children and elderly people could be claimed as part of a household.

Which is why I belong to the Constitution Party. They should call themselves the Libertine Party in reality since they seem to want no restrictions on everything.

>he hasn't yet figured out that lolbergs are nothing more than autistic liberals who actually understand markets unlike their commie brothers

I need to add is I wish there was a John Birch Party.

I'm a libertarian and do support open borders. I am by no means a hippie or a social justice warrior. I simply follow principles of freedom, and this includes freedom of movement.

Open borders would effectively change the name of immigration to moving, and back in the 16-17 and 1800s America (as an example) practically had open borders, as long as you weren't actively coughing up a lung or giving birth to aliens through your chest you could move to the United States without an issue. Did this create any issues? No it didn't. It was the most peaceful time in america's history.

My case is that if you remove government from the picture, remove welfare, all government programs in general. There will be no problems. In a free society, completely void of government, borders, etc... you will have no problems of immigrants leeching off of your wealth. And I understand that if western europe were to ever become libertarian or anarcho capitalist, that would not necessarily mean that the arab world would be accepting of these freedoms. So there could indeed be a problem of arabs trying to invade europe by force, and not through leeching off the taxpayers as they are doing these days. But there would be absolutely no problem with defending your property. The non aggression principle would not apply to self defense.

Now I know what you are going to say. You're going to call me a cuck, telling me I want arabs to be invading and raping europe, bla bla bla. But seriously, with the technological advancements, weapon advancements, the freer societies would be a million years ahead of the remaining government run societies in the world. And would easily be able to fight off 1950s artillery like communist societies can't seem to advance from.

I don't

mises.org/library/open-borders-are-assault-private-property

>>Bill pays workers to build a road
>>Bill somehow does not own that road
>What? Assuming the workers homesteaded the road, they'd be exchanging the road for the payment they received.
Well there are many people paying for the road. It's like buying a share of a company. If you pay for it you have access to it.

So you're saying that you agree with me?

Every single illegal immigrant who enters this country and works a job or buys goods is a tax payer.

Illegal immigrants have the fewest means available to them compared to any other type of resident to extract money from the tax system.

Basically immigrants provide more for this country than any other group, the standard alt-Reich reasoning for barring immigrants from entering this country are all fake news, basically without exception. These people keep afloat all the poor lazy white people in this country hooked on drugs and news for dumb fux. All the problems you associate with immigrants is literally just projection.

They pay only sales tax and indirectly, property taxes, neither state or federal income tax. As soon as they have children, they have an opening for welfare, as well as the public school system. To put this in perspective, the cost of schooling a single pupil in the us is often twice the per capita income of most of central america. So, at a minimum, the wealth disparity between their home countries and america causes a huge wealth transfer if they recieve basic government services, such as public schooling or even judicial/police protection, weasel nigger.

I made my case saying that I am talking about what I support in an anarcho capitalist society. Again, I said that I do not support open borders in society as it stands today. But after removing welfare and government programs, I am open to it.

Many don't support open borders

But to come here, they would be violating property rights; it doesn't even matter if they work a job or start paying taxes (start being stolen from) because it does not alter the fact that they have violated people's rights and shouldn't have been here in the first place.

>immigrants provide more for this country than any other group
youtube.com/watch?v=ZZZKSxjAvl8&ab_channel=TheAustrian
cis.org/Cost-Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households
heritage.org/taxes/report/how-the-wealth-spread-the-distribution-government-benefits-services-and-taxes-income
(we can assume that illegal immigrants and a large number of legal immigrants are in the lower quintiles)
pewhispanic.org/2009/04/14/iv-social-and-economic-characteristics/#income
cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43373-06-11-HouseholdIncomeandFedTaxes.pdf
(this one is quite interesting; the lower quintiles, which is where illegal immigrants and a lot of legal immigrants are, pay less than 10 percent of taxes.)

How is this part of "providing more for this country than any other group"?

As I said, if you hold a job in America you directly pay state and federal taxes as it is directly garnished from your wages unless you work for tips or some illegally funded and operated corp which ultimately is the responsibilty of said corp and should be directly regulated and liquidated by government. Green card holders and other legal immigrants also must pay all these taxes directly and are completely without any means of withdrawing from the tax system. After 5 years of this situation they become elligable to begin taking steps towards citizenship but cannot retroactively receive tax returns or other benefits for their previous work.

All babies born in America are American citizens, and likely will spend their lives in America as workers and tax payers. Any government funding of these children is an invenstment into the future of America similar to any other American citizen. Parents are unable to survive off of the welfare they will receive for the benefit of their child and will still be required to work hard to make ends meet and will be no closer themselves to ever benefiting from any taxes.

this

They don't have income withheld from their employers. Like paying people to work that are here illegally is a crime. Why would they suddenly obey tax law just for that? The point anout the children being eligble for welfare, is to illustrate that the bulk of illegal immigrants are third-world peasants that would be priced out of the united states, where they not subsidized by the american tax payer. Which is in sharp contrast to the more sensible policy applied to legal channels. I'm not even assuming any fraudulent use of welfare. As for the investment in citizens, what exactly is the return on investment of the legal offspring of illegal aliens? A new generation of low skill laborers who can withdraw even more from the commons and to further entrench the politics of wealth transfer from the existing legitimate population to them?

Your assumptions are incorrect. As illegal immigrants are incapable of withdrawing taxes directly in any way they are exclusively tax providers. Legal immigrants would be in the same boat. If they benefit from social services which target communities rather than individuals such as road upkeep etc then you could possibly argue that they take more than they give if you could prove such but they still directly pay more for these services than other citizens making the same wages who may be elligable for welfar and other assisting services.

That they are responsible for less than 10% of tax revenue is point of questionable worth as you haven't proven that they should be responsible for more than this by successfully arguing they make up more of the populace than 10 percent nor have you satisfied any assertion that they take more from the system than they put in.

Your argument is flawed because you repeatedly assert infactually that illegal immigrants are subsidized in any way. Your argument is completely reliant on this infactual assertion.

You're focusing on the transfer of wealth from white people to brown people as if this was the most egregious of political problems (or a problem at all) when realistically the problem is the continued and persistent transfer of wealth from the middle and lower classes to the rich.

As to your first point your criticisms of illegal immigrants being payed untaxed wages would need to be substantiated if they are to be taken seriously.

>nor have you satisfied any assertion that they take more from the system than they put in.
From the Heritage Foundation (one of the sources I linked):
>The analysis finds the lowest three income quintiles are in fiscal deficit (benefits received exceed taxes paid) while the two highest income quintiles are in fiscal surplus (taxes paid exceed benefits received). The average household in the bottom quintile received $29,015 in benefits and paid $4,251 in taxes, generating an average fiscal deficit of $24,764 per household. In the top quintile, the average household paid $69,704 in taxes and received $21,515 in benefits and services, yielding an average fiscal surplus of $48,189 per household.

>That they are responsible for less than 10% of tax revenue is point of questionable worth as you haven't proven that they should be responsible for more than this by successfully arguing they make up more of the populace than 10 percent
from the first page of the cbo.gov file that I linked:
>Lowest quintile: 5% of income, less than 1% of taxes
>Second quintile: 10% of income, less than 5% of taxes
>Summed together: 15% of income, less than 10% of taxes

You haven't provided any evidence that immigrants make up any proportion of these groups. I'm still reviewing your sources but can't find any mention of these groups and so therefor can't lend any validity to the conclusions you draw on these statistics.

I don't even know why I'm arguing these points. My original argument was that open borders is a violation of property rights; I don't even care how much taxes they pay. It doesn't affect my argument.
>Basically immigrants provide more for this country than any other group
I'm assuming this is you, just with a different device, correct me if I'm wrong.
If immigrants don't make up a large proportion of any of the groups I mentioned, then, as a sum, they can't really be providing that much in taxes, labor, or value in relation to citizens.

They provide per Capita more than others in their respective tax brackets, or alternatively, more than their citizen counterparts in their respective quintiles. They are therefore "worth more" than any other type or demographic of people from a tax revenue perspective if you are merely separating people based on nationality or race. The only people who are worth more are rich people, but only if you define worth based on the raw output of taxes per capita. If you define worth based on what percentage of their total worth is garnished through taxes then they are likely the least worthy people in America while immigrants would be the most worthy. Regardless trying to define immigrants as undesirables based on their "tax burden" is a losing argument and close observation merely proves this is one of the biggest reasons as to why other political groups have identified immigrants as highly desireable.

Okay, I think I said in my comment that it doesn't affect my point either way. I don't even think there should be taxes or a government, so why would I value them based on how many taxes they pay? I'm saying that, taking the reality of the situation into account (there is a state), closed borders is the most ethical stance that can be taken, because the government does not have the right to allow non-owners onto the land that they have stolen; only true owners of the land have that right.

>why would I value them based on how many taxes they pay
"them" means immigrants in this sentence; I wasn't sure if that was clear.

im libertarian and i oppose open borders
the only "libertarians" who support this shit are some stupid people in this party.

Of course, Ron Paul mainly advocated for removing federal and state programs which incentivized illegal immigration. But, on top of that, you're right, he noticed an actual invasion happening. During one of the Republican debates, he even mentioned that our troops should be defending the US border from Mexico rather than Middle Eastern borders.

But, keep in mind that Ron, and his son, Rand, aren't Libertarians. Ron used to be part of the Libertarian Party. He started to distance himself from the Libertarian Party. Which was a smart move, seeing as they've gone off the deep end as far as I'm concerned.

libertarians are retards don't worry about them

Taking practicality into consideration appears to be antithetical to your political beliefs in general so I'm not sure why you would start here lol.

Libertarians believe that the government should not be able to restrict people's movement. However, they also believe each individual should be able to restrict others from entering their land if they so choose. Basically, all the powers of the state that the commies and Nazis salivate over are given to the individuals rather than the collective hivemind of the unwashed masses. The strong succeed, and the weak die; the system accelerates and enhances the natural process.

Not does it have the right to tell me I can't allow immigrants into my private land. The government claims sovereignty over something that I own, and then tells me who I can allow to enter or work on it?

>Taking practicality into consideration appears to be antithetical to your political beliefs in general
Not really, I'm just more concerned with ethics and property rights. Open borders is a violation of property rights; closed borders is not.

Nailed it. Hoppeanism is the only internally consistent breed of libertarianism.

I agree, but you'll have to give helicopter rides to get immigrants onto your land, because they can't set foot on "public" property (no such thing really; it's a creation of government and can only exist with a state; however, it's still the property of the taxpayers, which means, unless everybody who paid for the upkeep or acquisition of that property consents, nobody but the taxpayers can travel on it).

It's illegal to employ people that are here illegally. Deducting from their wages to comply with the IRS would be preposterous. It's that simple ratfuck. As per other point about wealth transfer to the rich, having the middle class subsidize the cheap unskilled labor of the rich does that to, as thirld world peasants would be priced out of a first world nation, were there expenses not externalized to the tax paying middle class.

The per capita income of the us is ten fold that of most of the origin countries for illegal immigrants, like el salvador. If illegal immigrants are in a posisition to acquire enough wealth to sustain themselves and save wealth, they inherently take more for any goverment services, because they would necessarily recieve subminimal wage salary for their labor. It is a crime to imploy illegals, so it necessarly follows they have to be reacive little reimbursement to balance the cost of the crime and the limited scope of their skillset and poverty makes them uncompeitive for higher wages.

>the only consistent breed
Nah
Hoppeanism is High tier but Objectivism is God tier. Litteraly no cracks, not a one. Heck Libertariaism itself is basically incomplete Objectivism. youtube.com/watch?v=erytcpYpzRk

In a Libertarian society I would buy all the coastlines. I would also buy all the land surrounding my neighbors land and refuse to let them cross it on pain of death.