Libertarians and Borders

I'm a Trump supporter, former Ron Paul voter and I honestly can't understand the hatred that most libertarians seems to have for national borders. Can anyone provide insight on this?

I checked "the Volokh conspiracy" blog after Brexit thinking they would be jumping for joy but nope, they called it a huge setback to the "free flow of people and labor" throughout Europe....
www(dot)washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/06/24/thoughts-on-the-brexit-vote/ (inb4 cuckington post)

The only thing I can think of is that the libertarian party has been hijacked by (((liberals))).

You would think a libertarian would be all for borders, and many are but call it "a strong national defense" but most sound like cucked globalists. From a libertarian perspective it should be something like:

-Rights are God given and begin with private property and one's body. Individual sovereignty protected by the second amendment.

-Participation in the state is an extension of private property whereby the individual gives up a certain amount of individual sovereignty in exchange for certain public services and representation/voting. States keep this local

-Private property is extended further and a small amount of sovereignty is again ceded as state & local govts. come together to form the USA.

-The borders of the USA are, by extension, the borders of our private property as a nation and deserve to be defended.

If we can show libertarians that immigration is just another government program we may be able to uncuck them. Mass immigration is very engine by which "big government" is created. The democrats import millions of third worlders thus providing a false "boost" to GDP and tax revenues which they then dump back into increased immigration and welfare making the government even bigger and more powerful.

bumping, sorry for the blog post but we need to come up with a way to win over more libertarians and make them amenable to nationalism.

I am shocked.

An OP who actually puts time and thought into his thread gets no replies.

I would actually go one step further, OP. I think that a small country with a homogeneous population, and we'll enforced borders is the only way that Libertarianism could possibly work.

They are fooling themselves if they think that the free movement of people across borders will result in a Libertarian society.

Very well thought out and sensible opinion OP
But if you want to know the problem with current libertarians, first look at the current leadership.

Thanks guys. This was a eureka moment for me so I'm glad I'm not crazy.

Libertarians pride themselves on being extremely "rational" so maybe some sort of flow chart showing the different "levels" of government going from the self to family and onwards.

Volokh is a cuck, if you aren't reading their legal opinions you shouldn't be reading that site

I posted a revised version of this on libertarian plebbit, not gonna link to it but we'll see how they respond.

I think you're onto something OP, but I'm not sure that your view is entirely defensible - it looks to me like this is just "the social contract" redux with more respect for individual rights

maybe the best way to deal with immigration is just to reinforce certain aspects of the constitution, especially with regards to unconstitutional laws, searches and seizures i.e. social programs and wealth redistribution programs

as far as the border is concerned, i do see your point.. i'm on board with the notion that the government serves as a guarantee of our individual and property rights within our territories and do need protection, but the problem is that to defend against an incursion, the enemy must be visible, and ideologies are not visible at all, so actually it seems that the best solution to just end all immigration and tourism, which would necessitate the creation of a huge government department, or just add onto the state department/department of homeland security

I'm not convinced that that's the best answer

Libertarians tend to be interest in politics and tend to follow alt rigt stuff, and so are usually more Sup Forums-like than the average republican. plenty of libertarians like Rockwell, Hoppe, and Ron Paul are for a border for the reasons you'd expect.

Hey there
I have some doubts regarding Libertarianism, since I don't understand it wholly.
I understand that Libertarians advocate for smaller government.
Then, how do things like education, or even, infrastructure (think about roads) work. Who pays for this?
And how do you prevent capitalism from turning into huge monopolies?

>Rights are God given

dropped
I'm an atheist libertarian

you are literally building on a foundation of sand

pick it up faggot
>Man is endowed with certain inalienable rights by his creator (evolution/nature)

LOL, sorry to ruffle your fedora there bro. Think of it as you being lucky enough to be born into a physical body with individual needs, an intellect, and reason. You are a human being and not a rock, that's something.

Wouldn't your first thought as a rational being be to secure sovereignty/control over your own body, speech, etc?

I would assume so, so move to step two and form that primitive socius and reap the resulting benefits in exchange for a little of that freedom.

You're right, this does look like a reformulation of "muh social contract".. I hope I'm not becoming a liberal again, that sucked.

Remind me of the argument against it?

Most people who consider themselves libertarian are ok with the government planning infrastructure (muh roads and borders). Education is a bit more complicated and almost everyone regardless of political affiliation is unhappy with our current K-12 system. I'd seriously argue it's nothing more than glorified daycare at this point.

As for monopolies, most that I can think of are a result of government intervention (think waste treatment/electric. In my town and many others there is only 1 ISP which has a no competition agreement with the city council). Competition would normally be enough to prevent most monopolies although there could still be an issue with collusion which is an issue regardless

The only legitimate borders are private property lines.

the government pays for it you idiot. small government doesn't mean no government. i don't know what libcuck shit libertarians are up to these days, but the federal government should be limited while states have more power to govern themselves and make laws

They aren't libertarians, they're anarchists. That's why. There's no logically consistent reason why a libertarian would be opposed to borders.

Good thread
Not intested but bump.

Libertarian here. Open borders are for Gary Johnson cucks and liberals. Of the three libertarian candidates the worst one gets pickedm

love summer and all these new arrival libertarians.

I'm just glad there are some to offset the socialist hordes of Bern victims that have been swarming this board

>we just need to seize the means of production guyz

I'm not in anyway defending Libertarianism, but I think the difference is that liberals see quotas like we should import 200,000 shitskins from Mexico, Iran and only 200 people from Slavic countries. Where as Ideally libertarians would grant open access to their borders to anyone who could get themselves there. Really dumb concept, you may be right about libertarians being infiltrated because there's no way that any libertarian president or libertarian dominated congress in this day and age could abolish an entire welfare system and government support, it would be political suicide to do this. The point of open borders for libertarian philosophy is that there's no handouts so you either come here with the best intentions of being successful and contributing or you starve to death or head back home. This fact alone makes the muh open borders argument pretty much moot, part of why I hate libertarians.

thanks. I'm reading some more on some websites.