Would refugees come to Europe if there were no state supported refugee facilities, free medical care...

Would refugees come to Europe if there were no state supported refugee facilities, free medical care, welfare and job seeking assistance, all paid for by taxing the incomes of native Europeans?

Other urls found in this thread:

mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_8.pdf
independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/super-rich-swiss-village-opts-for-200000-fine-instead-of-accepting-10-refugees-a7053826.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Why rearrange our whole society on Libertarian lines, when we could just fucking have borders and throw out undesirables?

Because the state just keeps on expanding and spending when you feed it, disproportionate to population growth.

>These are the exact policies of Russian and China.

And the answer is yes, they would still come flooding in, but none of the lazy scammers, only enterprising individuals who wanted to work would come, and also those wanted to deal drugs (but this would be a non-issue in a Libertarian society with all drugs legal anyway)

You still need borders, unless you actively want to surrender your country as we are doing today, and as Europe is doing today.

>Would refugees come to Europe if there were no state supported refugee facilities
Probably not. Mexicans would still come to the US though.

fresh OC

Yes faggot.
Europe with no benefits >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their shithole with no benefits

>Because the state just keeps on expanding
That has nothing to do with refugees and foreigners.

Yes, because even if there's no gibmedats, there's white women to rape and less people to oppress them so they can become the oppressor.

If it's new territory to fuck up, they will do it. They don't give a shit. It's why people like Mugabe are proud of the shithole they run, they don't want "Success" or "legacy" they want to be king nigger and they want to destroy whites.

>Hans-Hermann Hoppe has argued in his writings about open borders being against anarcho-capitalist theory:

The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration (PDF) by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Journal of Libertarian Studies 13:2 (Summer 1998).
mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_8.pdf

>To be sure, in non-socialist countries such as the U.S., Switzerland, and the Federal Republic of Germany, which are favorite immigration destinations, a government-admitted immigrant could not move just anywhere. The immigrant’s freedom of movement would be severely restricted by the extent of private property, and private land ownership in particular. Yet, by proceeding on public roads, or with public means of transportation, and in staying on public land and in public parks and buildings, an immigrant can potentially cross every domestic resident’s path, even move into anyone’s immediate neighborhood and practically land on his very doorsteps. The smaller the quantity of public property, the less acute the problem will be. But as long as there exists any public property, it cannot be entirely escaped.

A good map! Another wrong step by the Ukrainian authorities and this map will become reality =)

Lmao

>there's white women to rape and less people to oppress them so they can become the oppressor.

True libertarianism doesn't believe in a forced funded police force, only vigilantism. So if a community didn't want refugees coming into their patch, they could run them off. There wouldn't be big government cops spraying anti-immigration protesters with water cannons and arresting them for racism.

wow fuckin lost well done

Have fun using vigilantes to repel 1 million able bodied men marching into your country.

Hoppe is just twisting logic into a pretzel, by trying to pretend "private Property" rights as viewed today, could defend a nation from the dark skinned hordes. It's complete nonsense.

The United States (and Probably Ausfalia too)
USA-- was founded on Libertarian Nazi Racialist principles. Complete freedom for the white man, no dark-skins even allowed to enter the country (unless they wanted to volunteer to be slaves, and few did)

>Production of M1 and M1A1 tanks totaled some 9,000 tanks at a cost of approximately $4.3 million per unit.

Not infeasible.

>I am drunk and doing maths

In USA 15–64 years make up 66.2% of pop.

Community of 1000 = ~662 people who are earning and can potentially contribute.

$4300000 / 662

$6495 ea

And remember, no tax so people's income and savings could be theoretically higher.

>nz
M8 Your country shut down its own armed forces. you couldn't even slow down China or Maalysia from swamping you for one or two minutes.

NZ is undefended. Several battalions of American militia men could invade us.

But if our taxes weren't so ridiculously high and we had the 2nd Amendment...

Yes, because even though they'd have no welfare, it'd be better than the shitholes they live in.

they probably still would be open borders aren't inherit to libertanism. freedom is exclusive for the citizens, not outsiders. the citizens have to agree with immigration.

be = but*.

There is an argument that if there were no public spaces (such as government owned roads), then refugees could be forcibly stopped by the owners of the roads from using them. There would be no government, of course, to protect the refugees under libertarianism.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

That argument is stupid anonski. Rich Chinese and jewish "immigrants" would be able to offer huge sums of money to the "property owners" and Hoppes retarded "Libertarian national defense plan" assumes that zero property owners would accept the enormous super-bonus offers from the "immigrants" which is beyond retarded.

China is already buying up gigantic parcels in Africa, and I think in Ausfalia too, but you can confirm that?

>would be able to offer huge sums of money to the "property owners"

If the people were stupid enough to sell the main route through their community, then they would suffer the consequences.

>assumes that zero property owners would accept the enormous super-bonus offers from the "immigrants"

In Europe, wealthy areas are paying the EU not to take refugees.

independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/super-rich-swiss-village-opts-for-200000-fine-instead-of-accepting-10-refugees-a7053826.html

If people have the choice, I'm not so sure they would be happy to be inundated by refugees.

>and I think in Ausfalia too, but you can confirm that?

Yes and New Zealand. But the population is highly taxed, there is retarded government intervention in companies and as a result we can't compete with the Chinese businessmen who get rich in China because in China there are very few laws stopping them from making as much money as possible, which creates their initial wealth.

>If the people were stupid enough to sell the main route through their community
>implying they aren't
It's called liberals m8

Imagine there is no government to protect you. No police force. No external intervention.

If your community sells your road to someone who approves of immigration, there would be no recourse.

I think people wouldn't make foolhardy decisions if they knew there was no comeback.

By analogy, if there was no NHS, people in the UK would probably be less like to take risks which would result in injury.

Your fallacy is assuming that people will act rationally.

Rational action will be more likely if there is no nanny state to protect them. Touch the fire, get burned, have to buy own burns ointment. If not, get infection, get blood poisoning - die. Will you play with fire?

It doesn't matter. Enough people falling for Jewish tricks would BTFO Hoppe's "plan." It doesn't take anywhere near a majority for immigration to occur.

A lot of people are quietly unhappy about immigration and demography. But because there are laws against discrimination, people are scared to speak up.

Remove the laws, remove the fear.

Yeah and a lot of people are completely favor of it.

>but they would get burned
Sure and so would anyone else that's unfortunate enough to have idiotic neighbors.

>There is an argument that if there were no public spaces (such as government owned roads)


sorry I'm not this kind of an libertarian, I think there are centrain services that the gov can provide and as such there would always be place for public property. I simply see no way around this.