I don't even know how this would work, but basically as a libertarian I started as against borders because they are government-created boundaries
Then I recognized that without borders it seemed difficult to decide who was and wasn't a citizen and that wasn't fair, and that it seemed like certain people in government wanted to bring in more people to get them to vote to destroy freedom, so actually the libertarian position would be for borders to protect freedom
However, now with covid we also see borders being used to prevent people from moving - some people have been stuck in countries they attempted to live in temporarily or were on vacation at, or haven't been able to visit countries because of border restrictions
The libertarian (ancap) position on borders is that private borders are fine (like, on land that a person owns, they can choose who can "immigrate" to it or not, or like private cities can decide who is allowed to visit)
So are any conservatives against borders or what do you think of this issue in light of recent developments?
Shit like this is why libertarians NEVER fucking win elections.
"If you do not have borders, you do not have a country." -Donald J. Trump
Borders. Language. Culture.
I'd argue that anyone for open borders is by definition NOT a conservative...
Heaven is a gated community...Hell is open borders...
Could you imagine if France and Germany were one country? It tried. Under the Frankish kings. It tore itself apart despite technically being made up of the same people genetically. There's a reason there's France and Germany and not a Franconia. I would say there are as many borders in the world as there are separate, legitimate political, cultural and racial ideologies.
It's possible for there to be different nations without there being government borders (there could be private borders)
nation-states are different than nations - without a government, different peoples in different areas might live choose to live differently
(I guess this takes understanding how "anarcho-capitalism" might work, there could be French or German institutions that serve those territories only, so it ends up being like a government, but not just one entity doing the things governments do)
Us Bohemians are natural merchants and community organizers. We get along with most people so long as they keep out of our personal business. We've been running like that for hundreds of years. America is perfect for Bohemians. Lots of different people who believe in personal rights, liberties and freedoms.
Yeah. Dr. Steve Turley brought up the idea of a nation with two separate societies. He used my family's home land Czechoslovakia as an example. During the Cold War they set up a separate, silent pro-west society in the borders of the USSR. It's sort of the render unto Caesar what is Caesar's mentality. They give the state what it wanted and they built around what the state didn't take away. Historically Bohemia was also fairly tolerant of other people in the area. The Czechs and the Slovaks got along well historically. This is why at the dissolution of the USSR neither of those countries objected to separating. They shared border for most of their history for mutual defense but were essentially two separate countries who swore fealty to the Bohemian king. In turn the king assured that both countries would remain stable. This is why Hitler was also able to take the Sudatenland with out may problems. The Czechs were predominately German and to the rest of the country they were just doing what they thought was in their best interest. So to an extent Bohemia exists only in the minds of two sets of people with different borders who agreed to live together.
depends on whether its the peoples border or the governments border.
so you think anyone who wants to come to America should just be able to come in, no questions asked?
Well, right now some governments are saying the opposite: no one can come to certain countries, no questions asked. I'm not sure I like that proposal either, so that's what I'm opening up on for discussion, if that's such a good thing. It restricts our freedom to travel.
You can have open borders but then you CANNOT have a welfare state.** If you have a welfare state then you cannot have open borders. **
The USA has BOTH and it is absolutely destroying our nation. Try to imagine if ALL the people that come here were required to learn the language, get a job and pull their own weight by actually contributing to society in a meaningful way.
Tyranny can exist with and without representative government, and with or without borders, but you cannot have representative government without borders.
What do you do when megacorps own all of the land and trap you with their AnCap-friendly "private borders"?
It is possible for ancapistan to become tyrannical or chaotic, just like it is possible for a king to be despotic and dictatorial. This is not a problem unique to anarcho-capitalism but exists in all systems, but anarcho-capitalism is argued for over alternatives, just like we might argue that it is better for citizens to be free today rather than for some to have been slaves in the past. Many problems and solutions you might see with ancapistan you might similarly find with governments.
Answer: No. Now on to the next topic.
Define your beliefs by thinking them through on their own merits. Forget about trying to be aligned with a group think. With that said, can you imagine the economic, cultural, social fallout of allowing anyone to come into the US freely? In very short order the systems that the majority of people were seeking would collapse. Crime would rise exponentially. Healthcare systems would be overwhelmed. Housing markets would be consumed and prices would rise. Food production would lag behind demand. People would be hungry, homeless, scared, and angry. Oh wait, all of that is happening with only the ones that can sneak in now.
Instead of needing to move to another country, maybe should focus on ALL nations being able to support their citizens so anyone who is moving to another part of the planet will be doing so in a positive way. Many parts of the world are like CA,NY and Chicago, their own leaders are killing their countries with corruption, idiotic policies and abuse of their citizens. I am pro border out of necessity to keep our spot on the planet stable. There is no natural reason why any other part of the world (nation/county) should be unable to thrive and be prosperous... Countries that are not doing so is because someone(own gov or outsiders) do not want them to be so.. NO natural reason why humans can do well in one part of the world and starve in another.
Ultimately it would boil down to being a border of shared private interest.
You can't have a free lunch without putting a wall around it. Remove the welfare state and borders become a non issue. Immigration is a government program. Without the welfare state you'd only be able to survive if you assimilated, you know, like the first 200 years of American history.
And the ancap position would argue that there shouldn't be anyone to vote for in the first place, so there wouldn't be anything for immigrants to vote for when they arrived.
I'm all for getting the government out of everyone's pocket and yard as much as possible.
That said, if you like living in a lockable house you're automatically also for borders. Exact same problem on a different scale.
Even cells do it with semipermeable membranes. It's just simply how nature seems to function on every scale. We only have such variety of species because of certain boundaries existing.
It makes no sense to assume that this should be any different for an optimal organization of societies.
If you don't believe in borders I'll come over to your house and help you remove your doors. I have a lot of friends that would love to come and live with you, at your expense of course. I hope you keep your refrigerator well-stocked.
The r/K selection theory illustrates how liberal thinking types tell themselves that resources are unlimited and should be free for everyone. The conservative types believe in property rights and the conservation of resources.
what you are describing fits under private borders, which libertarians believe in - it's just government borders that are questioned
The problem is these government borders today are preventing people from traveling country to country - we even with covid for a time period were having certain states in the U.S. suggesting people needed to quarantine if they traveled out of state
I suppose some of these same problems could exist in ancapistan as well though
I hope a world without the need for borders will be possible in the future. When no one has to flee their country because it's a "shithole". People aren't leaving San Salvador etc. because they like the culture / scenery in the US better. Most are economic migrants only and would love to return if they could have a similar quality of life in their respective country.
so then actually improving certain countries might help prevent illegal immigration more than government borders?
Countries only exist because they had natural borders they could defend. If they didn't have natural borders, they wouldn't have been able to successfully defend those portions of land and would have had to recede back until they find a defendable position, i.e. a natural border. The only alternative is to make a border.
Borders can be deserts, oceans, rivers, mountains, but they can also be walls, canals, moats, or even traps.
I am pro border, pro wall, and pro State Sovereignty (not just US States).
What that means is that each State should exist not only independent from one another but also in COMPETITION with one another.
Such competition for the Citizenry should be the only incentive of a governing body. That includes two main functions:
With both, policies will lead to the success of the State. Production is key to this end.
Borders ensure States are able to take in Citizenry that will bring it most benefit while also providing a deterrent for other States' Citizenry to leave instead of voting for winning policies.
If a State's Citizenry leaves en masse, without correcting the policies that have resulted in their Citizenry leaving, they have only to lose with this exchange. In such a scenario, they lose an actionable portion of their Citizenry, which means less industrial potential. More notably, they lose the only Citizenry which would have voted failed policies out of the State's governance.
In effect, it is in every State's best interest to have sufficient Border Policy to prevent such exodus events, going OR coming. Exodus events prevent the State from correcting it's failed path while simultaneously placing undue burden on neighboring State's resources in having to deal with the fallout of an imploding nation.
This is true with any group or governing body. Mexico is a prime example. Their failed policies are the reason for the immigration crisis. If they were successful on their own merits, people wouldn't wish to flee.
In other words, each State's secure border is responsible for their neighbor's stability. By taking Mexico's actionable Citizenry, the US is leaving Mexico to its corruption, which then metastasizes and spreads into the US.
Remember this:
If those who recognize corruption flee because it is easier than to confront it, then all that will be left is the corruption and the lingering scent of cowardice upon which corruption happily gives chase.