 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 789, September 21, 2014 2 to the chest,& 1 to the head, puts the terrorist down and dead
Special to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise (Modified and adapted from my blog) I just had a revelation. It's so obvious that I'm ashamed at how slow I was to see it. There is not only no such thing as "illegal immigration"... in fact, there's no such thing as "immigration" at all! For "immigration" to be a real thing you'd be claiming that borders and the "tax" farms they surround have legitimacy. You'd be claiming there is something "above" private property to "immigrate" to. All there is with regards to this is migration and trespassing. Each individual who is moving on the surface of the planet is either within their rights to be where they are, or they are trespassing on private property. If property is privately owned, you either get permission to enter, or you are a trespasser by entering anyway. Government—the State—can own no property or anything else, since it possesses nothing it did not either steal or "buy" with stolen money, and thieves don't own the stolen property they possess. Government has zero "authority" to control who you let on your property. So, "immigration" is a non-issue. You either trespass or you don't. I am against trespassing. I am also against government pretending it has authority over other people's property (which is theft). I might choose to allow people to enter my property. I might not. Where they were born doesn't figure into that at all, and certainly not whether they have State permission. If private property rights prevent individuals from going where they want to be, that is just too bad. If private property rights prevent government goons from stopping "immigration", that is also just too bad. The whole "border" and "immigration" problem are socialist-created crises. Or perhaps I should say collectivist-created. If there were no superstitious belief in the existence of "public property" there would be no problem. People could defend their own property as they saw fit. But socialist/collectivists believe the State can "own" property. They also believe the State can control how you use—and how or whether you can defend—your own property. (Which you also must pay a yearly ransom to keep.) It's like dogs' territoriality gone berserk—where a hypothetical barking dog thinks it can claim everything around him, including half a continent, as his own—regardless of the opinion or property of other dogs living there. Claiming other people's property is socialistic. Offering "free stuff"—which is never free—is also socialistic. No matter who the intended recipient may be; "citizen" (human government "property") or not.. Many of the migrants are also socialistic—believing they are "owed" passage across other people's private property, and "free stuff" once they settle somewhere. So you have the clash of the socialists. I have no dog in the fight other than the fact the socialists pretend to have the authority to prevent me from defending my life, liberty, and property from any of their kind. It gets more pathetic. If you've seen an online argument over "immigration" I'm sure you've seen this. Some smug "conservative" collectivist will think he is whipping out his "Gotcha!" and waving it around:
Sigh. It's as embarrassing as when Creationists try to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to support their position. In their socialistic little minds, they (or The State) "own" all the land called "America" (or "The USA" as the case may be) just like I own my house. Only, apparently, since they are socialistic collectivists, they think the State's claim on my house comes first, too. So, since they don't recognize private property rights, I guess it would seem reasonable to them to move into my house. Since I do recognize private property rights, I know I have no right to move into their house, nor to assert a collective claim on the whole land, including their property. I sympathize with some of the anti-migrant feelings. But to use that argument just shows you're an idiot—and a collectivist one at that. But, supposing none of the above were true... How do borderists believe "we" can "protect our borders" without a huge police state (and the attendant expense met through "taxation")? This is a question I have asked many times over the years and have never gotten a real answer to. For that matter, I have almost always had the question completely ignored, as if I never asked. And, how do they believe a State powerful and omnipresent enough to "secure our borders" will not (eventually, if not immediately) use that power and omnipresence against them in ways they wouldn't like? That's another question I have never gotten a real answer to. I suspect that's because the real answers are too uncomfortable for the borderists to contemplate. What do you think?.
This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
|
|
|
|
Previous
Contents
Next