Voluntaryism does not argue for the form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned.Just say five people owned five houses.If they formed a co operative group and enforced their laws on a sixth person who owned a house without the sixth persons permission or agreement and forced the sixth person to pay dues and obey their laws it is logically false to claim it is legitimate.By the same token it would be wrong for the sixth person to say it is illegitimate for the five persons to have control over their own houses.
That's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that libertarians don't think the 5 people have a right to create a neighborhood from which they can exclude people.
Why cant we decide which group to be part of?
Precisely my point; libertarians refuse to acknowledge the right to make this decision.
Immigration is simply people wanting to join your exclusive group.So why cant they?Because they are the wrong color?Because they dont speak your language?Your argument comes from fear that if you let people make these choices you will no longer get to control them.
So, your libertarianism is predicated on your idea of political correctness? If not, why bring up "wrong color" or language at all? It doesn't matter why I don't want someone trespassing on my property, does it?
Nations don't have rights. People have rights. They have the right to act collectively, but they don't get more rights as a collective, which is what most statists believe and expect.
You're contradicting yourself. On one hand, you deny that nations have rights. On the other, you acknowledge that people have the right to act collectively. Which is it? Do people have the right, as individuals, to form collectives, or not? And if so, what's the difference between that and national rights?
"Abetting ethnocide, genocide, culture-cide, etc." Really? What entity do you suppose is the chief engineer of these things? The State. QED
I'm leaving the State out of this, because this question doesn't hinge on the State. It's about libertarians' refusal to acknowledge the right of individuals to form and act as collectives. According to libertarians, 5 guys have the right to own and control property, but they don't have the right to form a collective substrate beneath their property, call it a nation, and own and control it.
It is fine if those 1 million are in agreement.But that is some utopian vision you have there buddy!You cant even get two fucking people to agree let alone 1 million.
Libertarians are supposed to be good with theory. How about 1 million agreeing to abide by the popular vote?
The state and the nation are non existent as you say.It is a collective of individuals with no more rights than one individual has.
No, libertarians don't acknowledge the right of collectives at all, if they don't acknowledge the right of nations to control immigration. It's tantamount to rejecting the idea of nations altogether. Maybe this sort of ideological rigidity stands in the way of libertarianism's popularity.