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.
Yes they do.
Why cant we decide which group to be part of?
Precisely my point; libertarians refuse to acknowledge the right to make this decision.
No they don't.
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?
The country is not your property. Nor did everybody in the country all decide to get together and unanimously agree to restrict immigration.
chief engineer of these things? The State. QED
[/quote]
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.[/quote]
Of course they do. But why do you think that admitting this means that the government has a right to control immigration? That would only be the case if all the owners of the land that the government wants to restrict immigration onto
had formed just such an agreement, and that the government was they agency that they had all selected to enforce restrictions on entry for them. Since this has not happened, though, your support for immigration controls doesn't seem to follow from your argument for 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?
Vote for what? Let's say that a land owner on the Arizona/Mexico border wants to let some Mexicans come and work on his farm whether or not they have been granted visas or permits from the US government. The Mexicans would be violating immigration law, but who's property would the US government be defending if it kicked them out? And why should the fact that a million other people who don't own that land agreed to abide by a popular vote made by three-hundred million other people that don't own this landthat this guy should not be able to let the Mexicans onto his land mean that the government has a right to prevent them coming in?
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.
Maybe. The truth can sometimes be unpopular.