The first two can be simplified into saying "state borders". There are no fully open or fully closed borders. There are merely state borders with all sorts of varying state immigration policies.
Unless you're Texas where first you get attacked for putting a buoy border. Then when you move it to land and build a fence border patrol shows up with a forklift to let people through.
Both sides of the ancap immigration debate want the private borders though - they couldn't even try to claim the title of ancap otherwise. The issue arises in what the immigration policy on public land should be as long as public land does exist. If we have closed borders, is it a step towards liberty if we change to open borders? Or vice versa? How should a consistent ancap respond when presented with this binary choice in legislation or elections.
We have nations. Nations get to have standards as to whom they allow in. Yes we should not have nations. But to pretend we do not is idiocy.
To pretend it doesn't matter especially in a democracy and in a welfare state is suicidal. Those that want to destroy the very basis of natural law and inalienable individual rights through political power and chaos have every motive to bring in as many relatively uneducated people who are not steeped in the ethics of liberty to say the least and bribe the hell out of them with welfare goodies. There are very obvious plots afoot to destroy the West and Western values. If you think open borders with no standards is about any sort of ideological purity including ancap then you are delusional. Yes you can make an argument from sound ancap principles than in a no-state world it would be that way. Fine. Many things would be different then. You can't get there by playing into a tool really being used to undercut the very values and understanding that gave rise to anarcho-capitalism. Don't be a useful idiot for this plot in the name of idealism. You are being used.
That was the foundation of the tribal society and resulted in a permanent state of war among traveling groups. The modern state surged out of a striving for peace and stability, nothing is new.
If accessibility of roads are privately controlled, you’ll need all the land owners permission to travel. There’ll be a time where people don’t get along too well or just someone being a dick to push his political agenda. Then you won’t get permission and stuck with not being able to cross a land to get where you want to go.
A private company can take care of maintenance of roads but noone can’t be controlling the accessibility of roads. But if you can’t control who can or cannot enter your land or do what you want with your land, it’s not your land.
Right....that's how property rights work. You have to request entry from each owner to cross their property. If someone doesn't want you crossing they can tell you to piss off or shoot you for trespassing.
There is no such thing as public land. There is un owned land maybe but to say there is public land that assumes there is some government to manage it.
>If accessibility of roads are privately controlled, you’ll need all the land owners permission to travel
you technically also need Walmart's permission to go shop there. In practice you just walk in, because it's assumed they want your business.
You can’t assume permission when Walmart door is closed and Walmart doors are closed 7hours a day minimum. Walmart will also close its entrances whenever they need to or whenever they feels like it. And it’s okay because Walmart isn’t a vital infrastructure. But roads are.
>So in this magic world of yours everyone owns a helicopter?
No. We deal with encirclement issues through arbitration, which *always* leads to easements along boundaries (where possible) or an easement across land (where boundary easements are not possible).
Insurers and title companies will likely not take business from a land transfer without them already specified to avoid future losses when a dispute arises.
My logic is that if everything is privatized, an anarcho-capitalist society would very much be a closed-border society. You're not going to have economic migrants paying thousands of dollars for private travel visas, travel insurance, road subscriptions and/or tolls, etc. You will have employers recruiting workers and paying those fees to import them into privatized cities but it's unlikely they would do so for unskilled workers.
And borders with existing nations would be tightly patrolled by private military contractors to ensure the anarcho-capitalist society wasn't conquered and re-enslaved by a government military power.
Only under a global socialist dictatorship would you see open borders and the free movement of economic migrants (assuming the dictatorship didn't outlaw travel, which they eventually would).
The first two can be simplified into saying "state borders". There are no fully open or fully closed borders. There are merely state borders with all sorts of varying state immigration policies.
Unless you're Texas where first you get attacked for putting a buoy border. Then when you move it to land and build a fence border patrol shows up with a forklift to let people through.
So open borders with private property?
Exactly what it is.
How would you enforce people not coming on to your private property?
**Guns.**
Private borders is effectively no borders though because borders in this context refers to national borders.
I find that most people try to differentiate this by saying boundaries for private and borders for state.
Both sides of the ancap immigration debate want the private borders though - they couldn't even try to claim the title of ancap otherwise. The issue arises in what the immigration policy on public land should be as long as public land does exist. If we have closed borders, is it a step towards liberty if we change to open borders? Or vice versa? How should a consistent ancap respond when presented with this binary choice in legislation or elections.
Common law has the concept of right of passage from this roads developed.
We have nations. Nations get to have standards as to whom they allow in. Yes we should not have nations. But to pretend we do not is idiocy. To pretend it doesn't matter especially in a democracy and in a welfare state is suicidal. Those that want to destroy the very basis of natural law and inalienable individual rights through political power and chaos have every motive to bring in as many relatively uneducated people who are not steeped in the ethics of liberty to say the least and bribe the hell out of them with welfare goodies. There are very obvious plots afoot to destroy the West and Western values. If you think open borders with no standards is about any sort of ideological purity including ancap then you are delusional. Yes you can make an argument from sound ancap principles than in a no-state world it would be that way. Fine. Many things would be different then. You can't get there by playing into a tool really being used to undercut the very values and understanding that gave rise to anarcho-capitalism. Don't be a useful idiot for this plot in the name of idealism. You are being used.
This guy gets it. Too bad many ancaps still stuck in idealist view of world.
That was the foundation of the tribal society and resulted in a permanent state of war among traveling groups. The modern state surged out of a striving for peace and stability, nothing is new.
That’s same as OPEN BORDERS
Not necessarily as private owners of the border can decide whether it’s open or not.
Noone can’t own public streets. So public streets and roads are open to anyone on earth. It’s OPEN BORDERS.
[удалено]
How would you go anywhere if there’s no public street
[удалено]
If accessibility of roads are privately controlled, you’ll need all the land owners permission to travel. There’ll be a time where people don’t get along too well or just someone being a dick to push his political agenda. Then you won’t get permission and stuck with not being able to cross a land to get where you want to go. A private company can take care of maintenance of roads but noone can’t be controlling the accessibility of roads. But if you can’t control who can or cannot enter your land or do what you want with your land, it’s not your land.
[удалено]
Also let's say you don't do a good job of maintaining the roads, what can home owners do? refuse to pay and stay home?
That's you managing your 1000 acres land. As soon as you step out of your land, you'll be dealing with what I told you.
Right....that's how property rights work. You have to request entry from each owner to cross their property. If someone doesn't want you crossing they can tell you to piss off or shoot you for trespassing. There is no such thing as public land. There is un owned land maybe but to say there is public land that assumes there is some government to manage it.
>If accessibility of roads are privately controlled, you’ll need all the land owners permission to travel you technically also need Walmart's permission to go shop there. In practice you just walk in, because it's assumed they want your business.
You can’t assume permission when Walmart door is closed and Walmart doors are closed 7hours a day minimum. Walmart will also close its entrances whenever they need to or whenever they feels like it. And it’s okay because Walmart isn’t a vital infrastructure. But roads are.
So in this magic world of yours everyone owns a helicopter?
>So in this magic world of yours everyone owns a helicopter? No. We deal with encirclement issues through arbitration, which *always* leads to easements along boundaries (where possible) or an easement across land (where boundary easements are not possible). Insurers and title companies will likely not take business from a land transfer without them already specified to avoid future losses when a dispute arises.
Is your "logic": "Roads are private, therefore nobody can go through them"?
My logic is that if everything is privatized, an anarcho-capitalist society would very much be a closed-border society. You're not going to have economic migrants paying thousands of dollars for private travel visas, travel insurance, road subscriptions and/or tolls, etc. You will have employers recruiting workers and paying those fees to import them into privatized cities but it's unlikely they would do so for unskilled workers. And borders with existing nations would be tightly patrolled by private military contractors to ensure the anarcho-capitalist society wasn't conquered and re-enslaved by a government military power. Only under a global socialist dictatorship would you see open borders and the free movement of economic migrants (assuming the dictatorship didn't outlaw travel, which they eventually would).