Monday, January 28, 2013

The silliness of "borders"

Borders.  Imaginary lines.  I can understand them to a certain extent.  Private property lines are the borders that trump all others.  And I can even understand a "border" that gives an area an identity.  Maybe based upon geography or customs or other things like that which give a shared identity that the locals rally around.  As long as they are not imposed or maintained by "law".

What I don't understand are "legal borders".  I mean the kind that derive from governments saying  "We have these laws over here, and they have those laws over there.  Our laws are better than theirs." That includes saying that "You live here, so we are entitled to a percentage of your money."  And, really, that's all "national borders"- and even "state borders"- come down to.  "Our laws are better than their laws" and posturing to be the "legitimate" thief.

To say "Here, possession of this plant/gun/car window makes you a criminal, even if over there it doesn't" is evil.  For that matter, passing or enforcing any "law" that attempts to control or prohibit anything beyond aggression or taking/damaging property (which may include trespassing) is evil.  So, arguing over borders is just two thugs arguing over which one is violating you in "just the right way".

And the short answer to that is: neither one.

Since I don't believe in "laws" that go beyond (or violate) the Zero Aggression Principle and "don't steal/damage other people's property" (which never need to be written down anyway), the rest of the "laws" are all bad.  To pretend your counterfeit "laws" are better than anyone else's counterfeit "laws" is ridiculous.

It's not about "open borders".  It's about the ridiculous notion that a line dividing between different bundles of "laws" is anything other than a delusion based upon elevating theft and aggression to a place of honor.



  1. The question, then, seems to be rather simple: Why Government?

    If there were no government, there would be no (need for ) borders or political boundaries. However, since our minds are so cluttered up and inundated with governmentalist mentalities (even though both you and I and most who read this call ourselves "anarchists") it's hard to imagine what life would be like without borders, or visas, or passports, or other documents outlining rewards presumably granted by parasites of state in the form of licensing, etc.

    I suggest anybody aroused by the idea of true liberty read John Hasnas' essay on The Obviousness of Anarchy.


  2. One more essay on today's FFF Daily is Jacob Hornberger's blog:

    "Bumper" manages to outline from a different angle what you've introduced as the "Silliness of Borders"


  3. Sorry -- the above link didn't activate. You can read Hornberger's essay here.


  4. I know I'm late to the party, but that's never stopped me from voicing my opinion before.

    I am not an anarchist/libertarian and I have no interest in living in that society. I know there are others who agree with me as there are others who agree with you. As such, your side of this imaginary line is anarchist/libertarian and this side is small "r" republican (not GOP).

    Its not necessarily "our laws are better" its just "our laws are different and represent our values", and yours do likewise for you.

    The problem arises when different groups with different values mix and fight for supremacy. Then you get coercion.

  5. But if you didn't believe your "laws" were better, why not just get rid of them?

    It would be kind of funny to see your border in action, because it would probably only be a one-way border. As long as you didn't try to attack or steal while you were visiting individuals or their shops on "our side", no one would even mind that you were there, and would be happy to trade with you. "My side" wouldn't even care that there was a border, since everything on "my side" would be private property- that would be all that was necessary.

    And I still wonder why anyone would "fight for supremacy" when there was no institution of coercion trying to make everyone fit in the same round hole. You can claim that people will fight anyway- but I have never seen people do that if there was no one trying to force them all to live by the same arbitrary rules. I don't see wars arising because some people want to eat at McDonald's and others want to eat at Fishy Joe's, or because some people want to go to First Church, and others prefer FSM. It's when you introduce the "do as we demand, or we will force you to" that the fights become prevalent.

    The coercion comes before the fights for supremacy.

    I'm curious, and truly not trying to be confrontational here, but I feel I need to ask so I can understand: What would bother you about living in a free society? You would get to live according to your conscience. Is it that important to you to deny others the same liberty?