Monday, March 24, 2014

Looking at "borders" more closely

It really bothers me that some really smart people, whom I generally agree with on just about everything else, disagree with me about the validity (and wisdom)- or utter lack thereof- of "national borders".

I take this as a sign I need to re-evaluate.

First of all, I do agree that humans are generally tribal, and get along better with their own "tribe" (however they may define that). I agree that forcing people together, who don't want to be together, causes a lot of problems and violence. I agree I would be more comfortable where I could be a part of the dominant "culture"- not that I have ever really been, but I do believe I would enjoy it. But do those things really depend on States and their "borders"?

I recognize and respect private property lines. They are the real "borders" I defend.

"National borders", on the other hand, can't exist without a State enforcing them, with coercion, while violating private property lines and individual rights. Is that violation justified by a "greater good" or a necessity?

Tribes have always had territories, and sometimes those align, incidentally, with "borders". When that's the case, no "state" is required to maintain or "protect" the borders. When it isn't the case, a Berlin Wall/Border Fence won't be enough to stop the migration. I believe the Berlin Wall is the clearest illustration of the illegitimate nature of "national borders"- at least in recent history.

If I build a fence through the middle of town, ignoring the property of the people already living there, is my fence a "real" border? What if I fought another guy on the other side of town for the "right" to put a fence there, and we agreed between us that this was the proper place to build the fence- and he would be "authorized" to rape, murder, and rob the people on his side of the fence, in exchange for protecting them from the people on "my side" of the fence doing the same to them. And I get to do the same to "my people" with the same "responsibility" to protect them from him and his people. What if the people on my side of the fence mostly agree that it is better to be raped, robbed, and murdered by me? What about those whose property is now divided between territories, or cut off from family and friends on the other side of the arbitrary new "border"?

It's insane, isn't it?

Is it really any better if I use a pre-existing street, ditch, or property lines as my "border", of which I now declare myself to be the "authorized user and defender" (and, by definition, "owner")?

What if some individuals from "their tribe" move into your neighborhood and overwhelm "your tribe"? In a neighborhood where private property rights are understood, respected, and DEFENDED, I don't see this being an issue. Are those migrants stealing houses to live in, and otherwise trespassing? Defend the property however necessary. Are those migrants buying or renting their living quarters? Then mind your own business- or try to convince the landlord/seller to not rent/sell to "those people". Or outbid them with the help of other members of your tribe. Above all, don't focus on who they are, but on what they do. If they rob, rape, or violate property rights, you are completely justified in using violence in defense- my monopoly over "defense" and "justice" is a much greater threat; really the only real threat (as long as you tolerate my "authority", that is).

If people you don't want move in anyway, a friendly reminder that theft and aggression will be met with defensive violence (and then doing it) is in no way a violation of anyone's rights.

But what about your "culture"? I realize that different people, from different origins, have different cultures. Do you really believe your culture is so inferior that it can be so easily "corrupted" or destroyed? Is there a danger of you rejecting your own culture? Or of your kids rejecting it? Do you not believe your culture can compete in the market of ideas? If not, maybe you need to look at why that is. Maybe it's because the competing culture is "easier" or more attractive in some other way to the worst nature of humans. If so, there is nothing you can do to save your own culture. Not without changing human nature. Resign yourself to being "the remnant". Maybe, though, there are things in your own culture that are bad and need to be eliminated anyway, in order to make it more competitive. Why wait until your are forced to face that fact? Start changing now. I'm in no danger from other cultures, unless they inspire me to begin initiating force and stealing for some reason. That won't happen since that principle isn't "cultural" anyway, so I can enjoy and sample other cultures and enrich my life.

If you are worried about "those people" partaking in your monthly divvying up of the stolen loot I ("government") distribute to back to you (the victims), the root of the problem lies in allowing the theft to continue; not in how it is distributed. I'm sorry, but this IS the real issue, and it doesn't matter if "this is the system we have; we need to accept the reality and work within it- until that changes, immigration must be restricted". Yes, it is "the system" as it exists, and it is wrong. Alter or abolish it. And stop blaming others for your reluctance to do so.

So, after going through all this in my own head I conclude that those who still believe in "borders" are still wrong. I sympathize with their fears, but think they are going about fighting those scary things in the wrong way.



  1. Kent,

    It always amuses me to hear some politician of the "conservative republican" stripe shout through his bullhorn that "we" need to close our borders (because Mexicans), and then in the next sentence profess admiration for Saint Ronald Reagan. No one ever seems to remember, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Irony is alive and thriving.


  2. Going farther back in time, the U.S. fought a war with Mexico (1846-48) and won. Under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Mexico was forced to cede Alta California (California, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah, along with parts of Colorado and Wyoming) as well as New Mexico to the U.S. (Although the Mexican government was paid 15 million dollars, they wouldn't have ceded the land willingly.) Texas was a separate issue in which the U.S. government was not actively involved. Then the Gadsen Purchase of 1854 took a bit more of Mexico so a U.S. railroad could be build. Also, Mexico needed the 10 million dollars from the purchase to rebuild it's army. So the borders we have today between Mexico and the U.S. were taken by force or by taking advantage of Mexico's financial problems, which is probably a good reason to defend those borders. Right? And before any La Raza supporters start waving the Mexican Flag, the Mexicans took that land from the original settlers, the American Indians.

  3. Illegal aliens do tresspass on private property frequently. Many ranchers have complained about it. The border crossers been known to vandalize private property, steal crops, and leave behind mountains of pollution. Neighborhoods that have a high concentration of such people have higher-than-average crime rates. They also have high automobile accident rates, partly because many can't understand what traffic signs say. They come from cultures that has little respect for the rights of others and this behavior reflects it.

    The Berlin Wall is not a valid comparison. It was not built to keep East Germans out of West Berlin, but to keep them from escaping Communist rule.

    You often make good points, but are mistaken on this one.

    1. "Illegal aliens do tresspass on private property frequently"
      Probably. And how much of that trespassing is directly due to "border" enforcement, and fear of just going through the gates? Probably almost all of it.
      And, "citizens" (I despise that word) trespass on private property frequently, too. So?

      I addressed what to do when anyone, from anywhere, violates property rights. It is the violation that is the problem, not where the violator came from. I have had my property rights violated many times- but not once by anyone you would consider an "illegal alien" as far as I know. And I don't care about anything other than the violation when it happens. Not the race, gender, sexuality, nationality, what permission papers are possessed, "job", language spoken, or political beliefs of the violator. If their beliefs make them more likely to violate rights, then someone needs to make those beliefs have heavy consequences- then they can choose to foolishly hold onto those beliefs or they can learn.

      All walls work in both directions. Those who support the wall are lying if they claim otherwise. The "border" and all the enforcement infrastructure (especially the checkpoints and demand for "papers") has made America more dangerous and less free than any migrants ever could have.

      No person can ever be "illegal", because no real law can ever make a person so.

  4. Thanks, Kent, for illustrating how borderists are socialists.
    Thanks, "Anonymous" for also proving they are bigots.

  5. Kent, I agree. And there are some other considerations.

    "Illegals" live outside the law. They are to be admired for doing that, as long as they harm nobody. If more people did that, if more people acted as free men, we wouldn't be in the government-created mess we currently are in. If someone had to swim the Rio Grande to get here, I'd shake his hand.

    Talking of "illegals" is collectivist language. I have never met an "illegal" (in my eyes) human being, but I have met a lot of guys who happened to be born in Mexico. Hard workers, all of them. These people are individuals, working shit jobs to put food on the table for their families.

    The "illegal" haters also need to mind their own business.

    Finally, the United States is not a tribe, nor is any other country, except maybe Luxembourg. Tribes are small, the members all know each other, and there is not some subset of people in it for which the tribal rules do not apply (that is, there is no ruling class). The federal government is a mechanism for extracting wealth from peons, and a tool for megalomaniacs throwing their weight around, and that is all it is.