Trump will NEVER turn America into a White nation!

[juan]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:07:07 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:


> > I believe the correct libertarian position is no
> > GOVERNMENT borders.  Not no borders at all.  
> 
>   >  Borders are by defintion a creation of the state. And
>   >  vice-versa. A state is defined by its borders.
 
> Well, maybe you're playing word-games.
> I used the term "borders" to
> refer, generically, to any demarcation of ownership or control over
> land.  borders = boundaries.    Topological separations.  


	I didn't mean to play word games. 

	http://www.dictionary.com/browse/border?s=t

	2. "the line that separates one country, state, province, etc.,
	from another; frontier line:" 

	or 

	1. "the part or edge of a surface or area that forms its outer
	boundary. " 


	I assumed we were using  definition number 2, the political
	one. So my claim that (political) borders are a creation of the
	state pretty much stands. 

	But, on second thoughts, I can agree with your quote below, for
	argument's sake : 

	"the correct libertarian position is no GOVERNMENT borders." 

	So it clearly follows that the correct libertarian position on
	travel is *open* *government* borders. And so any sort of
	support for government restrictions on travel across government
	borders is not libertarian. 


 
> 
> >> Private property still
> >> rules.  And anything which is currently "government property"
> >> should become quasi-private 
> 
> >    False. Not to mention, you just made up a new ad-hoc kind
> >    of 'property'.

> There is no reason that a given piece of property cannot be owned,
> jointly, by many people.

	Actually, there is a general reason. And the more people, the
	bigger the reason. And the obvious reason is that controlling
	property in a jointly manner is a mess and a source of discord.


	On the other hand, let's say roads become 'quasi property'.
	Now, roads exist for people to travel. And there's no
	libertarian argument  against people travelling. 

	There are also other practical 'refutations' to the idea of
	recreating nation-state borders using 'private' property.

	1) absent the state land allegedly owned by the state would
	revert to its original, unowned state, not to 'quasi-property'.

	2) even the land that is  legitimately owned can  be used by
	people to enter the hypothetical 'country', if a handful of land
	owners allow it. Or even ONE land owner.

	3) there are also big *free* seas and lots of coasts. And boats.

	4) and finally there's air space and planes 

	
>  (Corporations own property, today.) 

	So? Mafias chartered by the state 'own' 'property'. The state
	 creates more than a few legal devices to favor
	businesses. Big businesses today are the poster child for
	corporatism and mercantilism. Exactly the economic system that
	libertarians are supposed to oppose.



> Even,
> potentially, millions of people.  Currently, things called
> "government" claims to "own" what is referred to as "public
> property".  Get rid of the governments, and what happens?


	What happens is that only real pople can own property. And what
	further happens is that the kind of property enabled by the
	state goes poof.


> Does that
> land simply evaporate?  No, it does not.

	Right. But something surely does evaporate and that's the fake
	property titles granted by the state.


> Okay, then, who owns or
> controls it?  

	All the land 'owned' by the state is actually unowned land. It
	can be homesteaded by real, (honest) people. As a side note,
	even that isn't too straighfoward since what constitutes
	ownership in land is partly conventional and debatable, in
	libertarian terms.



> That land contains roads, which people who own 'private
> property' often use to move around.  In order to avoid too much
> disruption, it is reasonable to continue things so that this
> previously-publicly owned property should remain useable by many
> people. 

	That is, it should remain...public - public meaning accessible
	to all.


> Absent a government, some sort of contract-driven group
> ownership of that land makes sense. 


	Of what land? Are you talking for instance about all the land
	usurped by governments and their cronies? As a matter of fact,
	'contract' based ownership on that scale doesn't make sense. It
	sounds like an attempt at 'private' nationalism/tribalism.


> (What is the alternative?) So
> no, I didn't really make up a new kind of property.  I just expanded
> a previous form of property ownership by a group of people. 

Jim Bell
> 
> 
>