HC has responded to my post, The Open Borders Question. My comments are in blue- RW
Thank you for your excellent response. I do recognize that you aren't for "open borders." I think we differ on what to do now that we have them.
Uncontrolled (by private property owners, or those who claim the US territory to be THEIR property, aka, FedGov) immigration I believe leads us away from liberty. Briefly:
Increased demand for government.
A good case in point is that if we had enforced the immigration laws, and as a regular policy deported violators, we would have fewer attempting to enter illegally, and thus we would not have such a demand by the polity for a "wall." I agree with Hoppe that the most important thing a wall will do is keep the cows ON the farm, not foreign cows off of it. So the State creates a problem and then "fixes" it such that we are worse off.
This I consider what I have called an ass-backward libertarian position. The problem is the non-libertarian position of a government building a wall. The solution presented is to add a layer of government: Non-libertarian deportations. I reject the "increase government to shrink government" theory. The libertarian position should be to shrink government period.
"Democracy" and the Common Law.
I think this is hugely important. While I think "democracy" is a terrible scam, I do believe that the "common law" is where the PPS rubber must eventually meet the road. Sure, a person can go 100% PPS personally and refuse to interact with others on any terms but their own; perfectly acceptable! But to the extent that people with different tastes and abilities choose to interact, torts settled by a jury of your peers is the most reasonable, organic, adaptable, and dispersed/devolved way of dealing with problems. So if some group just arbitrarily forces your community to accept outsiders (which, in practice, is what is happening) then they destroy your ability as a community to self-police in your own style.
"Torts settled by a jury of your peers is the most reasonable, organic, adaptable, and dispersed/devolved way of dealing with problems," says who? This is the position of a central planner who thinks he knows how things must be done. There can be many ways to resolve conflicts. Arbitrators resolve cases without juries every day.
This is a view from a statist position:,"So if some group just arbitrarily forces your community to accept outsiders." But the problem is the state. It is the government that doesn't recognize private property and holds the position that private property is subject to rules of the government overlord.
Under PPS a group could buy up property in a "community" and prevent all, none or some from entering. Arbitrary force comes about because of government, not in a PPS.
The issue of democracy is somewhat moot to me philosophically, because someone's vote a thousand miles away should have no power over me directly, but in the world we actually live in we can see that it is in fact a policy of some in government to literally import a "new people" who do not support individual rights and "Western"-style freedom. And unfortunately their votes WILL affect me. As a practical matter I think it would be better to allow people in based on their belief in a PPS more than their desire and ability to perform useful labor. After all, freedom leads to prosperity; hard work can take you either way.
Government should allow in people based on their belief in PPS? Where exactly are all these people who believe in PPS? What about people who have never heard of PPS (there may be a few) but act in a manner that is consistent with PPS, that is, they desire to come here work hard and not cause trouble?
So there are a lot of different fixes, and I agree that empowering a domestic Gestapo to ask for papers is B.A.D. How about I humbly suggest that, if we must keep welfare and democracy, we increase legal immigration and let immigrants vote, BUT don't allow access to welfare until the third generation. So you have to pay for it but don't get it. That would both influence the type of people who would want to come, and it would build pressure to eliminate welfare. And this could be sold to voters, both "bigoted" and "liberal."
Legal immigration is handing out papers so that someone can say, "Papers please."
This is government technocrat talk here: Too afraid to call for serious abolition of parts of the state, There are plenty of technocrats in government and at beltarian think tanks who hold the same positions. They ultimately serve the state. We don't need more of them. We need people who are willing to advocate bold Ludwig Erhard steps.
Of course on our PPS island, Mr. Wenzel, there would be only voluntary charity and voluntary "courts" whose decisions are either submitted to, or the accused can just be blackballed by the community if they refuse judgment. But I digress.
Again, thanks for your time and efforts.
Thank you for your thoughts HC such discussion is extremely important. Such discussion is the only way we will ever get to a PPS.