The inevitable cultural clashes between first world and third world individuals means inevitable increases in violence. Now that state you claim to despise has a delightful choice- Either instigate further controls over all individual lives to mitigate the violence or, even better, pick a side in the conflict and protect only that side. Which side do you think the state will pick to offer support? The peaceful producers who generally despise the state or the violent, state dependent parasites who bow to it? What has history shown to be the answer to this question?
According to Hans Hermann-Hoppe:
“In the short run, which most interests a democratic ruler, the bum, voting most likely in favor of egalitarian measures, might be more valuable than the productive genius who, as egalitarianism’s prime victim, will more likely vote against the democratic ruler. For the same reason, a democratic ruler, quite unlike a king, undertakes little to actively expel those people whose presence within the country constitutes a negative externality (human trash, which drives individual property values down). In fact, such negative externalities – unproductive parasites, bums, and criminals – are likely to be his most reliable supporters.”
Of course, the state will choose to protect their dependent parasites by weakening the peaceful producers with further intrusion into their lives and claims against their property. And all such intrusions will be defended and instigated under the state’s holy trinity of “compassion,” “cultural enrichment,” and “diversity.” Don’t you feel better?
“In fact, bums and unproductive people may well be preferable as residents and citizens, because they cause more so-called ‘social problems,’ and democratic rulers thrive on the existence of such problems. Moreover, bums and inferior people will likely support his egalitarian policies, whereas geniuses and superior people will not. The result of this policy of non-discrimination is forced integration: the forcing of masses of inferior immigrants onto domestic property owners who, if they could have decided for themselves, would have sharply discriminated and chosen very different neighbors for themselves.”
All of these completely unnecessary but inevitable events (as a result of open borders) only strengthens the state you claim to despise!
“The current situation in the United States and in Western Europe has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘free’ immigration. It is forced integration, plain and simple, and forced integration is the predictable outcome of democratic – one-man-one-vote – rule.”
You have now replaced the “ tyranny” of state borders with the much worse and more relevant tyranny of forced integration!
Having open borders, you are forced to live among violent, depraved individuals who value force, aggression and coercion as necessary behavior to complete their wicked goals of conquest and domination. Notice their deafness in response to your plea to respect life and property. The native statists you have suffered under up to now will look like choir boys compared to these misfits.
And what about your long time neighbors who previously listened politely to you describe the Non-Aggression Principle and respect of person and property as superior tenets for social organization? Previously, you resided in a culture at least somewhat open to this idea of a libertarian society. Notice their deafness now in response to your pleas to continue considering such principles. They will see you as the culprit creating their desperate situation. “If this libertarian open borders produces such chaos as I now suffer, how does the rest of your philosophy have any legitimacy?”
And they rightfully will see you as the culprit as you did not explain that libertarian open borders cannot exist in a state controlled world- specifically, states with large, generous welfare programs. State abolition and replacement of property lines as borders must occur first. The libertarian seeds you planted in fertile (though statist) minds will be swept away by violent, migrant violence and the accompanying state response.
Having now seen what the world of open borders in a state dominated world would look like, please tell me- How are you better off?
Libertarians naturally would like to see their superior philosophy manifested in the world around them. However, any change must be measured and cautious as the reality of a state dominated world (and the mindset of its loyalists) cannot be changed over night- nor would you want it to.
You cannot solve a problem if some or all of the causes of that problem are allowed to worsen.
“Abolishing forced integration requires a de-democratization of society, and ultimately the abolition of democracy. More specifically, the authority to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and re-assigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners and their voluntary associations. The means to achieve this goal are decentralization and secession (both inherently un-democratic, and un-majoritarian).”
Such actions takes time and can only succeed in the context of relative social stability, not chaos. And strict, discriminatory selection of immigrants must be the norm in the meantime.
“More specifically, it means distinguishing strictly between ‘citizens’ (naturalized immigrants) and ‘resident aliens’ and excluding the latter from all welfare entitlements. It means requiring as necessary, for resident alien status as well as for citizenship, the personal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumption of liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant. It implies requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen; moreover, for both categories but especially that of citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only (English) language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values – with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias.”
“Elitist!” “Bigoted!” “Racist!” “Intolerant!” Absolutely! And all absolutely necessary!
The resultant stability and intellectual and (true) cultural enrichment from such discriminatory actions will provide the environment necessary for state decentralization and abolition. As state institutions become obsolete and outright dismantled (encouraged by increased individual enlightenment, technological advances, a rising standard of living, etc.) state borders will also become obsolete and unnecessary as the superiority of property lines as borders becomes obvious. Individuals become sovereign as they and only they determine what people or goods pass their way. And any migrant, visitor, or traveler must be prepared for the consequences if they appear as an uninvited trespasser.
The path to individual sovereignty (no rulers, no masters, no consent) must have a timeline and progression that does not include the suicidal, short term demand of “open borders” in a state dominated world. Only the state will benefit and the long term goal of such sovereignty will become even more difficult to reach.
"The two most powerful warriors are patience and time.”
Leo Tolstoy
"Patience is the companion of wisdom.”
St Augustine
No comments:
Post a Comment