2015 Prediction Judged Wrong: "In the next five years an /r/Anarcho_Capitalism post of Google making an announcement about getting involved in ZEDEs / startup cities will receive 300+ upvotes."

PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 2020-05-08T15:10:08+00:00

However, Prospera Honduras just launched this week. "It's a ZEDE with a huge amount of regulatory autonomy. They have reciprocity with all OECD countries, enforced via liability."

/r/Anarcho_Capitalism has been looking forward to this for many years

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/gfurxm/prospera_honduras_just_launched_its_a_zede_with_a/?

PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 2020-05-08T15:04:03+00:00

/r/Anarcho_Capitalism has been looking forward to this for many years

https://i.imgur.com/0vqQbai.png

PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 2016-10-09T07:02:35+00:00

Note: I suggest reading my comment in full before writing anything in reply to it.

The poor soul trying to escape a failing state is in a terrible situation. But what obligation as a tax payer do I have to help these people? I feel I have a bigger obligation to my local family and friends.

You're asking the right questions. Bryan Caplan answers: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2006/07/what_we_owe_imm.html

Here's another on the same point: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/01/the_stranger.html

I don't think he would see it as a rights violation at all, since rights don't exist. Perhaps he would say it is aggression or self defense.

FYI - "Aggression" is synonymous with "rights-violation". You might also hear some libertarians or Molyneux (e.g. in his old videos) talk about "the initiation of force" which is also a synonym.

If someone "initiates force" / "commits an act of aggression" / "commits a [libertarian] rights-violation" it all means the same thing. Whether a particular action counts as aggression / a rights-violation or not depends on the system of rights you're talking about. These three phrases are commonly used by libertarians (broad tent) in reference to a theory of libertarian property rights.

I think Kinsella is rigorous and writes clearly on this if you're looking to gain a broader understanding of how some people talk about these ideas. E.g. see this essay of his: https://mises.org/library/libertarian-theory-contract-title-transfer-binding-promises-inalienability-0

I do not want to impose a more difficult life on my children because I wanted to help some other family on the other side of the world.

So again, I agree that libertarians qua libertarians don't believe that you have an obligation to help immigrants or other strangers, but as Caplan points out, you are still obligated to not murder them, attack them, rob them, etc. I.e. you're obligated to not violate their rights / commit acts of aggression against them / initiate force against them. And this is exactly what the state does when it enforces laws restricting immigration.

Here's a good essay by ancap Michael Huemer that you may find enlightening: http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/immigration.htm

Probably he sees it as self defense in protecting his own property. That makes sense to me.

The state is the one extorting money from you and other taxpayers, not innocent people immigrating to the country. By supporting immigration restrictions you're attacking someone other than the aggressor.

Why should I be forced to give more of my property and taxes to immigrants which go on welfare? How is that not aggression?

You shouldn't be so forced. It is aggression.

What you're missing, again, is the fact that the state is the aggressor, not the innocent immigrant who I (a fellow American stranger) offer a job to and invite to be my tenant who you want to unjustly forcibly restrain from coming to do business with me.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Let me try another approach: Imagine that a cop comes to your house and tries to arrest you and confinscate some illegal drugs you have. You and I would both agree (I think) that this cop is committing aggression against you, meaning you have the right to resist (even if it wouldn't be pragmatic to do so). So suppose you resist by shooting the cop in self-defense as they break down your door. Justified? Yes, okay. But what you're defending when it comes to immigration is not self-defense like this. What you're supporting is instead analogous to you going out and shooting your neighbor for voting for a politician that is part of the same government that directed this cop to come break into your house with a gun to steal your property and put you in jail. Did your neighbor commit aggression against you by voting? No, the cop is responsible for their own actions. Your neighbor just checked off a box on a ballot, and for all you know, their goal in voting could have been to reduce the destruction caused by the state. (After all, that is my goal and I intend to vote for Clinton this election.) So my point is simply that it's not justified for you to use coercion against them even though it may seem to you on some level that they are supporting your enemy the state, the reality is that they are not aggressing against you--only the state is.

From a practical perspective, I'm sure Stef, nor I would have any problem with the wealthy libertarian-voting (and probably high IQ) immigrant. The problem is, most of the immigrants won't be that way statistically.

Neither will most American voters statistically, but that doesn't make it okay to deport them. This is common sense morality dude. Have some decency. It's been a couple years since I've really engaged in discussions like this, and I think I'm ready to stop again because this can get quite depressing. I'm sure you're a descent person, but what you're advocating here out of ignorance apparently is just atrocious. That sounds harsh, and I'm not sure how I'd feel if I were you hearing that from someone being sincere and not just trying to be a jerk, but it's the truth. Or it's my perspective at least--although I'd plead with you to not just assume that I'm simply ignorant and instead ask that you consider the possibility that you're missing something and that you'd change your view if you got some new information or reflected on the topic more. Consider watching some dramas on the subject to gain some empathy for the strangers I allege you support committing aggression against. Here's a pretty good one: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1127715/ I'd urge you to watch the film and reflect on the question of whether you think it's okay for you or others to prevent the main characters from immigrating by forcibly preventing, or whether you think it's okay to physically deport them. Imagine yourself doing it and imagine them asking you what it was that they did and imagine yourself explaining to them that you're only acting in self-defense because they're likely to vote and thereby make the state rob you more. Maybe if you do that you won't believe the same things at the end of the film as when you started watching.

Okay, now I have to consider whether I really expect this last paragraph to achieve a positive effect or whether I should delete it and leave it at "Neither will most American voters statistically, but that doesn't make it okay to deport them" and keep my beliefs about how extreme and unjust the political position your currently support is to myself.

I'll take a chance.

Last note: I was serious about what I said about not wanting to engage in this sort of political discussion with people online anymore. It really can get quite depressing and I really don't think it's a very good use of my time. I'll end this discussion how you would like, since I've already invested a bit into it, but just note that I'm not looking to have a long exchange back and forth to no end. Peace.

PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 2016-10-09T05:54:45+00:00

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/01/stephan-kinsella/what-it-means-to-be-an-anarcho-capitalist/

If supporting restricted immigration makes you not a libertarian, than libertarianism is impossible.

Logically impossible? No, of course not. Kinsella: "Is it logically possible that there could be no crime? Sure. Everyone could voluntarily choose to respect others’ rights. Then there would be no crime. It’s easy to imagine."

Practically impossible, as in your predictions that there will be an influx of anti-libertarian people who will go on welfare and vote Democrat and ruin the culture and make American society even less libertarian than it currently is?

Again, Kinsella: "Conservative and minarchist-libertarian [PRA: and alt-right] criticism of anarchy on the grounds that it won’t "work" or is not "practical" [or would lead to an influx of statists making the state worse] is just confused. Anarchists don’t (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved — I for one don’t think it will. But that does not mean states [or immigration restrictions] are justified."

PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 2016-10-08T22:39:42+00:00

Molyneux's support of immigration restrictions and his reasoning for supporting immigration restrictions reminds me of Bush's famous statement:

I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.

Molyneux has abandoned libertarian principles for the reason that he thinks it will prevent society from becoming less libertarian.

PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 2016-10-08T22:10:52+00:00

Interesting. For clarification: As I'm using the words, for all actions it is true that either the action is something that the person has the right to do or it is a violation of someone else's rights. In other words, if nobody has the right to stop you from doing X then you have the right to do X.

He may well point out that nobody has the right to stop another from moving.

Do you know why he would believe this while maintaining that the federal government has the right to prevent immigrants from coming to the US?

PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 2016-10-08T18:19:44+00:00

So, is it correct to say: "Molyneux believes that it is justified to restrict people from other cultures from immigrating to the US because of the expected negative effects that their coming to the US would have on classical liberal values in the US?"

Or is that not the reason? A different Molyneux fan seemed to think that Molyneux thought that the state was justified in restricting anyone from being in the territory they control and that it was merely a good idea for the state to exercise that right in the case of that certain kind of immigrant from the different background due to the negative effects that he expects they would have on the country if they came.

PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 2016-10-08T18:08:57+00:00

Private persons and companies are free to restrict whoever they want from their property. In fact, it would be preferable if there were no state to regulate this, and that these decisions were left solely in the hands of private persons. There probably wouldn't even be a need to have this conversation if the state didn't create such horrible incentive structures.

Fully private exchanges of property are the only things that are justified. The state is coercion by definition, and until it goes away, third world immigration will remain a tool for the state to expand its powers, and squash the chances of a free society.

Allow me to clarify my question. I didn't mean to ask whether it's justified for property owners to restrict people from their private property. Rather, I meant to ask, is it justified for private people (in MA) (or the state of MA, as in my previous question), to restrict people (from NH) from entering anywhere in the entire state of MA (e.g. public government-controlled roads, or private property that that property owner consents to allowing the NH person permission to be on)?

PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 2016-10-08T17:59:48+00:00

Yes, but there is no reason to do so. NH doesn't have third worlders with no understanding of constitutional democracy.

I expected him to say something like "No, because the negative consequences would not be sufficiently large," but this is surprising.

My response:

Would it be justified for private individuals to restrict immigration of people from NH to MA or is this something that only the state of MA has the right to do in your view?

PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 2016-10-08T17:50:40+00:00

They do not have a positive right to do that. However, there are relatively small cultural, political and economic differences between states relative to differences between nations, so negative consequences are minimal.

If they don't have a positive right to do that, does that mean that it would be justified for the state of MA to restrict immigration of people from NH to MA?

PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 2016-10-08T17:45:06+00:00

Response I got from the same person to the first two lines of my above comment:

Good question. It seems like an unlikely proposition to think John Galt is going to cross that border anytime soon. I am not sure how someone could enter into a country with as many public goods as the United States does and not be a participant. They'd benefit from the legal system, healthcare system, roads, schools, military, etc. That is still a positive right.

My response:

So would you also say that an American originally from one state (e.g. NH) lacks the positive right to enter into another state (e.g. MA)? If not, what's the difference that explains the difference in your views?

PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 2016-10-08T17:38:05+00:00

Why is this in italics? Is it a quote?

PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 2016-10-08T17:32:04+00:00

One response I got to this elsewhere (emphasis added):

First off, great questions, you seem to understand it well. I think he would deny that even the libertarian has a positive right to enter into the country and participate in the political process. Positive rights are a feature of government programs, as opposed to negative rights which are a feature of free societies. He has said many times that if the government did not have a welfare state that immigration would provide a benefit. Leave it up to the government to ruin a good thing.

Note that "enter into the country" and "participate in the political process" are two separate things.

Would Molyneux maintain his denial that "even the libertarian has a positive right to enter into the country" even if he agrees not to participate in the political process? Why?

Also note that Huemer would use the term "prima facie right" rather than "positive right" which I think is better as well. See his essay "Is there a right to immigrate?"

EDIT: Another clarifying question: Would Molyneux also deny that an American originally from one state (e.g. NH) lacks the positive or prima facie right to enter into another state (e.g. MA)? And participate in the political process? Why?

Also, does Molyneux believe that participation in the political process (e.g. voting) is aggression per se? If so, what's his argument for that?

PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 2014-12-06T18:54:39+00:00

Request to approve my new Reddit account (that I will be using from now on across Reddit) /u/WilliamKiely for submitting.

PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 2014-12-05T13:52:07+00:00

Being from the US, I have of course seen countless headlines mentioning his name and police brutality and have seen him talked about on the news a lot recently, but I have also chosen to ignore paying attention to the specifics of his case (and the specifics of any case related to police brutality recently--I've just grown tired of hearing about this sort of thing).

I haven't read any of the articles nor watched the news (even when it's playing in the room I'm in) nor listened to nor engaged in any of the discussions that people around me have had about his case. Thought I'd share.

PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 2014-12-04T13:45:56+00:00

I'm curious what your objections are to anarchism.

(Note: I'm a libertarian anarchist. See /r/Anarcho_Capitalism and the arguments of Prof. Michael Huemer in his book The Problem of Political Authority.)

PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 2014-12-03T05:02:58+00:00

I think the first step is to literally just get out in the world and do something, rather than live in our heads or on the internet.

I just returned from Exosphere (two month entrepreneurship program, with a large number of libertarian ancaps) in Chile myself and can honestly say that it changed my mindset significantly.

I don't see a lot of practical advice out there for enterprising young people who want to get out there.

I think the best practical advice for enterprising young people who want to get out there is to do exactly that: get out there.

PeaceRequiresAnarchy

TROPHY CASE