Chase Rachels and Adam Kokesh debated a bunch of stuff (mostly race and borders, it seemed). It wasn’t anything new, and was rather unimpressive, in my opinion. My thoughts and comments are below. They’re not very organized as I was just jotting them down as they came, and I went back through a few times to make sure I heard the debate correctly.
You can’t be half a slave.
“Open/no borders” only applies to the state. Nobody cares if a bunch of racist whites (or blacks) want to patrol their private community (though a home owner association is pretty much the same nonsense). Most of the discussion about whether a person would rather associate with only their race is meaningless. It has no bearing on the principles. It’s a personal choice.
These individuals are conflating private property and political jurisdiction when they say “we’re not for open borders,” but then try to talk about enclosing “private property.” That isn’t the issue or the discussion. If you want the State to enforce it’s illegitimate borders, you have yet to fully understand liberty or property.
“given the fact that there is a state”
irrelevant to the philosophical implications or action in reality. someone acting like your house is theirs doesn’t make it rightfully so.
“i want the state to allow joint property owners to impose those (“immigration”) restrictions themselves”
Ok. That isnt the issue as worded here.
“open borders means that the state will use force to prevent owners from prohibiting trespass”
No. It doesnt. This is a completely backward view. Government immigration control is the State telling you who you can allow onto your property. Ceasing to do this is not the same thing as saying “you have to let people onto your property.”
It’s as if you are thinking, even AFTER some “tax reparations” are “handed out,” or however this may happen, that some ambiguous agency is going to tell these people that they cant disallow people. chase seems to be mixing two different situations: the illegitimate claim the state currently makes to such property (and thus claims the right to manage) and the restitution owed to “citizens.” None of that matters because *the state has no rightful claim,* so proposing that “given the fact there is a state,” the state “do your bidding” to manage properties it has no right to manage ultimately misses the point.
Also, you are not joint owner of barren desert in “arizona.” no one is. Neither are you “joint owner” of every single inch of land said to be in “the country,” i.e. all the land the roads and houses rest upon.
This is a total misrepresentation of both “immigration control” and property. This seems to be tied to the belief in “public property.”
“we have public property”
No we dont. fundamental misunderstanding/conflation of public goods and property. paraphrasing molinari: all property is private, “public” property is stolen/illegitimate/not (property). If you say “The national parks are public property,” you would be wrong due to the implications of the words (and the basis of property rights: production). Public GOODS are non-rivalrous, etc. Public property is literally defined as STATE property “put to public use,” i.e., “open to all,” which is a political miconception of the concept of a public GOOD (non-rivalrous). Clearly land, etc, is rivalrous, and, the State controls such areas by force. Open forests, etc., are NO ONE’S property, not “everyone’s,” and not the “citizens'” due to “taxation,” because the state has not built structures in those areas which any “tax” payer would be entitled to. And of course, the state closes these areas.
Public property is an oxymoron. “Open to all” yet “property,” which implies the right to exclude. Square circles do not exist.
Do you call the park which occupy wall street gathered in, “public property” ? I doubt it.
“Public property is state property”
This is simply “property of the state”
The State rightfully owns nothing (so no, it’s not)
“public property belongs to the citizens”
“state property belongs to the citizens”
this is still PRIVATE PROPERTY, which the owners have designated for “public use,” which does not change the fundamental nature of the property or the concept of ownership. (“Owned by ‘the public'”)
The logistics of compensating the tax payers render it impossible.
Anyone has the right to seize stolen property.
“Libertarianism is only individualistic in a legal sense”
This is meaningless gibberish as “legal” is meaningless gibberish.
Some… most, in fact, are believers in the Church of State; the belief that Authority can exist; the belief that one person can have the right to rule another; the belief that particular rituals alter the morality of an action.
Some are subscribers of the religion of “natural rights,” and insofar as it is a religion, I am one of those adherents, I have merely grown to realize that it is in fact a religion, and that this is not inherently a bad thing.
Those who speak as if rights are a corporeal “thing” residing “within” the human being (and emanating to a boundary which, as of today, has not been fully defined) are simply still young and naive, and are not yet ready to accept the beautifully horrifying truth that the universe does not care what they think is moral; that “nothing matters.”
And so they have not yet come to realize the liberating truth that in lacking a predestined, prescribed purpose, the self comes to fruition: what matters is that which matters to you. And it does matter. At least to you. Your purpose is whatever you want it to be.
There are two conflicting beliefs, one that states “slavery can be legitimate” and one that says “no, it cannot.” Ultimately, as far as the universe is concerned, neither are right or wrong.
I know that I cannot prove, in a scientific sense, that anything is moral or immoral, but in that realization I have come to know what true purpose of self and meaning are, and am a devout adherent to the religion of voluntaryism: the belief slavery is inherently immoral.
Here’s a video which I find interesting:
The problem is not “who controls the State,” as various self-described socialists would have you believe, it is that a State is necessarily violent and oppressive by nature of the concept. There is only one way to “create” a “monopoly on force,” and only one thing that it can be, fundamentally: a group violently imposing it’s will on everyone else.
I mentioned a quote I thought was from Marx, but I discovered it is attributed to Engels:
“The state is nothing but an instrument of oppression of one class by another – no less so in a democratic republic than in a monarchy.”
Videos compiled in such a manner as to provide a sound introduction to the concept of self-government.
This is a collection of quotes from various individuals which I feel fit the “anarchist tradition.” If it gets around, there may be qualms about quoting Hayek, Rothbard, etc. I am not claiming Hayek was an anarchist, but the quotes cited are essentially anarchist in “spirit.” That Hayek did not realize/follow through with the implications of his words does not change that logically, they would lead to anarchism if followed through. I do consider Rothbard an anarchist, however. I will make others which include more quotes from “left” anarchists which logically follow the concept of self-government, as well.