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.