Chase Rachels v. Adam Kokesh Debate

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.


Capitalism & The State


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.”

Property Feuds

The one (and probably only) criticism which communists are correct in making is that simply claiming or sectioning areas does not create property. This seems to be the logical stance stemming from Lockean property concepts, self-ownership, etc: Production is the basis of rightful ownership, for how can someone own something which has not been produced, or has not been “touched” by labor?
I have had discussions with advocates of capitalism who do not follow through with this. They often believe simply declaring something is yours makes it true with no labor (when it comes to land), but this makes no sense. It’s the same logic as the state claiming open expanses are their “jurisdiction.” More of a continuation of feudalism than Lockean property rights.
The image below was put forth in a debate group, and the discussion became quite contested, even between so-called “right wingers” who say they advocate property, etc., who were using it as a way to prove the free market can properly and efficiently handle environmental issues (which I agree with). I would however argue (as did others in the group) that this is not consistent with Lockean concepts of property, individual property rights, or free market principles.

I find it interesting that this debate is so heated and that people think this is a legitimate claim.

Apparently the logging company “bought” it from the State, who cannot be said to have actually owned 400,000 acres of untouched rainforest, as no labor as been put into it, and the State is a thief to begin with. The logging company surely would own that which is produced afterward, but they do not actually own the rest of the 400,000 acres unless they were actively using it for logging.
To say otherwise would be to say I could stand on the beach and claim the entire coast as mine, and prevent anyone else from stepping foot on it.
Of course everything the state does is funded by stolen money so they can never rightfully own anything, but aside from that, no one actually created any property on these untouched lands.


This is also the reason land can become so expensive. At the risk of being called a communist, there is what can be called an “artificial scarcity” in place in the so-called Market, because the state uses (along with other firms) the threat of force to prevent people from homesteading on what is clearly unowned land. which illegitimately lowers the supply thus raising the price as land is generally highly sought-after. 

property 2.jpg

As I said, this is more of a continuation of feudalism than a conception of Lockean property norms.

By my view this is not at all consistent with free market capitalism or property rights, but it seems that this is one of the main defining characteristics of “capitalism” according to communists.

But Who Will Build The Libertarian Society? The Inconsistency of “Immigration Control”

A popular rationalization for “immigration control” is a coupling of the reality that the State currently “taxes” (forces/extorts) people to pay for “welfare,” roadways, etc., and the chance (which proponents claim is fact) that “immigrants” “will vote to take your freedoms away.” This carries the linguistic baggage of layer upon layer of delusion, but in the end it either boils down to the State being rightful owner of all property, or at least acting as if it were, and violently controlling everyone and their property.

They say “you can’t have ‘open borders and a welfare State, because immigrants will come and vote for more welfare, etc.”
While this is a possibility– and only a possibility, not a guarantee- it does not justify “immigration control.”
Two wrongs don’t make a right, as they say, and immigration control, just as “taxation,” is not consistent with liberty, libertarianism, anarchy, etc., period, due to the real-world implications of the enforcement of the concept.

As those who put forth this rationalization incorrectly apply the notion of property rights and ownership to political borders, they end up implying State (or other) control of all property they perceive to be the “country.”

Property changes hands through one of several ways: trade, gift, or theft.
This includes housing, real estate, etc.

“Immigration,” more properly migration, is the movement (and generally in these discussions, settlement) of humans from one part of the area, or world, to another. In order to move and then settle, they must have property, and shelter, of some kind, or at least would probably prefer to.
This would entail either “rugged” homesteading, or trade/purchase (or theft, but we will assume that is not the case).

In the case of migration you would have one human moving, and seeking to purchase property, such as a home, from another.
This entire possibility, at least in theory, is cut off at the “border,” essentially, by an imposing third party, the State, in the same manner a State forces itself into all interactions and transactions, since the “immigrant” is “not allowed” to “enter the country” without “Government” permission, and the house is said to reside “within” or “upon” their “jurisdiction” (property).

There is no fundamental difference in concept or action, and the fact that the State aready robs you does not justify or change that “immigration control” is the State simply forcing it’s guns into what would otherwise be voluntary trade.

Clearly if the State has the right to regulate immigration, this implies they are the rightful owners of all property withing or upon the physical geographical location which the State claims is it’s “jurisdiction.”
Interestingly, many advocates who espouse this rationalization do not make an ethical or moral argument about it. In fact they will often admit immigration control is illegitimate, but then go on to rationalize and advocate it anyway, as some sort of “pragmatic tactic” based on their worry about “leftist voting immigrants.”

This is, however, a cherry-picking, self-defeating position.
An action either violates the non-aggression principle or does not.
To advocate an admittedly illegitimate action in response to another illegitimate action is to compromise one’s self-professed principles, and to attempt to tie either of them in a context of libertarianism is outright insane.
Those who have realized there is no actual difference between “taxation” and “theft–” that “taxation” does not exist, only theft- can more clearly express their position by removing the political propaganda terms, such as “country,” “immigration,” etc.:

“Some guys are robbing me. Those guys need to keep people who want them to rob me, away from me, by telling them they can’t come around here.”

As usual, when expressed in plain, straighforward English in a manner describing the actual claims or actions, this belief, like all belief in “Government,” is absolutely insane.

Another interesting twist to this belief is that some individuals say they would be fine with “open borders” in “ancapistan,” but not now, with the “welfare state,” and the possibility of increased “taxation.”

If a person is concerned with the possibility of “immigrants” coming “here” and voting for “bigger government,” why would they ever advocate “open / no borders” period? Regardless of the current application of particular State policy, what would stop people from coming “here” and “voting for more government,” or just outright robbing you without pretending to be legitimate?

Anarchy is not a guarantee you won’t get robbed. “Immigration control” is inconsistent with liberty no matter what “world” we “live in,” regardless of one’s assumptions regarding possible future crimes.


The Capitalist Class Boogie-man

Isnt it interesting that it’s always market entities that use the state as a tool for profit gain? Can you really get rid of the state and still have a capitalist system that adheres to your philosophy — when the capitalist class has no reason to?


This was a socialist’s response to this article.

And here are my responses:

“Isnt it interesting that it’s always market entities that use the state as a tool for profit gain? “

No, once you realize what a State is.
Also, this is false. People who are not “market entities” or engaged in business also use the State to try and screw other people over, dragging them trough the courts over some nonsense “law,” etc.

“Can you really get rid of the state and still have a capitalist system that adheres to your philosophy”

Yes. You cannot have a state and a free market, “simultaneously,” in a “society.” The State inherently violates free market principles by operating on coercion.

Having a state does not adhere to my philosophy. Free market capitalism does.

“when the capitalist class has no reason to?”

The capitalist class is a floating astraction. People go into business to try to become wealthy by providing something for someone else. These reasons are independent of the state and are primary; people have done this for thousands of years in spite of the State. The state is no way “provides the incentive” or “allows” people to become capitalists generally. Only for those who wish to rob others.

The only person who says there is no reason to “abolish the state” is a monopolist, not a free market advocate. If they want to retain the state to try to secure their position in the market, then they are not adhering to free market principles. “The capitalist class” seems to be, in a socialists mind, a bogeyman which is only concerned with the maintenance of the state for these purposes; what a “right winger” might call a “crony capitalist.”

In reality most business people are victims of the State, forced to pay into their schemes, not beneficiaries of their violence.