So children can't live in a nudist colony in your world. Or breastfeed. Or watch an R rated movie. Or live in the Amazon. Whatever man. The world is more complicated than that sound bite.
That’s my intuition as well. That’s why I find it a little bit disingenuous that he’s making the comparison of a meth smoking addict breaking into an enclosed building for children and doing obscene act in front of them and… a persons free movement ? Like what lol. Is it just me.
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp If it’s just keying in on particular details I can see why it sounds odd. In a quick glance I might not argue with you on that. Bringing up homelessness of course brings up with it the problems that homeless people struggle with, which in my opinion seem to be predominantly psychological. Many genuinely need professional and therapeutic help, before even being ready to maintain having a place of residence. Immigrants in mass movement are probably more akin to a scenario of entrapment, since many find that the welfare promises of government are empty promises as many still end up being displaced moving from state to state, or they get deported anyways. It can be viewed as an odd comparison specifically. But in general it serves to illustrate how a lack of able vetting procedures leads to the problem of having unstable persons coming into the vicinity if not just as well the place of residence of peacefully abiding people. As far as a peacefully abiding person may know, in a split second impression at say a public venue (or near their doorstep if they live in a crowded city area) it can be difficult to tell if someone who’s homeless and who exhibits a range of behavior that’s psychologically unstable may stand as a credible threat or not. Now on top of that, throw kids into that scenario and imagine yourself as a parent. What’s being compared is that in a situation with a lack of vetting there’s a real possibility of a violent criminal entering in. Though as far as the rest of Dave’s stance, I’m not exactly convinced that stationing a standing army at state designated borders would be the best short term way to address the immediate concern of security, let alone as a way to facilitate vetting procedures. Civil asset forfeiture already sees its use and abuse in the name of the drug war and gun war, and the patriot act has already set the precedent for government surveillance to use crisis situations as an excuse to retain more power and control at a federal level over state and local governments. A silver lining is at least having any stance to get troops home from being stationed abroad is a positive shift. Though it’s like trading a foreign war for an increase in domestic war. But a heightened domestic war at home even as a worse case scenario would also be harder to cover up or ignore, as what government and the press already does in regard to keeping most people in the dark about foreign policy. It also lessens the possibility of a world war breaking out. So I can see where Dave is coming from in weighing out the potential outcome of two paths.
With regard to immigration, historically, the Constitution left that to the states; it only granted the federal government the power to set rules for naturalization (the process of obtaining citizenship). SCROTUS unconstitutionally gave the federal government control over immigration, almost 100 years after the Constitution was ratified. The problem isn't the border, it's the unconstitutional freebies that attract many people to USA. People have the right to freedom of movement. They don't have the right to live at the expense of others who are under the threat of imprisonment for non-payment.
How are they ‘living at the expense of others’ … Immigrants are by far the most employed demographic of people in the US. Illegal immigrants have no access to public benefits and services that aren’t emergency services. And, immigrants use public benefits at lower rates than the native population.
Ridiculous example, if that were to happen, the infrastructure and logistics needed for then to "float" and survive the voyage would be a hundred times greater than what China now has.
@@Moonninja420 It's silly to think that the same institution that imposed welfare against your will is going to follow your will on border control. If you actually believe you have any influence over state policy, then you should be going for the reduction of welfare which is a reduction of state aggression and removes the incentive for parasitic immigration, rather than going for increased border control which is an increase in state aggression.
@@EndTheFedorg Preventing drug addicts from taking over the local public school is also an "increase in state aggression", but a necessary one because guess what, the public school system's not going anywhere any time soon. Same with the welfare state, same with the borders. I can advocate all I want for the dissolution of the state and its aggression, but that's not going to be our reality. So, in the meantime while the state does exist, what do we do? Advocate no restrictions on anything controlled by the government? When you think about that proposition it sounds far more insane, especially to the average person who you're going to have to win over to your perspective.
Well this is gonna be just great- thanks Dr Robert and Davey Dave. Hell, even Uncle Milty "the Minarchist Monetarist" Friedman said: "You can have open borders or a welfare state, but not both." I forget what Dandy Dr. David Friedman's position is on this subject...
and Krugman agrees with Friedman, and thus argues for closing the border in order to protect the Welfare State.. . The best argument FOR Open Borders is using it as a means to abolish the welfare state.
yea, congress would be required to, and I'd argue that due to immigration, the public would be more likely to pressure congress to do just that. This is especially the case when the citizenry is seeing unprecdented welfare to illegal immigrants when they refuse to give it to their own citizens. @@lukeasacher
@@matthewmencel5978 Well... we'll see what happens this November. IMHO unless the Republicans win majorities in both houses, and Trump wins the Presidency, there isn't much chance of that happening.
Too many Libertarians will argue their "policies" as if they work in any system. It kind of reminds me of when a socialist will say "it just hasn't been done right yet." In a country full of safety nets funded by the tax payer, telling the rest of the world they are welcome to use those safety nets is insane. Just like with the minimum wage argument, all you have to ask them is if they would approve American tax payer funded welfare, healthcare and housing to the rest of the world. As long as tax payer funded social programs exist, that's what you are agreeing to do with open borders.
@ick4753 they are actually upping border patrol but they changed border patrol policy. their job is now to "process" illegal immigrants as they cross the border, not stop them. that is why Anthony Blinken said that razor wire was keeping the patrol from doing their job. because it was stopping crossings and they couldn't process people.
This discussion is held entirely in theory and not the real world. Even without the safety net criminals being free to cross the borders, and people who would vote for the more welfare are a problem.
Words also matter. You have to be very precise in your language before you can justify taking away the rights of people just because they belong to a certain group.
@@killingjoke90They don’t have any right to enter your home, property or by extension the border of one’s country, and said country has every right to control entry into the people’s territory.
@killingjoke90 I agree. It seems to me that deontological argumentation, i.e., most of libertarian philosophy, can not wrestle with the concept of collective rights. In fact, it shows that this concept is contradictory and, therefore, false. Dave brings up consequencualism because this framework allows for argumentation outside the framework of praxeology. I'm convinced that we are incapable of having a society that doesn't rest upon contradiction. Libertarianism can't defend itself from being ripped apart from the inside because humans can't live under a logical framework. Do collectives have rights? No. Should people defend their culture? If they want to keep it, yes. Does the act of defending one's culture interfere with the rights of individuals? Yes. Where does this lead us?
Ancapistan accounts for human nature. It gets blurry in the transition from dystopia to utopia and thats what we all argue about…Keep arguing and trying to convince people why less government is better and try not to kill anyone. We got this!!!
Definitely utopian. There's a reason libertarians love abstract theory: It's fun to fantasize about an ideal. But their blind spot is human nature. They think, well, if everyone will just follow the non-aggression principle, then everyone will live in harmony and prosperity. This is belied by the entirety of human history. There are always a small number of psychopaths who will do whatever it takes to reach the top. If you don't believe me, just look to the nearest drug cartel to see what a totally libertarian free market society looks like.
I see Caplan's 'Open Borders,' referenced in the notes but didn't hear any of his points actually being referenced in the discussion. This was probably the most disappointing discussion on open borders I've ever heard from a libertarian viewpoint. Dave Smith was all over the place and Bob Murphy barely said anything. I kept thinking he was going to chime in and really explain the open borders side of the argument but he just sat there. I know and love Bob but I don't know where my friend was here 😢. Government control has caused the problems we have at the border (by interfering in drug and labor markets) and this wasn't really discussed very much. "Second best" isn't increasing government control. Second best is eliminating a little government at a time or incrementalism which isn't an extreme anarchist position. It's still a compromise. Dave Smith's argument is for increasing government control, not eliminating it incrementally. If we want to fix border issues, start by getting government out of markets that drive immigration. The invitation system was probably the closest thing I heard in this discussion to actually fixing the problems except this shouldn't be controlled by government. Letting businesses and private property owners manage the flow of immigration is a start. The sponsorship thing is maybe third best, but it should be agreed upon between the two parties (immigrant and business owner) so the immigrant can determine if migrating here is worth it to them or not. One other point that got close was the libertarian stance that every individual is responsible for themselves. Dave says the way our society is now, as opposed to years ago, isn't going to allow immigrants to face their consequences and we will continue to use tax payer dollars to fund them so they don't die. It's a harsh world and we don't have the means to save everyone, but we could at least let them come here and work so they have a fighting chance to survive. If a person doesn't have work here and can't figure out a way to survive here, they will either leave to figure it out elsewhere or die. Dave talks a lot about reality. Well, buddy, that's reality. Survival takes effort and each one of us is responsible for our own. That's not a libertarian fantasy. That's pure reality of human existence. We didn't make those rules. That's just how life operates. I agree with some of the comments on the video that suggest Dave debate with Bryan Caplan. Maybe we'd actually hear some good points made on both sides of this.
Having your money stolen by a thief does not make you the owner of any property purchased thereafter by the thief. You rightfully own the money and are owed it back, but you do not gain any additional ownership. Even if it did, you still do not have the right to impose your preferences about what is done with the "public property" purchased with stolen money onto all the other people who also had their money stolen....you would need their consent. You might as well be a statist if you think being a "tax payer" (tax victim in reality) grants you a share of "collective ownership" in whatever property the "government" purchases with the stolen loot or if "will of the people" / "voting" gives you the right to impose your preference. Dave unwittingly legitimizes the state with these types of poor arguments. Privatize everything and abolish the state. Period. End of story. That should be the focus. Stop muddying the waters with these "2nd best" statist "solutions" to statist problems.
Agree, but in the end one must consider what is viable and can actually happen in the current context. A reformist approach, even when the end goal is ancap, necessarily includes (temporary) compromises.
@@sebastiansirvas1530 It's silly to think that the same institution that imposed welfare against your will is going to follow your will on border control. If you actually believe you have any influence over state policy and want an incremental approach, then you should be going for the reduction of welfare which is a reduction of state aggression and removes the incentive for parasitic immigration, rather than going for increased border control which is an increase in state aggression.
I've heard an old saying, it goes like this "Stop living in ancapistan inside your head" Let's be real, the state isn't gonna disappear tonight, or next month, or next year. As long as the State exists, it keeps plundering and stealing from the citizens. And it would be immoral if the State decides to use some of the taxpayers' money to the benefit of noncitizens.
Dave have you ever heard of e verify? Wtf are you talking about that you cannot refuse to hire illegals? Doesn't that also mean the farmers hiring Mexicans had no choice in the matter?
Would love to see Bob or Dave chat with Bryan Caplan on this. Bryan normally has practical real solutions that “meet people where they’re at” when it comes to policy
The difference is that a property border is an "imaginary line" that is valid and consistent with the principles of libertarianism. A national border is arbitrary and invalid according to the same principles.
Given the absolute abundance of wealth that exists today, relative to the cost of living, how many government functions, especially government welfare functions, could be wholly transferred to voluntary cooperatives? There are more Democrats in the United States than there are citizens of many European nations, many of which run universal health care systems. What is preventing the Democratic Party from operating its own health care system, cooperative housing schemes, or retirement annuity plans? If they ran them well, imagine the incentive people would have to join the Democratic Party. (Of course, a similar health care cooperative would be run much better by Republicans.)
A facet of this issue not explored in this discussion is the idea that while we are a democratic republic, the populace contributes to the government, generally guiding its direction. A large influx of illegal aliens undermines the liberty movement because these people are used to strong federal governments. Even worse, they are used to literal, mask-off gangs who act as a de-facto government. Regardless of the arguments relating to Libertarian 101, allowing these illegal aliens to become part of the US *actively moves us away* from the "perfect solution" of Ancapistan.
This is such a great podcast. Normally i only get to hear dave talk for like 2 hours a week, and here yall are droppin a weeks worth of dave content on me. You guys rock
Agreed. This is so frustrating to watch because I used to hold the exact same position as Dave, so I perfectly see where he's coming from. I, too, read Democracy the God that Failed and Nations by Consent (where Rothbard makes his anti-open borders case). I was even already using that specific public schools argument Dave Smith gives here in this interview, back when Dave Smith himself was still pro-open borders. Then I read Bryan Caplan and thought he just convincingly addressed every single objection I could think of (most notably in his paper "Why Should We Restrict Immigration?"). I'm sure if Dave Smith would talk to Bryan Caplan it would, at the very least, make him reconsider his position.
Which government? The United Nations? United State? Texas? Brewster County? Twin Oaks or a Bruderhof community? The closer you get to a local, voluntary community, the better case you can make for "libertarian" immigration controls which are simply terms of free association, but vesting the United State with this authority makes collective property of all of Central North America, and I see no libertarian justification for it. Texas is hardly better. Federal regulation of immigration is no more a second-best solution than the DEA or the BATF. A voluntary community may also rule out drug use or regulate firearms. Bob's not playing devil's advocate here. Dave is.
Dave never seems to address which government he wants to enforce his supposed reasonable policies on public property. Actually, I'm pretty sure he's advocated for bringing all the troops home and putting them around the border. So he apparently wants the federal government to address local borders.
Have you ever played with Legos? Functionally, the different colors are indeed the same. I don't know whether you're familiar with Ringo Starr's All-Starr Band, but it's the same principle: Different players at each instrument cycle in and out. Songs change based on personnel, but the overall presentation is more or less the same.
@@bagamias-hula He goes to Jo Rogan every Tuesday, yet he can't make it as a comedian. The only reason people watch him is because of his niche in political commenting.
They lost me with the gun argument. There should be no spaces where one is forced to surrender their defense mechanism. Public safety can only be achieved through individual defense. This fallacy that there are “spaces” where one doesn’t need a gun supposes that one can trust others with their safety. Pass.
Its interesting that you think a Gun makes you safe. What if I was to take your Gun from you,would that Gun still make you feel safe? What if I saw your Gun & percieved you as a threat to me & I acted on that before you actually became a threat,would that Gun still make you safe? Do you think you have what it would take to pull the trigger in anger,maybe if there was no consequences you could but could you really.
@@Carlin2810 There are many false assumptions (and just plain weirdness) in your premisses, so I won’t address them. Suffice to say, I was referring to Smiths rationalising of when and where government gets to decide it’s ok to keep your firearm. Given their lengthy debate about libertarianism, it’s a fundamental misunderstanding that there is ever a “rational” purpose for government to remove one’s liberty. Rationalising is usually what leads to pogroms and death camps. Fundamental liberties must always remain fundamental, no matter the potential consequences. Not to be trite, but it’s apt to invoke Ben Franklin and the whole liberty for security thing.
@@Carlin2810Imbecilic aegument. Your first sentence is just you babbling. Your second sentence would just be you conducting violence with no basis to do so. Third sentence is more babbling.
anarchists are not for open or closed borders. Anarchists are for no-borders. both sides are incorrect. it is not a question anarchists need to answer.
I'm basically a libertarian at heart, but their refusal to acknowledge the open borders platform is not only a losing issue but a huge problem overall, is the reason I can't support them. They just get weirder and weirder after that, too.
The main difference between Libertarians and all other platforms is the unwavering Principled approach to Ethics. A Statist border is unjustifiable, it is aggressive. If you want a gated community, go ahead, there is nothing wrong with that. But using the State to impose borders because whatever reason (Wellfare, Minimum wages, Too much regulations) Is missing the forest for the trees. The obvious answer is to destroy what makes the open border problematic, not to compromise with Evil and betray our Ethics. Good cannot triumph by letting Evil in.
@@Eddie_of_the_A_Is_A_Gang You're asking the world to stop doing all the bad things, which is great, and I agree with all that. But again, you're living an idealistic fantasy. We're not even 10% of the way there to a point that would make the open borders remotely feasible. Like my OP expressed, I'm on board with most of the platform, like ending foreign wars, ending the fed, the police state, etc., but we're lightyears away from that being a reality. Ironically enough, this idealistic nature ends in more suffering, more aggression, in the current state of affairs in the world. Can you prove to me that unfettered migration to a handful of countries is benefiting the world at large, or even those countries? Maybe 'countries shouldn't exist anyway' would be the counter, because you're being idealistically consistent (which I admire), but it just isn't reflective of reality and human nature. Leave me alone is great, but nobody is or will (in the current timeline at least) and is a position that will be taken advantage of (like it has been over and over again). Anyway, f the feds.
@@AM-qz6cmthat dude is smoking too much pot but what he said is true The federal government is enforcing the open border policy so if you let state or local jurisdictions actually enforce the border it won’t be an issue All of the people along the border want to protect the border so it isn’t libertarian to prevent them from doing so
I'm all about open borders, however you just can't have a welfare state and unlimited immigration. If a person comes here finds a job, sends for thier family, blends themselves into the community! Cool! That's what the country needs, hey reletive of mine, I got a job and a house if you come here my company will hire you, you can live with us until you find a place. This is what we need, this is the American dream!
You are correct if you are saying we can't have a welfare state and unlimited immigration under government regulation. But, under a libertarian system, we don't have to give up one over the other. Human welfare and limits on immigration naturally occur in free markets.
I disagree that y'all's examples of partial anarchy are absurd, like getting rid of the border patrol, or letting a meth addict into the girls restroom. These things can be dealt with privately, way better than with government.
If people are going to be squeamish about the libertarian position on open borders, they're going to be against many of the other positions libertarians have. Even if you bring them in under false pretenses (at least in my opinion) that libertarians are actually the really cool conservatives and want strict border control, it's bad because they aren't libertarians. You're better off trying to form coalitions with like-minded people on borders, not this deceptive nonsense
That's a big reason why Dave's argument is so bad. He claims he wants to live pragmatically in the real world on this one issue, while at the same time advocating to bring every single troop home, to leave NATO, to end the Fed, to end the IRS, to end every federal agency, etc. The open borders/closed border debate isn't even close to being as extreme as any of those other issues.
@@jakelm4256 I think Bob mentioned it, that if this is the case, then what is the position with guns? Since this is already distorted by the government, are we for gun control? But I don't remember Dave following up on that. Perhaps I should re-watch it.
@@jakelm4256What strikes me as odd with Dave’s side of the argument where tolerating closed-borders under a State is that the rest of his positions are for decentralization across the board, though this is paused when it comes to the topic of immigration which amounts to exercising domestic surveillance as far as government is concerned. The suggestion of job training programs on cruise ships to help the homeless would be a similarly great idea as a vetting program and process for immigrants coming into the US. It’s just odd that in every other topic of discussion Dave quickly and aptly highlights why decentralization works, because government time and again fails to provide a solution. Immigration becomes an exception simply because of how the welfare state ties into the matter. Yet Dave doesn’t take this pause on other matters wherein say government restricted healthcare, or government ran police departments.
The simple answer is privatizing the land instead of the letting the state own it. Being in favor of open or closed borders makes you statist as you're saying the state should control land. Quite simple and doesnt require an hour long discussion lmao
Dave is talking about those kinds of libertarians that make almost all libertarians not engage with the absurd libertarian party or the absurd libertarians that inhabit it
Libertarians that value open borders prioritize that over dissolution of the welfare state, and are therefore, in resulting policy, no different than communists.
Not really, I would prioritize legalizing employment. Contrary to Dave's statement, it's illegal to hire an illegal. No wonder they over-consume state services like welfare. It's not as easy to live working in the black market.
That's a disingenuous spin job, even if technically true. They don't make or advocate the resulting policy. If one chooses to remain under the rule of government to fight where they live instead of fleeing, does that mean they're effectually authoritarian statists, since the resultant circumstance would see them taxed? The result is by the action of another, and knowing they'll do that is not a factor in what I advocate. I may be prioritizing the fight for freedom over escape from tyranny, but that doesn't mean I advocate that tyranny. I'm not the one doing it and I'm against both.
@@torrasque0151 This is not a libertarian view that illegals "don't belong here" (where exactly?) or that they don't have a right to take employment that is offered to them.
Require all migrant laborers and all legal immigrants to have a U.S. citizen sponsor. The sponsor would be legally liable for that migrant or immigrant's welfare and behavior. The sponsor would provide all the support that the government currently provides. For the migrant, the sponsor's liability would last for the duration of the migrant's stay in the United States. For the immigrant, the sponsor's liability would last until the immigrant becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen. If individual farmers or manufacturers can't afford that liability themselves, they could join cooperatives that would insure the cost of that liability. Labor brokers, basically migrant employment agencies could also assume that liability.
I think one danger of a sponsorship program is that the government currently redistributes wealth through welfare. What is to stop the government from simply paying people to sponsor immigrants to come in?
This illustrates the libertarian flaw. Referencing your imaginary country where all property is privately owned is a wonderful but unachievable ideal. These unachievable ideals are what fuels your system, and in many cases your livelihood. What a wonderful life you lead, thinking and talking and writing about a world you will never see. Pure BubbleThink, but at least you got paid. This is the ultimate huckster circle jerk, but we all need to make a living. WTH have you actually done? How has society moved towards a free society from your efforts? The State grows in power while you get paid for discussing ideals. You do nothing worthwhile. "Oh, that's a really good point" brings us no closer to real change.
I like Dave but he's completely wrong on 2 issues. Privatisation and borders. Privatisation is simple. Taxation is theft. Privatisation is furtherance of the crime. It's like stealing your car and then selling off the parts. The proper solution is to make the rightful owners of public property, which is the public, collective private owners. Giving them true democratic control as essentially shareholders. His borders argument does seem to be mostly strawman and his interchanging of public property and resources like schools with national borders that do not even qualify as property is part of that strawman. Public property should be private property that is collectively owned by the public. The public paid for it, under coercion, so they're the rightful owners. Simple. And that puts to bed the issue of actual property which we can exclude others from. But the problem with the national borders is that these are not property borders. They are completely arbitrary borders and we cannot violently enforce those borders as if they are private property borders because they simply are not. Regardless of whether we make all public property privately owned, it doesn't change the fact that the nation itself is not property and the borders around it are not private property borders. So yes, we can exclude people from schools and libraries and other private property. But we cannot exclude them from entire geographical regions that do not involve actual trespass of actual property. What we can do as libertarians is overthrow the governments criminal rule, stop the theft of taxation and give the rightful owners of public property (the public) their ownership back.
I'm centrist with a slight bend to the right economically, and even more of a bend in the libertarian direction. The discussions I've had with my buddies about ancap ideas usually boils down to, "most people can't handle that."
The problem with that argument is that the government is made up of people notably ungoverned, therefore is most people cant handle anarchy, what makes you think government people can handle it?
@@emperorpicard4901 Not sure I'm tracking with statement/question... but I'll take a stab at it. It seems to be an apples and oranges comparison (government workers - non-government people). I agree that many in the government are ungoverned, but they are breaking the inconvenient laws/regulations while taking advantage of the system where it suits their needs (i.e. lefty Colorado judge getting extra police protection because she knows people are pissed). Our conclusion of "most people can't handle it" boils down to so many of the general population wanting to live in cities, have their food, water, and power delivered to them, and have the protection of armed men keeping order in town. Yes, this can all be arranged privately, but then the people will have to negotiate and supervise (and organize) to maintain all these services. Self-sufficiency is hard work. There's more to it than that, but there's a couple examples of the authoritarian quagmire we're in. As far as I'm concerned, even small drifts in the libertarian direction will be beneficial.
I'd recommend looking into Michael Malice. He's an anarchist and is well-known in these circles, and always makes the argument that the majority of people can't handle freedom because they simply don't want it. They'd rather have their safety. Obviously, his stances are more in-depth than this, but maybe it's worth looking at.
@@microsoftpain Yea but he does not say "therefore not anarchism". I think a more accurate statement would be "most people BELIEVE they can't handle that", but their believes are wrong. Therefore its just a matter of education. There is a reason why states love to have control over the education system. Its usually one of the 5 primary things they immediately take over. The other 4 being Money, Media, Law and policing of course.
Beung that libertarianism comes from anarchism; there are no borders in such a state. That's part of the point, that the state shouldn't hav3 any power over people nor corporations...
Taxpayers cannot collectively own public property because collective property is a logical contradiction. If a group of people commonly own a stick (A through Z) and the is a conflict between A and B over the use of this stick then either A or B is the just victor and both choices imply contradiction. Also the taxpayers have not homesteaded public property and there has been no title transfer to them from a previous owner. Also they could not claim the public property as restitution because victims of a crime can only claim property as restitution that was justly owned. This does not mean there can be no just restrictions on public property. The employees who work at and maintain a public library could be the just owners of the library, although not collectively.
I just want everyone in the comments to grapple with what Dave says at 12:00 this is all “second or third best” there is no reality where we wake up tomorrow and it’s ancapistan. So act accordingly. Just here what he’s saying and deal with it
Second or third best toward a libertarian society is eliminating a certain amount of government control. Increasing government control is not any level of best, if your goal is to move towards more freedom. It's regressive. Start by legalizing drugs or prostitution. Start by phasing out the welfare state or privatizing education and property. Start by letting businesses and property owners manage labor markets and the flow of immigration. But don't add more government. If you want to increase government, I know of a few other political parties that'd welcome you with open arms.
1:09: Interesting hypothetical. If the gov said "Only libertarians will vote" you said you'd support that, given that democracy is wrong anyway, so, why not at least favor the liberty movement? I agree, but for a different reason. In this case, following our principles gives us the right answer. Voting (appointing criminals to act in your name) is wrong to begin with. Voting rights, in the sense we have them today, shouldn't even exist, they are "rights" to predate on others by proxy. So, anyone who is barred from voting would be a good thing. So, I would say yes, not because only libertarians would be voting, but because some voters would be prevented. But see why reasoning from first principles (and not from expedience) matters: If the scenario was that everyone *except* libertarians will have the right to vote, I would still say "yes", because _anyone_ not voting would be a good thing we said. But, following your reasoning, you would have disagreed to banning libertarians. You would say "Oh, for the sake of the movement, let's favor voting rights for all!" That would be a paradoxical position, for a libertarian, like it's paradoxical now to support State borders because (you assume) it'd be bad for liberty if borders opened up. Actually I think it would be good for liberty to open borders, as it would be good for liberty to ban libertarians from voting: It would make the election result clearly illegitimate. Generally, enacting libertrarian principles takes you to good directions. Don't be afraid. The State would lose power if it lost its borders, the world would get better, far better, and closer to libertarianism.
29:11 the correct answer, from the other guy in that discussion would have been “well no because walls and doorways are REAL borders and not imaginary. Further, the children inside those real, enforceable borders have a RIGHT to not be exposed to those things. STILL further, the parents of those children have an UNMITIGATED RIGHT to demand that they are not exposed to such things.”
In a hypothetical ‘from scratch’ world I’d be an ancap. But in the real world I’m not. Anyone care to explain how, in the real world, libertarianism isn’t a circle jerk?
Dave basically conceded from the start of the video that libertarianism is nothing more than sacrificing 1st ordered principles for second and third order considerations because the implementation of those first ordered principles aren’t on the table. That’s the most beautiful way of saying that libertarianism is just a larp circle jerk.
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp everything in life is a circle jerk. You can never have the best choice. Even in ancapistan, you will make choices all the time. It doesn't mean you will always choose the best. Sometimes you have choices that you cannot clearly see which one is best. Like in immigration case.
@@kostbill No it’s not,over my neck of the woods I like doing serious political analysis. I don’t circle jerk to utopian, communist or libertarian pipe dream society. Let’s grow up
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp I don't understand. Serious political analysis is exactly as you wrote and as Dave said: you have to sacrifice many times 1st ordered principles, because that is real life. Are you suggesting that serious political analysis should not take reality into perspective?
I'd like to hear what open boarders type think the reason is that the current regime has the current policy it does with regards to immigration. Why does it want no boarder wall and hate razor wire? Why does it want lots of work visas, and asylum seekers? Why does it want refugees bussed into the middle of Michigan? Why does it tolerate sanctuary cities? Why does it want DACA or amnesty?
That the Statists adopt a moral position that they believe will lead them better outcome, does not that make that position immoral. If we compromise and decide that it is okay to go against all our principles and further the immorality of State control only to hurt our opponent, we will do nothing but find ourselves the new perpetrator of what we seeked to destroy. We cannot be the same compromising Evil that has failed to maintain the US in the past. We must be unwavering in our morality.
@@Eddie_of_the_A_Is_A_Gang The motive for the statists position is immoral. Is your principle that people who are against liberty should be free to take the liberty of those that are for it.
Because it will do anything in opposition to their opposition. That's how political polarization works. They all want government border control. It's an illusion when they say they don't. All government wants to do is control. That's all it can do. The Biden administration may let more in but they deport more to counter that.
WP Rawl Farms here in Pelion SC was told by the state and federal government that they were operating their farm with illegals. WP Rawl told them they would not only sponsor and back them being here but house them, insure them and provide educational programs for them… I agree with that 100%!! The money they make goes back home to their farms and ranches there or to famiiies there that help pay for their healthcare and or education there! I mean the peso to the dollar😂😂 of course it works and of course it’s the second best we got as and example!
I guess that's why I said.....sort of. These kinds of egg headed approaches are why being libertarian minded is better than libertarian. By the way it's completely congruent. If a group of people agree to a constitution there's nothing contrary. Same thing in churches...companies....clubs...etc. A country is a group of people with government officials that take a oath to support...protect and defend the constitution. Of course there are problems in the execution but eventually everything gets worked out one way or another.
I am not in favor of open borders or closed borders. I dont want the government to own the borders at all, whether they own the borders and force them to be open or closed it's bad regardless. People should privately own all borders and decide for themselves who they want to let in.
None of the libertarians arguing for “closed borders” or “open borders” are arguing against that. They’re arguing about what to do if you can only change one variable-the border policies-and nothing else.
@@Paul-A01 The government shouldn't exist so in the meantime that it does things will be bad regardless. Thus I focus my efforts on trying to get rid of the state, not on negotiating with it. However, If I had to pick I would say closed borders are a better approximation of what the free market would decide because if you look at most privately owned property they do not just allow random strangers to enter as they please. And even private property that is open to the general public this is usually under the condition that the person is doing business with them.
@@connormartin8259I think we need to consistently stick to the non-aggression principle. So there shouldn't be restrictions on the government borders, just on people's private property. So in the meantime we stick to our principles, and we can let the free market of ideas work out some of the best strategies to deal with immigration, and we can be thankful that we're opposing the government that if it's big enough to control the border, which it doesn't do, it's also big enough to take all of our money and all of our Liberty and our life. Over the last 3 years there have been 6 million illegal immigrants; they aren't making my life so bad, but the government is.
@@Glockmog2007You don’t even have the attention span to watch an hour & a half long podcast? They go over this exact topic. I honestly thought your original comment was a joke, referencing their mockery of this childish position.
its great to discuss and learn. but at the end of the day if you vote 3rd party you help the wrong people. maybe some day. 3rd party isn't going to work in 2024.
Lines can be imaginary, as in a Platonic ideal line. However, a line drawn on a piece of paper, a line surveyed on the ground, or a borderline drawn on a map, are not imaginary.
These arguments are interesting, but a pointless exercise in intellectualism because we have society changing issues coming real soon and indoctinating everyone into libertarianism isn't going to happen. Its almost certainly going authoritarian one way or another. Main reason it has to is becuase of the border, which is ironic
If we lived in a 100% private property society, what would free immigration look like? In a Hoppean society of course they could prevent people from just coming in. It could be a gated community. Anyone coming into that private law town would need an invite from someone (or a job offer), you could not just cross the border. It might even be a gated community with armed guards. I don't have a right to just move onto private property without an invite. To me, that is the libertarian stance.
Dave Smith, are you trying to empower the state or “wither away the state”? Libertarians can’t play for both sides of that, that should be pretty obvious but I don’t think you understand why you can’t be for statism and against statism.
59:22 If this statement is accepted as true there is zero point to the libertarian movement or anything related to it. Not really sure what Dave is wasting his life on if he's just going to throw the principles away the second children are involved. This is, verbatim, the same reason the major parties give every time they restrict freedom; to the point "think of the children" is a tired cliche. I didn't like Dave's personality and now I don't like his politics. Sure he agreed to it at a private school, but the same practices occur in public school. These measures arguably exist to acclimate kids to being controlled and should be rejected.
Actually, I'm disappointed with Dave's logic, here. We don't need Libertarian principles when we can just have the standard of "That's just reasonable," because that can't be interpreted subjectively at all. It's like Dave is saying he likes Libertarianism 101 as long as he doesn't think something is unreasonable. Why does that not apply to drug legalization?
Here's the difference between most other libertarian "second best" options and the immigration "second best" (state restriction of immigrations): When an anarchist says "Taxes should be 0%, but I'll accept any reduction" or "You should abolish public schools, but school choice is better than nothing," The second best option is still a reduction in the state. It still represents a lesser violation of the NAP. State enforced immigration restriction is an INCREASE in state power (or at least the maintenance thereof). The reason it is so difficult to support state restrictions, and why you have to resort to elaborate mental gymnastics to explain the positions, is because the argument is bad. I'm not saying the correct positions is open borders. I'm on the fence about immigration, but the arguments I've seen so far are bad. The state's "ownership" of public property is illegitimate, so any restriction imposed by the state are also illegitimate.
Does libertarianism require support for open borders? Not when my property and my rights are on the ballot. Democracy, in a sense, legitimizes government theft. If there’s a way to have a more libertarian society without democracy, count me in. Personal responsibility never wins on the ballot, and probably never will.
Public spece has its purpose, like example park, you purposefully designate area for leisure, so cannot come and cut trees to heat up your house because it’s public and belongs to all including you. Same school, it maybe an imaginary border but public designate it as an educational place so you use it for education and not smoking crack. Or highway, you designate it for vehicles so you wont build a house in the middle of it…. And so on…. Now can public designate a country as a place to its owners ?
I don't really agree with the framing. It's not "open or closed borders," it's private vs public borders/property. Calling them open borders has a negative connotation that isn't accurate imo
Before recently, we had a great point of comparison between a privatized "closed borders" locale and the public "open borders" area surrounding it: Disney World.
Can't libertertarians just agree that making the government more libertarian is the best thing but not purely libtertariansim 101? I'm a social libertarian and your community should have benefits that most people want inside it. Other communities can choose for themselves.
Government school is important because a "public" one would be open to the public so long as you aren't harming people. Like "the people's house" is a foolish expression because you are not allowed there without permission; it's the "government's house".
Dave Smith, is a caste system wrong from your libertarian belief system? And if so, is it wrong for the rulers, or the rulers, or the enforcers, or the whole thing? If not, do you consider it wrong for any other reasons, or just not wrong at all?
I would never have “public education” for a crack head to be able to walk into. I think property owners should unite and invite help to protect their property.
if anyone said public property is unowned and thus belongs to all humanity, it is a kind of communism (sort of Proudhon idea). But saying public property belongs to citiziens of a country in a communal way and must be managed in communal way by state, is equally communist idea (but a statist commie idea). The first group are close to anarcho communism and Dave smith close to Marxist-Leninists.
Dave rambles and takes too long to get to his point and then restates and repeats the same point in like, 3 different ways that doesn’t add anything to what he originally said the first time.
If the issue is so clear why should it take an hour to built an elaborate "public property violation" strawman? The issue is not about "should immigrants be allowed to camp out on public land", but should I be allowed to hire and house an immigrant if I'm willing to do so. Freedom of association is a cornerstone of libertarian theory, and there is no way to sneak your prejudice by it.
Ok well how many do you house and employ then because the people coming are not invited guests The question isn’t should we have 1 million billion trillion immigrants or 0 immigrants but when almost 3 million people a year illegally cross the border maybe there is a problem And I know libertarians here what even is the law but illegal crossing means uninvited and they are trespassing and committing an aggressive act
Dave comes close to espousing a flavor of Libertarianism that I could get on board with. However, what prevents me from waving the Libertarian banner is what I’ve never heard said by any of them - specifically, that a shared national, cultural identity is fundamental and crucial to maintaining a successful society. Ergo, the serious danger from massive immigration, illegal OR legal, is the resulting infusion of alien values and concepts that cannot be assimilated into Western, capitalist traditions, thereby eroding our society from within, and laying the foundation for the centralized, authoritarian government that Libertarians despise.
That's what we have is a centralized authoritarian government. Western values suck. Just think what a blight America has been on the rest of the world. What we need to work for is for all relationships to be voluntary, and eventually that will happen cuz the right side does eventually win and think about how much more peaceful the world is now than it ever has been, and people usually agree with volunteerism in the majority of their life. The border is neither yours nor mine, so we have no say.
It simply isn't though. You only need a shared cultural within your local community. People further than that can interact with you via free trade. You can buy wood from a colony of butch lesbians who believe in astrology; they don't have to be anything like you to have a mutually beneficial relationship of free trade.
@@oilman7718 I'd recommend the chapter on Conservatism and Libertarianism. There is a rather notorious quote in there about restoring cultural and moral normalcy. Hope you enjoy.
Did the natives F up Europe? Is that what drove the Spanish, French, Dutch, etc empires to the western hemisphere? People do something because they can, not because we did something else.
Open borders libertarianism is as defensible as open borders are. If you are a libertarian right now arguing that borders should be open, then you’re destroying all your credibility. It doesn’t make you less of an Austrian school Ron Paul-supporting libertarian to acknowledge that open borders are far down the line of reforms we would work for once other institutions of civil society are secured.
After the central bank is abolished, welfare state is culled, and grotesque fascist Uni party system is hemmed down at least a wee bit, then maybe open borders could be debated and ratified legally through a legitimate process.
My position is flashing a child is an act of aggression
So children can't live in a nudist colony in your world. Or breastfeed. Or watch an R rated movie. Or live in the Amazon. Whatever man. The world is more complicated than that sound bite.
That’s my intuition as well.
That’s why I find it a little bit disingenuous that he’s making the comparison of a meth smoking addict breaking into an enclosed building for children and doing obscene act in front of them and… a persons free movement ? Like what lol. Is it just me.
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lpthe point is that a homeless man smoking meth in a playground is comparable .
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp If it’s just keying in on particular details I can see why it sounds odd. In a quick glance I might not argue with you on that. Bringing up homelessness of course brings up with it the problems that homeless people struggle with, which in my opinion seem to be predominantly psychological. Many genuinely need professional and therapeutic help, before even being ready to maintain having a place of residence. Immigrants in mass movement are probably more akin to a scenario of entrapment, since many find that the welfare promises of government are empty promises as many still end up being displaced moving from state to state, or they get deported anyways. It can be viewed as an odd comparison specifically.
But in general it serves to illustrate how a lack of able vetting procedures leads to the problem of having unstable persons coming into the vicinity if not just as well the place of residence of peacefully abiding people. As far as a peacefully abiding person may know, in a split second impression at say a public venue (or near their doorstep if they live in a crowded city area) it can be difficult to tell if someone who’s homeless and who exhibits a range of behavior that’s psychologically unstable may stand as a credible threat or not. Now on top of that, throw kids into that scenario and imagine yourself as a parent. What’s being compared is that in a situation with a lack of vetting there’s a real possibility of a violent criminal entering in.
Though as far as the rest of Dave’s stance, I’m not exactly convinced that stationing a standing army at state designated borders would be the best short term way to address the immediate concern of security, let alone as a way to facilitate vetting procedures. Civil asset forfeiture already sees its use and abuse in the name of the drug war and gun war, and the patriot act has already set the precedent for government surveillance to use crisis situations as an excuse to retain more power and control at a federal level over state and local governments. A silver lining is at least having any stance to get troops home from being stationed abroad is a positive shift. Though it’s like trading a foreign war for an increase in domestic war. But a heightened domestic war at home even as a worse case scenario would also be harder to cover up or ignore, as what government and the press already does in regard to keeping most people in the dark about foreign policy. It also lessens the possibility of a world war breaking out. So I can see where Dave is coming from in weighing out the potential outcome of two paths.
It should go without saying. I’m still floored that somehow these sort of obvious call outs have to be said at all. I guess I’m naive.
With regard to immigration, historically, the Constitution left that to the states; it only granted the federal government the power to set rules for naturalization (the process of obtaining citizenship). SCROTUS unconstitutionally gave the federal government control over immigration, almost 100 years after the Constitution was ratified.
The problem isn't the border, it's the unconstitutional freebies that attract many people to USA.
People have the right to freedom of movement. They don't have the right to live at the expense of others who are under the threat of imprisonment for non-payment.
100% Agree
I support people's right to travel and right to work, and that the gov shouldn't be granting arbitrary permission for either.
How are they ‘living at the expense of others’ …
Immigrants are by far the most employed demographic of people in the US.
Illegal immigrants have no access to public benefits and services that aren’t emergency services.
And, immigrants use public benefits at lower rates than the native population.
And people have the right to defend their property lines from trespassers.
So no borders needed. Cool story bro. What do you do if you have 1,00,000,000,000 Chinese float across the ocean? Let them in?
Ridiculous example, if that were to happen, the infrastructure and logistics needed for then to "float" and survive the voyage would be a hundred times greater than what China now has.
This conversation actually changed my mind on this issue. Thanks for sharing!
What is it with libertarians that suddenly all logical consistency seems to vanish into thin air when it comes to this topic?
Open borders used to work when we had now safety net. You can have a large safety net or open borders. Not both. Milton Friedman
hoppe and paleos have created the confusion, the correct position has always been clear
@@Moonninja420 It's silly to think that the same institution that imposed welfare against your will is going to follow your will on border control.
If you actually believe you have any influence over state policy, then you should be going for the reduction of welfare which is a reduction of state aggression and removes the incentive for parasitic immigration, rather than going for increased border control which is an increase in state aggression.
@@EndTheFedorgboth
@@EndTheFedorg Preventing drug addicts from taking over the local public school is also an "increase in state aggression", but a necessary one because guess what, the public school system's not going anywhere any time soon. Same with the welfare state, same with the borders. I can advocate all I want for the dissolution of the state and its aggression, but that's not going to be our reality. So, in the meantime while the state does exist, what do we do? Advocate no restrictions on anything controlled by the government? When you think about that proposition it sounds far more insane, especially to the average person who you're going to have to win over to your perspective.
Dave is the only reason why im here listening.
Well this is gonna be just great- thanks Dr Robert and Davey Dave. Hell, even Uncle Milty "the Minarchist Monetarist" Friedman said: "You can have open borders or a welfare state, but not both." I forget what Dandy Dr. David Friedman's position is on this subject...
and Krugman agrees with Friedman, and thus argues for closing the border in order to protect the Welfare State.. . The best argument FOR Open Borders is using it as a means to abolish the welfare state.
@@matthewmencel5978 Well... "Bankrupt" maybe, rather than "abolish"? Abolition would require Congress to vote it out or cut funding...
@@matthewmencel5978 Exactly.
yea, congress would be required to, and I'd argue that due to immigration, the public would be more likely to pressure congress to do just that. This is especially the case when the citizenry is seeing unprecdented welfare to illegal immigrants when they refuse to give it to their own citizens. @@lukeasacher
@@matthewmencel5978 Well... we'll see what happens this November. IMHO unless the Republicans win majorities in both houses, and Trump wins the Presidency, there isn't much chance of that happening.
Too many Libertarians will argue their "policies" as if they work in any system. It kind of reminds me of when a socialist will say "it just hasn't been done right yet." In a country full of safety nets funded by the tax payer, telling the rest of the world they are welcome to use those safety nets is insane. Just like with the minimum wage argument, all you have to ask them is if they would approve American tax payer funded welfare, healthcare and housing to the rest of the world. As long as tax payer funded social programs exist, that's what you are agreeing to do with open borders.
Libertarians are basically socialists in that both of them have utopian societal ideals that are furnished on terrible theoretical framework.
The obvious solution is to abolish all the welfare and minimum wages.
Many people just say “I am not in favor of those either” but border control is being reduced and those policies are being increased
@ick4753 they are actually upping border patrol but they changed border patrol policy. their job is now to "process" illegal immigrants as they cross the border, not stop them. that is why Anthony Blinken said that razor wire was keeping the patrol from doing their job. because it was stopping crossings and they couldn't process people.
This discussion is held entirely in theory and not the real world. Even without the safety net criminals being free to cross the borders, and people who would vote for the more welfare are a problem.
I'd love a Bryan Caplan & Dave Smith debate or interview.
Or Benjamin Powell.
Id prefer caplan to debate someone with compelling arguments
When it comes to civilization, culture matters. It's the most inconvenient truth I have had to wrestle with.
Words also matter. You have to be very precise in your language before you can justify taking away the rights of people just because they belong to a certain group.
Yep. You’re not going to turn a bunch of people who grew up in a culture of authoritarianism that letting people govern themselves is a good idea.
@@killingjoke90They don’t have any right to enter your home, property or by extension the border of one’s country, and said country has every right to control entry into the people’s territory.
@gibme69420 No, NOT by extension, not even close! Because *I* have the right to allow them in MY property, even if YOU don't want then in YOURS.
@killingjoke90 I agree. It seems to me that deontological argumentation, i.e., most of libertarian philosophy, can not wrestle with the concept of collective rights. In fact, it shows that this concept is contradictory and, therefore, false. Dave brings up consequencualism because this framework allows for argumentation outside the framework of praxeology. I'm convinced that we are incapable of having a society that doesn't rest upon contradiction. Libertarianism can't defend itself from being ripped apart from the inside because humans can't live under a logical framework. Do collectives have rights? No. Should people defend their culture? If they want to keep it, yes. Does the act of defending one's culture interfere with the rights of individuals? Yes.
Where does this lead us?
After Mel Gibson's drunken rants came out, I was an even bigger fan...
You’re ahead of curve. Lol
Is "Ancapistan" even possible given human nature?
Or is it Utopian?
First things first. Is our relationship going to be voluntary? We can worry about the others later.
Ancapistan accounts for human nature. It gets blurry in the transition from dystopia to utopia and thats what we all argue about…Keep arguing and trying to convince people why less government is better and try not to kill anyone. We got this!!!
Definitely utopian. There's a reason libertarians love abstract theory: It's fun to fantasize about an ideal. But their blind spot is human nature. They think, well, if everyone will just follow the non-aggression principle, then everyone will live in harmony and prosperity. This is belied by the entirety of human history. There are always a small number of psychopaths who will do whatever it takes to reach the top. If you don't believe me, just look to the nearest drug cartel to see what a totally libertarian free market society looks like.
The idea that corruptible human nature is best managed by legitimizing the rule of some people over others is what's utopian.
I see Caplan's 'Open Borders,' referenced in the notes but didn't hear any of his points actually being referenced in the discussion. This was probably the most disappointing discussion on open borders I've ever heard from a libertarian viewpoint.
Dave Smith was all over the place and Bob Murphy barely said anything. I kept thinking he was going to chime in and really explain the open borders side of the argument but he just sat there. I know and love Bob but I don't know where my friend was here 😢.
Government control has caused the problems we have at the border (by interfering in drug and labor markets) and this wasn't really discussed very much.
"Second best" isn't increasing government control. Second best is eliminating a little government at a time or incrementalism which isn't an extreme anarchist position. It's still a compromise. Dave Smith's argument is for increasing government control, not eliminating it incrementally. If we want to fix border issues, start by getting government out of markets that drive immigration.
The invitation system was probably the closest thing I heard in this discussion to actually fixing the problems except this shouldn't be controlled by government. Letting businesses and private property owners manage the flow of immigration is a start.
The sponsorship thing is maybe third best, but it should be agreed upon between the two parties (immigrant and business owner) so the immigrant can determine if migrating here is worth it to them or not.
One other point that got close was the libertarian stance that every individual is responsible for themselves. Dave says the way our society is now, as opposed to years ago, isn't going to allow immigrants to face their consequences and we will continue to use tax payer dollars to fund them so they don't die. It's a harsh world and we don't have the means to save everyone, but we could at least let them come here and work so they have a fighting chance to survive. If a person doesn't have work here and can't figure out a way to survive here, they will either leave to figure it out elsewhere or die. Dave talks a lot about reality. Well, buddy, that's reality. Survival takes effort and each one of us is responsible for our own. That's not a libertarian fantasy. That's pure reality of human existence. We didn't make those rules. That's just how life operates.
I agree with some of the comments on the video that suggest Dave debate with Bryan Caplan. Maybe we'd actually hear some good points made on both sides of this.
Thanks for saving me the time to watch it.
Having your money stolen by a thief does not make you the owner of any property purchased thereafter by the thief. You rightfully own the money and are owed it back, but you do not gain any additional ownership. Even if it did, you still do not have the right to impose your preferences about what is done with the "public property" purchased with stolen money onto all the other people who also had their money stolen....you would need their consent. You might as well be a statist if you think being a "tax payer" (tax victim in reality) grants you a share of "collective ownership" in whatever property the "government" purchases with the stolen loot or if "will of the people" / "voting" gives you the right to impose your preference. Dave unwittingly legitimizes the state with these types of poor arguments.
Privatize everything and abolish the state. Period. End of story. That should be the focus. Stop muddying the waters with these "2nd best" statist "solutions" to statist problems.
2nd best solutions are preferable to no solutions.
Agree, but in the end one must consider what is viable and can actually happen in the current context. A reformist approach, even when the end goal is ancap, necessarily includes (temporary) compromises.
@@Saimlordy Except there is a solution and I explicitly said what it is.
@@sebastiansirvas1530 It's silly to think that the same institution that imposed welfare against your will is going to follow your will on border control.
If you actually believe you have any influence over state policy and want an incremental approach, then you should be going for the reduction of welfare which is a reduction of state aggression and removes the incentive for parasitic immigration, rather than going for increased border control which is an increase in state aggression.
I've heard an old saying, it goes like this
"Stop living in ancapistan inside your head"
Let's be real, the state isn't gonna disappear tonight, or next month, or next year. As long as the State exists, it keeps plundering and stealing from the citizens. And it would be immoral if the State decides to use some of the taxpayers' money to the benefit of noncitizens.
Dave have you ever heard of e verify? Wtf are you talking about that you cannot refuse to hire illegals? Doesn't that also mean the farmers hiring Mexicans had no choice in the matter?
Dave grew up very privileged.
Ladies, ladies... excuse me ladies? Can you just jump into the topic and not say 'like' every other word?
Would love to see Bob or Dave chat with Bryan Caplan on this. Bryan normally has practical real solutions that “meet people where they’re at” when it comes to policy
The difference is that a property border is an "imaginary line" that is valid and consistent with the principles of libertarianism. A national border is arbitrary and invalid according to the same principles.
Given the absolute abundance of wealth that exists today, relative to the cost of living, how many government functions, especially government welfare functions, could be wholly transferred to voluntary cooperatives? There are more Democrats in the United States than there are citizens of many European nations, many of which run universal health care systems. What is preventing the Democratic Party from operating its own health care system, cooperative housing schemes, or retirement annuity plans? If they ran them well, imagine the incentive people would have to join the Democratic Party. (Of course, a similar health care cooperative would be run much better by Republicans.)
Democrats believe men can get pregnant too.
A facet of this issue not explored in this discussion is the idea that while we are a democratic republic, the populace contributes to the government, generally guiding its direction. A large influx of illegal aliens undermines the liberty movement because these people are used to strong federal governments. Even worse, they are used to literal, mask-off gangs who act as a de-facto government. Regardless of the arguments relating to Libertarian 101, allowing these illegal aliens to become part of the US *actively moves us away* from the "perfect solution" of Ancapistan.
culture is almost never discussed in these conversations and it is essential
This is such a great podcast. Normally i only get to hear dave talk for like 2 hours a week, and here yall are droppin a weeks worth of dave content on me. You guys rock
He needs to debate this with Bryan Caplan
Why debate a midwit?
He needs to debate it with Patrick Smith, host of The Anarchast, and the *_actual_* most consistent MF I know.
Yes 100% Bryan Caplan's arguments are more pragmatic than dogmatic, which is why i find him (caplan) convincing on this topic.
100%
Agreed. This is so frustrating to watch because I used to hold the exact same position as Dave, so I perfectly see where he's coming from. I, too, read Democracy the God that Failed and Nations by Consent (where Rothbard makes his anti-open borders case). I was even already using that specific public schools argument Dave Smith gives here in this interview, back when Dave Smith himself was still pro-open borders. Then I read Bryan Caplan and thought he just convincingly addressed every single objection I could think of (most notably in his paper "Why Should We Restrict Immigration?").
I'm sure if Dave Smith would talk to Bryan Caplan it would, at the very least, make him reconsider his position.
Which government? The United Nations? United State? Texas? Brewster County? Twin Oaks or a Bruderhof community? The closer you get to a local, voluntary community, the better case you can make for "libertarian" immigration controls which are simply terms of free association, but vesting the United State with this authority makes collective property of all of Central North America, and I see no libertarian justification for it. Texas is hardly better. Federal regulation of immigration is no more a second-best solution than the DEA or the BATF. A voluntary community may also rule out drug use or regulate firearms.
Bob's not playing devil's advocate here. Dave is.
Dave never seems to address which government he wants to enforce his supposed reasonable policies on public property. Actually, I'm pretty sure he's advocated for bringing all the troops home and putting them around the border. So he apparently wants the federal government to address local borders.
I was a total shit lib from Portland Oregon and Dave has helped turn me to the libertarian cause…
Geez … sorry for you mate.
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lpMate?
@@hydrodudes5135 mate
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp American mate or European mate?
@@hydrodudes5135 euro mate
The Lego Brick theory is that people are interchangeable Lego bricks that are merely different colors. It doesn’t work.
Have you ever played with Legos? Functionally, the different colors are indeed the same. I don't know whether you're familiar with Ringo Starr's All-Starr Band, but it's the same principle: Different players at each instrument cycle in and out. Songs change based on personnel, but the overall presentation is more or less the same.
I love Dave because, as a comedian, he knows more and states it more succinctly than most Cato or Reason figures.
Comedian? That's funny! 😆
Reason is pretty hollowed out.
@@anti-emo4721 says a rando about a guy who sells out every one of his shows... now that's funny
@@bagamias-hula He goes to Jo Rogan every Tuesday, yet he can't make it as a comedian. The only reason people watch him is because of his niche in political commenting.
@@anti-emo4721he literally has "made it" as a comedian, do you even follow Legion of Skanks?
They lost me with the gun argument. There should be no spaces where one is forced to surrender their defense mechanism. Public safety can only be achieved through individual defense. This fallacy that there are “spaces” where one doesn’t need a gun supposes that one can trust others with their safety. Pass.
Its interesting that you think a Gun makes you safe.
What if I was to take your Gun from you,would that Gun still make you feel safe? What if I saw your Gun & percieved you as a threat to me & I acted on that before you actually became a threat,would that Gun still make you safe?
Do you think you have what it would take to pull the trigger in anger,maybe if there was no consequences you could but could you really.
@@Carlin2810 There are many false assumptions (and just plain weirdness) in your premisses, so I won’t address them. Suffice to say, I was referring to Smiths rationalising of when and where government gets to decide it’s ok to keep your firearm. Given their lengthy debate about libertarianism, it’s a fundamental misunderstanding that there is ever a “rational” purpose for government to remove one’s liberty. Rationalising is usually what leads to pogroms and death camps. Fundamental liberties must always remain fundamental, no matter the potential consequences. Not to be trite, but it’s apt to invoke Ben Franklin and the whole liberty for security thing.
@@Carlin2810Imbecilic aegument. Your first sentence is just you babbling. Your second sentence would just be you conducting violence with no basis to do so. Third sentence is more babbling.
anarchists are not for open or closed borders. Anarchists are for no-borders. both sides are incorrect. it is not a question anarchists need to answer.
I'm basically a libertarian at heart, but their refusal to acknowledge the open borders platform is not only a losing issue but a huge problem overall, is the reason I can't support them. They just get weirder and weirder after that, too.
The main difference between Libertarians and all other platforms is the unwavering Principled approach to Ethics.
A Statist border is unjustifiable, it is aggressive. If you want a gated community, go ahead, there is nothing wrong with that. But using the State to impose borders because whatever reason (Wellfare, Minimum wages, Too much regulations) Is missing the forest for the trees.
The obvious answer is to destroy what makes the open border problematic, not to compromise with Evil and betray our Ethics.
Good cannot triumph by letting Evil in.
@@Eddie_of_the_A_Is_A_Gang you're living a fantasy, my friend.
@@AM-qz6cm Prove it
@@Eddie_of_the_A_Is_A_Gang You're asking the world to stop doing all the bad things, which is great, and I agree with all that.
But again, you're living an idealistic fantasy. We're not even 10% of the way there to a point that would make the open borders remotely feasible.
Like my OP expressed, I'm on board with most of the platform, like ending foreign wars, ending the fed, the police state, etc., but we're lightyears away from that being a reality.
Ironically enough, this idealistic nature ends in more suffering, more aggression, in the current state of affairs in the world.
Can you prove to me that unfettered migration to a handful of countries is benefiting the world at large, or even those countries? Maybe 'countries shouldn't exist anyway' would be the counter, because you're being idealistically consistent (which I admire), but it just isn't reflective of reality and human nature.
Leave me alone is great, but nobody is or will (in the current timeline at least) and is a position that will be taken advantage of (like it has been over and over again).
Anyway, f the feds.
@@AM-qz6cmthat dude is smoking too much pot but what he said is true
The federal government is enforcing the open border policy so if you let state or local jurisdictions actually enforce the border it won’t be an issue
All of the people along the border want to protect the border so it isn’t libertarian to prevent them from doing so
I'm all about open borders, however you just can't have a welfare state and unlimited immigration. If a person comes here finds a job, sends for thier family, blends themselves into the community! Cool! That's what the country needs, hey reletive of mine, I got a job and a house if you come here my company will hire you, you can live with us until you find a place. This is what we need, this is the American dream!
You are correct if you are saying we can't have a welfare state and unlimited immigration under government regulation. But, under a libertarian system, we don't have to give up one over the other. Human welfare and limits on immigration naturally occur in free markets.
I disagree that y'all's examples of partial anarchy are absurd, like getting rid of the border patrol, or letting a meth addict into the girls restroom. These things can be dealt with privately, way better than with government.
Partial anarchy = libertarianism. That’s all it comes down to
We’re comparing .. the free movement of people to .. a meth addict in a women’s restroom ?
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp Whether you're rude to an innocent person or whether you torture someone to death, it's just a matter of degree.
@@nolittering9900 So if you’re rude to someone the comparison is… it what like he raped someone ? 🤣
If people are going to be squeamish about the libertarian position on open borders, they're going to be against many of the other positions libertarians have. Even if you bring them in under false pretenses (at least in my opinion) that libertarians are actually the really cool conservatives and want strict border control, it's bad because they aren't libertarians. You're better off trying to form coalitions with like-minded people on borders, not this deceptive nonsense
That's a big reason why Dave's argument is so bad. He claims he wants to live pragmatically in the real world on this one issue, while at the same time advocating to bring every single troop home, to leave NATO, to end the Fed, to end the IRS, to end every federal agency, etc. The open borders/closed border debate isn't even close to being as extreme as any of those other issues.
@@jakelm4256 I think Bob mentioned it, that if this is the case, then what is the position with guns? Since this is already distorted by the government, are we for gun control? But I don't remember Dave following up on that. Perhaps I should re-watch it.
@@jakelm4256What strikes me as odd with Dave’s side of the argument where tolerating closed-borders under a State is that the rest of his positions are for decentralization across the board, though this is paused when it comes to the topic of immigration which amounts to exercising domestic surveillance as far as government is concerned.
The suggestion of job training programs on cruise ships to help the homeless would be a similarly great idea as a vetting program and process for immigrants coming into the US. It’s just odd that in every other topic of discussion Dave quickly and aptly highlights why decentralization works, because government time and again fails to provide a solution. Immigration becomes an exception simply because of how the welfare state ties into the matter. Yet Dave doesn’t take this pause on other matters wherein say government restricted healthcare, or government ran police departments.
The simple answer is privatizing the land instead of the letting the state own it. Being in favor of open or closed borders makes you statist as you're saying the state should control land. Quite simple and doesnt require an hour long discussion lmao
This was addressed literally in the first 10% of the discussion. I'd advise actually watching before commenting
@@SaimlordyI'm literally never going to waste time watching such a video when I'm already smarter than everyone in it lol
END THE FED. Gold is money.
That's too extreme. Dave wants to live in the real world now. We need to address federal monetary policy REASONABLY.
Gold, silver and nickel should be the new standard for currency backing up the dollar.
Okay, boomer
And money is slavery, regardless of its form. Concerning the goal to bend others to your will, punishment and reward are equally malicious.
Unexpected, but awesome. Thanks guys!
Dave is talking about those kinds of libertarians that make almost all libertarians not engage with the absurd libertarian party or the absurd libertarians that inhabit it
Libertarians that value open borders prioritize that over dissolution of the welfare state, and are therefore, in resulting policy, no different than communists.
Not really, I would prioritize legalizing employment. Contrary to Dave's statement, it's illegal to hire an illegal. No wonder they over-consume state services like welfare. It's not as easy to live working in the black market.
@@dude6935 They don't belong here. It shouldn't be easy.
That's a disingenuous spin job, even if technically true. They don't make or advocate the resulting policy.
If one chooses to remain under the rule of government to fight where they live instead of fleeing, does that mean they're effectually authoritarian statists, since the resultant circumstance would see them taxed?
The result is by the action of another, and knowing they'll do that is not a factor in what I advocate. I may be prioritizing the fight for freedom over escape from tyranny, but that doesn't mean I advocate that tyranny. I'm not the one doing it and I'm against both.
@@torrasque0151 This is not a libertarian view that illegals "don't belong here" (where exactly?) or that they don't have a right to take employment that is offered to them.
@@torrasque0151How do we determine where someone "belongs"?
Require all migrant laborers and all legal immigrants to have a U.S. citizen sponsor. The sponsor would be legally liable for that migrant or immigrant's welfare and behavior. The sponsor would provide all the support that the government currently provides. For the migrant, the sponsor's liability would last for the duration of the migrant's stay in the United States. For the immigrant, the sponsor's liability would last until the immigrant becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen.
If individual farmers or manufacturers can't afford that liability themselves, they could join cooperatives that would insure the cost of that liability. Labor brokers, basically migrant employment agencies could also assume that liability.
I think one danger of a sponsorship program is that the government currently redistributes wealth through welfare. What is to stop the government from simply paying people to sponsor immigrants to come in?
@@antebellum1 What stops government from doing anything? The Constitution, the Supreme Court, voters, and the government officials the voters elect.
@@glennmitchell9107 How's that working?
@@antebellum1 Not well. More cowbell?
"Require.." piss off statist. I require you to kiss my feet.
This illustrates the libertarian flaw. Referencing your imaginary country where all property is privately owned is a wonderful but unachievable ideal. These unachievable ideals are what fuels your system, and in many cases your livelihood. What a wonderful life you lead, thinking and talking and writing about a world you will never see. Pure BubbleThink, but at least you got paid. This is the ultimate huckster circle jerk, but we all need to make a living. WTH have you actually done? How has society moved towards a free society from your efforts? The State grows in power while you get paid for discussing ideals. You do nothing worthwhile. "Oh, that's a really good point" brings us no closer to real change.
So Dave's standard is whatever he personally, subjectively thinks is common-sense and reasonable?
I like Dave but he's completely wrong on 2 issues. Privatisation and borders.
Privatisation is simple. Taxation is theft. Privatisation is furtherance of the crime. It's like stealing your car and then selling off the parts. The proper solution is to make the rightful owners of public property, which is the public, collective private owners. Giving them true democratic control as essentially shareholders.
His borders argument does seem to be mostly strawman and his interchanging of public property and resources like schools with national borders that do not even qualify as property is part of that strawman.
Public property should be private property that is collectively owned by the public. The public paid for it, under coercion, so they're the rightful owners. Simple. And that puts to bed the issue of actual property which we can exclude others from.
But the problem with the national borders is that these are not property borders. They are completely arbitrary borders and we cannot violently enforce those borders as if they are private property borders because they simply are not. Regardless of whether we make all public property privately owned, it doesn't change the fact that the nation itself is not property and the borders around it are not private property borders. So yes, we can exclude people from schools and libraries and other private property. But we cannot exclude them from entire geographical regions that do not involve actual trespass of actual property.
What we can do as libertarians is overthrow the governments criminal rule, stop the theft of taxation and give the rightful owners of public property (the public) their ownership back.
I'm centrist with a slight bend to the right economically, and even more of a bend in the libertarian direction.
The discussions I've had with my buddies about ancap ideas usually boils down to, "most people can't handle that."
The problem with that argument is that the government is made up of people notably ungoverned, therefore is most people cant handle anarchy, what makes you think government people can handle it?
@@emperorpicard4901
Not sure I'm tracking with statement/question... but I'll take a stab at it.
It seems to be an apples and oranges comparison (government workers - non-government people). I agree that many in the government are ungoverned, but they are breaking the inconvenient laws/regulations while taking advantage of the system where it suits their needs (i.e. lefty Colorado judge getting extra police protection because she knows people are pissed).
Our conclusion of "most people can't handle it" boils down to so many of the general population wanting to live in cities, have their food, water, and power delivered to them, and have the protection of armed men keeping order in town. Yes, this can all be arranged privately, but then the people will have to negotiate and supervise (and organize) to maintain all these services. Self-sufficiency is hard work.
There's more to it than that, but there's a couple examples of the authoritarian quagmire we're in. As far as I'm concerned, even small drifts in the libertarian direction will be beneficial.
I'd recommend looking into Michael Malice. He's an anarchist and is well-known in these circles, and always makes the argument that the majority of people can't handle freedom because they simply don't want it. They'd rather have their safety. Obviously, his stances are more in-depth than this, but maybe it's worth looking at.
@@microsoftpain Yea but he does not say "therefore not anarchism".
I think a more accurate statement would be "most people BELIEVE they can't handle that", but their believes are wrong.
Therefore its just a matter of education.
There is a reason why states love to have control over the education system. Its usually one of the 5 primary things they immediately take over. The other 4 being Money, Media, Law and policing of course.
So a statist
Beung that libertarianism comes from anarchism; there are no borders in such a state. That's part of the point, that the state shouldn't hav3 any power over people nor corporations...
This guy has got to be one of the most annoying public libertarian figures.
I cant liaten to him(doesnt matter what the argument is).
Ther's a reason Dave is more popular than the entire libertarian movement and this host is the exactly why.
And btw now that I listened it all Dave logic is like every other authoritarian 😅
You can easily have a country with border controls that is libertarian on the interior
For about ten minutes...
Taxpayers cannot collectively own public property because collective property is a logical contradiction. If a group of people commonly own a stick (A through Z) and the is a conflict between A and B over the use of this stick then either A or B is the just victor and both choices imply contradiction. Also the taxpayers have not homesteaded public property and there has been no title transfer to them from a previous owner. Also they could not claim the public property as restitution because victims of a crime can only claim property as restitution that was justly owned. This does not mean there can be no just restrictions on public property. The employees who work at and maintain a public library could be the just owners of the library, although not collectively.
So border control are the just owners of the borders?
@@eddie8730 Get rid of welfare, and the need for border control will vanish.
This guy watches liquid Zulu
@@john_costello Yes I do lol.
So are you against the stockmarket, most companies, time shares, life estates etc. ?
First time listener. Fucking great podcast. Subbed.
I just want everyone in the comments to grapple with what Dave says at 12:00 this is all “second or third best” there is no reality where we wake up tomorrow and it’s ancapistan. So act accordingly.
Just here what he’s saying and deal with it
Second or third best toward a libertarian society is eliminating a certain amount of government control. Increasing government control is not any level of best, if your goal is to move towards more freedom. It's regressive. Start by legalizing drugs or prostitution. Start by phasing out the welfare state or privatizing education and property. Start by letting businesses and property owners manage labor markets and the flow of immigration. But don't add more government. If you want to increase government, I know of a few other political parties that'd welcome you with open arms.
So he’s a conservative? Big surprise.
1:24:26 Isn’t there a housing crisis or something-due to shortage? Does that not play into their ‘market forces’ calculation?
1:09: Interesting hypothetical. If the gov said "Only libertarians will vote" you said you'd support that, given that democracy is wrong anyway, so, why not at least favor the liberty movement? I agree, but for a different reason. In this case, following our principles gives us the right answer. Voting (appointing criminals to act in your name) is wrong to begin with. Voting rights, in the sense we have them today, shouldn't even exist, they are "rights" to predate on others by proxy. So, anyone who is barred from voting would be a good thing. So, I would say yes, not because only libertarians would be voting, but because some voters would be prevented. But see why reasoning from first principles (and not from expedience) matters: If the scenario was that everyone *except* libertarians will have the right to vote, I would still say "yes", because _anyone_ not voting would be a good thing we said. But, following your reasoning, you would have disagreed to banning libertarians. You would say "Oh, for the sake of the movement, let's favor voting rights for all!" That would be a paradoxical position, for a libertarian, like it's paradoxical now to support State borders because (you assume) it'd be bad for liberty if borders opened up. Actually I think it would be good for liberty to open borders, as it would be good for liberty to ban libertarians from voting: It would make the election result clearly illegitimate. Generally, enacting libertrarian principles takes you to good directions. Don't be afraid. The State would lose power if it lost its borders, the world would get better, far better, and closer to libertarianism.
29:11 the correct answer, from the other guy in that discussion would have been “well no because walls and doorways are REAL borders and not imaginary. Further, the children inside those real, enforceable borders have a RIGHT to not be exposed to those things. STILL further, the parents of those children have an UNMITIGATED RIGHT to demand that they are not exposed to such things.”
My comments are being shadow banned.
Need to debate this with Larkin Rose. He has already said he is down for it.
That would be great
In a hypothetical ‘from scratch’ world I’d be an ancap. But in the real world I’m not. Anyone care to explain how, in the real world, libertarianism isn’t a circle jerk?
So you're saying you support violating people's rights in the real world?
Are you saying every political gang is a circle jerk? Cuz I'm with you there...
Debate is important in between your day job/family
@@lights473 I support being realistic and honest above everything else. We cannot get a free society from where we are. That should be obvious.
@@JK360noscope yes but not all political movements are equally practical given where we are.
@@jamesh3832 right so you're saying it would be realistic that we should violate people's rights?
great episode guys!
This was fantastic. Dave nailed it here.
Dave was all for open borders 6 years ago.
Dave basically conceded from the start of the video that libertarianism is nothing more than sacrificing 1st ordered principles for second and third order considerations because the implementation of those first ordered principles aren’t on the table.
That’s the most beautiful way of saying that libertarianism is just a larp circle jerk.
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp everything in life is a circle jerk. You can never have the best choice. Even in ancapistan, you will make choices all the time. It doesn't mean you will always choose the best. Sometimes you have choices that you cannot clearly see which one is best. Like in immigration case.
@@kostbill No it’s not,over my neck of the woods I like doing serious political analysis.
I don’t circle jerk to utopian, communist or libertarian pipe dream society. Let’s grow up
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp I don't understand. Serious political analysis is exactly as you wrote and as Dave said: you have to sacrifice many times 1st ordered principles, because that is real life. Are you suggesting that serious political analysis should not take reality into perspective?
This is some of the best comedy I've ever seen from Dave.
I'd like to hear what open boarders type think the reason is that the current regime has the current policy it does with regards to immigration. Why does it want no boarder wall and hate razor wire? Why does it want lots of work visas, and asylum seekers? Why does it want refugees bussed into the middle of Michigan? Why does it tolerate sanctuary cities? Why does it want DACA or amnesty?
Why does it want less restrictions on marijuana? Not everything is a big conspiracy.
Because they want more liberal immigration policy, duh.
That the Statists adopt a moral position that they believe will lead them better outcome, does not that make that position immoral.
If we compromise and decide that it is okay to go against all our principles and further the immorality of State control only to hurt our opponent, we will do nothing but find ourselves the new perpetrator of what we seeked to destroy.
We cannot be the same compromising Evil that has failed to maintain the US in the past. We must be unwavering in our morality.
@@Eddie_of_the_A_Is_A_Gang The motive for the statists position is immoral. Is your principle that people who are against liberty should be free to take the liberty of those that are for it.
Because it will do anything in opposition to their opposition. That's how political polarization works. They all want government border control. It's an illusion when they say they don't. All government wants to do is control. That's all it can do. The Biden administration may let more in but they deport more to counter that.
WP Rawl Farms here in Pelion SC was told by the state and federal government that they were operating their farm with illegals. WP Rawl told them they would not only sponsor and back them being here but house them, insure them and provide educational programs for them… I agree with that 100%!! The money they make goes back home to their farms and ranches there or to famiiies there that help pay for their healthcare and or education there! I mean the peso to the dollar😂😂 of course it works and of course it’s the second best we got as and example!
I have coined the term....nationalistic libertarian....aka...American constitutionalist...sort of
American constitution says congress has authority over commerce. That's not libertarian.
I guess that's why I said.....sort of.
These kinds of egg headed approaches are why being libertarian minded is better than libertarian.
By the way it's completely congruent. If a group of people agree to a constitution there's nothing contrary. Same thing in churches...companies....clubs...etc. A country is a group of people with government officials that take a oath to support...protect and defend the constitution. Of course there are problems in the execution but eventually everything gets worked out one way or another.
I am not in favor of open borders or closed borders. I dont want the government to own the borders at all, whether they own the borders and force them to be open or closed it's bad regardless. People should privately own all borders and decide for themselves who they want to let in.
Ok, well in the meantime until all boarders are private, what do you want to do?
None of the libertarians arguing for “closed borders” or “open borders” are arguing against that. They’re arguing about what to do if you can only change one variable-the border policies-and nothing else.
@@Paul-A01 The government shouldn't exist so in the meantime that it does things will be bad regardless. Thus I focus my efforts on trying to get rid of the state, not on negotiating with it. However, If I had to pick I would say closed borders are a better approximation of what the free market would decide because if you look at most privately owned property they do not just allow random strangers to enter as they please. And even private property that is open to the general public this is usually under the condition that the person is doing business with them.
@@connormartin8259I think we need to consistently stick to the non-aggression principle. So there shouldn't be restrictions on the government borders, just on people's private property. So in the meantime we stick to our principles, and we can let the free market of ideas work out some of the best strategies to deal with immigration, and we can be thankful that we're opposing the government that if it's big enough to control the border, which it doesn't do, it's also big enough to take all of our money and all of our Liberty and our life. Over the last 3 years there have been 6 million illegal immigrants; they aren't making my life so bad, but the government is.
@@Glockmog2007You don’t even have the attention span to watch an hour & a half long podcast? They go over this exact topic. I honestly thought your original comment was a joke, referencing their mockery of this childish position.
its great to discuss and learn. but at the end of the day if you vote 3rd party you help the wrong people. maybe some day. 3rd party isn't going to work in 2024.
Lines can be imaginary, as in a Platonic ideal line. However, a line drawn on a piece of paper, a line surveyed on the ground, or a borderline drawn on a map, are not imaginary.
These arguments are interesting, but a pointless exercise in intellectualism because we have society changing issues coming real soon and indoctinating everyone into libertarianism isn't going to happen. Its almost certainly going authoritarian one way or another. Main reason it has to is becuase of the border, which is ironic
If we lived in a 100% private property society, what would free immigration look like? In a Hoppean society of course they could prevent people from just coming in. It could be a gated community. Anyone coming into that private law town would need an invite from someone (or a job offer), you could not just cross the border. It might even be a gated community with armed guards. I don't have a right to just move onto private property without an invite. To me, that is the libertarian stance.
Dave Smith, are you trying to empower the state or “wither away the state”? Libertarians can’t play for both sides of that, that should be pretty obvious but I don’t think you understand why you can’t be for statism and against statism.
59:22 If this statement is accepted as true there is zero point to the libertarian movement or anything related to it. Not really sure what Dave is wasting his life on if he's just going to throw the principles away the second children are involved. This is, verbatim, the same reason the major parties give every time they restrict freedom; to the point "think of the children" is a tired cliche. I didn't like Dave's personality and now I don't like his politics. Sure he agreed to it at a private school, but the same practices occur in public school. These measures arguably exist to acclimate kids to being controlled and should be rejected.
Actually, I'm disappointed with Dave's logic, here. We don't need Libertarian principles when we can just have the standard of "That's just reasonable," because that can't be interpreted subjectively at all. It's like Dave is saying he likes Libertarianism 101 as long as he doesn't think something is unreasonable. Why does that not apply to drug legalization?
Here's the difference between most other libertarian "second best" options and the immigration "second best" (state restriction of immigrations):
When an anarchist says "Taxes should be 0%, but I'll accept any reduction" or "You should abolish public schools, but school choice is better than nothing," The second best option is still a reduction in the state. It still represents a lesser violation of the NAP.
State enforced immigration restriction is an INCREASE in state power (or at least the maintenance thereof). The reason it is so difficult to support state restrictions, and why you have to resort to elaborate mental gymnastics to explain the positions, is because the argument is bad.
I'm not saying the correct positions is open borders. I'm on the fence about immigration, but the arguments I've seen so far are bad. The state's "ownership" of public property is illegitimate, so any restriction imposed by the state are also illegitimate.
Does libertarianism require support for open borders? Not when my property and my rights are on the ballot. Democracy, in a sense, legitimizes government theft. If there’s a way to have a more libertarian society without democracy, count me in. Personal responsibility never wins on the ballot, and probably never will.
Public spece has its purpose, like example park, you purposefully designate area for leisure, so cannot come and cut trees to heat up your house because it’s public and belongs to all including you. Same school, it maybe an imaginary border but public designate it as an educational place so you use it for education and not smoking crack. Or highway, you designate it for vehicles so you wont build a house in the middle of it…. And so on….
Now can public designate a country as a place to its owners ?
I don't really agree with the framing. It's not "open or closed borders," it's private vs public borders/property. Calling them open borders has a negative connotation that isn't accurate imo
Before recently, we had a great point of comparison between a privatized "closed borders" locale and the public "open borders" area surrounding it: Disney World.
Can't libertertarians just agree that making the government more libertarian is the best thing but not purely libtertariansim 101? I'm a social libertarian and your community should have benefits that most people want inside it. Other communities can choose for themselves.
Government school is important because a "public" one would be open to the public so long as you aren't harming people. Like "the people's house" is a foolish expression because you are not allowed there without permission; it's the "government's house".
Dave Smith, is a caste system wrong from your libertarian belief system? And if so, is it wrong for the rulers, or the rulers, or the enforcers, or the whole thing? If not, do you consider it wrong for any other reasons, or just not wrong at all?
This is not the second best, though. I am sorry to say. This is a very good opportunity to talk against the welfare system, public property, etc.
I would never have “public education” for a crack head to be able to walk into. I think property owners should unite and invite help to protect their property.
41:30 Does sexual harassment not violate the NAP? Sorry i don't know much about libertarianism
Second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth best do not change the principle though. This is the Rothbard stand.
It's NBD, but at 52:49 I believe Dave is wrong about putting salt on eggs. You won't die from adding none.
Walter Block believes in open borders for everybody except the state of Israel. He has now lost a ton of credibility.
if anyone said public property is unowned and thus belongs to all humanity, it is a kind of communism (sort of Proudhon idea). But saying public property belongs to citiziens of a country in a communal way and must be managed in communal way by state, is equally communist idea (but a statist commie idea). The first group are close to anarcho communism and Dave smith close to Marxist-Leninists.
Anarcho-communism is a contradiction in terms.
There is no public property. It's unowned and belongs to nobody, until it is homesteaded.
@@lysanderhoppe765Except the people holding constitutional office who control the police & military say there’s public property. What do we do now?
@@lysanderhoppe765 What are you even talking about? You gonna go homestead the local public school?
@@usnbostx2 Abolish their offices. Now you will say something about "reality" while suggesting to take control of the gouvernment...🤭
I kind of wish there was something I DISAGREE with Dave on. It must be nice. :)
Dave rambles and takes too long to get to his point and then restates and repeats the same point in like, 3 different ways that doesn’t add anything to what he originally said the first time.
I hadn’t heard the hope argument before. That actually makes a lot of sense, thanks guys.
We do not want someone to do Meth in an elementary school. But, it does not mean that public schools are sacred places.
I need to pay more attention to Dave Smith
If the issue is so clear why should it take an hour to built an elaborate "public property violation" strawman? The issue is not about "should immigrants be allowed to camp out on public land", but should I be allowed to hire and house an immigrant if I'm willing to do so. Freedom of association is a cornerstone of libertarian theory, and there is no way to sneak your prejudice by it.
How many illegals are living in your home right now? If none, why not?
Ok well how many do you house and employ then because the people coming are not invited guests
The question isn’t should we have 1 million billion trillion immigrants or 0 immigrants but when almost 3 million people a year illegally cross the border maybe there is a problem
And I know libertarians here what even is the law but illegal crossing means uninvited and they are trespassing and committing an aggressive act
I love Ron Paul. But, just want to remind people that he is not an Anarchist.
You’re risking huge lawsuits by using e-verify? Cmon dave.
I promise I'm not judging, just curious: What is Dave vaping?
Dave Smith is to the Republican side of Gary Johnson.
Without even watching the video I can tell you he does not support open borders
Purity tests should just be for lefties, we can have nuance in our ideas.
Dave comes close to espousing a flavor of Libertarianism that I could get on board with. However, what prevents me from waving the Libertarian banner is what I’ve never heard said by any of them - specifically, that a shared national, cultural identity is fundamental and crucial to maintaining a successful society. Ergo, the serious danger from massive immigration, illegal OR legal, is the resulting infusion of alien values and concepts that cannot be assimilated into Western, capitalist traditions, thereby eroding our society from within, and laying the foundation for the centralized, authoritarian government that Libertarians despise.
That's what we have is a centralized authoritarian government. Western values suck. Just think what a blight America has been on the rest of the world. What we need to work for is for all relationships to be voluntary, and eventually that will happen cuz the right side does eventually win and think about how much more peaceful the world is now than it ever has been, and people usually agree with volunteerism in the majority of their life. The border is neither yours nor mine, so we have no say.
It simply isn't though. You only need a shared cultural within your local community. People further than that can interact with you via free trade. You can buy wood from a colony of butch lesbians who believe in astrology; they don't have to be anything like you to have a mutually beneficial relationship of free trade.
You ever read "Democracy: The God that Failed" by Hoppe?
@@SonOfTheLion No, but I’ll check it out. 👍
@@oilman7718 I'd recommend the chapter on Conservatism and Libertarianism. There is a rather notorious quote in there about restoring cultural and moral normalcy. Hope you enjoy.
It requires ... don't F up their home land .. to drive them here
Yup,before you talk about border policy you have to talk about foriegn policy.
@@Carlin2810no we can just close the border and deport people
Mass deportations now
Did the natives F up Europe? Is that what drove the Spanish, French, Dutch, etc empires to the western hemisphere?
People do something because they can, not because we did something else.
Open borders libertarianism is as defensible as open borders are. If you are a libertarian right now arguing that borders should be open, then you’re destroying all your credibility.
It doesn’t make you less of an Austrian school Ron Paul-supporting libertarian to acknowledge that open borders are far down the line of reforms we would work for once other institutions of civil society are secured.
After the central bank is abolished, welfare state is culled, and grotesque fascist Uni party system is hemmed down at least a wee bit, then maybe open borders could be debated and ratified legally through a legitimate process.