Then libertarianism has a fateful problem
You can advocate benefits of open borders but restriction is legitimate prerogative of citizens
-
-
We can pick this up again later but i’ve been struck by the silence induced by the club goods argument, which should only be a problem for libertarians if they’ve reified the state, a category error
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes if *every single* citizen has jointly agreed to restrict immigration into their property. Open borders = open national borders, that the state shouldn't overrule citizens' property rights. Not difficult to understand
-
Nope, club goods don’t require 100% consensus all the time
-
Not a great argument. Countries aren't like clubs. People are able to join and leave (multiple) clubs mostly at will (and if they can't, they should be allowed to) based on some prior knowledge and expectations of rules
-
The point anyway is that it's completely consistent with other libertarian negative rights arguments & honestly I'm more open to the possibility that the negative/positive rights distinction is useless than the idea that it's inconsistent with libertarianism
-
Yeah you don’t want to die on the “countries are not clubs” hill, special pleading is no way to go
-
I dunno, I think she has a point. Countries are club goods in some respects (access to defense, trade, culture, education etc.) but the AnCap project is to privatize those things, so that would remove the things that make countries club goods.
-
(Whether the AnCap project is a good idea is a different question, and personally my answer is no.)
-
If members of the club vote to dissolve (or to simply cease regulating access) then you get open borders (or devolution of borders to HOAs or what have you.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.