¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
-
Replying to @salonium @paul_hundred
I find both the libertarian & utilitarian arguments convincing fwiw. A strong utilitarian case against open borders would persuade me if it existed
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @salonium @paul_hundred
Open borders is an admirable sentiment, but it's too dangerous, radical, and untested a proposition to turn USA into mega-Qatar.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @MyronGaines1337 @salonium
Yeah it’s foolishly imprudent from a Burkean standpoint, but it’s also completely unethical from a libertarian standpoint.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @paul_hundred @MyronGaines1337
All this tells me is that you don't understand the libertarian negative rights position
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @salonium @MyronGaines1337
Are consenting adult property owners not allowed to make agreements to regulate access to their joint territory?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @paul_hundred @MyronGaines1337
They are allowed: that is the libertarian argument. National borders that aren't universally agreed upon shouldn't override individual property owners' preferences.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
He says this in the blogpost as well.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @salonium @MyronGaines1337
Right, so crossing borders isn’t negative freedom
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You can advocate benefits of open borders but restriction is legitimate prerogative of citizens
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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
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.