From: juan <juan....@gmail.com>
   
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:07:07 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote:


> > I believe the correct libertarian position is no
> > GOVERNMENT borders.  Not no borders at all.  
> 
>   >  Borders are by defintion a creation of the state. And
>   >  vice-versa. A state is defined by its borders.
 
>> Well, maybe you're playing word-games.
>> I used the term "borders" to
>> refer, generically, to any demarcation of ownership or control over
>> land.  borders = boundaries.    Topological separations.  


>    I didn't mean to play word games. 

 >   http://www.dictionary.com/browse/border?s=t

>    2. "the line that separates one country, state, province, etc.,
    from another; frontier line:" 
Yes, that's one valid example.  I intended that, but also the one below.

  >  or 

 >   1. "the part or edge of a surface or area that forms its outer
    boundary. " 
That too.  


  >  I assumed we were using  definition number 2, the political
 >   one. So my claim that (political) borders are a creation of the
>    state pretty much stands. 

>   But, on second thoughts, I can agree with your quote below, for
>    argument's sake : 

>>    "the correct libertarian position is no GOVERNMENT borders." 

Since the presumption is that we will be getting rid of governments, things 
will have to change.  How they change, we will have to propose, debate, and 
ultimately decide.  

>    So it clearly follows that the correct libertarian position on
>    travel is *open* *government* borders. And so any sort of
>    support for government restrictions on travel across government
>    borders is not libertarian. 
I say there won't BE ANY "government borders".  But there will be property 
lines, a form of border or boundary.  And property which is currently thought 
to be owned or at least controlled by "government" has to be considered.


>> There is no reason that a given piece of property cannot be owned,
>> jointly, by many people.

>    Actually, there is a general reason. And the more people, the
>    bigger the reason. And the obvious reason is that controlling
>    property in a jointly manner is a mess and a source of discord.
Living on a 2-dimensional (mostly) surface, plus the requirement that people 
have to move around requires that the ability to do that exists.  (exceptions 
are airplanes and helicopters, road overpasses, tunnels, buried pipelines, etc. 
 I don't see any need, or desire, to massively change how people go about their 
daily businesses after elimination (or minimization) of governments.


>    On the other hand, let's say roads become 'quasi property'.
 >   Now, roads exist for people to travel. And there's no
>    libertarian argument  against people travelling. 
But the property previously referred to as "government property" (good example: 
 roads) isn't necessarily assumed to be owned by ALL world people.  

>    There are also other practical 'refutations' to the idea of
>    recreating nation-state borders using 'private' property.

>    1) absent the state land allegedly owned by the state would
>    revert to its original, unowned state, not to 'quasi-property'.
I think more analysis is necessary than simply this.  That land would cease to 
be "government property", but it would still have to be maintained as method of 
movement for most people, at least those which were previously called 
"citizens".  People who, arguably, had a partial ownership and use right to 
that land.    Not just everyone in the world, equally.  Also, "roads" would 
have to be maintained, presumably by some sort of contract.  (This is typically 
the way things are already done:  "Government" doesn't necessarily do the 
actual work; it may contract with private entities to maintain the road 
surfaces.)

>    2) even the land that is  legitimately owned can  be used by
>    people to enter the hypothetical 'country', if a handful of land
>    owners allow it. Or even ONE land owner.
Presumably, "people" as a group will have to decide what agreement to come to.  
That's why debate on the issue will be important.  Today, people don't know 
that such a decision will eventually need to be made.

    3) there are also big *free* seas and lots of coasts. And boats.
In other words, people will be able to get into certain areas.  Whether they 
can travel will depend on the agreement reached by those deemed to have been 
part of the contract covering the roads.

  >  4) and finally there's air space and planes 
Yes, that will be open.

    
>>  (Corporations own property, today.) 

 >   So? Mafias chartered by the state 'own' 'property'. The state
  >  creates more than a few legal devices to favor
  > businesses. Big businesses today are the poster child for
  > corporatism and mercantilism. Exactly the economic system that
 >  libertarians are supposed to oppose.
True, corporations are a legal fiction, a creation of a State.  Some substitute 
for this will have to be created.  



>> Even, potentially, millions of people.  Currently, things called
>> "government" claims to "own" what is referred to as "public
>> property".  Get rid of the governments, and what happens?


 >   What happens is that only real pople can own property.
Or groups of people.  Or some other entity that hasn't been thought of yet.


> And what
>    further happens is that the kind of property enabled by the
>    state goes poof.


> Does that
> land simply evaporate?  No, it does not.

    Right. But something surely does evaporate and that's the fake
    property titles granted by the state.


>> Okay, then, who owns or>
> controls it?  

>    All the land 'owned' by the state is actually unowned land. It
>    can be homesteaded by real, (honest) people. As a side note,
>    even that isn't too straighfoward since what constitutes
>    ownership in land is partly conventional and debatable, in
 >   libertarian terms.
You are making assumptions.  More planning is needed.



>> That land contains roads, which people who own 'private
>> property' often use to move around.  In order to avoid too much
>> disruption, it is reasonable to continue things so that this
>> previously-publicly owned property should remain useable by many
>> people. 

>    That is, it should remain...public - public meaning accessible
>    to all.

That depends on what you mean by "all".   Don't try to sneak in an 
interpretation that "all" MUST include non-current-US Citizens, if a more 
limited definition of "all" is at least equally plausible.  If you believe the 
former, justify it with a credible argument.  There are MANY possible 
interpretations, including all (current) State citizens, all county citizens, 
all locals, all local property owners, etc.  Don't just assume the answer.


>> Absent a government, some sort of contract-driven group
>> ownership of that land makes sense. 


>    Of what land? Are you talking for instance about all the land
 >   usurped by governments and their cronies? As a matter of fact,
>    'contract' based ownership on that scale doesn't make sense. It
>    sounds like an attempt at 'private' nationalism/tribalism.
We can't change the past.  And we have to plan the future based on what we 
know.  If we accept the concept of "private property", and if we accept the 
idea that people can contract with each other, all that will influence the rest 
of the plan.  


               Jim Bell   

Reply via email to