The Elephant In The Border Shack

Withdrawn Anarchism, immigration 5 Comments

Border Patrol Harming ManI’m very concerned about what I consider to be a blindingly obvious fact. There’s actually an argument right now about immigration. This is completely ludicrous. Worse yet, the argument is about how to curtail it and “protect our borders”. If this wasn’t so infinitely offensive it would be hilarious. I won’t go into the racism arguments because I honestly believe those are beside the point. No, I’m outraged by the sheer lunacy of the arguments being made on both sides.

The standard “anti-migrant” argument is that these people who come here and steal “our” jobs, destroy “our” property values, steal “our” tax money and commit horrible crimes against “our” people. The standard “pro-migrant” argument is, first of all, very few migrants do those things and secondly they bring with them valuable resources in the form of labor and cultural diversity. I stand dumbfounded by the idea that either side would even broach those subjects at all! Do people really believe any of that is relevant to the debate? Do you think so?

Let me explain why I find this so painfully laughable. What is “immigration”? It’s when one person moves from one place defined as outside an area to one place defined as inside an area. There are three things involved: the person, the “from” place and the “to” place. Why the hell is it that people on both sides of the argument only seem to want to look at one of those three things?

No, I’m not talking about ending welfare or stopping government regulations which make people want to ship jobs overseas or anything of the sort. I’m talking about the most fundamental right there is: the Right to Self Defense. Keep in mind that I believe “public land” is as much of a myth as “public goods”. All land is either private or un-owned. The Right to Self Defense includes the right to defend one’s property just as one’s property is a part of one’s self. The real debate on immigration is exactly that: a debate about property rights.

Either you own your own person and your land, or you are a slave. If you own a particular plot of land, then it’s beholden upon you to protect it and decide–hopefully wisely–who shall be allowed on to that land. Freedom of Association is part and parcel of the Right of Self Defense. If you do not own any land, then you have no say in the associations made by those who do. To suggest you do not have total say in who can and cannot come on to your land is to say you are not the owner of your own person and property. That’s the definition of a slave.

So before we even start to look at any of the logistical issues, let’s actually talk about the real question of immigration: Are we slaves or do we own ourselves and our property? Please, wake up and smell the distractions. Those who want you to argue about logistics are forcing you to ASSUME you are a slave. Don’t let people rope you into that complacent state!

Enhanced by Zemanta
WithdrawnThe Elephant In The Border Shack

Comments 5

  1. Upinthecloudz

    I would ask you the same question from the perspective of the migrant. If the migrant comes to a new place, and purchases property to live on, how is it right that his freedom to defend his person and his property be taken away by the state?

    1. PunkJohnnyCash

      I am extremely pro-migrant. I also take a consideration to property rights but from more of a mutualist perspective. I feel the non-aggression axiom is the most important factor to consider.

      This being said, I agree with you. I also ask about the initiation of aggression that is seen in the detaining, arresting and deporting of migrants.

  2. Upinthecloudz

    I would ask you the same question from the perspective of the migrant. If the migrant comes to a new place, and purchases property to live on, how is it right that his freedom to defend his person and his property be taken away by the state?

  3. PunkJohnnyCash

    I am extremely pro-migrant. I also take a consideration to property rights but from more of a mutualist perspective. I feel the non-aggression axiom is the most important factor to consider.

    This being said, I agree with you. I also ask about the initiation of aggression that is seen in the detaining, arresting and deporting of migrants.

  4. White

    BOB'S MANTRA
    Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

    The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and “assimilating” with them.

    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

    How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, everyone agrees that I am a nazi who wants to kill six million jews.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Leave a Reply