A country that was once making strides toward freedom slides further into oppression and authoritarianism.
Most pro sports in the US are built around business models that make no market sense. They are quasi-monopolistic guilds classified as non-profits but run for profit. The incumbent advantages and tribal fandom means they aren’t going anywhere soon. Still, there’s so much room for innovation, and I love thinking about changes to existing leagues, or brand new leagues, or even brand new sports.
In the real world, where the government pours billions of dollars into supporting vast legions of armed border agents, one must choose: shall I back the state or shall I back Pedro and Maria as they attempt to cross the state’s border — itself, of course, the product of previous conquest and plunder?
Shulkin states that we can only expect our sons and daughters to risk lives when we promise to care for them when they return. Tell this to those who were conscripted into fighting in Vietnam. They were forced to fight regardless of the care situation back home.
The government gives an excludable good away for free: roads, parks, education, medicine, whatever. Then some economist advocates privatization of one of these freebies. Technocrats may offer some technical objections to privatization. Normal people, however, will respond with a disgusted rhetorical question: “So only the rich should have roads / parks / education / medicine / whatever?”
This is just one example of where the borderists go wrong; the examples are seemingly endless. And frustrating. All calculated to reach the conclusion that “feels” pragmatic and cozy, while avoiding the truth.
If your vision of a stateless society involves ‘covenant communities,’ HOAs, lifetime employment contracts, private prisons, punitive executions, and “no shoes, no shirt, no service” signs enforced at gunpoint, we are not advocating the same thing.
The greatest divide among libertarians is probably between anarchists and minarchists, but among the libertarian anarchists, the major split seems to be between the privatizers and the abolitionists.
“Freedom of movement” is a libertarian virtue in any location which is not privately owned or where the owner does not opt to restrict movement. Moreover, just because libertarians advocate a fully privatized society, it does not necessarily follow that every square inch of ground will be privately owned nor that every property owner will choose to deny access to visitors and travelers.
I don’t see how you can oppose free immigration without at least indirectly supporting the existence of a coercive state. I’ve read what (paleo) Rothbard and Hoppe have to say about it, but their argument (essentially, if all land were privately owned, “immigration” would require permission from the landowners) ignores several important facts.