How does free movement violate property? The state is the one defining the property that is allegedly violated. Whether a Mexican, a Moroccan or a Missourian or my next door neighbor, their movement only violates property when they violate private property. So what makes the first two 'bad' but the last 'ok'?

Everything is someone’s property; free movement violates someone’s property if it is not under their consent. States violate the property of their inhabitants by allowing the entry of people without their consent. Hans-Hermann Hoppe Maintains that with full private property there is no “freedom of immigration” as such (all movement would be through private property and by “invitation”), and that in the current world the State generates forced integration when it admits people without a property-owning “host.” Murray N. Rothbard In *Nations by Consent* he argues that in a fully privatized country there would be no “open borders”: no one could enter unless invited/contracted by some owner (in practice, “as closed” as the owners wish). Lew Rockwell (closely associated with Rothbardianism / paleolibertarianism) In *The Fallacy of Open Immigration* he criticizes the libertarian “open borders” position as something that ignores negative effects and cannot be upheld as such in the real context (State + public property + incentives). Stefan Molyneux (a commentator who defines himself as an anarcho-capitalist) He has explicitly anti–open borders content (“lunacy of open borders,” etc.).

But how is a Mexican walking down my street any different from a Californian doing same? Both crossed an imaginary line.

For the record, I dont care one bit what Molenieux or Rothbard have to say on this. I know their positions and both are irrelevant to mine.

In a statist system, the Californian has contributed to the construction of the country, the other has not. If he hadn’t been there, the Californian would also have to ask permission from the corresponding property owners. There is no problem with immigration as long as it is consensual; the problem is when the state decides for you.

'...States violate the property of their inhabitants...' Not a migrant issue by your own words. If you want to be my neighbor and work at my job, why should you not be able to? Free men ask no permission

It’s like if we talk about the theory of relativity and you tell me you don’t care what Einstein says. You can agree or not with what those cited say, but your response is childish. I have been respectful with you, but I see which side you lean toward and I’m not going to interact with you anymore.

Yea, state is the problem, not someone trying to better him or herself.

Totally. That’s why fr13nd5.com are paying mechanicals to the featuring celebrities would there be anyone buying the time, just like music

Oh, ok fuck off then faggot. I was trying to have a conversation but clearly you just wanna be a shit talking bitch. No surprise from someone who constantly sows division

I don't need to have a conversation with you, idiot, the insults to your fucking mother.

😍

Abortion, and maybe also assassination. I hadn't thought of that. But politics is a spectrum. Government is the biggest corporation and I suppose it would play a role, but a smaller one, in an ancap society.

If we're talking about ilegal immigrants, taxes make the difference. One has paid his rights to use the country. The other one is abusing it for free or even getting paid for. I'd agree with you if there were no taxes. But the fact is that the same government that forces citizens to pay for their "property" rights gives them away for free to foreigners.

So your argument is fucking taxes? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 First off, if they work, they very likely pay taxes. Second, fuck taxes. If they work and dont pay taxes, good for them. Un fucking real. Massa is very happy with you right now.

If Rothbard was given an extra 50 years of life. I'm curious where he would have ended up on some of these. 90s Rothbard is really interesting.

You asked about the difference today between an illegal alien and a legal neighbour from a different state and I told you, mate. That doesn't mean i agree with taxes, at all. In fact i think that everyone should pay for what he uses and ditch taxes. At least federal and state taxes. But until that happens, only people who pay for goods or services through taxes have the right to use them, because those are funded by them. And illegal aliens don't pay taxes whatsoever. Put it this way. You pay for your condo's gym and pool. Will you let anybody from outside use them for free?