The "Border Issue" Is Easy to Solve If You Can Think Clearly

It amazes me how this issue has persisted and persisted as a social media dumpster fire of shitty non-debates amongst supposed libertarians over the years.

I’ve just come back from a kind of social media hiatus, and tentatively started an account on that phony technocrat Elon Musk’s platform X, only to discover many of the same tired memes, stale arguments, worn out jokes, and generally boneheaded utterances when it comes to the topic of “illegal immigrants.”

Even the pro-freedom arguments seem to me to be lacking in a kind of freshness…pizazz. Partially because the pro-freedom folks even engage with this type of worn-out buffoonery at all. For years, obtuse and not-so-bright accounts like the Libertarian Party (LP) and other such D.C.-approved distractions have been slinging around ideas about making exceptions to individual self-ownership and liberty for the sake of “practicality” and “culture preservation.”

Before going further, let me clarify my position and say this:

Forced integration (the inescapable effect of statist borders) is anti-libertarian/morally wrong/logically not sustainable and is always damaging to a given society.

Forced segregation (the other inescapable effect of statist borders) is anti-libertarian/morally wrong/not sustainable and is always damaging to a given society.

This is the false dichotomy we are presented with by the sours-that-be, and we’re expected to get real mad and angry, and shout and spit at the other side, and spend hours on social media debating this sexily-divisive topic. A wonderful distraction which keeps the scum class in power, and keeps everyday folks engaged in the sad jerk-off clown show of voting, and impotent participation in party politics.

As one example of the low-grade arguments being made, check this out:

Let me try Mike Barthelemy’s logic as applied to another issue:

There wouldn’t be any illegal drugs in a libertarian society. However, we don’t live in a libertarian society thus there is no conflict in libertarians supporting the imprisonment of illegal drug users in the US.

or

There wouldn't be any genocide in a non-genocidal society. However, we don't live in a non-genocidal society thus there is no conflict in libertarians supporting the genociding of illegal people.

In other words, society, and not principle, is the litmus test for Mike’s ethics and morality. He is either woefully unaware of his own contradictions (in calling himself a libertarian while being against the self-ownership of a subsection of specific, arbitrarily state-sanctioned individuals called “illegals”) or intentionally misleading people and obfuscating the actual libertarian position in order to disrupt actual movement toward freedom.

But that’s enough attention given to Mike for now. There is no shortage of such ludicrous arguments being made online. Or offline.

One easy way to see if someone really cares about the bedrock principle of libertarianism (self-ownership) or not, is to pose them this question on the topic of immigration:

Joe is a rancher and entrepreneur living on the Texas/Mexico border. His cousin José lives in Mexico, but is having a difficult time finding work. Joe offers José a job on his ranch, inviting him to stay there. However, the law says that José cannot come over due to immigration restrictions. Does José have the right to cross anyway, and does Joe have the right to let him stay on his ranch?

What you will get in answer to this from an intellectually dishonest person will be a variation on “But, real life doesn’t work that way. The Mexican is gonna strain the tax infrastructure, and that is like stealing!”

They will never acknowledge Joe’s right to use his land as he pleases, or José’s right to his own body, even if Joe pays his cousin’s entire way and the falsely constructed “infrastructure strain” argument is not employed. They are making a purely Communistic argument (I can control and decide what people do with their property) and disguising it as “libertarian.” They are only libertarian insofar as they themselves do not wish to be violated. If others have to be violated to preserve their personal comfort, they are all for it.

Living in Japan, I indeed see the problems with forced “open borders” becoming noticeable. Japan is also working on (or has already launched, I’m not sure) a “diversity visa.” It makes me sad to see the economy devastated by the boogeyman fake plague of 2020, and in conjunction with that psyop’s economic fallout, the beautiful and concentrated culture, traditions, and general Japanese attitude to life being diluted and traded out for gay-ass, violent and destructive globalist/Zionist agendas like “Sustainable Development Goals” and the LGBTQ agenda.

Japanese folks have always cared about nature. And I’ve not seen anyone gay-bashed or mocked for being “trans” since I have been here (for over a decade). In fact, I’ve seen open embrace in the opposite direction as long as people are decent individuals.

Here is what folks don’t get: culture is always in flux. The Japanese culture we treasure now is an amalgam of original elements, Indian Buddhism, Chinese and Korean culture, and mimicry of certain Western traditions. This blend has created what is now the singular uniqueness of current Japanese culture. The culture warrior types (especially in the U.S. and U.K., it seems to me) are often too thick to realize the culture they are trying to preserve in so many aspects ain’t even the one they think it is. It’s a mix of several “dirty” foreign influences. Kinda funny.

Now, I don’t want that destroyed. I don’t want the Japanese language to be substituted with even more Western conventions (see the new Japanese yen bills to be released in July, as an example, with the prominent Japanese numeral pictograms being made subordinate to Arabic numerals, and “Bank of Japan” being added in English), and I don’t want foreign cultures to be forced on Japanese individuals that do not wish to adopt said cultures. I am completely against such violent force.

However, I also have no right to tell the Middle Eastern clerk at the 7/11 she has no right to be here. Nor does any one Japanese individual whose private property she is not violating. And no, “straining” the tax infrastructure is not taking anyone’s private property (she’s contributing to the supposed tax pool anyway, with her job). Public property is clearly an anti-concept, as property by very definition entails exclusive use rights. And we all know I cannot camp out in the local public library and close it down for a private party, even though my taxes supposedly help pay for it. Thus, public goods paid for by taxes cannot be considered or defended as private property, by definition.

Instead of getting mad at the girl fucking struggling to survive on minimum wage at the convenience store after Western behemoths like Japan and America’s governments helped decimate her home country’s economy, or the Mexican on the farm, people should get mad at the fucking thief who started the whole arbitrary and utterly violent pyramid scam in the first place: the state.

In fact, I had a funny moment a couple weeks ago. This girl in my example is inspired by an actual encounter with a cashier at a 7/11 here in Japan. Her manner and Japanese was more polite and Japanese-y than some actual Japanese folk I’ve encountered at the konbini. And, Like Japan changed after the introduction of Buddhism and Chinese noodles (now known as “ramen” here and very different from the Chinese variety), maybe in 200 years there’s gonna be a blend of Hindi and Japanese that is spoken thanks to her (and others of course) marrying a J-guy of her fancy. Who knows. Nature always wins. And I’m totally fine with that, and happy about it, and I simultaneously support culture preservation and stand against the DiVeRsItY ViSa. LP-bots’ brains will boggle!

What I oppose is what every principled libertarian opposes: state-sanctioned violence either to force people to live together or to force people to stay out of a place, based not on the ownership or lack thereof of private property, but on the arbitrary whims of the “Godmen” of the state, who our friend Mike, above, seems to worship.

So what solves the immigration debate? Simple: self-ownership as the final, bedrock axiom. You recognize it, or you don’t. There is no gray zone. It’s a natural reality which is the necessary and logical basis of all legitimate property. Imaginary lines drawn in the dirt by psychopaths and their dupes are not.