Забор вокруг дома и государственная граница
Роберт Хиггс не может сдерживаться доле:
Let's try to clear up a widespread misunderstanding, amigos. The fence around your property and the walls of your house are not analogous to the borders established and defended by a nation-state. If you acquired your private property justly -- by gift, inheritance, or voluntary purchase from the prior owner -- you have a just right to defend it, to say who may come onto your land or enter your house. However, you have no right to make these decisions for your neighbors, whose rights are the same for their property as yours are for your property.
The national borders, in contrast, do not demarcate anyone's private property. They indicate only the boundary line between a territory ruled by one nation-state and, if there is an adjacent nation-state, the territory ruled by the neighboring nation-state. The territorial incidence of rule -- the dictation of "laws" and the coercive collection of revenue -- has nothing at all in common with the areas enclosed within the borders of private property. To suppose that the nation-state acts as the agent in defense of the collective private property rights of all the resident property holders is to believe in a complete fiction.
The state does not defend you or your rights. It obviously does the exact opposite, violating your just rights with impunity and plundering you to the greatest extent it can without provoking armed rebellion or a mass sit-down strike by taxpayers. Its borders are analogous to the fence a shepherd builds around the flock that he exploits for his own purposes, shearing and slaughtering the sheep as best suits him. That fence is obviously not a collective defensive measure to defend the rights of the sheep. If the sheep believe it is, they have been bamboozled by the shepherd's serenades.
If some land within the national borders is not privately owned, it effectively belongs to the rulers whose decisions control how and by whom it is used. These rulers, however, have no just right to these so-called public lands. Their rights are de facto, not de jure in the sense of comporting with natural law. Therefore, the property they control belongs to one and all until such time as a just privatization can be carried out. To say that the property belongs only to native-born people or only to citizens is arbitrary; these are not the only people who have been taxed or forced to pay fees and fines and to purchase licenses.
The whole idea that the national borders are a kind of collective defense of private property owners is a fiction that bears no relation to actual states, their motives, their actions, and their consequences. Moreover, the idea does a grave disservice to a defensible concept of private property. Nothing that is state-defined, state-established, state-managed, and serves state purposes exclusively should ever be confused with genuine private property boundaries.
Let's try to clear up a widespread misunderstanding, amigos. The fence around your property and the walls of your house are not analogous to the borders established and defended by a nation-state. If you acquired your private property justly -- by gift, inheritance, or voluntary purchase from the prior owner -- you have a just right to defend it, to say who may come onto your land or enter your house. However, you have no right to make these decisions for your neighbors, whose rights are the same for their property as yours are for your property.
The national borders, in contrast, do not demarcate anyone's private property. They indicate only the boundary line between a territory ruled by one nation-state and, if there is an adjacent nation-state, the territory ruled by the neighboring nation-state. The territorial incidence of rule -- the dictation of "laws" and the coercive collection of revenue -- has nothing at all in common with the areas enclosed within the borders of private property. To suppose that the nation-state acts as the agent in defense of the collective private property rights of all the resident property holders is to believe in a complete fiction.
The state does not defend you or your rights. It obviously does the exact opposite, violating your just rights with impunity and plundering you to the greatest extent it can without provoking armed rebellion or a mass sit-down strike by taxpayers. Its borders are analogous to the fence a shepherd builds around the flock that he exploits for his own purposes, shearing and slaughtering the sheep as best suits him. That fence is obviously not a collective defensive measure to defend the rights of the sheep. If the sheep believe it is, they have been bamboozled by the shepherd's serenades.
If some land within the national borders is not privately owned, it effectively belongs to the rulers whose decisions control how and by whom it is used. These rulers, however, have no just right to these so-called public lands. Their rights are de facto, not de jure in the sense of comporting with natural law. Therefore, the property they control belongs to one and all until such time as a just privatization can be carried out. To say that the property belongs only to native-born people or only to citizens is arbitrary; these are not the only people who have been taxed or forced to pay fees and fines and to purchase licenses.
The whole idea that the national borders are a kind of collective defense of private property owners is a fiction that bears no relation to actual states, their motives, their actions, and their consequences. Moreover, the idea does a grave disservice to a defensible concept of private property. Nothing that is state-defined, state-established, state-managed, and serves state purposes exclusively should ever be confused with genuine private property boundaries.