You are sadly blinded to your falicy & won't see it. The violence is in every action of the state & that is undeniable. It is the state that must go. The rights of all people are what must be defended with vigor & conviction. If you give one small exception to a principal you discard the whole thing. Rules say "there is no candy allowed in the class room" a principal says "there is no food allowed in the classroom". Rules are exclusive, in contrast principals are inclusive. I'm guessing you'll cling to your cognitive dissonence as if for your life. But, when ever you want to return to defending the principals of liberty, voluntaryism will be waiting with open arms.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I don't deny that the state is violence.
But given two choices - open borders and closed borders, the debate is which creates the greater violation of the NAP. The answer is clearly the former.
Open borders means higher welfare requirements which means either higher taxes or higher deficits - which is just deferred taxation OR financial collapse.
Closed borders and the expulsion of illegals creates far less NAP violation. They're in the country illegally (ie trespassing) and they know it. They knowingly came here illegally. They knowingly accepted the fruits of stolen money (ie welfare). They deserve expulsion.
This isn't a debate about voluntaryism. It is a debate about the more preferable of two shitty options in an environment of coercion.
I reject your argument. Reducing state violence is the moral course of action & your contention is to further the states agression. I would lessen the states violent coersion on the citizens & traveler alike. Remove the artificial incentive & let people be free. You are on the side of the state on this one... I'll never be on their team. Even if there is a bit of "discomfort" for a short time. Better the growing pains of liberty than the chafing of chains.