[jfyi]

I am opposed to borders on a fundamental, ideological level. They are an expression of state violence prohibiting natural freedom of movement and trade.

I don't believe that is actually a commonly held capital "L" Libertarian belief though, and certainly would not associate myself with that party.

[AnimalMuppet]

Does Ukraine/Russia change your view at all? Russia would sure like freedom of movement and trade there.

But forget the military/self defense issues. Consider the word "jurisdiction". It literally means getting to say what the law is. Well, if you have a place where US law is in force, and another place where Chinese law is in force, you have to have a border, a place where the law switches from one to the other.

Or do you believe that there should be one universal law for the whole world? If so, whose?

Or do you believe that law enforcement is also state violence? Do you believe that the absence of any law would be less violent? And if so, what is your basis for believing that?

[Snoozus]

There could be a border, where the law and currency change. But people could still be free to cross that border.

I don't know what you mean with the russia/Ukraine thing, bringing a tank over the border would obviously be illegal in either legal system.

[AnimalMuppet]

How about bringing Little Green Men across the border? Isn't stopping that a good idea? Isn't that part of what (current-style) borders are for?

[jfyi]

I'm curious about this. Can you explain your viewpoint without asking questions?

Also, do you identify as a "Libertarian" or "paleo-libertarian"? I really think the difference should be more evident in conversations like this.

[AnimalMuppet]

I'm trying to clarify your position, not mine. No, I can't do that without asking questions.

What I identify with isn't the point. (I identify as neither, BTW.)

Little Green Men, in case you were unclear on what I meant there: So Russia sent a bunch of Russian military, without insignias on, into Ukraine, where they became a "secessionist" movement. But what they really were was a stealth invasion.

So, if you have no borders, how do you stop that? How do you stop armed thugs from somewhere hostile to you from coming over the border, as individuals, and destroying your country?

Or do you oppose the idea of countries? And if you do, then how do you get from where we are currently (as a world of countries, some with hostilities to other countries) to where you would like us to be?

If you want my position, I guess it's that your statement "I am opposed to borders on a fundamental, ideological level. They are an expression of state violence prohibiting natural freedom of movement and trade" may be fine in theory, but is fundamentally unworkable in the real world. I see some specific problems, reasons why I think it can't work. I'm trying to see if you have answers.

[jfyi]

No, I am trying to clarify your position and have already given mine. If you were actually unclear, how did you expect a rebuttal to be taken seriously? Pick one, concede the other and we can go from there.

So, I'll ask directly. Are you a paleo-libertarian?

Can you express your viewpoint without questions or using my viewpoint for reference? Does your world view vanish if I am not around?

[jfyi]

I'm not sure you can use state violence as a counter to a complaint about state violence.

If your point is that we don't have easy solutions, yes I agree.

I'd also point out that the distinction I am making is state vs personal not violence vs non violence.

[7jjjjjjj]

>Or do you believe that law enforcement is also state violence?

...It obviously is? How is that even a question?