Very thoughtfully expressed. I do however struggle with the aspect of private property (which I consider being a natural right) and the concept of borderlessness. The two do not seem to meet. If you cannot secure your property as in taking care who is about and around it, how can you consider it yours? And if you have security of property but not after you set off for the grocery, doesn't that make for territorial disputes and power issues? I like Hans Herman Hoppe's take on private law. As I see it we cannot hope to create stability without dealing without security. I feel this issue is often glossed over in politics as if it is a frivolous need to feel safe. It isn't. Thriving should be our goal, not just survival.
My own view is that the concept of borderlessness is the recognition of private property. Any charge of trespass/theft would have to be shown to be a violation of private property. There would be no such thing as trespassing against a political body, no such thing as a crime against the State. I wrote more about borders here: https://goodneighborbadcitizen.substack.com/p/do-you-favor-open-borders
A combination of defensive measures -- locks on buildings, fences around cultivated land, like ranches and farms, etc., hiring personal security, *being* your own personal security team -- and insurance to try to recoup theft or losses seems reasonable. Hoppe and others have written about those possibilities for years.
I like that lecture you shared. I was worried initially that it wouldn't be in English (I've never been able to learn a language), but then relieved when Hoppe spoke in the only language I can understand :-D
Very thoughtfully expressed. I do however struggle with the aspect of private property (which I consider being a natural right) and the concept of borderlessness. The two do not seem to meet. If you cannot secure your property as in taking care who is about and around it, how can you consider it yours? And if you have security of property but not after you set off for the grocery, doesn't that make for territorial disputes and power issues? I like Hans Herman Hoppe's take on private law. As I see it we cannot hope to create stability without dealing without security. I feel this issue is often glossed over in politics as if it is a frivolous need to feel safe. It isn't. Thriving should be our goal, not just survival.
Hoppe . . . I read an interview he gave about 10 years ago where he talked about private property: https://mises.org/austrian-economics-newsletter/private-property-order-interview-hans-hermann-hoppe What in Hoppe's analysis do you find insightful? Got a link to an article or audio/video clip?
My own view is that the concept of borderlessness is the recognition of private property. Any charge of trespass/theft would have to be shown to be a violation of private property. There would be no such thing as trespassing against a political body, no such thing as a crime against the State. I wrote more about borders here: https://goodneighborbadcitizen.substack.com/p/do-you-favor-open-borders
https://youtu.be/Rr8Ao7BvMo0?si=fzjJ7LL8FMNvUqGq
How could one enforce trespass? Anyway, I feel he describes the concept of private well.
A combination of defensive measures -- locks on buildings, fences around cultivated land, like ranches and farms, etc., hiring personal security, *being* your own personal security team -- and insurance to try to recoup theft or losses seems reasonable. Hoppe and others have written about those possibilities for years.
I like that lecture you shared. I was worried initially that it wouldn't be in English (I've never been able to learn a language), but then relieved when Hoppe spoke in the only language I can understand :-D
Indeed, yes I think we are on the same page. Thank you for taking the time to explain. I appreciate that 😊