Why shouldn't the free market - through wages and housing prices - determine the flow and quantity of migration?

2deep4me

This analogy is dumb. Immigrants aren't a pathogen and the free market isn't an immune system.

Why in your system are markets "free," but nations aren't free to determine their constituent population?

Because there is more to an economy and country or group of people than market forces. Additionally right now it would be retarded because of welfare

However, if the United states for example were anarcho capitalist, determining the flow and quantity is a moot point because private organizations would be the ones practicing exclusion and would be more racist than any modern government anyway

That's not inherently libertarian dipstick, even anarcho capitalists would exercise exclusion

>you people
Let me stop you right there, because productive people arent a benefit to society for politicians and the people they represent
Those people just want as many bodies as possible to flood the market and create inflation so the profits go higher, spending money on well-educated migrants who come to work doesnt equate to higher profits...

Second YOU made the case for open migration and if you open migration you will not get people who come for work but who come for wellfare and you will end up with Sweden
High prices, high crime, high taxes, high debt and no houses
If you think these things are good then grats, you should be a corrupt politician

ok. Just don't know how to express complex things even simpler so that an an-cap can understand

We could have that at a macroscopic national scale. Think of your country as the entire planet. Your borders represent the atmosphere. That's the difference between an utopian libertarian and a true libertarian. A true libertarian accounts for the biological and cultural factors. Allowing sub-90 IQ people fleeing from an authoritarian government they helped elected is counter-productive.

You're not making sense. If they're fleeing from an authoritarian government, that means they must have a distaste for authoritarianism.

If you're worried about welfare, then eliminate welfare.

Apparently you've never gone outside to see how society operates. Private organizations hire, employ, sell goods, buy goods from foreigners all the time. I myself hire immigrants to mow my lawn and clean my pool.

>If you worry about not being a millionaire just become one
Ah yes, it seems to simple now

I used to wonder why people considered ancaps retarded, now i think i know why

>apparently you've never seen society operates *within the confine of exclusion being explicitly illegal and more strictly enforced than anything else in society*
Huh, never thought of it like that

In reality people would exclude because being racist is the natural state.

Additionally your situation is warped from ancap because of welfare and incentivized immigration, and I would argue exclusionary private areas people would live in. Local wages are artificially low and not unlike slavery and all its negative economic effects

You seem stupid, you dont even know the fundamental ancap beliefs

it should but we decided to have welfare instead.

The last thing you would do is open the border in a libertarian society. Only after the society is so homogenous and running well would you do that.

Attached: 1528924617846.webm (426x320, 805K)

It should. So let's deregulate these things and watch as blacks and whites seperate almost instantly.

People self segregate unless the government forces laws in place to stop it. From telling you go you must deal with or lying third worlders to move in, the government is forcing "diversity".

You can have your white paradises and economic freedoms. They go hand in hand.

Their children forget about it. Look at the hispanic vote.

Native-born white people don't vote for libertarianism either. You're not an anarcho-capitalist. You're a shill for the Republican party.

If people naturally segregate, then why did the entire South pass Jim Crow laws?

You don't understand fundamental ancap beliefs. Using government violence to prevent free exchange and the free flow of labor violates the non-aggression principle.

>Local wages are artificially low and not unlike slavery and all its negative economic effects

>equating working for low wages to slavery

You sound like a commie, not an anarcho-capitalist.

Aggression is the initiation of force. Refusing to allow somebody into your country is just as much an initiation on your part as is refusing to let somebody into your house, i.e. it's not
>no you dont
You, as a supposed ancap, use the modern us as a premise of ancapistan. I've never met an ancap who does this which leads me to believe you're a larping sockpuppet trying to poison the well
>equation low wages to slavery
I qualified that if you could learn how to read faggot. I didnt equate low wages to slavery in the sense that working for less is immoral or some bullshit like that

I'm a minarchist to be honest. I just think that there's nothing wrong with nationalism. A libertarian society can be nationalist. Don't confuse statism with nationalism.

you realize every single free market model that everyone is taught in econ 101 assumes 0 (ZERO) immigration between countries?

Blacks pursuing whites doesnt erase whites wanting to segregate

But you're talking about an era where the federal government refuses to let the populations separate

>shouldn't
It should within the context of laws designed to maximize resources and pleasure of citizens. Current citizens subjugate to a sovereign in return for the the sovereign acting in their interest over the interests over non-citizens. The US should have a dual system, like Singapore, that treats citizens and non-citizens differently but allows inflow of labor as needed to the benefit of citizens. If non-citizens prove themselves useful over time, they should have the opportunity to become citizens.

It already does. Any attempt to control immigration is just destined to fail once people find ways around it.

Refusing a trespasser from your private property doesn't violate the non-aggression principle Initiating violence to prevent other people from associating with immigrants does violate the non-aggression principle. You're a dumb commie who thinks the entire country is collective property or some shit.

Nationalism and statism go hand in hand. Modern day nation states are far bigger and more coercive than monarchies ever were.

Mate your time has better uses.

Like volunteering for Austin Petersen or some worthy individual.

Trying to "debate" people on Jow Forums does not help the cause in the slightest.

You are delusional. The "sovereign" doesn't serve citizens. The government exists to rob and exploit you, not to act in your interest.

>violence to prevent
You have a leftist mindset, its fairly obvious when you generalize arguments until they agree with you.

As long as you agree that people can own land then people can enter into contracts to prevent access to that land, and they can group collectively to do so for more than just one individual's. Currently we use a social contract to justify doing so across the whole country, but in ancapistan it can span whatever grouping of territory that is contracted for. But even that implies a social contract that may or may not be explicit as new residents will still be born within its "borders"

Being a brainlet, you would probably benefit from comparing this concept to an HOA

Surely you arent stupid enough to insist that individuals cannot enter into contracts with more than one person are you?

They are more coercive as a result of decay of liberties, not by their mere existence

The United states when it was first formed was more free than any monarchies at the time, but you couldn't assert that because the United states was more free at the time that the mechanism of government is inherently more free (though I would argue separately it is)

Because things are so much better for these people here, than in their home country, they flood in anyway. They don’t mind having what we would deem a poor quality of life, because it is many times better than what they are used to. And so you enter a race to the bottom, where poor immigrants grateful to not drink cholera infested waters undercut the wages of citizens, and cause our quality of life to crumble.

Further more, as some have pointed out, these retards you allow to pour in, have exactly 0 intention of continuing principles of liberty, and vote in socialist policies. They are fundementally different from you and I, and you must recognize that, or you will perish.

>wait time of ~7-15 years for an apartment
sounds like you have rent control that's producing artificial scarcity

You're the leftist here, commie. You're the one comparing voluntary employment contracts to slavery, promoting the "social contract", promoting the idea of collective property and defending large and coercive nation-states.

>As long as you agree that people can own land then people can enter into contracts to prevent access to that land,

Do you go outside? People do not think like you. Plenty of people already associate with immigrants. Businesses hire undocumented immigrants despite it being illegal. The free market incentivizes complete strangers to find opportunities for mutually beneficial exchange.

No we have a massive increase in population so the apartments get full and people cant find one due to shortage.

Its been made so to force regular Swedes to take on debt and buy a house/apartment instead of waiting for a rental contract

>have exactly 0 intention of continuing principles of liberty, and vote in socialist policies.

Sounds like native-born white people.

>I don't know, why can't we let the elite decide for our country instead of the people.

Because they form tyranny and lets face it, Ancrapitalism and corporate shills aren't very smart.

If you like the elite so much, why don't you visit Honduras in the 20th century?

>you're the one comparing contracts to slavery
I just explained to you why I'm not you absolute fucking scum sucking moron. I said the economic effects are similar, dumb fuck

>promoting collective property
Promoting the idea of people being able to enter into contracts to mutually agree on what to do with their property

>people do not think like you
I literally cited hoas and you ignore it, as if that isnt people practicing exclusion

>businesses hire illegals
In the extreme minority, small business owners are against immigration

>the free market incentivizes complete strangers
It doesnt incentivize away people wanting to surround themselves with people like themselves

>people dont think like you
They arent allowed to publicly

>unironically thinks democracy has been anything but suicidal
Do you ever think counter intuitively, or is it always monkey see monkey do for you?

You’re right op that’s why I’m starting a company in Arizona that services property owners. They pay us to capture those wetbacks and get this, instead of deporting them back to Mexico, we relocate them to Sri Lanka.

>Implying I support mob rule over a constitutional republic
That's even worst than fucking AnarchoCrapitalism

A constitutional republic would be choosing the elites who choose the elites who make decisions for you

Maybe use less retarded buzzwords

Look at voting patterns you fool. Native born white people vote conservative far more often than 3rd world immigrants and their progeny. If whites disappeared, this country would swing far left immediately. Nobody says whites are paragon of liberty and small government type citizens, but they are at a far higher rate

Nigger what? So which system you choose then? A democracy where people can take away your rights or a democracy where your rights won't be taken away by the state or the people.

because then you'd get an infinite flow of immigrants because capitalist pigs want them

Why do libertarians think if you just don’t have regulations and laws, things will just work out?

This unironicslly. Immigrant are just slaves for the elite.

They just smoke too much weed.

A free-market open borders country would only work if you stop granting citizenship to the children of non-citizens.

Otherwise, you'll end up with a huge second generation immigrant population that votes for socialism.

I'm just saying your use if things like elite and shill are stupid make you come off as stupid

>regulations
Yes
>laws
No

libertarians don't expect things to work out
libertarians expect millions of people who can't survive without being a parasite to die.

Because migrant shitskin labor has negative externalities (e.g. crime, voting for socialists, taking welfare, etc.)

because you're 14 and don't understand anything

Because of entitled poor white losers and opiod addicts who think they are worth something just because the color of skin, when in reality they are less valuable to society than Mexican day laborers

This

You think Jim Crow wasn't white people trying to segregate themselves from blacks?

It did back when America was at its peak. America is too far gone in socialism now. We don’t have free markets anymore.

In America, hard work will enable you to become a millionaire. It really is that simple.

So everyone who works hard in the US is a millionaire?
hm....

>Why shouldn't the free market - through wages and housing prices - determine the flow and quantity of migration?
Because you will end up with lots of brown and black people in your country.

No they just dont expect things to work out immediately. Unlike socialists, free market proponents factor time into the equation. A socialist will consider any evil to have occured as unacceptable, and to be prevented at all costs, disregarding what greater evils may occur as a result of unintended consequences

If you're also intelligent, yes

Digging a hole and refilling it your entire life wont make you a millionaire, no, unless it's really popular on twitch

I think youre full of shit mate, there are plenty of hard working smart people who arent millionaires
You have the opportinity, yes but not the guarantee

"Hard work"

American being retarded, what's new.

Attached: 1526612066050.jpg (576x768, 113K)

Obviously its hyperbole

Feels like a big fucking distinction, mate
I watched a documentary about ADHD medication used in school and for work. Two dudes who worked in finance were on it and pulling 12 hour shifts a day until one of em collapsed from exhaustion
Neither of em were millionaires but they did work hard and they were smart enough to pass uni AND work in the higher tiers of finance

Hard work = making you rich is a meme

How does it make me sound stupid exactly? It doesn't change the point that without a state there will b chaos and with that power vacuum, a force would have to take charge.

because free market is about who can fuck others over the most to gain the most, regardless of native or foreign born.

Millionaires are not something commonly made overnight, it's usually after a career

My dad for instance had a long career in many different industries and only after feeling confident enough after being a vice president did he start his own business. And even then it wasnt profitable for years, which is common. It was only until now when he is around 60 that hes making about a million a year with his business thriving

Most people can easily manage at least a million through a lifetime of smart finances, which requires intelligence and not hard work

Because elites exist in every system, and arent inherently bad, and shills are less common than you using the term warrants

70 IQ shitskins are violent, stupid, and ugly?

Anyway it doesn't matter. Nobody takes shitty lolberts seriously, we bashed your teeth out and took your voting base. We will end migration, period. No discussion necessary.

In fact, no discussion permitted.

>Elites aren't bad
Tell that to rich land lords who take the lands from the working farmer.

Attached: Agragrian republic.jpg (2541x1962, 1.42M)

So youre using the useless term (i.e the "Ive saved up through a lifetime and now im 75 years old and own a house worth a million") type of millionaire?

>why should a nation as abundant and free as America allow its resources to be siphoned without restraint?
Because that's how you get a situation like Africa.
You fuckers have the right to slather over my star-spangled dongle. Fuckin LICK that shit.

Lolberts are so fucking delusional it blows my mind
>kike usury is a problem? the market will fix it
>shitskin immigration is a problem? the market will fix it
>rampant degeneracy is a problem? the market will fix it
Do these people have a single realistic solution for anything?

Countries do not or at least should not own resources, individuals should. Resources, like anything else, should be sold and bought in markets, not centrally planed and distributed by the state.

Sorry nigger I do not accept the idea that shitskins, kikes, and chinks should own as much as a handful of dirt in white countries. You’re a fucking race traitor piece of shit

Free markets increase everybody's welfare. People wouldn't engage in exchange if it wasn't mutually beneficial.

You are bootlicking authoritarian commie.

>doesnt know what the word inherently means

>so you're using the definition of millionaire to define millionaire, that's useless
Not really sure what your play is here lad

The founders didn’t create this nation to be a third world toilet for carpet-bagging subhumans

Attached: 94C4E814-A636-483D-89BF-7739087793C1.jpg (1024x586, 120K)

Resources belong to whatever entities have the will and ability to take and hold them. The state is a manifestation of the will of a people in a given geographic region, who wish to be the prime arbiters of the resources around them. This is a goal that they pursue with a vengeance EVEN WHEN it would financially behoove them to play vassal to a foreign entity (the tea tax, for instance, was a net financial gain).

The individual should own what resources they earn by generating value for their group. The members of a given group "must" pay the proper respects to its members, who would defend the group's interest in dire times, by giving them preferential treatment for opportunities to generate that value, or else the group collapses and a larger group, which is NOT ruled by suicidal ideologies, absorbs it.

Each of those was caused by government, why would the free market be capable of fixing things that are against the law to fix or subsidized to exist?

>delusional
Yea, thinking borders and libertarianism are mutually exclusive is pretty fucking stupid

>the leaders of a given group must pay proper respects*
Rather.

>Not really sure what your play is here lad
I mean its the useless definition of the word
Who the fuck cares if you have a million when youre 75?
I want to be fortunate when im young and can use the wealth, not when im old and grey.

Besides, its easy to have a million if you save and scrounge all your life...but what are you gonna do when youre old, useless and have a million? cant buy time

tl:dr rich + youth = good. Rich + old as fuck = bad

>who cares
I can understand the sentiment, I just dont understand how that is a criticism of anything I've said. Is some other system going to make millionaire wealth appear faster and earlier for people?

>Why shouldn't the free market - through wages and housing prices - determine the flow and quantity of migration?

Because we don't have a free market

Illegals are attracted by "under the table" payment that bypasses minimum wage with no benefits that local workers can't compete with because they can't lower the price of their labor. They're also attracted by the welfare state and strain the system, and they can avoid taxes unlike someone with documented residency and employment.