All borders should be abolished. No human being has the right to tell any other human being where he can or can't go (with the exception of trespassing on private property, of course).
I don't agree at all, I think it's important to integrate immigrants in a country's culture as well as possible, because not doing so will result in damaging conflict between the existing population and the immigrants who bring conflicting value systems with them. I think the lack of an endless supply of resources for integrating immigrants is a good reason to limit immigration.
I think borders can be very valuable to separate groups with conflicting ideologies and worldviews, but I wish you the best luck in advocating that policy in your local political sphere.
Especially in the Nordic countries. Having grown up in Norway, the idea of people e.g. fencing in fields or forests and keeping people off their land seems ludicrous and to an extent offensive. It's a massive restriction of liberty of the many for the benefit of the few.
(it's worth noting that the freedom to roam is generally restricted to non-urban areas, so e.g. not gardens in residential areas and the like)
It's more like not wanting rent-seekers, whose property was given to them at birth, to be entitled to other people's labor. All property is theft, because in the grand scheme of things, we are all renters. We are here on borrowed time, why do we make a system in which some have more rights than others?
I recently heard "land-ownership tax/renting land from the state instead of owning it" and "100% tax on death/abolish inheritance", I think they're interesting but not without problems.
One of the reasons I work hard is so that my children have a good future ahead of them. Why should my family give that all back to the state when I die? The state didn't earn that money... I did.
> One of the reasons I work hard is so that my children have a good future ahead of them. Why should my family give that all back to the state when I die? The state didn't earn that money... I did.
One could argue that your kids did not earn that money either. As a reasonable middle ground, I think that we there could be a "good future for the children" exemption (at say $20m per child), while the rest is taxed at 100%. This prevents the natural process of concentration of all wealth in the hands of the few.
>Go ahead and abolish all your own property, you're free to do so.
I do not own any private property.
>Or was it more about you wanting to be entitled to product of your fellow man's labor?
No; in fact, the exact opposite. It is about the worker owning the product of his own labour, rather than having it appropriated when production has finished. To each according to his labour.
This is why I insist on working as a contractor and not as an employee: I want to own my intellectual property until I choose to sell it, and I want to create and sell a product that's useful, not be paid for my time.
You've figured out something very important, which is that as an employee, you never get to see most (ie. all, beyond the limit of your wage) of the value you create.
So you want to abolish the freedom for a group of people to decide how many and what kind of people should be able to take up permanent residence within their community? Good luck with that one. Is there a country anywhere that does that? I wonder that you stop at the family level! I suppose you do. If so, why?
I live in Bristol. The people of Manchester have no right to tell me I can't come and live in Manchester.
I live in England. Why can "the people" (although it is surely not the people: it is the government) of Australia decide that I can't come and live there?
