Whether rape is moral or immoral depends on what you mean by immoral. If you mean it’s immoral because there’s something intrinsically wrong with it, because people have a natural right to self-ownership, then I disagree. If you mean it’s immoral because legalizing it leads to bad consequences for society and myself, then I agree. Again, consequences are what matters. Deontological libertarianism is irrational. Consequentialist libertarianism is rational. There is no reason to think that abstaining from *all* “initiation of force” necessarily results in a more free, happy, and prosperous society, much less a happier self, than not engaging in none of it. This mystical opposition to “initiation of force” is self-destructive.

Take it from Benjamin Tucker, who after he turned more rational and became an egoist, said: “the ultimate end of human endeavor is the minimum of pain. We aim to decrease invasion only because, as a rule, invasion increases the total of pain (meaning, of course, pain suffered by the ego, whether directly or through sympathy with others). But it is precisely my contention that this rule, despite the immense importance which I place upon it, is not absolute; that, on the contrary, there are exceptional cases where invasion–that is, coercion of the non-invasive–lessens the aggregate pain. Therefore coercion of the non-invasive, when justifiable at all, is to be justified on the ground that it secures, not a minimum of invasion, but a minimum of pain. . . . [T]o me [it is] axiomatic–that the ultimate end is the minimum of pain.”

I content that initiation of force, i.e. not allowing unrestricted travel across borders secures a minimum of invasion. Pun intended. The silly non-aggression principle be damned.

“No force can be initiated.”

Strawman, in this context.

“If you want to think that initiation of force is immoral, that’s you’re prerogative, but at least recognize that it’s only an ideal.”

Well, we could discuss the various definitions and connotations of the word “moral” and overanalyze that, but I’d rather not allow you to waste my time in that manner.

[snark]Go hang out in a feminist forum and tell them rape isn’t actually immoral, it’s just not very practical on consequentialist grounds. I’m sure you’ll find it a most illuminating discussion.[/snark]

Of course there would be differences. But, the libertarians who subscribe to the non-aggression principle are required, in order to be consistent, to completely open the borders. No force can be initiated. It’s truly ludicrious. Again, there would be not be such a policy in the private property anarchism you envision. People would not be allowed on property, whether it’s “cooperative” property or individual property - there would be regulations on who and how many were allowed to enter.

This is one more example of why absolutist libertarianism (anti-initiation of force) doesn’t make sense. Consequentialist libertarians is the only rational libertarianism. If you want to think that initiation of force is immoral, that’s you’re prerogative, but at least recognize that it’s only an ideal. I’m sad to inform you that there will never be a world where everyone has protection of absolute self-ownership (never mind whether or not that would even be a good idea). What you’re aiming for is truly quixotic. So, the best you can do, is to try to *approximate* that ideal given the tools at your disposal, which may include the tools of the State.

If the U.S. were all private property, there would not be open borders. There would be controlled entry. So in order to abide by the non-aggression principle, you absolutist libertarians want something to be allowed to happen that would not happen under your idealized libertarian anarchist system.

However, borders are implicit in the constitution’s description of delegated powers of Congress - foreign nations are mentioned, and these are defined with borders (sadly). I would say that the article one, section 8 power to regulate commerce with foreign nations implies customs outfits at the borders to review commercial products entering and leaving (and impose tariffs, taxes, duties, or imposts) but there is no clear power to limit travel across the border by peaceful persons.

Similarly, there is a power to “establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” but there is no power to limit or regulate immigration.

Nevertheless, of comparatively narrow-minded conservatives with burrs under their saddles about border control, Ron Paul is relatively good on many issues - income tax, Federal Reserve, limiting government to its constitutional powers, ending the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia, etc. Of the candidates from the two major parties, he stands out.

Mind you, I’m for “none of the above.”

I have seen similar contradictions play out when many libertarians support worker databases, registration of undocumented workers, militarized borders and other Big Brother plans as long as the elites promise they will apply only to poor Brown folk with the bad luck to have been born a few kilometers south of the US. These hypocrisies need to be called out and it’s good to see that you’re doing it. Locally, we have a Ron Paul-esque talk show host, Charles Goyette, who exhibits a similarly white-biased form of libertarianism (i.e., it’s all good until you cross some imaginary border and then his commitment to libertarianism disappears).

The idea, as far as I can tell, is that these supposed libertarians assume that the their white skin will inoculate them from the Gestapo methods they advocate for Brown people. Sadly, that has not been our history. Expanded police powers expand. That’s just how it goes. ID’s and police databases of any real significance got their start here in attempts to enforce the Chinese Exclusion Act and soon spread. And don’t we all have government ID’s now? In fact, anti-immigration legislation has often been the back door through which the elites have slipped policies that expanded the police state apparatus. It is the latent or even overt white supremacy of many libertarians that has blinded them to this fact.

That said, having attended many pro-immigrant rallies, marches and actions, I have to say that I was heartened to see one cadre of libertarians at a demonstration last year handing out fliers in Spanish explaining libertarianism and supporting open borders. Even though I’m an anarchist-communist, that’s the kind of libertarian I’d like to see more of. This Ron Paul crap has got to go.