"Leftists refuse to believe mankind has an animal nature that most people cannot
truly overcome, and they also believe people have complete free will, which they
do not."
Most leftists I know are quite scientifically literate. They are well aware that human nature (like that of all living creatures) is to propagate one's genotype.
"If we had complete free will, then any socio-political-economic system would
work, because people could make themselves into whatever they please. But we
can't, because we don't have that kind of power over ourselves. We never will."
I assume work means here that the system is sustainable. Also, it only follows that any socio-political-economic system would be sustainable if the state could mold people into whatever they want, not if people themselves could mold themselves into whatever they want. History shows that communism only works for months or very small populations. Managed (socialist) economies work for decades between wars, and pure anarcho-capitalism may or may not work, but it certainly seems more workable than managed economies because it admits the fallability and self-interest of the managers and has the most incentives for citizens to be knowledgable, responsible, and productive.
"People, although they are a lot more than animals, do share certain traits with them. We are social beings who group ourselves into family and tribes, just the way all social animals forms packs. Those libertarians who think we are merely individual atoms disconnected from everyone else are showing a profound lack of understanding of human nature. Perhaps, they are showing a complete lack of understanding of it, which is probably the main characteristic of the Left."
True, but I do not think this is the distinction between left libertarians and right libertarians. Right libertarians seem to be enamored with war and do not seem to apply libertarian justice to other cultures even when those cultures do not threaten us. Left libertarians require that groups have the same responsiblity and culpability as individuals.
"These days, most tribes have grouped themselves into huge units known as nations. There is no way around it. If people weren't like that, then they wouldn't do it."
Yes, people do like to create an "other" that they can vilify and ridicule. This is how we define our social selves and acquire a social identity. However, as the existence of sports teams show, this group selfishness and hubris does not have to get to the point of violence, nor should such dark characteristics, which are usually built on exaggerations of differences, be rewarded.
"Since we form ourselves into tribes (nations), any one nation is going to view with great suspicion when large amounts of the members of another nation moves onto the first nation's land. This is something that anyone of the Right understands."
This is only a problem in a statist society; otherwise, foreign vistors can only access travel easements or private land that they either purchase or are invited to enter.
"The Left, including left-libertarians, do not understand this, because they unconsciously believe everyone has complete free [sic, maleable] will. They believe that all tribes can share the same land and get along, because they naïvely think everyone can change themselves on the inside (in the snap of a finger!) and get along with everyone else."
Perhaps, the national "governing authority" (I am a miniarchist) could post a sign regarding property law, access routes, and proper behavior in public areas. Nothing else is required. The various laws would be enforced by the various enforcers detailed in the contracting agreements.
"Toss into a huge salad every religion and ethnic group, and the open-borders crowd truly believes hundreds of millions – if not billions – of people will respect everyone else as an individual and not judge them as members of their tribe. The open-borders crowd, including left-libertarians, believes in multi-culturalism."
Libertarianism is completely compatible with coexisting cultures. Cultures define themsleves in terms of the cuisine/diet, dress, holidays, behavioral strictures, etc. You are implying that all of these qualities should be controlled by a governing authority. Now that truly contradicts any possibility of limited goverment.
"Unfortunately, multi-culturalism is the wrong name for what it really is – multi-tribalism. And tribes, when they are large enough and trying to share the same land, fight. Anyone who does not believe this, just look around the world. Every war there is, is one tribe against another, one religion against another, one ethnic group against another."
War is the quintessential violation of property rights (including the right to life). If one group consists of a sufficiently large number of libertarians then their enforcing authorities should be able to defend their signatories against aggression.
"If we were truly individuals, and nothing else, we would not need families, fathers, mothers, and friends. We would have no desire to gather together at theaters, stadiums, clubs. We would be as independent as cats."
Even cats need fathers and mothers and, sometimes, responsible owners.
"It is the Left that has always believed human nature either doesn't exist or is infinitely plastic. It is for that reason they have consistently tried to social-engineer people into being what they cannot be. The open-borders crowd, including left-libertarians, are trying to social-engineer people being what they want them to be. Under the veneer of their "libertarianism," do they do not a lot in common with leftist totalitarians? Don't they in fact hate their society, and wish to see it destroyed?"
People can be bred (socially selected) into anything over a period of generations. Just look at a domesticated dog for proof.
"Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine there were no borders whatsoever in the world? What would happen?"
Let me see.... no border guards, more prosperity (from increased trade), less fighting, more tolerance and understanding of other cultures. I suppose you though the Berlin wall was a good idea.
"In the fantasies inhabiting the left-libertarian mind, people would freely move around to where the jobs are, and everyone would get along almost perfectly."
True enough. Those who do not "get along" would be able to isolate themselves along cultural lines, not based on militarily established borders.
"In the real world, however, one tribe would attempt to impose its will on another, and murder and expel the members of it. That's why open borders equals tribal warfare. That old saying, "Good fences make good neighbors," is true."
Your doomsday scenario is similar to that of those argue about the huge crime wave that will result from legalizing firearms, or trading freely. It is actually exactly the opposite: Closed borders create cultural distinctions and mischaracterizations that lead to warfare. The contracted enforcers of the peace would most likely be able to deal with those who are not committed to anarcho-capitalism.
"There is another aspect to human nature to which I have given a great deal of thought for the last few years: hubris. All tribes have, almost without exception, considered themselves to the Chosen of God; almost all have called themselves "The People" or "The Humans." This means anyone outside the tribe is non-people and non-human."
True, but you know logically that it cannot be that every tribe is superior to every other. Thus rational humans do not behave in the petty way. Shouldn't society be based on truth, not socially-acceptable myth?
"Hubris is part of our limited, imperfect nature. It's why humility – which is founded on a self-awareness of our imperfections – has always been considered a virtue."
True, but closed borders reward hubris and ignorance of foreigners. Open borders punish hubris and those who would tell us that we are the chosen people.
"What answer does the left-libertarian open-borders crowd have to the problem of fighting tribes, with each considering themselves the Chosen? They have no answer, other than that the free market will make everyone get along. They wish to destroy the nations of the world, even if they don't know it."
Nations come and go. Obviously, no state of peace can exist between people who do not recognize the rights of each other, unless the two groups are separated or one of the two groups enslaves the other. The reality is that many countries *citizens* are respectful of the rights of the others and yet the countries themselves do not have sufficiently good relations to consider dissolving their borders. Would Canadians of Mexicans start trampling our rights? This seems unlikely in a libertarian society, but it is possible in a democracy unbridled by constitutional limitations or principled citizenry. The logical course of action is for the citizens of all countries with sufficient respect for each other to lobby for their borders to be eliminated.
"The ultimate problem of the open-borders crowd is the hubris of which I just wrote. Anyone who thinks they can destroy nation, state, and neighborhood, and replace it with their vague understanding of the free market, is showing the arrogance and ignorance that has almost exclusively been the province of the Left."
We have various regional identifiers: country, state, county, city, neighborhood, family. But how much does anyone really identify with, say, their county or neighborhood? Do we not identify more with those associations which we voluntarily join than those we have thrust upon us? Would one identify oneself more a, say, South Side Duluth Minnesotan or a Right-Libertarian Buddhist Mac-Lover?
Who would have thought that one could have open borders between states each a "tribe" with millions of people. Why if it is possible to have open borders between, say, California and Oregon is it inconceivable that one could have open borders between Canada and the United States or between Mexico and the United States?"In the case of the open-borders crowd they believe the free market – which they misunderstand – will bring [about] this Utopia. We only need to destroy all the nations of the world. And exactly how will this destruction bring peace? "
Nominal nations may still exist, but with open borders, people will have greater
understanding of other cultures. This may not guarantee peace, but it will
certainly encourage it.
