{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"Cyph3rp9nk (npub1ln…arrnt)","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1lnms53w04qt742qnhxag5d6awy7nz6055flnmjkr6jg39hm86dlq7arrnt","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"Everything is someone’s property; free movement violates someone’s property if it is not under their consent.\n\nStates violate the property of their inhabitants by allowing the entry of people without their consent.\n\nHans-Hermann Hoppe  \nMaintains that with full private property there is no “freedom of immigration” as such (all movement would be through private property and by “invitation”), and that in the current world the State generates forced integration when it admits people without a property-owning “host.”  \n\nMurray N. Rothbard  \nIn *Nations by Consent* he argues that in a fully privatized country there would be no “open borders”: no one could enter unless invited/contracted by some owner (in practice, “as closed” as the owners wish).  \n\nLew Rockwell (closely associated with Rothbardianism / paleolibertarianism)  \nIn *The Fallacy of Open Immigration* he criticizes the libertarian “open borders” position as something that ignores negative effects and cannot be upheld as such in the real context (State + public property + incentives).  \n\nStefan Molyneux (a commentator who defines himself as an anarcho-capitalist)  \nHe has explicitly anti–open borders content (“lunacy of open borders,” etc.)."}