Argument #1:

P1) The initiation of force is inherently illegitimate.
P2) The tax funded welfare system is an initiation of force.
C1) Therefore, the tax funded welfare system is inherently illegitimate.

Argument #2:

P1) The initiation of force is inherently illegitimate.
P2) Obstructing the freedom of movement is an initiation of force.
P3) Enforcing national borders is the obstruction of the freedom of movement.
C1) Therefore, enforcing national borders is inherently illegitimate.

Conclusion:

If Arguments #1 and #2 are true, then we are justified in dismantling the tax funded Welfare System, and the abolishment of national borders.

The Two Wrongs Make A Right Fallacy

Speaker A: Enforcing national borders is inherently illegitimate, because it obstructs the freedom of movement through the initiation of force.

Stefan Molyneux: Immigrants benefit from the tax funded Welfare System, which is an initiation of force too!

If Stefan believes in the maxim "the initiation of force is illegitimate," then his unstated premise is that the initiation of force is justified, as long as the other party is a potential benefactor from an initiation of force.

Let's attempt to work with this unstated premise:

P1) The initiation of force is justified when the other party is a potential benefactor from an initiation of force.
P2) The tax funded welfare system is an initiation of force.
P3) Kabib wants to enter the United States with the intent of subsisting on the tax funded Welfare System.
C1) Therefore, the initiation of force against Kabib is justified.

We could also do things like:

P1) The initiation of force is justified when the other party is a potential benefactor from an initiation of force.
P2) John robbed a bank so he can buy his grandmother a new dish washer.
C1) Therefore, the initiation of force against John's grandmother is justified.

A caveat in the above case may be factors such as John's grandmother's knowledge and willingness to accept benefit from her grandson's theft, but as applied to Stefan Molyneux's argument for the enforcement of national borders, these factors are not considered, unless national border enforcement as proposed by Stefan analogously discriminates based on intent to benefit from the tax funded welfare state, on an individual-by-individual basis rather then statistical generalizations.

We can also do this variation:

P1) The initiation of force is justified when the other party is statistically likely to initiate force, vote for the initiation force, or benefit from the initiation of force.
P2) Hispanic people are statistically more likely to commit crime, vote for tax funded welfare, and benefit from those welfare programs.
C1) Therefore, the initiation of force against Hispanics is justified.

Slavery Is Wrong

The argument to end slavery was predicated on consistent Ethical Principles. There were people who argued against abolition on utilitarian and practical grounds, but these consequentialist arguments failed to overwhelm the Ethical Principle which said that enslaving another human being was inherently illegitimate, regardless of the potential negative consequences of freeing slaves.

An argument against abolition could be devised using Stefan's premise:

P1) The initiation of force is justified when the other party is statistically likely to initiate force, vote for the initiation force, or benefit from the initiation of force.
P2) Freed slaves will commit more crime, vote left, and use the tax funded Welfare System disproportionately.
C1) Therefore, the initiation of force against slaves is justified.

In fact, mass imprisonment, deportation, even genocide against certain ethnic groups could theoretically be justified by using Stefan's premises and reasoning in an argument. A Reductio Ad Absurdum argument can therefore easily be used to refute the validity of Stefan's premise.

Towards A Consistent Ethics

Just as the abolishment of slavery was necessary on the grounds that the enslavement of another human is inherently illegitimate, regardless of potential negative practical consequences, so too is the abolishment of national borders and the tax funded welfare state necessary, regardless of potential negative consequences.

Just as Anarcho-Communists seek to achieve a Stateless Utopia by first establishing a Totalitarian Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Stefan Molyneux seeks to achieve Anarcho-Capitalism by first using the violent coercive power of the state to initiate force against people who could potentially initiate force or benefit from the initiation of force in the future. It is probable, therefore, that both strategies will have a similar result.

For consistent results, the better solution is to consistently adhere to Ethical Principles:

Argument #1:

P1) The initiation of force is inherently illegitimate.
P2) Slavery is the initiation of force.
C1) Therefore, slavery is inherently illegitimate.

Argument #2:

P1) The initiation of force is inherently illegitimate.
P2) Robbing a bank is an initiation of force.
C1) Robbing banks is inherently illegitimate.

Argument #3:

P1) The initiation of force is inherently illegitimate.
P2) The tax funded welfare system is an initiation of force.
C1) Therefore, the tax funded welfare system is inherently illegitimate.

Argument #4:

P1) The initiation of force is inherently illegitimate.
P2) Obstructing the freedom of movement is an initiation of force.
P3) Enforcing national borders is the obstruction of the freedom of movement.
C1) Therefore, enforcing national borders is inherently illegitimate.

If Arguments #1, #2, #3, and #4 are true, then we are justified in abolishing slavery, theft, taxation, and national borders. If the initiation of force is justified when the other party is a potential beneficiary from an initiation of force, then slavery, theft, taxation, and national borders all become justifiable, as do more extreme initiations of force such as ethnic cleansing, mass deportation, mass imprisonment, and even genocides. It is therefore best to adhere to Ethic Principles rather then admit deviations based on potential practical and consequentialist concerns that may or may not come to fruition, and which are typically based on the human desire for control, rooted in the human propensity for fear.

The Victim Mentality

The greatest trick of any State whose power is rooted in a monopoly on violence and coercion, is to convince it's subjects that the enemy is elsewhere, and thus to legitimize it's existence. The human propensity for fear, is coupled with the human propensity to turn to violence out of fear. When we convince ourselves that we are the victim, we justify our fears and our recourse to violence becomes rational.

The real enemy is that we have placed at the center of society a gun, resulting in frantic and panicked competition for who gets to wield it, and whose reason for wielding it is the most justified.

Instead of legitimizing and protecting the tax funded welfare system and the nation-state by demonizing other cultures and ethnicities, rousing up fears, conjuring up dire negative consequences, we must be brave enough to stand firmly upon our principles and not waver from them until we can walk the entire Earth in freedom. Until we have freed the entire Earth from tyranny. Until all are free to exchange, cooperate, and move about without fear of institutionalized coercion and violence.

The cartels and territorial gangs that masquerade as Nation-State governments "of the people, and for the people" must be replaced by truly voluntary, non-coercive Governance-Service-Providers. The use of violence and State coercion to erect walls around the existent territorial tax farms only serves to work against the ultimate goal of all who love liberty: We are fighting for a free planet, not a free country.

• KG

Photo by Lina Trochez on Unsplash