OK sure, but in the context of immigration, are you really saying that the existence of public commons constitutes being "forced" to interact with other people? Because I think that's quite a stretch...
You could in principle live in a tower with a helipad, or Iive your existence on a private luxury yacht, never having to step foot on public property or be within 100 m of anyone outside of a carefully cultivated bubble.... it's super expensive of course, but it's possible.
And then the other problem is, from a fundamental moral perspective, if you are being "forced" to interact with people in public, then by reciprocity, they are being "forced" to interact with you. Who gets to have the moral claim of grievance here?
Yes, by definition. I did not invite them nor did anyone else. Therefore they impose themseves upon all of us. Unless the property is private it is impossible to know who is invited and who isn't.
The people native to the place having others imposed upon them have the grievance. That thought experiment logic you wrote is akin to If you don't want a burglar in your house and he does want you to attack him who is at fault? Nonsense.
Illegal immigrants are at the very least uninvited by the warlords who impose their will upon the people.
As long as there are public borders the anarchist argument is kind of moot though.
Thread collapsed
