Suggesting that trespassing, which border crossing amounts to, is a victimless crime suggests that property rights being violated have no victim. Sort of a hard position to hold unless you're a leftist anarchist.
Would it be better if the property were held by individuals and private institutions rather than the state? Sure. Is it still held by someone though? Yes.
It's true things get messy when analyzing the real world given that we don't live in Ancapistan. But the idea that political enforcement of relatively open border policy is not an aggressive act, against which retaliation and restitution is justified (in appropriate measure) is not one I can see a good argument for.
Specifics of ICE's behavior being a separate matter, and indeed, there's room to rein in some bad actors as of late, as well as improve policy and training.
Where this gets hard, though, is that the aggressor, here, is not the group that is being targeted. The ones targeted, in large part, are actually perhaps better thought of as the munition being fired at us by globalist aggressors who are themselves not in ICE's crosshairs. So it's hardly surprising there's a lot of sympathy for them.
I've been exploring looking at it a bit from a historical lens of the English unification, wherein Danes, who arguably were spurred into their invasion by the aggression of Charlemagne's restriction of trade routes. By all rights the native population would not have been wrong to evict the Danish incursion (though, doing so entirely likely wouldn't have been possible despite them putting up a very good fight). This seems to be an analogous situation to what we have, though obviously not identical. That said, there's a reason Alfred the Great had his namesake. The sort of threading of the needle it'd take to pull this off in an appropriate manner is not trivial. But it does seem that given the entanglement we find ourselves here, looking to books on anarchist theory are not quite as useful as historic events, as they simply don't adequately address what happens when the two parties in conflict are not the aggressor, even when there has been an act of aggression.
It's not a black and white issue, and I do think that far too many are trying to make it out to be one.
Cykros
npub1lc…63apw
2026-01-27 13:06:13 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…52ja
Author Public Key
npub1lcetwt8hcd9gagdytu4e35ufykxek0elfvx8q3spugmgj9x0ev0q363apwSeen on
wss://relay.snort.socialPublished at
2026-01-27 13:06:13 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "77da281ea6c02ba027adec3793a79c8d67b61f60b0ce5dc21b46ef810e138446",
"pubkey": "fe32b72cf7c34a8ea1a45f2b98d389258d9b3f3f4b0c704601e2368914cfcb1e",
"created_at": 1769519173,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"02afa11a6c95ca15534604730d40f6e219f5ab0ad5b28098ede003f22293fa6c",
"wss://relay.damus.io/",
"root",
"852c84ec56934835c298614627595df59e8db721db88aa2b36bf031ce1c42543"
],
[
"e",
"cee1e2110b65697b40e17dec4acc1a32dd866f5b55dde09e97f9c214cb1431d9",
"wss://relay.damus.io/",
"reply",
"af92154b4fd002924031386f71333b0afd9741a076f5c738bc2603a5b59d671f"
],
[
"p",
"852c84ec56934835c298614627595df59e8db721db88aa2b36bf031ce1c42543",
"wss://nostr.oxtr.dev/"
],
[
"p",
"9ca0bd7450742d6a20319c0e3d4c679c9e046a9dc70e8ef55c2905e24052340b",
"wss://nostr.wine/"
],
[
"p",
"af92154b4fd002924031386f71333b0afd9741a076f5c738bc2603a5b59d671f",
"wss://relay.damus.io/"
],
[
"client",
"noStrudel",
"31990:266815e0c9210dfa324c6cba3573b14bee49da4209a9456f9484e5106cd408a5:1686066542546"
]
],
"content": "Suggesting that trespassing, which border crossing amounts to, is a victimless crime suggests that property rights being violated have no victim. Sort of a hard position to hold unless you're a leftist anarchist.\n\nWould it be better if the property were held by individuals and private institutions rather than the state? Sure. Is it still held by someone though? Yes.\n\nIt's true things get messy when analyzing the real world given that we don't live in Ancapistan. But the idea that political enforcement of relatively open border policy is not an aggressive act, against which retaliation and restitution is justified (in appropriate measure) is not one I can see a good argument for.\n\nSpecifics of ICE's behavior being a separate matter, and indeed, there's room to rein in some bad actors as of late, as well as improve policy and training.\n\nWhere this gets hard, though, is that the aggressor, here, is not the group that is being targeted. The ones targeted, in large part, are actually perhaps better thought of as the munition being fired at us by globalist aggressors who are themselves not in ICE's crosshairs. So it's hardly surprising there's a lot of sympathy for them.\n\nI've been exploring looking at it a bit from a historical lens of the English unification, wherein Danes, who arguably were spurred into their invasion by the aggression of Charlemagne's restriction of trade routes. By all rights the native population would not have been wrong to evict the Danish incursion (though, doing so entirely likely wouldn't have been possible despite them putting up a very good fight). This seems to be an analogous situation to what we have, though obviously not identical. That said, there's a reason Alfred the Great had his namesake. The sort of threading of the needle it'd take to pull this off in an appropriate manner is not trivial. But it does seem that given the entanglement we find ourselves here, looking to books on anarchist theory are not quite as useful as historic events, as they simply don't adequately address what happens when the two parties in conflict are not the aggressor, even when there has been an act of aggression.\n\nIt's not a black and white issue, and I do think that far too many are trying to make it out to be one.",
"sig": "fdf4a2addd0cd4af7f6a01c8f91517bab9124ea61179a77689c46c29b9cba4a84dcf6ec797efe9177e368324107598f2b71d08f6d17402c015b598fad8f51b4d"
}