>>27521573>I think you could be ovestimating the stability offered by a much greater degree of violence monopolizationNot at all: we can see that it in plenty of South American or African countries (as well as certain places in the US even) that having a central state with a monopoly of violence does not necessarily result in a peaceful society. In fact, I attempted to emphasise that law enforcement and the threat of punishment, regardless of whether it comes from a state or a private actor, does not deter crime in general, simply because some people have a natural pre-disposition to criminal activity or simply lack the intellect to make informed, rational decisions.
My position is that the Libertarian approach to open borders, i.e. granting everyone the opportunity to try their luck, seems naive, since people are not the rational actors Libertarians believe them to be. There are psychological factors beyond a mere cost-benefit analysis - not to mention that plenty of people are, due to lack of intellect alone, unable to do the latter in an informed manner.
In general the idea that a free society would necessarily be in everyone's interest assumes that people are equally capable of making informed decisions to their own benefit. But the bell-curve has two sides and plenty of people, if given the freedom to freely decide what to do, would end up in a worse position than they would be in a more traditionalist society where they'd be serfs, bound to a prince, who would tell them what to do and provide them with the means to live a simple yet dignified life, without ending up in debt, addiction, miserable poverty, etc.
That being said: I am not trying to make an argument in favour of medieval serfdom (although I do believe that our modern perspective on it is more of a caricature than historical reality), but I am highly sceptical of any kind of utopian models of society - especially when they are rationalist in nature (in a reductionist manner, that leaves out the irrational, tribal, instinctual side of man) and don't consider the entirety of human nature; basing it on what they'd like people to be, or what may apply only to a tiny, intelligent and conscientious subset of society.
