Open Borders Isn’t Libertarian, It’s Global Communism

Sadly, there still seems to be a great deal of confusion both inside and outside of libertarian circles about libertarianism’s relationship with the immigration issue. This is no mark against someone who has simply not had it explained to them, of course. The position is not entirely obvious to the casual onlooker. The persistence with which some insist on clinging to falsehood however, I find quite troubling.

Open Borders Isn't Libertarian, It's Global Communism

Open Borders Isn’t Libertarian, It’s Global Communism

The layman’s assumption would be that libertarians favor open borders. This is an understandable mistake. Libertarians are not big on having the government do pretty much anything, and since governments do control political boundaries at present, it makes sense one would assume we favored their abolition. This is not a completely incorrect assumption, but it requires some important details many seem to leave out. It would be more accurate to say we favor privatizing borders, than to say we favor their abolition.

When termed as privatization, the question turns to whose control the property once making up the border in question will then be under. The idea that a government would cease to exist, or cease to perform the function of immigration control, and that this would open the floodgates for waves of low quality, poverty stricken, potentially dangerous people is understandably off-putting to the sane men and women of a prosperous society.

The libertarian who is not well read, may assume that since we seek no consensus for the validity of our political positions, this wholly rational fear is irrelevant. He is indisputably wrong in this. Libertarians favor property rights. If there is a conflict between your ideas of what freedom entails, and someone else’s property rights, property rights prevail over your misguided notion of freedom. The idea that a society based in the rule of property would visit massive misery and violent crime upon a civilization is so antithetical to libertarian philosophy, that it boggles the mind anyone would take it seriously. What property owner would invite people onto his property, whom he did not want to be there? What freedom could there be if he had no choice to exclude people from his property?

Governments create a falsehood of common spaces as one of the many “services” they provide us with to justify their extortion schemes and thuggery. Police patrol highways and say “Someone has to make sure people are driving safely!” and this is true. Licenses, inspections, insurance requirements, speed limits, alcohol concentration limits, and all the other edicts and regulations the State imposes upon us are justified by these “common spaces”. Some more or less sensible than others.

Any libertarian who has ever tried to defend the idea of a stateless society has heard someone utter the phrase “But who will build the roads?” to the point that his has become a meme in libertarian circles. The answer is quite simple to the informed libertarian – owners of roads would build roads, and charge for their usage. They would set the rules of the road, be they speed limits, vehicle safety requirements, limits or prohibitions on intoxicants, and the conditions under which security agents of the road might enforce compliance. Restrict too heavily, and drivers might opt to pay a competitor for a different path. Leave your roads unsafe, and face the same peril for your business.

That libertarians do not settle disputes by way of democratic elections does not mean we want to impose unpopular and miserable circumstances upon people. We rather favor market forces making the determination, and providing ranges of options to people dependent on their ability to pay for those options. We are of the well informed opinion that this will produce superior outcomes to the one size fits all “solutions” of Nation States, often dictated by the will of hyperinclusive mass democracy – institutions not known for their ability to allocate resources efficiently.

The point being, libertarians favor privatization more than they favor abolition. The exact manner in which that privatization takes place is up for considerable debate and beyond the scope of this article, but “borders” are the whole entire point of libertarianism. Borders are simply property lines defined by owners and recognized by other members of the society. They are the delineations from which justification of force is derived.

To assert that Nation States would cease to exist, or cease to enforce political boundaries, and that this would result in the equivalent of “open borders” as understood in modern political discourse, is insane. This is the equivalent of saying that in the absence of the State, highly desirable resources would remain unowned in perpetuity, and that all of mankind could exploit these resources simultaneously without conflict arising between any of them. One need not be a philosopher or economist to understand the problem here, only a layman’s understanding of basic physics.

Privatizing borders, like privatizing roads, simply removes the title to land from the Nation State, and places it in the hands of a private party. That party then sets the rules for the use of that property according to their best interests just like any other property owner would. He may opt to build a road, or he may opt to build a swimming pool, a home, or a shopping mall. In none of these instances could he be compelled to have massive waves of socialists, communists, and theocrats pouring across his land against his will, without ability to pay, and raping women and killing men along their way.

The State imposes these “common spaces” against all rational market incentives, as States tend to do. Once it does, it can only bring about one or both of two possible conclusions.

1. Forced Inclusion
2. Forced Exclusion

The “open borders libertarian” chooses forced inclusion and thinks himself quite principled and morally superior, but he is misguided at best and more likely very dishonest. By creating a common space, and maintaining it at taxpayer expense, the State purports to make common ownership of these spaces amongst “the people”. Naturally, this creates conflict, since my interests do not always align with the rest of “the people”.

Perhaps I am a factory owner who wants cheap low skilled labor, and so I am quite keen on having lots of impoverished people entering the society desperate for a job. Perhaps someone else is in the real estate business and does not want these impoverished people driving down property values. Any number of examples could be listed here, but somebody is going to get the shaft in this equation at the expense of the other. There is no libertarian course of action for the Nation State to take in this case, it is coercing people to pay for things which they do not want to pay for. So short of privatization, whatever course of action the State embarks upon, it is not going to be libertarian in its nature.

Philosophically speaking, “the” libertarian position on what a Nation State does with its borders, is that it should privatize them along with everything else. If someone amongst you would like to tell me how we get enough people on board with a private property driven society today to make that happen, I’m all ears. With this option not likely being on the realistic political menu in the present moment, one is left only to choose between utilitarianism, and leftist warm and fuzzy suicidal nonsense.

We know what happens when leftist warm and fuzzy nonsense wins the day. Across those borders come flooding in massive waves of dangerous, poverty stricken people who victimize the populace with crime, drain the public coffers with welfare dependency, and alter the course of the civilization through the ballot box. Given that those pouring in are usually from less civilized places, their decisions at the ballot box are predictably as uncivilized as their decisions on the street.

Societies are made up of the people who reside within them. If you replace the people of one society with the people of another society, then the society will come to resemble that of the place the new people just fled. Democratically elected governments, though they may seem largely unresponsive to what you want individually, do respond to that which can get them elected. If the people now electing your government, are the same people who elected the government of Mexico, or Venezuela, or some other terrible place, then in rather short order, your government will resemble that government. This almost seems too obvious to have to state.

For the libertarian then, it is quite imperative from a strategic standpoint to take into consideration who he is making neighbors of. If one finds himself quite frustrated trying to convince white westerners of his politics, he will find this even more difficult to do when Islamists are chopping off heads and raping women in his neighborhood. He will have quite the difficult time explaining Austrian economics to someone who does not even speak his language.

Denial of these obvious realities is the cornerstone of communist nonsense. The belief that all people are equal and interchangeable, that we are all liquids taking the shape of the container into which we are poured, is not based in reality, and it is certainly not based in libertarianism. It is dogmatic liberal gibberish spouted only by power hungry politicians, and their supporters who are dumb enough to believe it.

Abolishing borders and replacing them with nothing doesn’t abolish or even diminish the government. Quite the contrary. Borders are only abolished when power is centralized. Just as one can travel from New York to California, this was facilitated by the centralizing of power into the US Federal Government by the colonies. Same as one could travel from France to Spain only by the establishment of the European union. A world without borders is not a world without government, it is a world with one, inescapable, communist, government.

I shouldn’t have to explain this to libertarians. The fact that it is supported by the Democrats should have made that obvious enough. When the issue goes bipartisan, well, then you really know something bad is about to happen.

 

 

This production is made possible by donors like you, you can also help by shopping through my Amazon affiliate link. Without that support, this site will cease to exist.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

 

  • liberty lover

    No, borders are statist. Recognizing them empowers and codifies a state. The same state you complain is taxing you, controlling you, taking your guns etc. There is nothing wrong with a human being relocating, but there is something very wrong with getting in the way of that relocation. Unless of course we no longer believe in the NAP.

    • Randall Stevens

      Then by all means, take away the borders of door locks on your home and see how that works out for you.

    • be_free

      Are the borders to your property line, your garden, your lawns, your barn, or what have you, “statist”? Of course not. Those are borders between what is yours and to what is not yours. Similarly, there are private property lines, borders, between lands that belong to people of a different culture, that hold different values, that speak a different language. While it’s up to the individual owner to grant or deny access to his or her property, that individual have the right to be part of a coalition, nation, culture or and/or language group with other property owners, and decide to a default policy of denial of entry to certain areas for people from the outside, as well as they can make their properties available to anyone just strolling through. Denying access grant to private property however, whether to an individual’s property or a communities’ property is not opposed to NAP, the same way denying access to your personal time, labor or owned artifacts is not violence. Just because my kitchen door is open, or my garden gate is open, it does not mean anybody can just walk through without my permission or some agreement.

      Specifically, to forcibly having to accept entry by a number of individuals whose movement is facilitated by the government, funded by tax money, is not “free movement”. Even if the visitors had paid for their own travel in their own boat over the sea and approached lands and shore already used by other peoples — its up to the people that were there first to deny or grant access to the new comers. if granted, the visitors would have to adhere to the local culture, language, and their stay would be be at the mercy of the people or cultures whose property they reside on. If a person enters as a guest to somebody’s property, whether on a piece of land or in a house, there are rules of conduct that a visitor is expected to adhere too in accordance with local culture and traditions.

      In most cultures, if a visitor starts to use things without permissions, swear, be loud, help themselves to women, especially girls who are still children, or fight or being over all belligerent, behave inappropriately — they would be thrown out, perhaps beaten up, or killed.

      Now, if the visitors managed to gain their hosts trust enough to purchase their own piece of land from somebody who was willing to sell, they can do whatever they want on their property, and their visitors would have to adhere to their rules.

      • liberty lover

        Both you and Randall are conflating private property and borders. You own your own property and can discriminate however you want, but most of the border is not owned by anyone.Neither is most of the coastline. What about the airspace?(which if you didn’t know is responsible for as many if not more illegals). Borders are nothing but agreements between illegitimate entities called governments, delineating which side of the imaginary line they have dominion or ‘jurisdiction’ over. By fighting to keep people out, you are actually making it easier for your own government to control you.

        • twn5858 .

          I agree with you, but if an anarchist wants to use the government to keep out welfare bums that want to come here and use the government to force you to fund those births I see nothing wrong with using government to try to keep them out. It isn’t the ideal circumstances, but anything to do with governments never is. So long as people believe in the lie of governments and use it to their advantage why not do the same?

          • liberty lover

            An anarchist using government? A true anarchist will never find a reason for government intervention for ANYTHING. If you can justify government to do one thing, then another statist can just as easily find another place to involve it. A place where you won’t agree. Immigration is not a sin, the welfare state is. Eliminate the welfare state, eliminate the state period.

          • IRONMANAustralia

            If your going to be so simplistic as to invoke “muh NAP”, I invite you to ponder why Galt’s Gulch doesn’t have an open border policy in Atlas Shrugged, (which also happens to address the airspace you brought up). Ayn Rand did not envision that as a welfare state either.

          • liberty lover

            Without the NAP, we have minarchy. The United States of America is the most successful minarchy in history.

          • IRONMANAustralia

            You’re talking to a Minarchist, (who agrees philosophically that the ideal is Anarchy – it’s just impractical in the real world at the moment for a number of reasons very much including issues regarding land).

            Yes, you can have a successful, (if imperfect), Minarchy, (at least for a while). That’s my point, but I don’t see how it addresses any of yours above.

          • liberty lover

            As soon as we tolerate minarchy, then we are no different that liberals and conservatives who each have their own successful kinds of minarchy in mind ie where they want government intervention and where they don’t.

          • IRONMANAustralia

            Then explain to me why even the most staunch anarchist living in an anarchistic utopia would “tolerate” minarchy as a minority shareholder in a company with an elected board of directors.

            The fact the Free Market hasn’t come up with a better solution for such operations implies that the problem you’re citing at a national level is a more fundamental issue with no ideal solution in the real world, (at least in anarchistic terms where the individual retains the power of veto).

            See, those directors could totally screw me over or make a retarded decision with my assets, and I’m screwed, because those assets only represent 1% of the company.

            Same problem applies to land. Unless you’re planning on building a 25 foot wall around your house to defend it from the Mongol Hordes, I assume you’re planning on entering into some kind of common defence deal with other people, and that makes you a minority shareholder necessitating some kind of representation, (likely administered by some kind of democratic-like electoral process). If you’re not going to enter into such a deal, then remember to build your wall to keep out the hordes of US federal agents too while you’re at it.

            Welcome to the real world.

            And if you said, “Well I can sell or sue”, when I brought up the company malfeasance above – try doing that with your house. Frankly I doubt, “like it or GTFO”, are the droids you’re looking for.

            Also two words: Galt’s Gulch Chile.

            Just take a look at that clusterfuck. If you think you can somehow magically operate under the NAP as if it’s some kind of external force the population itself doesn’t have to somehow create and maintain with some kind of state structure, (no matter what you call it), then you’re gonna have ‘Lord of the Flies’ within a week.

            Ask yourself how many options consistent with the NAP John Galt would have had if Dagny Taggart didn’t agree to his gay little oath and said she was going to tell everyone where they were.

            In saying this I am in no way endorsing the overreaching actions of the current government – obviously there’s a problem there – but just because the government is a problem doesn’t mean the solution is no government.

            That would be like having the sewer clog, overflow, and spill out of your toilet, so your brilliant solution is to uninstall your toilet and have no toilet. Ideally you wouldn’t have to shit, and so the second we don’t have to I’ll agree with that solution, but until then, your only option is to try to fix the sewer system. Otherwise don’t act surprised when you try to shit somewhere else and that doesn’t work out so well either.

            Does that suck? Yes. Having to shit sucks. So having to have somewhere to shit sucks. Nobody wants me shitting in their backyard, so we have to come up with a solution that no individual is going to be happy with.

            In a nutshell: Shit happens, so government happens.

          • liberty lover

            ‘but just because the government creates problems itself doesn’t mean the practical solution is no government.’

            As long as you believe that the answer to a problem has to involve a coercive force, you are going to have problems. No doubt you are going to complain when this force does something you disagree with.

          • Don Duncan

            No, you can’t have a successful min-archy. Min-archy is the acceptance of some rights’ violations (put up with it now, we’ll fix the wrongs tomorrow). It is compromise of principle. Any such compromise favors the irrational, the anti-life, the unjustifiable argument. “Live in the real world” or “You are being impractical” are not arguments; they are intimidation tactics. These appeal to emotionally unstable, unsure proponents of an argument because they allow one to back down, while feeling they won but will not see victory until another day.

          • IRONMANAustralia

            Check my comment below. Notice even anarchists voluntarily enter into contracts that require giving up rights as an individual. Why would they do that at all if practicality did not necessitate that?

            There are IRL situations where even if you initially have the agreement of all parties, (eg. If every single man, woman, and child in the US agreed to the US constitution), you’d quickly arrive at the same situation we have now, (eg. Their kids didn’t agree to it, and they never signed nuffin’). Nobody would want to enter into such agreements in the first place, (eg. a large company or common defence contract), where any individual or their heirs could just pull the rug out from under them, dissolve the company, etc.

            Hence the reason people do voluntarily enter into these otherwise unattractive contracts where they lose their individual power of veto, (individual rights), while creating a stronger and often perpetual entity that may defect from their priorities at a later time, because they are driven by the very economic forces people like yourself like to talk about but of which you have a shallow understanding.
            ie. There’s nothing stopping you from building a wall around your own house and defending yourself from all aggressors, which not only includes the Mongol Hordes, but anyone who would use force to make you pay taxes for a wider national defence, (and any other crap they could think of).

            Oh wait … but there is something stopping you: Economic reality.

            Just as Leftists fall for the logic below because they don’t understand economics, (eg. Thinking that it doesn’t matter how much it costs to save fairy penguins in the South Pacific), so do Libertarians when it comes to this kind of crap. Just because something is not technically impossible, doesn’t mean it isn’t economically ‘impossible’ – meaning practically impossible for economic reasons. That’s what makes a lot of NAP arguments the equivalent of saying, “Can’t we all just get along?”, just like any other Kumbaya bullshit.

            You’re economically forced to deal with other people, (as in the case of common defence), many of which are arseholes. While the economic forces that Libertarians talk about are useful and should be employed more often than they are to self-regulate transactions, and the government should be reduced proportionately in scope, the only guaranteed way for an individual to truly operate on a voluntarily basis is to have the Absolute Power to refuse.
            ie. When you can build your own wall, you don’t have to deal with anyone, and they have to deal with you on a voluntary basis, then you can have Anarchy … when you already have it. Which will then satisfy your personal preferences about the way humans ideally should interact, (and mine).

          • be_free

            A “true anarchist”, is a unicorn. What we’re dealing with are practical considerations fpr the purpose of attempting to maintain liberty and not voluntarily accept rulers that dictate over others using force. But, that doesn’t not mean that people can’t get together and elect leaders, or decide on things as a community. As it stands, we are prisoners of the state and property that would otherwise be claimed by individuals is held hostage by the state. IRL public property belong to the people who have paid for it and who’s using it. However, as prisoners, we are not allowed to protect that property. I find it perfectly reasonable that the state, in this particular circumstance, protect that private property on behalf of its owners, the same way it would be reasonable if I protected a house on a part my property that I leased to somebody else.

          • liberty lover

            Small government is the real unicorn. Tried and tested. Anarchists have just given up hope of small government and want to do away with it altogether. Minarchists want small government, to protect us from big government even though that has never happened even once in all history.

          • be_free

            I’m not advocating minarchism, simply confirming that people are going to congregate and organize themselves in groups, whatever you want to call it. Striving towards anarchism doesn’t have to mean being in favor to open property lines/borders all of the time, it depends on the area, what the local culture is, and who’s t dying to enter. Groups can discriminate as well as individuals.

          • twn5858 .

            That’s not true! I’m an anarchist and I would call the cops on the cops(pointless, I know). I wish people didn’t believe in the lie of governments, but since they do and they want to use governments against me I see nothing wrong with giving them a taste of their own medicine if given the opportunity.

        • be_free

          I wouldn’t say so, and I base that on recent memory of history reading about the stateless societies of Scandinavia before they became incorporated into a nation (with the military force of a king), and there are numerous similar examples. There are clear remnants of dialects to this day where you can pinpoint which side of a forest somebody is from, what part of the mountain. Very clear, naturally occurring borders. If a people use a coast line regularly for fishing, for example, even if it doesn’t have one specific owner, that land certainly would be considered to belong to that people because they are using it, wouldn’t you agree?

          • liberty lover

            If that group of people own that property then they can discriminate. But they can’t determine how another property owner can use his/her property.

          • be_free

            ideologically, no. But IRL, people are not isolated islands and they create communes, villages, societies, they create alliances, form militias, what have you. If a person live in such a circumstance, and if people they don’t know approach them, their land, and their accumulated resources, it’s natural to wanting to guard both the private property, your neighbors property, and those regions you are regularly using with others and have invested in…

    • kid_you_not

      This is why libertardarians are stereotyped as know-nothing student neckbeards who have never had a job.

    • American Spartan

      You are a fucking moron. If borders are statist then take the walls down around your home.

  • Gary Johnston

    When I look at libertarian philosophy I first reduce it on a personal level as much as I can. In the case of open borders, I think of my home and my neighbors home. I can welcome or expel whomever I want from my home. This is a pro-borders stance. But what about my neighbors?

    They too can welcome or expel whomever they want. This too seems like a pro-borders argument. When we try to get to the libertarian position of a specific topic I then like to think about my power over my neighbors home. Let me explain. Do I have the right to permit someone into my neighbors home? No, of course not. And likewise, they cannot decide who comes into my home.

    This leads to the conclusion that forced integration of unwilling people is a statist position and when you look at the resources the government used to force this unwanted integration it is clear that welcoming ‘refugees’ is a statist position.

    An open borders libertarian might say that the government will use resources to maintain borders. This is debunked in paragraph 2 of this comment. We ALL will use resources in a stateless society to defend our homes and properties.

    What if my neighbor wants ‘refugees’ in their home. Well…they don’t. Let’s be honest. How many people would actually welcome refugees into their homes voluntarily. Not very many.

    Hey, if the odd one does want 1 or more in their home, feel free to do so but when you realize that you will be the sole provider for that person (no welfare state, etc.), reasonable people will think twice.

    In summary, selfishness isn’t always a bad thing and charity isn’t always a good thing.

    • Don Duncan

      Discussing any issue while accepting the state as a given, is a mistake. Strike the root of the problem: State invention of the commons, state control of the commons, state existence, is irrational, immoral, impractical. For example, one can take either side of the “borders” issue, within the state setting, and justify inhuman actions. The way out of the political trap is to not debate with the statist premises accepted. Challenge the mass acceptance of institutionalized violence. Advocate a voluntary society, complete with free market solutions, most of which are unimaginable now. But stick to debate from principle, not by piecemeal solutions that focus on the mouse, while the elephant in the room goes unacknowledged.

  • Mr. Michael

    Why don’t Libertarians see that not all people are simply individuals just living life, and realize that some have very nefarious ideas, dangerous behaviors and some with primitive cultures not fit for advancing Liberty in any way shape or form. I agree with you Chris. Having lived on the border nearly my entire life, I can tell you, those imaginary lines are anything but.

    • liberty lover

      That’s what Americans used to say about Catholics 200 years ago. In fact public education in America was first established to prevent those evil Italian and Irish immigrants from contaminating those oh so pure American protestant children. Look what public education has turned into. The road to statist hell is paved with the purest nativity intentions.

      • Heebie Kikeberger

        “Letting in white people 200 years ago worked out okay, so we should let in third worlders now”

        • liberty lover

          Third worlders are already coming in legally and illegally despite all the laws and agencies.

      • kid_you_not

        “That’s what Americans used to say about Catholics 200 years ago.”

        And they were right then.

        “In fact public education in America was first established to prevent
        those evil Italian and Irish immigrants from contaminating those oh so
        pure American protestant children.”

        No.

        “Look what public education has turned into.”

        Public education may be inherently flawed but really only to the extent that it caters to the lowest common denominator. Something that gets lower with the non-White immigrants. My boomer parents had a dreamy existence in public schools because they were all White. They had such an ideal upbringing they are infuriatingly obtuse about the reality of those who came after them with savages ruining the system.

      • Mr. Michael

        Yeah, lets compare the knowledge we have now to that of 200 years ago. “Statist” means as much to me as “racist” which is to say nothing, it means nothing.

        • Evito

          If you look at the level of philosophical debate and literature one can easily and ressonably make the argument that 19th century US was far more enlightened and wise than any society today is. It’s the utmost chutzpah to presume that just because we’ve corrected a few mistakes they made that were superior to them when infact it was they who came up with the ideas that we merely inherited from them. 11 year old kids used to routinely read material that is today classified as advanced University grade literature. We’ve lost as much philosophy and reason as we’ve gained technical knowledge and solipsism.

  • Wow, another fantastically well reasoned argument.

  • Don Duncan

    “When the issue goes bipartisan…something bad is going to happen.” Discussing any issue while accepting the state as a given, is a mistake. Strike the root of the problem: State invention of the commons, state control of the commons, state existence, is irrational, immoral, impractical. For example, one can take either side of the “borders” issue, within the state setting, and justify inhuman actions. The way out of the political trap is to not debate with the statist premises accepted. Challenge the mass acceptance of institutionalized violence. Advocate a voluntary society, complete with free market solutions, most of which are unimaginable now. But stick to debate from principle, not by piecemeal solutions that focus on the mouse, while the elephant in the room goes unacknowledged.

  • paendragon

    Privatizing roads will never work. And you also can’t stop multiple people who own private lands from donating them to become “common spaces,” either. Ditto for them choosing to hire other people to manage their multiple properties, which will eventually become known as “government” insurance.

    • be_free

      News flash. Most roads are already private.

      • paendragon

        LOL! On what planet?!

        • Evito

          On this planet, most community/village /neighborhood roads are owned by private entities and far outnumber state roads both innumber and length. It’s the simplest argument to defeat, simply point to real world.

          • paendragon

            Only if you consider incorporated municipal civil governments to be “private” entities.

  • Richard Chiu

    It’s interesting how much of the disagreement with this article seems to be posted without the benefit of having actually read it.

    I think that we need to go ahead and make somewhat more prominent the fact that libertarianism permits property owners to discriminate on any basis they wish in deciding with whom they are willing to make voluntary exchanges of goods and services. That includes discrimination against different language, cultures, and even (tiny shocked gasp of horror) races.

    If you believe it is illegitimate for property owners to discriminate in their voluntary exchanges based on their own preferences (whatever they may be), you are not a libertarian. The key thing that many people miss is that it is more important to libertarianism that an individual be free to think and believe according to personal preference than that they enjoy more extrinsic property rights. Let us not forget that the reason we call what a person owns “his property” is by derivation from the personal characteristics (or properties) of that person. To say that an owner of some external asset is free to use it as he pleases, but not free to use his own mind in any way that offends your sense of propriety, is utter nonsense.

    “You may do with it as you please, but you’ll damn well please as I deem proper!” Thus the SJW’s clothed in libertarian credentials.

    Of course, a voluntary nation will maintain itself more efficiently if you legalize all properly reported homicide. I know I’m pretty much the only proponent of this particular idea, but if homicide were considered entirely legitimate as long as you publicly acknowledged all facts known to you about the matter, then a lot of things would sort themselves out fairly quickly. But even without that ‘extreme’, full respect for property rights will definitely lead to some consolidation of voluntary nations, even if the exact borders end up fuzzy.

    • Alex Silveyra

      “and even (tiny shocked gasp of horror) races.”—-Well there’s only one “race” lol, fucking Sherlock!

      • Guy From V

        Pretending semantic ignorance isn’t the basis for a strong argument…but it is funny.

        • Richard Chiu

          So do you have any idea what he was even saying there?

  • Alex Silveyra

    “Just as one can travel from New York to California, this was facilitated by the centralizing of power into the US Federal Government by the colonies.”——-LOL NO! It was “facilitated” by the THEFT of my land! And, all other native peoples!

    • Evito

      But wasn’t open borders such a good idea? You don’t know yourself what you stand for, propably nothing.

      • Alex Silveyra

        Lol God Statist are fucking stupid! Soooo, the problem was people livning freely, and NOT the invading collectist bootlicking zombies! AHHHHHH, fuck ass!

  • Alex Silveyra

    “A world without borders is not a world without government, it is a world with one, inescapable, communist, government.”-LOL WOW! What a putz!

    • Evito

      That’s exactly what you have forming in the EU, potential North American Alliance and most of all UN. All the key players are Openly advocating for a one world communist government, its no conspiracy theory when the proponents openly disclose the details and methods by which they purport to achieve it. The Junkcers, Sanders and Maos of the world are far more dangerous and evil than even Vlad the Impaler had the imagination for.

  • brianmacker

    “The layman’s assumption would be that libertarians favor open borders. ” What? No the layman doesn’t have a clue what libertarians favor or why. It is the libertarians themselves that have mostly been arguing for completely open borders. It’s one of many reasons I’m not a libertarian.

  • Winter Trabex

    My definition of open borders has always been “let each property owner decide who they want on their property.” This necessarily entails an abolition of national borders together with an establishment of personal property borders- for eminent domain is such a rampant evil that people often found homes they paid money for aren’t really their own.

    Outside of government circles, this is intuitively understood. You don’t even need fences. The only people who go where they don’t belong are those with bad intentions. Those people are few and far between, in spite of how often they appear in the media.

  • AncapAviator

    After reading through this, I have a few thoughts.

    “Libertarians are not big on having the government do pretty much anything, and since governments do control political boundaries at present, it makes sense one would assume we favored their abolition. This is not a completely incorrect assumption, but it requires some important details many seem to leave out. It would be more accurate to say we favor privatizing borders, than to say we favor their abolition.”
    >The idea that political boundaries can exist in the absence of governments is false. Political boundaries cannot exist without government because they exist to denote the extent of the territory government claims to control.

    “If there is a conflict between your ideas of what freedom entails, and someone else’s property rights, property rights prevail over your misguided notion of freedom.”
    >This is true, but it requires a solid understanding of what “property rights” (including original appropriation) entails, especially since people still argue that monopoly control of information
    is a valid form of “property rights”.

    “libertarians favor privatization more than they favor abolition”
    >This is a mixed statement at best when regarding functions of the government. If said functions are goods that government simply claims a monopoly on, such as personal security and property protection services, then libertarians do indeed support these functions being performed by private parties. However, if said functions are bads, such as the drug war, the welfare state, an imperial foreign policy, and economic controls, then libertarians support unequivocal abolition. And even in the case of the former, “privatization” can be misleading because it often means the government controlling and directing the transfer of said goods to private parties instead of simply giving up control. Besides, since abolishing the government’s control over desirable goods and services would result in supply of said goods and services being appropriated by private parties anyway, abolition is really the ideal form of privatization.

    ““borders” are the whole entire point of libertarianism. Borders are simply property lines defined by owners and recognized by other members of the society. They are the delineations from which justification of force is derived.”
    >You are conflating property boundaries and political borders. Whether or not borders, and control thereof, are legitimate is dependent on whether the title to the lands they encircle are legitimate(1). Since government is an illegitimate institution(2), any control over lands they claim (from full ownership of “public property” to regulation and management of “private property”) is illegitimate, and so are the borders that purport to denote said claim.

    “Privatizing borders, like privatizing roads, simply removes the title to land from the Nation State, and places it in the hands of a private party.”
    >Since political borders are illegitimate, so would be any monopoly claim on the land they occupy. What should happen is the land that the borders currently occupy would be returned to the unowned state and open to appropriation by private owners via homesteading. In other words, the current illegitimate title should be abolished instead of privatized.

    “The State imposes these “common spaces” against all rational market incentives, as States tend to do. Once it does, it can only bring about one or both of two possible conclusions:
    1. Forced Inclusion
    2. Forced Exclusion
    The “open borders libertarian” chooses forced inclusion and thinks himself quite principled and morally superior, but he is misguided at best and more likely very dishonest.”
    >Forced Inclusion/Exclusion is a problem that is not exclusive to immigration. It involves the welfare state, anti-discrimination laws, and any governmental policies that someone is forced to support via taxation and be subject to via law enforcement against his will.

    “By creating a common space, and maintaining it at taxpayer expense, the State purports to make common ownership of these spaces amongst “the people”. Naturally, this creates conflict, since my interests do not always align with the rest of “the people”. Perhaps I am a factory owner who wants cheap low skilled labor, and so I am quite keen on having lots of impoverished people entering the society desperate for a job. Perhaps someone else is in the real estate business and does not want these impoverished people driving down property values. Any number of examples could be listed here, but somebody is going to get the shaft in this equation at the expense of the other. There is no libertarian course of action for the Nation State to take in this case, it is coercing people to pay for things which they do not want to pay for. So short of privatization, whatever course of action the State embarks upon, it is not going to be libertarian in its nature.”
    >This is all true, but again, nothing here is exclusive to immigration.

    “Philosophically speaking, “the” libertarian position on what a Nation State does with its borders, is that it should privatize them along with everything else.”
    >False. Nation State borders are as illegitimate as the claim on the property they contain by
    the Nation State they define(1)(2). Philosophically speaking, “the” libertarian position on borders is abolition of the illegitimate title on the lands they occupy, thus returning said lands to the state of nature (IE unowned) and ready to be appropriated by private parties. Anything else is political pragmatism.

    WORKS CITED:
    (1) “When Is A Land Title Criminal?” by Murray Rothbard
    (2) “What Makes Government Legitimate?” by Christopher Cantwell

    If you want to make the case that opposing open borders is pragmatically the best option given the world we live in, (which you did in “Open Borders or Market Immigration?”), that’s a defensible position. However, to assert that supporting statist immigration controls (the logical corollary of opposing “open borders”) is somehow the ideal libertarian position is just plain incorrect.

  • spago

    Excuse me for my english that is not good.. that said ..

    1 it seems to me that state management of borders has the same problems of every state program:

    – it is paid by taxes (transeat)
    – it is centralized, dirigist, bureaucratic
    – it is corrupted by lobbyistes, syndicates, riches, etc.. plotting with politicians
    – it is an imposition to all of the will of one part

    2 coming from this premise it is for sure a kind of protectionist socialist program to “defende our work” of course, but not only that.. it is a protectionist socialist program also when made with the intention “to defend our culture, religion, tradition, habits, etc..”. In a libertarian world not only work and business are in the market and exposed to competition, but also culture, religion, tradition, habits, language, way of life, values, etc.. are in the same boat. That is becouse relations between people, will be based on volountarism. So you can not defend your work, business, culture, etc.. with aggression.

    3 in a libertarian world the owners decides who can enter. So how can we go near that outcome in thi statalist world? I answer decentralizing. Every owner must have the right to negotiate with whoever he wants, in or out the border. That is simply the right to do what he wants of his property, that is pure libertarianism. His right of property are our strongest certainty so tehy must prevail. So every owner can for sure invite whoever he wants for whatever reason: he can hire for work, he can invite relatives, he can invite based on religious affinity, he can invite for charity reasons, he can invite for marriage, he can rent or sell a house, he can invite whoever for whatever reason. When an owner invites someone we have a mutual agreement from the one who come and the one who receive. The “greater good”, the “interest of the nation”, “the common good” and other socialist or national socialist rubbish must not intrude in a contract.

    4 in a State we have two kind of property. Private property adknowledged also by state law. And “public” property, that is of everyone and and anyone at the same time. Private property have a clear owner, public property have a confused state of ownership. We are bounded togheter in public ownership against our will, but we are all different, and we would like to use public properties in different way. So in every way a public good is administrated there is an injustice against someone, becouse for sure some citizens disagree with taht way. So my idea is that the will of private owners – people whose rights we are sure – must prevail, and so we can’t prevent private owners from negotiating with whoever they want, from selling or renting freely their properties, from hiring whoever, from inviting and hosting whoever, etc..

    5 so it seems to me that the answer on border is “managed border”. No one can enter without an invite, clandestine, becouse I don’t think that in a libertarian order a private owner would accept clandestines. Also if some property would be freely available for everyone – and that is possible if an owner want so – that would come for a clear will of the owner, with his knowledge and agreement, and as long as he wants. State of clandestinity is an other thing. But everyone with a mutual agreement, with an invite of an owner, can enter. That is a kind of free market solution. No central criterion, no central planning, no protectionism, no socialism, no nationalism.

    6 also immigrants – but locals too – must not have the right to vote or the access on welfare state. And locals – but immigrants too – must have the full right of self defense (but be held responsable if they assault someone).

    7 closed borders or open border if intended literally are absurd and not libertarian.

    • spago

      After all we have to remember that rothbard was for open border for the most part of his life. He was not an idiot, he simply recognized the difference between a private property border and a state border. The first is to be fully recognized . The latter come from violence, war, annession, and is only the border of the territory dominate e by a certain criminal gang named State X.

  • MaryMacMaster

    Wonderful and sound article Christopher Cantwell.
    Please all of you who still believe in “Open Borders” let us all know the reaction you receive when an Open Border Islamic Extremist Terrorist meets up with your welcoming open arms.

  • Alex Silveyra

    “Philosophically speaking, “the” libertarian position on what a Nation
    State does with its borders, is that it should privatize them along with
    everything else. If someone amongst you would like to tell me how we
    get enough people on board with a private property driven society today
    to make that happen, I’m all ears.”——-LOL HOLY SHIT! WHAT A FUCKING MORON! First the “Nation” is ALREADY privatized you stupid fucking idiot dumbass! The “Gov’t” ALL FUCKING ready claims it as it own you stupid fucking imbecile! How fucking else you do thing people can “own” hundreds of acres of land, the “gov’t” claims the shit as its own (without and proof or valid claim) then it illegally sells it to whom fucking ever! The ONLY fucking way to have “private” property is for the “gov’t to come by and STEAL it first, then it turn around and sell it to you YOU STUPID FUCKING ASS CLOWN FUCKING KILL YOURSELF YOU BS ANARCHIST COCKROACH!

  • Alex Silveyra

    ” forced inclusion”—–LOL Are you fucking serious? So having all you cracker ass honky peckerwood dog smelling like Neanderthals has been a fucking pleasure for all us brown people this whole fucking time??! KILL YOURSELF!

    • Alex Silveyra

      Lol So i guess if you dont like faggots then you are being forced to include with them so lets kill them all or send them to Somalia! KILLLL YOURSELFFFFFF!

  • Alex Silveyra

    “Privatizing borders, like privatizing roads, simply removes the title to
    land from the Nation State, and places it in the hands of a private
    party.”——-LOL BRILLIANT! Lets have the land on the “boarder” be “sold”, by the fucking people WHO HAVE NO FUCKING CLAIM TO IT i.e “govt”, to a bunch of other fucking bootlicking statist that would believe they would actually have a claim to land and/or “ownership”. Hahahah GOOD LUCK! You be the first fucking idiots getting killed!