Libertarians Against Open Borders

The freedom to travel is a human right and using force to stop the free movement of people would be against Libertarian principles. This is what many Libertarians believe. Unfortunately, open borders, and unrestricted immigration are not in line with Libertarian principles when it comes down to one very important factor. That factor is PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Private Property Rights, along with the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), are the cornerstones of libertarian philosophy. The idea that someone has free speech goes away once the person speaking has violated the rights of someone’s private property. Free speech does not mean you can walk into someone’s house and start giving a speech about going vegan in their living room. Free speech does not mean you can go into a crowded theater and scream “Fire!” since this would be a violation of property right of both the owner of the theater and the patrons who purchased tickets to see the show, or performance, or movie. So the same applies to immigration and open borders.

We have to look at immigration under two different scenarios,or paradigms. Immigration in a free society and immigration under the statist paradigm. Let’s take a look at the free society theory as it relates to immigration. This is pretty straightforward. If all of the private property is owned and titled to someone or a group of people, or a community, they those property owners get to decide who enter their communities. They get to decide who they will sell property to and who is permitted to enter into their communities. These communities may be defined communities that stress living by a certain code of ethics and a set of values. You might have catholic communities, mormon communities, gay communities, traditional marriage communities, black communities, white communities, communist communities, anarcho-capitalist communities, so on and so forth. These communities,or enclaves, are free to trade with other communities from afar, and even welcome visitors from other enclaves, but they will most likely restrict who lives in their community based on race, religion, values, cultural norms, and a whole list of other reasons, so that the communities can maintain their character and cultural values that will be preserved by the property owners and inhabitants that make up that community. If there are people who want an all inclusive, non discriminating community, then they can go establish this type of community as long as they acquire private property through legitimate means. No one has the right to force someone to associate with someone and that’s what open borders leads to in a society where all of the private property is owned by people. Forced integration is not libertarian. What if someone wants to invite an immigrant into their community? Forced segregation is wrong too, right? Well, if someone wants to invite an immigrant to stay with them for an indefinite amount of time then that person will be responsible for the immigrant’s actions to some degree. If the immigrant commits a crime then the immigrant is responsible and the person who invited the immigrant will be held responsible to a lesser degree. It’s the same thing if a child hits a baseball through a neighbor’s window. The parent will hold some of the responsibility,maybe the child mows lawns to pay for the damage. So people will think twice about who they invite into their communities. Property titles may also stipulate who owners are allowed to sell to so that the community retains it’s culture and values.

Under the statist paradigm it’s a bit different. The State has no right to do anything. It has no right to run healthcare, or a welfare-warfare state, expropriate income from people to pay for monopolized services, it has no right to be the ultimate decision maker through the courts, and it has no right to draw arbitrary borders. How should immigration work under the statist paradigm? Well, immigrants come across borders and the become welfare parasites, so is the answer to abolish welfare and then we can have open borders. Welfare should be abolished, but that does not mean we should have open borders? The taxpayers are the owners of all goods and services. Who but the taxpayers should be the rightful owners of ALL public goods and services. Someone from a third world country who just plops themselves in a country and uses public resources without paying taxes is essentially stealing from the taxpayers and rightful owners of public property. What if they do pay taxes and there is no welfare state? Well then it comes down to the type of people entering the country. If a King owns all of the land in the country, it is his job to make sure the value of that land does not depreciate. So what kind of people would increase the value of a country? ┬áLet’s see, doctors, entrepreneurs, people with IQs above 100 (preferably people with IQs above 110), innovators, and scientists. It would be unwise and irresponsible to allow vagabonds, marauders, rapists, murderers, vandals, terrorists, panhandlers, and low IQ people into your society.

So no matter what we must have a system of restricted immigration and closed borders. Private property borders in a free society to preserve cultural values and freedom of association and to prevent forced integration. Statist borders are not ideal, they are not even legitimate, but if there is a welfare state immigration must be restricted, and if there is no welfare state, the value of the country should appreciate not plummet by inviting the dregs of humanity into the country.

Advertisements