A Libertarian Case For Borders

It is all too common in the modern “liberty sphere” to hear such phrases as “freedom of movement” and “open borders” when discussing what the libertarian position on immigration should be. After all, we don’t want the State doing things — so why should we want them to restrict immigration? Don’t people have the freedom to travel where they wish? These questions are posed as if they are instant brutal takedowns of the idea that a libertarian should support borders. At first glance, perhaps these arguments would seem to have a point. But there is no real substance behind these platitudes — the only reason they are so effective is because they exploit the libertarian knee-jerk reaction to anything State-related. These rhetorical points, and others which I will introduce later, are empty arguments that not only fail to demonstrate that open borders is libertarian, but are anti-libertarian arguments at a fundamental level. They are rhetorical devices that have a death grip on modern libertarians that turn most self-proclaimed liberty lovers into shills for statist crony corporate figures, such as the Koch Brothers — without them even realizing it.

I’ll begin by addressing this ridiculous notion of the “freedom of movement.” The freedom to “go places” is not an axiom; it is not a “freedom” or “right” in and of itself. If I see an open field, I don’t have the right to cross it by virtue of this “freedom of movement.” In the scenario thus far, I don’t know if I can cross it at all! If the field is owned property, then I do not have the right to cross it. Even if the owner consents to my crossing the field, it is not my right to do so but rather my privilege. In that situation, the property owner is exerting his right over the land, and he grants me the privilege to move across it. If the field is unowned, I do have the “freedom” to “move” across it. However, the libertarian perspective isn’t so easy to apply as it is in this example, because the question is not as simple as “is the field owned or unowned?” Land is typically either privately owned or “belongs” to the State. We can answer the question of “freedom of movement” for the privately owned property — as I already have. But what about the “State-owned” property? The State claims title over land not based upon any quasi-legitimate homesteading principle or truly voluntary purchase, but simply by claiming to own it or by purchasing it with stolen goods and either using it for its own purposes or selling it to the people who already de-facto paid for it with their taxes. So what’s the right answer? If the field in the scenario earlier described is “State-owned,” what are we to do when someone wants to cross it?

Now that this question has been properly framed, one can see that there’s not an easy libertarian answer to this. It’s a question about how the State should use resources it lays claim to, while the libertarian objects to those resources being confiscated or claimed by the State in the first place. However, we can analogize these scenarios to get some helpful perspective. We can liken the State to a thief who purchases a plot of land with money he stole from some townspeople. The immigration issue is equivalent to the question of what the thief should do with “his” new plot of land after he stole it. He shouldn’t have stolen it in the first place! But now that he lays claim to it, what is the best thing that can happen from that point on? Suppose he takes this plot of land and leases it out to strangers who carelessly farm the land and destroy its fertility. This would be a tragedy! In this case, a thief illegitimately acquired land and allowed it to be exploited for interests unrelated to, or even against, the townspeople. Now, let’s suppose he instead protects the property from invasion and allows the townspeople to cultivate crops on it. All outsiders are strictly forbidden, only the townspeople may partake. What is going on here? The thief illegitimately took land, but instead of being plundered and destroyed by outsiders, the people who were stolen from were able to benefit from the land as they would have without the thief’s actions. Likely not to the extent they would have been able to benefit without him — a person who purchased the land legitimately would have much more motivation to cultivate it wisely, since ownership of the property comes with liabilities the thief need not concern himself with. This is not to say that these liabilities don’t exist for the thief; rather, it is of no cost to him if the land is destroyed and rendered useless since he didn’t even purchase it with his own wealth in the first place. A legitimate owner would not “break even” if the land was destroyed, he’d suffer significant and lasting losses. Despite this, it is still clear that the thief choosing to “steward” the land according to the interests of the people is far better than allowing it to be exploited by outsiders.

In the same way, it would clearly be better for the State to use the land it claims as its own in the interests of the people who live under the State’s rule rather than for the State to allow the land to be traveled upon and used by outsiders who, at worst, exploit Americans via the welfare state, and at best, can support themselves, but create conflict due to cultural incompatibilities. At any rate, it is evident that some “bad” will be introduced into society, even taking into consideration the economic contributions of the newcomers. Economic contribution can be weighed against economic burden (i.e. via the welfare state) to an extent, but it cannot be quantifiably weighed against cultural conflict. That is, there is no point at which you can say “X amount of economic contribution cancels out Y amount of cultural conflict.” As such, you can argue until you’re blue in the face that immigrants contribute positively to the economy, but you can never objectively say that the cultural conflict (and potential cultural degeneration) introduced is worth it for the economic contribution. Further, it should be noted that another pair of working hands is also another mouth to feed. Even immigrants that pay their taxes and don’t take government handouts have to consume goods in the market. They do introduce new resources (usually labor), but they also introduce more demand in the market. With one hand they push, and with the other, they pull. I’m not saying they do so in exactly equal amounts, but given these other factors, one must consider that an immigrant isn’t by nature an economic boon as the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine would have you believe. The majority of them are, economically speaking, lay people with the added proclivity to create cultural friction. Who has the right to decide to willingly introduce cultural conflict for the sake of dubious potential for negligible economic growth? Not the state or federal governments. That should be obvious enough — they are typically too distant from the local populations (and preside over too many localities) to make that determination. Federal and state level policies on this issue are incapable of accounting for the variance in culture and “tolerance” for outsiders across a region as vast a state or the entire nation. Even the “local” governments of most cities can’t speak for their population since their population consists of people who disagree on the issue. Hoppean covenant communities are the solution to this: individual communities can decide their own policy. They may welcome outsiders in, not caring about potential cultural conflict, or they may exclude anyone in the interest of preserving the peace. Perhaps they may take a middle-of-the-road approach, allowing outsiders to visit for a while but not allowing them to purchase property. The actual policies chosen by individual communities is not my concern, but rather that individual communities should be able to rule themselves in this regard rather than being subject to the unilateral decisions imposed upon them by large cities, states, and the federal government.

Finally, there is a very real appeal to pragmatism for libertarians. The unfortunate reality is that most foreigners aren’t very friendly to the ideas of liberty, free markets, and free association. As established earlier, the question of who should be allowed to travel on “State-owned” property isn’t an easy question for libertarians, but it is clearly best if the method by which the State manages the property serves the interests of the people as best it can. And if we, as libertarians, can agree that the ideals of liberty, free markets, and free association are in the interest of the people, then it should be abundantly clear that the “immigration policy” should seek to preserve those ideals. If it is true that foreigners are not generally friendly to libertarian goals, then we certainly don’t want them voting in elections or dispersing their anti-libertarian ideals to the general population. The way to achieve this is to keep such people physically removed from our social order (if you can even call what we have “order” at all) — borders protect liberty.

So no, the libertarian answer to immigration in a statist society isn’t “open borders.” In fact, “open borders” is a gimmick of statists and crony capitalists to get cheap labor, to create cultural conflict (perpetuating the supposed “need” for a State as conflict mediator), and in some cases, simply to avoid being called “racist.” The reasons to support open borders are not rooted in true libertarian principles, but instead in the same sort of social individualism that emphasizes “freedom” in the sense of being empowered to do what one wants and go where one wishes without consequence rather than “freedom” understood in light of property rights.

<<Democracy As A Revolt Against Order+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Is Libertarianism Reactionary?>>