Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders?

As I write, there are several thousand non-European refugees outside Calais, all trying to enter the United Kingdom. Because they are disrupting travel across the Channel in the main holiday season, the British media has no choice but to report on their presence, and to keep reporting. Their presence is followed by the British public in part because of the disruption, but mainly, I think, because of what they visibly represent.

Britain, together with every country like Britain, is faced with an inward movement of peoples no smaller in extent than the mass-emigrations from Europe that settled North America and Australasia, and perhaps as great in its effects as the incursions from across the Rhine and Danube that transformed the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. We face a mass-immigration from the Third World that may eventually double or treble our populations, and that will, by inevitable force of numbers, make us minorities in what we have so far considered to be our homelands.

What have we, as libertarians, to say about this?

The mainstream response, I suggest, has been unsatisfactory. For the libertarian mainstream, the only legitimate use of force is to protect individual rights. Since movement across a border is not in itself a violation of individual rights, closing the borders is, by definition, an illegitimate use of force. Therefore, the libertarian mainstream is formally opposed to immigration control.

Of course, libertarians are not blind. They are usually aware of the crime and welfare dependency, and of the demands for accommodation to the ways of the newcomers – demands increasingly backed by threats of terrorism, or by actual terrorism. They are also sometimes aware of how the arrival of the newcomers has been used as an excuse by our ruling classes to abolish freedom of speech and association, and to create a multicultural police state, and to reverse the gradual equalisation of classes that has taken place since about 1850. Many are quietly troubled by the demographic projections.

Their response, though, has been to look more at treating symptoms than at addressing the cause. They call for a smaller welfare state, to discourage the more undesirable sort of newcomers. They call for an end to the censorship and coerced association laws. Or they turn for comfort to a partial reading of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and insist that neither mass-immigration not its effects would exist in a free world.

But none of this will do. State welfare will not be abolished in the short term. Even if it were, coming here to beg in the streets would be a better option for many immigrants than staying put. It is difficult to argue for freedom of speech, when it will only provoke rioting and the sort of targeted murders we saw in Paris earlier this year. And, whatever solutions might have emerged in a free world – however the problem might not have emerged in a free world – we live in a world of overextended states. These have crowded out alternative institutions, and these institutions are a work of many decades or even centuries.

We are where we are. Either mass-immigration must be stopped with the means currently at hand, or it will not be stopped. This means passports and visas, and agencies empowered to seek out and return those who slip through the first line of immigration control. Where the refugees in Calais are concerned, it means deporting them to the last non-European country they left, and making sure that no more of them are allowed to reach the northern shores of the Mediterranean.

This is, I hasten to add, only part of the solution. Our governments must also stop turning much of the Third World into slagheaps soaked in human blood. They must stop veering between support of local tyrants and their more recent insistence on forms of government inappropriate to actual conditions. They must, so far as possible, leave other peoples to work out their own destinies in their own ways. This will, I have no doubt, reduce the outward push behind the migrants. Even so, we must secure our own borders.

Now, for many of those libertarians who accept the existence of a problem, this solution is itself a problem. An ideology that cannot be followed in extreme cases must be a false ideology. If the non-aggression principle is not to be consistently applied, is it worth applying at all?

I appreciate the difficulty. At the same time, it is a manufactured difficulty. It would not have been recognised as a difficulty by most of our intellectual ancestors. If many libertarians, when they think about mass-immigration, are now beginning to look like scared ostriches, or the more double-joined Indian fakirs, this is not because of any defect in the libertarian fundamentals. It is because, over the past few decades, libertarianism has been re-interpreted in ways that part company with reality. To be specific, the non-aggression principle has been raised from something to be desired within circumstantial constraints to an abstract and absolute imperative. If the only legitimate use of force is to protect individual rights, all other uses of force are illegitimate, and must be rejected out of hand by libertarians.

Let us consider how distant this imperative is from reality.

First, look at the nature of the imperative. It is not something written into the basic laws of the universe. There is a line of verbal trickery, culminating perhaps in Ayn Rand, that tries to establish individual rights with the same firmness as we recognise the nature of a circle, or are able to know the melting point of lead. But, unless you want to claim that God wants us to be free – a claim attended by difficulties still unsettled after several thousand years – your assertion of rights is no more than a request for other people to leave you alone. If your request is rejected in whatever degree, you must either put up with being less free than you would like, or choose between defensive force and escape.

Second, there is no reason to believe that most people want to be free in the sense demanded by libertarians. This is not to deny the value of freedom. When those who want to be free are enslaved, everyone else may suffer. But most people, in all times and places, have been content to be free only in the sense allowed to teenage children, or to the citizens of an authoritarian police state. They want to be free to choose what colour shoes to wear, or whether to lie in on a Sunday morning. Beyond that, they are willing to leave all the other choices to custom or the direction of those set over them. Wherever this has not been the case, freedom has generally been granted unrequested from above, or it has been demanded as one item in a package of more highly-valued goods.

Third, what most people do want is an identity beyond themselves. This may be provided by a religion. Most often, it is provided by a sense of shared nationality. People join together with those who share their blood, their language, their basic assumptions and habits of thought. They research and celebrate their history. They take consolation for their own death as individuals in the belief that their nation will continue indefinitely into the future.

As with the non-aggression principle, nationhood is not an abstract imperative. It is, however, an immensely powerful desire, shown in all times and places of which we have knowledge. People will kill for their nation. They will die for it. When committed for the sake of their nation, they will condone what would otherwise be thought the most shocking crimes. They regard their own lives and property as leasehold interests in a freehold held by the nation as a whole. However they began, and whatever else they do, states are regarded as legitimate so far as they perform their duties as agent of the national freeholder.

You may insist: “I am not part of any collective. I have no group interests. I am a sovereign individual.” In a country like England, you will not be killed for saying this, or shunned by your neighbours. But your wishes will be ignored. You will be punished if you are caught breaking the laws of your country, or if you refuse too openly to pay your taxes. Again, there is no abstract right or wrong in this. It is just what happens, and what most people want to happen.

If, on the other hand, there are enough people in a nation who share your belief – or if the authorities choose with sufficient firmness to outlaw national feeling – the natural consequence is that your nation will lose out to other nations that remain more cohesive.

This brings me to immigration. The scale of what we presently face seems likely to turn majorities into minorities. I repeat that this is neither good nor bad in the abstract. But there are plain dangers in belonging to a separate and visible nationality that lacks its own territory and machinery of state. Though often tolerated, minorities are not always tolerated. They are under permanent threat of a range of harms bounded by forced assimilation and murder.

The Israelis know this very well. Where non-Jews are concerned, they operate one of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world. They flatly refuse any “right of return” to the descendants of the Arabs they once expelled, and they are surrounding their country with steel fences. Israel is their Jewish State, and they will do whatever it takes to keep it so. The white Rhodesians and white South Africans have discovered the same truth. It was a truth discovered by all the peoples displaced by European settlers – why else did the Maoris and Red Indians fight such hopeless wars of resistance, once the immigrant ships began arriving in earnest? Though it cannot be forthrightly discussed, given our multicultural police state, it is a truth known well enough in Britain and every country like Britain.

What all this means for libertarians is that we have, for the past few decades, been trying to explain and influence the world with the equivalent of a non-Euclidean geometry. Not surprisingly, our movement has got nowhere. Not surprisingly, many of us are now scratching our heads and asking how, if we have been reasoning correctly from our premises, what we conclude about mass-immigration is so at variance with what we and most other people really believe.

The answer, I suggest, is to bring libertarianism back to the realities of human nature. Lack of belief in wide-open borders should cease to be regarded as at best a derogation from the orthodox view. Instead, we should accept that we are members of a nation, and that our nation is precious to us – so precious that we want it to be free. There are sound utilitarian arguments for freedom of speech and association, for due process of law, for minimal taxes and regulation, and for a non-interventionist foreign policy. Though they do not exist in the abstract, rights do exist in a nation state, where they can be seen as nodes in the permanent circuitry of power.

Whether directly or by secondary benefit, free people are happier than unfree people. This is to be welcomed. And a free nation, there can be no reasonable doubt, is richer and more powerful than less free nations, and is better able to defend its territory and its way of life.

Considered in this light, libertarianism is not a prescription for letting be done to ourselves what we did to the Maoris. It is instead part of a strategy for group survival and advancement.

None of this means asserting that we are morally or genetically better than other nations. We do not need to hate other nations, or to wish them ill. We may find it useful, now and again, to learn from them, or to encourage them to learn from us. If the most vocal opponents of mass-immigration at present are authoritarians, this is entirely an accident of fashion. There is no necessary connection between wanting our own country for ourselves and wanting a despotic government. Just as authoritarians and libertarians both wear trousers, or drink coffee, there is no reason why they should not both believe in their nation – though they might have radically different ideas of how and to what extent it should be governed.

That we belong to a nation, and that we want our nation to be free, is a better start to a conversation with non-libertarians than the usual output of the libertarian movement. It is also a better start to a conversation with ourselves.


  • I still don’t get it, Sean.

    Your statement — although I am having trouble telling whether you are using it to describe your own belief or the belief of others — that “an ideology that cannot be followed in extreme cases must be a false ideology” is true.

    So, even setting aside the perfectly reasonably libertarian objection to the claim that politicians can sacramentally mumble magical invisible lines into existence on the ground which others are bound to respect and pretending that that objection is “extreme,” it just doesn’t seem that complicated.

    If libertarianism, as applied to immigration and borders, is a false ideology, why not reject it and embrace another? Why insist that on this one issue, and this one issue only, what is true everywhere else becomes false and vice versa?

    • So, the tax payers get milked while the tax farmers resettle their country as they see fit. Wholesale population integration experiments, but hey! it’s all libertarian, right?! What are you, some kind of countryist?

      If the Irish state decides that Ireland is not actually a country for Irish people, but instead a place that belongs to hundreds of thousands of Romanians, Chinese, Nigerian, etc then only an idiotic statist would have a problem! Ireland does not exist, fool! China exists, and so does Nigeria, obviously. I know that because of all the Chinese and Nigerians there. Confused? Don’t be.

      Everything the state does is predatory and terrible, therefore importing labour for corporations (heroic libertarian enterprises) and clients for the state is good because mass 3rd world immigration is exactly like my prediction of what a private law society would look like. Oh, and if you disagree with my cost-free speculations, you’re a -insert cliche-

      • I can never get a straight answer out of people who say what you do, so let’s see if you can give me one.

        You say “magic invisible lines”, please tell me how property lines are not magic invisible lines? Yeah, I know, you bought your property, OK, from who? By what right did he claim it? Who enforces that claim if someone disputes it?

        Borders are not “magic lines”, they are territory that like minded people claimed for themselves, if you’re going argue about the basis for them making that claim fine, but then everything unravels, at some point you have to just say, this is person owns this, and have some type of entity that enforces that ownership.

      • Thaaaat’s really not true.
        Many chinese are in the USA or Europe, so no “China is not there” because there are “all the chinese there”.
        That’s pretty stupid sorry to tell you.

    • Property is often divided by invisible lines, but it’s not magical.

      The British state stops taxing United Biscuits. If libertarianism is true, one must celebrate. Oh good, more people enjoying the fruit of their own labour! Oh wait, but what about the other biscuit makers? Isn’t this just an awful case of cronyism? No, it can’t be. My ideology is true, after all.

      • “The British state stops taxing United Biscuits. If libertarianism is true, one must celebrate. Oh good, more people enjoying the fruit of their own labour! Oh wait, but what about the other biscuit makers? Isn’t this just an awful case of cronyism? No, it can’t be. My ideology is true, after all.”

        Nice strawman.

        If the state stops taxing United Biscuits, should I demand that it be re-imposed, or should I call for the tax moratorium to be extended to everyone else as well?

        The anti-immigration position is that if there isn’t freedom on X, there shouldn’t be freedom on Y.

        The libertarian position is that there should be freedom on both X and Y, and that absence of freedom on X should never be used to shackle Y.

        • How is defending your border any different than defending your home? Why are like minded people not allowed to group together and form communities, tribes, countries, whatever you’d like to call them?

          Where is it written that libertarians must allow any one and everyone into their society to point that they are eventually overwhelmed and put under the boot of those they’ve let in who don’t share their enlightened views?

          Finally, and most important, how many 3rd world “immigrants” are you volunteering to take into your home and be legally and financially responsible for?

    • “Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders?”

      Unless you are a hypocrite who cherry picks libertarian ideas when they suit him like any old conservative douche, then yes.

      Libertarianism means OPEN BORDERS.
      Otherwise all this talk about “freedom” is bullshit. Not to mention all these institutions mean a BIGGER government than before – contrary to libertarian ideas.

    • The problem I have with your position is that the state has assumed territorial control which is illegitimate control / possession of territory. Whether those borders are closed or open it remains a violation that they control who can and cannot enter. I have never heard a libertarian argue for ‘closed borders.’ Most libertarians arguing against a policy of ‘open borders’ do so because the government allowing newcomers onto land it illegitimately controls is are a vast series of property rights violations.

  • Just because someone supports the NAP doesn’t mean they have to follow everything to the letter like some crazed zealot. Our world is far from free or a level playing field, so there are at present ‘ethical justifications’ to support immigration controls for people who don’t value freedom (or even policies like the minimum wage for example). Blindly following principles can play directly into the hands of those who would profit from the West becoming like sub-Saharan Africa. You take one step forward towards freedom, followed by ten steps back…

    • How is defending your border any different than defending your home? Why are like minded people not allowed to group together and form communities, tribes, countries, whatever you’d like to call them?

      Where is it written that libertarians must allow any one and everyone into their society to point that they are eventually overwhelmed and put under the boot of those they’ve let in who don’t share their enlightened views?

      Finally, and most important, how many 3rd world “immigrants” are you volunteering to take into your home and be legally and financially responsible for?

    • Ahh, sorry Nick, that was not directed at you, I hit the wrong button.

  • There is a very simple solution to this problem:

    This will lead to the usual chants of “racism, racism, racism”, but so what?

    It is important to realise that like all the usual tush about the brotherhood of man, when our enemies talk about free immigration they mean free immigration FROM the non-white world into what is left of the white world. No one else would stand for this; the Chinese certainly don’t.

    With regard to the Middle East, we should just pull out and let them get on with it. If we had done this in the first place there would have been some sort of peace treaty by now.

    Furthermore, instead of locking up Anjem Choudary, they should let him and anyone else who wants to fight for Islamic State leave the country provided they never come back.

    • No chant of “racism, racism, racism” here. Just a chant of “bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.”

      If you “illegally” enter the United States [sic — the US Constitution forbids the federal government to regulate immigration, so all such restrictions are legally void], you do not get “a social security card, welfare, food stamps … subsidised rent or a loan to buy a house …”

      You might get a job if someone is willing to hire you, which is exactly as it should be. Some states would rather license “illegal alien” drivers than have them careening all over the highways without having taken any proficiency test and without insurance. Other states prefer higher accident rates and less financial responsibility.

      As far as health care, the law does require emergency rooms to treat any and all in, well, emergencies, whether they can afford to pay or not. I don’t agree with that, but it doesn’t seem like “illegal aliens” are the big users of that law. “Illegal immigrants” do not get Medicaid or ObamaCare subsidies or Medicare.

      “Billions of dollars worth of public documents printed in your language?” Not sure what that’s supposed to mean. The US has no official language. Numerous languages have always been spoken here. The US Declaration of Independence was printed in English, French, German, Spanish and Dutch to accommodate the larges populations living here at the time. These days the top two languages are English and Spanish.

      Ah, and then we get past that point and it turns out I was wrong — I DO have to notice that the piece is a steaming pile of racist horseshit. But nice try.

      • Thomas,
        ” the US Constitution forbids the federal government to regulate immigration, so all such restrictions are legally void…”. Not exactly. The US Constitution prohibits the Federal government from passing immigration laws in the original 13 States (or however many there were before 1808) until after 1808. Otherwise, the power to regulate immigration falls to the States.

        • You’re getting warmer. The Constitution assigned to Congress, from the beginning, the authority to adopt by statute uniform rules of naturalization and the Congess did so as early as 1790. However, the Constitution reserved to the several states the power to admit such additioal persons as each state might choose for a period of 20 years following the entering into force of the Union. This, in the typically convoluted language of the day meant that states could choose to admit indentured labor and chattel slaves for a limited time, approximately a generation, without regard to any restrictions on entry set by Congress. When the 20 years expired, slave importation was ended and the US Navy was assigned to suppress the trade, going so far as to cooperate, with the limited resources available to it, in the West Africa anti-slaving patrols of the Royal Navy.

      • The Constitution gives the Federal Government the power, actually the duty to defend the Nation, invasions aren’t always with tanks and bombs, should I start to list some great Empires that died out due to mass immigration? Romans got displaced by Goths and Huns. Lakota, Cherokee, Aztecs, etc, all embraced open borders, worked out well for them eh? You don’t have a country if you don’t have a border.

  • A superb exposition, Dr. Gabb — one on which I must devote considerable thought. I sincerely hope that others will as well. Bravo!

  • Nick,

    Well, you either support the NAP or you don’t. It’s a “principle,” not a “suggestion.”

    I’m not so much saying that you should support the NAP as that you should EITHER support the NAP OR stop pretending to be a libertarian. There’s no shame in truthfully labeling your set of beliefs as opposed to trying to disguise them as some other set of beliefs.

    • Only a sith lord deals in absolutes… 😉

      But joking aside, if my principle is, for example, to greet everyone one I see with a friendly handshake, and I come across someone wielding a blood-soaked machete – avoiding contact (or running away) is not selling out. In fact it’s just using common sense – something ideologues of all hues seem to struggle with. You can support open borders but still be mindful of the calamity it may bring in a world that is far from free.

      The ability to adhere to a principle really depends on the circumstances, but I suppose every movement has its realists and its idealists. Binary thinking is not the hallmark of wisdom or self-knowledge.

    • “Well, you either support the NAP or you don’t. It’s a “principle,” not a “suggestion.””

      You seem to be accusing others of double standards, but there is flawed logic at the core of your own reasoning. For a principle to be valid, it has to be Universal and Consistent. The principle: ‘open borders’ is not universal because goods are not completely free to cross borders, nor are we free to cross the borders of the lands of the new arrivals… For the same reason I wouldn’t support the abolition of welfarism whilst powerful institutions are benefiting from other forms of government ‘charity’.

      ‘Useful Idiot’ is a term appropriate for someone who consistently supports the one part of a principle that only really benefits the powerful at the expense of everyone else (especially when it’s unlikely that the second (mitigating) half of that principle will never be applied). The term ‘Vulgar Libertarianism’ is also apt here.

      • Correction: Should be ‘ever’ not ‘never’

      • A principal has to be universally/consistently correct, not universally/consistently adhered to.

        By your reasoning, a principled opposition to murder would be impossible on the part of any person, since someone, somewhere is going to commit murder.

        • “A principal has to be universally/consistently correct, not universally/consistently adhered to.”

          But it’s not being adhered to. The open border part of people coming in is being adhered to by the elites. The free movement of goods part is not, as this would impact on the wealth of their special interest groups.

          You can’t say, for example, importation of cheap labour GOOD, but importation of cheap goods BAD. You either embrace both parts of the principle or reject both, because then it becomes merely a self-serving preference. If the elites (out of self-interest) won’t let the markets be flooded by cheap overseas products (+ booze and tobacco etc.), then there is justification to oppose the market being flooded with cheap labour (out of public self-interest). It’s funny how even the left always seem to support policies that ultimately only benefit the well-heeled. There are a lot of useful idiots out there.

          • Now you’re just not making any sense at all. Your version of a principle being “universal and consistent” is that everyone (“universal”) adheres to all parts of it (“consistent”).

            In fact, all that universality and consistency means is that a principle is applicable to all situations, in the same way. The fact that some people don’t adhere to it, whether in whole or in part, is irrelevant to whether or not it is a principle.

            Your version, in practice, means that there can never, ever, ever be any principles whatsoever.

            “You can’t say, for example, importation of cheap labour GOOD, but importation of cheap goods BAD.”

            Correct. I’m unaware that you were under the impression that I’ve ever said any such thing. In point of fact, I favor total freedom to import/export goods and total freedom for labor to immigrate/emigrate.

            • What I’m saying is stop supporting principles that only favour the well-heeled, who have no intention of supporting similar principles that favour the common man. Everyone should strive not to be a Useful Idiot, even if it means sacrificing dogma.

              • I would never dream of supporting a principle that favored only the well-heeled. Every man Jack benefits from complete immigration freedom. It’s the closest thing to an unalloyed good as you’re likely to find in politics.

                • But as said, we don’t have ‘complete immigration freedom’. Not when it comes to goods, and not when it comes to trying to cross the borders of the immigrants homelands (reciprocation). What we currently have is a ‘part immigration freedom’ tailored to serve the well-heeled at the expense of the common man – so it may as well be flushed down the toilet.

                  • Precisely. And your solution is to limit freedom further rather than expanding it further. In your quest for universality and consistency, you’d rather just let it be all bad than fight to have it all good.

                    • Under current circumstances in the UK, it would be foolish to support an open-door policy, especially when the current batch of new arrivals will be used to hold the rest of the population to ransom and become a net drain on the economy (whilst consolidating the power of the elites). Agree that a free world has to have free movement of people, but opening your borders in a hostile climate won’t necessarily make the world a freer place – in fact it will probably lead to the opposite… Acting in self-defence doesn’t violate the NAP, nor does using some common sense.

    • Non-Aggression doesn’t mean you have sit idly by as a big wooden horse is wheeled into your city.

    • Yes, and a policy of Open Borders is a property rights violation and a breach of the NAP – which you’re supporting.

  • For the benefit of Thomas L. Knapp, and anyone else unfamiliar with the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8 sets forth most of the specific subject areas over which Congress has legislative power; the first clause of the fourth paragraph reads: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization …”

    This general power is subject to the provisions of Section 9’s first paragraph which reads: “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” This was one of the document’s many compromises. Many wanted to ban importation of slaves immediately, others wanted importation of slaves guaranteed in perpetuity; what they settled on was a twenty year period before Congress could address that subset of the immigration question.

    FWIW, Congress did promptly adopt a law on naturalization and, when the twenty years expired, the importation of slaves was banned.

    • Naturalization is not immigration. The first US law regulating immigration was adopted in 1882, and was based on treaty, even though an activist Supreme Court had, in 1875, fantasized a power to regulate immigration into the Constitution where none had previously existed.

      It is true that at any time after 1808 the US Constitution COULD have been amended to legitimize federal immigration regulation. It’s just that it never WAS so amended.

      • I agree with Thomas on the need for America to have wide-open borders. Whatever it does internally, that will mean a more rational American foreign policy than we have seen in recent decades. I think my argument applies mainly to England and the other European countries. The Israelis and Japanese will continue doing what they do without having to read me.

        • I don’t know how you mean ‘need,’ here, unless you’re accepting the Constitution argument — that the Constitution doesn’t permit immigration restriction. But in any case, we’ve had de facto open borders for decades and it hasn’t rationalized our foreign policy at all. On the contrary, the blurring of the distinction between Americans and nonAmericans actually _encourages_ the thinking that everything that happens anywhere is America’s business. And, of course, our liberal/neocon overlords are firmly in support of open borders. Unless _they’re_ irrational about it, open borders would seem to be completely compatible with our busybody imperialist foreign policy. Our practice of invading and bombing everybody and then inviting the survivors to immigrate shows no signs of changing anytime soon.

          My position is that immigration restriction would have the effect of making the US a better place internally, of course, and would tend to make us more ‘isolationist’ in the ‘mind your own business’ sense of the word. A fine thing indeed, and completely in tune with all versions of libertarianism except the most stubborn anarchist variety, which is unrealistic in a lot of other ways.

      • So why were there no open borders in the entire bulk of US History? It wasn’t until 1965 that this started.

        You keep wanting to use the Founders as your base, well fine, they passed the first immigration law in 1790, just 3yrs after the Constitution was signed. You are really reaching if you’re trying to make a case that the colonists fought a bloody war so they could have open borders and allow anyone from anywhere to just cross into their country.

  • Either you believe in the free movement of goods and peoples or you’re some kind of nationalist and, therefore, collectivist. To construct a border you have to define and “in” group using some kind of arbitrary test.

    I might have some sympathy to an argument along the lines of, ” We can’t have open borders until we abolish the welfare state and a have a properly robust system of property rights and recognition of the right to self defence” but this isn’t it. This is some kind of plea to adopt a new status quo modelled on an the situation of an imaginary past England where government somehow wasn’t evil, totalitarian, and collectivist. Apart from the fact the past is another country and we can’t go back there, it never really existed, it’s all in your imagination.

    Repeat after me: there is no such thing as limited government. History shows. Personally I look to people like Cody Wilson who are advocating advancing freedom via technology. We need to have transportation technology to match so the borders become irrelevant. Where are all those flying cars?

    There may be a transitional period but one of the blessing of the free movement of goods and people is vastly increased wealth and material resources. That’s what is needed to address of economic migration and that’s what SIG should be publishing essays about, IMNSVHO.

    The sort of reasoning put forward in this essay is why I reject libertarianism and call myself an anarchist.

    • “Either you believe in the free movement of goods and peoples or…”

      Typical false dilemma fallacy.

      It actually would be nice to have free movement of goods, but ever heard of import tax and other restrictions? Corporations want state-sponsored (taxpayer funded) immigration to drive down their own labour costs whilst simultaneously calling for legislation to protect their own products from foreign competition…. I don’t know about you, but I don’t like being duped. I don’t think Mr Gabb is being a hypocrite, I think he’s just being a realist here.

        • Nice straw man.

          It leads me to suspect that all political/religious/philosophical movements are created to serve the needs of a particular elite and that humanity is never too short of True Believers.

          • Nick,

            Well, there’s a strawman there … but I’m the one who set it on fire, not the one who built it.

            Camouflaging one’s dislike of X by pretending that sure, X is desirable but only possible once A through W have been completely solved is a pretty classic trick, and I’m hardly the first to notice it (in libertarianism, Murray Rothbard took a “no particular order” position precisely to combat the tendency).

            No particular orderism is not an argument for the libertarian position on immigration per se. It’s just taking notice of the fact that ANY libertarian position can be fended off if you can find something else to hold hostage against it.

            Oddly, in the United States in particular, that approach doesn’t work anyway. “Illegal immigrants” provide a net subsidy to, rather than a net drain on, the US economy in general and US government “social programs” in particular.

            • It’s a straw man because no one here is saying that conditions have to be perfect to adopt open boarders (or other principles), just that this may be the worst time in history to do so. In the UK, immigration has proved to be a net drain on ordinary folk, whilst the elites have never had it so good. Besides, you can’t measure everything in monetary gain, what about innovation, liberty, public safety, ethical progress and other improvements to quality of life?

    • You want anarchy in which various groups or nations can have autonomy, self-determination, private law, private security etc and limit the entry of goods and people into their settlement as they see fit.

      But not the English nation, which doesn’t really exist. Except when either insulting it or issuing instructions. The people of the English nation are actually a free anarchist association and therefore they ought not complain about immigration, says their giant state! Confused? Don’t be a collectivist, the state needs more cattle. Inequality must be imported, because the natives don’t produce enough of it on their own. Decry inequality as you increase it. Don’t you dare pay attention to my most distinguishing feature! Look at me, look at my uniquness! Don’t ignore me! Don’t you dare! Look at me! No, don’t look at me! If you were to promote the English nation as one of these potential voluntary associations, you’d be “some kind of nationalist, and therefore, collectivist”. No doubt a 21st century clan of bitcoin-mining World of Warcrafting transgendered warlocks could form an association, though.

      “the free movement of goods and people” does not include moving freely across other people’s property, anarchist

    • So when you have a birthday party do you make it an open invitation to everyone, or do you invite a select few? You’ll likely say that’s not the same thing but it is.

      There’s nothing anti-liberty about saying I prefer the company of these people over these people. It doesn’t mean you hate the people you don’t invite but get real with this “groups” stuff, we all are in groups, well all have types of people we’d like to be around and those we wouldn’t, it’s called free association.

      So, if like minded people want to band together in groups on lands they’ve acquired and have borders, rules, etc in those borders, how do you feel you have any right to tell them they can’t? So long as they aren’t bothering anyone else it’s none of your business.

  • My own proposal (which I have already communicated to the Home Office in a personal letter), is that all illegal immigrants found here should be barcoded with an indelible tattoo, so that if they are found a second time after their first deportation they may be subject to immediate summary execution under a special royal prerogative based directive or else to forced surgical sterilization and imprisonment if female, underaged or vulnerable in some way.

    The politicians responsible for multiracialism need to be all arrested, charged with high treason and if found guilty executed in public by hanging. If they flee the country it may then become necessary to enforce rulings in absentia with the deployment of overseas special assassination squads, who may then execute an extraterritorial judicial sentence by means of undercover special forces operations.

    Lastly we must de-citizenize and remove the presence of large numbers of ethnic minorities by any means necessary, so that the means by which illegal immigrants may arrive here and literally slip away into the surrounding population is totally abolished. This will likely be the most difficult and controversial measure of all, but frankly it is simply a matter of military logistics.

    I think that’s a sufficiently humane yet just answer to the crisis. We’ve caused this problem ourselves by creating a vast legal immigrant population so racially indistinct from the illegal immigrants trying to get in that they can simply vanish into large areas of established society, and incentives for illegal mass immigration that far outweigh the hazards.

    • Whether Mr. White is serious or a wind-up it’s a good demonstration of what’s wrong with SIG’s line of thinking.

      But, back to reality. As for nationalism I’m planning to get a second passport and be a dual citizen, whatever that means. Whence nationalism for a dual citizen?

      • I don’t think people like you get it. If this whole open borders experiment was something that could be completely isolated to you, I’d say knock yourself out, much the same as I’d say to someone who wants to scarf down greasy burgers, or drink a gallon of rum every day, if it won’t impact me, OK, go see for yourself if “diversity is a strength” and I guess I’ll suffer the consequences of not being enriched by the wonders of multiculturalism – my loss, poor me.

        Problem is, immigration does not just impact you and by the time you get forced out of your little “We Are The World” fairy tale ideal of life, there is no reversing it. So call me a “statist” all you like, I am 100% opposed to mass immigration and anyone who loves freedom should be as well..

    • For the avoidance of doubt, this comment states a position that is not held by any Officer of the Libertarian Alliance.

      • Sean,

        But that’s the problem: You take a position while refusing to own its logical outcomes.

        • I can see my way to City States with walls around having them gate guards and refusing vagrants entry. I can’t agree to anything beyond that making any rational sense. SIG lost me because he’s talking about borders. That means a whole bunch of things that are simply wrong and evil and therefore SIG (and Hoppe) are wrong.

        • If I were from an ethnic minority family settled in England for the past sixty years, I’d take exactly the same position as I just have. Unlimited mass-immigration will make liberal democracy unworkable, and will probably lead to ethnic cleansing, in which case long settlement will count for nothing.

          We really should try to see the world as it is, rather than as we’d like it to be. Despite its awful ruling class, England remains a pleasant and highly successful country in which people of different races usually manage to get along on an day to day basis. The surest way to bring that to an end will be to leave the borders wide-open.

          • SIG, whatever you’re planning for England can’t work with the SNP in power in Scotland. They are not going to close the Scotland’s borders so you’ll have to plan on refurbishing Hadrian’s Wall. And you’ll have to leave EU and resile from all the UN treaties… a city state looks a bit more doable.

      • I can confirm Sean’s assertion.

        However, that is not to say that it is not what many of the poorer parts of the Old White Working Classes are in truth thinking, especially in the North of England.

  • Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders?

    Only if they’re autistic or otherwise mentally incapacitated. But that is a lot of them. There are also pseudo-libertarians who support open borders and do not really believe in liberty. John Derbyshire has a good article on the question of libertarianism and open borders here:

    Lindsey is surely right that both liberals and libertarians “generally support a more open immigration policy.” The difference is that liberals are, from their standpoint, correct to do so, while libertarians are, from their standpoint, nuts to do so. Let me explain.

  • Sean, you are essentially saying that the problem with libertarianism is individualism and that libertarians should become more collectivist. So you explicitly reject what libertarianism is all about which is individual liberty. If you don’t believe in individual liberty, then why do you bother call that position libertarian?

    • Libertarians do not oppose collectives. A town is a kind of collective, for example, and one which could become a purely voluntary association. Political collectives are criticised because they involve coercion.

      • I am talking about collectivism not some voluntary association of people. Collectivism puts a not voluntary collective, like the nation or the people into the center of its political philosophy. Libertarianism is all about rejecting this approach and centering around the individual human being instead.

  • “First, look at the nature of the imperative. It is not something written into the basic laws of the universe. There is a line of verbal trickery, culminating perhaps in Ayn Rand, that tries to establish individual rights with the same firmness as we recognise the nature of a circle, or are able to know the melting point of lead. But, unless you want to claim that God wants us to be free – a claim attended by difficulties still unsettled after several thousand years – your assertion of rights is no more than a request for other people to leave you alone. If your request is rejected in whatever degree, you must either put up with being less free than you would like, or choose between defensive force and escape.”

    This is exactly why I think a theological basis for libertarianism is the most strong and consistent.
    When the Lord gives the 10 commandments like “Thou shall not steal”, “Thou shall not covet” or even “You shall not move your neighbour’s landmark” he means it!
    Don’t interfere with other people’s property!

    That’s a specific point. A more general question on the article: It seems that you are defending nation states, so my question is; do you disagree with the principle that secession away from larger states is almost always libertarian? Do you disagree with secession as a means to achieving a libertarian world?

    For my own part I think Hoppe’s arguments against open boarders are thorough and very convincing. And I also think that secession is genuinely the only way most societies could possibly become libertarian. We are never going to convince most people. But we don’t need to because of secession.

    • Each argument for secession must be considered in the light of circumstances. The break up of the Hapsburg Empire, it should be remembered, only worked ultimately because of the ethnic cleansings of 1945 – very messy things, in which at least tens of thousands died. In this case, it would probably have been better to keep the Empire going as a more or less unaccountable central despotism.

      • That’s a fair point Mr Gabb, I’ll take it on board.
        But do you believe that generally the way to a more free world is through secession? So would you favour London, Manchester, Liverpool and other cities in the UK to secede for example?
        I certainly would!

  • Mr Knapp comes from a country that can easily accommodate the entire population of the Earth and still not be crowded.

    The UK cannot. I don’t want the land of my birth and people taken over by strangers. Even if they were totally law-abiding strangers I do not intend to belong to a minority in my own land. When large numbers of free-loaders and criminals are trying to get here along with islamists who certainly intend to takeover this country and impose alien and very unwanted ways on the rest of us (Mr & Mrs Average. “ordinary” muslim may not have that goal–but the leaders do and the averages will do as they are told–that is what makes them ordinary) enough is enough. In a world of Liberty it might be ok if the country was being filled with those who love freedom. But it is not.

    Immigration must be stopped for at least 100 years. By that time the rest of the world may have left behind some of its poverty and unpleasant ways.

    • “I don’t want the land of my birth and people taken over by strangers.”

      It’s not about what you want. It’s about what you’re rightfully entitled to have and/or do.

      You can EITHER have a strong system of rights to property, travel, association, etc. OR a system in which you get to have some politicians tell your neighbor “you may not host, rent to, or hire, someone named Mohammed.” You can’t have both.

      • Crap.

        I can have either? If the former existed it would stop the inflow of cultural poison that is going on. The leftist scum of the state are busy encouraging the inflow precisely with the intent of fucking up and destroying my country. In such a system Moh could be told to fuck off back where he came from and take his belief system with him. The state prevents exactly that.

        You serve merely as a useful idiot. Luckily for you, you have access to firearms so–if you have the bottle–you could at least die well as opposed to ending your days swinging from a culturally-enriched crane.

    • I suppose it’s like opening your boarders to a hostile army or invasion force.

      The elites need not worry because most of them are free-floaters who think they don’t need the security of national borders.

      • “The elites need not worry because most of them are free-floaters who think they don’t need the security of national borders.”

        They may think that but they are in for a nasty shock when the suddenly find themselves without a national territory in which their own race is not the dominant group.

  • Good to see Sean is emphasising human nature. This is what is all too often ignored by libertarians. Man is a social animal and consequently cannot be treated philosophically as a group of autonomous individuals. In fact libertarians acknowledge this by acting differently towards their kin and friends than they would to the general population of their group.

    Being a social animal means having boundaries to the group because a social animal must be able to trust those who belong to his or her group. To say that the group should be all Europeans or all Asians or, as liberals would have it, all humans, makes no sense because trust could never exist in such disparate societies. .

    Trust is built upon group feeling and is expressed as through the wandering band, the tribe , the clan and the nation. Note I say nation not nation state. The English are a nation: the British are not. Of course until post-war mass immigration capsized the term British there were strong elements of the true nation in the idea of Britishness. However, it is now the province of immigrants and their descendants who desperately seek an identity other than English.

    Because Man is differentiated profoundly by culture, the widely accepted definition of a species – a population of freely interbreeding organisms sharing a common gene pool – is unsatisfactory, for clearly Man is more than an animal responding to simple biological triggers, although Man has those too for example, assortative mating. . When behavioural differences are perceived as belonging to a particular group by that group as differentiating members of the group from other men, they perform the same role as organic differences for they divide Man into cultural species

    In assessing what Man is, an analogy with computers can be made. As hardware, a particular model of computer is practically identical to every other computer which is classified as the same model. But the software available to every computer of the same model is not identical. They may run different operating systems, either completely different or different versions of the same program. The software which runs under the operating system is different with different versions of the same program being used. The data which is input to the computer varies and this in turn affects the capabilities of the computer.

    It clearly makes no sense to say every computer of the same model is the same even if the computer is loaded with the same software. But of course not all computers are of the same model. They vary tremendously in their power. The same software will run at very different rates because of this. Storage and memory size also vary tremendously. Some computers cannot run programmes because the programmes are too large. We may call all computers computers , but that is to say little more than that all animals are animals, for computers range from the immensely powerful super computers – the homo sapiens of the computer world as it were – to the amoeba of the simple chip which controls lights being put on or off in a room depending on whether someone is in it.

    Are the circumstances of computers not akin to those of Man? Do not the racially based differences in IQ correspond to the differences in power of older and newer computers? Do not different languages represent different operating systems? For example, think how different must be the mentality of a native Chinese speaker (using a language which is entirely monosyllabic)to that of a native English speaker (using a polysyllabic language)simply because of the profound difference in the structure of the language. A language will not merely impose limits on what may be expressed it will effect the entire mentality of the individual, from aesthetic appreciation to social expression. Is not the experiential input analogous to the holding of different data? In short, is it not an obvious nonsense to treat homo sapiens as a single species?

    Mass immigration should be seen for what it is: invasion. Any society should, if it has the power, resist this by any means necessary, for as Sean points out, the possession of an undisputed territory is the most desirable thing a people can have. That is simply a reflection of the most basic of biological imperatives for any organism, garner as much of the necessary resources for your species, something most efficiently done by having a territory which excludes others.

    The problem with the immigration debate is that the advocates of mass immigration are invariably either immigrants themselves or white liberals who think they will never have to experience the ills of mass immigration. They will not be needing affordable rented accommodation. They will not be living in an area where they are in the minority. they will not send their children to state schools where their children are the only white children in their class. By facilitating mass immigration such people are in effect robbing the poorer members of their societies.

    One last question: how many in this group would be willing to give up their home to accommodate immigrants?

    • “The problem with the immigration debate is that the advocates of mass immigration are invariably either immigrants themselves or white liberals who think they will never have to experience the ills of mass immigration.”

      Nice twist there, trying to turn advocacy of immigration freedom into the boogieman advocacy of “mass migration.”

      For the record, I’m neither an immigrant nor a “white liberal who thinks he will never have to experience the ills of mass migration.” I’m a white libertarian who lived from 2000 to 2012 in an 80% African-American neighborhood effectively surrounded by a large Mexican immigrant population immediately to the west, a large Indian and Pakistani immigration population to the south, and the largest Bosnian Muslim immigrant community in the US to the east and southeast (to the north, largely but not entirely African-American for many miles — about two miles to a town you may have heard of, Ferguson; I worked out of there for awhile; quite a few of the people I worked with were Russian, ByeloRussian and Ukrainian immigrants). All this in a city largely characterized prior to THAT by large immigrant Italian, German and Irish communities.

      When the Marine Corps sent me to Infantry Training School in 1986, my company commander was a Japanese immigrant, my company first sergeant was a Samoan immigrant and half my platoon were immigrants from Mexico, Cuba and Vietnam. So pray spare me the bullshit claim that anyone who doesn’t hate immigration freedom is unfamiliar with immigrants.

      • You would be unfamiliar with our recent wave of immigrants who don’t assimilate or even bother to learn the language, thanks to generous welfare and state programs. There are even warehouses and production lines consisting almost entirely of immigrants; where indigenous peoples are shown the door.

        • I wouldn’t be unfamiliar with that at all. There are neighborhoods in the US, large enough that they’d be considered cities of their own if separated out, where you can walk for blocks without hearing a word of English.

          I’ve eaten in restaurants where the only way to communicate one’s order, unless you spoke Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Arabic, etc., was to point to a picture on the menu. In fact, that’s how it was at my old workplace cafeteria for awhile when that cafeteria was put under the management of two Kosovar refugees (they did learn English pretty quickly, though).

          This is nothing new. When I was a kid in the early 1970s, my dad, who was a factory supervisor, complained about how many of the workers on the shift he ran spoke only Spanish.

          In the US, the “assimilation” myth only really began with World War II, when the state put 16 million men in uniform and insisted that they all take orders in English (before that, at LEAST as late as the Civil War, regiments were formally organized by language spoken — one of them, from my home state of Missouri, was composed of German immigrants).

          It was not unusual well into the 20th century for entire towns to pop up where everyone spoke German, Italian, etc. Most of those towns have “assimilated” to some degree by now, but not all of them by a damn sight and probably none of them completely.

          People assimilate when and as they damn well please, welfare programs or not.

          • “People assimilate when and as they damn well please, welfare programs or not.”

            No need to when you can sponge off everyone else indefinitely, whilst living a parallel life… Those towns that spoke German, Italian etc., still had to pay their way and provide value.

            • Even if you’re correct (and I have no reason to believe you are — in the US, at any rate, it is “illegal immigrants” who subsidize the welfare state rather than the other way around), the solution is not to pile one anti-libertarian evil (immigration restrictions) on top of another (the welfare state). The solution is to fight BOTH evils.

              • Another disturbing development in the UK is the downgrading of burglary and theft as serious crimes, whilst the police focus more on the PC crimes of the therapeutic state:
                The fact is that there is little you can do here to effectively defend your property from intruders (or the family that wants to move into your garage/outbuilding).

                It is also claimed by some free-market advocates, that for trade and commerce to function efficiently, a degree of social trust (in-group preference?) is needed. With multiculturalism, that level of social trust is rarely forthcoming…

                Despite what you may think, I am not trying to provide justifications for border controls, but merely pointing out that the current situation is antithetical to freedom, and at the very least, people should be mindful of what challenges lie ahead. Unfortunately for you, it is easier to gain popular support for immigration controls than trying to convince Joe public of the evils of the welfare state etc..

                • Nick,

                  Is the UK only just now downgrading burglary and theft on their crime scale? It’s been at least 25-30 years, as I recall, since one could expect the police to actually investigate a home or car burglary in the US. They take a report. On the phone.

    • Robert, may I reprint your comment at ?

  • Almost everything Knapp is saying is completely besides the point. He compares 20th century immigrants who were raised with the values of Western culture. That is; the idea that the individual matters. This idea is uniquely Western. In so far as this idea lives in other cultures it is far less a part of very day life. In other cultures the primary unit is the family, the religious community or the caste.

    No, the idea that the individual matters is not an absolute in the West, if it ever was. But it lives here far more than in any part of the world. That is why the immigration of the 19th and 20th century was so successful. That is why the immigration from the middle and South America poses no fundamental problem is the US.

    What American libertarians do is copy and paste their own experience to the European case of immigration. There has been no fundamental problem in the US, so there should not be a fundamental problem in Europe. And since this is true opposition to immigration in Europe can only come from racist motives. See Robbert Higgs, Anthony Gregory and left libertarians like Knapp.

    This is of course a huge non sequitur. The European situation is completely different than the American one. Even when you analyse immigration that seems the same you will see that it is not.

    For instance the Moslim immigration in the US is of a different demographics that the Moslim immigration in Europe. Since it takes more money to travel from North-Africa to the US than to Europe the Moslims that go to the US is richer and better educated than those that go to Europe.

    This simple fact is completely looked over by US libertarians. And when you try to point out why this matter you are not being taken seriously and you are called… wait for it… a racist.

    However that is not an argument and the problems we face in the UK, Ireland and the European continent are real. The rape rates in Norway have risen 300% since Islamic immigration, 5% of Moroccan youth perpetrate 60% of all crimes in the Netherlands, Germany has to expel so called hate preachers that call for violence against jews and European women that do not wear the scarf.

    All over Europe Moslims are trying to implement their collectivist values. Separating woman from men in schools, swimming pools and other public places. They destroy or burn street advert that they call to naked. They attack teachers that try to teach the history of the holocaust. Each year people are literally killed by Turkish or Moroccan youth when they try to point out their aggressive behavior. In neighborhoods in the European cities homosexual couples get Death threats are being attacked, get stones thrown through their windows and stones thrown ar them. The police and politicians do nothing, because acknowledging the problem would be Western racism.

    All this and much more can only be explained and seen as an ongoing battle for cultural supremacy. Again; it is collectivism against individualism. The left, like Thomas L. Knapp, support the collectivist immigrants in the hope that they will eradicate all signs of individual freedom and with it any memory of a free market.This is not a conspiracy, those on the left just note how much the immigrants hate individual freedom. Individual sexual freedom, Individual religious freedom, individual cultural freedom, you name it it is under pressure.

    Therefore being a libertarian in Europe means being against open border. Because it is cultural suicide. When Western culture, with it’s now very modest respect for the individual, disappears, the cultural feeding ground for libertarianism will disappear. It grew out of the traditional Western culture and it will disappear with it.

    To be for open border is suicidal for the libertarian movement. Just as I want the police to protect me from theft of violence so I want the government to protect me from the demographic and cultural changes that will affect me in a violent way.

    Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia and many other countries have done it for decades and with great succes. It should also be done in Europe

    Yes, when we have a free society everything will be private property and immigration will be a private matter. But until that day I would like to control who enters my living space. If you are a libertarian and think that makes me a racist you are a suicidal idiot and a danger to libertarianism.

    • “The left, like Thomas L. Knapp, support the collectivist immigrants in the hope that they will eradicate all signs of individual freedom and with it any memory of a free market.”

      Why post all the rest of that diatribe? All you needed was that one sentence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone reading that you’re a fucking idiot.

  • Ad hominem. Typical for a so called left ‘libertarian.

  • And by the way, the US has five times the population of the United Kingdom and 20 times the African diaspora population.

    • And almost all of them fetched up in the US because of Western values and the prosperity that those values brought. Leftists want imports–not just of peoples but of peoples holding “values” hostile to everything even Knapp professes. Within America Detroit is what typical of what is happening–ie the death of Western values– evidence of freedom and prosperity dying not thriving. If all the throng now heading this way come here are we supposed to believe that our land will be a better place in 60 years time? It is a worse place now than it was 50 years ago (despite material improvements)–and the negative trends are accelerating. Material prosperity does not arise independent of culture. When the country has a majority of acid-splashing, honour-killing crew it will not be a prosperous or a decent society.

  • A good article Sean. Thanks.

    Of course, I go much further and have positions which are not shared by this site.

    It has been my view for a long time that open borders is not only the end of days for Caucasian peoples, Western Civilisation and an advancing future for human kind – but also the complete end of libertarianism as an ideological standpoint.

    Although I know one person in the comments here will profoundly disagree, by opening the borders, they are proponents of the slow eradication of a whole racial group from this planet – and are seemingly happy to also expunge the very libertarian movement they feel they are part of, along with it.

    If they simply don’t care about any of the former, have no appreciation of race-realism and believe everybody is innately the same – then they are obviously not going to be interested. But to suggest that you can have libertarian countries by opening the door to the world is stark raving bonkers to me.

    The United Nations Population Division, just this week, brought out their reports about future demographics that are already on their way. Africa’s population alone, already of some 1.2 billion people is expected to rise to 5.6 billion people by 2100. Other developing world nations are also expected to rise.

    European nations, Caucasians, are currently not at even replacement level fertility. Their numbers are approximately halving every generation. There are many reasons for this, which are too long winded to go into.

    In what kind of dream world would open borders to these kinds of population booms provide for a libertarian society in the future?!

    Maybe when libertarians (like some here) have successfully obtained libertarian nations around the planet (and had it imbibed for several generations within those nations) to the point where people are ideologically more “interchangeable” – there may be a chance of libertarianism being sustained.

    (I shall ignore the resulting eradication of Caucasians – and all human diversity in the end, which I find not only despicable, but a tragedy).

    Until that point, they are writing not only their own suicide note, but everybody else’s. The damage they are advocating to inflict is irreversible. It is not just some fiscal policy, some law or legislation that can be overturned. This is a one way ticket to hell.

    If people care so much about libertarianism and open borders, they should go out to Africa and make sure that the extra 4 Billion people will be well versed in the theories and practices of it.

    (Good luck with that, not only in terms of the numbers, but in terms of the capacity of those people to understand and accept it).

    Otherwise, until that point is reached, I think they should refrain from advocating things which will result in turning our nations into hell holes (via their complete detachment from how the world actually is).

    They are arriving in their tens of thousands every week, and it will be the same forever more – even bigger numbers – unless it is stopped now.

    The capital cities of many European nations are turning “minority-majority” already. And, despite the results of letting them all in, there are clowns going out there to protest that we should open the borders even more – and even giving immigrants bicycles to help them cycle to the Calais border!!

    They may have good intentions in some fantasy land “brotherhood of man” kind of way. They too tend to bang on about “arbitrary lines on a map”. But they are ultimately pathological altruists who are too short sighted to look beyond the end of their own noses in the “here and now”, in preference for some abstract ideal utopia they “hope” will materialise, when all likelihood is that it is impossible and will never be workable.

    Over half the planet will be African by the end of the century. Not just in Africa, but around the world, thanks to existing immigration and the knock on effects. If you do not understand what that means for the future of the planet, then you’re not paying enough attention.

  • Over here in the States, libertarians are, it seems, overwhelmingly in favor of open borders because, they say, immigration restriction is a violation of the non-aggression principle. When I disagree with them about that, they often threaten to beat me up, completely without irony. But that’s just the loudmouth/dogmatic wing of the movement. Most US libertarians don’t call themselves libertarians, but are much more consistently in favor of actual freedom than many of the party apparatchicks. Go figure. At any rate, your splendid essay is reprinted and quibcagged here:

  • Pingback: News Digest August 14, 2015 « Attack the System

  • Pingback: Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders? « Attack the System

  • Pingback: Ex-Army - Libertarian Nationalist: Closed Minds Believe in Open Borders

  • Pingback: Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » Chaos Patch (#77)

  • Pingback: Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders? | The Libertarian Ideal

  • Pingback: ¿Deben los libertarios creer en las fronteras abiertas?, por Mises Hispano. – Minarquia 2

Leave a Reply to Thomas L. Knapp Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s