Immigration and borders are perhaps the most inflammatory and divisive issues debated among anarchists and philosophical libertarians.
Almost all anarchists and philosophical libertarians seem to agree that the men and women calling themselves "government" should have nothing to do with immigration or borders, but not everyone agrees on which position is the best to take absent abolition of monopolistic immigration and border control. Subsequently, anarchists and philosophical libertarians tend to default to one of two positions: open state borders, and closed state borders.
It is my goal to demonstrate that each of these positions (and their proponents) have more in common than not, and that "open" vs. "closed" is actually a false dichotomy with Machiavellian implications for statists.
Proponents of open borders correctly argue that closing the borders and prohibiting or restricting immigration would require the use of "government" force, which would be contrary to the non-aggression principle given that it would require extra policing, which is funded by taxation (theft). This extra policing would burden travelers with increased risk of police interaction, which expands state power.
These are valid concerns.
Proponents of closed borders correctly argue that opening the borders and allowing unrestricted travel of all individuals would result in forced integration, which could never happen according to private property rights. They've also correctly identified that the vast majority of immigrants, both "legal" and "illegal", are not anarchists or libertarians but rather big government leftists who vote for expansions of the welfare state, which expands state power.
These are valid concerns.
When viewed through the lens of the Austrian principle of ordinal preference, these positions are actually extremely close - especially when compared to the preferences of out and out statists.
For example:
Ordinally Ranked Preferences of an Open Border Libertarian/Anarchist
- Borders are determined and enforced by private property owners instead of men and women calling themselves government; immigration only happens according to private property rights.
- If the people calling themselves government are going to maintain borders, those borders should be open and immigration should be unrestricted.
- If the people calling themselves government are going to maintain borders, those borders should be closed and immigration should be restricted.
Ordinally Ranked Preferences of a Closed Border Libertarian/Anarchist
- Borders are determined and enforced by private property owners instead of men and women calling themselves government; immigration only happens according to private property rights.
- If the people calling themselves government are going to maintain borders, those borders should be closed and immigration should be restricted.
- If the people calling themselves government are going to maintain borders, those borders should be open and immigration should be unrestricted.
As demonstrated above, "open" vs. "closed" borders is actually a false dichotomy, as is "pro immigration" vs. "anti-immigration". Borders and immigration would take myriad forms if left to private property owners. In reality, most libertarians and anarchists completely support the abolition of "government's" role in borders and immigration. By contrast, this isn't even on the radar of statists. Statists are sold on the false dichotomy.
It is therefore not beneficial for anarchists and libertarians to squabble or call each other racist over the ranking of ordinal preferences, especially given that they all want the same thing: no more violence from the men and women calling themselves government.
Instead of playing into the hand of the Machiavellian statists by accepting abolition as impossible, why not recognize that statelessness is the common goal and work together to leverage our reach and deliver the education and philosophical shift required to bring it about?
I'm Jared Howe! I'm a Voluntaryist hip hop artist and professional technical editor/writer with a passion for Austrian economics and universal ethics. You can catch my podcast every Friday on the the Seeds of Liberty Podcast Network.
Jared, are you of the mind that we should have no "national" (aka collective) borders at all? I agree with what you wrote. "this is my property, you can pass through" or "this is my property, don't come in here." seems simple enough. Collective borders are just another way to tell private land owners what they can or can not do with their own property.
I don't know about "national" but I'm not against property owners coming together in mutual defense of one another's enclosures. I wouldn't be a supporter of property owners coming together to violate the property of others though. I hope this answers your question. Let me know if it doesn't.
I think I understand. Let me first say I agree with you on most things, I just haven't put a lot of thought into voluntarism and borders specifically so I haven't had the chance to hash it all out. I guess When I say collective borders I was thinking of all of us who live inside the territory of this particular state. Of course groups of land owners can band together to aid eachother and I suppose that would also be considered a collective action. I've always said that collectivism is important but only secondary to individualism.
I guess what I meant to ask. The lines on the map, where a state has said "this is our line, we say who can cross it" is actually an illigitimat eline right? because it only exists as an enforcement of a state. The borders on a purley voluntaryist map would be constantly changing based on individual landowners decisions, preferences , and incentives to voluntarily work together.
My position would be that drawings on paper don't establish a border and that there would need to be an enclosure in the claimed territory in order for there to be a border.
So to answer your question, no, lines on maps aren't sufficient. The map isn't the territory.
Well written like always, Jared. Killing it.