The Libertarian / Anarchist Border Debate: Why Closed Borders Are Preferable to Open

Ordinally Ranked Preferences of an Open Border Libertarian/Anarchist:

1. Borders are determined and enforced by private property owners instead of men and women calling themselves government; immigration only happens according to private property norms.

2. If the people calling themselves government are going to maintain borders, those borders should be open and immigration should be unrestricted.

3. 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:

1. Borders are determined and enforced by private property owners instead of men and women calling themselves government; immigration only happens according to private property norms.

2. If the people calling themselves government are going to maintain borders, those borders should be closed and immigration should be restricted.

3. If the people calling themselves government are going to maintain borders, those borders should be open and immigration should be unrestricted.

What’s the difference?

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. The question is not whether private borders are better than open government borders or closed government borders; the question is whether an open government border policy is more destructive to private property norms than a closed government border policy, or vice versa.

The people in the first group 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.

The people in the second group correctly argue that opening the borders and allowing unrestricted travel of all individuals would maximize the damage done by the tragedy of the commons, thereby maximizing the damage done to the victims of taxation, thereby maximizing the size, scope and power of the state. They have also correctly identified that forceful prohibition of the right to exclude from commercial property is the easiest way to begin to undermine property norms.

Furthermore, they’ve correctly identified that this is forced integration (which is immoral for the same reason as forced segregation), and 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. This allows the state to attack the nuclear family structure to which property norms are absolutely essential.

These are valid concerns.

Complications and Conclusion

The problem is that the people in the first group don’t even understand what the people in the second group are saying despite the fact that the people in the second group can usually explain the positions of the people in the first group perfectly. To further complicate matters, the people in the first group tend to be rabid contrarians who are too proud to admit error, and thus lapse into logically self-detonating, regressive leftism – baseless accusations, psychological projection, virtue signaling and pearl clutching.

This is to be construed as a sign of defeat. Slander is the tool of the loser.

Now that the debate is over… On to mockery.