A Libertarian Stand On Immigration: Refugees and Migrants In A World Of Government Meddling

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Per Bylund via The Mises Institute,

[Updated Author’s Note: The issue of immigration has only become more pressing over the ten years that have passed since this article’s original publication. And, unfortunately, the libertarian movement has not reached a consensus on this issue.


But it should be easy, considering how government is at both ends of the problem: government is the number one reason people choose to escape their countries, whether because of governments’ war or devastating poverty due to the lack of opportunities in regulated markets; and government is the reason ordinary people, in a desperate state because their lives have been forcefully uprooted, have a hard time choosing where to lead their lives in peace. The desperation is due to the so-called “failings” of their own governments, and augmented by ours.


I too have fled my country, though not because I’m fearing for my life but because I sought a better life and greater opportunities. While the immigration issue generally focuses on people from poor countries with little skill or education, it is hardly the case that governments welcome people at the other end of the spectrum: the highly productive, highly educated, and hard-working. On the contrary, government is the least forgiving, least reasonable, and most costly when it deals with non-citizens — those who cannot hold government officials accountable in any sense and do not have a voice. This should make immigration a prime target for the libertarian argument for freedom, peace, and property.

Immigration Controls and the State

 The pre-1914 world saw no immigration issues or policies, and no real border controls. Instead, there was free movement in the real sense; there were no questions asked, people were treated respectfully and one did not even need official documents to enter or leave a country. This all changed with the First World War, after which states seem to compete with having the least humane view on foreigners seeking refuge within its territory.

The “immigration policies” of modern states is yet another licensing scheme of the twentieth century: the state has enforced licensing of movement. It is virtually impossible to move across the artificial boundaries of the state’s territory in the search for opportunity, love, or work; one needs a state-issued license to move one’s body, be it across a river, over a mountain, or through a forest. The Berlin Wall may be gone, but the basic principle of it lives and thrives.

Immigration controls are not different from other kinds of licensing even though it has been awarded a special name. Licensing has the same result regardless of what is licensed: licensing of physicians causes poor health care at higher cost just as licensing taxi businesses causes poor and untimely service at high cost — licensing on movement means restricted freedom and higher taxes for people (whether “citizens” or “foreigners”). From a libertarian point of view it should be clear that all licensing needs to be done away with, including licensing for immigrants.

Yet the immigration issue seems to be somewhat of a divide within libertarianism, with two seemingly conflicting views on how to deal with population growth through immigration. On the one hand, it is not possible as a libertarian to support a regulated immigration policy, since government itself is never legitimate. This is the somewhat classical libertarian standpoint on immigration: open borders.

On the other hand, the theory of natural rights and, especially, private property rights tells us anyone could move anywhere — but they need first to purchase their own piece of land on which to live or obtain necessary permission from the owner. Otherwise immigration becomes a violation of property rights, a trespass. This is an interpretation of a libertarian-principled immigration policy presented by Hans-Hermann Hoppe a few years ago, which since then has gained increasing recognition and support.

To a non-libertarian bystander, the discussion of the two alternatives must seem quite absurd. What is the use of this libertarian idea of liberty, if people cannot agree on a simple issue such as immigration? I intend to show that the libertarian idea is as powerful as we claim, and that there is no reason we should not be able to reach consensus on the immigration issue. Both sides in this debate, the anti-government-policy as well as the pro-private-property, somehow fail to realize there is no real contradiction in their views.

The Open Borders Argument

The people advocating “open borders” in the immigration issue argue state borders are artificial, they are creations based on the coercive powers of the state, and therefore nothing about them can be legitimate. As things are, we should not (or, rather: cannot) regulate immigration. Everyone has a right to settle down and live wherever they wish. This is a matter of natural right; no one enjoys the right to force his decision upon me unless it is an act of self-defense when I am violating his rights.

In a world order based on natural rights, this would be true. It is a golden rule, a universal rule of thumb proscribing that I’ll leave you alone if you leave me alone; if you attack me or try to force something or someone on me, I have a right to use force to defend myself and what is mine.

The problem with this idea is that it has too much of a macro perspective. While arguing there should be no states and therefore no state borders, it presents arguments with an intellectual point of departure in the division of mankind into territorial nationalities and ethnicity. It is simply not possible to make conclusions on immigration to, say, the United States, if we start our argument from the libertarian idea. What is “immigration” in a world with no states?

The Pro-Property Argument

A less macro view on immigration is taken for granted in the pro-property argument. Here, the individual’s natural right to make his own choices and his right to personal property is the point of departure. Since we all have in our power to create value through putting our minds and bodies to work, we also enjoy a natural right to do as we please with that which we have created and place ourselves wherever we have property owners or guests. Or, as Hoppe puts it, “[i]n a natural order, immigration is a person's migration from one neighborhood-community into a different one.”

Consequently, the immigration issue is in real terms solved through the many choices made by sovereign individuals; how they act and interact in order to achieve their goals. There can simply be no immigration policy, since there is no government — only individuals, their actions and their rights (to property). The “open borders” argument is therefore not only irrelevant, since it has a macro point of view; it also fails to realize property rights as a natural regulation of movement. Since all property must be owned and created by the individual, government cannot own property. Furthermore, the property currently in government control was once stolen from individuals — and should be returned the second the state is abolished since property rights are absolute. There is consequently no unowned land to be homesteaded in the Western world, and so “open borders” is in essence a meaningless concept.

Libertarian Utopia

Immigration will thus be naturally restricted in a free society, since all landed property (at least in the Western world) is rightfully owned by self-owning individuals. Just like Nozick argues in his magnum opus Anarchy, State, and Utopia, a society based on natural rights should honor property rights in absolute terms, and therefore the rightful owners of each piece of property should be identified despite the fact that humankind has been plundered by a parasitic class for centuries.

What is to be considered just property when the welfare-warfare state is eventually abolished is not at all clear. Can one take for granted that the subjects (citizens) of a certain state have the right to an equal share of what is currently controlled by the government? Are they, at all, the rightful owners to what they currently control with the state’s legal protection? If we intend to seek the just origin of property, we need to roll back all transactions until the times before the modern state, before monarchies and feudalism, and probably to a time before the city states of ancient Greece. If we do, how should we consider the produced values of the generations we’ve effectively dismissed?

There is probably no way to sort out this unbelievable mess along the lines of absolute property rights. It should be dealt with this way, but I dare say it will be a practical issue when we get to that point, rather than a philosophical one.

A State Immigration Problem

Another problem of immigration and property arises from the social welfare system financed by money extorted from citizens. With the open borders argument, private property rights might be undermined even further if immigrants are entitled to special rights such as housing, social security, minority status and rights, etc. Also, immigrants will automatically become part of the parasitic masses through enjoying the common right to use public roads, public schooling, and public health care — while not paying for it (yet).

The concept of private property rights seems to offer a solution to this, but it is not really a way out: it is not as simple as “private property rights — yes or no?” Private property rights is a philosophical position offering a morally superior fundamental framework for how to structure society, but it does not offer guidance in what to do with non-property such as that currently controlled by government.

It is deceivingly simple to claim all of the state’s subjects have just claims to “state property” since they are entitled to retribution for years of rights violations. This is, however, only part of the truth. It is also a matter of fact that all private production to some degree is part of the rights violation process, with direct state support through subsidies, tax breaks, patent laws, police protection, etc., or indirectly through state meddling with currency exchange rates, “protective” state legislation, through using publicly-owned and maintained property and services for transportation, and so on. There is simply no such thing as just private property anymore in the philosophical sense.

Therefore, it is impossible to say immigrants would be parasites to a greater degree than, e.g., Bill Gates: the Microsoft Corporation has benefited greatly thanks to state regulation of the market, but has also been severely punished in a number of ways. We are all both victims and beneficiaries. Of course, one might argue that forced benefits are not really benefits, but only one aspect of oppression. Well, in that case it would also be true for immigrants, who too are or will be victims of the state (but perhaps not for as long as you and I).

A Libertarian Stand on Immigration

We must not forget libertarianism is not a teleological dogma striving for a certain end; it rather sees individual freedom and rights as the natural point of departure for a just society. When people are truly free, whatever will be will be. Hence, the question is not what the effects of a certain immigration policy would be, but whether there should be one at all.

From a libertarian point of view, it is not relevant to discuss whether to support immigration policy A, B, or C. The answer is not open borders but no borders; the libertarian case is not whether private property rights restrict immigration or not, but that a free society is based on private property. Both of these views are equally libertarian — but they apply the libertarian idea from different points of view. The open borders argument provides the libertarian stand on immigration from a macro view, and therefore stresses the libertarian values of tolerance and openness. The private property argument assumes the micro view and therefore stresses the individual and natural rights.

There is no conflict between these views, except when each perspective is presented as a policy to be enforced by the state. With the state as it is today, should we as libertarians champion open borders or enforced property rights (with citizens’ claims on “state property”)? Both views are equally troublesome when applied within the framework of the state, but they do not contradict each other; they are not opposites.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
LetThemEatRand's picture

Was this written by a child or a mindless ideologue?  Yes.

TBT or not TBT's picture

One reason people move from their country to ours is that their country is worse than ours.....for the moment anyways. 

LetThemEatRand's picture

See this and other observations in next week's edition of Duh Magazine.

HowdyDoody's picture

I never though of deliberately starting war as 'meddling'. Something a little more severe comes to mind - like wars of aggression, the ultimate crime against humanity. But maybe that is a little non-pc of me.

FreeMoney's picture

"Another problem of immigration and property arises from the social welfare system financed by money extorted from citizens. With the open borders argument, private property rights might be undermined even further if immigrants are entitled to special rights such as housing, social security, minority status and rights, etc. Also, immigrants will automatically become part of the parasitic masses through enjoying the common right to use public roads, public schooling, and public health care — while not paying for it (yet)."


This is half of  the reason that central and south Americans are immigrating north illegally, and that ME are immigrating illegally to Western Europe.  Yes, they want to escape wars ( started by us ), bad government, corruption.  Yes they think there are better eduacation and employment opportunites.  Yes they understand we have great social benefits that they will be entitled to the second they arrive wether they work or not, wether they pay taxes or not.

Open boarders are fine, IF we stop all the free shit.  

Lets go back to a pre WWI, tax and benefit structure.

Luc X. Ifer's picture
What Pisses Me Off About The European Migrant Crisis


Mediocritas's picture

First point of bullshit: the ideology presented is based on "natural rights".

Whenever I see that I know the debate is already over: http://www.spectacle.org/0400/natural.html

Second point of bullshit: governments are the main cause of war.

So drought-induced famine, overpopulation, private-sector specufesting and banking crises, resource depletion, all of that has nothing to do with it. IT'S THE GOVNIT!

No, the primary cause of war is a mass decline in living standards which is determined by population size, resources (transformed into goods and services) and the degree of distribution of those resources. Cause an increase in the ratio of population : available resources and standards of living fall, leading to war.

Can governments cause this? Yes they can, by choosing poor policies that cause rapid population growth (without an equivalent boost in goods and services), or by artificially restricting the flow of goods and services through plain bad management. But only a total simpleton thinks there's nothing more to the story.

Did the government put a gun to the head of the banking sector and tell it to speculate? No, it was lassez-faire that got us here, a lack of regulation. I'm supposed to believe that a financial crisis that kills wages, runs up huge debts and destroys living standards by inhibiting resource availability (can't consume what you can't afford), just like it did before WW1, is somehow all the govt's fault?

There's a clear link between El Nino cycles and conflict: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.501.html It's not hard to understand why, this thing called food you see...GOVERNMENT!

IT'S ALL THE GOVERNMENT'S FAULT! The government is more powerful than the sun! More powerful than weather cycles! It's the government that causes finite resources to run out! It's the government that causes "animal spirits" to run up massive Ponzi-scheme bubbles! The government causes crop, livestock and human disease pandemics! We're running out of oil because of the government! The government overrides PHYSICS!!

Third point of bullshit: property rights exist independently of the State

No. They. Fucking. Do. Not. Property (as legally distinct from possessions) "rights" mean nothing without FORCE and little old you with your "I got mine" territory doesn't mean a goddamned thing when an organized gang overwhelms you. There is no "natural right" involved, there's just a person who arbitrarily says "this is mine" and if that person doesn't have the power to back up that claim with force then the "right" gets buried in a shallow grave alongside the claimant.

Groups are more powerful than individuals so if you want to have your defined property and expect to keep it, you better damn well hope you're part of a gang that defines and defends those very same delineations.

When the gang grows large we start to call it a State. Welcome to reality.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why Anarchism rejects the very notion of "property rights": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft

The "State" and "Property Rights" are inseparable. You can't have one without the other and US Libertarians are deeply confused.


Libertarian777's picture

on your second point of BS.

name ONE large corporate organization that has survived WITHOUT government subsidies / assistance. Remove the government and they have to stand by themselves.

The government ABSOLUTELY encourages debt and speculation. They print debt backed money. They buy votes with corporate welfare, social welfare and warfare state. The financial sector is the most heavily regulated industry and yet it STILL causes significant damage to real people. Regulation as in a law in the book is not what you need. Regulation as part of a bureacracy is not what you need, what you need is MARKET regulation. Remove FDIC insurance, remove restrictions on private money, and the free market will determine the true value of the USD, US Treasuries and the solvency of banks.

on your 3rd point of BS.

Eminent domain. How is that different from a gang of thieves?

Mediocritas's picture

Apple, Exxon Mobil, Google, Microsoft, Siemens, Toyota, Chevron, Wal-Mart, Volkswagen, Nestle, Procter and Gamble, BHP, BMW, etc. All companies that have made a ton of money producing things that people want to buy. Are you actually saying that these companies could never have existed without government help?

Sure, it can be argued that they've all been on the receiving end of some sort of kickback at some point, but to say they survive / exist ONLY because of that assistance is something I reject. They're never going to say no to free money but that doesn't mean they can't survive without it.

Now if you want to talk AIG, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, etc then yes, they only exist today because of govt support.

On money, the govt doesn't print debt-backed money, that's a myth. The private banking system (shadow and traditional) creates debt-backed money when it extends credit. This accounts for 95-99% of all the "money" in the world. When govt's do print money, which is rare, it is debt-free (such as coins minted by Treasury), yet somehow all OECD governments have been hoodwinked into believing that they no longer have the power to do this. Instead the govt has to go begging to the market in TSY auctions to get money and what is received is private-sector-originated debt-backed money and an obligation to pay it all back to the financial sector with interest.

Historically the money that was used to buy US TSYs at auction was money that already existed in the financial system. That money came into existence when the private sector (households and businesses) borrowed it into existence, so no money was created when Treasury went to auction. Only since the financial crisis has this changed with Primary Dealers being able to finance TSY purchases with money borrowed under ZIRP from the Fed. Still, it's the TSY borrowing (indirectly) from the Fed to create money and the Fed is owned by private sector banks (its members) so it is stil the same private-sector creation mechanism, not a public-sector one.

Over time, the financial sector comes to own the govt because it's the financial sector, not the government, that creates almost all money.

The last time the American government actually printed its own money in a big way was under Lincoln in response to the banking sector charging insane interest as it attempted to profiteer from the Civil War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenback_(money)

On regulation of the financial sector. It doesn't matter if there are one million pages of financial regulation, the mass of paper means nothing if it is not enforced, which it is not. Regulation is only "heavy" if it is actually applied. The financial sector has enjoyed a spectacular free-ride for decades, they created an entire shadow-banking system to circumvent regulation of the traditional system, they've eroded, edited and removed any regulation that actually restricted profits via DC lobbying, they blew up the entire world economy and none of them are in prison. So "most heavily regulated industry" my ass. That regulation may as well just be blank sheets to be used as toilet paper. I repeat, regulation without enforcement is not regulating and no sector has enjoyed as much freedom from restraint as the financial sector.

As for "free market forces" fixing the financial system. There is plenty of merit to this, and I'm not opposed to the underlying intentions. However, history suggests caution. Consider what happened during the US period of "Wildcat Banking" between 1837 and 1862. Banks were free to create their own bank-specific money, leading to absolute mayhem for businesses. The average lifespan for a bank was five years, around half of all banks failed, meaning that businesses and individuals were left with piles of different currencies, none of which they could be sure would actually retain value. Banks (and currencies) constantly popped into and out of existence and it was impossible for individuals and businesses to keep track of it all. The subsequent chaos and economic harm was one of the primary drivers for establishment of a firm, single-currency national system, and when this eventually evolved into the Federal Reserve it was the banks themselves who pushed for it, not the government.

The key word here is collusion, and it happens in every competitive sector. When competitors agree to stop sniping at each other and collude, they realize that far more profitable looting is possible, so that's what happens time and time again, in airlines, in telecommunications, in oil and gas, in insurance and finance, in healthcare, etc. Collusions are a natural consequence of a totally unregulated (free) market.

The "free market" you want can only exist with heavy and strict regulation to prevent it evolving into monopolistic rent-seeking, which is another reason why US Libertarians are so confused when they rail against all regulation. The Germans call this regulated freedom "ordoliberalism": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism and it works pretty well for them.

On eminent domain. Yes, exactly. Gang of thieves. If the party on the receiving end is still a loyal member of the main gang, perhaps they'll be resettled / compensated, otherwise, it's time for them to go join a new gang.

ersatz007's picture

Perhaps I'm overly cynics but the fact that congress does not issue money via the treasury seems not so much because they don't know they can as much as it is because they would then actually be responsible for the money they spend - and the populace would then be able to vote with their wallets. The private FED bankers, the career politicians, and the recipients of all this spending benefit from the current system. And this is yet another reason why an audit of the FED will never happen.

g speed's picture

The sole purpose of govt is to pick winners and losers----period-----thats why its organized in the first place -to insure the haves keep their stuff.

 From the first stick stuck in the ground to deliniate mine/yours upon the advent of agrarianism         http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/hns/yoeman/agri1.html      govt was enforcement of the status quo---any thoughts of a different role for govt (benevolence, confering property rights, etc.) is a religion in which the state (govt) becomes the faux benefactor and the object of idolatry  as the subject becomes the believer and the "faithful"--

Most things are quite simple if you stop having faith in the system.

govts are obsolete.

Benjamin123's picture

The bullshit is yours for even bringing the line "remove the government" as even a hypothetical proposal. 

Who would be doing the removing? Who could remove a goverment?

Hint: Another goverment.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

It is impossible for humans to live without government. Any humans not living under a govenrment are at war between factions trying to become the government.

Memedada's picture

A state is just a tool. An organization. The real question is who controls the state and for what purpose.

In US the state is a tool of the capitalists = a fascist state. It’s not a democratic state or a state dependent on the will of the public. It’s a state solely controlled by money/fiat (legalized bribery). It’s been usurped by the interest of private property owners from the start.

The indoctrinated (always US-based) ZH-crowd that sees all state/statism as either ‘left-wing’ and/or ‘socialism’ shows an astounding lack of historical and philosophical insight. That argument would – by it’s “logical” extension – make all monarchies ‘socialists’ and ‘left-wing’ + a theological dictatorship like Iran’s should be considered ‘socialist’/’left-wing’ because it has a strong state(?). And a fascist state like US (dominated solely by capital interest) should be seen as socialist? A farce.

A state can be capitalist in the sense it’s supports, extends and secures the interests of a capitalist class (the owners of the economy/and at times the state itself – as many places around the world today). Since about everything of importance today (especially everything profit-generating) is privately owned by a tiny minority we have capitalism. Capitalism is defined by the private ownership of the means of production and a strong state does not necessarily change that.

Ace006's picture

The Framers have your third point covered. From the Claremont Institute:

"The Declaration's third self-evident truth answers the question, why do men establish government? The answer: to secure natural rights, or the rights people are born with. The Declaration implies that these rights are not secure outside of government."

Our liberties are derived from our natural rights but in the state of nature they don't mean much if evil men can deprive us of them by force.

Ol Man's picture

Government is force...  it secures nothing without wielding destructive power that threatens "natural" rights...



Ace006's picture

I wield destructive power when I drive my automobile but that doesn't mean that I cause destruction.

Every letter from the government involoves an implied or actual threat, it's true, but the balance men have to strike is giving enough power to government to protect our rights without giving away too much. 

Think 1789 for an attempt to strike that balance.  Think 2015 for a government over whom we have lost all control because we didn't give a damn when the Supreme Court detroyed that balance.

Ace006's picture

This is what was intended as an edit of the above:

The Framers have your third point covered.

From the Claremont Institute: "The Declaration's third self-evident truth answers the question, why do men establish government? The answer: to secure natural rights, or the rights people are born with. The Declaration implies that these rights are not secure outside of government."

Our liberties are derived from our natural rights but in the state of nature they don't mean much if evil men can deprive us of them by force. The great part about the idea of natural rights is simply to look at what we have before any government ever establishes a law so we're clear about the fact that government is necessary to protect our rights but it does NOT give us our rights. 

I think you're almost right. The debate isn't over when someone mentions natural rights. It's over when you find out that the guy speaking about rights is a lunatic libertarian, if you'll pardon the redundancy. They pat themselves on the back about how principled they are compared to all other opportunists and hypocrites but they demand that borders be flung open and governments stop being governments precisely at the point that the state of nature returns. Germany will get 800,000 more Muslims soon and then another and another. They will DEMAND the property and degrade the other rights of the locals. The bleeping libertarians will swoon over the immigrants who come to degrade the host nation -- think rape, hand grenades, cars torched, crime, and typical Muslim bullshit -- but recoil in horror at the mere mention of the degradation aspect of what their "principles" lead to as the night the day.

God bless the Mises Institute for the light it sheds on government when it exceeds its basic role of protector and becomes nursemaid, pope, thief, and killer but on immigration all it serves up is moose pie left in the sun for a week.

Spartacus Rex's picture

"Anarchism rejects the very notion of "property rights" "

Anarchism. Now that is an "ism" which has a perfect record of failure for thousands of years, ergo has never contributed even jack sh*t to Civilization in all of recorded History!

Anyone else notice the hypocrisy of the Author, an Academic whose paycheck and platform is provided by a "State" run University?


Neverthelss, Thanks for that useless, utopian Tripe, Tylers.




S. Rex

Mediocritas's picture

Though partial to Anarcho-Syndicalism (which has current and historical working examples), I am not, nor have I ever been, an Anarchist.

Nowhere did I say I was. You constructed a straw man.

Spartacus Rex's picture
Nowhere did I say that you were an Anarchist. I simply made a supporting comment in response to your own observation regarding Anarchism's view on property rights, and added the fact that the AUTHOR, Asst. Professor Per Byland while professes to be a Libertarian, thus opposed to anything resembling a “State”, actually WORKS for a “State” funded University! (Oklahoma State University) Pretty damned hypocritical wouldn't you say? BTW: If you are able, please post whatever supporting facts and evidence to show exactly which examples of current and historical cases whereby Anarchy has worked and thrived. Until then, Nature abhors a vacuum. Always has, always will. Re: “Strawman” Say Again? Cheers, S. Rex
LetsGetPhysical's picture

Totally lost me on this one. Babbling Bullshit.

fleur de lis's picture

A lot of the confusion started with Afroyim v. Rusk 1967. The author did not mention it but it is important to find the source of border and citizenship destruction.


This nobody vagabond Afroyim travelled back and forth between continents all his life not knowing where he belonged and yet was able to get idiot American lawyers to change the entire system for his convenience. 

HowdyDoody's picture

Whodathunkit - a chosenite.

Ace006's picture

Nothing but nothing says "I'm an American" like voting in an Israeli election and serving (only) in the IDF.

Yen Cross's picture

 Was this written in Amerinese?

 This is the kind of horse shit that distracts the serfs from real topics.

 Health Care, Retirement, Safety, Food, Clothing, Jobs, Education, ect...

 Moar importantly! Open fucking borders!

NoBillsOfCredit's picture

You flee because you refuse to fight for freedom. Your ignorance betrays you.

Ace006's picture

This is hardly the right time to bring up board games.

SurlysonofaBitch's picture

Go back to whither you came. 

ebworthen's picture

Let's put it up for a vote:  if you favor immigration you have to host the immigrant(s) in your own home for 2 years, file the legal paperwork, and line up a job for when they become a citizen - or they get shipped back.

If you aren't willing to host them in your own home you can't support hosting them in your country.

Ms No's picture

I wish wars would work like that too.  If you think we should go to war with Russia get your wallet out, donate your kids and then suit yourself up.  If they don't want to send their own kids, go themselves or start cutting really big checks then obviously it doesn't need to happen.

Ms No's picture

You can't have open borders when half the world is dire straitts from central planning induced poverty and war.  Most Libertarians have read into the globalist literature and have been aware for quite some time the intention was to erase all of the worlds borders and create a big shit sandwich of globalism. 

wildbad's picture

ok. thanks for the nits. whuddaya gonna do?

DrData02's picture

Hey!!! Ship them to Japan!

DoIt4Free's picture

Lost me at Libertarian

Memedada's picture

It's the US-based version of 'libertarian' (i.e. the corporate controlled/Kock-sponsored version of the word).

For the real version: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/150-years-of-libertarian


bearwinkle's picture

That was the biggest pile of shit I've read in sometime. A libertarian wants reduced government and increased fundamental freedoms but by definition if one respects others property then one MUST respect other's boundaries, which means that we must protect our country from invaders who illegally cross those boundaries. What if an invading army crosses our borders and attacks our citizens? Does this mean we as libertarians lay down our arms and hug the invaders? WTF??? The US and EU are both under attack or should we say war? If we don't fight back and force the invaders back, we have been conquered by this invading army of people carrying babies has shields.


Benjamin123's picture

Not really. National borders are not at all the same as the borders of your personal property.

"Our borders", as if they are your property. A libertarian would never recognize such a concept as collective property or collective heritage.

Nations are not compatible with libertarianism. If you like your country, dont call yourself a libertarian. Make up a new label and label yourself with it, because words have meaning.

Ayn Rand herself liked the word "minarquist".

Ace006's picture

Right on cue, as the night the day, a libertarian will show up with arguments that fly in the face of 40,000 years of human history.

"Oh, but Ayn Rand said . . . ."

Benjamin123's picture

What arguments? You are getting a little defensive are you not?

I am not an advocate for libertarianism, though you seem to think i am. Im just describing what the concept is. It is ridiculous but should dbe described in a coherent way at the very least.

Theoretical libertarianism is not compatible with nation states, that never stops privileged people with first world problems to call themselves libertarian.

Oldwood's picture

We can individually believe what we wish. Property rights are defined by our ability to defend them, either through our own individual force or that of an organized force of government. Borders and boundaries ultimately are defined by the laws of the particular country in which we reside. If we refuse to defend the borders of said country, then we refuse to defend the laws of said country, therefor property rights do not exist beyond our own imaginings.

We may think what we will of force, be it by individual or government, but force is nature, is life and our exercise of it will not only define our property AND our very right to exist.

But we can all agree to whine of its unfairness, and the good die young. The power to enforce fairness is always the path to absolute tyranny.

Honus's picture

In a libertarian or anarchist society, security would be contracted for from capable services in a free market, either individually or as a group plan. Private property would be well protected, with hell to pay for violators.

KingsRow's picture

What is the point of having a country if it has no borders? 

Benjamin123's picture

The point is not to have countries, but jurisdictions.

In the middle ages there were no countries but there were armies and they ruled over whatever lands they could hold. People in a jurisdiction are protected by the local armed forces and pay tribute to them.

Think of a jurisdiction as an empire. Subjects of any empire, such as the USSR, the roman or bizantine empires, the islamic caliphate, the mongol empire, could freely move within it.

Ace006's picture

And away we go with the libertarian word games.

No such things as nations. Just ... um, "jurisdictions." Like with borders and stuff where you get your head chopped off if you and your pals decide to settle on the banks of the Tiber River.

Huns and Muslims rape, pillage, and burn in your country? Just exercising their natural rights to help themselves to what you've got.

You couldn't travel freely in the USSR. You lived where you had permission to live.

Benjamin123's picture

Agreed on the USSR, you needed permits, i guess they could be granted if you asked.

There is a big difference between a country an a jurisdiction, in that there is no emotional appeal to it, no concept of motherland. A state is a state and it taxes you for protection, so pick the one that bests suits you. People talk about their country and vow to defend even the parts they have never been to, but they dont so with jurisdictions.

Jurisdictions do not grant nationality, countries do. Countries control their borders in any way they see fit, jurisdictions only do so to protect the people living within it from invading hordes. This is not done out of benevolence, but because if the people are not protected they cant work nor pay taxes. Without taxes there is no army and no government. While we are at it, a jurisdiction could easily expel anyone, native born or not, if deemed a troublemaker. Countries cannot do so, because "nationality" sticks to you.

Its all very technical, international, rootless.. Thats how it was in the middle ages,

Ace006's picture

The nation state has been a recent phenomenon but borders are not unique to it. Every people drew some kind of a line. The medieval shire reeves (sheriffs) had bailiwicks (jurisdictions) which were different from the king's realm (jurisdiction) . Jurisdiction literally means where the law speaks, though it was the king's law that spoke in the shire, which the reeve enforced.

Your use of "jurisdiction" seems closest to "place" with a strange absence (or attenuation) of any ruler's authority, where in point of fact there was plenary authority backed up by a ruler, the legitimacy of whose rule depended on repelling invaders.

Ergo our own rulers are illegitimate, monumentally so.

I understand you're not a libertarian but you sound an awful lot like one....

Oldwood's picture

Middle ages....a very good time in human history...yes.

Ace006's picture

The Anglo-Saxon kings had a powerful interest in knowing what the people were thinking.  Subjects could initiate criminal proceedings at the meetings of shire.  The defendant's reputation was like gold to him as juries of "oath helpers" would testify, not to culpability, but whether the accused was a trustworthy man.  Without that affirmation, it was off to trial by ordeal.  It put a premium on not being an anti-social moron.  For ASM today, it's even better than a 24/7 pass.  You rule.

There will be a reckoning.  Probably not from the so-called forces of law and order, but from others of like mind.  Al-qaida is apparently going to take after ISIS now, for example.