The Problems of Pro-Trespassing Libertarians
The objective of the paleolibertarian is to cut down the government and abolish it. It is my contention that libertarians that support open borders lead us to the very opposite; i.e., more statism, the deterioration of individual liberty, and social chaos. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe teaches us, “open borders” is a complete government fabrication. This fabrication would not exist in anarcho-capitalism. “Open borders“ only result from a Leviathan State.
Immigration is one of the most debated topics in libertarian circles. It is difficult to say what group has a greater number of people in it. I am inclined to say the “open border” folks. Those that are closer to the Mexican border, on the other hand, are probably more inclined, at least relatively speaking, to take the view that is more hostile to “open borders” due to their proximity to the fronts lines.
Yes, it may seem somewhat strange at first: How can those that want to demolish the State want some kind of border enforcement?
Maybe this will help. Here is another way to look at it: The state exists. This is a given. If one can only call the state police when someone trespasses on one’s property, then this is something one will have to do. There is no away around this fact, at least in the given environment. The government exists. It has a monopoly of certain things. Libertarianism would say that this should not be so. However given the current environment, what are the next best alternatives? The government outlaws competition when it comes to law and order. Because of this fact, it is better that the government provides some kind of court system, which can and does uphold some basic libertarian principles (e.g., protection from private thieves and private murders), then to have nothing at all. Understand, this does not mean that the free market could not handle these things. It is because of the fact that they are outlawed. It is also due to the fact that the public has not come to terms with the logic of anarcho-capitalism.
What is the fundamental axiom of libertarianism? It is that no one has the right to violate the property rights of others. Implied in this is that no one has the right to trespass on another’s property. Therefore, no one has the “right” to immigrate. One cannot unconditionally immigrate into my house, for instance. You can only enter my house if I allow you to do so. I may also attach conditions if you enter my house. But clearly you cannot enter it without my permission or invitation.
In an ideal world society would be fully based on private property. This includes things like roads, schools, courts, hospitals, et cetera. Borders in a libertarian world, as we now know them, would not exist. This does not mean, however, that today's semi-"anarchy" that is taking place by Mexico would continue or expand. On the contrary, today's open borders would be replaced by the law and order of the "borders" of private property.
Immigration takes on a new meaning in such a world, but all "immigrants" that you associate with would be voluntary. A multitude of individuals, communities, and other private institutions, in a sense, would “regulate” who does and does not enter. If a private (voluntary) community does not want foreign strangers to enter, they can be sure that they do not. Inherent in libertarianism is that people can dissociate themselves with anyone they want for whatever reason.
Private individuals, unlike the government, have the smarts to have a lock on their home door. Individuals don’t have “open borders.” We have the authority to choose---to “regulate”---who enters and who does not. Only the government has the perverse foresight to be foolish enough to have the door open to “its” geographically controlled territory. But it is much worse than that: The door is not only unlocked and wide open but inside the house there are many free gifts (welfare) waiting for those who enter! This is certainly a recipe for disaster. Government subsidizes immigration. In addition, due to the fact that “our” government is democratic, and its very nature is “open” compared to a monarchy’s “closed” nature, this tendency is further promoted. (See The Paleo Blog's "Restoring Liberty Step-by-Step: Striking Down Democracy.")
A business owner will only choose a worker that will (in his mind) benefit his business. There is no “revolving door.” If that were the case for a given businessman, then he will not be in business for long. Or imagine your home. What do you think would be the result of an “open door” policy with free giveaways inside? Do you think your home’s value will increase? The answer is a clear no. On the other hand, if you allowed some good handymen, they might improve the value of the house. But that does not come about through the “revolving door.” It is something no individual property owner would do. And they don’t. This “bad” does not just turn into a “good” when we apply it to a macrocosmic level, i.e. to a large land controlled by a monopolistic government. Immigration is only good through the active and diligent enforcement of private property rights, which include the freedom to choose and discriminate.
Today we live in a society with an ever large and growing Leviathan State. So much of private property is being stipulated to government control and dictation. Instead of people having the natural freedom to discriminate in any way, government forces people to be with those that they do not wish to be with (by various non-discrimination laws). Government produces forced integration. When someone must be forced to be with someone they do not wish to be, predictably resentment and conflict will result.
Government's existence depends on being a giant mega-parasite. It cannot live any other way. Its food does not come about through voluntary transactions, but by outright (involuntary) theft. To grow it needs more hosts that it can attach itself to. In the eyes of the government, to be healthy it needs a larger number of hosts. The greater the number of hosts the better. This is exactly why the state likes open borders! Any self-respecting libertarian should pause and reflect on this. A pretty good bet is that when government likes something, whatever that may be, then it is virtually assured that it is something that people should not like! It is the reason why this issue has gone almost unnoticed until recent years. Government has stood silent.
Citizens have gotten angry. Arizona past Prop 200 in 2004. It denies illegal immigrants access to voting and welfare. The support Prop 200 was overwhelming. But practically every single politician was against Prop 200. While a vast majority of the residents of Arizona opposed illegals having the "right" to vote and receive welfare, the politicians were only too happy to have illegals both voting and receiving welfare. Should that be a surprise? No. Democracy is all to happy to expand itself to illegals. It wants more hosts. (And because the government is democratic it also needs to expand its open entry system.) The only reason now some politicians are talking about this issue is because the public has felt the effects of immigrants they do not want to be around. There is no other reason.
For government to expand it also needs to break down and isolate the individual. Government needs to own the roads and large amounts of land. In order for it to tax someone it needs access to him. This results in "government's" property in bordering all privately owned property. This lowers people's ability to keep away people they do not wish to associate with. Once people are encircled with government from all sides, anyone can walk right into your property. This includes foreigners. Instead of being able to set up barriers to prevent unwanteds, government almost completely destroys the ability for people to do this.
From this we should be able to gather how unnatural the idea of a "open border" is. As Murray Rothbard wrote:
If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as "closed" as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors. ["Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State"]
Here is what Hans-Hermann Hoppe has to say:
Through forced integration individuals are isolated (atomized) and their power of resistance vis-à-vis the State is weakened. In the “logic” of the state, a hefty dose of foreign invasion, especially if it comes from strange and far-away places, is reckoned to further strengthen this tendency. And the present situation offers a particularly opportune time to do so, for in accordance with the inherently centralizing tendency of States and statism generally and promoted here and now in particular by the U.S. as the world’s only remaining superpower, the Western world—or more precisely the neoconservative-socialdemocratic elites controlling the state governments in the U.S. and Western Europe—is committed to the establishment of supra-national states (such as the European Union) and ultimately one world state. National, regional or communal attachments are the main stumbling blocks on the way to this goal. A good measure of uninvited foreigners and government imposed multiculturalism is calculated to further weaken and ultimately destroy national, regional, and communal identities and thus promote the goal of a One World Order, led by the U.S., and a new “universal man.” ["Natural Order, The State, and The Immigration Problem"]
This is the opposite of the libertarian goal of decentralization and ultimate privatization. Centralization leads to forced integration and open borders. Decentralization and privatization leads to the opposite. It should be expected that if libertarian values were winning what would happen is the breaking away of large states into smaller ones. It is inconceivable how this would not lead to increased community power and segregation. You cannot promote libertarianism and then promote open borders. They are incompatible.
Tax payers are forced to pay for public property. In these terms it is not government that owns them, but the taxpayers in correspondence to how much they pay in. That is to say, if person x pays z percentage of the public property he owns z percentage. Murray Rothbard said that we must reject the idea that all public property should be run like a sewer just because it is public. For example, if some bum is stinking up the public library, he should be kicked out. It is true that this public library should not exist. Only private libraries should exist. However, under the current circumstances, it should be run like a business.
Stephan Kinsella in his LRC article "A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders,"* gives a good example. Right now the roads are owned by government. Is it un-libertarian of me or Mr. Kinsella to want some kind of rules for the roads? Both of us agree that they should be privatized. However, given that they currently are run by government, what is better: No rules on the road or Some rules? Obviously, I think most libertarians would say that there should be some rules. Most would not say that someone like me is supporting something that is un-libertarian. Kinsella writes; "I do not personally believe it can be convincingly argued that there should be no rules on public property, because this would result in significant costs to citizens who are victimized enough." Yes, things are bad enough without making the already bad system worse. Government should not be made to run worse than it is. (Unlike what some libertarians have suggested, making it worse does not necessarily mean that it will collapse. If it did, then this does not necessarily mean that people would be smart enough to embrace anarcho-capitalism ---- they could embrace something worse. And, by the way, it is also immoral to increase the power of the state to do immoral things [even if one's goal is its collapse].)
*(And here is a follow-up.)
This also implies to government controlled hospitals. Yes, get rid of government here.* But right now it would be stupid to suggest that there should not be rules to how they are run. Hospitals have been forced to close down because of illegal immigrants. This is very dangerous.
*(Did you know that in China, I heard on talk radio, that hospitals are in open competition with each other? They actually buy advertisement to tell people to come to their hospital versus another. Talk about them moving to closer to capitalism and us moving closer to socialism.)
Imagine a given territory of land. Now if this land is fully composed of privately owned property, then only those invited would be allowed to enter. No forced integration would occur. On the other hand, if government owns a significant portion of it (or controls the private sector by various non-discriminator laws), then there will most likely be immigrants who are there that would otherwise not be. Even if they got a job, this does not mean that they are welcomed. They still need to move around in this territory. They need to live somewhere. And so forth.
This is why, considering the current circumstances (i.e. we have a government), it seems fit that government should be placed into the role of only allowing immigrants who are invited to enter. I personally no not feel that this violates libertarian ethics. Just as, considering the fact we have a government, it should round up real private criminals who rape, steal, kill. To be sure, this is not ideal. By necessity the state could never preform the job as individuals could because they can directly control their own property. But in the grand picture it is difficult to believe that open borders would not lead to an increase in government power, centralization, and social problems.
Again, besides the violation of property rights by trespassing, it is also important to understand how the state grows with more hosts. In a democratic state, what we will get is more redistribution. What also will occur is the breakdown of private property rights. This will increase the number of anti-discriminator laws on the book. As Thomas Woods wrote in "Democracy vs. Civilization":
The massive Third World immigration that commenced with the liberalization of immigration laws in 1965 has translated into more crime, more wealth redistribution, more anti-Western multiculturalism, more interracial tension – and, naturally, more social-welfare bureaucrats to manage the inevitable social turmoil that such population shifts leave in their wake. This is why the Left favors it
He continues:
The concepts of community and private property are meaningless and empty if they exclude the right to discriminate. Discrimination is a pervasive and indeed absolutely necessary feature of life. We discriminate in the foods we eat, in the neighborhoods we live in, and in the friends we make. And we discriminate in whom we invite for dinner. There is no such thing as "equal access" to our homes.
In a "natural order" of a libertarian society a division of labor with community would seem to suggest more homogeneous communities. An advancing division of labor brings about market based hard money. In a cultural sense, transactions take place because people can communicate with each other. When you see places near the border where this is becoming less possible (communication), you see the division of labor breaking down. This is what forced integration does. The market needs a bond. An organic culture (cultural conservatism) is a important factor.
It is also very difficult to believe that a libertarian society would accept this flood of immigrants. Patrick Buchanan in his book State of Emergency: The Third Wold Invasion and Conquest of America, reports some startling figures. As he says not all immigrants are equal. The rate to which Mexican immigrants receive welfare is about two times as high as native-born Americans. (p 43) Compare this to Koreans, Filipinos, Japanese, Canadians, Poles, Brits, Germans, Indians, and Italians who use welfare less than native-borns. (p 44) Only five percent of them have not finished high school. This is in comparison to thirty-one percent of Mexicans.
He writes in Los Angeles that ninety-five percent "of all outstanding warrants for homicide, which total 1,200 to 1,500 target illegal aliens." That "[t]wo-thirds of the 17,000 outstanding fugitive felony warrants in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens." And that about "12,000 of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang that operates across Southern California are illegals." (p 24) One in twelve illegal aliens have a criminal record. (p 9) "Hispanics are three times more likely than white Americans to be convicted of a serious crime requiring incarceration." And that "[t]hey are nineteen times more likely to belong to a criminal street gangs." (p 24)
Buchanan's article "Does Libertarianism Lead to Statism?" Given these kinds of figures, the answer seems to be yes, if libertarianism supports "open borders." As he writes: "[T]hey are disproportionate users of social services – i.e., health care, food stamps, rent supplements, legal services and general welfare. Immigrants have become the principal propellants of the growth of the welfare state."
Karen De Coster replied in her article "Wrong, Pat, wrong." She says that paleolibertarians know better:
Buchanan's overall point about the damage done by mass immigration is correct. That is, the mass immigration to which U.S. residents have been subjected leads to a burgeoning state; props up multicultural madness; allows poor, unassimilated immigrants to garner massive amounts of welfare pork; leads to a rising class of tax consumers, as opposed to taxpayers; and has dumbed down the state-based educational system, providing even more impetus for politicians to toss additional taxpayers' money into an already-failed system.
She says that "the right to discriminate is inherent in the ownership of anything."
In Buchanan's The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization, he shows that this is part of a much bigger picture. Not only are floods of immigrants coming, but the birth rates of whites are falling. The Western civilization is dying. As he writes (this is true, be it a bit less, for America as well as Europe):
While world population had doubled to six billion in forty years, the European peoples had stopped reproducing. Their populations had begun to stagnate and, in many countries, had already begun to fall. [p 12]
Add to that a mass flood of immigrants from the Third World. Something is not right with this picture.
In 1960, people of European ancestry were one-forth of the world's population; in 2000, they were one-sixth; in 2050, they will be one-tenth. These are the statistics of a vanishing race. A growing awareness of what they portend has induced a sense of foreboding, even panic, in Europe.
In the U.S., if things continue to move in the direction that they are, America will be Mexamercia.
In 1991, the Soviet Union shattered into fifteen nations along the fault lines of race, religion, and ethnicity. Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan were Asian as well as Muslim. Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia rejected not only Communist rule but Russian rule. Russians in Latvia, descendants of those transferred there by Stalin over sixty years ago, are still regarded as intruders. The Caucasus seems about to subdivide into statelets like Chechnya, Dagestan, Abkhazia, and North and South Ossetia, based on ethnicity. [State of Emergency, p 166]
Based on these kinds of evidence Buchanan says:
It appears a truism: multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual states are held together either by an authoritarian regime or a dominant ethnocultural core, or their breakup is inevitable.
Hans Hoppe writes: "Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation, pp. 124-27, has provided some recent evidence for the thesis that no multicultural state, and especially no democratic one, has ever worked out peacefully for very long."
Short of ultimate privatization of all land, then what? Hoppe says:
Abolishing forced integration requires the de-democratization of society and ultimately the abolition of democracy. More specifically, the power to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and reassigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners and their voluntary associations. [Democracy - The God That Failed, p 148]
Hoppe recommends a system similar to what they do in Switzerland:
In Switzerland, for instance, citizenship may require that the sale of residential property to foreigners be ratified by a majority of or even all of the directly affected local property owners. [p 168]
More specifically, it means distinguishing strictly between "citizens" (naturalized immigrants) and "resident aliens" and excluding the latter from all welfare entitlements. It means requiring, for resident alien status as well as for citizenship, the personal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumption of liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant. It implies requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen; moreover, for both categories but especially that of citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only English language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a complete system of values----with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias. [pp 148-9]
