Does libertarianism require support for open borders?

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmith/status/1761418253778436478

Does Libertarianism Require Support for Open Borders?
https://odysee.com/@mises:1/does-libertarianism-require-support-for:2
{Mises Media | 23 February 2024}

Dave Smith makes the Rothbardian/Hoppean case for government restriction on immigration, arguing that it's a second-best solution given the undeniable fact of government control of "public" property. Bob plays devil's advocate to raise possible objections to Dave's framework.

Rothbard, "Nations by Consent": https://Mises.org/HAP436a

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "On Free Immigration and Forced Integration": https://Mises.org/HAP436b

Bryan Caplan, "A Radical Case for Open Borders": https://Mises.org/HAP436c

Chapters:
0:00:00 Free Book!
0:00:28 Introduction
0:01:40 Immigration Debate
0:04:52 The Libertarian View of Open Borders
0:09:04 Why Discuss what Scenario is "Second Best"?
0:24:24 Public Property and Statist Constructs
0:31:35 What Being a Libertarian Means
0:48:30 Unhelpful Libertarian Arguments
0:55:45 Human Action Conference Raffle
0:56:28 Are Imperfect Solutions Worth Discussing?
1:05:50 What Principles the Government Should be Following
1:14:02 Hoppean Immigration Theory
1:22:43 Immigration and Welfare
1:33:14 "Bring the Troops Home to Protect the Border"
1:42:27 Conclusion

 

[ClaytonB]

Nowadays, I view borders a lot like constitutionalism -- sure, we would ideally live in a society where governments are not able to arrogate to themselves any powers but those which any other human organization can have, meaning, no collective has any right that its individual constituents do not have, as individuals. But since we are saddled with such organizations for the time-being -- by dint of the momentum of history and the blockheaded stubbornness of the human collective in the face of clear reason -- then let us have clearly spelled-out limits upon their authority so that, if they go beyond these limits, they themselves call into question their own reason-for-being and are implicitly demanding a reconstitution of the government on a fresh foundation, not only removing its current office-holders from office, but even reconstituting its entire organizational structure from the ground-up. This was the constitutional framework established by the founding fathers and time has proved over and over how right they were.

If we must have borders, then let them be lawful borders, and let them be maintained according to the constitutional framework, that is, reflecting the will of We The People through our elected representatives. It truly is an existential matter because if we cannot keep foreign powers from influencing our elections, then We The People are effectively not represented at all, and the entire constitutional framework is moot. And the last people on earth who should be baiting the mooting of the constitution are the plutocrats in DC. But hey, it's their funeral if they want it that badly...

 

[Anti Federalist]

1:33:14 "Bring the Troops Home to Protect the Border"

I'll be dipped...where have heard that before?

 

[Occam's Banana]

1:33:14 "Bring the Troops Home to Protect the Border"

I'll be dipped...where have heard that before?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I'll be dipped...where have heard that before?

Dave Smith came to "libertarianism" via Ron Paul, so it's no surprise.

 

[RJB]

Closeted Marxists have no business telling us what to believe. They are like Satan tempting Jesus in the desert by quoting scriptures. When they call minarchists, libertarians, paleocons, etc. statists, neocons and other false labels, they out themselves.

 

[Matt Collins]

There are two ways to look at it...

1- property rights.... illegal immigrants are trespassing

2- why should governments get to control the supply curve of labor?



Also keep in mind that open borders are not the same thing as unsecured borders. You can have secured borders that are open.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

There are two ways to look at it...

1- property rights.... illegal immigrants are trespassing

2- why should governments get to control the supply curve of labor?

Also keep in mind that open borders are not the same thing as unsecured borders. You can have secured borders that are open.

US Chamber and Koch-beltway libertarians go with option two. I'm sure they (and Mitch McConnell) would tell you it's the profitable position to take.

The problem being that it's not just the supply of labor that is effected. It's everything. Housing, transportation, food, etc. Thus Greenspan preferred outsourcing.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

It goes back to what is a nation? How is it defined? How is it created? Is there consent? What percentage of a population in a given area (nation) must give consent?

Once you get all of that sorted, how easy is it to dissolve a nation? Is secession an option? How fragile is a nation to being broken down and fractured by internal and external forces? How easy is it to erode common interests, goals, culture and consent?

 

[Matt Collins]

US Chamber and Koch-beltway libertarians go with option two. I'm sure they (and Mitch McConnell) would tell you it's the profitable position to take.

The problem being that it's not just the supply of labor that is effected. It's everything. Housing, transportation, food, etc. Thus Greenspan preferred outsourcing.

Well so from a minarchist / ancap position, again, why should the government be doing things to affect the economy? Do we want the government adjusting policy in order to manage or micromanage the economy?

I'm not taking a side here, I think both sides have good arguments.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Well so from a minarchist / ancap position, again, why should the government be doing things to affect the economy? Do we want the government adjusting policy in order to manage or micromanage the economy?

I'm not taking a side here, I think both sides have good arguments.

Well, we want to avoid govt involvement in the economy as much as possible. Unfortunately, "we" have lost that war.

The other aspect of this is equating humans to widgets. That has always been a moral dilemma when attempting to commoditize people.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Closeted Marxists have no business telling us what to believe. They are like Satan tempting Jesus in the desert by quoting scriptures. When they call minarchists, libertarians, paleocons, etc. statists, neocons and other false labels, they out themselves.

Taking anything at face value in our current culture is the height of foolishness. Hidden agendas, false flags, disingenuous arguments, sophistry, payoffs, and corruption are now the norm.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Open borders means you won't have libertarianism.
Diversity requires a large government to keep control.
Even if it was possible to have libertarian diversity you still would not have it because the whole world is not libertarian and the people you allow in will grow government to suit their cultures.

 

[Occam's Banana]

From a couple of years ago:

https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmith/status/1481008108675780621

Dave Smith vs. Spike Cohen: The Borders Debate
It's the long awaited debate between Dave Smith and Spike Cohen on everyone's favorite liberty subject to argue about - Borders! Dave and Spike had quite possibly the best conversation ever on the subject, all filtered through their shared perspective on the ethics of liberty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2hcFxdae7M

 

[Occam's Banana]

Dave Smith vs. Chris Freiman | What's the ideal immigration policy? | Just Asking Questions, Ep. 16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M23uW7G1OEE
{ReasonTV | 28 March 2024}

Podcaster Dave Smith and philosopher Chris Freiman debate open borders on the latest episode of Just Asking Questions.

Text and links to sources available here: https://reason.com/podcast/2024/03/...s-freiman-whats-the-ideal-immigration-policy/

What's the ideal immigration policy?

Immigration ranks as the second-most important issue among registered US voters and the top issue for Republican voters, according to a Marist/PBS NewsHour/NPR poll released last month. Perhaps that's because of the 3.2 million border encounters documented by Border Control in 2023—a new record high that's so far being outpaced this year. Crossings have increased throughout the Biden years.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who continues to erect razor wire fencing at the border despite a Supreme Court ruling prohibiting Texas from stopping federal agents from cutting through the barriers, has likely also heightened the salience of the issue for Republican voters. Even politicians in blue cities like New York are calling the influx a problem, with Mayor Eric Adams saying that the arrival of 110,000 asylum seekers over a year and half would "destroy New York City" as shelters become overwhelmed.

What do libertarians, traditionally in favor of permissive immigration laws, have to say about this? The truth is, there's a divide. Today's episode of Just Asking Questions features two thinkers on either side of that divide laying out what they each believe is the ideal immigration policy.

Popular libertarian podcaster and comedian Dave Smith said on the Liberty Lockdown show last month that "all of our troops should come home and be stationed around our borders." He continued that, "if you believe in open borders right now, under current circumstances, you're an insane person, and you're as bad as a communist."

That sparked a social media firestorm, which included exchanges between Smith and today's other guest, Chris Freiman, a professor in the John Chambers College of Business and Economics at West Virginia University and author of several notable papers about the ethics of immigration.

Watch the full conversation on Reason's YouTube channel or on the Just Asking Questions podcast feed on Apple, Spotify, or your preferred podcatcher.

0:00:00 - Intro: Why is immigration a big concern for voters?
0:03:13 - Why Dave Smith opposes open borders
0:08:00 - Why Chris Freiman supports open borders
0:13:49 - Dave’s rebuttal: “Uninvited” immigration isn’t libertarian
0:19:04 - Chris’s rebuttal: Liberty trumps popular opinion
0:22:49 - How would Dave’s “invitation” system work?
0:32:20 - What would Chris change short of opening the borders?
0:41:53 - Is too much immigration a security risk?
0:51:48 - Do more immigrants lead to bigger government?
1:04:00 - Libertarians and “public spaces”
1:07:50 - Is “open borders” a bad term?
1:15:10 - Why does Dave want to put the troops on the border?
1:19:10 - “Keyhole solutions” to immigration
1:22:04 - Are immigrants more likely to be on welfare?
1:30:00 - Are immigrants different today than they were in the 1980s?
1:36:06 - New York City didn’t know how to handle an influx of migrants
1:41:58 - Could the U.S. absorb millions of immigrants if we had open borders?
1:46:35 - What would happen if we had open borders tomorrow?
1:52:30 - Dave’s question for Chris: Is immigration a “natural right”?
1:53:35 - Chris’s question for Dave: Am I as bad as a communist?
1:55:00 - Dave’s closing statements
1:59:30 - Chris’s closing statements

 

[PAF]

Dave Smith vs. Chris Freiman | What's the ideal immigration policy? | Just Asking Questions, Ep. 16

Interesting debate. But the root problem was never discussed, which leaves people more inclined to choose-a-side based on emotion rather than fiscally-responsible and pro-liberty solutions.

As long as the federal government continues to fund the NGO's and DHS on the tax payer dime, the people will scream for government police-state solutions.

Catholic Charities, Jewish Family Council, [and] the Lutherans [which] are involved. What they do is they go to the border and take these asylum seekers from the Department of Homeland Security, [DHS]. They’re paid by DHS to provide aid. So there’s an incentive to bring in more people.
​

Catholic Charities USA is just one of a host of NGOs, a network funded by tax dollars and other donors, that funnels and settles illegal immigrants in the country. Of course, the UN also has its tentacles in, brazenly giving out debit cards loaded with hundreds of pesos a month to support the illegals along their march to the border, all while being funded by, you guessed it, U.S. taxpayers. We’re paying for our own demise.

.

At the same time, we as a country are paying for the invasion ourselves.

.

How is this problem going to be solved? The answers aren’t easy, but one thing is for sure. We cannot stop an invasion of illegal immigration while paying for it to continue.

https://capitalresearch.org/article/nonprofits-fueling-the-illegal-immigration-crisis/
​

 

[Swordsmyth]

Open borders means you won't have libertarianism.
Diversity requires a large government to keep control.
Even if it was possible to have libertarian diversity you still would not have it because the whole world is not libertarian and the people you allow in will grow government to suit their cultures.

Reminder.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Simon Guenzl vs. Dave Smith on Open Borders
https://odysee.com/@mises:1/simon-guenzl-vs.-dave-smith-on-open:c
{Mises Media | 12 April 2024}

Simon Guenzl joins Bob to push back on Dave Smith's recent appearance [see this post - OB], where Dave had made the case against open borders. Guenzl has published a libertarian critique of the Hoppean framework. The debate revolves around the status of government property. Bob plays devil's advocate, especially with a lightning round of "hard cases" for Guenzl at the end.

Simon's paper, "Public Property and the Libertarian Immigration Debate" in Libertarian Papers: https://Mises.org/HAP443a

Dave Smith on Open Borders: https://Mises.org/HAP443b [see this post - OB]

Bob on Blockades and Immigration in a Voluntary Society: https://Mises.org/HAP443c

 

[unknown]

Can't have freedom of movement with a welfare State.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Can't have freedom of movement with a welfare State.

Or in a world full of communists and parasites.