Hornberger on the Hot Seat: Fleshing Out the Libertarian Position on Open Borders

[PAF]

h/t @Occam's Banana

{Robert Murphy | 17 July 2025}

The Bob Murphy Show: Episode 425

Adam Haman and Bob Murphy interview Jacob Hornberger to get to the bottom of their differing views on libertarianism and immigration.

 

[TheTexan]

It's not rocket surgery.

Libertarianism requires that people can do whatever they want on their own property, and let people in or restrict people who they choose.

The only point of contention is... who's property is it? Hint: It's not yours

 

[PAF]

It's not rocket surgery.

Libertarianism requires that people can do whatever they want on their own property, and let people in or restrict people who they choose.

The only point of contention is... who's property is it? Hint: It's not yours

As Jacob noted during the talk, this is a high-level conversation. As such, it would be recommended to listen to the entire debate before providing objective/otherwise responses. Adam and Bob extended that courtesy and I am sure that even they learned something.

No, it's not rocket surgery, but the ones who object to it turn it into rocket surgery, which mucks everything up in favor of an ever-expanding and full-blown police-state.

 

[TheTexan]

As Jacob noted during the talk, this is a high-level conversation. As such, it would be recommended to listen to the entire debate before proving objective/otherwise responses. Adam and Bob extended that courtesy and I am sure that even they learned something.

I listened to a lot of it. I didn't learn anything.

Mostly they were just saying stupid stuff. Like "the market has a way of regulating the number of people who come in via open border immigration".

Yea, duh. People will stop coming in once the place is destroyed via immigration. That's the "market's regulation".

But to my original point - that line of discussion has nothing to do with the "libertarian position" on open borders, and more to do with a more generic discussion of whether or not open borders is a good idea.

 

[TheTexan]

The only "libertarian position" on borders is that there is no "libertarian position" on borders.

It's like asking, "what's the libertarian position on the correct color of paint to use in your kitchen"

 

[PAF]

The only "libertarian position" on borders is that there is no "libertarian position" on borders.

It's like asking, "what's the libertarian position on the correct color of paint to use in your kitchen"

"Redefining libertarianism." Gets a failing grade. They're just as bad as democrats, only worse.

 

[TheTexan]

"Redefining libertarianism." Gets a failing grade. They're just as bad as democrats, only worse.

Libertarianism means I can do what I want to do.

And that includes redefining it however I damn well please.

 

[PAF]

Libertarianism means I can do what I want to do.

And that includes redefining it however I damn well please.

Sure, you're free to do anything that you want, including redefining libertarianism But then that just turns you into a standard statist and not a libertarian at all.

 

[acptulsa]

And that includes redefining it however I damn well please.

Just like a damned Democrat.

 

[TheTexan]

Sure, you're free to do anything that you want, including redefining libertarianism But then that just turns you into a standard statist and not a libertarian at all.

Me: people should be able to do what they want on their property
You: You're redefining libertarianism, you statist!!!!

 

[PAF]

Me: people should be able to do what they want on their property
You: You're redefining libertarianism, you statist!!!!

Nobody objected to what you can/can't do on your own private property. I'm not sure where that came from. But, democrats use the very same tactic, so I'm used to it.

 

[TheTexan]

Nobody objected to what you can/can't do on your own private property. I'm not sure where that came from. But, democrats use the very same tactic, so I'm used to it.

Let's see here...

I start off the responses in this thread by saying people should be able to do what they want on their property.

And then you call me a statist.

So am I connecting dots that aren't there?

What have I said that deserves such a label?

 

[PAF]

Let's see here...

I start off the responses in this thread by saying people should be able to do what they want on their property.

And then you call me a statist.

So am I connecting dots that aren't there?

What have I said that deserves such a label?

It's not rocket surgery.

Libertarianism requires that people can do whatever they want on their own property, and let people in or restrict people who they choose.

The only point of contention is... who's property is it? Hint: It's not yours

It's not yours either. The government claims to own it, but that's not legitimate.

As suggested, if you listened to the entire discussion and not just some or most, it might shed some light.

 

[TheTexan]

It's not yours either. The government claims to own it, but that's not legitimate.

Correct, it's not mine, and it's not yours. So whoever does own can do whatever they want with it. Let people in, or restrict, as they so choose.

I have absolutely zero standing to dictate what happens on lands I do not own, and neither do you.

With the notable exception - people do have the right to travel through the US to your seceded/sovereign property - but that doesn't give them an automatic right to shop at the Wal-Mart down the street (unless that Wal-Mart has also seceded and approves)

As suggested, if you listened to the entire discussion and not just some or most, it might shed some light.

Your suggestion is noted and filed in the proper cabinet.

 

[CaptUSA]

Didn't watch it. Did they make the distinction between natural immigration and government-subsidized immigration? Because if not, it's a worthless conversation. If they did, I'll be interested to watch.

 

[PAF]

but that doesn't give them an automatic right to shop at the Wal-Mart down the street (unless that Wal-Mart has also seceded and approves)

As discussed in the OP video, I doubt Walmart, or any place of business, would refuse selling to 5, 10 or even 45 immigrants. Let the store owner put up signs if he/she wishes.

 

[TheTexan]

As discussed in the OP video, I doubt Walmart, or any place of business, would refuse selling to 5, 10 or even 45 immigrants. Let the store owner put up signs if he/she wishes.

If the wal-mart hasn't seceded, they are still going to be expected to comply to whatever set of rules of the organization ("the US") they are voluntarily a member of.

I doubt the wal-mart down the street is willing to secede with you PAF

 

[PAF]

If the wal-mart hasn't seceded, they are still going to be expected to comply to whatever set of rules of the organization ("the US") they are voluntarily a member of.

I doubt the wal-mart down the street is willing to secede with you PAF

No, I don't think that they would, considering corporatism is alive and well, and they love government to pick winners and losers. That wouldn't happen in my back yard. There would be no such thing as "too big to fail", they would have to compete and earn, or not, as they go.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I have absolutely zero standing to dictate what happens on lands I do not own, and neither do you.

With the notable exception - people do have the right to travel through the US [...]

Regarding the bolded part of what you said, I don't think there's really even any warrant to grant that much - at least, not with respect to improved land (whether "public" or private).

Under libertarian theory, there is no right to travel on any improved land in which one does not hold an ownership stake, or for which one does not have some contractual entitlement, or to which one does not have an (unrevoked) invitation.

One can only ever have an unconditional "right to travel" upon or across (or to access, use, etc.) land which is unimproved (i.e., land with which no others have mixed their labor).

IOW: For improved land of any kind, if it ain't yours, and you don't have an agreement or invitation that allows your presence or use, then you ain't got no rightful business being there or using it - and you are therefore subject to being unceremoniously tossed off or out of it.

 

[TheTexan]

Regarding the bolded part of what you said, I don't think there's really even any warrant to grant that much - at least, not with respect to improved land (whether "public" or private).

Under libertarian theory, there is no right to travel on any improved land in which one does not hold an ownership stake, or for which one does not have some contractual entitlement, or to which one does not have an (unrevoked) invitation.

One can only ever have an unconditional "right to travel" upon or across (or to access, use, etc.) land which is unimproved (i.e., land with which no others have mixed their labor).

IOW: For improved land of any kind, if it ain't yours, and you don't have an agreement or invitation that allows your presence or use, then you ain't got no rightful business being there or using it.

I wouldn't say the "right to travel" is unconditional. But I would say that you have an unconditional right to "travel with conditions".

One of those conditions might be that you pay $x to cover expenses associated with the right to travel. Or that you can only travel with an approved armed escort. (and pay for the privilege)

But to say that a property owner has an unconditional right to refuse someone's travel (besides some arbitrary distinction of "improved" or "unimproved"), would result in numerous situations where people are literally trapped and cannot leave. I'm against imprisonment in all of its forms -- and that's one of the forms. (I would add: this is basically what Israel is doing to Gaza)