Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders?

[otherone]

Well, lets look at California - let that be your barometer... tool. And if you do not think there is a correlation between
open borders/welfare/progressivism and ANTI-LIBERTY, move out of your moms basement.

You've missed my point entirely.

 

[misterx]

How do we decide who gets accepted into the nation? Do we vote? Do we have to vote on everybody who applies to come here? Does that include those who want to come on vacation or to attend schools or work? You can decide who enters your home.

On an individual basis you can decide who enters your home. On a group basis we should all vote on who enters our country and how many. The third world invasion is something that was forced on us even though the vast majority opposed it.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

So let me get this straight....I force you, with guns to head, into a monopoly on law and defense. Then, it collapses. You blame anarchy for the chaos, not the threats of violence that kept out competing alternatives and which limit tort liability for the coerced monopoly and its cronies.

It's like saying I hold a gun to you and tell you that if you stand anywhere, or try to sit, but on a rug in the middle of the room, I'll shoot you. You can't stand off the rug, not even one foot. You can't sit on the rug or off of it. You can't hang a rope from the ceiling which you attach to a harness you have on, to protect you from a fall. Then I pull the rug out from underneath you, and you fall and break your tail bone. You blame the lack of rug, not the forced aspects that caused the injury. Meanwhile, if you had been allowed those alternative means of support, there would have been no chaotic fall when the rug was removed from under your feet/the room.

Stop blaming a lack of rug (lack of state). Blame the coerced monopoly on where you can stand (state), which inevitably ends badly. Go to the root of the problem, and quit the cult of statism already.

Are you aware that nothing you said even vaguely intersected his post (much less addressed his points), or do you actually believe that you were responding to him?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Sum up, answer to the question "Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders?": No, there are many libertarians on both sides of the issue.

Immigration is actually a fairly complex and fascinating issue. There are extenuating philosophical circumstances on both sides. Thus the question is somewhat akin to "Must Libertarians Believe in School Vouchers?", though much more multi-faceted and interesting.

 

[thoughtomator]

There are no libertarians on the open-borders side of the issue - none, period complete stop - at least in the sense of having completely unregulated borders as many are suggesting.

What you will find is that there are many anarchists who mistakenly or deceptively apply the label of libertarian to themselves, and you will find anarchists advocating against borders.

This is really a fundamental litmus test that divides the two. You cannot be a libertarian and be for unregulated borders OR advocate no state at all. Those who advocate either are something besides libertarian (in the latter case, that is the literal definition of an anarchist).

The defense of liberty requires sovereignty. That is the fundamental bottom line of libertarianism, and any philosophy based on something that contradicts this principle cannot meaningfully be called libertarian.

 

[thoughtomator]

Are you aware that nothing you said even vaguely intersected his post (much less addressed his points), or do you actually believe that you were responding to him?

you're dealing with an anarchist troll who has been like this from day 1

 

[erowe1]

No! You shouldn't force someone to accept people he doesn't want into his home or nation.

How do you justify mixing together home and nation like that? The one is a person's property. The other isn't. What right do I have to dictate to other people in my nation whom they can and can't allow onto their own property?

 

[erowe1]

Thus the question is somewhat akin to "Must Libertarians Believe in School Vouchers?", though much more multi-faceted and interesting.

Tax funded education vouchers?

How is that a question? Obviously to believe in that is to believe in something anti-libertarian.

 

[The Gold Standard]

There are no libertarians on the open-borders side of the issue - none, period complete stop - at least in the sense of having completely unregulated borders as many are suggesting.

What you will find is that there are many anarchists who mistakenly or deceptively apply the label of libertarian to themselves, and you will find anarchists advocating against borders.

This is really a fundamental litmus test that divides the two. You cannot be a libertarian and be for unregulated borders OR advocate no state at all. Those who advocate either are something besides libertarian (in the latter case, that is the literal definition of an anarchist).

The defense of liberty requires sovereignty. That is the fundamental bottom line of libertarianism, and any philosophy based on something that contradicts this principle cannot meaningfully be called libertarian.

This is why I said it depends on what you mean by libertarian. A statist libertarian that will trade individual sovereignty for national sovereignty can certainly call on his rulers to keep the undesirables out. An anarchist will say that it is up to the property owner, period.

 

[erowe1]

A statist libertarian that will trade individual sovereignty for national sovereignty can certainly call on his rulers to keep the undesirables out.

In what sense would that person be a libertarian at all?

 

[The Gold Standard]

In what sense would that person be a libertarian at all?

Because they call themselves one? I don't know, what is the generally accepted definition of the label?

 

[otherone]

The defense of liberty requires sovereignty. That is the fundamental bottom line of libertarianism, and any philosophy based on something that contradicts this principle cannot meaningfully be called libertarian.

The foundation of libertarianism is individual sovereignty, and the purpose of government is to secure that.

IRT to borders:
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

 

[Lord Xar]

You've missed my point entirely.

well, truth be told -- I was thinking "I'm not sure what angle this is....", so inevitably, I read your post the wrong way, it wasn't clear. my bad.

 

[erowe1]

Because they call themselves one? I don't know, what is the generally accepted definition of the label?

I don't know. I avoid the label myself because of that problem. But I think it's safe to say that if you believe in compelling someone to do something against their will in any cases beyond preventing them from violating the person or property of someone else or punishing them for doing so, then you're not a libertarian.

 

[erowe1]

The foundation of libertarianism is individual sovereignty, and the purpose of government is to secure that.

IRT to borders:
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

I think that particular statement is pretty good. But generally speaking I wouldn't appeal to the Libertarian Party as an example of something libertarian.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

If libertarianism is a series of axioms that must be dogmatically stuck to, regardless of what their implementation does to the libertarian civilization, then it's a useless philosophy that needs to be thrown out. Open border types would let their country be overrun by non-white statists, see the last scraps of negative liberty get destroyed, then count that as some sort of victory for the liberty movement. When it comes to statecraft and civilization building, consequentialism is an absolute necessity.

You realize that you've opened the door to absolutely any argument whatsoever, right? In other words, you've taken a completely subjectivist, moral relativist position here. Effectively, your ideal society is one upon which you impose your views through diktat, utterly incompatible with limited government on its face, and anathema to individual sovereignty.

The defense of liberty requires sovereignty. That is the fundamental bottom line of libertarianism, and any philosophy based on something that contradicts this principle cannot meaningfully be called libertarian.

Do you understand sovereignty? Sovereignty cannot exist on dual plains - one cannot be sovereign while being subject to a sovereign. Either one is sovereign or one is not. If an individual is subject to a higher authority, that individual is not sovereign. That's how that works. So if you advocate these imaginary "political" entities with this "sovereign" authority, you explicitly reject the entire concept of individual sovereignty, which is in fact the basis of libertarianism.

 

[otherone]

I think that particular statement is pretty good. But generally speaking I wouldn't appeal to the Libertarian Party as an example of something libertarian.

No one is asking you to. You're as welcome to pull something from your ass as anyone else here.

 

[otherone]

well, truth be told -- I was thinking "I'm not sure what angle this is....", so inevitably, I read your post the wrong way, it wasn't clear. my bad.

It's the "angle" that every time the state reacts to people's fears, it's the liberty of it's own people that is violated.
Patriot Act
Gun Control
NSA
CIA
FBI
BLAH
BLAH
BLAH
BLAH
BLAH

 

[erowe1]

No one is asking you to. You're as welcome to pull something from your ass as anyone else here.

That's a false dichotomy.

 

[erowe1]

If libertarianism is a series of axioms that must be dogmatically stuck to, regardless of what their implementation does to the libertarian civilization, then it's a useless philosophy that needs to be thrown out. Open border types would let their country be overrun by non-white statists, see the last scraps of negative liberty get destroyed, then count that as some sort of victory for the liberty movement. When it comes to statecraft and civilization building, consequentialism is an absolute necessity.

Then stop pretending you're any kind of libertarian.