Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders?

[otherone]

And that right there is a false dichotomy.

See? I was right after all, as usual.

Regardless, I still wait for a source pertaining to the libertarian view on borders.

 

[Cabal]

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.

You mean national sovereignty, I presume? As in, that which establishes a sovereign State-- a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area? In which case, you're suggesting that liberty is dependent upon that which is required for statism--the State being the single greatest active oppressor of liberty in all of history, whose very existence necessarily requires liberty to be forfeited under threat of violence and/or forcibly taken away by way of violence.

That's quite the paradoxical "philosophy" you've conjured up there. I'm not sure how that qualifies as libertarian, either.

Can you outline the libertarian philosophy that you are promoting here, and explain why oppression of liberty and centralized violence against liberty are compatible and consistent with that libertarian philosophy? Evidently your definition of libertarianism has nothing to do with individualism, property rights, or non-aggression (core principles that have been paramount to libertarian philosophy as I understand it), so your use of "libertarian" is a very foreign one to me. I'll be needing some further explanation.

You see, a philosophy with individual liberty and non-aggression at its core cannot simultaneously include national sovereignty without immediately contradicting itself, and thus becoming self-detonating due to internal inconsistency. You cannot be for individual liberty and for statism at the same time--one must necessarily take precedent over the other, as they are necessarily incompatible, and cannot coexist on equal ground. Either statism must give way to individual liberty, or individual liberty must be forfeited and sacrificed for the sake of statism.

 

[erowe1]

But we already have a welfare state and an immigration policy. The only thing that's getting added are welfare recipients.

That's not the only thing that's getting added. Employees, consumers, and tax payers are all getting added. Any change in policy we can make that lessens the control the regime has over whom we can and can't hire as employees and rent property out to is a good change.

 

[thoughtomator]

This is why I said it depends on what you mean by libertarian.

If by "libertarian", you mean "fish", then we're not speaking the same language. If by "libertarian" you mean "libertarian", then the person must at a minimum implicitly recognize the need for a state. If you reject the fundamental reasons for the existence of nations, then you are not a libertarian, you are an anarchist. That's why there are two words used, they are two different concepts, and the differing opinion on benefits of the existence of nationhood is the key differentiator between them.

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.

There are no "statist libertarians" and "non-statist libertarians". A libertarian recognizes the benefits of having a state. Someone who wishes for additional government action beyond those limited but vital benefits is not a libertarian.

If you're an anarchist, "statist" is a pejorative applied to anyone who is not also an anarchist - including libertarians. For libertarians, "statist" is someone who prefers state action to private action - in other words, someone who isn't a libertarian.

I suggest you take the word "statist" out of your vocabulary unless your intent is to obfuscate and not resolve the issues under discussion.

 

[Dianne]

If we put a border anywhere, it should be between the Congressional Building/White House and the American people. That's the border fence we need.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Strategically speaking, it strikes me as unwise for those with the proclivity to oppose secured borders to instead call for ignoring or bankrupting the welfare state because of the unlikely possibility of the shrinking or abolition of the welfare state.

Adding more citizens to the benefits list only serves to make the notion of eliminating the welfare state even more unrealistic, and what we're left with is an increase in state power and size, as you pointed out in your post - the opposite (presumably) of the wants of those who wish to see the welfare state wither away.

I would agree. Abandoning the position of ending the welfare state would be a mistake.

The closest tangible libertarian solution to the immigration/welfare issue would be eliminating welfare for non-citizens and immigrants. Even this is probably unrealistic, however (and also includes issues on its own - what authorities and powers will the government have/use/require to differentiate between citizens and non-citizens, etc), so I don't see it as beneficial to abandon principle and advocate a potentially harmful solution that is additionally unlikely to become law.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I don't see why these are so often put together like this.

No welfare is always better than welfare, regardless if the borders are open or closed. And open borders are always better than closed borders, regardless if there's welfare or not.

The way to fix any government created problem is always to undo or reduce whatever government intervention caused it in the first place, not to add on top of it some new government solution that's going to cause more problems. And if you can't undo the first problem, it's still better not to add on those additional ones.

Exactly. Plus, it is incorrect to frame the debate as an "open borders vs. closed borders" debate. Libertarians don't advocate for closed OR open borders, they simply affirm private property and are anti-state.

 

[PierzStyx]

Blah, blah, blah. Another useful idiot to the globalists.

Rich coming from another statist coward.

 

[PierzStyx]

If by "libertarian", you mean "fish", then we're not speaking the same language. If by "libertarian" you mean "libertarian", then the person must at a minimum implicitly recognize the need for a state. If you reject the fundamental reasons for the existence of nations, then you are not a libertarian, you are an anarchist. That's why there are two words used, they are two different concepts, and the differing opinion on benefits of the existence of nationhood is the key differentiator between them.



There are no "statist libertarians" and "non-statist libertarians". A libertarian recognizes the benefits of having a state. Someone who wishes for additional government action beyond those limited but vital benefits is not a libertarian.

If you're an anarchist, "statist" is a pejorative applied to anyone who is not also an anarchist - including libertarians. For libertarians, "statist" is someone who prefers state action to private action - in other words, someone who isn't a libertarian.

I suggest you take the word "statist" out of your vocabulary unless your intent is to obfuscate and not resolve the issues under discussion.

I would not say that you are totally off, but you aren't entirely convincing. I believe that what you just described is a minarchist, not a libertarian. If a libertarian has to accept the NAP, which while being a debatable premise isn't without merit for a bare bones for what makes someone libertarian, then a libertarian cannot accept the state in any form as by its very it is about initiating violence. A libertarian I would argue supports the idea or desirability of some form of government that violates neither the NAP or individual human rights. This differs from an anarchist who would argue that any form of central government is unneeded and inherently dangerous.

So, I think you can have statist libertarians, for the reasons you describe, and non-statist libertarians. For a non-statist libertarian national borders are a convenient way to divide up the world, but they have no inherent worth beyond that.

 

[PierzStyx]

Ok I am on board with this - I never wasn't. I never insinuated otherwise. But this is precarious situation.
IF we do NOT get rid of the welfare & dependency state while having very porous borders -- there is a
an issue there -- so, we continue the welfare/dependency AND open borders.... which, imho, means more
statism, never less. More lovers of statism, never less.

IF the controllers will not turn off the spiket, what choice is there? I can't answer that... but rather than advocating for
"SEAL THE BORDERS" -- I go the route of "TURN OFF THE SPIKET" -- that does not mean one wants to seal the borders.

Not really. Open the borders, stop making immigrant labor illegal, and tax it. If anything that would HELP the welfare state and it is easy. The issue is that the Democrats are owned by the unions, which see cheap labor as a threat to union labor monopolies.

 

[PierzStyx]

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.

You're confusing libertarian and minarchists. Minarchists believe in the necessity of a minimal state. Libertarians hold to the NAP and individual rights above all- in defiance of the state. Libertarians may support voluntary governments but they cannot support a state as a state is founded on the monopoly on violence and the right to initiate violence to compel obedience. Anarchists are suspect of even the voluntary government of libertarianism, seeing even the concept of an official government as obsolete.Immigration is not a threat to the existence of a rights based government, only to the statist government based on compulsion. Further, as closed borders immigration laws necessitate violating both the NAP and basic human rights, libertarians have a duty to oppose closed borders laws.

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.

Yes, individual sovereignty! The state has no rights, it is not a person, merely an organization. It has no rights to rule, no power to rule. Only individuals have sovereign rights and powers, and those only over themselves and what they own. A place where the nation is sovereign by definition has an oppressed populace who is not sovereign. This is the fundamental bottom-line of libertarianism: The individual is sovereign over themselves and their property, with no power to regulate, command, or rule over anyone or anything else.

Replies in underlined bold. I think you're confusing libertarian for minarchist.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Replies in underlined bold. I think you're confusing libertarian for minarchist.

You, and several others in this thread, seem to believe that "libertarian" is a direct synonym for "anarcho-capitalist." It should be petty obvious that this is simply not so.

 

[Cabal]

You, and several others in this thread, seem to believe that "libertarian" is a direct synonym for "anarcho-capitalist." It should be petty obvious that this is simply not so.

You, and several others in this thread, seem to be incapable of explaining how libertarianism is compatible with statism. It should be pretty obvious that this is simply not so.


But then, you're the same guy who has convinced yourself that the Constitution established a voluntary society...

 

[AmericanSpartan]

Nope, the NAP is the only MUST.

No self preservation is. Open borders means the destruction of your culture/values/ and population.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

You don't post about liberty here. You don't post about freedom.
All you ever post about is how the country is being brought down.
You don't fear the county that would come in after. You fear losing the county you have.
If you concentrated on liberty, and not the flag, then we might have hope of getting liberty after a collapse.
But you're double barring the door of your cage, and the only reason you do this is because it's your cage.

Well what happens when you bring in tens of millions of Low IQed welfare voters?

 

[AmericanSpartan]

I believe in open borders, but I also believe in national sovereignty and the right to self defense. So, it's a fluid position for me. We all recognize that the real solution is to end the welfare state and stop military adventurism, which are really the cause for the "border issue."

So what if open borders leads to the changing of your nation population/ a replacement of your culture and and your rights are limited via the election of leftists?

What then?

 

[AmericanSpartan]

So, Americans should want people entering the country illegally who have no interest in assimilating or in communicating with other Americans? Gotcha.

Any voting to limit our rights and steal our wealth.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

A very small, limited government with a very large military/ security apparatus to completely seal the border (which is an impossible task).

If one is opposed to a 100% sealed border one must therefore be in favor of 100% unlimited immigration. False dichotomy.

There is a trade-off between freedom of citizens and restrictions on immigration. The question is how much of one you are willing to give up in exchange for the other.

Switzerland does it. How much are you? Look at how much Liberty was lost after 9/11 which was caused in large part to mass immigration.

Unrestricted Immigration=Restricted Liberty

Or

Restricted Immigration=Unrestricted Liberty

You can have one or the other not both.

“maximum security at the borders and maximum liberty within the borders.”​

 

[AmericanSpartan]

Illegal immigrants aren't eligible for federal benefits. Legal immigrants are not eligible for their first five years.

Zippy you have been told countless times that is a lie and you repeating it does not change it.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

If you want to stop all illegal immigration, that requires a 100% sealed border. But even that is not enough. About 45% of all those currently in the country illegally came here legally- they overstayed their visas. So we need to issue zero visas and have a 100% sealed border if we want zero illegal immigrants coming here.

Or instead of zero visas, we need tracking chips on people entering the country even for vacation and a large police- type force to track and round up all those who over-stay their visas and then deport them. Papers please!

Or you don't mind having a few illegal immigrants in the country.

No, you have a entry/exist tracking system of the visas, but hey keep lying.

We do mind having 30 million plus illegals on top of 50 million plus legal immigrants. Mass immigration is a disaster and has brought us nothing we would not be able to do/create/archive ourselves.