Border controls and anarcholibertarian ethics

[QE Infinity]

The recent immigration crisis has raised a question of what should a libertarian position be on state border control. Some say it would be state violence and should be opposed, like any other forms of state violence. Some agree on that argument, but say it would be practical to deviate from this principle to prevent bigger harm. Both are however based on incorrect logic in their arguments. Border controls should in fact be required from the state by the libertarians.

 

All current states are based on illegitimate claims on land areas they occupy, and are enforced by violence. This should be considered as theft of land, and opposed by civilized people. The leaders and bureaucrats of the states should be considered as gang of robbers, and should be held by the same standards as any other people. 

 

The obligations for a person should be limited only to restrain from violating the physical bodies and properties of other people, and any additional obligations must be voluntary taken by that person. Committing a crime against someone's body or property would create an obligation to compensate for the damages. As the state is organisation of criminals, it's obligations are not just to stop committing crimes, but also to compensate the victims.

 

Example. If a robber takes a hostage and releases the hostage after months, he should pay or otherwise compensate the victim for this crime. If the hostage however dies while in captivity for dehydration, starvation, cold, heat, is eaten by wild animals, or dies of some sickness, that could have been treated, this would not only be kidnapping, but also a murder.

 

Just by not providing the necessities of life (food, water, shelter, security and access to medical care) to someone lacking them, would not be same as murder, because no-one has that obligation by default.  That obligation is established only if those necessities are denied by act of crime. Capturing someone removes the victim's ability to provide those by himself or by others willing to do so, and therefore the abductor would be responsible in providing them.

 

This applies also to state prisons. The inmates can't earn living, buy food and water, get shelter and clothes or protect themselves from other inmates. The state should be required to provide those as it denied these in the first place. The lawful people should of course be released immediately, but at least they should be taken care in the prison. The late tax activist and political prisoner Irwin Schiff died recently in cancer, in prison shackled in his bed. His family had tried long to get him to a private doctor, that could have started the treatment in the early stages, when he had good chance of surviving. As he was denied this life saving treatment, he should be considered also a victim of political murder by the state. The state is responsible for any harms it's crimes produce. If people die in it's prisons for lack of necessities, the state has murdered them.

 

This also applies outside the prisons. In Soviet Russia in 30's, most produced food was exported and it was illegal to import food for penalty of death. The mass starvation of millions Ukrainians and other peasant population should be considered as murders by the state.

 

This is also case on immigration and security. A private person has the right to provide security for oneself and others, who voluntarily agree for it. This includes right to own and bear arms, and freedom to include and exclude people from one's own land area. Private roads and streets would have limited amount of people with right to use them and right to invite and exclude other people. Also nearby land areas would have limited access other people. A free society would have right to defend itself from any approaching army, not only at the first stone of a paved road, but on any uninhabited area nearby, that could be used to launch attack upon it.

 

This would also be applied to any single person, or other possible threats, not just invading armies. A private land owner would not have right to invite a hostile army on his property, as that would create a threat to his neighbors and for whole society. He would not have right to build a factory that pollutes neighbors or ill-managed nuclear reactor that can blow up. He can not keep wolves or bears free in his backyard, as they could wander into neighbors' property. He would not have right to invite known criminals in his home, as they might commit crimes at the neighborhood.

 

A traditional private society solution (such as Xeer) was to require an insurance from everyone from the area. The provider was usually one's family. If someone made a crime, the family would be liable for the damages. This was voluntary, as the family could expel a member it did not trust. Any foreign person invited to the society, would be backed by the inviter.

 

As state has forbidden private defense by banning guns and protective violence, has prevented exclusion from private area, has stolen land area from landowners and developed new areas with stolen property and labor, has socialized courts and law enforcing and made damage reparations obsolete, it has left people defenseless against crimes of other people. Not only has state disarmed the people, it has increased crime by drug and alcohol prohibition, welfare programs, wage controls, unions and corporate cartels, democratic elections and many other laws it enforces.

 

As the state is responsible in predisposing people for such crimes, it should be required in preventing them by having such border controls, as free society would have.

 

A free access would not exist in free society. The level of control would be defined in the market by the amount of possible threats, by the cost of control and peoples personal preferences. Most immigrants coming to industrialized welfare states (especially such as in Europe) from poorer countries are causing damage to private property, and most likely would not be allowed complete free entry. Even if they are not coming in bad intention, and just want to work to feed themselves, their labor market value would be so low, they can't find work as union wage limits won't allow them to work. Even if they find a low paying work, they would still be net expense for the welfare system (Healthcare, education, law enforcement (as offenders and victims), municipality infrastructure, etc.). Of course they are benefit for society just for doing work (legal or illegal) growing the economy and in other ways of participating in society, they have direct costs for taxpayers, and total cost would be hard to calculate. Also they are likely to vote for more state intervention and take part in other forms of political activism. Even if they are politically passive, other people might use them to control the political system. Russia is notorious in using Russian speaking minorities in neighboring countries as excuse for violent interventions, even against their wishes.

 

If individuals would wish to invite people not likely to support themselves, because they want to help people in worse conditions, they are perfectly justified in doing so, but they have to compensate any costs or other harm to other members of society, so that no net cost would be created.

 

From libertarian standpoint, it is not important, what is the intent of an immigrant is. As it is established, that a private owner has right to control his property, he has right to exclude anyone who he sees a potential threat to his property or his physical well being. However, such actions as collecting welfare money would be seen as taking stolen property (or looting) and voting or other forms political activism would be seen as incitement for violence, if they are for more government or for statist ideology or religion. 

 

Objections:

-"If we demand government to use protective violence, then this will only increase state control of the society and the border controls will be used to restrict lawful movement in and out from the country."

This is very true and likely, but this does not change the bad effects of no border controls at all. Mass immigration can also be used to increase the state power, and is done in alarming rate. As long as the state does not dissolve itself, we should demand the best compensation for it's crimes and articulate consistently for libertarian principles, but also understands that these will also be used against the civilized society.

 

-"If we demand something from the state, this will legitimate the state"

The statists will use any argument to legitimate the state. They would of course try to frame any justified demands for compensation from criminals as legitimization for the crimes. "You walk on road, government forced you to pay for, so you must support the state!" or "You eat the food the prison provides you, so you support in being in the prison". This is of course silly.

 

-"Slippery slope! If we ask government to do one thing, there is no end of things"

If we go with zero tolerance, we should also campaign against feeding the tax protesters in state prisons. The state does, what it can get away with. There may be other things, that we should also demand from the state as compensation, but those has to be judged on the same principle. The state plays people so, that we have only bad choices, like a robber says, "your money or your life". The money is what he wants, but we should not choose death (if you do, you can't be reading this).

 

-"State has no money, it can only enforce borders by stolen money"

The state has already stolen the money. It is not returning it. A tax payer can demand the money to be used in a way that  produces highest benefit or less harm. A prisoner can demand the tax money he paid, to be used to provide him food, water, clothing and other necessities. So can taxpayers outside prisons demand protection, they are prevented from providing by themselves.

A case might be made for additional theft. If kidnapper takes a hostage, but does not have money to feed him, he has three choices: 1) release the victim 2) steal money to feed the victim 3) let the victim starve. First would be the preferable, but may not even be possible. The second would create another victim, but would prevent a more serious crime of murder. Second would be usually less worse than third option. However we should not expect, that a realistic border control would increase net tax burden. On the contrary, unlimited immigration would greatly increase it.

 

-"Increasing tax burden is good, it will collapse the state, and we can build anarchist utopia"

This might collapse the state, but only by collapsing the society first. You can kill the parasite by killing the host, but that does not help the host. Collapsing the society by creating mutually hostile groups, would make even worse building blocks for the new society.

 

 

further reading on the topic:

Hans Hoppe: The Rationale for Total Privatization

Hans Hoppe: The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration

 

[dsayers]

Too long for me to feel it's worth my time reading given it's post 1 and the title is misleading.

 

There's no such thing as anarcholibertarian ethics. That which is immoral in practice is unethical in proposition and morality is objective. It would be like saying that 2+2=4 is MY math. This personalization is almost always the premise for rejecting something without having to think about it. Which is antithetical to rational thought.

[Alan C.]

A microcosm of why private property is important - everywhere:

 

More than 1,000 "unruly" teens shut down Kentucky mall

 

Hoppe wrote in one of his articles that public thoroughfares give undesirable individuals direct access to every resident's doorstep.

[square4]

Hello QE Infinity, welcome on the boards.

 

Border controls should in fact be required from the state by the libertarians.

One of the principles of good ethics, is that it can be applied universally, without making arbitrary distinctions. If we remove arbitrary distinctions from state border control, it boils down to: "attacking travelers", which of course no one would argue for. State borders are arbitrary, and do not correspond at all to valid borders of private property.

 

As the state is responsible in predisposing people for such crimes, it should be required in preventing them by having such border controls, as free society would have.

No one knows how "border control" would be in a free society. Suppose you can prove that border control is not evil, it still would not be something that should be "required". Because similarly, if you can prove bread is not evil, it does not mean that bread should be required. You run into the some problems as regular democracy that the preferences of the majority are enforced on the minority. So the only thing you could do, is require that your part of the tax money is spent on this or that, but you cannot decide for other people.

 

And even for valid borders of your own private property, it would be prudent not to employ for this the state, because it is an organization known for its very bad behavior.

 

I also differ about your description of a free society. The type of free society I envision and would want to live in, there would be a right of way for large owned areas, for example when crossing a corn field. The property rights in such large areas would be in that case to protect the crop, not for exercising arbitrary control over passing travelers. The idea of complete ownership of every plot of land of the earth, with legal authority over aspects they did not create in any way, I don't see how such a thing could be justified or preferable.

[QE Infinity]

Hello QE Infinity, welcome on the boards.

 

 

Thank you, and thank's for the reply!

 

 

 

 

One of the principles of good ethics, is that it can be applied universally, without making arbitrary distinctions. If we remove arbitrary distinctions from state border control, it boils down to: "attacking travelers", which of course no one would argue for. State borders are arbitrary, and do not correspond at all to valid borders of private property.

This applies, if we would not recognize property rights for land area. Do we agree, that a trespassing private land is a violation of property rights? A traveler becomes a trespasser, if he accesses area without permission from the owner. The function of a border control is to distinguish these two and to prevent the latter from entering.

 

 

 

 

No one knows how "border control" would be in a free society. Suppose you can prove that border control is not evil, it still would not be something that should be "required". Because similarly, if you can prove bread is not evil, it does not mean that bread should be required. You run into the some problems as regular democracy that the preferences of the majority are enforced on the minority. So the only thing you could do, is require that your part of the tax money is spent on this or that, but you cannot decide for other people.

I explained this. Bread is not evil, and we already do demand the state to provide it, when the state has prevented people from getting it by themselves. We don't know what kind of food would the prison inmates buy if they were free, but we know they would starve to death without any food. Are you suggesting we should demand the state not to feed the lawful citizens it has imprisoned, and starve them do death?

 

A private criminal is responsible for he's crimes, and need to compensate for victims, and is required in preventing more harm from his crimes. So is the state responsible for the harm caused by absence of border control and security.  

 

I also explained, why this would not require extra taxation:

-"State has no money, it can only enforce borders by stolen money"

The state has already stolen the money. It is not returning it. A tax payer can demand the money to be used in a way that  produces highest benefit or less harm. A prisoner can demand the tax money he paid, to be used to provide him food, water, clothing and other necessities. So can taxpayers outside prisons demand protection, they are prevented from providing by themselves.

...

we should not expect, that a realistic border control would increase net tax burden. On the contrary, unlimited immigration would greatly increase it.

 

 

 

And even for valid borders of your own private property, it would be prudent not to employ for this the state, because it is an organization known for its very bad behavior.

I also explained this. The state is the monopoly for border control, security and arbitration, so unless it privatizes all land area and allows full rights to exclude and to include people, it should be held responsible for the lack of border control.

 

-"If we demand government to use protective violence, then this will only increase state control of the society and the border controls will be used to restrict lawful movement in and out from the country."

 

This is very true and likely, but this does not change the bad effects of no border controls at all. Mass immigration can also be used to increase the state power, and is done in alarming rate. As long as the state does not dissolve itself, we should demand the best compensation for it's crimes and articulate consistently for libertarian principles, but also understands that these will also be used against the civilized society.

 

 

 

I also differ about your description of a free society. The type of free society I envision and would want to live in, there would be a right of way for large owned areas, for example when crossing a corn field. The property rights in such large areas would be in that case to protect the crop, not for exercising arbitrary control over passing travelers. The idea of complete ownership of every plot of land of the earth, with legal authority over aspects they did not create in any way, I don't see how such a thing could be justified or preferable. 

 

This would also be an ideal situation in my opinion, but I can't argue for solutions for one perfect world, but for a principle, that also takes into an account that there are situations, where not all travelers can be trusted. We are definitely not living in this perfect world, at the moment. Like I explained, the mass immigration from poor countries is mostly harmful for property owners, as it increases greatly the tax burden, increases violent crime rates, increases support for socialistic political parties and activist groups, limits our freedom of speech and even our freedom of travel. If the control is done at borders, this freedom of travel can be exercised inside of them. It's relatively easy to travel between Switzerland and Liechtenstein or between Nordic countries, because there were no need for border controls, and the borders are not even visible for travelers. The EU project created similar "Schengen zone", where travel was free without formalities between member states. However, as the outer borders were leaking and hundreds of thousands welfare refugees flooded inside, the Schengen agreement is cracking and border controls are again proposed between states. In countries, that has high crime problem, such as in Brazil, the wealthy live in their own gated communities, and avoid going in thee poorer areas. Dismantling the outer borders creates necessity for lots of inner fenced areas, a situation you and I oppose.

[Thomasio]

I guess it's an either or question.

Either you have a free country, where anyone can come in and do whatever he likes, or you have an organized country where decisions are made one way or another.

If you want any kind of decision made that effects anyone else, including where the shall be borders and how they shall be protected (whether through democratic votes or enforced through dictatorship, or whatever other form of decision making, makes no difference on the fact that some kind of organization is required) you need some kind of ...... well, I guess the word is government, even though it may be a different form of it.

 

In a truly free society there can't be borders that separate people from one another only because they are born a few miles apart.

There can't be a border preventing a diligent Mexican from making money while a lazy American enjoys his freedom behind a fence, same as a successful American employer can't be prevented from hiring a diligent foreigner by a fence, because the very existence of the fence means, it's no real freedom.

Of course, in a free society you would have free movement of people, which would automatically become also free movement of labor, meaning whoever is able to work, will move to wherever he sees the best chances to make the most money out of his skills.

 

In the long run that can only lead to two possible situations:

 

1) If you allow private property rights, if you allow every owner to defend his property and deny entry to anyone he sees as a danger, which is literally anyone, because the definition of who is a potential danger is up to the owner of the property.

You wouldn't have any public property, because you wouldn't have a public organization that keeps public places public, therefore there isn't an option to keep any given piece of land from becoming privately owned property and be sure, after a few decades there wouldn't be one single cm² in the country not owned by some private individual.

 

On start increasing inequality will separate the diligent from the lazy, the diligent will accumulate wealth, buy property from it, declare it private and lock out the lazy, because those will be seen as potential thieves.

Once locked out, the descendants of the poor cannot get into society anymore, no matter how diligent they might be, because all possible property, especially land is already owned by the descendants of the previously diligent.

At this point society tips over.

Not the diligent will accumulate wealth, but the wealthy will accumulate more wealth.

Independent of their skills, the power of wealth and the posession of property will allow the rich to hire the diligent poor, pay them a starvation wage and exploit their skills, just like it is today.

Once in a while one or another of the most diligent poor might make his way into the rich society, but the vast majority of the poor will remain poor, no matter their skills and todays argument "they are just too lazy" would reappear, even though it will be as invalid as it is today.

Doesn't require any government, the power of property rights and the desperate situation of the starving poor will have the precise same effect.

 

2) If you do not allow private property rights, or if you grant access to any property for anyone, even if he came only to steal.

People would start moving as soon as anywhere else in the world wages are just a little bit higher than in their home town, or if they see a chance to steal something of value from somewhere.

All societies, all cultures, all religions would mix completely and wages would balance out near precisely at world GDP divided by population, which at current level would be roughly $850 per month per person.

With government and fiat money abolished, I'd estimate a MUCH lower average income, but that would also involve a much different life, so it's quite hard to speculate on how much it would be and what lifestyle that would allow.

 

If you don't want either of these, if you want any kind of organization, even if it was only to achieve an intermediate solution of the above 2 options, you already need some rudimentary form of government and you would have to pay taxes so they could get paid for their work on organizing things and the argument of the government stealing from the people would reappear as soon as anyone notices that the rich use their wealth to bribe the government into organizing things the way the rich want it.