Friday, April 8, 2016

Open Borders Means Big Government

I am a small-L libertarian (actually a libertarian nationalist) who does not believe in open borders. Why? Because the only way a country can have open borders is if it has a huge federal government. Right now, we have a huge federal government, so we have open borders. It overrules the states, counties, cities, neighborhoods, families and individuals. In reality this is Forced Integration.

Why does the federal government do this? One reason is that corporations, themselves creations of the state, want cheap workers and have enough political influence to get their way.

Another reason is that there are leftists who just want to destroy the country. Perhaps they think, as all leftists think, that once existing institutions are destroyed all the inherent “goodness” in human nature will pop up and create a utopia. For all practical purposes this is insanity.

I agree with a comment made by the late Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn: leftists don’t merely misunderstand human nature. They don’t understand it at all.

Human nature is terribly flawed, and civilization is a thin film on top of a whole lot of badness. Destroying that thin film doesn’t create a utopia. It creates a hell.

Under a purely libertarian society, all property would be private. Contrary to the belief the borders would be open, the truth is the exact opposite. There would not be mass migration, because the landowners would not stand for it.

Occasionally libertarians tell me, "Well, immigrants would pay to cross the property." Oh, really? Where are millions of poor immigrants going to get the money to pay for such a thing? It also assumes the owners place money above all. The only people I've seen do that are people who don't have any money. People who have money have other priorities.

Do the defenders of open borders think thousands of landowners are going to spend the night wandering around their property with a flashlight (and a shotgun?), catching immigrants and charging them a dollar? And that immigrants are going to carry thousands of dollars in cash, to pay the landowners whose property they have to cross?

I also get the comment (actually a mantra, and a clich├ęd one at that), "I should be able to hire whom I want." True. But how are those potential hirees going to get there, when they have to cross other's property and the owners won’t let them?

Do the defenders of open borders really think thousands if not millions of people will allow mass migration across their private property? What sort of bizarre self-deception is that, to believe such a thing?

I’ve been told, “They’ll use the interstate highway system.” The interstates are a creation of the federal government, were first started in 1956 (in St. Charles, Missouri), and the purpose was for the transportation of the federal military.

No federal government, no interstates. And no Eminent Domain (I remember as a child entire neighborhoods demolished to make way for the local interstates).

When I use these points in arguments with open-borders libertarians, I can see the pain in their faces, then their brains shut down. They cannot accept the fact not only does libertarianism not support open borders, it completely opposes them.

If all property is private, there will be no mass immigration. And if all property is private, families and neighborhoods don't want criminal Third Worders in their midst (I know of a Mexican who was arrested for fucking his dog. He told the cops, "It's my dog.") They want productive, intelligent, non-criminals. Which means whites - and this is why wherever whites go, Third Worlders follow them like dogs begging for scraps.

I have come to the conclusion, distasteful as it is to me, that there will always be government. And I am not so naive as to not understand that governments grow and grow and sooner or later always get out of hand.

The problem, as always, is how to keep government under control. To that, I have no answer. Neither does anyone else. But I know getting rid of government completely is no answer at all. In fact it leads to chaos and always has.

All the open-borders libertarians I've met have come from small towns of less than 50,000 people, ones that are ethnically homogeneous and are low-crime. They've never dealt with stupid, raping, murdering Third Worlders, as I have.

What am I supposed to think, when libertarians who claim to despise the federal government above all, support policies that can only exist because of that same government? And support their beliefs with every ridiculous excuse they can think of?


mexicano said...

Some society in Ancient Greece used to employ the following policy to inhibit the growth of government: Anyone proposing changes to the law had to stand on a chair with a noose around his neck. The policy was then put to the popular vote and if the majority rejected it then the chair was kicked away. As a result, precious few policy changes were made and those that were tended to enjoy overwhelming support.

DJF said...

When it involves traveling some libertarians will declare that the roads will be the Commons which is what they were before large government got involved.

However they misunderstand those Commons, they weren’t common for everyone but for those of the village who had made the agreement to use the land and could use the common road to get around the village. That road was not the Commons for the people of the next village over unless an agreement had been made, and certainly not for people traveling from distant lands. They might be allowed to use the Common road but only on a case by case basis

Second the usage of the Commons was strictly regulated, if it was not you would end up with the ‘Tragedy of the Commons” where unregulated usage would cause damage to the common property. So the villagers and even the neighboring villages could use the common road but they could not camp on it or damage it or any other use that was not allowed. The same with common fields, their usage was also regulated, you could graze one cow on it per day but no more.

Another misunderstanding involves Right of Way, in some cases your property would give a narrow right of way across your property so that your neighbor could access their property but this too would be limited and negotiated.

There is no Right to Travel in a world of private property owners since that conflicts with the property owners ownership rights. Movement is not based on Rights but on negotiation, similar to the market place where you don’t have a right to buy something but you can negotiate and may receive what you want or maybe not. However only fools would give others unlimited right to use their property since they will soon find they have no property since without the right to control use of property they have no property.

kurt9 said...

Milton Friedman said you can have open immigration or you can have a social-welfare system, but you cannot have both.

Lucian Lafayette said...

Neo-anarchism, limited republic, or whatever you want to call it: For most of us with more than two firing neurons, we know that "trust" only goes so far. At some point, you have to get up from behind the Ma Duce you use to defend your property and go to the bathroom. That's why, in a civilized society, we need some rules and a common third party to enforce them.