"HOW SHOULD IMMIGRATION WORK UNDER THE STATIST PARADIGM? WELL, THE WAY IT WORKS NOW IS IMMIGRANTS COME ACROSS BORDERS, MOST OF WHOM BECOME WELFARE PARASITES......"
REAL LIBERTARIANS ARE AGAINST OPEN BORDERS
PUBLISHED: 24th March, 2017 | By VINCENT JOHN
There are many so called libertarians out there who wholeheartedly believe in the unrestrained freedom to travel. These imposters, who call themselves libertarians, support open borders. Who are these imposters? Well, Gary Johnson is one such example. This guy is not a libertarian. He thinks because he likes to ingest cannabis edibles and supports lower taxes that makes him a libertarian. There are many misinformed people out there who call themselves libertarians, yet who do not have a deep understanding of the core axiomatic principles that make up this philosophy.
Libertarianism is essentially built on two a priori truths. Those a priori truths are the non-aggression principle (NAP) and private property ethics. That's Libertarianism. It has nothing to do with this empty platitude fake libertarians recite to explain their political stance, you've heard it before, "socially liberal, fiscally conservative". That's meaningless hogwash. That's what pseudo intellectuals say who can't form sophisticated fact based arguments supporting their positions. Real libertarians are against open borders. Many of the fake libertarians are who a bit more advanced in their reasoning, will make the refutable argument that stopping someone from travelling freely would be the initiation of force and a violation of libertarian principles.
This, however, is a very silly argument. They are forgetting a very important factor. It's called private property. Private property is an incontestable philosophical truth. A person can't speak or move their arms, if that person is denied the ownership of his body and vocal chords. So that person also owns unused resources which he mixes his labor with for his own benefit. The only time private property ethics go away, is when there is a continuum problem. For instance, can someone plant vegetables in between the unused dirt between the vegetables you already planted in the ground? These are continuum problems, which must be worked out, and codified based on common law in each specific and defined society. This is necessary so that unnecessary disputes can be mitigated.
Anyway, back to private property ethics. There is the example of free speech. Free speech is not an absolute right. The concept of free speech goes away when there is a violation of someone's private property rights in the process of expressing one's thoughts or opinions. For instance, free speech does not mean you can stand on someone's front lawn and give a speech about anthropogenic global warming. One it's nonsensical junk science, and two. the crackpot giving the speech would be violating the private property owner's rights. This concept also applies to immigration and open borders.
The issue of immigration has to be looked at under two different paradigms. Immigration in a free society and immigration under the statist paradigm. Let’s take a look at the free society theory as it relates to immigration. This is pretty straightforward. If all of the private property is owned and titled to someone or a group of people, or a community, they those property owners get to decide who enter their communities. They get to decide who they will sell property to and who is permitted to enter into their communities. These communities may be defined communities that stress living by a certain code of ethics and a set of values. You might have catholic communities, mormon communities, gay communities, traditional marriage communities, black communities, white communities, communist communities, anarcho-capitalist communities, so on and so forth. These communities, or enclaves, are free to trade with other communities from afar, and even welcome visitors from other enclaves, but they will most likely restrict who lives in their community based on race, religion, values, cultural norms, and a whole list of other reasons, so that the communities can maintain their character and cultural values that will be preserved by the property owners and inhabitants that make up that community. If there are people who want an all inclusive, non-discriminating community, then they can go establish this type of community as long as they acquire private property through legitimate means. No one has the right to force someone to associate with someone and that’s what open borders leads to in a society where all of the private property is owned by all of the inhabitants. Forced integration is not libertarian.
What if someone wants to invite an immigrant into their community? Would it be a violation of private property rights to force people not to associate with outsiders? Forced segregation is wrong too, right? Well, if someone wants to invite an immigrant to stay with them for an indefinite amount of time then that person will be responsible for the immigrant’s actions to some degree. If the immigrant commits a crime then the immigrant is responsible and the person who invited the immigrant will be held responsible to a lesser degree. The person who invites the immigrant would be considered their guardian for a certain period of time. If a violent crime is committed, if any crime is committed, the guardian must be held partially responsible. It’s the same thing if a child hits a baseball through a neighbour’s window. The parent will hold some of the responsibility, like paying for the damage, and maybe the child mows lawns to pay for the damage or pay back their guardian. Under this type of framework people will think twice about who they invite into their communities. They will think twice before they invite convicted felons and troublemakers to stay with them.
Property titles may also stipulate who owners are allowed to sell to so that the community retains it’s culture and values. A white nationalist community will not sell land to Guatemalans, Jamaicans, or Nigerians. In theory, the land could be sold to non-whites, but these new non white owners would be ostracized and non violently discriminated against until they left the community. They could also be physically removed. Whites that went against preserving the homogeneous makeup of their territory and/or sovereign nation would also be ostracized and/or physically removed since they would have become subversives and aggressors against their national identity.
Under the statist paradigm it’s a bit different. The state is illegitimate and is an institution run by a band of murderous propagandists and crooks. It has no moral authority to run healthcare, or a welfare-warfare state, or expropriate income from people to pay for monopolized services, it has no legitimate claim to be the ultimate decision maker through the courts, and it has no right to draw arbitrary borders.
How should immigration work under the statist paradigm? Well, the way it works now is immigrants come across borders, most of whom become welfare parasites. They also bring moral degradation and cultural rot from the third world to Western Civilization. So what's the alternative? Some might say the answer is to abolish welfare and then we can have open borders. Welfare should be abolished, there is no arguing against ending the welfare state if you are a principled libertarian, but that does not mean we should have open borders. The taxpayers are the owners of all goods and services. Who but the taxpayers should be the rightful owners of all public goods and services? Someone from a third world country who just plops themselves in a country and uses public resources without paying taxes is essentially stealing from the taxpayers and rightful owners of public property.
What if the immigrants do pay taxes and there is no welfare state? Well then it comes down to the type of people entering the country. If a king or monarch owns all of the land in the nation, it is his job to make sure the value of that land does not depreciate. What kind of people would increase the value of a country? Let’s see, doctors, entrepreneurs, people with IQs above 100 (preferably people with IQs above 110), innovators, and scientists. It would be unwise and irresponsible to allow vagabonds, marauders, rapists, murderers, vandals, terrorists, panhandlers, and low IQ people into your society. If your nation is solely based on a racial identity, White American Identity as an example, then it wouldn't matter if Libyans or Mexicans paid taxes, the most important principle would be preserving White American Identity and culture.
All ethnic groups and/or racial groups should have their own territories. Groups of people should be free to decide what type of nation they want to live in and who they will associate with on a daily basis. Why have 200 nations when there can be 10,000 sovereign nations with borders. The world would be a much more peaceful place. Multiculturalism and open borders causes conflict and strife. Homogeneity and common cultures living together brings much more harmony. The only way to achieve this is through closed borders, private property rights, and free trade from afar.
No matter what, we must have a system of restricted immigration and closed borders. Private property borders in a free society to preserve cultural values and freedom of association and to prevent forced integration. Statist borders are not ideal, they are not even legitimate, but if there is a welfare state immigration must be restricted, and if there is no welfare state, the value of the country should appreciate, not plummet by inviting the dregs of humanity into the country.
IF YOU ENJOY OUR CONTENT AND WOULD LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE. SIMPLY DONATE THE PRICE OF A PINT, CHEERS.