Anarchists and borders

A friend on Twitter sent me this:

Current issues have got libertarian/anarchists totally confused. No govt = no rules, no borders, welcome to invaders, right? No.

And he was right that there has been some confusion. First, let us get out of the way that everyone who claims to be an anarchist is not necessarily an anarchist. Some would re-name the State and call it a syndicate or whatever and you would still have monopoly control by a different name. Some just use the name “libertarian” or “anarchist” to seem “cool” or gain authority. So, let us not worry about what “everyone” says and get on to the heart of the matter.

The anarcho-capitalist has to look at the world as it is now, as it would be in transition from here to anarchy, and at the world in that final state of anarchy after the state has been dispatched. Some want to take the words of Rothbard or others when they were plainly describing how a world without a state might be run and apply that to the current political situation in the USA. I don’t know it you have noticed, but there is a state in the US and it is damn powerful, intrusive, tyrannical, and out of control.

First, let us look at a world in which the state has been defeated and anarchy has replaced it. We would see an AnCap system of law, property rights, and voluntary mutual cooperation. All property would be owned by someone (or some group) and it would not be possible to legally go on to someone’s land without permission. Even privately own roads, the only kind in such a world, would be used only by the invitation of the owner. (the “owner” could be a group or business of course)

Without a state there would be no welfare or other reason to migrate other than personal preference or trying to escape some land where a state still existed. As heartless as it sounds, the migrant would need invitation from the owners to immigrate another land.

The above is overly simplistic perhaps, and there have been books written on this issue among others. But I see no reason to belabor the anarchists world in this short post since we do have a nation-state situation and not a stateless situation. The USA is the world’s most dominate and aggressive empire the world has ever seen.

So now what? What say you anarchists?

The property rights of everyone in the nation, and especially on the border, should be protected. I understand that property owners on the southern border of the US are living in a virtual hell as criminal pour over the border. If you are going to take their taxes and make them abide by your laws then protect them.

The “government owned property” like roads or parks are the jointly owned property of all legal residents. As such, the people have a right to see the laws enforced and intruders kept out.

But what about immigration?

If the nation-state is going to bribe voters with welfare and other goodies (stolen from producers) then people will pour over the borders in uncontrolled fashion. They will come illegally and be criminals the instant they step foot on US soil; and being a criminal in one area often makes one more likely to break other laws.

What to do? It is obvious that the nation-state has to control the flow of people to protect the society itself. So, close the border and stop the destruction of society. Then decide how many people you want to let in the country and have a workable method for these people to be documented and have citizenship. Let them come here legally. 

Just as Ron Paul plainly pointed out in 2012, there has to be border security if there is going to be a nation-state. Personally, I would rather see anarchy but that is not going to happen anytime soon, so we need to stop the madness of illegal immigration.


4 thoughts on “Anarchists and borders

  1. Nice bit of logic.

    If I own a farm on which I pay taxes isn’t it my RIGHT to determine who I invite onto my property? Or is it the illegals right to come onto my property and steal my goats and sheep or even worse, butcher them and only take the best cuts leaving the carcass to draw perdators like cougars and coyotes? (Yeah it happened)

    The USA is our farm and the illegals are stealing our food and wealth. Worse the drugs they ship in draws predators who steal and rape and kidnap and murder.

    If you believe in property rights then you believe in borders whether they are the border of your land, your group/coopertive’s land or the state’s land.

    E.M. Smith had an interesting tidbit:
    Forcing The Cathedral

    …Now you might be suspecting that this strain between the Cathedral (or Empire or Organization or Corporation or Government or Socialism or Rome …) and the Bazaar (or Marketplace or Laissez Faire or Small Business or Libertarians or Individualism or Celts) has been going on for a very long time. You would be right.

    At least as far back as Rome and the Celts. It was a ‘near thing’ in Britain when the Celts burned Lundinium and nearly destroyed the Roman Army on the island. The Romans typified the Empire and Hierarchy. In the Celtic culture “Anyone could call a war” and folks showed up if the cause was just. But for a last minute swap of strategy, the Celts would have won. (They let the remnant of the Roman Army choose the field of battle, and shifted from guerilla tactics of mobile hit and run warfare to a set piece battle where the Romans could form their “Turtle”. Worse, they blocked the exit from the valley with their own wagons, preventing their own mobility. I suspect many just died in a crowd crush rather than in actual combat; but I digress). Ever since then, the Celt style Bazaar of equals has been on the run from the Roman style Central Authority Cathedral.

    But this “has issues” (again, see the quotes below). Large Organizations are not efficient. They stagnate and make bad decisions. This is so true it is woven into the core of the American culture. It is rampant as a meme in Silicon Valley. Rome eventually fell. It fell to a rabble driven by a shared set of ideas and poor hierarchy. (Actually, it fell a few times. A couple to the Celts, then the Carthaginians had a go at them, and the Goths and more. Eventually splitting East and West, the East to hang on as the Byzantine Empire until a hoard of Muslims took Constantinople and made it Istanbul.)

    Yet the call of Empire and Central Authority continues to whisper in the ears of politicians and sociopaths the world over….

    • “If I own a farm on which I pay taxes isn’t it my RIGHT to determine who I invite onto my property?”

      The AnCap, Rothbardian answer is that the owner of the property has complete control — that is what ownership means. Hence, if I come on to your farm uninvited, I am the aggressor and you (or people you hire) can take whatever means necessary to repel me.

      • That only makes sense with individual property. The problem is that individual property is somehow under the purview of a collective territory. Idividualism under collectivism is alway like this, tribal. Only personal property should exist. Otherwise it is no different than a king that says “You own your home, but your village belongs to me.”

  2. How tribal and territorial this all sounds. Keep them…other people off OUR land, right? This crap can only happen if you think in terms of our people/their people. But I can see how so many people are like this. Simulate warfare through sports and competition, encourage owning everything, chant for your hometown high school, pledge your loyalty to a piece of cloth on a stick, believe what you are taught in school, and don’t forget to believe the mind control inventions like TV and the bible. Everyone is not only divided, but subdivided and subdivided right down to the village you were spawned in. Go tribe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s