Open Borders: Case Study

Open borders to Europe.  Some comments from a representative story from Germany:

Some 500,000 refugees have entered the country since the beginning of September, and there is no end in sight. "Prepare for the eventuality that in the coming weeks, 10,000 to 12,000 refugees will arrive at the border each day," a member of the Coordinating Committee inside of Germany's Interior Ministry said last Wednesday, quoting from a communiqué from the Austrian Interior Ministry.

Sounds like The Camp of the Saints.  Hopefully not with a similar ending.

The government, in short, has lost control.

That would describe the ultimate open border.  Good news for many libertarians, it would seem – no government involvement in who does and does not cross the border.

One exhausted aid worker spoke of a "humanitarian catastrophe."

The “humanitarian catastrophe,” of course, is in the policies pursued by US and European governments in the home countries from where these refugees fled.  The influx of refugees can be labelled “blowback.”

In late October, 215 mayors in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia wrote a letter to Chancellor Merkel and to the state's governor, Hannelore Kraft, saying that their ability to cope with the situation had been exhausted.

Some individuals would choose to not allow more refugees onto their property, it seems.

Essentially, [Merkel] views the crisis through the prism of two questions: Can Germany reduce the number of arriving refugees by way of national legislation? And: Should the government say that there is a limit to Germany's capacity? She has clearly and explicitly answered both questions in the negative.

No national legislation; an “open-borders” libertarian’s dream.

Merkel believes it is impossible for Germany to seal off its borders. …she has stubbornly avoided establishing a maximum number of refugees that Germany can accept

Like I said: the ultimate in “open borders.”

This isn’t a post about libertarian theory.  It is a post about applying libertarian theory in today’s world.

Well, a small diversion into libertarian theory.  I will leave the “open borders is libertarian” position to others.  I counter: As I have every right to close the borders to my property, I have the right, with my neighbors, to come together on this point (think homeowners association).  I have the right to grant agency to another to perform this function for me. 

Unfortunately, I am precluded from choosing any agent – I am forced to look to government to perform this otherwise perfectly NAP-respecting function.

The question of presumably undeveloped government owned land presents an issue – famously the Rockies or the vast deserts are offered.  Libertarian theory cannot answer, however, how much labor mixing with the land is necessary to establish “ownership”; only custom can answer this.  in any case, government employees have mixed labor with government owned (and I use that term loosely) land.

Yes, by definition government is illegitimate – government cannot “own” anything; what it holds, it holds via theft.  It “possesses” land – land mixed with labor that I paid for via wealth stolen from me.  That makes it my land – it is owned.

For those for whom my comments on government possessed land do not resonate, let me suggest: this is not a post about libertarian theory, it is about applying libertarian theory in today’s non-libertarian world.  These refugees are not settling on the 3000-meter-plus peaks of the Swiss Alps, far removed from any otherwise improved land; they are not going north of the Arctic Circle.  They are coming to the developed – and even most developed – parts of Europe.  Even if I accept your theory, you cannot avoid this practice – today.

That’s enough on my view of theory.  I do not suggest that my view of theory is stronger or more consistent than the “open borders” theory.  I do suggest that my view is at least equally as valid.

Yet the question remains (and current circumstances in Europe offer a real-time case study) – how to apply the “open borders is libertarian” theory to today’s world?  Can it even be applied?

In today’s Germany, some residents want to accept the burden of taking in refugees in unlimited quantities, and some do not.  Either position is fully supportable in libertarian theory.

We are seeing the attempt at application of open borders in action, today in Europe.  From the aforementioned story: by the thousands – hundreds of thousands – the borders are opened.  Merkel cannot close the borders of Germany; she cannot see clear to limiting the influx.  The government has lost control of the border.  That’s about as open a border as it gets. 

Yet – in today’s world – her decisions coerce on some (not necessarily small) portion of the German population; they do not want to support this influx.  There is a cost to them for her decisions.

I am sure there are also Germans who welcome this position – hence the impossibility of applying “open borders is libertarian” to today’s world.  The issue is not only regarding the immigrant; the issue is also one for the resident.

Open borders can be easily applied in world of respected property rights – I own land or a business, I am free to choose who to allow in my property.  No one is free to come on my property – I am free to decide if I will let someone on it.  I live in a community that feels the same.  I owe no one who feels otherwise any compensation.

In today’s world?  Impossible to apply libertarian “open border” theory – Germany’s border is about as open as can be, and NAP violations are the result.

Finally, returning to the subject article:

Merkel's historic decision to open Germany's borders to refugees stuck in Hungary was morally unassailable.

I am sure there are many who believe this – even many within the libertarian community.  However, if property is to be respected – and this is a very moral question and the basis for the entirety of libertarian theory – her decision is not “morally unassailable.”

We are stuck in this world where it is via the very un-libertarian force of government that border decisions are made.  Yet, it is very libertarian for individuals to make decisions about borders.  That there is no choice but to attempt to do so via government is not a reason to give up this otherwise consistent-with-libertarian-theory act.  (If you think so, stop driving on the streets.)

Open borders and property rights must be reconciled in practice – today.  If the two cannot be reconciled, which one wins?  There is, in the end, only one libertarian answer.

Else there is no libertarian theory.

Jesus and the NRA

This one is rich: Jesus wouldn’t join the NRA, by Abigail Disney.  The entire commentary belongs in the realm of other Disney scripts – perhaps a new chapter for Alice in Wonderland.

Right now, white evangelical Protestants are the group most likely to oppose stricter gun- control laws. They stand out as one of the few constituencies where a strong pro-life identity is tied to attitudes against any restrictions on gun ownership. Evangelicals are also one of the strongest constituencies of support for the National Rifle Association.

I think criminals are “the group most likely to oppose stricter gun-control laws”…well, actually, they will just ignore them.

But back to the question that allows one to pretend there is some deep philosophical and moral thinking behind it: What would Jesus do?  One more time we are subject to ignorant speculation on Jesus’ views on some question of the day. 

As recently as the Korean War in the early 1950s and the Vietnam War in the 1960s, many evangelicals said they were pacifists and registered as conscientious objectors.

Because, you know, there is no difference between self-defense and the murder of others who never posed a risk to you.

Abigail found a know-nothing-about-the-Bible minister based in Washington, Rob Schenck, who “has begun asking whether pro-life Christians can also be pro-gun. In doing so, Schenck finds himself increasingly alone — way out on a political limb.”

This will take a little more unpacking.  Of course, self-defense does not mean the same thing as murder.

But what is this “pro-life Christian” nonsense.  Christians have been voting for pro-death politicians ever since there was such a thing as a so-called Christian vote.  Pro-death for foreign interventionism; pro-death for unborn babies; pro-death as criminal punishment.

Who is Rob Schenck?

Robert Lenard "Rob" Schenck (pronounced SHANK; born 1958) is a leading American Evangelical reverend to elected and appointed officials in Washington, DC. Serving as President of the Christian outreach ministry Faith and Action, Schenck is an ordained minister of the Evangelical Church Alliance and was elected its chairman in July 2012.

And what is “Faith and Action”?

Faith and Action in the Nation’s Capital is a Christian outreach organization ministering to top-level government officials. The organizational headquarters is located in Washington, D.C. across the street from the east façade of the United States Supreme Court.

Finally, the “Evangelical Church Alliance”?

The ECA International is an alliance of ministers serving throughout the world. The ministries of ECA members include, but are not limited to pastors, teachers, para church leaders, church executives, missionaries, evangelists, speakers, youth ministers, professors, military chaplains, and fire, industrial, hospice, police, and prison chaplains.

Whatever Schenck is, I know what this minister-on-the-doorstep-of-Washington is not: he most certainly is not “…way out on a political limb.”  It would be a career-ending move.

But back to recruiting Jesus for the cause: it is with this pro-death group of Evangelical Christians where Abigail finds some hope – a swing vote to ensure universal background checks for gun buyers:

If even a small percentage of those who claim a dynamic association with the life and teaching of the Jesus Christ who gave us the Sermon on the Mount start talking about the contradictory language and ethics of evangelicals and the NRA, a powerful shift could occur.

Christians in the United States living in accord with the Sermon on the Mount?  Don’t make me laugh.  Yet even if they do live in accord with this creed, what does it have to do with Jesus and self-defense or gun registration? 

Now for some libel (for Abigail) and slander (for Rob):

“I’m concerned about the NRA promoting the idea that the best way to solve the most vexing problems in our society is to be prepared to shoot people dead,” Schenck said at a meeting of the Evangelical Church Alliance.

Look, I know that the NRA is not the staunchest supporter of unfettered gun rights, but still…does the NRA suggest that shooting people dead is the best way to solve society’s most vexing problems?  Really?

Finally, I know you will be surprised to find a Christian minister ignorant of the Bible that he preaches:

As Schenck demonstrates in the film, if evangelicals can come together in open dialogue, fully informed by the Bible in which they believe, many might well conclude that the logic of unfettered gun rights is incompatible with a life dedicated to following the example of the Prince of Peace.

Many might conclude this, but not the aforementioned “Prince of Peace”:

John 18: 1 When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was a garden, and he and his disciples went into it.  2 Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. 3 So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons. 

4 Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?”  5 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied.  “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) 6 When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.

7 Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?”  “Jesus of Nazareth,” they said.  8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.” 9 This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me.”

10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)

11 Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”

Is it possible Jesus didn’t know that Peter carried a sword?  Not much of a Son of God if true.  Did Jesus ask Peter if the sword was registered with the Roman guard?  No.  Did He ask Peter to throw the sword into a river?  No; he said put it away.

Peter’s “sword rights” were both “unfettered” and otherwise unquestioned by Jesus.  Jesus’ recognized that a means of defense is necessary.  He stopped Peter because He knew that this time was not the time for the sword; His Father had a specific purpose in mind.

Abigail makes so many mistakes in one compact package: Christians aren’t pro-life, that’s one mistake.  Jesus wasn’t for his disciples to walk around like chickens for plucking, that’s a second mistake.  Self-defense isn’t the same as murder, that’s three mistakes.

Yet there is more.  Abigail’s biggest mistake: assuming that a Christian minister who makes his living bowing to the biggest murderers on the planet knows anything about (or would actually preach anything from) the Bible.

The Science is Settled

So they say:

A recent study conducted by NASA reveals that the mass gains of Antarctic ice sheet are enough to outweigh the increasing losses in the region's diminishing glaciers.

Woops.

The new data offers previously unrecorded gains in Antarctica, scientists say, but it challenges the conclusions of other reports such as the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) study. The IPCC's earlier report said that the continent is continuously losing land ice.

Must be a bad report.

However, [lead researcher Jay] Zwally also mentioned that if the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise credited to Antarctica in the IPCC report did not come from the continent, there must be some other factor to sea level rise that is not accounted for.

Well, we now know that the IPCC report cannot be relied upon.  Maybe they measured the sea-level change incorrectly as well.

But trust them – it will all come true in a few decades:

Zwally believes that it will only take a few more decades for the accumulation of ice to reverse in numbers.

Too bad Mother Nature is not fully conforming to the wishes of this settled science.

Rand, Trump, and Block

Walter Block has graciously replied to my earlier post regarding libertarian support (in some corners) for Rand Paul in the upcoming presidential contest and the curveball now thrown by Donald Trump (curveball for those libertarians who actually feel the desire to advocate for any one over another).

I acknowledge that Mr. Trump has been really good on foreign policy of late….But, Rand, too, has been doing pretty well on this score!

Block offers a few points in support of his claim.  Admittedly, I do not follow every word of either Rand or Trump – I based my previous post on the observations of Raimondo, whose calling is precisely to weigh such words.

In any case, there is real movement from Block:

So, which shall it be? Rand or Trump? I am really not sure. I still lean toward Rand. I used to “stand with Rand.” Now, because of the improvement in Trump’s recent views, I only lean in Rand’s direction.

I think it is sufficient that Block has moved this far, and given that he has feels compelled to advocate for someone in this race it seems to me that his considerations are reasonable.  Absent a consistent underlying philosophy for either Trump or Rand, we are left to trust judgement; I trust the judgement of neither.  (Rand’s judgement in how to run his campaign should be sufficient reason to disqualify him from any consideration in any case).

We both agree that foreign policy is the paramount issue for a libertarian to consider.  Assuming Rand is able to stay in the race much longer, there will be plenty of time to consider the two. 

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

President Obama is sending a small number of Special Operations troops to northern Syria…

Isn’t this the place where Russia recently started dropping bombs?