Today must be my day to reply at some length to comments from my Libertarian Open Borders: Oxymoron in Theory and Practice post. This reply is to Francisco Torres, with the discussion beginning at May 17, 2016 at 4:05 PM.
In reply to his initial comment, I suggested he do some catching up on what I have written in the past before he yells at me about all of the things I haven’t written. He replied that he has read it all, and he holds the same objections, yelling once again about things I haven’t written. So this time I decided to dedicate a full post to answering his points.
I've been reading your columns whenever they're posted by Lew Rockwell or Robert Wenzel, FOR YEARS.
Thank you for reading. Let’s test that out.
For instance, this:" Libertarian theory does not recognize open borders when it comes to property."
This is conflating property boundaries with the political borders placed by the State.
As I have written in the column above, which you have so carefully read: “There is no “state” in libertarian theory.”
Perhaps you missed that one in your careful reading. So…how can I be conflating anything along the lines you suggest? There is no room for “state” in libertarian theory; therefore there cannot be state borders. There are only private borders in libertarian theory. Try as some minarchists might, you cannot derive even minimal government (as the term is commonly used today) from the NAP.
That is NOT what you're talking about. If *I* want to RENT, EMPLOY or MARRY a foreigner, who are YOU to tell me I *CAN'T*?
You are yelling at me about what I am talking about? Don’t be so sure about what I am talking about, and then double down by yelling at me. Since you have read every word, please find one place where I have written that I would stop any two individuals from a voluntary transaction. I will save you the trouble. You won’t find one.
Because that is what you're saying: "... immigrants aren’t moving to the top of the Alps[.]" This is arguing that the only good immigrants are those who homestead completely unclaimed land.
Once again, Francisco, I must question your careful reading skills – both regarding this column and the previous columns which you state you have read. You will note, in this column, that comment was directed toward Walter Block; in other words, there is context. He has written before on the idea of immigrants moving to unclaimed land as acceptable under the NAP. As I have written before – and now again in this post – the problem with applying Walter’s theory to today’s reality is that this is not what immigrants are doing (even if one grants that deserts or mountain peaks are unclaimed).
The difference, Bionic Mosquito, is that I don't pretend to PROJECT my property boundaries to the whole area encompassing a NATION only because I happen to find foreigners icky.
I have written in the past (and in this subject post) that the only option in today’s world for anyone calling for open, closed or managed borders is to call on the state – there is no “good” libertarian option in today’s world. Does this mean I am pleased with this reality? If you think so, find where I have written such a thing – in all of your reading of my work, you must have come across something.
I will save you the trouble: you cannot.
Further, and you certainly must have seen it in all of your careful reading as I have made this point too many times to count: I have the right to manage who comes on my property. My neighbors and I have the right to jointly agree to a common structure of managing who enters our community.
Unfortunately, the only means to do that for a country is via the state today. Now, you conclude I am calling on the state to do this task. Therefore, you demonstrate once again your lack of careful reading skills, as I have written more than once – and even in this post…wait, I will quote my statement exactly:
Open borders is bad libertarian theory and can only be implemented by initiating force in practice.
Because the only way to have open borders in this world also requires force. So I ask you: why are you calling for state force?
Further, please point to one instance where I have written that foreigners are icky. Wait, I will save you the trouble. You can’t.
I certainly have NO right to tell my neighbors who can or cannot visit them, or to whom they can let their homes or who they can employ or marry or simply invite over. What makes you think you have that right?
Please point to one place where I have written such a thing. I will save you the trouble: you can’t.
I'll leave aside the condescending nature of your recommendation…
You may leave it aside, but if you write to lecture me about things I haven’t written, this will be my tone. In other words, I won’t leave it aside.
In essence, you're arguing an immigrant is OK as long as he or she moves to the gawd-damned MOON.
You already tried this ignorant comment once – see above for my response.
"No! No open borders! Why? Because the State exists! So, nope! Can't have that!"
It is easy to point to managed or closed political borders and scream “NAP violation.” That ground is ploughed so much it almost isn’t worth discussing. This is Libertarian Theory 101 kind of stuff.
But tell me, please Francisco, how do you suggest we have open borders in this world, a world where the state will ALWAYS make decisions about who crosses borders? How will you have open borders in this world and avoid NAP violations? Explain it while demonstrating you have some understanding of reality.
I will save you the trouble: you cannot.
Other than not understanding much of what I have written, these are great comments.