Wednesday, August 15, 2018

Enemies of Liberty

I have been doing pretty well at leaving this topic alone, but I saw something recently that was just too good to resist.

I have written much about left-libertarians and my view that they are carrying the laundry of the Cultural Marxists – while their ends might be different, their means are quite identical.  Sure, I am generalizing, but you can decide if the generalization is reasonably appropriate and descriptive.

The topic here is open borders; there are many libertarians who insist that open borders is the only proper libertarian positions.  Of course, I don’t believe it is a libertarian position at all; the most I can offer is that one cannot derive anything other than managed borders from the NAP. 

After this, the issue becomes who does the managing.  (My far-and-away winner on this is that I manage it; given that I am not allowed to do this…well, I don’t believe this requires me to lie down with my belly exposed.)

For decades, the globalists have subtly (or sometimes not so subtly) been moving us toward a world in which national borders have essentially been made meaningless. The ultimate goal, of course, is to merge all the nations of the world into a “one world socialist utopia” with a global government, a global economic system and even a global religion.

Now…there are many libertarians who also say “no border, no wall….”  Of course, they will scream in objection: “bionic, of course we don’t want a socialist utopia – we just want the freedom to travel; we want liberty.”

Sure…the ends are different, but the means are the same.  I wonder which utopian side will win: liberty or socialism.  Any schoolchild can figure out the first-order impact; it is incumbent on advocates of philosophical / political positions to consider all impacts.

Let’s add this to the mix:

Democratic New York congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez explained her belief that abolishing the Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency is “common sense” during an interview on CNN with John Berman on Thursday morning.

Yes, many left-libertarians as well.  Now…there will be some who accuse me of supporting full body cavity searches and the like, merely by writing anything about ICE.  Don’t change the subject; don’t create strawmen.  Instead, consider: libertarians and one of the more radical socialists with a public stage in the US that hold the same position.  Let’s say “go for it.”  Will liberty win, or will socialism?

Look, I am just asking a question.


Sadly, these leftists ultimately don’t want more liberty and freedom.

Instead, they want a world that they can “transform” into their own image.

Open borders, abolish ICE. A common desire of socialists and left-libertarians.  Say they get what they want.  Will this increase or decrease YOUR liberty?

Based on your answer, ask yourself: who is the enemy of liberty?


  1. It will most likely lead to violence. Either external groups coming in unabated or internally as different groups fight over new borders. I think the inevitable will be restricted access into either states, cities, or neighborhoods replacing the restricted access to cross the national border. That will lead to conflict among those who want to protect their property and those who see that as a further violation of "freedom" of movement. That could lead to secession and decentralization in the long run which would increase freedom. However, I don't prefer that path to freedom. It will be ugly and bloody. And if the liberty side loses, all the blood will be spilt just to be further oppressed.

  2. I think you've been correct on this issue from the get go. Open borders is an oxymoron, you can't cross someone's doorway anymore than you should jump a fence into someone's yard. The rub as always is well how do people travel if the world is completely private, roads parks and the like magically spring from the market. Government didn't invent any of these things and as a Canadian I can tell you how poorly they manage roads. I think the answer is closer to HHH (Hoppe) that people who want to move or simply travel will have to use private roads at a fee, or fly to private airports and then make appropriate arrangements on how they will reach their destination. The whole notion of open borders is as absurd as open front doors.

  3. "Now…there are many libertarians who also say “no border, no wall….” Of course, they will scream in objection: “bionic, of course we don’t want a socialist utopia – we just want the freedom to travel; we want liberty.”"

    This sort of relates to the "libertarian goal" question you asked in a previous post. Libertarians don't (or shouldn't) want liberty, because it has a subjective definition. They want (or should want) property rights.

    "Sure…the ends are different, but the means are the same."

    I don't believe the ends and the means are different. Different words are just being used to describe the ends. We have plenty of examples, so we don't have to predict what the ends look like in an open borders world. Left libertarians promoting open borders are clearly against property rights.

    1. "Libertarians don't (or shouldn't) want liberty, because it has a subjective definition."

      Well, we probably ought to come up with a new name, then!


      To your second point, I agree. I do believe some libertarians who promote open borders don't believe they are "left" and don't believe they are against property rights. I think they are wrong on both counts.

  4. You know, the socialists have been co-opting names for over a century. They co-opted the term "liberal". They co-opted the term "gay" (my mother, especially, hated that). Why not co-opt libertarian?

    It just seems to me that, like the Tea Party, something starts out in the right direction, only to be diverted 180 degrees from what it was. Forgive me for sounding paranoid but it's a pattern we ignore at our peril.

  5. A good rule for a libertarian is that if your stance on an issue happens to align with the ideology that favors the most government involvement in every aspect of life, then perhaps it's time to reevaluate your position.

    Unlike libertarians, they don't adopt policies based on intellectual consistency or principle besides achieving a desired result.

    If open borders led to less government, socialists and progressives would favor immigration restrictions and secure borders.

    1. The Q

      I agree with this. Regarding your first paragraph, you would think that this "alignment" would at least get some of the more honest libertarians to publicly examine their position.

  6. National borders have a negative economic effect. Only local borders - and in the form of private property deed restrictions - play the positive economic role of preserving property values by excluding undesirable individuals and groups. This worked well in America up until the 1960s - when socialists took over government and destroyed local border control while imposing stringent border control at the national level - where it had hitherto played an insignificant role. Under this transformation, the property rights of urban whites were largely destroyed while cities like Newark, St Louis, and Baltimore were transformed into abandoned war zones unfit to live in. The problem of borders is not whether they should exist but where and how and to what end. They create and preserve property values at the local level but prevent the creation of wealth at the national level by preventing labor from leaving countries where labor is unproductive and migrating to countries where it is very productive. Suppose Steve Jobs had been born in Haiti. Wouldn't everyone be way better off if he were able to go from Port Au Prince to Cupertino right away - rather than being stuck in Haiti for 20 years filling out endless government paperwork for an endless array of government immigration flunkies ?

    1. Victor, arguments from efficiency don't cut it. Value is subjective.

      David Gordon recently wrote on this at LvMI, and there is a great Rothbard piece on the topic.

  7. It seems this relates to the Cloward-Piven strategy.

    Peg in Oregon