Libertarian Anarchy

This article is a sequel to my previous post “Root Causes and the Libertarian Immigration Debate”. Continuing the discussion on what strategy libertarians should follow with regards to immigration, I will argue that even if we accept the Hoppean argument for closed borders, the conclusion still violates libertarian principles.

Toward a Theory of Strategy for Liberty

In chapter thirty of his book “The Ethics of Liberty”, Rothbard laid down the groundwork of anarchist strategy. Basically, there are two principles libertarians must keep in mind when pursuing strategy. First, we must not violate the nonaggression principle. Second, we must be abolitionists, for advocating anything less than the immediate abolition of aggressive violence would mean the sanctioning of injustice.

On this latter point, Rothbard writes: “If liberty is to be the highest political end, then this implies that liberty is to be pursued by the most efficacious means, i.e., those means which will most speedily and thoroughly arrive at the goal. This means that the libertarian must be an “abolitionist”, i.e., he must wish to achieve the goal of liberty as rapidly as possible. If he balks at abolitionism, then he is no longer holding liberty as the highest political end.” (259)

To those people who charge abolitionism as being “unrealistic”, Rothbard responds that these anti-radicals “hopelessly confuse the desired goal with a strategic estimate of the probable path toward that goal. It is essential to make a clear-cut distinction between the ultimate goal itself, and the strategic estimate of how to reach that goal; in short, the goal must be formulated before questions of strategy or “realism” enter the scene.” (259)

The problem with advocating gradualism in theory is that it “totally undercuts the overriding goal of liberty itself; its import, therefore, is not simply strategic but an opposition to the end itself and hence impermissible as any part of a strategy toward liberty. The reason is that once immediate abolitionism is abandoned, then the goal is conceded to take second or third place to other, anti-libertarian considerations, for these considerations are now placed higher than liberty…. In fact, [gradualism] would mean that the libertarian advocated the prolongation of crime and injustice.” (260-61)

Rothbard continues: “Another contradictory means would be to commit aggression (e.g., murder or theft) against persons or just property in order to reach the libertarian goal of nonaggression. But this too would be a self-defeating and impermissible means to pursue. For the employment of such aggression would directly violate the goal of nonaggression itself.” (261)

With these strategic constraints in mind, Rothbard asks: “Must the libertarian necessarily confine himself to advocating immediate abolition? Are transitional demands, steps toward liberty in practice, therefore illegitimate? Surely not, since realistically there would then be no hope of achieving the final goal. It is therefore incumbent upon the libertarian, eager to achieve his goal as rapidly as possible, to push the polity ever further in the direction of that goal. Clearly, such a course is difficult, for the danger always exists of losing sight of, or even undercutting, the ultimate goal of liberty…. The transitional demands, then, must be framed while (a) always holding up the ultimate goal of liberty as the desired end of the transitional process; and (b) never taking steps, or using means, which explicitly or implicitly contradict that goal.” (262)

The problem with not following this last point is that it “implies that the State is not really the enemy of mankind, that it is possible and desirable to use the State in engineering a planned and measured pace toward liberty. The insight that the State is the permanent enemy of mankind, on the other hand, leads to a very different strategic outlook: namely that libertarians push for and accept with alacrity any reduction of State power or State activity on any front; any such reduction at any time is a reduction in crime and aggression, and is a reduction of the parasitic malignity with which State power rules over and confiscates social power.” (262-63)

Rothbard concludes ”by affirming that the victory of total liberty is the highest political end; that the proper groundwork for this goal is a moral passion for justice; that the end should be pursued by the speediest and most efficacious possible means; that the end must always be kept in sight and sought as rapidly as possible; and that the means taken must never contradict the goal—whether by advocating gradualism, by employing or advocating any aggression against liberty, by advocating planned programs, or by failing to seize any opportunity to reduce State power or by ever increasing it in any area.” (264)

Strategy and libertarian principles

Next, it is fundamental to understand that the immigration debate is wholly about strategy. There is no controversy as to how immigration would work in an anarchic society. The debate is on how to get there.

Open borders

The open border advocates say that libertarians must oppose all government institutions, and closed borders, as a government institution, must therefore be opposed. Government borders are the root cause of forced exclusion; hence government borders should be abolished. Government property and antidiscrimination laws are the root causes of forced integration; hence these should be abolished.

On the face of it, this position seems consistent with libertarian principles: addressing the root cause is the most efficient means to achieving the end, hence it is abolitionist. It only advocates abolishing government functions, and so does not violate the nonaggression principle. This strategy realizes that the State is “the permanent enemy of mankind”, and pushes for the “reduction of State power or State activity on any front”, specifically by abolishing government borders, government property, and antidiscrimination laws. Finally, it always holds up the ultimate goal of a society of free integration and free exclusion.

Closed borders

The closed border advocates, following Hoppe, have advanced the following argument:

1. Public property rightfully belongs to taxpayers.
2. Taxpayers have a right to government protection of their property.
3. Foreigners who are not invited explicitly can be assumed to be unwanted.
4. Therefore, government ought to restrict access to all foreigners who are not invited.

Or, as Hoppe writes:

“A popular government that wants to safeguard its citizens and their domestic property from forced integration and foreign invaders has two methods of doing so: a corrective and a preventative one. [First, the corrective method:] the government must reduce the quantity of public property and expand that of private property as much as possible, and whatever the ratio of private to public property may be, the government should help rather than hinder the enforcement of a private property owner’s right to admit and exclude others from his property. [Second, the] government must also engage in preventative measures. At all ports of entry and along its borders, the government, as trustee of its citizens, must check all newly arriving persons for an entrance ticket; that is, a valid invitation by a domestic property owner; and anyone not in possession of such a ticket must be expelled at his own expense.” – Democracy: the God that Failed, p. 167

Now, there are some problems with this argument. First, public property actually belongs to all victims of the State, not just taxpayers. Second, since when do anarchists accept the theory of government as the “servant” of the people? Government is a criminal gang, plain and simple. If the mafia forces you to pay protection money, does that give you a right to their protection services? Third, assuming that uninvited foreigners are unwanted is sketchy – what if immigrants move in, and an entrepreneur, noticing the surplus of labor, decides to start a business and hire the immigrants to work for him? They would no longer be unwanted.

But even if we ignore these problems and accept the argument, we must still ask: Is this strategy congruent with libertarian principles?

Abolitionism

First we must determine if the closed border position meets the libertarian abolitionism criterion. If the root causes of forced integration are government property and antidiscrimination laws, shouldn’t the closed border advocates be calling for the immediate abolition of these things, instead of closed borders? However, one might respond that closed borders are a transitional step on the path to full anarchism. That is, the closed border advocates are still holding the ultimate goal of anarchism, but are pursuing intermediate means to bring us closer to the final end. Thus, according to this argument, advocating closed borders is not gradualism in theory.

But does this response hold? Problem solving logic tells us that addressing the root cause is the fastest and most thorough way to solve a problem. In the case of forced integration it is not open borders but government property and antidiscrimination laws that are the root cause; open borders are only a contributing cause. Hence, the proper abolitionist strategy is to strike the root, i.e. privatize government property and abolish antidiscrimination laws. Moreover, under anarchy there are no government borders; advocating closed borders now only to abolish them later means engaging in the same gradualism that Rothbard warned against. Supporting government borders for X years and then abolishing them is exactly the kind of planned program that epitomizes gradualism in theory. As Rothbard said, we libertarians must call for the immediate abolition of all government programs; anything less would be sanctioning injustice. Thus, the closed border position falls into the trap of gradualism in theory and accordingly fails the abolitionism test.

Using the State

But even if we ignore the abolitionism criterion, there is still a more fundamental critique. Rothbard said that libertarians cannot follow any strategy that “implies that the State is not really the enemy of mankind, that it is possible and desirable to use the State in engineering a planned and measured pace toward liberty.” But what is the closed border position except an advocacy of using the State to restrict immigration? Of using the State to engineer a path to anarchism? As libertarians we must “push for and accept with alacrity any reduction of State power or State activity on any front”. Advocating government borders, i.e. advocating an increase in State power, is clearly a violation of libertarian principles. For supporting government borders means supporting government border guards, government border checkstops, and a government bureaucracy to manage the border. On this point then, the closed border position utterly and decisively fails. Closed borders cannot be a libertarian strategy because they violate libertarian principles.

Nonaggression Principle

Furthermore, does the closed border position violate the nonaggression principle? The answer seems to be yes, as government borders violate the right of admission and hence cause forced exclusion. However, a closed border advocate might respond that they are calling for sponsored immigration, not completely restricted immigration. Thus, the government would admit all invited immigrants, and the right of admission remains unviolated.

First, this response still faces the problem of trying to use the State as a means to libertarian ends. Second, and more importantly, the government would be guilty of forestalling: preventing potential homesteaders from accessing unowned property. By engaging in sponsored immigration, the government would be preventing uninvited immigrants who would have homesteaded unowned property, which is surely in abundance in North America. (The government “claiming” frontier land does not count as legitimate ownership.) Thus, although sponsored immigration would not cause forced exclusion, it would cause forestalling, and hence violate the nonaggression principle. Again, we find that closed borders cannot be a libertarian strategy.

Last, but not least, is the issue of taxation. As noted above, a government border means border guards, checkstops, and a border bureaucracy. As these are all government institutions, they must be funded by taxation, i.e. robbery. Thus, advocating government borders means advocating robbery! Surely it is obvious that libertarians cannot use statist means to achieve anarchist ends; we cannot use aggression to reach the goal of nonaggression. Thus, closed borders are a self-defeating and impermissible strategy.

One might object that closed border advocates are just getting restitution for past injustices. It is true that someone could receive welfare as restitution, for example; however, to advocate increasing the power of the welfare state is completely illegitimate. Likewise, one can benefit from closed borders; but it is totally illegitimate to advocate increasing the State’s power and control over the borders.

Conclusion

Thus, even if we accept the premises of Hoppe’s rights argument, his conclusion still violates libertarian principles. First, advocating closed borders fails the criterion of abolitionism. Supporting government borders for X years and then abolishing them afterward is gradualism in theory, plain and simple. Second, closed borders means using the State to achieve libertarian ends, and implies that “the State is not really the enemy of mankind”. Closed borders fail because they increase State power. Third, closed borders violate the nonaggression principle, once through forestalling and again through taxation. Thus, closed borders fail the test of libertarian principle, and cannot be a legitimate strategy.

Lastly, I want to point out the inconsistencies inherent in the closed border position. Libertarians are constantly pointing out that government doesn’t work. Mises has shown that economic calculation under government is impossible. Hayek has shown that central planners cannot gather the knowledge to run the economy. The perverse incentives stemming from tax-funded monopolies are well known. Do closed border advocates really expect us to believe that these arguments hold true in all cases except for borders?!