Democracy is universally held up as the sacred political ideal. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that democracy is a secular religion. Observe: We fight wars for it (“Making the world safe for democracy”). We are implored to blindly participate in it (“It doesn’t matter who you vote for, just vote”). And most tellingly, it is taboo to question it. Anyone who claims that democracy is bad is likely to be labeled a Nazi. (Even though Hitler was democratically elected and much of Nazism was promoted with democratic rhetoric.)

Nevertheless, I will attempt to prove that democracy is one of the worst political ideologies, on par with dictatorship and communism. My argument is three pronged. First, democracy is founded on initiatory violence. It is thus no more acceptable than murder or rape. Second, it can be refuted by a reductio ad absurdum; namely, that while we accept democracy for government, we would never accept it applied consistently in our lives. Third, democracy is unnecessary. What is there to vote on? All essential functions of society can be provided voluntarily and competitively on the market. Programs like the minimum wage and rent control are actually counter-productive, and can be eliminated altogether. There are many other problems with democracy: its ineffectiveness, its corruption, its total war, and its decivilization effect; but I will not address these here (see Hoppe). Last, I will address two strategies to undermine and weaken democracy: not voting and secession.

Democracy is immoral

Let us start with a definition. The root word definition of democracy gives us “demos” = “people” and “cracy” = “rule”. Essentially, democracy means rule by the people, or more commonly, rule by majority.

With this definition we can come to my first point. Democracy is a rule by majority over a minority. This means that the majority must threaten or initiate violence against the minority in order to rule. Aggression, invasion, and hegemony are at the very root of democracy.

Assume the majority wishes to levy a tax while the minority dissents. The majority must initiate coercion or threaten punishment against the minority to enforce payment. They are literally robbing the minority of private property. If the minority were not compelled to pay, it would not be a democracy. In other words, democracy could only be voluntarily if all decisions were unanimous. But, then it would cease to be majority rule. So, the inescapable problem of democracy is that it replaces voluntary interaction with initiatory coercion.

Moreover, democracy relies on a prohibition of secession. A democracy must initiate violence against seceding minorities in order to maintain majority rule. “If every dissident minority secedes after every opposed decision, then there is no democratic regime.” Thus, “those who advocate democracy are also logically advocating, that at some point secession be suppressed. And almost inevitably, that implies the use of force – military force. You can not be a democrat unless you are prepared to kill.” (source) Democracy, as it must initiate violence against minorities and secessionists, is the moral equivalent of a fascist dictatorship. Democracy is a lynch mob writ large.

One may object that democracy is not pure majority rule, but involves some individual rights. However, this does not obtain. For if some individual rights are respected, the logical conclusion is that all rights are respected, in which case democracy would not exist. The majority could not initiate violence against the minority, or violently suppress secession movements. Such acts would be rights violations. The other logical conclusion is that all rights are actually just privileges granted by the majority, and are subject to the majority’s whim, in which case we have democracy. There can be no justification for holding an inconsistent middle ground.

Democracy is absurd

My second argument is a reductio ad absurdum. Democracy, as rule by majority, does not recognize individual rights. All property is subject to the will of the majority. But why settle for majority rule only in roads, police, courts, schools, libraries, regulations, etc.? If it is right and just for a majority to rule over a minority, why not apply this principle consistently and take it to its logical conclusion: if democracy applies to 1,000,000 people ruling over 10,000; then it must also apply to any scenario where two people rule over one.

Walter Block provides one such example: Two robbers break into your house and steal your TV. You catch them, but as philosophical robbers, they point out that they are two and you are only one. As a majority following democratic principles, the robbers can rightly take your TV. Or imagine a single mother living with her three children. When she refuses to feed them ice cream for breakfast, the children, as a majority, could legitimately vote her out of the house. Or imagine a democratic organ clinic. A group of renegade surgeons could grab any person walking alone down the street, and as a majority, harvest the pedestrian’s organs. The democratic principle means that any minority must always submit to the rule of any majority.

The ultimate result of democracy carried to its logical conclusion reads like a dystopian nightmare: people would roam the streets in packs, mugging and looting any minority they could find. People would never leave their house alone, for fear of encountering any group of more than two people. Humanity would regress to some bizarre tribal warfare, where mobs would squabble desperately over who is more numerous. The larger mob—the majority—would then pillage and rob the smaller—the minority.  In fact, there could not even be laws, because law could be determined at random by any majority, such as Block’s TV robbers. Such a scenario is truly absurd.

Democracy is unnecessary

My last argument is that democracy is totally unnecessary. There is no conceivable reason to have a democratic government, because any government function can be provided voluntarily and competitively on the market. Because interactions on the market are always voluntary, we can avoid the moral problem inherent in democracy of using initiatory violence against innocent people. Through market competition, these services will be more efficient, because entrepreneurs must earn their income from customers and must compete with one another to provide the best service. Moreover, instead of investing power in a centralized government, the market decentralizes power into the hands of individuals. Rather than having some bureaucrat in Washington running everyone’s lives, the free market allows people to be responsible, self-reliant adults.

Abraham Lincoln wrote that

A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.” (emphasis added)

However, Lincoln was wrong. Unanimity is possible. A totally voluntary society is possible where all government functions are provided on the market. A society by consensus replaces the coercive relations of majority rule with mutual, voluntary, market relations. Lincoln’s division between democracy and anarchy/despotism is a false dichotomy. Unanimous rule is possible.

Thus, private roads would be run by profit seeking road companies, eager to satisfy customers. (Note that, historically, the first roads were privately owned.) They might collect payment from tolls, monthly subscriptions, or use road sensors that detect magnetically encoded stickers on your car. They might offer free service for commercial districts, or charge forbidding prices to through-traffic on residential streets. They could reduce road congestion through peak load pricing: charging high prices during rush hour and lower prices any other time, thus evening out the traffic flow. Importantly, road deaths would incur costs to road owners, both in repairs and reputation, in turn creating a financial incentive to provide safe, orderly roads. In comparison, democratic government roads are chaotic, ill maintained death traps: over 40,000 people die each year on roads in the U.S. alone.

So, there is no need to vote for politicians to provide roads, because the market can do a better job, and voluntarily to boot.

Private courts and police would likely be provided by insurance companies. As every exchange is a contract, people will buy contract insurance to resolve potential disputes. The insurance companies would have to indemnify victims, and would thus have a financial incentive to provide fair and efficient arbitration services. Insurance companies would stipulate in their contracts exactly how disputes would be resolved, leaving no problem of having to agree on an arbitrator after the fact. Competition would weed out corrupt companies and serve to keep premiums low.

In terms of police, note that protection from coercion is an economic good. Like contract insurance, people would buy protection insurance. Again, insurance companies must indemnify victims, and so have a financial incentive to eliminate crime. They would also stipulate in their contracts how justice would be meted out – mainly by restitution to the victim – and competition would keep them honest. Protection could also be provided by private property owners. For example, roads, malls, and office buildings can better serve customers by employing security guards, as is the case now.

Contrast government police and courts. Police are notorious for not preventing crime, and are increasingly becoming criminals themselves (e.g. taser murders). Government courts, as a monopoly industry, are bureaucratic, inefficient, and agonizingly slow. Government provision of justice is actually government perversion of justice.

There is no need to vote on police and courts, because they can be provided non-coercively on the market.

Lastly, there is no need to vote on such price control programs as the minimum wage or rent control, because they simply do not work. In fact, they are actually counter-productive: instead of helping, they hurt the poor.

For instance, the minimum wage coercively increases the price of labor, thus decreasing the income of employers. With increased labor costs, employers must demand less workers, and do so by laying off marginal workers and creating less new jobs. The minimum wage is an unemployment law. It hurts poor, marginal workers the most.

Likewise with rent control. By coercively lowering the price of housing, the incomes of landlords are reduced. With less income, landlords cannot afford to maintain their current supply of housing, and so will reduce the supply and/or reduce the quality. The effect is double: reducing the supply causes a shortage, and reducing the quality leads to widespread slum housing. Rent control is the primary cause of slums. Again, it is poor and marginal tenants who are hurt the most. Rent control is a homelessness law.

There is no need to vote on price controls, because they do not even work.

Strategy

But if democracy is morally revolting, illogical, and destructive, we are still presented with the fact that most countries are democratic, or at least subscribe to its rhetoric. Keeping in mind our goal of a totally voluntary, unanimous society, how can we delegitimize and expose democracy as the fraud it is?

The first step is to stop voting. The politicians’ credibility and legitimacy depend on the support of the masses. As de la Boétie and Hume have shown, the government rests, not on force, but on the public opinion of the citizenry. By abstaining from voting, we can lower voter turnout to the point where the winning government is supported by only a small minority, say 20% of the population. For example, if total voter turnout is 45%, and the election is very close, say 23% to 22%, that means that only 23% of the population is running the country. Suddenly people realize that democracy no longer means majority rule; it is now minority rule. Moreover, why do politicians beg us to vote, telling us “It doesn’t matter who you vote for, just vote”? The answer is that politicians feel very nervous without mass public support. Knowing that only a small minority supports them, they must be very moderate with their policies lest the people revolt. Thus, not voting is a strong way to destabilize and threaten democracy.

Next, it is essential to realize that any internal governmental reform is near impossible. The politicians and bureaucrats are enjoying their position as leaders of a protection racket, and are not going to give it up voluntarily. Governmental reform is akin to trying to infiltrate and bring down the Mafia from the inside—it’s not going to happen.

Thus, our second strategy is secession. “Democracy relies on a prohibition of secession. A democratic regime assumes a ‘demos’—a unit of political decision-making which is constant between decisions. If every dissident minority secedes after every opposed decision, then there is no democratic regime.” (source) In other words, “secession allows the democratic process to be circumvented or evaded, without a direct attack on the government. In a secession, the existing government is not overthrown, the nation is not colonized, the people are not murdered or enslaved.” (source) Peaceful secession is a nonviolent expression of the right to free association.

Secession is like punching democracy in the gut. Secession subverts and undermines the democratic process. The integrity of majority rule is violated when a minority threatens to secede rather than obey majority decisions. As Abraham Lincoln wrote: “The principle [of secession] itself is one of disintegration, and upon which no government can possibly endure”. Further, once the legitimacy of secession is granted, it opens up a Pandora’s Box of secessionist claims that cannot be rejected. Secession would have an exponential, snowball effect: Once Vermont secedes, Quebec’s secession will progress more smoothly, New York will become a free independent city, and on and on! This is why governments fear secession so much: once it starts, it can’t stop. Once one secession is granted, entire nation-states will crumble apart. Finally, the principle of secession must lead to secession of the individual, at which point the ideal of the totally voluntary society has been reached.

Conclusion

I have attempted to show that democracy is undeserving of its status as the ultimate political structure. Democracy is based on aggression, not voluntarism, and thus is morally repulsive. Taken to its logical conclusion, democracy leads to absurdity. No rational person would accept democracy if it was applied to every aspect of their lives. Finally, democracy is wholly unnecessary – there is nothing that needs to be voted on. Further, our strategy to smash the sacred cow of democracy must be rooted in nonaggression. If we aggress or initiate violence we are no better than the democrats. Not voting and secession allow us to maintain the moral high ground, while effectively challenging the moronic democratic philosophy. And so, democracy is immoral, irrational, and unnecessary. It should be torn down from its revered pedestal and tossed onto the intellectual junk pile of history.

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?!

The libertarian immigration debate is alive and well.¹ Although there is no debate over the immigration policy of a free society, there is considerable controversy over the proper immigration policy in our currently existing statist society. However, this debate has neglected to address the root causes of forced integration and forced exclusion, and its solutions fail accordingly. This article will attempt to resolve the debate by addressing the root causes of forced integration and forced exclusion, and by proposing solutions that address these root causes.

Before we can address the problem of immigration under statism, we must establish several premises.

First, under anarchy, the concept of immigration is meaningless. As all property is privately owned, there is no distinction between citizens and foreigners. People don’t immigrate, but simply travel from one place to another. There are no government borders, but only private property borders. And as property owners have the right of admission and exclusion, there is no forced integration or forced exclusion, and hence no immigration problem.

In contrast, under statism, we have government borders, government property (roads, parks, etc.), and antidiscrimination laws. Government borders, by preventing invited travel, violate the right of admission and so cause forced exclusion. Government property and antidiscrimination laws, by preventing property owners from excluding unwanted guests, violate the right to exclusion and so cause forced integration. As libertarians, our goal is to move from statism to anarchy.

Next, we must recognize that open borders are a free market institution. That is, open government borders are the same thing as no government borders. And since there are no government borders under anarchy, open borders are anarchic. Consider: with closed borders, there is a government building, government border patrol guards, and perhaps a government fence. With open borders, there is nothing, only private property borders. Because libertarianism means abolishing all elements of government, in a free society there would be no government building, no government guards, and no government fence. Thus, open borders are the same as no borders. Open borders are a free market institution.

Striking the root

One of the many problems with statism is that it causes forced integration and forced exclusion. But what are the root causes of these phenomena?

Forced exclusion occurs when invited travel is violently restricted or prohibited by the state. It is a direct violation of the right of admission. As Hoppe notes, “if the government excludes a person while even one domestic resident wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion”. Government borders are the primary means by which invited travel is restricted. Hence, government borders are the root cause of forced exclusion. Accordingly, the solution to forced exclusion is to abolish government borders.

Forced integration occurs when private exclusion is violently restricted or prohibited by the state. Property owners have the right to exclude unwanted guests, and forced integration is a direct violation of that right. The two primary means by which the government causes forced integration are government property and antidiscrimination laws. Government property, Hoppe writes, means that “by proceeding on public roads, or with public means of transportation, and in staying on public land and in public parks and buildings, an immigrant can potentially cross every domestic resident’s path, even move into anyone’s immediate neighborhood and practically land on his very doorsteps.”² Antidiscrimination laws, by restricting how property owners can discriminate, are an obvious violation of the right of exclusion. Hence, government property and antidiscrimination laws are the root causes of forced integration. Accordingly, the solution to forced integration is to privatize government property and abolish antidiscrimination laws.

Now we come to the heart of the issue. Open borders are not the root cause of forced integration. It is true that open borders may exacerbate the problem of forced integration. For example, the effects of forced integration are amplified if open borders allow more people to take advantage of government property and antidiscrimination laws. However, note that open borders would not cause any problems if government property and antidiscrimination laws did not exist. All this means is that open borders are a “branch cause”, or a contributing cause, of forced integration. They are not the root cause. Consequently, closed borders are not an appropriate solution to forced integration. If the root cause of forced integration is government property and antidiscrimination laws, then addressing a contributing cause, i.e. closing the borders, will not solve the problem. This is evident when we realize that closed borders will only prevent foreign forced integration; domestic forced integration will remain unsolved. Moreover, closed borders still leave us with the problem of forced exclusion.

Clearly, the solution to forced integration must be to address the root cause. This means privatizing government property and abolishing antidiscrimination laws. With this accomplished, forced integration will be defeated forever, as property owners can exclude any unwanted guest, domestic or foreign. As all property is private, and all travel is invited, the immigration problem is solved. To paraphrase Thoreau, the advocates of closed borders are hacking at the branches of forced integration, while the government property and antidiscrimination laws abolitionists are striking at the root.

Analytically distinct problems

Another way to look at the problem is to recognize that just as welfare is a separate issue from immigration, so too are government property and antidiscrimination laws separate issues from immigration. As analytically distinct issues, therefore, they must be treated accordingly.

As Hoppe notes, immigration is a separate issue from welfare.

“It would also be wrongheaded to attack the above case for free immigration by pointing out that because of the existence of a welfare state, immigration has become to a significant extent the immigration of welfare-bums, who, even if the United States, for instance, is below her optimal population point, do not increase but rather decrease average living standards. For this is not an argument against immigration but against the welfare state. To be sure, the welfare state should be destroyed, root and branch. However, in any case the problems of immigration and welfare are analytically distinct problems, and they must be treated accordingly.”

Those who blame the negative effects of the welfare state on open borders are incorrectly tracing causality. The problems of welfare are caused directly by the welfare state, not open borders. Granted, open borders may exacerbate the problems of welfarism, but they are not the root cause. This is obvious when we consider that open borders do not exacerbate welfare problems when there is no welfare state. Moreover, closing the borders to prevent welfarism will only hinder foreign welfarism; domestic welfarism will remain unsolved. The only way to resolve the problem is to analyze separately the distinct problems of immigration and welfare. Then, the solution to welfare is to address the root cause, i.e. abolish the welfare state. Closing the borders does not address the root and so will not solve the problem.

This reasoning also applies to government property and antidiscrimination laws. Those who blame forced integration on open borders are incorrectly tracing causality. Forced integration is caused by government roads and parks, and by antidiscrimination laws violating the right of exclusion. Again, open borders may exacerbate the problem, but they are not the fundamental cause. Here too, the only way to resolve the problem is to analyze separately the distinct issues of forced integration and immigration. Thus, the root cause of forced integration is government property and antidiscrimination laws. The solution therefore cannot be closed borders, but must be to abolish government property and antidiscrimination laws. The immorality of forced integration is not an argument against open borders, but against government property and antidiscrimination laws.

Thus, in Hoppe’s quote above we can simply replace the word “welfare” with “government property and antidiscrimination laws”: “For this is not an argument against immigration but against government property and antidiscrimination laws. To be sure, government property and antidiscrimination laws should be destroyed, root and branch. However, in any case the problems of immigration and government property and antidiscrimination laws are analytically distinct problems, and they must be treated accordingly.” Once we recognize that the root cause of forced integration is government property and antidiscrimination laws, it becomes evident that closed borders are not an appropriate solution.

Strategy

Yet another way to see the problem is to compare the strategies of the closed border advocates to the government property and antidiscrimination laws abolitionists. As noted above, today under statism we have government property, government antidiscrimination laws, and government borders. Our goal is anarchy, with private property, no antidiscrimination laws, and private property borders. Also note that under statism we have forced integration and forced exclusion, and that these problems are solved under anarchy. So how do we get there?

If we privatize government property, abolish antidiscrimination laws, and abolish government borders, we will have attained anarchy and solved the problem of forced integration and forced exclusion. Privatizing government property and abolishing antidiscrimination laws will restore the right of exclusion, and hence end forced integration. Abolishing government borders will restore the right of admission, and hence end forced exclusion. This is the proper solution.

However, if we follow the anti-immigrationists and privatize government property, abolish antidiscrimination laws, but keep government borders, we will not reach anarchy: obviously, government borders are a government institution. True, with government property and antidiscrimination laws (the root causes of forced integration) being non-existent, the right of exclusion will be restored and the problem of forced integration would be solved. However, the existence of government borders means there would still be forced exclusion. Thus, advocating closed borders cannot be a libertarian solution, because there would still be government and there would still be forced exclusion.

One might object that the second strategy (privatize government property, abolish antidiscrimination laws, keep government borders) is more efficient, as it would minimize the effects of forced integration and welfarism during the transformation process; also, the borders can simply be abolished after first eliminating forced integration. However, this obviously violates libertarian principles. Government borders violate the right of admission. As Rothbard said, libertarians must be abolitionists; we cannot be gradualists, because that would mean sanctioning injustice. Amazingly, this strategy would mean directly advocating and even promoting statism. It would mean accepting the principle that “Government intervention X is justified to solve the problems of government intervention Y”. But if this is granted, we are no longer dealing with libertarianism, but with full-blown statism. Supporting government borders is clearly an example of unprincipled right-opportunism, and hence cannot be a viable strategy.

The vicious cycle of interventionism

The anti-immigrationists are unwittingly exemplifying the vicious cycle of interventionism as explained by Mises. He showed that there could be no third way between statism and a free market, because any government intervention would create unforeseen problems, which require further intervention to solve the new problems. But, the new interventions cause yet newer problems, and on and on until society is wholly state managed.

Likewise, by responding to the problems of government property and antidiscrimination laws, i.e. forced integration, the anti-immigrationists, like statists, miscomprehend the root cause: the original government intervention. With this miscomprehension, they go on to prescribe more government intervention to solve the first problem, e.g. advocating closed government borders. But, as we know, government borders will create unforeseen problems of their own, requiring yet further interventions. What’s next, advocating government-enforced apartheid to separate immigrants and their culture from the rest of America?

The solution, as Mises recognized, is to identify and address the root cause: the first government intervention. With forced integration, the root cause is government property and antidiscrimination laws. Open borders are only a contributing cause. With forced exclusion, the root cause is government borders. The proper solution, then, is to abolish antidiscrimination laws and government borders, and privatize government property. Closed borders are not a viable solution. They do not treat the root cause.

Once seen in this light, the advocacy of closed borders is very bizarre indeed. As open borders are a free market institution, why would anyone support closed borders – a government institution?! The goal of libertarians is to hack away at the size of government, not increase it! Advocating closed borders to solve the problem of forced integration is exactly analogous to advocating closed borders to solve the problem of welfare. In both instances the anti-immigrationist fails to recognize the root cause of the problem (the welfare state and government property and antidiscrimination laws, respectively), and hence advocates a bogus solution.

Objections

One might object that if open borders are achieved before government property, antidiscrimination laws, and welfare are abolished, the result would be the end of civilization. Hans Hoppe has advanced such an argument:

“Assume that the U.S., or better still Switzerland, declared that there would no longer be any border controls, that anyone who could pay the fare might enter the country, and, as a resident then be entitled to every “normal” domestic welfare provision. Can there be any doubt how disastrous such an experiment would turn out in the present world?. The U.S., and Switzerland even faster, would be overrun by millions of third-world immigrants, because life on and off American and Swiss public streets is comfortable compared to life in many areas of the third world. Welfare costs would skyrocket, and the strangled economy disintegrate and collapse, as the subsistence fund—the stock of capital accumulated in and inherited from the past—was plundered. Civilization in the U.S. and Switzerland would vanish, just as it once did from Rome and Greece.”

However, once we have accepted that consequences can overrule principle, we have abandoned libertarianism for utilitarianism. We must analyze the problem on libertarian principles, not solely on consequences.

Another objection, put forth by John Hospers, is that focusing solely on root causes will not solve the problem rapidly enough:

“When one questioner asks, “Isn’t there a danger that immigrants will enter the country to receive the benefits of the welfare state?” Jacob Hornberger responds, “Then get rid of the welfare state!” The response, of course, provides no answer to the question asked. What are we supposed to do in the meantime? We have at the moment a rather “advanced” welfare state, and what policy should we adopt while we still have the welfare state with us?”

This response again amounts to pure consequentialism. The idea that libertarian principles can be sacrificed to achieve short-term gains is a clear manifestation of right-opportunism. Further, Hospers seems not to recognize that the welfare state is the root cause of welfarism, and that abolishing it is the only viable solution. “What are we supposed to do in the meantime?” Obviously, work towards abolishing the welfare state! Why would we want to devote scarce time and resources to any solution other than that which addresses the root cause?

Hoppe has also argued that “if and insofar as this government derived its legitimacy from the sovereignty of the “people” and was viewed as the outgrowth of an agreement or “social contract”" and “which assumed as its primary task the protection of its citizens and their property (the production of domestic security)”³, then the government would have to implement restrictive immigration policies. However, we all know that government does not derive its legitimacy from the sovereignty of the people, and that social contract theory is totally false, and that government production of security is monstrously illegitimate. What is Hoppe, a proud anarchist, talking about?!

He also 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.”⁴

However, we all know the theory of “popular government”, of government as the “trustee of its citizens”, to be a naive myth. Why is Hoppe spouting off these fallacious theories?!

A closed border advocate might respond with the majoritarian restitution argument as advanced by Stephan Kinsella: “immigration controls, or at least prohibition of illegal immigrant usage of “public lands,” can constitute a form of restitution. Since taxpayers have been victimized by the state’s forcing them to finance public spaces, they are owed something by the state as victims. Kinsella argues that “restitution need not be made only in dollars. It can be made by providing other value or benefits to the victims.”” (p.9) However, Gregory and Block’s response is a sufficient refutation: “In principle, a victim of robbery has no “right” to direct his assailant to aggress against others as a matter of “restitution,” for doing so violates yet other person’s natural rights. Being a victim of the state in no way entitles someone to use the state against anyone else…. Moreover, the state does not have its own resources and it can only “compensate” people by robbing from others.” (p. 9-10)

Conclusion

The libertarian immigration debate has failed to take into account the root causes of forced integration and forced exclusion. The purpose of this article is to fill that void by recognizing the root causes of forced integration and forced exclusion, and by suggesting appropriate solutions. Specifically, the root cause of forced exclusion is government borders; abolishing government borders will end forced exclusion. The root cause of forced integration is government property and antidiscrimination laws; privatizing the former and abolishing the latter will end forced integration. By falsely labeling open borders as the root cause of forced integration, closed border advocates ignore the true reality of forced integration, and their solutions suffer accordingly. Hopefully, this root cause analysis will resolve the libertarian immigration debate and foster greater unity within the libertarian movement.

1. See the Journal of Libertarian Studies’ Symposium on Immigration (Vol. 13 Num. 2), especially Block, “A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration”, and Hoppe, “The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration“; Block and Callahan, “Is There A Right to Immigration? A Libertarian Perspective”; Hoppe, “On Free Immigration and Forced Integration“; Gregory and Block, “On Immigration: Reply to Hoppe”.
2. The argument that government property is a root cause of forced integration is subject to criticism. For instance, it relies on the assumption that the taxpayers are the sole owners of public property; one might object that public property has the status of unowned property, and should be open for homesteading. Another objection is that it assumes that the government is the trustee of the taxpayers; but since Spooner, it is commonly accepted that government is not a trustee but a criminal gang. In any case, whether or not government property is a root cause of forced integration does not affect this analysis, as it is undisputed that antidiscrimination laws are a root cause.
3. On Free Trade and Restricted Immigration, in Democracy: The God that Failed, p. 164
4. Ibid, p. 167

This view is all wrong. Voting is not an effective strategy for liberty. To the contrary, the cause of liberty can be even better promoted by not voting. There are three strong reasons that warrant staying home on election day: First, the probability of your vote actually affecting the outcome is negligible. Second, renouncing democracy and its hallowed trappings is a big step toward developing a fully anarchist mindset. Third, and most important, not voting sends a stronger message than voting pro-liberty, or lesser-of-two-evils: low voter turnout delegitimizes the entire statist system. Finally, if we all become non-voters, what strategy should we pursue? The answer is secession – exercising our right to free association.

Voting is ineffective

A common non-voting phrase is “You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than your vote affecting the outcome of an election.” This has been illustrated over and over throughout history. Rarely has there been an election decided by a tiny margin, to say nothing of being decided by a single vote. The fact is, your vote will probably not make a difference. You are only one out of millions of voters.

But if the probability of your vote affecting the outcome is negligible, what is the point of informing yourself about the election? Moreover, what is the opportunity cost of political action? Voting usually means researching politicians and their platforms, watching debates, donating money, petty debates with friends and co-workers, watching the news for tidbits about the election, attacking your candidates opponents on message boards, etc. All of this must be at the expense of non-political action, such as reading Rothbard and Mises, directly educating people about anarchism, or promoting secession movements (see below). In the end, when you compare the costs and benefits of political action, it is clear that, as a general rule, political action should be minimized and non-political action should be emphasized.

Voting preserves the political mindset

The second argument against voting is about developing a fully anarchist mindset. Market anarchism is truly an apolitical ideology. But participating in democracy indicates a political mindset: that maybe, just this once, the system will work and we can restore our freedoms. As Brad Spangler writes: voting serves “as a rationale to keep you under the illusionary impression that freedom or justice are somehow obtained by changing the policies or leadership of the gang of thugs called “government” — rather than through subverting, defying, ignoring or circumventing the same.”

Also, voting serves to promulgate other statist myths. For example, participating in elections strengthens the dangerous myth that “you are the government”, or that we have a government “of the people, by the people, for the people”. In reality, our government is more like a plutocracy: the vast majority of politicians are wealthy, politically connected elites. Another delusion is that the political process works, and that through it you have power and can effect change. In reality, elections change nothing but the hood ornament; the truck running us over is painfully still the same. All elections really do is distract the masses. The voting circus gives the populace a new shiny toy to play with while they are robbed of their property and freedom. Elections also help preserve the status quo by encouraging people to “work within the system”, rather than going to the root and overthrowing the system itself. One step toward ridding ourselves of these myths is to stop voting. By circumventing the political process altogether you can gain a huge boost towards developing an anarchist mentality and eradicate all traces of statism from your consciousness.

Low voter turnout delegitimizes government

A common worry about voting third party is that people fear it will be a “wasted vote”. Then surely not voting will be even more wasteful? However, the truth is the exact opposite: by not voting we can have a more powerful effect than if we voted. The key to recognizing this truth lies in the fact that the politicians’ credibility and legitimacy depend on the support of the masses. As de la Boétie has shown, the government rests, not on force, but on the public opinion of the citizenry. Hans Hoppe writes of the same phenomenon: “It is necessary to recognize that the ultimate power of every government – whether of kings or caretakers – rests solely on opinion and not on physical force. The agents of government are never more than a small proportion of the total population under their control. This implies that no government can possibly enforce its will upon the entire population unless it finds widespread support and voluntary cooperation within the nongovernmental public. It implies likewise that every government can be brought down by a mere change in public opinion, i.e., by the withdrawal of the public’s consent and cooperation.”

Next, observe that low voter turnout is an effective means to delegitimize politicians. After all, why do politicians beg us to vote, telling us “It doesn’t matter who you vote for, just vote”? The answer is that politicians feel very nervous without mass public support. As Joseph Sobran puts it : “Winners of presidential elections like to claim a “mandate” when they defeat their opponents decisively — that is, with 55 per cent or so of the votes cast. But when half the eligible voters abstain, it suggests a quiet but decisive mandate against the whole political system.” By not voting we can remove our support of politicians, and remove their legitimacy as well. Lew Rockwell adds: “But what effect does voting have? It gives [politicians] what they need most: a mandate. Nonparticipation helps deny that to them. It makes them, just on the margin, a bit more fearful that they are ruling us without our consent. This is all to the good. The government should fear the people. Not voting is a good beginning toward instilling that fear.” Thus, politicians must be much less tyrannical when voter turnout is low. Knowing that only a small minority supports them, they must be very moderate with their policies lest the people revolt.

And so, by not voting we send a radical message: that we reject the entire statist system, and will not settle for minor changes like a new hood ornament. But now we need a new strategy. Something that will attack the root of statism, while remaining radical and uncompromising. This strategy is secession.

Strategy: Secession

The right to secession is derived from the right to free association. Either the relationship between individual and government is voluntary and mutual, in which the “political bands” connecting them can be broken, or the relationship is involuntary and hegemonic, in which case the “political bands” should be broken. Anyone who rejects the right of secession must also advocate all forms of slavery. Thus, secession is an individual, unilateral, and unlimited right.

There are also strong consequentialist arguments in favor of secession. First, secession as political disintegration promotes economic integration. Because the new countries are smaller, they have stronger incentives to engage in free trade and to reject protectionism. For example, if New York City seceded and implemented high tariffs, they would starve within a week. But if New York opted for complete free trade they could undercut protectionist governments and dramatically increase New Yorkers’ prosperity. Moreover, as more and more cities become free and independent, there would be an incentive to switch to a common free market money, instead of having, say, 10,000 competing currencies. Thus, secession provides a direct impetus for free trade and economic integration.

Second, secession forces governments to be more moderate. On one hand, governments must be less tyrannical in order to prevent regions from breaking away. On the other hand, seceding regions must also be liberal to prevent emigration as well as further secessions. The prospect of productive citizens emigrating or seceding is a constant, devastating threat to governments, one which pressures them to tax less and show more respect for private property. Secession is a powerful tool which we can use to break down the modern Leviathan state and move toward a totally voluntary society.

Finally, along with non-voting, secession subverts and undermines the democratic process. The integrity of majority rule is violated when a minority threatens to secede rather than obey majority decisions. As Abraham Lincoln wrote: “The principle [of secession] itself is one of disintegration, and upon which no government can possibly endure”. Further, once the legitimacy of secession is granted, it opens up a Pandora’s Box of secessionist claims that cannot be rejected. Secession would have an exponential, snowball effect: Once Vermont secedes, Quebec’s secession will progress more smoothly, New York will become a free independent city, and on and on! This is why governments fear secession so much: once it starts, it can’t stop. Once one secession is granted, entire nation-states will crumble apart.

Thus, not voting and secession are two strategies we can use to rid the world of governments. Instead of going off to the polls, why not stay home and start planning a secession?