On Borders and Anarchist Nationalism

The fighting rages on between “anarchists” and anarchists. How will we ever move forward?

Since the election of soon-to-be President Donald Trump on November 8th, a strange (or familiar?) phenomenon has appeared within some anarchist circles. There appears to be a debate about borders and whether they ought to be “open” or “closed.” I must admit that this is somewhat surprising to me – to hear people calling themselves “anarchists” while also arguing entirely statist positions, admittedly within the context of statism.

This makes no sense to me, so let me elaborate a bit on what I’m seeing.

States and Their Borders

One of the first principles of anarchism that I assumed all anarchists agreed on is this:

Coercive government (the “state”) is immoral and illegitimate.

Anarchists want to abolish the state, or to at least see it fail and collapse. From whatever perspective they’re viewing the actions of the state, it is agreed that the state is detrimental to a free, prosperous society. Taxes, wars, drug laws, licensing, border enforcement – these are all things where a state has no legitimate authority. So, why is there even a debate about borders and why they should be open or closed? As an anarchist, it is indeed a strange topic for debate.

From what I have gathered, the argument goes something like this:

The state exists. Since the state exists and will continue to exist into the foreseeable future, we must decide on whether we prefer the state’s borders to be opened or closed. This preference should be based on how it affects us as individuals and taxpayers of the state in question.

The first thing that comes to mind is – what anarchist would argue a position like this? What anarchist that truly understands the nature of coercive government and the subjective value/preferences of individuals would make an argument about accepting a state as the given and making claims about what one’s preferences ought to be? This type of argument is not based on any anarchist principles or philosophy that I’ve seen.

Yes, you can argue about what you prefer as an individual anarchist, but the legitimacy of your position depends on whether or not your solution is consistent with your anarchist philosophical principles. So, let’s take a brief look at the two “solutions” proposed.

Closed Borders

The argument here is that, as individual property owners and taxpayers, closed borders should be your first preference. Closing the state’s borders will protect your property and your “investment” (taxes – or, wealth stolen from the state) from foreign invaders.

From any anarchist perspective, this is absurd. Arbitrary claims of geographical boundaries are illegitimate. Impeding free movement is illegitimate. Taxes are illegitimate. The state itself – which is nothing more than violent coercion – is illegitimate. So, how can an anarchist that allegedly opposes all of these things on principle suddenly claim that the first preference ought to be for all of these things to exist or continue to exist?

A closed border necessitates a state – and a more powerful one at that. It would require (more and stricter) laws to try to prevent individuals from crossing the arbitrary borders. It would require (further) impeding one’s right to travel freely. It would require (more) personnel and (more) equipment. It would require (more) taxation.

More coercive government, more stolen wealth, less freedom. This is not an anarchist solution. This actually should not be the preference of an individual who values liberty and opposes statism – even if we are to assume that statism is here to stay. Theft and violence should never be the more preferable option. If that is your preferred choice, then you’re likely not an anarchist.

Well, yeah, but we’re talking about “ordinal” preferences.

Good for you. I’m talking about anarchy. Your ordinal preferences for statist polices don’t apply.

Open Borders

The argument for open borders – according to those claiming that closed borders should be preferred – is that opening a state border is equally oppressive, only the oppressed are the private landowners and taxpayers instead of everyone. This position requires one to assume that every person entering the society with the open borders is only there to take advantage of the wealth amassed by property owners and to drain the state’s welfare coffers.

They say that preferring open borders actually requires an appeal to the state to control those borders. Practically speaking, an “open border” stance is a rejection of arbitrarily defined and controlled state borders. So, preferring that the state does not violently control such arbitrary lines in the dirt on unowned land is not an appeal for the state to control arbitrary lines in the dirt on unowned land. In other words – to try to equate no border enforcement with violent border enforcement is absolutely ridiculous.

It is further argued that the open borders will drain property owners and taxpayers of their wealth by not only increasing the size of the state for keeping the borders open (which is a bizarre twist of reality itself), but by also increasing the size of welfare programs and moving the state more towards collectivist ideologies due to the influx of those seeking free handouts. All of this assumes that large amounts of people will move into said geographical area, that they will be adherents to collectivist ideologies, and that they will be poor and wanting handouts.

All in all, the stance against open borders relies on assumptions about behaviors that are then opposed in order to state the closed border preference – which would violently prevent such undesirable people from entering “their” land. And the purpose of all of this is to allegedly protect the solvency of the state and those who pay taxes. Rather than maintain the opposition to the illegitimate welfare distribution of the state – and the state itself – that principled position is tossed out for some sort of pragmatic nationalism.

Taxes are bad. Arbitrary borders are bad. Restricting or impeding the right to travel is bad. Violent coercion is bad. The state is bad.

A violently coercive state that increases taxes and its authority and restricts or prevents travel across its arbitrary borders in order to protect its taxpayers and continue existing is...

Good?

No. Not if you’re an anarchist.

Speaking of Nationalism...

This debate about borders either began with the nationalist vs. globalist argument, or it has simply morphed into that. I don’t care enough to look into it, but I do want to point out the absurdity of this argument as well.

There seems to be an argument that nationalism is preferable to globalism because it’s much easier to resist and take down a government in a smaller geographical area than in a larger one – that governments in larger areas are more oppressive than those in smaller ones. Again, this is just another poor argument that ignores principles and reality.

First of all, both nationalist and globalist statism is immoral and illegitimate. Trying to draw a meaningful distinction between them is just a waste of time. And it’s also outside the realm of any practical anarchist argument. Both should be opposed on principle.

Which do you prefer? Coercive nationalism, or coercive globalism?

Neither. Why are you even asking? Is this a real thing? As an anarchist, do I really need to choose? How stupid.

Well, you should prefer nationalist coercive government because it’s smaller and easier to control or resist.

Oh, really? So, you’re telling me that the Canadian government is more oppressive and harder to control or resist than the North Korean government? That the Australian government was more oppressive or harder to resist than Nazi Germany? Size has nothing to do with it, neither in geographical area nor population. So, no – nationalism is not “better” by default. There’s absolutely no need to draw a distinction between nationalism or globalism based on the geographical size of their influence.

Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the choice is between a globalist libertarian/minarchist state or several dozen nationalist totalitarian states. Which would you prefer? A local totalitarian dictatorship or global libertarianism? If you would prefer the local dictatorship because it’s smaller, then you’re probably not a very smart person and you’re surely not “pragmatic.”

What Happened to Principles?

Principles ostensibly go out the window when people are jockeying for position in social media. When there is an influx of new potential readers and followers due to further state shenanigans and disenchantment with politics, there seems to be an immediate response to this that involves appealing to the statist tendencies of these new readers and followers. But softening one’s stance on anarchist principles and appealing to these statist notions defeats the entire purpose of anarchist ideas and principles in the first place.

The need to be loved and to increase one’s following in social media apparently trumps principles and integrity. When people are disenchanted and angry, that’s the time to throw the wrench into their inconsistent ideological principles and give them an alternative. That’s not the time to pretend to be an alternative while simply reinforcing their statist, nationalist beliefs just because you want them to be a fan.

So, if you’re one of those anarchists who decided to take up the statist argument about borders and nationalism and are now fighting with other anarchists about their preferences...

Well, I honestly don’t even know where to go with that. Read that sentence again and perhaps you’ll see what the problem is. If you’re an anarchist, you know what the solution is not. Let’s all start over from there, shall we?

Or maybe you want to tell me how stupid and wrong I am. Do as you please. The comments are open.

---

*Images are from Pixabay. No attribution necessary.

Follow me: @ats-david