Disclaimer: This article is an overview of a political debate. Views and opinions presented in this article are not necessarily mine.

Before ending the welfare state, should national borders be open or closed?

One of the things that many libertarians and anarchists disagree on is the question whether a country's borders should be opened or closed before ending the welfare state. Both sides of the debate have valid concerns about the issue. On the one hand, obstructing of a person's freedom of movement is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle, since we all more or less agree that the state is illegitimate and, therefore, so are its borders. On the other hand, while theft (taxation) is happening, it is immoral to let other people partake in various state programs without contributing to it themselves.

So, it seems that, according to the Non-Aggression Principle, both sides of the argument are correct. However, a choice has to be made in order to move forward.

Close the borders first?

There are a number of reasons why closing the borders would be better before ending the welfare state. First of all, the economic argument is that the people who contribute to the welfare state should only be able to benefit from said welfare. It is one thing that the government steals money through taxation, but it's even worse when other people are free to take that money if they wish. Second, the political argument is that most (economic) immigrants tend to vote for the left, which will only increase government power and involvement in the socioeconomic sphere. Third, the cultural argument would be that Western civilization gave birth to the welfare state. Therefore, it is uncertain whether many people with other cultural backgrounds entering the West at once will be sustainable for the welfare system.

All together, this side of the debate has some very solid arguments. Now, let's take a look at the other side of the debate.

Keep the borders open?

On the other hand, one might argue that keeping the borders open will help us end the welfare state. The economic argument for this view is that, eventually, the welfare state will not be sustainable anymore, because more people will want to benefit from it rather than contribute to it. Therefore, the state will have to end its social programs all together. Secondly, the political argument for this view is that, as I pointed out earlier, the state's borders are illegitimate from an anarchist perspective and this people should be free to move wherever they please, except through private property of others. Thirdly, the cultural argument is that it doesn't matter what culture a person has, as long as he/she adheres to the Non-Aggression Principle.

So, we have seen that both sides of the argument have very valid points.

The only way to move forward is to end the state all together

So, what do we do? There are two possibilities now. Either we can keep debating about this forever without achieving anything, or we can actually take action to end the state. The most probable way to see some change is when we stop arguing all the time and take action on the fronts we all agree on: that is ending the state all together. This means decreasing its power and influence in any way possible. Decentralization is one way to stop this, which would mean transferring power from the federal level to state level (and from EU to all separate nation states in Europe). Another way to achieve this is through agorism: exchanging goods and services on the grey market, so that the state can't take a cut from the transactions that happen.

There are plenty more ways to achieve this. For example check out the @corbettreport, who has a whole series of solutions documented on his website. This is just one example. Please let us know in the comments below if you have some more!

--> Click here if you want me to make a cool banner for YOUR profile!

--> Previous post: Why you should trade on the Steemit internal market

--> Thumbnail source: cnsnews.com