Open Borders Presupposes a State
I have been supremely amused by the back-and-forth going on lately among some voluntaryists/anarchists/what-have-you regarding the discussion of state borders.
It's certainly been a source of unending memery, and dank memes always brighten my day. To be honest, I hadn't given much thought to this particular issue, and I'll explain why, as I think it informs the discussion about advocating for open or closed borders. But first, let me offer this meme, which made me chortle earlier today:
I've been friends with Jared Howe for a little over a year now, and I've had the pleasure of being on his podcast, along with being on Dave Painter's and Merrick Van Landingham's. They're great minds, all of them, especially Merrick who I've had fantastic discussions about the rise of the US state in the 20th century, but recently, Jared was essentially called a statist and a Nazi in a couple of instances because he dared suggest that a state that practices an inclusive, or open, border policy is more harmful than one that practices an exclusive, or closed, border policy.
Naturally, I had to scratch my head at what was going on. Jared's points have always been made from a solid logical foundation, so if he was arguing that one thing was worse than the other, surely there was something to it.
What I found scrolling through the multitude of comments lead me to realize that it wasn't that others necessarily had a problem with the logical underpinnings of whether or not open borders were more harmful than closed borders. What it seemed to me was that the people that were shouting him down (and who have since gone on to make some pretty fantastic memes that have increased his visibility) were making two critical mistakes:
- either forgetting or ignoring that preferences are ranked ordinally, not nominally
- advocating for open borders presupposes the existence of men and women calling themselves government and exercising a territorial monopoly, which, for the purposes of this article I'll refer to simply as "the state."
To the first point, I've seen a multitude of comments that equate having a preference for a state the exercises an inclusive border policy to having a state at all. This is, of course, utterly false. One can have a preference for a state or not, but if an argument presupposes the existence of a state, then the preferences discussed therein relate solely to that presupposition. If the argument allows for the non-existence of the state, then naturally I, as well as Jared, would prefer there be no state at all. To think of it another way, one could consider ordinal preferences in the form of if, then statements. The most preferable is for there to be no state. If there is a state, then the most preferable policy with regard to its borders is to make them exclusive. Saying that a state with exclusive borders is preferable is equivalent to saying a state is preferable is disingenuous at best.
To the second point, I've had this conversation with multiple people myself with regards to open/closed borders, aside from the multitude of comments I've read across the intertubes. Open borders presupposes that the state exists. Let me explain what that means in terms of the discussion. Just about all of the people I've had this discussion with agree that the most preferable state of affairs is for the state not to exist, and we have no disagreement on this point. We also agree that the state is just a group of men and women claiming a territorial monopoly absent the consent of all the people within that territory, and that its borders are arbitrary lines on a map, not real barriers to movement. We also agree that the only legitimate borders are those of justly acquired private property. So then where does the confusion come from? It comes from people claiming that an open border negates the power of the state to enforce border policies, or somehow negates the state itself.
That couldn't possibly be the case, because arguing that the state should open borders and not restrict movement necessarily presupposes that the state exercises a territorial monopoly and uses force to control its borders. For state borders to be open, there necessarily have to be state borders. If they allowed free movement unopposed, that wouldn't change anything; the state would still exercise territorial monopoly and exercise authority over its borders. Moreover, in practicing an inclusive policy, the state would necessarily have to exercise a greater degree of private property violation in order to ensure the borders remained open. Otherwise, individuals or private firms could simply purchase up the assets and land necessary for the free movement of people and establish a defacto closed border, thereby negating the state's border policy.
The only way that the open/closed border debate makes any sense is if it presupposes a state with borders exists. If you're arguing that state borders are illegitimate, arbitrary lines on a map, you'll get no argument from me; they are. However, if you're trying to argue that a state should open its borders because those borders are illegitimate or that it's preferable because states borders don't exist, it presupposes that a state still maintains a territorial monopoly and thus has borders that it can open. Otherwise, what borders are you arguing should be open?
So how about you and I focus on abolishing the state, rather than arguing that ordinal preferences are the same as nominal preferences or pretending that one can simultaneously argue the state exists and doesn't exist.
Follow my blog here for more articles like this as well as a plethora of fiction work. I've been off the radar for a while for National Novel Writing Month, but I'm back in full swing. As always, upvotes, comments, and resteems are appreciated!
Andrei Chira is a vaper, voluntaryist, and all-around cool dude. Formerly a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division, he now spends his time between working at VapEscape in Montgomery County, Alabama, contributing to Seeds of Liberty on Facebook and Steemit, writing short fiction, and expanding his understanding of...well, everything, with an eye on obtaining a law degree in the future.
The existence of borders that are enforced restricts the freedom of movement of individuals. The existence of the state is irrelevant. If you assume a state then borders need only be enforced against aggression.
The issue of open or closed misses the real problem, state welfare payments. You can be in favor of open borders and ending tax payment to everyone in "need".
I don't disagree with any of what you've said. My article shouldn't be taken to present an argument in favor of one position over the other. However, in what I've read thus far regarding this line of debate, there have been a number of people that equate a preference for a state with closed borders to a preference for a state, and they're not the same thing. This is especially true when the conversation presupposes the existence of the state in the first place, which any conversation about state borders necessarily does.
I think there should be a wall around California...after all what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
NO.
I think there should be a wall around Orange County...after all , what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
NO...WAIT..
I think there should be a wall around Long Beach.
After all...what's good for the goose,
........
I don't understand what you're getting at.
No?
If one political entity cal wall it's boundaries then why not all of them?
NOT that I think that's such a bad idea, good fences make good neighbors, BUT.
the logic remains.
If you want one you should also be in favor of the other.
Once again, my preference is for no state enforcing arbitrary lines. My ultimate preference is for the abolition of the state, reverting everything to private property, which one should necessarily advocate and support exclusive borders for. I don't want a state at all.
Vernor vinge style Armadillos? Yeah...I can go with that.
I don't understand the relevance of Italian city-states to this conversation.
(6 nest limit)
Ok
reverting everything to private property? Huh?
There was all-mans-land. Then there was the state (or whatever kingly entity passed as state) and THEN there was private property. The first private property (of land) WAS the kings lands. Thats where the idea of private property, apart from "things I use every day" originates from.
So you can cannot "revert everything" to private property.
Of course you can. Your body is private property. You exercise sole control over it. Same goes for land you homestead. And any other property you exercise sole control over. Private property predates the state, as people predate the state.
(answer to your previous comment)
You can only held something private FROM. If there is no from, then there is no private. Someone had to start making land their own FROM everyone else, and that was the king. Before that, the land was everyones. That sort of property was (partly) existent in the western world until the great enclosures (an expansion of privately owned land into the Commons) in England, dating just 200 years back ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure_Acts ) and similar moves in other countries.
[a few years after the well-kown Magna Carta of England, which was about the rights of the aristocrats, there was a lesser known document about the rights of the common people, explicitly stating some rights for common land]
In several parts of the world you still find land that belongs to no person, but to a (changing) group based on the fact that they "use it daily".
Private land was first land that was taken from this everyones land - you can even see it in the words, as the latin privare means "to rob".
Yes. Such as your body, which you hold private from everyone else in using it. That private, or exclusive use, property changes hands does not mean that it's anything other than private. If you homestead a piece of land, that land is private. You exercise exclusive control over it. This is the case without a state.
A piece of land cannot simultaneously be under the control of two competing individuals simultaneously. Coincidentally, that's where the tragedy of the commons arises from.
"Coincidentally, that's where the tragedy of the commons arises from."
No, the tragedy of the Commons originates in Hardins misunderstanding. Because what he wrote about was the tragedy of the untended commons, or in modern words, no commons at all.
Hardin described a land where there was no rules (or no control of those rules), which is the opposite of what a commons constitutes. He decribes a land that everyone treated as his uncontrolled private property (both no access control and no "dont do bad things" control) and so it failed. Rivalry.
In a commons (cooperation) there are rules, given and enforced by everyone. A commons is always the continued process of managing it together with each other. There is no commons without commoning. Which is especially true to those commons that arent something you can touch like land or the sea (where, currently, there is no commons, just lots of state and private actors who dont have rules that are enforcable or respected by everyone - such the overfishing).
If you are interested in commons, search for books from Silke Helfrich. The 2 Commons books have a big set of diverse articles.
Fair enough, and I'll happily walk back that last statement until I read through that material. I have a fairly basic understanding of the commons, enough to get by, so I can always stand to learn more.
However, that does nothing to invalidate anything I said about private property. Exercising exclusive control over a resource, such as a parcel of land, your body, or virtually anything else, constitutes private ownership. This does not require nor presuppose a state existing in order to occur.
en mur runt california
...wait what?
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about and upvote to support linkback bot v0.5. Flag this comment if you don't want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts.
Built by @ontofractal
Thanks for clearing up the implications of advocating for open borders. I hadn't thought about it before this big "controversy" between anarchists. I just assumed that open borders meant not enforcing imaginary lines in the dirt, and that the non-enforcement would NOT legitimize the fiction of state authority.
Which is a common false equivalency that I've seen others make. I'm glad I could offer some illumination on the subject though! Glad I could help :)