Build a Wall – Borders in Free Societies

The debate over open borders vs. restricted borders has been a popular debate since the emergence of Trump on the political scene. Regardless of the merits or morality of a wall, Trump struck a nerve during the 2016 political season, which ultimately propelled him to victory. Predictably, members of the elites from both parties were against the proposal. Democrat leadership oppose the wall because they want more poor immigrants to join the ranks of reliable serfs, helplessly dependent on government handouts.

Ironically enough, Republican leadership oppose the wall because they want more poor immigrants working as serfs for big business. Despite opposition from the media and every political figure, the idea of a wall was exceptionally popular with low-income voters, regardless of political affiliation. For libertarians, however, the issue split across the left-right divide in the movement. So the question is, would a free society have borders?

Concordia

In the book, Concordia, there must be a better way, the issue of borders comes up several times. In one specific scenario, physical removal of those wishing to subvert the society is addressed, which is similar to the removal proposed by the great libertarian philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Despite the controversy surrounding Hoppe (see below), this point is fairly straight forward to address. Aside from the removal of subversive people, like militant Communists, would a free society have borders? More specifically, would just about anybody be able to move into a free society?

The obvious, and naïve, answer is no, a free society would not have borders. Borders are nothing more than imaginary lines. A free society is only possible with complete freedom of movement. Anything less than that would not be free. As good as that logic sounds, it misses some important points.

Culture

Imagine a world completely free of governments and borders. People could do as they please and move anywhere they like. Would that be universally desirable? Would every community across the entire global be content with zero constraints? Remember, in this completely fictional place, there are no governments at all and, therefore, state identity would be gone. However, people of the world would still have many cultural differences. Without state identities, various cultural attributes like religion, language, dialects, and ethnicity would become socially more important.

Unless you think shared culture is irrelevant, it should be obvious that groups of culturally similar people would find ways to restrict mass migrations. In a free society, it unlikely that the solution would take the form of a physical border. However, there are other options available, like covenant communities which require shared cultural values. Scaled up to regional geography, there are no limits on the types of groups, communities and organization that would exist to reinforce the area’s culture. And without government to stop these from existing, it is safe to assume that these restrictions would organically emerge.

As an example, Japan has one the most homogeneous populations on the Earth. In a world without governments, would the people on these islands embrace the idea of mass migration from China or India? Migration on the margins would likely be accepted everywhere, but migration to the point of changing an area’s culture would be unacceptable in most parts of the world, not just Japan. Just imagine large groups of atheists moving into Mecca or Jerusalem. It should be obvious that with or without government, local communities would not welcome these immigrants in large numbers.

Charity

Another issue would be public welfare. Let’s continue with the assumption that government no longer exists. Without government handouts, charity would fill the basic needs of the poor. In fact, without the Leviathan sucking away so much wealth, it is likely that private charity would do a better job of helping those in need. However, even with plenty of righteous donors, a geographic area would still have constraints around the number of poor dependents. With no borders or governments, people could live anywhere they want. Since most people need a place to live, highly desirable locations would naturally limit movements of people with expensive property prices.

However, for those that live on the street, property values are irrelevant. It is reasonable to assume that really nice, desirable areas will attract needy people in large numbers, especially the homeless. Unlike migrants from different cultures, these migrants would share all the same values and culture. On the margins, locals would tolerate these migrants, maybe even welcome them.

However, even with a charitable population, there are limits to the number of dependent people. Additional dependents necessarily reduce the money available to the local needy. There are plenty of solutions available to solve this problem, like limiting charity to residents or those with jobs. The main point is that even without physical borders, forces would exist to limit migration, effectively acting like soft borders.

Borders

Speaking of borders, a world with NO government will not happen anytime soon, maybe not ever. What about a free society in a mixed world? Even if a libertarian nation emerged, there is no reason to believe that neighboring nations would remove their borders. In fact, neighboring counties may strengthen borders since contraband would be readily available in the free society. It is likely that with strengthened borders, movement across those borders would be more difficult. Just think of how many people would make round trips to obtain cheap drugs or guns in the free society. The easiest way for neighboring countries to cut down on contraband would be to limit people coming and going.

Removal

And the final issue to address is removal. Regardless of how benevolent a society is, there will always be people that oppose it. No society will stand the test of time while allowing large opposition groups to organize, like communists, monarchists, theocrats, socialists, fascists, etc. Without borders to limit the arrival of these groups, some sort of removal process must be in place. Otherwise, the free society would ultimately revert to some form of statism. The most peaceful form of removal is exile. You can live anywhere you like, just not here. Jail is another option, but hardly compatible with a free society.

Any time Hoppe comes up, it creates controversy. Of course, he brought that on himself by including homosexuals in the category of people to remove. I will quote directly from Democracy: The God that Failed:

There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They — the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism — will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

Hoppe

I hope that this article makes it clear that even in a libertarian society, people will group together to create concentrations of like-minded people. But why Hoppe is against homosexuals is beyond me. Same with hedonism or nature worship. I see no reason why freedom is incompatible with these lifestyles. In fact, it is likely that some of the first covenant communities would be for alternative lifestyles. Perfect examples are inner-city, gay neighborhoods. Gays move to these areas in high concentrations to better organize, and more importantly, run local governments. To further back my example, these areas prominently display flags (pride flags) to clearly denote the local culture.

But just because Hoppe goes off the deep end, it does not invalidate the rest of his works. Hoppe seems to be a lightening rod in the liberty movement, but he shouldn’t be. No doubt that people will have issues with some of his ideas. Instead of completely writing him off, however, you should read his books with an open mind, because he covers so many important topics.

Conclusion

Every nation has borders. Some are easier to cross than others, but all them exist to assert national sovereignty. No nation has or ever will allow unlimited migration. It simply won’t happen. So the real question is whether or not libertarians should advocate for open borders and whether closed borders are incompatible with liberty. I hope that I’ve made it clear that even in a stateless world forces would exist that resemble borders (aka soft borders).

Further, I believe borders are compatible with liberty. In fact, the right to exclude is a fundament right of a free society. Without some type of exclusion, a free society would eventually be subverted by communists, socialists, fascists, and/or foreign saboteurs.

Finally, I believe advocating for open borders is a failed and counter productive strategy. Libertarians should not embrace Trump’s ridiculous ideal of building a wall, but they should get out of the purist mindset and understand that open borders are deeply unpopular with average people. It should be obvious that American elites want more immigrants. It is the role of a dissident party to oppose mainstream elites, or at the very least, not carry water for them. It is time to dump the idea of open borders and embrace the ideas of Hoppe.