A number of “libertarians” argue that immigration restrictions are justified on the grounds that citizens may restrict access to public property as they see fit.
The idea that the main argument is about “restrictions on the use of public property” is a misinterpretation.
The existing populace of a country—excluding illegal immigrants—have the best libertarian claim to all “public” (state/government) property. They would own it all already but for the state. Therefore, all state-owned property should, as soon as possible, be distributed among the existing population on some sufficiently libertarian basis (perfect libertarian rectification being impossible). Maybe simply giving people shares to all state property and allowing people to trade them would work well enough. Only then should people be able to invite foreigners into their privately owned areas. And no one will have access to roads, libraries, airports, etc., without the permission of the relevant private owners. Arriving without evidence of invitation is likely to lead to denial of access and deportation.
If, in the current situation, foreigners are allowed unrestricted access to the country via state-owned roads, etc., then immigrants will inevitably keep arriving until the country is reduced to the level of poverty, disease, crime, etc., of the countries from which they are coming. They will thereby be hugely restricting the liberty of the indigenous population who have been denied their legitimate libertarian property rights. The situation is analogous with the state’s owning the doors, corridors, escalators, elevators, etc., of all buildings and then allowing everyone to have access to them.
Hence the initial privatisation scenario is about as libertarian as possible. But under the current system restriction of immigration is clearly more directionally libertarian than open borders. It is the confused open-border “libertarians” who merit the ironic quotation marks.
It seems very odd (if not deeply ironic) that Open Borders “libertarians” argue that state ownership of streets, roads, etc. somehow defaults to world ownership of natives’ property (i.e., communism) because we have yet to achieve a libertarian society. Even they must realize that under libertarianism immigration would not operate like Open Borders would operate under statism if all property were private. They are basically arguing that in the absence of full private property that the natives can’t do via de jure ownership what they would be able to do under full private property.
Yes, it would be great to see a debate on your immigration essay. This was the essay that changed my mind on Open Borders. In hindsight, I can see that, like many libertarians, my principled opposition to statism overall resulted in a knee-jerk reaction to state ownership of streets, roads, etc. such that I mistakenly concluded that the only correct libertarian policy was open borders. Again, the irony noted above, of assuming state ownership means that communism is the only answer to this statist situation.
"Suppose someone argues that the state may prevent immigrants from entering the US via public roads because immigrants will support non-libertarian policies."
If you argue that this can't be justified, how is that different from conceding that libertarianism as an ideology cannot protect itself? Maybe a libertarianism-prime is needed?
It's memetic warfare out there, you know. Out there meaning all the time, everywhere. The best ideas have to be self-protecting because they're the only ones that will endure. Paradox of intolerance yadda yadda.
The idea that the main argument is about “restrictions on the use of public property” is a misinterpretation.
The existing populace of a country—excluding illegal immigrants—have the best libertarian claim to all “public” (state/government) property. They would own it all already but for the state. Therefore, all state-owned property should, as soon as possible, be distributed among the existing population on some sufficiently libertarian basis (perfect libertarian rectification being impossible). Maybe simply giving people shares to all state property and allowing people to trade them would work well enough. Only then should people be able to invite foreigners into their privately owned areas. And no one will have access to roads, libraries, airports, etc., without the permission of the relevant private owners. Arriving without evidence of invitation is likely to lead to denial of access and deportation.
If, in the current situation, foreigners are allowed unrestricted access to the country via state-owned roads, etc., then immigrants will inevitably keep arriving until the country is reduced to the level of poverty, disease, crime, etc., of the countries from which they are coming. They will thereby be hugely restricting the liberty of the indigenous population who have been denied their legitimate libertarian property rights. The situation is analogous with the state’s owning the doors, corridors, escalators, elevators, etc., of all buildings and then allowing everyone to have access to them.
Hence the initial privatisation scenario is about as libertarian as possible. But under the current system restriction of immigration is clearly more directionally libertarian than open borders. It is the confused open-border “libertarians” who merit the ironic quotation marks.
https://jclester.substack.com/p/immigration-and-libertarianism
It seems very odd (if not deeply ironic) that Open Borders “libertarians” argue that state ownership of streets, roads, etc. somehow defaults to world ownership of natives’ property (i.e., communism) because we have yet to achieve a libertarian society. Even they must realize that under libertarianism immigration would not operate like Open Borders would operate under statism if all property were private. They are basically arguing that in the absence of full private property that the natives can’t do via de jure ownership what they would be able to do under full private property.
There is certainly some confusion. And only debate is likely to make progress in sorting it out.
Yes, it would be great to see a debate on your immigration essay. This was the essay that changed my mind on Open Borders. In hindsight, I can see that, like many libertarians, my principled opposition to statism overall resulted in a knee-jerk reaction to state ownership of streets, roads, etc. such that I mistakenly concluded that the only correct libertarian policy was open borders. Again, the irony noted above, of assuming state ownership means that communism is the only answer to this statist situation.
"Suppose someone argues that the state may prevent immigrants from entering the US via public roads because immigrants will support non-libertarian policies."
If you argue that this can't be justified, how is that different from conceding that libertarianism as an ideology cannot protect itself? Maybe a libertarianism-prime is needed?
It's memetic warfare out there, you know. Out there meaning all the time, everywhere. The best ideas have to be self-protecting because they're the only ones that will endure. Paradox of intolerance yadda yadda.
I love that you refer to these people as “libertarians“, and encourage you to continue doing so.