Walter Block on Immigration

[@DheerajBhaskar]

It's despicable what's happening in cologne, Germany and Sweden. I hope those communities are able to deal with these issues soon

[@Manuel-qu3tc]

I was wondering why the Mises Institute doesn't put Block videos on immigration. He has videos on everything except immigration.

[@halitozgur6166]

As a libertarian myself, I would like to ask the proponents of closed borders (borders around nations or countries) how these borders will be determined, and more importantly, who will it be determined and maintained by. No matter how many racist and discriminatory brain gymnastics you do, the answer is clear and simple: THE STATE. Just because accepting immigrants or some other "woke" ideology is the status quo, does not mean it is wrong. When it comes to Hoppe's "argument", in both movements of investment and goods, people are exchanging things that they OWN. When it comes to the land that we call Switzerland or some other piece of land, the immigrants that come along are free to utilize and homestead the parts that are not owned by someone else or buy the said parts. If Hoppe or other proponents of closed borders ever so slightly claim that Switzerland or some other country is collectively owned, they are no longer libertarians, but mere statists because the current statist system suggests that we should simply leave our land and property if we do not pay taxes and follow their rules. Stop sympathizing with Nazis and ruining the image of liberty.

[@aaapn]

I agree with Block, but we must also realise the truth of the situation. Privatising everything is the ultimate goal for sure, but that isn't happening any time soon (sorry for demoralising, but that's how it is). In the mean time, we must make sure that our western states (and even non-western but still generally freedom loving societies like Japan) maintain our homogeneity and we must not let in more migrants who usually vote for more social democracy and also cause more societal conflicts. ”But the state doesn't have a right to the land it owns, so border enforcement would break the NAP.” I see this point, but assume the state lets them in. That means that the state will pay public services and welfare (both of which they tend to use a lot) for them and also the increased security cost which often comes with the crime that migration brings. So the NAP will be brokes whether closed OR open borders. That is my take. ps. Sorry for my bad English, not my first language.

[@Aman-fv3yh]

proof of societal conflicts by immigrants? Homogenous countries voted for war, the federal reserve, the war on drugs etc. if that's the case we end welfare, there is no proof the immigrants commit more crime than natives, the state has no right to remove someone for simply being in the country that's not a violation of Libertarian principle

[@FrankHarwald]

Privately owned & managed borders is he only principled libertarian position on immigration.

[@ryon3989]

do those borders extend up to the sky and down to the centre of the earth?

[@SlavaU-ug7st]

Private property means discrimination means no open borders. The idea of open borders can come to smb's mind only in the situation when the owner is not well-defined.

[@garytarbell]

In a fully privatized civilization, possibly. That assumes it's impossible for a voluntary society to include any commons, whether explicitly owned privately or not. And if owned privately, it assumes that the owner would always find it advantageous to control migration across those privately held thoroughfares. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. We don't live in a voluntary society. And however imperfect it is to have "public" commons, we know for a FACT that those public spaces are NOT a proxy for the private property rights of the citizenry. At least I hope we can agree that they're not such a proxy, because if they were, then we would be forced to accept the legitimacy of ANY collectively (democratically) determined public policies.... Like, say gun control. If you object to gun control in these public spaces, it's because you acknowledge that people have no legitimate authority to set policies for the pubic that they do in fact have the authority to set on their own private property. You can exclude gun possession in your home. You cannot do so in public, at least according to all mores of libertarian ideology. So of course common thoroughfares and spaces would be better managed by private owners. And of course they would have full autonomy to set any restrictions they desire. But that in no way rationalizes one particular blanket policy set for common holdings that are not proxies for anyone's private property. That suggests that the most exclusionary policy favored by one demographic is necessarily superior to the least exclusionary policy favored by a different demographic. And that precedent would mean the most restrictive controls on people's choices in public would be superior. That doesn't just hold for immigration, gun control, drug possession, seat belt laws, free speech, and assembly, it also follows for public mask mandates and VaxPorts. If the restrictive policy is the default, then it's the default for everything that concerns any member of that political identity.

[@FrankHarwald]

Indeed, discrimination means the owners can choose whom to allow in or whom not. & private property means they need to finance the borders also.

[@abhimanyukarnawat7441]

Close borders is the only libertarian position that is low time preference.

[@vlad3192]

Close borders - where? Who decides it. Its all guff. There is no “we the people”

[@JosephGamacheKD0AHS]

Keep up the great content!

[@SacrumImperiumRomanum]

Many thanks

[@donha475]

Walter - I love this guy... But kinda dodging the question. I want to know if UNDER THE CURRENT DURESS OF THE STATE AND WELFARE SYSTEM... Does he vote FOR or AGAINST OPEN BOARDERS?? that is the ultimate question. and why? - In my view it becomes a much more pragmatic question about what will result in more future liberty. Voting is okay in my books because it is under duress. You might as well vote for less evil rather than just boycott.

[@SacrumImperiumRomanum]

I think he'd agree with me in that closed borders would be preferable but that radical decentralisation must be top of the agenda in order for it to mean anything in the long run.

[@donha475]

The way I see it. The order in which you dismantle the state does actually matter. If you open the border before removal of the welfare state ==> chaos. The opposite direction. Much less of an issue because free, prosperous, productive societies have a natural barrier to immigration of backward cultures... Everything in said free society seems (relatively) really really expensive to outsiders unless they bring with them marketable talents / intelligence and cultural values that do not result in social exclusion. And in a society where discrimination of any kind is not technically an NAP violation you get a result where only the best kinds of immigrants that customers at large want more of.

[@garytarbell]

@@donha475 Since when has any nation with a strongly enforced border also progressed toward more social and econonic liberty? Closed borders and tyranny go hand in hand exactly because giving the state such profound power is a precedent in favor of all state power.

[@garytarbell]

@@donha475 And apparently your answer is to go full tyranny by closing the border and keeping the welfare state. That sounds so libertarian. 🙄

[@garytarbell]

@@donha475 And I love how I can see your original post before editing when you realized it was BS. Of course the US went a century before creating immigration restrictions.

[@Manuel-qu3tc]

Also regarding whether closed borders is a view hold by many respected libertarians. The answer is clearly no. Absent Rothbard who is of course the most eminent closed border libertarian, nobody else except Hoppe and then non-important libertarians hold this view. If it weren't for Rothbard, closed borders wouldn't even be an issue at all for the lib movement. Hoppe is important but compared to Rothbard, Hayek, Mises, Rand, he's a total nobody.

[@thetruth7614]

Ron Paul? Lew Rockwell? Mises? Hayek was even skeptical over completely open borders.

[@Aman-fv3yh]

@@thetruth7614 Mises was pro open borders. majority of Libertarians are open borders