Article Image

IPFS News Link • Immigration

Libertarianism Has Only One Position on Immigration

•, by Jacob G. Hornberger

That claim, however, is false and fallacious. Libertarianism is an internally consistent philosophy. It does not embrace contradictions. It's either one or the other.

So, given that the controlled-borders position and the open-borders position are opposite to each other, how do we determine which one is the true libertarian position?

There are three ways:

The most important way is to determine which position is consistent with the libertarian non-aggression principle. That's the principle that holds that it is morally wrong to initiate force against a human being.

A border is nothing more than an artificial line that delineates political jurisdictions. Sometimes it's possible to easily identify the line — for example, when a river forms the border between two states (e.g., Maryland and Virginia) or two nations (e.g., the United States and Mexico). Other times, it is impossible to see the border. Oftentimes, people cross from one state to another not realizing that they have crossed a border until they see a sign that says, "Welcome to the state of Nevada."

1 Comments in Response to

Comment by dslyoga
Entered on:

As great as Jacob Hornberger is, I think his position is flawed. Hans Herman Hoppe, an equally superior libertarian philosopher, points this out: If libertarian philosophy was fully implemented in America, ALL property, including on the Borders, would be private property. Therefore, NO ONE could cross an American border without going into private property. So they would require an invitation from the property owner for the potential immigrant to cross into the owner’s property. Otherwise, they would be trespassing. Whatever penalties for trespassing in that area would apply. So Open Borders would be limited by the Common Law Private Property Laws in their area.

Free Talk Live