If we look at the history of legal philosophy, we see many legal “philosophers“ whose approach to law and morality was reversed. They started with the position that the “government” is allowed to do everything, and then they tried to narrow down what the “government” is not allowed to do. Take Lon L. Fuller for instance, while the man was right in his criticism of the theory of legal positivism, instead of reaching the correct conclusions that the “government” is no more than a gang of criminals and that taxation is theft, Fuller came up with 8 rules or requirements that would make the justice system somewhat less evil. Fuller's 8 rules do not limit the “government” or prevent the “government” from doing evil, they just describe some absurdities that had “governments” made, people would stop believing in them.
Fuller's rules do not prevent the “government” from telling you what you can and cannot put in your body, but they do tell that the “government” cannot pass a law and say that it's applicable in the past. So the “government” shouldn’t punish us for breaking a law in the past, before it was “enacted”. According to Fuller’s amazing ethical insight, the “government” should not say that drinking coffee is illegal, and throw all the people to prison just because they were drinking coffee before the law was passed, but it i still ok for the “government” to start throwing people to prison now. This is why we end up with so many bad laws, this is why we end up with the war on drugs, the war on drivers and the war on businesses.
So when it comes to open borders advocates, I see people that are using the correct methodology. They do not hasten to use violence to resolve social problems. They reject the urge to use violence based solutions even at the price of coming up with solutions that are not so desirable. Had anarchists used the reverse methodology they would never actually advocate Anarchy, and they would have never found practical ways to explain how roads can be paved without robbing people to fund them.
If I say “I'm an anarchist, I don't want violence to be used for anything”, can I disagree with a minarchist on taxation and roads, but then turn and say “there’s just one thing for which I advocate violence for: borders”? If I do just that, the minarchist will say that he wants violence just to maintain safety on the roads, he want “traffic rules”. How can I prove that he’s wrong and I’m right? I’m afraid of Invasion of hostile forces, and he’s afraid of traffic accidents. Someone else may be afraid of drugs, and want the police to use violence to prevent people from using drugs because he's afraid of the consequences of people using drugs around him. Someone might want a little bit of violence used to collect money to help the poor, as he is afraid no one will volunteer to help the poor. If all my justification for closed borders is “I’m afraid, and I want just a little bit of force” then I’m opening up the door for any statist position.
It is indeed really really difficult to justify the use of violence against innocent people, which is an inseparable part of having a border, and it is really really difficult to explain how it is actually consistent with being a voluntarist. The burden to justify and explain is on those who advocate for the violence and not for those who advocate for not using violence. As an advocate of closed borders, I take this burden on myself with full seriousness, and I’m ok with being called “fascist” and “statist” because adjectives don’t scare me. If I’m right, and borders are justifiable and needed, who cares what some people call me, and if I’m wrong, then at least I can say I tried.
I think it is possible to explain how it is justified and consistent with voluntaryist morality, and I take that burden on myself to explain it. I’ve explained the moral case in a conversation I had with Victor Pross about a month ago, and I did previously bother to explain how it can practically be made; how borders can be maintained in a way that is safe, and with minimal violation of the non-aggression principle, in a non-statist way, without using or ending up with a central authority. I did make a video explaining how borders can be maintained by free market competing security companies and not with government. Briefly, I’ll explain that the question of closed or open borders is NOT MERELY A QUESTION OF MORAL PRINCIPLE, but a question of PRACTICALITY, and all factors, circumstances and consequences have to be considered. So it’s absolutely sophism to narrow it down to “do you think it’s moral to beat someone up just for crossing an imaginary line?”.
I understand where open-borders advocates are coming from, and I think they are using the correct methodology. I am no longer angry at them when they call me “statist”, “fascist” or “psycho” and “criminal”, as I understand their frustration, anger and confusion. I can even justify it. They are following the correct methodology, and they just haven’t finished the process yet. If there actually is a way to provide regional security, safety from the demographic threat and social stability for the transitional period, then to find this way we need to keep rejecting violence based solutions. Who knows, maybe by rejecting violence now, these open borders advocates will one day find a way to a safe and ethical future for all of us.
Yes, they are silly right now, and they make us look silly too when they advocate something that they admit will put us at great risk, but I admire their willingness to look and even be silly in order to find the most ethical way people can live together. I’ve done it, I’ve been there too and this is the correct path to the truth. If we want to get to the truth we have to not be afraid to appear silly, or to be wrong.
However, at some point, if you don't find a peaceful solution to a problem resolved today by force, you may want to look into ways to resolve the problem with minimal and limited use of force. While the words "minimal" and "limited" make me cringe, as they remind me of the idiotic minarchist position, I still have to insist on those words as they define something important. Just because the minarchists use the word "minimal" to describe something that grows like cancer, and "limited" to describe the idea that a piece of paper can defend against a gang of criminals -- it doesn't mean that when I or anyone else use those words - we are immediately wrong.
So yes, half the freedom movement is being stupid at the moment, and some of them have gone completely insane, but that is not to say that the freedom movement is dead; it's not. It's going through a process. I myself was going through that exact process a few years ago, so I know what I'm talking about. Most of them will catch up, in time, and see that unlike roads, hospitals, education and conflict resolution -- the issue of borders cannot be resolved without a minimal breach of the NAP. Until they do, we should be happy that they keep calling us “stupid”, “fascists”, “statists”, “psychos” and “criminals”.
Non aggression is central to our ideology and it would be really bad if someone was to quickly let go of it. I remember when I first discovered voluntaryism, I had to rethink everything from paving the roads to helping the poor and jailing the criminals. I had to resist the urge to coming up with the same old answer, and look for a new one that includes neither centralized “authority” nor aggression. If anarchists were to lightly and quickly answer “aha! using aggression we solve this!” about this or the other issue, this would pave the road for the statist to also do that for everything else. Coming up with alternative, non-violent solutions requires rejecting the violent ones initially.
However, unlike the issues or roads, hospitals, education and conflict resolution - the issue of borders is not an issue between individuals in a free society, but an issue between individuals in a free society and individuals from non free societies. It’s about how to deal with armies, covert infiltration and even peaceful well-meaning statist who are part of a massive wave of immigration. If we’re looking at the question of immigration into our currently non-free society, it is even more complicated as there is the risk of economic collapse due to the nature of the welfare state, and the risk of a demographic takeover of the “government”.
Nevertheless, it is the correct methodology which the open borders advocate take -- to first reject using the existing solutions or anything that resembles them -- and it will take them time to arrive at the correct answer, if there is a correct answer, or a reasonable answer to the question of borders. Borders now, and in the future. Yes, they sound completely insane at the moment when they suggest we, here in Israel for example, stop preventing Muslims from coming in and take millions of Muslims in - to the point where non-Muslims become a minority. It is only natural and good even for many voluntaryists to accept this “solution” and to not give up the most important principle that easy. It is also natural for more than 2 billion Muslims to like this open borders “solution”.
For those who reasoned it though and figured out that the current circumstances do not allow moral principles to apply - it is easy to keep supporting voluntaryism while supporting closed borders. This sort of non-NAP consistent solution is also the one for some other social problems such as drunk driving, speeding and reckless driving. While other don’t, I might be in favor of letting people drink one or two beers, or even three beers and drive - but the most important questions are not if, and how many beers should we allow drivers to have, but, WHO PAYS THE SALARY OF THE COP and should one security organization have a MONOPOLY over the entire area. This is the same important question we should be asking about borders. We might not agree about who to let in, but we can all agree about who should pay the salary for the soldiers at the borders, and whether a monopoly is justified.
Being against open borders does not mean I find the current “government” policy justified or moral. It just means I find the open-borders “solution” to be worse. I’ve said it before (look up my piece on “borders in a free society”) and I’ll say it again: if we have the borders maintained by private, competing security companies - we will arrive at the least immoral, and the most reasonable, practical and safe solution. Eventually, if there is no reason to have a border at all, there will also be no business case and it will cease to exist as no one will want to pay for it.
Morality isn’t about “all or nothing”, there’s a place to consider a minimal, temporary and limited violation of the non aggression principle, if we gain by it a huge amount of safety. I’m writing this article from Israel, where I was born and where I lived most of my life. Across the “imaginary line” there are a few millions of people who want me dead (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6), and on my side of the “imaginary line” people just want to disengage and live safely. If I’m wrong, than it is really nasty that I’ve prevented them from crossing that “imaginary line” -- but if I’m right, than this “imaginary line” is the only reason I’m alive today. It’s one of those risks that one simply cannot take. While there are over a million Muslims living inside Israel, and dozens of thousands who come in to work every day, there are close to zero Israelis daring to cross that “imaginary line” and go to the other side. So you can call me what you want, but I’m still going to advocate an “imaginary line” between us and them.
