The debate on borders has created a lot of division amongst libertarians and anarchists. Even outside of the libertarian world it is a highly contentious topic and rose to the surface during the last US (s)election with Donald Trump campaigning on building a wall across an entire continent to keep immigrants out.
That, like most of his campaign promises, was forgotten within seconds of winning but it still remains a very emotional topic for many. Particularly those in Europe who have seen millions of immigrants enter into that region in a very short period of time.
Debates amongst anarchists to date have usually just shown that the "pro borders" anarchist isn't an anarchist at all.
This weekend the best debate I've seen on the topic yet was held between Larken Rose and Christopher Chase Rachels. You can watch it here if you'd like:
Larken held steadfast to the Non Aggression Principle (NAP) which is at the core of anarchist and libertarian thought. While Chase did as well but really contorted the meaning of things such as public and private property to allow him to claim adherence to the NAP.
After watching the debate I decided to go for a walk with my five anarchist dogs in the fourth most dangerous city in the world, Anarchapulco, and give my thoughts on the great borders debate.
My thoughts center more around discussing how all of these issues were caused by governments and their problem/reaction/solution dialectic and the importance of ridding the world of the superstition of government as quickly as possible.
You can hear all my thoughts here:
Interestingly, my dogs had a border dispute with 2 immigrant street dogs who moved into our area and confronted us while I was recording my video.
The dogs ended up reaching a non violent mutually agreeable solution.
Let's hope humans can one day do the same.
