Open the Borders Now and Forever

by David D’Amato

Note: I don’t believe that open borders are presently advisable. But there are libertarians who think otherwise. The mission of the Libertarian Alliance is to let all sides be beard on this issue. I therefore commend David’s article to your attention. SIG

Open the Borders Now and Forever

Market anarchism is grounded in the sovereignty of each individual and the simple idea that all relationships between adults ought to be voluntary and consensual, permitting everyone the freedom to do anything she wishes, as long as she respects the identical right of all others. The “market” in market anarchism refers to the fact that under such a system of equal freedom, individuals could cooperate and exchange in any and all ways nonviolent and non-fraudulent.

The “anarchism” comes from the insight that a society of strict nonaggression is ipso facto incompatible with the existence of the state. Since the state, both in theory and practice, is defined in terms of aggression against innocents, a truly free society cannot endure such an institution. Where, though, does immigration fit into all this theoretical ideation?

Free and open movement is the natural, unconditional right of every single individual, a prerogative that precedes governments and their arbitrary borders and policies. Confronted with this fact, even some self-styled libertarians will cavil and complain, puling that open borders actually amount to “forced integration,” that a free society is in fact one of exclusion and static populations disallowed from free movement simply by facts of “private property.”

And of course these facts and the relationships they implicate are never to be called into question. Never are we to ask what kinds of results and patterns legitimate property rights, properly based on some notion of homesteading, would create if actually developed and held to. Given the limits on the circumstances under which such forms of private property would be regarded as legitimate in a hypothetical freed market, it strains credulity to think that the fear-mongering of anti-immigration “libertarians” is well-founded.

Furthermore, arguments that see open borders as “forced integration” are especially spurious and unconvincing within the context we’re presented today, where governments themselves own and administer most of the land and the rest has been doled out to political favorites under a process in which proper homesteading has never been a real or important consideration. In their essence, anti-immigration arguments come to the laughable contention that merely due to accidents of birth which place some lucky group in one favored locale and others somewhere else, the fortunate group ought to be able to control and impede the movement of others.

We must therefore ask how and on what basis? Stripped of intricate apologies for the status quo, the answers presented are simply, “using force, deadly if necessary” and “because sovereign states have the right to protect their borders.” But even if we grant the premise that the United States ought to be able to protect its borders — itself an enormously controversial one which, as anarchist, I challenge — we must then wonder: Protect them from what? As economist Bryan Caplan observes, leaving out the moral questions implicated by the immigration debate, “even a random illiterate peasant” represents an economic benefit to his new country.

“Immigration laws,” Caplan shows, “trap people in countries where workers produce far below their potential.” When allowed the opportunity to work and produce to their potential, immigrants fill important economic needs and increase the overall wealth in society.

In terms of both basic economic and humanitarian considerations, completely free immigration and open borders are the soundest way forward for the United States and the whole world. Arbitrary, aggressive restrictions on people’s movement trample individual rights, divide families, and hurt the economy. It’s time to end the global apartheid of invented national boundaries and embrace the market anarchist solution of free movement, free exchange and free people.

flattr this!


  1. My first thought was that their might be some benefit, in relation to immigration, if “market anarchism” could be made to work (although I rather doubt it could – for example I rather doubt that private “protection companies” could have stood up to German armed forces during World War II) – for example private ranchers and farmers on what is now the border country of the United States and Mexico could defend their land and buildings from the invaders – presently the American government de facto forbids this with its “Civil Rights” laws, without the American government the looters could be shot by landowners (or by people assisting the landowners).

    However, then I read Mr D’Amato’s paragraph (forth from bottom) where he does not just attack government owned land (the United States government claims to own one third of the land – in spite of the Constitution of the United States only allowing it the capital area, not exceeding “ten miles square” and such places “purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts. Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings” – how this translates into organisations as Bureau of Land Management claiming to “own” vast areas of land I leave to corrupt lawyers and corrupt judges) Mr D’Amato also attacks PRIVATELY owned land.

    “proper homesteading has never been a real or important consideration” – I see so land holders on the borders with Mexico do not “really” own the land, and nor do land holders in Maine or New Hampshire for that matter (or in Kent and Northamptonshire in England) – only people who can prove (to Mr D’Amato’s satisfaction) that they hold the land via some sort of immaculate conception traced back (without break) down to the centuries to some “proper homesteading” are legitimate owners, anyone else is not a “real” owner – and may be justly looted (and murdered, along with their family and anyone who tries to help them, if they resist).

    And it should be remembered that this does not just mean “corporate” landowners (such as the Roman Catholic and other Churches) – it also means individual and family owned land.

    According to the Pew Research centre (hardly a conservative organisation) at least 75% of the people pouring over the Southern border of the United States want government to be even BIGGER, they want to tax and spend (for the benefit of “the poor” – i.e. THEMSELVES) even MORE. They would fully support such outrageous Supreme Court judgments as that of 1982 (against Texas) demanding that taxpayers be looted so the money could be spent on illegal immigrants (against the will of the voters of the time), but Mr D’Amato would go further.

    Why go through the tiresome process of having the government tax and spend? Why not loot property directly? After all the owners (even if their families have been there for generations) are not “just” owners;

    I suggest that Mr D’Amato’s article be posted up in the town square (where there is a town square) in every border town on the American- Mexican border country (and in every town in England – oh those evil Normans, and Angles, Saxons and Jutes they “stole the land” they did not “properly homestead” It – so the English should be all be looted and killed…….), I think the sight of Mr D’Amato’s article would kill of the “free migration” cause quite nicely.

  2. D’Amato is good on many issues.This isn’t one.

    He of course parodies a few anti-open border arguments and then uses the term ‘forced integration’ to show he has read Hoppe (but obviously with a firmly, resolutely closed mind).

    He’s wrong in calling Hoppeans on this issue ‘anti-immigration’. I am not anti-immigration; immigration can either mean one person inviting another to come to his house or work in his factory or it can mean one guy saying “I know, I’ll go live in England for a while,” without any corresponding guy having prior to this said “Please come to live with me in England.”

    So far as I can see it, if immigration isn’t the result of a bilateral agreement, then it’s trespass. If you haven’t been invited by a resident property owner/taxpayer then you’ll be in England, on public property, almost inevitably, for the upkeep of which you have never paid.

    If England was a monarchy, the problem would be minimised. If England was a private law society, or a collection of such societies, then the problem of legalised trespass would not exist. But it isn’t. How anyone, starry-eyed neolibertarian or not, can regard the present inward movement of people into this country as in any way natural is beyond me.

  3. Ah, Paul … when, if ever, are you ever going to learn that when you just make shit up and pretend someone from C4SS wrote it, I’m going to notice that you just made shit up and pretended someone from C4SS wrote it?

    I guess that making shit up and pretending someone said it is just the best substitute you can find for an actual, you know, ARGUMENT.

  4. D’Amato, like anarchists generally, falls into the black hole of saying a State policy is illegitimate because the State itself is illegitimate… and then demanding another State policy.

  5. He’s not going to get the abolition of the State. He’s calling for the State to actively implement an open borders policy, which means awarding citizenship rights- illegitimate State citizenship rights, remember- to all comers.

      • “completely free immigration and open borders are the soundest way forward for the United States and the whole world.”

        He’s calling for open borders as a USA (national, state) policy, not just in your Whenever Utopia.

  6. Speaking of making stuff up – I’m surely not the only one to notice that this kind of “open borders” recommendation only “works” in a made-up world that doesn’t exist, has never existed, and in all probability never will exist. It’s a world in which the State acts as if it cared about the real interests of its citizens — and didn’t care about its own. Imagination on that scale belongs in the world of computer gaming, alongside “Farmville” and “Angry Birds” (or undergirding a revolution), not in the realm of practical political suggestions.

      • Try telling that to the Romans and anyone they had a fight with. Try telling that to the Yanomamo.

        Humans have always lived in geographic collectives which claim a land monopoly and define a border around it. The nation state is the current particular model, but the general model is so old as to be considered biological; in other words, we are territorial social mammals. For most of our ancestors, for most of history, the boundary around the tribal land was an absolute- though fiercely and continually contested- such that being caught straying on another tribe’s land meant death.

        People overdo the Westphalian moment, as if nobody had been nations before. It was just a particular settlement in European history. The basic principle- ingroup, outgroup, us, them, our territory, their territory, is a human constant. Maybe we will come to abolish it. Perhaps soon. But to treat it as some kind of aberration is absurd.

  7. “He’s calling for open borders as a USA (national, state) policy in my imagination and/or per my poor reading skills.”

    Usually I get paid to proofread and correct errors.

    • Thomas, you’ve been attempting this style of riposte as a strategy for some time now, and I’m sorry to inform you, but it really doesn’t work. The problem is these conversations are threaded, so anyone else can just look back up the thread and see who is correct about what was said.

      • “The problem is these conversations are threaded, so anyone else can just look back up the thread and see who is correct about what was said.”

        Yes, they can.

        Which is one reason why I’m always surprised when you and Paul try to pull this shit.

  8. “People overdo the Westphalian moment, as if nobody had been nations before.”

    Not only had nobody been nations before, nobody has been since either.

    “Nation” is like “transubstantiation of the host” — a fascinating superstition that not even its most fanatical advocates are silly enough to really believe.

  9. Thomas – you are lying piece of shit

    See I can use insulting language as well. I know as many rude words as you do – but I do not see how they advance the “argument”.

    As you know what have written about your fellow piece of “shit” Kevin – has also been correct.

    As or Mr D’Amato I quoted directly from him – he is clearly not just an enemy of most government landownership (which would be fair enough – as most of the Federal government claims are clearly unconstitutional) he is also an enemy of private owners – because he does not regard their ownership as legitimate unless it can be shown (to his satisfaction) to be based on a form of immaculate (virgin) “homesteading” (hence his use of the word “proper” in “proper homesteading”).

    Mr D’Amato is clearly on the side of the looters – and he is, therefore, exactly the sort of person who should be kept out of country (or deported if he is already inside – Justice Pierce Butler was correct in the Supreme Court judgement he wrote back in the 1920s).

    Black Flag “anarchists” are historically just as much thieves and murderers (although on a petty scale) as Red Flag Marxists (which is why they cooperate in such movements as “Occupy” and the Chicago Teachers Union) as was proved by the terrorism campaign after World War One (indeed by the terrorism campaign going back into the 19th century) – although it was called the “Red Terror” a lot of the bombs were actually sent by “anarchists”.

    Where these bombs mostly sent to government officials Thomas? You know they were not – they were mostly sent to rich people (although most of the actual victims were not rich) because Black Flag “anarchists” hate anyone who has a lot more stuff than them. Just like your friend Kevin does.

    Now tell me I am “making shit up” Thomas – go on. lie your head off.

    Thomas you are fond of pointing out that you once served in the United States Armed Forces.

    Unless you are old enough to have been conscripted (which I doubt – please correct me if I am mistaken Sir) that means you volunteered and swore the oath.

    You now say, or imply, that nations do not exist. So what of your oath Thomas? What of your sworn word? No one (I believe – please correct me if am mistaken Sir) forced you to take that oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic (domestic – you know that includes Black Flaggers). Are you keeping your oath or breaking faith?

    And do not tell my how many times you were wounded and how many medals you won. General Arnold was wounded a lot more seriously than you ever were (if I am wrong I will apologise) he was very brave (a lion of a man) but he still proved to be disloyal. And General Butler (the commander of the Marine Corps in the early 20th century) won more medals than you (he was very brave) and he ended up being a stooge for the Marxists (“making shit up” for them – as you would put it).

    I am not asking about your courage – I am asking about your loyalty, whether or not you are true to your oath. Are you loyal to your sworn word or are you an oath breaker? If you reply that the crimes of the Black Flaggers (around the world) are petty (tiny indeed) compared to the crimes of the Red Flaggers (more than a hundred million people murdered – see “The Black Book of Communism” and many other works) then I will AGREE with you. However, one sort of people form an alliance (domestically – within the United States, and in many European countries also) with the Marxists? Or are you going to deny the de facto alliance between Red Flaggers and Black Flaggers in such things as the “Occupy” movement and the Chicago Teachers Union?

    As for the idea that nations were invented by the Treaty of 1648. Such an idea would have amused, for example, the people who wrote (and fought for) the Scottish Declaration of Arbroath in 1320. Or the people who fought for “the English” against “the Danes” under King Alfred and his family in the 9th and 10th centuries. By the way the present Queen is a direct descendant of Alfred by the marriage of Henry the First – one of the ways Henry won the support of the English (against his older brothers) was by marrying a descendant of Alfred – and by swearing an oath (sincerely or not sincerely) in 1100 to uphold the traditional laws of England (the Charter of 1100 – more than a century before the Great Charter of 1215).

    Should someone wish (sincerely) to join a nation, and to uphold the rights of property owners – then they should be welcomed. For example the former Bishop of Rochester is a brown man from Pakistan – but he is just as British as anyone else.

    But if the purpose of someone is both to destroy the nation and to undermine the property owners (by pretending, like the French Revolutionaries, that they are not the “just” owners of what they have) then to Hell with them.

    And I mean that literally.

    • “Now tell me I am ‘making shit up’ Thomas – go on. lie your head off.”

      I no longer have to. I’ve already done it once, so all that anyone looking on has to do is:

      1) Read what David wrote;
      2) Read what you claim David wrote; and
      3) Notice that the latter differs from the former.

  10. It amazes me how much heat and how little light has been generated here.

    A year or so ago I myself wrote, on this very forum, an article on this very subject ( And I came to conclusions not so far away from David D’Amato’s. Yet that article, in contrast to this one, was received with relative respect (David Webb excepted) and with no name-calling or scatological utterances.

    I do think David’s article could be improved in a few small ways. The first I would consider would be to change “Open” to “Abolish” as the first word of the title. That would make it clear that the objective is no borders, not some half-way house between that objective and what we suffer now.

    Second, I don’t fully agree with David when he defines the state “in terms of aggression against innocents.” I think of this as a secondary characteristic of the state, flowing from the primary one, which I see as “moral privilege.” Examples of moral privilege are: “I have the right to tax you, but you don’t have the right to tax me.” “I have the right to intercept your e-mails, but you don’t have the right to intercept mine.” And “I have the right to send agents to invade your property, but you don’t have the right to send agents to invade mine.” I think we libertarians should make a lot more of this issue of moral privilege, as it seems to me that it should be instantly obvious to every honest person that any claim of moral privilege is immoral.

    Third, as Paul has pointed out, I do find David’s derivation of property rights entirely from homesteading a little narrow. As it happens, I’ve just finished writing a book which addresses this issue (and much more!). So here are some of my thoughts on property rights:

    ‘Property can be justly acquired in three ways. The first is by taking possession of resources not previously owned by anyone. The second is by voluntary trade of resources with others. And the third is a special case of the second, where one individual makes a gift to another of what they themselves have justly acquired.

    Tracing back each individual’s justly owned property to its source, I find two possible starting points. First it may be that, as John Locke wrote in his Second Treatise, §26: “Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.” This is often called “homesteading.” And second, it may have come about through the creation of wealth; through providing goods or services valuable to others.

    In both cases, justly owned property has ultimately been earned through work. And this is so whether the work is physical or mental, and whether in business, in do-it-yourself or for a wage. So, all justly owned property can be traced back to part of someone’s life being expended in creating or improving it. For most people, who don’t receive big legacies from rich parents or uncles, this means that their property is the product of their own productive lives. For the lucky few, it’s a product of the lives of their forebears.

    Thus, property is life. That is why property rights are so important. That’s why they mustn’t be violated. Ever.’

    And lastly, I think some people may have interpreted David’s reference to the US in his last paragraph differently from the way I did. I read him as saying that we have to start small, that what we want isn’t going to happen world-wide and immediately; so that opening the borders of the US would be a good first step. I don’t think of that as a “USA (national, state) policy.,” as Ian B seems to.

    • Yes, there has been more effing and blinding here than usual; and, if I’ve given up hoping that we’ll ever be taken off the Starbucks blacklist, I will take the chance to call for a greater moderation of language.

  11. Neil,

    Good point on “abolish” versus “open.” I wish I had thought of that when I was proofing the piece for publication (as I wish I had thought to suggest that David make it so clear that he favors abolition of the state that not even Ian could find a way to misinterpret it).

    You write:

    “I do find David’s derivation of property rights entirely from homesteading a little narrow”

    He’s a hardcore Rothbardian (when he’s not writing at C4SS you’ll find him writing at the Ludwig von Mises Institute). They tend to emphasize homesteading. Although to be fair, I’m NOT a Rothbardian and I can’t think of any other legitimate basis for initial property rights (your own first paragraph above lists homesteading, trade and gifting — only the first, homesteading, works on an initial basis).

    • Thank you, Thomas, for your most civil reply. I do prefer the kind of discourse which proceeds by increment, not by excrement!

      There is, I think, a second valid way to acquire property initially, beyond homesteading, and that is to create it. That’s what Sean, among others, now does for a living. But that gets us into IPRs and the like; a discussion for another day.

      • Neil,

        I do normally attempt to be civil — with those who are not continuously dishonest and/or continuously and annoyingly obtuse. Mr. Marks in particular has a long and consistent record of writing stuff along the lines of “Kevin Carson says [something Carson did not say and frequently said the opposite of]; therefore Carson believes whatever I say he believes instead of something that would be supported by what he actually wrote.”

        With respect to property creation, in Rothbardian rhetoric that’s treated as a second-order consequence of homesteading.

        Lockean homesteading of land is achieved by “mixing one’s labor with it.”

        Similarly, if I created a widget, I would have done so by homesteading (or receiving in trade or gift from someone who had homesteaded it) the materials necessary to construction of that widget and “mixing my labor” with them.

        If I hire others to make the widget for me, all I’m really doing is trading wealth generated by previous homesteading/trade/gift to them to have them “mix their labor” with it on my behalf.

        “Intellectual property” is one case that obviously doesn’t fit well into that theory, which is one reason why Rothbardians are among those who have come to reject it or on their way to rejecting it as a valid concept.

        • There’s been a lot of discussion of David Hume here at the LA the past few days, so to reference him again, the above demonstrates the intellectual mess people get into when they ignore his discovery over two centuries ago that you can’t derive an “ought” from an “is”.

      • Thomas tends to be civil until he finally realises he’s lost an argument, at which point he switches to a mode of angry denial, of what others have said and what he himself has said, usually in the same thread.

  12. Whites are the only people who advocate open borders. Living by their principles would mean Europe and North America allowing a couple of billion people from the Third World to swarm into their countries. These invaders would then promptly erect and police their own borders, separating themselves along ethnic lines, mostly.

    Any “open borders” policy would be nothing more than an interlude of invasion and resettlement before the beneficiaries revert to the age-old pattern of ethnic or kin-based nationalism.

    • You appear to have beaten me to some of it Rob, whilst I was typing mine.

      I agree with you that it seems a decidedly one-way street – even the invention and endless moralising over libertarianism in the first place.

      I also agree with the theory that it would revert to the age old patterns, and from my perspective, not only would it do that, but create conditions and demographics that render any alternative way of living impossible – along with the very survival of White people on Earth.

      I suggest that the open borders advocates go try and take up their theoretical “right” to move, and go to somewhere like Africa, or Pakistan – and then try and work their ‘open borders’ lobbying libertarian magic there first.

      They can let non-white nations be the guinea pigs and they can put themselves, their families and their futures at the forefront of the societies they want to see emerge.

      When it is proven to be this wild success they say it will be, we could perhaps have a re-think.

      Until then, I would like them to cease advocating the destruction of my people and my nation – and ideally take their often white, middle class, comfortably well off, liberally blinded views elsewhere.

  13. It is at times like this that I am thankful ‘Libertarians’ like those behind this article are nowhere near the levers of actual power.

    Once again, we seem to have some quite insane chicanery that is based on misguided assumptions (and some kind of ideological purity) than being any kind of recognition of how the world actually operates and how human beings operate.

    Therefore, here we are again, with Libertarians wandering off deep in some fantasy land banging on about property rights and how this ideal ‘open borders’ world would, in pure theory, operate.

    So, let us get to some of the points being made in the article. The first one is this:

    “In their essence, anti-immigration arguments come to the laughable contention that merely due to accidents of birth which place some lucky group in one favored locale and others somewhere else, the fortunate group ought to be able to control and impede the movement of others.”

    It is hardly laughable that some people think that the millennia of striving, of advancement, of care, of the tendering of their nation state by their ethnic ancestors (who have toiled to make our nations what they have become, and even fought and died to preserve and protect it) affords that nation the right to be selective who piggy-backs onto that and selective of what is in their own ethnic (and national) interests for the long run.

    How we live in the west today is not some magical “accident of birth”. It all did not arrive out of the sky.

    If we do not want to throw that collective set of benefits away, to rub our ancestors noses in the dirt, to be overwhelmed with people who cannot sustain or maintain what has been created – it is our duty to be restrictive of who comes and in what numbers.

    Our forefathers were custodians who passed us on this benefit of “birthplace” and we ought to be being very careful as to what we pass on to our future generations.

    I find it incredulous that an abundance of “random illiterate peasants” represents a benefit to a country, or that ‘economic benefit’ (in terms of GDP overall, I gather, not per head) ought to be the main driver of decision making about how a country should operate, how it should look and how it should feel.

    But here is where libertarians again enter this dream world, this fantasy concept that everybody is the same, everybody is capable of sustaining successful societies, that there is only this “apartheid” (a word used in the article) that somehow “unjustly” keeps people apart.

    The reality is of course that people are not the same, they are not interchangeable, and a million “individuals” with their “property rights” does not make a society or a functioning country. Well, not one which is pleasant or desirable to live in.

    It clearly avoids all matters of race-realism that help shape what nations are like. It avoids – or rather, sidesteps – all forms of current collectivism as being so insignificant that they cannot be factored into the equation.

    Group dynamics, majority/minority status, collective interests, kinship, ethnic identity, religion and religious belief, all thrown out of the window or seen as some temporary obstacle that could be overcome in this fantasy libertarian world where everybody just minds their own business and never collectivise of sympathise with those who they feel more affiliation with.

    This is why open borders advocates are pushing an inhumanity – something against nature of human beings themselves.

    Not only that, but given the countries that most people seem to want to flock to are European based countries, it is also genocidal in its ultimate outcome. For the European peoples, the “white race”, could never survive in such conditions. That is a fact.

    That it is not perceived as ‘genocide’ by the author (and the other supporters of open borders) is neither here nor there, the conditions of life would be being created that destroys in whole, or in part, the existence of a racial group – and that is explicitly against the UN charter on Genocide.

    It was reported only this week that Africa, along with its hundreds of millions of poor, uneducated, violent, diseased and starving citizens (and their major ethnic, tribal, religious warfare defined, collapsing and decrepit infrastructures), are going to double their demographic from the current 1.1 BILLION to around 2 Billion by the year 2050 – and then DOUBLE again by the end of this century.

    Why would the “free movement of people” in this scenario be in the interests of the recipient nations and the peoples they historically comprise of?!

    Not only do they get wiped out of existence, but they have to suffer the degradation and the remaking of the third-world in their own homeland in the meantime!

    Ignore these dynamics at your peril. If anybody is delusional enough to believe that if you had free movement of people from such countries and our own countries would remain the same, and even become better and more libertarian, I think they need to take some serious medication to get a dose of reality that is obviously missing.

    As for ‘libertarianism’ in particular – and all these “free people” coming to be good little libertarians in this perfect world – what a bloody joke.

    It would be the END of libertarianism and much of the liberty we are still afforded to have! Nothing would signal the death of libertarianism sooner!

    Only it is not a joke is it, it is deadly serious. Literally. The consequences of such madness would be horrific to witness.

    The article talks of trampling on ‘rights’ and ‘hurting the economy’…….but what about the rights of the rest of us to live in a wider society of our choosing, amongst peoples and cultures of our choosing?!

    What if we don’t want to live in the kind of societies that this “open borders” madness will bring?!

    What if we object to our kith and kin being obliterated in the long term process?

    What if the supply of “economic factors” in a “globalised world” are not the be all and end all of existence – and are not the definition of who we are and ought to be?

    What about the right to an identity? The human desire to feel part of or connected to something bigger than themselves?

    Do we not have the ‘right’ to have our identities, our ‘explicit’ differences, our traits and so on, that tend to make societies that SUIT a certain people more than they may do another?

    Is it right to destroy all diversity in this way? I think not. I think it is a destructive and wicked proposal that lays for a truly stifling, boring, uniform world of sameness and relentlessness, even if it was workable, which in my view it isn’t. If I was religious, I would even suggest it is undoing God’s work.

    The article talks about aggressive restrictions. I wish we had “agressive restrictions” now, I really do! Only we don’t. Not really. Hundreds of thousands are set to depart to Italy and Spain this year – and they are not likely to be returned.

    The British government, for several decades, has facilitated and encouraged the importation of millions of citizens. Tough controls? Hardly. Only 1 in 10 “illegals” are deported and something like 500,000 are arriving every year, around 250,000 “net”.

    America is being invaded by Mexico, and radically altering the nation and the politics – which is NOT going to be in favour of low-taxation and little government interference! .

    Is Britain a “better place” thanks to the “free movement” we have already had via the immigration system as it stands? No! It is decidedly worse and turning this country into a toilet and depleting the overall standards of expectations.

    We are creating a hell for our future generations, a worse quality of life, not better. All it is helping is the immigrants themselves, and we should be under no obligation to do this or to provide a “better life” or “better circumstances”.

    So, for some of us, what is “aggressive”, destructive, a hindrance to liberty and freedom of us all, is this kind of theoretical libertarian or even John Lennon’esque mumbo-jumbo that ignores all of these things and suggests they are “laughable”, that ignores human nature, and in the case of wider liberal society, gets all uppity and nasty if anybody opposes their insane ideas and challenges their self-crowned “moral superiority” (over we plebs who must be immoral for rejecting it).

    Only they are not moral to some of us, they are highly immoral – and pretty dangerous in their delusions.

    • CB, I was going to add to my argument, but you’ve said everything I had to say. I have nothing against libertarianism, as long as it’s confined to the sovereign nation in which it’s practised. It can’t be extended from there to everyone on the planet.

      • Thanks Rob. You know, I do try and sit down and read through all the argumentation going on here – but in the end, I just have to laugh at the whole debate.

        When you step back and look at it, it is nothing other than total and utter waffle about who said what, what they did and did not actually say, what some relic of a theoretician might have once had to say about some peculiar theoretical state of affairs.

        In short, it is just madness on stilts – and a perfect example, to me, of how libertarians easily wander off into their own brand of la-la land – and how people within it can doggedly argue out events for hours and hours that could never even be achieved in the first place – particularly if there were open borders!

        Some people are far too serious and so far up their own lecturing backside to even grasp how ridiculous it all is, how ridiculous it all sounds, and how ridiculous their behaviour is towards others (and how it will look to wider demographics).

        I am quite similar to you Rob, in that I think it has to be confined to sovereign nation states, particularly, or preferably, with homogeneous cultures and races. I cannot see it ever working any other way, or libertarianism even staying alive as a concept otherwise.

        Libertarianism unfortunately appears to be an abject failure in the current world. Rather than growing over the last 50 years I suspect it has shrunk, particularly in Britain.

        With something like 5 Million people arriving in the last decade alone who are not likely to be adherents or fully tuned towards libertarianism, libertarians should have, in theory, converted more than 5 Million people in the last ten years to JUST compete with the new arrivals.

        Even our own docile indigenous population are the kinds of idiot who says things like “nothing to hide, nothing to fear”, welcome infringement of their liberty, – and we even people contributing articles for this very site that believe things such as ‘homophobia’ and ‘racism’ ought to be criminal acts.

        In both America and Britain, we are seeing things like:

        Secret courts deciding affairs that nobody knows about.
        People locked up for speaking their mind against prevailing orthodoxies.
        People being interrogated by the police for several hours for making a joke about Nelson Mandela on twitter.
        Having our phone and email messages stored and logged.
        Our children being told what they can and cannot eat at school (parents forbidden to provide packed lunches because they cannot be trusted to not sneak in a packet of crisps and a wafer biscuit).
        Student groups being forced to disband in our education systems due to threats and rules made by openly Marxist unions.
        People provided with a “no platform” policy in the same institutions.
        Fines being imposed on people without even a court hearing.
        Massive CCTV surveillance.

        I could go on, and on, about the meddling by the state, the tyranny of the established order, the threats to our freedom and liberty….. but all that regularly seems to go out of the window here, where people would rather theorise about some perfect world of libertarianism and throw quotes back and forth to each other about some 17th Century philosopher – whilst in this case ignoring completely all the aspects of the world and how it works; and what would need to be overcome first to have such things as “open borders”.

        Where is the work being done to overturn these things I listed above? Where are the millions of recruits that would push in the direction of libertarian societies?

        Much like my own movement of ‘nationalism’, they are thin on the ground and being overwhelmed with a new generation far removed from what we desire to be happening.

        You have to laugh, or you would cry.

  14. Thomas you did not answer my question – but I did not expect an answer.

    You choose to side with the Black Flaggers even though you know exactly what they are. You have broken your oath – your sworn word. And to say that is being “civil” – because it is the truth.

    As for your continued lying…….

    Kevin’s political philosophy can be summed up in a few words – he hates rich people and wants to rob them. That is just about it – and all the hundreds of pages of writing is just widow dressing for that. Whether he is writing about the United States or Egypt or anywhere else it always the same big-business-boo-hiss, corporate-profits-boo-hiss and so on.

    Instead of attacking what the Communists have done around the world (a “little” matter of more than one hundred millions murders), Kevin will complain of American led resistance to the Communism around the world and claim that it was all a matter of “corporate profits”, As if such things as the Berlin Airlift or the Korean War can be explained in this way.

    As for Mr Amato he appears to be the same sort as Kevin (or in an allied faction) – a Black Flag type who wants to help looters steal land, as is made clear by the forth paragraph from the bottom in his article (which I directly quoted from – just as I have often directly quoted Kevin only to have you, falsely, say that I have “made shit up” or “lied”).

    Immigration is fine for people who are loyal to the nation they wish to go to (sincerely loyal) and are, therefore, no threat to private property rights – again the former Bishop of Rochester (a brown man born and raised in Pakistan – who is as British as anyone here) springs to mind.

    Immigration is not fine for people who are disloyal and wish harm to the property holders.

    That is why it would be a bad thing to let Kevin into Britain, and a bad thing to let Mr D’Amato in, and a bad thing to let you in Thomas. After all you have chosen to side with the Black Flaggers (and allied groups) – in spite of being given repeated opportunities to dissociate yourself from them.

    If any of you three people are already inside the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – you should be deported.

    Just as United States Attorney General Palmer (a Democrat) was correct to deport disloyal people after the terrorist “Red Terror” (misnamed as most of the bombs were from “anarchists” – blowing off the faces of human beings for the “crime” of working for rich people) terrorist attacks after World War One.

    And just as Justice Butler was correct (in writing the majority decision for the United States Supreme Court ) to uphold the deportation of an immigrant who had sworn the Oath of Allegiance but then openly boasted that he had sworn falsely.

    Of course had this oath breaker been a member of the Untied States Armed Forces (or the British Armed Forces), which he was not, it would have been a more serious matter.

    • Paul,

      My oath of enlistment in the United States Marine Corps expired when my contract with that organization did. Furthermore, my oath was not to a “nation” — it was to a government and to a document.

      During the time that I was contracted to the United States Marine Corps, I did my utmost to adhere to my oath. In point of fact, in one case where I was given an order that conflicted with that oath, I appealed that order all the way up the chain of command via the “request mast” process to the commanding general (of Joint Task Force Six, then part of Special Operations Command), and when the order was affirmed contrived to make it ineffectual.

      The order involved violating both the Posse Comitatus Act and the mission’s stated rules of engagement by engaging — in a military capacity — in law enforcement style, but warrantless, surveillance of an individual who was neither charged with any crime nor for whom probable cause had been offered to suspect that he was involved in any crime. I later found out that this had happened only a few miles from, and was requested by some of the same law enforcement personnel involved in, the previous murder of an individual in a government scheme to steal his land (Google “Donald Scott” if you’re interested), also using Joint Task Force Six assets for unlawful “surveillance” beforehand. The whole incident played a major role in both my decision to leave the Marine Corps and my evolution toward becoming a libertarian (I have first-hand experience, as an armed operator, of both the ineffectuality and the totalitarian nature of the “war on drugs”).

      I hope that answers your question.

  15. I agree with your specific stand Thomas – but that was not my question.

    My question was do you stand by your oath to defend the Constitution of the Untied States against all enemies foreign and domestic now (expired?).

    The Black Flaggers are clearly domestic enemies – they have been since the 19th century.

    Do you stand with them – or with your oath?

    • My oath is expired. Why would I “stand with it” any more than I would “stand with” a box of bottles that I’ve long since returned for deposit?

      I am now an enemy of the United States (and of all states).

  16. I see Thomas, so you are an enemy of the United States of America and the Constitution of the same – as you regard your oath as “expired” when you left the Marine Corps.

    Do you intend acts of violence against the United States – or against individual or corporate property holders (regarded by you and you associates as not legitimate property owners) within the United States?

    • “Do you intend acts of violence against the United States – or against individual or corporate property holders [false allegation deleted] within the United States?”

      Not unless required in self-defense or defense of others.

  17. By the way I did not make any “false allegation” – the basic point of Black Flag ism (as shown by Mr D’Amato article above – fourth paragraph from the bottom) is the claim that much existing private property is not legitimate (because it has not been “properly homesteaded” or whatever).

    Black Flaggers do NOT say “”we rob and murder for fun” – they claim that existing rich people are not legitimately rich, and thus (in the view of the Black Flaggers) are legitimate targets.

  18. Logically the Black Flag argument would also extend to the property of many poor people – as this can not be traced back (without a break) in an immaculate process of “proper” homesteading over all generations.

    However, robbing the poor is not stressed by Black Flaggers – probably for Public Relations (image) reasons.

    Still the question remains – would your acts of violence extend to the “defence” of trespasses on land you (and your associates) do not regard as legitimately owned?

    • I don’t have time to teach you both English and logic, Paul.

      I’m reasonably sure that most people reading the piece can differentiate between D’Amato’s note as to the actual history of how existing property claims came into being on one hand and your fallacious (to be specific, non sequitur) derivation therefrom of an intent to violently dispossess on the other.

      I don’t recall that I’ve ever discussed the subject of “what happens to property acquired under the illegitimate system when we smash that system?” with D’Amato. Most market anarchists I know, myself included, assume that when the state is smashed and the market is freed, all but the most obviously false property claims (e.g. the claim of the US government to “own” nearly 30% of the land mass within its claimed jurisdiction) would be presumptively honored and that over time illegitimate property claims would “wash out” of the economy as the state privilege/subsidy necessary to profitably maintain those claims disappeared.

      • Note how Thomas quietly skirts around the awkward question of who gets to decide which property claims are going to be honoured. And how, indeed, anyone can have the right to decide which claims are “obviously false”.

        I’d ask how the fuck “homesteading” land actually uniquely makes a permanent claim on it, but I think that would be asking too much. I’ve written here before about how Libertarianism- as with the rest of the political discourse- is too infected with the specifics of the American historical experience, and this whole “homesteading” nonsense is a classic example of that.

        (Most of) my ancestors arrived in Britain (“homesteaded” it) at the end of the last Ice Age. They didn’t turn up in boats with legal documents from a King in recent historical times. At exactly what point in time they lost the right to the land as the murky history of tribal mergers, wars and invasions played out and a nation state arose, I would like to know. Was it before or after the Romans? The Saxons? When did we all become “illegitimate”, Thomas? And why does that, bizarrely, give people whose ancestry has never set foot on this island a right to come here?

        • “Note how Thomas quietly skirts around the awkward question of who gets to decide which property claims are going to be honoured. And how, indeed, anyone can have the right to decide which claims are ‘obviously false.'”

          It’s not about “quietly skirting” anything.

          Anyone who runs into any claim at any time — not just in a stateless/free future but every minute of every day since there have been people, including right now — has to decide whether he believes that claim to be true or false, and whether or not to honor it.

          If you don’t know THAT by now, I hope your mommy doesn’t let you cross the street without an adult holding your hand.

          • That’s why they look to some kind of system for an answer, Thomas. A land registry, etc. You’ve just abolished that. See the problem?

            Terrible neighbourly struggles sometimes arise over, for instance, the precise position 1 foot either way of a boundary wall. They pore over documents looking for an answer. Surveyors study the land. They go to court.

            You’ve just abolished the system Thomas, “smashed” it. You’ve declared that all former land claims may be illegitimate. The land registry is gone, the courts are gone. How do people decide? With shotguns?

              • True, but you are proposing anarchism, which is by definition the absence of system. Any handover to some differently constituted system will be a State of a different kind.

                  • A state does not need rulers. The UK’s “ruler” is only a figurehead. America hasn’t got one at all. Congratulations, by your first definition it’s an anarchy already. So stop complaining.

                    Any set of rules applied to a geographic collective, on the other hand, is a form of State. So either you have a State and rules, or no State and no rules. Up to you. Since we’re specifically discussing geographic hegemony here, you’ve got a bit of a problem thar.

                    • Actually it’s you who’s got a bit of a problem. Anarchism as an ideology rose within the context of, and in opposition to, specific historical developments (in particular the Westphalian nation-state). Trying to abstract it out of that context is a nice trick if you can pull it off. But you can’t.

                      America’s got plenty of rulers. So does the UK.

                    • Well, in that intepretation it’s just pretty much a waste of time then, not least because of the strange idea that a local European development- Westphalia- has much of anything to say about the general case.

                      But this really is the difference between a practical quest for liberty, and a theoretical political nerdery.

                    • “But this really is the difference between a practical quest for liberty, and a theoretical political nerdery.”

                      I agree completely … but probably not how you think.

                      The Westphalian System is disintegrating. Any “practical quest for liberty” has to take that into account. Pretending that the Westphalian-style state is going to be the future model is, indeed, “theoretical political nerdery.”

                      This is something that the actual hardcore statists have been taking into account since the 1990s (the first notice I took of it myself was due to a pro-state article in Time magazine about the threat that 4th Generation Warfare as conducted by non-state entities represents to the state as an institution).

                      Libertarians who attempt to frame their theories and proposals in terms of, as Sean puts it “what is or is not ‘on offer'” are living in a fantasy world.

                    • It’s hot in England. I have a big writing job to finish. We’ve already driven this argument into the ground. However, nations exist and most people desire a state for their own nation. The mingling of nationalities that we see in most Western nations makes liberty less rather than more achievable. Thomas is arguing from a very parochial set of assumptions, but, like Americans of every political grouping, cannot believe that his own assumptions do not apply to the whole of mankind. He lives in a country that was conquered not more than six lifetimes ago, and that has enough space for voluntary segregation. Importing millions of visibly different aliens into territories long-settled and densely-populated by tribes as ethnocentric as the English and Germans and French can only mean trouble.

                      But please forgive me if I mostly sit this one out.

                    • The only assumption I am arguing from is that the non-aggression principle does not have an “except when I don’t like the outcome” clause.

                      The position of the libertarian who claims that the state should regulate immigration is directly comparable to the position of Noam Chomsky, who claims to be an anarchist except that he supports gun control and conscription.

                    • I was a fool to be prodded into joining this debate. I have a client waiting for his manuscript. I’ve said my piece. You all seem to be having a good time without me.

  19. “I’d ask how the fuck ‘homesteading’ land actually uniquely makes a permanent claim on it, but I think that would be asking too much. I’ve written here before about how Libertarianism- as with the rest of the political discourse- is too infected with the specifics of the American historical experience,”

    Learn something every day. I had no idea that Locke was actually an American.

    • Nobody in Britain uses the word “homestead”. If you say it, people immediately think of something like the Little House On The Prairie. Because there has been no such experience in the Old World for all of recorded history, effectively. By the time records start, everyone is álready “in place”. Land changes hands a lot, sometimes in population terms, sometimes in political terms. But the “homesteading” is prehistoric, and thus useless to us in theoretical terms. For Americans with a rich recent narrative of claims on notionally virgin land, the term makes sense. But not to us.

  20. Quite so Ian – at least some (not all) of what you say.

    Thomas – why did Mr D’Amato write what he did? If you will accept that he did write the paragraph in question – that I did not write it and pretend it was him (somehow hacking the Libertarian Alliance website).

    It would be easy to leave out property – or to say “the immigrants are no threat to property owners large or small – and of course the present owners are legitimate owners”.

    But instead we get this stuff about handing out property to political favourites and the lack of “proper” homesteading – it has to be an effort justify looting, it can not be anything else.

    Your defence is also historically counter factual – Black Flaggers have normally been (especially in European history) robbers and murderers – BUT have used arguments about the property not be legitimately owned. They do NOT say “we rob and murder for fun” – they claim that the property is not legitimately owned, thus making the present holders (and anyone who tries to help them, no matter how poor, a legitimate target).

    It was also true in the United States – from robbers killing a fellow Italian immigrant (a security guard – he was on his knees begging for his life when the Black Flaggers murdered him), to the various bombings (sometimes on a large scale – although carefully shoved down the Memory Hole by the “liberal” education system, “liberal” in the same sense as the elite who pretended that the murderers mentioned above were innocent, although they privately called them “two wops in a jam” till they figured out it could be politically useful to take up their “cause” – see the chapter in the book “Hoodwinked” on this subject) and so on.

    Tolkien told his son Christopher that he did not believe in the principle of taxation and did not believe that law should be something “made” by the state.

    But (Tolkien insisted) he was not an “anarchist” – because anarchists were bombers, thieves and so on. They did not respect the property of others – they claimed it was not justly owned.

    This used to be common knowledge – and I see no reason to believe that Black Flaggers have changed.

    By the way – a Black Flagger was taken by the police in Athens a few hours ago (in a robbery – he shot two police officers).

    Am I supposed to be rooting for this person?

  21. John Locke had his faults (lots of them) – but he was no Black Flagger.

    John Locke never claimed that someone’s property was not theirs because they could not be prove that they held it by a series of voluntary transfers from the first person to settle in a place.

    Unless one is in Iceland or some such place (where some families can actually do that), this is an impossible standard.

    Neither the Common Law tradition or the Roman Law tradition demands such as standard – because such a standard is nuts.

  22. As for demanding proof that property is justly held……

    Actually this is an old game of THE STATE.

    The Crown in the time of George III (not quite the same thing as the man George III) even enquired into the land holdings of the Duke of Portland.

    Can you prove that this or that bit of land (which had been in his family for generations) is justly acquired and held – can you produce lots of documents?

    Of course he could not – many English landowners could not (there was no land registry and so on – people sometimes just knew who owned what, indeed in Scots Law as late 1845 land could be transferred by a ceremony of handing over lump of soil, before witnesses, with a verbal agreement – a legacy of a time when literacy had been rare, even among landowners).

    Edmund Burke went to the House of Commons arguing that if this could be done to the Duke of Portland it could be done to anyone (in fact with much greater ease against a poor man who could not afford lawyers and so on).

    So Parliament demanded an end to all “investigations of doubtful title” by the Crown.

    Of course the agents of the Crown got up to similar tricks in America.

    Did you justly acquire this land? You did not steal it from the Indians did you?

    Of course the agents of the Crown did not really give a bleep about the Indians – they were just looking for an excuse to steal the land themselves.

    This was one of the causes of the American Revolution.

  23. “why did Mr D’Amato write what he did?”

    For the same reason that you complain about it — to put the actually existing situation in its actually existing context.

    History did, in fact, happen. And the things that constitute that history do, in fact, have consequences. The current American immigration “crisis” did not arise in some kind of historical vacuum.

    That you choose to impute further consequences to that context is your choice, but your imputations do not automagically become his.

  24. “John Locke never claimed that someone’s property was not theirs because they could not be prove that they held it by a series of voluntary transfers from the first person to settle in a place.”

    But what John Locke DID claim was that someone’s property WAS theirs because they either homesteaded it (claimed it and mixed their labor with it) or came into possession of it via voluntary trade or gift ultimately originating with someone who HAD homesteaded it.

    You can’t accept Locke’s positive claim without accepting its negative.

    In such matters, my own opinion is that when the state is abolished all existing property titles with the exception of those held by the state itself should be accepted/honored — not because all those non-state titles can plausibly be traced back to some source free of “original sin” but because litigating the disposition of each and every parcel on planet Earth, or even within the territory previously claimed by some previous state, with a presumption of “innocence of title” and a requirement of proving otherwise to refute that “innocence of title” would be even less plausible.

  25. I have other concerns right now and, therefore, may not be able to give this thread the attention it deserves. For my probable future lack of attention I apologise.

    I interpret the last comment of Thomas to mean that he would NOT regard using violence to help looters as legitimate – that he would NOT accept the argument that the-property-is-not-legitimately-owned as a justification.

    Well then Thomas you are on the opposite side from the side Black Flaggers have traditionally (historically) have mostly been on – both in Europe and North America.

    You may sincerely believe that your friends are different – you will find that you are mistaken.

    “No Paul it is YOU who is mistaken – after all you have never even met the people in question”.

    Well time will tell – and it will not be very long now.

Leave a Reply