I have been supremely amused by the back-and-forth going on lately among some voluntaryists/anarchists/what-have-you regarding the discussion of state borders.
It's certainly been a source of unending memery, and dank memes always brighten my day. To be honest, I hadn't given much thought to this particular issue, and I'll explain why, as I think it informs the discussion about advocating for open or closed borders. But first, let me offer this meme, which made me chortle earlier today:
I've been friends with Jared Howe for a little over a year now, and I've had the pleasure of being on his podcast, along with being on Dave Painter's and Merrick Van Landingham's. They're great minds, all of them, especially Merrick who I've had fantastic discussions about the rise of the US state in the 20th century, but recently, Jared was essentially called a statist and a Nazi in a couple of instances because he dared suggest that a state that practices an inclusive, or open, border policy is more harmful than one that practices an exclusive, or closed, border policy.
Naturally, I had to scratch my head at what was going on. Jared's points have always been made from a solid logical foundation, so if he was arguing that one thing was worse than the other, surely there was something to it.
What I found scrolling through the multitude of comments lead me to realize that it wasn't that others necessarily had a problem with the logical underpinnings of whether or not open borders were more harmful than closed borders. What it seemed to me was that the people that were shouting him down (and who have since gone on to make some pretty fantastic memes that have increased his visibility) were making two critical mistakes:
- either forgetting or ignoring that preferences are ranked ordinally, not nominally
- advocating for open borders presupposes the existence of men and women calling themselves government and exercising a territorial monopoly, which, for the purposes of this article I'll refer to simply as "the state."
To the first point, I've seen a multitude of comments that equate having a preference for a state the exercises an inclusive border policy to having a state at all. This is, of course, utterly false. One can have a preference for a state or not, but if an argument presupposes the existence of a state, then the preferences discussed therein relate solely to that presupposition. If the argument allows for the non-existence of the state, then naturally I, as well as Jared, would prefer there be no state at all. To think of it another way, one could consider ordinal preferences in the form of if, then statements. The most preferable is for there to be no state. If there is a state, then the most preferable policy with regard to its borders is to make them exclusive. Saying that a state with exclusive borders is preferable is equivalent to saying a state is preferable is disingenuous at best.
To the second point, I've had this conversation with multiple people myself with regards to open/closed borders, aside from the multitude of comments I've read across the intertubes. Open borders presupposes that the state exists. Let me explain what that means in terms of the discussion. Just about all of the people I've had this discussion with agree that the most preferable state of affairs is for the state not to exist, and we have no disagreement on this point. We also agree that the state is just a group of men and women claiming a territorial monopoly absent the consent of all the people within that territory, and that its borders are arbitrary lines on a map, not real barriers to movement. We also agree that the only legitimate borders are those of justly acquired private property. So then where does the confusion come from? It comes from people claiming that an open border negates the power of the state to enforce border policies, or somehow negates the state itself.
That couldn't possibly be the case, because arguing that the state should open borders and not restrict movement necessarily presupposes that the state exercises a territorial monopoly and uses force to control its borders. For state borders to be open, there necessarily have to be state borders. If they allowed free movement unopposed, that wouldn't change anything; the state would still exercise territorial monopoly and exercise authority over its borders. Moreover, in practicing an inclusive policy, the state would necessarily have to exercise a greater degree of private property violation in order to ensure the borders remained open. Otherwise, individuals or private firms could simply purchase up the assets and land necessary for the free movement of people and establish a defacto closed border, thereby negating the state's border policy.
The only way that the open/closed border debate makes any sense is if it presupposes a state with borders exists. If you're arguing that state borders are illegitimate, arbitrary lines on a map, you'll get no argument from me; they are. However, if you're trying to argue that a state should open its borders because those borders are illegitimate or that it's preferable because states borders don't exist, it presupposes that a state still maintains a territorial monopoly and thus has borders that it can open. Otherwise, what borders are you arguing should be open?
So how about you and I focus on abolishing the state, rather than arguing that ordinal preferences are the same as nominal preferences or pretending that one can simultaneously argue the state exists and doesn't exist.
Follow my blog here for more articles like this as well as a plethora of fiction work. I've been off the radar for a while for National Novel Writing Month, but I'm back in full swing. As always, upvotes, comments, and resteems are appreciated!
Andrei Chira is a vaper, voluntaryist, and all-around cool dude. Formerly a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division, he now spends his time between working at VapEscape in Montgomery County, Alabama, contributing to Seeds of Liberty on Facebook and Steemit, writing short fiction, and expanding his understanding of...well, everything, with an eye on obtaining a law degree in the future.
