I’m confused by the recent trend among some libertarians/voluntaryists of being seemingly more upset by the mass emigration of people fleeing government induced problems than they are at the governments who (through market and foreign intervention) caused the problems they’re fleeing. Can any libertarians/voluntaryists explain to me:
1) How a consistent libertarian can advocate for restrictions on movement that don’t have to do with private property considering a) you don’t own the property they’re moving to or the border they’re crossing and b) it would require an expansion of government power which necessarily implies more expropriation of private property of native-born citizens. Keep in mind that what crimes (a small handful) might commit in the future is a smaller scale version of the argument that libertarians reject elsewhere. A notable example would be that what the government in Iraq *might* have done in the future was a justification for the aggressive invasion. Also keep in mind that when considering the refugee crisis in Europe (caused by governments) that if you are afraid of their ideology – with good reason in some cases – most of the native-born population in each Western country is completely fine with caging nonviolent people and I don’t hear people calling for the deportation of natives…yet. By the way, the reason some of their ideologies could be dangerous is, again, only a threat due to the mechanisms of the State they could potentially gain control of.
2) If you’re using exploitation of the welfare state as your reasoning – which is not necessarily anymore true of immigrants than it is of native-borns – why not advocate for no welfare benefits for immigrants instead of restrictions on immigration?
3) If the exploitation of the welfare state is your answer, why not advocate restrictions on birth rates being that children are for all intents and purposes the same as immigrants – in that they are people who were previously not here entering the country through birth canals – except for the fact it will take them much longer than working age immigrants to contribute to the system and pay taxes?
4) If the exploitation of the welfare state is your answer and Massachusetts has a bigger social “safety net” system in place than, say, New Hampshire, would you advocate Massachusetts builds a wall around the entirety of the state to stop people from moving there?
5) If we are abandoning the principle of non-aggression in this case anyway (by advocating the government restrict movement mutually agreed upon by immigrants and receiving landlords and employers, while taking private property from domestic subjects to pay for this enforcement), then how is draining a welfare state necessarily a bad thing from a purely strategic point of view? In other words, will it be more beneficial to the cause of freedom to free up the labor market (with all the advantages a free market brings in a sector of an economy) and potentially expedite the bankruptcy of the State, or to further restrict free trade in labor and let the government maintain the illusion of solvency for what only amount to a few years more? Or is this a false dichotomy to advocate for?
Mark. Instagram: @anarchoatheist Twitter: @anarchoatheists