A Reply to Dave Smith on Immigration

Listening to a recent episode of Part of the Problem, with Dave Smith, I found myself responding to him out loud. So, I decided I needed to organize and lay down my thoughts. In the episode, Dave expands upon and clarifies his views on immigration and on what the libertarian position ought to be. I truly appreciate the nuance with which Dave approaches the issue—something which tends to be missing by “both sides” on this subject. Despite that, I still had my disagreements, and I think it comes down to something fundamental about libertarianism. Ultimately, although it is not as clear as some other issues, open borders (or at least movement in that direction) IS the libertarian position.

Is Libertarianism About Property Rights?

Dave maintains that libertarianism is about property rights, and because of this, the question of immigration while there is a state exercising ownership of public property, is not clear cut. I completely agree that IF libertarianism is solely about recognizing and enforcing private property rights, then it is not obvious what our view on immigration should be. If streets and parks were privately owned, then libertarians would say the owners can create rules for people who use them, and expel people who are not welcome. But while there remains public property, we would have no answer. However, I do not think libertarians need limit themselves to being solely for private property. It can be an important value we have, but there are other things libertarians tend to value. I think many libertarians already incorporate these values into their libertarianism, and Dave probably does too.

Do not misunderstand me, I’m not arguing for a “thick” libertarianism per se. I believe libertarianism belongs squarely in the political/legal realm. What I am saying is that besides property rights, libertarians ought to (and often do) incorporate things such as market governance and freedom from the state into their libertarianism. Often, these other values are merely the result of upholding property rights, but in some cases property rights do not give us the answer, and thus we should turn to these other values. In particular, while we have a state, libertarianism cannot be merely pro-property rights. Numerous questions about government policy cannot be answered that way. While it may be true the ideal answer is “privatize it”, we should also be aware and discuss answers that are better or “more libertarian” than others.

Market Governance

A market for governance or law/rules is particularly helpful when the nuances of property rights come into play. For instance, how high into the sky does a property right extend? If I fly my drone over my neighbor’s house, is that aggressive? At what height does it become aggressive and a violation of his right to property in his house? I contend that there is probably not one single correct answer to these questions. “Just respect property rights” is not enough here. Instead, we should favor a market in dispute arbitration (to the extent possible) in order to resolve honest disputes that neighbors have. Moreover, we should be content if different communities arrive at different norms, or even if different norms arise between different people within communities.

This preference for a market in governance can extend to states. In particular, when states are smaller, and when policy is decided more locally, there is more competition between them. While certainly not the same as non-state governance, some of the benefits of market governance can be achieved by promoting competition between states if people are allowed to travel between them. And the smaller the state, the easier it is (geographically speaking) to do so.

Freedom From The State

Libertarianism is sometimes thought of as simply “anti-state”, but this leaves out that we also value property rights, as well as developing order and rules via the market. Still, we should not forget that there are good reasons to be anti-state, and they are not all property-related.

A pure property-rights-centric libertarianism might suggest that libertarians can have no view on how government agents should police government roads. But libertarians often DO have views on how police should regulate roads. And almost always, it’s that they should do less. From advocating abolishing drunk driving laws, to opposing governmental licensure for driving, the usual libertarian answer to “should the government…?” is “hell no!”

To reiterate, this libertarian tendency is not based on property rights. The property rights response is privatize the roads and let the owners decide. In the meantime, libertarians generally support as little government regulation as possible. This is because being anti-state is an important part of what it means to be libertarian.

Open Borders And Closed Borders Are Not Equal

Dave is correct that open borders (state controlled property where migration is permitted) is still a state policy, and appealing to libertarian property rights does little to give us an answer. He is incorrect, however, that therefore open borders and closed borders are both equally libertarian (or un-libertarian). Imagine deciding what rules police should enforce on government roads. Are we really going to say it is not any less libertarian if they require absurd amounts of safety equipment on vehicles, a full 8 hours of sleep before a drive, and 2 hands on the wheel at all times? No, I think there are more-libertarian and less-libertarian policies a state can adopt, and we should appeal to the principles of market governance and freedom from state regulation, when deciding.

With these principles in mind, picking an immigration policy becomes a little easier (though it may still not be 100% clear). First, a preference for market governance means we should favor encouraging competition between states. This can be done by decentralizing power to states and localities. At the same time, we should voice the importance of those localities in keeping immigration relatively free, since that is how competition is fostered. Finally, by supporting free immigration as a national policy, we allow more competition between foreign states with the U.S., as well as competition among U.S. states. Dave ultimately mentioned that decentralization was a good idea, though presumably, he arrived there via different reasoning.

Secondly, an aversion to state regulation implies our default should be to support little or no restrictions on public property. I am fully ready to admit that some regulations are necessary for the time being, but libertarians ought to favor less as opposed to more. Another way to say this is: if you think immigration ought to be curtailed or certain restrictions should be in place, then the burden is on you to show that those regulations are necessary. It might be the case that restrictions are required to prevent catastrophic consequences. I have written before about how common complaints of immigration are overblown, so I don’t think this is true, but still, it is possible for terrible consequences to outweigh the hostility toward government regulation.

Too Subjective?

Is all of this just too… subjective? Perhaps you think defining libertarianism as the NAP, or as upholding property rights, makes it a much more straightforward and objective political philosophy. I think Dave does. However, property rights (here come the cries of “blasphemy!”) are not objective. Or, at least, they are not always objective. Like in the above example with a drone, the answer is going to depend on local norms and the results of arbitration or cooperation. There are many other examples I could have cited, a few more are discussed here. The reality is the world isn’t simple. Political questions require nuance and deep thought. We shouldn’t expect property rights to answer every question, and libertarianism should have some answers for what to do when we can’t “privatize all the things!”