In my ideal world there would be no borders because there would be no countries because there would be no governments. Now I suppose you could call property lines borders, and there would be those, and everyone is entitled to protect their own property. But as it stands the government sets limits on how, when, to what degree, and in what situations I can protect myself and my loved ones. So if the government releases 100 violent criminals down the street from me, this is only okay if the government does not set arbitrary limits on how I can protect myself against aggressors. One issue complicates another, and ignoring one of those issues in a statist society while upholding the other is a recipe for disaster in my opinion.
You may have gathered that I am referring to the influx of illegal immigration over the Mexican/ American border. Like I said, in my ideal society, people could move wherever they want. But currently in a government dominated landscape, what happens in this country effects me.
Now a lot of anarcho-capitalists, especially the ones I’ve met recently, might say that I should be positioning myself to operate independently of the government anyway, so the influx in immigrants will not have a major effect on me. And indeed if it overwhelms government to the point of debilitation, perhaps markets would be free enough for humans to organize themselves properly with no force involved, in which case I think issues presented by migration would be solved easily. This would be great if I were already set up in an ideal community of my choosing, as is my long term goal, but I am not currently.
Again, this is my choice, and I am responsible for my actions. If I truly feared a “collapse” type situation, wouldn’t I do everything humanly possible to put myself in the right position to deal with that? Or am I still hedging my bets between the way I want to live, and the way I could relatively happily live as a slave in a statist world?
I suppose the anarcho-capitalist answer to the latter question would be that if I am indeed planning on living in a statist society without much resistance on my part, then I am condoning the actions of the state, and therefore deserve everything I get in terms of the possible negative consequences of a border surge, like disease, crime, more debt, and higher taxes. And if I am going to attempt to exit the state then I will not necessarily be effected by those negatives—although I would likely be pursued for not paying taxes if I traded, or harassed by the EPA if there was water, or a ditch on my property. But how to exit the state is another debate entirely.
So how do you do it, deal with problems created by the state, when the only solution offered is through the state? I am so tempted to say that in the event of a humanitarian crisis, people escaping poverty and dire circumstances, that we should not restrict their access to the benefits of living in America. But if that means I must pay for that assistance by force, I’m not okay with that. There’s no limit. At some point the 90 million or so working Americans cannot pay for the amount of schooling, housing, feeding, and training that it would take to properly help the number of people that would emigrate here, not only from South America, but also Africa, Asia, and Europe. It goes against my non-agression principle philosophy anyway for me to be forced to “help” someone else at the point of a gun.
I guess this whole thing is more of a question, or an internal debate. How can I even comment about what should be done in a statist society, when my opinion is that there should be entirely no state? So just get the state out of immigration, and open the borders? That only works if I also get the state out of my wallet. And that only works if I get the state out of my “security”. But part of that “security” they are “providing” involves keeping the country’s collective property—America—safe from those who would harm it in one way or another.
It is almost like everything must happen at once in order for the markets to properly respond, or else I am going to be negatively affected by association. But we risk a corruption in the process of supply and demand if only half, or a quarter, or a tenth, or a hundredth of the state control is abolished at a time, and through a de-facto process, like a collapse once the system is overloaded, as opposed to the gradual transition of opting out, and shrinking government.
Anyone want to jump in with some comments here? For once I am not sure if I have a conclusion.