Rothbard’s classic Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State
I generally agree with Rothbard’s position as outlined here, with the exception that I would take a looser, more open-ended definition of property rights or “private property” than Rothbard’s strict Lockeanism.
The question of open borders, or free immigration, has become an
accelerating problem for classical liberals. This is first, because the welfare
state increasingly subsidizes immigrants to enter and receive permanent
assistance, and second, because cultural boundaries have become increas-
ingly swamped. I began to rethink my views on immigration when, as
the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been
encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the
cultures and languages of these peoples. Previously, it had been easy to
dismiss as unrealistic Jean Raspail’s anti-immigration novel The Camp
of the Saints, in which virtually the entire population of India decides to
move, in small boats, into France, and the French, infected by liberal
ideology, cannot summon the will to prevent economic and cultural
national destruction. As cultural and welfare-state problems have inten-
sified, it became impossible to dismiss Raspail’s concerns any longer.
However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-
capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country
would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in a country
were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean
that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed
to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as
“closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems
clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the
U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the
state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not gen-
uinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.
Under total privatization, many local conflicts and “externality”
problems-not merely the immigration problem-would be neatly set-
tled. With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, cor-
porations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in
accordance with the preferences of each community. Some neighborhoods
would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be
ethnically or economically homogeneous. Some localities would permit
pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortions, others would pro-
hibit any or all of them. The prohibitions would not be state imposed,
but would simply be requirements for residence or use of some person’s
or community’s land area. While statists who have the itch to impose
their values on everyone else would be disappointed, every group or
interest would at least have the satisfaction of living in neighborhoods
of people who share its values and preferences. While neighborhood
ownership would not provide Utopia or a panacea for all conflicts, it
would at least provide a “second-best” solution that most people might
be willing to live with.
