What libertarians actually believe

Labadee (also Labadie) is a port located on the northern coast of Haiti. It is a private resort leased to the private company Royal Caribbean International until 2050.[1] Royal Caribbean International has contributed the largest proportion of tourist revenue to Haiti since 1986, employing 300 locals, allowing another 200 to sell their wares on the premises for a fee[2] and paying the Haitian government US$10 per tourist, increasing to US$12 in March 2015.[3]

The resort is completely tourist-oriented, and is guarded by a private security force. The site is fenced off from the surrounding area, and passengers are not allowed to leave the property. Food available to tourists is brought from the cruise ships. A controlled group of Haitian merchants are given sole rights to sell their merchandise and establish their businesses in the resort.

Borders? Check.

Patrolled by armed security force? Check.

Controlled access? Check.

Oligopolistic markets? Check.

Closed borders work.


saint simon said…
You mean what Bryan Caplan believes. TIRESOME. You're as bad as the shitlibs you so often decry.
Anonymous said…
But the libertarian would deny that securing a private property is in any way analogous to securing a national border.

"Private property" is the magic word. It may be secured, restricted and closed to any extent as the owner deems fit.

"National territory" is merely an administrative (in)convenience and it is immoral to restrict or close it.

He is justified by his non-view of the nation-state. He is logical to the extent that he recognizes that the national territory has a different character than a private property.

Question is what is your view of the national territory? Is it strictly analogous to private property?
Not strictly but sufficiently. The borders are owned by the taxpayers. As soon as the first generation of children is born in the libertarians' voluntaryist redoubt, then it becomes a country with inter-generational covenants instead of a group of adults contracting with each other.

The only way libertarianism can survive is behind borders, patrolled with machine guns to keep out the criminals and the social democrats. Otherwise, the libertarians will have to accept a grudging role for the State in order to punish miscreants who draw lines around themselves.
patrick kelly said…
"The only way libertarianism can survive is behind borders"

Yes, to have a libertarian nation you first must have a nation, and that requires borders, secure, enforced, borders, to the benefit, security, and prosperity of the nation.

Gyan said…
While I agree wit you that "the libertarians' voluntaryist redoubt becomes a country with inter-generational covenants".
But I still think that a better argument against Open Border is needed than just "the borders are owned by the taxpayers".

One has to recognize that "private property" does not apply to "national territory" at all.
It is entirely immaterial whether an actual border is privately owned or State-owned.

The notion of "commonwealth" means that there are things that are jointly held by citizens and the notion of private property does not apply to them. Foremost in these things is the national territory. The national territory is not even a private territory that is jointly owned by all the citizens. It is rather a possession of the nation or the people.

Unless, one distinguishes between a private property and a possession, one argues on libertarian grounds and one must then proceed to the libertarian conclusion.
Gyan said…
"The national territory is not even a private territory that is jointly owned by all the citizens. It is rather a possession of the nation or the people"

And that includes all the private properties that exist within the national territory. The people as a whole are sovereign over all the private properties and can tell an owner what he can or can not do with his private property.

So, my argument is strong. Even if all the national territory along with all highways and borders are privatized, still the people as a whole, can overrule any owner that seeks to import immigrants. This is what sovereignty means.

Libertarians believe in sovereignty of owners over their property. Simultaneously they believe that the police and courts should help them in securing their property. This is a contradiction.
Bert said…
Oh great, the faggot came back.
Dale said…
The best modern example of a closed border, that works, is the Vatican State.
Visibilium said…
Why can't a "national border" be seen as the border that includes the exterior borders of all contiguous properties? Defined in this manner, "border" does not require one to posit any kind of sovereignty apart from the owners' sovereignty.

Courts and security forces? Those pose no contradiction with owners' sovereignty, in principle. Anarcho-capitalist literature has looked at those issues.
Gyan said…
I have read David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom for privatized law and security forces. His proposals would not work. Secondly, he shares the fundamental error of libertarians--a failure to realize that private property can only exist in a state of laws.

In short, for a libertarian, individuals and private property are prior to society.
For non-libertarians, that is 99% humans, the nation and the national territory is equally fundamental. Thus, the libertarians including the sub-variety of anarchy-capitalists, lack a proper understanding of what the nation is and the status of national territory.

Owners can not be sovereign, by definition, since to be an owner requires being in a state of law. A state of law presumes being maintained by somebody and that somebody is a sovereign. He maintains the state of law by his brute force. Thus, the owners do not have to secure their properties by their brute force.
Gyan said…
"Why can't a "national border" be seen as the border that includes the exterior borders of all contiguous properties"

The national border is prior to the private properties that it bounds. Prior in a logical sense. The national border exists whether or not there are any private properties.
Visibilium said…
"Thus, the owners do not have to secure their properties by their brute force."

Owners' farming out society's security and court functions provide gains from trade. Farming out security and courts does not, however, necessitate an independent sovereign. If gains from trade are incapable of resulting from a particular security and court system, it will have to be abolished and replaced.

Positing a "commonwealth" that exists independently of owners' interests is simply a gratuitous collective relic.
Harold Lloyd said…

turks and kurds klash in frankfurt...

I think this hits on a favorite topic of yours
T.A.WILSON said…
The Orthodox Lerper: MPC Scorn Version
Anonymous said…
Bryan Caplan.....there's your problem right there. I suppose you have never come across a non GMU, non Chicago School, libertarian before. There is this entire school of libertarians( anarchocapitalist ) to be found at lewrockwell.com and mises.org, et al that follow Mises, Rothbard, Block, and Hoppe. With respect to borders, security, property....and "nations", the Miseans/Rothbardians give a different and much more clear answer on many issues.
If you want a gut check read this by Hoppe:

We are not the milquetoast libertarians.
@Helios_Unbound - Twitter
Anonymous said…
WHoa, you and Vox Day seem to say similar things.