Returning Fire on Brookes
Open Borders Rides Again
The libertarian argument for open borders is simple. The state should not violate individual rights including to freedom of association, immigration restrictions violate freedom of association, therefore, the state should not impose immigration restrictions. Brookes has argued the state does not violate individual rights to freedom of association via immigration restrictions because the state via thieved from taxpayers has the right to exclude foreigners from public property such as roads. I have argued in a previous post against Brookes that rights of way totally undermine his case. He has replied here. I will now rebut Brookes’s counterargument to my rebuttal of his original argument against me.
Brookes disputes that rights of way are so pervasive as to allow the open borders that I favour. I am willing to admit there are many rights of way which could operate as Brookes suggests, however, the long history of many of Britain’s footpaths points to them being genuine rights of way. Take the South Downs Way which has been used for 8,000 years and links Eastbourne in East Sussex to Winchester in Hampshire. (Age suggests they may have been originally homestead on an open to all basis: See my Potholes in Ancapistan for details) Only a few of these need to exist in order for many immigrants to come into the country. And once they are in the country, they can be picked up by taxpayers in cars who have a right to use the rest of the infrastructure in accordance with Brookes’s reasoning.
Brookes argues the state should act as a trustee of thieved from taxpayers insofar as it will not give the stolen property back. My counterargument was this would implausibly permit taxpayers to exclude children from ever laying foot on a road according to Brookes (who rejects the existence of extensive rights of way), because, children not being net taxpayers have no claim to any of the infrastructure. I accept, given most parents are taxpayers, parents would give their right of way over to their children too. Nevertheless, the majority would still maintain the right to exclude children should they want to and this is implausible as a simple prospect. And if the rights of way for each (net) taxpayer are a personal entitlement of theirs not subject to the majority will, which avoids the possibility of children being excluded because their parents will almost always grant it to them, then, progressives in this country can simply extend their right of way to immigrants too and we have open borders.
In the penultimate paragraph of his reply Brookes goes wrong again. Against my argument that it is local government as the collector of taxes for roads which should impose immigration restrictions or not according to Brookes’s reasoning, Brookes argues two things. First, local government receives national government funds, and, second, ‘enforcement by central government’ creates a claim on their part to infrastructure. To the first point, I suppose there is a debate to be had because county councils receive about 51% of their income from central government grants, yet, against that, much of the grant funding is ring fenced for schools and social care, meaning, the roads budget is more likely to come from local council taxpayers. My case probably stands then. Brookes also suggests the enforcement of law by central government makes possible roads systems and infrastructure generally and from this he claims they have rightful control over that infrastructure.
No. If I were a big strong man who regularly beat up thieves in my local community, ensuring people’s stuff were better protected, this would not entitle me to any of my neighbour’s stuff at all. We can bestow benefits on people without gaining entitlements against them. Analogously, central government providing law enforcement which makes the construction and maintenance of infrastructure possible, does not entitle them to any rights over that infrastructure either. John Simmons makes these points against George Klosko. The entitlement of taxpayers to control the state’s infrastructure stems from the fact it embodies their private property which has been thieved from them, and, ideally, should be returned, but failing that should be managed as a trustee would manage a trust.
I'm interested to hear that you're in favour of open borders, presumably including the entire coastline of Britain? If so, are you OK with murderers and rapists, fleeing from justice in their countries of origin, taking to the highways and byways? Should desperadoes given the freedom of assets paid for and maintained by citizens? Recently, I and a friend were given temporary housing in South Ilford, Essex. In the three days that we were there, the only non-Asian people we saw were a little old man and a charming young chap from the Ukraine, fleeing conscription. Many of our neighbours were immigrants and a few seemed quite resentful at having us planted in their midst - some of them were taxpayers, no doubt, but some didn't speak even a minimal amount of English. The governments of some of the countries from which immigrants come would not consider allowing impoverished British people to become immigrants. Only in an entire world without borders can any country realistically hope to survive mass immigration.
In Britain, a person granted legal immigrant status is then permitted to bring their entire family over, including their extended relations. There are entire villages in Bangladesh, for example, which are now totally empty. The former occupants must have had sufficient funds to enable their travel to Britain and were not starving or being subjected to abuse by their government. They are lovely people but their presence in the UK requires more school places, more health services, more housing and more availability of food, water and energy. Their vehicles add to wear and tear on the roads and increase the need for fuel supplies and so on... Most iimmigrants require emergency housing and council leaflets offer them help which is not readily made available to native Britons - hence the anger which periodically flares up amongst dispossessed natives.
If natives and immigrants were offered equal treatment, perhaps sharing the infrastructure would be acceptable to more Brits.
If I have managed to grasp the wrong end of your stick or even the wrong stick altogether, my apologies!
Great post. I always wonder who has the strongest claim to the public infrastructure.
In some cases, I feel the workers who homesteaded the land have the best claims- based on their productive input. That is, they have been paid by stolen funds but that payment is irrelevant. There was unowned land which was now homesteaded by them.
Though, as you mentioned the South Downs way can be argued as homesteaded for the intention to be used by all so my view wouldn’t hold for that. I wonder if that is legitimate ‘public’ property (those who homesteaded it implicitly intend for it to be open to all) and cannot be re-appropriated (homesteaded for other uses by a single individual).