I'd turn it around; Libertarians are usually "up to the borders", since you need a body, i.e. the state, to actually guarantee rights and freedom. The ones who go beyond the the borders are the other ones (or depending how you see it, a specific small subtype), the Anarcho-Libertarians, who think they do not need a state altogether. Once you acknowledge such a need at all, you further want to protect that state in some way from outside influence, which necessarily implies border control in a western democracy. Non-western democracies can do stuff like long-term non-citizenship, but I don't think that's realistic for us, and I also consider it unstable with actual open borders since you can simply get overrun and regime-changed; There is a reason that the usual examples of Dubai or Singapore are, if anything, stricter about their borders than the West.
Imo the primary point of being a libertarian compared to other democratic traditions such as liberalism is the general intuition that the state should be as small as possible and concern itself primarily, if not strictly, with the protection of basic rights, since otherwise there is no check to it growing out of proportion since the state itself is supposed to be the control. Trying to micro-manage the affairs of men "for their own good" always seems to go down a slippery slope of going ever more micro for ever more men.
p
I'd turn it around; Libertarians are usually "up to the borders", since you need a body, i.e. the state, to actually guarantee rights and freedom. The ones who go beyond the the borders are the other ones (or depending how you see it, a specific small subtype), the Anarcho-Libertarians, who think they do not need a state altogether. Once you acknowledge such a need at all, you further want to protect that state in some way from outside influence, which necessarily implies border control in a western democracy. Non-western democracies can do stuff like long-term non-citizenship, but I don't think that's realistic for us, and I also consider it unstable with actual open borders since you can simply get overrun and regime-changed; There is a reason that the usual examples of Dubai or Singapore are, if anything, stricter about their borders than the West.
Imo the primary point of being a libertarian compared to other democratic traditions such as liberalism is the general intuition that the state should be as small as possible and concern itself primarily, if not strictly, with the protection of basic rights, since otherwise there is no check to it growing out of proportion since the state itself is supposed to be the control. Trying to micro-manage the affairs of men "for their own good" always seems to go down a slippery slope of going ever more micro for ever more men.
More options
Context Copy link