Here are the top three arguments for Open Border Policy being pushed forward with undemocratic fervour in the industrialised countries:

1. Open borders allow people, not their place of birth, to control their lives.

2. If before you were born you didn’t know where you would be born (and who your parents would be) but could choose what the laws would be, you would choose laws allowing open borders because they could be key to your well-being.

3. Immigrants, like everybody else, have a right to not to be harmfully coerced, and implementation of immigration restrictions constitutes harmful coercion. (Or, in the words of Mr. Caplan, leave people alone so they can go and make something out of their lives.)



These 3 arguments are wonderfully idealistic particularly in light of the fact that it is based on a selfishness and money driven concepts with no consideration of quality of living and happiness.  Which begs the question:

If there are no borders and one is entitled by virtue of station in society to enjoy the financial fruits of another’s efforts,  then surely property rights become null and void as well?

For example, the poor person living in the inner city has every right to cross the borders of Richard Branson’s estate and demand housing and work, and if no work is available to be supplied housing and money/food and generally a better standard of living until such a time as work might or might not become available.

I realise that I’m providing a simplistic view of Open Borders vs Property Rights, however, it helps better to understand why there is a movement towards border control in the western world where it was only 30 years ago that the benefits of private ownership were expounded.

Surely Richard Branson has a right to decide who he lets onto his property, when and why, as well as the right to decide when he wants to philanthropic and to whom.  Another way of looking at it is, who has the right to tell Richard Branson what of his resources he must and must not share with others.

Of course this isn’t limited to physical property – perhaps the property is intellectual, so because someone has profited and become rich on an idea, one has the right to replicate the idea for themselves because they were less fortunate to be born with such a talent for ideas.  One could go on regarding the various ways where boundaries and borders have now become irrelevant.

I have researched this subject on the internet of course, before writing, and what I found was a complexity of words and intellectualism that struggled to find a way to marry the contradiction in a way that would make sense to the average observer who is deciding what is best for him.  My conclusion from reading was that liberals were removed from reality by an ideology and was not too dissimilar to Marxism in that respect.

What baffles me the most is that whilst the Open Border is based on the idea that people will always act selfishly and have a right to thereof to do so and move location on the idea that it will benefit him, is that it completely ignores the rights of the people who are otherwise subject to the policy. The proponents of the policy seem utterly surprised that they, the people subject to the policy, also act selfishly by voting to protect their borders and property when they feel those boundaries are disintegrating.

Territory has always been a fundamental instinct of humans and animals, and as much as humanity tries to separate itself from nature, there are some fundamental aspects that can’t be diluted or removed.   Respect of boundaries and borders will always be an instinct, and as long as they are not respected the further right the pendulum will swing – sadly this now seems to be an inevitable conclusion.

My personal view is that all sides need to be heard and action taken.  Imposing policy on a group without consideration is the lowest form of respect one can fall to, and then to demand them to respect that decision that was made for them is completely unrealistic.

It is time for a paradigm shift in society.