Nobel
Prize winning libertarian economist Milton Friedman once suggested that
libertarians could rightfully oppose the concept of open borders as
long as the United States had a welfare state. Friedman’s point was that
with open borders and a welfare state, the United States would attract
foreign citizens who would come here in order to get on welfare. The
result would be an increase in taxes that Americans would have to pay to
fund the increased number of dole recipients. The prospect of higher
taxes, Friedman implied, justified libertarians’ opposing open borders
as long as America maintained a welfare state.
Friedman was wrong.
As
a libertarian, Friedman would surely have acknowledged that freedom to
move, freedom to travel, freedom of contract, freedom of association,
and freedom to labor are fundamental, inherent, natural, God-given
rights, ones with which no government can legitimately interfere. Such
rights don’t turn on the nationality or citizenship of people. They
adhere in all men and women.
The
concept of unalienable rights was one of the points that Thomas
Jefferson emphasized in the Declaration of Independence. He also
emphasized that to secure such rights, people institute governments.
As
a libertarian, I of course oppose the welfare state. It is
fundamentally wrong and immoral to use force, either individually or
through government, to take money from people to whom it belongs in
order to give it to people it doesn’t belong. I stand for the immediate
(i.e., non-gradualist) repeal of all welfare-state programs simply
because there is no justification for continuing an action that is
morally wrong.
But
am I going to call for a governmental infringement on the exercise of
fundamental rights simply because open borders is going to result in my
payment of higher taxes owing to the welfare state? Perish the thought!
Given a choice between calling for infringing fundamental rights and
paying higher taxes, I’ll choose the higher taxes. How could I in good
conscience support the infringement on people’s inherent, God-given
rights simply to save myself from paying higher taxes?
Suppose
Virginia has higher welfare benefits than Maryland, which is motivating
Marylanders to move to Virginia. Congress approves a constitutional
amendment enabling Virginia to impose immigration controls on the people
of Maryland. Should I, as a libertarian, support such an amendment?
No!
Simply because the open border between Virginia and Maryland, along
with Virginia’s generous welfare state, is costing me more money in
taxes is no justification for my supporting the violation of the rights
of Marylanders to move to Virginia, especially since a portion of them
would be moving here to work (and, in the process, paying taxes).
Moreover,
open borders might well be the key that finally brings about the
dismantling (i.e., the repeal) of the welfare state, something that all
libertarians would welcome.
How so?
If
large numbers of foreigners were coming to the United States to get on
welfare, as Friedman suggests they would, what better way to shock
Americans into finally giving up this immoral and wrongful way of life?
After all, how many Americans would be willing to continue paying higher
taxes to fund foreigners? The libertarian position calling for the
repeal and dismantling of the welfare state would likely have many more
supporters.
As
libertarians, we should never permit statists to maneuver us into
joining them in the violation of fundamental rights. If we do that, then
how are we any better than the statists, who are so willing to
sacrifice rights for the sake of expediency? When people complain that
open borders and the welfare state are costing them more money in taxes,
our response is simple: “Then join up with us libertarians to
dismantle, not reform, the welfare state.”
