Friday, September 11, 2015

Border Control is Just as Bad as Gun Control

Claiming that state borders have to be closed/controlled in order to hinder terrorist operations is exactly analogous to claiming that access to guns has to be restricted in order to hinder criminal activity. Just as the latter does not hinder the criminals in any way, but only disarms their victims, both physically and mentally (thus actually facilitating criminal activity), the former does not hinder the terrorists in any way, since their comparative advantage lies in, among others, obtaining illegal access to various strategic locations (it actually strengthens them, both materially and ideologically, by allowing them to turn into human smuggling mafias), but only shackles the masses of those interested in obtaining legal access to a better world, where they wish to live peaceful, productive lives, as well as makes non-criminals all over the world increasingly more vulnerable, both physically and mentally, by being increasingly more exposed to statist panic-mongering and statist parasitism in the form of ever increasing "defense expenditures".


  1. Controlling/closing national borders is exactly analogous to controlling/closing property boundaries. Just as the owner of property reserves the right to limit access to his property to only those visitors of whom he approves, the members of a given society reserve the right to limit access to their society to only those visitors of whom they approve. For instance, if a society exists within the walls of a national border, and if the members of that society agree that murder and theft is proscribed behavior, then the members of that society reserve the right to deny access across their national border to known murderers and thieves.

  2. Broder, you're committing the fallacy of comparing rightful, legitimate owners of property with the state, which is not a rightful, legitimate owner of the so-called "public areas".