Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 2:00:25 — 109.7MB)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 426.
Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project, which aims to promote the Non-Aggression Principle as a universal peace agreement, and I discussed various issues including: immigration and open borders, and so on.
(See previous episode with Matthew, KOL372 | Discussing Contract Theory, Restitution, Punishment, with Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity and KOL362 | California Gold #6, with Matt Sands: Defining Libertarianism, Anarchism and Voluntaryism.)
Related links:
- Switzerland, Immigration, Hoppe, Raico, Callahan
- A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders, LewRockwell.com, September 1, 2005
- Van Dun on Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement
From Grok:
In this podcast episode, Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian legal theorist, engages in a detailed discussion with Matthew Sands, who runs the Nations of Sanity project, focusing on libertarian principles surrounding property rights, homesteading, and immigration. The conversation, which spans roughly two hours, explores the nuances of libertarian philosophy, particularly the concepts of self-ownership, the non-aggression principle (NAP), and how these apply to practical issues like borders and access to unowned resources.
The discussion begins with Sands introducing his project, which is grounded in defining law and crime through individual self-ownership as a basis for peaceful agreements. The conversation initially stems from a debate about immigration and borders, which evolves into a broader exploration of property rights, specifically the concept of “donut homesteading”—a hypothetical scenario where a property owner surrounds an unowned or owned piece of land, potentially restricting access to it. This scenario serves as a springboard to discuss whether such actions violate libertarian principles.
Kinsella outlines the libertarian immigration debate, noting the traditional “open borders” stance among some libertarians, who argue that the state, being illegitimate, has no right to restrict movement. However, he highlights a shift in the 1990s and 2000s, led by figures like Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Murray Rothbard, who questioned open borders due to practical and cultural concerns, such as welfare state externalities and forced integration. Kinsella clarifies that he is not anti-immigration but argues that denying outsiders access to public roads—legally controlled by the government but rightfully owned by taxpayers—does not inherently violate their rights. Sands counters that while property owners can exclude others from their land, actively preventing access to unowned resources (e.g., wilderness areas like the Grand Canyon) through measures like border walls constitutes a violation of libertarian principles.
The donut homesteading scenario becomes a central point of contention. Sands argues that enclosing someone’s property or unowned land, thereby imprisoning them or denying access, violates the NAP. He distinguishes between not facilitating access (e.g., denying road use) and actively blocking it (e.g., building a wall). Kinsella, while sympathetic to the idea of rights of way in private law contexts, dismisses the donut scenario as an unrealistic hypothetical, akin to left-leaning concerns about monopolies. He cites civil law solutions, like granting easements to enclosed estates, as practical resolutions that align with libertarian goals of minimizing conflict. However, he cautions against directly applying private law analogies to national borders due to differing contexts involving citizenship and state-controlled property.
Both agree that the ultimate libertarian solution is a stateless society where private property reigns, eliminating the concept of immigration as a political issue. Sands emphasizes that libertarian solutions—like denying immigrants access to welfare and public services—are preferable to anti-libertarian measures like border walls. Kinsella suggests a compromise inspired by Hoppe: allowing immigration with sponsorship to mitigate welfare state issues, which Sands acknowledges as an improvement but not fully libertarian.
The conversation concludes with mutual appreciation for the exchange, with both recognizing the complexity of applying libertarian principles to real-world problems. They agree that while edge cases like donut homesteading highlight theoretical principles, the focus should be on moving toward a freer, stateless society. Sands plugs his Nations of Sanity project, and both express interest in future discussions to further explore these ideas.
