I’m guessing that pretty much everyone who reads this knows that some people have started a GoFundMe site to come up with voluntary donations for the wall on the U.S. border with Mexico. Currently, it has raised over $12.8 million. Other people have pointed out that if they come up with enough money, it still won’t go to build the wall because if you want to donate to the government, the donations go into the feds’ general fund and Congress would still have to allocate money for the wall.
But there is one way the funds could be used to build a wall. That is, to use the funds to build parts of the wall on private property. Donald Trump has long been a fan of eminent domain and his plan is to have the government force private owners of land to “allow” the government to put up parts of the wall on their land.
Instead, what could be done is for the GoFundMe people to use the funds to buy permission from private landowners to build the wall on their land and to pay for construction of the wall. That way, no one’s rights are violated.
Moreover, as Robert Murphy has pointed out in arguing that the “Open Borders” idea is a bad idea and not libertarian at all, there is no way that people who own land on the border should be forced to let people, whether they be immigrants or American residents, on their land. So there should not be “open borders” unless the owners of the land want their border with Mexico to be open.
If the GoFundMe people used their funds entirely for construction on private land, after first getting permission from the owners, there should be no objection.
READER COMMENTS
Mark Z
Dec 21 2018 at 5:50pm
I’m a bit puzzled by Murphy’s argument. Open borders wouldn’t compel people to let their private property be used by crossing immigrants, and even if the state sold off all the land it owns along the border, it’s inevitable some of the private owners would allow their property to be used for crossing (likely for a fee, of course), leading, functionally, to ‘open borders.’ Is he equating the use of public property, e.g. roads, to forcing taxpayers to allow immigrants to use what he considers to be ‘their’ property? Because that’s a perilous interpretation of public property. It could also be used to justify any democratically imposed restriction on who can or cannot use roads or any other public property, which doesn’t seem very libertarian.
More to the point of your post: we could take this to its logical conclusion (maybe not even a bad idea) and auction off the land along the border, and if opponents of immigration can afford to outbid supporters of immigration in buying up all the land, then they can deny passage to whom they please, but not otherwise.
David Henderson
Dec 21 2018 at 7:26pm
You write:
Actually, that’s exactly what “open borders” would do. My guess is that you’re so used to using the term a certain way, a way that does not imply that, that you have forgotten to take the terms literally. Murphy hasn’t.
You write:
I agree.
You write:
No. It leads functionally to people getting across the border, but not open borders.
You write:
The article no longer exists. I couldn’t find it on the Wayback Machine. So I don’t know. If I recall correctly, though, he posits an anarchist society with no government property.
You write:
Good point. And the worry about opponents of immigration outbidding supporters is not justified–I’m not saying you’re worried about it. There would be many property owners welcoming immigrants with open arms and, occasionally, charging a small fee.
Also, even in that worst case, people would hop over the land by flying in to an interior airport.
Scott Sumner
Dec 22 2018 at 7:34pm
David, Do you have a link to Murphy’s argument? If your interpretation is correct (and I have no reason to assume it is not), then I can’t see the point Murphy is making. Surely open borders proponents would be thrilled with the compromise required to meet his objections. So what is Murphy’s actual view on immigration?
David Henderson
Dec 22 2018 at 10:11pm
No, I don’t. As I said in a comment above, the site is no longer in existence.
You wrote:
It’s not even a compromise. Bob is insisting on careful use of language.
You wrote:
I’m pretty sure that he is against all government restrictions on immigration.
TMC
Dec 23 2018 at 9:19am
I almost wrote ‘nitpick’, but it’s not. The ‘main point’ of the wall is to stop illegal immigration, not immigration. Set the number and procedures to allow legal immigration and follow that.
Chris
Dec 24 2018 at 9:13am
One thing hasn’t been discussed in this thread (though I consider it vital) is the rule of law. These aren’t immigrants we are discussing, these are trespassers. They are breaking the law to get here. Does that not matter? Trespassers by their very nature are stealing. Sure it can be argued there are positive effects to society adding workers willing to work at lower cost (um, how about we try getting rid of the minimum wage?), but is there a way to measure the negative effects of allowing such a large degree of lawlessness in our Union? Shouldn’t that be weighed against the value of cheaper labor in order to make a reasoned decision? I searched government sites, and the most recent data I could find were from 1997, so I am not sure how well they can be applied today. I sense that some/many in this thread would like to increase immigration. I agree. That does not make me a proponent of lawlessness. The federal government engages in many things not authorized in the Constitution. Protecting its citizens from invasion is squarely one of its limited functions. One of the foundations of economics is the existence of property rights, correct? A legitimate government’s primary function is to protect them, correct? Victor Davis Hanson (a fellow of yours, David) owns land in California’s central valley. He can measure very personally the costs of a government failing its citizens <https://www.hoover.org/research/diversity-illegal-immigration>. I think this is worth considering in this thread. You all can better judge that.
Hazel Meade
Jan 2 2019 at 2:19pm
David, I don’t think anyone who advocates “open borders” such as Bryan Caplan, actually advocates allowing immigrants to walk across private property on their way across the border. So while the term might be literally interpreted that way, that’s not what anyone means, so it’s a moot point. The way the term is actually used is more like “unrestricted immigration”.
Benjamin Cole
Dec 21 2018 at 8:19pm
By modern-day libertarian principles, if I bought a pencil line of property enveloping the United States, then I could prevent land passage to and from the interior?
And why do my air rights extend up only so many feet? I want property rights up to 100,000 feet.
Mark Bahner
Dec 25 2018 at 1:35am
I want Santa to bring me a gold Maserati this morning. A 24k gold Maserati. (I guess I better get to bed to let that happen.) 🙂
David S
Dec 23 2018 at 1:22am
And why do my air rights extend up only so many feet? I want property rights up to 100,000 feet.
You don’t even have to go there – build a 100,000 ft high wall! Of course, every system of government / cooperation has failure modes, so this thought experiment doesn’t really prove anything.
Comments are closed.