In the ideal world of those Americans who oppose the libertarian concept of open borders, there would be a 50-foot wall all around America, manned and patrolled by an enormous army of well-armed military troops prepared to do whatever is necessary to prevent any foreigner from getting through. Additionally, in their minds they envision a federal planning agency that finally, after decades of planned chaos in the area of immigration, consists of bureaucrats who have the knowledge and expertise to come up with a perfect immigration central plan in which no one crosses the border and enters the United States without governmental permission.
The deep fear of such people is that under a libertarian system of open borders, billions of foreign citizens would suddenly flood into the United States, go on welfare, become American citizens, destroy American culture, steal jobs, rape Americans, take over the the federal government, and appoint federal judges who would enforce Sharia law rather than the U.S. Constitution.
Likely? Not very, but let’s face it: It’s certainly within the realm of the possible.
But hey, books can be dangerous too. In fact, they can actually be more dangerous than immigrants. Imagine the danger to American freedom and values posed by books advocating Marxism, communism, socialism, mercantilism, and fascism. Such books could come from all over the world and be read by the American people. What would be wrong with using that 50-foot wall to prevent not just foreign people from coming to the United States but also foreign books that contain dangerous ideas as well?
Likely? Not very, but you can’t deny it: It’s certainly within the realm of the possible. Do we really want to take that chance?
For that matter, let’s not ignore the danger posed by Americans who travel to foreign countries. We all know that there are mysterious infectious diseases always popping up in Third World nations. The Zika virus is just the latest example. Who knows what other dangerous contagious illnesses are lurking out there just waiting to infect some traveling American? An American traveling to the jungles of some African or South American country could contract an infectious disease that could suddenly wipe out a enormous percentage of the American populace. Why not use that wall to keep Americans in? After all, it’s not like there isn’t plenty to see and do here in the United States.
Likely? Not very, but you can’t deny it: It’s certainly within the realm of the possible. Do we really want to take that chance?
Even worse, an American traveling overseas could acquire an infection of the mind, one that is highly contagious. Don’t forget: That’s how America ended up with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schooling, and the entire welfare-state way of life. In the 19th century, when our American ancestors had a system of open borders (in both directions), American students went abroad to study in German universities, where they learned about the concept of the welfare state. Their minds got infected with socialist ideas, which they then brought back to the United States and spread to tens of millions of other Americans. That how we got the Progressive movement, which ended up wiping out America’s system of free enterprise and free markets.
Imagine if Americans traveling abroad began talking to Muslims or studying in Middle East universities and being exposed to Islam and the Koran. Imagine if people over there radicalize their minds just as German professors did to the minds of American students back in late 1800s. Those students could return to the United States and spread the infection to others, just like what happened with Progressivism.
Likely? Not very, but let’s face it: It’s certainly within the realm of the possible. Do we really want to take that chance?
We also need to be aware of the dangers inside that 50-foot wall encircling America, for example with the libertarian concept calling for the legalization of drugs. Imagine the dangers that such a policy could present. Suppose that after drugs are legalized, everyone becomes a drug addict. Who would fly the planes, operate the trains, drive the buses, produce the food, construct the houses, and cut our hair if everyone is stoned every day? How would anyone be safe on the highways if every driver is drugged up?
Likely. Not very. But it’s certainly within the realm of the possible. Do we really want to take that chance?
What about welfare? Libertarians favor a repeal of all government welfare programs, holding that it’s morally wrong for government to take money from a person to whom it belongs and giving it to a person to whom it doesn’t belong. Libertarians believe in a separation of charity and the state, a concept that would leave charity entirely within the private sector.
But what happens if no one helps those who are the bottom one percent? What if they can’t get jobs in a free market economy? What if everyone rejects their requests for voluntary charity? Wouldn’t millions be starving to death or dying on the streets from inadequate healthcare? Indeed, maybe libertarian Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek was right when he endorsed a minimal welfare-state safety net in his book The Constitution of Liberty, obviously to protect those who might fall off the high wire of freedom. But what happens if the safety net fails? Maybe the safe thing would be to construct a series of safety nets under the main safety net, just to make sure that the bottom 1 percent is taken care of. Indeed, maybe the best thing would be to have a army of federal inspectors to check the safety nets, just to be safe.
Likely? Not very, but certainly within the realm of the possible. Do we really want to take that chance?
Education? Under libertarian philosophy, there would be a separation of education and the state — i.e., no more public schooling. But what if tens of millions of children go uneducated? Indeed, what if everyone in society ends up stupid?
Likely? Not very. But it’s certainly within the realm of the possible. Do we really want to take that chance?
While we are on the subject of children, reflect on the danger posed by statists who are free to have children. Since statist parents far outnumber libertarian parents, they are almost certain to bring into existence far more statist children than libertarian parents do. Imagine how difficult that makes it for libertarians to restore freedom to our society. Maybe libertarians should think about endorsing a licensing system whereby only those parents who score in the libertarian quadrant in the World’s Smallest Political Quiz will be permitted to have children.
What about gun control? Today there are tens of millions of guns in American society. What if the vast majority of gun owners suddenly decided to go on a massive killing spree, targeting people in gun-free zones all across America. Imagine the death and destruction they could wreak before the police could stop them.
Likely? Not very. But it’s certainly within the realm of the possible. Do we really want to take that chance?
There is no question about it: Freedom is dangerous, extremely dangerous. The problem, however, is that the alternative is worse. That’s because people who surrender their freedom in the quest for safety and security inevitably end up with neither.
