There’s nothing more controversial in recent debates than the concept of “border”, from Brexit to Trump’s ludicrous attempt to build a wall; to the double layered fences in Hungary and George Clooney’s secluded mansion in Italy, people can’t seem to come to an agreement on how much “border” we need or even what’s the metaphysical nature of the concept. I am gonna offer some application to this problem, which is partly inspired by Dr. Jamie Whyte’s Facebook comments.
Movement of people is not inherently wrong, after all, groups of people moved from continents to continents even before recorded history. There are a few reasons behind this, such as increased competition, searching for better climate and avoidance of predators. It was precisely because it aided our survival that our ancestors decided to make the move, remember the reward of moving outweighed the cost of staying which led to successive movement over time. The most important concept here is that although the barbarians did not have the concept of property, they were passively practising the homestead principle, that is only property can be claimed if there were no previous owners and it had been laboured on, i.e. capital theory of value, labour doesn’t equal to product, it depends on the the asset/capital for the production of goods. Tribal warring was common and it was the nature of Statism when property was collective, thus unintentionally, borders were developed which forced others to venture to terra incognita. The argument from the progressive is that movement should not be restricted for their survival (let’s ignore the “border is racist” SJWs temporarily), but at what expense? Let’s go back to Ayn Rand’s definition of property rights:
Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort. – Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values. – The Virtue of Selfishness.
So the pre-requisite of property is rationality, it obeys the law of causality to transform said property to obtain the right to keep the produce. Taking this a step further, the fundamental unit of property right is border, without border no such right can exist as an object cannot be without definite existence. Without its existence, man cannot sustain his life thus it is death we will incur. No movement is “free” without a price, even in the most liberal sense of the definition of the word, free movement does not allow one’s rights to be trampled by another, but this is exactly what the progressives do not understand. They wish to incur death onto others for their own emotional whims.
There is nothing wrong with anyone who wishes to enter a private property by the means of an agreement without harming others, for instance, buying an airfare, arriving at an airport with permission to enter into other private roads and reaching to the destination without harming others in any way. Even in the event of emergency, it is ethical for a person to violate the property rights of another if the benefit would outweigh the cost, but it does not mean there is no consequence for his action, the law of causality applies. For example, a person may be required to compensate for the loss he incurred on his violation.
But the progressive idea of “free” movement is that of a blood thirsty marauder, who plunders and loots anything across his path without any regards for the consequences of his action. This to them is not only rational, but also VIRTUOUS because it conforms with their collectivist whims. We are seeing the devastating effect of their whims in action: Calais Jungle, Swedish nightmare, rape, etc. There are also people proposing “free” movement between Australia, UK, Canada and New Zealand. There is nothing wrong with letting people migrate without unnecessary restrictions, but we need to be wary of the Attilas trying undermine the fundamental human right to life, liberty and property.
In conclusion, to achieve free movement, we need have property rights; to achieve property rights we need borders to define their existence. Without property rights, we only have death.