Whenever I mention that some libertarians don't believe in "open borders," like I did in my LRC article today on Chuck Baldwin, I get some polite but "respectfully disagree" comments along with some nasty "anyone who opposes 'open borders' is not a libertarian" comments. Of particular concern this time was the fact that I mentioned Murray Rothbard as opposing "open borders." One or two libertarians all but said I was lying.

This has been pointed out on this blog before, but I mention it again for the benefit of those who missed it. In his article "Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State," Rothbard says:

However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have "open borders" at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter unless invited to enter and allowed to rent or purchase property. A totally privatized country would be as closed as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.

Actually, I never stated my position on immigration in my article. In fact, I have never written an article about the subject. Look for one in the near future.