"Libertarianism is a moral and political philosophy that argues in favor of a strong presumption of letting people engage freely in mutually consensual activity and on minimizing coercion in society. In the modern political context, libertarians generally focus on government-enforced and government-facilitated coercion.

The right to migrate can be considered a corollary of the libertarian view that people should be free to do what they please (individually or collectively) unless it violates the rights of others.

Libertarians’ view of obligations to strangers has two core premises.

First, no obligations to strangers beyond respecting their rights.

Second, a very strong obligation to respect their rights.

Together, these premises argue in favor of not letting concerns about harms to fellow nationals be a justification for opposing free migration."

Read here for the historical roots of the argument for open borders in the libertarian movement:

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-argument-open-borders

#IKITAO

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Do you believe ownership can be other than individual?

If you do, then how is unwanted migration into property owned by another collective not coercive?

Mate they are just as bad as the commies for absurd abstractionism unwitnessed in nature.

Purists are always baffled by their own bullshit.

Somewhere between the transition from the old version to the new one they lost sight of the point.

I provided a link in the post that directly addresses this issue. I believe your question is sincere, but I have no interest in repeating myself or trying to convert you. Maybe give the article a read. It lays out the libertarian position on open borders and addresses criticisms raised by some.

Here it is again:

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-argument-open-borders

Here are a couple more resources. If, after you've read them, you still have genuine questions about foundational libertarian principles, I'll be more inclined to answer them.

nostr:nevent1qqstxhgst2vesqnz7mducl2942kjknfv6y8tmj2px92zj3cpw6ufrgcpzemhxue69uhkummnw3ex2mrfw3jhxtn0wfnj7q3qf6ugxyxkknket3kkdgu4k0fu74vmshawermkj8d06sz6jts9t4ksxpqqqqqqzwx0m0h

nostr:nevent1qqswwtj8lk47mgp09x7h0rdqa74gl3un9kza3hxpkmhcp5290tp9kngpz3mhxw309ucnydewxqhrqt338g6rsd3e9upzqn4csvgddd8djhrdv63etv7nea2ehp06aj8hdyw6l4q94yhq2htdqvzqqqqqqyd6prnc

I’d argue that it’s not as much about allowing people to engage freely in mutually consensual activity, but rather about refraining from acts of aggression toward other individuals, groups, or their property. "Live and let live" is an extension of the non-aggression principle, which is the more foundational concept.