Open Borders and the Existence of Government


Freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are in direct synonymy with the Libertarian Party. Libertarians are strong advocates for civil liberties and the eradication of intrusive, big government. Uninformed persons retain the wretched habit of mistaking libertarian principles for anarchic ones. Erroneous assertions of open borders supporting libertarian values is a common ailment among people who are unfamiliar with American political ideologies. The state of open borders places any nation in peril and should not be mistaken for amicability or “tolerance.”

First and foremost, a nation of open borders is a nation of sitting ducks. Borders shield Americans from the Islamic State, Jihadists, and other terrorists who aim to annihilate our way of life. True libertarians champion for freedom and the civil rights which make America great. Without the proper protection, all of these liberties would be trampled on. For instance, we the people lock our doors at night to shield ourselves from potential danger. Imagine if we left our doors unlocked, or removed them all together. Rapists, murderers, and vigilantes would have access to our families, personal property, and other treasures. Secure borders shield our nation from foreign threats just as locked doors shelter us from domestic threats.

Those who advocate for open borders are not libertarians, nor should they refer to themselves as such. The flagrant notion of open borders appeals only to extreme leftists or anarchists. Leftists foolishly believe borders symbolize bigotry, xenophobia, and intolerance, although they might subscribe to a different philosophy if they were mandated to remove their doors from their hinges and remain in their homes. Anarchists endorse the absence of borders with the misguided credence that any form of government intervention is a detriment to freedom. The premier dissimilarity between libertarians and anarchists is while libertarians advocate for a small, limited government, anarchists promote the elimination of government.

Anarchists are woefully illogical and precariously misguided in their twisted beliefs. They fail to comprehend that absence of borders leaves America vulnerable to disease, terrorism, and other fatalities. The key flaw in anarchism stems from the belief that freedom is an offshoot of the absence of government. The idealized version of government is expressed in a quote from Rand Paul: “I want a government so small that I can barely see it.” Rand Paul is an outstanding politician and should have represented the Libertarian Party in 2016, instead of Gary Johnson.

The absence of government is equally as dangerous as an oppressive government; both systems result in the same outcome. An utter lack of government permits murders, rapists, pedophiles, and other sadists to run amuck without facing any consequences. If government is too powerful, then citizens are subjected to tyrannical dictators and criminals in expensive suits. The Horseshoe Theory is the most applicable assertion when discussing the relationship between a complete lack of government and an all powerful government. The Horseshoe Theory dictates that ideologies on extreme contrasting sides of the political spectrum are merely two sides of the same coin.

The need for secure borders in America is nonnegotiable. A plethora of policies are open for discussion and might even benefit from certain alterations, but national security does not fall into this category. We either have a country or we do not. Borders protect and enforce our cherished libertarian values. Freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are only practical because of the American way of life, which rapidly deteriorates without borders.


Gabrielle Seunagal is a sassy and outspoken freelance writer. Her favorite hobbies outside of writing are working out at her local gym and traveling.


Image: Rob Osborne

The following two tabs change content below.

Gabrielle Seunagal

Gabrielle Seunagal is an intelligent, witty, and iconic libertarian. She is very proud to be self-employed and happily works full time as a freelance writer. In her spare time, Gabrielle loves to read, travel, eat out, and go on adventures. You can follow her on Twitter @ClassySnobbb.


  1. Right-wing, authoritarian drivel. This putrid collectivism has no business claiming association w/ the historical libertarian tradition.

  2. “Imagine if we left our doors unlocked, or removed them all together. Rapists, murderers, and vigilantes would have access to our families, personal property, and other treasures.”

    Right – except . . . the US is not private property. If I have a friend in Egypt, and I’m willing to buy her a ticket to Seattle, invite her into my home and give her a job, then what’s the basis by which libertarians would agree that The State should be involved in preventing that?

    If the imaginary line around the US were some sort of real “protection” against bad guys, then it would follow that all of us living here in Washington State should set up border guards, fences and barbed wire to “protect” us from the creeps and bad-apples that would otherwise come here from Chicago and Miami. More than that, we should erect a big wall around Tacoma to assure that rapists and murderers from Seattle and Spokane don’t just drive in and steal all our treasures.

    Down that path, we all wall ourselves in to “protect” us from the outside world, giving up free trade and free travel – which are the hallmarks of a libertarian society and which have given us so much wealth.

    Living in Washington State, the entire idea of INS and Customs strike me as particularly absurd. To our East is an imaginary line and a sign “Welcome to Idaho.” To our South is an imaginary line with a sign “Welcome to Oregon.” To our North and West, however, it’s barbed wire, “your papers and passports, please,” warrantless inspections, tariffs, Customs and INS agents all uniformed and armed.

    And yet, there’s zero economic or social theory that supports the idea that there are risks from people arriving from the West or North that exceed the risks of people who just drive in freely from the South or East.

    Basically, this writing is not only silly, but demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about the principles and policy underlying critical libertarian thinking.

    • The only “silly” thing is your response. Borders protect America, thus protecting our values. End of story. You sound like an anarchist.

      • Of course borders can protect us if monitored aggressively and if we deploy the usual aggressive techniques for random search and seizure.

        But, the question is whether the protection we gain is worth the detriment of all the trade and travel disruption.

        If we assigned uniformed guards all up and down the Mississippi, searching everyone who crossed, demanding ID and inspecting their cars, we would catch some bad guys, and in that sense such a program would protect Americans.

        But, on balance, it would be a bad idea. Americans know this, and that’s why we don’t do it.

  3. So to recap briefly:

    1) We should rely on government heavily to build a border wall and / or enhance immigration techniques that leave out businesses and trade policies. Good job on your Libertariansim.

    2) A nation of closed borders usually looses out to those that innovate with a more liberty-minded nation-state willing to trade with others instead of hiding behind the “nationalistic” type of thinking that plagued the former Soviet Union, India, and Mexico.

    3) Some of the worst people that do come into this country are actually American Citizens living abroad and then move here. See The Saudi Arabia 9/11 attackers. What is non-negotiable is letting fear and bigotry encompass liberty and security when instead, it is better to stop bombing nations that did not attack us and not blocking those same refuges from said countries that were bombed by U.S. weapons.

    P.S. Rand Paul is nor more a Libertarian than say, Tulsi Gabbard is. Gary Johnson received over 4.1+ million votes to Senator Paul’s 54,100+ in the 2016 Presidential race. Plus the Libertarian Part of Kentucky declared, that in 2008, Senator Paul was not a Libertarian.

    Michael C is also a sassy and “in-spoken” freelance commentator. His favorite hobbies outside of commenting are working out at his local gym and coding. #winning #makelibertariansgreateagain

  4. The problem with anarchists isn’t so complicated. The entire ideology is flawed because they believe that it is possible for government to not exist. This is just as much a denial of human nature as the Marxist “New Man”. People, by nature, will create government, no matter what one deigns to label it.

    As far as Open Borders, I agree that it is not a libertarian position, though it could be between two libertarian countries and cultures. The problem with Open Borders in its current theory is that it is a net negative on liberty due to cultural differences and our own penchant for putting “Democracy” and its many illiberal repercussions at a higher priority than liberty. It is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse, and I have to seriously question the intelligence of those who can’t see it.

Comments are closed.