I really wish this discussion would go away. Calling it a "debate" is a misnomer. "False dichotomy" would be more apt. Here's why:
FOR MARKET ANARCHISTS/VOLUNTARYISTS THE ONLY LEGITIMATE BORDERS ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY LINES.
This idea is so foundationally elemental to the libertarian philosophy that I am flabbergasted to see anyone missing it. And a lot of people are.
Libertarianism/Voluntaryism/Anarchism begins with the self-evident, axiomatic, immutable reality of individual self-ownership. From this solid foundation it extrapolates to establish norms for legitimate and illegitimate property based on homesteading, voluntary transaction, inheritance, etc.
This being so, any "property line" or "border" that is not private property is by definition illegitimate. Saying "open state borders" are anarchist in nature is like saying Pepsi Cola is pretty much water. That's bullshit. Conversely, saying closed state borders are legitimate is like saying Nazism is needed to preserve liberty.
Both open and closed STATE borders are violent.
What!? you may say, How are open borders violent?
Open state borders force association. They force tax slaves to pay for the transportation of people and goods they did not voluntarily consent to on the roads and property they have been paying for via being extorted (taxation). Of course this is the fault of the state, and not the immigrants. That is exactly what I am saying. The state, not the "open borders" is illegitimate.
Open state borders preclude legitimate private property owners from making decisions about how to use their property. The state decides who can cross property lines, ultimately, and how property must be used. Any person living on the border who wishes to prohibit someone from entering their property is told "too bad." "Do it."
Open state borders prohibit individuals from homesteading property owned by no one on the border itself. Open state borders say "bake the damn cake" to the Christian shop owners who are on property deemed "public" by the state. Violence (the application of force to non-violent individuals) is necessary to enforce all of these actions.
Closed borders restrict the free and full use of private property as well. Closed borders tell the farmer in Texas he cannot hire his friend in Mexico, allowing him to live and work on his private property. Closed state borders, like open state borders, prohibit individuals from homesteading freely.
There are a million other reasons why both open and closed state borders are illegitimate, but the most obvious one is this:
STATE. BORDERS.
STATE. BORDERS.
S-T-A-T-E.
STATE.
ANARCHISM IS INCOMPATIBLE, BY DEFINITION, WITH STATISM!!!!!!!!!!!!
Would open state borders still be preferable to closed state borders absent complete privatization? I think anything that strips away the state is good.
Here is a link to my debate with Jared Howe on the topic.
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as Facebook and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)