Open borders versus no borders
Some advocates of open borders accept the legitimacy of borders per se: clear physical demarcations between the territories of nation-states, but support a presumption of free movement across these borders. Other advocates of open borders oppose borders per se. Many of these hail from the anarchist (anarcho-capitalist or anarcho-socialist) camps that don’t recognize the legitimacy of nation-states.
The latter group, who might be called “no borders” advocates, may accept open borders as a partial step toward “no borders” but not as the ultimate goal.
Robert Higgs (whose life story sheds interesting light on the moral issues surrounding immigration restrictions) appears to be in the “no borders” camp. He writes in a comment (original link seems dead, but here’s a page quoting his comment):
I will say, in case anybody cares, that despite permitting my name to appear on the letter, it does not represent my own views accurately. I am not for (or against) open (or closed) borders; I am against borders and the organized criminal gangs who draw them in the dirt and then threaten with violence anyone who crosses the line. Of course, my ideal world is not about the erupt.
Related blog posts
- Open borders versus no borders: my take by Vipul Naik, March 14, 2013, on the Open Borders blog.