Libertarianism is only based on one single principle – the NAP. Every single position is implied from the NAP – taxation is bad, because taxation is theft, and theft violates the NAP. Yet it’s ironic that despite the simplicity of libertarian ideology, there is somehow this notorious infighting “within libertarianism”.

First off, there’s a big difference between debate and infighting. There are debates within libertarianism, for example whether the NAP is true because of argumentation ethics or because you just assume it is. In the end, it doesn’t matter, the NAP and its implications stand regardless.

Infighting, meanwhile, happens as people of ideologies incompatible with libertarianism (conservatism, fascism, socialism, etc) try to usurp the label of libertarian without actually accepting the NAP and everything that goes with it, notably the opposition to victimless crimes.

Borders

https://preview.redd.it/kn83btf34tyf1.jpg?width=562&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3334f9b1ef492a8bbd10f5b8d6ec6839e4f3f1f8

By far the easiest way to spot a fake “libertarian” is to ask about borders. If they reply along the lines of “you can’t have both a welfare state and open borders” or “the state took away freedom of association, that’s why borders are needed”, they just proved they either don’t care about the NAP, or care about it, but also have another value they put over the NAP. Let me explain.

(if they reply with something like “ideally there’d be private borders”, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re a fake libertarian, but so far i’ve mostly heard this from fake libertarians)

The NAP is an ought statement (value) – you ought not to initiate aggression. Statements like “illegals are leeching off welfare” are is statements (fact). It’s been proven (is-ought problem) that you cannot infer value statements from factual statements. This means that even if “illegals are leeching off welfare” may be true, you can’t infer “therefore they ought to be deported”. Especially considering that deporting someone initiates aggression against them, which goes against the NAP.

These fake “libertarians” (or bordertarians) thus implicitly consider some value superior to the NAP. From my experience arguing with them, i’ve noticed two of them.

(note: i’ve already posted something similar here, except i’ve now noticed that 1 and 2 are basically the same, and 3 goes way deeper than just “state owns land because it said so”)

The utilitarian value

You ought to initiate aggression if it results in a greater good.

Or “ends justify the means”.

One of the most common arguments for statist borders uses this – “illegals are leeching off welfare, if they are deported, they will no longer leech off welfare, and thus we’ll have to pay less taxes”

If you’re a moral principled human being, the problems with this logic are obvious, most notably, not every undocumented migrant is leeching off welfare. The utilitarian however doesn’t care, to them individual liberties don’t matter if summarily deporting all people who lack documents, productive or not, brings forth greater good in the form of less taxes.

It’s also not the fault of the productive (doesn’t leech off welfare) undocumented migrant that there’s a state which taxes productive people and gives the stolen loot to leeches.

The nationalist value

The state belongs to the “nation”, therefore the state ought to do the best for the “nation”.

Whether the bordertarian complains about the welfare state, crime, or (lack of) freedom of association, the easiest way to refute their argument is: “What if it’s being done by a native citizen or a legal migrant? And who decides who is and isn’t legal?”

Let’s take the infrastructure argument – “illegals ought to be deported because they don’t pay for the public infrastructure they use and travel by”. By the same logic, the bordertarian should also argue that tourists from foreign countries and visitors from other towns/regions ought to be deported (since they haven’t paid for the public infrastructure in that place either). But to the surprise of no one – they never claim that, and instead pick the path of logical contradictions or nationalism.

“What if a native citizen is leeching off welfare?” is another question they can’t answer without being inconsistent or admitting that being born on one side of the border makes you subhuman on the other (pure nationalist brainrot).

Yes, it’s this easy to shatter bordertarian arguments. I’m genuinely surprised how late i figured this out.

I’m also wondering whether the utilitarian value is actually different from the nationalist value, because utilitarianism’s “greater good” has to be a “greater good” of some collective, which in this case is usually of the “nation”, but i’m not so sure, so i’d like to hear your opinions. I’d also like to know if there are more values underlying fake “libertarian” arguments.

Why this matters

As you may tell, if one places utilitarianism or nationalism above the NAP, the non-aggression stops being a principle, but rather becomes a guideline. You don’t even have to be an ancap to see why these two values are dangerous.

“Guns ought to be banned and confiscated to reduce gun crime” is no different from “Illegals ought to be deported to reduce taxes”, yet there are plenty of bordertarians but very few (if any) guncontroltarians.

You also don’t see folks saying “Ideally there’d be private gun free zones, but while there is a state the state ought to ban guns in public” but you do see “Ideally there’d be private borders, but while there is a state the state ought to deport illegals”.
The reason is fairly simple.

Imagine if you could steal 1 million $ from someone with no consequences – the person wouldn’t know, and you could use the money as if it were yours. The NAP says that you shouldn’t do it even if it would benefit you – that’s what a principle is.

Many fake “libertarians” thus support borders and deportations yet oppose gun control, because gun control would directly affect them, while deportations would only affect migrants, ie not them. They’re no different from statists. Statists too care about their freedom. Libertarians meanwhile care about the freedom of everyone, including the freedom of complete strangers.

There will always be statists and auths infiltrating libertarianism. It is possible to change their mind, many have done so indeed. But don’t conceal parts of the ideology to appease fash impostors who are in just for the aesthetics. You either own yourself or you don’t, there’s nothing in between. Simply hating taxes doesn’t make you a libertarian. If conservatives could read they’d be very upset.

https://preview.redd.it/t83kak6dltyf1.jpg?width=569&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c6f964ee892fe9dd61d3237146a365488f0f55e5