This was essentially a debate between idealistic anarchism and pragmatic anarchism/libertarianism. But closed borders are actually not really even against anarchist principles like Larken Rose is claiming, and here’s my short and concise response to his point about the borders of a country being “imaginary lines”:
The borders of a country are no more imaginary lines than the borders of an estate owned by one man or a group of men. You can, as a nation, to claim all the lands in your country that are not owned privately to be property of the whole nation. That is, the people of the nation would have shared ownership over the lands within the borders of the country.
And as anarcho-capitalists recognize property rights, they should have no problem with the people of the nation deciding for themselves who’s allowed to cross the borders, just as you don’t have to let in anyone on your property, and you CAN point guns at them to stop them from entering. That’s not just theory but this is how it actually is! We Finns can stop any outsider, i.e., non-Finn, from entering our country of which lands we have shared ownership over, and it’s not in the least bit immoral, but in accordance with the anarcho-capitalist principle or property rights!
Larken also argued that it’s not ok for some people, who DON’T want to take in immigrants, to decide for the whole nation when some people want to. Well, let’s say three men own an equal share of an estate, and two of them don’t want to let some outsider in on the property, but the third one does. What happens? His entry is of course denied. Now, in an anarcho-capitalist country where the people have shared ownership of the lands not owned by any individual or group, if 60% of the nation DON’T want to take in immigrants, but the rest do, what would happen? Their entry would be denied if the property rights, which anarcho-capitalists like Larken acknowledge, were respected. That’s not democracy, that’s capitalism, the majority of the stockholders decide. I.e., Larken fails again with his argument, my position is on a more solid ground philosophically.
So is Larken Rose, as brilliant as he is, and as much as I respect his work on anarchism and the tyranny of statism, in the end just another white man who’s been cucked by the cultural marxist anti-white propaganda, and hence indifferent about the replacement of white people, his own kind, in his own country and other Western countries. And then he, perhaps subconsciously, tries to rationalize his racial nihilism with arguments like that the borders between countries are imaginary lines that shouldn’t exist. Again, they’re no more imaginary than the fences of an estate claimed by an individual.
As to America, the country was created by Europeans who came there and claimed the lands, and they’re now the owners of the lands within its borders so it’s perfectly legitimate for them keep out people who they don’t want there. The European settlers created the country to reflect their values and serve their interests, of course they shouldn’t bring in people who have a different set of values and conflicting interests. It’s pure common sense, and not in the least bit immoral.