Sunday, March 05, 2017

Building border wall won't end well

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 1, 2017- this one wasn't posted to their website until several days after publication. So I saved it for now, in its entirety.)

Whatever else it might accomplish, President Trump's border wall has already divided America. I oppose the wall, believing it's a bad idea, but mine isn't a popular opinion-- even among libertarians.

Some wall supporters make the analogy of fencing your property, saying fences make good neighbors. I agree, but it doesn't apply. The US government doesn't own all the land within the borders drawn on the map, even if it believes it does.

If I decide to fence off my own property to keep out people I don't like, but I build my fence around your property, too, without your consent, have I done the right thing? What if I force you to pay for the fence even after you've told me you don't want it? Am I being a good neighbor?

What if I also control who is allowed onto your property and who you trade with?

There are simple fixes for every issue the wall is supposed to address. Don't like immigrants using welfare? End welfare for everyone. It's wrong to redistribute other people's money to anyone for any reason.

I share your concerns about crime. The difference is, I am concerned with real crime; not most of the things called "crime" today. I am willing to fight that crime by removing all laws regulating defense of life, liberty, and property-- and the proper tools with which to carry it out. Self defense solves crime.

If you don't like the crime the drug trade brings, end the government's ill-conceived War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. Prohibition breeds theft and violence; a lesson which should have been learned decades ago.

No matter how the wall is paid for, you and I will end up carrying the entire burden through higher prices and reduced real earnings. It's basic economics.

I can't afford to pay for this wall though higher prices caused by the law of supply and demand, after the supply has been limited.

When this wall backfires and causes another great depression, don't expect those responsible to own it. They'll undoubtedly blame everything and everyone but themselves, and will be as surprised as ever when government plans ruin things. It's just the way it works.

I'll never support the wall, but I'd keep my objections quiet if it's paid for by abolishing the BATFE, DEA, EPA, Department of Education, the FBI, and every other unconstitutional agency, job, or position. Anything less will make government bigger, more powerful, and more corrupt. This can't end well.


This blog, like all of, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.


  1. An actual physical wall is not only ridiculous, but totally unnecessary. Such a wall is just part of the trillion dollar “infrastructure” program offered by the god-Trump. It plants an image in the mind that the Hayseed Right finds attractive.

    A virtual wall is far more practical- satellite surveillance and small patrolling drones could spot groups of humans moving toward the border. Agents could then be dispatched to intercept them and turn them back. It would be far less expensive with less disruption of private property along the border and while helping reduce the number of illegally voting parasites.

  2. "I oppose the wall, believing it's a bad idea, but mine isn't a popular opinion-- even among libertarians."

    I would argue that anyone who supports the wall is very clearly not a libertarian, but a phony. A government that uses armed thugs and razor wire to control the movement of human beings, none of them charged with any crimes, is a totalitarian tyranny, period.

    To be sure, there seems to be an endless supply of people who call themselves "libertarian" who are in fact dedicated Statists, but let's not go along with their inaccurate self-label.

    (I'm not raging at you, Kent, just the phony bozos who mis-label themselves).

    1. The thing that gets me are the very good, otherwise consistent people who argue for a wall (or wall-like policies and actions). I can't find any fault in their other positions, and I can sort of see-- if I squint just right-- where they are coming from even, on the issue of the wall. I just can't understand why they can't see how a State big, powerful, and omnipresent enough to "secure the border" is a total State. Unless they simply don't want to see it.

    2. In the REALITY of a state controlled world, borders are necessary until abolition and establishment of property lines as a replacement. Otherwise, the ensuing cultural and societal destruction will render such abolition impossible. Parasitic, medieval monkeys have no interest in respecting your property lines or the NAP. Do you really want to have to fight that battle? Do you really want to experience what much of Europe is going through? Just so you can gleefully perch yourself at the top of some mystical, imaginary Mountain Top of Libertarian Purity?

  3. "Do you really want to have to fight that battle?"
    Actually, yes, I would prefer asserting and defending my property lines and defending myself from freelance archators than from a State which does essentially the same thing, but is a larger, more unified gang.
    I realize not everyone shares my preference, but that, quite honestly, is mine.