Libertarianism and Dave Smith

My personal definition of libertarianism for over a decade has been that liberty is the core principle, and on every issue, you put liberty first, grounded in individualism, private property rights, and the NAP. Though I probably need to update my definition slightly. Dave Smith’s definition of libertarianism, put roughly, is self-ownership, private property rights, and the non-aggression principle (NAP)—the idea that no one may initiate force against another person or their property. He describes this as a philosophically consistent foundation that avoids circular reasoning, emphasizing that libertarianism rejects government as a monopoly on the use of force. 

So why is he advocating for socialist state borders and mass deportations if this is an initiation of force against another person, which is part of his own definition of libertarianism—and thus goes against it? I think a discussion with Dave or even a debate would be constructive, but I’m not sure he’d go for that, since I’m too respectful and I have not made an openly mockingly disrespectful three-hour-long video about him, adding a cut video clip of him that made what he said more egregious than what it was—which took away from the good arguments and points that were made. In this article, I’ll try to speculate and get inside Dave’s head while playing devil’s advocate with myself.

 I find the best way to ensure your perspective is logically sound and well-calculated is to evaluate your core beliefs and the opinions that differ from or even oppose them. If your views are not logically sound or consistent, you must reevaluate those positions. So I’ll give it a go. With that foundation in mind, let’s examine Dave’s key arguments for borders, starting with the welfare state.

Welfare State Exploitation

Dave Smith’s Position

One of Dave’s positions supporting socialist borders is that migrants or “illegals” will come to exploit the welfare state, putting a heavy burden on taxpayers, leading to unsustainability, and incentivizing non-productive immigration. He says that this violates the non-aggression principle (NAP) by forcing citizens to subsidize newcomers.

My Position (Brandon Aragon)

Don’t give me a police state, end welfare. Libertarians always analyze issues by identifying the root of the problem rather than treating the symptoms. Focusing on the root, not just trimming the leaves, should always be the focus—why not on immigration? My first argument is: If migrants are able to receive welfare, which seems a little harder than what Republicans make it out to be (I’m not saying that they don’t; some do), then welfare should be cut. Immigrants do not violate the NAP because the government hands out the money that they stole to them consensually. Criminals will be criminals, and by this I mean the politicians. 

Some guy walking across an imaginary line drawn by illegitimate extortionists isn’t violating anyone’s rights, and the government is illegitimate because taxation is extortion, which is a form of theft, so everything they have or have taken is stolen, so in no way can they be legitimate. It’d be like some guys in a van down in an alley selling all stolen goods with price tags and brands from legitimate stores like Nordstrom, in no way would you or anyone else think of these guys as a legitimate shop. 

To further the argument, the Nordstrom thieves in the alleyway decide to give away some of their goods; the people who received those items for free didn’t rob anyone or do anything wrong—i.e., didn’t violate the NAP as Dave put it. “Moreover, immigrants are net positive economically: they expand the labor force, drive innovation, and boost overall GDP growth. Studies show they raise average wages for native-born workers and contribute billions in taxes and spending, outweighing any short-term costs. A quick side note: if immigrants raise prices due to supply and demand, drop the minimum wage so that everything from manufacturing to construction will be cheaper, dropping housing prices and other goods. 

This will also be better for businesses, allowing them to have larger workforces for lower prices, making the U.S. more competitive globally. Don’t give me a police state; drop the minimum wage. My second argument is: If the welfare state becomes too big and welfare and/or the state collapses, let it. Why hold on or try to save the U.S., which I call the “Soviet Union,” which can’t be saved? It’s a debtor with almost $40 trillion in debt, a little over $38 trillion at the moment, and debt/spending has only increased under the Trump administration, who was elected a second time to decrease it. Friendly reminder: you’re not going to be able to vote your way out of this. Bleed the state. But economics isn’t the only concern—let’s turn to culture and politics.

Political and Cultural Threats

Dave Smith’s Position

Mass immigration could shift demographics, empowering voters who favor bigger government, gun control, or socialist policies, thus undermining libertarian goals. He references Hoppe’s idea of “physical removal” of ideological threats (e.g., communists) from communities, extending this to border control as a defensive measure against incompatible cultures or ideologies.

My Position

Don’t give me a police state. If you don’t want refugees, quit the drone strikes and don’t start wars. If crime is your concern, end the drug war, but do not give me a police state. If crime or mass populations are a concern, eliminate gun laws and gun manufacturing regulations; this will increase protection, the supply of guns, and make guns more readily available. But do not give me a police state. Nothing the state does with immigration will actually fix the problems associated with it. The Immigration problems are merely just symptoms of greater problems, and by increasing the police state, immigration enforcement, and borders, you only create more problems, one of many being a tyrannical police state.

 The real root problems of the immigration issue are the wars, the drug war, gun laws and regulations, the minimum wage, and welfare. Not all immigrants are a negative; many communist-hating Cubans have migrated to Florida, ensuring that the state stays red, even with all the old New Yorkers using Florida as a retirement home. In the year 2000, Florida was pretty much split 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats, as evidenced by the U.S. presidential election of 2000, which came down to the wire and was so close it was inconclusive, leading to recounts. Today, the state is red and one of the freest in the country.

It is true that Stalin would mix the populations of the Soviet Union, causing problems and infighting among them and pitting different cultures against each other through a divide-and-conquer tactic. So they would fight each other rather than focus on the government. So Dave is right here, but Stalin did this under a massive police state and extremely closed borders, so whether the state has closed socialist borders or a more Ellis Island-type policy makes no difference. Proof of this is that Donald Trump will flood the country, this time legally, with as many as 776 Indian workers daily on H-1B visas, based on recent data. And over 265,000 Chinese university students are coming in. The people not only granted the government more power, but the outcome is irrelevant, and the arriving immigrants are conditioned to submit and obey state authority. Unfortunately, India has high levels of rape and pollution, though this is not true of all Indians. Never focus on collectivism.

The Real Path Forward: Why Borders Aren’t the Answer

I talked about some of the topics I’ll cover in a previous article, which discusses the NAP, Dave Smith, and Zulu. The core of the immigration problem lies in dismantling welfare systems, ending endless wars, and concluding the failed drug war, all of which have only amplified dependency, crime, and terrorism.

Giving the government more power and control over immigration and borders will only create a more problematic police state. as: “This is part of the problem.” This directly contradicts Dave’s own definition, which rejects state monopolies on force yet endorses them for borders. Never give the government more power to fix a problem it created; the solution will always be worse. Freer countries do not have closed socialist borders, while communist hellholes do, like Cuba and North Korea.

 A highly militarized police state makes it more difficult to achieve more liberty, no matter the route you strategically try to take. Allowing government strict oversight of movement inevitably leads to dystopias like 15-minute cities. Immigration serves as a convenient scapegoat to usher in a technocratic surveillance regime complete with CBDCs and digital IDs. Immigrants are just scapegoats to usher in a technocratic surveillance police state, and those measures will be far worse than leaving immigration alone and pushing to explain the real root problems to the people in hopes of offering more liberty instead of tyranny.

 Immigration policies have historically been used as pretexts to expand surveillance and control, often leading to broader authoritarian measures that erode liberties for all citizens, far outweighing any immigration “fixes.” Reports show U.S. immigration enforcement under Trump relies on AI and data analytics to build expansive surveillance systems, disregarding due process and enabling technocratic overreach. This creates tools that can target dissenters beyond immigrants, normalizing a police state. Monitoring technologies for immigrants replay eugenic-era tactics, conditioning society for authoritarianism by using “evidence” of threats to justify mass data collection. Federal agencies buy private data for immigration surveillance, skirting laws and enabling “surveillance capitalism” that expands to domestic control, worse than addressing root issues like welfare or wars. Mass deportations depend on authoritarian surveillance tech, supercharging systems under immigration pretexts that threaten broader freedoms.

 ICE already collaborates closely with Palantir, leveraging its software for data analysis in workplace raids, border operations, and individual tracking, backed by years of contracts—including a recent $30 million deal for the AI-powered ImmigrationOS to accelerate deportations. These government deals have enabled Palantir to expand its infrastructure, now extending to the IRS, where its Foundry software builds unified data platforms for modernizing tax systems. Under Trump, this is constructing both digital and physical prisons through border enhancements, guiding society toward total control under banners of freedom, safety, and America First. As libertarians we should always advocate for less state power and more freedom. I’m going to wrap up this article with a quote, but Benjamin Franklin was referring to a different subject matter when he said it. I find that when you examine history, this quote fits every example given, and that whenever liberty has been sacrificed for security, we receive neither liberty nor security. Here’s the quote:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”— Benjamin Franklin.