April 22, 2026 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
25:56
Free Market Immigration! Listener Question
Stefan Molyneux addresses immigration through the non-aggression principle, arguing that censorship and forced association drive modern conflicts. He critiques media bias for excusing favored groups while condemning others, proposing a private property model where communities ostracize unwanted individuals via voluntary service refusal. By requiring residents to vouch for entrants with financial liability, this system ensures accountability without state coercion, aligning immigration control with freedom of association and eliminating the need for centralized government intervention. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Immigration and the Non-Aggression Principle00:05:58
All right.
Great question.
I'm just shaking off the ferocious conflict with the mystic.
It's like a brain assault.
So, a listener from Twitter had a question about how do we deal with immigration without violating the non aggression principle?
Non aggression principle, of course, you should not, you must not.
It's immoral to initiate the use of force against others.
Self defense is fine.
So, how do we deal with the question of immigration?
Now, I talk about this.
In my book, The Future, which you can get at freedomain.comslash books, it's a great book.
You should definitely check it out.
It's really, really good.
So, how do we deal with immigration without violating the non aggression principle?
So, let's talk about the country Elbonia or the geographical region Elbonia, where everything is privately owned.
There is no government, a moral society.
So, there's two things that are key to why immigration can turn bad.
Number one is censorship, and number two is forced association.
So, censorship is when you suppress information that would lead to fewer leftists having power.
That's basically what censorship is.
People on the right tend not to be very censorious, except maybe regarding Israel, but on the left, they tend to be very censorious.
And so, for instance, James DeMore, who was an engineer at Google I had on the show many years ago, who said that it was possible that there were some biological or non prejudicial or non bigotry, bigoted factors as to why women might not be very high up in the tech industry.
And rather than debate this, he was fired and attacked and ostracized and so on, and made an example of and so on, right?
So, censorship is important.
So, negative aspects of foreign cultures or whatever it is, is kind of heavily suppressed in the West.
Honesty and, I mean, even crime statistics and things like that, heavily suppressed in the West because the leftists want to import more people who are more likely to vote.
For the left, right?
It's a form of ballot stuffing with human beings.
It's very dehumanizing and terrible and all of that.
But that's sort of the basic.
So you get a lot of censorship that is going on.
And censorship is like driving blindfolded at high speed.
And it's going to end, it ends in disaster.
It's bad for just about everyone involved, except the power mongers, of course, which is why they want it.
So censorship is really important for harming healthy and productive immigration.
Number one.
Number two, forced association, right?
So the way that it generally went in the West was let's say blacks or other ethnicities or races were doing poorly, Hispanics and so on were doing poorly.
And rather than look for alternate explanations to endless horrible white racism, endless horrible white racism and the injustice and evil of it was portrayed as the only possible cause of ethnic disparities in economic outcomes and so on.
Not culture, not IQ, no combination of single motherhood or anything like that, right?
Or dependence on the welfare state or voting for leftists, like whatever it is, right?
So when you don't have censorship, you have a robust and usually multifaceted exploration of a particular problem, which is more accurate than the there's one answer for everything.
And the answer as to why some groups aren't doing well is endless white racism.
And that's the only answer that's allowed.
And if you even question that answer, then you are an even worse white racist, you know, that kind of thing, right?
You have to accept it.
And if you don't accept it, then.
Then you have to accept it even harder.
Like it's just a real hole with no bottom, a truly vicious circle.
So the way that it went was the only reason why, say, Hispanics aren't doing well is endless white racism.
And therefore, you need the government to intervene on the behalf of, say, Hispanics and force white people or others to hire them because that's the only way to overcome this endless racial hatred, prejudice, whatever you want to call it, the racism.
And so forced association becomes the norm.
Also, of course, you have to ban IQ tests, and that has the benefit of hiding what is a potential cause or at least a partially explanatory cause for some disparities.
You end up hiding that, which then, if people don't know why, some groups aren't doing well, and then someone comes along and says, oh, it's endless white racism, and there's no other answer that's allowed, or at least, I mean, of course, it's that white racism, there's racism in every race, and blah, blah, blah, but is it like, Monolithic white racism is the only reason.
In other words, white people could very productively hire other ethnicities, but they just prefer to lose money and go bankrupt rather than hire people because it doesn't really fit together that this is endless prejudice combined with this endless profit money lust that's supposed to override all other concerns.
So, anyway, none of it hangs together, but it's not supposed to hang together.
It's just supposed to help people pursue power, of course.
So, you have forced association economically, and you have the welfare state.
I mean, there's a fascinating thing in leftism.
I've watched a little bit of this show called The Pit because I also like to keep track of what's going on in contemporary culture.
And it is, I mean, technically, it's a brilliant show, and the rehearsals must be wild.
The makeup is incredible.
And it is, of course, as you would expect from modern media, horrendous anti-whitism, right?
External Excuses for Personal Failure00:08:34
So, but one of the things you notice.
Is that the groups that leftists sympathize with?
All negative outcomes, all bad outcomes are ascribed to external causes, right?
So there's a guy who's like 475 pounds, like he's so heavy they can't use the MRI because it only goes to 450 or something like that.
And he's, I mean, obviously horrendously morbidly obese.
It's, I mean, it's really a very sad situation.
And why did he become that way?
Well, it's not because he over ate, it's not because he got lazy.
And, you know, I'm not saying that being overweight is as simple as that, but it's like, well, his wife left him, he lost his job, and there were all of these tragedies, and then that explains why he's overweight.
So the leftists dangle in a, you know, kind of demonic way external explanations as to why a terrible thing has occurred.
There's another fellow there who leaves because he can't pay his hospital bill.
He's concerned he can't pay his hospital bill, and he's also hidden $100,000 in.
Debt, medical debt from his wife, and he leaves, and he's got diabetic issues, and he also is quite significantly overweight.
That's not, of course, ever addressed.
And so it's just, you know, it's the bad system, and he's a hardworking, tries his best kind of thing, all of that sort of stuff.
The homeless people, like there are a couple of homeless people, and, you know, I mean, in the first couple of episodes, like the white male young doctor in training, you know, gets sprayed with blood, gets peed on.
You know, get squirted with stuff like it's all just horrible humiliation rituals, and it's really, I mean, it's just terrible.
It gets better, I think, as the show goes along.
And of course, only the white characters on the show are allowed to have complexities and ambiguities for the most part.
Everyone else is just sort of simple and noble, but the white people have contradictory thoughts and so on.
And so, if the producers like a particular demographic, then they will ascribe all negative outcomes to environment and circumstances.
It's not your fault, it's the system.
Well, the reason you became fat.
It's just a series of dominoes from your wife leaving you and you losing your job and so on, right?
It's like, well, if you lost your job, wouldn't you want to spend less on food?
I mean, wouldn't that be sort of important?
When I look at obese people, I look at, of course, significant overeating, which has cost them tens of thousands of dollars.
And wouldn't it be better to save that money?
So if you're, oh, we can't afford to eat well, it's like, no, no, no, cheap, cheap.
Eating well is cheaper as a whole.
Fruit is cheaper than candy per serving.
So anyway, so it's just something that I've kind of noticed that one of the things that left this dangle in front of people who've done badly in life is an external explanation.
And people are very hungry for that.
So say, well, why?
Why am I depressed or anxious?
Is it because I was abused as a child?
Is it because I have abusive, exploitive people around me?
No, it's a chemical imbalance, which doesn't exist and has never been proven.
In fact, there's significant counter evidence.
So you say, well, why am I unhappy?
Oh, it's a brain imbalance.
And you've got to take these SSRIs.
It's like taking insulin for diabetes, blah, blah, blah.
And so when very bad things have happened in life, there's an entire contingent of people who will descend upon people to whom bad things have happened or have actually done bad things.
And they will say, it's not your fault.
It's not your fault.
It was circumstances, the environment, the capitalist, the medical system, the prejudice, the bigotry, the racism, the sexism, the whatever, right?
And they'll say, it's not your fault.
My mom, of course, went through this as well that my mother had a pretty terrible life.
Officially, she suffered great evils as a child in the war.
And then she did great evils as an adult, and she was never able to get and keep a man.
And her life was, you know, kind of a disaster.
She was broke and so on.
And then what happened was, and I don't exactly know how they found her, but a group found her.
I won't sort of get into the details, but a group found her and gave her medical excuses.
The reason, you see, my dear, the reason that your wife has gone badly.
Is because of the medical system, because of sexism against women, and because there's evil capitalists profiting off the healthcare, even though it's socialized healthcare in Canada.
And they gave her an excuse and they gave her what I consider to be a made up ailment.
And they said, that's why.
And I remember one of the people from this group, when I was having a lot of problems with my mother, and my mother phoned this person up and put me on the line.
And the person said, you know, you have to understand that your mother is.
Sick and she hasn't been treated, and she's got all these medical things, and there's sexism against her, and blah, And I'm like, eh, no, I don't, you know, I don't think that's true.
I don't think that's true.
I do think that people can get unwell as a result of the stress of lying and deceiving themselves and being greedy and entitled, and, you know, all these sorts of things.
So I do accept that there are medical consequences to immorality, but.
This, oh, she's got XYZ syndrome and so on.
And it's like, that's why all these bad things happened and she was untreated.
And then my mother in particular got very angry, enraged, in fact, for years and years, decades at a doctor who, after running every test known to man and not finding anything wrong with my mother, said that perhaps her ailments or her tiredness or her problems, her physical problems, for which they could not find any cause, and she went to a variety of doctors and so on, they could find no cause.
And he said that perhaps it is something to do with how you think, or perhaps it's psychosomatic, or maybe you should see a psychologist.
And the way that my mother characterized this was the doctor said to me, It's all in your head, baby.
And so, when people's lives go badly, there's an entire industry, an entire massive multi trillion dollar industry that says to them, it's not your fault.
It's circumstance, it's environment.
If a woman ends up as a single mother, there's an entire industry and bureaucracy and political power that says to her, oh, no, that's not your fault.
You know, he left you, he took off on you, men are bad, men are wrong, blah, blah, blah, blah, right?
If you are beloved of the left, then you are given all the excuses known to man.
If you're angry, it's because you're mistreated.
However, if you're a white person in these environments, then you're angry because you're an asshole.
Like there's this guy who ends up punching this lovely New York nurse, and he's just a bad guy, and he's arrested.
There's no excuses.
He's just mean and bad and wrong.
And there are people who are 475 pounds, and they're given all the excuses known to man.
There are other addicts, and everyone says, Oh, you have to be gentle with the addicts.
You have to believe them.
You have to understand them.
You have to have sympathy with them.
You have to treat them.
You have to give them hugs.
And then there's this white male doctor who's a minor addict.
He's addicted to some painkillers and he is just condemned and he's going to lose his license and he's fired and people are yelling at him and he's got to make all this restitution.
Right.
So if you're an addict, like a homeless addict, then you have sympathy.
If you're a food addict, you have sympathy.
A drug addict, you get sympathy, unless you're a white male, in which case you are, you get no excuses, you're cursed, condemned, and so on.
And so that's the way that power divides in the world.
Power divides that if you are liked by the left, they will give you excuses, which actually traps you.
And if you're disliked by the left, you get no excuses and you get attacked and condemned, right?
I mean, if I was liked by the left and said things that were untoward, they'd say, ah, yes, but look, his mother was institutionalized.
He was raised in an abusive household.
He's going to have some.
Difficulty understanding and reading cues and blah, So we've got to have sympathy and so on, right?
But that didn't matter, of course, because I'm somebody that the left despises.
So they give me no excuses and only condemnations.
So people are not responsible for the food that goes into their mouth because of prior trauma and history and so on.
But I am responsible for everything I say, even if it's true.
Vouching Within a Community00:10:32
And it's no excuse for prior history.
So, if you are liked by the left, all of your quote dysfunctions are caused by things outside of yourself and you're just a victim of circumstances or history.
If you're disliked by the left, then none of your history matters and you're just a causeless asshole or jerk or racist or sexist or whatever label they're going to put on you and there's no sympathy, no history.
So, the provision or withdrawing of sympathy is really terrible on the left.
It's awful, right?
Because giving people excuses traps them in their dysfunction.
And usually it's the case that when people have done so much wrong that they can't undo it, like I don't know how you come back in particular from like close to 500 pounds, it's really tough.
Then when people have done the kind of wrong that can't be undone, then they're desperate for excuses and the left is happy to provide it in return for political power, right?
I'll give you excuses.
You vote for me.
I'll help you avoid the consequences of your own bad decisions.
And you vote to give me power.
It's really demonic in its own way.
So sorry, this is a little bit of a sidebar, but kind of important.
So.
The way that we solve the questions of immigration is privately owned land, so you have to have people's consent to join the community.
It's all privately owned.
Number one.
Number two, in a free society, there's no centralized oligarchical political power like the state to censor people and no particular incentive to do so because censorship does not lead to political power, because censorship is always enacted with the goal of political power.
I mean, in a sort of nationwide way.
Censorship is always enacted with the goal of political power.
And without political power and its incentives, then there's no real incentive for any kind of societal censorship.
In fact, it would be considered highly risky and dangerous.
And if you get rid of censorship, then people can talk honestly about pros and cons.
If things are privately owned, then you have to have the community's permission to be there.
And also, when you have freedom of association, you don't have to hire or deal with anyone.
comes in to regulate society in the absence of political power.
And ostracism is moral while political power is immoral, right?
Ostracism, which is simply not wanting to deal with people, is not a violation of the non aggression principle.
It is not a violation of the non aggression principle for a woman to say no to a date.
No woman has to date you.
No man has to pay for dinner or anything like that.
So freedom of association is you cannot be compelled to provide resources or interact with anyone.
And so let's say that some terrible guy tries to move into a community.
Let's not even immigration, right?
Some guy He's just a terrible criminal.
He's a drug dealer.
He's a rapist.
Whatever.
Some terrible guy tries to come into a community.
Well, where's he going to move?
No one's going to rent to him.
Nobody's going to give him land.
And if someone does rent to him, well, that's fine.
Then maybe other people won't deliver electricity or other people won't sell food to him or other people won't let him drive on their roads or whatever it is, right?
Like you have, it's all privately owned.
And there will be a whole system of checks and balances to make sure that reasonable ostracism is applied, but excessive ostracism.
Which then becomes counterproductive and also expensive, is not applied.
So you find the balance.
It's a moving target depending on social mores and technology and so on.
So, uh, but let's say somehow the guy is able to move into the community and let's say that he's able to get electricity, get water, work on the roads, uh, like ride the walk the sidewalk, drive the roads and so on and buy his food.
Let's say all of that happens.
Well, who's going to hire him?
Who's going to hire him?
And even if somebody hires him, who's going to want to work with him and so on.
So there's just a huge amount of barriers to getting into a community that is privately owned without censorship and where you're not forced.
To interact with people.
Because, you know, things like quotas and DEI is a violation of freedom of association because you're being forced to hire people, to promote people, to hit certain numbers and so on, under consequence of investigations and massive fines, hundreds of millions of dollars, going bankrupt and so on.
So, how do you deal with immigration?
No censorship, private ownership of property, and no forced association.
And the other thing, too, is that if you invite someone into your community, Then you have to vouch for them in general, right?
I mean, sort of think of, to take a sort of silly example, you know, you think of somebody who wants to buy drugs if the drugs are illegal, right?
If you go to some drug dealer where it's illegal and you bring a friend, right?
Then the drug dealer is like, well, I don't know your friend.
I don't want to deal with him.
You say, no, no, no, I vouch for him.
No, he's a good guy.
No, he's okay.
And if this is like, then you would vouch for someone.
And that's sort of a very negative example.
But a positive example, of course, is something that I used to do many years ago.
Is give people references in the business world, right?
So somebody goes for a job, they give me as a reference, and somebody calls me up and says, How is this person to work for?
What was their work ethic like?
Do they have integrity?
Why did they quit?
Or why did they leave?
And so on, right?
And you give references, which is vouching for someone.
And so in a community, if there's no knowledge about someone, maybe somebody wants to move into the community and their history is for whatever reason not known, then somebody would need to vouch for them.
And that someone would say, I vouch for this person, which would be like co signing a loan, right?
If you have bad credit, but you can get someone with good credit to co sign your loan, then if they can't collect from you, because maybe you don't have the money at some point, they can go and collect from the person who co signed.
So that would be vouching for someone.
So if you want someone to move into the community, you would vouch for them.
And what that would mean is that if they did economic damage to the community, you would be responsible for restitution, right?
So if you bring someone into a community and that person steals $1,000, And then leaves or flees, and for whatever reason can't be caught, or leaves to go to some jungle in Venezuela.
Then, if you vouch for that person, you would say, I will pay for any damages they cause.
Because in a society where our history would be pretty well known, people would only hide their history usually for nefarious reasons.
And so, and that, you know, there could be reasons, could be reasonable reasons for all I know, right?
But people would go to a location, some community, they had no history, but somebody would have to vouch for them.
Now, if nobody was willing to vouch for them and they had no history that could be verified, then people probably would not want to deal with them because there would be.
You know, if you've got an apartment for rent in a reasonably attractive neighborhood, then you've got 10 people who want to move there.
You're going to choose the person with a good credit history, no criminal history, and, you know, all of that sort of stuff, as opposed to some guy who comes off the street.
You don't know who he is.
You've got no history.
You can't vet or verify.
Nobody's willing to vouch for him.
You probably wouldn't want to rent to someone like that.
So, unless, right, someone in the building says, Oh, this is my brother in law.
He's just come in from Venezuela.
He doesn't have any history here.
But I will co sign his lease.
Well, maybe then you do it, right?
If someone who is a good tenant says this person will be a good tenant, that may be enough for you to lease to him or rent to him.
And then, of course, if the guy steals the fridge and the stove and takes off in the middle of the night, then the person who pledged him, the person who vouched for him, would then be responsible for making good, for paying the bills, right?
So, this is another way that this would occur.
And if someone, Like, let's say that there were charities around, and let's say somebody wanted to move to a community where there was a charity for the indigent and the people who didn't cause their own disasters, right?
I mean, you know, life happens.
There's random stuff all over the place in life.
So there's lots of people who end up in bad situations, and it wasn't in any foundational way their fault, whatever, right?
I mean, somebody has some degenerative brain disorder, and then they let their insurance lapse, and then they get sick.
And, you know, there could be any number of things, any number of reasons why somebody might end up.
I don't think there'd be many, but there'd be some.
So let's say there's a charity that helps people who can't pay their bills for whatever reason, and somebody invites the Venezuelan guy into the community, and then the Venezuelan guy has a job for a week and then immediately starts applying for charity and gets charity and whatever it is.
Then the person who vouched for him would be responsible for paying the charity back, which means that you wouldn't just get all of these people coming in and getting things for free.
It's a very different matter than what's going on.
With this as a whole, currently.
And the other thing, of course, is if somebody vouches for someone, right?
Say, oh, yeah, this guy's a great guy.
He should totally join our community.
Then they would not just have to vouch for them in terms of money and self sufficiency, but they would have to vouch for them in terms of criminality.
So to take an extreme example, if someone says, Oh, Bob from Venezuela should totally join this community.
And then Bob comes in and kills someone, then charges, maybe lesser, but certainly not zero charges would then be laid against the person who vouched for them.
And that would make sure that people couldn't just invite people in, be paid, right?
Let's say, cause you could always bribe someone to vouch for you, right?
So if you invite someone in.
And he killed someone in the community, then you would be charged as an accessory to murder because you invited the person in and you vouched for them.
And again, assuming that the person didn't just have some brain disease or brain cancer or something and just lost their reason for whatever reason, right?
So you would then be liable.
If the person was an economic burden, you would then be liable for that economic burden.
If somebody became a criminal and you vouched for them and only for a certain amount of time, right?
Whatever it is a year, maybe two, maybe three.
But if you invited, if you vouched for someone, that person became a criminal.
Then you would be charged as an accessory to that crime because you would be like the getaway driver to a bank robbery.
You didn't rob the bank, but the bank got robbed because you were willing to drive away.
If you bring someone in who turns out to be a murderer, you didn't kill the person, but the person died because you vouched for the guy.
Liability When You Vouch00:00:50
So, yeah, moving from one place to another, of course, is not a violation of the non aggression principle.
Censorship is a violation of the non aggression principle.
Also, forced association is a violation of the non aggression principle.
And the problem of the commons, which is where land is politically controlled but not directly owned, is also a violation of the non aggression principle.
And so, modern immigration and the problems there too are the results of political power, forced association, censorship, and the non ownership, which is to say the public ownership of property.
And so, the solution, as always, is always, always, always more freedom.