Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Hoppe on Immigration - He’s exactly right.

  1. #1

    Hoppe on Immigration - He’s exactly right.


    Hoppe on Immigration - He’s exactly right.

    Hoppe and Immigration


    By Bionic Mosquito


    August 11, 2015


    I was sent another Hoppe immigration article by email, from someone who disagrees with Hoppe’s views on the matter. This one is entitled On Free Immigration and Forced Integration.


    Hoppe walks through the issue of who owns the property. In an ancap environment, it is clear: all property is owned by individuals or private entities. In such an environment, it seems difficult to disagree with Hoppe’s conclusions on immigration.


    He then moves on to some version of monarchy and ends with a look at today’s western democracies.

    Here is where the issue gets cloudy for some. They are unwilling, or unable, to extend the principle that is perfectly sound in a completely private-property society and apply it to today’s world.


    I have two thoughts on this matter:

    First of all, the discussion gets so cloudy because the state is right in the middle of this. Given we have a state, I suggest the only legitimate functions of a state are to secure the property and life of those under its jurisdiction – call it a mutual aid society for enactment and enforcement of the NAP.

    The state has no legitimate function to allow others to come to my property without my permission. You might say, “bionic, you can keep them off of your lawn; the state isn’t forcing you to let them in your shower.” You would be quite correct (I think. I won’t take any bets on this).


    My property is more than my home or business. I think I need not get into a discussion of the spending of tax dollars and where those tax dollars come from in the first place.


    So, to ignore this is to say that the state should not perform the legitimate function of securing my property and instead perform an illegitimate function of giving away my property.


    And somehow this is deemed by some to be libertarian.


    Second: property rights vs. positive rights. I have written extensively on this in theprevious post. I will only summarize: my right to discriminate regarding my property supersedes anyone else’s right to come on to my property. Which comes back to the first point.


    And it is on this point where Hoppe concludes:

    The current situation in the United States and in Western Europe has nothing whatsoever to do with “free” immigration. It is forced integration, plain and simple…

    You see, it all depends on whose viewpoint you consider: the property rights of those already occupying the property or the positive right of someone who wants to move in. When these are in conflict, which one supersedes in a libertarian society – or even in libertarian theory? Does this need to be explained?


    Hoppe adds a very enlightening observation, after describing why decentralization of state authority and localization of decisions regarding immigration is the proper path to help take the confusion out of this issue of immigration:

    …to solve the “naturalization” question somewhat along the Swiss model, where local assemblies, not the central government, determine who can and who cannot become a Swiss citizen.

    In today’s statist world, the closest model in an advanced-economy of localization and decentralization is Switzerland. The Swiss do not consider that any and all comers will be residents or citizens. It is not a national question but a local question. And it can take years or decades before your neighbors decide you are qualified.


    Who has the right to decide who lives there – the ones who already live there or the ones who would like to? Is it a property right or a positive right? The Swiss have answered this question properly – likely just as it would be answered in many places. No one has the right to move in; they must be invited.


    I will add other examples: homeowners associations, apartments, condominiums, hotels, amusement parks, multi-tenant office buildings, companies of all sorts. Each of these – in areas where the government has not established “forced integration,” to use Hoppe’s perfectly formed term – has rules and guidelines for those who would like to enter.


    They do not allow any and all comers with any and all behavior. They do not allow uninvited visitors free use of the cafeteria, bathrooms, telephone and internet. They do not allow trespass-occupation of temporarily unused conference rooms or hotel rooms. They do not allow tents in common areas known as hallways or lobbies.


    In each of these examples, the owners control access to their property. This is what a libertarian, free-market immigration policy would look like. And in a state-controlled world, even here it exists.


    I know what the left-libertarians would say: “there should not be such discrimination.” I say you are certainly free to open your home to all comers. In any case, an inherent aspect of property is discrimination – as Hoppe so well explains.


    And this brings us back to the fundamental issue – the difference of right and left. Discrimination or no discrimination? Property rights or positive rights? This conflict cannot be avoided.


    I have a right to my house. No one else has a right to my house. This simple concept can be extended to a community and country. That the state performs many illegitimate functions should not distract one from one of the few legitimate functions of a state (if we are to have one) – to protect my property in a manner consistent with the NAP.


    Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.


    The Best of Bionic Mosquito


    Copyright © 2015 Bionic Mosquito

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/08/...n-immigration/

    Copyright © 2015 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are provided.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    That the state performs many illegitimate functions should not distract one from one of the few legitimate functions of a state (if we are to have one) – to protect my property in a manner consistent with the NAP.

    The fundamental question here isn't anything in the article.

    The fundamental question is this: Why do people who are supposed to know better write articles that presume that the state is even capable of fulfilling a role it has been granted without utterly $#@!ing it all up?
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    The fundamental question here isn't anything in the article.

    The fundamental question is this: Why do people who are supposed to know better write articles that presume that the state is even capable of fulfilling a role it has been granted without utterly $#@!ing it all up?
    [/SIZE]

    It's capable, just unwilling.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    It's capable, just unwilling.
    I don't believe that for even a moment.

    Everything government gets involved in it $#@!s up, everything!

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    The fundamental question here isn't anything in the article.

    The fundamental question is this: Why do people who are supposed to know better write articles that presume that the state is even capable of fulfilling a role it has been granted without utterly $#@!ing it all up?
    [/SIZE]
    Nihilist much? You could just as easily say why bother striving for liberty when humans have shown they aren't capable of having it without $#@!ing it up?

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    Nihilist much? You could just as easily say why bother striving for liberty when humans have shown they aren't capable of having it without $#@!ing it up?
    Humanity as it sits would flounder and sicken severely with true liberty...

    But! It would grow stronger and be free for a while until the cycle repeats itself....

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    I don't believe that for even a moment.

    Everything government gets involved in it $#@!s up, everything!
    Eisenhower deported millions of them back in the 1950s, and it would be easy to create incentives against hiring illegals. Solving immigration is one of the easiest "big" issues around, there just isn't the political will.
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePaleoLibertarian View Post
    Eisenhower deported millions of them back in the 1950s, and it would be easy to create incentives against hiring illegals. Solving immigration is one of the easiest "big" issues around, there just isn't the political will.
    You'll not find me calling for more government anything...

    I've had enough!



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    You'll not find me calling for more government anything...

    I've had enough!
    Mass immigration will cause bigger government in the long run than dealing with it now.
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePaleoLibertarian View Post
    Mass immigration will cause bigger government in the long run than dealing with it now.
    You'll have better luck dealing with immigrants yourself than paying government to do it.

    Substitute any word for "immigrants" in that sentence, it'll still ring true.

  13. #11
    From Rothbard - Nations by Consent:

    Open Borders, or the Camp of the Saints Problem

    The question of open borders, or free immigration, has become an
    accelerating problem for classical liberals. This is first, because the welfare
    state increasingly subsidizes immigrants to enter and receive permanent
    assistance, and second, because cultural boundaries have become increas-
    ingly swamped. 1 began to rethink my views on immigration when, as
    the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been
    encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the
    cultures and languages of these peoples. Previously, it had been easy to
    dismiss as unrealistic Jean Raspail's anti-immigration novel The Camp
    of the Saints, in which virtually the entire population of India decides to
    move, in small boats, into France, and the French, infected by liberal
    ideology, cannot summon the will to prevent economic and cultural
    national destruction. As cultural and welfare-state problems have inten-
    sified, it became impossible to dismiss Raspail's concerns any longer.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    You'll not find me calling for more government anything...

    I've had enough!
    I don't see anyone calling for bigger govt.

    1. Dry up the welfare that attracts many of them here in the first place, that is actually shrinking the govt

    2. All local police know who in their town is hiring/housing illegals. Police Depts send them a simple E-mail or letter if no E-mail available stating there have been several complaints about illegal activities, remind them of our immigration laws and penalties for breaking them, if complaints persist an investigation will be conducted, etc, etc - how much you want to bet me by the end of the week those places will be illegal free? Just a simple E-mail.

    3. Withdraw our troops from abroad, disband most of the standing Army and Marines moving more towards part-time national guards under state control, convert a portion of the military into border security.

    All in all that would greatly shrink the govt, not grow it.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by HankRicther12 View Post
    I don't see anyone calling for bigger govt.
    More government is what I typed, not bigger, not different, more......

    I don't want to switch the current government around, or grant them more power or have the military active within our borders.

    Everything government gets involved in it $#@!s up, everything!


    [edit]

    I'm good with ending welfare, especially in the form of federally funded government functionaries and their pensions, but also in the way you meant.........
    Last edited by tod evans; 08-11-2015 at 04:07 PM.

  16. #14
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Until you smash the concept of public property, you cannot have open borders. If libertarians want open borders, they must first eliminate public property system. Until then, they are ideologically inconsistent. I'm willing to let in whomever once this occurs.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    Until you smash the concept of public property, you cannot have open borders. If libertarians want open borders, they must first eliminate public property system. Until then, they are ideologically inconsistent. I'm willing to let in whomever once this occurs.
    Until you smash the concept of gun restrictions, you cannot have the white man being free. If libertarians want the white man to be free, they must first eliminate the gun restriction system. Until then, they are ideologically inconsistent. I'm willing to let the white man be free once this occurs.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePaleoLibertarian View Post
    Mass immigration will cause bigger government in the long run than dealing with it now.
    This.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    From Rothbard - Nations by Consent:
    Even the foremost anti-State thinker doesn't agree with open borders! That should give us some idea of how important it is to fix the illegal immigration problem.

    Rothbard probably understood sufficiently that the reason our liberties aren't respected is because there aren't enough people around who believe in liberty, & adding EVEN MORE people with no inclination for liberty will NOT help in advancing the cause of liberty.

    Idealism must be grounded in reality otherwise it's just naivety.
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    I don't believe that for even a moment.

    Everything government gets involved in it $#@!s up, everything!
    Not everything.

  21. #18

    Bionic Mosquito on Hoppe vs. Block (LONG)

    Dances With Elephants
    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2...elephants.html
    Bionic Mosquito (15 August 2015)

    Recently I have commented quite a bit on libertarianism and culture – prompted by the singularly identifiable event of the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage. This journey has led me to Hoppe and his views on this intersection of libertarianism and culture. Recently, the conversation has turned specifically to Hoppe’s views on immigration.

    I was offered the following by Anon August 8, 2015 at 5:30 AM at August 10, 2015 at 7:00 AM:

    I’m restating Block. You really should read his stuff to get it from the horse’s mouth. He obliterates Hoppe’s argument. He answers your objections.

    So I went looking for Block’s articles on this topic.

    I first will thank the anonymous commenter for pointing me this way. It is one of the benefits of documenting my intellectual journey in a public forum; I often receive such good feedback.

    I will add, however, that I find it difficult to imagine that anyone “obliterates Hoppe’s argument” on anything libertarian. I say this not because I personally find disagreement with Block on this topic (on many points I agree, on some minor points I disagree, on the major issue at hand I conclude the issue might very well be insoluble via the thinnest of thin libertarian theory alone – and certainly not via the method Block recommends); I do this because in this debate, perhaps the most capable, knowledgeable, well-read and thoughtful libertarian theorists sit on opposite sides.

    On one side is Block; on the other you will find Hoppe and (per Block) Kinsella. One or the other of these gentlemen is going to obliterate the others on a question of libertarian theory? I don’t think so.

    What makes it even more impossible to award one side or the other the title of “Champion Obliterator” is Rothbard. According to Block, Rothbard changed his views from one side to the other over the course of his life (moving from what is today Block’s position toward what is today Hoppe’s position). So, I guess Rothbard sits on both sides…perhaps he obliterated himself?

    This is not the stuff of obliteration.

    The fundamental issue is that this is a dialogue inherently intertwined with the state’s involvement in “owning” and defending property. It isn’t clear that there is a purely libertarian-based argument to untangle this, other than abolish the state and remove from it all property and all decisions regarding property. But the debate isn’t waiting for this hoped-for day of salvation. So we are left with a debate regarding the second-best option.

    Hoppe, Kinsella and Rothbard II on Immigration: A Critique
    Walter Block

    The thesis of the present paper is that the claims of Hoppe (1998, 2001), Kinsella (2005) and Rothbard (1998) on immigration are erroneous. In their view, the government of the U.S. is at present justified in restricting immigration to the country, on libertarian grounds. There is no need to even discuss what libertarian theory is, since “there is not a dimes’ worth of difference” on this score between the three of us on this matter.

    In case you didn’t hear me the first time: four individuals, each of whom is rightly considered extremely thorough in their understanding of libertarian theory and further (despite my disagreements with each on certain topics), each is always unquestionably sincere in his attempts to apply libertarian theory to the everyday problems of the real world. Yet they sit on different sides of this discussion.

    Block presents Crusoe on an island. When Friday arrives, can Crusoe legitimately bar him from cultivating unused land on the other side of the island? Crusoe claims the entire island as his own – he just hasn’t got to doing much with all of it yet. Block believes this is not a legitimate claim on Crusoe’s part. Block uses this to demonstrate the “unowned” nature of much of the so-called government owned land. No one is using it – the Rocky Mountains and the vast deserts, for example.

    This raises a point that I have always stumbled over. I have never contemplated it to any great extent, so consider here that I am shooting from the hip (“What’s new?” I hear some of you say in the audience).

    When the British first colonized the Americas, from their little footholds on the Atlantic (previously owned?) they claimed the territory with no (or an undefined) border in the west; coast to coast…or whatever there was over those mountains (I am greatly simplifying this, I know).

    What does “own” (defined as control, use, and disposition) mean in such a world, this world we occupy?

    The several million (or however many) inhabitants of the northern portion of the North American continent were of little or no consequence to the British and their land claims (BTW, did those few people really exercise ownership of an entire three-thousand-mile-wide continent?). Conversely, the British were of no consequence to most of those inhabitants.

    My point is the claims of one side meant nothing to the claims of the other – as long as the two parties didn’t come in contact. The British might “claim” whatever was over those mountains, but until the two sides actually came into contact in a meaningful way, the issue of “own” was kind of irrelevant.

    Yet “own” means something – eventually they come into contact. This leads me to consider the possibility: “own” means what one can defend. I don’t say that this fits neatly in libertarian theory; I don’t say it is just; I don’t say that if an individual can present a valid claim to previously stolen goods (land ownership) that he is not entitled to it.

    How about another example? Today, many wealthy Americans own millions of acres of land – much of it left in its natural state. It is difficult to for me disagree with the notion that the landowner of one million acres of virgin forest is justified in removing squatters – even if the landowner is doing nothing with the land besides leaving the trees to grow.

    Is each individual entitled to only the amount of land he can cultivate with his bare hands? With a mule and a plough? A tractor? Who is to say the proper limit? Does he “own” it only when he ploughs it? what if he just likes to look at it?

    Even if the land is nothing but virgin forest, is he not entitled to keep others out if he is so able – in other words: how much land can he defend?

    In the civilized world, we “defend” the ownership interest in our property via lawyers, recordings of title and the like. In the uncivilized world (for the case relevant to the debate between the libertarian elephants, meaning the world of the state)? How might the state defend its land claims? Well, if lawyers don’t work, I am certain the United States government, all state governments, and all local governments can violently defend the Rocky Mountains and the vast deserts from trespass. They have bigger guns than you do.

    “Oh, bionic, you are now calling for state action. What kind of libertarian are you?” One that is attempting to address what seems to be an insoluble problem, a problem (immigration) not separable from state involvement. Be patient, I will expand on this.

    I suppose, given my logic above, I could conclude that Block’s immigrant squatter on the top of the Rocky Mountains now “owns” the land under his feet – at least until the owner (taxpayer, government – it really doesn’t matter at the moment) defends it and removes him. Which the state will, via the US military (or some similar agency).

    But you see the circle this leads to? It is just for me to defend my property, it is just for me to assign an agent to this task, I am severely limited in who I might assign (I have no say in the matter), so I am conflicted in exercising what is inarguably my right.

    Hence I come back to the underlying difficulty of this entire topic: this is a dialogue inherently intertwined with the state’s involvement in “owning” property.

    “But the state can’t own property,” you say. I say your theory sounds nice, very sweet, innocent in fact. In practice? HAHAHA comes to mind.

    I will address, shortly, how it might be possible to turn that theory into practice – Block has a plan. Maybe it can work, or maybe not.

    Now, as to what kind of libertarian I am: although funded via coercion, there are state activities that would be considered legitimate if privately funded. Instead of rewriting my thoughts, I will offer my reply to Todd August 10, 2015 at 12:14 PM, who wondered exactly this question: because of the forced nature of financing, no state function can be legitimate. What kind of libertarian are you, bionic?

    Todd, we walk down a path from where we are today to the libertarian utopia. Along this path will be interim steps. Are the interim steps illegitimate if they are taken with a view of the ultimate objective? Is this not a libertarian path?

    We don’t get to start as virgins. We are all soiled, swimming in mud. We debate things like “can a libertarian use a sidewalk?”

    Libertarian theory is one thing; reaching something close to a libertarian ideal is quite another; maintaining a libertarian tradition once achieved is even another.

    What is the ultimate objective? For the one community where I would choose to live out of the ten thousand different communities that I hope are to come, my ultimate objective is to achieve a condition where all functions are funded voluntarily; where private property is respected absolutely; where the non-aggression principle is respected.

    There is a rub – culturally I would add other conditions to my community. With my neighbors, we agree in a very libertarian manner to these not-libertarian-based conditions. Is this libertarian? I say yes.

    In any case, we don’t get to start where we would like; we only get to start where we are. The subject of immigration doesn’t even exist in a world without a state; libertarian theory and practice need not butt heads.

    To your critique: it is undeniable that some of the functions currently done by the state will also be desired by voluntarily-paying customers in numbers sufficient to create a market. Many of these are quite consistent with libertarian theory and the NAP – private arbitration instead of state courts, private security services instead of city police, etc.

    It is in reference to these functions that I use the label "legitimate."

    For example, in a libertarian world, some people would voluntarily fund the salaries of individuals who are today professors employed by state-funded universities!

    In all seriousness, when the only reasonable course of action for a just (via the NAP) act is through a state actor (yes, I know…taxes), let’s just say that eliminating this isn’t high on my list of concerns – on the list of reasons to end the state, these would be in the “One day, when I get to it” category. The list of unjust actions by and through government actors is both very long and far more damaging.

    I will take it a step further – a measure of your “thinness,” if you will:

    If you walk on sidewalks, you have gained one pound.
    If you drive on public roads and highways, you have gained three pounds.
    If you fly, you have gained five pounds.
    If you call the fire department because your house is burning, you have gained four pounds.
    If you use the court system, you have gained six pounds.
    If you visit a National Park, you have gained three pounds.
    If you use Federal Reserve notes (or Euros or Swissies or Yen), you have just gained twenty pounds.

    The FRNs have the most calories and simple carbs; central banking is the ultimate tool of control – and you are contributing to this control of your fellow man (yes, every single purist reading this post).

    I could list 100 more items – each perfectly just if funded voluntarily, yet jaded by the method of funding and the lack of reasonable alternatives.

    You see, being thin when it comes to libertarian theory is easy – even mandatory in my book. Putting “thin” into practice? You can’t even live in a shed at 10,000 feet and accomplish this – well, for sure if you are also reading this post you can’t (I don’t have to worry about the non-readers disproving me).

    Oh, where to draw the thin-libertarian line….

    But I digress. Block disagrees with Kinsella’s argument that the state has a right to establish rules for property it owns. The example being offered is that of a community pool. Block offers the proper way to put libertarian-theory purity into libertarian-inducing practice.

    Block says, don’t follow their rules; instead, he says “tear down the wall” (well, he doesn’t really say that, but it flowed very nicely, don’t you think?):

    The radical alternative is that the “rules” of the pool should be fashioned so as to eliminate these enterprises from governmental control. For example, everyone, anyone, should be “allowed” to walk off with the water in the pool, even the very bricks of which it is composed.

    (See, he kind of did say that Pink Floyd thing.)

    OK, Block; I will dip my toe in the water.

    My point is that the radical scenario I am positing seems to me more compatible with the libertarian ethos than the more conservative one depicted by our author.

    It might be more compatible, but it is a dangerous game with a very unsatisfactory outcome. Once property destruction takes hold, does Block believe the participants (because once property destruction starts, the participants will likely not be limited to NAP-respecting libertarian purists) will listen kindly to a meek [insert age, hairline, nationality/religion here] professor about his libertarian theory? Will they stop their destruction merely at the community pool, or only state owned buildings?

    Will Block physically stop them? Talk about trying to defend the undefendable! (I will send flowers.)

    Remember, Block isn’t suggesting what to do in a world made up of a large portion of libertarians. He is writing of today’s world. So, no, they won’t stop there. And then, when all the destruction and looting (yes, there will be looting) comes to your street and your house and your store – no problem; Professor Block will offer you a smiling face: “welcome to the libertarian world.”

    Of course you libertarian purists will be smiling, perhaps serving lemonade while basking in the glow of your purity. But what about your neighbors? Do you think your non-libertarian-purist neighbors will resist the urge to call in the state in order to bring this glorious liberation to an end? And will the state then say, “No, you don’t understand – Professor Block said it was OK. We will not increase in any way the draconian police state as a result of this crisis”?

    The state will allow a crisis go to waste? Maybe a reverse ratchet effect? That would be a first, wouldn’t it?

    Are you sure Block’s second best solution will be more conducive to a libertarian nirvana? Really?

    Not me; in fact I am sure it won’t be. I think the most compatible is to advocate turning title of the pool over to those who funded it. In the meantime, proper fiduciary care of the pool wouldn’t be a bad idea as a second best option. I am certain it is a better second-best option, given the certain (yes, I am comfortable using that word) consequences to the depravation of liberty via Block’s option.

    It seems to me decidedly unlibertarian to advocate these sorts of “reasonable” rules. A more libertarian stance would be to welcome actual chaos on all property statists steal from victims. The likelihood is that pure bedlam and pandemonium on all such terrain would deter the thieves from their evil deeds.

    Out of the chaos brought on by social conflict will emerge libertarian order? I greatly admire and respect Dr. Block, but I cannot resist. On what planet?

    This “out of chaos libertarian order” view is also the view of left-libertarian anarchists, about whom I have written fairly often recently (and no, I do NOT include Block as a member of this philosophical-basket-case crowd). The only thing that differentiates this left-libertarian view from the views of Antonio Gramsci is that left-libertarians claim respect for property rights…they don’t really, but they say they do.

    But once property rights are disrespected – no matter the theoretical soundness of the professor’s idea – will the masses listen to libertarian reason about where to draw the line? Once property rights are disrespected, you are left with pure Gramsci. I am not arguing libertarian theory; I am suggesting that Block’s suggested path from here to there will move society away from, and not toward, a libertarian world.

    Interim steps are fine, as long as they move us toward liberty. I think some guy named Murray wrote something like that once. So why choose a path certain to steer the car in the wrong direction?

    Human nature and history are on my side – liberty has rarely, if ever, sprung forth from such bedlam. Instead, the people demand a savior to stop the bedlam – using any and all liberty-destructing tools available.

    I know I have referred to it before, I will again. The European Middle Ages offers one of the better examples of something coming close to a libertarian theory of law. It did not come out of violence – no one took the Colosseum down stone by stone. It was based on the sacred oath – a man’s word was his bond – with God as party to the deal (and if there was disagreement about the words, the person with the oldest document won).

    Rome died its own slow death – it died more from apathy of the people and Rome’s expansion of empire than it did from any invading army. Roman citizens fled their so-called civilization and voluntarily became slaves to the barbarians.

    Look more recently at the former Soviet Union. It too died from a slow withering-away – not because the people stormed the Kremlin. Certainly, what replaced it was not libertarian; yet, anyone with knowledge of life behind the Wall (Pink Floyd again) would agree that there is more freedom today than during Stalin’s time.

    However, I have a concern I regard as even more important; libertarian theory. Perhaps it is possible for utilitarian or consequentialist libertarians to reconcile their principles with regulated borders, but this is not possible, I contend, for deontological ones such as myself.

    But it is possible. If I have a right to control the borders to my property, I along with my neighbors have the right to delegate this to an agent, acting on our behalf. This is as perfectly libertarian as it gets.

    The only issue is that today’s provider is the monopoly state; I have only one way to put my sound libertarian right into practice. Only one. It is also true that those libertarians who wish to allow any and every biped from all corners of planet earth onto their property also have only one way to put their desire into practice. Only one.

    Libertarian theory supports both. Libertarian theory offers no answer.

    Of course, we have no way of knowing how many people would choose this service given that the agent today is the monopoly-state. We do know that where property owners have freedom to discriminate, they do so. There is a market for discrimination-supportive services – today. In any case, if one is arguing solely on the libertarian theory of the matter (and not the practical application), my statement is at least equally as valid as is Block’s.

    “Oh, but bionic, by definition as you are leaning on the state, yours is less libertarian.”

    Perhaps you are right – but we are left with second-best alternatives in this discussion. So you see, I won’t go away so easily.

    Let’s try a little experiment. We can examine the views of Mr. Federal Reserve Note (FRN) libertarian and Mr. Protect My Border (PMB) libertarian.

    PMB: You know, I hate the state. But in the case of border control they do provide a service that I value.
    FRN: You know, I hate the state. But in the case of medium of exchange they do provide a service that I value.
    PMB: I would give anything to have an alternative to state-provided border control.
    FRN: I would give anything to have an alternative to a state-provided medium of exchange.
    PMB: Wait a minute; I have no alternative, but you do.
    FRN: No I don’t.
    PMB: Barter. Metals not stamped by the government mint. Bumpers for chickens.
    FRN: Never mind.

    Good old Mr. FRN has more alternatives than Mr. PMB, yet it is Mr. PMB taking all of this abuse.

    So, I will tell you what. The only way I will consider further counter arguments: Please, hand over to me all of your FRNs in your wallet and digits in your bank account. Of course, you don’t drive on the government roads, so I will take your car also – and I will not have one ounce of libertarian-purity-remorse when I use the government’s DMV to register the car in my name.

    Oh yeah, no walking on sidewalks – I will take your shoes, thank you very much.

    As they say, put your money where your mouth is. Until a commenter in support of open borders takes me up on this, you will be referred to as Mr. Big Hat No Cattle (BHNC) – wow, when did I become the Mogambo Guru?

    Today the state is the agent regarding this aspect of defense of property. We all agree: the state is, always and everywhere, the enemy.

    Yet, I wonder if a libertarian frequent-flier would be in favor of suddenly dismantling the FAA while he is in flight in a thunderstorm while flying over one of the busier airports of the country – say Atlanta or Dallas (both about equidistant from New Orleans, I will guess; and both home to some of the worst thunderstorms known to man). You know, unplug the computers, shut off the radios, you get the idea.

    In theory it is a good idea. In practice? I am not so sure.

    Thank goodness, Block rides to the rescue. Even Block offers that certain functions of the state need not be stripped tomorrow, due to the likelihood for chaos (in this example, roads; in my example, Block making a flight connection through one of two nearby hubs). From On Immigration: Reply to Hoppe, By Anthony Gregory and Walter Block:

    One day’s notice would be simply far too little. But, suppose that the government made this announcement one year ago, and allowed a libertarian tribunal to figure out which private companies (owned by mulcted taxpayers) should take over which roads.

    So perhaps libertarians might consider working on dismantling the state before deciding to throw the world into chaos by dismantling the community swimming pool. Besides, why give William F. Buckley, Jr. more cannon fodder?

    Returning to immigration: I think this issue is not resolvable via strictly thin libertarian theory in a world where the state owns property. At least not resolvable via libertarian purity.

    The result will be chaos, not liberty.

    I know I jumped into this fight beginning what seems like a year ago – with the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage. I made the point then that the issues I raised were more cultural than libertarian.

    Libertarian purity in practice is not the only acceptable standard for a libertarian given that we live in this world – no one is a virgin, no not one. It is not even achievable in theory given the many questions upon which libertarian theorists with unimpeachable devotion to the theory disagree. Hoppe, Kinsella and Block disagree on this topic. Rothbard the elder apparently even disagreed with Rothbard the younger. Yet, somehow, libertarians are supposed to have complete conviction on the answer to this question in today’s state-run environment?

    Even without this disagreement amongst elephants, libertarian theory is in any case not enough to answer every question in life. I know for certain that I do not want the chaos of wanton destruction of community swimming pools. I know where that culture leads.

    It might be debatable as to the second best option regarding immigration in a world where the state owns property; I know Block doesn’t find it. It is not debatable that culture matters generally, and that certain cultural norms are more conducive to maintaining a libertarian social order than others.

    I don’t want Block’s wished-for chaos – a one-way train to totalitarian-town.

    I continue in my agreement with Hoppe.

    Well, what do now?


    Copyright 2010 - 2015 bionic mosquito
    Permission to copy fully granted as long as a link is provided back to this site.
    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 08-12-2015 at 04:28 PM.


    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law." - The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      - Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      - Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
    MOFA (Make Orwell Fiction Again)

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    More government is what I typed, not bigger, not different, more......

    I don't want to switch the current government around, or grant them more power or have the military active within our borders.
    OK, well, I don't either, I am not trying to start a fight, we can disagree, but doesn't mean we need to be enemies, I think we both start with the base belief of personal freedom and less govt, we just may differ on where one persons rights end and anothers begin - fair enough? You can still debate me, but let's just set the parameters, we both want the same thing, but have different views on how to get there.

    Everything government gets involved in it $#@!s up, everything! I'm good with ending welfare, especially in the form of federally funded government functionaries and their pensions, but also in the way you meant.........[
    I agree in ending govt in ways you suggest as well, but I disagree that everything govt gets involve in is doomed to fail. I think govt should be the absolute last resort, however due to human nature there are just some things you can't leave to logic. Call it 'crazy' all you like, but religious or atheist, most people need to believe in something, if it's tangible, OK, if not, it's still there for many, you can't deny this even if it's something that doesn't apply to you personally.
    Last edited by HankRicther12; 08-13-2015 at 01:08 AM.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePaleoLibertarian View Post
    Mass immigration will cause bigger government in the long run than dealing with it now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    From Rothbard - Nations by Consent:
    I love his views on "psychical removal"



Similar Threads

  1. Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Immigration Analysis Failure
    By jabowery in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-27-2013, 06:24 AM
  2. The Audacity of Hoppe
    By awake in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-03-2012, 11:36 PM
  3. [HOPPE] Hans Hermann Hoppe Facts (Conza nods)
    By Sentient Void in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-13-2011, 11:26 PM
  4. Criticism of Hoppe's Immigration Ideas
    By ProIndividual in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-23-2011, 06:08 PM
  5. Happy B-day Dr Hoppe!
    By heavenlyboy34 in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-02-2009, 02:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •