Thursday, November 5, 2015

Open Borders: Case Study



Open borders to Europe.  Some comments from a representative story from Germany:

Some 500,000 refugees have entered the country since the beginning of September, and there is no end in sight. "Prepare for the eventuality that in the coming weeks, 10,000 to 12,000 refugees will arrive at the border each day," a member of the Coordinating Committee inside of Germany's Interior Ministry said last Wednesday, quoting from a communiqué from the Austrian Interior Ministry.

Sounds like The Camp of the Saints.  Hopefully not with a similar ending.

The government, in short, has lost control.

That would describe the ultimate open border.  Good news for many libertarians, it would seem – no government involvement in who does and does not cross the border.

One exhausted aid worker spoke of a "humanitarian catastrophe."

The “humanitarian catastrophe,” of course, is in the policies pursued by US and European governments in the home countries from where these refugees fled.  The influx of refugees can be labelled “blowback.”

In late October, 215 mayors in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia wrote a letter to Chancellor Merkel and to the state's governor, Hannelore Kraft, saying that their ability to cope with the situation had been exhausted.

Some individuals would choose to not allow more refugees onto their property, it seems.

Essentially, [Merkel] views the crisis through the prism of two questions: Can Germany reduce the number of arriving refugees by way of national legislation? And: Should the government say that there is a limit to Germany's capacity? She has clearly and explicitly answered both questions in the negative.

No national legislation; an “open-borders” libertarian’s dream.

Merkel believes it is impossible for Germany to seal off its borders. …she has stubbornly avoided establishing a maximum number of refugees that Germany can accept

Like I said: the ultimate in “open borders.”

This isn’t a post about libertarian theory.  It is a post about applying libertarian theory in today’s world.

Well, a small diversion into libertarian theory.  I will leave the “open borders is libertarian” position to others.  I counter: As I have every right to close the borders to my property, I have the right, with my neighbors, to come together on this point (think homeowners association).  I have the right to grant agency to another to perform this function for me. 

Unfortunately, I am precluded from choosing any agent – I am forced to look to government to perform this otherwise perfectly NAP-respecting function.

The question of presumably undeveloped government owned land presents an issue – famously the Rockies or the vast deserts are offered.  Libertarian theory cannot answer, however, how much labor mixing with the land is necessary to establish “ownership”; only custom can answer this.  in any case, government employees have mixed labor with government owned (and I use that term loosely) land.

Yes, by definition government is illegitimate – government cannot “own” anything; what it holds, it holds via theft.  It “possesses” land – land mixed with labor that I paid for via wealth stolen from me.  That makes it my land – it is owned.

For those for whom my comments on government possessed land do not resonate, let me suggest: this is not a post about libertarian theory, it is about applying libertarian theory in today’s non-libertarian world.  These refugees are not settling on the 3000-meter-plus peaks of the Swiss Alps, far removed from any otherwise improved land; they are not going north of the Arctic Circle.  They are coming to the developed – and even most developed – parts of Europe.  Even if I accept your theory, you cannot avoid this practicetoday.

That’s enough on my view of theory.  I do not suggest that my view of theory is stronger or more consistent than the “open borders” theory.  I do suggest that my view is at least equally as valid.

Yet the question remains (and current circumstances in Europe offer a real-time case study) – how to apply the “open borders is libertarian” theory to today’s world?  Can it even be applied?

In today’s Germany, some residents want to accept the burden of taking in refugees in unlimited quantities, and some do not.  Either position is fully supportable in libertarian theory.

We are seeing the attempt at application of open borders in action, today in Europe.  From the aforementioned story: by the thousands – hundreds of thousands – the borders are opened.  Merkel cannot close the borders of Germany; she cannot see clear to limiting the influx.  The government has lost control of the border.  That’s about as open a border as it gets. 

Yet – in today’s world – her decisions coerce on some (not necessarily small) portion of the German population; they do not want to support this influx.  There is a cost to them for her decisions.

I am sure there are also Germans who welcome this position – hence the impossibility of applying “open borders is libertarian” to today’s world.  The issue is not only regarding the immigrant; the issue is also one for the resident.

Open borders can be easily applied in world of respected property rights – I own land or a business, I am free to choose who to allow in my property.  No one is free to come on my property – I am free to decide if I will let someone on it.  I live in a community that feels the same.  I owe no one who feels otherwise any compensation.

In today’s world?  Impossible to apply libertarian “open border” theory – Germany’s border is about as open as can be, and NAP violations are the result.

Finally, returning to the subject article:

Merkel's historic decision to open Germany's borders to refugees stuck in Hungary was morally unassailable.

I am sure there are many who believe this – even many within the libertarian community.  However, if property is to be respected – and this is a very moral question and the basis for the entirety of libertarian theory – her decision is not “morally unassailable.”

We are stuck in this world where it is via the very un-libertarian force of government that border decisions are made.  Yet, it is very libertarian for individuals to make decisions about borders.  That there is no choice but to attempt to do so via government is not a reason to give up this otherwise consistent-with-libertarian-theory act.  (If you think so, stop driving on the streets.)

Open borders and property rights must be reconciled in practice – today.  If the two cannot be reconciled, which one wins?  There is, in the end, only one libertarian answer.

Else there is no libertarian theory.

82 comments:

  1. If we are to make progress toward a global government as the world's ruling elite envision, there can be no national borders. Individual liberties will have to yield to the will of the collective as defined by those in power. Expect to see tyranny grow in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  2. EXACTLY!!! The cold, hard reality that you have to face TODAY then act is the true test of any theory - and if the "open borders" wins over property rights than you can kiss goodbye to peace/order/normal life in short order.

    In today's world there's really no choice but to allow the government to exercise sovereignty and defend property rights of its citizens to the best approximation possible. Since I am originally Hungarian and I just visited home in September right at the end of the initial turmoil and talked to as many people as I could about the reality, I thought long and hard of an ideal libertarian yet PRACTICAL solution to this. So here's my idea - let me know what you think:

    If I were the PM of Hungary, I would order my gov't to come up with the best cost estimate of:
    1. fully taking care of a refugee (as when the gov't provides everything),
    2. providing basic services to a refugee like healthcare, job search, school for kids, etc. (but the refugee is housed and cared for by a private citizen).

    Then I would announce to the country that every single refugee let in would have to be fully financed by the citizens themselves directly in two possible ways: you sponsor a refugee i.e. fully pay the cost for him/her (as the Option 1 cost above), or adopt one, take full responsibility for him/her, provide full board, and pay the basic gov't services cost (as the Option 2 cost above). Everybody would have the option to choose whether they want to bear the burden of having a refugee either directly on their own property or via proxy by gov't. Then I would only let in the number of refugees that corresponds exactly with the previous month's pledges and distribute them according to the pledge type.

    Of course there are many practical details and it would be hard to estimate ALL costs involved in taking care of a refugee (you would have to include all extra costs like border enforcement, camp costs, extra bureaucracy, etc.) but this would be my principal stand that I think would allow everybody to exercise their property rights to the best extend in a current real nation-state. Probably even this one would be hard to actually implement in the current EU due to legal and sovereignty issues but perhaps doable if you have a PM with balls.

    What do you think? :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Norbert

      I am familiar with a past reality where someone who wanted to immigrate into a country was required to present a letter confirming employment and / or a letter from a landlord and / or a letter from a resident family stating that they would ensure all financial needs to the extent the applicant was not able (the applicant would not become a burden to the state)..

      This seems to me as close to the libertarian ideal of "open borders" as one could get in a non-libertarian world - open borders without violating property rights.

      When it comes to refugees in immediate harm, the situation gets clouded by emotion; I do not suggest that the emotion is not valid, but in libertarian theory such emotion can only be acted upon voluntarily.

      Delete
    2. Exactly, again. I gotta learn to be as eloquent as you are :-)

      Just for reference, I had to go through the same thing in some form myself four times:
      1. Getting my own US green card.
      2. When being naturalized.
      3. Sponsoring my mom's US green card.
      4. Then getting my Japanese residency last year.

      Each time I either had to have a sponsor with ultimate financial responsibility or prove my own adequate income of several years. I am not sure how much the US policy changed in recent years considering the ever-expanding nanny state but I hope they still require those financial guarantees upon green card or naturalization.

      Delete
    3. Norbert

      As I recall, English is not your native language.

      In most other languages, I am barely eloquent enough to order a beer and ask for the toilet (but I find this to be sufficient). :-)

      Delete
    4. My wife is an immigrant and I know we did make those promises to get her sisters in. However I don't believe the promises are actually enforced.

      That's not to say it's not a reasonable compromise if it were enforced. Too bad it's not enforced on all citizens (nobody gets welfare - all aid coming from voluntary contributions).

      Delete
    5. For ordinary economic migrants, I think proof of employment and/or residence would be enough. For refugees, I think private charitable organizations or individuals should be made to take responsibility. Refugees and migrants can't be admitted simply to be supported by the taxpayer, but if it can be demonstrated that some private entity is able to support them, then they should be admitted.

      Delete
  3. What about those of us that support borders, but not nation-states? Your private and HOA examples are good, but why must I recognize every claim some government makes of land ownership. When some kid on the playground makes it to the top of the monkey bars and shouts, "I'm king of the world!", I ignore him too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Recognize (or not) whatever you want. How does this address the lament: in this un-libertarian world as offered in this real-time example, what to do, what to do....

      Delete
  4. I was going to suggest 'adoption', but Norbert stole my thunder.
    Great piece as usual, BM. HHH couldn't say it better.

    ReplyDelete
  5. When "the law takes from some persons that which belongs to them, to give to others what does not belong to them... it is not merely an iniquity — it is a fertile source of iniquities." Bastiat is easily one of my most favorite authors. He writes so clearly!

    The solution to the problem being discusses here, as is often the case, is to abolish welfare, radically shrink the government, and strictly protect private property. Closing the borders, aside from being ineffective, is merely treating the symptom instead of the disease.

    Igor Karbinovskiy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Igor, I know the solution, but this isn't today's Europe (or anywhere else). The question is about today - right now: as a libertarian what to do, what to do...

      Delete
    2. You're saying, I think, that there's an emergency and it must be taken care of. Stop the flow of blood first, then look for the underlying cause. I'm sympathetic to this view. You (I'm not European or I'd say we) should close the borders. So, yes, I agree with that.

      My post was meant to draw attention to the fact that this is a stopgap measure, not a cure. Close the borders and THEN proceed to cure the real problem: socialism. But what will actually happen, realistically speaking? Borders will close and socialism will remain.

      Once socialism is excised and private property rights enforced, then open/abolish the borders.

      Igor Karbinovskiy

      Delete
    3. Igor

      What I am saying is...there is a view in the libertarian community that borders should be open - full stop - in today's world.

      I am suggesting that what is happening in Europe today offers a very clear case study of this view.

      I am further suggesting that the result of these open borders infringes on the property rights of many Europeans.

      Hence, it is not necessarily true that open borders is the only (or even _a_) libertarian option.

      Delete
    4. Doesn't the libertarian view on open borders include conditions? As stated before, conditions based on limited or no state sponsored services and entitlements? This current real world example you mention is nothing of the sort. There are plenty of reason these refugees are risking their lives to relocate to these socialist utopia's...and it ain't the cuisine.

      Delete
    5. "Doesn't the libertarian view on open borders include conditions?"

      There is a subset in the community that recognizes these conditions, but does not see these as pre-conditions - that is, not to be used as a roadblock to open borders.

      Delete
    6. "When "the law takes from some persons that which belongs to them, to give to others what does not belong to them... it is not merely an iniquity — it is a fertile source of iniquities." Bastiat is easily one of my most favorite authors. He writes so clearly!"

      Apparently, not clearly enough, since you clearly don't understand him. Read further down. Bastiat, "The Law," the poor man's plunder is a rational response to the general organizing principle of plunder of the political economy. It is a symptom, not a cause. The "welfare state" begins at the top,not the bottom. And Bastiat more or less shrugs at trying to counter the claims of the poor man's plunder.

      "What can you say to that!"

      Bastiat makes plunder a central focus of political economy. It's everyone, not some.

      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else."

      that statement is not, "some at the expense of others." It reads "everyone at the expense of everyone else"

      Delete
  6. Property rights wins, accepting and endorsing a governmental agency to determine immigration status, but then rejecting another state agency the power to collect tax, take property, prohibit substances etc is hypocritical. Address the real issue, the state's role in providing services for immigrants at the publics expense. Without that, the immigration issue will work itself out, but it won't be pretty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know the real issue - yet you ignore that there is a reality today - and a real world case study for "open borders" advocates to work though.

      As a libertarian...what to do...what to do.

      Delete
    2. "Address the real issue, the state's role in providing services for immigrants at the publics expense."

      Agreed, as far as it goes. This really should be the line of attack on this problem, and is pretty likely to be successful. But then you are left with "welfare for me, but not for thee"; hardly a libertarian solution. A better attack is to eliminate welfare altogether, using unchecked immigration as the club to get it done, to get people to understand the evils of welfare. That of course is a much tougher job.

      In the meantime, the problem remains.

      Delete
  7. Immediately freeze state resources and simultaniously call a humanitarian immigration emergency. Request aid and assistance from charitable institutions and voluntary donations as well as corporate sponsorship etc. International media blitz through the use of cable tv, social media etc. Have Bono write a song and get a bunch of self righteous celebrities around a microphone. Worked in the 90's.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Let's see, the US government criminally wages war,destabilizes, bombs country X, thereby creating Y refugees from X. So-called "libertarians" on this blog use this this as an example to
    (1) argue the use of property rights to deny movement to a class of people who have been criminally uprooted from their environment
    (2) use the consequences from this criminal act as an argument against open borders


    Frankly, this post and commentary is a disgrace to libertarianism. Let me give you the proper libertarian response. You/we owe those people restitution for the criminal acts of our government. If you don't agree with the criminal acts of our government, I would worry more about the inability to control this government, the inability to have any reckoning for an agency that more or less acts with impunity. To the extent you don't see this as a problem to be rectified, then the threat to "western culture, values and justice" is you.

    dL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You/we owe those people restitution for the criminal acts of our government."

      The victim of theft owes restitution to the next victim of the thief. The victim of theft is responsible for the next criminal act of the thief. This is your example of "justice."

      The writer of this sentence is for some reason fit to determine what is and isn't "a disgrace to libertarianism."

      Delete
    2. "for some reason"...like being able to detect bad arguments, faulty reasoning and logical fallacies?

      dL

      Delete
    3. dL

      Explain how "owe" for a criminal act of another fits anywhere within libertarian theory.

      Explain how the victim of theft "owes" restitution to the victims of the subsequent actions of the same thief, and how this is consistent with libertarian theory.

      Delete
    4. 'If you don't agree with the criminal acts of our government, I would worry more about the inability to control this government, the inability to have any reckoning for an agency that more or less acts with impunity. To the extent you don't see this as a problem to be rectified, then the threat to "western culture, values and justice" is you.'

      Looks like you are imposing a positive obligation to fix things on libertarians.

      Look, the ideal situation is for freedom lovers to rebel against tyranny, no argument there. But an obligation to do so? I don't think so. Nobody can impose such a thing, and still be libertarian.

      Delete
    5. "Explain how the victim of theft "owes" restitution to the victims of the subsequent actions of the same thief, and how this is consistent with libertarian theory."

      Let X=invading agent
      let R=resultant refugees
      let Z=criminally trespassed agent via R

      so, if we accept the premise that R has criminally trespassed against Z(i.e, they are taking something from Z). Who gives restitution to Z? R has nothing..what they have has been destroyed by X. So Z demands restitution from X. Who would win that argument if it was adjudicated in front of a neutral jury? I know how I would decide? How would you decide?

      Or, let X==Z, that is, the invading agent is the same as the consequent trespassed agent? Do you think a property rights argument is justified by X against R for restitution by R?

      Analogy: a robber M beats,robs N, taking everything from N. N is hungry and then steals a sandwich from M. Do you think M is justified using a property rights argument against N to demand restitution from N? Again, if this adjudicated in front a neutral jury, how would it be decided? I know what I would decide? How would you decide?

      If you decide for X & M, then yes, i believe that would be a disgrace. And my suggestion would be to re-read(or perhaps read for the first time), Bastiat's The Law.

      dL

      Delete
    6. "Looks like you are imposing a positive obligation to fix things on libertarians"

      Nope...My point is that under the conception of libertarian justice, we(i.e, citizens of the invading country) would be liable for restitution for the criminal act of invasion. And to use the consequences of the US actions as a "case study" to instead argue "property rights" as means to deny any form or relief is a disgrace IMO.

      So, I am not arguing a case for "you must do something." More like,
      there are perhaps some things you shouldn't do...like to try to use it to argue a "case study."

      dL

      Delete
    7. dL

      I am not George Bush; I am not Barack Obama. I did not fly a single drone mission, I did not train so-called moderate rebels. I did not vote to authorize war, I did vote into office anyone who did vote to authorize war.

      I am a victim of theft. The thieves use the stolen goods - goods stolen from me - to commit further crimes.

      Somehow, you find me responsible; somehow you call this libertarian.

      Delete
    8. "Somehow, you find me responsible; somehow you call this libertarian."

      No, I'm not pointing the finger of responsibility, I'm merely pointing out who bears the burden.

      Example: You are a resident within a city. The City is sued over malfeasance/negligence by a city employee. Who pays for the verdict? The residents...has nothing to do with who you voted for, whether you work for the city, whether you knew the employee, etc.
      ...instead it has everything to do with where you live.

      So, I'm not making a moral judgment per se, i'm making a statement of fact.

      Btw, where do you live? Do you live in Europe? Are you European? If you are an american, you are not a victim of anything. What is this "I am a victim of theft" stuff, as if you are personally being violated by the refugees--who are true victims of american foreign policy. To me, that's just galling...

      Delete
    9. "Example: You are a resident within a city. The City is sued over malfeasance/negligence by a city employee. Who pays for the verdict?"

      Those who committed the malfeasance/negligence should pay for the verdict, not the deepest pocket around. If the war refugees countries were devastated by the American state, then the damages should be paid for out of the private assets and future prison labor of the agents of the state who committed and enabled these crimes. Of course war crimes trials would then be in order.

      I am also open to the argument that those American citizens who so righteously and proudly vote, should too be held individually responsible for the criminal actions of the "public servants" that their votes put into office. Since these citizens willingly participate in the immoral process of two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner, they have no right to be free from the consequences of the outcome of that voting. This should shut-up those loud mouths who nag nonvoters about the civic virtue of voting.

      Delete
    10. "No, I'm not pointing the finger of responsibility, I'm merely pointing out who bears the burden. "

      And yet, a comment earlier you were saying: 'My point is that under the conception of libertarian justice, we(i.e, citizens of the invading country) would be liable for restitution for the criminal act of invasion.'

      So that's exactly what you're doing.

      "The residents...has nothing to do with who you voted for, whether you work for the city, whether you knew the employee, etc.
      ...instead it has everything to do with where you live."

      Yes, and that is antithetical to a libertarian conception of justice, which any libertarian would know.

      "Btw, where do you live? Do you live in Europe? Are you European? If you are an american, you are not a victim of anything. What is this "I am a victim of theft" stuff, as if you are personally being violated by the refugees--who are true victims of american foreign policy. To me, that's just galling..."

      He's a victim of theft by the US gov which uses the bounty of that theft to commit invasions, you idiot.

      -qwastl

      Delete
    11. fyi: i consider it a badge of honor to be called an idiot by the type of thinking that pervades this blog.

      dL
      http://rulingclass.wordpress.com

      Delete
  9. Open borders and States are incompatible, it seems. Surprise, surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Open borders make sense when the movement of people is purely economic and lifestyle choice and not politically motivated.

    The open borders in the 19 th century didn't create much problem because at that time so much parts of the world were getting better and richer thanks to the European innovation. Even Africa and South America saw much improvement thanks to the hard work of the German and Dutch migrants who introduce railroads, hospitals, new farming methods. There were also political movements caused by the Tsar's Jewish persecution and of the Northern Italian kingdom's forced poverty on the Kingdom of Naples and the Irish potato famine. But those were rare. The thing is: most people are homebodies. They prefer the comfort and security of their own people who share their language and customs. When their homes are improving there is no need to leave. Socialism changed all that, starting with the Great War. It's the governments that is driving the massive migration today with wars, price controls, etc. It's the governments that is encouraging invasion to fatten their own power base like Lincoln signing up the Irishs right off the boats to beef up his own army or to support increased welfare/ warfare programs.

    Until those are dealt with, open borders will cause problems today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Open borders" were not a problem for much of human history because there were no "civil rights" or welfare payments or public education for much of human history. Ethnic minorities proved their worth, or they were slaughtered or driven into exile. If you were poor and didn't have family or friends, you starved. Your children were your responsibility; if you couldn't feed them, you sold them into servitude.

      "Immigrant" is a bureaucratic category. In a libertarian regime, there are no immigrants; only owners, tenants and trespassers. In pre-modern times, "sojourners" were just that, and they were not expected to hang around much less avail themselves of tax dollars. City-states regularly expelled or banned persons deemed harmful to the civil order.

      Only the State can maintain "Open Borders."

      Delete
    2. "In a libertarian regime, there are no immigrants; only owners, tenants and trespassers. In pre-modern times, "sojourners" were just that, and they were not expected to hang around much less avail themselves of tax dollars. City-states regularly expelled or banned persons deemed harmful to the civil order.

      Only the State can maintain "Open Borders.""


      Not correct, then. Not correct, today. An example, today would be the internet. "Owners, tenants and trespassers" does not accurately depict how the internet works. Indeed, under a Hoppean property regime, the internet would be a massive criminal trespassing regime, and thus, couldn't exist.

      Open Borders does not mean the right to trespass against a property rights regime. It refers to a boundary constraint of topological simple-connectedness applied against any regime. A proviso of sorts. And you would not need a state for that b/c it is the natural human condition. On the contrary, it is the type of Hoppean property rights regime that seeks to use property rights for the ends of some cultural preservation/uniformity that requires a State for enforcement.

      dL

      Delete
    3. How would a Hoppean regime require a state for enforcement? If I understand his program correctly, power would be so decentralized that only very localized communities would have the means to police their own borders

      Delete
    4. jgress

      Forgive dL, as he cannot seem to comprehend the idea that I keep border controls on my property; that my neighbors and I (a homeowners association) might also keep border controls on our property; a hotel keeps border controls on its property.

      All very libertarian. None require a "state."

      Delete
    5. "Forgive dL, as he cannot seem to comprehend the idea that I keep border controls on my property; that my neighbors and I (a homeowners association) might also keep border controls on our property; a hotel keeps border controls on its property."

      no problem comprehending it...i'm certainly not against that..and if that's all you were saying, I wouldn't be posting here, and I doubt you would be devoting so much space and time to the topic.

      what i'm against is when you make the next step:

      a State keeps border controls on its property.

      Sometimes you make that step explicitly, sometimes implicitly,either way,using the same arguments typically associated with the likes of Hoppe.

      The typical explicit step: (i) immigrant welfare benefits are theft that justify Statist border control as a defensive reaction

      The typical implicit step: (ii) private control of private property would approach or proximate the State in terms of borders and control of movement

      I'm against (i) and (ii), and advocate "open borders" as a boundary constraint on the legitimacy/justice of a private property regime. "Open Borders" is not a right to trespass...rather it is a proviso--I define it as topological simple connectedness. Anyone of any sophistication understands the concept of proviso, certainly should be aware of the Lockean proviso, the revised Lockean proviso(Nozick), etc

      And yes to use private property as means to enforce some cultural uniformity(another Hoppean argument) beyond a trivial or limited space would absolutely require a state.

      dL

      Delete
  11. I need a clarification of Bionic's position.

    Here is the way I see it. If I want to invite a particular person to my property, nobody should stop me, even if that person comes from another country (perhaps with some proviso about preventing spread of disease). If I don't want to invite somebody, that is also my business. The only question is, what happens on government land, which as you say already exists. The proper way to handle that (short of eliminating government land) is to bring in subsidiarity; the people of each town get to vote on the utilization of land in their own towns for example. Whoever "owns" the land collectively votes on it. One town wants to let in a hundred, or certain specific individuals, that is their business. The country government should keep their nose out of it, except for land such as national forest (and constitutionally, there really shouldn't be any such land - that really belongs to the state). Yes, certain voting individuals will not like the result (the minority), but that is a feature of government ownership of land. Non-government (e.g. corporate) collective ownership of land will likely have the same feature - unless their bylaws are written such that any individual can veto what is under consideration.

    In other words, adding subsidiarity to the picture is the best anyone can expect in the current situation. Keep in mind that any pure open borders demand will result in even larger numbers of disappointed individuals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul

      I am not sure what you want me to clarify. I agree with your statements regarding your control over your property.

      As to government "possessed" property... I have not addressed a method to return it to those from whom it was stolen (including the stolen labor used to develop / maintain the property) or how decisions might be made toward disposition. A very complicated subject, likely with no single answer.

      Delete
  12. ─In today’s world? Impossible to apply libertarian “open border” theory – Germany’s border is about as open as can be, and NAP violations are the result.─

    The rub, BM, is that you're arguing from the assumption that the presence of political borders presents an appropriate counter-argument to the principle of freedom of movement as if it were inevitable that a violation of this border is concomitant to a violation of the NAP. That is called Circular Thinking. Who says one violates a border? Government said. Who placed the border there? Government. Who is government? The entity that places borders.

    Who is saying that there's a border between side X and side Y? Two governments. Not the property owners, but governments.

    The border itself is an arbitrary construct. Therefore, your argument against freedom of movement is that it is government and its arbitrary actions that define the right, which is completely backwards of classical Natural Law-based ethics.

    ─Yet, it is very libertarian for individuals to make decisions about borders. ─

    That's an absurd statement, BM. That calls for *collective* action, which is impossible in a human society that is composed of individual actors. MY actions are limited to my property and my person. Yours are limited to your property and your person. "Borders" are a government construct for all intents and purposes. Saying that collectively "we" have a right to set up "borders" ipso facto calls for a *majority* rule which is antithetical to individual liberty. In other words, you're committing a perfunctory contradiction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no such thing as an a priori "freedom of movement." In a libertarian regime, all movement off your own property would require the permission of adjacent property owners.

      You sound like one of those libertarians who wants a State in case some group of miscreants get together and draw a border around themselves.

      Delete
    2. Francisco, there are countless examples of voluntarily derived collective action - in the context of my examples. Individually, any one of us can agree to be bound by the rules of a homeowners association as one example.

      As to a border being an arbitrary construct, the borders of my property are not arbitrary. My arguments flows from this very libertarian reality.

      Delete
  13. In general this is very well reasoned. However...

    "Unfortunately, I am precluded from choosing any agent – I am forced to look to government to perform this otherwise perfectly NAP-respecting function."

    But I disagree - surely a government is (or at least, it should be) nothing more than a homeowner's association writ large? Sadly a given plot of land can only have one government at a time: ideally that government should reflect the will of the majority of the stockholders, but if you don't like it your only option is to leave - that is simply due to physical reality and cannot be changed.

    A government should simply be regarded as the contracted agent of the members of the business partnership that is a nation. Foreign nationals have no more right to come to this nation without our permission, than a stranger has to trespass into your house, a street vendor to set up in a private shopping mall, or I do to trespass onto a private country club.

    The problem I think is that libertarianism as a pure ethic lends itself to incoherency. In the antebellum American south libertarian principles were used to justify slavery - 'property rights' - 'free to choose to own slaves'. Nowadays private citizens are forbidden to import legal pharmaceuticals from Canada because that would interfere with the freedom of the big drug companies to maximize their profits by restricting trade.

    So as with immigration: should people be free to move wherever they please, or should people be free to form partnerships and band together to improve a piece of land together, keeping the benefits to themselves and their descendants? Absent morality or common sense, the abstract principle of 'freedom' can become a logical pretzel and mean whatever anyone wants it to mean...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you make a good point. I can't speak for Germany, but I think the answer for the US will involve at least returning powers to the states to manage those aspects of immigration that affect them, e.g along the lines of California's Proposition 187, that would have restricted welfare to illegal aliens but which was struck down by a federal judge on 14th amendment grounds.

      The main thing that bothers me about the nationalists and Trump-supporters is that their program calls for even more centralization and expansion of the federal government over the private sphere, e.g. mandatory E-Verify for all employers. I want the federal government rolled back!

      Delete
    2. Timothy

      You raise an issue quite valid - in a libertarian world, many communities will choose to live under non-libertarian governance structures. I use the term "governance" and not "government."

      " Sadly a given plot of land can only have one government at a time..."

      I guess it depends what you mean by "plot" and "government." My neighbor and I each are insured by different companies; we each utilize a different private security service.

      There are many plots of land that come with conditions (e.g. in a homeowners association) - if you don't like the conditions, don't buy the land.

      Delete
  14. I like how you framed the case, but I would have preferred it if you had answered the question more directly: does open borders work, and if not, why not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will answer it directly - do you allow anyone and everyone entry into your home at any time and for any reason?

      Delete
  15. Interesting interventionist/socialist/Statist contradiction:
    The State is set up based on monopolistic State control over a defined territory – it is kept in place by the balance of the cost/benefit ratios of people’s fears of defying the State and by the desires of those “benefitting” from the existence of the State (of course there is overlap).
    In keeping with the “welfare” provisioning/promise of the State, allowing unlimited increasing numbers of refugees/”beneficiaries” will prompt the push for higher taxes and/or inflation (via borrowing, money printing) to support the new “beneficiaries.” There will come a breaking point where the taxed no longer find the balance of coerced taxation and the benefits of the State tolerable. Probably the first attempt to push back will be via elections, local, state, and national – to stop the influx of immigrants prompting heavier taxation.
    While this analysis is primarily “financial,” there are of course the quality of life considerations, e.g., the homelessness and increased criminal activity brought about by the immigrants.
    So, in answer to the original question – “open borders” or “property rights,” this is just another manifestation of ______________ (fill in the blank) or “property rights.” And we’re back to the original, original question “what to do, what to do?” My answer would be the State enforces the borders. From there take your pick as to which Statist coercions you want to attack first.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It seems to me that asking one state to exert power and control in order to solve the problems created by another state is a statist position. Being libertarian in theory, but statist in the real world, is simply being statist. The arguments put forth in this article are statist. (And as a side note, HOA's are socialist, not libertarian.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A libertarian decides voluntarily to buy property in an HOA governed tract, and you call this socialist? A libertarian decides to buy property that comes with conditions makes one a statist?

      Curious.

      Delete
  17. Yet again the open borders libertarians (on this very thread!) are refusing to deal with open borders as it is, rather than how they think it should be. This is why libertarianism is intolerable to normal people.

    Look, if your ideas are increasing the number of NAP violations in your country then there is something wrong with your thinking. There is a tragic cultural mismatch between the "refugees" and the accepting countries that will one day lead to the expulsion of the migrants or the subjugation of the native people. Conflict is "baked in", and no, libertarianism has not special abilities to reduce ethnic tensions.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hello bionicmosquito, not sure if a prior post reached you. 


    I sometimes read: “We need as many converts as we can get etc” including and regarding open borders etc etc.


    I say shennaggins to that.


    It’s not necessary to convert nor petition others…nor is it necessary to adopt methods of those I despise to make people do things to the extent that it is a torn compromise.

    Nor to social engineer…nor to convince, nor to run after people, nor to be in constant mediation mode, nor to have no idea with whom I dealing with.

    Individuals still don’t know their own power.

    "Build your own model instead of fighting the existing. You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

    To this day many are unaware of Spontaneous Order of individuals in society and Methodological Individualism and human ignorance in making calculations for others.

    Mathew Reece posted this as it relates liberty (dot) me/discuss/t/tucker-vs-cantwell-on-REFUGEES/

    And I posted this: Natural laws playing out. Spontaneous order looks chaotic. However there IS a Self Correcting taking place here.

    Both Tucker and Cantwell offer strategies, mind sets etc. Jeffrey is pointing out that NON INTERFERENCE with migration will allow individuals to SORT OUT what Statism deems impossible without command control, social engineering etc

    Cantwell falls for the WE have an emergency what are WE going to do? And the We-ist traps that come from such!

    There is no WE!

    Tinyurl (dot) com/there-is-no-we


    ...Who would have foreseen individual European women Spontaneuosly demanding self protection (from rape) in the form of hand guns (the ultimate NAP solution to victim disarmement) in orders of magnitude such that they cleaned out all the retail gun outlet supplies in Germany in response to the flood of migrants in the EU. What started with a few women and outlets apparently affected a whole country!


    As it relates to safety and protection snd shelter, in the interim I suspect those undividuaks who have direct access to barges, boats, yachts and ships in Germany have a leveraged escape from recent mass migration flooding. Not the least of which is usually extra stored food supply and access to fishing. 

    Those who are owners of vessels around the world could start to offer and post craigs list alternatives outside of the nation state.

    The flood of migrants could be rapidly solved via cargo ship seasteads and or shipping containers. 


    Will the seastead take off like a bitcoin BLOCK CHAIN equivalent? I do not know. It certainly has rapid application on many levels.

    One possibility is that entrepreneurs and shipping owners (see below) who use PRIVATE security and insurance companies who insure them and households and property in Germany etc may be incentivized to step in and offer tankers (Seasteads) and shipping containers to offload some of the mass migration pressure in EU.

    Empty, self powered, and proven seaworthy tankers are actually floating on the ocean TODAY...

    And the US is currently shipping 200,000 empty containers monthly back overseas out of LA alone.


    Forget about waiting for permission for open space utilization in Australia or utilization to use China's ghost cities...

    Here is a New Model as Fuller proposes:


    Indeed: Stop dreaming and start building some REAL sea steads.
    connect.liberty (dot) me/stop-dreaming-and-start-building-some-real-sea-steads/

    Long live open borders. 



    Cheers, AtlasAikido.



    Sent from my 4G Smart phone

    ReplyDelete
  19. I did not read *all* of the comments here, but I wish to make one. Ending socialism and handouts is not sufficient to allow open borders. One might need to change even one's climate to a less desirable one in order to discourage immigration across an open border.

    In the end, I'm not for borders either. But I am for property lines. As the state has confused the very concept of property by proclaiming to own 'public' property, then I believe BM's practical solution for a non-libertarian world - this world - to be correct.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Freedom to Travel is a natural right.

    What better way to break the State welfare system than to overload it and rush it to its logical, economic conclusion--i.e. collapse, rather than dragging along for another 5 decades.

    The welfare system in the USA (I can't speak for Europe per se) has written rules forbidding welfare to NON-citizens, and yet THE RULES ARE IGNORED BY THE GOVERNMENT WELFARE EMPLOYEES.

    For a much better presentation than I can possibly give here, see details at
    tinyurl (dot) com/Ask-Right-Question

    AtlasAikido

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Freedom to leave is a right, of some sort, assuming one has not voluntarily agreed to stay as part of an exchange.

      Freedom to leave one place does not automatically grant a freedom to enter another, however. No one has freedom to enter property without the owner's permission.

      Delete
    2. Perverse incentive of govt is that it creates conflict where none exists. This is the divide and conquer tactic brilliantly described at following link.

      "Divide and Conquer: The Globalist Pathway to New World Order Tyranny from an International Perspective"
      By Joachim Hagopian

      October 17, 2015

      Lewrockwell (dot) com/2015/10/joachim-hagopian/divide-and-conquer/


      Freedom to travel is not INcompatible with private property.

      By talking freedom to enter and exit you are ignoring an important principle. By focusing on the alleged right to enter and exit you ignore the important principle of freedom to travel. You are also conflating private property you own with "the commons" which you do NOT own.

      Inspite of all the crap professor Hoppe publishes about what he thinks "the commons" SHOULD be, in today's world ownership of "the commons" is claimed by govt.

      You own your private property. You can legitimately deny access to it. But you do not own "the commons" and you CANNOT deny access to it no matter what Hoppe and Lew Rockwell says.

      The principle is freedom to travel not the freedom to enter and exit thru some govt claimed boundary.

      I am "in" your country but I am not "in" your house!

      You have conflated your house with the country. You have conflated private property with govt claimed public property i.e "the commons"

      No one is contesting your control over private property but you don't own the commons. You get to use it and don't get to deny use of it by anyone else!

      "The problem of “illegals” crossing the border and trespassing on private lands would VANISH INSTANTLY if the armed guards and the gates were removed from the “legal” border crossings and people were allowed to freely cross in either direction. (It actually used to be that way—and guess what, there was no incentive to trespass on private lands.)"

      tinyurl (dot) com/Ask-Right-Question

      Continued next message

      Delete
    3. There is no social contract!

      Pararphrased from Marc Stevens A “nation” is composed of “citizens,” and a “citizen” is supposed to be a member of a political body (“nation”) who owes a duty of allegiance in return for a duty of protection.

      To have the duty of owing allegiance requires reciprocal serve and protect from the political body. Since there is no reciprocal duty to serve and protect there is no owed duty of allegiance…

      You might have heard that police have no duty to protect you. It might come as a surprise though, that the laws says you have a legal duty to protect them.

      christophercantwell (dot) com/2015/08/29/who-protects-who/

      The “Social Contract” With the Government Is a Fraud
      By Bill Bonner
      Jun 3, 2013
      lfb (dot) org/the-social-contract-with-the-government-is-a-fraud/

      Excerpt: The “social contract,”... is a fraud. You can’t have a contract unless you have two willing and able parties. They must come together in a meeting of the minds — a real agreement about what they are going to do together.

      But what is the “social contract” with government? There was never a meeting of the minds. The deal was forced on the public. And now imagine that you want out. Can you simply “break the contract”? You refuse to pay your taxes and refuse to be bossed around by TSA agents and other government employees. How long will it be before you are put in jail?

      What kind of contract is it that you don’t agree to and can’t get out of? They can dress it up… print out a piece of paper… have a solemn ceremony in which everyone pretends it is a real contract. But it’s not worth the paper it’s not written on.

      Also, what kind of a contract allows for one party to unilaterally change the terms of the deal? Congress passes new laws almost every day. The bureaucracy issues new edicts. The tax system is changed. The pound of flesh they got already wasn’t enough; now they want a pound and a half!

      Here are the critical questions: Why do we let other people tell us what to do; are we not all equal? What is the purpose of government? What does it cost, and what benefits does it confer?

      Excerpt from "Ask the Right Question": In summary we CANNOT make ourselves free by advocating and supporting Statist programs and views! The xenophobic obsession with immigration control blinds some “libertarians” to our real, common enemy.

      The unhampered free market correctly allocates resources to their best use. Interventionism changes the allocation so that resources are applied to uses that are not beneficial to a society. Government loves to create roadblocks to entry into fields of choice. Control of freedom of travel and association are political as well as literal roadblocks. Immigration control, i.e. control of movement across lines on a map—such as the Berlin Wall, is a HALLMARK of Statist programs for prevention of liberty and free trade.

      Furthermore, the obsessed "libertarians" have abandoned the Non-Aggression Principle and the principles of laissez-faire Capitalism. They have created two new and unnecessary enemies for themselves, the alleged “illegals”--who could be and should be recruited as valuable allies--and their former fellow libertarians whose rights they now tread upon.



      How can a free, sovereign individual—of any race--be “illegal”?

      Laissez nous faire!

      Live and Let Live!

      AtlasAikido

      Delete
    4. I find this difficult to read due to your rude language; I have skimmed it. I am sure I have missed something important - perhaps you might consider the consequences of introducing such language.

      You are incorrect to suggest "commons" or that the government "owns" something (I fell into this trap in the past, there is no shame in it). To make a long story short, government "owns" nothing. It possesses stolen goods.

      "Own" implies legitimacy - are you suggesting that property possessed by the government has come into its possession through legitimate means?

      But if you read my post and at least considered it, you would have addressed what I actually wrote instead of what you wish I wrote.

      Delete
    5. Hoppe's logic flaw was exposed back in 2008. Many people (Lew Rockwell?) seem to be making the same error. Rather than re-publish, here is the link.

      More arguments FOR Open Borders—this time (unbeknownst to him) from the pen of Hans-Hermann Hoppe!

      tinyurl (dot) com/Hoppe-border

      Hoppe distorts and contradicts his own arguments--and that because of his semi-slick rhetoric and loose logic, he is no "friend" to libertarians.

      MY position is that his support and popularity is testament to the gullibility of many otherwise sensible people at Mises Institute and elsewhere.

      I have also answered you with a post that speaks to examples of methodological individualism and Spontaneous Order in Germany. You did not respond to that first post where I answer the following question with such examples as how criminal elements that exist in all populations is being dealt with by women using NAP principle and arming themselves...

      P. 44 of Wendy McElroy’s ebook “The Art of Being Free”: providedbyliberty.me:
      “…order espoused by Mises and Hayek was a spontaneous one in which individuals pursued their own diverse interests without coordination by a central authority. What does such an order look like?”

      Mises is quoted as saying people are stupified when the phenomena of spontaneous order is pointed out. Wendy McElroy explains it in The Art of Being Free. Gene Callahan addresses it in Economics for Real People. The latter is free at Mises.org

      There are two schools. One that believes human ignorance needs to be command controlled and social engineered, which is what some here are proposing. The other is NON Interference, which is what Mises and Hayek and Jeffrey Tucker propose and which I point out specific examples of.

      I too am not chipper about how Hoppe's corruption of logic has blossomed and spread to Lew Rockwell. *In the next post I will address your post specific to that*.

      I prefer Free Immigration-the alleged security issue by George Reisman as it relates to Non Aggression Principle.

      AtlasAikido

      Delete
    6. Hoppe seems to go out of his way to twist and distort libertarian principles to fit some non-libertartan purpose, especially the Open Borders issue. And he brings with him an academic veneer of credibility that very few are inclined to challenge directly.

      Instead they give him a pass, apologizing for him with words like "earnestly attempts" or making allowance for English being his second language. The man is a professor and is trained in logic, he does not deserve a pass for gross and deliberate errors!

      Von Mises never got a pass for those reasons, nor did he seem to expect one. No one apologizes for what Mises said, because no apology is needed. I wonder what he would think of this spectacle.

      Roads are made for travel. As such they support and promote the libertarian view of freedom to associate. As long as a co-owner--AND HIS GUESTS-- can travel on the road, the purpose is satisfied. Denying travel (i.e. closing the road at an arbitrary border) is contrary to the purpose of roads and the freedom to Associate.

      Public roads end at your driveway or your real HOA, not imaginary. If you want to block off your private property, put up a fence and gate.

      All of this is integral with Ownership and Hoppe uses Ownership in his theory of roads in an attempt to close the borders. *I*, as one of his "owners", object to his blocking MY access to what HE says that I own.

      Mr Hoppe's own argument for the CO-ownership of roads is sufficient grounds for having OPEN borders.

      -----------

      This might be a less complicated way of saying the same thing.

      On a discussion group, in response to the question

      "Now, how do we satisfy the very legitimate concerns of (y)our fellow taxpayers who

      A) paid for the same roadways, and
      B) don't want them here?"

      "Zack Bass" rightly pointed out the following:

      "We all get to use the Road; no one gets a Veto."

      As a legitimate owner of the "public property", and of private property within the territory commonly known as the United States, *I* issue a standing, open invitation to any and all individuals in the world to use the "public" property of which *I* am a legitimate owner!

      Furthermore, I know of other legitimate owners of this public property in the U.S. who hold the same view.

      The pictures of immigrants are of them on the roads between open fields. The only time they have to cross over property is when govt blocks the roads with armed soldiers or barbed wire fences.

      'This Is What The "Invasion Of Europe" Looks Like'

      zerohedge (dot) com/news/2015-10-29/what-invasion-europe-looks

      My position is they are Refugees (not invading but fleeing from the invasion of their country by USA and EU) and certainly not immigrants. To accuse refugees of invasion is a disigenious reversal of cause and effect.

      m.facebook (dot) com/activistpost/photos/pb.128407570539436.-2207520000.1446490910./963585587021626/?type=3&source=54&refid=17

      I concur with: "Using roads for travel *IS WHY* roads are constructed!! Put gates at your driveway if ones wants to block off your private property!"

      Your position (and I do actually have some strong empathy for it) is very well represented in "Secession, the State, and the Immigration Problem" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe wherein he attempts to justify a rejection of the libertarian view of freedom of travel and open borders.

      In an otherwise excellent article, there is a fatal flaw in his logic, just before he presents his conclusion that "the moral status of public property as expropriated private property" is "sufficient grounds for rejecting the open border proposal".

      tinyurl (dot) com/Hoppe-border
      More arguments FOR Open Borders—this time (unbeknownst to him) from the pen of Hans-Hermann Hoppe!

      AtlasAikido

      Delete
    7. This may come as a surprise to you, but I am not Hans Hoppe. I am not concerned with his contradictions, if any. Perhaps you should address your numerous comments to him.

      “As a legitimate owner of the "public property", and of private property within the territory commonly known as the United States, *I* issue a standing, open invitation to any and all individuals in the world to use the "public" property of which *I* am a legitimate owner! Furthermore, I know of other legitimate owners of this public property in the U.S. who hold the same view.”

      Now you are finally coming to the relevant issue. You are *a* legitimate owner of this so-called public property, but not the *only* legitimate owner. You may know *other* legitimate owners who agree, but there are also *other* legitimate owners who disagree.

      There are, of course, many owners of this so-called public property who would choose the opposite of what you and your cohorts choose. In a private property world, either choice (by the owner) is acceptable in libertarian theory – and practice. But we do not live in a private property world.

      We live in a world where property owned by me is controlled by someone else. Of course, the same property is owned by you yet controlled by someone else. How shall a libertarian settle this very non-libertarian issue? Shall we take a vote – majority rules? Shall we elect a strong-man to build a fence, or bold woman to place no bounds? I know: let’s write a constitution with a bill of rights, make a “social contract.”

      Not very libertarian.

      There is no libertarian solution that can resolve this issue of the right to use so-called public property in a non-libertarian world – a difference of opinion where either answer would be perfectly acceptable in a libertarian world.

      Hence I come to the side of closed borders. The borders to my own property are closed. This is very libertarian (and a position you seem to accept, more below). From this completely libertarian position, I extend my argument.

      I notice in your statement (cited above) that while you opened your “public property” to all comers, you did not open your private property to others. Therefore, I conclude you agree with my position of closed borders or you are stuck in a contradiction every bit as perplexing as the one you claim to pin on Hoppe.

      But remember: I am not Hoppe.

      Delete
    8. Our "common" or "shared" property is a system of roads, and the function of roads is travel and has been since before recorded history.

      If you build barriers on our "common" roads, you deny me and my guest access. Yet if there are no barriers on the road you are denied nothing. You can still barricade the property of which you are sole owner. 

      The contradiction is yours not mine.

      Delete
    9. Bionic "I am not Hoppe".

      You are absolutely right and I apologize--for assuming from some of your statements--that you had adopted or supported views regarding road systems and owners that Hoppe has proposed.

      The US government is very clear about their claim to the USA roads system. The USA government for faudently claims to represent the people, yet no vote on road usage has ever being taken. Instead the USA bureaucracy simply extorts funding for road construction and dictates a changing set of rules regarding road usage. I do not agree with nor do I support the system, but it is what currently exists.

      In the "Secession, the State, and the Immigration Problem" article  that I refer to Hoppe has been very clear about his views of who ought to be the owners of the road system. Since you rightly maintain that you are not Hoppe, please clarify and enlighten as to how you think the USA road system should be owned.

      Do you or would you own the piece that touches your property? Do you own it all? Do you own none of it? Do you own an undivided part of it along with me? What Is your claim to the road system?

      I think you mentioned an HOA homeowners association? Is it a voluntary or compulsory membership? If compulsory please explain how it is different from the current USA government?

      Delete
    10. “…the function of roads…”

      And on the eighth day, God snapped out of his slumber and said, “Let there be graded surfaces sufficient for easy travel, with tunnels blasted out of mountains and bridges built over rivers. And on these graded surfaces let rock beds form sufficient to carry loads of four-legged beasts and eighteen-wheelers and let asphalt and concrete flow freely until the surface is hard and smooth.”

      The “function” of roads has nothing to do with nothing. This passes for reason at C4SS and with the vulgar Carson, but not here.

      “…how you think the USA road system should be owned.”

      This is an entirely different question on an entirely different topic. You introduced the statement that you grant permission to *your* public property. I pointed out your contradiction, which continues to flash in bright lights.

      Delete

    11. Your reply is a mindless, thoughtless, pedantic chant and a great disappointment.

      "Intellectual honesty [involves] knowing what one does know, constantly expanding one's knowledge, and NEVER evading or failing to correct a contradiction. This means: the development of an ACTIVE mind as a permanent attribute." Ayn Rand

      I have read other things that you have published. It is not possible that you fail to understand my last two postings, therefore I conclude that you are either being deliberately obstinate or that you have some perverse reason to be baiting me. Whatever your motive is, I find no rational opposition and have neither reason nor desire to continue this discourse. 

      Closing private property is a personal choice of the owner. Closing national borders is a violation of NAP. It violates my right to trade with invited vendors (see my Hoppe article) and it violates my right to freely travel to visit other people. When you abandon principles (NAP), you become part of the problem. The NAP is the guide and principle by which you separate the charlatans, sophists, nihilists and hermeneutists.

      Serious Libertarians and the NAP is again under serious attack by clever charlatans, sophists, nihilists and hermeneutists with
       PhDs and foreign accents. For reasons unknown his peers will not point out is logical errors. I did!

      AtlasAikido

      Delete
    12. You suggest roads are a gift of nature. I suggest otherwise. You call this mindless, thoughtless and pedantic. I suggest you do not understand even the basics.

      You suggest that you - as an owner - have a right to allow others on public property, but I - as an owner - have no right to exclude others from public property.

      And you call me mindless.

      Delete
  21. Wow. Quite a turnout for this topic. BM, you seem to get the greatest response when you go pragmatist.

    Governments will always take the easiest path toward a "solution." Since welfare is deeply entrenched in our culture, any mention of its reduction will lose a politician some votes. The answer then becomes deportation (I wonder what three-letter name they'll give it? A.I.D. ... Alien Inspection Department)

    This works because it's government going after some terrible minority - something that couldn't POSSIBLY hurt me and my family in any way. Right?

    And then there's the wall. Great! Americans love make-work projects, except for the fact that the only people who were willing to do such work were round up by A.I.D. What rotten luck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In some cases, applying libertarian theory even in this state-dominated world is relatively easy, in other cases not so much. This case falls into the "not so much" category for me.

      Obviously, some people disagree.

      Delete
  22. Borders are like defense. Borders are necessary. Defense is necessary.

    The state claims to care for both but screws them both up. It would be nice if it didn't, but it is a state, after all.

    Without the state we'd be able to get by with a lot less in the way of borders AND defense because the state wouldn't be out there causing problems. I used to think, "At least defense is authorized by the constitution" but now I think we'd be better off if there was no DoD at all. I can’t imagine the state not using a tightening of the borders to as an opportunity to tighten control over every action internally, including the crushing of dissent.

    Culture has consequences. The left seems to intentionally repress this thought. Having a preference for one culture over another isn't hate. Not all cultures are equally beneficial, which is why many of them die out if they're not able to fasten themselves to more economically viable ones. Having a preference to not be leached upon isn't hate. It isn’t bigoted. Trying to limit one’s social circle to those people for whom one can exercise some amount of influence in exchange for informal insurance duties (community help) seems only reasonable. Unending responsibility by those who live circumspectly to those who live profligately is the recipe for social destruction. If some want to do that I’d not stop them, but I won’t pick up that burden.

    ReplyDelete
  23. https://c4ss.org/content/41552

    Thought this was, interesting. Didn't improve my opinion of Carson at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it a truism that the quality of an argument is inversely proportional to the rudeness, personal attacks and vulgarity used in the argument?

      Delete
    2. There was a plausible argument there, if he'd stuck to it. But it was more satisfying to call Lew a bigot.

      Delete
  24. Bionic mosquito says in the article: "As I have every right to close the borders to my property, I have the right, with my neighbors, to come together on this point (think homeowners association). I have the right to grant agency to another to perform this function for me."

    Ok, you might have a leg to stand on if everyone in the entire country agrees with your closed borders position, in the same way that everyone that enters a HOA agrees to it beforehand, but they don't so you can't use a HOA as a reason to close the border.

    Furthermore, there are countless miles of land that no government employee today has ever set foot on. You, them, a HOA, or any other group can't claim millions of acres that they haven't set foot on as their own. So once again the HOA argument falls apart.

    If the state steals more money from you because a refugee entered the country, then it is the state stealing money from you, not the refugee. You are illogically trying to make the refugee out to be the perpetrator so that you can feel better about supporting the government pointing a gun at the refugee.

    To quote the great Larkin Rose: I don't recall seeing anything by Lew Rockwell before that I thought was dead wrong. But this is:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/lew-rockwell/open-borders-assault-private-property/

    For all the rational considerations, Lew conspicuous FAILED to mention what the question is actually about: is it okay to POINT A GUN at someone, because he tries to step over an invisible, arbitrary line without the written permission of politicians? It's not. In the midst of all the group think and collective reasoning, I have to assume that Lew didn't mention that question--the only relevant question--for the same reason statists never explicitly describe the VIOLENCE they advocate: because it makes it sound as bad as it is. Whatever inconveniences a mass migration may cause you, each INDIVIDUAL involved is a separate person, and initiating violence against an INDIVIDUAL who has not harmed or threatened anyone, simply because he is part of a GROUP that may have an adverse impact on what you want, is immoral. Sorry Lew, you're just wrong on this one.

    (P.S. I want to stand Lew in the woods, with a gun, at the invisible line between Canada and the U.S., and have someone try to "illegally" walk over that line, and see if Lew can justify threatening violence against that person. If so, he should never wear the label "libertarian" again. If not, he needs to change his position.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “…you might have a leg to stand on if everyone in the entire country agrees with your closed borders position…”

      Please cite where I have made a closed borders position. You are one in a long list who equates an argument against open borders equal to an argument for closed borders.

      Further, you might have a leg to stand on if everyone in the entire country agrees with your open borders position. There you have it, at best a push. No libertarian answer here.

      “…there are countless miles of land that no government employee today has ever set foot on.”

      Besides not being able to follow an argument, you really cannot read either; from the post: “These refugees are not settling on the 3000-meter-plus peaks of the Swiss Alps…” In any case, I disagree that “setting foot on” is the only applicable criteria.

      “…Lew conspicuous FAILED to mention what the question is actually about: is it okay to POINT A GUN at someone, because he tries to step over an invisible, arbitrary line without the written permission of politicians”

      Voluntaryist conspicuous [SIC] FAILED to mention what the question is actually about: is it okay to POINT A GUN at someone, forcing him to support someone against his will.

      Delete
    2. Whatever your position is if it isn't open borders it's wrong. If it is some partial mix between closed and open borders it's wrong. Maybe not as fully wrong, but half-wrong nonetheless.

      @"There you have it, at best a push. No libertarian answer here."

      Not sure what "a push" means.

      @"Voluntaryist conspicuous [SIC] FAILED to mention what the question is actually about: is it okay to POINT A GUN at someone, forcing him to support someone against his will."

      Huh? I did mention that. I said, "You are illogically trying to make the refugee out to be the perpetrator so that you can feel better about supporting the government pointing a gun at the refugee."

      There is a two-stage act going on and you are trying to mesh it into one. To explicitly answer your question, it is NOT OK to point a gun at at someone and force him to support a refugee. So who is pointing the gun at you? Is it the refugee? No, it is the government. The refugee has done nothing to you. You have no right to point a gun at them. You DO have a right to point a gun back at the government goon that tries to take your money to pay for the refugees though.

      Delete
    3. "Whatever your position is if it isn't open borders it's wrong."

      And with this, the conversation ends.

      You have not bothered to read or try to understand what I have written. Therefore it is a waste of my time to discuss the topic with you, as I have spent too much time developing my thoughts to debate them with someone who won't even address - let alone read - them.

      Delete
    4. I don't need to read more since I already know your position is wrong, in the same way that if someone said they weren't 100% behind freeing black slaves I would know they are wrong, even if they don't elaborate on what their exact position is. But just for kicks I read your "Hoppe and Immigration" article, and, as I already knew, you try to wedge using the violence of the state on innocent people by saying, "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."

      Here's the thing: the state doesn't exist. Since no one can give to one man or a group of men rights that they don't have themselves, the state has no authority to do anything. That includes pointing a gun at refugees. So there is no "given".

      Immigrants: Intruders or Guests? A Reply to Hoppe and Kinsella:
      http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_10.pdf

      "It would be better for our taxes to be used to pick up trash rather than to increase the amount of trash. It is better for firefighters to put out fires than to be paid to sleep all day. In the same vein, if the state monopolizes health-care, then it is better for it to spend taxes on actual health-care rather than sorcery. In all of these cases, the state uses money illegitimately because its collection is aggressive, but the usage that we think is reasonable does not violate any additional rights beyond the initial aggression at the time of taxation. Immigrants are not violating anyone’s rights when they migrate, and even when some of them take advantage of welfare benefits or anti-discrimination laws, they are not the ones enforcing these laws—the state is. Immigrants are not using force against domestic property owners even if they benefit from the state’s policies."

      "Other people argue in this manner: 'We must stop the entrance of the majority of immigrants because, overall, they are going to plunder more money from the taxpayers.' This is equivalent to saying that we must, at gunpoint if necessary, prevent entrance to a majority of immigrants even though a fraction of them will live off the taxpayers. What about immigrants who are not going to live off the taxpayers? Or, similarly, what about natives who are already leeching off taxpayers? According to this logic we should deport tax consumers. This suggests that libertarianism cannot defend the prohibition of an action that, per se, is not aggressive (immigration). What are aggressive instead are subsidies, welfare and taxes, and these are what must be condemned."

      "It is quite an odd position for a libertarian to hold that the state has to bar immigration because, on balance, it could become a net cost to the taxpayer. Should the state limit the number of children that parents can have if, overall, such restriction decreases the amount of taxation and welfare in terms of public education and subsidies? If opponents of totally open immigration on the ground that they might become welfare recipients are logically consistent, they would have to oppose any childbearing, whatever. Having children is not, per se, illegitimate, and this is why that prohibition cannot be justified on libertarian grounds. Libertarians should defend the privatization of education and the abolition of taxes, not regulations regarding the number of children people can have to keep taxes from increasing."

      "If the market is flexible enough to accommodate dozens or even hundreds of millions of immigrants, then what is the matter from an economic point of view? If all of them find a job and a place to live it is because there is a demand for their services and a supply for their needs. Immigration, after all, only puts pressure on state-provided services; the market perfectly adjusts to changes in supply and demand. This is yet another reason to replace inefficient, state services with flexible, market alternatives."

      Delete