Thursday, May 26, 2016

Burnt Toast

Jacob Hornberger has replied to my recent post on the topic of borders and immigration.  In this post, he offers that I am wrong.  Well, I will be the judge of that…

Libertarianism is a consistent philosophy, one that does not embrace positions that contradict each other.

I don’t like going off on a tangent to start a post, but I must.  This is an interesting statement to make given how much time some very well qualified libertarian theorists spend debating both theory and application – on some subjects coming to conclusions that are exactly the opposite one from the other.

It may be a consistent philosophy, but it should be obvious that humans – imperfect, such as we are – haven’t found that total consistency yet on several subjects, so we really haven’t proven this to be true.  Now it might be so that through continued debate and dialogue, the thus-far elusive “truth” will be found.  Or it might be so that libertarian theory cannot be so perfect in a world of social, imperfect humans (this is my bet).

While those might be true, it certainly is true that there are disagreements today between and amongst well-meaning and well-versed libertarian theorists on many issues.  So, someone tell Walter Block that his 500 published articles were unnecessary – libertarian theory and application is already settled and consistent.  Walter just doesn’t know it yet.

In any case, I have stated several times that I do not burden libertarian theory with such an impossible standard.  I don’t expect more from it that what it is – the non-aggression principle.  I don’t expect it to define “aggression” or “property.”  I don’t expect that it will offer the single answer to these concepts and their application for every libertarian everywhere in the world.

God – yes, that God – has given man his Word: the Bible and His Son.  This “philosophy” has been studied by countless thousands of scholars for two thousand years.  Guess what?  Even this perfectly whole philosophy has not been sorted out by man – we have today, what, maybe 20,000 sects of Christianity?  (I am only guessing at the number.  Take a look at this page.  You do the counting.)

But somehow libertarian theory – after basically 50 years (I start counting a whole theory from Rothbard) has already achieved what God has not been able to achieve after 2,000 years.  Hornberger has a rather high opinion of man – even if you don’t like my “God” example, show me one philosophical / social theory with more than one follower where all who claim to be adherents agree on all aspects – both theoretical and in application.  I won’t wait here for your answer; I will move on.

Interestingly enough, Bionic does not disagree with the major point of my article — that there is only one position on immigration within libertarianism and that’s open borders.

[bionic writes:] If all we need to do is agree on the theory, we can stop here.

Yes, I wrote that.  And merely opening or ignoring the border has nothing to do with the very next step in Hornberger’s hypothetical: an individual is doing the inviting.  Nowhere in this reply does Hornberger deal with my main criticism of his view: he describes a hypothetical which I broke down into two implicit steps and four explicit steps.  Merely opening the borders – getting government out of being involved in deciding who crosses the border – does nothing to implement Hornberger’s four explicit steps and one additional implicit step.  The steps that he says describe libertarian open borders theory.

Nothing.  And Hornberger ignores this.  He did not say that nobody invited Miguel; he said Pete invited Miguel.  There is more to “open borders” in libertarian theory than merely opening the border – on this I agree with Hornberger completely (or at least I agree with his hypothetical.  It is clear to me that Hornberger does not agree with his hypothetical when it comes to practice; see below).  Some individual does the inviting; in practice, Hornberger misses this rather important element. 

Look, Hornberger is the one who said it in his hypothetical – if you open borders advocates don’t like it, take it up with him; it is his hypothetical, not mine.

(As an aside, Bionic’s claim that state borders are inconsistent with libertarian theory is incorrect. I think what he meant to say was that state borders are inconsistent with libertarian anarchist theory. Borders are entirely consistent with libertarian minarchist theory — i.e., libertarian limited-government theory, and open borders are an essential aspect of liberty under limited government).

Jacob, I have enough trouble doing my own thinking for me; please leave my thinking to me (and that guy on my shoulder, Pepe). 

I meant to say no such thing.  I meant to say what I said.  It is impossible to derive “limited-government theory” from the non-aggression principle (go ahead and try, Jacob; you will waste a lifetime and then we won’t have to deal with this open borders stuff).  “Libertarian limited-government” is an oxymoron: “we don’t believe in initiating aggression except when we believe in initiating aggression.”  There is no way to conclude from libertarian theory that initiating aggression is OK in just a few areas.  There may be other reasons to conclude “limited government,” but not based on libertarian theory.

So, what is Bionic’s beef with my article? It amounts to a variation of an argument that Milton Friedman made many years ago about the welfare state.

My “beef” is much more than this, and I wrote it in my response – but you would never know this from reading Hornberger.  My beef is that it will lead to an irresistible push for more government, not less.  Less generally-accepted common culture = more government. 

Gramsci knew this.  Cultural Marxists know this.  Left-libertarians ignore (or pretend to ignore) this.  Hornberger either doesn’t know this or he knows this.  At this point, I am beginning to question his view on this matter – maybe he isn’t ignorant on the matter; maybe he understands this issue very well. 

Anyway, I wrote all of this in my post, but you would never know this from reading Hornberger’s reply.

Interestingly, however, Bionic also wants to make it clear that he is not a libertarian proponent of government-controlled borders.


Then what is he? It’s either one or the other. You’re either a proponent of open borders or you’re not. If you oppose open borders, then you automatically favor government-controlled borders.

Why is it one or the other based solely on libertarian theory?  Is it required that libertarian theory offers an unequivocal answer to every question ever raised by man?  Is it required that libertarian theory is the only pure theory in a world of imperfect man?  Is it certain that libertarian theory can turn a state action – drawing a line on a map – into a libertarian concept?  Just what does Hornberger expect of libertarian theory?

I will help with the answers: it isn’t.  No.  Rothbard was good; he wasn’t that good.  That’s a good one, a real knee-slapper.  The impossible.

Oh sure, it might well result in higher taxes as a result of expanded welfare.

Twelve times, in some form or fashion, Hornberger suggests higher taxes are OK – relative to other libertarian principles – not very libertarian.  I will suggest two things: first, his “other principles” are contrary to libertarian theory – his “other principles” being the supposed “right” to immigrate (this is a positive right; sorry, positive rights can’t be squeezed out of the NAP), and second, from libertarian theory one cannot always deduce the relative value of one violation from another very easily: sure, murder vs. stealing a candy bar is an easy one, but…in all cases? 

Instead he is, in fact, advancing the call for a violation of the NAP in order to support a positive right for an immigrant.  This is impossible to square within libertarian theory, however it is great left-lib stuff (or just call it left stuff; this is more precise). 

Anyway, higher taxes as a violation might be the least of my concerns in this matter.

…but it does seem to me to be a bit unsavory for American libertarians (as well as American statists) to ignore the fact that it is the U.S. national-security state’s death machine and its 25 years of foreign interventionism in the Middle East that is a direct cause of why all those people are going to die…

Is “unsavory” a violation of the non-aggression principle?  Never mind.

This may be the most un-libertarian statement in Hornberger’s entire post (although it is a good leftist statement).  He is attributing the actions of one set of individuals to another set of individuals.  He is saying all are guilty for the actions of others. 

I did not authorize those wars; I did not vote for those who did; I did not execute immoral orders; I did not send millions to their deaths.

There are specific individuals who took specific actions that created the conditions of hell on earth for millions of people. 

However, since Hornberger is the oxymoronish libertarian limited-government theorist, I suggest this guilt is his, not mine.  I take that back: I don’t just suggest it – I pin the tail on that donkey.

Should the United States have a policy of open borders that would enable those hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children from the Middle East to freely come to the United States without fear of being forcibly repatriated to the lands where they are doomed to die?

The answer is: Yes, absolutely, without any doubt whatsoever!

Wait a minute.  Where is Pete?  Did he do any inviting, or is this creature known as the United States doing the inviting?  I don’t get it, Jacob – what happened to your hypothetical?  You can’t even get past the first explicit step!  Is it libertarian for the United States to do the inviting? 

Hornberger doesn’t like that the state manages the borders but calls on the state to do the inviting.  Government action for me but not for thee.”  This is Hornberger’s limited government philosophy.

Anyway, this position could certainly be derived from many philosophies – some morally acceptable and some not so favorable to liberty.  This position cannot be derived from libertarian theory.  People have a right to leave; no one has a right to enter. 

A right to enter is a positive right.  Remember Hornberger’s first explicit step in his hypothetical (someone should; he doesn’t): Miguel was invited by the property owner Pete.  Miguel had no right to walk in without the invitation.  He certainly didn’t enter Pete’s property at the invitation of the United States!  Hornberger keeps ignoring this point from my reply.  I take that back – he keeps ignoring this point from his own hypothetical.

Let’s remind ourselves of what the founding principles of America were with respect to immigration: Our American ancestors sent the following message to the entire world: “If you are suffering tyranny, oppression, or starvation, our government will not send military forces to save you or help you, but if you are willing and able to escape and come to America, we promise that you will never be forcibly repatriated to your homeland to face death, suffering, or tyranny.”

What does this have to do with libertarian theory?  In case you are confused about the answer, I will tell you: nothing.

Consider the system of open borders that the EU adopted many years ago under the Schengen treaties. Opponents predicted all sorts of dire consequences. Borders would disappear, they said. There would be chaos. Everyone would move to France (or some other country). People from one country would steal jobs from people in other countries. The culture of each country would be polluted or disappear.

None of those dire predictions came true.

Wait a minute!  I was the one who introduced the Schengen treaties into the discussion – Europe’s new “open borders” policy is now threatening the ease of travel between European countries for Europeans!  Does Hornberger address my point?  You know the answer by now.

In any case, I will address his point: is it possible that Europeans – despite differences from country to country and even region to region within countries – shared enough of a common culture (well, maybe besides Greece) to make this work reasonably well?  Maybe?

Is it possible a Schengen-type agreement could work reasonably well between Canada and the United States but less well between the United States and Mexico?  You think?  It has nothing to do with “better” – like one culture is “better” than the other.  It has to do with different.

Imagine if 20th-century America had the system of open borders that 19th-century Americans had. That would have meant that in the 1930s all Jews living in Germany would have been free to come to America.

Such a sentiment can certainly be derived from many philosophies, but not from libertarian theory.

But since Bionic is so concerned about big government, what about the enforcement measures that come with immigration controls, which libertarian proponents of government-controlled borders never mention or talk about?

Hornberger does not seem so concerned about the additional big government that will result from his position.  He is not concerned with all of the additional government that is the reality in Europe now as compared to the time prior to this flood of immigration.  He most certainly is not concerned with higher taxes (actually, he kind of likes these; maybe he will pay mine). 

He is not concerned with all of the additional new government that will come with his program, and only is concerned about the government we already have.  I am reminded of what I wrote in the previous post:

Advocates who say “let’s just open the borders and deal with a completely voluntary system later” are no better than most economists and all politicians: they fail to comprehend (or willingly close their eyes to or secretly hope for) the second and third order effects in the process that has been unleashed – call it the seen and the unseen.

Chanting “NAP, NAP, NAP” does not qualify one to advance to Libertarianism graduate studies.

I will suggest, once again: is it possible that there is no libertarian answer available in a world with state borders?  I know my answer.

Bionic makes a slight reference to cultural changes that immigrants bring to a country, which implies that his objection to open borders is rooted in more than just his welfare-state argument. He forgets that America’s heritage is one of freedom and diversity of cultures.

My objection was rooted in many things much more than a “welfare-state argument” before I even got to culture, which was almost a throwaway in the subject post.  Hornberger ignores the fact that merely opening the border does nothing to suggest that someone has to do the inviting – he ignores the “Pete is inviting” part with virtually every statement in his post.

Entering without an invitation is called…what, exactly?  Might it be the initiation of aggression?  And what do we do with those who initiate aggression?  (Don’t answer that; I don’t like violence at this blog.)  That’s how Miguel would have been dealt with by Pete.

In any case, on the point of diversity of culture: much of that “America’s heritage” form of immigration was a result of natural processes.  Which I state in my conclusion.  Which I praise in my conclusion.  But you wouldn’t know that from reading Hornberger’s piece.


His, and mine.

Bionic and I obviously agree that there is only one libertarian position with respect to immigration, and that that position is open borders.

My position is that merely opening the borders does not fulfill Hornberger’s hypothetical.  He does not address this issue even once in this response; instead he ignores it, as if he never said it.  Perhaps he doesn’t even understand his own hypothetical.

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, the fact that some libertarian advocates a particular position doesn’t automatically make it a libertarian position.

I agree.  This is easily the wisest thing Hornberger has written on this entire topic.



  1. I think you nail the problem when you point out that it is Jacob's minarchism which has him straddling an insolvable problem.

    1. Where does BM say that? How is Hornberger's argument predicated on his minarchism?

    2. A minarchist that wants the state to keep the borders open. A state that controls the borders for the benefit of the nation's posterity is the best argument for minarchism and yet Hornberger wants to retain the rump of a state merely to force the borders open. What is his agenda?

    3. "There is no way to conclude from libertarian theory that initiating aggression is OK in just a few areas. There may be other reasons to conclude “limited government,” but not based on libertarian theory."

    4. Matt

      You comment raises an interesting thought: a minarchist advocates for government on a few areas over *something*. Government over a given territory.

      To think that this "minarchist" government would ignore who crosses into (and out of) said territory - well, there may be someone who can perform enough mental gymnastics to imagine this could ever happen in practice, but it isn't me.

      "I am the government of this territory" means something, doesn't it?

  2. Flawless victory BM, but I see you are beginning to suspect this isn't an honest debate:

    "Gramsci knew this. Cultural Marxists know this. Left-libertarians ignore (or pretend to ignore) this. Hornberger either doesn’t know this or he knows this. At this point, I am beginning to question his view on this matter – maybe he isn’t ignorant on the matter; maybe he understands this issue very well."

    You know my view on Hornberger (he is a Cultural Marxist), and his recent reply should serve as a vindication of my view for those on the fence.

    Hornberger: "open borders are an essential aspect of liberty under limited government"

    LOL. Does anyone actually believe this? Is it possible to believe something so stupid?

    Hornberger: "Why are those thousands of people fleeing the Middle East and going to Europe? The answer: They are trying to save their lives. If they stay where they are, they die"

    This is a total lie. The first thing to understand about what is going is that the chaos in Syria is being used as proxy and justification for massive immigration from all over the Mid-East and North Africa. Why are they going into Northern Europe? Why doesn't Saudi Arabia take any? Jordan? Israel? Why don't they stay in Turkey? Why don't we here about plans for returning them when the war is over? Why did this not happen during the past 15 years of total war in several countries? Why now? Why so many? Why are they so desperate to make sure Eastern European countries take them as well? Why are people being thrown in jail for the thought crime ofcriticizing it in France, England, Germany, and Sweden (very libertarian)? Why is Zuckerberg collaborating with Merkel to silence dissent on Facebook? What about what happened in Paris or Brussels? How about the rape statistics in Sweden? How about what happened in Rotherham? Cologne? Why are the same powers that finance and support Jihadis in Syria talking about the humanitarian duty to take infinity "refugees"? Why can't I move anywhere and Europe and get welfare benefits? Why are white South Africans being denied Asylum in England?

    Hornberger: "But let’s hypothetically leave the U.S. government out of the equation. Let’s assume that it is not a direct cause of the chaos..."

    False. The U.S is the proximate cause. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are the real causes. They should take them. All of them.

    Hornberger: "those hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East who have flooded into Europe."

    False. Its millions.

    Hornberger: " the system of open immigration that they established and maintained for more than 100 years ranks as one of the most unusual, remarkable, and exceptional systems in the history of man"

    False. It was an ethnically based immigration policy until 1965. (

    Hornberger (pulling the holocaust card): "That would have meant that in the 1930s all Jews living in Germany would have been free to come to America"

    You know what Jews did come to America during the 30's? The Jewish intellectuals of the Frankfurt school who brought us Cultural Marxism.
    (a key chapter from Culture of Critique).

    Finally, these millions of people will have children. Lots of them. Compare birth rates between Europeans and Muslims. Germans will soon be a minority in their own country. This makes someone happy.

  3. What really astounds me isn't what Hornberger said; it's what he didn't say. I could not find any part of his article where he said what is happening in Europe right now is a poor or inaccurate example of what open borders look like and then provide a good example.

    He almost seems to embrace the migrant crisis as an open borders situation saying, "Yeah, well that's what Europe gets for allowing their governments to bomb those people's countries." Open borders are supposed to promote freedom, not act as a punishment.

    And why is there this ridiculous obsession with removing all restrictions on immigration into only in Western countries? I have yet to find a single libertarian article condemning the immigration policies of countries like Japan or New Zealand. Or how about Mexico? Where are the calls for them to remove immigration restrictions.

    Suppose a 100,000 Americans tried to enter some foreign country to take advantage of a free welfare program and got kicked out: how many open border advocates would cry bloody murder and condemn that country? How many would instead accuse the Americans of trying to steal from the taxpayers of that country and that they aren't entitlement to go wherever they want?

  4. Very well done.

    I'm not sure if this helps, but if I were to summarize your arguments I would do so in a Socratic manner:

    "Which is likely to yield more NAP violations?:

    Allowing an influx of immigrants that are substantially culturally influenced by socialist policies and likely to use the existing welfare system.


    Closing the borders to said immigrants."

    Most libertarians are in agreement that government existence is a NAP violation(in all iterations we know of), and also agree that it looks like governments aren't going away anytime soon.

    So in that context, doesn't a "tallying" of NAP violations under difficult circumstances make sense?

    That's the application of libertarianism in an imperfect world that your refer to.

    In Hornberger's defense, maybe he really thinks NAP violations are reduced by allowing immigration...I just don't see how it's not the opposite.

    1. Hornberger would have us believe he is only applying consistent "principles" to arrive at his argument, but his unwillingness to consider the real world context of his hypothetical should give us serious cause for suspicion. Hornberger wants to promote open-borders more than he wants to promote other (imo genuine) libertarian positions. He admits, and seems almost celebratory about, the inevitable shake down of European people to pay for this. He is also silent on the political persecution of immigration dissidents, who are being jailed for speech/though-crimes.

      I wonder if he would be consistent enough to argue for the use of self-defense against tax collectors? Of course not, and he would likely argue that the consequences of such action would be counter-productive for libertarian goals in the long-run.

      Reminder: the percentage of people who care about principled libertarianism is insignificant. Those who want to gain a wider readership and more influence on hearts and minds will amend themselves to the ideas of the ruling class: Cultural Marxism, Universalism, "Humanitarianism," and Egalitarianism. Regardless of what they think they are doing, this is what they are doing.

    2. Nick, given that I don't find a clean libertarian application to the issue of migration and state borders, the way you suggest the analysis is an efficient way to capture what I am getting at.


  5. Fantastic.

    An anecdote: I queried the Daily Bell staff the other day: Are natural (negative) rights of life, liberty and property subject to interpretation? Or, are they a facet of human action?

    Their answer surprised me: Yes. People will interpret them differently.

    I guess that I have been moving more in the direction that you so often seem to have already been travelling: from the interaction of human action and NAP, one can derive the essential benefits of a free market, namely prices, property and efficient capital allocation.

    These two things are the only things that have convinced me of how human societies generally progress from less capital and less freedom, to more capital and more freedom. There is correlation is strong and the Miseian argument for strict (apodictic) causation is compelling.

    But building capital, though it tends to satisfy man's wants, does not satisfy them all. As the hierarchy of needs is traversed, enough becomes enough for many and cultural preferences settle in to provide the meaning that often becomes hollow after material security is achieved.

    What is disappointing in this day and age, is that we can finally see the horizon on growth rapidly approaching (diminishing capital per capita) and many of the proposed solutions would only aggravate the situation, and many of those in the name of the solution (a libertarian application of NAP to re-grow what so many violations have destroyed).

    1. Obviously the NAP is subject to the same interpretation as property and efficiency, that is to say, the entire concept is rendered essentially meaningless.

      In this connection it is somewhat amusing to see libertarians squabble over the salvation they imagine to come from the state, and even express horror at challenges to the beloved state. Witness these quotes from Eric Margolis' article published on

      "All this amounts to economic warfare against the state..."

      (Oh dear---me oh my!)

      "Even the police unions say they may strike..."

      (Oh dear, what would we do, were our safety not to be protected by the police?)

      "The Hollande government should send in its very tough riot police, the CRS, and gendarmerie mobile..."

      Obviously, Lew Rockwell's interpretation allows for what I would call some pretty obvious violations of NAP, at least to the extent that he allows outright pleas for state associated violence to be published on his site. (Incidentally, Margolis also describes workers refusing to work---going on strike---as "street violence." Oh dear, the slaves threaten to do us violence by not working.) What I can understand of your post and the direction traveled by the bionic mosquito, is quite consistent with these contradictions, which is to say ultimately contradictory.

    2. Late to reply, but...

      Lew Rockwell and his site contain good things but I oftentimes feel like it goes the way of a the comedian who perpetually tries to shock people in order to stay relevant. I don't know if that is a marketing plan or an aspect of their worldview, but I do find myself more drawn to sites like Bionic Mosquito who express a consistent view of non-aggression

      Like the straw man of "rationality" typically ascribed to the Miseian view of praxeology, I understand that non-aggression often gets attributed to viewpoints often not being expressed.

      I don't see non-aggression as just a preferable political philosophy so much as a description of a natural phenomena related to exchange among humans. Theft is ultimately destructive of capital. It is unimaginable that a society built upon theft would drag itself up into a complex civilization. Price formation as a result of free-trade will apodictically create capital over time - markets will always clear.

      Force can build capital but time and human history has shown that societies that trade are societies that will last. Monarchies have been in decline for hundreds of years and capital as a share of population has exploded over the same amount of time. Modern regulation (force in the marketplace) has hindered price formation and the rate of growth of capital has not only slowed but seems to be regressing.

      That is not to say that non-aggression is an ultimate end; it is merely the means by which capital is most easily created. I only wonder to what extent that humans in general would prefer that capital was generated, instead of by how much they would prefer to be protected by a flimsy idea of just application of arbitrary force. It seems to me that force in the marketplace, once introduced, consistently expands and only contracts as a result of all out (bloody) revolution. This does not seem like a virtuous or efficient cycle to me.

      With that in mind, I am not sure how the NAP is contradictory. In my view, it is merely a description of a complex phenomena like electro-magnetism, which we seem to be able to manipulate far better than state power. My lights go on and off as I desire; once the switch to state power goes on it just keeps growing brighter and hotter. Every state that has been flipped on has exploded.

    3. LRC has never required that all articles or writers be Libertarian to be included. If they attack some aspect of the state then they are included. This helps to pull in outsiders, imo. Margolis is consistently anti-war but he isn't a libertarian.

  6. Anon proof

    I'm not for open by government borders. Borders will ever exist also in an all private world. Only they will be managed by legitimates owners.

    But i feel that your answer to Hornberger is not completely good.. In real world what Hornberger say about the violation of the Nap implied by government managing borders is absolutly correct..

    "But since Bionic is so concerned about big government, what about the enforcement measures that come with immigration controls, which libertarian proponents of government-controlled borders never mention or talk about?

    Think about those trespasses onto private ranches and farms along the U.S.-Mexico border, where government agents go onto people’s privately owned property to look for immigrants who are llegally entering the country. That’s not theory. That’s reality. And so are those eminent domain actions where the government steals people’s property to build fences and walls on the U.S. side of the border, much like those fences and walls that separated East and West Germany and East and West Berlin. Think about those domestic highway checkpoints in the Southwest, where everyone is stopped and subjected to examinations and searches, without judicially issue warrants, just like they have in Cuba, North Korea, and other totalitarian countries. If they refuse to answer questions, U.S. agents bash in their car windows, drag them from their vehicles, and beat them up. Think about those roving Border Patrol checkpoints, which stop cars at random and subject them to warrantless searches. Indeed, think about the massive police state, headed by ICE, that has been called into existence to enforce immigration laws.

    Bionic is obviously concerned about an increase in taxes to provide temporary government relief to immigrants who are trying to save their lives. But where is he when it comes to the massive immigration police state, the massive violations of civil liberties, the massive infringements on economic liberty and freedom of association, and the massive level of taxes to fund all this immigration-control tyranny?"

    And also the "Right to migrate" is not a positive right if you intend only that i have a Right to pay my road without cohercitive interferences. I'f my migration is a sum of acts Made in the market.. buy a ticket, rent a car, take a room, rent a home, find a work.. Etc.. That are free market consensual acts, and also if i do those "illegaly" witouth all the government controls, taxes, etc.. legally prescribed they arte perfectly fine for a libertarian. Also if in some point I cross a border of a "state" property. Every contract I made in this sort of migration count ad an invite by Pete. So the Right to migrate can easily be seen sa the right to have free market consensual relations without government involvement.

    If I buy my way I made it with the consensus of the people with wich i interact. So no one can interfere in our commerce.

    1. "Bionic is obviously concerned about an increase in taxes..."

      To treat this as a significant portion of my concern demonstrates that you have difficulty with reading comprehension.

      To equate a positive right to migrate with buying a train ticket indicates that context is also an elusive subject for you.

    2. Anon proof

      2 I write "if...". Try reading with an open mind. I recognize that you are right on borders.

      1 you answered throwing back in Hornberger face his argument.. He write to you that you don't care enough about all the government that state managed borders will imply, as taxes, but also as police aggression in the many shapes he listed, and that you don't value enough the economic freedom lost with it. You on this point write him the same "Hornberger doesen't seem so concerned about..." I feel that your answer is not completely satisfying. Also "bionic is obviously concerned.." is something Hornberger write.

    3. "If I buy my way I made it with the consensus of the people with wich i interact. So no one can interfere in our commerce."

      Including commerce involving child prostitution, right? If not, why? If it is a principle, then it applies universally.

    4. Anon proof is not clear why you speak about child prostitution, maybe you are confused.. but, to answer your question, no. Free market is about private property, beginning with selfownership, so you can't buy or sell other human being against their will (but you can sell yourself for sex if you want and if you are an adult).. and a child is not able to decide for himself.. the age and the requirements for adulthood change in different country and culture, but no one advocating free market is thinking to free child prostitution i think. You speak about this this disturbing thing only because you are thinking about it, also if it is not the issue here.. maybe you have a problem.

    5. If someone can interfere with your commerce on that matter, then they may interfere with your attempted importation of enemy aliens. You don't get to pick and choose.

    6. Anon proof

      "I feel that your answer is not completely satisfying."

      I am not the ice cream man.

      Try reading with an open mind: I have written many times that there will not be a completely satisfying libertarian answer to the question of open borders in a world of state borders.

    7. Anon proof

      @Matt you are making argument for totalitarian socialism? I make what i want with my property. That is liberttarianism and Free market. It imply the right to sell and rent myself for work or to rent or sell my goods. I as the owner decide with whome i want to buy/sell/rent/contract etc.. but there is a limit. It is the nap. Child prostitution violate it. To take a martian as my worker maybe violate your idea of common good but not the nap. If you want to enforce your idea about common good by law-so at gun point- you are advocating aggression on private property. Your aggression must be stopped with the necessary force as for any other crime.

  7. I have to say, that to me Hornberger has the victory in the pocket.

    Yours is a very poor incoherent reply - and the fact that your post starts with 3-4 paragraphs filled with unnecessary verbiage is just a little sign of this.

    1. Greedy Jew,

      It is people like you that add such value to the comments section of this blog. Not.

      In any case, I said I would be the judge of this, so your opinion doesn't matter much.

  8. BM said: "show me one philosophical / social theory with more than one follower where all who claim to be adherents agree on all aspects – both theoretical and in application. "

    I don't understand.

    As far as I can see, this is just a simplified restatement [and reaffirmation] of what is often called "methodological individualism", [i.e. the base assumption/starting point of all Austrian economic theory as far as I am aware.]

    And yet, when, in a prior post on this same exact subject [open/closed borders], I pointed out this very fact and then applied it to the issue of personal morality [including "NAP",] I was labelled [i.e conveniently dismissed] as a "nihilist", a label /sentiment with which you yourself seemed to agree with as being accurate, given the content of your subsequent comment[s].

    'Fact is, all moralities , even "NAP" are always open to individual subjective interpretation , and no one "who claim to be adherents agree on all aspects – " either "theoretical" or "in application."

    That's how it is, that's how it always will be, given the real world realities of "methodological individualism".

    Inevitably, each of us has [or must form] his/her own unique, personal morality, which might seem superficially "similar" to another persons, but can never be the exact same in all respects, nor in all circumstances/applications.

    The failure to understand the real world ramifications of uniqueness of each individual [ personal morality included] is, as I see it a major barrier to most individuals successful seeking of more freedom in this world [and not just "libertarians"].

    Even outside of morality, the meaning of such seemingly simple terms as "open" or "closed" borders are open to individual subjective interpretations [obviously].

    And so, I conclude, the "libertarian" open or closed borders debate is just another, never to be resolved to anyone's satisfaction, "storm in a teacup".

    Nihilistically yours, onebornfree. :-)

    1. "Storm in a teacup."

      It is encouraging to see someone who sees this kind of debate very much as I do and can eloquently point out how the participants are twisting in the wind to no purpose. Well done.

      Now, if I/we can get a significant number of others to see the potential (justifiable) power possible through merely developing a *sufficient* understanding and *sufficient* agreement on the right (i.e., *sufficiently* focused and yet broad enough) collection of moral principles (NAP, principle of private property, etc.), perhaps there can be a significant manifestation of civilized behavior among some men on earth.

    2. Sonja Cramer said :"It is encouraging to see someone who sees this kind of debate very much as I do and can eloquently point out how the participants are twisting in the wind to no purpose. Well done."

      Well thank you Sonja, although, pessimist that I am , it is more than likely that you have completely misunderstood my comments :-) .

      I'm afraid that "twisting in the wind to no purpose" debates will always be with us in this world, no matter what we might think about them.

      I suppose we can just sit back and laugh at them/enjoy the show ?

      Sonja Cramer said : "Now, if I/we can get a significant number of others to see ........perhaps there can be a significant manifestation of civilized behavior among some men on earth."

      Well, don't hold your breath Sonja, while waiting for that imagined "significant manifestation of civilized behavior among some men on earth" :-) .

      Besides which, I would suggest that it in truth is not necessary for you to get _anyone_ to see _any_ envisioned "potential", that would, [you imagine], lead to a "significant manifestation of civilized behavior among some men on earth", and, in fact, I would suggest that to the extent that you try to do just that [and then wait for those imagined results], you will inevitably take away valuable time needed to further your own freedom in this world, _now_.

      Regards, onebornfree

  9. An American in Sweden:

    Good video that drives home the realities of what is happening there in human terms rather than abstract fantasy.

  10. Why does Jacob Hornberger want to enable strangers and the FedGov to invade and steal from me? Because he is advancing libertaranism?
    BTW, Mr. Mosquito, thanks dor allowing comments in your blog.

  11. The migrant movement to Europe looks more like an invading army of angry young men.

    The Arab Spring was instigated by those pulling the strings from behind the scenes. Are we now seeing the European Spring, and, subsequently, the American Spring?

    Doesn't the Libertarian philosophy allow the right of "self defense"?

    1. "Arab Spring was a stealth attack on the stable status quo in a package labeled "freedom".

  12. I like the orientation toward the "real world". We have an example here in the real world of the issue in the fact that government always grows with arbitrary power concentration. Obama gave law-breaking orders. Giant bureaucracy with "job guarantees" means more career fears in gov-bots.

    Plus they did active enforcement against volunteers who would help enforce the law. Democracy, the minarchism that failed.

    Property owners on the border in the real world are prevented by government force from protecting their own property. Hornberger to be consistent must demand that government immediately ban ALL government aid from going to ANY immigrants, children too. Glen Beck can open anew orphanage.

    Anyway, lost in this is the hand of stealthy crony oligarchs organizing this and propagandizing it on both sides of the borders.

  13. Gov-enforced "open borders" blocks private ranchers from defending their own property borders. Hornberger's Pete is forced by government to allow trespass. In a libertarian society, desert heat would not be the only danger to migrants.