Posts
Jacob Hornberger has offered
his rejoinder to my recent
post on immigration and borders. I
feel we are now talking in circles or talking past each other, but I have been
encouraged to make one more attempt to clarify my view.
On the Federal
Government’s Immigration Enforcement Measures
Alas, in his new article there is
not one single word of condemnation of the federal government’s immigration
enforcement measures.
This is not true, yet he spends over 900 words chastising me
for this.
I hate to repeat what I have previously written, but will do
so to save you the trouble of searching.
First, Hornberger’s previous charge:
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?
And my reply:
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.
I will state my answer explicitly: there is no possibility of a libertarian answer with a world of state
borders. As long as there are state
borders, there will be violations of libertarian theory in all matters
regarding those borders.
If we are down to creating balance sheets, have at it – as
this is basically what we are left with on this point.
On Hornberger’s
Hypothetical
Speaking of Hornberger’s hypothetical:
Bionic says that he can’t argue
with my hypothetical about the two brothers owning adjoining ranches along the
border.
I do not argue with it and in fact agree with it; it is good
libertarian theory. Again, with
apologies for being repetitive, I will list the key
points of his hypothetical:
1)
The implied first step is that the government
has no say about who crosses political borders.
2)
Pete invites his brother Miguel to his property.
3)
Pete places a condition on this invitation – it
is an invitation for dinner.
4)
Miguel accepts the invitation.
5)
Pete finalizes the agreement by allowing Miguel
into his home and serving him dinner.
6)
The implied last step is that Miguel will not be
a burden to any of Pete’s neighbors.
So what is my point? It takes all of these steps for there to be
such a thing as libertarian open borders – every implicit and explicit step. It is more than just disbanding government
control of the border. Without every step included, you have something
that is not libertarian.
This was Jacob’s hypothetical, and he should stop running
from it or ignoring it (and for those of you who accuse me of only accepting a big bang, take it up with Hornberger,
not me; it is his hypothetical).
As an aside, I did like Jacob’s use of the price system as
the invitation – this is creative and seems to me to be reasonable. It also points to every aspect being
voluntary – thereby not relieving the
burden of step six (meaning that the “price” offered as invitation is not a
“price” from the welfare system).
The immigrant is coming after being drawn by a market price
– a circumstance that does not explain the influx in Europe today (or many
places otherwise). For Europe,
Hornberger looks to reasons that are to be found outside of libertarian theory.
Finally just because a price is extended and accepted, does
not mean Pete is obliged to serve dinner to Miguel – when Miguel accepts the
invitation, Pete still decides if he will allow Miguel into his home (but then
this bumps into a property owner being able to discriminate against anyone –
immigrant or domestic alike; a no-no for many left-libs).
To place this in the context offered by Hornberger: in the
subset of immigration issues where a market price is the invitation, the buyer (Pete)
may always decide if he accepts any particular seller (Miguel). This is step five.
The European Refugee
Crisis
Jacob ignores my points or otherwise brings up irrelevant or
repetitive topics, so I will ignore his – except for two. First:
But is a massive crisis (bought on
by the U.S. national-security state’s death machine) any reason for
libertarians to abandon their libertarian position favoring open borders…
Hornberger assumes that open borders is the libertarian position, and it is therefore being
“abandoned.” Two can play at that game: I
have offered numerous reasons why it is not
the libertarian position – so I say Hornberger is the one who is abandoning the libertarian position!
Second:
Note something important: If an
American church group tried to assist any of the European refugees by bringing
them into the United States without official permission, the Justice Department
would go after them with a vengeance, indicting them for a felony offense of
violating immigration controls, prosecuting them, convicting them, jailing
them, and fining them.
I am in full support of this church group, as long as Jacob
remains in full support of all six of
his steps for libertarian open borders.
Of course, Jacob doesn’t really believe all six steps of his hypothetical
– he has demanded violation of step six, for example. In any case, I suspect he and I could find
some middle ground on a basis other than libertarian theory to avoid this
catastrophic outcome.
Guess what?
Personally I would support this church group even in the face of higher
taxes. However, I have no right based on libertarian theory to make this
decision on taxes for others – neither
does Jacob.
Please note, even my support requires five of the six steps;
I could live with this – not on a pure libertarian basis but on a personal
level. I also could open my wallet –
better yet, Jacob could open his
wallet. No NAP violation then need occur,
and then we can part as friends.
Speaking of Higher
Taxes
So, let me put the question
directly to Bionic: What would you do, Bionic? Would you abandon your
libertarian principles just so you could avoid paying a bit higher taxes? Or to
put it another way, if drug legalization will lead to higher welfare taxes to
treat drug addicts with public hospitals and Medicaid, would you say that libertarians
should now start supporting the drug war until the welfare state is dismantled?
I have already dealt with Hornberger’s default that “open
borders” is the libertarian position,
but I cannot let the statement pass.
In any case, this strikes me as so simple to refute that I
am going to embarrass either Jacob or me by my answer. He is comparing a positive right (the right
to immigrate) with a negative right (the right to put in my body whatever substance
I choose).
There is no libertarian justification for me or the state to
stop the drug addict from doing whatever he wants to his body. Full stop.
We need not concern ourselves on the issue of public funding of
hospitals and the like in this context; the issue is irrelevant.
There is no right
to immigrate based on the NAP. There is
every right to put in my body whatever I choose. Hornberger advocates…oh, here I go repeating
myself again from my previous post:
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).
By the way, if opening the border without stipulating step
six in Hornberger’s hypothetical will result in less government – as Hornberger
claims – why would there be higher taxes? Why isn’t Hornberger making the argument that
taxes would be lower?
Hornberger’s
Practical Solution
The only thing that works is free markets
and free enterprise, meaning markets and economic enterprise that are entirely
free from government control and interference.
I agree fully. This
takes all six steps – all of them. Not only step one. Not step two only on occasion. Not ignoring step five or six. Implement all six steps and you might even
have the beginnings of a fully compliant libertarian solution in a world with
state borders.
Limited Government
Libertarianism
On the topic at hand, this was a tangential issue in our
earlier dialogue and I will leave it as this.
I will only mention that I have read (or heard in the interview) that
Hornberger would make payment of taxes voluntary in his limited government. This is a good step – and greatly changes the
meaning of “government” as it is normally understood.
Of course, it isn’t the only step. No
monopoly. This will also be required.
Voluntary payment and
no monopoly: if this is what Hornberger means by “government” (limited or
otherwise), it fits no definition of “government” that is generally understood. If by limited government Hornberger means
voluntary payment and no monopoly, well we agree on the concept just not the
label. He can call that government; I
will call it the market.
But I don’t think he means no monopoly; he is after a final
arbiter, after all.
Conclusion
As mentioned, we are now going in circles. Jacob is responding to statements I have not
made and is ignoring statements I have made (and it is possible one can find an
example or two where I do the same). In
any case, I thank Jacob for his time.
"If we are down to creating balance sheets, have at it – as this is basically what we are left with on this point. "
ReplyDeleteI believe it is, which is what drove my summary in the comment section of the earlier articles on this topic.
"By the way, if opening the border without stipulating step six in Hornberger’s hypothetical will result in less government – as Hornberger claims – why would there be higher taxes? Why isn’t Hornberger making the argument that taxes would be lower?"
And that my friend, is where Hornberger actually made and then lost his own argument.
He's actually admitted defeat by the metric of the NAP violations in dollars IMO because he admitted it's going to cost more money to do things "his way" it's going to result in a larger number of NAP violations by the metric of government confiscated money.(from taxpayers)
I found Hornberger's response interesting in reading it the other day because he seemed to suggest that there was a possibility of increased taxes by sticking to libertarian principles...yet per your quotations of he clearly has admitted that it will cost more in taxes to defend this positive right of immigration. We can't know before hand if "drug legalization will lead to higher welfare taxes", we can only try to reduce NAP violations in totality in an imperfect system, trying to use a metric that makes sense. (dollars are one metric, perhaps there are others)
Not only that, but his drug analogy doesn't translate to the issue of immigration by his own admission of increased taxation/cost for open borders versus that unknown of drug legalization(but my guess is that legalizing drugs reduces NAP violations despite Hornberger's suggestion otherwise).
Game, set, & match I'm afraid.
I haven't even touched in the irony of a performative contradiction of arguing for the NAP, and claiming he can justify a NAP compliant government- yet he tells us if we only pony up money to read his argument on such it will be clear...you'd think that it'd be in his interest to offer this argument for free to benefit himself by convincing the rest of mankind to live by the NAP and offering a way to do so via government(I'm having difficulty containing my sarcasm here).
At least he's focused to some extent on the application of the NAP though, unlike many libertarians today. It's the application of the NAP that can be difficult in an imperfect & culturally diverse world. (as evidenced by this entire debate)
Nick
DeleteOn the balance sheet, I stole your idea!
My point on the drug legalization issue is that whether taxes go up or down is irrelevant – I have the right to put whatever I want in my body. This, to me, is where the conversation – from a libertarian perspective – ends.
I also thought about his slam dunk minarchism behind a subscription, but people have to make a living also. In any case, they will eventually be released through his daily blog. I look forward to reading these.
"I also thought about his slam dunk minarchism behind a subscription, but people have to make a living also."
DeleteEven the snake oil salesman I suppose....I keeeeeed of course...kinda.
Seriously though, who engages in a debate only to pin the basis of their argument upon an answer you have to pay to see?
lol, I could have all sorts of fun with that notion.
:)
One other thing:
Delete"On the balance sheet, I stole your idea!"
Well, I didn't put my idea behind a paywall! I offered it for free. So you simply used my idea with my permission.
:)
With all the ideas of yours you've offered for free, I have a ways to go to "catch up".
In particular, I can't recall anyone pointing out that immigration is a "positivist right"- maybe Hoppe has done it(I haven't read enough of him yet), but it's the first time I've read it so "thank you".
On the surface it seems obvious now that it's been stated, but with all the "open borders" libertarians about I never really questioned the premise before.
It only makes sense, if one day we got our dream and everything was privately owned(see Dr. Block), then of course we'd need permission to travel from one owned piece of property to another. There would be no "right" to immigration.
Nick, this reminds me of something by Nelson Hultberg. He was convinced he had an argument to blow both Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard out of the water. But you had to buy the book!
DeleteMore detail here:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2015/03/what-would-you-do-if.html
Nick,
DeleteNone of us knows what the outcome would be if open borders were adopted. It might well cause people to dismantle the welfare state, which would be a good thing. Thus, in the case of open borders and drug legalization, we are dealing with hypotheticals. The first question you have to ask is: Do you favor open borders as a principle? If you don't, then the tax issue is a red herring. If you do, then the question is: If the state is going to permit a percentage of immigrants to go on welfare, should you abandon your principles and join up with the statists? The same hypothetical questions arises with respect to drug laws. Do you favor drug legalization as a matter of principle? If you don't, then taxes are irrelevant. If you do, then the question is: If the state intends to establish a welfare program to help addicts (like a free needle program), do you abandon your principles and join up with the statists and support the drug war?--Jacob
"None of us knows what the outcome would be if open borders were adopted. It might well cause people to dismantle the welfare state, which would be a good thing."
DeleteFirst, thank you for your response Jacob.
I think you and I are in agreement that the initial opening of the borders will result in the immediate increase in NAP violations in the form of increased tax requirements/government spending in the form of welfare benefits and a host of other government driven costs over the current system. You have said so yourself in your response to BM.
That such a policy MAY end up eventually end up speeding the demise of the welfare system IMO is the "red herring", as you first have to accept MORE NAP violations in the "hope" of such a thing occurring.
I cannot endorse/support this strategy. The hope that such a move might bring about a collapse of the welfare system is just that, a hope(not a guarantee). The misery it creates in the mean time via the increased NAP violations isn't a justification for this hope.
For example, I really think Obamacare will ultimately fail- but how much misery should everyone afflicated by it have to endure for this to come about?
We shouldn't underestimate the ability of the US government to "survive" by inflating the currency to pay its bills. This could go on for decades more(or months), but know one really knows. The idea that we should encourage more NAP violations in the HOPE that it will collapse the system doesn't sit well with me nor doesn't it seem fair to those being squashed involuntarily under such a system.
" If you do, then the question is: If the state is going to permit a percentage of immigrants to go on welfare, should you abandon your principles and join up with the statists? "
I disagree with your assessment Jacob. First, as has been stated multiple times by several libertarians- we are all for the "open borders" in that none of us in principle believe in government managed borders.
We do all believe in "property rights"(I'm assuming you too).
Under that assumption there is no "right to immigration" or a belief in "open borders" from a private property perspective as you would need permission to travel on anyone else's property.
"If you don't, then taxes are irrelevant. If you do, then the question is: If the state intends to establish a welfare program to help addicts (like a free needle program), do you abandon your principles and join up with the statists and support the drug war?"
I disagree Jacob, taxes ARE relevant. I "join up" with whoever yields the least amount of NAP violations until one day I hope man progresses to the point where we live in a society where the NAP is held sacrosanct to a degree where there is no need for "government" and it's "services"(border management, drug management, etc) .
The NAP violations are my primary concern Jacob. Now you and I might reasonably disagree on what constitutes a NAP violation and how many might occur under any given circumstance, but the NAP violations are the whole enchilada to me.
I don't have to be a "statist" or support "statism" in order to side with the slave master that beats me less than his competitor. (see Dr. Block)
Also, that doesn't make me a "supporter" of the less abusive slave master, it just makes me sane for wanting less beatings. In the big picture, I prefer no beatings.
:)
"None of us knows what the outcome would be if open borders were adopted."
DeleteI hate to intrude on your conversation, but we do know – we are living it in Europe. The borders were held wide open; the issue is not what drove the migrants to Europe, we all understand this (although the story is much deeper than the war, and this depth should also not be ignored). The issue is that Europe for a time left its borders completely open.
Not one advocate of open borders has dealt with this real life social experiment.
Then we also "know" that the government will establish "free" needle programs if drugs are legalized. We see this in Europe. It's a fact. So, are you all saying that we should support the drug war until we are certain that there will not be tax increases from the free needle programs? What I still cannot understand is how an anarchist can advocate drug laws or immigration laws simply because the state enacts a welfare law in response? Why not focus on repealing the welfare law rather than keeping the drug laws and immigration laws intact? After all, most drug addicts won't use the government's free needles and most immigrants won't use welfare. Where's the justice in continuing to hurt them and deprive them of freedom? You both are ignoring an important point: you are depriving people of freedom just because the state is choosing to enact a welfare law. I don't see how the support of a government program that destroys freedom can be reconciled with anarchism. It seems to me that anarchism supports the abolition of all government, including all of its component parts.
Delete"What I still cannot understand is how an anarchist can advocate drug laws or immigration laws simply because the state enacts a welfare law in response?"
Delete"I don't see how the support of a government program that destroys freedom can be reconciled with anarchism. "
Jacob, this has been explained several times now- it's on the basis of whether the NAP violations increase or decrease in response to a system that is already one big "NAP violation".
BM has suggested several times "there is no libertarian answer available in a world with state borders"(to which I agree)- so we are left with the "balance of scales" for people concerned about the NAP until there is a massive paradigm shift.
I can't understand how someone that is against NAP violations and is for property rights can advocate for the removal laws under this NAP violating system(that none of us have a voluntary choice of accepting at this point) that result in even more NAP violations.
Jacob-a couple of other notes:
Delete"You both are ignoring an important point: you are depriving people of freedom just because the state is choosing to enact a welfare law."
I don't believe in "positivist rights"(which you are labeling "freedom" in this case).
As has been argued(though it looks like you don't accept it), "freedom of immigration" is a positivist right.
Once again, to illustrate, if we take Dr. Block's point that the world will be a better place once everything is owned privately(to which I agree)- it would then not be a "right" for anyone on one piece of property to "immigrate", travel or otherwise infringe on the border of another private property holder without their permission.
So on that basis, there is no "right to immigration".
The reason this entire debate has everyone up in arms is because there isn't a clear "property right" along the borders...the government is "managing" that and we have several variations on the tragedy of the commons/NAP violations going on as a result.
" Why not focus on repealing the welfare law rather than keeping the drug laws and immigration laws intact? "
IMO, it is easier to keep laws intact than it is to repeal them-further, I don't want to be a party to bringing on MORE NAP violations in the "hope" that it might result in less down the road...
There are 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. They are working and living in private establishments. Those private property owners would not disappear in an anarchist society, assuming there would be private property under anarchy. Under anarchy the owners of those homes and businesses would still have the right to hire and rent to people from other territories. (There would no longer be foreign citizens under anarchy, assuming the whole world adopted anarchy.) So, there is a right to move and visit and tour onto properties by consent under both limited government and anarchy. What you all are saying is: As anarchists, let's not call for the abolition of drug laws and immigration laws until we are certain that the government will not give welfare to some drug users and some people from other lands. In the process, you are supporting the violation of rights of those who just want to work or just want to ingest drugs and are willing to forgo welfare. And you are also supporting the costs of drug law and immigration enforcement, which might well be higher than the cost of the welfare. Also, see Legrain's study, which shows that immigrants are a net economic plus to a society even if you factor in the short term taxes. As a limited government libertarian, I support the immediate abolition of all government violations of the NAP. As anarchists, you seeemly favor the continuation of some government violations of the NAP (ie, drug laws and immigration laws) out of fear that you might have to pay net higher taxes (net of enforcement costs that would no longer be incurred) resulting in welfare for a few of the drug users and immigrants.
Delete"As anarchists, you seeemly favor the continuation of some government violations of the NAP (ie, drug laws and immigration laws) out of fear that you might have to pay net higher taxes (net of enforcement costs that would no longer be incurred) resulting in welfare for a few of the drug users and immigrants."
DeleteYou keep including "drug laws" as part of this debate when you should really constrain yourself to the "immigration" debate as you're just muddying the waters via logical fallacy:
The right to ingest drugs is not "positivist", the right to immigration IS positivist.
"So, there is a right to move and visit and tour onto properties by consent"
That's right, BY CONSENT! What you are advocating is that we all be forced to accept immigrants via government policy, or in other words- a NAP violation.
What I am arguing(and I'm certainly not representative of all anarchists) is the balance of NAP violations under the current system is less than it would be if the government allows unfettered immigration.
"As a limited government libertarian, I support the immediate abolition of all government violations of the NAP."
Then is it safe to assume you are calling for the abolition of government then?
Because if you are, then we are all on the same page- but if you aren't, well then allow me to question the notion that you can have a government exist without a NAP violation.
"out of fear that you might have to pay net higher taxes"
Well, you have acknowledged that it will cost more in taxes-though you go on to argue that immigrants per Legrain's will end up as a "net positive". Can I then expect my taxes back from government once this supposed big immigrant "net positive economics" puts money in government coffers?!?!
I think we both know the answer to that. But yes, I "fear"(really, "dislike" is more accurate) more taxes. Call me crazy!
:)
Again, IMO opinion the "balance of scales" on immigration is that increased immigration under the current circumstances yield more NAP violations than under the current system unchanged.
If you honestly feel like NAP violations are reduced when more immigrants are allowed to enter our welfare state, then we just have to agree to disagree I suppose because I think the opposite.
Nick
DeleteThank you for your work in this; I have grown tired of making the same point on the fallacy of comparing immigration and drug prohibition over and over and over and over and over....
"What I still cannot understand is how an anarchist can advocate drug laws or immigration laws simply because the state enacts a welfare law in response"
DeleteThis is a straw man. What many of us object to is being forced by the State to put up with something we would otherwise reject.
We have been deprived of our ability to enact justice and physically remove undesirables because of the State's monopoly. Not wanting the State to do something does not mean not wanting it done at all. If the choice is between criminals being punished by the State or not being punished at all, I choose the State. If the choice is between Fascism and Anarcho-Tyranny, I choose Fascism.
8 years later, this exchange came up in my mind today and I see it's aged well for me, but not so much for Jacob. :)
DeleteNice to hear from you, Nick.
DeleteThank you Bionic.
DeleteHypothetical in a complete libertarian world, in the style of Hoppe: I want to have a son with my wife. This can be seen as "crossing the border to this world". My son could be a burden to my neighbours. Therefore, my libertarian neighbours have the right to: a) force the abortion (murder) of my unborn son, b) castrate me, c) force me and my family to move somewhere else. But because we live in a fully hoppean-libertarian society, we cannnot move anywhere else because everyone opines that my son will be a burden, and we all are killed in the best interest of the community...
ReplyDeleteBy burden I mean he may be retarded, or too intelligent and cause trouble by creating a bomb, or a murderer, or an arsonist, or a rapist, or a central banker.
Now. In our reality: Does the Federal Government have a say about who gets to be born? Does any other State have that kind of power?
Leaving this here:
DeleteThere were two grave consequences of this shift from natural rights to utilitarianism. First, the purity of the goal, the consistency of the principle, was inevitably shattered. For whereas the natural-rights libertarian seeking morality and justice cleaves militantly to pure principle, the utilitarian only values liberty as an ad hoc expedient. And since expediency can and does shift with the wind, it will become easy for the utilitarian in his cool calculus of cost and benefit to plump for statism in ad hoc case after case, and thus to give principle away . . . . Second, and equally important, it is rare indeed ever to find a utilitarian who is also radical, who burns for immediate abolition of evil and coercion. Utilitarians, with their devotion to expediency, almost inevitably oppose any sort of upsetting or radical change. There have been no utilitarian revolutionaries. Hence, utilitarians are never immediate abolitionists. The abolitionist is such because he wishes to eliminate wrong and injustice as rapidly as possible. In choosing this goal, there is no room for cool, ad hoc weighing of cost and benefit. - Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, page 19.
No, that is a strawman argument. What you have written doesn't even remotely resemble what has been discussed here. Let me fix that for you.
DeleteQuestion: Does George Soros or a church group have the right to start a breeding program of down syndrome people, and then dump the resulting down syndrome people on the taxpayer?
See what I did there? That is far closer to the situation at hand. Speaking of church groups, there are many church groups actually bringing in 'refugees', and dumping them on the taxpayer. This is actually happening.
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/lutheran-social-service-of-minnesota-is-responsible-for-the-somali-chaos-in-st-cloud/
The fact is that 'libertarians' like anonymous above and Jacob Hornberger are exactly the same as welfare recipients - they want something, and want someone else to pay for it. As they say in New York, fuggedaboutit.
Now we can have yet another form of libertarian to add to the rest of the dross, the 'deadbeat libertarian'.
Matt,
DeleteWhile what Anon put forward was no doubt a straw man, it is very revealing of the thought process behind the "deadbeat libertarian."
They are anti-social individualists who, when conceiving their hypotheticals, always blame other people for not tolerating their behavior.
In a functioning social order we should be asking ourselves the question "how can I better adapt to get along and co-operate with my fellows" not "how can I force my fellows to get along with me."
It seems many of these guys conceive of liberty in terms of how much they can get away within a private property framework. They play word games with ideas like aggression in order to justify forcing their lifestyle and values on others. Libertarians need to be grounded in community values if they want to be taken seriously. Otherwise, they will continue to fantasize about Opium fields run by transgendered-lesbians with automatic rifles and tanks.
Anon above makes evident a trend which I have noticed among the smart(er) individuals in the West: the inability to think abstractly about principles rather than literally about rules.
DeleteA lot of commenters/pundits argue straw-men, sure; but, it seems that a lot of people can not even conceive of a principles-based philosophy in which people take responsibility for themselves and their kin. In their heads, everything turns into all against all, despite abundant evidence to the contrary in their lives. People follow laws as it is convenient for them; people cooperate with others to their own benefit as much as the benefit of others and no law can compel this type of interaction.
"It seems many of these guys conceive of liberty in terms of how much they can get away within a private property framework. They play word games with ideas like aggression in order to justify forcing their lifestyle and values on others. Libertarians need to be grounded in community values if they want to be taken seriously."
Your view here shows a subtlety often lost in the translation and completely devoid in discussions of natural rights and the intent of a Declaration. We may disagree on the specifics, but we understand that cooperating based on shared principle is better than forcing anybody to act in ways that comply with our ultimately arbitrary views of culture nuance.
I have considered retiring from these forums because I rarely see a willingness to discuss a dynamic view of the human experience that takes into account the few things we actually know about building up societies and the numerous ways that can be adapted to get along. It is not a formula; it is an understanding of principle mixed with various strategies for managing risk.
The argument above isn't even an argument; it is a reaction to an inculcated worldview that demands obedience to a material authority. To argue against it is to accept a false premise: a perfectibility of man; an omnipotent earthly authority to design what can't be designed.
It is a projection of the Enlightenment view that logic and empiricism can arrange human affairs; but it can't. It can't explain or predict unintended consequences. It can't price scarce resources. It can't accommodate organic change.
Arguments like those above need to be shamed not argued against. You don't reason with a puppy that pees on the carpet.
Let's also not forget that babies who are born of American families are likely to be statists and vote Democrat for more welfare-state programs. They will be a tax burden with respect to public schools and state supported colleges. They won't be producers for 18-22 years or longer. Does this mean that that the state should control the "crossing of the border" into this life by licensing only libertarian parents to have children? (I would oppose those immigration controls too.)
DeleteJacob, it is the same situation as what I wrote about drug legalization. There is no positive right involved in birthing a child, just as there is no positive right about ingesting anything I choose. There is a positive right associated with crossing a border.
DeleteIf you mean by "positive right" a government-given privilege, I couldn't agree more. But people do have the natural (ie, negative) right to birth children, ingest substances, travel, move, enter into contracts, associate with others, buy property, ingest drugs, buy drugs, sell drugs, and engage in any other peaceful activity. They have the natural (negative) right to be left alone when they do these things. You anarchists are saying: Because 5 percent of immigrants will get on welfare, we want the government to use force to keep out the other 95 percent. Where is the justice in that position? Why not at least not violate teh rights of those who don't intend to go on welfare?
DeleteJacob, first off your information about the number of migrants working and not getting welfare is completely incorrect. Let's give an example of Sweden. In the most recent flood of "refugees" (many of whom are not from Syria despite your claim that they are fleeing for their lives), the unemployment rate is 99.75%.
Deletehttp://www.thelocal.se/20160531/fewer-than-500-of-163000-asylum-seekers-found-jobs
Not to mention the fact that conditions are being created that will lead to a serious ethnic conflict over resources, land, culture, religion, and authority.
If you want then you pay for it. Also accept responsibility for any crime your foreign wards may commit.
Alaska,
Delete"I have considered retiring from these forums"
Please don't. I really enjoy reading your comments. You are one smart dude.
Are you referring to my argument when you say "The argument above isn't even an argument"?
If so, I am a bit confused and would like to hash it out. I personally have great interest in "[discussing] a dynamic view of the human experience that takes into account the few things we actually know about building up societies and the numerous ways that can be adapted to get along."
Jacob This is the last time I will address this: people have no "natural right to travel."
DeletePeople have the right to leave (absent voluntarily agreeing not to do so); they have no right to enter.
Alaska, I second the comment from UC. When the original comment was posted by Anonymous, I chose to ignore it. I am glad you and others did not, as I gained new insights from your responses.
Delete"Let's also not forget that babies who are born of American families are likely to be statists and vote Democrat for more welfare-state programs."
DeleteLet's also not forget that [the higher quantity of] babies born of Latin American, Arab, and African families will certainly be statists and vote for welfare along tribal ethnic lines.
UC,
DeleteI was not referring to your argument - yours was cogent.
The comment from Anon strikes me as being reactionary rather than contemplative. He starts from a ridiculous hypothesis and tacks on sentences from there that give the tone of not appreciating Hoppian or Rothbardian ideas without any indication of having understood them.
I formulated a longer reply which fell into the nether of the internet unfortunately. Now, I'm working on a post that I think will help clarify my thoughts on what I see as a root issue in communicating a Miseian type of viewpoint.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXzubuENjHk
Delete"there is no possibility of a libertarian answer with a world of state borders"
ReplyDeleteWhile there is no libertarian final solution in the present world, because libertarians have no power, there are conditions favorable to our long-term goals and conditions adverse to our long-term goals. This is the purpose of meta-politics and political alliances. Libertarians should ally with the anti-war nationalist right (New Right in Europe, Alternative Right in the U.S) if they are seriously interested in posing a challenge to the system.
Xenophilia and ethno-maschocism are promoted by the left which acts as the ideological vanguard of the present power structure (empire). We should oppose them for that reason alone.
Multiracialism is destructive to civil society and plays into the hands of State power. It creates conflict that will then be "resolved" by intervention. The intervention will advantage foreigners at the expense of European natives as is presently the case. In the context of Islamic immigration, it guarantees future terrorist attacks which will ensure that the "War on Terror" will continue for ever.
Is not the whole point of libertarianism that we should not have to live as slaves? Is not Open Borders the enslavement of the population to support hostile foreigners? If I want to live in an ethnically homogeneous Nation would Hornberger support my right to do so?
Freedom is not enslavement. All across the United States people cross borders every day and none of them is enslaving you.
DeleteMr. Hornberger,
DeleteIn addition to the extortion through taxation and burden on the commons imposed through third world immigration there is also the fact that dissenting speech is criminalized in Europe.
The simple fact is a lot of us don't want to live around these people and our wishes are being ignored. We are forced to live beholden to whims of those who have no concern, and even contempt, for the ethnic and cultural make-up of historic European nations.
If freedom of association and self-determination was to be permitted, you know as well as I do that many people will chose to live in ethnically homogeneous societies.
Do you respect our right to do so?
"If freedom of association and self-determination was to be permitted, you know as well as I do that many people will chose to live in ethnically homogeneous societies."
DeletePerfectly compatible with a private property libertarian order; not very compatible with left-libertarian thinking.
Simple question for libertarians:
ReplyDeleteWhy does George Soros support open borders for Europe?
It is very difficult to speak to his personal motivation, but his goal is very easily understood. The end of Europe as an ethnically European polity.
DeletePerhaps like Barbara Spectre Lerner, Soros believes that 'the holocaust' has revoked the right of Europeans to exist on this planet. I don't know that Soros believes this personally, but it is not an uncommon view in his community.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ
In the video above, Barbara Spectre Lerner lauds the "leading role" of Jews in Sweden and elsewhere in Europe for bringing about a "multicultural transformation". She says that there is a "resurgence of antisemitism" because Jews "are at the center" of this process. She says that Jews "will be resented for that leading role".
So what does Barbara Spectre Lerner advocate for people that disagree with her "multicultural transformation" of Sweden and Europe? A debate? Nope, arrest, conviction, and prison time. No wonder she says that the multicultural transformation "must take place".
Ask him. Why does he favor drug legalization too?
DeleteHe certainly does not have the best interest of European people in mind. Do you?
Delete"Matt@Occidentalism.orgJune 2, 2016 at 1:00 AM"
DeleteYup. And look at JH. Another Jew supporting the destruction of white people through immigration. Surprised? Too many of them seem to have that goal. And far too many of them have WAY too much power. IMO Barbara Spectre should be imprisoned for life for treason or deported.
"I will state my answer explicitly: there is no possibility of a libertarian answer with a world of state borders. As long as there are state borders, there will be violations of libertarian theory in all matters regarding those borders.
ReplyDeleteIf we are down to creating balance sheets, have at it – as this is basically what we are left with on this point."
It cannot be any clearer.
Thanks Bionic Mosquito and Nick Badalamenti.
It is not just the present net negatives but negative consequences far into the future. Like European colonialism before it, colonialism by the global south will have far reaching effects. There is literally no position more irresponsible and suspicious from a self-professed libertarian than open borders.
DeleteThose who advocate for open borders have an agenda other than "peace and prosperity."
Bionic,
DeleteFirst, you totally ignore the study by Phillipe Legrain, which shows that immigrants are a net plus economically to a society even if you factor in short-term welfare-state taxes. In fact, one of the reasons for the phenomenal rise in the standard of living of Americans in the latter part of the 19th century was open immigration. Why not address Legrain's point? http://www.businessinsider.com/tent-refugee-report-philippe-legrain-economic-analysis-on-eu-immigration-2016-5?r=UK&IR=T
Second, there are state, county, and federal governments all across the United States and none of them is controlling the millions of state, country, and city borders within the United States, confirming that you can in fact have government and open borders. Moreover, throughout the 19th century, there was a federal government and open borders. This shows that yes, you can have both government and open borders.
Third, why no express condemnation of immigration enforcement measures? Your position simply seems to be that with government necessarily means immigration controls (which is patently untrue as per my second point above). But even if you were right, that doesn't preclude you from openly, expressly, and directly condemning immigration control measures, just as you condemn, I assume, drug laws, asset forfeiture laws, mandatory minimum sentences, etc.
Thanks for the exchange. I too enjoyed it!
Jacob
There are open borders all across the United States notwithstanding the existence of thousands of governmental units. Where's the violation of libertarian principles associated with those open borders. The violations are by the Immigration Service and its highway checkpoints where they beat people up who refuse to show their papers--checkpoints that proponents of immigration controls implicitly or explicitly endorse.
DeleteThose of us libertarians who advocate for open border do have an agenda other than peace and prosperity (or, actually, in addition to peace and prosperity. Our agenda is freedom.
DeleteImmigrants a net positive, in what multiverse? Wil you start paying my taxes that support of those "net positives"? Keep it under $10K/year/person so as not to create a taxable situation for you.
DeleteThe open borders among the States in union exist because the people (I am just going to keep it simple for I do know our history) of some of those nations/territories (whose boundaries were setup by a form of government, BTW) petitioned for inclusion into the union to the government setup to handle those issues. The open borders between States in union are government enforced and controlled borders. Remember the Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitution Of These uSA?
Delete“Bionic…you totally ignore….”
DeleteJacob, respectfully you have totally ignored many points I have raised – most fundamentally you are running from your own hypothetical. No need to try to deflect and introduce something new when you have not addressed something so fundamental to your argument.
In any case…
I don’t care about the study. I care about application of the NAP.
I have already addressed the issue of state (and inherently county and city) borders, I will not again.
“…why no express condemnation of immigration enforcement measures?”
I have written more than one thousand blog posts, and you condemn me for not writing explicitly on this topic? I will ask you – why don’t you address all of the NAP violations that come from a partial implementation of your six-part hypothetical? I have pressed you on this several times and you have ignored it – will you in one year again claim that not one libertarian has dealt with your hypothetical? Please, stay on point and don’t deflect.
“Our agenda is freedom.”
Interesting agenda. Freedom is not without bounds. My objective is to properly understand and apply the non-aggression principle – it offers a freedom with limits.
I, too, have enjoyed the exchange.
Citing Phillipe Legrain is an interesting way to convince other libertarians of the merits of this position. Even a short list of his associations and beliefs give reason for a libertarian to look the other way.
DeleteThat aside, strictly looking at the article cited: I see no mention of what these refugees /are/ doing (Let's ask an indigenous German), but there's plenty about what they /can/ do.
-They /can/ contribute economically.
-They /can/ create jobs, raise productivity, etc.
Do they? Are they? This is the question that goes unanswered.
The article moves on: It talks of State expenditures only possible as a direct result of refugee acceptance. Who shoulders this burden? The existing producer class, regardless of their willingness or opinion on the matter - let alone still having the burden of addressing their own needs.
55% of these refugees are expected to have a job in five years. 45% are expected to remain on the dole. Again, who shoulders this burden? I see no mention of private sector volunteer services. I also don't understand how he comes up with these numbers based on what is. Maybe Legrain doesn't either: He instead speaks of what /could/ be.
New and bigger government is cited in this article to defend a position from a libertarian stance.
This is why I don't understand the open borders position, and why I conclude there isn't a proper libertarian answer to apply today in this world - as we don't live in a Libertopia where markets and indviduals decide these things.
Hornberger: "immigrants are a net plus economically to a society even if you factor in short-term welfare-state taxes. In fact, one of the reasons for the phenomenal rise in the standard of living of Americans in the latter part of the 19th century was open immigration"
DeleteFalse. It was not "open immigration," but ethnically based until 1965. Not all immigrants are equal and when you create ethnic conflict and lower the societal mean IQ you are doing damage to the social order and to capital development.
Peter Brimelow has addressed this at length. See "Alien Nation."
Also, why did the law change in 1965?
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/immigration.pdf
I read what Phillipe Legrain is asserting, and it ludicrous argument. Legrain is claiming that low IQ inbred, 2/3rds of which are illiterate in their own language, migrants will be able to pay for them their own costs within five years. That's not going to happen. Past experiences with middle eastern migrants in Europe show them to net net tax consumers. Legrain also conflates total GDP with GDP per capita. Only GDP per capita matters to a normal person.
DeleteIn short Legrain is selling a completely BS argument and Hornberger knows it. Now the question is why Hornberger is selling this poison.
UC -
DeleteYou should check out Tom Woods' piece at LewRockwell today (June 2).
Woods reveals the twitter exchange he had with David Boaz and J.D. Tucelle the latter of whom writes for Reason.
Woods speaks for me and expresses my view of libertarianism. You will note that he skewers the beltway libertarians for embracing Johnson / Weld notwithstanding Weld's support for the Iraq war and Johnson's support for forcing Christian wedding photographers to photograph gay weddings and Christian bakers baking wedding cakes for gay couples.
Woods captures the essence of the beltway libertarian mindset: Its okay to support Bill Weld because he has admitted it was a mistake to support the Iraq war but it is not okay to support anybody who favors freedom of association over hurt feelings.
Anon-Lawyer
Anon-Lawyer,
DeleteHilarious twitter exchange. I love Tom Woods and if there was an actual Libertarian Party, he should be head of it. I agree with Justin Raimondo on the preeminence of foreign policy. I would support any hardcore anti-war candidate even if they were commie trash, but apparently with people like Johnson you don't even get that much, instead its Cultural Marxism at home and imperial wars abroad. In fact, the wars of the future will probably be justified on the grounds that Country X doesn't allow gay wedding cakes.
The LP and the Beltarians are demonstrative of how far down the Cultural Marxist rabbit hole we are. Just like the cuckservatives, their role is to lose and accept the premises of the left.
I wonder what it is that the donors get of the LP, Cato, and Reason? I would say controlled opposition but they don't even oppose anything, they don't even pretend to oppose anything.
Freedom of association has always been the elephant in the milquetoast libertarian room. In fact it was why I was a natural libertarian. I was always disgusted by the idea of forcing undesirables into your community or business. I used to think most Americans shared my view on that, but after being told to my face by many people that I was an evil racist I came to a different conclusion.
I wonder what Hornberger's view on the subject is.
Anon-Lawyer,
DeleteThis is a follow up to my reply, it may appear first.
I forgot to mention. One of my favorite episodes of Tom Woods' show was his interview with James Kalb a few weeks ago. Kalb wrote the book The Tyranny of Liberalism and I share most of his views on the subject. Check it out if you haven't heard it and have the time.
Also, I listen to every episode Tom does with Paul Gottfried as I am a huge fan of his work, and he did one recently about his new book on Fascism. Great stuff.
Why do we continue to have this pointless discussion? with everyone missing the point, the point being the state causes all this.
ReplyDeleteAmusingly in a black sort of way after 35 years and lot of money spent in enforcing the borders (especially the Southern one), it turns out there a huge and growing population of latinos because rather than just seasonal workers coming, working for a couple of months then returning with to them is a fat pile of cash, now with the borders becoming more 'secure' and those countries still squalid and corrupt and the US still looking good in comparision, those people will look for somebody to slip the m in.
And since that person is already breaking the law by slipping a lot of coke or heroin in, whats another person to them?
"Why do we continue to have this pointless discussion?"
DeleteIt is always interesting to me why people take the time to write about others wasting their time writing about things.
In any case, perhaps some people enjoy working out issues of applying theory to real life.
"...with everyone missing the point, the point being the state causes all this."
You cannot read very well, as I have written now several times that there is no perfect libertarian solution in a world with state borders.
Hi Bionic Commenters: I have posted a new article on the libertarian/immigration/anarchy debate: http://fff.org/2016/06/03/open-borders-moral-practical-solution/
ReplyDeleteBest regards,
Jacob
Hi Bionic Commenters: I have posted a new article on the libertarian/immigration/anarchy debate: http://fff.org/2016/06/03/open-borders-moral-practical-solution/
ReplyDeleteBest regards,
Jacob
"As far as immigration policies are concerned, the incentives and disincentives are likewise distorted, and the results are equally perverse. For a democratic ruler, it also matters little whether bums or geniuses, below or above-average civilized and productive people immigrate into the country. Nor is he much concerned about the distinction between temporary workers (owners of work permits) and permanent, property owning immigrants (naturalized citizens). In fact, bums and unproductive people may well be preferable as residents and citizens, because they cause more so-called “social” problem,” and democratic rulers thrive on the existence of such problems. Moreover, bums and inferior people will likely support his egalitarian policies, whereas geniuses and superior people will not. The result of this policy of non-discrimination is forced integration: the forcing of masses of inferior immigrants onto domestic property owners who, if they could have decided for themselves, would have sharply discriminated and chosen very different neighbors for themselves. Thus, the United States immigration laws of 1965, as the best available example of democracy at work, eliminated all formerly existing “quality” concerns and the explicit preference for European immigrants and replaced it with a policy of almost complete non-discrimination (multi-culturalism)."
ReplyDelete"[Abolishing forced integration]...means distinguishing strictly between “citizens” (naturalized immigrants) and “resident aliens” and excluding the latter from all welfare entitlements. It means requiring as necessary, for resident alien status as well as for citizenship, the personal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumption of liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant. It implies requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen; moreover, for both categories but especially that of citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only (English) language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values – with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias."
-Hans-Herman Hoppe, On Free Immigration and Forced Integration
UC, I don't believe I have ever read this before by Hoppe, or if I had it was in the very early days - pre-bionic.
DeleteIt is very good. I offer the link here for those interested:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/hans-hermann-hoppe/on-free-immigration-and-forced-integration/
That it is. I originally read it as a chapter in Democracy the God that Failed, and it is better to read it there because of the impressive footnotes which are really an education in themselves.
DeleteI was pleased, revisiting it today, to see that he referenced the 1965 Immigration Act and the work of Peter Brimelow (in the footnotes) who I referenced in above post- he runs Vdare.com
In fact Hoppe draws on a lot of material, like that of the late Philippe Rushton, that is considered heretical in many [cultural marxist] libertarian circles. So of course they treat him as thought criminal for not going along with cultural marxist dogma. It shouldn't be surprising that he does not give audio interviews.
The problem we have here is that Hornberger is saying "I am a libertarian" while demanding that the state (his "night watchman state") bring in foreigners and dump them on the hapless taxpaying citizenry. And if you oppose it you are against "freedom". This is just a cultural Marxist message tailored towards libertarians. Using the buzzwords without the substance.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone failed to noticed the massive cultural Marxist infiltration of libertarianism, pissing on the legacy of Murray Rothbard? Without doubt the majority of people describing themselves as "libertarian" today are cultural Marxists seeking to push that agenda with libertarian style rhetoric.
It's not important what people say that they are, but what they do. Jesus offers some wisdom about spotting these kinds of people.
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them".
I do not know enough of the history of the roots of libertarianism, but from what little I have read the leftist strain was always strong. Rothbard (and today Hoppe) might have been the exception, not the rule.
DeleteBM, I don't deny that. There is a difference, I believe.
DeleteThose old school leftist libertarians believed that things like hierarchy would fall away if the state did not exist or was severely pared down. But in general they believed in freedom of association, free markets, etc, but their motivations for doing so were different to right wing libertarian.
This is different. What I am suggesting is that this is a conscious infiltration. Hornberger is saying that higher taxes, no freedom of association, etc, is "freedom". At first I thought that Hornberger was just one of those "autistic libertarians" that is up in the ivory tower and unable to see the consequences of his ideas. Thanks to your interaction with him I see that he is doing this consciously. He is a cultural marxist that is working towards the end of the west, and he has tailored his message towards libertarians with libertarian sounding rhetoric, but which is really poison for anyone that imbibes it.
You see this in the Libertarian Party today. Their Presidential Candidate, Gary Johnson, said that people that refuse to bake wedding cakes for homosexuals belong in prison. Hornberger essentially does the same. Europeans are being viciously persecuted by their governments for opposition to immigration, often resulting in official harrassment or even prison sentences. This is the "freedom" of which Hornberger speaks.
Hornberger is doing this deliberately.
Regarding the history, I can add nothing and thank you for your thoughts.
DeleteRegarding Hornberger...I don't know. He seems more autistic than cultural marxist.
I say this because the cultural marxist would have done a much better job of defending his position and attacking mine (and yours and others who have commented). Once this didn't work, the cultural marxist would have gone full Rambo - scorched earth verbal violence.
Hornberger did none of this. He kept repeating the same words over and over - in a reasonably polite manner - very autistic. He avoided confronting the criticisms and counterpoints.
I am not saying I know one way or another about Hornberger, but these characteristics came out to me during this exchange.
I do believe his FFF runs on a shoestring - a year or so ago he had to let Sheldon Richman go - as good a left-libertarian as there is. This unlike what is found at SFL and Cato (as two examples) where the idea of limited budgets and cost control seem non-existent.