Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Rothbard and Open Borders



I return to the compilation of Rothbard’s essays originally written for the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, entitled “The Irrepressible Rothbard.”  This essay is entitled “Education: Rethinking Choice.”

You might ask: what does education choice have to do with open borders?  Walk with me, and keep an open mind.

Rothbard sees vouchers, allowing parents a choice in where to send their children to school, as a “half-a-loaf” step.  He is perfectly fine with half-a-loaf if it moves the needle toward liberty.  Vouchers move the needle the wrong way:

I have always opposed the voucher scheme bitterly; because it enshrines in "libertarian" favor a policy forcing taxpayers to pay for the education of other people's children. 

The issue being that taxpayers would, with vouchers, thereafter be required to pay for both public and private school tuition.

Try it this way:

I have always opposed open borders bitterly; because it enshrines in "libertarian" favor a policy forcing taxpayers to pay for all manner of social and welfare schemes for all comers. 

Not convinced by that?  It gets better:

One argument that paleoconservatives make about libertarians is that we tend to become so enamored of our "abstract" though correct theory that we tend to underweigh concrete political or cultural problems, and here is a lovely example. 

Libertarians stuck in the purity of their abstract theory?  Libertarians who underweigh political or cultural problems?  Libertarian theorists who do not consider that humans are…human?  I have never heard of such a thing (wink, wink).

Once we focus on the question, it should be clear that, in our present rotten political and cultural climate, there is no way that the State would allow parents to choose genuinely private schools in a tax credit system. (Emphasis in original.)

Try it this way:

Once we focus on the question, it should be clear that, in our present rotten political and cultural climate, there is no way that the State would allow private property owners to discriminate regarding access to their private property.

And if libertarians aren’t first and foremost standing in defense of private property, all that is left is the traditional left-right continuum (with those pushing for open borders clearly on the left).


I move to another essay in this compilation, “Big-Government Libertarians.”  There is so much meat in this essay, but I will remain focused on the topic at hand:

At bottom is the point which many of us had to learn painfully over the years: that there can be no genuine separation between formal political ideology and cultural views and attitudes.

This statement speaks volumes to those who suggest that the non-aggression principle is for everyone on earth.  Too many still refuse to accept that cultural attitudes matter.  Thanks to my examination of Hoppe (who, of course, studied under Rothbard) and my further writing and dialogue on this topic, I was spared similar extended pain.

Rothbard goes on to note the rejection of the right by the larger libertarian movement in the early years:

And so, flying in the face of their former supposed devotion to the absolute rights of private property; the libertarian movement has embraced almost every phony and left-wing "right" that has been manufactured in recent decades.

Like the supposed “right” to “immigrate.”

The “Official Libertarian Movement,” as Rothbard describes it (or the “libertine libertarian movement,” as I describe it), has embraced every conceivable “civil right” to the detriment of support for absolute property rights.

I hear the murmurs in the audience: “bionic is just putting words in Rothbard’s mouth.  Rothbard hasn’t said word one about immigration and open borders.”  Just you wait, you wise guy….

California, this November has on the ballot a wonderfully simple Proposition, called the "Save Our State" Proposition…. The Save Our State Proposition simply bars any use of taxpayer funds in behalf of illegal aliens.

Not spending taxpayer funds on something.  How could any libertarian be opposed to that?  Well…the head of the San Francisco Libertarian Party came out against this initiative, per Rothbard “a first among libertarians in opposing a tax-cutting measure.”

Because “civil rights” trumps property rights – in other words, left-libertarians are left, not libertarian.

Still think old bionic is stretching things a bit too far?

Borders, apparently, are not only supposed to be open, that openness has to be encouraged and paid for heavily by the U.S. taxpayer.

Given the current climate, this is the reality.  Does this sound like the only possible libertarian position on the topic?  I think not.

Conclusion

Returning to the essay “Education: Rethinking Choice”:

So do we have any transitional demands left in education, short of abolishing the public-school system?

Rothbard goes on to list the abolition of compulsory schooling, fight against every school bond issue and expansion of public school budgets, and to try to decentralize and localize education decisions as much as possible.  He then asks: “Is that enough to do?”

Open borders advocates attempt to frame the discussion as black and white. “If you aren’t for open borders, you are for a police state.”  A strawman, pure nonsense, and evidence of elementary thinking.  It is possible to be both against open borders and against the current schemes and intrusions offered by the state.

I cannot speak for others who hold a view similar to mine on this topic, but I will offer my transitional demands: go back to air travel as it was pre-911; stop all internal checkpoints; allow immigration by private invitation – a sponsor, a job offer, and a place to live; hold the sponsor responsible for any financial support if necessary, such that the immigrant is not a burden to taxpayers; hold the sponsor liable for any breeches in behavior or conduct; respect the private property owner’s right to discriminate.

To quote Rothbard: “Is that enough to do?”

59 comments:

  1. Need to add that the children of immigrant do not become citizens because they are born in these uSA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is not a secret that there are many people on earth who are so poor that they would live like kings if they move to the US and be on welfare? Also, there are many people on earth who are sick, and could not get good health care in their countries, and would get first class treatments (in comparison to their native place) if they come here and get on Medicaid.

      The bottom line is the majority of the earth if given the opportunity would love to move to the US. Hence if the libturds can understand such, they would never advocate open borders. It is like a guy and his wife and children are sitting at the table to have a great filet steak dinner, and the whole neighborhood bust their door open and force them to share that steak?

      Delete
  2. This all goes back to the oddly difficult concept that the Welfare State has had 80 years to inculcate the populace in its merits. Liberty oriented people who say that immigration is a welfare issue not an immigration issue are discounting those 80 years and assume that people don't love their welfare state. When in fact people love the welfare state so much that they will literally kill those who want to get rid of it or refuse to pay for it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ohhhh...this entire write-up is so good.

    "Borders, apparently, are not only supposed to be open, that openness has to be encouraged and paid for heavily by the U.S. taxpayer."

    Yep.

    I think the watershed moment for me intellectually on this topic was when you pointed out some time ago that there is no "right to travel" per se- that it actually is a positivist "right" that is being pushed by the Left "libertarians". In fact, I think that's what characterizes most of the disagreement with Lefists libertarians- whether their definition of a "right" is positivist or not.

    While I touched on last year Roderick Long's exploration of cultural norms and their impact on defining how the NAP is interpreted(and I disagree with some of his interpretations)- I do agree with him that culture is important even though I disagree with some of his cultural viewpoints on the NAP.

    So all that being said, I'd like to add one thing to your comment last year that provided me that watershed intellectual moment:

    We all have the right to travel, but we don't have the right to trespass.

    Logically speaking, if we all beleive the world would be a better place if everything was owned by someone,instead of the "public"/government,(channeling Dr. Block)- then logically speaking our right to travel(read immigrate) would stop where we would infringe upon someone else's property. Meaning we would have to ask permission to virtually go anywhere outside of the border we lived in.

    I don't see any reasonable counter argument to this- and this foundation also helps to provide a bigger picture/context on the immigration issue. (not including the issue of people pushing positivist rights or policies that encourage more NAP violations via the welfare state vis a vis state forced immigration)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Nick.

      Your addition to my earlier comment is helpful for clarification....and I also don't see any reasonable counter-argument (and I have begged for one).

      It strikes me that a world of all private property leads to more borders, not less. And none of these borders will be "open."

      Delete
    2. "beleive the world would be a better place if everything was owned by someone"

      The ultimate end goal of liberalism is the elimination of the political. You hit on this when you say "the world" and "everything."

      I have been posting a lot lately on the subject of colonization. If there was a libertarian society in this world, NAP laws would not be enough to prevent colonization from a tribally oriented outside group (like Jews, Arabs, or Chinese). The ONLY thing that can prevent that is an ethno-religious volkish consciousness (tribalism). Its simple game theory really. It is for this reason that a post-national world is only possible under global tyranny. A global empire. Like they are trying to build now......

      Ill state again for the record: I believe liberalism is contrary to what good libertarians (radical liberals) actually want. The existence of the left-right divide in libertarianism is a clue to this fact. While nominally having the same ideology, the two sides see it going in dramatically different directions in practice. While "Right-Libertarians" are more logically consistent, I actually think its the Roderick Long's and Charles Johnson's who are right about where the ideology will lead.

      Pro-tip: Ideology is most effective when its goals are in line with the power-elite.

      Delete
    3. " If there was a libertarian society in this world, NAP laws would not be enough to prevent colonization from a tribally oriented outside group (like Jews, Arabs, or Chinese). "

      I actually don't disagree with this statement, and I think in the context of Bionic Mosquito's ongoing exploration of the subject of "culture" it dovetails nicely.

      "It is for this reason that a post-national world is only possible under global tyranny."

      And it is at this point our viewpoints diverge.

      So assuming I understand you properly, you are arguing for a "nationalized" world on the basis of the prevention of tyranny.

      I think it's been pretty well evidenced that governments move towards tyranny over time- so I'm skeptical of your argument from that standpoint.

      Just to be clear, I'm arguing for a voluntary society, in my mind contractually based that espouses the NAP defined in a contractual manner- which naturally would support property rights, some form self ownership defined(does it happen at 18 years? Or at self sufficiency?) and the corresponding "right" to life, etc.

      I can only assume that you are arguing for the continued nationalized world without voluntary association(like the social contract) as a counterbalance to tribal aggression.

      Do I have that right?

      Delete
    4. UC, u say post-national. U must have noticed the nationalist inclination of the Mises/Rothbardians. Maybe, maybe in 100+ yrs it potentially covers earth but it wouldn't be ONE empire it would be extremely fragmented.
      My watershed moment also happened reading this blog, it was the words "property is exclusionary" and it implies some very double plus bad unthoughts. Maybe someone can point out the flaw in this: the Lockean/American/Rothbardian property law tradition allows for an ethnostate to exist. It says it OUGHT to be legal. (Tightrope, I'm only applying theory not saying it is optimimal) but it resolves the ethic question UC raised? Does/could it unite the right? I don't think ethnicity is important (when push comes to shove) in preserving legal individual rights (by that I mean it is irrelevant) I can't tell what UC strives for but I can't argue with much of what he writes

      Delete
    5. "I can't tell what UC strives for"

      Well, he's got Francis Yockey as his avatar, who if I understand properly seemed to be an unabashed fascist and statist authoritarian- so I can only assume that's the direction he's coming from.(but I could be wrong)

      Delete
    6. Nick (in reply to your first comment),

      I think we understand each other fairly well. It should be clear that there is a certain type of libertarian I respect, you and BM fit that bill. However, we do disagree.

      So I will put forward those disagreements as clearly as possible and maybe you could let me know if we are in accord.

      Firstly, I apologize if I have been rude in the past. Sometimes I would mix up screen names and may have responded overly harshly to you at one point thinking you were the "wrong kind" of libertarian.

      Disagreements:

      I don't believe Tyranny is solely the result of the power of the State (or King) or its size (thought I believe this correlates more than power does). Consider that private property liberal absolutists (libertarians) want to assign themselves to that role (total sovereignty) on a smaller scale. There are plenty of situations in which we can imagine property owners holding power of life and death over others in that model of society.

      To my mind the issue is this: power will always exist, and what matters most is how those who hold power see themselves in relation to their subjects.

      NAP certainly seems like a reasonable model of civil law. My problem is when it is extended to the political to deny the political. In other words, when it is universalized and we forget to who it applies and why. This is why I agree with most reasonable libertarians on many issues with respect to the tyrannies of the liberal state.

      Power is needed to maintain that kind of legal structure by maintaining the integrity of the society against outside manipulation and conquest (or subversion from within).

      "you are arguing for the continued nationalized world without voluntary association(like the social contract) as a counterbalance to tribal aggression. "

      Many "nations" existing today are nothing but long dead husks held together by the liberal empire. My own position is forward looking to the creation of new nations united on some level by shared conception of themselves as belonging to western (aryan) civilization, and on the smaller level defined entirely by their regional ethnic and cultural characteristics. The current state of Europe is the result of the disasters of the 20th century that we still haven't recovered from (because the perpetrators remain in power- or rather their successors).

      For example I support the Nordic Resistance Movement and their goal of creating a pan-nordic ethno-state. If they don't do this they will be relegated as a people to the dust bin of history.

      I believe the natural order to be strictly hierarchical, aristocratic, and monarchical. However, the situation is so grim for European man at the moment that the monarchs are not going to appear for awhile. In the meantime, there needs to be a total purge of non-european elements in Europe, and the diaspora. The forces strangling whats left of the organic culture of the West have to be removed from positions of influence and along with the traitors who went along with it. This does require an totalitarian state (or the same mindset from non-state actors which will lead to the creation of such a state) going to war with these elements.

      So in reply to your second post, yes. I am a fascist.

      Hope that clears things up a bit.

      Delete
    7. Finn Mach,

      I am a big fan of both Rothbard and Mises. I have read much of their work and learned a lot from them (with the exception of Omnipotent Government which was IMO a very bad take on National Socialism- Mises was clearly biased on this subject having to flee the Third Reich).

      It is almost an understatement to say Rothbard was sympathetic to ethno-naitonalism. I have mentioned here before that he was very close with Michael Hill, president of the League of the South- a racial nationalist organization, and was having daily phone conversations with him shortly before his death.

      You are right that there is ZERO contradiction in the ideas of voluntary association/private property and the creation of an ethno-state (see here https://mises.org/library/nations-consent-decomposing-nation-state-0), or at least a "de-facto" ethnic state.

      (*BM note* I remember you writing a response to the above linked article, I tried looking for it but couldn't find it, would you be willing to link for Finn Mach?)

      The problem here is that we inherited the liberal legacy of our fore-bearers and we are being forced to bake gay wedding cakes, or have our children taken from us because we don't want to let them mutilate their genitals (its coming). Either liberalism has been hijacked or this is its true destiny. My position is the later. If you look at the French Revolution you can see that this "other side" to liberalism has always been with us (I recommend Carlyle's book on that for a great read). In other words, here is an ideology that promised "liberation" but was nothing more than enslavement. Liberalism leads to Brave New World, and BNW allows the predators to have an all-you-can-eat buffet.

      "I can't tell what UC strives for"

      Justice for my people and world peace.

      Deus Vult.

      Delete
    8. NB: “So assuming I understand you properly, you are arguing for a "nationalized" world on the basis of the prevention of tyranny. I think it's been pretty well evidenced that governments move towards tyranny over time- so I'm skeptical of your argument from that standpoint.”

      BM: Nick, I left it a day for UC to reply. He still might, but in the meantime I offer my thoughts.

      I don’t conflate “nation” and “government” or “nation” and “state.” I consider “nation” a tribe (nationality) – narrowly or broadly defined, a family; kin. A tribe may be governed in many ways, not only in the way we have come to use the term “government” or “state.”

      So, when UC writes “It is for this reason that a post-national world is only possible under global tyranny,” I interpret this as follows: something or someone will govern. It could be via family (meaning tribe or nation; it could be “government” or “state.” Get rid of “nation” (with all of its governance capabilities) and wherever you do this, you have removed all counterweights to tyranny. Do this globally, and you get global tyranny.

      Let’s have open borders everywhere. This completely destroys “nation.” Hence, global tyranny.

      FM: “it was the words "property is exclusionary" and it implies some very double plus bad unthoughts.”

      BM: We are conditioned, I guess, to react this way. However, if property is not exclusionary, do you really own any property? Talk about “some very double plus bad unthoughts.”

      Delete
    9. Obviously, UC responded moments before I published my comment. IN any case, I believe this is the post to which UC refers:

      http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2016/04/borders-culture-and-decentralization.html

      Delete
    10. [something or someone will govern. It could be via family (meaning tribe or nation; it could be “government” or “state.” Get rid of “nation” (with all of its governance capabilities) and wherever you do this, you have removed all counterweights to tyranny. Do this globally, and you get global tyranny.]

      [Let’s have open borders everywhere. This completely destroys “nation.” Hence, global tyranny.]

      Exactly correct.

      It is not only weaponized immigration that is an attack on the nation, but weaponized degeneracy (Frankfurt School, Alfred Kinsey, Gloria Steinem, etc), weaponized psychology (New School for Social Research, Tavistok, Esselen, etc.), and of course weaponized culture (Hollywood/TV/Music).

      All these things have in common the goal of destroying organic culture and the support/funding by the Power Elite. If nations aren't real things they sure do put a lot of time and money into destroying a fiction.

      I highly recommend the work of one of my favorite writers, (and fellow traveler ideologically) Kerry Bolton. In particular his book Revolution From Above is a masterful outline of the strategies employed by the "globalists" against organic culture.

      Also, to highlight my common ground with some libertarians I should mention that the present State in D.C is also an attack on the nation (although what the American Nation is a complex subject for another time, suffice to say that the existence of D.C and its actions over the past 150 years have made that question more difficult to answer.)

      Robert Nisbet had it right. The State deliberately destroyed intermediary institutions of organic authority and culture to enhance its own power. This observation, more than any other, was probably the source of the short lived libertarian-paleo alliance. It remains true still today, but liberatrianism (at least its most mainstream variety) seems to actively desire this so that we can "make the world safe for rootless cosmopolitanism."

      Rothbard is rolling over in his grave.

      Delete
    11. "So in reply to your second post, yes. I am a fascist.

      Hope that clears things up a bit."

      It does, thank you for your honesty.

      "Firstly, I apologize if I have been rude in the past. "

      Apology accepted.

      "To my mind the issue is this: power will always exist, and what matters most is how those who hold power see themselves in relation to their subjects."

      I would suggest that any relationship between "power" and it's "subjects" that is not voluntary is "tyranny" and suggests to me "government" as it's defined today.

      Ostensibly, if we took "power", whether an agency or individual- that operated under a covenant/contract with others agreeing to the same within say a "border", community, etc.- well that is a "power" that too is governed.(by contract)

      Fundamentally I see the nature of the relationship is important and it seems you acknowledge that as well.

      Whether it's aristocratic, monarchal, etc. is actually less important than the voluntary agreement between the two.

      BM has written previously about the cultural understanding surrounding the old European order under which peasants were free to leave or revolt when the local aristocracy did hold up their end of the bargain. My point being that even a cultural "understanding" had some basis in contract law(even if not codified) and attention has long been paid the concept of voluntary acceptance & interaction via some type of contract.(hence the social contract theory and magna carta which in and of themselves suggest the important of 'acceptance'/voluntary interaction, or at least a quid pro quo)

      " This does require an totalitarian state (or the same mindset from non-state actors which will lead to the creation of such a state) going to war with these elements."

      I submit that it was the "totalitarian state" that has created the problem of forced immigration and the associated problems in Europe & to a lesser extend here in the US. I see the desire to use the totalitarian state to beat back the problem in created as folly. (I say that with all due respect to you)

      A society based on voluntary, contract oriented agreements that sustain property rights & other traditional "libertarian" values would have never had these issues of forced immigration and the resultant culture destruction/rape/crime.(in my opinion)

      Something I've just let slide, but I've seen twice now is the concern about how exactly a libertarian community would protect itself from "tribal aggression" outside of it's inner NAP agreements/workings.

      Aside from the volumes that Dr. Block has written on private security- a simple look at gated communities with roaming private secuity, with their corresponding HOA's are the small scale proof of viability. It too, could be written in a charter/contract and voluntarily agreed to.

      I am sympathetic to some of your concerns UC- but we definitely do have some disagreements as well. I appreciate the respectful dialogue.

      @BM

      "I don’t conflate “nation” and “government” or “nation” and “state.” I consider “nation” a tribe (nationality) – narrowly or broadly defined, a family; kin. A tribe may be governed in many ways, not only in the way we have come to use the term “government” or “state.”"

      Well, he has clearly identified himself as a "fascist" and advocated for a tyrannical government to deal with the immigrant invasion in Europe- so I have to say classifying him as a "statist" does not seem unfair.



      Delete
    12. Nick,

      (Part 1, post was too long to fit)

      Good stuff, a lot to unpack here.

      I am going to have to start at the end though.

      [advocated for a tyrannical government to deal with the immigrant invasion in Europe- so I have to say classifying him as a "statist" does not seem unfair.]

      To be clear. I do not advocate for a "tyrannical government." I see absolute politics as a necessity for Europe, and I do admit that the State I favor for European countries is indeed "Totalitarian", but that does not mean its "Tyrannical." The fact that you see those as synonymous and I don't is the main source of our disagreement. For further clarification, I would also point out that I am an anarchist with respect to North America, at least in the short term. The relationship between fascism and anarchism is deep and complex, but for now it will suffice to say that anarchism and totalitarianism are both tools to be used in appropriate situations. The ideal state is organic and non-tyranical because there is nothing it needs to impose on its people (the Tao te Ching paints this picture well). As to whether "statist" is unfair- it isn't, but is it a useful description? I don't think so.

      Mark Levin calls people statists and you would probably say he is a statist (he is, particularly a Zionist). As I said above I favor the destruction of the American State, and I am sure you will find many libertarians who do not. My point here is how useful is it really to divide people into statist and non-statist? What is the purpose of this?

      Having addressed the end of your comment, I will go back to the beginning.

      "I would suggest that any relationship between "power" and it's "subjects" that is not voluntary is "tyranny" and suggests to me "government" as it's defined today."

      This is another big area of disagreement I have with libertarians. They view the modern state as being where power rests. There is no doubt that the tools of state are powerful (courts, military, spy apparatus etc.), but I would argue that the Deep State is better understood as an NGO private crime syndicate. This is complicated because the lines get grey (by design) and I don't expect you to agree with me but maybe you can see where I am coming from (we can debate this bit another time). The simple fact is the State can be, and is, bought off.

      Look at Israel, does their international power come from their State? Or just look at your average politician totally beholden to private interests.

      My preference would be for a small but powerful state. Small meaning no bureaucratic gravy trains.

      The Beast is like an iceberg with the tip being the State. What lies beneath the surface is a network of transnational private organizations who control the tip. If that makes sense.

      Delete
    13. (Part 2)

      With that in mind:

      [I submit that it was the "totalitarian state" that has created the problem of forced immigration and the associated problems in Europe & to a lesser extend here in the US. I see the desire to use the totalitarian state to beat back the problem in created as folly]

      I understand this perspective. In "As We Go Marching", John T Flynn draws comparisons between FDRs America, Hitler's Germany, and Mussolini's Italy. From the American perspective this makes a certain sense (the irony being tho that these European regimes formed in response to communist aggression and the regime in the US was full of communists who wanted to side with the USSR!), but this kind of thinking does more to obscure than clarify IMO (I still do admire Flynn, especially "Roosevelt Myth").

      It is answered with a simple thought experiment. Would there be a 3rd world invasion in Europe if Hitler had won?

      We have to go beyond the form (totalitarianism) and look at the substance (genuine nationalism).

      [A society based on voluntary, contract oriented agreements that sustain property rights & other traditional "libertarian" values would have never had these issues of forced immigration and the resultant culture destruction/rape/crime]

      I agree, but that society doesn't exist and it is also very American. It is not a realistic counter-factual to suggest that was ever on the table for Europe.

      The country that showed the highest commitment to this type of radical liberal thinking was the USA. The same country that is now the primary tool of global tyranny. Even now, when there can be no doubt about its tyrannical nature, conservative talking heads go on TV and blabber about individual liberty, divided power, and free markets. I submit that it falls on libertarians to explain how their worldview can be used to such ends.

      As for Block and voluntary agreements etc. I think that kind of non-political community formation is appropriate for peaceful people who want to opt out of a larger system. However there would have to be some agreements between these communities and the larger political structure such to where they would be left alone entirely. Such as: you cannot import foreign populations or sell property to foreign individuals without approval by the State (but intra-community association would be entirely free). I have no problem with that but I don't believe it can replace the political (geo-politics, racial politics, friend-enemy distinctions, etc). The world cannot be made into a Home Owners Association.

      "I am sympathetic to some of your concerns UC- but we definitely do have some disagreements as well. I appreciate the respectful dialogue."

      Back at ya my d00d, on both counts. You raised a lot of really good points that are tough to hash out in limited space. I hope your business picks up and you have more time to join in these threads. Maybe we will come to a more clear agreement in the future.

      Hail Caesar.

      Delete
    14. I felt the need to draw a distinction between wanting government to stop forcing immigration and the attendant NAP violations upon it's people and "tyrannical" government as referenced by UC.

      This is in fairness to UC- as I'm am unclear on what he means be "tyrannical"- but have a guess.

      For example, I could also be accused of being "statist" by desiring our government to stop allowing immigrants to come here under certain viewpoints.

      As I've mentioned before in discussion with Jacob Hornberger: I view the allowing of illegals here in the country by as inducing more NAP violations than if government took actions to minimize said immigration. (this is with the understanding that gov't is one giant NAP violation as it functions today)

      So it is on that basis, a "sliding scale" of NAP violations, under which I believe less violations occur by allowing government to restrict immigration.(and I could be wrong, but obviously I don't think so)

      Just to be clear- if the world was different(read libertarian) I would desire no government involvement on the basis that as BM has pointed out there is no "right" to trespass and if all property was owned instead of public/government, then the owners would be providing the function of immigrations control.

      But given the reality of today- I have to choose my viewpoints based on the NAP sliding scale...and hope I have chosen the proper viewpoint based on the least amount of NAP violations. (not always easy)

      It seems to me that UC is comfortable with authoritarianism, similar to Yockey and also constitutes part of the definition of being a "fascist"(which he claims to be)- this is directly contrary to the notion of voluntary relationships IMO.

      Hence his comfort with a "tyrannical government" to accomplish the goal of resolving the immigration issues- but I offer that authoritarianism in general wouldn't concern itself with voluntary interaction. (hence my argument about the folly of trying to use tyrannical government to solve problems created by government)

      I've a feeling that I'm as clear as mud right now...but I had to try to explain more.

      Delete
    15. "I submit that it was the "totalitarian state" that has created the problem of forced immigration and the associated problems in Europe & to a lesser extend here in the US. I see the desire to use the totalitarian state to beat back the problem in created as folly. (I say that with all due respect to you)"

      Were the Vietnamese wrong in beating back the Americans? When it came to the fight against the French and Americans, it was only the communists that were willing to fight (and many non-ideological people joined the communist to fight for liberation, even though communism isn't the optimal system).

      If the Americans wanted to destroy the Vietnamese they could have done so by imposing migration of non-Vietnamese from foreign countries into Vietnam. Think about that. What is the American government doing to Americans now? Also, when I say American, what do I mean?

      Delete
    16. BM and UC, I am truly grateful for your responses and the reading recommendations.
      The implications of "property is exclusionary", in its full context, is a lot to take in, I would die to hear someone like Walter Block comment on it.
      NM: "Fascist" as a label wasn't what I was thinking about. It's too broad.
      I knew UC wasn't FOR a total state, his thinking is more along the lines of ends and means. National Socialism... so if the Nazi's took the earth the National is gone, so Socialism, well Richard Spencer wants socialized medicine and I think he sounds like a pinko commie. Does that make me a super fascist bc I think the NAP is the proper legal framework? Pandora's Box has been opened for me and it's both exciting and frightening, but I like it bc I can see how we could get from A to B. Talking NAP or how many angels dance on the head of a pin, i couldn't see A to B. We have been playing chess by "the rules". The left cult stands over the board taking pieces off, putting them back, etc. They play the game in God mode where they can't lose, and that makes us a joke to anyone who can see this happening.
      I tweet at Yaron Brook about this, his reply "you can't bring people to the rational by being irrational" I say bullshit. Pepe twitter and meme magic did more damage to the left than 50 yrs of theorizing about optimizing Econ output. I submit the left has conditioned Mr Brook thru irrationality, the proof is in his irrational fear of talking about race and cultural matters!!! There is too much to unpack in this space. I can't even touch on how it is VALUES that guide action, not rationality.
      Anyway, I think the open borders question really blew apart my perception of ends and means. It wasn't an easy process. I resented UC and Bionic when I first started reading about it. The "conditioning" is real. Few know this, but an increasing many are figuring it out in their own way.

      Delete
    17. I have a new post that I believe those interested in this dialogue might find worth considering:

      http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/03/uncomfortable-questions.html

      Delete
    18. @ UC

      My 6:39PM response was made prior to your 6PM response- please note that in context in examining that response. (and thank you for the clarifications)

      "My point here is how useful is it really to divide people into statist and non-statist? What is the purpose of this?"

      The purpose for doing so(for me) is to draw a distinction between whether people aspire to(or believe?) it is possible to build a society based on voluntary interaction. (and that would be based on someone capable of doing so...which is whole separate/complicated topic)

      "The world cannot be made into a Home Owners Association."

      I disagree! lol- but alas neither of us can really prove it definitively either way, it's just opinion. To your point, some might not choose to live that way- but that doesn't mean others won't be able to if they desire.

      "I hope your business picks up and you have more time to join in these threads."

      I very much appreciate that sentiment and I picked up some needed work today- so thank you. (and I have to make my exit intellectually for a while and now get it done and make money :))

      @Matt

      "Were the Vietnamese wrong in beating back the Americans? "

      That's an interesting question, that begs many more questions- but the short of it is that just because N. Vietnamese government didn't necessarily bring about war because of totalitarian policies doesn't mean it wasn't totalitarian in nature in other areas.

      I understand everyone's concerns re: cultural preservation and I have them as well.

      Ultimately, I believe voluntary relationships between capable "adults" are truly the best way forward for a peaceful and prosperous society. How we get there, and how many people would ultimately accept this notion will continue to be debated for a LONG time.

      Peace out to everyone for now.

      (and thank you BM)

      Delete
    19. Finn Mach

      This is really a great comment, both hilariously funny (in a good way) and insightful at the same time.

      FM: “The implications of "property is exclusionary", in its full context, is a lot to take in, I would die to hear someone like Walter Block comment on it.”

      BM: I believe I am on safe ground to suggest that Block would agree 100% with this idea of property being exclusionary. Where we part ways on the topic of immigration (even considering the question from the NAP standpoint) is on what is referred to as “government property” – meaning land (deserts and mountaintops and such).

      Walter and I agree that the government is not the legitimate “owner,” as all resources controlled by the government have been stolen. Where we disagree: he says no one is the owner, because the land (think about the peaks of the Rockies or Swiss Alps) has not been properly homesteaded; in Block’s view, I believe he would say that homesteading – mixing land and labor – or acquisition from the homesteader (or any one subsequent) is the only legitimate way to “own” land.

      Setting aside that I am not settled on his assertion, who is to say how much “labor mixing” is required? Who is to define even what constitutes “labor mixing”? Without diving into these, I will suggest that the Bureau of Land management has mixed some labor with virtually every square inch of government controlled land.

      And from that basis, I follow the path of Ragnar Danneskjöld: he stole from ships carrying government controlled assets and returned these – in the form of gold – to taxpayers.

      I say the taxpayers own the land.

      With all of this said – and admittedly I am going off on further tangents – the immigrants aren’t moving to the top of the Rockies or Swiss Alps. For this reason, one might consider Walter's position as that of someone attempting debate about dancing angels and the head of a pin.

      Delete
    20. Finn Mach,

      I second BM. Very insightful comment.

      I am well aware that I put forward ideas that will be met with Pavlovian responses, which is why I have tried to avoid trigger words like "fascist" but Nick brought it up so I answered. It speaks to your character that you are willing to engage with "literally Hitler."(tm)

      "National Socialism... so if the Nazi's took the earth the National is gone..."

      This is correct thinking but I should point out that the goal of the Third Reich was not world conquest (despite what court historians like to say). That was the Anglo-American goal. National Socialism is a less imperialistic ideology than Liberalism- that is my main message to libertarians with respect to ideology. That does not mean libertarians need to become National Socialists/Fascists but they would be wise to consider their relationship to their mother-ideology (liberalism) and if its not time for emancipation.

      I have argued here before that Hoppe was knowingly or unknowingly confronting this exact problem and I have heard that he has described himself as an "anarcho-fascist." Make of it what you will.

      If more European-oriented fascist material (Rosenberg, Yockey, Devi, Codreanu, or Hitler) is too alien for you then might I recommend a few alternatives.

      George Lincoln Rockwell's books are very good along with his speeches. Rockwell would be palpable to a libertarian in a way that European writers may not. He is effectively a libertarian on economic issues and a hardcore anti-communist (Yockey, who Rockwell did not like, was more than willing to work with communists in other countries against D.C). You can see Rockwell's kind of thinking today in a guy like Alex Linder of VNN.

      Revillo P Oliver would be the other American I would recommend.

      Here is his book "America's Decline":
      http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/AmericasDecline.pdf

      Both Oliver and Rockwell were conservatives first (Rockwell even fought in the war and was highly decorated) but they began to see that conservatives were totally impotent in the face of the soft-communist take-over of America. The reason being is that conservatives are actually liberals and liberals don't like to fight.

      I would also recommend (in particular to BM) the Conservative Revolution in Germany. This was an inter-war movement of German Nationalists. Some went on to support the NSDAP, other did not, and some went on to oppose it. Two of the most well known men from this movement are Ernst Junger (one of my favorite 20th century writers) and Carl Schmitt (the best political theorist of the 20th century).

      http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/02/the-conservative-revolution-then-and-now-ernst-junger/

      ^summary of CR

      Junger's "On the Marble Cliffs" is a book I do not doubt libertarians would appreciate (for the record if I say libertarian without a detectable sneer I am talking about the ones I like)

      Finally re: Richard Spencer, you would be surprised to learn which famous libertarian Spencer is personal friends with. I can't say who it is because he told me this confidentially but suffice to say that its not just anons like me who are willing to entertain bad-think.

      Delete
    21. UC, thank you for the recommended reading.

      I have recently been exposed to Mises' thoughts on this idea of "nation" and majority / minority. Coming from Austria-Hungary, he certainly would have had an excellent understanding of these issues.

      I think I will move a little slower than the pace you recommend; I will spend some time with Mises on this topic.

      Delete
    22. Nick, I think that you missed my point. I am not saying that communism isn't totalitarian, what I am saying is when communism (or insert other -ism) is the only game in town offering national liberation (meaning libertarian for a particular ethnic group), then communism is what you get.

      Open borders libertarianism only offers the destruction of a particular ethnic group. What future is there in that?

      Delete
    23. "Open borders libertarianism only offers the destruction of a particular ethnic group. What future is there in that?"

      I think I've been pretty clear I'm not an "open borders" guy.

      "Nick, I think that you missed my point. I am not saying that communism isn't totalitarian, what I am saying is when communism (or insert other -ism) is the only game in town offering national liberation (meaning libertarian for a particular ethnic group), then communism is what you get. "

      I think then you are missing my point as well.

      What I'm saying is that using a "sliding scale" of NAP violations, which is subjective unfortunately, I try to make judgements on the basis of what I perceive as having less NAP violations.

      The "ism" is important, because a totalitarian communist regime waging a war against immigrants in my opinion is going to turn it's attention on the "native" populace as well- and I could very easily see supporting such a regime out of dislike of immigrants as yielding MORE NAP violations under such a circumstance.

      Delete
  4. Bionic,

    I believe this may be one of your best posts on this subject. Keep up the great work!

    And Nick, always a pleasure to read your courageous, soul-baring comments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Anon- although truth be told, I'm probably guilty of "oversharing" at times. (and maybe this qualifies)

      :)

      Delete
    2. I respectfully disagree. You're fellow travellers and the curious alike appreciate it Nick.

      There's always a very "human" and thoughtful quality to your comments.

      Delete
    3. Anon, I agree with you regarding Nick. I have encouraged him in the past to begin his own blog, as I recall. He writes very effectively.

      Delete
    4. Funny you should mention that bionic. I told him a year or more ago that he may be missing his calling...

      Delete
    5. Thank you both- I appreciate the validation, it means much to me.

      The issues for me are this:

      1. My business has not been doing very well for almost 1 year now- and it requires much of my attention at this time. Any time I have left goes to my fairly young children & wife.(my commentary in the last 9 months in particular has been limited as a result)

      2. If I decided to start writing a blog, I would have to do so under a "nom de plume", because in all honesty if some of my customers knew my actual opinions on matters "political" I'm quite sure I'd lose some of them- and I can't afford that, especially right now.

      Sure, they could perhaps catch my name in a "google" today and see some things that might upset them, but I have been fairly careful in my commentary on the few libertarian I visit and comment on in regard to what I post, with this understanding. If those customers understood the full nature of my radical viewpoints...well...that could be problematic.

      3. Lastly, I'm concerned with the quality of what I could put out- both intellectually and in volume, because I have had the luxury of being able to simply analyze what other great thinkers have written(Bionic Mosquito being one)and maybe make a salient point or two in response.

      If I undertook such a project(blog), it would be very important to me that quality was high and I could give it enough attention to keep a certain level of interest.

      I toyed with doing a once a week interview with various businesses/CEO's from a libertarian perspective because I feel like we don't have enough libertarian leaning business owners in our ranks(an irony to say the least)- but I'm not sure a once a week 15 minute interview is enough and frankly I'm not sure have the time and creatively to produce the high quality content necessary to retain a following.

      So those are the issues fellas- I highly value your compliments and I will take them seriously. I actually just had the wife read them for her opinion, she's always my biggest cheerleader(lucky me) so I expected to hear "You should do it!"- but in the end my family comes first. (and the reality is as a small business owner that my business is almost as critical to me as my family)

      Still yet, I will consider it and I appreciate your comments.

      Delete
    6. Understood Nick.

      I hope I am not being presumptuous here, but as a (very happily) married family man myself, I believe it is good you are listening to your wife as your partner. God knows mine has saved me unknown amounts of self-inflicted pain along our journey together. I have learned they do have an intuitive quality that is worth heeding frequently. Lol!

      Having said that, Nick, as I'm sure you know, it is ideas that rule our world and while quality is important, I would encourage you not to over-think it either. Just do/say what comes naturally to you should someday choose to venture into blogging or ? Just be you. In the end it is all you can do. Having observed your comments here and there for the last couple of years or so, I can tell you are a decent, honorable man. I believe you'd do well.

      Just something to consider:


      http://www.pathstoincome.com

      Tom has some other helpful tools related to this also.

      Best wishes!




      Delete
    7. p.s. Nick,

      As a businessman, you have a unique perspective into the subject of your idea. I'm sure there are others out there that your idea would resonate with.

      Just my two cents.

      Delete
    8. If I decide to do it, one of my first calls would be to Tom Woods- plus I've been gently nudging my wife into considering Woods for at least the history/poly-sci direction for our kids...but I can't push too hard because it's her ball of wax and she likes "Classical Conversations" which she also teaches/tutors for. I have had to explain some historical revisionism to my older kids already though(which I wouldn't have had to do if they were using Woods/Pauls curriculum)

      Thanks again for your feedback.

      Delete
  5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C52TlPCVDio

    https://mises.org/blog/dont-confuse-immigration-naturalization

    ReplyDelete
  6. So you should fight the welfare state, not the immigration. And what happened to the "no representation no taxation" ? If I don't vote I should not pay taxes and don't support whatever the government is going to pay. What if I want immigrants in my property? According to you, "yes, but the government", stop and read my first line. What you said sounds like those people who say "I believe that we should not have taxation for products from other countries, but we have other taxes and laws and this would be not fair to our companies...etc" C'mon, fight the evil, fight the disease. not the symptom. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People take up space and generate waste. If you import two dozen berry pickers for your plantation they have to be housed, fed, and their waste and sewage hauled away. They probably won't stay on your property 24/7, so other people have to decide whether they want to do business with them. If they copulate and have kids, that's more people and more sewage we have to figure out what to do with. If they have infectious diseases or like to break into cars, then we have other problems. Maybe, one day, they decide they'd be better owners of your plantation than you.

      Ramp this up to a million people a year and we're talking about nation-changing scale, all because you wanted to maintain ideological consistency.

      Bob Wallace calls himself a 'national libertarian' which I think is where this debate ends up. A libertarian country will have to be ringed with concertina wire and patrolled by men with machine guns to keep out all the people who can out-breed, out-thug and out-vote you and take your stuff.

      Delete
  7. "give us your tired poor huddled masses yearning to be free" And we will put them to work in a factory. They get a better life, a constitution to protect them from the government -- which protects them from other governments-- and someone profits off their labor. Sounds like a fair enough deal. Now just make it here and we will give you everything you need for nothing in return, we will even protect your precious feelings. Why do I go to work then? The amount of people we let in needs to be in direct relation to the shitty jobs we need filled. With our out of work force numbers skyrocketing we need to shut down the boarders, lower or repeal min wage, and expand the gap between the middle class and lower class to get people working. Also if we defunded schools in a short time people would turn to the internet where the best teaches can teach the whole country at the same time for a lot less money.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bionic --

    From your LewRockwell article, "Any society that failed to preserve its culture didn’t deserve to survive.”

    Please define the eternal culture of (say) the Highlands of Scotland that accounts for all migrations.

    Next, explain why you desire the bland foods of our British forefathers over the delicate tastes from India.

    Finally, define the culture of Jamaica without reference to influences from both China and India. What exactly is Jamaica absent jerk chicken, an amalgamation of tastes from China and India?

    Finally, define what culture you are trying to defend? Is it, perhaps, the homegrown social justice movement? Or some bucolic past that only existed in Normal Rockwell paintings?

    I suggest your whole argument above is question begging. The US culture you defend is nothing other than the US culture your desire -- something like your perceived culture of (say) five to ten years ago. This is why Hayek wrote, "Why I Am Not a Conservative."

    Note: I suspect that you have lived in the same area your whole life. That would explain a little, but would not explain why you imply there is permanence in your parochial world. In addition, I suspect your knowledge of history is lacking. Otherwise, you wouldn't even imply that cultures have a sense of permanence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mosin

      You know nothing of me, nothing of my background, nothing of where I have lived, and obviously nothing of my writing.

      As simple proof, your statement: "Next, explain why you desire the bland foods of our British forefathers over the delicate tastes from India."

      I have written exactly the opposite of this. If you really wanted to engage, you might wonder "why?" and ask, instead of lecture.

      As you have ignored my suggestion to read some of what I have written on these topics, what is your purpose of commenting here?

      Delete
    2. Bionic, I know that you don't allow ad hominem attacks on your site, but honestly Mosin Nagants comment has to the dumbest comment I have read here, and I have seen some doozies.

      Way to strawman, Mosin.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Mosin, besides English and Yiddish, what other languages do you speak? I can speak, read and write three non-European languages and I completely disagree with you.

      Delete
    5. Mosin,

      The Nile is an imaginary construct because the water never stays in one place.

      (BM sorry to double post but the previous contained a typo, if you publish it I will delete it).

      Delete
  9. Bionic --

    So, cut and paste your argument. It is not a defense of an argument to state that I need to read all you have written.
    Is that how you engage folks at dinner -- assert a position and, when questioned, simply reply, "You need to read all I have written before you dare refute me."

    Nor is getting huffy an argument. Though one you seem to fall back on.

    Let me add this: What is a cause of our current ills: My Polish grandparents who came here in the 1910's to start a new life absent government or the homegrown do-gooders who worked tirelessly to push government handouts and assistance on them and every immigrant? You imply the issue is with the immigrants while I state the issue lies with the culture of the US.

    What exactly are you defending with regard to our culture?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mosin

      Culture will always evolve. When it evolves naturally, through voluntary trade and migration, it can add wonderfully to the experience of life. When it evolves by force, as has certainly been the condition for many, it can be terribly destructive for all parties effected.

      If this isn't simple enough for you, drop your hand grenades at another site.

      Delete
  10. Bionic --

    So, if your issue is purely "open boarders" (i.e the Derrida-esque term for the government forced intake of immigrants), I agree.

    But it sounds like you are against immigration, per se. Am I wrong?

    You seem to argue both sides -- for evolutionary changes to culture, but against cultures changing. I trust you can see how I might be confused about your position.

    This truly is a very strong statement, "Any society that failed to preserve its culture didn’t deserve to survive.”

    Maybe its an equivocation around "preserve." However, that term has a specific meaning to all -- a meaning that would exclude evolutionary change.

    Note: Did you now see how a little explanation beats huffiness? Remember, I first asked questions in attempt to understand your position. It was you who dropped the first grenade.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mosin,

      You are confusing change and death.

      How is that "evolutionary change" working out for the Palestinians? The American Indians?

      What is you agenda guy?

      Delete
    2. Unhappy --

      You need to address Bionic.

      He said, "Culture will always evolve. When it evolves naturally, through voluntary trade and migration, it can add wonderfully to the experience of life."

      Please redirect so that Bionic can clarify.

      Delete
    3. I want to point out deconditioning is a difficult process. People have and will have visceral reactions when their orthodox cultural conditioning is challenged. I remember cursing you and UC 2 years ago! The reasons for that are for another time...I hope.
      "We have to shock the masses"-Rothbard. I think Nationalism is hyper triggering to the left for a specific reason. It is a material concrete rejection in this world, it short circuits the argument out right, where their cultural hegemony (values) cannot influence. They figuratively and literally(potentionally) lose there power.
      I think the best way to "break thru" the conditioning is by entertaining "uncomfortable thoughts". So now it's time for some crimethought, bc crimethoughts are the best thoughts in an empire of lies.

      Mosil: so imagine is everyone of European descent were unable to have kids starting now, what would happen, what would happen to the identity of the US/world? You may still call it the US but would it be the same thing? Would this outcome be good, do you think it even matters?
      Take the Nile, drop a mountain 3 times the size of Everest at the source, now is the location where the Nile used to be still called the Nile? Or is it the place where the Nile used to be? I realize this will shock the nervous system but don't let go, hold on on the undeniable validity(I think) of the assertions. It may take a full year to get over it!! I would love to hear your response.

      PS: I was unaware of the generous responses I received from UC and Bionic for my previous post. (I tend to disappear on the weekends) I hope I can contribute in the future, I have many thoughts and many questions to ask.

      Delete
  11. Let's define a society as a volountar association. Then who is a foreigner? One that come from the outside. Confront this to the state society we have Now. Is a mexican a foreigner? He lives out of the state border. But why that make him different from any one who lives inside? Without a volountary association they are both foreigner in a sense. We can't confuse a state that is forced integration with a rightfull association. The border of a state mean nothing.. we must also not confuse our right to discriminate and a state right to discriminate. We must refuse central management of immigration by the state, and not debate the right criteria of management. And right to discriminate is also right to associate non only right to not associate. So we must defend both the right to exclude anyone and the right to associate freely, both arbitrally. Any owner or associatio of owner must have this liberty rooted in private property. Anon proof

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In some ways, you have restated my closing paragraph.

      Where shall we start?

      Delete
  12. From the occasions we have.. :) Anonproof

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also an irregular immigrant is better in many ways than a regular one. He pays no taxes, he take no welfare, he works out of the many rules that afflict the market.. he is accepted by owners who give him a house or a room and make him works, but is out of state control. If for a libertarian is not the state and the law of the state that give legitimacy, but the respect of the nap, this kind of pacific, working, economically integrated, irregular immigrant are more legitimated than the regular ones, with taxes and welfare benefits. They are near to the condition you describe in your last paragraph. Anonproof

      Delete