A more complete reply (and clarification) to Anonymous June 15, 2017 at 7:53 AM, aka “anonp.”
I have assumed a certain context both in this post and in my dialogue in general regarding immigration and open borders. My context is one of examining libertarian theory on these topics and attempting to apply the theory in this world, the world as it is today.
As you have been here often and commented often, I assumed you understood this; further, this specific post is in reference to a real-world example – the Jewish immigration into Palestine during the British Mandate period
Admittedly, I will write new posts as a continuing dialogue – a dialogue with myself and with regular readers; I feel no obligation or benefit to resetting the foundation and context every time I discuss a topic.
Now, with feedback from an individual who is new to this site – or someone I don’t recall – I am (or try to be) patient in my response. With feedback from anonymous commenters (not you, as I recognize “anonp” that you include), depending on the nature of the feedback, I almost always initially assume I am being trolled.
With those who have commented often, I assume a certain context – that the foundation I have previously laid is understood. This is the case with you.
Now, I also recognize that it is incumbent upon me to remember the foundation that regular commenters have laid. Alas, I may not be perfect at this – better with those who are a) here regularly, and b) have offered something that really stayed with me.
With that out of the way, I would like to start over with your various feedback. Call it a reset.
You can do everything you want, to show your disagreement.
You will understand now, I hope, the reason for my reaction. In this world, I cannot do this – and this world is the context of both the subject post and my writing. Further, part of the foundation is my extensive dialogue with Walter Block – the relevant portions of which I have written about publicly (here, and much more importantly, here). To apply the NAP to this topic in this world requires full private property – and all that this implies.
So…I cannot do everything I want – within the context and given the foundation that I have built over at least 50 posts and hundreds of interchanges in the comments sections of these.
Are you calling for State intervention?
First of all, I hope you understand why the fact that you asked this question confirmed my belief that you understood the context and foundation. In a world that respects the NAP, there are no states; in this world, there are. So when you ask if I am calling for state intervention, in which world is your question relevant?
More importantly, I have written several times that I do allow myself to be boxed into a false choice: either open borders in this world or state intervention in this world. At minimum, I had – and believe I have completely achieved – one objective: to demonstrate that application of the NAP on this topic in this world is not possible. Absent full private property rights, every possibility is a violation of the NAP. Just ask Walter Block!
My further objective is to demonstrate why managed borders – even if managed by the state (as if there is any other choice in a world of states) – is a reasonable second best alternative. I will not here go into all of the reasons why; I have written on this too much already (read the fifty posts if you like).
If you bring one million people here to live on the welfare, you are not privately financing anything; you are using tax dollars, so you are violating the nap.
I should not have overlooked so quickly this line of reasoning from you, and the natural implications of this and other similar statements of yours.
That tells us something about the culture, the morals, the habits, the mentality that a society more coherent with the nap will produce.
Admittedly, I reacted strongly to this statement. This time, I will merely ask: do you mean to say that the NAP will produce a culture? This is unfathomable to me. But, if this is truly what you mean, please expand on why you believe it.
Many here seem to love the state but only want a different orientation of statism.
Yes, there are some who comment here that have a view of the state not consistent with the NAP. I do not stop them from commenting, and have learned much from their comments. As long as comments are respectful and not vulgar, I allow these.
With that said, I never like such statements as the one you wrote. To whom do you refer? If we want true dialogue at this site, we have to talk to each other individually, not to “many here.”
My point being that the NAP is not so poor as you picture it, but that your example is misleading.
But this is my point, and consistent with my entire dialogue on this topic: we live in this world. In the reality of this world, how do we apply the NAP? In some things it is easy – robbery, murder, etc. In some things, it is not so easy – in this case, immigration and open borders.
So my example is not misleading at all. What would have been the proper libertarian response by Palestinians to the massive Jewish influx during the British Mandate? They protested, they boycotted, they did all of the NAP-consistent measures that you offered (and, of course, some that were not consistent).
This wasn’t enough. They left a failed legacy for themselves and their grandchildren.
If this is acceptable under the NAP we should ask ourselves: what are the implications? Is the NAP a bad political theory or is it simply that we have not properly defined it? Or, maybe, the NAP just doesn’t answer every single relationship question we might ask.
To this, I offer one portion of my response to Unhappy Conservative, from the same thread:
We want to think of aggression in three dimensions: height, width, depth. Perhaps Rothbard is suggesting we might want to think about a fourth dimension - time. To do so, we must consider human nature in the equation.
Where along that fourth dimension did Jewish immigration into Palestine turn into aggression? We cannot pick a moment, we only see the result - the reality that it happened.
Maybe libertarian theorists just haven’t yet properly defined aggression. At least Palestinians at the time of the Mandate would say so.