Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Open Borders for Israel



I have a proposition for those libertarians who support open borders.  Write a defense of your thesis regarding the nation-state of Israel.  Make it convincing.  Get it published at one or more of the sites that regularly pound the table for open borders.

If the theory is valid and universal – as is claimed by many, if not all, of you true for libertarian theory – you must find a credible application for Israel.

I am challenging specifically:

Jacob Hornberger
Sheldon Richman
Steven Horwitz
Jeffrey Tucker

The sites to which your defense should be posted include:

Cato
Foundation for Economic Education
Future of Freedom Foundation
Reason
Bleeding Heart Libertarians

So, the issue at hand: write your defense of open borders for Israel.  Publish it at one of the several sites that has no fear advocating for open borders.

28 comments:

  1. a 'put your money where your mouth is' challenge has been printed. the responses will be, at a minimum, enlightening and, i hope, reproduced here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I see a response, I will certainly note it in this thread. I am sure other regular readers will do the same.

      Delete
  2. It will be interesting to hear the responses. I wonder how many will speak to Israel as a special case under special circumstances that isn't the same as anywhere else, so it wouldn't apply in all ways? I guess I should just be patient and see...

    M

    ReplyDelete
  3. Replies
    1. I think Matt (maybe you?) first wrote something like this a couple months ago, as a challenge to Hornberger.

      Anyway, it has remained on my mind, triggered by both an email exchange and also Horwitz. So, out it came now.

      Delete
    2. It was me. Hornberger said it applies everywhere, but he only ever applied it to Europe and America in his writings.

      Let's see the unprincipled exceptions that these people make for their own people.

      Delete
  4. I'll go on record saying I don't anticipate a single response. Not even an acknowledgement. This is like asking someone to go to the altar and disrobe during mass. Even approaching it would be too embarrassing to stomach.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you. However, people will see this challenge - people who buy into the open-borders-in-a-world-of-state-borders nonsense. A few of these people will wonder why these advocates are silent; a few more will see right through the hypocrisy, and see it for what it is.

      Delete
  5. I am glad you named-names. It is helpful for the intellectual context. I wish Robert Wenzel would do the same when he calls out "Austrian-lites".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I believe it is a sign of respect.

      In such a case, it also can be a sign of weakness: they want to be able to challenge without much risk of being challenged in return.

      Hornberger published something just like this a day or two ago. While he misrepresents my view, I know he is challenging me because it is the same misrepresentation he would make when we exchanged on this topic in the past.

      Delete
  6. If they can get you asking the wrong questions they don't have to worry about the answers.

    -Pynchon

    ReplyDelete
  7. Great job throwing down the gauntlet! Impeccable logic, Unhappy Conservative and you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No takers? But what happened to MUH PRINCIPLES?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are no excuses; see the comments:

      https://fee.org/articles/libertarianism-rejects-anti-semitism/

      Delete
    2. There is so much wrong in that article you linked that I don't even know where to start.

      Delete
  9. I tried to comment there. It turns out that I am banned for some reason.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Israel is not a special case. If everything were made private--roads and streets included--then folks who wanted to enter "Israel" would be free to do so--the borders would be open--provided they did not commit criminal trespass.

    So what's the Big Dilemma? Some outsiders would be admitted as trustworthy commercial actors, many others would be excluded.

    But that solution does not accord at all with imposing government restrictions on the right of property owners in the USA to choose to admit, or exclude, certain others from their premises. Anti-immigration people simply want to shut down all immigration, thereby robbing other people of their freedom to make their own decisions about who to associate with.

    That's not libertarian, i.e. consistent with the principles of individual liberty; it is Big State BS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. are you one of: Jacob Hornberger, Sheldon Richman, Steven Horwitz, Jeffrey Tucker? Maybe someone else who has published at one of the aforementioned sites on the topic of open borders?

      "If everything were made private..."

      Now...that's cheating, don't you think? Everything isn't private - not in Israel and not in the USA.

      Beside, the aforementioned four (I may not have asked, are you one of them?) never offer this precondition when the preach open borders - not that I have read.

      Delete
  11. It ought to be obvious that the solution to the immigration issue is not further restriction on the freedom--what remains of it--to choose; but junking all the restrictions and mandates that demoralize Americans. That won't happen any time soon, obviously, because people don't understand or desire freedom.

    What anti-immigration people hope is this rear-guard action of banning immigration will keep out people with bad ideas. That won't work, ever.

    The only way to change thinking of people who embrace destructive anti-life notions is let them suffer the consequences of their thinking, defend and retaliate against their aggression, and wage valiantly the intellectual battle for reason and freedom.

    That way, someday and somewhere, reason and freedom will take root and flourish. Until that happens, politics won't change anything for the better, because politics of a culture reflects the premises and ideas of most people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...junking all the restrictions and mandates that demoralize Americans."

      I agree. You think maybe the aforementioned four (have I yet asked, are you one of them?) might include this in their pleadings for open borders, wouldn't you?

      Delete
  12. "The only way to change thinking of people who embrace destructive anti-life notions is let them suffer the consequences of their thinking, defend and retaliate against their aggression, and wage valiantly the intellectual battle for reason and freedom".

    How? I have advocated a 'user pays' system for immigration advocacy, but it has been ignored/rejected by open borders promoters. My proposal is that to avoid moral hazard, proponents of open borders should be compelled to pay the costs associated with immigrants coming to western countries, at any time they incur a public cost, be it welfare, infrastructure, health and housing, and so on.

    I don't see any way of retaliating against their aggression because the state is in their hands.

    ReplyDelete
  13. BM, the most explicit on this topic you're probably going to see is what Bryan Caplan wrote in his 2014 Reddit AMA. To quote him:
    "The Middle East really could use a lot more diversity. One religion gives you totalitarianism. Two gives you civil strife. A hundred gives you peace. (With apologies to Voltaire)."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you consider a meaningful (to the individual) geographic-political community, there has never been one with 100 religions. I doubt there are 100 meaningful religions in the world.

      To write such words is to be ignorant (or to just ignore) human nature. We like to belong to community; after family and tribe, perhaps the oldest community to which humans have belonged is religious.

      Delete
    2. The Middle East is, together with Subsaharan Africa, one of the most diverse places on the planet.
      There are Christians, Cryptochristians, Gnostics and smattering of ethnic groups and old religions and different branches of both Islam and Judaism on top of it.
      Yet all of this diversity didn't result in the kind of social atomization that would bring about the world of low-conflict cooperation expected by Caplan.

      Which leads me to the conclusion that Caplan is either a IYI who believes it's not the right kind of diversity or he's malicious in intent, plainly speaking.

      Delete