Pages

Friday, May 20, 2016

Jacob Hornberger, I See You



Jacob Hornberger has written a column on open borders. He doesn’t mention my name, but it is pretty clear to whom he is writing.  I won’t go through Hornberger’s post line by line; instead, I will focus on his challenge.  Forgive the lengthy quote, but the full challenge must be presented:

Consider the following hypothetical. Ever since I presented it many years ago, there has not been one single libertarian advocate of government-controlled borders who has ever been able to refute the principles set forth in the hypothetical. Unless and until any libertarian advocate of government-controlled borders successfully refutes the principles set forth in this hypothetical, the government-controlled borders paradigm will continue to stand as fatally flawed.

Two brothers own adjoining ranches in New Mexico, one on the Mexican side of the border and one on the U.S. side. There is no fence dividing the ranches. There is only an imaginary line known as the U.S.-Mexico border, which also demarks the property line between the two ranches. There is a U.S. highway that runs east-west and abuts the northern border of the U.S. brother’s property. The highway is located 10 miles from the border.

One day, the American brother invites the Mexican brother to come to his home for dinner. The Mexican brother accepts.

Under libertarian principles, do they have the right to do that? Of course they do. Their actions are entirely peaceful. They’re not burglarizing, stealing, murdering, or otherwise violating the libertarian non-aggression principle.

Is the Mexican brother guilty of trespass? Of course not. Trespass is when a person goes onto another person’s property without the owner’s consent and permission. The Mexican brother is going to where he has been invited.

The principles (including the principles that are implied) can’t be refuted, because the principles are pure libertarian theory (absent the coincident state border between their properties, as there is no way to derive state borders from libertarian theory).  If all we need do is agree on theory, we can stop here.

However, Hornberger offered a hypothesis; let’s test it in the real world to see if it is true.  I will break down Hornberger’s hypothetical into its main – and relevant to libertarian theory – components:

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.

In other words, individuals voluntarily make and accept invitations; they may also set conditions on the invitation.   How can any libertarian disagree with this?  I don’t.

Now, how does that hypothetical construct work in today’s world of state borders?  The German government has, at least for a time last year, removed almost all conditions for transiting borders – step one from above.  This is why I keep pointing to it for libertarian open-borders advocates to deal with.  (By the way, Jacob, none have).

So, let’s go to the German real as opposed to Hornberger’s hypothetical.  The government removed all restrictions (I know, not all and not permanently, but as close as we have seen in this world in some time).  But where is the voluntary invitation?  Where is the conditionality?  What is libertarian about no one having to offer an invitation but the visitors / immigrants come anyway?  In other words: where is Hornberger’s complete hypothetical – six steps?

Now, you might say “bionic, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step” or some such ancient Chinese saying.  “The government has fully opened the borders; let’s give the government time to make it a fully voluntary system.” And I would agree in theory (while I was belly-laughing at the thought in reality), unless one concludes the remaining steps have little chance to be implemented in any case and no chance to be implemented if the first step is taken without the rest.  Let me explain….


Let’s take the implied last step, as it is easiest to examine: Miguel will not be a burden to any of Pete’s neighbors.  But is this how it is working out in Germany?  No matter what Hornberger says about immigration and government enforced social programs being two different issues, it is not working this way in Germany; the violation of this last step has followed the first step just as sure as night follows day.

“Bionic, those programs already exist – complain about them separately.”  Well, if two wrongs make a right, OK (or to turn Block’s famous example on its head – maybe I will ask the slave master to whip me even more, because I haven’t been whipped enough). 

But consider: it isn’t just the expansion of current welfare programs; it is even worse, as the government introduces new welfare programs specifically for the immigrants – such as language skills, job training skills, etc., as they are doing in Germany.  Programs with their own bureaucracy; programs that will develop their own entrenched interests; programs that would not even exist were it not for the “open borders” implied step one.

In addition to opening the border, did the German government also say “each German resident is only obliged to support individuals he personally invited; each German resident can decide if they want to house or assist the immigrants in some manner; each village or community can decide if they want to offer community centers for residence, training programs for language and job skills; each resident can decide if he wants to pay the cost to support these new arrivals.”? 

These are Hornberger’s conditions for open borders; without these conditions in place, what kind of “open borders” exactly is Hornberger calling for?  Did the German government allow Friedrich and Abdul to jointly agree to the same conditions, while not burdening Hans with the cost? 

No.  A central government (Germany) and an even more centralized government (the EU) are cramming things down the throat of the much more decentralized governments (towns, communities, etc.) and down the throats of individuals.  Open borders without steps two through six does not mean no government involvement – it just means different government involvement.  It doesn’t facilitate local or individual decision making but expands centralized control.

Who benefits by this?  We know the answer.  Most libertarians claim to be against this answer while singing songs towards its aggrandizement.

The government will never offer an out clause to Hans on the “open borders” issue because it would then open the question of property owners having the right to discriminate against anyone – no matter the country of origin.  And after the flood of immigrants take advantage of this unconditional open door, the government will have less reason to offer steps two through six when the people – previous residents and immigrants alike – call on the government to “do something about” whatever…just as we are witnessing in Germany.

This is why Hornberger’s hypothetical doesn’t work in the real world of state borders – his example doesn’t work because the government will not allow discrimination by a property owner; the government will not allow an individual to “opt out” of the support program – they are instead forced to “opt in.”  His example doesn’t work because even if (and also because) the government removes all immigration restrictions, the people – residents and immigrants alike – will demand “more” from government, not less.  Again, see Germany – open borders without Hornberger’s libertarian conditions resulting in calls for “more” from the government.

Not only is “more” demanded from government, but the freedoms previously in place are removed.  Consider the great risks now presented to the Schengen agreement – thirty years old and formalized into a treaty in 1999.  No border checkpoints at all for travelers between member countries.  If this disappears (several countries have already implemented internal EU border controls), it is because Germany took only the first step – the step libertarian advocates for open borders insist can stand alone: Merkel said all are welcome.

Imagine: Germany and the EU opens its external borders to non-Europeans while Germany and several other countries introduce new controls on the internal European borders for Europeans!  It would be hilariously funny if it wasn’t true.

And this is why no advocate for open borders takes up my challenge.  Libertarian open borders practice only works consistent with libertarian theory in this world if Hornberger’s entire example is implemented, and not just the implied first step.  An agreement between Pete and Pedro is required; an agreement that imposes no unwanted burden on anyone else.

Otherwise it is just one more example of government social engineering and forced integration.  In other words, just another government program meant to ensure that people clamor for more government.

Does this mean that I advocate government involvement in deciding who crosses borders?  Not at all.  But I do advocate that without the legal ability for individuals to enforce the above six conditions, open borders libertarians are merely calling for bigger government. 

I am not a “libertarian advocate of government-controlled borders.”  From a strictly libertarian perspective, I do nothing more than present the case: there can be no such thing as libertarian open borders in this world where state borders exist.

From the time I began writing on this topic, I will say my position has evolved – by degrees, but not in direction.  Through examining Hornberger’s hypothetical case I will say the same.  I thank him for helping me to further clarify my thoughts: that the government eases or eliminates all restrictions in immigration does not complete the libertarian circle – it does nothing to address the remaining and necessary points of Hornberger’s hypothesis. 

Private property owners have no legal means to defend their property if only the first step is taken.  Further, they will have even less means as society demands more government action as a result.  I don’t have to rely on hypotheticals to make my point – we are living through a real-world example of step one being implemented without steps two through six.

Hornberger offers: Pete voluntarily made the offer.  Miguel accepted the offer.  Pete guaranteed that Miguel would not be a burden to his neighbors.  This is very libertarian, but it isn’t part of the deal when all the government does is open its borders.  Until the additional steps are part of the deal, there is no such thing as libertarian open borders in a world of state borders, and certainly not one that conforms to Hornberger’s example.

Conclusion

What do libertarians do until then?  I don’t know – perhaps an advocate of open borders can offer a suggestion; if they prefer even more government interventions they can keep advocating for fully open borders – without any of the subsequent conditions in Hornberger’s hypothetical.  I am not the one advocating for open borders; it isn’t my problem to solve. 

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.

Unless they address the entire equation – and not just regarding the government easing of restrictions – they are advocating for NAP violations and more government programs.  Don’t believe me?  See Germany.  This is where “open borders” without the subsequent libertarian conditions will lead.  This is what the libertarian open borders crowd does not face.

Without this, where will libertarianism be?  It is a long fall from the top of the ivory tower for those who only focus on theory without considering application and consequences in the real world. 

A long fall.  That’s where libertarianism will be; splattered at the bottom.

Finally, I went the entire post without mentioning culture – I had no need, although there were several opportunities.  But it is something libertarians might want to consider about the world populated by humans (tough for many libertarians, I have come to realize).  Let’s just say cultural change driven by voluntary means is a great experience – it is also unavoidable in human experience, thankfully. 

Cultural change driven by governmental eliminating immigration requirements without also including Hornberger’s conditions above is only an open door to societal breakdown and therefore more calls for government intervention (do you think this might be the plan?  Less common culture = more government? Very Gramscarian of you).

This reality can be ignored in an ivory tower, but it will not disappear.  In Germany and throughout Europe they are already paying for it.

68 comments:

  1. BM,

    I told you I was looking forward to your refutation of Hornberger and you did not disappoint. This is my favorite of your pieces to date.

    I have a lot to say about this but my jimmies are way too rustled from reading Hornberger's piece that I need to clear my thoughts.

    In all areas of politics there are useful idiots and enemy agents. I do not know what Hornberger's game is but I have my suspicions. Who funds FFF? I know they get Koch money. Do they get any Soros money?

    They might as well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Folks,

    This is what a Cultural Marxist Libertarian looks like.

    Hornberger believes that Middle Easterner's and North Africans have just as much a right to Europe as Europeans. He sees nothing wrong with what in a previous era would have been seen (rightfully) as invasion and conquest. Make no mistake about it, that is exactly how Islamicists see it. I suppose he has no problem with the rape and crime that these people bring with them. Apparently denying them access to the welfare state and social capital of Europe is a greater injustice than women being raped in mass in streets with the cops doing nothing about it.

    Worse yet the man is hypocrite and a coward. He hides behind sanctimonious platitudes about peace and prosperity but open borders in Europe will bring neither. What it will bring is war. Brutal 4th generation ethnic warfare with bodies stacked high in the streets, neighborhood by neighborhood. What a wonderful libertarian future.

    Of course, when that sad day comes (and folks it will come) you can be assured that men like Hornberger will take no responsibility for it, but will instead blame "right wing nativist bigots" like myself.

    I can't tell you how sick I am of these people acting like they have the moral high ground as they DESTROY WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

    I hope Hornberger continues to feel good about himself as the people who built Western Civilization are bred out of existence. Self congratulatory sentiments is all he will have, since Abdul and Pepe will not be reading FFF, and when this train reaches the station his sugar daddies wont need him anymore.

    At least he can serve as an example for some of the theoretical debates we have been having. If Hornberger lived in our libertopia and wrote garbage like this, we would be perfectly justified in physically removing him from society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UC, I would be careful to attribute more to Hornberger than what he wrote. The exception I take is offered in the above. Until I see reason to believe otherwise, I believe that others who do not see this are missing it out of ignorance or faulty logic, nothing more.

      There are other so-called libertarians to whom I have ascribed nefarious motives; I have seen nothing from Hornberger to place him in this camp.

      Delete
    2. BM,

      I understand and respect your judicious approach.

      This is an article linked on the front page of FFF: http://www.businessinsider.com/tent-refugee-report-philippe-legrain-economic-analysis-on-eu-immigration-2016-5

      It tells us all about how "refugees" are good for the economy. [face-palm]

      Hornberger is president of this organization and they are clearly promoting open borders. It may be that his position on open borders has nothing to do with his benefactors. Maybe time will tell.

      In any case, the thing about Cultural Marxist libertarians is they aren't always of malicious intent. I don't doubt for a moment that Hornberger really wants peace and prosperity, but when an obviously intelligent guy can't seem to put 2 and 2 together- something is awry.

      The problem is that Cultural Marxism has become the dominant superstructure, or Gramsci's cultural hegemony. If you do not oppose it you are part of the enemy's strength because the other good ideas you promote will be subsumed underneath the Narrative. (like Humanitarian arguments against "Humanitarian Intervention").

      Regardless of his motives he is part of the problem and it would be better if he did not write about the subject at all or allow his organization to promote it, but forgive me, I have a hard time believing that someone who presumably understands how the Empire works could sign on to the population replacement program that will obviously benefit NATO and the EU Superstate and the expense of the European people (and likely serve as a justification for future military interventions in the Mid East).

      I hope he replies to your article BM, and I anticipate this thread will be lively.

      Delete
    3. @UnhappyConservative,

      ─ In any case, the thing about Cultural Marxist libertarians is they aren't always of malicious intent. ─

      What is a 'Cultural Marxist libertarian', UC? I believe you're merely engaging in crass name-calling.

      ─ Regardless of his motives he is part of the problem ─

      Indeed? What problem may that be? Arguing for Open Borders from a libertarian perspective is no different than arguing for any other aspect of personal liberty, UC. The right to migrate is fundamental and personal. One CHOOSES to migrate.

      ─ I have a hard time believing that someone who presumably understands how the Empire works could sign on to the population replacement program[...] ─

      You are making stuff up, UC. Arguing for ONE thing does not ipso facto mean arguing as well for another.

      Interesting that you would mention 'Cultural Marxism' when one considers that little red Marxians have this penchant of making the same false dilemma fallacies.

      Delete
    4. Dude its not that hard to understand. It means they accept the premises used by the ruling class/the left (THE ENEMY). I would call them worse names if BM didn't prohibit it.

      Do you support multiculturalism?

      "Indeed? What problem may that be? Arguing for Open Borders from a libertarian perspective is no different than arguing for any other aspect of personal liberty,"

      Except that Open Borders will lead to conditions adverse to liberty.

      "You are making stuff up, UC."

      Example?

      "Arguing for ONE thing does not ipso facto mean arguing as well for another."

      Arguing for Open Borders in Europe= arguing for population replacement and the E.U. You guys apparently don't want to see the forest for the trees.

      Better yet, why is this only being done in white countries?

      Delete
    5. "Just because I pour a bucket of water on your head doesn't mean I intended for you to get wet."

      UC, we are seeing real-time examples of not being able to comprehend how one step follows the other - the point I made in the second paragraph of the conclusion.

      Delete
    6. @UnhappyConservative,

      ─ It means they accept the premises used by the ruling class/the left (THE ENEMY). ─

      Are you really arguing that the validity of ideas stand not on their own merit but from the minds that spawned them?

      ─ I would call them worse names if BM didn't prohibit it. ─

      He has every right to do so. I don't think, however, that you understand the issue. You can't have two completely opposed and antithetical terms together. Either a person is libertarian or he is not. A Cultural Marxist is NOT a libertarian by definition.

      ─ Do you support multiculturalism? ─

      Absolutely not. 'Multiculturalism', normally sold in the media as the idea that all cultures are of equal value, is in reality a political ideology that holds that non-Western cultures are to be protected from criticism and analysis.

      ─ Except that Open Borders will lead to conditions adverse to liberty. ─

      What? How do you figure? By that argumentation, then the contrary ─ CLOSED borders ─ should be ipso facto LESS adverse to liberty. I wonder what the people inside the Berlin Wall back in the 60s would say to that.

      Open Borders would not mean a one-way door to immigrants, by the way. That is the notion Hornberger and I are trying to debunk. open Borders means open to trade, to exchange, to immigration AND to EMIGRATION. It would mean people being free to enter AND free to leave. Why would this lead to *less* liberty, I am left to wonder...

      ─ Example? ─

      "[....] sign on to the population replacement program"

      Did you suddenly forget what you insinuated with the above? It is still up there for all to see, UC.

      ─ Arguing for Open Borders in Europe= ─

      Oh, you're a shifty one. I am NOT arguing for Open Borders "in Europe/" I am arguing for Open Borders as a universal concept.

      ─ arguing for population replacement and the E.U. ─

      I'm not arguing for 'population replacement'.

      ─ Better yet, why is this only being done in white countries? ─

      You mean like Australia??? Or the American Plains???

      Ooops!

      I abhor imperialism in any form, shape or size. I advocate and make the moral case for liberty, for open markets, for open borders, for the freedom of movement for individuals. NONE of those things imply 'population replacement' or the importation of refugees by the state.

      Delete
    7. BM,

      Lol, +1 m8. Where does this lack of comprehension come from? I believe it is a conflict of visions and motivations but there is always the libertarian purity spiral (the result of ideological autism).

      A plan to de-socialize and decentralize the state needs an order of operations. This seemed to be your main point, correct?

      Libertarians need a version of Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally.

      My preemptive criticism of what I envision that order of operations to look like is that it will likely be predicated on the assumption that libertarians hold power. The best order of operations (strategy) would account for that and ask the question I constantly push on here. What are the real world conditions needed to bring about the goals we have in common?

      Delete
    8. "Folks,

      This is what a Cultural Marxist Libertarian looks like. "

      Bingo. And he'll never get one penny from me after reading his open borders BS.

      Delete
  3. I agree that Hornberger is a good guy. I agree with your position on borders, as well as Hoppe's position.
    I like the way to try to place libertarian principles into the real world. This is very valuable and frankly, kinda grown-up.
    I would generalize the borders issues to apply to all statist actions, especially "democratic" states. "they" promise, but "we" must deliver. In the open borders example, "they" invite, but "we" must bear the costs (welfare, education, etc.). But this applies to other "libertarian" guarantees by the state, such as "gay rights". Yeah, as a libertarian, I want no one to be judged by their sexual preferences, but on the other hand, I don't want Aunt Martha to be punished by the law for not baking their wedding cake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Capn Mike,

      ─ Yeah, as a libertarian, I want no one to be judged by their sexual preferences, but on the other hand, I don't want Aunt Martha to be punished by the law for not baking their wedding cake. ─

      Capn Mike, libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds as the greatest political goal worth achieving the greatest possible personal freedom for all individuals. That implies people would be perfectly free to judge others for their sexual preferences. It would also imply Aunt Martha can perfectly refuse and is free to refuse to bake a cake for a wedding party for homosexuals.

      AND it implies that political borders would not exist, since these are always imposed by a State. Like BM said, in libertarian theory there cannot be a State for the State is force, it is aggression. Nothing the State does is with the expressed consent of all individuals living in the same space.

      As for Hoppe's argument against immigration, I never found his "we have to protect our precious bodily culture, Mandrake!" argument compelling at all. If the local culture is superior to the culture one is bringing in, then the local culture prevails. Insisting that the culture should be protected implies the culture is not RESILIENT enough or superior enough. That is a curious proposition to make coming from such a learned man. One has to remember that the members of the Ptolemaic dynasty dressed and acted like the Pharaohs of old and that even under Ptolemaic rule, the Egyptians acted the same way they had for centuries.

      Delete
  4. What a ludicrous argument. He makes a number of hypothetical arguments but doesn't consider other scenarios.

    Hornberger: " But what if I invite an Argentine into my house? Now that’s an entirely different matter. It’s my house. It doesn’t belong to the government. It doesn’t belong to society. It’s private property — my private property. As such, I have the right to invite anyone I want to enter it. I also have the right to invite him into my business and hire him. After all, it is my business and my money. They belong to me, not to the government or to society. They are my private property."

    OK. Let's add an additional trait to this Argentine friend since we are in the realm of the hypothetical. This Argentine friend is a convicted serial killer and pedophile. You still can't find a reason under libertarian theory to restrict his access, but normal, reasonable people definitely have an interest in keeping this dangerous foreigner from their locality. Libertarian theory can't keep out criminals and some libertarian open borders advocates have been honest enough to admit it.

    Why doesn't Hornberger wait for the libertarian utopia before advocating for open borders? Probably because open borders can occur today, while the libertarian utopia will occur never (especially under state enforced open borders).

    The kind of society envisioned by Hornberger is self contradictory in that it would be easily subdued from without. I agree with UC - Hornberger will have to be forcibly removed along with the other anti-civilizational elements like Islamist fanatics. Exile is a time honored, yet sadly underutilized method of peacefully removing those avowed enemies of the tribe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Matt@Occidentalism.org,

      ─ Let's add an additional trait to this Argentine friend since we are in the realm of the hypothetical. This Argentine friend is a convicted serial killer and pedophile. ─

      You're asking people to assume the extreme case where a normal person would have such an individual for a friend. Your example sounds like the admonition from Marxian anti-gun zealots who want to end discussions with the question "Would you want everybody to have nukes, then?"

      ─ You still can't find a reason under libertarian theory to restrict his access, ─

      Sorry, but it is one thing to restrict that person's access to someone's property where he is being invited and quite another to refrain from engaging in trade or commerce with that individual. You seem to want to conflate the two things. A community has every right to ostracize a person but has NO right to impede that person's movements without a valid, morally-justifiable cause.

      ─ Libertarian theory can't keep out criminals and some libertarian open borders advocates have been honest enough to admit it. ─

      Ha! Current border enforcement can't keep criminals out as IT IS. The answer to criminal behavior is armed self defense, whether the borders are open or not.

      ─ The kind of society envisioned by Hornberger is self contradictory in that it would be easily subdued from without. ─

      Oh, please! That's the same argument made by the Statists! How many times have you heard them ask "How are you going to defend your home from the roving gangs of armed thugs that come to your libertarian paradise"? I have to wonder what does the State do to keep us from roving gangs of armed thugs today. There's nothing more effective than armed self defense. An armed population is better able to defend itself from attack than an unarmed population. An Argentinian serial killer will find himself stymied very quickly when he realizes he just moved to a place where they will give you lead for breakfast.

      ─ Exile is a time honored, yet sadly underutilized method of peacefully removing those avowed enemies of the tribe. ─

      Exile is force, it is aggression. Therefore, it is immoral and evil. But ostracism is perfectly valid and totally consistent with the Non-Aggression Principle. An ostracized individual is one which people refuse to engage in trade or commerce with.

      Delete
    2. "You're asking people to assume the extreme case..."

      Exactly what libertarians do when they argue against the minimum wage, ie, why not have the minimum wage be $100 an hour. It is in arguing the extreme case that we find where the limitations of the libertarian theory lays.

      "Sorry, but it is one thing to restrict that person's access to someone's property where he is being invited and quite another to refrain from engaging in trade or commerce with that individual. You seem to want to conflate the two things. A community has every right to ostracize a person but has NO right to impede that person's movements without a valid, morally-justifiable cause."

      Inviting a murderer or pedophile is a threat to the rest of the community. It is like throwing a bunch of snakes into my backyard - you are putting other people at risk. You assert the right to do that. I assert that you don't, and I am willing to use force. Understand?

      "Ha! Current border enforcement can't keep criminals out as IT IS."

      Only because the managers of the state have decided not to enforce the borders. Non-border enforcement is not innate to the state, in fact is quite rare. I have been all around the world and non-enforcement of borders only happens in the western states.

      "Oh, please!"

      No, just no. Because...

      "Exile is force, it is aggression."

      You will have to go.

      Delete
  5. Amon proof

    If we go with reality, we must say also that government managed borders - that is your proposal for the present time - as Hornberger say imply continue violation of the Nap, continue intrusions by government in privates freedom, contracts, etc.. Personally I'm on your wavelenght, and I'm not for open by government borders. I would like to have a system where everyone of the residents can invite whoever wants for the reason who wants and talking some sorte of responsability for this. A kind of decentralization of decisions about who can or can't enter. With government only verifying those conditions. But there is no way that government will manage borders only letting in Who is invited and keeping out Who is not. So also if i think that some kind of government managed border is needed for today, i will not give it my full support, i will oppose it in every case that is like Hornberger case, and in every case that i feel that Nap, free contracts, etc.. are better defended by not respecting that government program. I will not sustain taxes, burocracy, expropriations and other kind of violation of the nap, that government will put in place for it. I will mantein this contradictory position in response of the ipossibility to be coherent with the Nap in today reality.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I will simply point out that the serious error is in Hornberger's first step: Pete invites his brother Miguel to his property.

    He expands on this error:

    > It’s my house. It doesn’t belong to the
    > government. It doesn’t belong to society.
    > It’s private property — my private property.

    That's why you pay a tribute to live there? No, you pay taxes on your house because you do not own it. Some other individuals have set up a system in which they allow you to rent what you call "your" house. It is not your property. Incidentally, in this system, even your own body is not your property. Try expressing ideas that go against the system, like Schaeffer Cox or Irwin Schiff, and you'll find out just how quickly that thing you imagine is "your" body ends up in a cage.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Open-border libertarians exhort closed-border libertarians to man up! Shrug off the mass-immigration subsidies and forced-association laws, neither of which would exist in the absence of the State, and welcome alien and hostile cultures in your midst!

    Meanwhile, closed-border libertarians exhort open-border libertarians to man up! Shrug off the barriers to migration, which wouldn't exist in the absence of the State, and bar the trespass of alien and hostile cultures in your midst!

    True anarchists know which position to take. They learned everything they need to know from the thorny abortion-rights controversy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. BM,

    I had a very long comment written here.

    It turned into my first blogpost in the last four months.

    In summary, Hornberger is right and wrong all at once.

    http://blackflagsuperstar.blogspot.com/2016/05/hornberger-right-but-still-wrong.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. While nobody can know for sure, except perhaps Merkel herself, if it is assumed that the current German immigration policy is a "true" open-borders policy [ I do not know, I have not looked at it that closely], then my guess is that the reason for her recent policy towards immigrants is solely out of necessity and political expediency, nothing more.

    She may well have been astute enough to understand that it was impossible for her government to halt the flow of illegals _anyway_, and that it would therefor be more politically advantageous for her party to earn" brownie points" with certain individuals/groups by "going with the flow" and not opposing the immigrant influx.

    Furthermore, she might well have surmised that these new immigrants could then most likely be bought off by the state, via the various welfare programs over there - therefor presumably creating many new voters favorable to Merkel's party- no different from the political thinking behind the on-going "amnesty for illegals" concept in the US.

    What Merkel et al seems to have missed/ignored is the enormous financial pressure that is now upon the taxpayers who must now somehow fund the further expansion of Germany's already enormous welfare burden. That increased pressure could well destroy the German system. Heh, heh :-) .

    As I see it " libertarians" and associated should therefor applaud what's happened in Germany; Merkel's policies might well inadvertently [or possibly deliberately?] result in the collapse of the German state, or at least, of it's welfare systems.

    Therefor I say : the more illegals who get into Germany and get on the welfare wagon there, the better. "Bring it on" :-)

    On a more general note, it seems to me that the average, know- nothing illegal immigrant, to _any_ country - purely by their own direct actions [i.e. "illegally" entering/staying in a country] , is far more "libertarian" in attitude than the vast majority of people calling themselves "libertarian" or similar these days .

    They ["illegals"] have at least had the guts to say, essentially, "fuck the state" and to then try to _directly_ change their lives for the better, instead of sitting around endlessly "ivory-tower"-philosophizing about the state, NAP, immigration, and which "libertarian" is "right" about all of these, and other issues [ as if any ever _could_ be :-) ] .

    And, if most/all of those illegals manage to get on the welfare wagon too [eg in the US], then they might well "break the state" here, even though they might have no intention or understanding of causing that eventuality.

    And so I say three cheers for all "illegal" immigrants everywhere! [ and :"fuck the state!", too] :-)

    Regards, onebornfree

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OBF,

      The refugees don't take money from "the state" as the state doesn't have any money of its own. The state takes the money from me to give to the refugees. The refugees are saying "f*ck you" but it isn't to their benefactor, the state, but rather the hapless subjects forced to pay for it.

      If you endorse this as you have above then you are my enemy.

      Delete
    2. Recommendation: Be careful choosing your enemies.

      You are correct that the state does not have any money of its own. Also, the state does not take money from you. Criminal individuals take money from you. These you do not consider your enemy, but rather one who has done you no harm and tells you, i.e., "endorses" the truth.

      Delete
    3. "On a more general note, it seems to me that the average, know- nothing illegal immigrant, to _any_ country - purely by their own direct actions [i.e. "illegally" entering/staying in a country] , is far more "libertarian" in attitude than the vast majority of people calling themselves "libertarian" or similar these days ."

      Dude these people are being helped into Europe. There are smuggler networks, the European coast guards participate, and Turkey is calling a lot of the shots. Many would be staying in Turkey if it wasn't for (A) better welfare in Northern Europe, and (B) the Turks using them as leverage and don't want them anyways.

      If you are so obsessed with the State why haven't you considered that this is being done by the powers that be for their own ends?

      Why is the U.S Ambassador giving a speech in Hungary about how they need to take "refugees?"

      Why doesn't Israel or Saudi Arabia take any? Why are the Japanese being reprimanded for not taking any?

      What is the relationship of this event to the attempt to overthrow the Syrian State by the Israeli-U.S-Saudi axis (France and U.K as well)?

      Why should your average German welcome rapists, hostile aliens, and welfare dependents?

      Delete
    4. @Onebornfree,

      ─ [I]f it is assumed that the current German immigration policy is a "true" open-borders policy[...] then my guess is that the reason for [Merkel's] recent policy towards immigrants is solely out of necessity and political expediency, nothing more. ─

      More likely than not. However, as I argued before, Merkel's policies can not by themselves *define* the concept of Open Borders. Whatever Merkel's criminal policies, these do not set the parameters of what Open Borders look like or should look like.

      And as you probably read above, BM conceded, even if by passing, that his problem is with anti-discrimination laws: "[...] the government will not allow discrimination by a property owner..."

      Of course he is right but instead of saying so explicitly, he obfuscates by attacking Open Borders per sé, even to the point of arguing that Open Borders is a violation of the N.A.P.(!)

      ─ Why should your average German welcome rapists, hostile aliens, and welfare dependents? ─

      The problem is that the German government is actively importing people from overseas. That has NOTHING to do with Open Borders, just like having the government import old Trabants from East Germany and making people drive them by law has NOTHING to do with the market for cars. One should be careful about making such equivocations and BM should know better than to make them.

      Delete
    5. "The problem is that the German government is actively importing people from overseas. That has NOTHING to do with Open Borders, just like having the government import old Trabants from East Germany and making people drive them by law has NOTHING to do with the market for cars. One should be careful about making such equivocations and BM should know better than to make them."

      Pure sophistry and you are falsely associating BM with things I said.

      Delete
  10. Really, and truly it is the taxpayers (and federally issued currency users) who are funding their own enslavement and ours. In fact, it is not true that that "must" fund the expansion of the welfare system or any of the oppression of the state. But they are doing it. The strongest link in the chain of enslavement is truly in the mind of the slave.

    So, yes, the more people who draw on the welfare system and otherwise act to eliminate the willingness of the taxpayer/slaves, the better.

    Three cheers for onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Matt said "... The state takes the money from me to give to the refugees. The refugees are saying "f*ck you" but it isn't to their benefactor, the state, but rather the hapless subjects forced to pay for it. If you endorse this as you have above then you are my enemy. "

    Matt, if you choose to be a "hapless subject" then that is your choice, and yours alone.

    You are also free to see me as your enemy. I don't care - most here see me that way anyway, I'm sure.

    On the other hand, you can choose to not think of yourself as a "hapless subject", but as a person who can run/control their own life, and then look for ways to exit "the matrix" which you currently appear to feel powerless to evade.

    As long as you remain inside "the matrix", you will most likely see people like myself as your enemy, and you will also most likely continue to feel powerless to change your life for the better and escape "the system".

    The two beliefs really go hand in hand here.

    But when it all comes down to it, its a matter of choice - _ your_ choice.

    You can choose to :

    [1] stay inside the system and feel "safe" except when threatened by persons like myself, while forever fantasizing/arguing/theorizing over some imagined ideal world where most people inexplicably agree with your own values/standards, [as most "libertarians" etc.seem perfectly happy to do :-) ] and allowing the system to steal from you as part of your imagined "social contract", or whatever, with it, or, you can: [2] choose to get out of the system entirely [or to whatever degree you feel comfortable], "by hook or by crook", and achieve your own freedom, to your own standards.

    If you choose the second path, then maybe I can help you - maybe not. Otherwise, I'm honored to be your enemy :-)

    regards, onebornfree

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sonja Cramer said :

    "The strongest link in the chain of enslavement is truly in the mind of the slave."

    Exactly.

    Sonja Cramer said : "So, yes, the more people who draw on the welfare system and otherwise act to eliminate the willingness of the taxpayer/slaves, the better."

    To be clear, to date [+30 yrs.] I've never paid into the system, [except via sales tax], and I therefor have never claimed/asked for any of it's "benefits" via its welfare programs, Social Security etc. etc., although there have been times [e.g.financial hardship] when I have considered so doing.

    regards, onebornfree

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Making the situation worse for the slaves will not hasten their collective resolve to cut the umbilical cord and earn for themselves, but it will certainly make keeping control easier for the master.
      By the way it's super nice that you can work under the table or otherwise earn without being robbed, but for the vast majority of us, employment requires a protection fee or else the mob(IRS)will take all liberty away.
      You still pay a sales tax, how dare you claim that I live in a separate matrix, so do you hypocrite!
      Also, nobody in this world is born free, one must earn and defend that for themselves.

      Delete
  13. Onebornfree will tell us next that he has never signed an income tax form, never has paid property taxes and that his farts naver stinks. Maybe onebornfree is the qween of England.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bionic, very schematically I understand Hoppe to be saying this regarding immigration:

    1 Abolish nationalist external borders imposed by the state and which in the US began to be belligerently enforced in the 1960s.
    2 Allow a free market to [re]impose the local [urban] internal borders which began to be belligerently abolished by the state also starting in the 1960s.

    The first stipulation allows labor to go where needed and gives people freedom to go where they wish and to be with others who want them to join them.

    The second accomplishes DIRECTLY what national border immigration control largely fails to. That is to say it preserves the peace, stability, and property values that tend to accompany ethnically or racially or religiously homogeneous communities.

    Now consider Germany in light of this conception of immigration. War refugees from the middle east could plan and organize their immigration to safehaven Germany in an orderly fashion without being hunted like animals by armed border agents. At the same time they could settle within designated quarters of German cities while being excluded from other quarters. This essentially describes how European society worked throughout the medieval period prior to the invention of the nation state. Every major European city had its Jewish quarter, its Arab quarter, its French quarter, its Italian quarter etc.

    Hornberger seems to be in sync with Hoppes view of immigration at BOTH the NATIONAL border level as well as the local or neighborhood level. By contrast the state has each reversed in the sense of imposing national borders while forbidding local borders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Without commenting on the Hoppe-Hornberger connection, by what construct is it un-libertarian for a large political entity to manage who comes into its borders and but it is libertarian for a small political entity to manage who comes into its borders.

      Why does the size of the entity make the distinction relevant? If so, what, exactly is the cutoff line of land size and/or population where this transformation occurs?

      Is this distinction derived from libertarian theory?

      I am serious about the questions - if there are answers, I am curious.

      Delete
    2. I'm glad you asked. Its not at all a question of making the power to segregate inversely proportional to the size of a political entity. To the contrary its a matter of dismantling political power, of preventing the political class from infringing private property rights. Take the urban segregation in the South. This was accomplished by way of deed restrictions and private residential development covenants. In the 1960s the state declared such private property rights illegal. The state aggressively abolished such 'natural rights' social ordering. This state sponsored destruction of the local private property based borders drove whites out of US cities altogether, plunging cities into poverty and slow destruction.

      Delete
    3. @Bionic Mosquito,

      ─ by what construct is it un-libertarian for a large political entity to manage who comes into its borders[...] ─

      First because there's no such thing as a 'large' or 'small' political *entity.* The only entities of will that step on this good Earth are individual human beings. You have made the case before that you, along with your neighbors, can agree on the issue of with whom you trade or who you accept into the community, but that does not ipso facto mean that immigration per sé is managed. It only means neither of you are going to receive people outside of your community. To manage implies a supervisor, an overseer, a decision-maker. Your agreement does not imply any of those things. At any moment, one of your neighbors sells his or her property to a foreigner. Would that mean the border stopped being 'managed'? Does that mean the manager was asleep at the wheel? What does that imply? It merely implies that the notion that there was a 'political entity' with borders was a mirage.

      ─ To the contrary its a matter of dismantling political power, of preventing the political class from infringing private property rights. ─

      Of course! And I already told you: you have an ALLY in ME when it comes to fighting the State's encroachment on people's rights, be it anti-discrimination laws or eminent domain or licensing laws, etc. But you're arguing something different: That Open Borders is in itself a violation of people's property rights BECAUSE the State imposes itself on the trades and exchanges between immigrants and natives (which is what anti-discrimination laws amount to.) Your argument Begs the Question as you assume the State is the sine qua non of Open Borders! That's not reasonable.

      Delete
  15. I'm always amazed at the contortions the paleoconservatives will go through to maintain the fiction -- in their own minds even if it's obvious to everyone else what they're doing -- that their authoritarian positions on gang turf lines ("borders") are either "libertarian" or have anything to do with the real world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A very valuable contribution to the dialogue. Perhaps you could address specific points, or is that too difficult to do?

      Delete
    2. It always amazed me at what leftists will go through to destroy civilization and maintain the fiction that they favor freedom.

      Delete
  16. Hornberger responds.....to Black Flag. I suppose the response to BM is coming next. Right?

    http://fff.org/2016/05/23/praising-attack-immigration-article/

    I hope this article clears up the fact that Hornberger is a leftist (read Cultural Marxist). He makes it very clear that he has no understanding, or no desire to understand, what is happening in Europe. This video should be required viewing for those who want to talk about immigration into Europe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vzMNG2fZc

    He says this:

    "The crisis is a direct consequence of the U.S. government’s interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East, including its regime-change operations in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere."

    So because the U.S bombs the Mideast Europe needs to accept millions of people into their countries? This makes sense how?

    This is probably the worst thing I have ever read by a prominent libertarian sans Jeff Tucker.

    He ends the piece celebrating Emma Lazarus' poem. I am not kidding. He actually does this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UC,

      I'm not under the impression Hornberger is a cultural marxist. If I did believe this, and took him to task with this accusation the dialogue would have ended there and I likely wouldn't have gotten an opportunity to further the conversation.

      Cultural Marxists exist, some may even give themselves the libertarian label. Neoconservatives do the same thing in an attempt to change the perception of Libertarians, or to change the definition of Libertarian.

      I don't sense any of these elements in Hornberger. Despite some of his beliefs, his values and aims do appear to align with liberty. We happen to disagree on it's application in one arena out of the hundreds of arenas in the Colosseum.

      I'm in the middle of writing a response to be posted as I have time to finish it throughout this week, we'll see what comes of it.

      Delete
    2. Indeed, you would think that the direct causes of mass immigration of middle-easterners (and North Africans) is due to a direct violation by the US of the borders of those under-developed countries and the supranational entity, the EU, of those more developed ones that they continually deprive of anything resembling sovereignty. If they weren't being bombed and invited simultaneously, I doubt they'd go anywhere. Free trade might even inspire them to develop a more amenable culture to "progressive" mores.

      If the Angelina Jolie's of the world want to adopt refugees and take strict liability for their conduct then I see no reason not to let them fill their mansions to their heart's desire.

      The logic around borders really defies common sense. Libertarian borders demarcate private property; state borders demarcate sovereignty; but, there doesn't appear to be a distinction to which one of those concepts is being ignored by the US and Merkel in this discussion.

      Transnationalism is the transgenderism of borders: take meaning and define it out of existence then just let whoever is in power do whatever they want.

      Delete
    3. I may have to recant and apologize for my reply to UC.

      Delete
  17. Horn burger creates a logical error in his analogy. The presupposition behind the Pete/Miguel situation is that Pete has the right to do as he pleases with his own property. This hypothetical can only work under those conditions. What Hornberger is really arguing then when expanding the scenario to the level of the nation state is that the nation state owns all of the property and assets that it controls and therefore is justified in doing what it wishes with those. Only with a full "all things being to the state" does actually transfer. Thus Hornberger is most definitely NOT espousing libertarian principle. however clever he thinks he is. It is a bait and switch.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You are making the Statist's argument, which goes something like this: Sure, an open borders policy would be great, but here is a possible problem I foresee, and here is another. Clearly we can take no steps until we can take all steps. Therefore, we can do nothing except maintain the status quo.

    To cite Germany and the recent Muslim influx as evidence that open borders don't work is not valid, I think. The German government took an active role in importing people and shoveling them willy-nilly into existing communities. Things would be much different, I am certain, if there were no government involvement at all, just open borders with the understanding that anyone who comes in and has no means of support can't simply latch onto a government teat.

    Here's a question: why do your arguments not apply to states within the U.S.? Bums tend to move from chilly eastern states to sunny California, where they clog up the streets and sidewalks of San Francisco and other cities. Shouldn't we erect strict controls on the borders between states to prevent this from happening?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...if there were no government involvement at all..."

      You are living in Lala land if you think this will ever be the case in a world where governments have borders. I offered as close a real world example as we have seen in some time - of course it isn't perfect.

      As to states in the US... the better question, which you fail to ask, is why my arguments don't apply to the Schengen region. Perhaps you can figure out my answer (which would also apply to the states) given how carefully you read my posts on this topic.

      Delete
  19. @Bionic Mosquito,

    ─ his example doesn’t work because the government will not allow discrimination by a property owner ─

    Cut the crap for once, BM, and simply state that what you're against is anti-discrimination laws, which is basically the gist of your argumentation all along. At least FOCUS on the real culprit. You would suddenly find an ALLY in ME, as I have argued that anti-discrimination laws are the tools of repression used by the State in order to achieve a certain political outcome, many times over, in many forums, especially in Reason's Hit and Run. For instance, I once told a leftist named 'Tony' that the only thing that precludes ME from refusing to trade with abortionist women is anti-discrimination laws; he was making the SAME ARGUMENT you were just a few blog posts ago, that I was a hypocrite for wanting to use the State to enforce my views on abortion. I told him that the State can go suck eggs and that I have the freedom to reject any dealing with abortionists. He said "That's not realistic!" Sounds familiar?

    You have been arguing against the concept of Open Borders in much the same way anti-immigrant zealots argue again immigration when they point out the welfare state. Never mind that attacking a *concept* in terms of what the State does or stops doing is fallacious. It's like arguing against car ownership because the State builds "ROADZ!". I am not giving up my car, by the way - so there. Or arguing against Free Trade because the State imposes itself on trades. Why is the MORALITY of one thing contingent upon the ACTIONS of the State? It's in its face, absurd.

    You can argue that Open Borders in the real world presents the problem of anti-discrimination laws, but in that case the problem is NOT with Open Borders per sé or libertarians who advocate for MORE liberty when it comes to immigration (and EMIGRATION, and commerce, and trade) but with ANTI-DISCRIMINATION laws.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Francisco, when you begin a comment this way, please be certain my respect for you goes to zero and I will pay no attention to the rest of what you write.

      Next time I will not publish your comment if you cannot remain civil. In any case, I will not engage.

      Delete
    2. @Bionic Mosquito,

      I appreciate your comment and will not phrase my commentary in a way you find offensive, as this is your venue and you have every right to tell me how to compose a reply.

      Having said that, the fact that you didn't even address the issue - that you're really arguing against anti-discrimination laws without saying so explicitly - is disappointing.

      Delete
  20. This is an excellent refutation of "open borders" ie... state open borders. So many libertarians don't realize they are being co-opted by the globalists to achieve their one world communism.

    ReplyDelete
  21. For those objecting to my argument that the population replacement is in the benefit of the EU Superstate:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36345750

    Ethnic breakdown of those for and against leaving EU. Whites 51-49 pro. Non-white 68-32 against. What could explain this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @UnhappyConservative,

      ─ Whites 51-49 pro. Non-white 68-32 against. What could explain this? ─

      A better question would be what does that have to do with population replacement?

      Delete
  22. So you agree in principle with the libertarian position on borders, but--given the accessibility of state welfare programs to "illegal" immigrants--you conclude that forcible border controls are necessary.

    If one accepts your logic, a liberal order can only be established in big-bang fashion. There can be no step-wise progress toward such an order, because there will always be externalities or downstream effects of any liberalization on remaining, state-controlled functions. Repealing drug prohibition will put cost pressures on state treatment centers and prisons. Repealing gun registration will make it more difficult for police to trace guns. Doing away with OSHA will mean more workplace accidents and patients in taxpayer-funded emergency rooms and hospitals.

    The dichotomy you posit--that something may be a libertarian good in theory but will be a disaster for taxpayers in reality--is false. Any such theory would be worthless, anyway. Of what use are impractical theories?

    Bastiat would scold you for cheering the broken window. You trace a line from an open border to larger government schools, greater use of food stamps, etc. You neglect to consider that the opposite may occur. Not every immigrant will end up on state welfare. Some may start there and transit to self-sufficiency. Others may never appear at a welfare office in the first place, having found employment in the marketplace. You have in your head a static, consumption-based, economic model for immigration: immigrants are grasshoppers ravaging a taxpayer-funded field, in effect. You ignore the immigrant as producer, innovator, entrepreneur--economic roles that tend to diminish the need for state welfare programs.

    For all practical purposes, we have open borders in the U.S. now. ICE captures and repatriates a small fraction of illegal immigrants. Some come for the welfare programs--no question about it. Most come for the economic opportunity and freedom--no question about that. The government is no better at managing its borders than it is in prosecuting wars or regulating Goldman Sachs. To indulge what you admit is wrong in principle makes no sense. Far better to make progress where progress can be made. Let's have freedom of travel AND get rid of expropriation, rather than sacrificing the former in the vain hope of lessening the need for the latter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “So you agree in principle with the libertarian position on borders, but--given the accessibility of state welfare programs to "illegal" immigrants--you conclude that forcible border controls are necessary.”

      I write so much more, and rather explicitly…or so I thought. Merely opening the borders does not satisfy a single one of Hornberger’s four explicit conditions and the final, implicit condition, for libertarian open borders. Merely opening the borders has nothing to do even with the very next step: one individual invites another individual.

      Delete
    2. Yes, you wrote more, and explicitly, whatever that matters. And now, In your reply to mine, your resort to non sequitur.

      Hornberger's hypothetical assumes, or takes as a given, state-controlled borders: that is the predicate for his imaginary example ("There is only an imaginary line known as the U.S.-Mexico border, which also demarks the property line between the two ranches. "). His hypothesis is that neither you nor any other advocate of state-controlled borders can square such borders with libertarian principles.

      You recast his argument in an intellectually dishonest way. He does not suggest that opening borders would satisfy what you describe as his "four explicit conditions." Those conditions arise, in his hypothetical, under extant conditions of state-controlled borders.

      And, no matter the volume or specificity of your post, you failed to disprove him. In fact, whether wittingly, you evaded explicit answers to his questions.

      Let's try again:

      1. In their acts of tendering and accepting a dinner invitation, respectively, did each brother act within his rights?

      2. Is the Mexican brother guilty of trespass?

      I assume you will say, and believe, that both brothers acted within their rights and that the Mexican brother has not trespassed against his brother's property. At least you imply as much in your post. If so, then the only conclusion logically consistent with libertarian principles is that any state interference in their rightful conduct would be criminal.

      You chose not to address any of my points, which is your right and understandable. You have a successful and valuable blog and must be careful with your time.

      Delete
    3. “Those conditions arise, in his hypothetical, under extant conditions of state-controlled borders.”

      Extant: in existence; still existing; not destroyed or lost. I had to look it up to be sure we were talking about the same thing.

      I don’t get it – the state isn’t controlling the border in his example. Pete is. The state border exists, but the state isn’t controlling it. Neither Pete nor Miguel had to ask the state for anything in his example.

      In any case, I don’t care if they arise in his hypothetical. I care if they arise in the real world. The closest test case we have is the wide-open welcome-mat of Merkel’s Germany.

      Guess what? Those conditions did not arise under the extant conditions of state-controlled (more precisely, state-uncontrolled) borders.

      “At least you imply as much in your post.”

      I thought I did more than imply it, let’s check:

      “The principles (including the principles that are implied) can’t be refuted, because the principles are pure libertarian theory (absent the coincident state border between their properties, as there is no way to derive state borders from libertarian theory). If all we need do is agree on theory, we can stop here.”

      How about here:

      “In other words, individuals voluntarily make and accept invitations; they may also set conditions on the invitation. How can any libertarian disagree with this? I don’t.”

      I would say that this is more than implying.

      “If so, then the only conclusion logically consistent with libertarian principles is that any state interference in their rightful conduct would be criminal.”

      It is criminal. But I am still waiting for those millions coming to Europe to have an invitation from individuals who want to invite them for dinner.

      The conditions might arise in a hypothetical. They didn’t arise in practice. And without someone voluntarily doing the inviting, Hornberger’s construct of libertarian open borders fails the real world test.

      There may be a different construct; it isn’t Hornberger’s. Do you have one to offer?

      Delete
    4. You've advocated a political policy--state-control of borders--that cannot be reconciled with the non-aggression principle. Numerous people who thoroughly understand that principle and its application have undertaken to show you the error in your thinking. Yet you insist on sticking with your position. By your own admission, this is not because you think your position accords with libertarian theory, but because you believe that the application of that theory in the instance of borders fails in practice.

      I don't know you--at least, I don't think I know you, since you write under pseudonym--but have enjoyed much of your writing, whether via LewRockwell.com or Zero Hedge. Commendably, much of your writing appears to be an exercise in working out your own thoughts and understanding of libertarianism (or anarchy, as I prefer). But I would guess from your manner of argumentation that you are relatively immature in your understanding of applied libertarianism; probably, you haven't been a libertarian (or anarchist) for more than a few years. No problem with that--all mature thinkers were once immature.

      You've refuted neither Hornberger nor my points in my initial reply. Now you're down to quibbling. I suspect Hornberger can't say it any better than he has, just because he nailed the issue so well with his imaginary example; I could probably do better, but your mind is made up for now and I have better things to do.

      But since you keep asking about dinner invitations for the millions coming to Europe, let me help you work through that question: to the extent the governments of those countries welcomed refugees, they invited them. And to the extent those refugees arrived via public byways, so long as they exited those byways to properties open for business to all comers, then those businesses invited them. If that's all that's holding you to your anti-libertarian position, now you can safely rid yourself of the contradiction.

      Delete
    5. "...to the extent the governments of those countries welcomed refugees, they invited them."

      John Harris, are you suggesting that merely opening the borders is not sufficient for "libertarian open borders"?

      Why didn't I think of that? Oh wait, I did.

      As to the rest, I have either dealt with it or don't care to.

      Delete
  23. I am opposed to the State Program of Forced Integration, Wealth Redistribution, and Voting Population Replacement, not against Libertarian Open Borders. They are only superficially similar.

    Libertarians can only defend the State Program of Forced Integration, Wealth Redistribution, and Voting Population Replacement by relying on superficial analysis.

    This "open borders" argument is only coherent so far as one accepts that the state rightfully owns all property within its borders, which is decidedly anti-NAP, as indicated by Lawrence above.

    In reality, the State is expropriating property from taxpayers and using that loot as a lure to entice in future-Statist voters to intensify the aggression against property owners over time.

    None of that has anything to do with Libertarianism or the Non-Aggression Principle. It is an active State program to stomp out political opposition to ever increasing State power.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mr. Mosquito, what do you say about unrestricted migration into an unowned, virgin land? I don't see anyone's property rights being violated in that case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 99.99% of immigration to my country is not to virgin 'unowned' land. Why bring up exceptions?

      Delete
    2. Matt said it. And I have said it more times than I can count – they aren’t moving to the top of the Alps, the middle of the desert – setting aside that I don’t grant these are unowned.

      Delete
  25. Jacob Hornberger rips you apart once again, at http://fff.org/2016/05/20/open-immigration-welfare-state/ . Are you ready to concede yet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are an interesting one; you have no thoughts of your own, no arguments to make, no rebuttals.

      Delete
  26. Sorry, wrong link before. Correct new link: http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/bionic-mosquito-wrong-immigration/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He actually claims that the principled libertarian position is to encourage higher taxes because governments engage in unjust wars. He actually says that high taxation is a small, trifling (picayunish) concern for libertarians that will not lead to tyranny and is in line with our principles. WTF.

      But when it comes to the relatively miniscule cost of immigration enforcement, suddenly he is hyper-concerned about the very modest impact on taxation leading to tyranny.

      He completely ignores that the vast supermajority of migrants to Europe are not refugees from violence, and are bringing the politics of strong-arm governments with them.

      Should the USA also have had open borders with Germany and Japan during WWII? Let in unlimited numbers of German and Japanese soldiers without any vetting so that they could escape Hitler and Hirohito? No possible way that could backfire, right?

      He is absolutely blind to the fact that the State program of using tax money to import leftist voters is not the same thing as me inviting a visitor to my property.

      Delete
    2. BM,

      "He actually claims that the principled libertarian position is to encourage higher taxes because governments engage in unjust wars."

      I noted that same disturbing comment of his as well.

      This is like saying more government regulations are the price for adhering to free market principles.

      I don't understand the "open borders no matter the consequences" mentality that persists among some libertarians, especially when we're seeing the crisis in Europe get worse and worse.

      Delete
  27. Jacob Hornberger says that European taxpayers are obligated to pay higher taxes and accept refugees because libertarianism.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Like BM, open borders policy is one area where I respectfully part company with libertarians.

    It's useful to grasp that governments don't control borders, the owners of those governments call the shots. Governments are just the hired ranch managers -- cowboys -- who manage the human herd on behalf of the owners (mostly bankers). Borders are just fences between adjacent ranch units, and the cowboys open and close the gates as ordered. The debt slave cows do not get to offer their opinion on which gates open or close or which other cows are put in their pasture.

    We may assume that the ranch owners have ordered the cowboys to open the EU's gates because it benefits them. My guess as to why is the desperate attempt to keep the debt-based money Ponzi going a little longer by creating a demand to spend even more borrowed money to take care of the problems generated by mixing two incompatible herds of cows.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Bionic, political borders are merely the residue of political gang warfare, and as such are completely exterior to the category of economics. They are an oppressive nuisance which would never arise in a free market free society, and one need only think of the hundreds of 'multinational' corporations to understand that economics is completely 'orthogonal' to politics. 1776 was the vague and hastily contrived attempt to radically diminish political control. it remained for austrians like hayek to demonstrate how the price mechanism and free market is the one and only means for ordering and organizing society and to show that ANY intervention on the part of central planners could ONLY make matters worse.

    ReplyDelete