Posts
Angela Merkel’s open borders policy continues to pay
dividends in the destruction of open borders as a libertarian concept. But before I come to “practice,” I will
revisit “theory.”
Theory
There is no “state” in libertarian theory. The only “borders” are the borders that
divide private property, one privately-owned parcel from another.
Libertarian theory does not recognize open borders when it
comes to property. Property is private
and exclusionary. Is your property open
to anyone who wants to come on it? Now,
this doesn’t mean “closed” is the only other possibility. Is your property closed to everyone?
Access to property is managed. Not only is this perfectly compatible with
libertarian theory, it is the only acceptable application of libertarian theory. (If a property owner chooses his border to be
“open,” he is still managing his border.)
What of property that isn’t owned by anyone? Certainly, this property is available for
anyone to claim, according to the customs (call them laws, regulations,
whatever – but not limited solely to
homesteading) of the region and if
the property owners between the individual and the unowned property allow him
travel to the unowned property.
So, that’s it for theory: borders are managed, not
open. By definition, unowned land is land
without a border – something without a border by definition cannot have an open
border. It is just open.
Practice
Now on to the German gift that keeps on giving. You will recall that Merkel said all are
welcome, no stopping them, no questions asked (she has since backtracked a
little, mostly by hiding behind Austrians and others, but the object lesson
remains). You cannot get more open than
this. How
is it going so far?
Germany's government expects to
spend around 93.6 billion euros by the end of 2020 on costs related to the
refugee crisis…
That doesn’t sound very libertarian.
The report said that 25.7 billion
euros ($29.07 billion) would be needed for jobless payments, rent subsidies and
other benefits for recognized asylum applicants by the end of 2020.
“Now bionic, you are complaining about government subsidies
– these should be dealt with on their own, and not on the back of the
refugees. After all, local Germans get
similar subsidies.”
Do you realize how non-libertarian that sounds? But, OK, I will play along.
Another 5.7 billion euros would be
needed for language courses and 4.6 billion euros would be required for
measures to help migrants get jobs, it added.
Language courses?
These aren’t necessary for Germans – as they already speak German. Aid to get a job – isn’t this what German
schools and their well-developed apprentice programs already do?
No, there is nothing libertarian about open borders in
practice.
I Can Hear Walter
Block Now
“bionic, the government doesn’t own any land. What if the immigrants go to the deserts or
the top of the mountains?”
Sounds good in theory.
What about practice? There are some
problems with this. First, while it is
true that the government doesn’t own land, it does not follow that nobody owns the land. Even government controlled land has labor
applied to it – labor paid for by the taxpayers of the country. It is to the taxpayers that the land belongs –
ask Ragnar Danneskjöld.
You don’t like that? Then
try this: immigrants aren’t moving to the top of the Alps; they aren’t roughing
it north of the Arctic Circle. They are
moving to the cities, the developed parts of the country, using resources that
you will pay for whether you want to or not.
An immigrant moving to the deserts or the mountaintops carving
out an independent life in the new world can be OK in libertarian theory; it doesn’t
happen in practice. The €100MM that
Germany is going to spend is €100MM that was not going to be spent otherwise.
Conclusion
Open borders is bad libertarian theory and can only be
implemented by initiating force in practice.
Once advocates of open borders recognize and accept this, perhaps the
dialogue on this topic can finally move along toward some meaningful ends.
In this world, that will require including in the discussion
some concepts that libertarian theory does not directly address. As if this is the only topic where this is
true.
"The €100MM that Germany is going to spend is €100MM that was not going to be spent otherwise".
ReplyDeleteThe open borders libertarians say that the government would have come up with some other excuse to spend that amount of money.
Open borders advocates are NAP violators in the same way as someone that threatens someone is an NAP violator. I reserve my right to self defense.
"In this world, that will require including in the discussion some concepts that libertarian theory does not directly address. As if this is the only topic where this is true."
ReplyDeleteAmen. For some, it's like "But this so-called cookbook doesn't have anything to say about furniture design."
BTW I think Hoppe's got the whole border thing pretty much solved.
Kind of a tangent, but I was just thinking about the deflationary effect of having such a rapid growth in population. Even Rothbard and Mises were pretty clear about the destructive effect of deflation, i.e., England trying to get back to the pre-war value of the Pound. But what would be the correct libertarian answer? I feel like I already know, but I'm wondering what someone like Rothbard would say as an economist, not as a libertarian.
ReplyDelete"Arguments about immigration will always be with us. But it’s important to understand that the real issue isn’t freedom for immigrants – it’s _your_ freedom.
ReplyDeleteImmigrants will continue to stream into this country, legally or illegally, so long as there’s a Welcome Wagon waiting at the border – offering free education, free health care, free welfare and a free lunch. We need to put the Welcome Wagon out of business, so only people looking for freedom will want to come here.
Until then, no law, no policy, no border patrol will stop the flood of illegals..."
http://www.wnd.com/2001/09/10726/
Regards, onebornfree
+1
Delete....aaaand now, more great quotes from the previously given link :
ReplyDelete"Political promises to keep America free of the great unwashed masses are just one more political scam – a subterfuge by which to steal more of your freedom.
And trying to limit immigration is an admission that the welfare state is a failure.
It is a confession that America is no longer the most prosperous country in the world – no longer a country so big, so free, and so open-handed that it can accommodate anyone in the world who wants to come here and work to improve his life.
A free and prosperous society has no fear of anyone entering it. But a welfare state is scared to death of every poor person who tries to get in and every rich person who tries to get out."
From: "The Immigration Scam", by Harry Browne:
http://www.wnd.com/2001/09/10726/
Regards, onebornfree
personal freedom consulting:
onebornfreeatyahoo.com
+1
DeleteThe same state which is gradually preventing us from having sex segregated bathrooms is going to manage a border in some way we like. I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteThis discussion is akin to discussing how the state could manage paper money to simulate the behavior of gold.
Even if it could be done it won't be done.
You can't make the state do something good. You probably can't even prevent it from getting around to doing the worst thing.
Jim
DeleteWho said anything about the state doing something good on this topic? Any action the state takes on this issue is bad - open, closed or managed.
Have I not been clear? Or is your comment meant for someone else?
Some libertarians want to pretend that the state can properly implement open borders. Perhaps your comment is meant for them?
Really, I am curious as to your intent.
My intent was confused. Brain fog and too many conversations going at the same time strikes again.
DeleteI think you might enjoy this Bionic, it mirrors your view on travel and borders pretty closely.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pericles.press/2016/03/10/the-right-to-travel-does-not-exist/
It is good. I think it will be argued by some that the state cannot "own" land, and I have come to conclude this is so; it controls the use of stolen property, but this does not make it an owner.
DeleteIt does not change the conclusions in the subject post.
We have a right to emigrate (absent voluntarily agreeing to do otherwise); we have no right to immigrate.
So I gave open borders libertarians the benefit of the doubt - again.
ReplyDeleteI says to myself, "Black Flag, maybe you are just an evil bigot who might as well be goose steppin'. Maybe somehow, someway, there's something righteous, spontaneous and libertarian in all of this."
I ask Google to give me a hand. "Who wants Syrian Refugees in Europe?"
The results speak for themselves, article titles on the first page alone:
"EU prepares to scale back settlement of refugees" (lol)
"No Muslim Country wants to take Syrian Refugees"
"Eventually, everyone wants to get rid of Syrian Refugees"
On the second page: "Obama wants ---", "Merkel Wants---" (more more more)
Nothing about filling labor demands, housing surpluses, or any other possible need that could be filled by these refugees. I've yet to find something that points to market demand for having more people of any variety. I'm struggling to find positive mentions from average joes, at that.
The closest thing that I can find that indicates support for more refugees is a Talking Head liberally using the words "should" and "must" and.. (wait for it) "do /our/ part."
These talking heads certainly don't say why, and I can't say I blame them either.
What unmitigated nonsense! Individuals have the right to keep people off their own land, nothing more. BM wants to claim to be a "libertarian" and at the same time supports a central government with the power to stop people at a "border". If he can't see the raging logical inconsistency there, I'm afraid he's beyond help.
ReplyDeleteYou want a central government to decide how to open its border. It can't be done.
DeleteAs long as states exist and have a say about borders, there is NO libertarian answer.
This is the "unmitigated nonsense" in your position. You see the speck in my eye and cannot see the plank in your own. You think there is a "government do nothing" answer today. There isn't.
Why not take this German example and write a defense of your position - you don't because you can't. This is my point.
Jim has ignored my reply on basically the same complaint. I suspect you will, too.
JdL, are you offering to pay the costs incurred by the refugees or migrants?
DeleteJdL,
DeleteObviously BM does not support the Managerial State, but it does not follow that you should remain agnostic as to what the State does. I am assuming you are some kind of anarchist, would you prefer the State not take murderers and rapists off the street? If you are in favor of the State doing so and also an advocate of decentralization is that a contradiction in your mind?
As I keep telling Libertarians, under our current welfare-warfare system open border means a demand on my resources by the FedGov, under threat of death, if I decide to go that route. That the welfare-warfare must first be dismantled to be able to have open borders. To keep letting people in these uSA that have no concept of individual, preexisting rights, guarantees the continuation of the welfare- warfare system. My guess, in the eyes of certain politicians, that is a feature and not a bug.
ReplyDelete"Do you realize how non-libertarian that sounds? But, OK, I will play along."
ReplyDeleteOnly problem is, I don't see how your example dealt with this objection. Would people immigrate if there were no free bennies? Much fewer would, and they would be the kind we'd want to see anyway. Does it matter to the taxpayer (that is, the victim of theft) who got the stolen money? Is it better that a German gets it than an African? I don't see how; the money is still stolen.
The real problem is that being selective about who gets welfare is a way to prop up the concept of welfare, and it also gives the state the job of picking winners and losers. How libertarian is that?
I say, let welfare crash through oversubscription, through its own internal contradictions. It's the only way to get rid of it.
Nothing wrong with managed borders. Let it be managed by the market, not by the government.
Paul, my point is that open, closed or managed - the state is deciding who gets in, what benefits they get, what we owe for those benefits, what we must give up to provide those benefits.
Delete"Nothing wrong with managed borders. Let it be managed by the market, not by the government."
I agree fully. But how does this address the conversation of state borders today, in this world? As long as they are "state" borders, they will be managed - open, closed or otherwise - by the state.
Prove me wrong.
"What of property that isn’t owned by anyone? Certainly, this property is available for anyone to claim, according to the customs (call them laws, regulations, whatever – but not limited solely to homesteading) of the region and if the property owners between the individual and the unowned property allow him travel to the unowned property."
ReplyDeleteSo property owners can impose a ban on ownership of otherwise unowned property by encircling it with their own? What about encircling property owned by another and then restricting access to it? I know this is an old question, but I'm curious what others think..
I first was thinking you were unnecessarily aggregating the removal of border controls with the corresponding welfare. But actually, the "open borders" state as we are witnessing it does not remove border controls - it merely enforces it differently. The state does not give up the decision making power, it just pretends the choice is a foregone "yes" in any and all cases. They naturally would not do this voluntarily unless they have a method of increasing their control by doing so. The fact that free movement of persons across the border has the appearance of that final crack-up moment of the downfall of state legitimacy initially attractive, but the most destructive lies are those which most closely ape the truth.
ReplyDeleteStill, to be precise, we must distinguish between which actions of individuals comprising the state are in fact the criminal ones. For this I still sympathize with the "open borders" sentiment - the lack of enforcement at the border per se is not the scene of the crime. It is rather the denial of the existing inhabitants discretion over admittance and the extortion with a humanitarian face.
Since the object of this ongoing discussion seems to shift between what the state should do, what the state should not do, what we should do, and what we should not do -- perhaps it would at least be beyond academic to suggest that we consider the house already robbed, the crime already committed, the rightful owner knee-capped. Though others may use the opportunity to loot further, we too can avail ourselves of the opportunity to step in the threshold, address ourselves to the rightful owner, and offer our wares, services, patronage and charity, so long as the great eye is looking elsewhere. Just a thought.
"But actually, the "open borders" state as we are witnessing it does not remove border controls - it merely enforces it differently."
DeleteBingo - open borders today, in this world, calls on the government just as much as any other border-control scheme.
"Since the object of this ongoing discussion seems to shift..."
This is not my intent; this is why I broke the conversation into theory in libertopia and practice in this world.
"Angela Merkel’s open borders policy continues to pay dividends in the destruction of open borders as a libertarian concept."
ReplyDeleteWhy would you believe that Germany's policy is in any way really true "open borders", by even your own standards? - because Merkel says its so?
You are joking, right?
Not only that, but you then go on to compare that same alleged policy with a supposed, or imagined, libertarian ideal, as if the two were in any way the exact same "animal".
Surely this is a false logic, "comparing apples to oranges", as the saying goes, to reach a [therefor] erroneous conclusion?
Sorry, but I fail to see how Germany's alleged current mega-state policy has anything to do any supposed/imagined libertarian "open borders" ideal, and that it therefor effectively "pays dividends in the destruction of open borders as a libertarian concept", as you claim .
In any case, as Harry Browne pointed out in the article I previously linked to, the immigration debate is a scam, just another bold-faced lie perpetrated by the state; "a subterfuge by which to steal more of _your_ freedom" [my emphasis], nothing more, or less.
As Browne pointed out, any new restrictions on immigration, either here, or elsewhere, will only impose more restrictions on already _legal_ citizens [eg more ID proof required to show citizenship, employment etc. etc], while illegal immigration, most likely, after possibly initially slowing, would not be effected/slowed in the long term [for many reasons I will not get into here].
regards, onebornfree
personal freedom consulting
onebornfreeatyahoo.com
I give up...almost.
DeletePlease tell me - in this world - where you have an example of a more "open border" than what Merkel did last year. Are you suggesting one million or so people didn't take advantage of this?
On this, my point is...it is pointless to discuss open borders in this world. Open, closed, or managed - it is all done by the state. No real world choice today involves the state any less than the other.
Some libertarians should stop pretending otherwise.
We see a standard ploy by culture statists in Bionic Mosquito’s latest LewRockwell column. First, Bionic correctly points out:
ReplyDelete> There is no “state” in libertarian theory. The only “borders” are the borders that divide private property, one privately-owned parcel from another. <
But he immediately diverts into an irrelevant red herring:
> Libertarian theory does not recognize open borders when it comes to property. The property is private and exclusionary. <
Did you see what he just did? He changed the subject from State borders to private property. Yes, private property is exclusionary. Now lets get back to statist borders, which are totally illegitimate in libertarian theory, as Bionic just admitted.
A closed border is a State policy which restricts freedom of travel. An open border is a State policy which does not interfere with freedom of travel. Which is more libertarian? To state the question is to answer it.
Bionic writes a lot about property owners’ right to exclude people from their own property. He seems to want to make an excuse for government thugs to exclude people from *other people’s property*. He doesn’t write much about all the employers, landlords, hotel and motel and apartment owners, restaurant owners, retailers, and so on that *want* more travelers and immigrants. As a libertarian, I want freed markets to determine how many people travel or change residence, not the State - and not culture statists trying to influence the State.
Bionic recognizes that a lot of land is not privately owned. There are two ways (at least) to frame government pseudo-owned land. One, the libertarian way, is to consider it either stolen or abandoned unowned commons, available to be homesteaded by anyone. This is the principled Rothbardian approach adopted by Walter Block and me. A statist approach is to leave the allocation and planning of these lands to the State. This is the central planning approach deservedly maligned by all libertarians - even the Paleos in any other context. They don’t actually come out and say they want government to keep controlling borders, but all their arguments and columns have that obvious implication.
My recommendation: When confronting culture statists (“paleo-libertarians”) remember two things. 1) Don’t let them make a false analogy with private property, and 2) don’t let them get away with advocating central government planning for the travel market. For the latter, I recommend asking, “Do you support the disbandment of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the immediate end to government kidnapping (“arresting,” “detaining”) people without permission papers?” If the answer is “no,” then you know they are not libertarians at all. If the answer is “yes,” that will hopefully nudge the conversation to voluntary means of coping with immigrants, or to specific areas of government intervention in the travel market, such as ending wars that create refugees and government subsidies for migration.
Bill
DeleteI won't bother reading your comment. You believe we live in a world where the state will not make a decision about borders - it will and does, no matter how open, closed or otherwise.
Well I got recommendations too.
DeleteIf you disagree with a stance, fine. Disagree. If you want to object loudly and proudly, fine. However, Make your objections about the stance that was actually taken.
Bionic Mosquito has covered this topic several times over. Each and every time, the "free-for-all borders" wing of the Libertarian camp comes in and objects to stances that haven't been taken. BM has endorsed no Central Planning, Closed Borders or a "Capitol G" Government solution - But this same wing of libertarians insists he has. Routinely, almost predictably.
I've yet to see someone from your wing of the Libertarian Camp refute any point of the "Culture Libertarian" stance without making the argument about something that never was.
How would you respond if I did nothing but point to Germany as an example of your utopia?
"You're murdered, molested, raped, and vandalized --- and you subsidized it, but thank goodness none of you violated the NAP by saying no!"
... Wait, what?
I restate, as I have at least twice before: I'm not necessarily 100% convinced of the "Cultural Libertarian" stance, and I still, months later, eagerly await a refutation of it that I could get behind. But adversaries to the stance fall flat on their face every time.
Why? Because they attack a stance that never was in the first place.
What is "freedom of travel"? Where does this "freedom" come from?
DeleteI understand your inane nonsense because I have spent plenty of time in libertarian circles and read a lot of the literature but most normal people would have no clue what you are even talking about and will probably just think they are dealing with some weird leftist (likely true).
"Culture statists" is a new one to me, although I should have expected something like that when I first heard "cultural libertarian" a few months ago. This is completely counter-productive. If you want a libertarian society you want a culture conducive to it. That means the presence of certain values and attitudes, and does not mean anything (or anyone) goes. There are people who are by definition hostile to your world view and if you allow them into your society you are jeopardizing what you claim to value, which leads to the suspicion that you don't really value it at all but something else altogether.
I suspect you are just another Cultural Marxist. Please prove me wrong.
UC, the burden is upon you to prove that Hogeye Bill is just another Cultural Marxist. Of course, if all you have is that which he composed in his post, your suspicions just will not carry the day - from a formal debating perspective.
DeleteWhat many opposed to Hogeye's perspective fail to address and consider is that the culture best or most conducive to liberty will never be, and never has been, the nation state.
Thus, it is not Pedro, but the gringo warfare / welfare nation state that has contributed far more to the pollution of conditions necessary for liberty to thrive.
By definition, a cultural Marxist is one who supports the creation and financing of a statist entity designed to control the movement of peoples. It is the cultural Marxist who supports the confiscation of wealth created by private, non-crony, capitalists so that the low information border constabulary and its cultural Marxist union can thrive.
You cannot create the cultural conditions necessary for liberty by maintaining any semblance of the nation state and its cultural Marxist appetites.
"What many opposed to Hogeye's perspective fail to address and consider is that the culture best or most conducive to liberty will never be, and never has been, the nation state."
DeleteAssuming we have a common understanding of the word "state," all I can say is...DUH; you have really shed light with this comment.
Perhaps you might try separating the two words. See Rothbard:
https://mises.org/library/nations-consent-decomposing-nation-state-0
Anon,
DeleteI can only assume that the term "Cultural Statist" is meant to imply that Cultural Relativism (Libertarianism)is what Bill prefers.
If so he is a Cultural Marxist.
"By definition, a cultural Marxist is one who supports the creation and financing of a statist entity designed to control the movement of peoples"
No. Cultural Marxism is why Americans put up with the demographic displacement and leftist cultural hegemony. Are you meaning to imply borders are the product of Cultural Marxism?
"Thus, it is not Pedro, but the gringo warfare / welfare nation state that has contributed far more to the pollution of conditions necessary for liberty to thrive."
Pedro will be voting for more of it and Pedro will have a bunch of little Pedritos following in his wake.
BM, I have just re-read Rothbard's essay.
DeleteMy position is not premised upon a conflation of the nation-state with a nation, as conceived by Murray.
Rothbard himself does not opine that defining a "nation" is necessarily an easy thing to do; to the contrary, he writes that, "[t]he nation cannot be precisely defined; it is a complex and varying constellation of different forms of communities, languages, ethnic groups or religions."
He adds, "[t]he question of nationality is made more complex by the interplay of objectively existing reality and subjective perceptions."
That Rothbard conceives a difference between a nation and a nation-state, he does not dispel the reality that nations are also states.
Nevertheless, not only do I stand by point that the best conditions for liberty are not to be found within the culture of the nation-state, I will add that Rothbard would agree that best conditions for liberty are not to be found within the culture of any given nation.
You will note that he contended liberty would be better served by more and more secession and not some talismanic attachment to a construct, such as nationhood, that he himself conceded is not so easy to define.
Define nation.
Delete"Rothbard himself does not opine that defining a "nation" is necessarily an easy thing to do..."
Of course it isn't. It is as complex as humanity and human relations. Yet, depending on the definition, it has always existed.
"You will note that he contended liberty would be better served by more and more secession and not some talismanic attachment to a construct, such as nationhood..."
Until you define nation, all I will say is you are preaching to the choir.
For purposes of discussing the proposition advanced by you and commenters like UC, I will accept what you define as a nation.
DeleteThere are some definitions of nation that would appear to be synonymous with or identical to the definition of nation-state such as the one I found at the dictionary.com site's British version. It states:
"an aggregation of people or peoples of one or more cultures, races, etc, organized into a single state."
My thought is that you would be more inclined to accept the second definition found at the dictionary.com website's British version:
"a community of persons not constituting a state but bound by common descent, language, history, etc."
I accept that different people have different definitions for both nation and nation-state and that there some people who conceive of them as the same thing and others who do not.
Nevertheless, in my view, it matters not whether we are speaking of nations or nation-states, relative to the question do either feature conditions suitable for the emergence and flourishing of NAP societies.
Throughout history, the answer appears to be no and if we are willing to get our fingers filthy with the facts we have to dismiss as frivolous the contention that the American nation or some other western nation has featured such conditions suitable for the development and dominance of NAP societies. It just has not happened and there have, and continue to be, just too many war crimes and forced expatriations and confiscations of wealth and cagings and empire building on the part of the US and England to argue otherwise.
The American nation as well as its British counterpart have been too hostile to the primacy of the free market and the individual and to beholden to empire and mass murder and crony capitalism and the arbitrary rule of the king and his ministers and his privileged purveyors of violence.
The element most important for folks to have in common is love of NAP, free exchange of ideas, free trade, free enterprise and the primacy of the individual. These are the cultural conditions that matter - not race, not language, and not ethnicity.
"a community of persons not constituting a state but bound by common descent, language, history, etc."
DeleteThis is closer to the definition I would use, and the one to use if Rothbard’s writing is to make any sense.
“Nevertheless, in my view, it matters not whether we are speaking of nations or nation-states, relative to the question do either feature conditions suitable for the emergence and flourishing of NAP societies.”
Since nowhere in history do we find evidence of a pure NAP society, your statement is true on its face. But it does not address the question of the environment in which something closer to an NAP society might survive, let alone thrive.
Properly understanding Rothbard’s points would lead one to conclude that a generally accepted common culture is less prone to disagreements that will culminate in violence. This is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition, for maximizing the possibility of an NAP society.
There are numerous examples of such societies. Some of these even come close to the NAP on earth – small, decentralized political power. The European Middle Ages offers the best example.
“The element most important for folks to have in common is love of NAP, free exchange of ideas, free trade, free enterprise and the primacy of the individual.”
Yes, perhaps in libertarian heaven. Here on earth, with real people, please find one society that flourished with this, and this alone, binding them. Or that this was even the most important thing binding them. It is a laughable notion on its face.
Try this:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2016/04/holding-application-of-libertarian.html
Chanting “NAP, NAP, NAP” over and over will get you exactly nowhere. But good luck with it.
I am coming to the conclusion that those who take such a position are actual enemies of libertarianism – some knowingly and some unknowingly. In which of the two camps are you?
"The element most important for folks to have in common is love of NAP, free exchange of ideas, free trade, free enterprise and the primacy of the individual. These are the cultural conditions that matter - not race, not language, and not ethnicity."
DeleteSo are you arguing that there is no relationship between race and culture?
The idea that everyone needs to accept the NAP is a bizarre to me. It seems that what you are really saying is everyone needs to think like you. Most people don't consider taxation aggression. You basically need everyone re-educated in libertarian doctrine, but even libertarians can't agree on what constitutes aggression and what appropriate responses to aggression are.
What if the "primacy of the individual" conflicts with the rest of society?
BM, upon what basis do you believe that I am an enemy of libertarianism?
DeleteLike you, I acknowledge that human beings have all sinned and have fallen far short of the glory of god.
Like you, per your recent blog post, I believe that libertarian theory has been held to a much higher standard than others.
Like you, I do not support the creation of a new man, Soviet or otherwise.
Like you, I acknowledge that human nature is human nature.
Ah, but there may lie the rub. Human nature is manifested in many ways, including the fact that those who do not share a common nation culture may nevertheless live freely and peacefully amongst themselves.
As Jose Wales told Ten Bears, "I ain't promising you nothing extra. I'm just giving you life and you're giving me life. And I'm saying that men can live together without butchering one another."
Ten Bears, chief of the Comanche, and Jose Wales, renegade Confederate fugitive, did not share what you or Rothbard might conceive of as a "generally accepted common culture", right? Yet, they were able to forge an understanding, a different form of common culture, if you will, in order to live without butchering one another.
The foundation of their understanding? I would argue it was, at bottom, the NAP.
Before you criticize my allusion to a great cinematic tour de force as just fiction, keep in mind that there were many such examples in the history of the American West, like William Bent and the Cheyenne.
By contrast, look at the common culture shared by so many military officers who attended West Point in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s and who later took up arms against each other and allowed disagreements to culminate in the most nasty forms of violence ever witnessed on earth.
You might argue that the common culture shared by such military officers was not so common given their various geographical origins. Fair enough, but they did share a common language, a common racial identity, a common currency, a common birth of their nation-state, a common ancestry (white and European) and a common belief that they were superior to Negros and native Americans.
I would submit that when viewed through your prism and that of Rothbard and UC, these men shared far more in common with each other than that which divided them.
The thrust of my point is that those who are not praying at the altar of common culture is an absolute pre-condition for the emergence and functioning of freer societies are not enemies of libertarianism.
Culture - for good or bad - has held infinitely more people together than the NAP. Culture - for good or bad - is a more powerful force than the NAP.
DeleteA reasonably healthy and respected common culture will do more to reduce violence than spouting "NAP" like an automaton.
Movie actors or random historical events not withstanding.
UC, I have already informed you that I am a race realist and that I am a fan of Derbyshire and that I loathe National Review, in part, because of its decision to fire the Derb.
DeleteTherefore, I do not argue that there is no relationship between race and culture. I also do not argue that a shared, common culture would be a hindrance in developing and sustaining my type of Libertopia.
What I do argue is that a nation, as conceived by Rothbard, you, or BM, is not a necessary pre-condition for liberty to flourish.
Yes, I do believe that ancapistan is more likely to emerge in a white dominated society than in a black or brown society.
But the common language, borders, and common ancestry construct has not exactly delivered the goods and one is not an enemy to liberty just for making the point.
Do you think that most self-identifying libertarians / anarchists support reparations for Afro-Americans? If so, upon what basis do you so think?
Do you think that most along the libertarian / anarchist spectrum support gay marriage? If so, what is the basis of why you so think?
Do you think that most libertarians support affirmative action? If so, upon what basis do you so think?
Do you think that I support those things?
Anon, I know your comment was to UC, but I cannot help but point out that you have offered the answer. To each of your questions (reparations, gay marriage, and affirmative action), it doesn't matter what you support or what libertarians support.
DeleteIf society is in general agreement on these things, there is less chance of conflict, less chance of those who feel disadvantaged to turn to (or create) the monopolist of violence to do something about it. Simple.
Thank you for clarifying your confusion.
Anon,
DeleteI do not know what you support, I am trying to understand where you are coming from. On the three questions you listed there is no agreement among libertarians as far as I can tell. In fact, at this point I would be hard pressed to think of a single position supported by all libertarians.
"What I do argue is that a nation, as conceived by Rothbard, you, or BM, is not a necessary pre-condition for liberty to flourish."
What you believe those conditions to be:
"The element most important for folks to have in common is love of NAP, free exchange of ideas, free trade, free enterprise and the primacy of the individual. These are the cultural conditions that matter"
I would argue that those cultural conditions cannot exist outside the framework of a Nation, or a self-identifying tribe. Even if the tribe is libertarians. There has to be an understanding of in-group and out-group relations. In the case of libertarians the in-group would be those who accept the ideas you listed.
However, I am skeptical that a nation can be based on ideas alone. I believe there needs to be a blood and soil element, as well as a metaphysical/religious component.
How would you describe your position Anon? Ancap? Libertarian?
Anonymous - you alluded to the civil war by saying that the people that attended West Point had aa "common culture". Not true! The deep cultural divide between North and South was an important factor in making the civil war possible. You have inadvertently argued against your own position.
DeleteMatt, what about the common cultural elements I noted above? Military officers who attended West Point in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s did share a common culture insofar as (1) the English language; (2) the white race; (3) their forefathers were European and white; (4) currency; (5) birth of their nation / nation-state and (6) belief that their white race was superior to the Negro and the Native American.
DeleteAre you asserting that they did not share those things in common? If you are, you are demonstrating that you are prepared to ignore facts and history in furtherance of your narrative.
BM and UC, I note that neither of you contested my point regarding how a profoundly common culture shared by military officers who attended West Point in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s could not prevent a dispute from turning into a bloodbath.
Note, I am not arguing that there was an absence of cultural differences between such military officers - there were. Yet, the type of shared common cultural components that both of you, particularly UC, cite as being indispensable for peace and liberty and lack of a desire to turn to a monopolistic purveyor of violence, i.e., race, language, etc, failed spectacularly to prevent conflict and violence.
Once again, the cultural elements of race, language, currency, common ancestry, did not hold things together.
If you are arguing in good faith, you have to acknowledge, that yes, notwithstanding all of our contentions to the contrary, having a common culture of race, language, currency, ancestry, birthright, and a belief that one race was superior to others, did not carry the day as far as minimizing or preventing conflict and violence.
American society in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s was dominated by whites who spoke the same language and shared the same ancestry and birthright and society overwhelmingly agreed that English should be the dominant language, that white people were superior intellectually and that without white people, the world would be very little, if any, civilization and that there would be incessant violence and warfare.
UC, truly thin libertarians, like me, would never support reparations for Afro-Americans or Irish-Americans or transgendered-Americans.
Truly thin libertarians, like me, would never support affirmative action.
Truly thin libertarians, like me, would never support gay marriage.
In fact, I think that I am more of a thin libertarian than BM.
UC, a metaphysical / spiritual element that could be the foundation of a free society is belief in liberty, free enterprise, voluntary exchange, free speech, rejection of progressivism and multiculturalism.
DeleteUnder correct, libertarian theory, we have no states or taxpayers, and thus no lands or waters under ownership claims by either of these entities. That we do have lands and waters under such claims today does not make these claims legitimate--on the contrary, all such claims are illegitimate. Further, such illegitimate claims confer no obligations on those who wish to ignore or contest them, so long as they do so at their own risk. Anyone willing to risk arrest may freely traverse "state" or "taxpayer" lands, or even mix his labor with such lands in order to make some portion of them property.
ReplyDeleteWhile resort to first principles in examining the origin and nature of property is indisputably useful, as is analysis of how man may act morally in a state of nature, libertarian theory must also account for the world as exists today and especially how we rid ourselves of non-self rulers as peaceably as possible. Toward that end, we first have to admit to ourselves that we lack a conception of trespass that is morally valid in all cases, and that such conception will not be conjured from reason alone but also from long experience, filled with trial, error, and correction. If I use artificial light on my property, have I trespassed against my neighbor's property if its photons strike his property? We lack the wisdom to decide all such cases, in part because the state has dispossessed us of the learning opportunity.
As an anarchist who lives by the non-aggression principle, I am more than happy to have Mexicans seeking a better life cross the Rio Grande into Big Bend National Park, and to transit from there on state highways to Marfa or Fort Stockton or Terlingua, or anywhere else they may negotiate with a legitimate property holder for a place to live and work. I much prefer that state of affairs to standing on the notion that funds confiscated from me have paid for the park and roads and, therefore, the aforementioned Mexicans should suffer.
Similarly, I would not charge with trespass a person who has crossed onto my property to escape an immediate and unforeseeable danger, so long as that person limits his invasion to the bare minimum necessary and either moves on as soon as the danger has passed or negotiates a longer stay with me.
John,
DeleteHave you considered the consequences of Mexicans "seeking a better life" in America? You consider not letting Mexicans into America to be suffering, why?
Mexicans will be voting to take more of your money and more of your liberties. Are you autistic?
You mentioned morals several times. What is the moral status of not deporting convicted felons?
I'll ignore your infantile question, UnhappyConservative, and attempt to answer those that appear to be sincere.
DeleteYes, I have considered the consequences of Mexicans seeking a better life in America. If they honor the non-aggression principle, I welcome them.
My reference to suffering referred only to those Mexicans who (a) would like to come to the United States and (b) would be prevented from doing so not because of lack of willing trading partners but on account of state prohibition.
I do not necessarily favor deporting convicted felons. I am an anarchist and favor private justice. Some so-called felonies, e.g., drug dealing, are non-crimes. I would be happy to have banishment or shunning as punishment for certain crimes.
The reason I asked if you were autistic is because you are treating people as abstractions. You act as though its possible that Rothbardian Anarchists are jumping the border from Mexico.
DeleteThey don't care about your NAP, they have never heard of it, and most wouldn't understand it even if they could read.
"I do not necessarily favor deporting convicted felons."
Pure libertarian autism. We do not live in ancapistan. We do not have a private justice system. So if someone from a foreign country commits a crime against an American you would prefer they not be deported because........anarchism?
See the Raimondo quote from this post:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2016/05/progress.html
Calling the police on a criminal is a violation of the NAP according to autistic libertarians.
DeleteLibertarians need to stop doing George Soros' work for him. This stuff is not hard to understand.
ReplyDeleteLibertarians should be against the Empire. If they aren't they do not deserve the name and are worse than our openly declared enemies. If you oppose the Empire then you support National Sovereignty. If you support National Sovereignty then you must oppose the open borders and population displacement used by the Empire.
The only reasons a "libertarian" would support open borders is because (A)autism or (B) Cultural Marxism. The Autistic libertarian says,"I have to support this policy that is not in my interest and against the long term goals I profess to support because......muh principles." The Cultural Marxist "libertarian" says, "blah blah patriarchy blah blah racism blah blah destroy western civilization."
Solutions: the Autistic libertarian can be reeducated (maybe start with reading vdare.com) but the Cultural Marxist needs to excluded from the name libertarian and in some future Ancapistan they need to be physically removed from society (I would say do that now but we don't have any power).
Perhaps they might start by reading Rothbard:
Deletehttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2016/05/progress.html
They should do both. I am sure Rothbard himself would be reading Vdare if he was alive today.
DeleteUC, do you think that Rothbard would be reading Taki's? Derbyshire?
DeleteYes I do, and I am not just saying that for the sake of argumentum ad Rothbardum. I really do believe that Rothbard understood that the true allies of libertarianism are to be found on the antiwar right, which includes race realists, immigration restrictionists, and anti-zionists.
DeleteSee Rothbard on a program of Right Wing Populism: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html
No. Rothbard would enter into an alliance only if thh other side would accept the NAP, thats why he joined forces with some of the New Left in the late sixties and only then temperarily. He would n't become a 'race realist immigration restrictionist or a anti zionist' he might advocate for those people if he thought there was some common ground in the goal if eliminating the State but other than that, no way because those race realists, immigration restictionists and anti zionists would use the state to suppress blacks, latinos, jews, muslims etc etc.
DeleteHeath, "white supremacists" these days just want to end anti-white discrimination like affirmative action, discriminatory legal codes, anti-white harassment in education and the media, etc. In my country libertarians that don't hate white people are called fascists.
DeleteIt seems to me that one underlying problem with the assertions above (and applications of "libertarian theory" to the current events of the nation-state in general) is that there is no property ownership. Rather than the dubious claim that the "taxpayers" are the owners, what is required first is the recognition that the taxpaying citizens have been completely dispossessed. These people are much more accurately viewed as the livestock of the ruling class.
ReplyDeleteThus, a more reasonable commentary is one that simply points out the failure of the ruling class with regard to immigration policy without the errant extension to the question of borders etc. (consider, for example, the absurd claim above that because a piece of land is unowned it has no borders "by definition").
This brings one to the heart of the matter with the article above. The position of "open borders libertarianism" is, or should be, a straw man. Any reasonable position, even of a libertarian---presumably on his way to a more consistent and tenable position, namely voluntarism---should be that the subjects of rulers have been dispossessed of all property. There is no justifiable property ownership in the current paradigm of masters and slaves. Tradition, and customs, and homesteading do not cut it.
More generally, libertarian theorists such as Walter Block and Murray Rothbard have not provided a framework for justifiable property ownership. This deficiency should be priority one for "libertarian theorists." When the details of a solid notion of justifiable property ownership have been hammered out, then (along with the commendable work concerning the nonaggression principle and many other things due to Rothbard et al) the foundation will be laid, and the work of creating a civilized human society can begin. This is, perhaps, the final remaining key. Until then, empty commentary on the relation between current society, and libertarian theory, voting, etc. is pretty much null. Do you think the ruler is going to pay attention to what you have to say, other than to suppress it? Do you expect him to embrace what you are saying and give up a little of his power...try on a little "limited government" for size? How's that working out for you?
“The position of "open borders libertarianism" is, or should be, a straw man.”
DeleteTake it up with someone who claims it.
“More generally, libertarian theorists such as Walter Block and Murray Rothbard have not provided a framework for justifiable property ownership.”
There will never be a universally accepted framework – even between different groups of libertarians or voluntarists – no matter what theories Block or any other libertarian develops. I see no reason why homesteading is the only way, for example. Even if it was, just how much labor – precisely – must be mixed with land for the land to become mine? Who will decide?
The decisions will be made locally, through contractual or cultural means - and they will be different, one place to another.
Universality is not necessary. Nothing about libertarianism or voluntarism is ever likely to be universally accepted. The question is: Among likeminded voluntarists what is a definition of justified property ownership that makes sense.
DeleteYou correctly point out (or at least hint) that the notion of "mixing" labor with property justifies ownership is nonsense. Far from being the only way, it is far from clear that any arbitrary act of "homesteading" is any way whatsoever. Thus, the question remains.
Upon what principles can a community (in some geographic location) of likeminded voluntarists define and defend their justifiably owned property (and borders)? Please face the question.
P.S. I took up the question of the strawman argument with you, because you are the one making it.
Sonja, I have written several posts on borders, culture, immigration. That I happened to title this one "Libertarian Open Borders" does not make it my position. There are many libertarians who have staked their claim on this position. I am not one of them.
Delete"Upon what principles can a community (in some geographic location) of likeminded voluntarists define and defend their justifiably owned property (and borders)? Please face the question."
There are many alternatives, all acceptable within a libertarian framework as best as I can see. Frankly, as long as "folks around here" generally agree to the process (as you say, "likeminded"), this seems sufficient.
It seems rather presumptuous to say "this is the one and only acceptable method," don't you think?
"Upon what principles can a community (in some geographic location) of likeminded voluntarists define and defend their justifiably owned property (and borders)?"
DeleteNo principles or rational justification are needed. You own what you can keep. The idea of a rational basis for society is the ultimate failure of enlightenment philosophy and leads to scientism. We should reject the premise completely.
Does the love of ones own people need a logical justification?
Is it presumptuous to say "this is the one and only acceptable method"? Yes, perhaps it is. On the other hand, I have not said that. What I have said is that (1) the current framework of property ownership is not acceptable, (2) libertarian writers have not offered any workable alternative, and (3) an alternative is needed. To elaborate on (1), what we currently have is not only unacceptable, but it is unworkable. Your observations about the destruction caused by unlimited immigration/invasion demonstrate this point.
DeleteI did not mean to suggest that you hold the position of "open borders." I have read all your posts on culture, borders, and immigration, and I quite appreciate many of your points of view. My assertion is that your argument *against* open borders is a straw-man argument. You are setting up a target which lacks any real content, and then knocking it down as if that is some kind of accomplishment.
I have gone farther and pointed out that part of the trouble is that you seem to assume there is, in place, a workable system of property ownership, and where there is not, you invent one, a la "the taxpayers are the owners." This, however, is not the case. Property ownership, or anything that makes sense to call property ownership, has been virtually eliminated in human society to date. Perhaps members of the ruling class exercise a kind of property ownership, but that also is not *justifiable property ownership*, though young soldiers in the military seem inexplicably willing to die for it. What constitutes justifiable property ownership? I keep coming back to that question, and where I seem to disagree with you is in that I don't think that just anything will do.
That doesn't mean I'm saying "this" or "that" is the only possibility. I'm saying, to date, we have nothing workable on the subject. On the other hand, I do think there are some relatively strict parameters for anything that makes sense. The situation is very similar to the non-aggression principle. I may not assert that everyone (or even everyone in a given community of people with whom I initiate and have an explicit social contract) must agree on all details and applications of the non-aggression principle. However, if they have crazy ideas about non-aggression, then we have a problem.
This seems to be the situation with property ownership. Just "mix" some labor with whatever you see, and viola, you have property ownership. I say that's crazy. I'm not willing to defend that. I *want* *you* to justifiably own property. I'm willing to put my life on the line for you to justifiably own property. I would like for you to do the same for me. I'm not going to do that on the basis of some piece of paper issued by ruling class enforcers (title). I'm not going to go for it on the basis of some nebulous "homesteading" principle. No one in his right mind would agree to such nonsense. And make no mistake, property ownership, whatever else it might be, is a community concept---it is not an individual thing, unless you are simply isolated. If there are other people around who decide you are not going to own something, and there are enough of them and only one of you, then you are not going to be able to defend your property---even your life.
In any case, I disagree with your "folks around here" generally agree... Folks in Germany generally agree to the title/ruling class management of property. And it is not sufficient. It doesn't seem sufficient, though it might be propped up temporarily through what you might call "good immigration policy." There may be alternatives, there may be flexibility with property ownership, and with the non-aggression principle, and with many other important topics, but it's not "anything goes." Just anything is not sufficient. We need to know at least what are the rough parameters.
UnhappyConservative says:
Delete> No principles or rational
> justification are needed.
> The idea of a rational basis
> for society is the ultimate
> failure of enlightenment
> philosophy. We should reject
> the premise completely.
Let us therefore proceed on an irrational basis. (Hurrah!) That is very conservative. It also holds great promise for future unhappiness. Presumably, it also leaves most of us speechless, by definition.
Sonja
DeleteI will consider your comments in the next days; I will reply thereafter, if I believe I can add value by doing so or otherwise move the discussion forward.
Sonja, the US population is moving towards third world demographics and all the IQ levels, dysfunction, and social pathologies that entails. Your complaints will be of no consequence to this kind of population.
DeleteSonja,
DeletePeople are more receptive to appeals to pathos than they are to logos and ethos.
Please don't confuse the fact that I made a short post with me blowing off your arguments. I agree with your views on homesteading. My point, which I would actually like to get a reply to, is that property ownership is a might is right situation. What good is a rational justification?
Sonja, see here:
Deletehttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2016/05/touching-red-sonja.html
It seems to me that one underlying problem with the assertions above (and applications of "libertarian theory" to the current events of the nation-state in general) is that there is no property ownership. Rather than the dubious claim that the "taxpayers" are the owners, what is required first is the recognition that the taxpaying citizens have been completely dispossessed. These people are much more accurately viewed as the livestock of the ruling class.
ReplyDeleteThus, a more reasonable commentary is one that simply points out the failure of the ruling class with regard to immigration policy without the errant extension to the question of borders etc. (consider, for example, the absurd claim above that because a piece of land is unowned it has no borders "by definition").
This brings one to the heart of the matter with the article above. The position of "open borders libertarianism" is, or should be, a straw man. Any reasonable position, even of a libertarian---presumably on his way to a more consistent and tenable position, namely voluntarism---should be that the subjects of rulers have been dispossessed of all property. There is no justifiable property ownership in the current paradigm of masters and slaves. Tradition, and customs, and homesteading do not cut it.
More generally, libertarian theorists such as Walter Block and Murray Rothbard have not provided a framework for justifiable property ownership. This deficiency should be priority one for "libertarian theorists." When the details of a solid notion of justifiable property ownership have been hammered out, then (along with the commendable work concerning the nonaggression principle and many other things due to Rothbard et al) the foundation will be laid, and the work of creating a civilized human society can begin. This is, perhaps, the final remaining key. Until then, empty commentary on the relation between current society, and libertarian theory, voting, etc. is pretty much null. Do you think the ruler is going to pay attention to what you have to say, other than to suppress it? Do you expect him to embrace what you are saying and give up a little of his power...try on a little "limited government" for size? How's that working out for you?
It should be apparent that there are several fault lines in libertarianism, and I think the immigration and borders debate really bring these divisions to light.
ReplyDeleteThe basic divide is what it has always been: those who hold equality as the highest value (left) and those who don't (right), but there is also a divide, which has existed for some time, between the individualists and the communitarians. The former take individual acting man as the subject of politics and the later takes communities of people to be the subject.
These are conflicting views of man and society. I don't believe it possible to settle this conflict within the realms of libertarian theory though I applaud BM for trying.
I am a right-wing communitarian and if libertarian theory dictates open borders I would reject libertarian theory. If libertarian theory demands traditional culture and immigration restrictions, then I have no doubt that leftists would reject it.
Libertarianism is not immune to the divisions found in all politics.
In my view, Libertarianism a reactionary critique of the modern state from within the paradigm of liberalism. The more traditionalist libertarians want to believe that liberalism can be salvaged and I have come to believe that it cannot. It is liberalism itself that has led to these problems and they will not be solved from within that same paradigm.
"These are conflicting views of man and society. I don't believe it possible to settle this conflict within the realms of libertarian theory though I applaud BM for trying."
DeleteUC, I am not sure what it is I have done that deserves this applause. I have been clear that libertarian theory only goes so far, that it doesn't address every issue.
For example, my last paragraph in the above:
"In this world, that will require including in the discussion some concepts that libertarian theory does not directly address. As if this is the only topic where this is true."
My desire is to push libertarian theory as far as it can go, recognizing that humans are...human.
BM,
DeleteI don't mean to suggest that you haven't been clear about the limitations of libertarian theory. That is one of my favorite aspects of your work.
It is obvious that you are taking libertarian theory to its limits. That is what I am commending. I think it came out otherwise because I am of the opinion that the role of libertarian theory is a radical liberal critique of liberalism, and that the solutions to our problems lie outside liberalism.
Of course one of the reasons that most libertarians demand open borders is because they refuse to accept that the cascade of NAP violations that results from the open borders are in fact NAP violations. On the other hand their sense of NAP violation is highly tuned when it comes to the state turning away a foreigner with a criminal record for murder at the border - how dare the government violate the rights of this poor man!
ReplyDeleteThis leads me to believe that their highest value is the undermining of Western civilization, and they believe that libertarianism is the way to get to that goal, just as some socialists believe that socialism/communism is the way to achieve that goal. To summarize, libertarianism is the means of ending western civilization, not the end.
There is a difference between the nation and the state, although the cultural Marxist libertarians conflate the two just like the statists. The nation state came about as peoples (biologically and culturally related people, AKA nations) demanded states that represented their interests, states controlled by and for the benefit of the nation. Before that nations would often be ruled by foreigners (at least in Europe).
So what you see is "libertarians" supporting the state in betraying the nation. What a coincidence that you have libertarians that just happen to support current state policies, and even demand such policies be ramped up.
What is to be done about libertarians that work against the nation? To my mind you treat them exactly the same as the traitor state. If you betray your tribal affiliation you get exiled or otherwise forcibly removed from society.
+1 m8
DeleteRe: Matt@Occidentalism.org,
Delete─ Of course one of the reasons that most libertarians demand open borders is because they refuse to accept that the cascade of NAP violations that results from the open borders are in fact NAP violations. ─
Of course, the reason most people support having kids is because they refuse to accept that the cascade of NAP violations that results from having kids are in fact NAP violations.
─ There is a difference between the nation and the state ─
True. One is a construct made up by jingoistic chauvinists and the other is the system populated by bureaucrats who wet-dream about 'borders'.
─ although the cultural Marxist libertarians conflate the two just like the statists. ─
That sentence lets known in no uncertain terms that you have NO clue what libertarianism is about or what Cultural Marxism is about. Talk about conflating two concepts anathema to each other.
Reply to Heath (the drop down reply bar isn't working for me)
ReplyDelete"those race realists, immigration restictionists and anti zionists would use the state to suppress blacks, latinos, jews, muslims etc etc. "
Because Rothbard was a supporter of multi-culturalism?
Are you claiming that Rothbard wouldn't ally with the Right? That he wouldn't read right wing publications?
The fact is that he did. Rothbard was a member of the league of the South when he died.
like I said if he could find common cause with other people left or right he would. Anything to get rid of the state.
DeleteYes, but the left and the right are not equally amenable to libertarian goals. It is clear than in his later years Rothbard saw the more fruitful alliance to be with the right.
DeleteYou also failed to answer whether you thought Rothbard was a proponent of multiculturalism.
@Bionic Mosquito,
ReplyDelete─ Angela Merkel's open borders policy continues to pay dividends in the destruction of open borders as a libertarian concept. ─
Angela Merkel is NOT putting in place a policy of Open Borders. You're confusing not having borders imposed by the State with importing refugees.
─ There is no “state” in libertarian theory. The only “borders” are the borders that divide private property, one privately-owned parcel from another. ─
Then who sets these borders you seem to miss so much? Angels? They are certainly NOT placed there by private property owners.
─ Sounds good in theory. What about practice? ─
So instead of arguing the soundness of of a proposal, you're going to judge it on its UTILITARIAN merits???
─ Access to property is managed. ─
Yes. For instance, *YOU* don't get to tell *ME* who I can or can't contract to work at *MY* factory or who I can let into *MY* house, be it a foreigner or NOT.
What YOU propose is the TOTAL and CERTAIN ABOLITION of the FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE, THE FREEDOM TO CONTRACT AND THE FREEDOM TO ENGAGE IN COMMERCE. By virtue of God-knows-what... Maybe 'Protecting our precious bodily culture, Mandrake', like Hoppe argues (unconvincingly, in my view)?
Tell me it ain't so.
It ain't so.
DeleteYou have a lot of catching up to do before I take your yelling seriously.
Start here:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2016/04/open-borders-and-culture-reading-list.html
Read every link in the above.
Then here:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-moral-foundations-of-modem-social.html
After you do that, reply as if you understand the conversation.
@Bionic Mosquito,
Delete─ You have a lot of catching up to do before I take your yelling seriously. ─
I've been reading your columns whenever they're posted by Lew Rockwell or Robert Wenzel, FOR YEARS. I think I have all the 'catching up' I need to do, thank you very much. Besides, that's not much of an answer. I am judging the arguments you posited ABOVE.
For instance, this:" Libertarian theory does not recognize open borders when it comes to property."
This is conflating property boundaries with the political borders placed by the State. In essence, you're *conceding* the legitimacy of the State itself for some unfathomable reason because it was the State who placed those lines on the map. I certainly didn't. Did you?
─ Property is private and exclusionary. ─
Of course it is. That is NOT what you're talking about. If *I* want to RENT, EMPLOY or MARRY a foreigner, who are YOU to tell me I *CAN'T*? Why should I accept your argument that immigrants should only homestead barren expanses? Because that is what you're saying: "... immigrants aren’t moving to the top of the Alps[.]" This is arguing that the only good immigrants are those who homestead completely unclaimed land. That is astounding in its face because, in practice, it would mean NO ONE would be able to move anywhere!
─ Is your property open to anyone who wants to come on it? ─
The difference, Bionic Mosquito, is that I don't pretend to PROJECT my property boundaries to the whole area encompassing a NATION only because I happen to find foreigners icky. I certainly don't open my home to anyone, but a NATION ain't my home, and I certainly have NO right to tell my neighbors who can or cannot visit them, or to whom they can let their homes or who they can employ or marry or simply invite over. What makes you think you have that right? What is so NAP about precluding others from pursuing their own happiness?
─ After you do that, reply as if you understand the conversation. ─
I'll leave aside the condescending nature of your recommendation and will say that instead of convincingly arguing why *I* should be precluded from renting, employing or marrying whoever I want outside these imaginary 'borders' set up by Leviathan. And don't even TRY telling me that this is not what your're arguing or that I am misconstruing your argument, because THIS: "An immigrant moving to the deserts or the mountaintops carving out an independent life in the new world can be OK in libertarian theory; it doesn’t happen in practice" sounds PRETTY CATEGORICAL. In essence, you're arguing an immigrant is OK as long as he or she moves to the gawd-damned MOON.
You keep conflating the importation of refugees by the German government with the concept of free immigration. Once you get to it, your basic argument can be reduced to this: Government should not open the borders, because government exists. Here:
"Germany's government expects to spend around 93.6 billion euros by the end of 2020 on costs related to the refugee crisis" and "No, there is nothing libertarian about open borders in practice."
What is one supposed to take from this? That it is the actions by the State that defines what libertarianism is? Is the existence of the State the deal breaker when it comes to defining freedom of movement? "No! No open borders! Why? Because the State exists! So, nope! Can't have that!"
Please.
Francisco
DeleteSee here:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2016/05/my-condescending-reply-to-francisco.html
This is lame.
ReplyDeleteWhat is happening in Germany has nothing to do with the open borders idea. If there was absolute liberty for people to move from anywhere in the world to Germany, then many people with a much better economic productivity profile than those Syrian refugees would choose to move to Germany and enjoy the life there, which would cause the cost of life to rise, thus forcing low productivity Germans to move out to another country with a cost of life they could afford, while keeping out poor, unproductive foreigners.
You are conflating the principle of liberty to move with current events in a very antilibertarian society.
We free-marketeers say that moneys and mercancies should flow freely, unhindered, without Government or State intervention, throughout the world, through every society. How can any advocate of the free-market make an exception with regards to the movement of people, who are the most important part of the market, because we know that money, products and ideas do not exist by themselves and have no objective value at all.
How can any person claim that the same State who has no right whatsoever to determine the education of the people does in fact have the authority and the obligation to keep foreigners out. If you give just one power to the State, then you are in effect giving all power to the State. Thread carefully.
Not lame - there is no point to discuss open border in a world where states control borders - even to implement open borders, it will be the state that decides and interprets.
Delete"the principle of liberty to move"
There is no such thing. There is the liberty to leave, there is no liberty to enter.
"...does in fact have the authority and the obligation to keep foreigners out."
I don't ask for the state to do anything, yet this doesn't stop them from doing it. So, how would you have the state manage its borders, because they will be managed by the state.
Here's something for you to chew on:
ReplyDeletehttp://fff.org/2016/05/19/open-borders-libertarian-position-immigration/
Jacob Hornberger slices and dices you to bits, without ever mentioning your name. Would love to see you try to respond.
I saw it. He failed. I will respond.
DeleteWow. Hornberger has gone full George Soros. I would invite Jefferey Tucker and him to spend a week living in a third world ghetto for a dose of much needed cultural enrichment.
DeleteA mini-statist lecturing a principled anarchist on the evils of central planning, socialism, government control and interference and the non-aggression principle, much less the virtues of being consistent in the application of one’s political philosophy, is just, well, too comical.
ReplyDeleteBesides using the tired tactic of conflating opposition to state policies promoting and subsidizing immigration contrary to the wishes of the local population as “opposing open borders” as his anchor, he is just all over the place trying to explain his internal contradictions.
First Hornberger states: “Government-controlled borders constitute socialist central planning in action. As libertarians, we know what socialism produces — chaos — or as Ludwig von Mises put it, planned chaos. It never works. It will never work. Socialism is an inherently defective paradigm.”
And “The only thing that works is free markets and free enterprise, meaning markets and economic enterprise that are entirely free from government control and interference.”
Yet in the end he reveals himself “Finally, Bionic takes me to task for being a limited-government libertarian rather than a libertarian anarchist. He says that one of his beefs with limited government is that it can’t stay limited.” – Yea, show me one that has.
And “Bionic also asserts that it’s impossible to reconcile limited government with the libertarian non-aggression principle. Really?” Yea, really; the state is institutionalized socialism.
Further, he states that “First of all, the crisis is a direct consequence of the U.S. national-security state’s death machine in the Middle East, which has been killing people and destroying people’s homes and businesses for at least 25 years.” So, he believes that the state is necessary because “we” need an army to protect “us” from the proverbial warlords? Then how can he justify supporting a policy where his supposedly necessary military does nothing as waves of foreigners invade with the excuse to stand down being that this same military was profoundly immoral and incompetent in conducting its most recent assignments?
I don’t know how Hornberger can get through the day with all this cognitive dissonance in his head.
I see this as a “chicken or egg” style question as to what brings us closer to the desired outcome of a stateless society – which part of the state do we seek to eliminate first (assuming the whole thing can’t be eliminated all at once and I also assume that most agree on eliminating war before all else)
1) state subsidized immigration/welfare for foreigners or
2) managed borders.
If you eliminate No. 1, then most of the problems from No. 2 go away. If you eliminate No. 2 first, then the problems associated with No. 1 get bigger. So, duh! A simple opportunity cost analysis would seem to suggest the best option is to manage borders; at least until the incentives to abuse them have been eliminated.
@Mark Davis,
Delete─ A mini-statist lecturing a principled anarchist ─
Are you talking about Hornberger? Have you read anything he has written? Have you listened to his lectures? He and Bionic Mosquito may disagree on the issue of Open Borders but that is not cause to call him a "mini-statist".
─ [...] conflating opposition to state policies promoting and subsidizing immigration contrary to the wishes of the local population as “opposing open borders” as his anchor [...] ─
What Hornberger is addressing is BM's own conflation of Open Borders with state-action as if both are concomitant when they're not. BM relies on sophistry to conclude that Open Borders has to mean the violation of people's property rights because all what immigrants do is homestead (i.e. invade and displace.)
─ "[...] "Bionic also asserts that it's impossible to reconcile limited government with the libertarian non-aggression principle. Really?" Yea, really; the state is institutionalized socialism. ─
But you're missing the point. Hornberger is arguing that the idea that Open Borders would necessarily mean the growth of government is absurd in its face, since Open Borders - by definition - would entail LESS government intervention, not more. Open Borders ─ the real concept ─ would necessary entail LESS government, not more.
Let me explain: You seem not to realize that the time the U.S. government was much more limited in size was also the time the country enjoyed the most open immigration which coincided with the greatest level of economic growth this side of the Atlantic. That was the XIX Century. And you seem to forget that it wasn't until the government grew in size that prohibitions on immigration were put in place. The idea that Open Borders has to mean a growth in government is an unsubstantiated myth.
─ So, he believes that the state is necessary because “we” need an army to protect “us” from the proverbial warlords? ─
What you ask and what you yourself quoted from him are completely contradictory.
─ [...] how can he justify supporting a policy where his supposedly necessary military does nothing as waves of foreigners invade [sic] ─
Invade, Mark? 'Waves of foreigners'? You can't be serious. These are individual human beings of will, pursuing their self-interest just like you, or me. An invader is a person who would seek to do harm to people in a different country, like for instance an American soldier in Iraq.
─ which part of the state do we seek to eliminate first [:] 1) state subsidized immigration/welfare for foreigners ─
Where do you get the idea that immigration is "subsidized"?
─ If you eliminate No. 1, then most of the problems from No. 2 [managed borders] go away ─
Depends on what you think 'managed borders' mean. For instance, BM makes the point of comparing the political borders imposed by the State, those that are like the territories crime families divide among them, with property boundaries, in order to argue that 'managed borders' is like having gates and fences. Maybe unwittingly, but he gives the state legitimacy by giving it a role to play through this comparison.
'Managed borders' in practice means having tax-fed thugs question your reasons for entering the country while asking you for your papers, never mind the liberty you were born with.
─ If you eliminate No. 2 first, then the problems associated with No. 1 get bigger. ─
This is the argument that you need to explain, the question-begging notwithstanding (by assuming that immigration is *subsidized* which is an incredibly clumsy lie, not unlike the lie the Marxians peddle about fossil fuels being "subsidized.") How is it possible that NOT spending untold billions on keeping tax-fed leeches you may call (with a very sick sense of humor) "Border Patrol Agents," and their union bosses, happy and well-fed, is somehow conducive to bigger government. How does that work?