Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Hornberger and Immigration…


I would be nice if Jacob Hornberger would stick to foreign intervention, the drug war, and the like.

Two articles from yesterday’s daily.  First, his own: Immigration Socialism Produces More Death and Suffering:

A few days ago, eight undocumented immigrants died from heat exhaustion while being illegally transported in the back of a tractor-trailer in South Texas. Dozens were severely injured, with some expected to have permanent brain damage.

It is a tragic incident, no doubt.

In a free-market system, immigrants would be free to cross borders back and forth using the normal means of transportation — cars, busses, planes, and trains.

I agree…like one million percent. 

But we don’t have a free market system; in a free market system, for one thing we would have borders – not the kind to which Hornberger refers. 

The basis of the free market is private property; without private property there is no free market.  As even Walter Block now recognizes, without private property, you cannot have open borders consistent with libertarian theory (at least he recognizes it for now; he offered a future reply and I will not conclude anything further regarding his view until then).

I will come back to the idea of free markets once I deal with Hornberger’s second offering from yesterday.  It is from The New York Times, entitled Without Visas, Carnival Workers Are Trapped at Home in Mexico.

Now…just think for a minute about that title.  Think about a libertarian world.  Think about the point made above, regarding private property. 

Let me state this bluntly: in a free market, without permission from the neighboring landowner EVERYONE is trapped at home.  Home is the only place where we have free movement; home is the only place where one can have open borders – if one chooses to be so foolish.

In case you think I am being too harsh or hard-headed, I offer something further, from The New York Times piece (apparently the trendsetter in libertarian theory now):

“They say we are taking jobs from the Americans,” said Mr. Trujillo, who has worked the last four carnival seasons in New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Carnival work is “really hard,” he said, adding, “Americans don’t want to do it.”

Of course Americans don’t want to do this work – shoveling animal dung and bucketing vomit.  Americans get paid well to stay at home and do nothing.  Absent this non-free-market income, there would be plenty of Americans willing to shovel sh!7.

There are no free markets.  Absent free markets, there is no possibility to conclude a libertarian position regarding state borders – and certainly not that the only libertarian position is open borders.


Jacob Hornberger is great on foreign intervention, the drug war, and other such topics.  Enough said.


  1. Thanks for that post. I get tired of so called libertarians who can not understand that there is a huge difference in the political/economic system we are trapped in and a real laissez faire, free market. There is a huge difference between Rothbard's market anarchy and the fascist system we have had since at lease FDR.

    Why can these so called intellectuals not understand this?

    1. Libertarians don't want to be called racists by the "progressives". Why oh why do libertarians never appeal to religious conservatives and point out that they could establish their own private neighborhoods with private streets and schools where no one who opposed the religious program would be allowed in? I recall Ron Paul getting very low vote totals in the south because everyone assumed that libertarians were "socially liberal". Private neighborhoods solve the drug problem with no black markets. Perhaps the current "intellectual" implosion of the "progressives" will make them seem less threatening to fearful libertarians.

  2. During the early years of the Cold War, West Berlin was a geographical loophole through which thousands of East Germans fled to the democratic West. In response, the Communist East German authorities built a wall that totally encircled West Berlin. It was thrown up overnight, on 13 August 1961.

    no way in no way out

    1. There are key distinctions between the situation in East Germany and our current one:

      1. The US government has yet to restrict(en masse, outside of a few issues like back taxes) the travel of it's citizens in terms of leaving the country. (outside of Cuba and the like, though you can still get there by simply going to Canada or Mexico first)

      I understand your argument/concern, but the fact remains as of today such a thing has not happened and we are forced by the state to pick either further financial looting by illegals-both directly via the welfare state or indirectly via socialist predispositions in culture- or risk the possibility of the being trapped in the US by better border security.

      At this stage, I'm more worried about the former than the latter- though I'd prefer to not have to choose obviously.

      #2 People weren't moving into East Germany. (especially not moving in to take advantage of a welfare state- East Germany was not able to support such a thing as well as the US at the time)

      I know #2 sounds absurd, but in the context of your argument it's not because that's why your argument simply doesn't "work". It's apples to oranges.

      I'd rather risk this notion that the US gov't can capably stop us from leaving without an actual civil war occurring(something I think has a less than 1% chance of happening) versus allowing a flood of illegals that share no affinity towards free markets and increase my tax/inflation burdens.

      Again, in a private property driven world we wouldn't have this dilemma, but that is the reality we live in today unfortunately and we all have to choose based on what we perceive as the lesser of two evils/NAP violations.

    2. are you going to have same view if/when your society become as venezuela,cuba,ussr,n.korea,nazi germany..

      my point is refugees immigrants foreigners are not problem as big as your own bloated state which create all this problem in the first place.
      your enemy is your own government, they are one who you need to be scare of.

    3. "are you going to have same view if/when your society become as venezuela,cuba,ussr,n.korea,nazi germany.."

      What does your gut tell you?

      "my point is refugees immigrants foreigners are not problem as big as your own bloated state "

      And you think letting more immigrants in that justify the government in taking more money to provide for them all is the solution?

      I can't believe we're having the discussion.

    4. my point is :birds of a feather flock together
      change warfare and welfare state, than refugees immigrants foreigners will not be any problem.

      my position is similar to this:

      At least two fundamental principles of Western law had their origin in Mosaic Israel. The first principle was the rule of law itself: every resident was to be protected equally by the civil law. The second principle was open immigration. The nation’s treatment of the immigrant served as a touchstone in Israel of the nation’s faithfulness to the first principle.

      Open immigration was an important means of evangelism.

      Thus, Israel was not just the Promised Land for Abraham and his heirs. It was supposed to remain the Promised Land for the oppressed of the world. And, in some periods, it really was.

      In ancient Israel, there was a national priesthood, which was assumed to be the primary agency of cultural assimilation for immigrants. This is why immigrants were allowed to become Israelites through circumcision. Political citizenship followed in three generations for Egyptians and Edomites, and in ten generations for Moabites and Ammonites.
      Confession, circumcision, and Passover were the initial means of assimilation. That is, the assimilation process began with religion. The same outlook long prevailed in the West, with the Christian church serving as the priesthood. The church was the primary means of cultural assimilation.

      A very big question is this one: in a nation that allows wealth re- distribution through politics, what is to protect today’s property owners from tomorrow’s voters? When people can vote for a liv- ing, what prevents the arrival of an army of new voters, many with their eyes on the politically transferable wealth of the Promised Land? Even if they do not understand how wealth is transferred politically when they arrive, another army of salaried welfare professionals will soon teach them. After all, their jobs depend on a continuing stream of recipients.

      In short, where the welfare state is deeply entrenched, a nation will no longer be willing to serve as a sanctuary. It costs too much. If the welfare state ever becomes universal, locked-in populations will also become universal. There will be no escape from tyranny because of the border guards who keep would-be refugees from crossing the border into greater freedom.
      A nation’s voters may seek to vote themselves wealth from their fellows, but in doing so they create an engine of plunder that evil men will seek to control.

  3. If Hornberger was hit by a Juan driving drunk and rendered paraplegic, it would be very difficult for me to have any sympathy for him. He always sides with the invaders against white host populations. When polled anonymously the majority of white Americans (60%) want immigration cut to ZERO. To Hornberger it doesn't matter what they want. Here is a sad story of some taco people roasting to death, time for open borders! (nevermind the fact that if they weren't allowed in America there would be no human smuggling). It just like that stupid dead beach baby picture in Europe (when you see a dead baby on a beech is your first thought to move it to a better location for taking a picture?).

    He supports mass immigration into Europe. Mass immigration into Europe is cultural and racial genocide. At this rate there will no longer be unique cultures and ethnic groups in Europe, but a disgusting brown sludge mass of slaves. For this Hornberger is a criminal. He is complicit in a crime just like the war propagandists. Where is his sympathy for the Swedish girls being brutalized by low iq subhuman filth?

    Has Hornberger looked at the population growth numbers in Africa? Africa will reach a situation in the 21st where mass starvation is rampant (what you get for subsidizing the births of low-iq, high time preference humanoids). I guess we should let Africa just pour into Europe and wipe everyone out!

    In addition to being a traitor, Hornberger is also a shallow thinker. He is a minarchist. You can't really be a minarchist if you favor a king or a dictator so I assume he favors some kind of representative or even democratic government. Well how will that work when you allow the third world to pour in as they please? Will they vote for handouts and ethnic favoritism? Or will they be persuaded against all natural inclination to become libertarians?

    This is dumb and sickening. This man is not a serious intellectual. He is a shill and an obnoxious moralist who cant find the time to care about anyone but the lowest 3rd world scum.

  4. If Trump gets to build his wall across PART of the SW, that leaves the Canadian border for escape, right? I went to a concert in downtown Detroit in 2015. Canada is across the river.

    1. Bring your up to date gender pronoun dictionary.