A
Libertarian Theory of Free Immigration, by Jesús Huerta de Soto
…libertarian doctrine traditionally
declared itself, with no qualifications or reservations, in favor of the
principle of complete freedom of emigration and immigration.
From the title of his essay and this sentence in the opening
paragraph, I approached this piece with some caution – given my view that one
cannot derive “open borders” from the non-aggression principle. Maybe I am just a bit jumpy, given recent
discussions of the topic.
I am glad, however, that I stuck to it and read the entire
essay. De Soto rightly points out the
violations of the non-aggression principle inherent in the state’s management
of border control. But he also sees that
this coin is not one-sided:
However, the coercive action of the
state manifests itself not only in hindering the free movement of people, but,
at the same time, in forcing the integration of certain groups of people
against the wishes of the natives of a given state or region.
This coin has two sides, and the two sides are almost
irreconcilable – and certainly not conducive to simple slogans like “open
borders is the only libertarian
position!”
In light of their apparently
contradictory nature, the foregoing problems show the importance of isolating
their real origin, and piecing together a libertarian theory of immigration
that clarifies the principles that should govern the processes of immigration
and emigration in a free society.
Which de Soto does. He
begins by examining the pure libertarian model, as explained by Rothbard (and
which generated so much heat for me when
I referred to it); it is a model of full private property rights – a model
that, inherently, means borders managed
by the property owner:
The conditions, volume, and
duration of personal visits will be those accepted or decided by the parties
involved.
And that would be that; an easy problem to solve if there
were no state borders and if all property was private.
But the problem becomes more complicated when factoring in
the reality of the state:
Thus, today, there is often the
paradox that those who wish to abide scrupulously by the law find that their
movements are not permitted, even if desired by all the parties involved. At
the same time, the existence of public goods and the free availability of
welfare-state benefits attract, like a magnet, a continuous tide of
immigration, mostly illegal, which generates significant conflicts and external
costs.
I am not allowed to invite who I choose and I am forced to suffer
and pay for who I do not want. It is not
a libertarian solution to take one side of this coin and not the other – it is
merely a different scheme of a state-managed border.
I have many other issues from a libertarian perspective with
the open borders position in a world of state borders. I have written extensively about these in the
past, so I will merely summarize here:
·
As a property owner has the right to manage his
border, he has the right to join with his neighbors to form a common agreement.
·
He and his neighbors also have the right to
grant agency to a third party to manage their outside borders.
·
That the state has forced these neighbors to “hire”
the state to act as the agent does not remove the right that the property
owners hold.
Finally, as state borders cannot be derived by a strict
application of the NAP one must look to the minarchist position; as minarchists
allow for the state to provide defense…how is defense to be provided unless the
state is knowledgeable about who crosses the border and for what purpose?
Returning to de Soto:
The ideal solution to all these
problems would come from the total privatization of the resources which are
today considered public, and the disappearance of state intervention at all
levels in the area of emigration and immigration.
I
have had this discussion with Walter Block who has acknowledged the
issue. It is not only the ideal solution; before a fully
libertarian solution can be offered, full private property rights must be
supported.
I find this much different than for issues like drug laws,
prostitution, etc. In each of those
cases, the state need do only one thing:
eliminate the laws that criminalize non-violent behavior. Nothing more need be done; this action causes
no damage to me or my property. In fact,
the damage to me is reduced as the government need not tax me to pay for
enforcement and incarceration of these non-criminals.
But for open borders, two actions must occur: eliminating
state border control and also supporting full private property rights; without
both actions, attacks on my property increase.
The number of ways by which attacks increase are too numerous to list,
but should be apparent.
De Soto offers some considerations for something approaching
a libertarian solution to this question in a world of state borders:
However, as long as nation-states
continue to exist, we must find “procedural” solutions that allow the problems
to be solved under present conditions.
We are left with discovering second-best solutions as long
as there is a state. One can debate
which of (or which combination of) these second-best solutions might move us
closest toward the libertarian ideal, but this is what we have.
In other words, our choice is not either / or: either
wide-open borders or we are inherently supporting every state violation
regarding international travel. There are
options for libertarians to support other than these:
The first of these principles is
that people who immigrate must do so at their own risk. This means that
immigration must in no way be subsidized by the welfare state, i.e., by
benefits provided by the government and financed through taxes.
This would certainly be required in a libertarian,
private-property order.
The second principle that should
inspire current policy is that all immigrants must be able to demonstrate that
they have independent means of support, and thus will not be a burden on the
taxpayers.
This would certainly be required in a libertarian,
private-property order. It strikes me
that this should also be guaranteed by a sponsor.
The third essential principle is
that under no circumstance should the political vote be granted to immigrants
quickly, since this would create the danger of political exploitation by
various groups of immigrants.
Well, there would be no such as “political votes” in the
same sense in a full private property order.
But is there something libertarian about giving equal political standing
to strangers in today’s order?
As long as we have states, we are going to have people who
are citizens. Are non-citizens entitled
to all of the same privileges and protections that are afforded to a
citizen? Strangers, unaccustomed to
anything of the local culture and tradition and mores, have an equal say in the
politics of the country? On what basis,
I wonder.
Finally, the most important
principle is that all immigrants must at all times observe the law,
particularly the criminal law, of the social group that receives them.
This would certainly be required in a libertarian,
private-property order. And, again, this
should also be guaranteed by the sponsor.
Imagine if these steps were in place today. How much simpler – and more libertarian –
would the border crossing be in such a condition? Of course, a state agent (presumably) would still
confirm proper documentation and sponsorship, but beyond this they would have
no role.
That strikes me about as libertarian as we are going to get
as long as there are state borders.
Conclusion
Finally, an adult enters the room. What do I mean by this? Someone who recognizes that this is not a
simple black and white issue, not when viewed strictly through the lens of the
non-aggression principle.
De Soto has described well the issues and has offered
solutions that bring us toward a libertarian view on a topic where we are
inherently stuck with second-best choices.
I have in the past written of very similar solutions – solutions that in
a private property order would certainly be enforced.
If you want further demands for government action when it
comes to immigration, keep pushing for open borders in today’s world and with
today’s conditions. If you truly want
less government involvement in immigration and border control, work toward full
private property rights; in the meantime, consider how de Soto’s list mimics as
well as possible a private property order in a world of state borders – then advocate
for these.
It would be the adult thing to do.
I will conclude with the comment I left at the site:
A very thoughtful and considered
presentation, demonstrating that in a world of state borders there is no
"pure" libertarian answer to the question of immigration. Instead, we
are left – as de Soto has done – to discuss and develop methods and procedures
that can mimic a libertarian solution within the confines of monopoly state
control of borders, as much as such a thing is possible.
""""a model of full private property rights – a model that, inherently, means borders managed by the property owner:""""
ReplyDeleteAnd what many libertarians don't understand is that the private property owner become the sovereign of their of their property.
So the US becoming pure libertarian would not get rid of the State, it would allow up to 300 million states. And for someone to move from state to state would require negotiation and permission every step of the way. So full property rights would not include "open borders" since that would go against property rights.
It took the US Constitution to take away the states rights to control its borders. Big government is what drives open borders, since the big government is the one who has the power to force the small governments to obey.
Very good point about the US Constitution. To apply it more generally, to realize global 'open borders' or 'freedom of movement' would require a global totalitarian state.
DeleteI don't think sovereignty and statehood are synonymous, but I may be merely quibbling over words. A state is a territorial monopolist of law and order, whereas sovereignty always rests in public opinion.
I believe in a free world of voluntarily accepted law, the natural law would rise to the top and achieve sovereignty over any organization tasked with carrying out its justice in the real world.
In this way, my conception of freedom would be similar to the concept of the fealty of Middle Ages Europe. In this period, the king or prince wasn't sovereign, the 'old and good' law was. Kings and princes often went above this 'old and good' law, but the people recognized this as injustice, and often the offending monarch was deposed from his throne by force.
This violent check on power should be unnecessary once people begin to recognize that it doesn't require an aggressive monopoly to provide law and order.
DJF, I agree.
DeleteATL, regarding your first paragraph: I know I have read one of the open borders libertarians to advocate precisely for the global government that inherently is necessary if one truly demands open borders. Of course, they don't believe it would be a tyrannical state...
It might have been Hornberger, but I am not certain.
What is interesting about Jacob Hornberger and the open border libertarian crew is that they always advocate for increasing moral hazard. The idea of immigrants requiring a sponsor is an anathema to them, for they know that if a sponsor was required very few immigrants would be coming into America and Europe. Quite simply, once people have 'skin in the game' as sponsors they will look very closely at the prospective immigrant and reject any that pose a risk. As it stands, no one is held responsible for immigrant misbehavior, so the advocates of open borders like Jacob Hornberger are operating from a position of rampant moral hazard.
ReplyDeleteThe state border issue has to be the most perplexing issue in the realm of libertarian thought, and I appreciate all of your contributions to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteEven Rothbard initially fell for "open borders" advocacy. I believe this position was fostered in him by his desire to find some common cause with the New Left, who during this time seemed to be the only anti-state, anti-war voices.
Later in his life, recognizing the real state-coordinated cultural dilution of Estonia by Stalinist Russians to pacify dissent in the area, he changed his views. He saw that immigration can be a weapon of the state to preserve its power.
I think the reason why the libertarians who fall for the open borders argument are nearly all leftists or leftist sympathizers, is because it strokes the egalitarian, cosmopolitan, 'citizen of the world' predispositions within them. If you invite the world to your doorstep (at other people's expense of course) it is much easier to get
your 'citizen of the world' credentials.
I love that line in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" where Kristen Bell tells Russell brand that his myriad tattoos represent "completely conflicting ideologies" and that it didn't make him "a citizen of the world," it made him "full of shit."
I find Rothbard's evolution on a handful of topics worthy of note for the rarity of the occurrence - given that he developed so much of the non-aggression principle (theory and application) out of whole cloth.
DeleteOne thing about Rothbard, despite all his so called intransigence, was that he was extraordinarily open to criticism of his own positions, and honest in his pursuit of truth. It was an argument by a statist that allowed him to recognize an inconsistency in his own minarchist outlook that convinced him of anarchy. If people can get together and form a state for the provision of defense, then why can they not form a state for any other reason?
DeleteWhile Rothbard re-thought his stance on "open borders" in his piece "Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State," I don't think he adopted the position in that article that a state like the US should manage borders. My reading of that piece is that he argued for greater secession to enable more homogeneous neighborhoods to privately manage their "borders." It seems as if he remained against any state power.
Delete"Pending total privatization, it is clear that our model could be approached, and conflicts minimized, by permitting secessions and local control, down to the micro-neighborhood level, and by developing contractual access rights for enclaves and exclaves.... In sum, if we proceed with the decomposition and decentralization of the modern centralizing and coercive nation-state, deconstructing that state into constituent nationalities and neighborhoods, we shall at one and the same time reduce the scope of government power, the scope and importance of voting and the extent of social conflict. The scope of private contract, and of voluntary consent, will be enhanced, and the brutal and repressive state will be gradually dissolved into a harmonious and increasingly prosperous social order."
As an open question, are there other writings by Rothbard that indicate he moved to the position that the US state should manage borders?
NAPster
DeleteCiting Rothbard from the subject article:
“Pending total privatization, it is clear that our model could be approached, and conflicts minimized, by permitting secessions and local control, down to the micro-neighborhood level…”
I agree 100%, but what do we do pending secession and local control (which, for some insane reason, many libertarians oppose)? Should “we” demand open borders without secession and local control (to say nothing of private control)?
“As an open question, are there other writings by Rothbard that indicate he moved to the position that the US state should manage borders?”
I have no idea. I highly doubt it.
Another argument the open border types have employed is conflating open immigration with free trade. On the flip side, Alt Rightists have employed this tactic to justify protectionism.
ReplyDeleteI think both are confused, because the transfer of goods and the transfer of people are fundamentally different. A toaster from China cannot vote for more socialist leaning policies which will rob me and future generations of our prosperity. An immigrant from China can. An influx of toasters from China cannot cause a shift in the cultural political identity of America. Chinese immigrants can. The same can be said of all other non-American cultures; I chose Chinese for simplicity.
Having said that, I'm all for diversity, because the only way to have diversity in the future, is to recognize the right of every people to preserve their own culture today.
Excellent write up!
ReplyDeleteIt's great to have Jesús Huerta de Soto as an intellectual ally.
Bionic youve pretty much nailed it:
ReplyDelete1. Dismantle the nationalist / political borders aggressively enforced by the political class beginning in the 1960s.
2. Bring back the local / private property borders aggressively dismantled by the political class beginning in the 1960s.
Perfect. But then you add that the state will still need to continue its surveillance at the nationalist border. No no no. The whole point is that the market mechanism must be what controls immigration. Here Bryan Caplan is instructive. Caplan points out that there are 300 million people in the US. He points out that most people prefer living in cities over living in the country and the most preferred city to live in is New York. So the question is why don't all 300 million people in the US simply 'invade' New York ? After all there are no aggressively enforced government border controls to keep NYC free from the the 'teeming multitude' :) Yet today the population of Manhattan has fallen to nearly half its peak a century ago. The explanation is PRICE. The real estate pricing mechanism of the free market is ALL THAT IS NECESSARY.
ancap, I don't even know what your two points mean. In what country was this true?
DeleteAddress all four conditions that de Soto has noted - including my additional condition of a sponsor - and then tell me, in a world of state borders, who will administer the paperwork if not for a state actor.
As to citing Caplan, from the little I have read of him on this topic he may be the worst. You do not help your case with me by citing him.
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/03/immigration-human-right.html
But does not de Soto say the same thing ? Up until the 1960s Mexicans freely entered and left the US to work. Americans freely went across the border to shop, to experience its Old World charm as Jacob Hornberger puts it. Then the state deployed its savage drug war and turned once peaceful pleasant Mexican border towns into dangerous war zones with the highest murder rate in the world. The socialist drug warfare project incited the follow on socialist border control project.
DeleteAt the same time in the 1960s the US government outlawed the local immigration control system of private property deed restrictions and covenants provoking a mass internal immigration crisis within the US. Millions of whites fled the neighborhoods they had lived in for generations soon followed by business. Minorities took over cities but which were now bereft of their economic dynamo. At the same time the US governments drug war incited the formation of drug gangs and mass drug gang warfare within these abandoned America cities.
All of this chaos, murder, and mayhem was incited by your 'state actors', the very actors to whom you now cannot wait to look for protection from the peril of open borders :)
ancap, fair enough on the first point.
Deletebeyond this, you are making stuff up, for example:
"All of this chaos, murder, and mayhem was incited by your 'state actors', the very actors to whom you now cannot wait to look for protection from the peril of open borders :)"
I cannot wait? Nonsense.
I will try one more time, a mere copy and paste from my previous comment:
Address all four conditions that de Soto has noted - including my additional condition of a sponsor - and then tell me, in a world of state borders, who will administer the paperwork if not for a state actor.
No need to talk about drug wars, no need to make a false statement about my desire for state actors, just stick to the point.
ancap,
DeleteThe USG drug war certainly played a key role in creating the intolerable conditions in Mexican border towns which exposed the need for border security.
Maybe if the drug war was never enacted, and cartel drug money didn't own the government of Mexico, leading to the material and ideological impoverishment of the citizenry, we wouldn't need border security with our neighbor to the south. But in this world that the USG helped create, I believe we do. That is unless we dismantle the American democracy and the 'hell-fare' state it has created.
Since that ain't happening anytime soon, I won't be advocating 'open borders' anytime soon.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html
These exit polls reflect the sad truth: The less white you are, the less straight you are, the less male you are, the longer your period of indoctrination by the state, the poorer you are, the less rural you are... the more likely you are to vote Democrats into office.
I certainly don't regard the Republican party as the savior of liberty by any means, but at least these clowns have to pay lip service to limited government. Democrats are openly advocating socialist solutions to nearly every problem they see. They are lost, and so are those who vote for them. Immigrants typically fall into the 'poor' and 'nonwhite' categories above, therefore they can be relied upon to vote Democrat.
1965 was when the floodgates of immigration busted wide open. Going back and forth access the border is called visiting.
DeleteThe fundamental question, bionic, is 'what is security' ? Why bother with security ? Now security is really an economic good no different from any other. Areas with good security tend to have higher property values than areas with little or no security. Then of course there is government security, the centerpiece of which is its drug warfare project. The reason I bring it up is because it is a kind of counter security or anti security. Far from acting to preserve property values it has trashed property values over huge swaths of American cities. It has incited the formation of a vast army of dangerous gangsters spread all over the US. One now reads about even posh suburbs on Long Island subject to ongoing gang violence and warfare.
ReplyDeleteWhile private property based security preserves property values, its broader goal really is to foster civility, to keep the peace, to create conditions of repose, of charming and pleasant existence. In stark opposition to this is government security which has trashed American cities, turned free people into dominated subjects, while morphing into a belligerent militarized army of occupation.
Now it is commendable that you have set up and are running a political economy / philosophy blog whose broad goal is nurturing and fostering the cultivated life, the civilized life. But such civilization will be the better realized, the more intensified the more it is administered entirely by private enterprise and private security.
ancap, it might be your fundamental question, but it isn't mine. I will ask you, for the third time, again a mere copy and paste from my previous comment:
DeleteAddress all four conditions that de Soto has noted - including my additional condition of a sponsor - and then tell me, in a world of state borders, who will administer the paperwork if not for a state actor.
Not from your lalaland, but in a world where we have states and where we have state borders.
I truly would like an answer, because if you have an answer to this fundamental question, you will have actually contributed to the conversation.
"Bryan Caplan" - this guy lives in a parallel dimension. On one hand he says stuff like sending 1.2 billion unskilled Africans to Europe would increase GDP (maybe, but not per capita), and on the other he concedes that Americans will be impoverished by immigration, but no problem because if Americans can't afford meat they should eat beans like Mexicans. "Let them eat beans!".
ReplyDeletehttps://isteve.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/open-borders-debate-let-recriminations.html
Its clear that Bryan Caplan advocates for a certain type of society, which just happens to disadvantage the society for which he harbors ethnic animus.
By the way, regarding Bryan Caplan, Steve Sailer has been calling on Bryan Caplan to call for open borders for Israel since at least 2013. Even though Steve Sailer is quite well known, there is no response from Caplan (sounds familiar). Below is one of Sailer's calls for Caplan -
ReplyDelete"Rather than try Alex’s Open Borders idea out in huge America first, we should test run it in a small country. An ideal test case would be a small country located at the confluence of Africa, Asia, and Europe so that immigrants would have easy land access.
It’s time for Alex and Bryan Caplan to start an Open Borders for Israel campaign. Here’s a line they could use:
“Mr. Netanyahu, tear down this fence!”
I look forward to seeing the response they get."
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/05/the-open-borders-movement.html
Sailer has repeated the call on his blog continually in the years since. Kind of suspicious that Jewish people like Caplan have non-negotiable principles that they apply to Europe and America, but do not apply to the country of people sharing their ethnicity.
Very good.
DeleteCaplan has in fact called for Israel to open it's borders here:
Deletehttps://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1x1dyy/i_am_bryan_caplan_economist_and_professor_at/cf79vnw/
So the accusation of him being some sort of stealthy Zionist are quite silly.
Some obscure reddit thread is all of the evidence you have? This doesn’t qualify, and his answer in this thread doesn’t qualify as an “open borders” answer – in fact one wonders what open borders means to Caplan. See here from the reddit thread:
Delete--------------------------
Hey Mr. Caplan,
Do you think Israel should open their borders?
Thanks, Jack
--------------------------
Yes. But I wouldn't strongly object if they excluded people with violent criminal records or denied new-comers the vote. (Same goes for countries other than Israel, too).
--------------------------
His answer makes me wonder the following:
1) Who will do the background check?
2) What criteria will be used in the background check?
3) Who will check the papers at the border?
4) Who will confirm voting status?
In other words, Caplan isn’t calling for open borders for Israel (or anywhere else, apparently). He is calling for managed borders. The only questions are under what criteria will someone be allowed entry, how will the border be managed, and who will do the managing.
Funny, where have I read this before?
I don't think AMAs on r/ama count as that obscure but I digress...
Delete>He is calling for managed borders.
BM, how familiar are you with Bryan Caplan? Because while I haven't followed everything he did I followed him close enough over the years and the man has spent the better part of a decade arguing that free movement of people is all what's needed to double world GDP in a short amount of time. All we need to pick up trillion dollars bills from the sidewalk is to open our borders (the same arguments for unilateral free trade are applied here again)
However, he also understands that most people instinctively grasp that such a thing would probably cause civilisation-ending second order effects. So do Cowen, Nowrasteh and other open borders economists btw.
So he takes out a page from the Gramscite handbook and applies salami tactics. He offers "keyhole solutions" (you can search for that phrase, one of the first hits is a site curated by Caplan) which boil down to imposing a moral obligation of ex post facto damage control on the recieving society while declaring immigration restrictions a moral taboo.
Many of these policies are also completely unfeasible given the political climate in most Western countries but then again it's not about policies, it's about giving the natives peace of mind until a critical mass of foreigners arrive and make closing the borders politically impossible (under civilized circumstances at least).
What you see in this reddit AMA is him being the radical wolf wearing the guise of the moderate sheep, embracing a quite Straussian deceptiveness (which again is hallmark of open borderists).
The support for open borders also ties into their disdain for democracy and non-atomized socio-economic arrangements, which he definitely extends to Israel:
"The Middle East really could use a lot more diversity. One religion gives you totalitarianism. Two gives you civil strife. A hundred gives you peace. (With apologies to Voltaire)."
Maybe “obscure” wasn’t the best term. What I am looking for is an extensive treatment of the subject, not a sentence or two.
DeleteAs to my familiarity with Caplan, I had previously read only a couple of things of his. I know he writes of the increase in GDP, but for me this argument is not really meaningful: first, economic forecasts such as this are always wrong – I need not know specifically why they are wrong to know that they are wrong; second, people value many things more than they value GDP (or economic activity in general) – the government values GDP because it is a reasonable measure of taxable activity.
As to keyhole solutions, thank you for the suggestion. I guess in some ways this is what de Soto has done in his piece and what I have suggested. The issue is this: what is the political feasibility of the solution? What are the chances that the rules won’t be changed part-way through the game? These are reasonable questions to ask when either he is or I am suggesting keyhole solutions. Maybe my solutions fail on this test….
Yet, as Caplan speaks in favor of egalitarianism and against discrimination, it gives me pause. Property rights inherently are contrary to these concepts, and property rights are fundamental to libertarianism. It makes me wonder whose salami he is slicing – as you seem to be more familiar with him than I am, I will take your word for it.
In any case, that he can speak in favor of egalitarianism and against discrimination (and that a libertarian grounded in property rights – as if “libertarian” means anything absent full private property rights – would speak in exactly the opposite terms) is one more bit of evidence that libertarianism and communism are relatives – certainly distant relatives, but relatives nonetheless.
In the end, this might be a perfect example of why placing the non-aggression principle as the greatest good – the one true faith – is an ignorant idea: absent some underlying cultural, moral tradition, it is a road that can lead to very dark places. We have seen classical liberalism travel this very dark road already.
I would disagree with you that it was adherence to the NAP or to negative rights that allowed the drift into 20th century totalitarianism (if that's what you were implying). It was always the renunciation of the former that led to the latter, and always under the guise of some sort of positive rights to be provided by the state.
DeleteI am open to your suggestion that the Enlightenment, or the decline of the influence of the Cathlic Church, may have had a hand in the rise of the totalitarian creeds. Here you would find an ally in the writings of the famous Swiss psychiatrist C.G. Jung, particularly his essay "The Undiscovered Self."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r8woGW-0qQ
But I believe the decline of classical liberalism into modern liberal totalitarianism, was due primarily to violations of principle in service of perceived immediate gains or personal gains. It was the 'ends justify the means' mentality that corrupted liberalism, at least to the extent it wasn't corrupted by good old fashioned knavery and venality. Perhaps this would have been more difficult if these liberals and the populations they served had stronger moral and traditional roots.
The NAP is certainly not the greatest good, but it is the foundation upon which all other greater goods are most likely to flourish. It is the low bar of ethics (the bar everyone should be able to get over), but upon it rests the support of the high bars like honor, courage, charity, and humility.
Without this foundation these virtues may still exist but they may also be corrupted toward unvirtuous ends - like dropping bombs on civilians in cities or stealing wealth from some to give to others in exchange for political support.
ATL
DeleteIt is correct that I have drawn a string from the Renaissance & Reformation through the Enlightenment, Classical Liberalism (and its close brother, libertarianism) and the Progressive era to the calamities of the twentieth century and our present age.
My intention was not to imply a direct causal link – because of X it was inevitable to result in Y. I am still struggling with how to reconcile my agreement with the “good” of the Renaissance and Classical Liberalism (and, to be clear, I find much that is good in these movements), for example, with the cracks that these opened for the “bad” of man to be vaulted to the top (when compared with what it meant to be “noble” in the time of pre=Reformation Europe).
Let me put it this way: I very much appreciate the relative libertarian law of the European Middle Ages; I also very much appreciate air conditioning. Is it impossible to have both? I keep reading and writing and appreciating feedback in order to move me closer to some satisfactory understanding to this question.
As to the NAP as the greatest good, etc., I have a post that will be published tomorrow that will go into some detail regarding my thoughts on this. As I note in the post, it is a concept I am working through. I think it best that we continue this part of the dialogue after the post is available and after you have had a chance to read the post.
Thanks
Bionic: thank you for what you do. This is great
ReplyDeleteThank you.
DeleteBM, if you're interested, I want to explore with you a little further the mechanics of your idea of state-managed borders in today's world.
ReplyDeleteIf the state is the mandatory agent for private property owners, then don't we run into the problem that the state is the agent for principals who may have very different preferences, and therefore it cannot serve all principals faithfully as a private agent is obliged to do? So if we accept that the state is someone's agent, what is your proposal for how libertarians ought to approach this to get the state to satisfy only our preferences and not the preferences of others (for these purposes, I'm assuming, unrealistically, that all libertarians have the same preference)? Should libertarians be lobbying legislators, standing for office, running election campaigns, getting jobs at ICE, etc.? Is there any other way to make this work other than to gain control of the state's key organs?
Moreover, is your position that, if we succeed in getting the state to pursue our preference, those who disagree just ought to accept that fact and get on with life (a drawback of democracy)? If that is the case, are we prepared to live with the inverse? Can we claim with logical consistency that it's OK for us to force our preferences on others, but not OK for them to force their preferences on us?
“If the state is the mandatory agent for private property owners, then don't we run into the problem that the state is the agent for principals who may have very different preferences, and therefore it cannot serve all principals faithfully as a private agent is obliged to do?”
DeleteYes.
So if we accept that the state is someone's agent…”
Who says “we” accept this? I wrote “presumably” (but you aren’t the only one who has commented that has missed this qualifier). I can’t tell you how happy I would be for someone to come up with another agent in a world of state borders. The answer cannot be “no” agent (see your own question cited immediately above for the reason why this must be so).
“…what is your proposal for how libertarians ought to approach this to get the state to satisfy only our preferences and not the preferences of others…”
I offered my reply in the post above – did you miss it?
“… (for these purposes, I'm assuming, unrealistically, that all libertarians have the same preference)?”
You need not make this unrealistic assumption; I certainly haven’t made this assumption. Please read my post again; I have answered this question.
“Should libertarians be lobbying legislators, standing for office, running election campaigns, getting jobs at ICE, etc.? Is there any other way to make this work other than to gain control of the state's key organs?”
To each his own. There are libertarians who find such activities a violation of the NAP; there are others who suggest that if given a choice of slave masters, libertarians should consider supporting the least bad slave master. It isn’t my place to say.
In any case, until open borders libertarians get off of this idea that a) open borders comes from a strict application of the NAP, and b) all libertarians must be supportive of whatever comes of open borders, “we” (as in libertarians) need not worry as a group about answering these questions.
“Moreover, is your position that, if we succeed in getting the state to pursue our preference, those who disagree just ought to accept that fact and get on with life (a drawback of democracy)?”
NAPster, I offered my preference in the subject article, but you seem to want to refuse to read it, recognize it or accept it. What must I do to be more clear? The proposal I offered is as decentralized and libertarian as can be in a world of state borders. And if you can come up with who – other than a state actor – can act as administrator of what I have proposed, I am all ears.
“If that is the case, are we prepared to live with the inverse?”
It isn’t the case. Read what I have written, for goodness sakes.
“Can we claim with logical consistency that it's OK for us to force our preferences on others, but not OK for them to force their preferences on us?”
What idiot would do that? This certainly could not be concluded from what I have written here (or elsewhere).
NAPster, read what I have written. For your assistance, start again at the section that begins “De Soto offers some considerations for something approaching a libertarian solution to this question in a world of state borders…”
Man, this is about as concrete and obvious as I can make it. Please don’t tell me that you are another Hornberger or ancap.
I won’t go in circles on this – demonstrate that you have read what I have written. I don’t care if you disagree, but at least disagree with my words and not some caricature made up in your head.
BM, I have read what you and de Soto wrote. If I'm reading it correctly, there are four principles: no welfare to immigrants (which may require both changes to federal and/or state legislation as well as enforcement policy and personnel at welfare bureaucracies and offices); verification of independent means of support (which would require generation and completion of state forms, state-generated background checks, regular state check-ins, etc. and supportive personnel carrying out those roles); no "quick" voting power to be acquired by immigrants (which may require changes to voter ID legislation and enforcement by, and personnel at, the state's electoral apparatus); and the requirement to observe criminal laws (which would require changes in state and local police and prosecutorial activities/discretion, which tends to be driven by who controls the gubernatorial and mayoral offices).
ReplyDeleteIt seems like this position involves a massive effort by libertarians to gain and maintain control of many parts of the state's apparatus. Yet you say "Of course, a state agent (presumably) would still confirm proper documentation and sponsorship, but beyond this they would have no role."
And if libertarians make gaining control of the state their vehicle of choice (at least for now), this just jumps into the same battle as other groups who are fighting to control the state.
Wow! A libertarian who takes on the practical realities of implementing an NAP-approaching process in a world of state control. I am impressed. You do too much of this and some people might conclude that we are all just wasting our time.
DeleteWell, I wasn’t concerning myself with this. In regards to this specific issue, I was describing a process that would come closest to mimicking what would happen in a private property ordered environment.
Without suggesting that I agree with your description of the control needed…if you want to talk such practical realities…I am game. So…let me know:
1) Your suggested NAP-approaching process in a world of state borders
2) The levers of state (and international) apparatus which you need to control in order to implement item 1.
Really, I am open to an alternative that comes with any combination of more-NAP-approaching process combined with the need for less control of state levers.
I am all ears (well, eyes…but you get the point).
I would suggest that the true libertarian strategy is not to gain control of the government in order to enact libertarian reforms against the statist hearts and minds of the general public, but rather to win the hearts and minds of the general public so that politicians have no choice but to enact libertarian reforms.
DeleteBy libertarian reforms I mean of course dismantling the functions of the state while simultaneously legalizing the functions of private property.
It is a tall order, but it can be aided by secession. For me, it is more realistic to fix Austin than to try and fix DC.
BM, my answer, which I suspect you’ll find highly unsatisfactory, is the same answer I would give to any person who asks how can we move closer to a stateless society while remaining faithful to the principle of non-aggression: continual secession (similar to Rothbard’s prescription in “Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State”), combined with ridiculing the state and making the state less relevant in our lives.
DeleteSome more specific ideas: support alternative education to breed a more NAP-respecting younger generation; continually and publicly point out all the absurdities of the state to heighten people’s skepticism (have them looking for an alternative solution) and to try to persuade people not to work for the state in any capacity; advocate for state-level nullification of federal legislation, and advocate for, and engage in, jury nullification; use non-state alternative products when feasible (private security or home self-defense vs. state police, private mediation vs. state courts, private residential communities vs. municipalities, FedEx instead of USPS, Uber instead of state-licensed taxis, gold or crypto-currencies instead of fiat money, etc.); and peaceful civil disobedience (ignore state regulations depending on one’s risk tolerance, and/or support quality businesses which do so too).
Specifically with respect to immigrants (or even citizens) with whom one does not want to associate, as we’ve discussed previously, one can use shunning, ostracization and exclusion (yes, the state outlaws many acts which fall under these headings, but put this under “peaceful civil disobedience,” i.e., do it where you can get away with it). I should note that, in going about my life, I don’t distinguish between immigrants and citizens who don’t respect private property, and there are plenty of both.
I concede that this will be a much slower process than if “we” were to take hold of the reins of the state, but it suits my philosophy of trying to get closer to a NAP-based society by example (although perhaps in my lifetime the only realistic objective is a NAP-aware society).
NAPster, I find your answer quite satisfactory.
DeleteFirst, I agree with your ideas such as "alternative education," etc.
More important, you have confirmed one of my main points in this ongoing dialogue regarding open borders as the only libertarian policy (or even *a* libertarian policy).
"...one can use shunning, ostracization and exclusion (yes, the state outlaws many acts which fall under these headings, but put this under “peaceful civil disobedience,” i.e., do it where you can get away with it).”
In practicing any one of these “peaceful civil disobedience” methods, one is subject to fines and imprisonment.
So, my suggested alternative is not quite libertarian because (presumably) a state actor would act as agent to enact *each individual’s preference* regarding immigrants – still pretty libertarian if you ask me; your suggested alternative leaves me impotent regarding my property.
For a principle grounded on respecting full private property rights, impotence kind of seems like a worse alternative than the one I propose.
Open borders in a world of state borders is not a libertarian policy; if it were a libertarian policy, the practices necessary for me to discriminate regarding my property would not be outlawed.
"Some more specific ideas: support alternative education to breed a more NAP-respecting younger generation"
DeletePointless. It won't make a difference. People are concerned to be seen as good people, and even more importantly, to be seen as holding prestigious ideas. Seize control of the media and education system, and sustained propaganda will have most people mouthing NAP for what that is worth. They will won't understand it though.
NAP would then just be a buzz word or shibboleth, just like "diversity" is today.
Matt, not pointless. First and foremost regarding our own children - if it is pointless to ensure my children are properly educated...well, I don't even know how to finish the sentence.
DeleteSecond, regarding educating others, pointless compared to what alternatives?
It is easy to argue that all of this (education, writing, debates, etc.) is pointless, given the way of the west. But then I look at a Jordan Peterson...
BM,
DeletePresumably your children will have the intellectual capacity to understand what you are saying. I hope so. That is not what is available for the vast bulk of humanity. The average white person is quite dumb. Average white people, who are dumb, are geniuses compared to what immigration is bringing to the West.
Education presupposes that the target of such education is capable of learning. I say that most are not.
"Second, regarding educating others, pointless compared to what alternatives?"
Like I mentioned, control of the media and "education system" (I am talking about propaganda here) would at least make people give lip service to liberty. They still wouldn't understand liberty. The best you can hope for is genuflection.
I've been a libertarian since around 2006. Over time I've evolved. I've taken Mao Zedong's most important insight and adapted it to liberty. To paraphrase, "freedom and liberty come down the barrel of a gun". Liberty is going to have to be enforced on an unwilling populace.
"Liberty is going to have to be enforced on an unwilling populace."
DeleteI think it is the other way around: liberty must be defended by a willing populace. Alas, we are drastically outgunned - both literally and figuratively; so in the meantime we do what we can.
Preparing the soil isn't a bad contribution.
I don't want to belabor the point, but are Bryan Caplan, Jacob Hornberger, Sheldon Richman, Steven Horwitz or Jeffrey Tucker lacking in education? These are people that do little else but ponder the matter of liberty, when they are also advocates of aggression against me and mine.
DeleteEvery sorely won convert to liberty may turn out to be a Jacob Hornberger.
BM, is it fair to say that our different approaches to achieving our objective can be summarized as follows: I am advocating chipping away at the state from the bottom, and you are advocating directing it from the top?
Delete“For a principle grounded on respecting full private property rights, impotence kind of seems like a worse alternative than the one I propose.”
I would say impotence in terms of timing only; my proposal may get us there eventually, but in a longer time-frame than your proposal. But the question that I think is most relevant (at least to me) is the following: is the fact that one is unable to get what one wants fast enough (or even ever) a philosophical justification for violating the NAP?
“Open borders in a world of state borders is not a libertarian policy; if it were a libertarian policy, the practices necessary for me to discriminate regarding my property would not be outlawed.”
I struggle with the broader implications of this statement. Can what the state outlaws and does not outlaw ever help define what is a libertarian policy? Isn’t libertarian policy not to violate the NAP? Maybe that brings us back to where we started ...
Perhaps instead of “open borders,” the better description of what I am advocating is “self-managed borders,” even if it seems to be a less effective policy, contrasted with your proposal of “state-managed borders.” “Open borders” implies one does not care about boundaries; the other two monikers imply boundaries are important, and describe who does the policing.
See my reply here:
Deletehttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/12/nap-time-iii.html
ATL,
ReplyDeleteThe democratic approach (winning hearts and minds) is a non-starter. When you need to rely on the American “general public” you are doomed.
I absolutely support secession in North America but you have a problem here
>dismantling the functions of the State and privatizing everything
If you secede from DC you are going to need a State in order to maintain sovereignty from DC. No State no Sovereign Power. What is to prevent subversion from DC and NGOs? They have all the money in the world. They will simply buy you out. Only State Power can compete against Money Power, something libertarians refuse to accept because of their liberal capitalist dogma. If there is no Sovereign to say “no you cannot sell to Shlomo” then Shlomo will own you. It can only be defended by force of arms united under a Sovereign State.
UC,
DeleteWinning hearts and minds is not necessarily a democratic approach; it can be a market approach as well. Public opinion is sovereign whether you like it or not. So if you and your buddies secede from DC and take Oregon with you, hypothetically of course, you'll need the hearts and minds of the Oregon(ians?) or you'll have a failed state on your hands in the making. You may think you're approach is above public approval, but it isn't.
If Texas were to secede now, yes, we would need to have a nation state, simply because most here (I'd wager) have not even heard of anarcho-capitalism, let alone been convinced of its basic tenets. The state is what they know, so the state is what they'll accept. I'm interested in the long run. Small wins are fine by me, and secession from DC, even if its to create another sovereign state, is a huge win in my book.
Now to your argument that a libertarian stateless society (LSS) (or confederation of such societies) could not survive with nation-state neighbors because private individuals could be corrupted by deep pocketed foreign politicians or protected foreign elite capitalists.
Are you really arguing that states actors are less corruptible then private ones? Now who's being Utopian?
If a foreign state can buy out the voluntarily elected authorities of our LSS, why can they not buy out the aggressive authorities of the new state?
In the latter case it would be much easier, since you only have to purchase one entity, and it would be much more effective, because the state already controls the people by force.
In the former case concerning the LSS, the foreign state would have to buy out all the competing authorities, and even then, since these authorities do not have an aggressive hold over their clients, there's no guarantee the foreign state's money would even have the intended effect. The customers under the authority who sold out to the foreign state would simply choose another provider of security and no longer adhere to the wishes of the sell out.
Granted the above scenario of a successful defense of an LSS from a foreign power may not succeed in real life, but I think I've made the case that its survival in this scenario is at least as plausible as your proposed 'essential' state.
"If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." - Mises
Guerrilla warfare is a very effective tactic even when the guerrillas are out-classed in weaponry. Imagine guerrillas armed with the latest weapons and gear operating on familiar terrain in a coordinated yet decentralized effort. This would be the 'force of arms' of the LSS.
"Are you really arguing that states actors are less corruptible then private ones? Now who's being Utopian?"
DeleteAlthough I am not UC, I understand what he was talking about. States have a comparative advantage in state formation. By using the resources available to a state, a state could easily take over a neighboring anarchic community.
"If a foreign state can buy out the voluntarily elected authorities of our LSS, why can they not buy out the aggressive authorities of the new state?"
But there is no "they" in your LSS. All you have is a collection of individuals, all of whom still suffer from the freeloader problem of self defense. Having an LSS doesn't mitigate the freeloader problem, it makes it magnitudes worse.
"In the former case concerning the LSS, the foreign state would have to buy out all the competing authorities"
No they wouldn't. The state would not abide by arbitrary rules set by your LSS. The state would just do what the Jews did it Palestine, and summarily take over.
Matt,
DeleteThank you for responding. You are always welcome to respond regardless if I've addressed you are not.
"States have a comparative advantage in state formation"
This goes without saying.
"a state could easily take over a neighboring anarchic community."
This is a completely unsupported assertion. Whether or not a state could takeover a neighboring LSS or not would depend on the real world conditions, capabilities, and resources of both the invading state and the defending LSS. To say, a priori, that any state will win against any LSS is completely conjectural.
"But there is no "they" in your LSS. All you have is a collection of individuals"
Says who? This is a completely false assumption on your part. Just because people respect each other's right to self ownership does not mean they cannot form groups, courts, militias, free armies and mutual defense companies.
"LSS doesn't mitigate the freeloader problem, it makes it magnitudes worse."
The freeloader problem is worse under an LSS? Your saying that in a society where your reputation is devoid of any political protection, people would be more likely to free load? Color me skeptical. Rothbard has addressed this issue in "For a New Liberty" I believe. I'll dig up the relevant passages if you like.
Besides there is always a way to encourage voluntary patronage in services which have spill over benefits to surrounding properties. In the case of defense in the LSS, if you purchase insurance with a mutual defense company, and your house is destroyed in an invasion, you will be recompensed (if the defense is ultimately successful of course). If you do not purchase insurance, you may still be protected thanks to the funding of others, but if your house is destroyed, you're SOL.
"The state would not abide by arbitrary rules set by your LSS"
Depends on the capabilities of the LSS. Again you cannot say this a priori and expect to convince me of your point. You assume the LSS would have no recourse to defense against an intruding rule ignoring state, but there's no reason to assume this.
If Afghanis could fend off the Soviet Union and the Vietnamese could fend off the American State, why could not an LSS with sophisticated communications tech, armed to the teeth with advanced weaponry and training not do the same or better?
I see that you did not address UC's implicit claim that state actors are less corruptible to money. Wise.
ATL,
Delete>hearts and minds
When I say Democratic I dont necessarily mean voting, the market is the most democratic of all institutions (one of its worst features since it values quantity over quality). My point is not that the “public” is irrelevant only that they have never been the engine of change. They respond to the carrot and the stick not to high ideals. This is the lemming principle and it’s why only 3% of the colonial population were actively engaged in the war of secession and why a terror campaign was conducted against loyalists. If you want radical change you need a principled and committed vanguard. As a rule the public never *acts* only *reacts.*. Propaganda is no doubt useful to garner tacit support or at the very least to convince people to stay on the sidelines rather than to go into the enemy camp. On this front my ideas have an advantage over yours since they can be summed up with only 14 words that make sense to people on a basic level. Yours on the other hand demand that people be familiar with too many abstract concepts.
>am I arguing that State actors are less corruptible than private individuals?
Well first of all corruption effectively means plutocracy. The State we currently live under is a plutocracy and it was the inevitable consequence of American style government and of any democratic/party system. Aristocratic government is inherently less malleable to money power because it’s harder to buy your way in. Of course it is not immune as we see in the history of the places like Florence or the infilitration of the British Royalty by the Rothschild jewish banking dynasty. But these things took time and were the result of larger historical forces with respect to how usury was treated and the mercantile ambitions of the British elite. In the case of America the oligarchs walked right in! Your proposed system takes a de facto plutocracy and makes it de jure.
The destiny of your LSS will be in the hands of the people with the most resources. There is nothing to garauntee it’s character and laws remain the same since they will be contingent on the will of the wealthiest, and more over anyone from anywhere with any motive can simply buy in- buy a controlling share.
Why is the USG/Israel so committed to the destruction of the Syrian and Iranian States? Would the Palestinians have not been better off with a strong state to prevent Zionist incursion? Why will Israel not tolerate a real Palestinian State on its border? How about the oligarchs that were looting Russia in the 90s, was it not State Power that put them in check? Why did the so called allied powers want a broken and divided Germany after the wars? These are more “food for thought” than questions I expect answers to, but I do have one question I would like you to answer:
How do you prevent George Soros from buying up key infrastructure?
"This is a completely unsupported assertion. Whether or not a state could takeover a neighboring LSS or not would depend on the real world conditions, capabilities, and resources of both the invading state and the defending LSS. To say, a priori, that any state will win against any LSS is completely conjectural"
DeleteA state can count on 100% of the human resources and war materiel available. An LSS cannot do so. I cannot mobilize. It cannot initiate emergency measures or rationing.
"Says who? This is a completely false assumption on your part. Just because people respect each other's right to self ownership does not mean they cannot form groups, courts, militias, free armies and mutual defense companies".
They can also choose not to do so, which I expect many if not most would do if they were given the option. Moreover, your LSS may actually be a state in denial. The private "courts, militias, free armies and mutual defense companies" would soon form a state (there is nothing to stop them after all).
"The freeloader problem is worse under an LSS? Your saying that in a society where your reputation is devoid of any political protection, people would be more likely to free load? Color me skeptical. Rothbard has addressed this issue in "For a New Liberty" I believe. I'll dig up the relevant passages if you like".
I don't see why you should be skeptical. I am not the one claiming to have solved the problem of free loading ("free riding").
"Besides there is always a way to encourage voluntary patronage in services which have spill over benefits to surrounding properties. In the case of defense in the LSS, if you purchase insurance with a mutual defense company, and your house is destroyed in an invasion, you will be recompensed (if the defense is ultimately successful of course). If you do not purchase insurance, you may still be protected thanks to the funding of others, but if your house is destroyed, you're SOL"
Your LSS will collapse at the first credible attack. The nature of being a human being is that people will demand that people rally to fight the enemy, voluntarily or not. That is assuming that people in the LSS aren't already killing each other because they have different religions, ethnicity, or creeds.
"Depends on the capabilities of the LSS. Again you cannot say this a priori and expect to convince me of your point. You assume the LSS would have no recourse to defense against an intruding rule ignoring state, but there's no reason to assume this.
If Afghanis could fend off the Soviet Union and the Vietnamese could fend off the American State, why could not an LSS with sophisticated communications tech, armed to the teeth with advanced weaponry and training not do the same or better?"
The Vietnamese and Afghanis bound themselves in a state. In places where the state broke down, they had racial loyalty to each other and hatred of the enemy.
"I see that you did not address UC's implicit claim that state actors are less corruptible to money. Wise".
Maybe you could bribe the president of a state, but it would be illegal, at least. In your LSS subversion be legal. Presumably there will be free migration into your LSS, assuming they can find a property owner that will let them stay. How does a million Somalians sound?
Rothbard logic fails. There is obvious and glaring fail in Rothbard's call for absolute private property. If there are no commons and all property is private then there would need to be right of way easements negotiated for every human with each private property owner for movement. What if property owners simply said "no" to all requests for easements? What if those non-negotiating property owners stretched across a key isthmus or otherwise ancient trails of herd animals, trails that naturally evovled into roads? There could be scenarios where entire land masses are made in accessible under Rothbard 'logic'. Can anyone imagine how inefficient land travel might become under 100% private property without commons? Crooked winding riads that were formed based on cooperative vs uncooperative property owners, entire water routes potenttially shut off because of a few dickhead property owners who controlled land of water way access points.
ReplyDeleteI am all about liberty but it seems obvious that the root of Rothbard liberty is unnatural, inefficient, insane and a total fail. The common law has already resolved the issues of liberty but it seems that the Rothbard purists simply want to ignore the entire evolution of man's customs and details of the long history of discovering and finding equitable remedy for disputes over the last 1000years or so. Rothbard also ignores the fact that we are only here for a short time and that no property ownership anywhere can be traced back to an original lawful acquistion - all land was taken from some inhabitants whether man, plants, insects, animals or other man.
I'm sorry but 100% private property is an obvious fail, so obvious that anyone espousing it will be written off as an insane lunatic who should be disregarded as valid and put into the 'potentially dangerous' bucket.
There is so much obviously wrong in your comment that I don't know where to begin. I will merely offer:
Delete1) Think about relative property values of two otherwise comparable properties: one with ingress and egress rights and one without.
2) Think about Disney World.
"I'm sorry but 100% private property is an obvious fail"
DeleteIn a free society the natural human inclination for self interest would be all that is needed to open up trade and travel routes across property. Simply put, in the free society, you can be a misanthropic anti-capitalist hermit, but it wouldn't be a very good strategy for success.
Mod took down the response that destroys all of this - I guess mod can't handle an actual visionary intellectual argument here. You guys are living in a fantasy world.
DeleteWant to build a road maybe in a hundred years after you go to every property owner along the best route, only to see right of ways get more expensive every step of the way because of growing leverage property owners will have later in route process. For every "peace is priceless" property owner along route the road has to make a turn, slowing down everyone and everyone eternally losing efficiency for accel and decel because of the turn in road required for everyone along route who denied right of way. Winding crooked inefficient roads everywhere that take forever to build slowing down all of mankind and all human advancement under 100% private property, no commons model. Duh...
How about a mountain pass? Owner says no passage, then 8 hours around mountains instead 20minutes. Waterway inlet/port, owner says no way and everyone is screwed because of one dickhead.
Everything will be slowed and inefficient, total intellectual bankruptcy to the point that I can even take Rothbardians as worthy of discussion in the matter. Total idiocy and lacking all vision as to the implications. 1000s of negatives examples that could be easily thought experimented.
I didn't allow it because of your vulgar language, just as I didn't allow your four word sexual fantasy to be posted either.
DeleteI find that people who actually have "an actual visionary intellectual argument" don't need profanity to make their points.
ReplyDeleteDear BM,
"Finally, as state borders cannot be derived by a strict application of the NAP one must look to the minarchist position; as minarchists allow for the state to provide defense…how is defense to be provided unless the state is knowledgeable about who crosses the border and for what purpose?"
I find your argument about State borders to be persuasive, and agree that there is no one, correct libertarian position on the matter. However, I suggest that this observation applies only to anarchist libertarian theory. Minarchist theory does not merely allow that the State provide defense, it requires it. As you make clear above, it is necessary to manage borders in order to provide defense. Thus, there is one, correct minarchist libertarian position on borders; they must be managed.
Minarchists, at least those who base their views on principle, must reconcile the seeming contradiction between the legitimacy of a coercive, monopoly State and the NAP. Such reconciliation requires accepting some type of contract theory of the State. Minarchists argue that in exchange for the provision of defense, adjudication (courts) and the enforcement of property rights, individuals freely delegate some portion of their just authority, but only in these areas, to the State. This theoretical "contract" binds all parties involved. The State must provide the above services and refrain from doing anything else. The individual must submit to the delegated authority of the State, but to nothing else. I suppose I must note, lest I be accused of supporting State authority, that I find the contract theory of the State to be absurd.
So, what to make of minarchists like Jacob Hornberger who asserts that there is only one (minarchist) libertarian position on immigration? In that, he is correct, it's just not the position he favors. Mr. Hornberger's supposedly unanswerable hypothetical is carefully crafted so that no party involved is in danger, injured, coerced, etc… Thus, he correctly notes, forcibly interfering to prevent the dinner meeting would be unjust. But, such an observation is irrelevant to determining the appropriate border policy of a minarchist State. In his example, no party is in need of defense. Thus, any State action that prevents the brothers' dinner plans amounts to a breach of the theoretical "contract" that legitimizes State authority. Mr. Hornberger believes that this highly specific example proves the illegitimacy of any border controls, on NAP grounds, in a world of States. It does not. It merely shows that enforcing border controls, in this case, is contrary to the "minarchist contract".
I offer a different hypothetical to illustrate that open borders are incompatible with minarchist theory. Imagine a foreign woman who has been abused by her violent husband for years. He insists that he will kill her if she ever leaves him. Eventually she flees, immigrates to the US, creates a new identity for herself and becomes a citizen. Years later she learns that her husband has discovered that she is in the US and will likely find her name and address. Alarmed, the woman contacts what she believes to be the appropriate State authorities and informs them of her need for defense. She provides his name, photo and proof of his nefarious intent. After which, she is informed that the State no longer manages the borders and that she will have to hope that local law enforcement can protect her from her murderous husband after he has arrived. How has the State, according to minarchist theory, not breached its' "contract" with this woman?
Kind Regards,
Jeremy
Jeremy, as usual, I agree with your points.
DeleteAs to my point regarding the minarchist position, I include it often merely as a dig into Jacob Hornberger. To argue "open borders" is the only libertarian (anarchist) position is incorrect. For a minarchist, as Hornberger is - and one who specifically includes defense as an appropriate "minarchist" government function - it is both a ridiculous and illogical position.