NB: I have exchanged with Walter by email on this topic. I drafted the open letter before receiving a further response from Walter. I have decided to leave the open letter as is, for background; I will follow with his further response thereafter.
I am confused by your comments in your LRC blog post entitled “Is It Permissible to Criticize Jews?” Technically, it isn’t the comments in the post that confuse me; it is the comments when I consider your other writing. Let me try to explain…
You are asked the above question – the question that is the title of your post. You respond:
…I think it is long past time to [criticize Jews]. The major media will jump down the throat of anyone who dares criticize any of the Chosen People. Well, I dare.
This part isn’t confusing to me; I would expect nothing less from you.
You then include an excerpt from the chapter “Defending the anti-Semite,” from your forthcoming “Defending III”:
I have great resentment not only for Zionist Jews, but against virtually ALL Jews. Why? Because most of them are socialists, progressives, communists, liberals, Bernie and Hillary supporters, Democrats, devotees of labor unions; ugh.
This part isn’t confusing to me (well, a little – but I don’t want to distract from my main point); I would expect nothing less from you.
I don’t hate my people because of our common heritage. I hate most (but of course not all) of them since they are leading commies, labor leaders, feminists, lefties.
This part isn’t confusing to me; I would expect nothing less from you.
Walter, forgive the lengthy excerpt, but I think all of this is important so I don’t lose any of your context:
In the 1930s, the then Canadian Prime Minister was asked something to the effect of how many Jewish immigrants to his country from Germany who were fleeing Nazism would he accept. Came the answer: “None is too many.” When I first heard that, I was incensed. Members of my family were killed by Hitler, may his evil name be erased. But upon more sober reflection, I can (almost) empathize with him. Who wants a bunch of commie pinkos besmirching one’s country? Those people, gulp!, my co-religionists, are really despicable people. They want to overturn capitalism, promote social justice and egalitarianism, ride roughshod over private property rights, enrage the masses against the highly accomplished elite, will donate gobs of money to the most left wing politicians available, and all the rest. “You can have them,” I now think, was an eminently sensible initial response to their threatened arrival in Canada (I here abstract from the fact that this decision indirectly lead to the murder of many innocent people). (Emphasis added.)
Walter, I know you and I disagree on libertarian theory and principle regarding open borders and immigration – we each believe we are developing the theory and principle properly. I also know that we disagree on application: while you personally do not want the United States inundated by millions of people from…well, insert the term Trump allegedly used to describe their countries of origin, you would – right now, today – open the borders of the United States to these same people…immediately.
You would do this even though we do not have full private property rights – a condition which you agree is necessary to have a truly libertarian policy of open borders.
The Canadian Prime Minister in fact took a position completely in line with the position of one Hans Herman Hoppe – a position which you have stated that you disagree with completely (while acknowledging that you agree with HHH on 99.9% of everything else).
Walter…this is where I am confused. How can you describe the Canadian Prime Minister’s policy of managing the borders of Canada (in fact, closing the borders to a certain group) as “eminently sensible,” while at the same time you hold the position of open borders, right now, no preconditions?
Can you reconcile this? How can you be for open borders and managed (or closed) borders at the same time?
Or, by describing the Prime Minister’s actions as “eminently sensible,” are you saying that your position of open borders, right now, today is eminently un-sensible?
Please, Walter. Spell this out for me.
And this ends my open letter. I now offer Walter’s response to the earlier email exchange (the exchange forming the basis for this open letter); Walter has given me permission to publicly include his response:
Thanks for pushing me on this. I appreciate it.
Here's the way I see matters. There are three possibilities.
1. Allow all the Jews to settle in Canada in 1939 or so when they arrived by boat. There's plenty of virgin territory there. To prevent their settlement there is to violate the NAP. I take the NAP VERY seriously. For me, it is the libertarian lodestar, compass
Yes, the Canadian Prime Minister should have let them in. The borders have been open as long as there is virgin territory in the country. I only add now, that I full well realize why the Canadians didn't want these Jew commies in their country. But Jew commies, all commies, still have rights; the right to settle in virgin territory.
2. Allow them in temporarily, as an emergency. Keep them in concentration camps (but treated humanely). Then, kick 'em all out when the war is over, or, as soon as they can be expelled to a safe country. Like, maybe in S. America. This is not compatible with libertarianism, but, I think, better from all sorts of points of view than:
3. Do what they actually did, deny them entry to Canada, ship them back to Nazi Germany, to the deaths of many of them.
This is troubling; I don’t know how else to say it. Walter – knowing that the immigrants bring with them a liberty-destroying philosophy into a land that embraces an equal right to influence government – is willing to allow liberty-destroying immigrants the opportunity to further destroy his liberty – and mine.
I was recently made aware of the following: “U.S. Immigrants’ Attitudes Toward Libertarian Values.” It is a paper by a University of California, San Diego, Professor of Psychology – in other words, NOT Hans Hoppe:
Libertarians in the United States have long tended to favor lenient immigration policies, with some going so far as to advocate the notion of “open borders” (Caplan, 2012). This naturally raises the question: What are immigrants’ attitudes toward libertarian views and libertarian perspectives? Interestingly, this question does not appear to have been examined empirically.
The results showed a marked pattern of lower support for pro-liberty views among immigrants as compared to US-born residents. These differences were generally statistically significant and sizable, with a few scattered exceptions. With increasing proportions of the US population being foreign-born, low support for libertarian values by foreign-born residents means that the political prospects of libertarian values in the US are likely to diminish over time.
Does embracing libertarianism mean embracing a suicide pact? If Walter and the open-borders libertarians are correct in their theory, principle and application, the answer is a resounding yes.
Of course, I believe they are wrong on all three – one cannot deduce “open borders” from libertarian principle. In other words, libertarians such as these (including Walter) are wrong on libertarian principle.
An addendum to my open letter to Walter:
I know that left-libertarians are culturally and politically suicidal. Is this really your view as well? Is the liberty of liberty-destroying immigrants more valuable to you than the liberty of your children and grandchildren?
Do you really believe that destroying liberty is the path to liberty?