tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post150450979365942589..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Jacob Hornberger, I See Youbionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-26347386442765084702016-06-06T10:15:58.340-07:002016-06-06T10:15:58.340-07:00"Folks,
This is what a Cultural Marxist Libe..."Folks,<br /><br />This is what a Cultural Marxist Libertarian looks like. "<br /><br />Bingo. And he'll never get one penny from me after reading his open borders BS.Billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-90880528775387481202016-05-27T19:26:09.241-07:002016-05-27T19:26:09.241-07:00"...to the extent the governments of those co..."...to the extent the governments of those countries welcomed refugees, they invited them."<br /><br />John Harris, are you suggesting that merely opening the borders is not sufficient for "libertarian open borders"?<br /><br />Why didn't I think of that? Oh wait, I did.<br /><br />As to the rest, I have either dealt with it or don't care to.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-16428766417156290842016-05-26T14:13:08.808-07:002016-05-26T14:13:08.808-07:00You've advocated a political policy--state-con...You've advocated a political policy--state-control of borders--that cannot be reconciled with the non-aggression principle. Numerous people who thoroughly understand that principle and its application have undertaken to show you the error in your thinking. Yet you insist on sticking with your position. By your own admission, this is not because you think your position accords with libertarian theory, but because you believe that the application of that theory in the instance of borders fails in practice.<br /><br />I don't know you--at least, I don't think I know you, since you write under pseudonym--but have enjoyed much of your writing, whether via LewRockwell.com or Zero Hedge. Commendably, much of your writing appears to be an exercise in working out your own thoughts and understanding of libertarianism (or anarchy, as I prefer). But I would guess from your manner of argumentation that you are relatively immature in your understanding of applied libertarianism; probably, you haven't been a libertarian (or anarchist) for more than a few years. No problem with that--all mature thinkers were once immature.<br /><br />You've refuted neither Hornberger nor my points in my initial reply. Now you're down to quibbling. I suspect Hornberger can't say it any better than he has, just because he nailed the issue so well with his imaginary example; I could probably do better, but your mind is made up for now and I have better things to do.<br /><br />But since you keep asking about dinner invitations for the millions coming to Europe, let me help you work through that question: to the extent the governments of those countries welcomed refugees, they invited them. And to the extent those refugees arrived via public byways, so long as they exited those byways to properties open for business to all comers, then those businesses invited them. If that's all that's holding you to your anti-libertarian position, now you can safely rid yourself of the contradiction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-29726810926323607302016-05-26T11:10:37.752-07:002016-05-26T11:10:37.752-07:00“Those conditions arise, in his hypothetical, unde...“Those conditions arise, in his hypothetical, under extant conditions of state-controlled borders.”<br /><br />Extant: in existence; still existing; not destroyed or lost. I had to look it up to be sure we were talking about the same thing.<br /><br />I don’t get it – the state isn’t controlling the border in his example. Pete is. The state border exists, but the state isn’t controlling it. Neither Pete nor Miguel had to ask the state for anything in his example.<br /><br />In any case, I don’t care if they arise in his hypothetical. I care if they arise in the real world. The closest test case we have is the wide-open welcome-mat of Merkel’s Germany.<br /><br />Guess what? Those conditions did not arise under the extant conditions of state-controlled (more precisely, state-uncontrolled) borders.<br /><br />“At least you imply as much in your post.”<br /><br />I thought I did more than imply it, let’s check:<br /><br />“The principles (including the principles that are implied) can’t be refuted, because the principles are pure libertarian theory (absent the coincident state border between their properties, as there is no way to derive state borders from libertarian theory). If all we need do is agree on theory, we can stop here.”<br /><br />How about here:<br /><br />“In other words, individuals voluntarily make and accept invitations; they may also set conditions on the invitation. How can any libertarian disagree with this? I don’t.”<br /><br />I would say that this is more than implying.<br /><br />“If so, then the only conclusion logically consistent with libertarian principles is that any state interference in their rightful conduct would be criminal.”<br /><br />It is criminal. But I am still waiting for those millions coming to Europe to have an invitation from individuals who want to invite them for dinner. <br /><br />The conditions might arise in a hypothetical. They didn’t arise in practice. And without someone voluntarily doing the inviting, Hornberger’s construct of libertarian open borders fails the real world test.<br /><br />There may be a different construct; it isn’t Hornberger’s. Do you have one to offer? <br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-88517084146591036902016-05-25T20:45:06.677-07:002016-05-25T20:45:06.677-07:00Bionic, political borders are merely the residue o... Bionic, political borders are merely the residue of political gang warfare, and as such are completely exterior to the category of economics. They are an oppressive nuisance which would never arise in a free market free society, and one need only think of the hundreds of 'multinational' corporations to understand that economics is completely 'orthogonal' to politics. 1776 was the vague and hastily contrived attempt to radically diminish political control. it remained for austrians like hayek to demonstrate how the price mechanism and free market is the one and only means for ordering and organizing society and to show that ANY intervention on the part of central planners could ONLY make matters worse. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-81561479356880142292016-05-25T19:47:23.064-07:002016-05-25T19:47:23.064-07:00Yes, you wrote more, and explicitly, whatever that...Yes, you wrote more, and explicitly, whatever that matters. And now, In your reply to mine, your resort to non sequitur.<br /><br />Hornberger's hypothetical assumes, or takes as a given, state-controlled borders: that is the predicate for his imaginary example ("There is only an imaginary line known as the U.S.-Mexico border, which also demarks the property line between the two ranches. "). His hypothesis is that neither you nor any other advocate of state-controlled borders can square such borders with libertarian principles.<br /><br />You recast his argument in an intellectually dishonest way. He does not suggest that opening borders would satisfy what you describe as his "four explicit conditions." Those conditions arise, in his hypothetical, under extant conditions of state-controlled borders.<br /><br />And, no matter the volume or specificity of your post, you failed to disprove him. In fact, whether wittingly, you evaded explicit answers to his questions.<br /><br />Let's try again:<br /><br />1. In their acts of tendering and accepting a dinner invitation, respectively, did each brother act within his rights?<br /><br />2. Is the Mexican brother guilty of trespass?<br /><br />I assume you will say, and believe, that both brothers acted within their rights and that the Mexican brother has not trespassed against his brother's property. At least you imply as much in your post. If so, then the only conclusion logically consistent with libertarian principles is that any state interference in their rightful conduct would be criminal.<br /><br />You chose not to address any of my points, which is your right and understandable. You have a successful and valuable blog and must be careful with your time.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-63761100121444952252016-05-25T13:48:07.269-07:002016-05-25T13:48:07.269-07:00Like BM, open borders policy is one area where I r...Like BM, open borders policy is one area where I respectfully part company with libertarians.<br /><br />It's useful to grasp that governments don't control borders, the owners of those governments call the shots. Governments are just the hired ranch managers -- cowboys -- who manage the human herd on behalf of the owners (mostly bankers). Borders are just fences between adjacent ranch units, and the cowboys open and close the gates as ordered. The debt slave cows do not get to offer their opinion on which gates open or close or which other cows are put in their pasture.<br /><br />We may assume that the ranch owners have ordered the cowboys to open the EU's gates because it benefits them. My guess as to why is the desperate attempt to keep the debt-based money Ponzi going a little longer by creating a demand to spend even more borrowed money to take care of the problems generated by mixing two incompatible herds of cows.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-54732371326815301832016-05-25T11:49:14.080-07:002016-05-25T11:49:14.080-07:00BM,
"He actually claims that the principled ...BM,<br /><br />"He actually claims that the principled libertarian position is to encourage higher taxes because governments engage in unjust wars."<br /><br />I noted that same disturbing comment of his as well.<br /><br />This is like saying more government regulations are the price for adhering to free market principles.<br /><br />I don't understand the "open borders no matter the consequences" mentality that persists among some libertarians, especially when we're seeing the crisis in Europe get worse and worse.<br />The Questionhttp://anarchistnotebook.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-86586391179197956822016-05-25T11:01:41.207-07:002016-05-25T11:01:41.207-07:00Making the situation worse for the slaves will not...Making the situation worse for the slaves will not hasten their collective resolve to cut the umbilical cord and earn for themselves, but it will certainly make keeping control easier for the master. <br />By the way it's super nice that you can work under the table or otherwise earn without being robbed, but for the vast majority of us, employment requires a protection fee or else the mob(IRS)will take all liberty away.<br />You still pay a sales tax, how dare you claim that I live in a separate matrix, so do you hypocrite!<br />Also, nobody in this world is born free, one must earn and defend that for themselves.Josh1476https://www.blogger.com/profile/07881701110722592922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-66056940841411033132016-05-25T10:42:14.020-07:002016-05-25T10:42:14.020-07:00Matt said it. And I have said it more times than ...Matt said it. And I have said it more times than I can count – they aren’t moving to the top of the Alps, the middle of the desert – setting aside that I don’t grant these are unowned.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-3927370007159177742016-05-25T10:41:01.062-07:002016-05-25T10:41:01.062-07:00“So you agree in principle with the libertarian po...“So you agree in principle with the libertarian position on borders, but--given the accessibility of state welfare programs to "illegal" immigrants--you conclude that forcible border controls are necessary.”<br /><br />I write so much more, and rather explicitly…or so I thought. Merely opening the borders does not satisfy a single one of Hornberger’s four explicit conditions and the final, implicit condition, for libertarian open borders. Merely opening the borders has nothing to do even with the very next step: one individual invites another individual.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-23562713765531851862016-05-25T10:17:48.679-07:002016-05-25T10:17:48.679-07:00He actually claims that the principled libertarian...He actually claims that the principled libertarian position is to encourage higher taxes because governments engage in unjust wars. He actually says that high taxation is a small, trifling (picayunish) concern for libertarians that will not lead to tyranny and is in line with our principles. WTF.<br /><br />But when it comes to the relatively miniscule cost of immigration enforcement, suddenly he is hyper-concerned about the very modest impact on taxation leading to tyranny.<br /><br />He completely ignores that the vast supermajority of migrants to Europe are not refugees from violence, and are bringing the politics of strong-arm governments with them.<br /><br />Should the USA also have had open borders with Germany and Japan during WWII? Let in unlimited numbers of German and Japanese soldiers without any vetting so that they could escape Hitler and Hirohito? No possible way that could backfire, right?<br /><br />He is absolutely blind to the fact that the State program of using tax money to import leftist voters is not the same thing as me inviting a visitor to my property.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-36566470357443511482016-05-25T09:26:11.518-07:002016-05-25T09:26:11.518-07:00Jacob Hornberger says that European taxpayers are ...Jacob Hornberger says that European taxpayers are obligated to pay higher taxes and accept refugees because libertarianism.Matt@Occidentalism.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395220402283030311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-43489483237277335932016-05-25T09:14:27.672-07:002016-05-25T09:14:27.672-07:00"You're asking people to assume the extre..."You're asking people to assume the extreme case..."<br /><br />Exactly what libertarians do when they argue against the minimum wage, ie, why not have the minimum wage be $100 an hour. It is in arguing the extreme case that we find where the limitations of the libertarian theory lays.<br /><br />"Sorry, but it is one thing to restrict that person's access to someone's property where he is being invited and quite another to refrain from engaging in trade or commerce with that individual. You seem to want to conflate the two things. A community has every right to ostracize a person but has NO right to impede that person's movements without a valid, morally-justifiable cause."<br /><br />Inviting a murderer or pedophile is a threat to the rest of the community. It is like throwing a bunch of snakes into my backyard - you are putting other people at risk. You assert the right to do that. I assert that you don't, and I am willing to use force. Understand?<br /><br />"Ha! Current border enforcement can't keep criminals out as IT IS."<br /><br />Only because the managers of the state have decided not to enforce the borders. Non-border enforcement is not innate to the state, in fact is quite rare. I have been all around the world and non-enforcement of borders only happens in the western states.<br /><br />"Oh, please!"<br /><br />No, just no. Because...<br /><br />"Exile is force, it is aggression."<br /><br />You will have to go. Matt@Occidentalism.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395220402283030311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-60866950874713777142016-05-25T09:01:15.050-07:002016-05-25T09:01:15.050-07:00You are an interesting one; you have no thoughts o...You are an interesting one; you have no thoughts of your own, no arguments to make, no rebuttals. bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-24527171222068302512016-05-25T09:01:01.361-07:002016-05-25T09:01:01.361-07:0099.99% of immigration to my country is not to virg...99.99% of immigration to my country is not to virgin 'unowned' land. Why bring up exceptions?Matt@Occidentalism.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395220402283030311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-17671689043873802002016-05-25T08:47:52.705-07:002016-05-25T08:47:52.705-07:00I may have to recant and apologize for my reply to...I may have to recant and apologize for my reply to UC.Black Flaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04264200450145227142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-83927314865854558942016-05-25T07:55:59.968-07:002016-05-25T07:55:59.968-07:00Sorry, wrong link before. Correct new link: http:...Sorry, wrong link before. Correct new link: http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/bionic-mosquito-wrong-immigration/adaptunenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-91771396756593439132016-05-25T07:45:23.631-07:002016-05-25T07:45:23.631-07:00Jacob Hornberger rips you apart once again, at htt...Jacob Hornberger rips you apart once again, at http://fff.org/2016/05/20/open-immigration-welfare-state/ . Are you ready to concede yet?adaptunenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-83756880021031009192016-05-24T20:34:09.276-07:002016-05-24T20:34:09.276-07:00Mr. Mosquito, what do you say about unrestricted m...Mr. Mosquito, what do you say about unrestricted migration into an unowned, virgin land? I don't see anyone's property rights being violated in that case.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-30299829272312540932016-05-24T19:10:20.791-07:002016-05-24T19:10:20.791-07:00I am opposed to the State Program of Forced Integr...I am opposed to the State Program of Forced Integration, Wealth Redistribution, and Voting Population Replacement, not against Libertarian Open Borders. They are only superficially similar.<br /><br />Libertarians can only defend the State Program of Forced Integration, Wealth Redistribution, and Voting Population Replacement by relying on superficial analysis.<br /><br />This "open borders" argument is only coherent so far as one accepts that the state rightfully owns all property within its borders, which is decidedly anti-NAP, as indicated by Lawrence above.<br /><br />In reality, the State is expropriating property from taxpayers and using that loot as a lure to entice in future-Statist voters to intensify the aggression against property owners over time.<br /><br />None of that has anything to do with Libertarianism or the Non-Aggression Principle. It is an active State program to stomp out political opposition to ever increasing State power.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-63544118419676137752016-05-24T14:55:21.421-07:002016-05-24T14:55:21.421-07:00Re: Matt@Occidentalism.org,
─ Let's add an ad...Re: Matt@Occidentalism.org,<br /><br />─ Let's add an additional trait to this Argentine friend since we are in the realm of the hypothetical. This Argentine friend is a convicted serial killer and pedophile. ─<br /><br />You're asking people to assume the extreme case where a normal person would have such an individual for a friend. Your example sounds like the admonition from Marxian anti-gun zealots who want to end discussions with the question "Would you want everybody to have nukes, then?"<br /><br />─ You still can't find a reason under libertarian theory to restrict his access, ─ <br /><br />Sorry, but it is one thing to restrict that person's access to someone's property where he is being invited and quite another to refrain from engaging in trade or commerce with that individual. You seem to want to conflate the two things. A community has every right to ostracize a person but has NO right to impede that person's movements without a valid, morally-justifiable cause.<br /><br />─ Libertarian theory can't keep out criminals and some libertarian open borders advocates have been honest enough to admit it. ─<br /><br />Ha! Current border enforcement can't keep criminals out as IT IS. The answer to criminal behavior is armed self defense, whether the borders are open or not.<br /><br />─ The kind of society envisioned by Hornberger is self contradictory in that it would be easily subdued from without. ─<br /><br />Oh, please! That's the same argument made by the Statists! How many times have you heard them ask "How are you going to defend your home from the roving gangs of armed thugs that come to your libertarian paradise"? I have to wonder what does the State do to keep us from roving gangs of armed thugs today. There's nothing more effective than armed self defense. An armed population is better able to defend itself from attack than an unarmed population. An Argentinian serial killer will find himself stymied very quickly when he realizes he just moved to a place where they will give you lead for breakfast.<br /><br />─ Exile is a time honored, yet sadly underutilized method of peacefully removing those avowed enemies of the tribe. ─<br /><br />Exile is force, it is aggression. Therefore, it is immoral and evil. But ostracism is perfectly valid and totally consistent with the Non-Aggression Principle. An ostracized individual is one which people refuse to engage in trade or commerce with.OldMexicanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16111465436836633221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-28478678675916118612016-05-24T14:32:37.125-07:002016-05-24T14:32:37.125-07:00@UnhappyConservative,
─ Whites 51-49 pro. Non-whi...@UnhappyConservative,<br /><br />─ Whites 51-49 pro. Non-white 68-32 against. What could explain this? ─<br /><br />A better question would be what does that have to do with population replacement?OldMexicanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16111465436836633221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-4835429965553791452016-05-24T13:32:19.626-07:002016-05-24T13:32:19.626-07:00So you agree in principle with the libertarian pos...So you agree in principle with the libertarian position on borders, but--given the accessibility of state welfare programs to "illegal" immigrants--you conclude that forcible border controls are necessary.<br /><br />If one accepts your logic, a liberal order can only be established in big-bang fashion. There can be no step-wise progress toward such an order, because there will always be externalities or downstream effects of any liberalization on remaining, state-controlled functions. Repealing drug prohibition will put cost pressures on state treatment centers and prisons. Repealing gun registration will make it more difficult for police to trace guns. Doing away with OSHA will mean more workplace accidents and patients in taxpayer-funded emergency rooms and hospitals.<br /><br />The dichotomy you posit--that something may be a libertarian good in theory but will be a disaster for taxpayers in reality--is false. Any such theory would be worthless, anyway. Of what use are impractical theories?<br /><br />Bastiat would scold you for cheering the broken window. You trace a line from an open border to larger government schools, greater use of food stamps, etc. You neglect to consider that the opposite may occur. Not every immigrant will end up on state welfare. Some may start there and transit to self-sufficiency. Others may never appear at a welfare office in the first place, having found employment in the marketplace. You have in your head a static, consumption-based, economic model for immigration: immigrants are grasshoppers ravaging a taxpayer-funded field, in effect. You ignore the immigrant as producer, innovator, entrepreneur--economic roles that tend to diminish the need for state welfare programs.<br /><br />For all practical purposes, we have open borders in the U.S. now. ICE captures and repatriates a small fraction of illegal immigrants. Some come for the welfare programs--no question about it. Most come for the economic opportunity and freedom--no question about that. The government is no better at managing its borders than it is in prosecuting wars or regulating Goldman Sachs. To indulge what you admit is wrong in principle makes no sense. Far better to make progress where progress can be made. Let's have freedom of travel AND get rid of expropriation, rather than sacrificing the former in the vain hope of lessening the need for the latter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-8388325750611962092016-05-24T13:06:03.328-07:002016-05-24T13:06:03.328-07:00Indeed, you would think that the direct causes of ...Indeed, you would think that the direct causes of mass immigration of middle-easterners (and North Africans) is due to a direct violation by the US of the borders of those under-developed countries and the supranational entity, the EU, of those more developed ones that they continually deprive of anything resembling sovereignty. If they weren't being bombed and invited simultaneously, I doubt they'd go anywhere. Free trade might even inspire them to develop a more amenable culture to "progressive" mores.<br /><br />If the Angelina Jolie's of the world want to adopt refugees and take strict liability for their conduct then I see no reason not to let them fill their mansions to their heart's desire. <br /><br />The logic around borders really defies common sense. Libertarian borders demarcate private property; state borders demarcate sovereignty; but, there doesn't appear to be a distinction to which one of those concepts is being ignored by the US and Merkel in this discussion. <br /><br />Transnationalism is the transgenderism of borders: take meaning and define it out of existence then just let whoever is in power do whatever they want.alaska3636noreply@blogger.com