Stephan Kinsella Ought To Shut His Stupid Cake Hole

Speaking of immigration, self-styled anarchocapitalist (or perhaps “libertarian“) Stephan Kinsella has this to say over at Not-Reason.com:

How about this compromise: we remove all barriers to immigration except one: we charge a fee. I propose we charge somewhere between $1 million and $10 million per family. That way you guarantee you get fairly decent (non-criminal, educated, successful, civil, etc.) quality immigrants.

If, say, 100,000 families (about 400,000 people, say) immigrate per year and pay $1 million each, that’s $100 billion per year.

Steve K. adds this addendum, just in case there’s any doubt:

Look, it’s simple. If we have open borders America will be devastated in a matter of years. Therefore there have to be restrictions based on some criteria.

Kinsella’s implicit whimpering about his “needs” and his explicit call for government extortion stand in stark contrast to his earlier position:

To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression.

Individual rights entail anarcho-capitalism; a state, even a minarchist one, necessarily violates the individual rights that Rand so passionately championed.

Kinsella needs to drop this pretense about being some sort of radical free-market type and honestly embrace government, or perhaps white separatism. Until then, he’d do well just to simply shut up.

249 thoughts on “Stephan Kinsella Ought To Shut His Stupid Cake Hole”

  1. -Why not charge all Americans $500K a kid or so, by the same argument?

    -Posted by: John T. Kennedy on Sep 23, 04 | 11:03 pm

    That’s a Good Start…..

  2. Stephan Kinsella: If we have open borders America will be devastated in a matter of years.

    He’s right about THAT, of course: Al Qaeda would have ten-thousand people exploding over here pronto (like they’re blowing up everywhere else) once freed of the annoyance of printing up fake Iraqi passports — and any libertarian (esp. “anti-war” pacifist alleged libertarians) unprepared to deal rationally with the argument (while maintaining conformance to NIF) has slept through the hard homework questions.

  3. I thought the Sept 11th terrorists all had legitimate Saudi passports and were in the country legally. Hell several months after Sept 11th – 2 of the terrorists who had flown into the WTC had their student visa’s renewed. So the good news is billions have been spent on keeping America’s boarders safer – but they are still issuing visas to terrorists – but ONLY to the DEAD ONES.

  4. Kinsella: “Look, it’s simple. If we have open borders America will be devastated in a matter of years. Therefore there have to be restrictions based on some criteria.”

    Here’s what’s simple: The Rockwellians who agree with this are arguing that the state is necessary.

  5. I agree, Lopez and Kennedy. As a regular reader of LRC, and you guys of course, I was hoping he was joking. Unfortunately I don’t think he was.

  6. Boeing is obviously missing the boat here by not hiring Kinsela as head of marketing:

    “Look, there’s octeen jillion people in China. If just 100,000 of them bought a 777…”

  7. Stedman,

    Where are these 100,000 millionaire families coming from, anyway?”

    His ass?

    I mean, millionaires can already get in if they want in, right?

    Let me think. Yes.

    “Are there 100,000 coming in this year?”

    Not at these prices.

  8. Stevie Nicks’ real name is Stephanie. So don’t make me send another Hurricane, Steve.

    I don’t remember how many posters to this blog were in favor of the Bush wars, but it seems to me that there were a few. Perhaps thou shouldest remove the plank from thine own eye, No Treasoners?

  9. But it’s typical of losers not to care how they are viewed by the ones who would typically recognize their loserness. So what can possibly the relevance of asserting that you don’t care?

    To call me worthless is simply stupid, quite literally. Really, stupidity and petulance primarily harm the possessor.

    I dunno how many junkies populate this list of what appears from cursory examination to have its disproportionate share of marginal and crank types. Maybe I’m wrong. Didn’t examine it closely enough. Anyway in my comment I nowhere implied this list had junkies, it was an analogy (the word “like” indicates that) to the type of person who has self-esteem issues, or the relativist type who hates judgment. I dunno. It was just a little psychologizing hypothesis.

    And I happen not to be in favor of initiating force. I favor dismantling the state entirely. I do oppose the massive and systematic increase in aggression that would be sure to follow if we were completely open the borders given the existence of the modern state.

    What I don’t get is do you presumably open-border types support it because you think the consequences (to rights) would not be bad; or because you don’t give a damn what the consequences would be?

    My guess is that at least 2/3 of the regular No Treasoners reading this do not seriously want totally open borders right now. If not more. My guess is that most people would not push a button that would destroy our entire society, lives, and culture. It’s much better to do it slowly, as we are doing now, don’t you think?

  10. Look Sabotta, it’s not my fault if you work for a Hollywood Video. Dont take it out on me, man.

    Just kidding. I know nothing about you, except what you write. More’s the pity.

    “Gee, Stephen, the “Mises Institute crowd” is it? Not the “Lew Rockwell crowd” which includes such shining lights as Gary North, “Christian” fascist?””

    “Hiding behind Mises when a light shines on you people fools no one. You people over at LRC arn’t despicable because of your “popularity and success and influence in the libertarian movement” – you’re despicable because you are two-faced liars, Confederacy-groupies and crypto-fascist obscurantists masquerading as libertarians. (There may be some exceptions – very naive and foolish exceptions, who evidently don’t read the filth regularly doled out over at LRC.)”

    Oh, you don’t hate the Mises Institute too? I’ll make a note of too. Lew Rockwell does run it, you know. But never mind. What I’ve seen of Gary North on LRC is compatible with libertarianism and sensible. I’ve seen nothing “Christian fascist” from him. And so what anyway? What are you saying? That libertarian principles clearly show that if one has a website one should not publish articles by those who privately believe things that are incompatible with libertarianism? Hunh?

    The shining lights of the LRC and Mises crowd are, in my view, people like Lew Rockwell, Joe Stromberg, Jeff Tucker, Hans Hoppe, Joe Salerno, Walter Block, Ralph Raico, Tom DiLorenzo, David Gordon, Guido Huelsmann, Mark Thornton, Jeff Herbener, as well as a larger supporting cast.

    Liars? Are you insane, man? It’s a think-tank, and intellectual institution; seeking to promulgate and develop ideas in favor of liberty and markets and individualism and reason and property. Are you literally insane? Do you have all these weird little internal models of the world inside your head that you follow, and every now and then otehrs get a glimpse of it?

    Confederacy-groupies? Crypto-fascist obscurantists masquerading as libertarians? I think you must literally be insane, or very paranoid, or somehow malevolent or biased by some weird personal animus.

    And you say there may be some “naive and foolish” exceptions, people “who evidently don’t read the filth regularly doled out over at LRC.” I have no idea who you, in your irrational, juvenile, petulant, envious mindset can actually admire at LRC, but I imagine maybe Walter Block? I don’t know. But now Walter Block is naive and foolish? What “filth” is there?

    For you, as a libertarian, to insult the LRC and Mises Institute people as being crypto-fascists is, frankly, disgusting. It is a completely twisted, unjustifiable sickness for you to do anything but give Lew Rockwell appreciation for his monumental efforts on behalf of liberty. But a petulant punk won’t get this.

    I will admit one thing: I really don’t understand why there is this gallery of gnats who actually seem to despise the great and obviously pro-liberty jobs continually done by LRC and the Mises Institute. I truly don’t understand it. Whenever one of you tries to give an explanation, it’s on the level of a sputtering, emotional, hyperbole-filled, unfactual, anecdotal tirade. In other words, not only unpersuasive, but not even coherent.

  11. Gee, Stephen, the “Mises Institute crowd” is it? Not the “Lew Rockwell crowd” which includes such shining lights as Gary North, “Christian” fascist?

    Hiding behind Mises when a light shines on you people fools no one. You people over at LRC arn’t despicable because of your “popularity and success and influence in the libertarian movement” – you’re despicable because you are two-faced liars, Confederacy-groupies and crypto-fascist obscurantists masquerading as libertarians. (There may be some exceptions – very naive and foolish exceptions, who evidently don’t read the filth regularly doled out over at LRC.)

    Incidentally, how many “junkies” do you think post here, you worthless piece of shit?

    Cordially,
    John Sabotta

  12. …libertarians from Mises to Raico to Hoppe all oppose open borders in today’s state-run world.

    Which is irrelevant to the fact that closed borders requires the initiation of force. Why are you in favor of initiating force, Kinsella?

    Is a libertarian obligated to favor a policy which would result in civil war and the devastation of western culture and life?

    A libertarian is obligated to not advocate initiating force. Closing borders requires the initiation of force against peaceful travellers.

    Yapyapyap whinewhine…Somebody explain it to me.

    It’s called intellectual consistency, Kinsella.

    Mises Institute, which does heroic work spreading the pro-property rights, pro-free market, pro-capitalism, pro-individual rights,…

    Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-property rights”?
    Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-free market”?
    Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-capitalism”?
    Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-individual rights”?

    What is wrong with you guys, you come across as cranks and losers.

    Get this, Kinsella, and get it real fuckin’ good: I don’t care what I “come across” as to a two-bit twerp like you who’d presume to get behind a group of thugs and try to tell me how to dispose of my property. You come across like any cheap Commie, telling me how much you need to steal from me in order to provide for your own existence.

  13. As I pointed out in a related post today, http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/006063.html, libertarians from Mises to Raico to Hoppe all oppose open borders in today’s state-run world. Raico notes:

    “Free immigration would appear to be in a different category from other policy decisions, in that its consequences permanently and radically alter the very composition of the democratic political body that makes those decisions. In fact, the liberal order, where and to the degree that it exists, is the product of a highly complex cultural development. One wonders, for instance, what would become of the liberal society of Switzerland under a regime of “open borders.”

    In other words, relatively liberal societies would certainly soon become less liberal if they opened their borders. Surely it is libertarian to oppose become less libertarian, to oppose policies and measures that will result in more rights violations!

    As Hoppe points out:

    “It is not difficult to predict the consequences of an open border policy in the present world. If Switzerland, Austria, Germany or Italy, for instance, freely admitted everyone who made it to their borders and demanded entry, these countries would quickly be overrun by millions of third-world immigrants from Albania, Bangladesh, India, and Nigeria, for example. As the more perceptive open-border advocates realize, the domestic state-welfare programs and provisions would collapse as a consequence. This would not be a reason for concern, for surely, in order to regain effective protection of person and property the welfare state must be abolished. But then there is the great leap—or the gaping hole—in the open border argument: out of the ruins of the democratic welfare states, we are led to believe, a new natural order will somehow emerge.

    “The first error in this line of reasoning can be readily identified. Once the welfare states have collapsed under their own weight, the masses of immigrants who have brought this about are still there. They have not been miraculously transformed into Swiss, Austrians, Bavarians or Lombards, but remain what they are: Zulus, Hindus, Ibos, Albanians, or Bangladeshis. Assimilation can work when the number of immigrants is small. It is entirely impossible, however, if immigration occurs on a mass scale. In that case, immigrants will simply transport their own ethno-culture onto the new territory. Accordingly, when the welfare state has imploded there will be a multitude of “little” (or not so little) Calcuttas, Daccas, Lagoses, and Tiranas strewn all over Switzerland, Austria, and Italy. It betrays a breathtaking sociological naiveté to believe that a natural order will emerge out of this admixture. Based on all historical experience with such forms of multiculturalism, it can safely be predicted that in fact the result will be civil war. There will be widespread plundering and squatterism leading to massive capital consumption, and civilization as we know it will disappear from Switzerland, Austria and Italy. Furthermore, the host population will quickly be outbred and, ultimately, physically displaced by their “guests.” There will still be Alps in Switzerland and Austria, but no Swiss or Austrians.”

    Is a libertarian obligated to favor a policy which would result in civil war and the devastation of western culture and life? Is it your view that this simply would not happen? Or that even if it did, consequences be damned, we have to support it!?

    ***

    BTW, what is wrong with you guys, always looking for things to attack in the Mises Institute crowd? I really don’t get it. Is it just some kind of weird jealousy of their popularity and success and influence in the libertarian movement? Is it some kind of self-esteem issue, like junkies and losers and hippies and libertines and relativist types hate those with conservative or traditionalist moral and cultural values because they don’t like to be “judged”, even implicitly, or something? Somebody explain it to me. I thought you guys were nominally libertarian; if so, it is simply bizarre you would have such bitterness toward the Mises Institute, which does heroic work spreading the pro-property rights, pro-free market, pro-capitalism, pro-individual rights, Austrian economic message. What is wrong with you guys, you come across as cranks and losers.

    BTW whoever called me Steve, why you think Steve is short for Stephan I have no idea. Do you ever call a girl named Stephanie Stevenie?

  14. But it’s typical of losers not to care how they are viewed by the ones who would typically recognize their loserness.

    It’s typical of someone who doesn’t have a rational argument to make to resort to pejoratives.

    I dunno how many junkies populate this list of what appears from cursory examination to have its disproportionate share of marginal and crank types. Maybe I’m wrong. Didn’t examine it closely enough. Anyway in my comment I nowhere implied this list had junkies, it was an analogy (the word “like” indicates that) to the type of person who has self-esteem issues, or the relativist type who hates judgment. I dunno. It was just a little psychologizing hypothesis.

    “I’s just foolin’, yo.” Bullcrap, Kinsella. Back-handed insults and petty smear-attempts are fine, unless you can’t back them up. Which you can’t, I doubt very seriously that any regular contributor to No Treason qualifies as a junkie or a hippy.

    Again, it’s because you can’t muster any argument beyond your “need” for closed borders.

    And I happen not to be in favor of initiating force.

    Yes you are, you favor the American government initiating force against peaceful travelers.

    I do oppose the massive and systematic increase in aggression that would be sure to follow if we were completely open the borders given the existence of the modern state.

    That has nothing at all to do with the fact that you applaud the initiation of force against immigrants.

    My guess is that at least 2/3 of the regular No Treasoners reading this do not seriously want totally open borders right now.

    My judgement is that your “guess” is worth about as much as your “analogies”. If you really wanted to know, you’d ask. But actually asking a question to gather data would require that pesky intellectual consistency that you can’t seem to address.

    My guess is that most people would not push a button that would destroy our entire society, lives, and culture.

    Intellectual consistency time, Kinsella: You claim that free immigration would destroy our society, lives, and culture. You claim that closed borders is what prevents this. Those borders are kept closed only because the State does so. Are you claiming that the state is then necessary?

  15. Lopez: “Intellectual consistency time, Kinsella: You claim that free immigration would destroy our society, lives, and culture. You claim that closed borders is what prevents this. Those borders are kept closed only because the State does so. Are you claiming that the state is then necessary?”

    Why, no; open borders, given the existence of the state, is what is dangerous. Did you read Hoppe’s argument? When there is no state, there is really no such thing as open borders; there is only private property. With the state, there is forced integration due to public roads, anti-discrimination laws, and the like; and the immigrants also gain the corresponding right to sue based on the anti-discrimination laws, not to mention the inevitable right to vote.

    Stedman: “Stephen Kinsella: “What I don’t get is do you presumably open-border types support it because you think the consequences (to rights) would not be bad; or because you don’t give a damn what the consequences would be?

    “Do you think some amount of chaos would ensue if all those imprisoned in America for victimless crimes only (drug offenses, prostitution, weapons possession) were released tomorrow?”

    Hey, how about answering my question instead of answering w/ another question.

    Actually, it does not seem likely to me that there would be “chaos” just b/c of releazing non-violent, aggression-less prisoners.

    “If there were price controls and rationing of gasoline, would you criticize someone who for writing an article critical of rationing, even though removing the rationing but keeping the price controls might be a worse situation?”

    No, but I would not agree (assuming your assumptions are right) that we should do one without the other.

    Here’s another analogy. Suppose the government raised the minimum wage to $30/hour. Thereby forcing millions into unemployment, and poverty; and onto the welfare rolls. Would an opponent of welfare say the state should necessarily abolish the welfare, and cause the victims of government imposed poverty to starve?

    “Most No Treason contributors would like the borders opened and the welfare state demolished. If you find one who advocates open borders, but wants to keep the welfare state, let us know and I’ll join you in criticizing him or her for wanting to destroy civil society.”

    But this evades the question. It fights the hypo. This is what libertarians always do on this issue: they say, well, I’m in favor of abolishing the state privileges immigrants abuse. But the question is do you advocate opening the borders now, even if we retain the current state apparatus?

  16. Unanswered questions to Kinsella:
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-property rights”?
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-free market”?
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-capitalism”?
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-individual rights”?

    Those are all Yes/No questions, Stephan. Given the fact that you’ve obviously thought long and hard about the issue, you ought to be able to answer them.

  17. Stephen Kinsella: “What I don’t get is do you presumably open-border types support it because you think the consequences (to rights) would not be bad; or because you don’t give a damn what the consequences would be?

    Do you think some amount of chaos would ensue if all those imprisoned in America for victimless crimes only (drug offenses, prostitution, weapons possession) were released tomorrow?

    If not, are you naive? If so, do you support keeping people imprisoned for such crimes?

    If there were price controls and rationing of gasoline, would you criticize someone who for writing an article critical of rationing, even though removing the rationing but keeping the price controls might be a worse situation?

    Most No Treason contributors would like the borders opened and the welfare state demolished. If you find one who advocates open borders, but wants to keep the welfare state, let us know and I’ll join you in criticizing him or her for wanting to destroy civil society.

  18. Loudius Fubqua: I don’t remember how many posters to this blog were in favor of the Bush wars, but it seems to me that there were a few.

    Tim Starr (and one other unlisted contributor) for sure, with Mike Schneider as a ‘maybe’. Beck might count as well. Maybe Sabotta. So 2-5, depending.

    Perhaps thou shouldest remove the plank from thine own eye, No Treasoners?

    I personally am not in favor of government war, and I’m very sure that Kennedy, Stedman, Warren, and Holmes aren’t either. I honestly don’t know about Soja. That wraps up the current contributors: 1 maybe, 1 don’t know, 5 against.

  19. That sounds nihilistic…

    No. This is a situation where nothing is going to improve until the government goes broke for well and good. Example: The Philippines, where Marcos looted the entire treasury, is much, much better off with business leap-frogging forward since the government has no ability to pay legions of goons to harrass everyone full-time.

  20. Loudius Fubqua: I don’t remember how many posters to this blog were in favor of the Bush wars…

    You’re calling it that, of course, to float a *lie*.

  21. Kinsella: I’m in favor of abolishing the state privileges immigrants abuse.

    You’re weaseling away, desperately, from answering Lopez’ yes/no IOF questions because you know they’d reveal your hypocrisy. (This is more than a matter of intellectual consistency; it’s a matter of intellectual *integrity*.)

  22. Loudius Fubqua: (D)on’t make me send another Hurricane…

    I’m sorry, but you can’t send hurricanes with a license; and *I* am in charge of issuing those.

  23. “How about this compromise: we remove all barriers to immigration except one: we charge a fee. I propose we charge somewhere between $1 million and $10 million per family. That way you guarantee you get fairly decent (non-criminal, educated, successful, civil, etc.) quality immigrants.”

    HAHAHAHAHA.
    And do you, Mr. Stephan Kinsella, think that anybody would like his (or her) honorable ass in the USA? I doubt it. For $1 million, it’s possible to buy an island, along with its sovereignty (or, at least, to 99 years lease it out of the state’s control) in the South America. Or a BIG, BIG house in Mexico, Eastern Europe eg. Ukraine (Central Europe is too expensive). Who would like to pay $1 million just to have a “HONOR” to get to the “land of the free”, in the times it becomes totally unfree; in the times of Bushism, “Patriot” Act, gun control, war on drugs that make it very easy for officials to plant some evidence and legally steal one’s car, house or whatever they want? Or the IRS, the tax office that uses guns to extort taxes (no tax office in Europe does it so brutally; not to say about South America, where rich people usu don’t pay ANY taxes at all).

    Would I have $1 million, I would surely buy myself some island in the Carribean or nearby the shores of some country in South America, and set up a business there (and I would have an advantage of cheap labor galore), instead of learning how to HAIL The Emperor Bush.

    To all Americans: it’s not about your country, which is nice, and which I generally like (I’m seen as the Americomaniac by my friends:) ). It’s about the US-GOV, the Republicracy, Bushism, Kerrytynism and the STUPID arguments of some people (eg. Kinsella)

    Cheerz,
    Critto

  24. It is treason for officials to divert the citizens’ tax money to the foreigner

    Piffle. Those offiicials have not right to my money in the first place.

    I’ve long said that I’d be tickled pink if each and every “illegal” in the country signed up for eighty-five welfare programs and sucked the treasury down to the rocks just in a nick of time to cut all those AARP undead out of their promised Ponzi loot.

    My ass would just about fall off, I’d be laughing *so* hard.

  25. If immigrants receive net public subsidy, they are accessories to treason. It is treason for officials to divert the citizens’ tax money to the foreigner, therefore all immigrants on net public subsidy are accessory to treason. If one advocates tolerance of immigration without a reqirement for all of them to be net taxpayers, one is advocating tolerance of the crime of being accessory to treason, as well as aggression on the net taxpayer. Citizens on net public subsidy are not also accessory to treason.

  26. That sounds nihilistic; the worse the better, or at least a contradiction-in-terms. Officials may hold some tax money under any conceivable system of government; therefore they may not divert it to the foreigner, except traitorously. Likewise the immigrant may not accept such public funds, except as accessory to treason.

  27. There are at least a hundred ways to make the government go broke. Presumably these include defaulting on the national debt, which would bring war, perhaps. Wanting to dissolve the government is not enthusiasm for aggression?

  28. “That sounds nihilistic…

    No. This is a situation where nothing is going to improve until the government goes broke for well and good. Example: The Philippines, where Marcos looted the entire treasury, is much, much better off with business leap-frogging forward since the government has no ability to pay legions of goons to harrass everyone full-time.”

    Good, good, good point, Mike Schneider …
    There’s one reason I LOVE my country, Poland, and 9 more countries joining the EU …
    It will make the EU welfare state model BROKE. It has already begun. They are simply unable to finance us all with the money stolen from the Western Europeans. Well, let Ukraine and Turkey join the club, too, and I’m sure that the “federal superstate-to-be” is gone, and we all will have one large free trade, free (e/i)migration, free exchange zone instead. The EU will destroy the national governments and then fall itself.

    In Liberty,
    Critto

  29. Governments are almost always insolvent in any case, this fact does not stop them from welfare statesmanship. Example:Argentina defaulted, and stopped making crucial payments domestically also, but their welfare society is still there. Other countries have defaulted, internationally and domestically; not one of them has established laissez-faire.

  30. jsbolton,

    If immigrants receive net public subsidy, they are accessories to treason. It is treason for officials to divert the citizens’ tax money to the foreigner, therefore all immigrants on net public subsidy are accessory to treason. If one advocates tolerance of immigration without a reqirement for all of them to be net taxpayers, one is advocating tolerance of the crime of being accessory to treason, as well as aggression on the net taxpayer. Citizens on net public subsidy are not also accessory to treason.”

    1. Who cares for treason? It’s no-treason.com website after all :)
    2. Who cares for taxes? A libertarian should find 1001 ways to avoid or evade them
    3. Who cares for the “public” money? Nothing should be public anymore.
    4. What’s a ‘foreigner’ and a ‘citizen’, but some useless, illegitimate, crappy statist terms? In a free world, there would be NO MORE ‘citizenship’ and ‘alienhood’ (unless it’s about the Alien Life Forms:) )
    5. ALL of white Americans are immigrants in the land, who haven’t asked the legitimate owners of the country, that is, Indians, about the permission to invade it. In Europe, the Whites in America are still being stereotyped as the thuggish usurpers, while the Indians symbolise freedom, symbiosis with nature and “nativity”.

    In Liberty,
    Critto

  31. Aggression is always public; that’s what you don’t know, perhaps. Who would want to be a stateless person, and in a world with freedom for aggression? It is not only white Americans who care about citizenship; the only ones who don’t would be either those who wish they could move someplace better, having despaired of their countrymen, or hypocrites who say citizenship is not worth anything, but who will not live out that preference by discarding their passports, or equivalent certifications of citizenship. It is not benevolent to wish others to become stateless persons.

  32. besides, I think everything has been already said in the topic:
    1. it’s immoral for the state to impose restrictions on immigration
    2. to say that ‘the immigrants will abuse OUR welfare system’ is not an excuse for a libertarian; such a person is rather a cryptosocialist. What kind of a libertarian cares if the welfare system will broke? I for instance would LOVE that it would be doomed for ever, the sooner the better. And whining, that we “have to refuse another HUMAN BEING the right to immigrate and purchase the land from someone that wants to sell it IN ORDER TO SAVE THE WELFARE STATE” , is TOTALLY UNLIBERTARIAN.
    3. if the state was to protect its budget against revenue-negative immigrants, it should do the same to the revenue-negative ‘countrymen’. Well, it was done in the days of yore, even (or especially) in the XX century. In the USA of 40s, the government-mandated EUGENICS was applied to all homeless bums (hoboes, tramps, vagrants, drug junkies), who were thought to be ‘worthless’, and thus, preventing them from being able to have children (by the means of sterilization) was considered BENEVOLENT,and OKAY. It is done even today in the People’s Republic of China , when the ‘surplus’ babies are being murdered, either as fetuses (even in the 8th month of pregnancy) or the new-born babies (the “doctor” takes a syringe filled with a toxin, and injects it to the baby’s head, and the baby dies quickly).

    So, good bye on this topic:)
    I commend ALL open-minded people, and to the close-minded anti-immigrant xenophobes I’d love to say “F..K OFF; I don’t want to go to America, you don’t have to be afraid of me” :)

    In Liberty,
    Critto

  33. … and yes, I think Hoppe IS a crypto-socialist who wants to save the WELFARE SYSTEM. And besides, he is an immigrant. He should start preventing immigration from himself, by returning to Austria first.

  34. First, immigrants are by definition not peaceful travellers, they are settlers and thus have an impact on the area in which they are settling.

    Second, in the absence of a state, what is likely is that you would have communal violence against any large group of alien settlers. For example, when the UK first started to import large numbers of commonwealth immigrants, there was spontaneously organized violence against them. It required a the centralized state to stop the violence. I am not condoning violence, I am just pointing out what actually happens instead of your libertarian fantasy land, and the catch-22 that imigration causes libertarians. In reality, the central state is necessary to support mass immigration. In fact, the state goes well beyond merely stopping violence. In Britain and elsewhere, the state was required to *force* landlords to rent to immigrants, sell there property to immigrants when they would rather have sold to their own community, serve immigrants in stores, etc. Now, these people may have been bad people for not wanting to rent to immigrants, but that’s as may be. What is a fact is that state violence was and is visited upon people who refuse to be a party to the changing of their culture by mass immigration. Indeed, the state in Britain has gone beyond infringing property rights, now you can face serious charges just for criticizing immigration policy and the behavior of protected groups.

    As for John Lopez’ question. If somehow you can get the Mexicans to your house without using taxpayer roads, if you can pay the entire cost of their being in your community — including the education of their kids, and if you house these people on your own property so their externalities don’t affect me, then you may have a case. Otherwise, you are simply externalizing costs onto me. Econ 101 boyo.

  35. Stephan,

    ” My guess is that most people would not push a button that would destroy our entire society, lives, and culture. It’s much better to do it slowly, as we are doing now, don’t you think?”

    My guess is you woudn’t pull the trigger to shoot a peaceful immigrant crossing the border.

    But maybe I’m wrong, because you are supporting a public policy which in principle entails just that: The targeting of peaceful individuals with aggressive deadly force.

    Don’t kid yourself, that’s precisely what it means to “do it slowly”. In principle you have to be willing to pull the trigger.

    “There was a Checkpoint Charlie
    he didn’t crack a smile
    and it’s no laughing party
    when you’ve been on the murder mile
    alll it takes is one itchy trigger…”

    …one less immigrant wetback nigger.

    Lew Rockwell’s Army are here to stay
    Lew Rockwell’s Army are on their way
    And you you had better cross anywhere else than here today.

  36. “Kinsella: I’m in favor of abolishing the state privileges immigrants abuse.

    You’re weaseling away, desperately, from answering Lopez’ yes/no IOF questions because you know they’d reveal your hypocrisy. (This is more than a matter of intellectual consistency; it’s a matter of intellectual *integrity*.)”

    It’s funny, everytime you people are asked if you want to open the borders NOW, even though we have a welfare state etc., you weasel out of it by saying you want to abolish welfare.

    So I’ll follow your m.o.: Sure, I’m in favor of opening the borders–if we abolish the state.

  37. “And whining, that we “have to refuse another HUMAN BEING the right to immigrate and purchase the land from someone that wants to sell it IN ORDER TO SAVE THE WELFARE STATE” , is TOTALLY UNLIBERTARIAN.”

    Immigrants themselves do not have a right to immigrate. Our government, to the extent it can even claim to be justified, exists to protect its own citizens’ rights, not the rights of foreigners. From the immigrant’s point of view, his rights are not violated any more than if he wants to visit someone in a private neighborhood whose rules don’t permit him past the guard gate. Immigration laws at most violate the rights of some property owners who would like to invite the immigrant onto their own property but who are not permitted to. It’s about Americans, not immigrants.

    As for the Polish lightbulb who claims no one would want to move here for $1million; he is simply ignorant. Further, even if it were true, so what? We have zero immigration. Third, we can lower the price if we need to.

  38. Externalizing costs. Well yes, some, like basic health care and a certain basic standard of living are imposed by the state. Unlike Mexico, the people of the US (at least the suburbs) don’t like to see guys on rollerboards begging on the sidewalk. We don’t like to see kids with goiters running around with no shoes. We don’t let people live in cardboard shacks. All of this is permitted in the much freer market of Mexico, and unsurprisingly is developing here (colonias along the Texas border). So yes, the state imposes on me, if that day laborer who you hire strains his back and goes to the emergency room, I am going to pay a share of it.

    However, that’s not what I was talking about. I’ll give you an example. San Diego every year has beaches close due to sewage spills. Why? The system was designed for X number of people, and there are 2X number living in the area, and .75X of that is not ‘natural’ increase, but imported from Mexico. Sewage is an externality. Okay, if everyone had septic tanks, that would be peachy. It’s not doable here. So, we either have to put up with beach closures, sink down to a level of public hygene that approaches Mexicos, or pay for extra sewage capacity. Until everything is paid for, until someone institutes a pay-per-shit program, you can’t get around this problem.

  39. Young,

    “Unlike Mexico, the people of the US (at least the suburbs) don’t like to see guys on rollerboards begging on the sidewalk. We don’t like to see kids with goiters running around with no shoes. We don’t let people live in cardboard shacks. All of this is permitted in the much freer market of Mexico, and unsurprisingly is developing here (colonias along the Texas border).”

    Why should I give a flying fuck about what you like seeing on other people’s property?

    “So yes, the state imposes on me, if that day laborer who you hire strains his back and goes to the emergency room, I am going to pay a share of it.”

    Then your beef is with those making you pay for it.

  40. Who would want to be a stateless person, and in a world with freedom for aggression?

    “freedom” does NOT mean “perceived ability to get away with crime”.

    E.g., “It was *free*!” exclaims a happy looter with stolen property in his hands.

    When you destroy the language like this, it’s no wonder how easily you talk yourself into subjugation.

  41. I don’t know if I’m quite finished with this song parody, but I though I’d post it now.

    To the tune of Oliver’s Army by Elvis Costello:

    Lew Rockwell’s Army

    Don’t start Lew talking
    He could talk all night
    His mind goes sleepwalking
    while he’s putting the world to right
    call Lew Rockwell information
    and he’ll tell you his preoccupation.

    Lew Rockwell’s Army is here to stay
    Lew Rockwell’s Army are on their way
    and you had better cross anywhere else but here today.

    There was a Checkpoint Hoppe
    he didn’t crack a smile
    but it’s no laughing party
    when you’ve been on the murder mile
    only takes one itchy trigger
    one less immigrant wetback nigger.

    Lew Rockwell’s Army is here to stay
    Lew Rockwell’s Army are on their way
    and you had better cross anywhere else but here today.

    Mexifornia needs a gate!
    Wetbacks won’t assimilate!
    We’ll be there in the Rio Grande
    overrun by the Mexicans
    with the boys from ol’ VDARE and American Ren…

    It’s not aggression,
    our social order must cohere,
    and it could be arranged
    with just a word in Pat Buchanan’s ear.
    If you’re out of luck or out of work
    blame it on some border crossing jerk.

    Lew Rockwell’s Army is here to stay
    Lew Rockwell’s Army are on their way
    and you had better cross anywhere else but here today.

  42. and besides: I *WELCOME* all Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, the folks from Kavkaz, Kazakhstan, etc. to Poland ,as long as they are normal people and not criminals. And besides, Poland has a long tradition of tolerance and openness towards EVERYONE, including Jews and Tatars (I’m even half-blood Tatar, though non-Muslim; my family is Catholic, and before christianization, they probably were of animist or karaim belief).

  43. Stephan Kinsella,
    “Immigrants themselves do not have a right to immigrate. Our government, to the extent it can even claim to be justified, exists to protect its own citizens’ rights, not the rights of foreigners. ”

    So you take care for the government? As an anarchist, I don’t. I wouldn’t shed a tear if Polish government was abolished (I would LOVE it, and I yearn for the time the Polish government exists no more). I would not care a damn for American government, too — the same one that purported eugenics in the 1940s, forced racial segregation till 1960s and the SLAVERY till 1865 (one of the longest periods of this despotism; excluding Arab countries, it existed longer only in Brasil). Do you care for those thugs?

    “From the immigrant’s point of view, his rights are not violated any more than if he wants to visit someone in a private neighborhood whose rules don’t permit him past the guard gate.”

    Government is an USURPER, and not a private neighborhood.

    ” Immigration laws at most violate the rights of some property owners who would like to invite the immigrant onto their own property but who are not permitted to. It’s about Americans, not immigrants.”

    And that’s enough to say those rules are tyrannic. Tell me, Stephan, why should a property owner care for what OTHER property owners say if he (or she) rents his real estate to an immigrant? Or hires him (her) ? And, why should he or she care for what the thugs of the US GOVERNMENT (which, nota bene, now emulates the nazi German (1933-1945) government; they even created The Homeland Security Department, after the nazi “Heimatsschutz”; and the panic they spread is similiar) say?

    “As for the Polish lightbulb who claims no one would want to move here for $1million; he is simply ignorant. Further, even if it were true, so what? We have zero immigration. ”

    The person who wanted to emmigrate to the Bushist Regime (SIEG HEIL GEORGE BUSH!!! Is shouting it enough to obtain a visa? SIEG HEIL IRS !!! SIEG HEIL INS!!! SIEG HEIL FBI!!!!) must be seriously mad. You are right, there are such people:)
    Even some of the sane Americans want to escape from this, eg. to Costa Rica, Canada, or some Carribean island. To put it clear: I like America, but I HATE the US government, and the Polish government along.

    “Third, we can lower the price if we need to.”

    Uh? “We”? Is the USG ‘we’ for you? Perhaps you work for the US government?

    I would never use “we” saying about the Polish government. For me, it has always been, it is, and it will always be “THEY”; the entity I HATE, despise, detest, and wish the worst things to happen to them. But I see that you favor a welfare-warfare state that the US Gov perverts USA into.

  44. and besides: I *WELCOME* all Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, the folks from Kavkaz, Kazakhstan, etc. to Poland ,as long as they are normal people and not criminals. And besides, Poland has a long tradition of tolerance and openness towards EVERYONE, including Jews and Tatars (I’m even half-blood Tatar, though non-Muslim; my family is Catholic, and before christianization, they probably were of animist or karaim belief). USA had this tradition, too, unless the crappy 1920s, the era of prohibition and racism, when the THUGS in Congress and USG considered that the “Anglo-Saxon race should not dissolute in mixture with the “inferior” Slavs, Italians, Irish, etc”

  45. John T Kennedy wrote:
    Why should I give a flying fuck about what you like seeing on other people’s property?

    Victor Davis Hanson’s conclusions in his book, Mexifornia, are only partially correct, but his observations are completely correct and that’s the frustration that Mitchell Young is attempting to convey here. Having lived there and seen exactly what Hanson wrote about, I’m not perpared to be as dismissive of Young’s concerns as you are.

    All that said, the remedy, is not, as Hanson concludes, in restraining freedom of travel and property rights. The problems and benefits of open borders are best dealt with in a free market.

  46. Kinsella:Hey, how about answering my question instead of answering w/ another question.

    Yeah, Kinsella. How about answering:
    “Why not charge all Americans $500K a kid or so, by the same argument?”
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-property rights”?
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-free market”?
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-capitalism”?
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-individual rights”?
    “Why are you in favor of initiating force, Kinsella?”

    It’s funny, everytime you people are asked if you want to open the borders NOW, even though we have a welfare state etc., you weasel out of it by saying you want to abolish welfare.

    Kinsella, I’d be happy to see the US border completely opened, right now.

    Now, how about answering my questions? You’ve had ample opportunity to do so, and the fact that you continually refuse leads me to believe that it’s because you don’t have any rational answer.

    The best thing that you can come up with is (spread over two paragraphs at a time) is that you need the state to initiate force for you. Your need, which is exactly like the need of every cheap Commie yelping for prescription drugs or public schools, is all the justification you think of for attacking other people.

  47. “Having lived there and seen exactly what Hanson wrote about, I’m not perpared to be as dismissive of Young’s concerns as you are.”

    I’m willing to stipulate the facts you and Hanson report, but they can never justify forceful interference with peaceful individuals. Thus I dismiss them as an argument for using deadly force to keep immigrants out.

  48. … not to say about the LEGAL RIGHT TO REBELLION, that was out there in Poland for hundreds of years. And the right to form private confederacies (confederatios), that nobody was forced to join and that could create their own laws, armies, etc, reminding the anarchocapitalist PDAs and voluntary militias. And it WORKED, and was used (unlike the Right to Revolution in New Hampshire, USA; or whiskey rebellion; or the War for Southern Independence; or John Brown’s anti-slavery uprising; or the several Indian uprisings and rebellions; after the American Revolution, no rebellion ever succeeded in the USA) Sure, it applied to the ‘nobility’ only, but (1) the Nobility was a large group in the society (2) it was a good pattern to follow for EVERYONE; if the peasantry was abolished and all folks were treated as the Nobility, Poland would be the freeest country EVER. Ah, and the king was elected and unable to impose ANY taxes without the approval of Szlachta (nobility). ALL rights were pressured out his “Majesty”, and granted under a name of “privileges”. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szlachta

    In Poland ,there were lots of Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Ruthenians (now called Russians) , Tatars, Turks; there also were Mennonites from Netherlands, Irish, English and Scottish Catholics and Protestants; and LOTS OF Jews. Since the Warsaw Confederation (1573, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Confederation) , Poland was OFFICIALLY a religiously tolerant country (de facto, it has been so long before that year). Did American colonies have any religious freedom? Some might have had it, but it rather wasn’t a rule, AFAIK there were colonies for Catholics only, for Protestants only, etc.

    Poland was the ASYLUM for people all over the world. And many Polish soldiers fighting for Napoleon joined Haitan blacks in the uprising they were ordered to thwart.

    In Liberty,
    Critto

  49. “Kinsella, I’d be happy to see the US border completely opened, right now.”

    And in case I have not made it clear: Give me the the button that says MAGICALLY STOP THE USE OF AGGRESSIVE DEADLY FORCE AGAINST PEACEFUL IMMIGRANTS and I’ll press it right now.

    Now I want to know: Are Stephan, Lew or Hans willing to pull the trigger on a peaceful immigrant themselves or are they chickenhawks as far as immigration is concerned?

  50. Stephan proposes that immigrants be permitted to buy their way in. But of course, immigrants are buying their way in. It’s just that the payments are going to the smugglers instead of to the institution that Stephan seemingly prefers. But not to worry Stephan; the prisons wouldn’t be filled with drugs if the guards weren’t earning some extra cash. So more than likely, the government is getting a cut. It’s probably not much of cut, though. I think that most of the people who could afford a 10 millon dollar entrance fee are trying to get out of the country–not into it.

    But if it’s ok for government to take money from some and hand it to others, then why aren’t immigrants entitled to their fair share of the loot? And if it’s not ok, then why are they to be singled out amongst all the recipients of loot? One gets the sense that it’s not really about the loot, otherwise the LRCers would merely oppose “social services” to noncitizens.

    Stephan, I think your idea is an interesting one though. But instead of paying to get in, how about paying to get out? Suppose you could pay 1 to 10 million dollars, and your debt-to-society would be paid off in full. No more taxes! You could even opt out of services like the one the FDA provides. If nothing else, it’d be great revenue strategy for the State. Imagine 280 million people trying to pay their own ransoms.

  51. It has not been answered why immigrants who commit aggression, by receiving net public subsidy, are to be called peaceful and blameless. If they are placed outside morality in this way, by merely defining them as blameless, they have been reclassified outside humanity. Why do many place them in a subhuman classification, where being accessory to aggression, and being accessory to the treason which diverts tax-derived money to them, is considered blameless peaceful traveling? The libertarian believes that present acts of aggression can be wished away by saying, that in theory, one might not have any redistributionist programs. When freedom is spoken of as a primary value, let us take care that it not mean freedom for aggression, but only freedom from aggression. The aggression of the immigrants on net public subsidy against the net taxpayers is an increasing problem and major engine of statism.

  52. Not really a song parody per se, but here’s a little something I wrote. I present it here to entertain and delight the myriad LRC inlookers.

    A Distillation Of The Immigration-Skeptic Position As Presented By Lewrockwell.com , or,
    Rat-A-Tat-Tat Go Da LRC Gats:

    Jus’ pull tha trigger
    on a wetback nigger
    Drink ya mint juleps
    when he pushin up tulips

    Rat-a-tat-tat
    Go da LRC gats

    Hoppe got his gat
    Lew got his back
    Bof’em ready to kill
    Neo-klan’s the real deal

    Rat-a-tat-tat
    Go da LRC gats

    Ain’t no way
    Meskin get through today
    We gots a big fence
    At taxpayer expense
    Barb wire at the top
    Claymores make brownskins pop

    Rat-a-tat-tat
    Go da LRC gats

    Cuz we for freedom
    Make immigrants bleedin
    Kill ’em make em learn
    Fore the get to Auburn

    Rat-a-tat-tat
    Go da LRC gats

    Kinsella in the tower
    50 cal he got the power
    Mow em down like weeds
    Fore them wetbacks can breed

    Rat-a-tat-tat
    Go da LRC gats

    Damn libertines
    Send in the Marines
    Gay-ass hippies
    Junkies and sissies
    No Treason better run
    Kinsella kill fo fun

    Rat-a-tat-tat
    Go da LRC gats

    Nothin more to say
    LRC have its way
    Aint no reason
    Its wetback huntin season
    Foreigner marry my daughter
    Shoot em at the altar

    Rat-a-tat-tat
    Go da LRC gats

  53. jsbolton: It has not been answered why immigrants who commit aggression, by receiving net public subsidy, are to be called peaceful and blameless.

    I can’t see that their receiving public subsidies counts as agression. Since they haven’t initiated force against anyone, are they not as peaceful as, say, my next door neighbor who works for the postal service?

  54. Receiving net public subsidy is aggression; it is accessory to aggression. The money is not voluntarily given, and there is no prior accumulation of tax payments to balance it off against. Do you not have rights to retaliate publicly against those who receive goods stolen from you? The case of the immigrant is also unique, in that for him to go on net public subsidy, is to be accessory to the traitorous diversion of public funds to the foreigner. The postal worker may be getting more than what a private service would pay him; that additional amount is public subsidy, but his own taxes in their total, may cover that. It is not public subsidy, but net public subsidy which is warlike and blameworthy.

  55. Receiving net public subsidy is aggression; it is accessory to aggression.

    Would you agree to the premise that if A trades with B and B is morally at fault in some way then A is morally at fault? That seems to be what you’re suggesting. Wouldn’t that make it “aggression” to be employed by the postal service?

    Or another example (thanks to Greg Swann for this one): Suppose your car is stolen and three days later the thief sells the car to Joe Schmoe who lives far away from you. You aren’t good at finding people, so it takes you awhile to track down Joe, while the thief has escaped completely. Is it moral to take the car that Joe is operating? Why or why not? If it is, is there a time limit on when it is still OK to take the car? Can your grandchildren be entitled to take the car by force from Joe’s grandchildren (say it becomes a family heirloom?).

  56. Jsbolton:…and being accessory to the treason…

    What do you mean by “treason”?

    …which diverts tax-derived money to them,

    The root problem here is taxation, not the “diversion” of the loot.

  57. Posted by: jsbolton on Sep 25, 04 | 5:18 pm

    “It has not been answered why immigrants who commit aggression, by receiving net public subsidy, are to be called peaceful and blameless. If they are placed outside morality in this way, by merely defining them as blameless, they have been reclassified outside humanity. Why do many place them in a subhuman classification, where being accessory to aggression, and being accessory to the treason which diverts tax-derived money to them, is considered blameless peaceful traveling?”

    O Gosh, WHAT A NATIONAL-SOCIALIST KIBOSH!!! :((( jsbolton, for me you are another cryptosocialist (with some nationalist bias), just after Hans Herman Hoppe (or does the HH in his name stand for sumpin else? :) ;) any ideas, folks?? ;)) ;) just joking …:) )

    ” The libertarian believes that present acts of aggression can be wished away by saying, that in theory, one might not have any redistributionist programs. ”

    Of course that it is REDISTRIBUTION, and not immigration, that is aggression.

    “When freedom is spoken of as a primary value, let us take care that it not mean freedom for aggression, but only freedom from aggression. The aggression of the immigrants on net public subsidy against the net taxpayers is an increasing problem and major engine of statism.”

    Aggression … AGAINST taxpayers?? Dude, you should check your temperature for fever:) For you, is immigration, and NOT taxation, an act of aggression? Again: what about the US citizens who receive subsidies? Aren’t they committing the same aggression you accuse the immigrants of? Isn’t each and every American newborn baby committing this aggression?

    And now, pure and simple question: Do you REALLY WANT the welfare (wealth redistribution) system to STAY? Or would you rather wanted it in the dustbin of history?”

    “88” for paleocons :) ;))
    Cheerz for the NORMAL folks :))
    Critto

  58. As with receiving stolen goods, the root problem is the original theft, but this does not exonerate the receiver of the stolen items. In the case of the immigrant taking net public subsidy, there is not even the excuse of ignorance available. He knows that it is not private charity. The definition of treason, as including the diversion of public funds to the foreigner, is an application of the duty of officials to be loyal to their country and its citizenry, and to the net taxpayer. The accessory to aggression, who receives the proceeds of involuntary taxation, far beyond his taxes, is thus also an aggressor. If he is a foreign aggressor, he is an enemy. His behavior is warlike, and the government’s responsibility is to answer with force.

  59. John Lopez,
    first: a very nice article, and the parody song is also good. As for your reply to jsbolton:


    Jsbolton:…and being accessory to the treason…

    What do you mean by “treason”?”

    perharps, “Treason of The Welfare State”; after all, what are the cryptosocialists as HHH or jsbolton caring about MORE? Some maybe do care for the Masterrace they consider themselves to belong :) (but they are wrong; there was one REAL masterrace called Tuatha de Danaan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatha_de_Danaan, also known as Sidhe, faeries or elves, but they were immortal, endlessly young, and certainly NOT humans:))

    jsbolton: “…which diverts tax-derived money to them,”

    Lopez: The root problem here is taxation, not the “diversion” of the loot.

    Critto: no wonder, Lopez, why the cryptosocialist cares for the tax money … For him, ’tis a “fair share” after all :)

    In Liberty,
    Critto

  60. Would you agree to the premise that if A trades with B and B is morally at fault in some way then A is morally at fault? That seems to be what you’re suggesting. Wouldn’t that make it “aggression” to be employed by the postal service?

    As with receiving stolen goods, the root problem is the original theft, but this does not exonerate the receiver of the stolen items.

    I’ll be sure to watch out for you when I’m delivering newspapers.

  61. jsbolton,

    “As with receiving stolen goods, the root problem is the original theft, but this does not exonerate the receiver of the stolen items. In the case of the immigrant taking net public subsidy, there is not even the excuse of ignorance available. ”

    What if the person wants NONE of the subsidies??
    If you (as a cryptosocialist) CARE SO MUCH FOR THE WELFARE STATE, then why not to impose the following rule:
    ALL WELFARE BENEFITS TO THE FOLKS “BORN IN THE USA” ONLY? That means: not for immigrants? Wouldn’t it be better, and less tyrannical, to EXCLUDE immigrants from receiving welfare benefits than closing the border before them? After all, even cryptosocialism may have its better and worse shades (even if those are shades of PALE, that is , in the eyes of some national-socialists, the color of the Masterrace :))

    “He knows that it is not private charity. The definition of treason, as including the diversion of public funds to the foreigner, is an application of the duty of officials to be loyal to their country and its citizenry, and to the net taxpayer. ”

    So again, WHY NOT EXCLUDE immigrants from receiving welfare benefits? And, what if an immigrant says, “get stuffed with your welfare, I don’t want it”?

    “If he is a foreign aggressor, he is an enemy. His behavior is warlike, and the government’s responsibility is to answer with force.”

    Warlike immigrants? With tomahawks or with guns? :) Oh yeah, with their boats, those FUCKING BOATPEOPLE, ER, BOAT-WARLIKE-AGGRESSORS … SINK’EM’ALL!!! :)

    With force? Why not? There was a man who acted so … His first name was Adolf … His surname … Well, with the same letter one of your favorite economist’s surname does:)

    again, “88” for paleocons:) They will know what it means:)
    Cheerz for the normals:)
    Critto

  62. Saying ; ‘everybody does it, why can’t we’, if I may characterize the argument thus, is not a moral argument. It simply implies that, since lots of people here are getting away with something, there is no reason not to multiply the aggression. Societies are always justified in limiting the scope of aggression, and the distinction between foreigner and citizen, is potentially of greatest importance for that purpose. Here we have people criticizing socialism, and they are thus vulnerable to the charge from the left, that capitalism is racist, or they may feel vunerable to that. Do they then feel that advocating for immigrants, allows them to deflect the charge of racism from the left, since the immigrants might be of a different race?

  63. As with receiving stolen goods, the root problem is the original theft, but this does not exonerate the receiver of the stolen items. In the case of the immigrant taking net public subsidy…

    And the government employees keeping Mexicans out aren’t taking net public subsidy? Hell, at least the immigrant out picking vegetables has a free-market job – the INS agents’ full income is paid with loot.

  64. As with receiving stolen goods, the root problem is the original theft, but this does not exonerate the receiver of the stolen items. In the case of the immigrant taking net public subsidy…

    And the government employees keeping Mexicans out aren’t taking net public subsidy? Hell, at least the immigrant out picking vegetables has a free-market job – the INS agents’ full income is paid with loot.

    Posted by: John Lopez on Sep 25, 04 | 6:10 pm

    Relax, John Lopez:)
    as a cryptosocialist, jsbolton probably thinks that the INS, Border Patrol and alike thugs are working FOR FREE … Just from their unconditional, wholehearted LOVE TO THE COUNTRY … Or, maybe as a cryptosocialist, he hopes that the cost can be HIDDEN, as his socialism is (or, rather, he unsuccessfully tries to hide it) ??

    Greetings, John:)
    Critto

  65. The border patrols have a military function, in protecting the society from attack, as also soldiers and defense forces of whatever kind may be paid. Society consists of the individuals, who have every right to collective defense of the borders, by all these methods and more. The open-ended character of potential liability to the net taxpayer, from the size of the foreign populations out there, is why the distinction betwen citizens of others can be of the greatest importance, if there is a threat of snowballing immigration into the welfare societies of today.

  66. If all immigrants were required to be net taxpayers, they would be a small master-race themselves, perhaps, and not so enthusiastic about being exploited by our alternative welfare society. Without public education, and paying one’s own medical insurance premiums, and not speaking the language, and being charged even for the courts and prisons costs as to one additional person, wouldn’t they almost all turn down our generous offer of such an immigrant visa? There would be other countries less pikerish.

  67. Saying ; ‘everybody does it, why can’t we’, if I may characterize the argument thus, is not a moral argument.

    Unfortunately for you, I’m not making that argument. I’m asking you straight up: given that the average INS agent is a much greater net consumer of taxes than the average immigrant, what aren’t you agitating against the INS?

    Societies are always justified in limiting the scope of aggression,

    Individuals are justified in preventing aggression. “Society” is a meaningless term.

    …and the distinction between foreigner and citizen, is potentially of greatest importance for that purpose.

    Unsupported assesrtion. Got anything to back it up with?

    Here we have people criticizing socialism, and they are thus vulnerable to the charge from the left, that capitalism is racist, or they may feel vunerable to that.

    Which people are those?

    Do they then feel that advocating for immigrants, allows them to deflect the charge of racism from the left, since the immigrants might be of a different race?

    Who is “they”?

  68. Keeping out government employees, is not a real option. There would be mafia governments and their employees, instead. A government to enforce the absence of any government, is a contradiction-in-terms.

  69. You may say that you don’t want their protection, but the government is entitled to charge everyone at least the minimum cost of maintaining some collective defense of the borders. This includes those who say they don’t need it, because there are no enemies out there, or because they traitorously hope that invaders will come , and create an Afghanistan of drug-dealing mafia statelets, through sheer incompetence. If you say no, you won’t, you place yourself outside the political community, an incipient stateless person, prey to all and respected by none.

  70. Keeping out government employees, is not a real option.

    Firing the entire INS would remove many thousands of government employees (all net tax liabilities) from the payroll. It’d be a good start.

  71. The border patrols have a military function, in protecting the society from attack,

    I’ve asked them to do nothing of the sort. I neither want nor need their protection.

    Society consists of the individuals, who have every right to collective defense of the borders,

    Not on my dime, they don’t.

    The open-ended character of potential liability to the net taxpayer, from the size of the foreign populations out there,…

    None of whom are going to be getting government jobs anytime soon. The millions of government employees out there, on the other hand, eat solely because of taxpayer dollars.

  72. The case of the newborn is not comparable to that of an immigrant. They don’t act deliberately, and are not to be classified as aggressors.Again there seems to be a tendency here to regard the immigrant as in some special condition outside morality, that would be comparable to a baby, or to the subhuman. Do not classify them thus; they can be blamed for what they do wrong, because they are morally significant beings.

  73. Again there seems to be a tendency here to regard the immigrant as in some special condition outside morality, that would be comparable to a baby, or to the subhuman. Do not classify them thus; they can be blamed for what they do wrong, because they are morally significant beings.

    No one disputes that immigrants are morally significant beings; the disagreement stems from your belief that some morally significant beings like yourself are justified in picking off other morally significant beings with a shotgun at the banks of the Rio Grande.

  74. …but the government is entitled to charge everyone at least the minimum cost of maintaining some collective defense of the borders.

    No, they aren’t. The government is a band of robbers and murderers. Am I allowed to charge you for services you didn’t request? “Hey dude, I washed your car, sorta. That’ll be $500.” It’s absurd on the face of it.

  75. You anti-Lew Rockwell guys are nuts. You are taking a minor disagreement and turning it into the grand canyon. You have much more in common with Lew Rockwell than you do the Republican or Democratic party in the US. It is the pawns of the Democratic and Republican party that are enforcing immigration not the Lew Rockwell crowd. If the Lew Rockwell crowd was in charge…border patrols wouldn’t be needed. Where is all this animosity comming from?

  76. Dennis: You are taking a minor disagreement and turning it into the grand canyon.

    The idea that initiating force against peaceful travellers is OK is hardly a “minor disagreement”. For that matter, neither is Kinsella’s intellectual inconsistency that’s now pretty close to plain dishonesty. That, of course, appears perfectly acceptable at Lewrockwell.com. Is it acceptable to you, Dennis?

    If the Lew Rockwell crowd was in charge…border patrols wouldn’t be needed.

    Right, no one at LRC wants closed borders.

  77. <<The idea that initiating force against peaceful travelers is OK>>

    I can’t imagine anyone being for force against peaceful travelers…even mainstream Democrats and Republicans are against such things…Give a jackass a gun and stick him on a border though (or in a foreign country)…human nature is a sad thing. I don’t care to get in an argument with this website crowd, I just think you are making unnecessary enemies.

  78. Micha,

    The thing is that a lot of these guys aren’t used to dealing with the likes of us. Take jsbolton (Please!) – note how he’s tried to lay a charge of racism against me (tho’ he hasn’t pressed it – my surname deflects that pretty well). That sort of thing probably works pretty well against the run-of-the-mill liberal type he’s used to, but like JTK noted, we’re farther out on the fringe and thus harder targets.

  79. Alright, so my two cents: This whole debate seems to go back to a point that brought up much earlier in the “debate” (If you can call all this name calling debate).

    This is the analogy of a government that has imposed price fixing and rationing. Do you get rid of one without getting rid of the other?

    Getting rid of rationing seems like it would have immediate disasterous results, leading to a first come first serve system that would be hated and lead to a reestablishment of rationing.

    Getting rid of price fixing while there was still rationing seems like it wouldn’t be as bad and would infact be a step towards getting rid of both government impositions.

    So the question is – Between open borders and the rest of government impositions in society, what would be the result of getting rid of one while keeping the other.

    In many cases the arguments for open borders resorted to “But I want the system to crash because it is immoral!”
    This may be true, but completely open borders now might make people more xeonophobic in immigration policy the future.

    As for the INS being paid for immorally with tax dollars – this is true. However, when the government monopolizes a job that needs to be done the solution isn’t stopping the people from doing that job, but privitizing it and openning it up for competition. I’m not sure how exactly this would work for borders, it would probably be a job performed on more of a community level. However, the knee jerk reaction shouldn’t be to go towards getting rid of the needed service completely, but rather privitizing it and getting rid of the government monopoly on the service.

    On the other hand, no one on this board seems opposed to getting rid of the welfare state first (Along with the anti-discrimination laws, free education, public roads, etc). These seem to be the obvious first choice to nix if it were possible.

    Anyway, I live in the San Diego area, and I am going to go use the Mexican public roads and enter their clubs in TJ tonight. I don’t think any of them object to open/semi-open borders, but that’s because they will be taking money from me and not the other way around.

  80. I can’t imagine anyone being for force against peaceful travelers

    Anyone in favor of closed borders necessarily supports the initiation of force against folks who want to cross without government permission.

    How else are they going to stop them?

  81. Ghertner warns:

    Careful, Sabotta, you’re talking to a future lawyer here. As is Holmes. As was Spooner.

    Law is still a “center of pestilence” as Uncle Al Crowley* would say. Are you sure you can stand it’s malign influence? After all, look at Kinsella.

    *”Do what thou wilt is the hole of the Donut/Donut for lung, where is lung’s donut?” – Liber LU

  82. Dennis writes, “Well, I’d consider it far less shameful to be a junkie than a lawyer, Mr. Kinsella.”

    What rhymes with “boozer” and starts w/ an “l”?

    Someone allegedly named Sabotta writes, “Law is still a “center of pestilence” as Uncle Al Crowley* would say. Are you sure you can stand it’s malign influence? After all, look at Kinsella.”

    This is idiotic. He is trying to imply (a) that I am somehow evil; and (b) it’s because of the influence of law (incidentally, “it’s” is a contraction for “it is,” not a possessive). Both propositions are false. As for (a), I suppose he is implying that because I don’t advocate open borders here and now I’m evil. Or maybe because I write on LRC. I have no idea. Losers and cranks usually rant and rail like this.

    Ghertner: “Good lord, how do these morons always seem to find their way to No Treason?” I am not sure but maybe he’s referring to me. Only a true idiot or ignoramus thinks I’m a moron, but then, all you people always want to make it about me. It’s not. But to answer your stupid question, how about naming a thread “Stephan Kinsella Ought To Shut His Stupid Cake Hole” –?

    Come to think of it, given that title, the very premise of this thread is idiotic. The presumption seems to be that IF one is incorrect, THEN one “should” shut up. But nothing in libertarianism says this. Nothing in libertarianism says that people who are incorrect (even about ethical issues) should be quiet and not discuss or promulgate them. Libertarianism only says that aggression is unjustified. Period.

  83. Critto says: … And besides, he [Hans Hermann Hoppe] is an immigrant. He should start preventing immigration from himself, by returning to Austria first.

    You’re missing the point. White German-speaking immigrants aren’t the sort of immigrants that are going to “devastate America” in Paleo Bizarro World. You see, sitting around and writing economics papers on the government dime is honest, productive work, in tune with the liberal values of Anglo-American culture. Working long, hard hours in meatpacking plants, chicken farms, picking tomatoes, caring for children, etc., privately funded and often under-the-table and tax-free, is a recipe for social disintegration. Why? Because the people who do that work are Mexicans. And that’s enough for Hoppe, Kinsella, and friends such as Jared Taylor or Pat Buchanan to be sure that there goes the neighborhood…

  84. In many cases the arguments for open borders resorted to “But I want the system to crash because it is immoral!”

    The only other alternative is to support what’s clearly immoral: attacking peaceful travelers.

    This may be true, but completely open borders now might make people more xeonophobic in immigration policy the future.

    That’s their problem.

    However, when the government monopolizes a job that needs to be done…

    What is it that the INS is doing that needs to be done?

  85. John Lopez asks Stephen Kinsella, What is it that the INS is doing that needs to be done?

    Don’t you get it yet? The answer is “Beating the tar out of some brown people.” It’s a dirty job, but, in Paleo Bizarro World, somebody’s got to do it.

  86. Nothing in libertarianism says that people who are incorrect (even about ethical issues) should be quiet and not discuss or promulgate them.

    Memories of law review articles about performative contradictions are coming back to me…

  87. Kinsella: Losers and cranks usually rant and rail like this.

    Like you are now, you mean? Why can’t you answer simple, direct questions?

    I am not sure but maybe he’s referring to me.

    I’m sure that he isn’t.

    Nothing in libertarianism says that people who are incorrect (even about ethical issues) should be quiet and not discuss or promulgate them.

    Kinsella, maybe you didn’t read this: “Kinsella needs to drop this pretense about being some sort of radical free-market type and honestly embrace government, or perhaps white separatism. Until then, he’d do well just to simply shut up.”

    Why don’t you honestly embrace government? You obviously think that it’s necessary. Are you ashamed of that or something?

    Further, if you really are correct, why not just prove me wrong? Why not provide a simple, direct answer to my simple, direct questions?

    Libertarianism only says that aggression is unjustified.

    Then why do you support initiating force against immigrants, Kinsella?

  88. Lopez: Kinsella: “Nothing in libertarianism says that people who are incorrect (even about ethical issues) should be quiet and not discuss or promulgate them.

    Kinsella, maybe you didn’t read this: “Kinsella needs to drop this pretense about being some sort of radical free-market type and honestly embrace government, or perhaps white separatism. Until then, he’d do well just to simply shut up.””

    But Lopez: Libertariansim does not imply this either. It does not imlpy people need to “drop pretences” or to “shut up” if they don’t fulfill certain conditions of cranks and losers on a marginal website. So waht are you talking about?

    “Why don’t you honestly embrace government? You obviously think that it’s necessary. Are you ashamed of that or something?”

    No, I oppose the state. I’m an anarchist. Like Hoppe. I think the state is unjustified and should be disbanded.

    “Kinsella: Libertarianism only says that aggression is unjustified.

    “Then why do you support initiating force against immigrants, Kinsella?”

    Oh, I don’t, I support abolishing the state. I’m glad to have open borders if we abolish the state. How about you?

  89. Stephan,

    “Oh, I don’t, I support abolishing the state. I’m glad to have open borders if we abolish the state. How about you?”

    Sure. But until the state is abolished are you still in favor of targeting peaceful individuals with deadly state force?

    Because I think that’s the real sticking point here.

  90. However, they recognize that as long as the state does exist, and as long as it maintains a monopoly on most entrypoints into the country, it allows a much greater flow of non-natives to enter the country than would enter under anarchism.

    How do you know? How do you know how many people would enter the country under anarchism? Isn’t a fundamental tenant of Austrian economics that under socialism, without market prices, there is no way to make this kind of judgment? Perhaps under a truly free-market, even more people would come here. Would that be okay with the “paleos”?

    They therefore realize that if the state made it more difficult for non-natives to enter, this would be closer to the natural order of things, and would also decrease the overall level of statism by preventing the parasitical welfare-statism that undesirable aliens inevitably bring with them.

    What collectivist nonsense! Since when do anarchists try to use the coercive power of the state to simulate the “natural order of things”? And that’s assuming, of course, that you know what the “natural order of things” would be, which you don’t. And how dare you lump all immigrants together as undesirable parasites? Why do you assume that immigrants are a net cost and not a net benefit?

    Allow me to quote Don Boudreaux on the subject:

    “[I]f it were empirically true that the bulk of immigrants suck on the tit of the welfare state, then the solution most consistent with liberty is to permit a foreigner to enter on condition that he or she not be eligible for government welfare payments.

    But I doubt very seriously that immigrants live at taxpayers’ expense. Julian Simon’s research (admittedly now somewhat dated) finds that immigrants are net tax payers. The same is true of George Borjas, here, who is less enthusiastic about immigration than was Simon.

    Relatedly, if the concern with immigration were truly that too many immigrants live as welfare recipients, then immigration regulations would not focus, as they do, on forcibly keeping immigrants out of the labor force. (See my earlier post.)

    Second, and much more importantly, by lamenting the fact that many immigrants are low-skilled, Hoppe seems to be ignorant of the principle of comparative advantage. When a low-skilled immigrant works, he produces net value – the economy becomes more productive. His employer is better off, he is better off, and consumers are better off. Nothing whatsoever in economic theory suggests that only “well-heeled, highly value-productive immigrants” enhance economic progress.”

  91. I don’t see any problem with being an anarchist and a lawyer. Laws and therefore lawyers will likely exist in an anarchist society. Just because the state’s in the business of catching crooks and enforcing contracts doesn’t mean catching crooks, enforcing contracts, and getting retribution for wrongs is bad.

    Personally, I think the libertarian movement has plenty of economists, philosophers, and historians, and that the place they can do the most good right now is in the legal field.

  92. RE:”Here’s what’s simple: The Rockwellians who agree with this are arguing that the state is necessary.”

    Wrong. The libertarians who agree with this believe that the state is unnecessary and undesirable. However, they recognize that as long as the state does exist, and as long as it maintains a monopoly on most entrypoints into the country, it allows a much greater flow of non-natives to enter the country than would enter under anarchism. They therefore realize that if the state made it more difficult for non-natives to enter, this would be closer to the natural order of things, and would also decrease the overall level of statism by preventing the parasitical welfare-statism that undesirable aliens inevitably bring with them. However, they would greatly prefer the more radical (and therefore less likely to occur) solution of a stateless society, or of a society in which government did not monopolize entrypoints.

  93. Stephan,

    ” BTW, what is wrong with you guys, always looking for things to attack in the Mises Institute crowd?

    Personally, I just point out bullshit when I see it. My criticisms of LRC have been sound, I’ll be happy to take any of them up with you. I find it mildly odd thet you put the Mises hat on when this thread has been about an LRC article and and LRC post, especially since immigration is a major topic on LRC that gets very little play on the Mises site.

    I really don’t get it. Is it just some kind of weird jealousy of their popularity and success and influence in the libertarian movement?

    Not a bit. Though I think you have an inflated sense of the importance of “the libertarian movement”. In any case this is an individualist site, not a movement site.

    Is it some kind of self-esteem issue, like junkies and losers and hippies and libertines and relativist types hate those with conservative or traditionalist moral and cultural values because they don’t like to be “judged”, even implicitly, or something?

    No. And why does this sound like an echo of Hoppe, has he founded a psychoanalytic school too?

    Hoppe: “A second motive for the open border enthusiasm among contemporary left-libertarians is their egalitarianism. They were initially drawn to libertarianism as juveniles because of its “antiauthoritarianism” (trust no authority) and seeming “tolerance,” in particular toward “alternative” – non-bourgeois lifestyles. As adults, they have been arrested in this phase of mental development. They express special “sensitivity” in every manner of discrimination and are not inhibited in using the power of the central state to impose nondiscrimination or “civil rights” statutes on society. Consequently, by prohibiting other property owners from discrimination as they see fit, they are allowed to live at others’ expense. They can indulge in their “alternative” lifestyle without having to pay the normal price for such conduct, i.e., discrimination and exclusion. To legitimize this course of action, they insist that one lifestyle is as good and acceptable as another. This leads first to multiculturalism, then to cultural relativism, and finally to “open borders.”

    1) I’m not left-libertarian (Would that be a Ted Rall libertarian?) 2) I’m not an egalitarian. 3) I’m not noted for being particularly tolerant 4) or sensitive. 5) I vigorously defend private discrimination. 6)I reject any supposed right to live at anoter’s expense. 7) I reject the notion that lifestyles are equally good. 8) I’m no moral relativist.

    So no Stephan, I say “Judge and prepare to be judged”. Bring all the judgment you’ve got because I’m bringing all of mine. .

    Somebody explain it to me. I thought you guys were nominally libertarian; if so, it is simply bizarre you would have such bitterness toward the Mises Institute, which does heroic work spreading the pro-property rights, pro-free market, pro-capitalism, pro-individual rights, Austrian economic message. What is wrong with you guys, you come across as cranks and losers.”

    I don’t have any bitterness toward Mises, Rockwell, Hoppe or you. LRC and Mises.org have published many good articles, but heroic? Isn’t that laying it on a little thick?

    Anyway, what’s with us is that we’re pointing out to you that it’s wrong to support the targeting of peaceful individuals with deadly force via tha state.

    In no uncertain terms.

  94. Okay, one more point that I think is really important that no one has really brought up yet:

    Open Borders, most people who are for immigration are generally seen as supporting the people who are for making the immigrants citizens. I think that much of the damage done is through creating new citizens who will vote for giving themselves more stolen loot.

    I think the people who are open borders should tell us their optimal policy on immigrants becoming citizens and gaining the right to vote.

    I’m interested in your opinions.

  95. Kinsella, on being charged with thinking that the State is necessary: “No, I oppose the state. I’m an anarchist. Like Hoppe. I think the state is unjustified and should be disbanded.”

    But, like both Hoppe and Karl Marx, you believe that until the State does wither away, its powers over ordinary, peaceful people and the daily conduct of their affairs should be drastically expanded. (How much more interdicting, harassing, snooping, demanding of papers, and shooting do you think that the Border Patrol and La Migra ought to be doing?)

  96. Open Borders, most people who are for immigration are generally seen as supporting the people who are for making the immigrants citizens.

    What are the benefits of U.S. citizenship, from an anarchist perspective, other than not getting kicked out if the INS catches you? Perhaps starting your own business or getting a drivers license. So long as legitimate activities are not restricted, I see no good reason to extend citizenship to anyone.

  97. Kennedy: Stephan: “Oh, I don’t, I support abolishing the state. I’m glad to have open borders if we abolish the state. How about you?”

    “Sure. But until the state is abolished are you still in favor of targeting peaceful individuals with deadly state force?”

    No, no, I’m just opposed to the state. I’m also opposed to the state opening the borders while it has control of the country in the way that it does.

    Are you in favor of completely open borders now, *given* our existing state system? Really? Let me ask you, what is your prediction on how many immigrants would swarm into the country over the next 10-20 years, if we totally opened the borders? Keep in mind we have about 275 million people.

    Cowardly anonymous “Rad Geek”: “But, like both Hoppe and Karl Marx, you believe that until the State does wither away, its powers over ordinary, peaceful people and the daily conduct of their affairs should be drastically expanded. (How much more interdicting, harassing, snooping, demanding of papers, and shooting do you think that the Border Patrol and La Migra ought to be doing?)”

    See above

  98. No, no, I’m just opposed to the state.

    *How* do you “oppose” the state. I oppose the state by not paying taxes. What so you do?

    I’m also opposed to the state opening the borders while it has control of the country in the way that it does.

    Yeah; I know: The filthy Juden will come in and gobble all the bread baked with stolen grain.

  99. Unanswered questions to Kinsella:
    “Why not charge all Americans $500K a kid or so, by the same argument?”
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-property rights”?
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-free market”?
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-capitalism”?
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-individual rights”?

    Kinsella asks JTK: Are you in favor of completely open borders now, *given* our existing state system?

    Kinsella, maybe your reading comprehension is poor, but Kennedy said: “And in case I have not made it clear: Give me the the button that says MAGICALLY STOP THE USE OF AGGRESSIVE DEADLY FORCE AGAINST PEACEFUL IMMIGRANTS and I’ll press it right now.”

    “Now I want to know: Are Stephan, Lew or Hans willing to pull the trigger on a peaceful immigrant themselves or are they chickenhawks as far as immigration is concerned?”

    (Kinsella failed to respond to this, of course).

    Me :”Then why do you support initiating force against immigrants, Kinsella?”

    Kinsella: Oh, I don’t, I support abolishing the state. I’m glad to have open borders if we abolish the state. How about you?

    I’ve answered that, Kinsella, and my answer is equivalent to JTK’s. And you do support initiating force against immigrants, because that’s the only way to stop them.

  100. RE:”Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-property rights”?
    If the Mexicans got here as a result of statism, yes.

    RE:”Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-free market”?
    If the Mexicans got here as a result of statism, yes.

    RE:”Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-capitalism”?
    If the Mexicans got here as a result of statism, yes.

    RE:”Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-individual rights”?
    If the Mexicans got here as a result of statism, yes.

  101. (Continuing)

    Yo, Kennedy; watch Paleo-Creep closely for any credible plan enabling his hired border thugs to differentiate between wetbacks looking for welfare and wetbacks seeking to build custom choppers for Billy.

  102. If the Mexicans got here as a result of statism, yes.

    So allowing peaceful Mexicans to enter the country is statism, but using the state to keep Mexicans out is not statism?

    Let me ask you, “Paleo,” how do you get to work in the morning? I assume you drive exclusively on privately owned roads, else you might get to work — gasp! — as a result of statism.

  103. Lopez: “Kinsella: No, no, I’m just opposed to the state.

    “*How* do you “oppose” the state. I oppose the state by not paying taxes. What so you do?”

    Just bitch about it, mostly. I’m an irresponsible loser or crank so I don’t evade taxes.

    Lopez: “Kinsella: “I’m also opposed to the state opening the borders while it has control of the country in the way that it does.

    “Yeah; I know: The filthy Juden will come in and gobble all the bread baked with stolen grain.”

    Dude, you have serious anti-semitism issues, you better check that at the door. I am so unconcerned w/ the whole Jewish thing that I don’t even know what story you are apparently trying to allude to.

    Incidentally, Rockwell, and others have been attacked mercilessly by the anti-semites since we repeatedly refuse to endorse or take part in their crackpot anti-semitic stuff. http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/005697.html

  104. lopez: “Kinsella, either you have poor reading comprehension, or you’re being disingenuous. Or perhaps both. Clue for you: “Mike Schneider” is not “John Lopez”.”

    No idea what you’re babbling about, you whiny sorority girl.

    “”Now I want to know: Are Stephan, Lew or Hans willing to pull the trigger on a peaceful immigrant themselves or are they chickenhawks as far as immigration is concerned?”

    “Given that the only way to stop immigrants is by initiating force against them, why do you support doing just that?”

    No no, I support open borders and abolishing the state.

  105. Kinsella, either you have poor reading comprehension, or you’re being disingenuous. Or perhaps both. Clue for you: “Mike Schneider” is not “John Lopez”.

    Unanswered questions to Kinsella:

    “Why not charge all Americans $500K a kid or so, by the same argument?”
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-property rights”?
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-free market”?
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-capitalism”?
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-individual rights”?

    “Now I want to know: Are Stephan, Lew or Hans willing to pull the trigger on a peaceful immigrant themselves or are they chickenhawks as far as immigration is concerned?”

    Given that the only way to stop immigrants is by initiating force against them, why do you support doing just that?

  106. Unanswered questions to Kinsella:

    “Why not charge all Americans $500K a kid or so, by the same argument?”
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-property rights”?
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-free market”?
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-capitalism”?
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-individual rights”?

    Kinsella: No no, I support open borders…

    No you don’t, you want to use the US government to keep them closed.

  107. RE:”So allowing peaceful Mexicans to enter the country is statism, but using the state to keep Mexicans out is not statism?”

    Using the state to keep Mexicans out (as opposed to using the state to bring Mexicans in, which is what is currently happening) is exploiting one aspect of the state to prevent the massive growth of the entire state. It’s in the same moral category as voting Libertarian. As long as the state maintains a monopoly on entrance into the country it can either allow aliens to enter America or prevent them from doing so, and neither action is, in and of intself, any more or less statist than the other. However, preventing aliens from entering is:
    -less likely to result in an increase in welfare-statism, because displaced aliens are more reliant on state services
    -more likely to result in a demographic similar to that which would result from anarchism, because, as Hoppe establishes in his writings, private land owners would be far less likely to encourage alien invasion of native land
    So, while neither option is inherently more or less statist in and of itself, barring immigration is likely to result in less net statism, making it the most anarchist of the two options. Of course, outright immigrationless propertarian paleo-anarchism would be far preferable than either option.

    RE:”Let me ask you, “Paleo,” how do you get to work in the morning? I assume you drive exclusively on privately owned roads, else you might get to work — gasp! — as a result of statism.”

    I’m not blaming the immigrants for invading, but rather blaming the state for encouraging and allowing the immigrants to invade. I’m saying that you should be prevented from hiring Mexicans entering via the state by instead preventing said Mexicans from getting here in the first place. I’m not saying that you should be prevented through violence from hiring them once the state has already allowed them to enter. I feel the same way about public roads; I blame the government for creating them, not the people for driving on them.

  108. To Kinsella, I wrote: “But, like both Hoppe and Karl Marx, you believe that until the State does wither away, its powers over ordinary, peaceful people and the daily conduct of their affairs should be drastically expanded. (How much more interdicting, harassing, snooping, demanding of papers, and shooting do you think that the Border Patrol and La Migra ought to be doing?)”

    Kinsella replied simply: See above

    Which I take it referred to these two paragraphs, in reply to Kennedy:

    No, no, I’m just opposed to the state. I’m also opposed to the state opening the borders while it has control of the country in the way that it does.

    Are you in favor of completely open borders now, *given* our existing state system? Really? Let me ask you, what is your prediction on how many immigrants would swarm into the country over the next 10-20 years, if we totally opened the borders? Keep in mind we have about 275 million people.

    But this does not answer any question I asked or reply to any statement I made. Kinsella does support drastic expansion of the State’s powers over the ordinary affairs of non-citizens. And since government agents have no way of identifying non-citizens without harassing, snooping on, stopping, searching, and demanding the papers of citizens and non-citizens alike, and imprisoning them, beating them, or shooting them if they don’t comply (otherwise known as “closed borders”), Kinsella supports the drastic expansion of State violence and interference in the ordinary affairs of everyone. (As if his proposed assaults on peaceful immigrants weren’t enough!) This is what saying that you are “opposed to the state opening the borders while it has control of the country in the way that it does” means. (Similarly, War Communism, round-ups, government central planning, labor books and internal passports, and turning Party bureaucrats into the dictatorial boss of every worker in the country is what Marxism means–even if Marx piously hoped that it would lead to autonomous, freely-associated labor and the withering away of the State “in the long run”.)

    Nor did Kinsella answer the question. Since he believes (as he has repeatedly argued) that current immigration levels are partly due to statism, he evidently believes that as long as the State exists, it ought to be doing more to force immigrants not to peacefully move into the United States than it already is. So how much more of what “closed borders” inevitably requires doing, should they be doing?

    And, for what it’s worth, in answer to your questions (which you directed to Kennedy, but apparently also directed to me when you directed me to “See above”): Yes, yes really, and I have no earthly idea–and don’t particularly care. If you don’t like the increasing numbers of peaceful immigrants who don’t speak your language, you can always learn Spanish, or perhaps move to Idaho.

  109. Paleo: As long as the state maintains a monopoly on entrance into the country it can either allow aliens to enter America or prevent them from doing so, and neither action is, in and of intself, any more or less statist than the other.

    Keeping peaceful travellers out necessarily means using force to do so. Why do you want the State to attack immigrants?

    However, preventing aliens from entering is:
    -less likely to result in an increase in welfare-statism, because displaced aliens are more reliant on state services

    The government employees at the borders are 100% reliant on state services. What about them?

    -more likely to result in a demographic similar to that which would result from anarchism, because, as Hoppe establishes in his writings, private land owners would be far less likely to encourage alien invasion of native land

    Not necessarily the case. The free market is the result of choice, not the coercion you propose.

  110. Using the state to keep Mexicans out (as opposed to using the state to bring Mexicans in, which is what is currently happening) is exploiting one aspect of the state to prevent the massive growth of the entire state.

    What is this nonsense about “using the state to bring Mexicans in”? Illegal immigrants do not come here with the help of the state; they come here despite the state’s efforts to keep them out.

    As long as the state maintains a monopoly on entrance into the country it can either allow aliens to enter America or prevent them from doing so, and neither action is, in and of intself, any more or less statist than the other.

    One entails initiating statist force against peaceful immigrants, the other does not.

    However, preventing aliens from entering is:
    -less likely to result in an increase in welfare-statism, because displaced aliens are more reliant on state services

    Wrong. Immigrants are net tax payers. Second, even if it was true that immigrants placed an impossible burden on the welfare state, that is a reason to favor immigration, unless one wishes to maintain the existence of the welfare state.

    more likely to result in a demographic similar to that which would result from anarchism, because, as Hoppe establishes in his writings, private land owners would be far less likely to encourage alien invasion of native land

    I asked this question earlier in this thread, but you apparently ignored it. Here it is again:

    How do you know? How do you know how many people would enter the country under anarchism? Isn’t a fundamental tenant of Austrian economics that under socialism, without market prices, there is no way to make this kind of judgment? Perhaps under a truly free-market, even more people would come here. Would that be okay with the “paleos”?

    … Since when do anarchists try to use the coercive power of the state to simulate the “natural order of things”? And that’s assuming, of course, that you know what the “natural order of things” would be, which you don’t.

    Of course, outright immigrationless propertarian paleo-anarchism would be far preferable than either option.

    So there would be no freedom of movement at all under your ideal “paleo-anarchism”? How exactly would you accomplish this without a state?

  111. Paleo-Anarchist writes: “I’m not blaming the immigrants for invading, but rather blaming the state for encouraging and allowing the immigrants to invade.”

    1. Whose property are immigrants “invading”?

    2. If you blame the government rather than the immigrants, then why is it the immigrants you are proposing to shoot?

  112. For one thing, without anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action, hate crime legislation, and the massive welfare state, America would become a far less appealing place to most outsiders.

    So you concede to the socialists their central claim: that the policies they support actually accomplish their intended goals. Alternatively: socialism works.

  113. RE:”How do you know? How do you know how many people would enter the country under anarchism?”

    For one thing, without anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action, hate crime legislation, and the massive welfare state, America would become a far less appealing place to most outsiders.


  114. No no, I support open borders and abolishing the state.

    I’m a little confused–if you support abolishing the state Mr. Kinsella, why support certain state actions which happen to lead to (in your view) good results? It’s sort of analogous to a scenario where a mafia gang comes around the neighborhood every month to collect a “protection fee”, beat up children, and hold a bake sale; every rational libertarian believes the gangs should be stopped, but you seem to be saying “Yes, I want them stopped, but since their baked apple tarts are so tasty, we should support them in just that.” Isn’t this basically a contradiction?

  115. http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_4.pdf

    Walter Block’s analysis of Hoppe’s immigration argument.

    Stephen:

    There is no getting around the fact that until we abolish the state, you want the state to ~coercively~ prevent people from coming over the national borders. This is not compatible with libertarian theory, as Block points out. Now if you want to argue that we have to make an exception to save civilization as we know it, that’s fine, but it is a deviation from libertarian principle IMHO. That said, I think some of the posters here have been pretty rude to you.

    I am reminded of an argument I had with my father once. He was in favor of forcing people to wear motorcycle helmets. When I presented the libertarian argument he said something like “that’s fine, but as long as the taxpayers are forced to pay the medical bills of some bikers, they should be forced to wear helmets.”

  116. RE:”So you concede to the socialists their central claim: that the policies they support actually accomplish their intended goals. Alternatively: socialism works.”

    WTF? Okay, if there is, for example, a law saying a company must hire a certain amount of minorities or suffer severe consequences, said company is much more likely to hire said amount of minorities. In that sense it ‘works’. It works at getting more minorities hired than would likely be hired under the natural order. It also ‘works’ at preventing members of the majority from getting jobs in the same field.

  117. “I’m just opposed to the state.”
    Mike:”How do you “oppose” the state?
    Kinsella: Just bitch about it, mostly.

    Great. Another utterly *useless* person.

    (Aslo: by “mostly”, Kinsella isn’t indicated that occasionally he opposes the state via methods other than bitching; what he means is that much of the time he does not bitch about it.)

  118. JimBob: The elites and a few wacko libertarians keep trying to convince the American people of all the great benifits dirt poor Mexicans bring to our quality of life.

    No one here is attempting to convince you of anything of the sort.

  119. To the open-borders extremists:

    1. What is your prediction for how many immigrations would come every year if we opened the borders? 10 million?

    2.a. How soon before this results in a catastrophic situation from the point of view of rights of existing citizens?

    2.b. What in the following quote by Hoppe do you disagree with:

    “It is not difficult to predict the consequences of an open border policy in the present world. If Switzerland, Austria, Germany or Italy, for instance, freely admitted everyone who made it to their borders and demanded entry, these countries would quickly be overrun by millions of third-world immigrants from Albania, Bangladesh, India, and Nigeria, for example. As the more perceptive open-border advocates realize, the domestic state-welfare programs and provisions would collapse as a consequence. This would not be a reason for concern, for surely, in order to regain effective protection of person and property the welfare state must be abolished. But then there is the great leap—or the gaping hole—in the open border argument: out of the ruins of the democratic welfare states, we are led to believe, a new natural order will somehow emerge.

    “The first error in this line of reasoning can be readily identified. Once the welfare states have collapsed under their own weight, the masses of immigrants who have brought this about are still there. They have not been miraculously transformed into Swiss, Austrians, Bavarians or Lombards, but remain what they are: Zulus, Hindus, Ibos, Albanians, or Bangladeshis. Assimilation can work when the number of immigrants is small. It is entirely impossible, however, if immigration occurs on a mass scale. In that case, immigrants will simply transport their own ethno-culture onto the new territory. Accordingly, when the welfare state has imploded there will be a multitude of “little” (or not so little) Calcuttas, Daccas, Lagoses, and Tiranas strewn all over Switzerland, Austria, and Italy. It betrays a breathtaking sociological naiveté to believe that a natural order will emerge out of this admixture. Based on all historical experience with such forms of multiculturalism, it can safely be predicted that in fact the result will be civil war. There will be widespread plundering and squatterism leading to massive capital consumption, and civilization as we know it will disappear from Switzerland, Austria and Italy. Furthermore, the host population will quickly be outbred and, ultimately, physically displaced by their “guests.” There will still be Alps in Switzerland and Austria, but no Swiss or Austrians.”

    3. Do you advocate open borders *despite* consequences such as described above; or do you deny that such consequences would happen?

  120. Well it’s obvious we aren’t going to be getting rid of the welfare state anytime soon. So I think I’ll side with Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman when he says, ” it makes no sense to have mass immigration while we have a welfare state in place.” What we have today is Mexico dumping all their poor people on the American taxpayer. Very disturbing article in the Winter issue of City Journal from Heather Mac Donald.

    http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html

    The American people want immigration scaled way back and illegal immigration stopped and illegals deported. The elites and a few wacko libertarians keep trying to convince the American people of all the great benifits dirt poor Mexicans bring to our quality of life. Okay. But I for one ain’t buying it.

  121. Unanswered questions to Kinsella:

    “Why not charge all Americans $500K a kid or so, by the same argument?”
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-property rights”?
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-free market”?
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-capitalism”?
    “Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-individual rights”?

    Stephan, there is no reason at all for anyone here to continue with you until you answer the questions that have been put to you multiple times.

    You can’t keep borders closed without force, Kinsella, so you also need to explain why you want to attack would-be immigrants. You haven’t even attempted that one.

  122. Stephan,

    “To the open-borders extremists:”

    Extremists? Is that word supposed to put us on our heels or something? I thought you and Hoppe and Rockwell were all extremists in good standing. No?

    1. I have no prediction beyond “Lots and lots”.

    2a. I don’t know. Maybe very soon, maybe never. Sometimes people wise up in a hurry when reality comes calling. Sometimes not.

    2b. I’m not offering any argument about what type of order will arise because I don’t know. My argument is on moral grounds.

    You’ve appeared to say that you would favor open borders now if the state were abolished now, but I note that Hoppe’s argument which you cite here would still stand intact. So would you really favor the immediate abolition of the state, or is that a disingenuous pose?

    3. I would not target peaceful individuals with deadly force even if it meant the territory would be swamped with immigrants. And that’s the only way to keep them out.

    Pretty clearly you are willing to endorse just that, if only by state proxy.

    That’s not a libertarian position you’ve got there, or a moral one, but I suppose you can console yourself with the fact that it’s a decidedly non-extremist position.

    Extremely,

    jtk

  123. JimBob writes: “The elites and a few wacko libertarians keep trying to convince the American people of all the great benifits dirt poor Mexicans bring to our quality of life. Okay. But I for one ain’t buying it.”

    Yes you are–in a very literal sense. Every time you buy beef, chicken, lettuce, tomatos, grapes, oranges, or any number of other kinds of meat and produce at your local grocery store, you are reaping the economic benefits of Mexican immigrant labor–much of it undocumented. While you dick around posting on weblogs, Mexican immigrants are breaking their backs in unpleasant agricultural labor in order to make a better life for themselves and their families, and thanks to their efforts you can head down to your local grocery store and find high-quality food year round, at remarkably low prices.

    Don’t think that’s much of a benefit? Then try picking your own damn vegetables sometime and see how much you like it.

  124. I think Andy Stedman identified the crux of the issue:

    Stephen Kinsella: “What I don’t get is do you presumably open-border types support it because you think the consequences (to rights) would not be bad; or because you don’t give a damn what the consequences would be?

    Andy: Do you think some amount of chaos would ensue if all those imprisoned in America for victimless crimes only (drug offenses, prostitution, weapons possession) were released tomorrow?

    If not, are you naive? If so, do you support keeping people imprisoned for such crimes?

    To Stephan: Many here seem unsure that the enormously bad consequences you allude to will happen in the first place. The deontologists among us by definition don’t care about consequences…. as in Andy’s example, it might well mean that releasing prisoners incarcerated for non-violent crimes would lead to a temporary increase in rights violations, but that’s no argument for keeping innocent people locked up in jails.

    Someone here mentioned an example with bunnies… if an evil wacko decides to execute 10 bunnies everytime a mother hugs her child, is it the mother or the wacko who is morally at fault for commiting bunnycide?

    Lopez, the answer is yes. The reason is because the immigration if not checked would lead to massive rights violations that I oppose. Simple. Now answer my questions.

    Since you seem to be a consequentialist, answer this question: Why exactly are the consequences of opening the borders worse than the consequences obtained from having armed thugs line the borders shooting peaceful travelers? Are you willing to personally stand guard at the border for as long as the state exists and pick off mexicans with a shotgun to maintain your idea of good consequences for the rest of us?

  125. The anarcho-capitalist newsletter “The Voluntaryist” (I don’t believe it is still published) used to have the motto “If one takes care of the means, the ends take care of themselves.” In other words, if you act morally the means justify the ends (the exact opposite of the usual cliche).

    The trouble is that libertarianism does not allow for exceptions to the non-initiation of force rule. You aren’t allowed to steal food if you are hungry, force someone to pay for needed medical treatment, or prevent someone from using crack just because you don’t like it. If Kinsella wants to support blowing the heads off Mexicans trying to cross the borders—well, that simply is not a libertarian position, or a moral one as jtk points out. Hoppe and Kinsella, in trying to reconcile libertarianism with closed borders are trying to square a circle.

    And I think the burden of proof always lies with the person attempting to justify coercion. I don’t have to prove that legalizing heroin won’t result in the entire country becoming junkies, not do I need to prove that the world won’t end if we don’t blow people’s heads off at the border. The means justify the ends.

  126. Kennedy: “You’ve appeared to say that you would favor open borders now if the state were abolished now, but I note that Hoppe’s argument which you cite here would still stand intact. So would you really favor the immediate abolition of the state, or is that a disingenuous pose?”

    Hoppe’s argument would not call for any restriction of immigrants if there were no states. In fact there would be no immigrants, only invitees of particular owners.

    I have no idea what it measn to “favor the immediate abolition of the state”. I say the state is illegitimate and not justified. What in the world does it mean for it to be “immediately abolished”? I think of the Genie jokes where the guy wishes for something and all kinds of bizarre changes have to be made in the world to make the outcome happen. does it mean that the state evaporated even though most people remain socialistic? If so, it would soon arise again. Does it mean that all state employees died instantly? I would not oppose this but again, a new state would arise. Does it mean that the vast majority of poeple change their minds and now favor voluntarism and libertarianism? That would do it, but how does such a change of mind occur, espeically “immediately”? These Leonard Read “push the button” hypos are stupid.

  127. Stephan,

    Does it mean that the vast majority of poeple change their minds and now favor voluntarism and libertarianism?

    Sure, let’s stipulate that.

    That would do it, but how does such a change of mind occur, espeically “immediately”?

    Well let’s say people start listening the the new Hoppe audio files today and they ‘re so convincing that they spread like wildfire. They’re so good that within 24 hours they’ve convinced pretty much everyone in America that anarcho-capitalism is the only way to go.

    Since everyone in America is now with the program the government can be abolished and the borders opened tomorrow. Are you in favor of doing that?

  128. Stefan:

    “Suppose your car is stolen and three days later the thief sells the car to Joe Schmoe who lives far away from you. You aren’t good at finding people, so it takes you awhile to track down Joe, while the thief has escaped completely. Is it moral to take the car that Joe is operating? Why or why not? If it is, is there a time limit on when it is still OK to take the car? Can your grandchildren be entitled to take the car by force from Joe’s grandchildren (say it becomes a family heirloom?).”

    Of course it is moral to take the car. It is your car. Can you take it from Joe’s grandchildren? Subject to any statute of limitations, again yes. It is still your car. Can your grandchildren take it? Subject to any statute of limitations, again yes. It was your car when you left it to them in your will. Now it is their car. Why do you think any of this raises any sort of difficult moral question?

  129. The LRC crowd (Block and one or two others excepted) are wrong on immigration but they and Mises do a lot of good work on other stuff; so instead of shouting at them we would do better to persuade them of the error of their ways.

    Just a thought ….

  130. “Since everyone in America is now with the program the government can be abolished and the borders opened tomorrow. Are you in favor of doing that?”

    Yes.

    However, it would then have little meaning: if all agreed w/ Hoppe then the state (and most crime) would disappear. There would be only private property. There would *be* no borders.


  131. WTF? Okay, if there is, for example, a law saying a company must hire a certain amount of minorities or suffer severe consequences, said company is much more likely to hire said amount of minorities. In that sense it ‘works’. It works at getting more minorities hired than would likely be hired under the natural order. It also ‘works’ at preventing members of the majority from getting jobs in the same field.

    But does it actually benefit minorities? As a result of these law, people now assume that all minorities got to where there are, not by virtue of their own merits, but by an unfair legislated advantage. Affirmative action also leads to higher drop out rates, helping an elite few at the expense of many others. And in cases of anti-discrimination laws written to protect the disabled, these laws often discourage employers from hiring the disabled in the first place, so as not to have to deal with all of the various regulations and the near-impossibility of ever firing them.

    Never assume that anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action, hate crime legislation, and the massive welfare state actually help their intended beneficiaries.

  132. What would prevent Hoppe’s nightmare scenario of millions and millions pouring into America?

    Stephan: Kenndy raises a point I had in the back of my mind–the kind of concerns you have would seem to apply to any situation where a bunch of well-off people live next to a bunch of poorer people. If you are a consequentialist, it would seem that the nightmare stuff you talk about is going to happen to north america anyway, and for all you know all over the world for the rest of eternity (the poor continually migrating to areas inhabited by the richer). Sometimes this is called “looking for work”, btw.

    It seems like Kinsella will only be satisfied if a gazillion white supremacists homestead the banks of the Rio Grande and then vigorously defend their property rights against the “warlike immigrants”, as jsbolton is so fond of calling them.

  133. Stephan?

    “However, it would then have little meaning: if all agreed w/ Hoppe then the state (and most crime) would disappear. There would be only private property. There would *be* no borders.:

    Actually there would be quite a lot of territory with no clear private ownership.

    What would prevent Hoppe’s nightmare scenario of millions and millions pouring into America?

  134. Julius: Perhaps the example was ill-chosen… I was trying to discover why jsbolton classified immigrants who receive public subsidies from the US Government as “warlike” and worthy of being coereced:

    jsbolton: As with receiving stolen goods, the root problem is the original theft, but this does not exonerate the receiver of the stolen items. In the case of the immigrant taking net public subsidy, there is not even the excuse of ignorance available. He knows that it is not private charity. The definition of treason, as including the diversion of public funds to the foreigner, is an application of the duty of officials to be loyal to their country and its citizenry, and to the net taxpayer. The accessory to aggression, who receives the proceeds of involuntary taxation, far beyond his taxes, is thus also an aggressor. If he is a foreign aggressor, he is an enemy. His behavior is warlike, and the government’s responsibility is to answer with force.

    A better example is a friend who works for the post office–by jsbolton’s logic, he should be mugged and his paycheck taken and returned “to the taxpayers” since he is a beneficiary of public subsidies.

    The root problem is that jsbolton seems to accept taxation in the first place.

  135. Stefan:

    It gets tricky to apply common law principles to the beneficiaries of tax money. In practice it is irrelevant because there is never going to be a grand accounting on the great day when the State is abolished.

    Nevertheless, it is hard to see that there is not something at least vaguely immoral about acccepting a (net) benefit from the State. When I see people living in State housing and claiming welfare benefits, i admit to muttering “thieves” under my breath; although their crimes are minor compared to those of the vast army of State functionaries who are doing the original stealing or are responsible for deciding how the loot is disbursed.

  136. “”However, it would then have little meaning: if all agreed w/ Hoppe then the state (and most crime) would disappear. There would be only private property. There would *be* no borders.:

    “Actually there would be quite a lot of territory with no clear private ownership.

    “What would prevent Hoppe’s nightmare scenario of millions and millions pouring into America?”

    Even in this case the immigrants are not coming in where they have political power over the existing residents: they can’t come onto my property without my consent, since there is no federal government forcing this. They won’t have affirimative action. No welfare rights. Now power to *vote* against me. Etc.

  137. Mr. Kinsella,

    Illegal, undocumented immigrants do not have the legal right to vote. Why don’t you guys oppose things like voting rights and welfare benefits for immigrants, rather than immigration altogether, if these issues are your main concerns?

  138. It’s called privatizing the gains of cheap illegal alien labor, but socializing the expense that comes with it. Local communities are left to pick up the tab for hospitals, schools, and crime. In other words, taxpayers are subsidizing the corporations ie corporate welfare.

    And whose fault is that? The businesses who pay their employees according to the laws of supply and demand? Or the government for forcing taxpayers to pay for hospitals and schools?

    Tell me, “JimBob,” do you think private employers are doing something wrong if they pay their employees less than a “living wage”?

  139. Rad Greek writes: “Yes you are–in a very literal sense. Every time you buy beef, chicken, lettuce, tomatos, grapes, oranges, or any number of other kinds of meat and produce at your local grocery store, you are reaping the economic benefits of Mexican immigrant labor–much of it undocumented. While you dick around posting on weblogs, Mexican immigrants are breaking their backs in unpleasant agricultural labor in order to make a better life for themselves and their families, and thanks to their efforts you can head down to your local grocery store and find high-quality food year round, at remarkably low prices.”

    Sorry Rad ole boy, I’m still not buying it. Most if not all agriculture harvesting can be done by machines today. As for chicken and beef packing. In 1960, people that worked in beef packing plants made 5 bucks an hr. Today, illegals make 7-8 dollars and hr. In inflation adjusted dollars, beef hasn’t gotten any cheaper even though wages have fallen in beef packing plants. This has been good for profits, but terrible for local communities. Like most illegal alien apologists, you fail to recognize the obvious. It’s called privatizing the gains of cheap illegal alien labor, but socializing the expense that comes with it. Local communities are left to pick up the tab for hospitals, schools, and crime. In other words, taxpayers are subsidizing the corporations ie corporate welfare.

  140. >Ghertner: “Illegal, undocumented immigrants do not have the legal right to vote. Why don’t you guys oppose things like voting rights and welfare benefits for immigrants, rather than immigration altogether, if these issues are your main concerns?”

    Illegals have other rights and eventually get the right to vote, thru amnesty programs. Anyway, the open borders types want to make it legal. Which means they would have these rights from the get go.

    We do oppose things like voting rights and welfare benefits for immigrants, but it is silly to think that realistically we can have second class citizens like this for long, without the bleeding hearts eventually pressuing for them to get amnesty etc.

  141. Lets see Micha. We might as well move the entire country of Mexico up here with that line of thinking. I’m sure in a few short weeks we could train illegals to take the place of all the non union workers at the Mercedes Benz, Honda, Toyota, BMW, etc etc plants that are currently making 18-22 dollars an hour and just pay the Mexicans 7 bucks an hr.

    There’s an endless supply of cheap labor south of the border.

    to answer your question about living wage. I’m against all minimum wage laws. I also oppose mass unskilled immigration because it hurts productivity. Instead of finding ways to do things with fewer people, business becomes addicted to the endless supply of cheap labor. And again, this hurts local communities because they’re left holding the tab for the costs of providing mandated health care, schooling etc etc.

  142. Stephan,

    “Even in this case the immigrants are not coming in where they have political power over the existing residents: they can’t come onto my property without my consent, since there is no federal government forcing this. They won’t have affirimative action. No welfare rights. Now power to *vote* against me. Etc.”

    Hoppe himself said this was not an argument against immigration, but rather an argument against the welfare state:

    “For this is not an argument against immigration but against the welfare state. To be sure, the welfare state should be destroyed, root and branch. However, in any case the problems of immigration and welfare are analytically distinct problems, and they must be treated accordingly.”

    You are not treating immigration and the welfare state as analytically distinct.

    To prevent immigration now you have to target peaceful individuals with deadly force. Would you be willing in principle to do that yourself, or are you a chickenhawk on immigration?

  143. We might as well move the entire country of Mexico up here with that line of thinking.

    Great, let’s do that. While we are at it, lets ship all the xenophobes to Mexico. It’s a win-win.

    I’m sure in a few short weeks we could train illegals to take the place of all the non union workers at the Mercedes Benz, Honda, Toyota, BMW, etc etc plants that are currently making 18-22 dollars an hour and just pay the Mexicans 7 bucks an hr.

    Again, I’m failing to see the argument here. Are you trying to claim that current automobile workers are entitled to a job simply by virtue of where they were born?

    I also oppose mass unskilled immigration because it hurts productivity.

    False.

    And again, this hurts local communities because they’re left holding the tab for the costs of providing mandated health care, schooling etc etc.

    And as I pointed out earlier, this is the fault of government, not business or immigrants.

  144. Illegals have other rights and eventually get the right to vote, thru amnesty programs.

    Then oppose amnesty programs, not immigration.

    Anyway, the open borders types want to make it legal. Which means they would have these rights from the get go.

    You have a perfect opportunity to find out what these “open borders types” want, without having to make any unfounded assumptions. Why don’t you ask us whether we think voting rights should be extended to immigrants? (Answer: voting rights shouldn’t be extended to anyone.)

    We do oppose things like voting rights and welfare benefits for immigrants, but it is silly to think that realistically we can have second class citizens like this for long, without the bleeding hearts eventually pressuing for them to get amnesty etc.

    But won’t these bleeding hearts, who believe in the fundamental equality of all human beings, realize that excluding one group of people from the economic opportunities all of us enjoy merely on the basis of arbitrary factors like place of birth is unjust, and thus they will eventually press for open borders as well? Why is one form of inequality acceptable while the other is not?

    In fact, libertarians should recognize that this is one of the strongest arguments against welfare state liberals like John Rawls. In order to support a welfare state system in principle, one must be willing to discriminate against people on arbitrary grounds like national origin.

  145. JimBob, in reply to claim that he is both supporting, and benefiting from, immigrant labor every time he shops at the grocery store, objects: “Most if not all agriculture harvesting can be done by machines today.”

    Of course, most if not all agricultural harvesting can be done by tech industry CEOs–you just have to pay them enough. But there’s the rub: the reason that so much agricultural labor is done by migrant farmworkers–many of them immigrants from Mexico and Central America–is that it’s more cost-effective for farmers to get their tomatos picked that way than to automate the process.

    That’s not to say that farm labor is great for the immigrants. It’s hard work and the bosses usually treat you like shit. But workers do it because they are willing to put themselves through a lot in order to improve their lives. Also because, thanks to anti-immigrant blowhards like you, it’s often very hard to find work in any other field.

    I’ll leave the question of historical food price trends to those who have spent more time researching it; I’d only like to point out here that the issue is not whether the price of beef now is more or less than the price of beef in 1960, but rather whether the price of beef now is more or less than the price of beef would be now if fewer Mexican and Central American immigrants (documented and undocumented) agreed to work at the prevailing wages in the industry. (And as for privatizing profits–I’m all for it. Would that more profits were privatized.)

    What about the claim that immigrant labor “socializes the costs” of the labor? It’s hard to see how–and hard to see how it would matter if it did. Documented immigrants pay much the same taxes that you do. Roads are paid for primarily by gasoline taxes, which everyone who drives on a road pays. Schools, local law enforcement, and state law enforcement are all funded primarily by property taxes and sales taxes, which immigrants (documented or undocumented) pay whenever they buy anything and whenever they live anywhere (either directly, or through their landlord). Nor would it matter very much if these things were funded primarily through taxes that immigrants don’t pay: in that case, the fault lies on the government that imposes the taxes and uses the money to provide the services–not on the peaceful immigrants who come here to work.

    As usual, people who favor assaulting peaceful immigrants neglect the obvious. The overwhelming reason that Mexican immigrants come to the United States is to work. They benefit from work; and they can find it because employers benefit from hiring them. When employers can produce goods at a lower cost, it helps you, because they will make more of the goods and/or lower the price at which they sell it. The laws of economics are not repealed just because the people involved happen to speak Spanish. Markets work.

  146. Hey Ghertner, I’m an American. Not a Mexican. If you want to live in that splended country called Mexico, I suggest you move down there.

    Ghertner writes:”Again, I’m failing to see the argument here. Are you trying to claim that current automobile workers are entitled to a job simply by virtue of where they were born?”

    I know you don’t. Like most wacko libertarians, you don’t believe in the nation state. Some utopian physco babble in which most libertarians fall.

    “And as I pointed out earlier, this is the fault of government, not business or immigrants.”

    Yes, it is the fault of government for not enforcing the immigration laws and passing federal mandates that force local communities to provide schooling, health care, etc etc to illegal aliens. Round em up, ship em out.

  147. Stephan,

    ” Anyway, the open borders types want to make it legal. Which means they would have these rights from the get go.”

    Nonsense, I’m an open borders type and I don’t want it to be legal for immigrants to vote. Hell, I don’t even want you to have voting rights.

    To prevent immigration now you have to target peaceful individuals with deadly force. Would you be willing in principle to do that yourself, or are you a chickenhawk on immigration?

  148. Andy:

    “Julius: I’m guessing it has something to do with the fact that the Park Service alone “owns” about two acres for every man, woman, and child presently in America.”

    I thought John T was talking about Libertopia, in which case the Park Service would not exist, let alone own anything.

  149. Hey Ghertner, I’m an American. Not a Mexican. If you want to live in that splended country called Mexico, I suggest you move down there.

    Hey JimBob: I’m not going anywhere. Neither you nor anyone else has any legitimate authority to tell me where I can or cannot live. And that goes for Hispanics, too. If you don’t like it, tough. Racism isn’t an argument.

  150. Rad Geek, Europeans are now more productive in agriculture today because they haven’t relied on cheap labor.

    “I’ll leave the question of historical food price trends to those who have spent more time researching it; I’d only like to point out here that the issue is not whether the price of beef now is more or less than the price of beef in 1960, but rather whether the price of beef now is more or less than the price of beef would be now if fewer Mexican and Central American immigrants (documented and undocumented) agreed to work at the prevailing wages in the industry. (And as for privatizing profits–I’m all for it. Would that more profits were privatized.)”

    My source for this is an Investors Business Daily editorial. And without illegal aliens, the prevailing wage in meat packing plants would be much higher. I’m not an economist, but if meat packers were making 5 bucks an hr in 1960, I think it’s safe to say they’d be making 15 dollars an hr today. By flooding the market with cheap labor, this has driven down wage rates. Businesses that employ the illegals reap the benifits, but the taxpayers in the community are left holding the bag. Soon the quality of life starts to go down hill, crime explodes and productive people vote with their feet.

    Milton Friedman agrees with me. So far, all you wacko libertarians can do is throw around the racism and xenophobic charge. I know when arguing with someone when they start throwing the racism charge around, they don’t have a leg to stand on. This entire thread started by Lopez accusing Kinsella of being a racist for simply stating the obvious. The country doesn’t benefit from mass 3rd world immigration.

  151. And without illegal aliens, the prevailing wage in meat packing plants would be much higher.

    How is that good for immigrants or consumers?

    Businesses that employ the illegals reap the benifits, but the taxpayers in the community are left holding the bag.

    Is that the fault of the businesses or the tax and welfare laws? Recall, you already mentioned your opposition to minimum wage laws.

    Milton Friedman agrees with me.

    Insofar as he does, Friedman is wrong.

    So far, all you wacko libertarians can do is throw around the racism and xenophobic charge.

    “Round em up, ship em out.” – JimBob

    The country doesn’t benefit from mass 3rd world immigration.

    False.

  152. The country doesn’t benefit from mass 3rd world immigration.

    So jimbob, I have to know…

    Kennedy: To prevent immigration now you have to target peaceful individuals with deadly force. Would you be willing in principle to do that yourself, or are you a chickenhawk on immigration?

  153. I think it’s pretty safe to say that anyone who thinks we should “Round em up” and “ship em out” doesn’t have much of a problem killing peaceful Mexican immigrants – men, women and children.

  154. Ghertner writes: “How is that good for immigrants or consumers?”

    I’m not worried about immigrants. I’m sick of immigrants. As for consumers, there’s no evidence that meat is any cheaper today than it was in 1960 when meat packing plants paid its employees 5 bucks an hr.

    “Is that the fault of the businesses or the tax and welfare laws? Recall, you already mentioned your opposition to minimum wage laws.”

    I already told ya . It’s the governments fault. Please try to keep up.

    Look Ghertner, I don’ give a damn how many times you post that bull shit from Cafe Hayek. Or Julian Simon nonsense. In the previous 2 great immigrant waves, the welfare state was non existent. If newcomers couldn’t hack it, they went home. In other words, fish or cut bait.

    I think the evidence is very clear. Since the 1965 immigration act, the government has taken more control of the private sector. With everything from hiring quotas to further so called ethnic diversity, to endless law suits brought by employees for so called discrimination. etc etc. The endless paper work in order to stay out of trouble with the EEOC .. etc etc. Now some CEOs demand diversity training seminars in order to remain in good standing with the ethnic pimps. LaRaza, NAACP

    The bottom line is, Kinsella and Friedman are right. Mass 3rd world immigration is doing nothing but harming communites, creating ethnic tensions, and bringing in a bunch of nickel and dime gangsters from Mexico

    http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_3_immigrant_gang.html

    The immigrant gang plague

  155. JimBob: This entire thread started by Lopez accusing Kinsella of being a racist for simply stating the obvious.

    Your reading comprehension is as bad as Kinsella’s. I don’t give a runny shit whether Kinsella’s a racist or not, I didn’t even address it in the entry. I said:

    Kinsella’s implicit whimpering about his “needs” and his explicit call for government extortion stand in stark contrast to his earlier position:

    Kinsella needs to drop this pretense about being some sort of radical free-market type and honestly embrace government, or perhaps white separatism. Until then, he’d do well just to simply shut up.

    Where’s the “accusation” in there, JimB? Put up, or shut up.

    So far, all you wacko libertarians can do is throw around the racism and xenophobic charge.

    I haven’t thrown any such thing at you, and you’re quite aware of that.

  156. I’m not worried about immigrants. I’m sick of immigrants.

    Yeah, I noticed. I’m curious, though: When you wrote “So far, all you wacko libertarians can do is throw around the racism and xenophobic charge,” were you implicitly claiming that the racism and xenophobic charge is false, or did you just want us to come up with more creative arguments?

    As for consumers, there’s no evidence that meat is any cheaper today than it was in 1960 when meat packing plants paid its employees 5 bucks an hr.

    Sorry, buddy, but when you make a positive empirical claim, the burden of proof is on you to back it up. Until you provide evidence (from a reliable source) that meat is the same or more expensive than it was in 1960, you cannot use this claim as evidence for anything. And even if you could provide such evidence, you would need to account for various other factors like changes in consumer demand, any changes in the cost of grazing land, etc.

  157. Stephan K:

    I thought Rothbard was unequivocally in favour of open borders, without qualification or caveat. Certainly I don’t recall him ever saying anything along the lines of Hoppe or you. If so, I presume you think that Rothbard was wrong on this issue?

    Have I got it right, or was Rothbard in favour of immigration restrictions as long as the State exists, like you and Hoppe? If so, can you provide a citation?

  158. Andy Stedman pointed out the main difference at the start:

    “If there were price controls and rationing of gasoline, would you criticize someone who for writing an article critical of rationing, even though removing the rationing but keeping the price controls might be a worse situation?

    Most No Treason contributors would like the borders opened and the welfare state demolished. If you find one who advocates open borders, but wants to keep the welfare state, let us know and I’ll join you in criticizing him or her for wanting to destroy civil society.”

    The extreme open border libertarians (The word extreme isn’t used as an insult, but merely to seperate those that will let everyone in from those which will only let some in) support gettind rid of the rationing even while there is still price controls. The main reason behind this is that rationing is an obviously immoral system.

    The debate is over whether the price controls (Representing the welfare state and every other government caused problem due to immigration brought up) causes enough trouble that a certain level of rationing might be better than letting shortages occur (With shortages representing all the problems that will come iwth this immigration).

    The people who are for the state rationing while they have price controls are those such as Hoppe and Kinsella, who believe that the consequences to rights will be worse if rationing isn’t imposed until the price fixing is recognized as bad as well.

    Anyway, it seems that both groups have libertarian goals, but the closed border group doesn’t think the path to ending price controls is through getting rid of rationing. This may be because the discontent from no rationing may cause more want of rationing, or because after advocating getting rid of rationing the people who want to get rid of price controls would lose their credibility. Or it may just be a desire to keep the system running smoothly, wanting instead to wait until both rationing and price fixing are seen as bad.

  159. “You’re advocating a public policy so obviously immoral that even you acknowledge you would not be willing to personally do what is necessary to implement it. Of course it would be better if you didn’t advocate such policy.”

    Kennedy, assuming arguendo you are correct that the policy is immoral, why is it obvious that it’s “better” if “I” don’t “advocate” it? Why is this a *libertarian* view??

  160. Stephan,

    You’re advocating a public policy so obviously immoral that even you acknowledge you would not be willing to personally do what is necessary to implement it. Of course it would be better if you didn’t advocate such policy.

  161. To sum up, I submit it has been established that Lopez and his ilk have not proven their original contention, to-wit, that “Stephan Kinsella Ought To Shut His Stupid Cake Hole”.

    At most, they have tried to prove some of my statements are incorrect. They have not proven that I have a “stupid” cake hole, nor that I “ought” to close it.

    Everybody say amen?

  162. The seeming is not so. Daddy is not cranky at all.

    I stand in awe of your rhetorical skills.

    At most, they have tried to prove some of my statements are incorrect. They have not proven that I have a “stupid” cake hole, nor that I “ought” to close it.

    Everybody say amen?

    Nope. Lopez was right.

  163. To sum up, I submit it has been established that Lopez and his ilk have not proven their original contention, to-wit, that “Stephan Kinsella Ought To Shut His Stupid Cake Hole”.

    You favor closed borders, do you not? This logically requires the initiation of force against peaceful travelers, does it not? You would not be willing to initiate that force yourself, would you not? That makes you intellectually inconsistent, does it not?

    Pretty witty for a punk.

    If you were more concerned with consistency than with being witty this thread would be much shorter.

  164. Strive even harder. No effing idea what you are talking about. Post again after your pot buzz wears off.

    This whole immigration debate seems to have made you a bit cranky.

  165. So this is a personal advice column now? Okay, advice: strive for coherence.

    By your logic, there seems to be no point in arguing with anybody since implicitly one is trying to change their mind, i.e. “advise” them…

  166. Stefan: “Kinsella: So this is a personal advice column now? Okay, advice: strive for coherence.

    “By your logic, there seems to be no point in arguing with anybody since implicitly one is trying to change their mind, i.e. “advise” them…”

    Strive even harder. No effing idea what you are talking about. Post again after your pot buzz wears off.

  167. Stefan: “Kinsella: To sum up, I submit it has been established that Lopez and his ilk have not proven their original contention, to-wit, that “Stephan Kinsella Ought To Shut His Stupid Cake Hole”.

    “You favor closed borders, do you not? This logically requires the initiation of force against peaceful travelers, does it not? You would not be willing to initiate that force yourself, would you not? That makes you intellectually inconsistent, does it not?”

    Maybe, but it does not prove that I ought to shut my cake hole nor that it is stupid.

    >If you were more concerned with consistency than with being witty this thread would be much shorter.<

    Hmm, that could be, if a thread can be said to have “length”.

    >I thought Rothbard was unequivocally in favour of open borders, without qualification or caveat. Certainly I don’t recall him ever saying anything along the lines of Hoppe or you. If so, I presume you think that Rothbard was wrong on this issue?

    Have I got it right, or was Rothbard in favour of immigration restrictions as long as the State exists, like you and Hoppe? If so, can you provide a citation?<

    Daddy can’t remember what Rothbard said. I dimly recall in later years he endorsed a view similar to Hoppe’s. If he was open borders, then I’d disagree w/ him, like I’ve disagreed with him on other points, such as inalienability and causation and some punishment related matters.

  168. Actually here is what Rothbard said here: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/11_1/11_1_1.pdf

    “I began to rethink my views on immigration when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples.

    “As cultural and welfare-state problems have inten- sified, it became impossible to dismiss Raspail’s concerns any longer.
    However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho- capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as “closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not gen- uinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.”

  169. Thanks Stephan. I now recall having read the piece in the past, but had forgotten about it. The reference to Estonia and Latvia is not of general application since it refers to State X actively encouraging migration to territory Y in order to achieve some geo-political goal vis a vis territory Y. This is not really an issue for migration into the West. The analysis of freedom of movement under anarcho-capitalism is of course uncontroversial. This leaves the last sentence. I agree that this does perhaps lend some support for the Hopperian view. But realistically, it can be regarded as no more than an inchoate musing on the topic. So I guess we will have to work out the answer without help from Uncle Murray ;-(

  170. >If you were more concerned with consistency than with being witty this thread would be much shorter.<

    Hmm, that could be, if a thread can be said to have “length”.

    The way that, say, an argument can be “incoherent”, or perhaps a person “intellectually dishonest”?

    “You favor closed borders, do you not? This logically requires the initiation of force against peaceful travelers, does it not? You would not be willing to initiate that force yourself, would you not? That makes you intellectually inconsistent, does it not?”

    Maybe, but it does not prove that I ought to shut my cake hole nor that it is stupid.

    I’ll leave this one to Lopez–you seem to enjoy yanking his chain.

  171. Orange Julius: “Thanks Stephan. I now recall having read the piece in the past, but had forgotten about it.”

    Why, you’re quite welcome, J-Dog! :)

    Lopez: “Kinsella: No effing idea what you are talking about.

    “So you’re either stupid or being dishonest. Or perhaps both. Are we supposed to take pity on you now, or what?”

    My Dear Mr. Lopez, I am sorry that I don’t have time to study your text harder to discern your meaning. I must say I don’t know the answer to your latest question, either.

  172. Stefan: “I’ll leave this one to Lopez–you seem to enjoy yanking his chain.”

    No no no, I love him; I am just trying to help the flower blossom.

    Let me put it this way:

    Chanting Buddha’s name
    is the deepest pleasure
    of one’s old age

    To learn how to die
    watch cherry blossoms, observe
    chrysanthemums

  173. Pingback: No Treason
  174. Pingback: No Treason
  175. Lopez: “And you do support initiating force against immigrants, because that’s the only way to stop them.”

    You assume it is initiating force to forcefully prevent a foreigner from entering public property. But this assumes the foreigner has a right to enter the public property. Why assume this? The only way this is true is if the foreigner has some right himself to it, i.e., he is a part-owner of the public property; or if an owner of the property has the right to invite the foreigner.

    If the state owns it, that ends the debate. The state is the owners, and has no obligation to allow free entr.

    If the state is merely a caretaker for real owners, then it’s a different story. Clearly there is no libertarian way to argue the entire world owns the public property. It is the American citizens who the property was taken from, or who were taxed to purchase it, or their heirs, etc.

    So, how does the wannabe immigrant have a “right” to enter public property? The only way is if he has an invitation from someone who has a right to issue invitations. But there is no single property owner; there are millions of co-owners. The state has at most an obligation, if it does not return or privatize it, to use it in a way that a reasonable owner of a collectively-owned asset would, so as to minimize the harm to owners and maximize their restitution. A reasonable owner of the public property of a country would be more likely to act like a monarch would than a libertine egalitarain politically correct modern modal libertarian. He would have some quality and other requirements on entry. He certainly would not be under any obligation to follow the desires of a 0.1% minority of the owners. Yet this is what must be maintained to oppose on libertarian grounds the libertarian opponents of open-borders-now.

    Clearly no single open-borders-zealot-citizen owns all public property; so he does not have the right to invite guests if other co-owners disagree. Surely most co-ops of this sort would agree on some kind of majoritarian rules for deciding disputes. And they would also agree on some kind of wealth-preservation rules, the kind, say, a monarch who “owned” a country, would follow. Under either standard, the majority–the overwhelming majority, probably over 99%–and the monarch, would not endorse open borders. All would favor some limits. It is clear that so long as the public property is co-owned and managed by the caretaker state that if it attempts to manage the property reasonable it will not allow unlimited entry by foreigners. It will set some rules–just as public road owners set speed limits and other rules.

  176. Lopez: “Once again, Kinsella: Who owns “public property”, and why?”

    I distinguish–as the law does–between possession and ownership, which is more akin to the *right* to possess. Under the current law, the state is both possessor and owner, since it has a legal right to possess it. BUt of course, libertarians don’t think all laws are legitimate, since the rights created by laws or relied on by them are not always rights consistent with our actual libertarian rights. So as a libertarian, the question of ownership thus turns on libertarian notions of rights.

    Clearly, the owner, from the libertarian’s point of view, is either the nominal owner (the state), or some private person or persons to whom the state owes restitution, or from whom the state stole the property, or from whom the state has taxed in order to fund the property.

    In my view, the real owner are American taxpaying citizens and/or their heirs. As it may be impossible to further identify individual fractions, a number of reasonable ways could be posited to divide the loot if it were ever returned: it could be done by head; or pro-rated based on estimates of taxes paid, etc. I believe in any event the most libertarian view is that the vast bulk of taxpayers are the owners, in one degree or the other. More specifically, they are co-owners.

    What is your view, Lopez?

  177. I believe in any event the most libertarian view is that the vast bulk of taxpayers are the owners, in one degree or the other. More specifically, they are co-owners.

    What is your view, Lopez?

    I’d agree with the above, except for the fact that the situation can’t be sorted out in most cases. Who owns any given cop car, f’rinstance? “The taxpayers” doesn’t cut it, because that’s an abstraction. Which taxpayers, where?

    My view is that government property in most cases is essentially unclaimed and unclaimable by any legitimate entity.

    [Edit to add: “unclaimable” in the sense that no-one can say “That’s mine!”, not in the sense that it’s taboo or something.]

  178. Lopez: “I’d agree with the above, except for the fact that the situation can’t be sorted out in most cases. Who owns any given cop car, f’rinstance? “The taxpayers” doesn’t cut it, because that’s an abstraction. Which taxpayers, where?”

    Unless you have a reason to differentiate, all taxpayers own it pro-rata. They are co-owners. If they can’t all decide unanimously on what to do with it, then it could be sold and the proceeds divided. Etc.

    “My view is that government property in most cases is essentially unclaimed and unclaimable by any legitimate entity.”

    So it is forever unownable by anyone?

  179. If they can’t all decide unanimously on what to do with it, then it could be sold and the proceeds divided. Etc.

    Do you really endorse that?

    So it is forever unownable by anyone?

    No, see the addendum in square brackets.

  180. “Do you really endorse that?”

    It’s one of several reasonable privization proposals. You got a better one?

    “” So it is forever unownable by anyone?

    “No, see the addendum in square brackets. ”

    Doesn’t help.

  181. It’s one of several reasonable privization proposals. You got a better one?

    Not off the top of my head, no. But here’s the thing: you can’t get all taxpayers to agree to any particular use of public property, so you can’t justify keeping immigrants out based on what the “majority” of taxpayers supposedly want: you’d be violating the wishes of some of the owners.

    Doesn’t help.

    “Unclaimed and unclaimable” = “No one has made or can make a proper claim to it right now”.

  182. You assume it is initiating force to forcefully prevent a foreigner from entering public property. But this assumes the foreigner has a right to enter the public property. Clearly there is no libertarian way to argue the entire world owns the public property.

    Isn’t this precisely Walter Block’s argument? That public proverty is morally equivalent to unclaimed property, and that it can be homesteaded or used in the same way that unclaimed property can be homesteaded or used? One of the other students at Mises University this past summer, Daniel D’Amico (sp?), a former student of Block’s, and now an econ grad student at GMU, uses this same argument to justify the legitimacy of graffiti when performed on public property.

    While I’m not entirely convinced that public property is equivalent to unowned property, it makes much more sense than the “public property belongs to current tax payers, and therefore its use must be determined by democratic fiat”, especially when this argument is coming from a person who hates the mechanism of democracy as much as Hoppe does. One can legitimately make the claim that public property belongs to some taxpayers (and not necessarily the current ones), but all this means is that the government owes restitution to those it has stolen from. All U.S. citizens are not taxpayers, all taxpayers are not owed the same amount of money, and nothing follows from any of this that would lead to the conclusions Hoppe and other anti-immigrants want to reach.

    The only way this is true is if the foreigner has some right himself to it, i.e., he is a part-owner of the public property; or if an owner of the property has the right to invite the foreigner.

    This is incoherent. Inasmuch as the government homesteaded the property hundreds of years ago, the land remains unowned from a libertarian perspective. Inasmuch as the land remains owned by the taxpayers (and it is not at all clear it does) there is no libertarian way to rectify this wrong other than selling off the land and repaying the original owners in proportion to the damage done to them (unless, of course, any individual property owner can provide evidence that a particular piece of property was taken from him). And even if we grant that some taxpayers have some claim to how the land should be used, we have no legitimate libertarian mechanism to voice these preferences, because – AS ANY LIBERTARIAN SHOULD ALREADY KNOW, democracy is not a legitimate mechanism of voicing individual preferences. The fact that this has to be repeated again and again to self-proclaimed libertarians is absurd on its face.

    Further still, if we assume that foreigners don’t have a right to enter the U.S. because public property belongs to taxpayers, why do we assume that net-tax recipients (and most users of public property are net-tax recipients) have such a right? Why do we assume that net-tax recipients have a right to reproduce, thus bringing into the U.S. territory a new person just as much as if they invited their foreign-born cousin? To my knowledge, anti-immigrant libertarians have not addressed any of these problems.

    Clearly there is no libertarian way to argue the entire world owns the public property.

    Sure there is, and in a sense, Hoppe makes this same argument himself when developing his Argumentation Ethics. If public property has no legitimate owner, than it is equivalent to unowned property. Unowned property is, in a sense, owned by the entire world, since any one has a right to claim it. Now, we can quibble over whether public property has a legitimate owner (though certainly no clear and undisputed owner), but Hoppe himself must concede that the right to homestead is a right shared by everyone in the entire world.

    The state has at most an obligation, if it does not return or privatize it, to use it in a way that a reasonable owner of a collectively-owned asset would, so as to minimize the harm to owners and maximize their restitution.

    Where does this argument come from? How is this in any way restitution? Suppose I am a very religious person and own the famous big screen television in Times Square. You decide to steal it from me and show outrageous portrayals of misogynistic pornography and devil worship because you are a libertine heathen and hate all that is good and decent.

    Do you have some obligation to only display images that I approve of on your stolen television? Of course not! You have an obligation to give me back my stolen television, and nothing else. Yes, it may be a bigger insult to me to use my property in the worst way possible in my eyes. But libertarianism doesn’t require you to use it one way or another. It requires you to give it back. Period.

    A reasonable owner of the public property of a country would be more likely to act like a monarch would than a libertine egalitarain politically correct modern modal libertarian. He would have some quality and other requirements on entry.

    How the hell do you know how a “reasonable owner” would use his property? Your statement is question begging, by assuming that only socially conservative, anti-egalitarian, politically incorrect paleolibertarians are reasonable. Says who? Just because you folks would use your property a certain way doesn’t mean everyone else would. Were I such a “monarch”, I would open my borders to everyone in the world, except for paleolibertarians (kidding!).

    It’s quite strange that you folks want to be monarchists one minute and majoritarian democrats the next. Why don’t you try, um, being libertarians?

  183. Lopez: “Not off the top of my head, no. But here’s the thing: you can’t get all taxpayers to agree to any particular use of public property, so you can’t justify keeping immigrants out based on what the “majority” of taxpayers supposedly want: you’d be violating the wishes of some of the owners.”

    Co-owners who don’t all agree on how to use the property is a common problem in the law. Think about marriage. What if wife and husband really can’t agree on what to do wiht a piece of property? The only solution is to divorce and sell it, and split the proceeds.

    If people would agree ahead of time, they would certainly not agree on a unanimity requirement; it is too restrictive. And if they don’t agree, they can’t complain about a reasonable standard being imposed to fill in the gap.

    My point is if you have multiple taxpayer co-owners they will inevitably have differing views. You cannot help but “violate the wishes” of some. Given this, if you open the borders, you “violate the wishes” of at least 99 out of 100 of the co-owners. That means you improve restitution for 1 person, at most. If you limit borders, you “violate the wishes” of 1 person, but improve restitution for 99 people. Is it not reasonable, as a libertarian, to favor, ceteris paribus, partial restitution for 99 people over partial restititon for 1 person? Isn’t it better to help 99 starving people than 1? Or are there NO standards in a second-best scenario?–and if so, how can you advocate one?

  184. Little Micha writes,

    “‘You assume it is initiating force to forcefully prevent a foreigner from entering public property. But this assumes the foreigner has a right to enter the public property. Clearly there is no libertarian way to argue the entire world owns the public property.

    “Isn’t this precisely Walter Block’s argument? That public proverty is morally equivalent to unclaimed property, and that it can be homesteaded or used in the same way that unclaimed property can be homesteaded or used? One of the other students at Mises University this past summer, Daniel D’Amico (sp?), a former student of Block’s, and now an econ grad student at GMU, uses this same argument to justify the legitimacy of graffiti when performed on public property.”

    Some libertarians believe worse is better. Some believe worse is worse. There are disagreements. Only snot-nosed, cocksure punks would fail to see this.

    “While I’m not entirely convinced that public property is equivalent to unowned property, it makes much more sense than the “public property belongs to current tax payers, and therefore its use must be determined by democratic fiat”, especially when this argument is coming from a person who hates the mechanism of democracy as much as Hoppe does. One can legitimately make the claim that public property belongs to some taxpayers (and not necessarily the current ones), but all this means is that the government owes restitution to those it has stolen from. All U.S. citizens are not taxpayers, all taxpayers are not owed the same amount of money, and nothing follows from any of this that would lead to the conclusions Hoppe and other anti-immigrants want to reach.”

    Well, the argument’s coherence is not affected by who it comes from, so the “especially” is especially inappropriate. The quesiton is indeed difficult. But property law is about who can show better title. Clearly taxpayer can show better title than the state. If this is all they can show, they all have an equal claim, and are thus equal co-owners. If you want to advance an argument that someone who pays more in tax should have a greater share, go for it. That’s irrelevant here. Surely there are messy issues in ever transitioning out of socialism, as Russia and even China are seeing. So what?

    “‘The only way this is true is if the foreigner has some right himself to it, i.e., he is a part-owner of the public property; or if an owner of the property has the right to invite the foreigner.

    “This is incoherent.”

    Why, no, it is actually perfectly accurate and precise.

    “Inasmuch as the government homesteaded the property hundreds of years ago, the land remains unowned from a libertarian perspective.”

    Did the “government” homestead it? Wow. And all from your armchair. Tell me more. And does its status as criminal enterprise not matter at all? Wow.

    “Inasmuch as the land remains owned by the taxpayers (and it is not at all clear it does) there is no libertarian way to rectify this wrong other than selling off the land and repaying the original owners in proportion to the damage done to them (unless, of course, any individual property owner can provide evidence that a particular piece of property was taken from him). And even if we grant that some taxpayers have some claim to how the land should be used, we have no legitimate libertarian mechanism to voice these preferences, because – AS ANY LIBERTARIAN SHOULD ALREADY KNOW, democracy is not a legitimate mechanism of voicing individual preferences. The fact that this has to be repeated again and again to self-proclaimed libertarians is absurd on its face.”

    Oh, God, grow up. Opposing political democracy does not mean opposing majority weighting for private matters. Corporations allow their shareholders to vote, duh. And except for rare cases like marriage where unanimity is required (and divorce is the way out), almost every partnership co-owning property specifies voting rules in case of disagreement, or at the least allows, in the case of intractable disagreement, the union to be dissolved and the property sold and the proceeds shared per agreement among the co-owners. Is this really a newsflash?

    “Further still, if we assume that foreigners don’t have a right to enter the U.S. because public property belongs to taxpayers, why do we assume that net-tax recipients (and most users of public property are net-tax recipients) have such a right?”

    Well, first, I don’t. I’m just saying there is SOME group of taxpayers who are the rightful owners. Maybe it’s only libertarians. Second, even a net-tax recipient has a better claim than the state does. So between the state and a welfare mother, the latter has a better claim. If you want to argue that a DuPont heir has a better claim than a Chicano welfare recipient, hey, man, go for it.

    “Why do we assume that net-tax recipients have a right to reproduce, thus bringing into the U.S. territory a new person just as much as if they invited their foreign-born cousin? To my knowledge, anti-immigrant libertarians have not addressed any of these problems.”

    Hey, if you want to argue that a given person’s offsrping have no right to use public property, let’s hear it–don’t just tease us like that!

    “‘Clearly there is no libertarian way to argue the entire world owns the public property.

    “Sure there is, and in a sense, Hoppe makes this same argument himself when developing his Argumentation Ethics. If public property has no legitimate owner, than it is equivalent to unowned property.”

    Untrue; and HHH does not say this (why do you care anyway–he’s just a bigot, according to you).

    “Unowned property is, in a sense, owned by the entire world, since any one has a right to claim it. Now, we can quibble over whether public property has a legitimate owner (though certainly no clear and undisputed owner), but Hoppe himself must concede that the right to homestead is a right shared by everyone in the entire world.”

    If the state steals my home to make way for a road, the world at large does not have an equal claim on that property–I have the claim. If they purchase the property for the road with my tax dollars, again, I have a special calim on it, better than that of a foreigner. Public property is not unowned. This is the mistake you are making. If the state buys with tax dollars a farm from A to make a road, the farm was not unowned. It was owned by farmer A. Then the state bought it, using stolen loot. This is elementary.

    “‘The state has at most an obligation, if it does not return or privatize it, to use it in a way that a reasonable owner of a collectively-owned asset would, so as to minimize the harm to owners and maximize their restitution.

    “Where does this argument come from? How is this in any way restitution?”

    Because if you give me something of value, that is restitution. Duh. And if you steal my car–it is better than you return it unhamred than if you blow it up. And if you retuse to return it, it is better than you offer me daily limo service in my car than if you use it only for your own purposes. Etc.

    Anyway, the point is that thsi is a reasonable view that you egalitarain types might not share.

    “Suppose I am a very religious person and own the famous big screen television in Times Square. You decide to steal it from me and show outrageous portrayals of misogynistic pornography and devil worship because you are a libertine heathen and hate all that is good and decent.

    “Do you have some obligation to only display images that I approve of on your stolen television? Of course not!”

    My first obligation is to return it and pay you compensation besides. If I don’t do this, you are harmed. I incur a growing obligation to pay you damages–restitution. If it is clear that you would prefer I use the TV to play religious stuff, sure, this would be a way of minimizing the damage done to you.

    ” You have an obligation to give me back my stolen television, and nothing else.”

    Ahh–here we see the Randian. “nothing else.” I.e., there is no second-best standard. Yet–you and your ilk say that there IS a second-best standard: let ANYONE use the property. So your second-best standard is not the same as mine. So what?

    ” Yes, it may be a bigger insult to me to use my property in the worst way possible in my eyes. But libertarianism doesn’t require you to use it one way or another. It requires you to give it back. Period.”

    Oh, grow up, Mr. A (no offense, Steve Ditko).

    “‘A reasonable owner of the public property of a country would be more likely to act like a monarch would than a libertine egalitarain politically correct modern modal libertarian. He would have some quality and other requirements on entry.

    “How the hell do you know how a “reasonable owner” would use his property?”

    That is my view. How do you think a reasonable owner would act? Do you think he would let everyone use the property with no limits or restrictions?

    ” Your statement is question begging, by assuming that only socially conservative, anti-egalitarian, politically incorrect paleolibertarians are reasonable.”

    Why, no,I never said you open borders types are unreasoanble. I understand your concerns. I don’t say you are not libertarians. You people are the amusingly cocksure newbies who think your way is the Only Way.

    “Says who? Just because you folks would use your property a certain way doesn’t mean everyone else would. Were I such a “monarch”, I would open my borders to everyone in the world, except for paleolibertarians (kidding!).”

    Right, but 99/100 would not. Accept it, dude, you’re an oddball.

    “It’s quite strange that you folks want to be monarchists one minute and majoritarian democrats the next. Why don’t you try, um, being libertarians?”

    Again–grow up. Anyone in the real world uses majoritarian rules in private contracts, and this is in no way unlibertarian. This is embarrassing to have to explain this.

  185. My point is if you have multiple taxpayer co-owners they will inevitably have differing views. You cannot help but “violate the wishes” of some.

    What if that majority of “taxpayer co-owners” wanted to keep other parts of the State intact? Doesn’t that argument also endorse supporting the continued existence of those parts of government? For example, few people indeed would want to see the national park system sold off, or Social Security abolished, or the DOD disbanded.

    That means you improve restitution…

    I’m not certain that closing borders with government employees is in fact “restitution” of any sort. Given that the borders will remain closed via funds that are taken with force, aren’t you really advocating stealing from everyone to provide for nearly everyone? Why not steal from everyone to provide parks or a military or government retirement that nearly everyone also wants?

  186. Lopez:

    ” My point is if you have multiple taxpayer co-owners they will inevitably have differing views. You cannot help but “violate the wishes” of some.

    What if that majority of “taxpayer co-owners” wanted to keep other parts of the State intact? Doesn’t that argument also endorse supporting the continued existence of those parts of government? For example, few people indeed would want to see the national park system sold off, or Social Security abolished, or the DOD disbanded.

    The state is a thief. THey have no right to tax, nor to purchase things with taxes, nor to keep it. Their first obligation is to privatize or return property, and disband. If they do NOT, then we are in a situation where the criminal state is in possession of property rightfully co-owned by a group of taxpayers (to simplify). The state must use the property somehow. Since it has a continuing obligation to disband and to give restitution to the taxpayers, it has an obligation to use property to maximize restitution to the taxpayers.

    So therefore, we can say that if and to the extent it acts as a reasonable caretaker would–this includes fidiciary obligations, honesty, etc., and taking into account the preferences of the co-owners–then it is likely to be doing less overall harm to the taxpayers than it would if it were not bound by such a rule. So taxpayer views on how a given piece of property should be used IF AND SO LONG as it is not returned are relevant. But this does not imply that their statist views are relevant. If the majority does not want the park sold off, that is not relevant to the question of how it should be used so long as it is NOT sold off. As a libertairan I say the park should be privatized whether or not the “co-owners” wnat it to be.

    In fact, so long as one co-owner–like me or you–wants the park to be sold off, the libertairan view is that it has to be. THis is because when you have co-owners who cannot agree how to unanimously use property, the only solution is to sell it and divide the proceeds. It’s a divorce, so to speak. This is what the common law recognizes with co-owners too. So this is the first best option. Unfortunately, the state does not recognize the rightful co-owners as the legal ones, so will not implement this decision tree. But they *ought to*.

    The only time we turn to the majority preferences of the co-owners is if we assume the state is NOT going to privatize it. Then the question becomes one of minimizing the harm, by maximizing restitution. This is done by taking the owners’ preferences into account.

    I’m not certain that closing borders with government employees is in fact “restitution” of any sort.

    The point is that if the feds allow anyone onto public roads, this is worse for most citizens than if they have reasonable limits. This is because, in part, of simple overcrowding/quality of life issues, and also cultural issues (most people don’t want this to be Spanish speaking America), and partly b/c of the federal anti-discrimination and welfare laws, whcih mean as a practical matter that open borders combined with public proerty and all these laws and policies, will result in more “forced integration” as Hoppe has argued. I can’t prevent immigratns from driving thru my neighborhood or forcing me to hire them or at least not discriminate against them, etc. etc. For all these reasons, the vast majority of Amerkins would oppose this use of public property. For them, they are harmed more if the roads have no standards, than if they have some. CAll it restitution, I don’t care. The point is less injury is added to the tax-extraction-injury, which is better than more injury being added thereto.

  187. Some libertarians believe worse is better. Some believe worse is worse. There are disagreements. Only snot-nosed, cocksure punks would fail to see this.

    But you just previously said that “Clearly there is no libertarian way to argue the entire world owns the public property.” I just showed, not only that there is a libertarian way to argue this, but that one of your own colleagues, whose website you yourself created and manage, makes this very same argument. So either you are ignorant or dishonest. I’m thinking a little of column A with heaps and heaps of column B.

    Clearly taxpayer can show better title than the state. If this is all they can show, they all have an equal claim, and are thus equal co-owners.

    And clearly a non-net-taxpayer can show better title than the state. And clearly immigrants can show better title than the state, as Block has argued. Why don’t you argue that non-net-taxpayers in a second best world should be deported just like immigrants? It follows from your arguments. And why don’t we hear you responding to Gene Callahan’s analogy that all babies should be deported just like immigrants?

    Did the “government” homestead it? Wow. And all from your armchair. Tell me more. And does its status as criminal enterprise not matter at all? Wow.

    Some of the land that the government currently controls was never occupied or owned by Americans. Some of it that was stolen has no clear rightful heir. This land is essentially unclaimed property like in a state of nature, precisely because of the government’s status as a criminal enterprise. Now, perhaps current taxpayers have some right to the proceeds of its sale, insofar as the government owes them compensation, but they have no particular claim to how that land is used in a second-best world, since they have no claim to that land at all.

    Well, first, I don’t. I’m just saying there is SOME group of taxpayers who are the rightful owners. Maybe it’s only libertarians. Second, even a net-tax recipient has a better claim than the state does. So between the state and a welfare mother, the latter has a better claim. If you want to argue that a DuPont heir has a better claim than a Chicano welfare recipient, hey, man, go for it.

    But why do you say that it is okay for net-tax welfare recipients (Hoppe comes to mind) to use the public roads, but not net-zero immigrants, who have not yet either taken or given to the system? The fact that anti-immigration libertarians only apply their arguments to immigrants when these same arguments should apply to babies and welfare recipients is a big hint to what their real motivation is.

    “Why do we assume that net-tax recipients have a right to reproduce, thus bringing into the U.S. territory a new person just as much as if they invited their foreign-born cousin? To my knowledge, anti-immigrant libertarians have not addressed any of these problems.”

    Hey, if you want to argue that a given person’s offsrping have no right to use public property, let’s hear it–don’t just tease us like that!

    Inlookers: watch as Kinsella dodges a question he knows he cannot answer, because it completely destroys his entire argument.

    “Sure there is, and in a sense, Hoppe makes this same argument himself when developing his Argumentation Ethics. If public property has no legitimate owner, than it is equivalent to unowned property.”

    Untrue; and HHH does not say this (why do you care anyway–he’s just a bigot, according to you).

    Who owns land in a state of nature before it is claimed, Kinsella? No one, correct? But everyone in the world has an equal right to try to homestead it before someone else does, correct? The same is true with public property – it is as much a right of an immigrant to use it as it is for any of us.

    If the state steals my home to make way for a road, the world at large does not have an equal claim on that property–I have the claim.

    As I said earlier, I don’t dispute cases where an individual can show that a specific piece of property was taken from him. But this is fairly rare.

    If they purchase the property for the road with my tax dollars, again, I have a special calim on it, better than that of a foreigner.

    No, you don’t. You have a special claim to monetary compensation, but you have no special claim to how that property is used while it is not in your possession. There is no libertarian argument to support the notion that someone who steals your wallet is less of a criminal if he spends his money on something you like (say, Bibles) rather than something you dislike (say, porn). He is the same level of criminal in both cases. Of course, in our case of immigration, the state is doing an additional crime by using violence against peaceful immigrants.

    “‘The state has at most an obligation, if it does not return or privatize it, to use it in a way that a reasonable owner of a collectively-owned asset would, so as to minimize the harm to owners and maximize their restitution.

    “Where does this argument come from? How is this in any way restitution?”

    Because if you give me something of value, that is restitution. Duh.

    So let’s see here. To say that this counts as restitution is to say that if the state ever fully compensates its victims, it would need to pay back less to its victims in a world where it had previously closed its borders (since closed borders, in your eyes, counts as “something of value”, as “restitution”) than in a world where it had left its borders open. But how the hell do you know if people would rather have money as a form of restitution than closed borders? Maybe a large percentage of those who support immigration restrictions do so only because they don’t see it as a direct cost to themselves. If they realized this counted as a loss of future claims to compensation, they might not be so quick to keep out immigrants.

    If it is clear that you would prefer I use the TV to play religious stuff, sure, this would be a way of minimizing the damage done to you.

    Simply absurd. It follows from this claim of yours that you would agree that showing porn and devil-worship on a television rather than religious stuff is an actionable form of damage, – that libertarians would advocate legal measures to compensate the victims and punish the aggressors of such damaging displays.

  188. The only time we turn to the majority preferences of the co-owners is if we assume the state is NOT going to privatize it.

    I judge that the State isn’t going to be privatizing “public property”. And I’ll stipulate that closed borders are overwhelmingly popular.

    But here’s the deal: lots of other government activities are also quite popular, and I doubt that much of what the government currently does is going to be privatized any time soon. Your argument of “no privatization means majority rule” is therefore a repudiation of libertarianism and an endorsement of populism.

    And populism is a package deal. You can’t pick and choose things from the menu based on what you want, you have to figure out what the majority wants.

    The argument spins out from there:
    Closed borders?
    Not going to be privatized, and very popular.

    Minimum wage?
    Not going to be privatized, and very popular.

    Democracy?
    Not going to be privatized, and very popular.

  189. Let’s not forgot that Social Security “privatization” is often offered by libertarians as a second-best solution better than the status quo on the grounds that if the government is going to force us to save, at least it should do so in a smart way, or the way that a “monarchist” might choose. But LewRockwellites reject this argument.

  190. Ghertner: “Let’s not forgot that Social Security “privatization” is often offered by libertarians as a second-best solution better than the status quo on the grounds that if the government is going to force us to save, at least it should do so in a smart way, or the way that a “monarchist” might choose. But LewRockwellites reject this argument.”

    Because it does not follow at all. I say the state ought to give public property back or privatize it. If they don’t, at least they can use it for our benefit instead of frittering it away. This is obvious and simple. It does not imply that social security is justified.

  191. or the way that a “monarchist” might choose.

    I confess I still don’t understand why Hoppe believes the government acting like a monarch who “owns” the country is going to improve anything; certainly I can’t see this for immigration.

  192. The Michanator wrote:

    But you just previously said that “Clearly there is no libertarian way to argue the entire world owns the public property.” I just showed, not only that there is a libertarian way to argue this, but that one of your own colleagues, whose website you yourself created and manage, makes this very same argument. So either you are ignorant or dishonest. I’m thinking a little of column A with heaps and heaps of column B.

    I don’t think Block argues this. Where does he? Even if he does, I disagree; so what?

    ” Clearly taxpayer can show better title than the state. If this is all they can show, they all have an equal claim, and are thus equal co-owners.

    And clearly a non-net-taxpayer can show better title than the state.

    Sure, but all net taxpayers have a better claim than them. Since there is not enough loot to make all of them whole, ti goes to the better claimants first.

    And clearly immigrants can show better title than the state, as Block has argued. Why don’t you argue that non-net-taxpayers in a second best world should be deported just like immigrants?

    A reasonable owner would not do this, for a plurality of reasons.

    It follows from your arguments. And why don’t we hear you responding to Gene Callahan’s analogy that all babies should be deported just like immigrants?

    we have

    Some of the land that the government currently controls was never occupied or owned by Americans. Some of it that was stolen has no clear rightful heir. This land is essentially unclaimed property like in a state of nature, precisely because of the government’s status as a criminal enterprise. Now, perhaps current taxpayers have some right to the proceeds of its sale, insofar as the government owes them compensation, but they have no particular claim to how that land is used in a second-best world, since they have no claim to that land at all.

    The claim for the state to use property in a way that benefits its victims is not only due to there being a particular claim to that land. Even if the state had property it owned “legitimately,” even here, it “owes it” to its many victims. Just like your car can be seized to pay a debt to someone–it’s just an asset you have.

    But why do you say that it is okay for net-tax welfare recipients (Hoppe comes to mind) to use the public roads, but not net-zero immigrants, who have not yet either taken or given to the system?

    I don’t say this–the state does, as owner/caretaker.

    The fact that anti-immigration libertarians only apply their arguments to immigrants when these same arguments should apply to babies and welfare recipients is a big hint to what their real motivation is.

    Ahh, who cares about real motivations. I thought we opposed hate crime laws around here.

    ” Hey, if you want to argue that a given person’s offsrping have no right to use public property, let’s hear it–don’t just tease us like that!

    Inlookers: watch as Kinsella dodges a question he knows he cannot answer, because it completely destroys his entire argument.

    Umm, you are aware of this thread, no? Kinsella Wants to License Breeding. http://www.no-treason.com/archives/2004/09/29/kinsella-wants-to-license-breeding/

    Who owns land in a state of nature before it is claimed, Kinsella?

    Umm, no one?

    No one, correct? But everyone in the world has an equal right to try to homestead it before someone else does, correct?

    No, I would not say criminals have an equal right.

    The same is true with public property – it is as much a right of an immigrant to use it as it is for any of us.

    Sure, if it is unowned, but as you can see from what I said before, I deny it is unowned. I knew where you’d go with it. Gotta wake up purty early in the mornin’ to pull one over on this ole bigot.

    ” If they purchase the property for the road with my tax dollars, again, I have a special calim on it, better than that of a foreigner.

    No, you don’t. You have a special claim to monetary compensation, but you have no special claim to how that property is used while it is not in your possession.

    Well, we disagree. It is my damned property, I do so have a “special claim” as to how he uses it! That’s why I can demand he return it! If I can demand this, I can also demand he be careful with it etc., until he does return it!

    There is no libertarian argument to support the notion that someone who steals your wallet is less of a criminal if he spends his money on something you like (say, Bibles) rather than something you dislike (say, porn).

    Well, sure there is, although I would not say “less of a criminal.” But the notion is common sense–the aggressor owes restitution. It is better if he pays more of it than less. It can be in kind instead of all in cash. Easy. Simple.

    Of course, in our case of immigration, the state is doing an additional crime by using violence against peaceful immigrants.

    Question begging: if they are committing trespass, they are not peacful, are they?

    So let’s see here. To say that this counts as restitution is to say that if the state ever fully compensates its victims,

    It obviously cannnot ever do this, in principle; to say it could is to assume that its crime is efficient, contrary to Austrian utility & welfare economics.

    it would need to pay back less to its victims in a world where it had previously closed its borders (since closed borders, in your eyes, counts as “something of value”, as “restitution”) than in a world where it had left its borders open. But how the hell do you know if people would rather have money as a form of restitution than closed borders?

    Yeah, sticky question, ain’t it.

    Let’s face it–we’re not gonna have the first-best situation. We are stuck in this statist world. It is better for us inmates if they serve us fresh food than if they serve us stale food.

    Maybe a large percentage of those who support immigration restrictions do so only because they don’t see it as a direct cost to themselves. If they realized this counted as a loss of future claims to compensation, they might not be so quick to keep out immigrants.

    I assume you are not one of those Julian Simon types who thinks more immigration is necessarily “better” in some way and that this justifies it? Because people value things in addition to money; it is not irrational to prefer lower income in exchange for a less crowded, monolinguistic country, for example.

    ” If it is clear that you would prefer I use the TV to play religious stuff, sure, this would be a way of minimizing the damage done to you.

    Simply absurd. It follows from this claim of yours that you would agree that showing porn and devil-worship on a television rather than religious stuff is an actionable form of damage, – that libertarians would advocate legal measures to compensate the victims and punish the aggressors of such damaging displays.

    Dude, what is actionable is the thief’s possession of the TV! Let’s take a better example. Thief steals your crucifix. You hope to recover it some day. Suppose you do, and it is unharmed. YOu get a certain amount of damages. But if you find out he used it in a satanic ritual, or crapped on it or something, or shoved it up his ass during gay sex, you might understandably be more wigged out, and demand a greater amount of damage. This is nothing more than an analog to damages or punishment of an aggressor based on how badly he treats the body of the victim.

  193. Lopez: “Your argument of “no privatization means majority rule” is therefore a repudiation of libertarianism and an endorsement of populism.”

    That is not my argument. Your argument would be “no privitazion means minority rule.” Why is this better?

  194. That is not my argument.

    Yes, it is:

    The only time we turn to the majority preferences of the co-owners is if we assume the state is NOT going to privatize it.

    Given: the State isn’t going to be privatizing much of anything any time soon.
    Conclusion: the “majority preferences of the co-owners” is what controls the disposition of public property.

    Example: Immigration: The State isn’t going to give up control of borders any time soon, that’s a fair assumption. Thus according to Kinsella’s quote above, we turn to the majority preferences of the co-owners, the taxpayers. Most taxpayers want closed borders. Therefore, Kinsella logically must endorse closed borders.

    Where, exactly, am I misunderstanding your argument, Kinsella?

  195. Because it does not follow at all. I say the state ought to give public property back or privatize it. If they don’t, at least they can use it for our benefit instead of frittering it away. This is obvious and simple. It does not imply that social security is justified.

    Um, doesn’t it imply that LewRockwellites should support President Bush’s (or at least Cato’s) Social Security reform plans over the status quo since it is better than “frittering it away”?

  196. I don’t think Block argues this. Where does he?

    I don’t know which paper it’s in, but I initially learned this from talking to some other students at Mises U and this was confirmed from reading this paper, which references Block and was supervised by him.

    Even if he does, I disagree; so what?

    So then you were either stupid or ignorant when you said that “Clearly there is no libertarian way to argue the entire world owns the public property.” Which is it? Stupid or dishonest?

    Sure, but all net taxpayers have a better claim than them. Since there is not enough loot to make all of them whole, ti goes to the better claimants first.

    There may not be enough loot to compensate all of the victims (although I have seen no evidence of this; most of the victims are already dead), but there is certainly enough public property that the use of it by immigrants will not deprive non-immigrants from using it.

    “Why don’t you argue that non-net-taxpayers in a second best world should be deported just like immigrants?”

    A reasonable owner would not do this, for a plurality of reasons.

    What?!? Are you actually claiming that a “monarchist” would not deport net-drains on the system? Do landlords allow tenants to live on their property who not only fail to pay rent, but actively drain resources from the system? Absurd. For someone who claims to be such a great supporter monarchy as second best, you certainly don’t know how a King (or at least a smart King) would act. (I believe Hoppe makes this same anti-net-drain arguments in one of his anti-immigrant essays. I think it’s the one Kennedy references that uses the lovely term “human garbage” when talking about poor people.)

    “It follows from your arguments. And why don’t we hear you responding to Gene Callahan’s analogy that all babies should be deported just like immigrants?”

    we have

    Well then lets hear them, or at least see a link.

    But why do you say that it is okay for net-tax welfare recipients (Hoppe comes to mind) to use the public roads, but not net-zero immigrants, who have not yet either taken or given to the system?

    I don’t say this–the state does, as owner/caretaker.

    No, you are being inconsistent and not applying your theory everywhere you should. You and your fellow paleos are so anti-immigrant (as a second-best solution, of course), but you never apply these same arguments to other people that fit all the same criteria as immigrants: babies and net-tax welfare recipients (like Hoppe). Your inconsistency betrays your anti-immigrant bias.

    “The fact that anti-immigration libertarians only apply their arguments to immigrants when these same arguments should apply to babies and welfare recipients is a big hint to what their real motivation is.”

    Ahh, who cares about real motivations. I thought we opposed hate crime laws around here.

    I do oppose hate crime laws, just as I oppose actual hate. You are doing a piss poor job of convincing me that you have non-bigoted motivations for your anti-immigrant views, since you aren’t willing to apply your same arguments to babies and welfare recipients.

    Umm, you are aware of this thread, no? Kinsella Wants to License Breeding.

    That’s a long thread and I don’t feel like reading it just to get your opinion since you are right here and can tell me directly. I read the first part of it where you said the “state should also license fornication and permit it only if one of them is gainfully employed.” but then later you said this was hyperbole. So I don’t want to read any further just to get your position. Do you believe that babies should be treated the same way you want to treat immigrants? If not, why not?

    “No one, correct? But everyone in the world has an equal right to try to homestead it before someone else does, correct?”

    No, I would not say criminals have an equal right.

    Do you believe that immigrants are moral criminals? If not, why would you bring up this red herring?

    Well, we disagree. It is my damned property, I do so have a “special claim” as to how he uses it! That’s why I can demand he return it! If I can demand this, I can also demand he be careful with it etc., until he does return it!

    No you can’t. Again, you don’t deserve any specific piece of property; you deserve compensation. You cannot demand that he be careful with it, because there is nothing to be careful with. If he messes up the land he stole from you (land that does not exist) all he has to do is give you money anyway. And immigration doesn’t damage public property.

    There is no libertarian argument to support the notion that someone who steals your wallet is less of a criminal if he spends his money on something you like (say, Bibles) rather than something you dislike (say, porn).

    Well, sure there is, although I would not say “less of a criminal.” But the notion is common sense–the aggressor owes restitution. It is better if he pays more of it than less. It can be in kind instead of all in cash. Easy. Simple.

    I’m not talking about the thief giving you the Bible as compensation; I’m talking about the thief using your stolen money to buy porn instead of a Bible, and you don’t want either as compensation, but you are a Christian so you hate porn (in my example).

    I assume you are not one of those Julian Simon types who thinks more immigration is necessarily “better” in some way and that this justifies it?

    Immigration is not a crime, and I certainly am one of those Julian Simon types who believes that the more immigration, the better.

    Thief steals your crucifix. You hope to recover it some day. Suppose you do, and it is unharmed. YOu get a certain amount of damages. But if you find out he used it in a satanic ritual, or crapped on it or something, or shoved it up his ass during gay sex,

    Awesome. I gotta try this some time.

  197. Lopez: “Given: the State isn’t going to be privatizing much of anything any time soon. … Conclusion: the “majority preferences of the co-owners” is what controls the disposition of public property.”

    My argument is simple: if the state holds your property and is violating your rights by not giving it back, it ought at least to make some restitution, and one way of doing this is to manage the property for your benefit.

  198. Ghertner: “Um, doesn’t it imply that LewRockwellites should support President Bush’s (or at least Cato’s) Social Security reform plans over the status quo since it is better than “frittering it away”?”

    No, not at all. Ghertner, what exactly is your view? If the state holds public property what *should* it do with it–if it does not give it back? Is it your view that there are NO standards for what it should do with it–that whatever they do does not matter? Or is it your view that the only second-best solution is for them to do … nothing? to not regulate its use at all? (If so–then what is the THIRD best result, since they ARE going to set SOME rules.)

    It seems to me you and Lopez want the state to use public property as a minority of the co-owners want it used. Yet you are attacking my position that it’s better to use it in a reasonable way (which is likely to reflect what a majority of co-owners preferes) on grounds that similarly undermines your own view.

  199. “So then you were either stupid or ignorant when you said that “Clearly there is no libertarian way to argue the entire world owns the public property.” Which is it? Stupid or dishonest?”

    Your charity of interpretation is awesome. All I meant that I do not think libertarian principles support the notion that the entire world has an equal claim to public property owned/held by a given state; that libertarian principles support the conclusion that only certain individuals have the best claim to it. I do not mean to imply no libertrian can disagree. This is just a boring side-trail.

    Anyway, I do not believe Block holds this view. He says, in the same piece you linked,

    This argument shows the graffiti artist to be a liberator, that person who diminishes the benefit felt by the government from stealing the public’s property. Since any individual, including the graffiti artist, is subject to coercive taxation, he can also be associated to be a part of the population which makes up person A. In which case, he is most certainly not stealing, plundering or vandalizing but rather reclaiming his rightful property or at least a small share of it.

    Here, he implies that someone who is taxed by a state has a claim on a share of government-held property. This implies that foreigners who are NOT taxed by THAT state do not have a claim. So it is less than the whole world.

    He also says,

    It is this phenomenon that causes Libertarians to stake private claims, by means of suggesting the auctioning off of all un-owned or un-used government property.

    So here he implies state property should be sold. Since he thinks the righful claimants are those-who-were-taxed, the funds would be distributed among THEM, not among everyone in the world.

    He also writes,

    Homesteading is the process by which Libertarian theory establishes ownership over “un-owned natural property.” In a fully Libertarian society, natural land and resources would be the only available property possible of being homesteaded because all un-natural property was obviously created by some individual and thus established as owned privatized property. “The origin of all property is ultimately traceable to the appropriation of an unused nature-given factor by a man and his “mixing” his labor with this natural factor to produce a capital good or a consumer’s good (Rothbard, 147).” Government produces multiple forms of property, which thus get placed into functioning society without individual ownership rights attached to them, leading to a tragedy of the commons. In reality, homesteading is the solution to establish such property rights over government-developed, un-natural, and currently un-owned property.

    I am not quite sure what he means by “unowned” here, because if it’s held and *developed* by the state it seems it is not unowned. I would agree that IF property is unowned, then anyone in the world has an equal right to homestead it. But my view–and I suspect Block’s too–is that virtually all property *controlled* or *held* by the state is not “unowned”… and the solution is not to let someone “homestead” it but to auction it off and distribute the proceeds to the rightful owners, i.e. the taxpayers of that country.

    ” Sure, but all net taxpayers have a better claim than them. Since there is not enough loot to make all of them whole, ti goes to the better claimants first.

    There may not be enough loot to compensate all of the victims (although I have seen no evidence of this; most of the victims are already dead),

    Yes, but those victims’ heirs are entitled to their share (arguably), so it’s not like there is some excess left over. But I have no problem granting you that IF all taxpayers are paid in FULL, then the remaining loot, if any, ought to be further distributed to others, somehow. So what?

    but there is certainly enough public property that the use of it by immigrants will not deprive non-immigrants from using it.

    You keep missing the point. If the state retains possession of public property and if it sets some rules on its use, then it is better that the rules be selected so as to maximize the benefit to the rightful owners, or to minimize the harm. This is better than a rule that does not benefit them at all or that causes additional harm. How can any libertairan disagree with this in general?

    No, you are being inconsistent and not applying your theory everywhere you should. You and your fellow paleos are so anti-immigrant (as a second-best solution, of course), but you never apply these same arguments to other people that fit all the same criteria as immigrants: babies and net-tax welfare recipients (like Hoppe). Your inconsistency betrays your anti-immigrant bias.

    We are not anti-immigrant. Some immigrants like HHH are good. And most of us do not want to close the borders we just don’t want them open all the way. Relax man.

    I do oppose hate crime laws, just as I oppose actual hate. You are doing a piss poor job of convincing me that you have non-bigoted motivations for your anti-immigrant views, since you aren’t willing to apply your same arguments to babies and welfare recipients.

    Okay, kick out welfare recipients too!

    Seriously, the state causes people to be on welfare by its impoverishing policies. So it’s not their fault.

    Do you believe that immigrants are moral criminals? If not, why would you bring up this red herring?

    Well, if there is really unowned property, sure, even an immigrant has a right to homestead it. But I don’t think state public property is unowned.

    No you can’t. Again, you don’t deserve any specific piece of property; you deserve compensation. You cannot demand that he be careful with it, because there is nothing to be careful with. If he messes up the land he stole from you (land that does not exist) all he has to do is give you money anyway. And immigration doesn’t damage public property.

    I don’t agree. HE has to give me my land BACK. If it exists.

    I’m not talking about the thief giving you the Bible as compensation; I’m talking about the thief using your stolen money to buy porn instead of a Bible, and you don’t want either as compensation, but you are a Christian so you hate porn (in my example).

    Hmm. I would probably prefer a thief to use my money to buy a bible instead of porn. What’s wrong with having a prefernce?

    Immigration is not a crime, and I certainly am one of those Julian Simon types who believes that the more immigration, the better.

    Trespass is a crime though. If the owner sets a rule that you are not allowed to enter, and you do it, it’s trespass, which is a crime. See?

    It is not a *libertarian* and certainly not an *economic* view to say “the more immigration, the better”. It might be true on narrow productivity grounds, but there is nothing in libertarianism that says we have to always prefer only monetary income to all other values; and economics recognizes the subjective nature of value. Nothing wrong or irrational with someone preferring cultural homogeneity and less-crowding at the cost of less income.

  200. Kinsella:

    My argument is simple: if the state holds your property and is violating your rights by not giving it back, it ought at least to make some restitution, and one way of doing this is to manage the property for your benefit.

    Here’s what’s simple: that State isn’t going to be giving anyone back much of anything any time soon. Therefore according to your argument, they ought to manage the property for the benefit of the people they’re stealing from.

    Thus, the exact same argument you make for what you want applies to other people and the things they want. Like the DOD, national parks, and closed borders.

  201. Lopez:

    Here’s what’s simple: that State isn’t going to be giving anyone back much of anything any time soon. Therefore according to your argument, they ought to manage the property for the benefit of the people they’re stealing from. … Thus, the exact same argument you make for what you want applies to other people and the things they want. Like the DOD, national parks, and closed borders.

    Of course they aren’t giving anything back. That’s not my fault, of course. All I say is it’s better for the victims of theft for the state to manage property it owns for their benefit, than managing it NOT for their benefit. Do you disagree with this?

    How does this simple observation imply anything that could be used to support the DoD?

    What is your view? You refuse to say. What rules should the state set on property it has but refuses to return, and why?

    As far as I can tell, you want them to establish the rule: “let anyone in the world use public property,” but I am not sure what is the justification for that rule. Is it because 0.1% of the rightful owners favor this rule?

  202. Of course they aren’t giving anything back. That’s not my fault, of course. All I say is it’s better for the victims of theft for the state to manage property it owns for their benefit, than managing it NOT for their benefit. Do you disagree with this?

    Let’s just say that your very distinguished arguments haven’t yet convinced me, I’m still interested in exploring their implications. I’m sure that an educated fellow like yourself has already thought all of those implications through, so there oughtn’t be any problem with a full explication of your position.

    How does this simple observation imply anything that could be used to support the DoD?

    Have you also observed that there are other things besides borders that the State could “manage” for the benefit of the real owners?

  203. Lopez: “Let’s just say that your very distinguished arguments haven’t yet convinced me, I’m still interested in exploring their implications. I’m sure that an educated fellow like yourself has already thought all of those implications through, so there oughtn’t be any problem with a full explication of your position.”

    I don’t have a full position. I am not going around accusing libertarians who have alternate immigration opinions as being obviously wrong, nativist, etc. You seem to believe your view is obviously correct, even though it amounts to the view that the state ought to use public property in a given way and you are using the same general grounds to attack me.

    “‘ How does this simple observation imply anything that could be used to support the DoD?’

    “Have you also observed that there are other things besides borders that the State could “manage” for the benefit of the real owners?”

    Make the argument. You seem to be trying to say you don’t like my approach b/c it leads to “obviously” bad results in other areas. Well, if tha’ts your view, state it. And if so, show it.

  204. I don’t have a full position.

    You haven’t actually thought things through? You? I’m shocked. Shocked!

    …You seem to believe your view is obviously correct, even though it amounts to the view that the state ought to use public property in a given way.

    My view is quite simple: the State oughtn’t control “public property”. Period. If it “seems like” something different to you, it’s probably because you haven’t thought things through.

    Now let’s recap, since (once again) you’ve conveniently lost track of the point at hand: It’s quite clear that your argument for the government keeping borders closed also applies to virtually every other popular thing that the government does:

    All I say is it’s better for the victims of theft for the state to manage property it owns for their benefit, than managing it NOT for their benefit.

    There isn’t anything in that statement that differentiates “closed borders” from “national parks” from “the Department of Defense”. I’m not (yet) noting whether this is good or bad, right or wrong. I’m just noting what is.

  205. Kinsella,

    I am not going around accusing libertarians who have alternate immigration opinions as being obviously wrong, nativist, etc.

    Hoppe is. From the embarassingly buried footnote 23:

    They were initially drawn to libertarianism as juveniles because of its �antiauthoritarianism� (trust no authority) and seeming �tolerance,� in particular toward �alternative� � non-bourgeois lifestyles. They can indulge in their �alternative� lifestyle without having to pay the normal price for such conduct, i.e., discrimination and exclusion. To legitimize this course of action, they insist that one lifestyle is as good and acceptable as another.

  206. I think I am being a bit daft here, but are we talking about Ludwig von Mises?

    Because, and correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t he come to the US some time in the late 30’s / early 40’s?

    What would of happened if this pricing plan would of been in place then?

  207. Would the open-borders crowd here also support mass dumping of poluting chemicals into rivers on the grounds that it is homesteading on unowned property?

    Is it un-libertarian, to use coercive force against those who attempt to pollute such government controlled (unowned) property?

    Shouldn’t it be the case, that when government controls property, that we would prefer to be privately owned / controlled, that they at least attempt to manage it in a way akin to what we would expect of privately owned property? And that their defense of that property, through coercion is necessary?

  208. Shouldn’t it be the case, that when government controls property, that we would prefer to be privately owned / controlled, that they at least attempt to manage it in a way akin to what we would expect of privately owned property?

    If I owned the roads, I’d let any paying customer use them, regardless of their country of origin. You know, like how the Canadian government lets Americans use theirs.

  209. Would the open-borders crowd here also support mass dumping of poluting chemicals into rivers on the grounds that it is homesteading on unowned property?

    No, because we recognize you’re making a false analogy.

    If you want to press the issue of course you’re welcome to, but you need to recognize up front that there are far worse people in this country as legal citizens than the average border-jumper. For example, the late, unlamented Sam Francis or the crypto-Nazi Jared Taylor or even outright Nazi David Duke. Or Lon Horiuchi. Or whoever – the list isn’t exactly short.

    So the argument you’d need to make for the “pollution-ness” of other human beings would have to be narrowly tailored such that it included illegal immigrants but excluded filthy citizen scum.

    Shouldn’t it be the case, that when government controls property, that we would prefer to be privately owned / controlled, that they at least attempt to manage it in a way akin to what we would expect of privately owned property?

    Who is this “we” that you speak of?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *