Yet Another Problem With Hoppe’s Immigration Column

In Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s latest anti-immigrant diatribe*, he makes note of the cost of the prospective immigrant to taxpayers:

Unfortunately, welfare states are not operated like factory towns or even Swiss communities. Under welfare-statist condition the immigrant employer must pay only a small fraction of the full costs associated with the immigrant’s presence. He is permitted to socialize (externalize) a substantial part of such costs onto other property owners. Equipped with a work permit, the immigrant is allowed to make free use of every public facility: roads, parks, hospitals, schools, and no landlord, businessman, or private association is permitted to discriminate against him as regards housing, employment, accommodation, and association. That is, the immigrant comes invited with a substantial fringe benefits package paid for not (or only partially) by the immigrant employer (who allegedly has extended the invitation), but by other domestic proprietors as taxpayers who had no say in the invitation whatsoever. This is not an “invitation,” as commonly understood. This is an imposition.

But what Hoppe doesn’t address is the fact that he wants to keep out immigrants via the means of the State.

Unlike Mexicans picking vegetables, government border guards are paid exclusively via taxes. The property owners in the United States don’t bear just a “substantial” part of the costs imposed by government employees, they bear 100% of those costs. Thus by Hoppe’s own logic, the very people that he wants to use to keep out immigrants are far worse parasites than any illegal immigrant could ever hope to become.

If Hoppe is truly concerned about the tax burden that any given individual puts on the taxpayers, why doesn’t he turn his focus to the INS, rather than the immigrants they are trying to keep out?

* As you’ll note from the link, Hoppe’s original piece has been replaced by a redirect to a different file on the Mises.org site. This isn’t the first time that embarassing material has disappeared from Lewrockwell.com: two columns by crypto-Nazi Jared Taylor suffered similar fates, as documented here.

** Update: Now, the following appears at the URL formerly holding the Hoppe column:

Publishing Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s footnote 23 from Natural Order, the State, and the Immigration Problem caused a lot of comment. Please see also his Secession, the State, and the Immigration Problem and On Free Immigration and Forced Integration. There is also his LRC archive and his personal website.

I judge that Hoppe’s column has now been pulled from Lewrockwell.com.

*** Update: LRC’s own Stephan Kinsella points out in comments that the Hoppe piece hasn’t been pulled: one of the links there is to a Hoppe paper, of which the original column was a footnote. Kinsella notes that this bizarre obfuscation is so that we “can easily see the whole article and the note in context.” Context has indeed been provided: instead of the isolated piece of stupid hatefulness that this first appeared to be, one can now easily see that it’s merely one small particle of stupid hatefulness embedded in a giant matrix of hateful stupidity.

Thanks, Kinsella!

46 thoughts on “Yet Another Problem With Hoppe’s Immigration Column”

  1. Yikes! They pulled it.

    This club they have going on over there is just ridiculous. If they have a problem with piece why can’t they just take public issue with it?

    Who takes a piece down because it has caused a lot of comment?

  2. Hey genuis, it’s still up, it’s footnote 23 of the linked article. Now you can easily see the whole article and the note in context.

    Even Palmer has admitted his mistake after I corrected him (in my JimB pseudonym).

  3. Hey genuis, it’s still up, it’s footnote 23 of the linked article. Now you can easily see the whole article and the note in context.

    That’s great, Kinsella. Now can you address any of the objections raised about it?

  4. Oh, and thanks for the pointer to the whole thing, Kinsella. It’s a laugh riot:

    While the State does not recognize anyone as its private owner, all of government controlled public property has in fact been brought about by the tax-paying members of the domestic public. Austrians, Swiss, and Italians, in accordance with the amount of taxes paid by each citizen, have funded the Austrian, Swiss, and Italian public property. Hence, they must be considered its legitimate owners. Foreigners have not been subject to domestic taxation and expropriation; hence, they cannot claim any rights regarding Austrian, Swiss or Italian public property.

    I’ll tell you what: I’ll agree to split “my” share of Washington DC with every illegal immigrant that wants to come in. Now they all own a piece of the USA, right?

  5. Stephan,

    “Hey genuis, it’s still up, it’s footnote 23 of the linked article. Now you can easily see the whole article and the note in context.”

    Say what?

    The link to that piece was already prominently displayed in the original page, just as prominently as it is now. You could always see the whole article and note in context just as easily as you can now.

    What was wrong with the original note as posted?

  6. Lopez, amend your post to reflect that the note has in fact not disappeared from LRC, it’s merely been bizarrely buried. Credit Kinsella.

    I don’t want to see this kind of slipshod work again Lopez, this isn’t CBS.

  7. I didn’t change the subject. The note was taken down from this page.

    You wrote: Now you can easily see the whole article and the note in context.” [Emphasis added]

    ….as if this were some useful new feature, so I pointed out that it’s not because one could always do that precisely as easily when the original note was on the page.

    Is Hoppe’s tract more likely to be read now that you guys have buried the note that was generating so much attention? Give me a fucking break.

    Or is your point that Hoppe’s note hasn’t completely vanished down the memory hole like Jared Taylor’s articles? Score!

  8. Kennedy: “Is Hoppe’s tract more likely to be read now that you guys have buried the note that was generating so much attention? Give me a fucking break.

    Or is your point that Hoppe’s note hasn’t completely vanished down the memory hole like Jared Taylor’s articles? Score!”

    Dude, the note and link specifically mentinos FOOTNOTE 23. If someone is too fucking lazy to open the article and read fn 23, who gives a crap. It’s not buried, you moron.

    I have no fricking idea who Jared Taylor is or what you are jabbering about. What are you, a cyberstalker or something? Following every LRC move…? Get a life man.

  9. “Dude, the note and link specifically mentinos FOOTNOTE 23. If someone is too fucking lazy to open the article and read fn 23, who gives a crap.”

    LRC wasn’t too lazy to throw some dirt over it. You know as well as anyone here that it’s bizarre to make a piece less accessible when it’s generating lots of comments.

    “It’s not buried, you moron.”

    It’s in a shallow grave.

    “I have no fricking idea who Jared Taylor is …

    Ask Lew or Marcus Epstein, they know.

    “…or what you are jabbering about. What are you, a cyberstalker or something? Following every LRC move…?”

    Nope, I read LRC irregularly. And I didn’t know Jared Taylor from a hole in the ground until LRC blogger Marcus Epstein came here to tell us what a sweet guy Taylor was.

  10. I have no fricking idea who Jared Taylor is or what you are jabbering about.

    Kinsella, there’s absolutely no way that you’re so dumb that you can’t click on a link and read what’s behind it. Thus, you’re a lying weasel. You’ve tried this before – pretending to be stupid, hoping that folks won’t bother to check up on you. That’s fine, some people won’t notice.

    The problem for you, Kinsella, is that all of the best people will notice.

  11. Lopez: Kinsella: “I have no fricking idea who Jared Taylor is or what you are jabbering about.

    “Kinsella, there’s absolutely no way that you’re so dumb that you can’t click on a link and read what’s behind it. Thus, you’re a lying weasel. You’ve tried this before – pretending to be stupid, hoping that folks won’t bother to check up on you. That’s fine, some people won’t notice.

    The problem for you, Kinsella, is that all of the best people will notice.”

    You sound like a cyberstalker dude. Lighten up. You people obsess. Maybe someone should start a “People” or “US” magazine version of the libertarian movement, there evidently is a market for it.

  12. Lopez, amend your post to reflect that the note has in fact not disappeared from LRC, it’s merely been bizarrely buried.

    Done.

    Credit Kinsella.

    Oh, Kinsella’s been credited.

  13. You sound like a cyberstalker dude. Lighten up. You people obsess.

    “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

    Oh yeah, we don’t believe in intellectual property rights. Dammit!

    The RIAA does seem to have an unfair advantage, what with all the government goons and music-minded minions of misery at its disposal.
    http://www.boycott-riaa.com

    Personal note: I can remember an argument I got into with a guy a year ago over IP. Basically I remarked that it was just plain silly to target a little girl for legal action over downloading a few songs, and this sparked a long argument about the legitimacy of copyright laws. I kept asking if, in principle, he would initiate force against me to keep from, say, making copies of a book I had in my possession; he seemed more concerned with how books would get published at all.

    Friend:”Dude, but if the government doesn’t enforce copyrights, sooner or later artists will stop producing.”

    Me: “Possibly, but I think artists are clever people. The market always reaches some kind of natural equilibrium; that equilibrium is surely more desirable than a coerced one, no?”

    Friend:”But can you GUARANTEE that artists will keep producing their work?”

    Me: “No.”

    End of conversation…

  14. Stephan, were you being serious when you told Sapienza illegal aliens should get the fuck out because it’s illegal for them to be here?

    nskinsella: Jeremy–simple question: do you really think we should totally open the borders tomorrow?
    nskinsella: simple quesiton
    killthestate: yes
    nskinsella: just let tens, even hundreds, of millions of immigrants come in every year?
    killthestate: yes
    nskinsella: You are either lying, or insane
    killthestate: insane
    nskinsella: I think you’d change your mind 6 months into it
    killthestate: every case of people’s immigration problems I hear of pisses me off
    killthestate: it keeps capital compartmentalized artificially in stupid borders
    killthestate: idiotic
    killthestate: for example
    killthestate: 1/4 of the city of Santa Ana
    killthestate: is illegal
    killthestate: that’s about 125K people, estimated
    killthestate: they can’t buy a house, they can’t get a job on the books, which limits them to fucking shoeshining and shit like that
    killthestate: it keeps them from creating wealth
    killthestate: it’s RETARDED
    nskinsella: well they can get the fuck out
    killthestate: what?
    nskinsella: they should not be here
    killthestate: dood
    nskinsella: it’s illegal

    You were clearly joking after that, but it seemed to me you might possibly have been serious up to that point.

    Shouldn’t they be free to engage in any voluntary transactions?

  15. You sound like a cyberstalker dude.

    Given how your thought process has run so far, I think we can ignore your analysis, here.

    Lighten up.

    Lighten up? It might look that way to you, but this Hoppe column is just so bad that there’s new pieces falling off every time you look at it. Dude, it’s not my fault he can’t think straight.

    You people obsess. Maybe someone should start a “People” or “US” magazine version of the libertarian movement, there evidently is a market for it.

    Search results on blog.lewrockwell.com:

    “Frummer boy”: 37
    “Perle gets richer”: 31
    “Ted Rall”: 33
    “Neocon”: 492 (!)
    “Tom Palmer”: 24
    “Cato”: 93
    “Immigration”: 87

    Looks like someone else beat you to the obsessive libertarian gossip-rag idea, Kinsella. Pity.

  16. Never started.

    What charges? I just asked if the conversation Jeremy posted reflects your position or whether you were kidding.

    I guess it’s unpleasant trying to defend a public policy when you wouldn’t be willing to personally do what’s required to implement it, but you got yourself into this, dood.

  17. The question is at the beginning of the comment: “Stephan, were you being serious when you told Sapienza illegal aliens should get the fuck out because it’s illegal for them to be here?”

  18. “What charges? I just asked if the conversation Jeremy posted reflects your position or whether you were kidding.”

    Really? I don’t remember you asking that. You said, “You were clearly joking after that, but it seemed to me you might possibly have been serious up to that point.” I don’t see a question there, just an asinine assumption.

  19. In my defense, my best friend is an immigrant. And he’s even a chocolate colored Muslim (no offense, Lopez–another good friend of mine is surnamed Munoz, and he pulls that “I’m really from Spanish royalty” line too, it’s just precious). But my friend can stay, as far as I’m concerned, because he’s one of the “good ones”, if you know what I’m saying. And he married a Jew. So there. But let me tell you, their wedding was enlightening. Ahem.

  20. In my defense, my best friend is an immigrant.

    I’m sure when force is initiated against him he’ll understand, being your friend and all.

    And he married a Jew. So there. But let me tell you, their wedding was enlightening. Ahem.

    Heck, MY best friend is an immigrant, and an A-rab no less; I’ll let him know his presence is contributing to the destruction of civil society in the north american continent. Being the rational immigrant that he is, I’m sure he’ll leave immediately.

  21. Lopez: I pride myself on being an innovator of intellectual dishonesty. I’m trying to spread it to LRC, they have only been spotty on it to-date. Amateurs.

    You label Marcus Epstein a “Nazi-symp”, as if the Nazis were all bad. What did Hitler ever do to Mexicans dude? Just relax. (And don’t tell me you are really “Spanish”, I’ve heard that one before, ha ha.)

    I keep telling Lew, you can be dishonest, or you can spout bullshit, but please, Lew, don’t combine the two! (sarcasm intended)

  22. So, Kinsella:

    Is that blatant intellectual dishonesty of yours a Lewrockwell.com tradition, or did you rediscover it independently? I ask because noted Nazi-symp Marcus Epstein (also a LRC blogger) acts in pretty much the same way when he’s cornered, and Rockwell certainly spouts dishonest bullshit when the mood strikes him.

  23. I pride myself on being an innovator of intellectual dishonesty.

    Undoubtedly you do — it isn’t like you have much rational argumentation to offer.

    You label Marcus Epstein a “Nazi-symp”, as if the Nazis were all bad.

    I’m sure the ghosts of Dachau are having a real good laugh over that, Kinsella. Is “The Nazis weren’t all bad” the official LRC position, or just yours?

    And don’t tell me you are really “Spanish”, I’ve heard that one before, ha ha.

    Actually I classify myself as “human”.

    …(no offense, Lopez–

    None taken, Kinsella: I’m sure you’re not the racist fuck you’re pretending to be.

  24. Ahhhh, Lopez Lopez Lopez. We go way back don’t we. Remember that romantic weekend in Puerto Rico–remember that, my sweet? We drank tequila and that deligthful local rose as the sun sank. Those were the days–days we thought would never end. And now–now–now where are we? Look at us now! =sob= You… heartbreaking BASTARD

  25. Sabotta– I can’t follow all your ramblings, but I will say you modern types sure have a hair-trigger for what counts as racism. It’s to the point where if I prefer vanilla to chocolate, I’m a racist. What is racism anyway? If simply believing all members of a given racial group are inferior to one’s own racial group simply by virtue of their group is racist–well, then, I guess I’m a “racist” by this crazy definition.

    As for think tank envy–this is just stupid. I was approached about a high-level think tank job at probably the best-known and best-funded libertarian think tank several years ago and turned it down instantly. Not because I had a problem with that organization but because I was not interested in that kind of career.

    “The evidence provided by his own writings and comments posted here suggest that there is not much going on at all upstairs at the Kinsella brain.” I doubt you are really stupid enough to think this is true. So, you are just being dishonest. Or trying to hurt me with a false insult; as if anything anyone here ever says can hurt me. If you wonder why I’ve devolved my comments here largely into smart-ass remarks it’s b/c of the tone, temper and quality of what I’m replying to.

    BTW, the first paragraph is in jest.

  26. “You sound like a cyberstalker dude”
    “What are you, a cyberstalker or something?”

    …Lawyer Kinsella opines, as if paying attention to and having opinions on his publicly available articles and blog comments were a form of merciless sinister obsessive “stalking”.

    A thrill of mingled fear and delirious paranoia must possess our legal advisor every time he sees that photo of himself at LRC. “How did they get that photograph? Are they following me around, taking pictures?Is this some kind of warning? Kinsella agonizes, visions of serum-maddened monsters with cameras dancing in his spherical head, before remembering at the last moment that he himself had provided the photograph to kindly editorial Lew, who only slightly resembles a serum monster.

    Anyway, he’s probably not all that racist. He’s just being “transgressive” or something, displaying the usual lumpen leaden hilarity that passes for lighthearted hilarity over at LRC – from Manion’s line about Richard Pearle getting richer (the pun so lame it has to be repeated several million times. Manion seems very proud of it, which is only to be expected.)

    Now, as regards most of the other LRC paleocreeps, their sporadic and spasmodic hilarity barely conceals the sour atmosphere of bilious resentment on the Rockwell blog – resentment that all those other people have the fine, fine thinktank jobs, and the big talk-radio shows, and edit those New York-type journals, and get those choice positions in academia – while the honest the peaceful, the always consistant (except when they’re not) the ascetic clean-living non-libertine true libertarians are left out in the cold.They don’t even get on TV once in a while. At least that there Balko gets on TV now and then.

    However, I doubt Mr. Kinsella spends his hours in such dark Southern Gothick paleobrooding. The evidence provided by his own writings and comments posted here suggest that there is not much going on at all upstairs at the Kinsella brain.

    “Resentment”, “dark brooding” and even “racism” are far too complicated in this case – rather, I suspect that Kinsella’s clickety-clack legal reasoning ran something like: “This pathetic-but-spunky little group I have – almost randomly – fallen in with here at LRC seems to really dislike immigrants, especially those from Mexico, and they wish to harm them and rob them as much as possible. I will be a useful member of my group and think of some plausibly “libertarian” way this could be done.”

    I could be wrong, of course. I report, you decide.

    A note to Ghertner. Seeing Mr. Kinsella, are you not impelled to consider changing careers? You can see what a legal education gets you. I’d be concerned that your simple, trusting, reductionist soul – with your touching innocent faith in test-tubes and pocket calculators – may be warped into something like…well, something like Stephen Kinsella. “Look upon my works, O Ghertner, and despair.” Kinsella seems to be saying. Kind of like in that poem about Ozzy Osbourne. Or Ozymandias. Anyway, it was some poem like that.

  27. The wicked flee even when they are not pursued by small undifferentiated creatures, and Kinsella is certainly no exception. Note that I specifically exempted the great legal mind of our century from charges of racism and thinktank envy.

    Such gratitude.

  28. I don’t see where Stephen’s reasoning (or his odd sense of humour) is impacted by his legal education. I don’t mean that in an insulting way, I mean, his arguments and humour don’t look like legal arguments or legal humour.

  29. Joshua: “I don’t see where Stephen’s reasoning (or his odd sense of humour) is impacted by his legal education. I don’t mean that in an insulting way, I mean, his arguments and humour don’t look like legal arguments or legal humour.”

    Yes, who is this Stephen chap, anyway?

    –Stephan

  30. No doubt “Stephen” is some unholy blending of Kinsella’s iron-clad logic and my witty punk personality…

    You have entered a security zone, Citizen Bolton. Your behavior is warlike, and it is the government’s responsibility to respond with force.

  31. If someone orders shares in an organization, but does not have the money right then to pay for them, yet tries to take posession anyway, this is aggression, right? That is what the immigrant, who is not rich enough to be a net taxpayer at the outset, and then some, is doing, when he enters even the stingiest welfare state.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *