Lo! thy dread empire Chaos is restor’d!

Bob Wallace, over at you-know-where, condemns No Treason’s perfidy in the strongest of terms:

“I’ve read the “No Treason” blog several times to get a feel for it, and decided they’re a bunch of crackpots who believe the answer to everything is open borders, with everyone moving around the world and destroying nation, states, neighborhoods.

Yes. Nations – states, even harmless neighborhoods, Bob!

Thy hand, great Anarch, lets the curtain fall, And universal darkness buries all.”
der Pope, The Dunciad

37 thoughts on “Lo! thy dread empire Chaos is restor’d!”

  1. they’re a bunch of crackpots who believe the answer to everything is open borders, with everyone moving around the world and destroying nation, states,

    But that’s precisely why I love you guys so much!

    What a strange criticism coming from an organization devoted to a man who, in their own terms, was an “Enemy of the State.”

  2. Hmm, since Bob decided I was a No Treason “type” based on my email, I might as well say hello. You can see my discussion with him so far over on anti-state.com. I guess I feel quasi-honored to have been “blogged” on LRC, I have truly arrived :P

  3. I would live wherever there were alot of hot mexican girls who liked cooking for me. Mexican and Italian are the highest forms of food.

  4. Are you referring to his article on open borders Pete? If so, I’m somewhat inclined to agree. Bob has the following enlightening gems for us:

    If people had complete free will, then they could make themselves into anything they want, and be happy with it. Serial killer, rapist, murderer, mugger – if we had complete free will, we could be any of them (or all) and be perfectly happy.

    <snip>

    If we were truly individuals, and nothing else, we would not need families, fathers, mothers, and friends. We would have no desire to gather together at theaters, stadiums, clubs. We would be as independent as cats.

    This guy is pretty depressing to read. I guess the idea in that last bit is that individualism necessarily implies the existence of a Hobbesian jungle of brutish violence or something.

    The ultimate problem of the open-borders crowd is the hubris of which I just wrote. Anyone who thinks they can destroy nation, state, and neighborhood, and replace it with their vague understanding of the free market, is showing the arrogance and ignorance that has almost exclusively been the province of the Left.

    I note he doesn’t specifically say he would in principle be willing to stand at the border and shoot peaceful travelers, but I’m guessing that’s implied.

    Maybe Wallace would be happy if we build the Great Wall of America.

  5. I’m curious, Stephan: Do you agree with the Israelis when they make the same argument?

    I do, even though I vehemently oppose such a policy in the U.S. The difference being, of course, that there have been no organized attempts by Mexicans to blow themselves up in heavily populated civilian centers. To my knowledge.

  6. Read the “Cult of Ayn Rand” and replace “Ayn Rand” with “Murray Rothbard” and “Leonard Peikoff” with “Lew Rockwell” and “Objectivism(TM)” with “Paleolibertarianism (TM).”

    I love seeing the collective herd behavior from “individualist” libertarians. But I guess all the Hamas and neo-Nazi $$$ that flow through the Center for Libertarian Studies have to pay for something. They know where their bread is buttered.

  7. “I do, even though I vehemently oppose such a policy in the U.S. The difference being, of course, that there have been no organized attempts by Mexicans to blow themselves up in heavily populated civilian centers. To my knowledge.”

    No, but there have been organized attempts by Mexicans to pick fruits and vegetables, mow lawns, take care of children, and do other important work completely under the table and tax-free. Also to encourage some Americans to learn Spanish. Or at least not actively discourage them and fail them for speaking it better than they speak English. Or something.

    I gather that in Paleo Bizarro World, these crimes may not be quite as bad as blowing up civilians, but it’s got to be pretty damn close.


  8. Read the “Cult of Ayn Rand” and replace “Ayn Rand” with “Murray Rothbard” and “Leonard Peikoff” with “Lew Rockwell” and “Objectivism(TM)” with “Paleolibertarianism (TM).”

    This is laughable, as threads such as this clearly show Rothbard and Rockwell to be completely the opposite of those you compare them too. I have little doubt that an LRC would pubish pro-open borders article so long it was a well articluated argument. Lew is not trying to kick people out of the innercircle, quite the opposite.

  9. The paleos love freedom so much that they wish immigation policies enacted that would virtually guarantee mandatory national ID, and further government intrustion into private employment practises..

  10. JTK: “So Sabotta, what majority Mexican neighborhood would you like to live in?”

    I’ll vote for San Francisco’s Outer Mission District (maybe more commonly known as the Excelsior District.) The Mexican produce market, less than a block from my home, sells limes at 20 for $1. Those are the same limes that the gringo Safeway shopper pays +$0.25 a piece for! I woudn’t even dream of making a margarita without fresh lime juice anymore. And, if I have a hankering for some carne asada, but haven’t marinated any meat overnight, I can pick it up there too and throw it on the ‘cue.

    The streets are clean, in a grungy San Francisco, everything’s falling apart at the seams, sort of way. The street people are not overly annoying. There are great restaurants, comfortable bars

    Sometimes I wish my Spanish was better, but luckily, most all of the merchants in the neighborhood are happy to accomodate me by speaking English.

    Cheers.

  11. Micha,

    I’ve looked hard for than and I have not found one on LRC. Gene Callahan told me he felt he should publish pro-immigration pieces elsewhere, but he did not say he’d been overtly discouraged from submitting them to LRC.

    But in addition to not seeing any pro-immigration pieces at LRC, I have not seen any pieces at LRC that take on the pro-immigration pieces published elsewhere by LRC writers. I’ve pointed out before that *addressing* these arguments obviously wouldn’t compromise the anti-immigration position of LRC. But LRC immigration articles do not even acknowledge that these pieces exist.

  12. But LRC immigration articles do not even acknowledge that these pieces exist.

    Really? I’m not a regular reader of LRC (although I suspect with all this discussion I soon will be), so I’m not sure what you mean here. What’s wrong with some LRC writers ignoring pieces written by other LRC writers? Are you saying these pieces by people like Bob Wallace are so obviously unlibertarian that some LRC contributors should address it? But if that’s the case, it seems like there’s not much point to this because as you yourself pointed out LRC holds a generally anti-libertarian sentiment itself in the form of this immigration thing.

  13. No, I was speaking specifically of the immigration issue here. There are pro-immigration articles by Gene Callahan, Walter Block and probably other LRC writers on other sites. My point is that on LRC anti-imigration writers never address the arguments made by Callahan, Block, etc.

    Take Kinsella for instance. He defends Hoppe’s anit-immigration postion on LRC. It seems to me that a person who wants to honestly argue for his position seeks out the best arguments against it. So in his anti-immigration postiongs on LRC why doesn’t Kinsella ever take on Block’s or Callhan’s arguments point by point? Are they simply not worth addressing?

  14. Micha; “Another quick change of subject for Kinsella. You seem to have mastered the art of misdirection.”

    Why, thank you, kind sir.

    “Your claim was not “I have little doubt that Mises.org would pubish pro-open borders article so long it was a well articluated argument.” No, your claim was “I have little doubt that an LRC would pubish pro-open borders article so long it was a well articluated argument.” So why have they never done so? Just coincidence?”

    Gee, I don’t know, want me to ask Lew?

  15. I have a question for the NT people. Do you believe in no borders whatsoever, or is your gripe only with state enforced borders? Do you have any gripe with an individual protecting the borders of his property, or a coalition of landowners voluntarily restricting access to their combined landmass?

    Finally, and here’s the big one…

    Assuming I am the sole owner of Aarontown, which is in Aaron County, in Aaron Land, and I sign 1000-year fully transferable leases with all my tenants; leases that require payment of rent based on the revenue generated by all activities on that land or recieved by individuals inhabiting that land; and the only land use rights I reserve for myself are as arbiter of lessee disputes and protector of that land’s borders; then would you find anything wrong (not morally, purely as an anarchist), if I put security agents, walls, and turrets on my borders and restricted ingress and egress of individuals based on my personal preference, regardless of whether it was racially motivated or otherwise?

  16. How did you come to own Aaron Land, Aaron? Regardless of what theory of ownership you subscribe to, such an assumption leads to any non-libertarian conclusion you want.

    Indeed, it would seem to be difficult for Kinsella (or the state, for that matter) to claim all of the land along the Rio Grande river, at least by what we ordinarily understand by the words “lay a claim to”, “homestead”, etc. Of course state officials never bother with this and just assume eminent domain–i.e. that government owns all land anyway, which is also sort of a way of assuming the conclusion.

    Of course none of this covers immigrants who arrive by sea. Or air. Or through underground tunneling.

  17. Another quick change of subject for Kinsella. You seem to have mastered the art of misdirection.

    Your claim was not “I have little doubt that Mises.org would pubish pro-open borders article so long it was a well articluated argument.” No, your claim was “I have little doubt that an LRC would pubish pro-open borders article so long it was a well articluated argument.” So why have they never done so? Just coincidence?

  18. How did you come to own Aaron Land, Aaron?

    I settled it, riding across its expanse on a blue heifer named Buell and marking its boundaries by scorching the ground with thunderbolts from my ass.

    A little more simply, let’s assume for the purposes of this discussion that I’ve come by it legitimately (i.e. no aggressive force was used in its possessing).

  19. If that’s the case, it’s yours. Do with it what you will.

    That doesn’t mean the first guy to cross the land bridge to North America could have rightfully declared himself King of the Americas, though. He would have needed to used force to keep others after him from homesteading the parts of it he wasn’t using.

  20. Aaron G: “Do you believe in no borders whatsoever, or is your gripe only with state enforced borders? Do you have any gripe with an individual protecting the borders of his property,…”

    Absolutely not.

    “…or a coalition of landowners voluntarily restricting access to their combined landmass?”

    Assuming this is a voluntary coalition of 100.0% of the landowners in question, no. That follows from the above.

    “Assuming I am the sole owner of Aarontown, which is in Aaron County, in Aaron Land, and I sign 1000-year fully transferable leases with all my tenants; leases that require payment of rent based on the revenue generated by all activities on that land or recieved by individuals inhabiting that land; and the only land use rights I reserve for myself are as arbiter of lessee disputes and protector of that land’s borders; then would you find anything wrong (not morally, purely as an anarchist), if I put security agents, walls, and turrets on my borders and restricted ingress and egress of individuals based on my personal preference, regardless of whether it was racially motivated or otherwise?”

    Assuming that you want to compare the above to any presently existing state, the problem is in your first phrase, “Assuming I am the sole owner of Aarontown…”. In a way, you’re assuming your conclusion… assuming that the state rightfully owns the land, it follows that the state can exercise the rights associated with ownership of the land. How did you come to own Aaron Land, Aaron? Regardless of what theory of ownership you subscribe to, such an assumption leads to any non-libertarian conclusion you want.

  21. “Of course state officials never bother with this and just assume eminent domain–i.e. that government owns all land anyway, which is also sort of a way of assuming the conclusion.

    To reply to Stefan, I agree that the state’s involvement in maintaining borders is illegitimate and causes more harm than good. This, of course, is the result of state involvement in anything.

    “Of course none of this covers immigrants who arrive…through underground tunneling.”

    Rothbard established that the principles of praxeology and human action do not apply to Mole People, who are barely more cognizant than the furry mammals from whom they derive one half of their genetic makeup. I will see if I can get Jeff Tucker to send you a copy Rothbard’s little known collection of prescriptive advice on contemporary public policy for Mole People: Making EcoMoleic Sense

  22. I’m aware of the limitations of homesteading, etc, etc, etc…

    I didn’t come here to get into a squabble over original ownership principles. I’m just trying to make the point that there is a possibility of a moral argument for guarded borders that doesn’t have to necessarily contradict anarcho-capitalist theories of property ownership; to have a closed community in the absence of a state.

    What I’m trying to do is say that Hoppe can oppose immigrants squatting in his community and overrunning the local economy and culture; and the John’s of NT can oppose the use of state coercion in protecting borders; and there is a perfectly acceptable construct in which both conditions could apply. It doesn’t have to be a binary choice.

  23. Except Hoppe isn’t talking about that. He is talking about what we should do in a second-best world where the state controls the borders. And he is clearly arguing in favor of state-enforced immigration controls.

  24. Immigration is just not my “thing” so I don’t catalogue everyone’s views on it; I was defending Hoppe’s argument against unfair attacks, many personal and ad hominem. But you guys are way off base. There was a whole issue of the JLS recently devoted to immigration, and it had plenty of pro-immigration pieces, e.g. by Block. It’s on the Mises website!

  25. What I’m trying to do is say that Hoppe can oppose immigrants squatting in his community and overrunning the local economy and culture; and the John’s of NT can oppose the use of state coercion in protecting borders; and there is a perfectly acceptable construct in which both conditions could apply. It doesn’t have to be a binary choice.

    As Micha noted earlier Hoppe is effectively arguing something different, so I’m afraid he can’t get much help from you here Aaron. However, let’s suppose we’re in libertopia and Hoppe is concerned (for whatever reason) about brown-skinned folks overrunning the local economy and culture. The key word is “local”; yes you are correct, Hoppe and the other members of his community may indeed agree to have joint ownership of the land surrounding the city, so perhaps an argument could be made that they can then justly keep peaceful travelers out of the city. But I’m guessing Hoppe wouldn’t be happy with this. If, say, the rest of libertopia decided to have open borders, and presumably Hoppe (for whatever reason) might wish to leave his city at some point, then he will meet a rather unpleasant surprise (to him) when he flies to city X and finds it “overrun” with immigrants. So yeah, it’s not a binary choice, but I don’t know if Hoppe would find the alternative perfectly acceptable (I haven’t read enough to get an impression of him).

  26. I’ll just note here that I have no problem whatsoever with peaceful white seperatism. If someone wants to buy some land, fence it in, and hate homos and Meskins and Negroes, that’s perfectly fine by me.

    But that isn’t the Hoppean position either.

  27. Lopez: <em>”I’ll just note here that I have no problem whatsoever with peaceful white seperatism. If someone wants to buy some land, fence it in, and hate homos and Meskins and Negroes, that’s perfectly fine by me. … But that isn’t the Hoppean position either.”</em>

    Well. It’s clear enough that peaceful white separatism (by definition, since it it’s stipulated to be peaceful) doesn’t tread on anyone’s rights. So there’s no problem with it whatsoever as far as a libertarian theory of justice is concerned. But although no-one has any right to <em>force</em> people not to form such communities, don’t you think that they are still <em>idiots</em>?

    Justice is the only virtue that’s enforceable, but it’s not the only virtue.

  28. Oh, I personally find racism both stupid and disgusting. But folks have every right in the world to be stupid and disgusting on their own dime, on their own property. That’s the bottom line.

    Fact is that racism is a vice, not a crime. Racists would be personally better off not being racists, much like drunks would be better off not downing a bottle of Thunderbird every night. But I have exactly no desire whatsoever to save folks from themselves – I’m much too lazy and selfish for that. Now it’s true that folks with loads of vices often commit crimes based on them, but I’m not about to advocate some Bob Wallace-style campaign of preemptive strikes with State force against crackheads and boozehounds and Hoppeans.

Leave a Reply

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