Hoppe: Taking Out The Human Trash

In a comment to my previous post Roderick Long disputes my assertion that Hoppe has written approvingly of forced emigration in this piece on immigration. Allow me to quote Hoppe further:

As far as emigration policy is concerned, this implies that for a democratic ruler it makes little, if any, difference whether productive or unproductive people, geniuses or bums leave the country. They have all one equal vote. In fact, democratic rulers might well be more concerned about the loss of a bum than that of a productive genius. While the loss of the latter would obviously lower the capital value of the country and loss of the former might actually increase it, a democratic ruler does not own the country. In the short run, which most interests a democratic ruler, the bum, voting most likely in favor of egalitarian measures, might be more valuable than the productive genius who, as egalitarianism’s prime victim, will more likely vote against the democratic ruler. For the same reason, a democratic ruler, quite unlike a king, undertakes little to actively expel those people whose presence within the country constitutes a negative externality (human trash, which drives individual property values down). In fact, such negative externalities “unproductive parasites, bums, and criminals“ are likely to be his most reliable supporters.

As far as immigration policies are concerned, the incentives and disincentives are likewise distorted, and the results are equally perverse. For a democratic ruler, it also matters little whether bums or geniuses, below or above-average civilized and productive people immigrate into the country. Nor is he much concerned about the distinction between temporary workers (owners of work permits) and permanent, property owning immigrants (naturalized citizens). In fact, bums and unproductive people may well be preferable as residents and citizens, because they cause more so-called “social” problem,” and democratic rulers thrive on the existence of such problems. Moreover, bums and inferior people will likely support his egalitarian policies, whereas geniuses and superior people will not. The result of this policy of non-discrimination is forced integration: the forcing of masses of inferior immigrants onto domestic property owners who, if they could have decided for themselves, would have sharply discriminated and chosen very different neighbors for themselves. Thus, the United States immigration laws of 1965, as the best available example of democracy at work, eliminated all formerly existing “quality” concerns and the explicit preference for European immigrants and replaced it with a policy of almost complete non-discrimination (multi-culturalism). [emphasis added – jtk]

Hoppe just said that his justification for immigration control to keep undesirables out is the same as the justification for forced expulsion of human trash. He’s explicitly saying that results of the failure to do these things are equally perverse and undesirable.

I don’t understand how Long can know Hoppe is speaking approvingly of immigration control here yet think Hoppe is not speaking approvingly of forced emigration.

61 thoughts on “Hoppe: Taking Out The Human Trash”

  1. Well, Hoppe has made his overall view pretty clear: a) democracy fails to solve, and even creates, certain social problems; b) monarchy does a fairly effective job of solving/avoiding those problems, but does so in a rights-violating manner; c) anarchy solves/avoids those problems still more effectively, and in a non-rights-violating manner. That seems like the right interpretive framework in which to read this passage.

    Now does he “advocate” monarchy-style policies? That’s a complicated question. He thinks monarchyis unjust (despite his reputation as being pro-monarchy, he’s made clear that he thinks monarchies are criminal enterprises), but he also thinks it’s by and large preferable to democracy. (Likewise, I’d rather be ruled by the Mafia than by the Taliban; does that make me pro-Mafia?) Given that we can’t get anarchy right now, he has said that the next best thing is getting our democracies to adopt more monarchic policies in some respects. He’s never said, and I can’t see that his view implies, that we would be well-advised to try to get democratic governments to adopt as many monarchical policies as possible. Certainly he thinks one advantage of monarchy over democracy is that it facilitates the exclusion of certain groups; but of course he also thinks that’s an advantage of anarchy over democracy; in effect, anarchy offers all the benefits of forced emigration without the force. (And since he’s not a utilitarian we can’t infer straightforwardly from “Hoppe thinks forced emigration would have good results” to “Hoppe favours forced emigration.”)

    Accordingly, I don’t see what Hoppe says here as evidence that he favours getting democratic governments to adopt forced emigration as a policy. I’m inclined to assume that what he favours is the policy he says he favours; when he talks about immigration he says he wants every immigrant to have a resident citizen as a sponsor, etc, etc., in other words he talks as though his second-best solution favours already-existing citizens over would-be immigrants. Since that’s what he says, and since nothing he’s said commits him to the opposite view, why not believe that he means what he says?

    Of course I’m not defending the position he actually holds. I don’t in the least share Hoppe’s views about gays, non-European immigrants, etc., and even if I did I don’t believe that would justify immigration restrictions even as a second-best measure. (I also see more drawbacks to monarchy than Hoppe does.) So, sure, I think there’s plenty to criticise in Hoppe’s actual views; but I don’t want to criticise him for views he doesn’t hold, and I see no grounds for thinking he favours forced emigration. (I also don’t think his actual views exclude him from being counted as a libertarian. Conscription is one of the worst violations of liberty there is, but I wouldn’t disqualify Mises as being a libertarian.)

  2. Simple example: I’m here working as a domestic in someone’s household or picking fruit in the San Joaquin Valley and Hoppe would have me picked up and removed across a border.

    Isn’t that forced emigration?

  3. In a sense, yeah, but that’s a topic change — or a retreat to a weaker charge. Anyone who advocates immigration restrictions is thereby advocating that kind of “forced emigration” — forcing someone to emigrate because they weren’t legally allowed to immigrate in the first place. But the charge against Hoppe of advocating “forced emigration” originally meant — as I understood the charge — that in addition to advocating the sorts of immigration restrictions that nearly all non-libertarians advocate, he also advocated taking residents of long and thus-far-legal standing and booting them out because they belonged to the wrong ideological/ethnic/behavioural groups. That’s the charge that I’m denying has been substantiated. If instead all you mean is that he favours the same sort of enforcement that all advocates of immigration restrictions favour, then sure, but then the charge loses its excitement.

  4. John,

    I read Hoppe’s entire piece on immigration and don’t see how you interpret this as advocating forced emigration.

    Prof. Long is correct in his interpretation.

    Nor, is “open borders” the only possible libertarian position. A libertarian society is much more restrictive than most imagine.

    Exactly how do you imagine you will protect a libertarian society against an ideology like Islam which advocates the death or dhimmitude of all non-members with an open borders policy? An open borders policy is about as effective and irrational as any pacifist ideology. Libertarianism isn’t about pacifism.

    One need only respect others rights insofar as it is reciprocal. I don’t see Muslim countries tolerating any sort of immigration by non-muslims or even equality for existing non-muslim citizens in their own countries. So this is one set of non-european country for which there is no valid case open immigration. This is not merely and issue of the state either. It is the individual muslims that are protagonists. At it’s root Islam is a philosophy of intolerance and therefore need not be tolerated.

  5. Long,

    You said you saw no grounds for thinking he favors forced emigration. I demonstated he clearly does favor it. That’s gotta be *some* grounds.

    Above Hoppe writes approvingly about how a monarch would put out the human trash and affirms that the reasons for favoring closed borders and forced emigration are the same.

    For the same reason, a democratic ruler, quite unlike a king, undertakes little to actively expel those people whose presence within the country constitutes a negative externality (human trash, which drives individual property values down). In fact, such negative externalities “unproductive parasites, bums, and criminals” are likely to be his most reliable supporters.

    As far as immigration policies are concerned, the incentives and disincentives are likewise distorted, and the results are equally perverse.

    Given his argument, why on earth wouldn’t he favor putting out the native human trash – the unproductive parasites and bums already here? What is the difference between the foreign and native varieties?

  6. One need only respect others rights insofar as it is reciprocal. I don’t see Muslim countries tolerating any sort of immigration by non-muslims or even equality for existing non-muslim citizens in their own countries. So this is one set of non-european country for which there is no valid case open immigration. This is not merely and issue of the state either. It is the individual muslims that are protagonists. At it’s root Islam is a philosophy of intolerance and therefore need not be tolerated.

    Muslim governments don’t allow non-Muslim individuals to immigrate there, therefore it is okay to violate the rights of Muslim individuals by not letting any Muslim immigrate here.

    Some Muslims are criminals, therefore some Muslims deserve to have force used against them, thefore all Muslims deserve to have force used against them.

    Blankout.

  7. Stefan,

    Hoppe doesn’t engage in online-debates, and doesn’t engage in many debates at all, for that matter. I get the impression he doesn’t like them much, and prefers to take his time thinking about objections and coming up with replies.

    Kennedy,

    I see nothing wrong with booting welfare recipients, homeless bums, drug-dealers, and so-on and so-forth out of the US. They are all either criminals or net tax-recipients, and we shouldn’t have the burden of supporting them.

    Mises was correct in that interventionism does breed more interventionism, but at least in this case, the further interventionism is only objectionable because the State is involved, and not because it (removing these people) would be wrong, absent a State. A better solution, of course, would be to eliminate all of the “social programs” which benefit these net tax-consumers.

  8. Micha,

    You didn’t get it. It’s not guilt by association. Islam is a philosophy that espouses killing apostates and forcing Christians and Jews into second class citizenship. Islam itself is not merely a religion but a State. By being a Muslim you are a member of a criminal organization. The only way to redeem yourself is to quit that organization.

    If someone states that I am evil and need to be killed in my sleep then I need not wait till that person has the upper hand. Islam is quite clear in it’s mandates. The only reason more muslims are not killing and enslaving infidels is because they lack the opportunity. Once they get the upper hand in population they will take over and create one of the same hell holes they have done over and over before.

    Don’t get me wrong, they are doing a pretty good job of it now and have a long history of it. The Crusades were a reaction to Muslim behavior and not the other way round. Most of the conflicts in the world today are Muslim/non-muslim or Muslim/Muslim.

    There is absolutely no reason I need tolerate such beliefs in my neighbors.

    I have direct contact with Muslims and they believe the most outrageous things. You should have heard the BS when 9/11 happened.

    Muslim: Jews did it, or perhaps the US government.
    Me: We know who did it. We even have people calling from cell phones indicating who did it. We know the muslims were taking flight training, members of extremist groups, were on the flights and are now missing.
    Muslim: Well if it was Muslims then they did it with good reason, you did this, this, this. (Where this, this, and this involves me exercising my rights).
    Me: Nonsense.

    Muslim: Islam is tolerant this is not Islam. Must have been Jews.
    Me: What about the fact that your country a) does not allow churches build or b) special tax for non-muslims, persecution or c) death sentences for christian missionaries for having bibles.
    Muslim: That’s not true. Don’t believe such stories.

    Well the fact of the matter is that is true. So either the Muslim was lying or delusional. How do I know more about his own country than he does. Hell just last month Saudia Arabia beheaded a man then crucified the dead body. That’s just one example.

    The muslims are not even waiting till they get the majority now either before the slaughter. They killed Van Gogh in the Neitherlands and have started over here in NJ.

    They practice purposeful self delusion that involves death wishes against me. Not something I have to tolerate. I don’t need to tolerate them any more than a black person need tolerate the KKK.

  9. Oh, and John before you start claiming that I am connecting Hoppes dots I want to let you know that I have only read that one article by Hoppe. Perhaps another somewhere on economics once. I am a Libertarian who never did buy into the open borders baloney.

    You really need to learn about fallacious reasoning. David does not speak for Hoppe. Nor vice versa. David doesn’t belong to some ideology that requires submission of his mind and the bowing down to the east five times a day.

    You seem to think that you can deduce your way into a working belief system from some set of axioms. That is not the method that other people use and besides it doesn’t work.

    I see absolutlely no way for a libertarian society to exist with the concept of open borders. Not in this world with the existance of intolerant ideologies like Communism, Islam and Nazism.

  10. Kennedy/Long–

    Sudha Shenoy wrote on the Mises blog:

    “In an ideal world, people would live in contiguous private estates – these thugs wouldn’t be able to set foot on private property. — By the way, for what it’s worth, Hayek recommended in the CoL that municipal govts be replaced by private ‘super-landlords’ – to ‘internalise’ all those ‘externalities’ that govts are supposed (ha) to deal with.”

    I don’t have my copy at hand but from a search on Amazon’s “Inside the Book” I found some similar discussion at page p. 341. I am not sure if this is what Shenoy was referring to. But anyway, assuming this is accurate, it sounds as if it’s somewhat compatible with aspects of Hoppe’s immigration argument. Any thoughts?

  11. > Given his argument, why on earth

    > wouldn’t he favor putting out the

    > native human trash – the unproductive

    > parasites and bums already here? What

    > is the difference between the foreign

    > and native varieties?

    My guess is that if the “unproductive parasites and bums” already own property here, Hoppe thinks that there’s a stronger rights-based case against expelling them. I don’t know that that’s his reason, but as the artivle you cite shows, he does draw a distinction, and that’s one obvious basis someone might have for drawing a distinction.

  12. Re Islam: you can find passages in the Qur’an that imply that Muslims should kill or oppress non-Muslims; you can also find passages in the Qur’an that imply the opposite. Precisely the same, of course, is true of the Bible. Yet although there are passages in the Bible implying that it’s okay for Christians and/or Jews to kill or oppress non-Christians and/or non-Jews (in addition, of course, to passages that make the other way), nobody takes that by itself as a reason to regard Christians and Jews as inherently threatening. Why shouldn’t the same apply to Muslims?

    In order to know that a Muslim is a threat, we have to know, first, how he or she interprets the Qur’an, and second, whether he or she is disposed to act on those beliefs. The vast majority of Muslims either do not interpret the Qur’an that way, or else do interpret it that way but pay it only lip service as they go about their peaceful and productive lives (just as most Christians and Jews are unlikely to be found murdering Wiccans, despite the Bible’s injunction “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”).

  13. I see absolutlely no way for a libertarian society to exist with the concept of open borders. Not in this world with the existance of intolerant ideologies like Communism, Islam and Nazism.

    Do you agree with Hoppe that a libertarian order cannot exist with homosexuals living in it?

  14. Long,

    Come on, obviously there are many citizens here Hoppe would categorize as bums, parasites and human trash that don’t own property. Welfare recipients are not all property owners.

    By Hoppe’s argument what case can be made for not expelling them along with the foreign trash?

  15. Here’s how Brian Macker learned to stop worrying and love La Migra:

    One need only respect others rights insofar as it is reciprocal.

    This is obviously false. If someone steals $20 you have the right to use force against her in self-defense in order to recover the $20 and any additional compensation for the time and money lost in recovering it. You do not have the right to steal from her willy-nilly, let alone to enslave her or burn her property or kill her. If you believe that any failure to respect rights allows you to treat the violator as an unperson, then you are not a libertarian; you are just unhinged.

    I don’t see Muslim countries tolerating any sort of immigration by non-muslims or even equality for existing non-muslim citizens in their own countries.

    This is false: there are in fact substantial populations of immigrant non-Muslims (especially from Europe, the United States, and South Asia) living in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (especially Dubai), Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Albania, etc., and there have been since these countries came into existence. But even if it were true, it would be doubly irrelevant. First, because assaults on your person don’t license reciprocal assaults; they only license the amount of defensive force necessary to recover compensation. Second, because the people you are proposing to exclude do not determine or enforce the immigration policies of “Muslim countries” in the first place, and so aren’t responsible for any of the rights violations that you complain about. (I take it that you’re not only talking about using force to block Saudi princes and the like from entering the country; you’re talking about using force to block ordinary Muslims as a group. If you’re not, then I apologize for misunderstanding you, but you really out to be clearer about your targets.)

  16. Prof. Long,

    I am familiar with Christians and they do not take such statements as “Thou shall not suffer a witch” seriously at all. Nor do their priests. Furthermore, I am familiar with using the nasty parts of the bible in debates against Christians as I am an atheist. Mostly however this does not work because those parts are superceded by others. It’s the nice stuff that predominates and supercedes the more rare nasty stuff.

    The same is not true of Islam. It is the nasty stuff that has precidence and it is quite mainstream. The only tolerant stuff you are going to get is from Sufism and that isn’t even a sect of Islam and is quite widely persecuted by the Muslims.

    I disagree with you that the vast majority of Muslims do not interpret the Koran in the mainstream fashion. Nor do I think this even applies. The vast majority do not interpret the Koran at all. It is a western tradition for the common man to interpret the scripture. It’s just not something they do. It is interpreted for them by their religious leaders. The vast majority of which interpret it the nasty way. Most of the surahs deal with being nasty and not nice.

    Before 9/11 I was concerned about the one eyed sheik and his ilk being allowed into this country to preach their hatred. I just couldn’t understand why we didn’t deport him. It was quite clear he was involved in the assasination in Egypt. Furthermore we had the example of Iran along with the Iranian fatwahs on Salman Rushdie. However I thought these were just the extremists.

    I have a close friend who is Muslim and after 9/11 I discussed this with him. He is a very nice fellow. Unfortunately, the more I actually talked with him the more disgusted I got. Finally, I decided to do some research on my own. I went out an bought “Islam and Terrorism” which is by a former muslim professor of Islamic historyat Al-Azhar University. The author, Mark A. Gabriel, was a top religious student at one of the most prestigious muslim religious institutions in the world. The book was most enlightening and explained my friends strange beliefs.

    I don’t really have a problem with true Secular Muslims insofar as they don’t actually believe in the stuff. However, exactly how does one prove it? Especially given the fact that Islam actively teaches their followers to lie and pretend to be the friend of the non-muslim.

    News stories out of muslim countries, polls, reactions, lead me to believe that very few Muslims are truly tolerant. Hell the writer of the book says it is common practice in Egypt to publicly kill anyone suspected of becoming an apostate. Not the government either. Just your average Joe on the street. This evil is not being imposed from above. Hell they kill their own daughters if they are raped.

    I don’t know many christian fathers that have their sons and daughters killed for deciding to convert.

    The difference is so dramatic between Islam and Christianity as to make any comparison ludicrous. You have to go back hundreds of years and to particular instances to find anything remotely like what is commonplace throughout the Muslim world today.

    Sorry, I don’t buy the comparison.

  17. Lynette,

    I’ve got absolutely no issue with homosexuals. I don’t care what they do, in fact I appreciate the lack of competition when it comes male homosexuals. In fact, my tolerance of homosexuals has lead to several quite unexpected advances. Your nice to a guy and all the sudden he takes liberties.

    I think your question “Do you agree with Hoppe that a libertarian order cannot exist with homosexuals living in it?” was loaded. I don’t know that is what Hoppe meant. I haven’t read the book and I have read that others say this is out of context.

    Certainly forcing conservatives to live with homosexuals is a violation of the libertarian order. For instance, forcing a conservative to rent his dormer out to a homosexual would be a violation. If the context was a “conservative libertarian social order” then certainly homosexuals would need to be “removed” for it to be libertarian. Of course, if by “society” he mean anything broader than the local closed libertarian community he would be wrong. I can think of other reasons why this is wrong, that have to do with the nature of homosexuality. It’s not like homosexualty is a fundamental rejection of the rights of other like say communism.

    I am having a hard time believing that this is the correct intepretation of Hoppe at this point however. Out of context it certainly looks like Kennedy is correct. Hoppe certainly will not win any awards for clarity of communication.

    I certainly don’t see how “removal” can mean anything but by force. However, it doesn’t neccesarily entail the initiation of force.

    My comments only referred to the writing linked to by this post. I haven’t read the other stuff. I don’t have his book.

  18. Rad Geek,

    You didn’t understand me. I agree with your first point. If I thought I could rape and kill someone just because they stole a slice of bread I would be quite unhinged. I don’t recall making that argument. That was your deduction from a single sentence, “One need only respect others rights insofar as it is reciprocal.”

    When I am talking about reciprocity I am not talking about it in an incident by incident sense. I am talking in a meta sense. I don’t have to respect the property rights of someone who holds the position that I have no property rights. Why should I? In fact, I have no problem whatsoever with locking said person up for the rest of their life.

    I also don’t see how you could think I would be stealing from such a person. How you can possibly steal anything from someone who does not believe that property exists.

    Also property itself is so fundamental to our existance that the criminals denial of such is very serious. Were the criminal in this instance able to get away with constant theft there is a non-zero chance it could end up in my death. I might just starve.

    The reason throwing someone in jail for the rest of their life for stealing a slice of bread is “unhinged” behavior has little to do with the actual nature of the crime. It would be reasonable behavior if stealing a slice of bread were a clear indicator of the persons absolute rejection of my right to property. Even were the person to state the meta-rejection of my rights no one would believe it at first. After all it entails a rejection of the same rights for themselves.

    It is reasonable however to come to this conclusion on repeated offenses. Repeated offenses against mulitple individuals also helps cement the case by showing to the public that perhaps it isn’t just me making it up. At some point we do lock people up for extended periods for theft of property.

    Were we omnescent I see no philosophical problem with locking them up before the first offense. That is if they were know to be unamenable to punishment.

    I don’t think mere restitution is sufficient. After all they had a chance of getting away with it. They should bear the cost of apprehension plus some burden of the cost of investigation on similar crimes where the offender got away with it.

  19. Brian,
    If you consent to closed borders, you MUST consent to the following government powers in order for the closure to be meaningful :
    1. Government issued ID
    2. Government punishment for failure to carry/present ID
    3. Government punishment for faking ID
    4. Government control of all border crossings. If you own land on the border of Mexico, Canada or along the coast the government can monitor that land.
    5. Government control of airfields
    6. Government power to search any air, sea or land vehicle that may have crossed a coast or border
    If the government does not possess these powers then closed borders are futile. Anyone who managed to get even 5 yards into the US would be exempt from seizure without these provisions. This is not theoretical, Americans living near the Mexican border are routinely (unconstitutionally) stopped at roadblocks.

  20. Brian,

    I don’t deny that religiously-inspired violence is more common, on average, in Islamic countries than in Christian countries. I think this has a lot more to do with the political history of the regions than with the content of the religion, but anyway the fact remains that this violence is still perpetrated by a minority. To treat all Muslims as though they were guilty of what only a minority of Muslims do is collectivism. You really should get to know some Muslims.

  21. JTK,

    I don’t know what Hoppe’s grounds are for distinguishing between excluding certain immigrants (which he favours) and kicking out comparable non-property-owning residents (which he appears not to favour). I don’t claim that his view is consistent, only that to my knowledge he hasn’t advocated the latter and I’m disinclined to attribute to him views he hasn’t shown that he endorses. It’s not generally safe to attribute to people the entailments of everything they believe; that’s the analogue of assuming that the economy is always already in equilibrium. Anyway, there’s quite enough to disagree with in what Hoppe actually says without attributing to him other things he might conceivably believe but has actually said.

  22. lynette: “Do you agree with Hoppe that a libertarian order cannot exist with homosexuals living in it?”

    WHy do you insist on mischaracterizing what he said. He never said this.

    Hoppe could not have been any more clear about his belief that a libertarian order cannot exist with homosexuals living in it. To wit,

    “They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.”

    This is simple and obvious, Kinsella. No matter how much you may want to apologize for Hoppe’s bigotry, it cannot be denied.

  23. Roderick,

    I think you’ve retreated significantly from your earlier position that my reading “hardly seems a likely interpretation” of Hoppe. I’ve shown reasonable support for my reading.

  24. Micha,

    I’m trying to read Hoppe as generously as I can on this, and, in context, he seems to be advocating only for not allowing advocates of homosexuality into a libertarian community that was founded by people who want to raise their children away from such influences. I think he could have said it better, though. I’m not convinced that Hoppe is, himself, a homophobe/bigot (nor that he isn’t, for that matter.)

    There are also two distinct meanings of the term “physically removed.”

    1. The belligerant drunkard was physically removed from the bar.
    2. My parents, two states away, are physically removed from their grandchildren.

    I don’t think Hoppe would claim that a bunch of homosexuals, and people who have no issues with homosexuality, could not all live together relatively peacefully in a “libertarian order.” I certainly don’t read Hoppe as advocating 90% of a suburb getting together, declaring it a homo-free-zone, and ejecting people, against their will, whose claims to live there are as good as their own.

  25. Well, there we have to differentiate between his two positions. In the paragraph Micha quotes, he’s talking about a covanental community, formed in an anarchy, I believe. In the case you’re talking about, he’s making a policy recommendation for the present US government. I disagree with this recommendation and won’t attempt to defend it, but agree with him and, I think, you, that the present situation is a train wreck.

    In the case of a covanental community, created without violating anyone’s rights, I wouldn’t want to join one as stifling as what Hoppe describes, but I certainly know people who might, and I can see how it would eliminate some disputes. I don’t know Hoppe enough to know if he would. In such a community, of course, there is no “America.”

  26. I’m trying to read Hoppe as generously as I can on this, and, in context, he seems to be advocating only for not allowing advocates of homosexuality into a libertarian community that was founded by people who want to raise their children away from such influences.

    It is possible that is the case, but that cannot be determined from a basic reading of Hoppe’s position. If Hoppe misspoke in D:TGTF, he should issue a correction as soon as possible. The fact that he has not revised his comments leads to the conclusion that he is comfortable with the clear meaning of his work.

    At the beginning of the passage in question, Hoppe writes, “There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order.” He is obviously not restricting his comments to only advocates, but practitioners as well, and not only to conservative social orders, but all libertarian social orders.

    Again, it is possible that Hoppe doesn’t mean this, but that is the clear meaning of the passage, so he should issue a correction if this he believes his previous work was inaccurate.

  27. Depends to me what he means by “democrats and communists.” If he means people who claim to be democrats and communists, I’m with ya. If he means people who are holding a vote on whether I get to have a gun, and mean to enforce it, or are appropriating my house or car for the good of the collective, I’m with Hoppe.

  28. Gavin:

    If you consent to closed borders, you MUST consent to the following government powers in order for the closure to be meaningful…

    Exactly right. A consistent, non-hypocritical endorsement of the Hoppean position on immigration requires endorsing those things and worse.

  29. Macker:

    One need only respect others rights insofar as it is reciprocal.

    Me:

    This is obviously false. If someone steals $20 you have the right to use force against her in self-defense in order to recover the $20 and any additional compensation for the time and money lost in recovering it. You do not have the right to steal from her willy-nilly, let alone to enslave her or burn her property or kill her. If you believe that any failure to respect rights allows you to treat the violator as an unperson, then you are not a libertarian; you are just unhinged.

    Macker:

    When I am talking about reciprocity I am not talking about it in an incident by incident sense. I am talking in a meta sense. I don’t have to respect the property rights of someone who holds the position that I have no property rights.

    Of course, this position is even worse: you are no longer holding that people may forfeit their rights by violating yours (a position which is untenable but at least grounded in concrete actions), but rather holding that they may forfeit their rights by holding evil beliefs.

    Do you earnestly believe that you have the right to assault the person or loot the property of, say, an avowedly anti-propertarian Communist? If not, why not–given that you claim to be under no obligation to recognize the rights of those who “hold the position” that you don’t have property rights? If so, why do you hold such a monstrous position?

    Macker:

    Why should I?

    Because rights are natural and inalienable. People have them even if they explicitly deny that they have them. They are not contingent on acting in the right way. (Someone who violates my rights does not thereby become an unperson. They just have no right–and never did have any right–to use force to stop me from recovering compensation.) Far less are they contingent on having the right beliefs.

    In fact, I have no problem whatsoever with locking said person up for the rest of their life.

    I’m not interested in what you do or don’t have a problem with. I’m interested in what sort of argument you could possibly give to justify locking people up for ideological “crimes”.

    I also don’t see how you could think I would be stealing from such a person. How you can possibly steal anything from someone who does not believe that property exists.

    Because property rights are a matter of objective fact. They are not erased when someone stops believing in them.

  30. Rad Geek,

    You really need to learn the difference between citizen immigrants, guest workers, resident foreign nationals, and the like.

    Let’s take one specific example, Saudi Arabia. You claim they are just peachy when it comes to immigration.
    “This is false: there are in fact substantial populations of immigrant non-Muslims (especially from Europe, the United States, and South Asia) living in Saudi Arabia”

    This is frankly, bullshit. Saudi Arabia has an enormous foreign national population. But that is only because they are the beverly hillbillies of the muslim world. After all they need somebody to do the work. These are not immigrants in the sense that I mean, people from foreign countries who become full and equal members of the society.

    I think this article put it nicely:

    “This is certainly true with regard to mass immigration as a whole, but the president’s specific proposals suggest a different country as a model: Saudi Arabia. That country, and its Gulf neighbors, are home to a permanent guestworker class, millions strong, lacking any real possibility of becoming full members of the host society. These foreign workers are very large in number, with the six million in Saudi Arabia accounting for about one-quarter of the kingdom’s population. And they have virtually no chance of becoming citizens, even after living there for decades.”

    Let’s here it from a Palesteinian aren’t allowed to immigrate there. Read the entire article and wake up to the facts of Muslim countries.

    “The IJ [immigration judge] recognized, based on Ahmedâ??s testimony, that Palestinians in Saudi Arabia are relegated to officially sanctioned second-class status incorporated into the legal and social structure of Saudi Arabia. Ahmed sought to portray this treatment as persecution providing grounds for asylum. He testified that although his parents have lived in Saudi Arabia for 50 years and Ahmed was born in the country, neither he nor his parents have been able to obtain Saudi citizenship because Saudi Arabia reserves citizenship for people of Saudi descent.”

    So not only are they keeping out non-muslims (who BTW are not even allowed to visit Mecca), they won’t take any foreigners as immigrants.

    As for your statement about there being lots of non-Muslims as citizens in Muslim countries. Yeh, well these were originally non-muslim countries, what do you expect. That doesn’t mean they are playing on a level playing field. They are presecuting those non-Muslims and have been doing so for centuries.

    This isn’t even the tip of the iceberg, it doesn’t even scratch the surface of the peak of that iceberg. The muslims have many vile methods of ensuring that Islam does not have to play by the rules of fair intellectual discourse.
    These vile methods are not “against Islam” they are sanctioned by Islam and are integral to the philosophy. Killing apostates, enslaving non-muslims via special taxes, death penalties for questioning the faith, Jihad (which is very much about religious war despite the lies), encouraging deceit towards non-believers, the spread of Islam by the Sword, etc. That is not and exhastive list either.

    The muslims hate Israel and the Jews in it because it is an afront to the natural order decreed by Allah, wherein the Jew is the dhimmi of the muslim. If they had any true concern for the plight of the Palesteinians they would have done the right thing decades ago and allowed them to integrate into their societies, instead of keeping them in refugee camps and the like. Israel has no problem allowing in Jews from anywhere including black africans. The Arabs have ejected about as many Jews from their homelands (in Arab states) since the founding of Israel as the entire Palesteinian population.

    Islam is NOT a tolerant philosophy. That is a false statement, a bit of Islamic propaganda which many people have fallen for.

  31. Mr. Johnson (aka. Rad Geek),

    Why don’t you show a little moral fiber and use your real name. I should be the one using a tag. I’m putting my life on the line here critizing Islam. Least you could do is use a real name.

    You keep creating straw man arguments and knocking them down. The way you are interpreting my statements have more to do with your philosophical beliefs and ideology than mine.

    You have a particular belief about how natural rights arise that I do not share. You use other ideological concepts like “non-person” that I just don’t use. You deduce things in your framework of beliefs differently that I would. You are an extremist who thinks that once one part of your ideology is dropped then anything goes. That’s what I get from reading your response.

    There are plenty of good reasons not to steal from someone who makes a phony assertion that property rights do not exist. If however his claim is genuine, then his property rights cannot be one of them. If genuine then he has rejected all claims to property so there is no reason for him to even complain. It would be physically impossible to steal from him, he has nothing to steal. It is not possible to steal from someone who is genuinely against property rights and therefore your argument is mute. I am probably going to have to restate this fifty different ways before you get it.

    The phony property rights denier is a different case, and was not the subject of my post. If you want to get into that I can give you plenty of reasons not to mess with him. I can also give you plenty of reasons not to mess with the mob but that doesn’t mean you’d be in the wrong if you took action against them.

    Besides where do you get the idea that all of the sudden I have this desire to steal from the other guy and beat the shit out of him (assault him) just because he denied the right to property. That’s just one right. He didn’t deny the right to be free from unprovoked assault, did he. Don’t confound the two. I understand that at a fundamental level one can be justified with regard to the other but that doesn’t mean I have to abandon proportion.

    If you wish to stick to the subject instead of your analogies perhaps we could make some progress.

    It seems like you just ignored the point of my prior post. You improperly imputed ideas, desires, and deductions to me that I do not hold.

    Your argument is very similar to the following argument theists often make.
    Atheist: I don’t believe in god.
    Theist: Then you must be for murder and theft.
    Atheist: Why’s that?
    Theist: Because the ten commandments says you can’t do that. That is gods law and without god there is no reason to obey them.

    This, of course, is fallacious. One can be against murder and theft on other grounds.

    Johnson:

    “Of course, this position is even worse: you are no longer holding that people may forfeit their rights by violating yours (a position which is untenable but at least grounded in concrete actions), but rather holding that they may forfeit their rights by holding evil beliefs.”

    No I am not making that argument. I have all sorts of other philosophic and practical hurdles to cross before I can take action. A a simple violation as you first claimed, or a mere evil belief is not actionable. This is a misstatement of my position.

    Islam is not merely a single evil belief.

    I’ll give you an examples of such a hurdles. Reasons why I can’t just slap a muslim in jail for living for the belief he has the right to kill me. 1) In Islam, the individual is coerced into becoming a member. Thus, a muslim in a muslim country may just be saying he is muslim to avoid persecution. He may not really believe that he should kill the non-muslim. 2) He may believe but then again he’s over there and may have no organizational way of carrying out his wishes against me. 3) It isn’t worth the trouble to deal with him. It may cost me more than the trouble he could cause me. 4) I might have a better chance dealing with him in small increments of punishment or for that matter education.

    I’m not saying there is only one best way of dealing with it. However, I don’t see immigration restrictions as such a bad idea. I’m not sure it is the best but there is no fundamental reason not to. They can’t retailiate in the same fashion because they already do not allow immigration. You are wrong about that.

    We can certainly let in muslims that reject their religion. Like say Sufis.

    Johnson:

    Do you earnestly believe that you have the right to assault the person or loot the property of, say, an avowedly anti-propertarian Communist?

    No, what I earnestly believe is that such a Communist doesnâ??t have any property. On what grounds would he claim ownership of anything? Because he made it? I make lots of things I donâ??t own. Maybe you can clarify what you mean by ownership in this case because I donâ??t see that you could be meaning anything substantial.

    If not, why not–given that you claim to be under no obligation to recognize the rights of those who “hold the position” that you don’t have property rights?

    I already had answered this in my post prior to your question. What you did is conflate property with assault. I never made the claim that I could just go up to and assault him.

    When did you stop beating your wife? If today, then why not sooner?

    Really, thatâ??s how you sound to me.

    If so, why do you hold such a monstrous position?

    Just because an avowed anti-propertarian Communist exists that does not make property rights disappear for everyone else. Such rights do disappear for him until such time as changes his mind. Itâ??s no different than if tomorrow I sold everything I have and got a big pile of cash, placed it on the table and said â??Everybody, I am communist, take what you want. I no longer own it.â?? I might regret the consequences once I discovered it was hard to feed myself this way but tough luck. Maybe I come to my senses a few years later, change my mind, I cannot then ask for all my stuff back.

    The only monstorous position I see here is the Islamic one. Their position is that because I am neither Muslim, Jewish or Christian I have no right to exist. If I was Jewish or Christian I would only have the right to exist in-so-far as I pay tribute for my continued existance. The only path is submission to Islam. My only way out to convert. Tell me exactly why I should tolerate that? Why should I be for allowing immigration of people who follow such a philosophy.

    For that matter what exactly are you going to do about it if I did hold such a monsterous position as this. Suppose my philosophy was that I should assault and kill people of your persuasion. Suppose further that my philosophy was to only do so when I had the upper hand to do so. For instance, when I could get away with it, like with that NJ coptic Christian family, or when I had enough followers that you would not be able to put up a resistance. Do you have to wait till my opportunity arises or can you intervene during the process of public avocacy, private conspircy or planning? What if you see many of your fellows falling to my conspiracy. What steps do you feel you can take. As far as I can tell you canâ??t do a thing according to your philosophy.

    For me it is a question of whether and to what extent Islam is a cult of death.

    Johnson:

    “I’m not interested in what you do or don’t have a problem with.”

    Apparently, you are.

    â??I’m interested in what sort of argument you could possibly give to justify locking people up for ideological “crimes”.â??

    You are again mischaracterizing my position.

    Because property rights are a matter of objective fact. They are not erased when someone stops believing in them.

    You are equivocating here between the general concept of property rights and specific property rights. Property rights as a general concept of making claims of control over property do not cease to exist upon denial. Particular claims can cease to exist however. I just took out my trash and stopped believing I own those particular items. I could do that for everything I own. My reason for doing so might be because I want to be a monk or it may be because I wish to deny the existance of property rights. In no case does that erase anyone elses property rights but it certainly erases mine in those particular objects. As long as I make no claims I have no property rights. â?¦ and of course mere claims are not enough.

    Such claims are not nearly so criminally serious that the claims being made by Islam. Nor is this the extent of communism which is not just a personal claim but a claim against others. Any credible actions towards these goals are actionable as far as I am concerned. There are no merely philosophical obstacles but are certainly practical ones. As an example of what I mean by that. There are no philosophical obstacles to lying to a criminal who is threatening you, you donâ??t owe him the combination to the safe, however their may be practical consequences such as his killing you.

    I find feel no moral compunction against interfering in the spread of a philosophy that advocates my death. As I said, why should I? You havenâ??t even addressed it. You have tried to make a factual claim that Islam does not meet that criteria but youâ??ve failed. Even if you had that doesnâ??t address the issue. Why exactly canâ??t I defend myself by keeping people, from immigrating into my country? Assume they exist for retorical purposes. Why must I have open borders to such people?

  32. Gavin,

    You state:

    If you consent to closed borders, you MUST consent to the following government powers in order for the closure to be meaningful :

    Nonsense, I must consent to no particular method to acheive non-open borders.

    I don’t like using the term “closed borders” as that implies to much. After all I am not neccessarily advocating the stopping of goods at the borders.

  33. I’m putting my life on the line here critizing Islam. Least you could do is use a real name.

    If Islam is so dangerous he’d be better of remaining anonymous, right?

    It is not possible to steal from someone who is genuinely against property rights and therefore your argument is mute. I am probably going to have to restate this fifty different ways before you get it.

    That’s probably because what you want to restate fifty times is false. Where on earth did you get the idea that your property is identical with what you believe your property to be? If I have poor eyesight and pick an apple but believe it to be an orange it is still mine, is it not? Believing I own Jupiter and Saturn does not make it so, does it?

    Do you have to wait till my opportunity arises or can you intervene during the process of public avocacy, private conspircy or planning?

    Here you’re pretty close to making an argument. Indeed one is not required to wait until the precise moment aggression is initiated to stop it, but your claim as I understand it is that pretty much all Muslims are dishonest, sneaky thugs just waiting for a chance to enslave the rest of us as part of their religious duty. That’s certainly true of some Muslims, but almost all of them? And even granting this for the sake of argument, how could you use this to justify initiating force against specific Muslim immigrants you may know nothing about? On the basis that Muslims “in general” are sneaky bad guys?

  34. Macker:

    Nonsense, I must consent to no particular method to acheive non-open borders.

    You must by definition consent to the initiation of force to keep out immigrants. The reason for this, as has already been stated, is that you do not own the land that these immigrants would travel over or stay on. Instead, you have given the government authority over it.

    So you have no logical objection in principle to the means listed. You might argue that in practice they are inefficient, or counterproductive even, but you can’t logically say that they are immoral.

  35. Macker:

    I don’t see Muslim countries tolerating any sort of immigration by non-muslims or even equality for existing non-muslim citizens in their own countries.

    Me:

    This is false: there are in fact substantial populations of immigrant non-Muslims (especially from Europe, the United States, and South Asia) living in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (especially Dubai), Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Albania, etc., and there have been since these countries came into existence.

    Macker:

    You really need to learn the difference between citizen immigrants, guest workers, resident foreign nationals, and the like.

    No, I don’t. I’m already well aware of the difference. And I’m already well aware that South Asian immigrants (for example) to Saudi Arabia are often treated very badly, and that the vagaries of their legal status (as, effectively, domestic service braceros) are often used in order to maintain control over them and treat them more badly than they would tolerate otherwise. So what? My statement said nothing about debates over the legal status of immigrants. It said something about whether or not “Muslim countries tolerating any sort of immigration by non-muslims”. If you want to talk about citizenship or the shitty way that immigrants are often treated, fine, but you should have made it clear that that was what you wanted to talk about to begin with.

    Let’s take one specific example, Saudi Arabia. You claim they are just peachy when it comes to immigration.

    No, I don’t.

    As for your statement about there being lots of non-Muslims as citizens in Muslim countries.

    I didn’t make one.

    If I were going to say anything about non-Muslim citizens in Muslim countries, I’d point out that it’s very odd to try to make statements about a spectrum of different countries ranging from Indonesia, to Iran, to Iraq, to Turkey, to Saudi Arabia, to Bosnia-Hercegovina. And probably that most general claims you make about the treatment of non-Muslims in such a large swath of the world are very likely to be false.

    Macker:

    Why don’t you show a little moral fiber and use your real name.

    (1) … because I have a website called Rad Geek People’s Daily (where, incidentally, anyone who wants to know my real name can find it easily in one click)

    (2) … because there happens to be an raving imbecile (with similar beliefs to yours, incidentally) whose name is also “Charles Johnson”; the less confusion there is between us, the better

    (3) … because it’s fun

    I’m not sure what any of these has to do with a lack of “moral fiber.” Maybe you can enlighten me on the moral dimensions of using a nickname online.

  36. Johnson,

    Bullshit, Saudi Arabia allows NO immigration period. They only allow temporary workers in. They are not even second class citizens like the Christians that may or may not be left there. Common policy in the area.

  37. John,

    You say “You must by definition consent to the initiation of force to keep out immigrants.”.

    I didn’t say I wanted to restrict immigrants in general. It was members of group who submit themselves to an ideology that mandates the murder of non-members of their group that I would restrict. I don’t see the actions that could be taken against them as being restricted only to immigration.

    They initiated force by joining their organization.

  38. Macker:

    It was members of group who submit themselves to an ideology that mandates the murder of non-members of their group that I would restrict.

    I take it you mean Muslims?

  39. Macker’s basic argument as I understand it is that normally we should have open borders except that certain groups (Muslims, in this case) are unswervingly dedicated to violating rights (in this case, of non-Muslims) and so should be restricted from entering the country. Why the dedication to violence is typical of almost all Muslims he does not say.

  40. Macer:

    Saudi Arabia allows NO immigration period. They only allow temporary workers in.

    This is a form of immigration, just as Bush’s crackpot scheme for a bracero program is a form of immigration. Workers live and work in Saudi Arabia for substantial periods of time. The fact that they are denied legal rights that they ought, by right, to have, and that this results in very shitty treatment, says many bad things about the Saudi dictatorship but it does not say that they don’t allow immigration by non-Muslims.

    Anyway, now what? What do you think that the shitty selective immigration policies imposed by Saudi royals entails about how you can treat ordinary Muslims? (I.E., people other than Saudi royals)

    Macker:

    You use other ideological concepts like “non-person” that I just don’t use.

    People have rights. To claim that Jones does not have rights anymore just is to claim that you have no more obligations to her than you do to a rock, or perhaps a wild animal. It means that you can, without doing anything wrong to her, beat her, take the house she lives in or the things she uses, enslave her, or kill her. You might think that there are other reasons that you shouldn’t do these things (just as there are reasons you might not want to smash a rock) but on your avowed position, none of the reasons not to do these things to an avowed anti-propertarian involve her moral standing as a fellow human being.

    That’s treating someone as a non-person. If you don’t like your position being so described, then you should change your position.

    There are plenty of good reasons not to steal from someone who makes a phony assertion that property rights do not exist. If however his claim is genuine, then his property rights cannot be one of them. If genuine then he has rejected all claims to property so there is no reason for him to even complain. It would be physically impossible to steal from him, he has nothing to steal.

    Whether or not Jones can consistently complain about you taking stuff from her against her will is immaterial to whether or not you are actually violating her rights. Property rights do not come from your claim to hold property and they don’t evaporate if you cease to make those claims. Jones could, of course, abandon all her property–by setting it out at the curb, for example, or inviting people onto her land to take it. But just saying “I don’t believe anyone can own anything” is not an abandonment of your property; it’s just a statement of (mistaken) philosophical belief.

    Suggesting that you have the right to use force to take stuff away from someone who holds foolish beliefs about property rights is, of course, both unhinged and totalitarian–whether or not you actually think you ought to do it.

    (You can, of course, abandon property. But saying “I don’t believe anyone can own anything”, while continuing to hold onto and to use your property exactly as you always have, may be hypocritical, but it’s not an act of abandonment.)

    Besides where do you get the idea that all of the sudden I have this desire to steal from the other guy and beat the shit out of him (assault him) just because he denied the right to property. That’s just one right. He didn’t deny the right to be free from unprovoked assault, did he.

    I think the distinction you’re trying to draw here is spurious: the reason that you have a right to alienable property is ultimately the same as the reason you have a right not to be assaulted; if you deny someobdy the one then you ultimately deny them the other. But suppose that it were not so. Then so what? If someone did say, “I believe that human beings have the right to assault or enslave other human beings if they can get away with it,” that would certainly a wicked belief. But does that give you the right to assault or enslave the person who utters it? If so, why?

    People have rights because they are people. They don’t lose them by being bad people. Not even if they commit crimes. It would be bad enough if your theory entailed that criminals have no rights (what I originally took it to entail); but from what you have said it appears that you actually believe that having bad thoughts–a vice, not a crime–is enough to do the job. That’s not libertarianism; it’s totalitarianism, or possibly sociopathy.

  41. Johnson,

    I’m going to do what you do.

    Johnson #1:
    “People have rights because they are people. They don’t lose them by being bad people.”

    Second presonality of Johnson #2 replys to Johnson #1:
    “Tell that to Charles Manson.”

    That’s exactly what you are doing, twisting the context to what you want it to be. I know exactly what you meant and how this reply is inappropriate to the context. I know how to give the benefit of the doubt and not drive my mind into the worst possible interpretation. You don’t.

    I don’t think your mind is flexible enough to understand what I am getting at. You are stuck in your particular morality. You don’t understand that there are many moral systems that are evolving and competing with each other. They don’t all operate on principles of individuality.

    If you go to Saudi Arabia and criticize Islam then you will soon find that you are a “non-person”. It won’t just be Saudi princes treating you this way. The average Abdul would kill you right there in the street if it wasn’t easier to leave it to the police. The same average Abdul would not do it here because there are repercussions he would have to deal with. That is most of the time unless he is very well indoctrinated in Islam, in which case he may do it anyway.

    This is a group ideology of submission so they don’t even need every individual to operate this way. Like a nest of ants they can a have a small caste of soldiers. Their polygamy insures that there is a permanent pool of sexually frustrated and disgrunted members to serve this role.
    Moral systems don’t just have effects at the level of the individual. So it doesn’t really matter if most of the ants are workers. I am sure lots of Nazis were nice once you got to know them. That’s not the point.

    I am not objecting to merely bad thoughts. That’s rediculous. What am I a mind reader? Islam meets a whole host of other criteria. It is a cult writ large.

    As for your contention that anyone who doesn’t follow your brand of libertarian morality is totalitarian or a sociopath. Well, that’s bullshit too. This is exactly why the LP is so small. Someone disagrees on an issue like open borders and next thing you know they are being called a sociopath. The fact of the matter is that if that were true then 99% of humans on the planet have been sociopaths according to you. Next to no one is for open borders.

    Any moral system has the issue of competing moral systems and how members of the other systems behave. Some systems are compatible and some are not. Some are predatory and some are not. Some contain defenses against others and some do not. Open border libertarianism is of the defenseless kind. It can survive only so long as all competing moral systems are compatible. We live in a real world where Muslims, Nazis and Communists exist as group ideologies.

  42. I don’t think your mind is flexible enough to understand what I am getting at. You are stuck in your particular morality.

    Of course this charge is meaningless if it’s the right morality.

    As for your contention that anyone who doesn’t follow your brand of libertarian morality is totalitarian or a sociopath.

    Rad Geek implied nothing of the sort and you know it. He said, quite clearly, that’s it’s just plain crazy to think you can treat people however you please once they violate someone’s rights or even approve, in principle, that rights-violations for Allah are OK.

    The fact of the matter is that if that were true then 99% of humans on the planet have been sociopaths according to you. Next to no one is for open borders.

    The “views of 99% of of humans” are irrelevant to this debate.

    Open border libertarianism is of the defenseless kind.

    Well I suppose it might be more difficult to organize for defense when FedGovCo isn’t standing at the border shooting people, but so what? It’s possible and your frankly gargantuan fear about pie-in-the-sky possibilities of Muslim immigrants “taking over” just don’t wash. Show us proof. Show us *evidence* that the Muslims of today are, as a group, as brutal as the Muslims of the past and i’m sure everyone will assent to closed borders. But of course such evidence is not forthcoming.

  43. There is nothing racist about Chris Rock’s use of that word, nor is there anything racist about my quoting his use of that word. I personally would not use it in my own writing, because there is a cultural taboo against using certain epithets if you are not yourself a target of that epithet. Blacks can refer to themselves as “niggers,” yet it is generally inappropriate when whites do it. The same is true with Jews and the word “kike,” lesbians and the word “dyke,” and many other epithets. Sometimes, after much use this way, a word loses its offensive qualities, which is what happened to the word “queer” as an epithet against people with non-heterosexual sexual preferences.

    You can whine and moan all you want about how unfair you think these cultural taboos are, but cultural taboos are not always rational; they just simply are. I wouldn’t consider someone a bigot for making the mistake of violating such a taboo, although I might if, after informing the person of the offensive meaning, he or she continues unabated.

    My problem with Hoppe has never been with his use of a particular epithet, but with his ordinary language hatred of homosexuals, and his equating them will all sorts of (libertarian defined) criminals.

    Continue to play your silly little word games like you tried to do with “bigger”; I really could care less. You’re only making yourself look foolish to every inlooker.

  44. “My problem with Hoppe has never been with his use of a particular epithet, but with his ordinary language hatred of homosexuals, and his equating them will all sorts of (libertarian defined) criminals.”

    Yeah, like children, old people, and childless couples.

  45. “You must by definition consent to the initiation of force to keep out immigrants.”

    In a thread full of abjectly stupid comments, this may be the worst.

    The immigrant is the trespasser, the aggressor, the initiator of force. Self-defense is precisely the OPPOSITE of the initiation of force.

  46. Actually that was me, not Jennifer. She’s out now with her friends the insects and the helpful justice-seeking chimpanzee.

    Anyway, what’s the point? Tillman is a evil little creep, and words are useless in dealing with the likes of him.

Leave a Reply

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