The Gulag Du Toit

The spectacle of hispanic protests winding through the streets of America has riled the ranks of cultural conservative freedom fighters, it’s given the straight-shooting Liberty Belles a case of the vapors, and it’s even got Kim du Toit laying in the framework for American labor camps.

Addressing the concern that immigrants might get over or under an American Wall constructed at the border, du Toit proposes:

And we catch them doing it, and either repatriate them (first offense), or imprison them in tented labor camps for five years (subsequent offenses). They wanna work here? Fine. Let them do it as convicts, earning $1 per hour.

Du Toit implies that his labor camp solution could be a joke, but it stands to reason that he’s at least half-serious about it in the face of the high stakes game that du Toit, himself, outlines below.

Jokes aside, here’s the thing.

Illegal immigration costs us an untold amount of money each year, in social services, law enforcement and unpaid taxes. That’s just pure currency we’re talking about.

Now add to that the harm done by drug smuggling, terrorist infiltration and increased gang violence.

Ask me again whether the cost of securing our southern border is too much.

Expense, drug crime, terror, and unpaid taxes inflicted on the country as a result of the unauthorized crossings of a line on a map. That’s du Toit’s justification for apprehending and detaining illegal immigrants at gunpoint, but if the consequences of illegal immigration in the form of drug smuggling and unpaid taxes are unacceptable, then why stop at throwing wetbacks into the labor camps when there’s plenty of tent space left for domestic drug dealers and tax evaders, as well? That’s the beauty of your gulag, Kim. It’ll not only keep Club America exclusive, it’ll also re-educate red-blooded American druggies and tax deadbeats.

156 thoughts on “The Gulag Du Toit”

  1. I don’t know what South Africa had to do with it. Du Toit is simply calling for what most cultural conservatives (and perhaps most Americans) want.

    It’s nothing but your garden variety American collectivism.

  2. Nor is it fair to suggest collectivism is at the root of Kim’s position, or of mine… particularly when the group that is orgnizing tehse protests is “International Answer”.. a group whose membership includes body groups such the Free Palestine Alliance, the Partnership for Civil Justice, the Nicaragua Network, the Korea Truth Commission, the Muslim Student Association, the Mexico Solidarity Network and the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

    I mean, you guys were aware of whom it is you’re siding with here, right?

    Collectivist, my ass.

  3. True, but when people are crying about illegal immigration, they mean “Mexicans”. If it were hordes of Scots sneaking in, I doubt anyone would care.

  4. Along the same lines, check out this stinkbomb from Ron Paul.

    He doesn’t even attempt an argument or try to weasel around the issue by appealing to a strict interpretation of his blessed constitution, it’s just one ambiguous-collective, economic fallacy after another.

    Not that this is surprising coming from a politician, but the way in which this immigration (aka “moving”) issue has pushed people completely over the edge is absolutely horrifying.

  5. These are surely the times that try libertarian souls. The movement experienced a painful culling of the intellectually weak with the events and aftermath of 9/11, and it’s happening again with the immigration issue.

    You can’t be an individualist and at the same time blather about “cultural connections” and “assimilation” (what are we now, the Borg?). It’s distressing to see so many we have for so long considered “one of us” fail these tests. But it’s also enlightening, in a dismal sort of way.

  6. True, but when people are crying about illegal immigration, they mean “Mexicans”. If it were hordes of Scots sneaking in, I doubt anyone would care.

    Mexican immigrants tend to have more in common than ethnicity. If a comparable number of demographically comparable Scots were entering the country I have little doubt the reaction would be similar.

    The arguments of people like Du Toit are largely sincere, I think, and must be addresses on their merits in any case.

  7. Jay,

    One can hardly doubt that every single member of congress is a collectivist.

    Yet libertarians promote Paul and a champion and an example of how they can win politically.

    It’s all quite perfectly hopeless.

  8. Bithead,

    Nor is it fair to suggest collectivism is at the root of Kim’s position, or of mine…

    No, that’s perfectly fair. You both hold the rights of the group above the rights of the individual. You’re essentially holding this territory to be the collective property of Americans and if that’s the case then the collective is fully entitled to do whatever it lakes with any individual in the territory.

    You and Du Toit each have an individual right to keep Mexicans off your own property, but you don’t have any collective right to keep them off my property, no matter how many others agree with you.

  9. No, that’s perfectly fair. You both hold the rights of the group above the rights of the individual.

    No, I hold the rights os CITIZENS as paramount to a country. Seems to me your problem is you don’t like the group.

    But you do seem inclined to lie down with the collctivists as I mentioned…

  10. You’re essentially holding this territory to be the collective property of Americans and if that’s the case then the collective is fully entitled to do whatever it lakes with any individual in the territory.

    Not to nitpick, but is it your position that collective property is invalid as such, or merely in the special case that unanimous consent is lacking? Would you approve of villagers “collectively” owning a worn path or the space between buildings as Roderick Long advocates?

  11. Bithead,

    No, I hold the rights os CITIZENS as paramount to a country.

    Yes. And you hold that I as an individual have no right to have Mexicans on my property without the approval of your group, correct?

  12. Stefan,

    There is no good argument that America is collectively owned.

    Collective ownwership is a rotten arrangement on any large scale. Joint ownership is another matter. The way that shareholders jointly own a company is vastly superior to the way citizens are supposed to own America.

  13. I can’t say I have a set, dogmatic position on this issue. Since I live in a state called “New Mexico,” taking a hard line against “Mexicans” or getting riled hearing the sounds of Spanish being spoken would be rather silly. And, I find the notion of totalitarian “labor camps” of any sort, for any reason, disgusting, not to mention dangerous for everyone. “First, they came for the Mexicans, but I wasn’t a Mexican…”

    As I understand it, the libertarian/individualist position goes something like this: There are no groups, only individuals. There is no such thing as “Mexicans,” only individuals who live or lived within a region of land arbitrarily designated as “Mexico.” If an individual wishes to relocate from this arbitrary territory to another one called “the United States,” and this individual does not initiate force against anyone during the course of their move, who has a right to initiate force against them to prevent it?

    This argument is a strong one in my opinon. If you imagine going up to a particular “illegal immigrant” named Alberto or Consuela, and shouting, “You! Get out of “our” country!”–when he or she has not harmed anyone in coming here, and does the best s/he can to earn his/her living, it’s hard to find a good justification.

    On the other hand, the individualist position does not take into account emergent properties of multiple individuals such as shared cultural, religious, political or other ideas, and their potential effects as “externalities.”

    To dispense with some of the shibboleths of “racism” and so forth, let’s imagine that libertarians finally managed to do something effective to create a realm of freedom. In a near-miraculous display of logic, they decided to forego the next ten years of pointless Libertarian Party presidential campaigns, and put the money into creating a libertarian island city we’ll call New Atlantis.

    New Atlantis is a market-capitalist paradise, where a 12 year-old girl can buy herself a new I-Glock Autopistol in one of six fashionable colors, no questions asked, and carry it to school without anyone having a reason to do anything but smile and tell her how nice the holster looks with her miniskirt; where magic mushrooms and cannabis are sold next to bananas in the produce section, and “taxation” is considered a cussword not appropriate in mixed company.

    Now, let’s say there’s a major economic downturn in “the United States,” and individuals from Massachusetts start emigrating to New Atlantis in search of economic opportunity. They’re all WASPs whose families came over to “America” on the Mayflower. Since they’re all economically desperate, it turns out they’ll work for lower wages than Atlanteans, so many of the major Atlantean corporations start bringing them in en masse, creating “company neighborhoods” for them, and so forth. No initiation of force involved.

    But, these new immigrants are shocked by the absence of “common-sense gun control laws,” the existence of cigarette vending machines, and the absence of a “basic social safety net.” Some of them come over to the Atlantean way of thinking, but most don’t. As more and more of these immigrants come in, they start to realize that they represent a significant portion of the city’s population.

    So, they get together and form a Democratic Party and start agitating for some “sensible regulation” and a “fairer distribution of wealth.” The Atlanteans, being good libertarians, have virtually no political organization whatsoever, and what organization they do have consists of small, bickering groups ordered on the lines of the Judean People’s Front and the People’s Front of Judea.

    Furthermore, the Massachusetts immigrants have started churches and Rotary Clubs, and “Massachusetts-Atlantean Rights” groups. Soon, entire sections of the city are no longer willing to accept the idea of 12 year-old girls with guns or people smoking (tobbacco or cannabis) in restaurants. Any suggestion that the inflow of new “Massachusetts-Atlantean” immigration be slowed or halted is met immediately with large, well-organized protests, and accusations ranging from “collectivism” to “racism.”

    The “original” Atlanteans scratch their heads and say, “Well, we can’t point to any particular Massachusetts-Atlantean and say they initiated force in getting here, and their demonstrations and Rotary Clubs and churches are all examples of freedom of speech and association… But if they keep coming, it won’t be long before we’re paying taxes again!”

    Attempts by some Atlantean companies and property-owners associations to keep M-Atlanteans from their property result in withering charges of bigotry and collectivism. M-Atlantean youths, fired from their jobs and displaced from company property, riot in several of the suburbs. By now, this is an initiation of force, so the Atlantean Market Defense Agencies can respond… But the M-Atlanteans, seeing their children under attack for merely demanding civil rights such as job security and health care, fight back. Though still a minority, they are better organized, and New Atlantis has a Fourth Generation war on its hands.

    Meanwhile, the immigrants keep coming… So, what’s a good Atlantean to do?

  14. So the distinction between the “good” and “bad” sorts of group ownership have nothing to do with size in your opinion? I see you’re point about a corporation; it does leave open the remote possibility that under anarcho-capitalism a company could come to justly own the continental United States, but that’s probably a remote enough possibility to not worry about it.

  15. Get rid of social security, the income tax, corporate tax… hell, all taxes! Sell all public land, including every cubic inch down to the mantle, and all the minerals therein; sell the oceans,; sell the airspace; sell it all!

    There now, every cubic inch of of space is privately owned. Even growing up requires permission of the owner of the space above you.

    Government is rendered irrelevant and disappears. Mexican immigration problem evaporates.

  16. I mean, you guys were aware of whom it is you’re siding with here, right?

    [GODWIN ALERT!!!]

    I’m 100% certain I can find a Nazi who thinks the state should restrict immigration from the south.

    So…why are you siding with Nazis?

    [/GODWIN ALERT!!!]

    You can end this foolishness now, Sir. It isn’t a useful argument, unless your intent is to smear and insult.

  17. Kennedy:

    Mexican immigrants tend to have more in common than ethnicity. If a comparable number of demographically comparable Scots were entering the country I have little doubt the reaction would be similar.

    Well, at least the reactions from nativist bullies were pretty similar when comparable numbers of demographically comparable Irish immigrants were entering the country.

    So I’m sure it’s true that part of what motivates nativists is based on socioeconomic status at least as much as it’s based on race. Still, I’m not sure why this would make the argument based on something other than bigotry. Isn’t there class bigotry as well as racial bigotry?

    The arguments of people like Du Toit are largely sincere, I think, and must be addresses on their merits in any case.

    Right, but pointing out that an argument rests on bigoted premises isn’t necessarily an evasion of the merits of the argument. Bigotry is a form of collectivism, and if you have a general case against using violence on the basis of collectivist premises than afortiori you have a case against using violence on the basis of bigoted premises. So pointing out that someone is trying to use bigotry to defend aggression seems to me just as good an argument as pointing out that someone is trying to use other forms of collectivism (e.g. constitutionalism or democratic mysticism) to justify aggression. If the latter doesn’t work, the former doesn’t either.

  18. So, what’s a good Atlantean to do?

    Not shoot them at the border.

    Atlantis would be private property. If you invite more thieves than you can handle onto your private property I guess you have a problem.

  19. I second the motion for JTK to give an example of one of those “non-bigotted reasons for wanting the borders closed” that he claims people have. As I see it, the reasons are:

    1) For WASPs, that most immigrants are poor, Catholic (or something other than Protestant), speak a different native language, and are willing to work harder for less money than WASPs.

    2) For Legal immigrants, that illegal immigrants are poorer and willing to work harder for less money than legal immigrants.

    3) For American blacks, that immigrants are poorer, usually of a different religion, speak a different language, and are willing to work harder for less money than blacks.

    Which of these reasons is non-bigotted – or, what other reasons are there?

  20. For Legal immigrants, that illegal immigrants are poorer and willing to work harder for less money than legal immigrants… or, what other reasons are there?

    It’s usually said to be unfair to legal immigrants because they “respected the law and went through the system”. I don’t see that as bigotted reasoning.

    It is, however, utterly moronic.

  21. As for PT Galt’s scenario: If there is no effective mechanism for preventing the immigrating hordes of poor-but-still-statist types from imposing statism from within your libertopia, what effective mechanism will there be to keep them out? If enough of them want in badly enough, they will be strong enough to do so militarily.

  22. what effective mechanism will there be to keep them out? If enough of them want in badly enough, they will be strong enough to do so militarily.

    So you’re saying maybe a foreign state sends in hordes of “settlers” that are really the vanguard of an attack? That certainly sounds like a dangerous scenario. My intuition is that either

    1) if the statists really had so much manpower then there’d be no way to stop them anyway, or

    2) somehow it would become apparent that they were gearing up for an attack, whether through not forming business partnerships with the locals or hiding AK-47s and uniforms in their basements or something.

    There’s been some fiction on the scenario you describe I believe; The Ungoverned started out with statists importing soldiers (I think) close to an anarcho-capitalist society as a prelude to attack.

  23. As you know I agree with PT Galt’s scenario. Despite the appeal of pure Libertarianism to some who believe it makes them morally superior, the damn thing just doesn’t work.

    There are many non-racist rationals for not wanting immigration but, of course, they deal with reality and not libertarian utopias.

    None of the Libertarian systems you have in mind are in place, therefore completely open immigration would have many bad side effects from my point of view that are not just.
    1) I’d end up having to support them
    2) I can’t move into their countries since they have outlawed my immigration there. Worse still they have laws on the books that would require my execution even if I was a native.
    3) I’m a high value replicator. I invest in my offspring like the oak not the weed.
    4) The above three make for a strategy that pretty much guarantees the eventual elimination of me and mine.

    That’s not about racism but personal extermination. They don’t play by the same rules and the rules they do play by put me at a disadvantage. Sorry, guys, I’m just another replicator and I don’t see much future in letting the other guy see my cards when he won’t let me look at his.

    Don’t talk to me about past waves of immigrants either. Seems to me they were part of the impetus to the labor movements of the times and what are currently less libertarian style rules.

  24. Macker’s argument that immigration is bad because he’d “end up having to support them” fails for several reasons:

    1) It is overbroad: Many immigrants will be self-supporting; if he is right that most of them will have more children than him, then their combined contributions to Social Security will do more to support them in retirement than his will.

    2) It is underinclusive: Many non-immigrants are recipients of welfare, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc., and thus greater burdens upon him than many immigrants. If immigrants are to be prevented from entering or deported based on the presumption that they are burdens upon the taxpayers, why should citizens who are demonstrably burdens upon the taxpayers receive any better treatment?

    3) It violates the presumption of innocence: To presume that immigrants will burden the taxpayers is collectivist and prejudicial. At most, it could be argued that immigrants who are proven to burden the taxpayers ought to be deported or otherwise cut off from tax-funded services. This would still beg the question of why citizens should enjoy better treatment.

    4) It is really an argument against welfare and other tax-funded redistribution schemes, not an argument against immigration.

    5) The logic that those who may do things which will qualify them for transfer payments from taxpayers may justly have their liberty restricted implies a whole lot more restrictions than just upon immigration. Those with lifestyles or diets that lead to terminal illness in old age would qualify for Medicare/Medicaid; by Macker’s logic, unhealthy lifestyles and diets could then be justly banned.

    As an alternative, here’s my 3-step solution to the “illegal immigration problem”:

    1) Bar all illegal immigrants from being able to receive any tax-funded transfer payments or services;

    2) Exempt all illegal immigrants from all the taxes that go to pay for those transfer payments and services;

    3) Allow citizens to apply for the same status.

  25. Tim,

    Your answer to number 1) is from a moral and evolutionary standpoint wrong. Parents who try to produce more children do not always succeed. Raising Children takes time and resources. A set of parents who produces two children can invest far more in that child than one who produces six. This is especially true in a libertarian society where the parent would bear the full burden of education. Without inheritance taxes a two child family community need not build any new housing each generation, so there are additional cost savings.

    I said morally wrong because even if someone else produced the children and yet I bore the burden of raising them then I deserve some portion of the revenue stream they produce.

    It wasn’t overbroad since I did not specify any policy whatsoever. I was merely showing that purely open immigration won’t work. You can filter for the self supporting immigrants by all sorts of unspecified means.

    2) Again, it can’t be underinclusive since I made no recommendation. However certainly the first step needs to be cutting off the freeloaders that are already here before importing more of them.

    3) There is no violation of the presumption of innocences for similar reasons to the above. Not having totally open borders is not the same thing as completely closing off the borders. There are an infinite number of possibile sets of rules.

    4) Yes, it is and no it isn’t. Some people use collectivist strategies in replicating, both there culture and there genes. If those strategies give them an edge then I see no reason not to use collectivist strategies to defeat them. As an example, some like the mafia collectivize on kin relationships then initiate force to “redistribute” my resources to them. They then reproduce genetically pass these cultural values on to their young. I don’t see why I can’t collectivize with others of my own kind to repel them. So should an immigrant family be found to be behaving thusly they should be deported, or pre-filtered in the first place.
    5) Yes, they could. That is certainly a danger. Question is, you don’t think this would happen in a Libertarian society? You are going to have to join some group to protect yourself. That group is going to have rules. You would end up with a society something like somalia. There would be even less license in a Libertarian society, as people gravitated to in and out groups in search of security.

    I like your solution better than what we have now but it isn’t going to happen. Especially when libertarians aren’t willing to participate in the political process. Politics will exist in any system that is designed, even a libertarian utopia. It would just take a different form.

  26. Replies to Macker:

    1) If you have two children and someone else has 6 children, then under the current system you will benefit disproportionately from the Social Security taxes paid by the other children, because their total contribution to SS will be greater than that of your children – all else being equal, of course.

    2) Your argument is overbroad because it doesn’t apply to all immigrants. It is underinclusive because it applies to more than just immigrants. This is true no matter what policy recommendations you make.

    3) If you require immigrants to prove that they will be self-supporting in order for them to enter the country, that is a form of prior restraint which violates the presumption of innocence.

    4) Your argument about “collectivist strategies in replicating” is too vague for me to understand it. Please be more specific.

    5) I have nothing against joining groups, nor in excluding people from private voluntary associations unless they meet the requirements for group membership. I simply maintain that that is different than State borders, because States are not private voluntary associations.

    As for Somalia, I knew Michael van Notten, who lived in Somalia from before the UN invasion in the early 1990s until his death a couple of years ago, and spoke with him at length about what it was like there. One thing I can tell you for sure is that it is not a situation in which no one belongs to any groups organized for mutual protection, as that is the main function of the Somali clans. They provide police/military protection, courts, and old-age pensions.

    6) Libertarians do participate in the political process. Most of the term limits initiatives that have been passed were the results of libertarian political entrepreneurship. So were many tax-limitation initiatives. So are many of the eminent domain limitation initiatives that are being worked on right now.

  27. Bithead,

    Nor is it fair to suggest collectivism is at the root of Kim’s position, or of mine… particularly when the group that is orgnizing tehse protests is “International Answer”…

    That’s merely because the commies judge that by doing so, they’ll get all the votes of those immigrants.

    And whose problem is that — who here endorses giving out voting rights? Answer is that you do: you love you some American-style government. So, you’ll pardon me if I’m underwhelmed about you facing down the consequences of the majoritarian democracy you endorse.

  28. You are going to have to join some group to protect yourself. That group is going to have rules. You would end up with a society something like somalia. There would be even less license in a Libertarian society, as people gravitated to in and out groups in search of security.

    That makes no sense. Increased competition increases the number of choices available to consumers, not the reverse.

    I like your solution better than what we have now but it isn’t going to happen. Especially when libertarians aren’t willing to participate in the political process.

    Libertarians (big “L”) have been trying to participate in the poltical process. How do you guess that’s been going so far?

    Politics will exist in any system that is designed, even a libertarian utopia. It would just take a different form.

    If by “politics” you mean negotiation for resources and responsibilities then sure, but so what? If you mean just what we have now, well then obviously there wouldn’t be statist politics in a libertarian society (duh!).

  29. John T. Kennedy wrote:

    “Not shoot them at the border.

    Atlantis would be private property. If you invite more thieves than you can handle onto your private property I guess you have a problem. ”

    And what if other people invite more thieves than you can handle onto their property? Say, you’re an average homeowner in Atlantis. You have not invited anyone from Massachusetts onto your property, but the big corporations have brought them in en masse for the cheap labor. They bring with them cultural changes that are not confined to corporate property. One by one, the naked statues of Courtney Love are removed from public parks or draped with drapes because they’re “obscene,” and you can no longer go to the farmers’ market, buy a few bags of cannabis, and drive home by the most direct route, because the “Little Massachusetts” neighborhoods that have sprung up (all funded by the corporations with no initiation of force) are Drug Free Zones whose Defense Agencies randomly search cars passing into, through, and out of their parts of the city.

    Given the M-Atlanteans’ superior political organization and their backing by the big corps that brought them, they start imposing “common sense” regulation, like labor laws, licenses and so forth that help the corporations erect barriers to entry against rival entrepreneurs. Sooner or later, even if you never invite a single M-Atlantean onto your property, the culture around you will change, and you’ll find yourself living in a clone of Massachusetts.

    Given that it’s “illegal” immigration we’re talking about, we could also include the scenario of people landing on the beaches in un-seaworthy craft from Massachusetts, without having been invited by any corporation or anyone else. In this case, they’d be trespassers, but if they’re trespassing in large enough numbers, and have support from “M-Atlantean Rights” groups who demand that owners of beachfront property “not shoot them at the border,” sooner or later Atlantis would be overrun, wouldn’t it?

    There are two problems here that IMO are not being addressed. One is that imported people and the ideas and cultural influences they bring cannot be neatly contained on the property of those who invite them if they’re coming in large enough numbers (unless you’re talking about “privatized” versions of those tent-city work camps). The M-Atlanteans would want to go to the grocery store, restaurants, etc. like everyone else.

    And since they come from a culture where magic mushrooms, cigarette vending machines, and guns being bought and sold like screwdrivers are “offensive,” while the right of a group to demand society ban things if finds “offensive” is perfectly acceptable, they would eventually be able to impose their cultural norms on Atlantis, even on people who never invited them onto their own property.

    Second, there is the Action In Concert Problem. Libertarians, individualists, and “market-anarchist” theoreticians have thus far proven completely incapable of getting enough of their number to act in concert to create the kind of social environment (e.g. a genuinely free one) they want to live in. In contrast, every four years, the Republican and Democratic parties can get tens of millions of people to go to the same place (polling stations) and do the same thing (vote) on the same day, no matter how terrible their candidates are. Result: Republicans and Democrats write the rules by which libertarians, individualists, and market-anarchist theoreticians have to live by.

    Even if the Yankees were a minority in Atlantis, they would probably govern the place, since their Democratic Party would be running against (if there were elections) or engaging in 4th Generation war against (if there weren’t) several thousand bickering libertarian/individualist parties and large numbers of completely unorganized private landowners. IOW, they would win through action in concert.

    Market-anarchists will often talk about how well the Icelandic Commonwealth worked as a market-anarchist society. And maybe it did, while it was relatively isolated. But what happened when it was forced into competition with medieval theocracy? Medieval theocracy won hands down. It doesn’t matter how nice market anarchism sounds on paper, or how moral a society that absolutely recognized property rights would be, or how great the world would become if 6.5 billion people would all suddenly agree, as if by magic, to sell everything from the ionosphere to Earth’s creamy liquid center on Ebay.

    If market anarchism cannot compete with the State, ethnic, religious, cultural, and other collectivisms here, now, in this reality, starting with the people who believe in it (instead of imagining the day when 6.5 billion Earthlings, or even 300 million Americans will, all at once, decide to toss everything they’re used to overboard and try something new), then it’s just a fine-sounding fantasy, like Communism that works or riding flying carpets to work.

    Another thing I’d like to see regarding the debate on “illegal” immigration is a better refutation of something like this than merely hurling charges of racism, bigotry, and the like. Hurl the charges if they’re true (Lind defines himself as a “cultural conservative” and has an odd fondness for the regime of Kaiser Wilhelm II…), but also show why his beliefs are incorrect.

  30. Market-anarchists will often talk about how well the Icelandic Commonwealth worked as a market-anarchist society. And maybe it did, while it was relatively isolated. But what happened when it was forced into competition with medieval theocracy? Medieval theocracy won hands down.

    Half of what you’re saying is nonsense, but I just can’t let this one pass. They lasted longer than a lot of medieval theorcracies, as well as lasting longer than the ~200 yrs the United States has existed. And they were not “in competition” with the king of Norway; internal wealth inequalities and feuding eventually destabilized it to the point that it accepted monarchy. Roderick Long has argued elsewhere that the causes of this destabilization were related to taxation (the church tithe), but even if you don’t agree with his case you can’t simply damn the Icelandic Commonwealth as inferior to monarchy without some explanation.

  31. Another thing I’d like to see regarding the debate on “illegal” immigration is a better refutation of something like this than merely hurling charges of racism, bigotry, and the like.

    That’s easy; Lind attacks “multiculturalism”. But if the “culture” of a group of people happens to involve killing their neighbors and taking their stuff, then mixing with a libertarian society is not immigration; it’s war.

    Given that it’s “illegal” immigration we’re talking about, we could also include the scenario of people landing on the beaches in un-seaworthy craft from Massachusetts, without having been invited by any corporation or anyone else. In this case, they’d be trespassers, but if they’re trespassing in large enough numbers, and have support from “M-Atlantean Rights” groups who demand that owners of beachfront property “not shoot them at the border,” sooner or later Atlantis would be overrun, wouldn’t it?

    Some of your objections might be better addressed by picking up a copy of The Ungoverned or some other anarcho-capitalist fiction (David Friedman has a list in his book). At least they might help stimulate your thinking on some of these issues.

    Given the M-Atlanteans’ superior political organization and their backing by the big corps that brought them, they start imposing “common sense” regulation, like labor laws, licenses and so forth that help the corporations erect barriers to entry against rival entrepreneurs. Sooner or later, even if you never invite a single M-Atlantean onto your property, the culture around you will change, and you’ll find yourself living in a clone of Massachusetts.

    Of course the “imposition” of “common sense” regulation will amount to aggression, at which point the private defence agencies would be forced to step in. You can argue that perhaps defence agencies will be inherently unstable, prone to turning into governments, etc, but I think you’re pretty naive to assume that a bunch of statists can just move in to a libertarian society and start running things the way they want without encountering any resistance at all.

  32. 1) …. – all else being equal, of course.


    All other things aren’t equal. In fact those 6 children are likely to produce far less money than the higher quality children produced by the person who refrains from over reproduction.

    I’ll give you an example, which is simplified for illustration purposes. Suppose there are two cultural groups each starting with an equal amount of assets. Lets say it’s 100 acres of land, per married couple distributed uniformly. These are farmers and farming methods are primitive. Let’s further suppose that if a couple were to forgo educating one child that would save them enough money to feed, clothe, and shelter an addition child. Under current technological conditions one hundred acres provides enough resources to feed, clothe, and shelter six children. The two cultural groups are the Birchites and the Oakites. The Birchites like the birch tree make less investment per offspring, and have six children each. Birch tree seeds are small and numerous. The Oakites like the Oak tree have fewer offspring but invest heavily in them, they have two children each. Both cultural groups start out the same in terms of education, technology, and capital assets.

    During the first generation the Oakites just replace their population, and the Birchites triple theirs. There are important differences however in the state of the children.

    Each Oakite couple has additional resources per child and invests those in an education for there child and in capital for their child. The capital takes the form of a plow. Since the population of Oakites remains the same they each inherit the same amount of land as their parents had. Because of the educational and capital expenditures each Oakite child can produce more resources from the same amount of land than the prior generation. So the 2nd generation of Oakites has enough resources per couple to support 12 children each.

    Each Birchite couple produces uneducated children with no plow and 1/3 the land assets as their parents have. Each new Birchite couple having less land and the same educational and capital levels will produce enough resources to produce exactly two children each with no education and no capital assets. Birchite reproductive capacity has reached it’s plateau and from this point forward the Birchites will only be able to replace their population levels.

    This is not true for the Oakites, in fact their reproduction increases. They still have the same attitude towards reproduction, which is to produce high quality offspring but have more resources to do so. The could go “all Birchite” and produce 12 uneducated children each, with no capital assets, and diminished land per child, but that would result in a population crash in generation four. No what the Oakites do is to continue their strategy and produce two children for each six units of resources. Their population doubles this time, and will keep increasing until the carrying capacity of the land holds up.

    If we were to assume that the education and capital investments were not cumulative and that plows wear out after one generation then the carrying capacity of the land has merely doubled. Thus after several generations the Oakites will outnumber the Birchites two to one. The quality of life they live however will also be much higher.

    That is a bad assumption however. Capital improvements and educational advances are cumulative. The Oakites will continue to improve their standard of living. They will advance from the plow, to the tractor. The will go from hand picking to harvesting machinery, etc.

    In the above scenario I was assuming that no trade or labor relations occur between the groups. If we remove that assumption what will happen is that the two groups will trade against their strengths and weaknesses. The Oakites will hire Birchites to work their land and the Birchites will be driven out of land ownership because they can produce less per acre. Land is more valuable to Oakites because they can produce more from it so they will buy up all the Birchite land.

    Both Birchites and Oakites will see their standard of living improved by these arrangements. There will however be a vast gulf in their earnings capacities. Birchites will earn more than they would in a pure Birchite society but will still have and earn far less than Oakites.

    What one sees from this example that it is the replication strategy of the Birchites, which is responsible for their poverty, not the Oakites. I believe that the consequences of behavior should be born by the agents that produce that behavior. Replicators (the locus of agency) whether genotypic or memotypic should get feedback from their phenotypic results.

    Now one could set up the society at this point where you transfer assets from Oakites to Birchites via capital gains taxes, welfare transfers, progressive taxation and the like. What you are in effect doing by that however is making the Oakites raise the children of the Birchites. If there were some sort of benefit to be gotten from children in old age then why should those benefits inure to the Birchite parents. It’s the story of the Little Red Hen. They didn’t bake the bread, why should they enjoy it.

    So the long and the short of is that six ignorant dishwashers cannot earn nearly as much money as six highly educated and capital intense computer programmers.

    Besides your whole line of reasoning is wrong. In my case I don’t plan on retiring early and also don’t expect social security to support me. I save heavily for my retirement. It’s easy because I earn between 10 to 30 times the amount an unskilled immigrant gets. Furthermore, it is the capital that I produce and save during my lifetime that will support me in old age, not the number of bodies produced. It would take hundreds of poor immigrant children to support me in my old age without the capital, not merely six. What matters is how much capital I consume vs. produce more than anything. Right now I am producing enough to both pay for my own high investment children plus to pay for several immigrants, and save for my retirement, and support the current social security freeloaders who are taking out more than they put in.

  33. Your argument is overbroad because it doesn’t apply to all immigrants. It is underinclusive because it applies to more than just immigrants. This is true no matter what policy recommendations you make.

    Nonsense. In the first case a policy could distinguish between particular immigrants, and in the second case a policy could use forced emigration.

    There reasons for distinguishing between citizens and non-citizens has nothing to do with the argument. Just because both citizens and non-citizens can act as parasites or criminals doesn’t mean we should not make distinctions.

    For instance it is much harder to kick someone out than to keep them from coming in. That’s especially true when you have a uniform culture, since you can distinguish people by their accents, behavior, and other traits.

    Using your reasoning we could not prevent criminals from immigrating to this country, in the case where our laws were not perfect with regard to catching the criminals already here. If the person trying to come here has a know criminal record and has never held down a job then how is that different than the same person who already resides here?

    There are overbroad policies like completely shutting down the borders that would keep him out but that doesn’t mean all policies are this way. Selectively keeping out the criminal is not inclusive enough because there are already criminals living in the country that are not being punished either.

    Why on earth should I care about the exclusiveness since I can fix that by policy. Why should inclusiveness matter. If I am already being victimized by one set of criminals then why invite in more?

    The inclusiveness could also be resolved by policy if you are willing to banish and deport even criminal citizens. They are still not be punished. These types of resolutions have been common in “non-State” societies in the past.

    Note that I am not suggesting these as suitable to our current situation. I am only using them as examples to disprove your contention.

    There are plenty of other ways of dealing with this also. In the past immigrants were required to have a sponsor who was responsible for any actions taken by the immigrant. That is another possibility.

    I believe the first step should be to correct our bad internal policies such a welfare and social security, before we go to more open immigration. As long as those policies are in place there is no reason not to filter immigrants based on the likelihood they will exploit the system.

  34. Your argument about “collectivist strategies in replicating” is too vague for me to understand it. Please be more specific.

    Individual behavior is highly influenced by ones cultural background which one inherits from ones parents to a large extent. Culture consists of beliefs that are replicated from generation to generation.

    An example of a collectivist strategy in replicating would be the mafia. Average Americans do not rely on family gangs to use force against others. This behavior is replicative and culturally hereditary. That is members of the mafia tend to bring their children up as criminals with clan type values. Values such as “never be a snitch”, “kill rats and stool pigeons”, and “once a member always a member on pain of death”.

    Another example is the Islamic religion. There is a whole collection of memes that work together to give a group advantage over individual non-Muslims. It is next to impossible to fairly compete in a Muslim society if you are non-Muslim. These strategies include, murder of apostates (similar to the mafias membership rule), prohibitions on intermarriage, judicial double standards when it comes to non-Muslims, intolerance of non-Muslims, Jihad, Sharia, etc.

    These strategies are quite successful and are the main reason that Christianity and Islam are so widespread. Christianity has to a large extent dropped these strategies and is a shrinking religion. The other poster mentioned Iceland and it’s.

    You can empirically see this happening in Europe. Muslims as a group are very intolerant of people who dress differently. Thus there is a raping spree occurring against European women by Islamic men that will eventually have the effect of modifying the behavior of the European outsiders.

    This is not merely the province of Muslims either. The French cultural intolerance is an example of this. English language bans in Quebec being a specific example.

    Other strategies are having a common language, being xenophobic, controlling immigration.

    Saudi Arabia allows zero immigration, no construction of temples of other religions, and no missionary work within their country, yet allows emigration, actively builds mosques and does missionary work in other countries. I hope you can see how these collectivist strategies in replication results in less than a level playing field for other cultural beliefs, both in their own country and abroad. Such a strategy is more likely to spread than one of extremist individualism.

    An example of a non-collectivist strategy would be to NOT have your child taught the tenets of your own religion, and not expect them to marry another co-religionist. Our public school systems tend to be of this nature, whereas, those in Saudi Arabia do not.

  35. Tim,

    I don’t understand your response on Somalia. I know about what you explained already, had read the article over at Mises, and was specifically using it as an example. An example of something I had deduced (and observed) prior to reading about it. People would tend to turn to clannish behavior under a libertarian society. Then the clans would restrict the behavior of their members. In this case the clans are Muslim and you know the kinds of restrictions they have. No bacon cheeseburgers, no sex outside marriage, no bikinis, etc.

    Do you see my point?

    I think there is an assumption in Libertarianism that corporatism is a result of freedom and that we would naturally shop for things like security, insurance, charity, etc, separately. However there are transaction costs in doing so which are eliminated by having a Statist society with limited liability corporate law. It’s not clear to me that when you get rid of these things that you wouldn’t just end up with Somalia. One stop shopping.

    We often see Libertarians who think things like traffic laws would disappear under a “free society” and thus get people like LP party candidate Badnarik doing silly things like refusing to get a license. We have discussed this before on this forum and I see no reason why a private owner wouldn’t also require a license, have stop signs on his roads, and require insurance. Not only that but despite the economic drawbacks he might decide to restrict travel to members of his own group. He could make more money by letting any person willing to pay on the road but supposedly under a libertarian society he is going to bear all costs. There are security costs to himself and to the neighbors that are involve in just letting anybody in who pays the fee. I don’t see why the neighbors couldn’t sue him to pay for damages caused by his failure to properly control the mob on his land. If criminals are using his property as a base of operations to get at the other property holders then have a right to stop it.

    In reality this is what happens. Clan leaders tend to end up controlling travel within their jurisdictions and tend to restrict travel on the basis of security. What could be more insecure than having many members of a neighboring clan milling about in your territory? Thus such activities are restricted on the basis of clan membership, race, religion, etc. Exceptions are made but the freedom of travel is nothing like we have here. We can’t have women in bikinis driving around in convertibles on Islamic highways. That would cause Islamic road rage not to mention traffic accidents.

    I have used this as an argument for Libertarianism in the past. People arguing against libertarianism say that it wouldn’t work because no one would obey the stop signs, and everyone would devolve into libertines. I have to point out that Libertarian society would be far more restrictive than they imagine. I don’t go to the degree I have here however, although it is perfectly true. People do not want to live in Somalia like societies.

    Do I know things would go this way? No. There might be some cultural evolution or invention that makes it possible. One similar to the join ownership revolution cause by the invention of stocks. It might already exist but I don’t know about it. I do however think my concerns are justified. I take the view of Hayek that societies are complex beasts and evolution, not revolution is the way to gain improvements.

    Our immigration strategy for the past 50 or so years has been revolutionary compared to the past. We’ve dropped our cultural guard.

  36. It is next to impossible to fairly compete in a Muslim society if you are non-Muslim.

    Well, it would be next to impossible for an individua to “compete” against a society allied against him in any society. :)

  37. Stefan,

    What’s your point. I don’t see one. I’m an atheist in a Christian dominated society. I don’t have problems competing and being openly atheist. That’s because Christianity culture, with hard prodding from non-believers has abandoned the types of beliefs and rules that Islam still hangs on to.

    Another example of Islamic cultural rules that tend to make them behave as a group instead of individuals. In three or more separate places the Qu’ran tells Muslims not to befriend non-Muslims and to treat such friendships as inferior to ones with other Muslims.

    Basically it has all the types of rules any domestic cult has. This tends to program people not to act as individualists but as aggressive wholes.

    I don’t see any track record where anarchist type societies have done well against such collective behavior.

  38. What’s your point. I don’t see one.

    Maybe if you mastered punctuation your comprehension would go up. :)

    I don’t see any track record where anarchist type societies have done well against such collective behavior.

    Well anarchist societies have had some trouble forming, mainly due to the iron boot that the state currently holds on everyone’s face. I’m optimistic however for the future. Go, medieval Iceland! :)

  39. I don’t see any track record where anarchist type societies have done well against such collective behavior.

    Not only medieval Iceland, but also medieval Ireland, certain Native American tribes, and a few other societies. As much as I despise the Mises Institute, the Journal of Libertarian Studies had a great article about that. Unfortunately, I can’t recall the exact reference.

  40. We’ve been through this before. Don’t get me started again. If you can’t see Rockwell, Hoppe and Company for the fascist, bigoted, theocratic nutbars that they are, then there’s nothing I can do to help you. And by the way, are you really optimistic about the future? Can you point to one development over the past fifty years, anywhere in the world, that made you optimistic?

  41. Stefan Says:

    Half of what you’re saying is nonsense, but I just can’t let this one pass. They lasted longer than a lot of medieval theorcracies, as well as lasting longer than the ~200 yrs the United States has existed.”

    The IC may have lasted longer than some medieval theocracies, but market anarchism *as a system* (as manifest in the IC) did not outlast or outperform medieval theocracy *as a system.* According to the MA theorists I’ve read, it’s supposed to be vastly superior to government, since free market defense agencies and such do not have the overwhelming inefficiencies of their government competitors, while their un-taxed, unregulated economy should (according to theory) be an engine of prosperity and innovation as much as 8 times*** more productive than a government economy.

    If this were the case, the IC, or Ebla (an ancient city in Syria that may have been another market-anarchist society), ought to have demonstrated this superiority the same way agricultural society inexorably spread, replacing hunter-gatherer society. Or so it might seem. Perhaps market anarchism works better in an age of high technology, in a certain type of cultural environment, or it needed a better arrangement than those societies had.

    ***This is the estimate given by L. Neil Smith, based on the idea of the cost of taxes and regulations being added at each step of production of goods and services. My guess is that a factor-of-eight advantage is overblown, and that most market anarchist theoreticians would agree.

    “And they were not “in competition” with the king of Norway; internal wealth inequalities and feuding eventually destabilized it to the point that it accepted monarchy. Roderick Long has argued elsewhere that the causes of this destabilization were related to taxation (the church tithe), but even if you don’t agree with his case you can’t simply damn the Icelandic Commonwealth as inferior to monarchy without some explanation. ”

    I’m not “damning” the IC, or market-anarchism. Both may have been (and would be) superior to monarchy and other governmental systems in many ways, but one: thus far (prove me wrong, please!) they have proven unable to compete effectively with monarchy and other government systems.

    Consider the extreme amounts of profligate waste of wealth governments engage in. The Pyramids, Versailles, the latest Quadrennial Defense Review… If McDonalds started engaging in comparable inefficiencies (say, adding solid gold countertops to its restaurants), it would be quickly outcompeted by market competitors. Government, OTOH, is able to engage in incalculable waste of wealth and lives, over thousands of years, without even coming close to being outcompeted by some hyper-efficient market-anarchist rival.

    “Well anarchist societies have had some trouble forming, mainly due to the iron boot that the state currently holds on everyone’s face.”

    This is my point in a nutshell. Government has thus far proven able to outcompete market anarchism throughout recorded history. Unless market anarchists can develop a way to outcompete the state, starting with the numbers and resources they now possess (instead of imagining how nice it would work if 300 million Americans suddenly became market anarchists), it will remain nothing more than a nice theory. So far as I can tell, market anarchists fill out their 1040 forms just like everybody else, and (like true libertarians) cannot seem to act in concert well enough to start even a small freeport of 5-10,000 people on the coast of Somalia or some Pacific island.

    I wish they could. I would gladly declare myself to be a market anarchist if I saw any prospect of it becoming a reality instead of a fantasy comparable to the Workers’ Paradise or the Christian heaven.

    “I’m optimistic however for the future. Go, medieval Iceland! :)”

    I’d be interested in the reasons for your optimism. Is there a market-anarchist project somewhere that is “for real?”

  42. Stefan wrote:

    “Lind attacks “multiculturalism”. But if the “culture” of a group of people happens to involve killing their neighbors and taking their stuff, then mixing with a libertarian society is not immigration; it’s war.”

    Agreed. At present, every “culture” on Earth happens to involve killing the neighbors (or at least threatening them with violence, e.g. “arrest and incarceration”) and taking their stuff (“taxation”). How would a libertarian society deal with immigration from any country then?

    “Some of your objections might be better addressed by picking up a copy of The Ungoverned or some other anarcho-capitalist fiction (David Friedman has a list in his book). At least they might help stimulate your thinking on some of these issues.”

    I have read some of L. Neil Smith’s market-capitalist fiction (e.g. The Probability Broach, Pallas, etc.). They’re good stories, IMO, and they make MC society look great, but then it’s easy to make a society work in fiction. I would like to see some evidence that it could work here, in the real world, states and all. Either it can survive in competition with governments, or it can’t. If it can, let’s try it. If it can’t, it’s an invalid theory and should be abandoned in favor of a strategy with some chance of success.

    “Of course the “imposition” of “common sense” regulation will amount to aggression, at which point the private defence agencies would be forced to step in. You can argue that perhaps defence agencies will be inherently unstable, prone to turning into governments, etc, but I think you’re pretty naive to assume that a bunch of statists can just move in to a libertarian society and start running things the way they want without encountering any resistance at all.”

    I never said they’d encounter no resistance at all. I’m just skeptical (based on the performance of L/libertarians in general) that they’d meet any *effective, organized* resistance. L/libertarians for the most part seem to willingly accept the cost/benefit package of American (or other gov’t) “citizenship” rather than face the challenges of setting up a freeport somewhere, or living offshore on ships, etc. Judging by this, it’s probably a fairly safe bet that a lot of people in a libertarian society would prefer “common sense regulation” to war, “immigrant-style” or otherwise. As long as the regulations are the least bit tolerable. Otherwise, there would be market-anarchist skyscrapers going up in Kisimaayo.

    Collectivists are just plain better at mobilizing forces and “killing/dying for the cause” (the nation, Allah, etc.) than individualists. IMO this gives them such a huge military advantage that collectives can easily shoulder the massive waste and inefficiencies of government, without finding themselves being handily outdone by super-efficient free-market defense agencies. I wish it wasn’t so.

  43. Can you point to one development over the past fifty years, anywhere in the world, that made you optimistic?

    I became a libertarian. :)

  44. If you can’t see Rockwell, Hoppe and Company for the fascist, bigoted, theocratic nutbars that they are, then there’s nothing I can do to help you.

    No, I’m afraid I have some trouble seeing it. Aside from their views on immigration (which are fairly common I’d say), they seem to be ordinary libertarians to me. Or are you suggesting market anarchists are nutballs? In that case I’d have to ask if you think Roderick Long is also a nutball, since you intimated he might not be one in your post?

  45. I wish they could.

    One point made by ancaps like Friedman (Caplan?) is that government and anarchy might be stable equilibriums among the set of possible social orders. If that’s the case, then the fact that an anarchist society has not been able to form isn’t directly relevant to how well they would do once they do form. The analogous situation there might be a bunch of people trying to form a “United States Government” while the continent was overrun with private defense agencies. :)

    There are also biological and cultural reasons for why government persists, I think, but I’m sure there are probably others as well. On the other hand, it might be that libertarians “acting in concert” are not necessary for an ancap system to come about; maybe seasteading would lead to something like that for instance. There are lots of possibilities. :)

    How would a libertarian society deal with immigration from any country then?

    Well obviously they would only act to defend against organized groups of such people, since individually they would be the same as criminals or murderers are in our present society. The probability of a state launching a “sneak attack” by overwhelming the anarchist society with disguised soldiers would be proportional to how secret they can keep it I guess (which I don’t think is likely). Or the immigrants might eventually see anarchist society as superior once they marry and have kids and settle down somewhere. A final important factor which I think you’ve overlooked is that an ancap society will not be completely devoid of public property. If nothing else, streets corners and such would have to be public to enable people to walk to each other’s stores. So if an anarchist area has a bunch of foreign, jobless rioters in the street smashing buildings and tearing stuff down, I don’t think people would just stand by and let it happen. Anarchist societies will be composed of human beings with common sense, you know. :)

    Otherwise, there would be market-anarchist skyscrapers going up in Kisimaayo.

    Come on, they had a government that collapsed into feuding warlords. This is not “market anarchist society” to me.

    IMO this gives them such a huge military advantage that collectives can easily shoulder the massive waste and inefficiencies of government, without finding themselves being handily outdone by super-efficient free-market defense agencies. I wish it wasn’t so.

    If that’s true then the only solution would be for market anarchist defense agencies to induce similar behavior in their own forces (“loyalty would still exist in anarcho-capitalism” is a theme in one of those ancap stories David Friedman lists in his book), or else use technology to give them a superior edge. If you think about it, technology has even significantly changed the way governments battle each other. For example, militants in Iraq or other muslim countries are willing to “sacrifice themselves for Allah”, whereas US servicemen are generally able to avoid a lot of the battlezone intensity by bombing from the air or sending surface-to-air missiles at the enemy.

  46. In that case I’d have to ask if you think Roderick Long is also a nutball, since you intimated he might not be one in your post?

    What are you talking about? Who is Roderick Long and what does he have to do with anything I said?

    Aside from their views on immigration (which are fairly common I’d say), they seem to be ordinary libertarians to me.

    Well, if you consider ordinary libertarians to be people who support stoning homosexuals to death (Gary Noth, Rockwell’s buddy); who think the bordres whould be shut sealed, after they got in, of course (Hoppe); who claim that the murder of six million Jews during WWII is a myth propagated by the Jews and the Zionists (Sobran, another one of Rockwell’s close friends); who claim that gays, atheists, and other immoralists should be driven to the Sahara or Antarctica (Hoppe); who believe that evolution is nothing but a conspiracy of leftists and that all scientists are quacks (Hoppe, Rockewell, Sobran, North, and the rest of the zoo); then I guess you are right.

  47. And just in case it wasn’t sufficiently clear, I consider anyone who is not a free-market anarchist to be a nutball. Ergo, Walter Block is the only true sane, libertarian affiliate of the Mises Zoo.

  48. Cute. And seriously, can you?

    Man, you’re no fun.

    What are you talking about?

    Obviously something beyond your ability to comprehend, or to google.

    Well, if you consider ordinary libertarians to be people who support stoning homosexuals to death (Gary Noth, Rockwell’s buddy); who think the bordres whould be shut sealed, after they got in, of course (Hoppe); who claim that the murder of six million Jews during WWII is a myth propagated by the Jews and the Zionists (Sobran, another one of Rockwell’s close friends); who claim that gays, atheists, and other immoralists should be driven to the Sahara or Antarctica (Hoppe);

    If true, those are certainly serious indictments of the supposed free-market orientations of Gary North, Sobran, and Hoppe. I don’t really care to read North or Sobran, so you’d have to provide a specific citation for them. On Hoppe, all I know is that he was quoted from one of his books as saying homosexuals would have to be removed from private covenants which made certain religious/traditional values a precondition of membership. That doesn’t sound particularly odious to me, although one could of course debate how large and powerful collectives/covenants/communities should be. Certainly it’s not a call to “chase gays to Antarctica”. And as for Rockwell, does the phrase “guilt by association” mean anything to you? You might want to argue Rockwell is a racist in league with Hoppe, since that seems to be the most popular argument to make.

    who believe that evolution is nothing but a conspiracy of leftists and that all scientists are quacks (Hoppe, Rockewell, Sobran, North, and the rest of the zoo); then I guess you are right.

    I’m not aware of any columns from any of them claiming evolution is false, but perhaps you could provide some citations? North is a Christian fundamentalist-type, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he held such views. Hoppe I think is on record as accepting evolution as a valid theory. Perhaps you’re confusing rejection of evolution with rejection of public funding and administration of science research and schooling?

  49. Stefan,

    Let me explain something to you that your weak mind cannot grasp: members of The Zoo use free-market-like arguments to mask their bigotry. They take arguments that are in-and-of themsleves legitimate, then extend them to fit their sick world view.

    On Hoppe, all I know is that he was quoted from one of his books as saying homosexuals would have to be removed from private covenants which made certain religious/traditional values a precondition of membership.

    Hoppe did indeed begin his argument by talking about private communities. So far, so good. But he then continued by claiming that all gays, perpetual bachelors, and other “immoralists” are a menace to society and should be driven to the Sahara. He was treading the line between the right to discriminate on private property and straight-out fascism. How can you argue with me if you haven’t reads his books? All you have is hearsay. And what about his view on immigration? Have you read any of his writings on that?

    Perhaps you’re confusing rejection of evolution with rejection of public funding and administration of science research and schooling?

    No I don’t. They claim both. The second is legitimate, the first bullshit. Again, an attempt to get two for one, to wrap idiocy with libertarianism. Those who are indiscriminate and mentally dull like you fall for it.

    And as for Rockwell, does the phrase “guilt by association” mean anything to you?

    I knew you’d use the guilt by association argument. It is a common tactic among pseudo-intellectual ignoramuses, who are unaware that guilt by association and ad hominem attacks are justified and legitimate under certain circumstances.
    North wrote over 400 articles for lewrockwell.com, a site owned, operated, and edited by Rockwell himself. Guilt by association is perfectly legitimate in this case, unless you are dumb enough to claim that Rockwell is merely a publisher, and that “The opinions expressed here do not represent the …” disclaimer is in play.

    Same goes for Sobran. You may choose to stick you head in your ass and invoke the guilt by association argument again, but every moral, un-bigoted person would have distanced himself from this neo-Nazi a long time ago.

    By the way, “Stefan”, are you Stephan Kinsella writing under a pen-name? The glib-yet-inane lawyer-ish arguments sound all too familiar.

  50. Let me explain something to you that your weak mind cannot grasp: members of The Zoo use free-market-like arguments to mask their bigotry.

    And I’m supposed to give you more credibility because … you called me a weak-minded fool? Hmm, I wonder if that’s been tried before…

    So far, so good. But he then continued by claiming that all gays, perpetual bachelors, and other “immoralists” are a menace to society and should be driven to the Sahara. He was treading the line between the right to discriminate on private property and straight-out fascism. How can you argue with me if you haven’t reads his books? All you have is hearsay.

    In the detailed discussion of the book here at no-treason the only disputed passage any of Hoppe’s opponents exhibited was the one about private convenants. If there were even more incriminating passage later I would have expected those to have been presented. Perhaps since you’re obviously a lot smarter than I am you could provide me with the citation?

    And what about his view on immigration? Have you read any of his writings on that?

    His views on immigration are quite ordinary and typical of the average American who wants closed-borders. I’m sorry, but someone who is a libertarian in every way except on one particular issue does not a “fascist” make. Feel free to provide me with a citation to illustrate your point, oh brilliant one.

    The second is legitimate, the first bullshit. Again, an attempt to get two for one, to wrap idiocy with libertarianism. Those who are indiscriminate and mentally dull like you fall for it.

    Hmm, still no citations forthcoming… I guess I must be really dumb, because I can’t seem to read the copious footnotes and citations referencing even one essay by Rockwell illustrating your claims. Maybe I need new glasses instead?

    I knew you’d use the guilt by association argument.

    You mean you’re the one using the “guilt by association” argument, right? Then I would be the one engaged in misidentifying an instance of such argumentation? But of course such subtle points are easy for a brilliant mind like yours to comprehend.

    It is a common tactic among pseudo-intellectual ignoramuses, who are unaware that guilt by association and ad hominem attacks are justified and legitimate under certain circumstances.

    Like in this one, I’m guessing…?

    North wrote over 400 articles for lewrockwell.com, a site owned, operated, and edited by Rockwell himself. Guilt by association is perfectly legitimate in this case, unless you are dumb enough to claim that Rockwell is merely a publisher, and that “The opinions expressed here do not represent the …” disclaimer is in play.

    You seem to be advocating the view that if X allows Y to publish then X agrees with most of what Y believes. Correct me oh wise one, but isn’t that… bullshit? Or are you the one who needs glasses to read the fine print on that disclaimer? :)

    Same goes for Sobran. You may choose to stick you head in your ass and invoke the guilt by association argument again, but every moral, un-bigoted person would have distanced himself from this neo-Nazi a long time ago.

    It’s “your”, not “you” by the way, oh enlightened one.

    So I guess JTK should “distance” himself by not allowing you to comment anymore, since any moral person wouldn’t engage in pointless name-calling? I think I’m starting to catch on now, slow-witted person that I am.

    By the way, “Stefan”, are you Stephan Kinsella writing under a pen-name? The glib-yet-inane lawyer-ish arguments sound all too familiar.

    I don’t think Kinsella would conclude by quoting John Lopez:

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

  51. So I guess JTK should “distance” himself by not allowing you to comment anymore, since any moral person wouldn’t engage in pointless name-calling?

    Your inability to distinguish “pointless name-calling” from avid anti-Semitism and from the despicable claim that the Holocaust is a Jewish conspiracy illustrates your stupidity. So does pointing to a simple typo in lieu of a legitimate argument. JTK, unlike Rockwell, does not edit and review content on this site pre-posting. It is open to all, although he may ban whomever he wishes.

    You seem to be advocating the view that if X allows Y to publish then X agrees with most of what Y believes. Correct me oh wise one, but isn’t that… bullshit? Or are you the one who needs glasses to read the fine print on that disclaimer? :)

    First of all, what’s with the infantile smiley face? How old are you?
    Secondly, if Y published 400+ articles on a site that is a one-man operation, where the editor/owner reads, edits, and picks each article himself, then, yes, you have a case in claiming that there may be some, shall we say, ideological affinity between the two.

    You mean you’re the one using the “guilt by association” argument, right? Then I would be the one engaged in misidentifying an instance of such argumentation? But of course such subtle points are easy for a brilliant mind like yours to comprehend.

    Again, pseudo-intellectual balderdash in lieu of a serious argument. If person X surrounds himself with a group of bigots and fascists, and for years publishes hundreds of essays by these maniacs, then the guilt by association argument is justified and legitimate. I am using it and you correctly identified it, but it seems like you have yet to realize what a legitimate guilt by associaton argument is.

    It is clear you don’t read much, otherwise you wouldn’t be asking for citations. All I have written is patently evident to anyone who reads libertarian and pseudo-libertarian literature on a regular basis.

    As great a philosopher as John Lopez may be (whoever the hell he is), let me quote Nietzsche instead:
    “There they stand,” said he to his heart; “there they laugh: they do not understand me; I am not the mouth for these ears.

    That’s exactly why I did not want to get into this argument. I remember you as an idiot from our last exchange a few months ago. I am not the mouth to your ears. Go watch sports, reality TV, or something more suitable to your level.

  52. PS,
    His views on immigration are quite ordinary and typical of the average American who wants closed-borders.

    You’re right, for a change. However, you are forgetting (or are unaware) that the average American is a fascist. And since when is a comparison to the dumb animal known as the “average American” a valid defense?

  53. PPS

    His views on immigration are quite ordinary and typical of the average American who wants closed-borders.

    Since you seem to be an expert on spelling and grammar, you should note that there is no need for the hyphen between closed and borders.
    a hyphen would have been necessary if you were saying something like “he has a closed-borders mentality”.

    Don’t worry, it’s a typical error for those who seldom read but like to write.

  54. Ryan, were you ever planning to offer any kind of support for the argument you have made? Do you have any evidence whatsoever for the claims you have made against Hoppe?

  55. Or were you hoping that your fuming vitriol would drown out Stefan’s attempts to address you in a calm and rational manner?

  56. Anarchist –

    Let’s start with this: Have you read “Democracy: the God that failed?”

    If you haven’t, then this argument is futile.

  57. Macker:

    “In the first case a policy could distinguish between particular immigrants, and in the second case a policy could use forced emigration.”

    How do you propose to distinguish between immigrants who will and will not use your preferred “investment” strategies with regards to their offspring? Either you impose this as a prior restraint upon their action, thereby violating the presumption of innocence, or you have to wait until they start raising children to see whether they do so as you would prefer. The first way is unlibertarian, the second is unfeasible as an immigration restriction, and could only be used as a basis for deportation. How, then, would you decide what parenting strategies are required to prevent deportation?

    “…it is much harder to kick someone out than to keep them from coming in.”

    I fail to see any reason why that should be true. The US has 16,000 miles of unfortified borders. It’s very difficult to keep people from entering the USA.

    “That’s especially true when you have a uniform culture, since you can distinguish people by their accents, behavior, and other traits.”

    But we don’t have a “uniform culture.” I work in downtown San Francisco, with people from India, Eastern Europe, China, & Latin America, as well as my fellow Euro-Americans. Which of these criteria could be applied to the population of San Francisco to determine whom to allow to enter the country at SFO or not?

    “…Using your reasoning we could not prevent criminals from immigrating to this country…”

    If a criminal is someone who has been convicted of a crime in US court, then it’s literally impossible to keep anyone with such a conviction from immigrating to the US, as no immigrant to the US could possibly have such a conviction. They would have had to have been in the US in order to have been convicted of any crime by any US court. What you propose to do is to use criminal convictions in foreign courts as a basis for immigration restriction. That presumes that foreign criminal jurisductions are trustworthy. Is that really a presumption that you want to make?

    “The inclusiveness could also be resolved by policy if you are willing to banish and deport even criminal citizens.”

    How would you prevent them from re-entering the country, perhaps hidden inside bales of cocaine?

    “I believe the first step should be to correct our bad internal policies such a welfare and social security, before we go to more open immigration. As long as those policies are in place there is no reason not to filter immigrants based on the likelihood they will exploit the system.”

    On the contrary, as long as welfare & SS can be reserved for (mostly) white people only, there will not be sufficient pressure to reform those systems along more libertarian lines.

    As for your take on Somalia, you simply don’t understand Somali culture. The fact that Somalis are Moslem does not mean that the Somali clans impose Islamic law and its attendant social restrictions upon clan members. Somali tribal law (the Xeer) predates Islam, and has nothing to do with Islam. The Xeer doesn’t impose the social restrictions to which you refer. I knew a libertarian who married into a Somali clan, and he said he’d never felt freer in his entire life.

  58. To annoy the annoying Ryan H. even more, I will terminate every paragraph of this post with a smiley. :)

    It is clear you don’t read much, otherwise you wouldn’t be asking for citations. All I have written is patently evident to anyone who reads libertarian and pseudo-libertarian literature on a regular basis.

    For something that’s “patently obvious” you sure seem to feel a lot of insults and sarcasm are necessary to convey the point. :)

    Or were you hoping that your fuming vitriol would drown out Stefan’s attempts to address you in a calm and rational manner?

    Ryan H. is certainly skilled at the fuming vitriol. I could point out that he still has not satisfied my simple, direct request for citations illustrating the “fascist” character of Rockwell and Hoppe. I could also ask why he feels it’s acceptable for him to offer ad hominem attacks against me in lieu of an argument, but not acceptable for me to dodge “legitimate argument” myself, but I think Ryan H. has effectively eviscerated his credibility without my help. :)

    Let’s start with this: Have you read “Democracy: the God that failed?”
    If you haven’t, then this argument is futile.

    I ordered the book today. Since Your Brilliance doesn’t seem to feel the need to provide quotations or citations or references or… well, anything really, I guess I’ll get it straight from the horse’s mouth. :)

    You’re right, for a change. However, you are forgetting (or are unaware) that the average American is a fascist. And since when is a comparison to the dumb animal known as the “average American” a valid defense?

    I perceived you as singling Hoppe out for moral ridicule, but I suppose it would also be consistent for you to ridicule most Americans as well. I’d certainly be more comfortable living next to the “average American” in an anarchy than a walking acid-spewing spigot like yourself. :)

    As great a philosopher as John Lopez may be

    You keep bragging about how well-read you are in libertarian literature, but you don’t even know who Roderick Long is? And Lopez practically led the anti-Hoppe side in the no-treason.com debates on the subject. I’m sorry, you’ll have to come up with something better than “Every well-read libertarian knows…”, when evidently you yourself don’t seem especially well-read. :)

    That’s exactly why I did not want to get into this argument. I remember you as an idiot from our last exchange a few months ago. I am not the mouth to your ears. Go watch sports, reality TV, or something more suitable to your level.

    Hmm, I’m afraid I don’t remember you at all. Doe anyone else think that maybe Ryan H. is a sock puppet for the angry and deranged Mike Schneider? And I’m afraid I don’t really enjoy sports or reality TV. Reading Shakespeare or Virgil is more my speed. :)

  59. I’d certainly be more comfortable living next to the “average American” in an anarchy than a walking acid-spewing spigot like yourself. :)

    Let’s ignore the rest of the crap and concentrate on this, because this is really interesting. It also explains your optimism. Saying something like that is ridiculous, because the average American (or German, or Thai, or Mexican, or whoever) does not want anarchy, freedom, or capitalism. If he did, then we’d have those already. Talking about living next to the average American in an anarchy is like describing a triangle with five sides – it is unfathomable, and it cannot and will not happen. You may blame government all you want, but the truth is that Average Joe, not government per se, is the reason for most of our troubles.

    Now, I may be a spigot of verbal acid, but I respect freedom and liberty much more than your Average Joe. In an anarchy, I may be a less-than-a-friendly neighbor, but I’ll never as much as steal your newspaper. Average Joe, being the stupid, cowardly, violent beast that he is, will always oppose anarchy, because in an anarchy he will no longer have the legal permission to steal from you. Your optimism is not grounded in reality. Read Mencken’s “Notes on Democracy” and Bastiat’s “Voluntary Servitude” for a more comprehensive treatment of Average Joe.

    The biggest problem that you may face is admitting that you are an Average Joe yourself, which explains why you feel at home amongst the masses.

    but I suppose it would also be consistent for you to ridicule most Americans as well

    Absolutely! I cannot ridicule Average Joe enough. To quote Mencken, no one has ever lost money overestimating the stupidity of the average man. That is exactly why I despise Hoppe – I expected more of him, and disappointment is correlated to expectations. I have no expectations of the average man.

  60. For something that’s “patently obvious” you sure seem to feel a lot of insults and sarcasm are necessary to convey the point. :)

    Not necessary, but they add spice. The snack to go along with the protein. You have your infantile smileys, I have my sarcasm and vitriol. :)

  61. Now, I may be a spigot of verbal acid, but I respect freedom and liberty much more than your Average Joe.

    Words are the manner in which our thoughts go clothed in the world, bitch.

    The biggest problem that you may face is admitting that you are an Average Joe yourself, which explains why you feel at home amongst the masses.

    Well I’m an anarchist-libertarian, and since the average person isn’t, I guess that means you’re wrong.

    Not necessary, but they add spice. The snack to go along with the protein.

    So you admit taking pleasure from insulting and putting down others? You wouldn’t happen to be single by any chance?

  62. So you admit taking pleasure from insulting and putting down others?

    If it’s funny and witty, and makes fun of scum, sure. I’ve learned from the best – Mencken.

    You wouldn’t happen to be single by any chance?

    Like all great men in history, I am. Mencken, Nock (got married, but deserted his family), Nietzsche, Spencer, Thoreau, and others – I’m in good company! It is the third-rate men (you’re married, I suppose?) who get married. Read Mencken’s “In Defense of Women”, and don’t forget to take out the garbage, hubby.

  63. Words are the manner in which our thoughts go clothed in the world, bitch.

    Getting touchy, Stefie? Why the invective, considering that words are the manner in which our thoughts go clothed in the world?

  64. “Not only medieval Iceland, but also medieval Ireland, certain Native American tribes, and a few other societies. As much as I despise the Mises Institute, the Journal of Libertarian Studies had a great article about that. Unfortunately, I can’t recall the exact reference. ”

    That’s not what I’d call a track record. I wasn’t claiming no anarchist societies ever existed. I am already aware of Iceland, and basically consider any clan based society to be anarchist.

    “Read it and maybe you’ll learn something.”

    I may read it and I am sure I’ll learn something but probably not what you’d think I would.

  65. Stefan,

    What’s your point. I don’t see one.

    Maybe if you mastered punctuation your comprehension would go up. :)

    I guess that’s your way of saying you didn’t have one. Are you feeling insecure or something. Picking on my typos isn’t exactly making me impressed with you.

    I don’t see any track record where anarchist type societies have done well against such collective behavior.

    Well anarchist societies have had some trouble forming, mainly due to the iron boot that the state currently holds on everyone’s face. I’m optimistic however for the future. Go, medieval Iceland! :)

    You know that my position is that I have no proof that anarchism can’t work only that they don’t. One of the reasons they don’t is the iron boot. Problem I have is that the iron boot can kick anarchist communities from the outside too even after they have been formed.

    My position is identical to P.T. Galt on this. He sounds like my sock puppet. I think he is kicking your collective asses, err, sorry, anarchist asses. :)

  66. Maybe if you mastered punctuation your comprehension would go up. :) [to Brian Macker]

    Come on, Stefie, that’s not nice. Aren’t you supposed to be the civilized one amongst us, the one who is rational and polite? Why is that OK for you and not for me? By the way, it was you who started with the name calling during our previous conversation. So, you are a hypocrite in addition to being an idiot, and your best arguments seem to be finding typos in your opponents’ arguments.

  67. Macker: Picking on my typos isn’t exactly making me impressed with you.

    I wasn’t aware impressing you was a requirement.

    Ryan H: Aren’t you supposed to be the civilized one amongst us, the one who is rational and polite?

    Macker and I fling barbs at each other all the time, but even if we were serious you’d still be an asshole by comparison.

    By the way, it was you who started with the name calling during our previous conversation.

    I see, so calling someone a fool and worse isn’t name-calling?

    and your best arguments seem to be finding typos in your opponents’ arguments.

    And your best arguments involve making unsubstantiated assertions that “any well-read libertarian” knows? On that basis I’m faring quite a bit better. :)

    Sabotta: Fuck off, Stefan.

    Perhaps I was wrong, and Ryan H. is Sabotta’s sock-puppet after all? Nah, no creepy sexual innuendo, he’s definitely a Schneider sock-puppet.

  68. Come on, Stefie, that’s not nice.

    And by the way, apologies to the editors for feeding the troll, but it was just one of those days and I couldn’t resist poking him a bit. I’m sure he’ll calm down once he bites the heads off of a few “Average Joes” or something.

  69. One final note (on this, at least):

    I hereby retract my unkind remark (“As great a philosopher as John Lopez may be [whoever the hell he is]”) about John Lopez. I’ve read some of his articles and he’s doing a great job documenting and attacking the ideological sewer known as LRC.

  70. Note to Ryan H. : Since LRC is basically an advertisement for the Camino Coin Shop, True Blue Confederate Lew is mostly just making sure to maximize his customer base. For his sponsor’s sake, he can hardly afford to annoy the crypto-Nazis.

  71. Tim,

    I second the motion for JTK to give an example of one of those “non-bigotted reasons for wanting the borders closed” that he claims people have.

    One common non-bigotted argument is that poor immigrants overload the welfare state and are a net cost to current taxpayers.

    I also think the premise that America is collectively owned by citizens is non-bigotted, and it is the crucial premise that must be refuted.

    And I just don’t get as excited about bigotry as many do. Bigotry in itself is a vice, not a crime. People are entitled to do as they see fit with their own property even for bigotted reasons, aren’t they? The crucial question is about where their property begins and ends.

  72. Stefie, you paranoid fool! Is it so hard for you to believe that I am not the only one who thinks you’re a moron, that you make yourself believe that we are all the same person wearing different sock puppets?

  73. Rad,

    “Bigotry is a form of collectivism, and if you have a general case against using violence on the basis of collectivist premises than afortiori you have a case against using violence on the basis of bigoted premises.”

    No such general case exists. It’s perfectly legitimate to use force to keep anyone you like off of your own property, even if your reasons for for doing so are bigotted.

  74. Galt,

    “And what if other people invite more thieves than you can handle onto their property.”

    Again, you have a problem. But it’s not a problem which democracy or any other form of government solves.

  75. Ryan,

    I find it ironic that Stephan is getting called on his libertarian creds. I think Ryan has convinced me that I shouldn’t be calling myself a Libertarian any more. It’s such a closed club that even it’s members are not members.

    Don’t worry, I’m a big boy and can take a few snide asides. It’s not that I can’t punctuate, but that I don’t bother proofreading. This puts an impolite burden on other people to read beyond my typos to figure out what I meant to say.

    Don’t expect any polite discourse here at no-treason. It’s pretty much a free for all.

  76. Brian,

    Whether Stefan is a libertarian or not I don’t know, nor do I care. What bothers me is that too many libertarians suffer “libertarian loneliness”, a condition marked by the inability to admit that only a tiny fraction of humanity really wants freedom. As a result, they
    a. convince themselves that “the people” are with them, and that the revolution is near, and
    b. would embrace anyone who screams the words property rights, praxeology, and, of course, “As Mises/Rothbard reminds us…”.

    As a result, neo-Nazi, bigoted, racist, theocratic scum like Hoppe, Rockwell, and the rest of The Zoo find themsleves embraced by many libertarians and libertarian-wannabes. True libertarianism is a small, highly exclusive club. He who wants company is more than welcome to join the RepubliCrats.

  77. Is it so hard for you to believe that I am not the only one who thinks you’re a moron

    No, but your acidic invective just reminds me of another low-life named Schneider is all. I asked simple, direct questions for evidence that Rockwell is a “fascist”, and I received insults, guilt-by-association arguments, and a bandwagon-type fallacy. Since you don’t appear to be reasonable, I’m merely continuing to comment since it obviously infuriates you so much. :)

    Whether Stefan is a libertarian or not I don’t know, nor do I care. What bothers me is that too many libertarians suffer “libertarian loneliness”, a condition marked by the inability to admit that only a tiny fraction of humanity really wants freedom.

    I’ve been aware that hardly anybody really wants freedom for awhile now. Of course, lots of libertarians think that lots of people want freedom.

    would embrace anyone who screams the words property rights, praxeology, and, of course, “As Mises/Rothbard reminds us…”

    I don’t see the logical connection. Perhaps you could use your superior intelligence (ha!) to explain why a belief in the universal appeal of freedom is necessary to “blindly following Mises/Rothbard” or vice-versa.

    True libertarianism is a small, highly exclusive club. He who wants company is more than welcome to join the RepubliCrats.

    I’ve sparred with Macker a few times over his concept of libertarianism, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s an exclusive club. As you suggest, most people don’t really want freedom, per se, and so most people are not in that sense consistent libertarians (and more significantly people often disagree about what “freedom” means exactly). How is all this related to your central claim that Rockwell is a fascist?

  78. Even though the discussion has devolved into pointless name-calling, I can’t think of anymore names for Ryan H, all the good insults like “fascist” and “Nazi” already being taken by Lew Rockwell apparently.

  79. I don’t see the logical connection. Perhaps you could use your superior intelligence (ha!) to explain why a belief in the universal appeal of freedom is necessary to “blindly following Mises/Rothbard” or vice-versa.

    I don’t think you could see logic if it bit you in the ass. When did I say such a thing? All I said is that too many people embrace pseudo-libertarianism because they’re desperate for ideological companionship.

    I’ve been aware that hardly anybody really wants freedom for awhile now. Of course, lots of libertarians think that lots of people want freedom.

    Are you the same guy who said he’s optimisitic about the future, and fantasized about living next to the avergae American in an anarchy?

    I asked simple, direct questions for evidence that Rockwell is a “fascist”, and I received insults, guilt-by-association arguments, and a bandwagon-type fallacy

    I don’t have Hoppe’s books with me, therefore I cannot provide you with exact quotations and references. I use something called a library. That’s a place that lends you books but wants them back. All I have at this moment is my memory of Hoppe’s book. Since you have yet to read it, you have nothing to add to the discussion (other than your superior style and class, of course).

    Now, for the third time, there are instances where guilt-by-association arguments are legitimate and are not fallacies. The way I interpret your stance, you’d be reluctant to call a card-carrying member of the Nazi party in 1942 a racist, unless you have evidence that he said the words “Jews are sub-humans”.

    Rockwell has chosen, for years, to associate himslef with Sobran, a man whose anti-Semitic views are acknowledged even by his friends (Buckley, for example). He has chosen to put North and Sobran on his site on a regular basis. From what I read on no-treason.com, he has other bigots there as well (Bob Wallace and Jared Taylor come to mind). I therefore
    decide that assigning guilt by association is legitimate in this case. Is this really so hard to understand?

    Since you don’t appear to be reasonable, I’m merely continuing to comment since it obviously infuriates you so much. :)

    It doesn’t. I’m always in for more evidence that I’m more right than other people, and what better evidence than this discussion?

    No, but your acidic invective just reminds me of another low-life named Schneider is all.

    Who is this Schneider? If you hate him this much, he must be a great guy!

    PS

    Read this and tell me what you think: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/18_3/18_3_5.pdf
    Of course, the words “burn the infidels” don’t appear there, so I guess you’d claim there’s nothing there that’s incosistent with libertarianism.

    By the way, hubby, did you take out the trash yet?

  80. JTK: “One common non-bigotted argument is that poor immigrants overload the welfare state and are a net cost to current taxpayers.”

    Poor non-immigrants also overload the welfare state and are a net cost to current taxpayers. Why single out immigrants? This is precisely the sort of bigoted argument I had in mind. It proposed to deal with people differently simply because of their nationality (foreign) and location (in US territory) in ways that would not be accepted if their nationality were different (US citizens).

  81. “Poor non-immigrants also overload the welfare state and are a net cost to current taxpayers. Why single out immigrants? “

    Because they are perceived as a more manageable political problem. The consensus in favor of a social safety net for citizens is pretty solid, but there does not exist a comparable consensus for extending that safety net to all comers. Thus curtailing immigration is seen by some as an achievable way of slowing the growth of the welfare state while rolling back the welfare state seems much more politically difficult.

    Of course I’m not defending such arguments on their merits, but they don’t seem especially bigotted to me.

  82. “It proposed to deal with people differently simply because of their nationality (foreign) and location (in US territory) in ways that would not be accepted if their nationality were different (US citizens).”

    Citizens are widely, though wrongly, recognized as the collective owners of the territory. That’s the premise that must be disputed. If citizens were the collective owners of America they would be fully entitled to keep immigrants out, even for bigotted reasons, would they not?

  83. Read this and tell me what you think:

    I tried but couldn’t get past the hypocrisy oozing out on page 5:

    A proper understanding of the fundamental libertarian principle of self-ownership might actually entail not just tolerance of conservative attitudes with regard to abortion and children, but enthusiastic endorsement of those attitudes, and perhaps even the writing of them into law.

    His insistence that libertarians somehow just “can’t deal” with abortion or children’s rights is not true, by the way. Rothbard proposed a perfectly sound method to judge children’s rights by libertarian standards, and I’m sure lots of communities will be pro-choice in ancapistan.

    Who is this Schneider? If you hate him this much, he must be a great guy!

    He’s just the closest person I could think of offhand whose invective was similar to your own. I find it difficult to believe you could be worse scum than him, however, since he was really bad.

    I don’t think you could see logic if it bit you in the ass.

    I drink logic for breakfast.

    When did I say such a thing?

    Right here:

    Ryan H. (earlier): What bothers me is that too many libertarians suffer “libertarian loneliness”, a condition marked by the inability to admit that only a tiny fraction of humanity really wants freedom. As a result, they
    a. convince themselves that “the people” are with them, and that the revolution is near, and
    b. would embrace anyone who screams the words property rights, praxeology, and, of course, “As Mises/Rothbard reminds us…”.

    It looks like a pretty solid logical connection between a denial that “only a tiny fraction of humanity really wants freedom” and the conclusion of embracing “anyone who screams the words property rights”.

    All I said is that too many people embrace pseudo-libertarianism because they’re desperate for ideological companionship.

    Possibly, but I’m not convinced Lew Rockwell is a pseudo-libertarian. He really seems to believe in liberty, and none of the evidence I’ve seen so far convinces me otherwise. Ironically, you’re the one accusing libertarianism of being an “exclusive club”! :)

    Now, for the third time, there are instances where guilt-by-association arguments are legitimate and are not fallacies. The way I interpret your stance, you’d be reluctant to call a card-carrying member of the Nazi party in 1942 a racist, unless you have evidence that he said the words “Jews are sub-humans”.

    Well maybe not those exact words, but yes something along those lines might be helpful for some germans. Or are you denying that there were some Germans during WWII that didn’t wholeheartedly support the Nazi regime? Moreover Lew Rockwell is not wearing a Nazi uniform or marching around saluting der Fuhrer; I don’t think of the average american as a “fascist” and I don’t think of Lew Rockwell as one either if he happens to hold a belief similar to the average american’s on immigration.

    Citizens are widely, though wrongly, recognized as the collective owners of the territory. That’s the premise that must be disputed.

    I think you can successfully challenge that premise, except perhaps up to the level of a village or small neighborhood. For example, if I want to open up a gambling casino with strippers next door to my neighbors with school-age children, is it unjust for them to join together and force me not to move next door to them?

  84. Or are you denying that there were some Germans during WWII that didn’t wholeheartedly support the Nazi regime?

    I didn’t say Germans, I said card-carrying members of the Nazi Party! Big difference!! And this was just an extreme example to illustrate your preposterous stance on guilt by assosicaiton. I was not referring to Rockwell in that paragraph.

    I don’t think of the average american as a “fascist” and I don’t think of Lew Rockwell as one either if he happens to hold a belief similar to the average american’s on immigration.

    a. the average American is most definitely a fascist.
    b. the average American does not publish on a regular basis the mental excrements of Gary North and Joseph Sobran.

    Ironically, you’re the one accusing libertarianism of being an “exclusive club”! :)

    Accusing??? Asserting with pride!! Libertarianism is, or at least shouldbe, a small, exclusive club, club thta doesn’t accept every pot-head who wnts nothing bu legal marijuana or every Rush Limbaugh who wants lower taxes but also wants the pot-head in jail, or Cindy Sheehan-types who oppose hte war but want the money spent on soci

  85. I pressed Post by accident. Let’s start over:

    Or are you denying that there were some Germans during WWII that didn’t wholeheartedly support the Nazi regime?

    I didn’t say Germans, I said card-carrying members of the Nazi Party! Big difference!! And this was just an extreme example to illustrate your preposterous stance on guilt by association. I was not referring to Rockwell in that paragraph.

    I don’t think of the average american as a “fascist” and I don’t think of Lew Rockwell as one either if he happens to hold a belief similar to the average american’s on immigration.

    a. the average American is most definitely a fascist.
    b. why is the opinion of the average American count? Is the majority right by definition? We’re dealing with Rockwell and Co., and it is irrelevant how they fare viz-a-viz Average Joe.
    c. the average American does not publish, on a regular basis, the mental excrements of Gary North and Joseph Sobran.

    Ironically, you’re the one accusing libertarianism of being an “exclusive club”! :)

    Accusing??? Asserting with pride!! Libertarianism is, or at least should be, a small, exclusive club, a club that doesn’t accept every pot-head who wants nothing but legal marijuana or every Rush Limbaugh who wants lower taxes but also wants the pot-head in jail, or Cindy Sheehan-types who oppose the war but want the money spent on “social programs”, etc. Either you believe in liberty across the board, or otherwise you’re a fascist. Granted, there are different grades of fascism. So, maybe Rockwell is a Level III Fascist, Hoppe Level V, and North Level MCMXCVIII.

  86. I find it difficult to believe you could be worse scum than him, however, since he was really bad.

    Stop, you’re making me blush.

  87. Rothbard proposed a perfectly sound method to judge children’s rights by libertarian standards, and I’m sure lots of communities will be pro-choice in ancapistan.

    Actually, I think Rothbard’s views on children’s rights were simplistic and unsubstantiated to some extent. As a great a thinker as he has been, he had an inclination to cut corners here and there (children, property rights, etc.)

    When it comes to abortion, though, he is the only person who made any sense, and I am in full agreement with him on this issue.

  88. So, maybe Rockwell is a Level III Fascist, Hoppe Level V, and North Level MCMXCVIII.

    Hmm, I suppose that’s as far as we’re going to get on that topic.

    When it comes to abortion, though, he is the only person who made any sense, and I am in full agreement with him on this issue.

    Really? My view is the exact opposite: His views on children’s rights were sophisticated and original, and his views on abortion were undeveloped and incorrect. If I understand it correctly from “The Ethics of Liberty”, he believes the fetus is human life but that the mother also has a right to an abortion. This, however, violates the principle of proportionality under libertarianism: I can’t murder a child if that’s the only way to stop it from treading on my toes, for instance. Similarly, if I stow away on your airplane then your right to your airplane doesn’t give you the right to throw me out of it midflight unless I’m threatening your life in some way. If the fetus is not human then I can accept abortion, but if as Rothbard agrees it is human life, then the mother doesn’t have the right to cause it’s death if that’s the only way to expel it. The mother would, of course, have the right to have it expelled in a non-lethal manner.

  89. Similarly, if I stow away on your airplane then your right to your airplane doesn’t give you the right to throw me out of it midflight unless I’m threatening your life in some way.

    I disagree, and I think you misinterpret the principle of proportionality. The principle of proportionality refers to punishment only. By throwing you out, I’m not punishing you per se. I am merely asserting my right to my property. Of course this constitutes a de facto punishment, but that is your responsibility and your problem since you brought us into this situation. My right to throw you off my plane doesn’t change simply because we’re in mid-air. If we are on the ground, then I still have the right to throw you out but not to shoot you, as this would constitute a disproportional punishment. Same goes in mid-air: I have the right to throw you out but not to shoot you. The result may be the same, but the undrelying lawfulness under libertarian principles is different.

    Of course, everything I said so far referes only to lawfulness under libertarianism, not to the morality of throwing the “undocumented passenger” off the plane.

  90. Of course, everything I said so far referes only to lawfulness under libertarianism, not to the morality of throwing the “undocumented passenger” off the plane.

    True, this is a matter of rights, not general morality per se.

    The result may be the same, but the undrelying lawfulness under libertarian principles is different.

    I would disagree with your initial premise that proportionality refers only to punishment. If someone is actively aggressing against me in some manner then I can legitimately use probably a great deal of force to remove that threat, but not an infinite amount of force. In the airplane example you are indeed entitled to control over your airplane, but that the act of “defending” it is synonymous with the act of killing the stowaway makes it no less an act of aggression against the stowaway. In simpler terms, I regard pushing someone out from a great height as a worse act of aggression than mere trespassing.

    An alternate way of viewing this difference is in terms of use-rights. In terms of use-rights, nobody ever acquires absolute control over a resource, but only a limited control based on how the resource is being used or occupied. Thus the one act (hiding in your airplane) interferes with your use of the resource (the plane) very little, but the other act (pushing the intruder out) interferes greatly with his use of his resource (his body) by splattering it on the ground. This at least seems to me the way “proportionality” ought to work in practice.

  91. Ryan H. Says:

    Of course, everything I said so far referes only to lawfulness under libertarianism, not to the morality of throwing the “undocumented passenger” off the plane.

    It has been asserted that “real” libertarianism is an “exclusive club,” that very few people even want the level of freedom libertarians desire. I haven’t seen anyone here seriously disputing it, and looking at the political makeup of existing societies, it seems to me a pretty hard premise to refute.

    If so, how much point is there in debating about “lawfulness under libertarianism?” As if libertarians will ever be in a position to make or repeal laws! Isn’t that akin to arguing (and hurling insults at each other) over how many riders a dragon can carry?

  92. If so, how much point is there in debating about “lawfulness under libertarianism?” As if libertarians will ever be in a position to make or repeal laws! Isn’t that akin to arguing (and hurling insults at each other) over how many riders a dragon can carry?

    First of all, it’s a nice exercise in abstract thought.
    Second, humanity as a whole will never be libertarian, but there is the theoretical possibility that some small community somewhere will become a free-market, private-property anarchy, and the debate would be useful then.

    I am not deluding myself into thinking that this is really going to happen. I am as pessimistic about the future of humanity and libertarianism as can be. But, the discussion is interesting nonetheless.

  93. PS

    These discussions also help when you are having a conversation with some idiot who looks at you like you have horns coming out of your ears and says to you: “Anarchy??? but that’s chaos! Without goverment, how would you [fill in the blank]?”

    Warning: having intellectual debates with idiots is bad for your mental heatlh, blood pressure, and overall quality of life. Try at your own risk.

  94. JTK: “The consensus in favor of a social safety net for citizens is pretty solid, but there does not exist a comparable consensus for extending that safety net to all comers.”

    That is merely a restatement of nativist bigotry in value-neutral terms. It is not an explanation of why this arbitrary discrimination against non-citizens is not bigoted.

  95. It is not an explanation of why this arbitrary discrimination against non-citizens is not bigoted.

    If your definition of bigoted is merely “showing preference for those more like oneself”, or “showing preference for those in the same geographical area”, then all humans are by definition bigots. I show preference for the grocer who lives close to me over the one who lives in Africa. When I help homeless people (which I do with a local group), it’s usually to help people within the city limits. How is prefering the more familiar and nearby to the more alien and distant equivalent to “bigotry”?

  96. How is prefering the more familiar and nearby to the more alien and distant equivalent to “bigotry”?

    If this is not bigotry, then at the very least it is an irrational, economically-unsound preference.

    If my tax dollars are to be spent on a “social safety net” (whatever that means), then I’d rather it be spent on a hard-working, responsible, dignified human being from Mexico whom I’ve never met and whose culture and language are foreign to me, than on some lazy, cocaine-snorting bum who happens to be living next to me and speak the same language as I do.

  97. Come to think of it, the hard working, responsible foreigner doesn’t need a tax-funded “social safety net”. It is only the bum who needs it. I therefore modify my argument: I prefer my tax dollars be spent on bum from Mexico than on a bum from the US. Let the American bums compete for their share of the welfare pie. Why should they have a guaranteed check every month? Why shouldn’t they worry about the fate of their next welfare subsidy, food stamps, etc., just like working people fear lay-offs and down-sizing? Over the long run, this will also lead to the collapse of the welfare system, a la Atlas Shrugged.

  98. If this is not bigotry, then at the very least it is an irrational, economically-unsound preference.
    If my tax dollars are to be spent on a “social safety net” (whatever that means), then I’d rather it be spent on a hard-working, responsible, dignified human being from Mexico

    I’m don’t think any course of tax-funded redistribution is rational or sound, but at least it’s not necessarily racist.

  99. I’m don’t think any course of tax-funded redistribution is rational or sound,

    Of course

    but at least it’s not necessarily racist.

    Bigotry as I understand it doesn’t have to be racial. It can be nationalist bigotry, for example.

  100. I suppose, but you’ve also opened up another can of worms: Feuding between the Mises Institute and Cato. And if it came down to a contest I’m honestly not sure if Rockwell is more trustworthy than Palmer or vice versa, or if they are both trustworthy and simply mistaken about the functions of the other’s organization.

  101. or if they are both trustworthy and simply mistaken about the functions of the other’s organization.

    Or – maybe they’re both right about the functions of the other’s organization. In other words, Cato are not libertarian enough, and their support for the war (or at least their opposition to immediate withdrawal) is unforgivable, and Mises are (overall) a bunch of bigoted lunatics who long for the goog ol’ days of the Confederate.

    Throw in the blood-thirsty rabid dogs of the Ayn Rand Institute, and the future of liberty, as judged by those of purport to cherish and promote it, looks bright indeed. :(

  102. Yeah, I got that part.

    Actually it was you who suggested it. At any rate, we could debate whether Lew Rockwell or Hoppe are racist bigots until the cows come home, but somehow I just maintain interest in the question. Hoppe is not exactly the most exciting person to read…

  103. Kennedy:

    No such general case exists. It’s perfectly legitimate to use force to keep anyone you like off of your own property, even if your reasons for for doing so are bigotted.

    It’s not a crime to do so, but it is a vice. As it is a vice to do anything from collectivist (or, more specifically, bigotted) premises, actually.

    But that wasn’t my point anyway, and if I was unclear, then my bad. Read “use violence against innocent third parties” where I wrote “use violence” above; criticizing someone for offering bigotted reasons to excuse aggression against innocent third parties is no more problematic than criticizing them for using any other form of collectivism (e.g. democratic mysticism, corruption of the blood, etc.) in order to excuse aggression against innocent third parties.

  104. Rad,

    “Read “use violence against innocent third parties…”

    That again begs the crucial question: Is America the collective property of it’s citizens?

    If it is then illegal immigrants are not innocent, they are trespassers and Americans are entitled to use force to prevent their trespassing.

    That’s Du Toit’s basic premise here and any argument which doesn’t directly challenge that premise is sidetracked and moot.

  105. I don’t see how valid title to property can be gained in any other way than direct occupancy and use. Even the few forms of public property I think are justified (dirt roads leading to villages, the space between two buildings) are also grounded in labor-homesteading/direct occupancy. As far as I can tell the only basis for assuming America is collective property is that a bunch of guys with suits say it is.

  106. That again begs the crucial question: Is America the collective property of it’s [sic] citizens?

    Are you seriously asking that? That sounds like a question I’d expect to read on a Khmer Rouge blog. If the answer is yes, then collectivism, socialism, the State, and democracy are all justified and legitimate. How can there be any rights whatsoever in a “collective property” of this kind?

  107. Are you seriously asking that?

    I’m identifying the crucial question. I know the answer.

    I’d expect to read on a Khmer Rouge blog. If the answer is yes, then collectivism, socialism, the State, and democracy are all justified and legitimate.

    I guess the American manistream is with the Khmer Rouge on this one, isn’t it?

  108. I guess the American manistream is with the Khmer Rouge on this one, isn’t it?

    It is, on this as on most issues. What is it that you and Stefan keep referring to the mainstream American? If you care so much about the mainstream American’s views, then why this website to begin with? Why not simply read the NY Times? Are you aiming at liberty or at being mainstream?

  109. Kennedy,

    That again begs the crucial question: Is America the collective property of it’s citizens?

    No more so than saying “You’re using democratic mysticism to justify aggression against innocent dissenters” begs the question. Of course you need to have some further argument to demonstrate that democratic mysticism is wrong, and that the consent of 50%+1 isn’t binding on any of the 50%-1, but if you’ve got a general case that political collectivism as such is wrong, then a fortiori you’ve got a case that democratic mysticism is wrong, and with that case in hand, there’s nothing wrong with pointing out that “You’re using democratic mysticism to excuse aggression against innocent dissenters” is indeed the structure of the argument. I’m just saying that it works the same way when people use racial, class, national, religious, or other forms of bigotry to excuse aggression.

    As far as premises behind anti-immigration arguments go, I think that the claim that America is collectively the property of its citizens is only one among many, although it’s a very common one, especially amongst people who like to play at libertarian. But it’s not the only one. For example, a lot of the Law-and-Order types more or less explicitly operate on a premise of collective punishment, to the effect that if some illegal immigrants commit crimes against person and property, then the government is entitled to force all of them to submit to ex ante screening, searches, etc. with or without probable cause, on the excuse that it’s a defensive measure (even though they would never accept that kind of treatment for, say, anyone who happened to come from the same state as Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph).

    In either case, though, operating from a premise that all and only members of a particular national group are either (1) collectively entitled to control land that has neither been freely given to them nor homesteaded by them, solely in virtue of their nationality, or else (2) are fair game for collective punishment and preemptive violence without probable cause, solely in virtue of their nationality, just means operating from a bigoted premise. Specifically, both premises are instances of some of the cruder and more militant forms of nationalist bigotry.

    Describing the argument as “bigoted” may or may not be persuasive in a given context (in fact it’s usually not, since it raises people’s hackles), but it can be an accurate description of the content of the premises, and not just an attempt at psychoanalysis of the motives behind them, as you seem to suggest. Since the point of describing the structure of a bad argument is not always persuading the person who made the argument not to make it anymore, I can’t see what’s wrong with the procedure.

  110. Rad,

    No more so than saying “You’re using democratic mysticism to justify aggression against innocent dissenters” begs the question.

    No more so, but again you’ve simply begged the question. Du Toit doesn’t recognize them as innocent. That they are innocent is the crucial point in dispute. Your supposed general case only holds for innocents, repelling trespassers is no crime regardless of motivation.

  111. So, what’s the problem with describing the structure of du Toit’s argument by saying “Du Toit is using democratic mysticism [or, bigotry] to justify violence against innocent third parties”? If there are good, established reasons for saying that they are, in fact, innocent, isn’t that an accurate description of what du Toit is in fact doing?

  112. The problem is that such assertions are not very interesting, correct or not, when they’re offered without supporting argument. It doesn’t even rise to the level of preaching to the choir – it’s identifying to the choir.

    Addressing the premises by which he seeks to justify repelling immigrants is more interesting.

  113. Kennedy,

    I didn’t suggest that descriptions like “Du Toit is using bigotry to excuse aggression against innocent third parties” should be presented without an accompanying argument against the bigoted premise, did I?

    What I think I have argued is that that is an accurate description of the structure of du Toit’s argument, and that it can be part of connecting your exposition of the argument to your criticism of it (in this case, as a transition to the general reasons for rejecting political collectivism), so there’s no reason why describing an argument as resting on a “bigoted” premise entails not addressing the argument on its merits. It’s just a description of the structure of the argument, which may or may not be accurate in a particular case, and which, if accurate, can be part of addressing it on its merits, by pointing the way to the rest of the argument.

    How much of that argument needs to be spelled out and how much can be taken for granted depends on the audience that you’re addressing; here I’ve only mentioned the general reasons against political collectivism rather than spelling them out, or spelling out their application to this particular case, because I’m not trying to convince du Toit (or other border creeps) of anything at all about immigration at the moment. I’m trying to convince you of something about something else, and I figure you’re already acquainted with the arguments that I’m using as examples.

  114. Tim,
    As for your take on Somalia, you simply don’t understand Somali culture. The fact that Somalis are Moslem does not mean that the Somali clans impose Islamic law and its attendant social restrictions upon clan members. Somali tribal law (the Xeer) predates Islam, and has nothing to do with Islam. The Xeer doesn’t impose the social restrictions to which you refer. I knew a libertarian who married into a Somali clan, and he said he’d never felt freer in his entire life.”

    I’m not going to base my understanding of something on the anecdotes of a single person. There are plenty of cult members out there who also have glowing reviews of their own particular cultural choices. What the heck does “feeling freer” have to do with anything. Doesn’t sound to me like you asked the hard questions. Is your friend a white Jew living at the same economic standards as he did in the west, or has he found freedom from material things and become a goatherder/subsitance farmer who is in touch with nature?

    You do know the stats on Somalia are don’t you? One of the worlds poorest and least developed, enormous emigration away from the country which amounts to a worldwide diaspora, 99.999% Muslim, sea piracy, tribal rivalries, etc.

    You don’t get to a point of 99.99% of conversion particular religion without some form of persecution. If the prior anarchist cultural tradition of tribal law was so effective then how did this come to pass?

    The booming cell phone sales in the country seem to me to be more indicative of security and safety issues than a libertarian utopia. One needs a cell phone to call in help in a unstable, insecure, and unsafe environment. Land lines are not safe in such situations either. One can’t have heavy investments in vulnerable property where property rights are not secure.

    Are you aware of the trade history of Germany and India with regard to having partitioned jurisdictions and how that effects trade? With each little puffy magistrate of every district putting up road blocks and charging fees to cross borders, etc. Why wouldn’t the same effects occur in Somalia.

    As you can see I had better things to do recently than respond. I disagree with a bunch of other stuff you had to say but I am frankly I’m getting tired of responding. I think it is a proven empirical fact that one can control immigration so I don’t buy your arguments.

    You also take my points incorrectly almost every time and it is quite taxing to put you straight. Especially when you interpret them in ways that are obviously false. I don’t for instance believe we live in culturally uniform society, but that is the way you spun my comment. I find that quite a bit irritating. You did that with so many of my points that I am finding it quite frustrating.

    Understanding the real world does not involve pure logical deduction, and just because you cannot deduce a fact about the real world personally doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I see no problem whatsoever with using a foreign murder conviction as grounds for disallowing immigration to this country, but for you it is fraught with logical inconsistency. You know what, you can’t understand the opposing position with that thought process. Really, who gives a damn if by banning people on this criteria or other criteria violates a presumption of innocence under our own legal system. That is a legal criteria used in criminal trials not as a basis for excluding someone from citizenship. It’s not like we are going to execute or punish them or something like that. We are just not going to allow them to immigrate to our country.

    Your lack of imagination with regards to the methods available is also tiring. What we currently do is obviously not going to work. We cannot arrest illegal immigrants and then release them in the hopes they show up for their court date. That’s idiocy. Of course one cannot “protect the borders” with such a scheme.

    One way we can keep distinguish between those immigrants who wish to freeload off others and those who do not (my preference as you obnoxiously put it) is to establish rules that disallow the freeloading. For instance one could make it illegal for first and second generation immigrants from going on the dole and that doing so would revoke citizenship. One could require the immigrants to provide some form of bond or insurance that would ensure that they would not have to be cared for by the state.

    The reason we are having such problems with immigration is that we do the exact opposite. We have amnesty programs, and even bend over backwards to accomodate them. We actively turn a blind eye to their illegal status.

    The point of my original post is that in the long term my preferred cultural habit of not being a freeloader is a further doomed strategy if you keep heaping more freeloaders on my back. I can sustain a certain level of the bastards but there will come a point where I can no longer do so.

  115. Macker:

    One way we can keep distinguish between those immigrants who wish to freeload off others and those who do not (my preference as you obnoxiously put it) is to establish rules that disallow the freeloading. For instance one could make it illegal for first and second generation immigrants from going on the dole and that doing so would revoke citizenship.

    Fine. Let’s do it. Now will you start working for this, rather than for calling for immigrants to be shot at the border?

    And hey, why stop there, anyway? Why not try to make it so that nobody can go on the dole at taxpayer expense?

    One could require the immigrants to provide some form of bond or insurance that would ensure that they would not have to be cared for by the state.

    This will only create exactly the same monitoring and enforcement problems as any other form of ex ante immigration control. (Who do you want to verify that they have the right level of assets? The IRS? Who do you want to take action against them if they don’t match up? La Migra and the Border Patrol?) As such it involves a violation of the rights of numerous innocent third parties, and falls to the same objections. It’s also completely unnecessary if you make it impossible for immigrants to go on the dole anyway.

  116. Hey Guys,

    I have a solution – Mexico, the place where the majority of immigrants are comming from does not have an immigration problem.

    They are a nation of laws and a democracy like we are…

    Why don’t we adopt the Mexican Immigration Laws as our own – you know all play by the same rules and the Mexican immigrants would already – presumably – know these laws…

    Any takers?

    -Vock

Leave a Reply

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