Stephan Kinsella Ought To Shut His Stupid Cake Hole
Sep 24, 04 | 3:31 am by John LopezSpeaking of immigration, self-styled anarchocapitalist (or perhaps “libertarian“) Stephan Kinsella has this to say over at Not-Reason.com:
How about this compromise: we remove all barriers to immigration except one: we charge a fee. I propose we charge somewhere between $1 million and $10 million per family. That way you guarantee you get fairly decent (non-criminal, educated, successful, civil, etc.) quality immigrants.
If, say, 100,000 families (about 400,000 people, say) immigrate per year and pay $1 million each, that’s $100 billion per year.
Steve K. adds this addendum, just in case there’s any doubt:
Look, it’s simple. If we have open borders America will be devastated in a matter of years. Therefore there have to be restrictions based on some criteria.
Kinsella’s implicit whimpering about his “needs” and his explicit call for government extortion stand in stark contrast to his earlier position:
To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression.
—
Individual rights entail anarcho-capitalism; a state, even a minarchist one, necessarily violates the individual rights that Rand so passionately championed.
Kinsella needs to drop this pretense about being some sort of radical free-market type and honestly embrace government, or perhaps white separatism. Until then, he’d do well just to simply shut up.
September 24th, 2004 at Sep 24, 04 | 4:03 am
Why not charge all Americans $500K a kid or so, by the same argument?
September 24th, 2004 at Sep 24, 04 | 4:19 am
Kinsella: “Look, it’s simple. If we have open borders America will be devastated in a matter of years. Therefore there have to be restrictions based on some criteria.”
Here’s what’s simple: The Rockwellians who agree with this are arguing that the state is necessary.
September 24th, 2004 at Sep 24, 04 | 5:06 am
Look at those bastards, gloating over the “100 billion” they want to divide up.
September 24th, 2004 at Sep 24, 04 | 5:13 am
Where are these 100,000 millionaire families coming from, anyway? I mean, millionaires can already get in if they want in, right? Are there 100,000 coming in this year?
September 24th, 2004 at Sep 24, 04 | 5:13 am
It’s free money! Free!
September 24th, 2004 at Sep 24, 04 | 5:15 am
I agree, Lopez and Kennedy. As a regular reader of LRC, and you guys of course, I was hoping he was joking. Unfortunately I don’t think he was.
September 24th, 2004 at Sep 24, 04 | 5:35 am
Stedman,
Where are these 100,000 millionaire families coming from, anyway?”
His ass?
I mean, millionaires can already get in if they want in, right?
Let me think. Yes.
“Are there 100,000 coming in this year?”
Not at these prices.
September 24th, 2004 at Sep 24, 04 | 5:41 am
Boeing is obviously missing the boat here by not hiring Kinsela as head of marketing:
“Look, there’s octeen jillion people in China. If just 100,000 of them bought a 777…”
September 24th, 2004 at Sep 24, 04 | 6:37 am
<>Stphn Knsll: f w hv pn brdrs mrc wll b dvsttd n mttr f yrs.
H’s rght bt THT, f crs: l Qd wld hv tn-thsnd ppl xpldng vr hr prnt (lk thy’r blwng p vrywhr ls) nc frd f th nnync f prntng p fk rq pssprts — nd ny lbrtrn (sp. “nt-wr” pcfst llgd lbrtrns) nprprd t dl rtnlly wth th rgmnt (whl mntnng cnfrmnc t NF) hs slpt thrgh th hrd hmwrk qstns.
September 24th, 2004 at Sep 24, 04 | 12:50 pm
I thought the Sept 11th terrorists all had legitimate Saudi passports and were in the country legally. Hell several months after Sept 11th - 2 of the terrorists who had flown into the WTC had their student visa’s renewed. So the good news is billions have been spent on keeping America’s boarders safer - but they are still issuing visas to terrorists - but ONLY to the DEAD ONES.
September 24th, 2004 at Sep 24, 04 | 7:45 pm
-Why not charge all Americans $500K a kid or so, by the same argument?
-Posted by: John T. Kennedy on Sep 23, 04 | 11:03 pm
That’s a Good Start…..
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 2:56 am
As I pointed out in a related post today, http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/006063.html, libertarians from Mises to Raico to Hoppe all oppose open borders in today’s state-run world. Raico notes:
“Free immigration would appear to be in a different category from other policy decisions, in that its consequences permanently and radically alter the very composition of the democratic political body that makes those decisions. In fact, the liberal order, where and to the degree that it exists, is the product of a highly complex cultural development. One wonders, for instance, what would become of the liberal society of Switzerland under a regime of “open borders.”
In other words, relatively liberal societies would certainly soon become less liberal if they opened their borders. Surely it is libertarian to oppose become less libertarian, to oppose policies and measures that will result in more rights violations!
As Hoppe points out:
“It is not difficult to predict the consequences of an open border policy in the present world. If Switzerland, Austria, Germany or Italy, for instance, freely admitted everyone who made it to their borders and demanded entry, these countries would quickly be overrun by millions of third-world immigrants from Albania, Bangladesh, India, and Nigeria, for example. As the more perceptive open-border advocates realize, the domestic state-welfare programs and provisions would collapse as a consequence. This would not be a reason for concern, for surely, in order to regain effective protection of person and property the welfare state must be abolished. But then there is the great leap—or the gaping hole—in the open border argument: out of the ruins of the democratic welfare states, we are led to believe, a new natural order will somehow emerge.
“The first error in this line of reasoning can be readily identified. Once the welfare states have collapsed under their own weight, the masses of immigrants who have brought this about are still there. They have not been miraculously transformed into Swiss, Austrians, Bavarians or Lombards, but remain what they are: Zulus, Hindus, Ibos, Albanians, or Bangladeshis. Assimilation can work when the number of immigrants is small. It is entirely impossible, however, if immigration occurs on a mass scale. In that case, immigrants will simply transport their own ethno-culture onto the new territory. Accordingly, when the welfare state has imploded there will be a multitude of “little” (or not so little) Calcuttas, Daccas, Lagoses, and Tiranas strewn all over Switzerland, Austria, and Italy. It betrays a breathtaking sociological naiveté to believe that a natural order will emerge out of this admixture. Based on all historical experience with such forms of multiculturalism, it can safely be predicted that in fact the result will be civil war. There will be widespread plundering and squatterism leading to massive capital consumption, and civilization as we know it will disappear from Switzerland, Austria and Italy. Furthermore, the host population will quickly be outbred and, ultimately, physically displaced by their “guests.” There will still be Alps in Switzerland and Austria, but no Swiss or Austrians.”
Is a libertarian obligated to favor a policy which would result in civil war and the devastation of western culture and life? Is it your view that this simply would not happen? Or that even if it did, consequences be damned, we have to support it!?
***
BTW, what is wrong with you guys, always looking for things to attack in the Mises Institute crowd? I really don’t get it. Is it just some kind of weird jealousy of their popularity and success and influence in the libertarian movement? Is it some kind of self-esteem issue, like junkies and losers and hippies and libertines and relativist types hate those with conservative or traditionalist moral and cultural values because they don’t like to be “judged”, even implicitly, or something? Somebody explain it to me. I thought you guys were nominally libertarian; if so, it is simply bizarre you would have such bitterness toward the Mises Institute, which does heroic work spreading the pro-property rights, pro-free market, pro-capitalism, pro-individual rights, Austrian economic message. What is wrong with you guys, you come across as cranks and losers.
BTW whoever called me Steve, why you think Steve is short for Stephan I have no idea. Do you ever call a girl named Stephanie Stevenie?
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 3:29 am
Gee, Stephen, the “Mises Institute crowd” is it? Not the “Lew Rockwell crowd” which includes such shining lights as Gary North, “Christian” fascist?
Hiding behind Mises when a light shines on you people fools no one. You people over at LRC arn’t despicable because of your “popularity and success and influence in the libertarian movement” - you’re despicable because you are two-faced liars, Confederacy-groupies and crypto-fascist obscurantists masquerading as libertarians. (There may be some exceptions - very naive and foolish exceptions, who evidently don’t read the filth regularly doled out over at LRC.)
Incidentally, how many “junkies” do you think post here, you worthless piece of shit?
Cordially,
John Sabotta
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 3:47 am
…libertarians from Mises to Raico to Hoppe all oppose open borders in today’s state-run world.
Which is irrelevant to the fact that closed borders requires the initiation of force. Why are you in favor of initiating force, Kinsella?
Is a libertarian obligated to favor a policy which would result in civil war and the devastation of western culture and life?
A libertarian is obligated to not advocate initiating force. Closing borders requires the initiation of force against peaceful travellers.
Yapyapyap whinewhine…Somebody explain it to me.
It’s called intellectual consistency, Kinsella.
Mises Institute, which does heroic work spreading the pro-property rights, pro-free market, pro-capitalism, pro-individual rights,…
Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-property rights”?
Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-free market”?
Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-capitalism”?
Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-individual rights”?
What is wrong with you guys, you come across as cranks and losers.
Get this, Kinsella, and get it real fuckin’ good: I don’t care what I “come across” as to a two-bit twerp like you who’d presume to get behind a group of thugs and try to tell me how to dispose of my property. You come across like any cheap Commie, telling me how much you need to steal from me in order to provide for your own existence.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 5:56 am
Stevie Nicks’ real name is Stephanie. So don’t make me send another Hurricane, Steve.
I don’t remember how many posters to this blog were in favor of the Bush wars, but it seems to me that there were a few. Perhaps thou shouldest remove the plank from thine own eye, No Treasoners?
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 6:15 am
But it’s typical of losers not to care how they are viewed by the ones who would typically recognize their loserness. So what can possibly the relevance of asserting that you don’t care?
To call me worthless is simply stupid, quite literally. Really, stupidity and petulance primarily harm the possessor.
I dunno how many junkies populate this list of what appears from cursory examination to have its disproportionate share of marginal and crank types. Maybe I’m wrong. Didn’t examine it closely enough. Anyway in my comment I nowhere implied this list had junkies, it was an analogy (the word “like” indicates that) to the type of person who has self-esteem issues, or the relativist type who hates judgment. I dunno. It was just a little psychologizing hypothesis.
And I happen not to be in favor of initiating force. I favor dismantling the state entirely. I do oppose the massive and systematic increase in aggression that would be sure to follow if we were completely open the borders given the existence of the modern state.
What I don’t get is do you presumably open-border types support it because you think the consequences (to rights) would not be bad; or because you don’t give a damn what the consequences would be?
My guess is that at least 2/3 of the regular No Treasoners reading this do not seriously want totally open borders right now. If not more. My guess is that most people would not push a button that would destroy our entire society, lives, and culture. It’s much better to do it slowly, as we are doing now, don’t you think?
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 6:31 am
Look Sabotta, it’s not my fault if you work for a Hollywood Video. Dont take it out on me, man.
Just kidding. I know nothing about you, except what you write. More’s the pity.
“Gee, Stephen, the “Mises Institute crowd” is it? Not the “Lew Rockwell crowd” which includes such shining lights as Gary North, “Christian” fascist?”"
“Hiding behind Mises when a light shines on you people fools no one. You people over at LRC arn’t despicable because of your “popularity and success and influence in the libertarian movement” - you’re despicable because you are two-faced liars, Confederacy-groupies and crypto-fascist obscurantists masquerading as libertarians. (There may be some exceptions - very naive and foolish exceptions, who evidently don’t read the filth regularly doled out over at LRC.)”
Oh, you don’t hate the Mises Institute too? I’ll make a note of too. Lew Rockwell does run it, you know. But never mind. What I’ve seen of Gary North on LRC is compatible with libertarianism and sensible. I’ve seen nothing “Christian fascist” from him. And so what anyway? What are you saying? That libertarian principles clearly show that if one has a website one should not publish articles by those who privately believe things that are incompatible with libertarianism? Hunh?
The shining lights of the LRC and Mises crowd are, in my view, people like Lew Rockwell, Joe Stromberg, Jeff Tucker, Hans Hoppe, Joe Salerno, Walter Block, Ralph Raico, Tom DiLorenzo, David Gordon, Guido Huelsmann, Mark Thornton, Jeff Herbener, as well as a larger supporting cast.
Liars? Are you insane, man? It’s a think-tank, and intellectual institution; seeking to promulgate and develop ideas in favor of liberty and markets and individualism and reason and property. Are you literally insane? Do you have all these weird little internal models of the world inside your head that you follow, and every now and then otehrs get a glimpse of it?
Confederacy-groupies? Crypto-fascist obscurantists masquerading as libertarians? I think you must literally be insane, or very paranoid, or somehow malevolent or biased by some weird personal animus.
And you say there may be some “naive and foolish” exceptions, people “who evidently don’t read the filth regularly doled out over at LRC.” I have no idea who you, in your irrational, juvenile, petulant, envious mindset can actually admire at LRC, but I imagine maybe Walter Block? I don’t know. But now Walter Block is naive and foolish? What “filth” is there?
For you, as a libertarian, to insult the LRC and Mises Institute people as being crypto-fascists is, frankly, disgusting. It is a completely twisted, unjustifiable sickness for you to do anything but give Lew Rockwell appreciation for his monumental efforts on behalf of liberty. But a petulant punk won’t get this.
I will admit one thing: I really don’t understand why there is this gallery of gnats who actually seem to despise the great and obviously pro-liberty jobs continually done by LRC and the Mises Institute. I truly don’t understand it. Whenever one of you tries to give an explanation, it’s on the level of a sputtering, emotional, hyperbole-filled, unfactual, anecdotal tirade. In other words, not only unpersuasive, but not even coherent.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 6:57 am
But it’s typical of losers not to care how they are viewed by the ones who would typically recognize their loserness.
It’s typical of someone who doesn’t have a rational argument to make to resort to pejoratives.
I dunno how many junkies populate this list of what appears from cursory examination to have its disproportionate share of marginal and crank types. Maybe I’m wrong. Didn’t examine it closely enough. Anyway in my comment I nowhere implied this list had junkies, it was an analogy (the word “like” indicates that) to the type of person who has self-esteem issues, or the relativist type who hates judgment. I dunno. It was just a little psychologizing hypothesis.
“I’s just foolin’, yo.” Bullcrap, Kinsella. Back-handed insults and petty smear-attempts are fine, unless you can’t back them up. Which you can’t, I doubt very seriously that any regular contributor to No Treason qualifies as a junkie or a hippy.
Again, it’s because you can’t muster any argument beyond your “need” for closed borders.
And I happen not to be in favor of initiating force.
Yes you are, you favor the American government initiating force against peaceful travelers.
I do oppose the massive and systematic increase in aggression that would be sure to follow if we were completely open the borders given the existence of the modern state.
That has nothing at all to do with the fact that you applaud the initiation of force against immigrants.
My guess is that at least 2/3 of the regular No Treasoners reading this do not seriously want totally open borders right now.
My judgement is that your “guess” is worth about as much as your “analogies”. If you really wanted to know, you’d ask. But actually asking a question to gather data would require that pesky intellectual consistency that you can’t seem to address.
My guess is that most people would not push a button that would destroy our entire society, lives, and culture.
Intellectual consistency time, Kinsella: You claim that free immigration would destroy our society, lives, and culture. You claim that closed borders is what prevents this. Those borders are kept closed only because the State does so. Are you claiming that the state is then necessary?
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 7:01 am
Stephen Kinsella: “What I don’t get is do you presumably open-border types support it because you think the consequences (to rights) would not be bad; or because you don’t give a damn what the consequences would be?
Do you think some amount of chaos would ensue if all those imprisoned in America for victimless crimes only (drug offenses, prostitution, weapons possession) were released tomorrow?
If not, are you naive? If so, do you support keeping people imprisoned for such crimes?
If there were price controls and rationing of gasoline, would you criticize someone who for writing an article critical of rationing, even though removing the rationing but keeping the price controls might be a worse situation?
Most No Treason contributors would like the borders opened and the welfare state demolished. If you find one who advocates open borders, but wants to keep the welfare state, let us know and I’ll join you in criticizing him or her for wanting to destroy civil society.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 7:02 am
Unanswered questions to Kinsella:
“Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-property rights”?
“Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-free market”?
“Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-capitalism”?
“Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-individual rights”?
Those are all Yes/No questions, Stephan. Given the fact that you’ve obviously thought long and hard about the issue, you ought to be able to answer them.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 7:28 am
Loudius Fubqua: I don’t remember how many posters to this blog were in favor of the Bush wars, but it seems to me that there were a few.
Tim Starr (and one other unlisted contributor) for sure, with Mike Schneider as a ‘maybe’. Beck might count as well. Maybe Sabotta. So 2-5, depending.
Perhaps thou shouldest remove the plank from thine own eye, No Treasoners?
I personally am not in favor of government war, and I’m very sure that Kennedy, Stedman, Warren, and Holmes aren’t either. I honestly don’t know about Soja. That wraps up the current contributors: 1 maybe, 1 don’t know, 5 against.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 7:49 am
Lopez: “Intellectual consistency time, Kinsella: You claim that free immigration would destroy our society, lives, and culture. You claim that closed borders is what prevents this. Those borders are kept closed only because the State does so. Are you claiming that the state is then necessary?”
Why, no; open borders, given the existence of the state, is what is dangerous. Did you read Hoppe’s argument? When there is no state, there is really no such thing as open borders; there is only private property. With the state, there is forced integration due to public roads, anti-discrimination laws, and the like; and the immigrants also gain the corresponding right to sue based on the anti-discrimination laws, not to mention the inevitable right to vote.
Stedman: “Stephen Kinsella: “What I don’t get is do you presumably open-border types support it because you think the consequences (to rights) would not be bad; or because you don’t give a damn what the consequences would be?
“Do you think some amount of chaos would ensue if all those imprisoned in America for victimless crimes only (drug offenses, prostitution, weapons possession) were released tomorrow?”
Hey, how about answering my question instead of answering w/ another question.
Actually, it does not seem likely to me that there would be “chaos” just b/c of releazing non-violent, aggression-less prisoners.
“If there were price controls and rationing of gasoline, would you criticize someone who for writing an article critical of rationing, even though removing the rationing but keeping the price controls might be a worse situation?”
No, but I would not agree (assuming your assumptions are right) that we should do one without the other.
Here’s another analogy. Suppose the government raised the minimum wage to $30/hour. Thereby forcing millions into unemployment, and poverty; and onto the welfare rolls. Would an opponent of welfare say the state should necessarily abolish the welfare, and cause the victims of government imposed poverty to starve?
“Most No Treason contributors would like the borders opened and the welfare state demolished. If you find one who advocates open borders, but wants to keep the welfare state, let us know and I’ll join you in criticizing him or her for wanting to destroy civil society.”
But this evades the question. It fights the hypo. This is what libertarians always do on this issue: they say, well, I’m in favor of abolishing the state privileges immigrants abuse. But the question is do you advocate opening the borders now, even if we retain the current state apparatus?
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 7:56 am
<>Lds Fbq: (D)n’t mk m snd nthr Hrrcn…
‘m srry, bt y cn’t snd hrrcns wth lcns; nd < hrf="http://www.WthrMtrx.nt/phpBB2/vwfrm.php?f=11" ttl="**">** m n chrg f ssng ths.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 8:00 am
<>Lds Fbq: dn’t rmmbr hw mny pstrs t ths blg wr n fvr f th Bsh wrs…
Y’r cllng t tht, f crs, t flt *l*.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 8:08 am
<>Knsll: ‘m n fvr f blshng th stt prvlgs mmgrnts bs.
Y’r wslng wy, dsprtly, frm nswrng Lpz’ ys/n F qstns bcs y knw thy’d rvl yr hypcrsy. (Ths s mr thn mttr f ntllctl cnsstncy; t’s mttr f ntllctl *ntgrty*.)
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 10:44 am
If immigrants receive net public subsidy, they are accessories to treason. It is treason for officials to divert the citizens’ tax money to the foreigner, therefore all immigrants on net public subsidy are accessory to treason. If one advocates tolerance of immigration without a reqirement for all of them to be net taxpayers, one is advocating tolerance of the crime of being accessory to treason, as well as aggression on the net taxpayer. Citizens on net public subsidy are not also accessory to treason.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 10:56 am
<>t s trsn fr ffcls t dvrt th ctzns’ tx mny t th frgnr
Pffl. Ths ffcls hv nt rght t my mny n th <>frst plc.
‘v lng sd tht ‘d b tckld pnk f ch nd vry “llgl” n th cntry sgnd p fr ghty-fv wlfr prgrms nd sckd th trsry dwn t th rcks jst n nck f tm t ct ll ths RP ndd t f thr prmsd Pnz lt.
My ss wld jst bt fll ff, ‘d b lghng *s* hrd.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 11:04 am
That sounds nihilistic; the worse the better, or at least a contradiction-in-terms. Officials may hold some tax money under any conceivable system of government; therefore they may not divert it to the foreigner, except traitorously. Likewise the immigrant may not accept such public funds, except as accessory to treason.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 11:26 am
“How about this compromise: we remove all barriers to immigration except one: we charge a fee. I propose we charge somewhere between $1 million and $10 million per family. That way you guarantee you get fairly decent (non-criminal, educated, successful, civil, etc.) quality immigrants.”
HAHAHAHAHA.
And do you, Mr. Stephan Kinsella, think that anybody would like his (or her) honorable ass in the USA? I doubt it. For $1 million, it’s possible to buy an island, along with its sovereignty (or, at least, to 99 years lease it out of the state’s control) in the South America. Or a BIG, BIG house in Mexico, Eastern Europe eg. Ukraine (Central Europe is too expensive). Who would like to pay $1 million just to have a “HONOR” to get to the “land of the free”, in the times it becomes totally unfree; in the times of Bushism, “Patriot” Act, gun control, war on drugs that make it very easy for officials to plant some evidence and legally steal one’s car, house or whatever they want? Or the IRS, the tax office that uses guns to extort taxes (no tax office in Europe does it so brutally; not to say about South America, where rich people usu don’t pay ANY taxes at all).
Would I have $1 million, I would surely buy myself some island in the Carribean or nearby the shores of some country in South America, and set up a business there (and I would have an advantage of cheap labor galore), instead of learning how to HAIL The Emperor Bush.
To all Americans: it’s not about your country, which is nice, and which I generally like (I’m seen as the Americomaniac by my friends:) ). It’s about the US-GOV, the Republicracy, Bushism, Kerrytynism and the STUPID arguments of some people (eg. Kinsella)
Cheerz,
Critto
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 11:35 am
<>Tht snds nhlstc…
N. Ths s sttn whr nthng s gng t mprv ntl th gvrnmnt gs brk fr wll nd gd. xmpl: Th Phlppns, whr Mrcs ltd th ntr trsry, s mch, mch bttr ff wth bsnss lp-frggng frwrd snc th gvrnmnt hs n blty t py lgns f gns t hrrss vryn fll-tm.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 11:40 am
There are at least a hundred ways to make the government go broke. Presumably these include defaulting on the national debt, which would bring war, perhaps. Wanting to dissolve the government is not enthusiasm for aggression?
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 11:43 am
“That sounds nihilistic…
No. This is a situation where nothing is going to improve until the government goes broke for well and good. Example: The Philippines, where Marcos looted the entire treasury, is much, much better off with business leap-frogging forward since the government has no ability to pay legions of goons to harrass everyone full-time.”
Good, good, good point, Mike Schneider …
There’s one reason I LOVE my country, Poland, and 9 more countries joining the EU …
It will make the EU welfare state model BROKE. It has already begun. They are simply unable to finance us all with the money stolen from the Western Europeans. Well, let Ukraine and Turkey join the club, too, and I’m sure that the “federal superstate-to-be” is gone, and we all will have one large free trade, free (e/i)migration, free exchange zone instead. The EU will destroy the national governments and then fall itself.
In Liberty,
Critto
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 11:48 am
Governments are almost always insolvent in any case, this fact does not stop them from welfare statesmanship. Example:Argentina defaulted, and stopped making crucial payments domestically also, but their welfare society is still there. Other countries have defaulted, internationally and domestically; not one of them has established laissez-faire.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 11:53 am
jsbolton,
“
If immigrants receive net public subsidy, they are accessories to treason. It is treason for officials to divert the citizens’ tax money to the foreigner, therefore all immigrants on net public subsidy are accessory to treason. If one advocates tolerance of immigration without a reqirement for all of them to be net taxpayers, one is advocating tolerance of the crime of being accessory to treason, as well as aggression on the net taxpayer. Citizens on net public subsidy are not also accessory to treason.”
1. Who cares for treason? It’s no-treason.com website after all :)
2. Who cares for taxes? A libertarian should find 1001 ways to avoid or evade them
3. Who cares for the “public” money? Nothing should be public anymore.
4. What’s a ‘foreigner’ and a ‘citizen’, but some useless, illegitimate, crappy statist terms? In a free world, there would be NO MORE ‘citizenship’ and ‘alienhood’ (unless it’s about the Alien Life Forms:) )
5. ALL of white Americans are immigrants in the land, who haven’t asked the legitimate owners of the country, that is, Indians, about the permission to invade it. In Europe, the Whites in America are still being stereotyped as the thuggish usurpers, while the Indians symbolise freedom, symbiosis with nature and “nativity”.
In Liberty,
Critto
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 12:04 pm
Aggression is always public; that’s what you don’t know, perhaps. Who would want to be a stateless person, and in a world with freedom for aggression? It is not only white Americans who care about citizenship; the only ones who don’t would be either those who wish they could move someplace better, having despaired of their countrymen, or hypocrites who say citizenship is not worth anything, but who will not live out that preference by discarding their passports, or equivalent certifications of citizenship. It is not benevolent to wish others to become stateless persons.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 12:21 pm
besides, I think everything has been already said in the topic:
1. it’s immoral for the state to impose restrictions on immigration
2. to say that ‘the immigrants will abuse OUR welfare system’ is not an excuse for a libertarian; such a person is rather a cryptosocialist. What kind of a libertarian cares if the welfare system will broke? I for instance would LOVE that it would be doomed for ever, the sooner the better. And whining, that we “have to refuse another HUMAN BEING the right to immigrate and purchase the land from someone that wants to sell it IN ORDER TO SAVE THE WELFARE STATE” , is TOTALLY UNLIBERTARIAN.
3. if the state was to protect its budget against revenue-negative immigrants, it should do the same to the revenue-negative ‘countrymen’. Well, it was done in the days of yore, even (or especially) in the XX century. In the USA of 40s, the government-mandated EUGENICS was applied to all homeless bums (hoboes, tramps, vagrants, drug junkies), who were thought to be ‘worthless’, and thus, preventing them from being able to have children (by the means of sterilization) was considered BENEVOLENT,and OKAY. It is done even today in the People’s Republic of China , when the ’surplus’ babies are being murdered, either as fetuses (even in the 8th month of pregnancy) or the new-born babies (the “doctor” takes a syringe filled with a toxin, and injects it to the baby’s head, and the baby dies quickly).
So, good bye on this topic:)
I commend ALL open-minded people, and to the close-minded anti-immigrant xenophobes I’d love to say “F..K OFF; I don’t want to go to America, you don’t have to be afraid of me” :)
In Liberty,
Critto
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 12:23 pm
… and yes, I think Hoppe IS a crypto-socialist who wants to save the WELFARE SYSTEM. And besides, he is an immigrant. He should start preventing immigration from himself, by returning to Austria first.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 1:53 pm
First, immigrants are by definition not peaceful travellers, they are settlers and thus have an impact on the area in which they are settling.
Second, in the absence of a state, what is likely is that you would have communal violence against any large group of alien settlers. For example, when the UK first started to import large numbers of commonwealth immigrants, there was spontaneously organized violence against them. It required a the centralized state to stop the violence. I am not condoning violence, I am just pointing out what actually happens instead of your libertarian fantasy land, and the catch-22 that imigration causes libertarians. In reality, the central state is necessary to support mass immigration. In fact, the state goes well beyond merely stopping violence. In Britain and elsewhere, the state was required to *force* landlords to rent to immigrants, sell there property to immigrants when they would rather have sold to their own community, serve immigrants in stores, etc. Now, these people may have been bad people for not wanting to rent to immigrants, but that’s as may be. What is a fact is that state violence was and is visited upon people who refuse to be a party to the changing of their culture by mass immigration. Indeed, the state in Britain has gone beyond infringing property rights, now you can face serious charges just for criticizing immigration policy and the behavior of protected groups.
As for John Lopez’ question. If somehow you can get the Mexicans to your house without using taxpayer roads, if you can pay the entire cost of their being in your community — including the education of their kids, and if you house these people on your own property so their externalities don’t affect me, then you may have a case. Otherwise, you are simply externalizing costs onto me. Econ 101 boyo.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 2:22 pm
Externalizing what costs? The costs imposed by your state? Give me a break. That ’s between you and your state.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 2:52 pm
Stephan,
” My guess is that most people would not push a button that would destroy our entire society, lives, and culture. It’s much better to do it slowly, as we are doing now, don’t you think?”
My guess is you woudn’t pull the trigger to shoot a peaceful immigrant crossing the border.
But maybe I’m wrong, because you are supporting a public policy which in principle entails just that: The targeting of peaceful individuals with aggressive deadly force.
Don’t kid yourself, that’s precisely what it means to “do it slowly”. In principle you have to be willing to pull the trigger.
“There was a Checkpoint Charlie
he didn’t crack a smile
and it’s no laughing party
when you’ve been on the murder mile
alll it takes is one itchy trigger…”
…one less immigrant wetback nigger.
Lew Rockwell’s Army are here to stay
Lew Rockwell’s Army are on their way
And you you had better cross anywhere else than here today.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 3:11 pm
“Kinsella: I’m in favor of abolishing the state privileges immigrants abuse.
You’re weaseling away, desperately, from answering Lopez’ yes/no IOF questions because you know they’d reveal your hypocrisy. (This is more than a matter of intellectual consistency; it’s a matter of intellectual *integrity*.)”
It’s funny, everytime you people are asked if you want to open the borders NOW, even though we have a welfare state etc., you weasel out of it by saying you want to abolish welfare.
So I’ll follow your m.o.: Sure, I’m in favor of opening the borders–if we abolish the state.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 3:16 pm
“And whining, that we “have to refuse another HUMAN BEING the right to immigrate and purchase the land from someone that wants to sell it IN ORDER TO SAVE THE WELFARE STATE” , is TOTALLY UNLIBERTARIAN.”
Immigrants themselves do not have a right to immigrate. Our government, to the extent it can even claim to be justified, exists to protect its own citizens’ rights, not the rights of foreigners. From the immigrant’s point of view, his rights are not violated any more than if he wants to visit someone in a private neighborhood whose rules don’t permit him past the guard gate. Immigration laws at most violate the rights of some property owners who would like to invite the immigrant onto their own property but who are not permitted to. It’s about Americans, not immigrants.
As for the Polish lightbulb who claims no one would want to move here for $1million; he is simply ignorant. Further, even if it were true, so what? We have zero immigration. Third, we can lower the price if we need to.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 4:10 pm
Stephan,
The immigrant has the same right as anyone to be free from interference by agressive force and you can’t keep him out of this territory without such interference.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 4:18 pm
Externalizing costs. Well yes, some, like basic health care and a certain basic standard of living are imposed by the state. Unlike Mexico, the people of the US (at least the suburbs) don’t like to see guys on rollerboards begging on the sidewalk. We don’t like to see kids with goiters running around with no shoes. We don’t let people live in cardboard shacks. All of this is permitted in the much freer market of Mexico, and unsurprisingly is developing here (colonias along the Texas border). So yes, the state imposes on me, if that day laborer who you hire strains his back and goes to the emergency room, I am going to pay a share of it.
However, that’s not what I was talking about. I’ll give you an example. San Diego every year has beaches close due to sewage spills. Why? The system was designed for X number of people, and there are 2X number living in the area, and .75X of that is not ‘natural’ increase, but imported from Mexico. Sewage is an externality. Okay, if everyone had septic tanks, that would be peachy. It’s not doable here. So, we either have to put up with beach closures, sink down to a level of public hygene that approaches Mexicos, or pay for extra sewage capacity. Until everything is paid for, until someone institutes a pay-per-shit program, you can’t get around this problem.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 4:26 pm
Young,
“Unlike Mexico, the people of the US (at least the suburbs) don’t like to see guys on rollerboards begging on the sidewalk. We don’t like to see kids with goiters running around with no shoes. We don’t let people live in cardboard shacks. All of this is permitted in the much freer market of Mexico, and unsurprisingly is developing here (colonias along the Texas border).”
Why should I give a flying fuck about what you like seeing on other people’s property?
“So yes, the state imposes on me, if that day laborer who you hire strains his back and goes to the emergency room, I am going to pay a share of it.”
Then your beef is with those making you pay for it.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 4:51 pm
I don’t know if I’m quite finished with this song parody, but I though I’d post it now.
To the tune of Oliver’s Army by Elvis Costello:
Lew Rockwell’s Army
Don’t start Lew talking
He could talk all night
His mind goes sleepwalking
while he’s putting the world to right
call Lew Rockwell information
and he’ll tell you his preoccupation.
Lew Rockwell’s Army is here to stay
Lew Rockwell’s Army are on their way
and you had better cross anywhere else but here today.
There was a Checkpoint Hoppe
he didn’t crack a smile
but it’s no laughing party
when you’ve been on the murder mile
only takes one itchy trigger
one less immigrant wetback nigger.
Lew Rockwell’s Army is here to stay
Lew Rockwell’s Army are on their way
and you had better cross anywhere else but here today.
Mexifornia needs a gate!
Wetbacks won’t assimilate!
We’ll be there in the Rio Grande
overrun by the Mexicans
with the boys from ol’ VDARE and American Ren…
It’s not aggression,
our social order must cohere,
and it could be arranged
with just a word in Pat Buchanan’s ear.
If you’re out of luck or out of work
blame it on some border crossing jerk.
Lew Rockwell’s Army is here to stay
Lew Rockwell’s Army are on their way
and you had better cross anywhere else but here today.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 6:06 pm
<>Wh wld wnt t b sttlss prsn, nd n wrld wth frdm fr ggrssn?
“frdm” ds NT mn “prcvd blty t gt wy wth crm”.
.g., “t ws *fr*!” xclms hppy ltr wth stln prprty n hs hnds.
Whn y dstry th lngg lk ths, t’s n wndr hw sly y tlk yrslf nt sbjgtn.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 6:55 pm
Stephan Kinsella,
“Immigrants themselves do not have a right to immigrate. Our government, to the extent it can even claim to be justified, exists to protect its own citizens’ rights, not the rights of foreigners. “
So you take care for the government? As an anarchist, I don’t. I wouldn’t shed a tear if Polish government was abolished (I would LOVE it, and I yearn for the time the Polish government exists no more). I would not care a damn for American government, too — the same one that purported eugenics in the 1940s, forced racial segregation till 1960s and the SLAVERY till 1865 (one of the longest periods of this despotism; excluding Arab countries, it existed longer only in Brasil). Do you care for those thugs?
“From the immigrant’s point of view, his rights are not violated any more than if he wants to visit someone in a private neighborhood whose rules don’t permit him past the guard gate.”
Government is an USURPER, and not a private neighborhood.
” Immigration laws at most violate the rights of some property owners who would like to invite the immigrant onto their own property but who are not permitted to. It’s about Americans, not immigrants.”
And that’s enough to say those rules are tyrannic. Tell me, Stephan, why should a property owner care for what OTHER property owners say if he (or she) rents his real estate to an immigrant? Or hires him (her) ? And, why should he or she care for what the thugs of the US GOVERNMENT (which, nota bene, now emulates the nazi German (1933-1945) government; they even created The Homeland Security Department, after the nazi “Heimatsschutz”; and the panic they spread is similiar) say?
“As for the Polish lightbulb who claims no one would want to move here for $1million; he is simply ignorant. Further, even if it were true, so what? We have zero immigration. “
The person who wanted to emmigrate to the Bushist Regime (SIEG HEIL GEORGE BUSH!!! Is shouting it enough to obtain a visa? SIEG HEIL IRS !!! SIEG HEIL INS!!! SIEG HEIL FBI!!!!) must be seriously mad. You are right, there are such people:)
Even some of the sane Americans want to escape from this, eg. to Costa Rica, Canada, or some Carribean island. To put it clear: I like America, but I HATE the US government, and the Polish government along.
“Third, we can lower the price if we need to.”
Uh? “We”? Is the USG ‘we’ for you? Perhaps you work for the US government?
I would never use “we” saying about the Polish government. For me, it has always been, it is, and it will always be “THEY”; the entity I HATE, despise, detest, and wish the worst things to happen to them. But I see that you favor a welfare-warfare state that the US Gov perverts USA into.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 6:58 pm
and besides: I *WELCOME* all Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, the folks from Kavkaz, Kazakhstan, etc. to Poland ,as long as they are normal people and not criminals. And besides, Poland has a long tradition of tolerance and openness towards EVERYONE, including Jews and Tatars (I’m even half-blood Tatar, though non-Muslim; my family is Catholic, and before christianization, they probably were of animist or karaim belief).
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 6:59 pm
and besides: I *WELCOME* all Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, the folks from Kavkaz, Kazakhstan, etc. to Poland ,as long as they are normal people and not criminals. And besides, Poland has a long tradition of tolerance and openness towards EVERYONE, including Jews and Tatars (I’m even half-blood Tatar, though non-Muslim; my family is Catholic, and before christianization, they probably were of animist or karaim belief). USA had this tradition, too, unless the crappy 1920s, the era of prohibition and racism, when the THUGS in Congress and USG considered that the “Anglo-Saxon race should not dissolute in mixture with the “inferior” Slavs, Italians, Irish, etc”
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 7:03 pm
John T Kennedy wrote:
Why should I give a flying fuck about what you like seeing on other people’s property?
Victor Davis Hanson’s conclusions in his book, Mexifornia, are only partially correct, but his observations are completely correct and that’s the frustration that Mitchell Young is attempting to convey here. Having lived there and seen exactly what Hanson wrote about, I’m not perpared to be as dismissive of Young’s concerns as you are.
All that said, the remedy, is not, as Hanson concludes, in restraining freedom of travel and property rights. The problems and benefits of open borders are best dealt with in a free market.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 7:05 pm
Kinsella:Hey, how about answering my question instead of answering w/ another question.
Yeah, Kinsella. How about answering:
“Why not charge all Americans $500K a kid or so, by the same argument?”
“Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-property rights”?
“Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-free market”?
“Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-capitalism”?
“Is preventing me from hiring Mexicans to work at my house “pro-individual rights”?
“Why are you in favor of initiating force, Kinsella?”
It’s funny, everytime you people are asked if you want to open the borders NOW, even though we have a welfare state etc., you weasel out of it by saying you want to abolish welfare.
Kinsella, I’d be happy to see the US border completely opened, right now.
Now, how about answering my questions? You’ve had ample opportunity to do so, and the fact that you continually refuse leads me to believe that it’s because you don’t have any rational answer.
The best thing that you can come up with is (spread over two paragraphs at a time) is that you need the state to initiate force for you. Your need, which is exactly like the need of every cheap Commie yelping for prescription drugs or public schools, is all the justification you think of for attacking other people.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 7:38 pm
“Having lived there and seen exactly what Hanson wrote about, I’m not perpared to be as dismissive of Young’s concerns as you are.”
I’m willing to stipulate the facts you and Hanson report, but they can never justify forceful interference with peaceful individuals. Thus I dismiss them as an argument for using deadly force to keep immigrants out.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 7:40 pm
… not to say about the LEGAL RIGHT TO REBELLION, that was out there in Poland for hundreds of years. And the right to form private confederacies (confederatios), that nobody was forced to join and that could create their own laws, armies, etc, reminding the anarchocapitalist PDAs and voluntary militias. And it WORKED, and was used (unlike the Right to Revolution in New Hampshire, USA; or whiskey rebellion; or the War for Southern Independence; or John Brown’s anti-slavery uprising; or the several Indian uprisings and rebellions; after the American Revolution, no rebellion ever succeeded in the USA) Sure, it applied to the ‘nobility’ only, but (1) the Nobility was a large group in the society (2) it was a good pattern to follow for EVERYONE; if the peasantry was abolished and all folks were treated as the Nobility, Poland would be the freeest country EVER. Ah, and the king was elected and unable to impose ANY taxes without the approval of Szlachta (nobility). ALL rights were pressured out his “Majesty”, and granted under a name of “privileges”. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szlachta
In Poland ,there were lots of Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Ruthenians (now called Russians) , Tatars, Turks; there also were Mennonites from Netherlands, Irish, English and Scottish Catholics and Protestants; and LOTS OF Jews. Since the Warsaw Confederation (1573, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Confederation) , Poland was OFFICIALLY a religiously tolerant country (de facto, it has been so long before that year). Did American colonies have any religious freedom? Some might have had it, but it rather wasn’t a rule, AFAIK there were colonies for Catholics only, for Protestants only, etc.
Poland was the ASYLUM for people all over the world. And many Polish soldiers fighting for Napoleon joined Haitan blacks in the uprising they were ordered to thwart.
In Liberty,
Critto
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 7:45 pm
Stephan proposes that immigrants be permitted to buy their way in. But of course, immigrants are buying their way in. It’s just that the payments are going to the smugglers instead of to the institution that Stephan seemingly prefers. But not to worry Stephan; the prisons wouldn’t be filled with drugs if the guards weren’t earning some extra cash. So more than likely, the government is getting a cut. It’s probably not much of cut, though. I think that most of the people who could afford a 10 millon dollar entrance fee are trying to get out of the country–not into it.
But if it’s ok for government to take money from some and hand it to others, then why aren’t immigrants entitled to their fair share of the loot? And if it’s not ok, then why are they to be singled out amongst all the recipients of loot? One gets the sense that it’s not really about the loot, otherwise the LRCers would merely oppose “social services” to noncitizens.
Stephan, I think your idea is an interesting one though. But instead of paying to get in, how about paying to get out? Suppose you could pay 1 to 10 million dollars, and your debt-to-society would be paid off in full. No more taxes! You could even opt out of services like the one the FDA provides. If nothing else, it’d be great revenue strategy for the State. Imagine 280 million people trying to pay their own ransoms.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 7:51 pm
“Kinsella, I’d be happy to see the US border completely opened, right now.”
And in case I have not made it clear: Give me the the button that says MAGICALLY STOP THE USE OF AGGRESSIVE DEADLY FORCE AGAINST PEACEFUL IMMIGRANTS and I’ll press it right now.
Now I want to know: Are Stephan, Lew or Hans willing to pull the trigger on a peaceful immigrant themselves or are they chickenhawks as far as immigration is concerned?
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 8:26 pm
Not really a song parody per se, but here’s a little something I wrote. I present it here to entertain and delight the myriad LRC inlookers.
A Distillation Of The Immigration-Skeptic Position As Presented By Lewrockwell.com , or,
Rat-A-Tat-Tat Go Da LRC Gats:
Jus’ pull tha trigger
on a wetback nigger
Drink ya mint juleps
when he pushin up tulips
Rat-a-tat-tat
Go da LRC gats
Hoppe got his gat
Lew got his back
Bof’em ready to kill
Neo-klan’s the real deal
Rat-a-tat-tat
Go da LRC gats
Ain’t no way
Meskin get through today
We gots a big fence
At taxpayer expense
Barb wire at the top
Claymores make brownskins pop
Rat-a-tat-tat
Go da LRC gats
Cuz we for freedom
Make immigrants bleedin
Kill ‘em make em learn
Fore the get to Auburn
Rat-a-tat-tat
Go da LRC gats
Kinsella in the tower
50 cal he got the power
Mow em down like weeds
Fore them wetbacks can breed
Rat-a-tat-tat
Go da LRC gats
Damn libertines
Send in the Marines
Gay-ass hippies
Junkies and sissies
No Treason better run
Kinsella kill fo fun
Rat-a-tat-tat
Go da LRC gats
Nothin more to say
LRC have its way
Aint no reason
Its wetback huntin season
Foreigner marry my daughter
Shoot em at the altar
Rat-a-tat-tat
Go da LRC gats
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 10:18 pm
It has not been answered why immigrants who commit aggression, by receiving net public subsidy, are to be called peaceful and blameless. If they are placed outside morality in this way, by merely defining them as blameless, they have been reclassified outside humanity. Why do many place them in a subhuman classification, where being accessory to aggression, and being accessory to the treason which diverts tax-derived money to them, is considered blameless peaceful traveling? The libertarian believes that present acts of aggression can be wished away by saying, that in theory, one might not have any redistributionist programs. When freedom is spoken of as a primary value, let us take care that it not mean freedom for aggression, but only freedom from aggression. The aggression of the immigrants on net public subsidy against the net taxpayers is an increasing problem and major engine of statism.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 10:25 pm
jsbolton: It has not been answered why immigrants who commit aggression, by receiving net public subsidy, are to be called peaceful and blameless.
I can’t see that their receiving public subsidies counts as agression. Since they haven’t initiated force against anyone, are they not as peaceful as, say, my next door neighbor who works for the postal service?
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 10:40 pm
Receiving net public subsidy is aggression; it is accessory to aggression. The money is not voluntarily given, and there is no prior accumulation of tax payments to balance it off against. Do you not have rights to retaliate publicly against those who receive goods stolen from you? The case of the immigrant is also unique, in that for him to go on net public subsidy, is to be accessory to the traitorous diversion of public funds to the foreigner. The postal worker may be getting more than what a private service would pay him; that additional amount is public subsidy, but his own taxes in their total, may cover that. It is not public subsidy, but net public subsidy which is warlike and blameworthy.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 10:42 pm
Jsbolton:…and being accessory to the treason…
What do you mean by “treason”?
…which diverts tax-derived money to them,
The root problem here is taxation, not the “diversion” of the loot.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 10:52 pm
Receiving net public subsidy is aggression; it is accessory to aggression.
Would you agree to the premise that if A trades with B and B is morally at fault in some way then A is morally at fault? That seems to be what you’re suggesting. Wouldn’t that make it “aggression” to be employed by the postal service?
Or another example (thanks to Greg Swann for this one): Suppose your car is stolen and three days later the thief sells the car to Joe Schmoe who lives far away from you. You aren’t good at finding people, so it takes you awhile to track down Joe, while the thief has escaped completely. Is it moral to take the car that Joe is operating? Why or why not? If it is, is there a time limit on when it is still OK to take the car? Can your grandchildren be entitled to take the car by force from Joe’s grandchildren (say it becomes a family heirloom?).
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 10:54 pm
Posted by: jsbolton on Sep 25, 04 | 5:18 pm
“It has not been answered why immigrants who commit aggression, by receiving net public subsidy, are to be called peaceful and blameless. If they are placed outside morality in this way, by merely defining them as blameless, they have been reclassified outside humanity. Why do many place them in a subhuman classification, where being accessory to aggression, and being accessory to the treason which diverts tax-derived money to them, is considered blameless peaceful traveling?”
O Gosh, WHAT A NATIONAL-SOCIALIST KIBOSH!!! :((( jsbolton, for me you are another cryptosocialist (with some nationalist bias), just after Hans Herman Hoppe (or does the HH in his name stand for sumpin else? :) ;) any ideas, folks?? ;)) ;) just joking …:) )
” The libertarian believes that present acts of aggression can be wished away by saying, that in theory, one might not have any redistributionist programs. “
Of course that it is REDISTRIBUTION, and not immigration, that is aggression.
“When freedom is spoken of as a primary value, let us take care that it not mean freedom for aggression, but only freedom from aggression. The aggression of the immigrants on net public subsidy against the net taxpayers is an increasing problem and major engine of statism.”
Aggression … AGAINST taxpayers?? Dude, you should check your temperature for fever:) For you, is immigration, and NOT taxation, an act of aggression? Again: what about the US citizens who receive subsidies? Aren’t they committing the same aggression you accuse the immigrants of? Isn’t each and every American newborn baby committing this aggression?
And now, pure and simple question: Do you REALLY WANT the welfare (wealth redistribution) system to STAY? Or would you rather wanted it in the dustbin of history?”
“88″ for paleocons :) ;))
Cheerz for the NORMAL folks :))
Critto
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 10:57 pm
As with receiving stolen goods, the root problem is the original theft, but this does not exonerate the receiver of the stolen items. In the case of the immigrant taking net public subsidy, there is not even the excuse of ignorance available. He knows that it is not private charity. The definition of treason, as including the diversion of public funds to the foreigner, is an application of the duty of officials to be loyal to their country and its citizenry, and to the net taxpayer. The accessory to aggression, who receives the proceeds of involuntary taxation, far beyond his taxes, is thus also an aggressor. If he is a foreign aggressor, he is an enemy. His behavior is warlike, and the government’s responsibility is to answer with force.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 10:59 pm
John Lopez,
first: a very nice article, and the parody song is also good. As for your reply to jsbolton:
“
Jsbolton:…and being accessory to the treason…
What do you mean by “treason”?”
perharps, “Treason of The Welfare State”; after all, what are the cryptosocialists as HHH or jsbolton caring about MORE? Some maybe do care for the Masterrace they consider themselves to belong :) (but they are wrong; there was one REAL masterrace called Tuatha de Danaan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatha_de_Danaan, also known as Sidhe, faeries or elves, but they were immortal, endlessly young, and certainly NOT humans:))
jsbolton: “…which diverts tax-derived money to them,”
Lopez: The root problem here is taxation, not the “diversion” of the loot.
Critto: no wonder, Lopez, why the cryptosocialist cares for the tax money … For him, ’tis a “fair share” after all :)
In Liberty,
Critto
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 11:03 pm
Would you agree to the premise that if A trades with B and B is morally at fault in some way then A is morally at fault? That seems to be what you’re suggesting. Wouldn’t that make it “aggression” to be employed by the postal service?
As with receiving stolen goods, the root problem is the original theft, but this does not exonerate the receiver of the stolen items.
I’ll be sure to watch out for you when I’m delivering newspapers.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 11:09 pm
jsbolton,
“As with receiving stolen goods, the root problem is the original theft, but this does not exonerate the receiver of the stolen items. In the case of the immigrant taking net public subsidy, there is not even the excuse of ignorance available. “
What if the person wants NONE of the subsidies??
If you (as a cryptosocialist) CARE SO MUCH FOR THE WELFARE STATE, then why not to impose the following rule:
ALL WELFARE BENEFITS TO THE FOLKS “BORN IN THE USA” ONLY? That means: not for immigrants? Wouldn’t it be better, and less tyrannical, to EXCLUDE immigrants from receiving welfare benefits than closing the border before them? After all, even cryptosocialism may have its better and worse shades (even if those are shades of PALE, that is , in the eyes of some national-socialists, the color of the Masterrace :))
“He knows that it is not private charity. The definition of treason, as including the diversion of public funds to the foreigner, is an application of the duty of officials to be loyal to their country and its citizenry, and to the net taxpayer. “
So again, WHY NOT EXCLUDE immigrants from receiving welfare benefits? And, what if an immigrant says, “get stuffed with your welfare, I don’t want it”?
“If he is a foreign aggressor, he is an enemy. His behavior is warlike, and the government’s responsibility is to answer with force.”
Warlike immigrants? With tomahawks or with guns? :) Oh yeah, with their boats, those FUCKING BOATPEOPLE, ER, BOAT-WARLIKE-AGGRESSORS … SINK’EM’ALL!!! :)
With force? Why not? There was a man who acted so … His first name was Adolf … His surname … Well, with the same letter one of your favorite economist’s surname does:)
again, “88″ for paleocons:) They will know what it means:)
Cheerz for the normals:)
Critto
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 11:10 pm
As with receiving stolen goods, the root problem is the original theft, but this does not exonerate the receiver of the stolen items. In the case of the immigrant taking net public subsidy…
And the government employees keeping Mexicans out aren’t taking net public subsidy? Hell, at least the immigrant out picking vegetables has a free-market job - the INS agents’ full income is paid with loot.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 11:12 pm
Saying ; ‘everybody does it, why can’t we’, if I may characterize the argument thus, is not a moral argument. It simply implies that, since lots of people here are getting away with something, there is no reason not to multiply the aggression. Societies are always justified in limiting the scope of aggression, and the distinction between foreigner and citizen, is potentially of greatest importance for that purpose. Here we have people criticizing socialism, and they are thus vulnerable to the charge from the left, that capitalism is racist, or they may feel vunerable to that. Do they then feel that advocating for immigrants, allows them to deflect the charge of racism from the left, since the immigrants might be of a different race?
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 11:17 pm
As with receiving stolen goods, the root problem is the original theft, but this does not exonerate the receiver of the stolen items. In the case of the immigrant taking net public subsidy…
And the government employees keeping Mexicans out aren’t taking net public subsidy? Hell, at least the immigrant out picking vegetables has a free-market job - the INS agents’ full income is paid with loot.
Posted by: John Lopez on Sep 25, 04 | 6:10 pm
Relax, John Lopez:)
as a cryptosocialist, jsbolton probably thinks that the INS, Border Patrol and alike thugs are working FOR FREE … Just from their unconditional, wholehearted LOVE TO THE COUNTRY … Or, maybe as a cryptosocialist, he hopes that the cost can be HIDDEN, as his socialism is (or, rather, he unsuccessfully tries to hide it) ??
Greetings, John:)
Critto
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 11:19 pm
Saying ; ‘everybody does it, why can’t we’, if I may characterize the argument thus, is not a moral argument.
Unfortunately for you, I’m not making that argument. I’m asking you straight up: given that the average INS agent is a much greater net consumer of taxes than the average immigrant, what aren’t you agitating against the INS?
Societies are always justified in limiting the scope of aggression,
Individuals are justified in preventing aggression. “Society” is a meaningless term.
…and the distinction between foreigner and citizen, is potentially of greatest importance for that purpose.
Unsupported assesrtion. Got anything to back it up with?
Here we have people criticizing socialism, and they are thus vulnerable to the charge from the left, that capitalism is racist, or they may feel vunerable to that.
Which people are those?
Do they then feel that advocating for immigrants, allows them to deflect the charge of racism from the left, since the immigrants might be of a different race?
Who is “they”?
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 11:21 pm
If all immigrants were required to be net taxpayers, they would be a small master-race themselves, perhaps, and not so enthusiastic about being exploited by our alternative welfare society. Without public education, and paying one’s own medical insurance premiums, and not speaking the language, and being charged even for the courts and prisons costs as to one additional person, wouldn’t they almost all turn down our generous offer of such an immigrant visa? There would be other countries less pikerish.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 11:25 pm
If all immigrants were required to be net taxpayers,…
Government employees aren’t in any way “net taxpayers”. Why don’t you want to keep them out?
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 11:31 pm
The border patrols have a military function, in protecting the society from attack, as also soldiers and defense forces of whatever kind may be paid. Society consists of the individuals, who have every right to collective defense of the borders, by all these methods and more. The open-ended character of potential liability to the net taxpayer, from the size of the foreign populations out there, is why the distinction betwen citizens of others can be of the greatest importance, if there is a threat of snowballing immigration into the welfare societies of today.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 11:35 pm
Keeping out government employees, is not a real option. There would be mafia governments and their employees, instead. A government to enforce the absence of any government, is a contradiction-in-terms.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 11:40 pm
The border patrols have a military function, in protecting the society from attack,
I’ve asked them to do nothing of the sort. I neither want nor need their protection.
Society consists of the individuals, who have every right to collective defense of the borders,
Not on my dime, they don’t.
The open-ended character of potential liability to the net taxpayer, from the size of the foreign populations out there,…
None of whom are going to be getting government jobs anytime soon. The millions of government employees out there, on the other hand, eat solely because of taxpayer dollars.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 11:42 pm
Keeping out government employees, is not a real option.
Firing the entire INS would remove many thousands of government employees (all net tax liabilities) from the payroll. It’d be a good start.
September 25th, 2004 at Sep 25, 04 | 11:56 pm
You may say that you don’t want their protection, but the government is entitled to charge everyone at least the minimum cost of maintaining some collective defense of the borders. This includes those who say they don’t need it, because there are no enemies out there, or because they traitorously hope that invaders will come , and create an Afghanistan of drug-dealing mafia statelets, through sheer incompetence. If you say no, you won’t, you place yourself outside the political community, an incipient stateless person, prey to all and respected by none.
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 12:08 am
The case of the newborn is not comparable to that of an immigrant. They don’t act deliberately, and are not to be classified as aggressors.Again there seems to be a tendency here to regard the immigrant as in some special condition outside morality, that would be comparable to a baby, or to the subhuman. Do not classify them thus; they can be blamed for what they do wrong, because they are morally significant beings.
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 12:13 am
” If you say no, you won’t, you place yourself outside the political community..
“I meant to do that.”
- Pee Wee’s Big Adventure
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 12:20 am
…but the government is entitled to charge everyone at least the minimum cost of maintaining some collective defense of the borders.
No, they aren’t. The government is a band of robbers and murderers. Am I allowed to charge you for services you didn’t request? “Hey dude, I washed your car, sorta. That’ll be $500.” It’s absurd on the face of it.
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 12:29 am
Good lord, how do these morons always seem to find their way to No Treason?
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 12:40 am
Again there seems to be a tendency here to regard the immigrant as in some special condition outside morality, that would be comparable to a baby, or to the subhuman. Do not classify them thus; they can be blamed for what they do wrong, because they are morally significant beings.
No one disputes that immigrants are morally significant beings; the disagreement stems from your belief that some morally significant beings like yourself are justified in picking off other morally significant beings with a shotgun at the banks of the Rio Grande.
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 1:39 am
You anti-Lew Rockwell guys are nuts. You are taking a minor disagreement and turning it into the grand canyon. You have much more in common with Lew Rockwell than you do the Republican or Democratic party in the US. It is the pawns of the Democratic and Republican party that are enforcing immigration not the Lew Rockwell crowd. If the Lew Rockwell crowd was in charge…border patrols wouldn’t be needed. Where is all this animosity comming from?
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 1:47 am
Dennis: You are taking a minor disagreement and turning it into the grand canyon.
The idea that initiating force against peaceful travellers is OK is hardly a “minor disagreement”. For that matter, neither is Kinsella’s intellectual inconsistency that’s now pretty close to plain dishonesty. That, of course, appears perfectly acceptable at Lewrockwell.com. Is it acceptable to you, Dennis?
If the Lew Rockwell crowd was in charge…border patrols wouldn’t be needed.
Right, no one at LRC wants closed borders.
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 1:50 am
<>f th Lw Rckwll crwd ws n chrg…brdr ptrls wldn’t b ndd.
Hw d y fgr tht?
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 1:57 am
Micha,
The thing is that a lot of these guys aren’t used to dealing with the likes of us. Take jsbolton (Please!) - note how he’s tried to lay a charge of racism against me (tho’ he hasn’t pressed it - my surname deflects that pretty well). That sort of thing probably works pretty well against the run-of-the-mill liberal type he’s used to, but like JTK noted, we’re farther out on the fringe and thus harder targets.
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 1:59 am
<<The idea that initiating force against peaceful travelers is OK>>
I can’t imagine anyone being for force against peaceful travelers…even mainstream Democrats and Republicans are against such things…Give a jackass a gun and stick him on a border though (or in a foreign country)…human nature is a sad thing. I don’t care to get in an argument with this website crowd, I just think you are making unnecessary enemies.
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 2:00 am
Well, I’d consider it far less shameful to be a junkie than a lawyer, Mr. Kinsella.
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 2:01 am
Can’t have borders if you don’t have a state…
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 2:07 am
I can’t imagine anyone being for force against peaceful travelers
Anyone in favor of closed borders necessarily supports the initiation of force against folks who want to cross without government permission.
How else are they going to stop them?
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 2:28 am
Anyone in favor of closed borders necessarily supports the initiation of force against folks who want to cross without government permission.
How else are they going to stop them?
Perhaps a large red sign with the words “STOP” emblazoned on the front?
Maybe jsbolton would be happy imitating the Israeli plan:
http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=285586&lang=e&dir=news
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 2:49 am
Careful, Sabotta, you’re talking to a future lawyer here. As is Holmes. As was Spooner.
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 2:53 am
Alright, so my two cents: This whole debate seems to go back to a point that brought up much earlier in the “debate” (If you can call all this name calling debate).
This is the analogy of a government that has imposed price fixing and rationing. Do you get rid of one without getting rid of the other?
Getting rid of rationing seems like it would have immediate disasterous results, leading to a first come first serve system that would be hated and lead to a reestablishment of rationing.
Getting rid of price fixing while there was still rationing seems like it wouldn’t be as bad and would infact be a step towards getting rid of both government impositions.
So the question is - Between open borders and the rest of government impositions in society, what would be the result of getting rid of one while keeping the other.
In many cases the arguments for open borders resorted to “But I want the system to crash because it is immoral!”
This may be true, but completely open borders now might make people more xeonophobic in immigration policy the future.
As for the INS being paid for immorally with tax dollars - this is true. However, when the government monopolizes a job that needs to be done the solution isn’t stopping the people from doing that job, but privitizing it and openning it up for competition. I’m not sure how exactly this would work for borders, it would probably be a job performed on more of a community level. However, the knee jerk reaction shouldn’t be to go towards getting rid of the needed service completely, but rather privitizing it and getting rid of the government monopoly on the service.
On the other hand, no one on this board seems opposed to getting rid of the welfare state first (Along with the anti-discrimination laws, free education, public roads, etc). These seem to be the obvious first choice to nix if it were possible.
Anyway, I live in the San Diego area, and I am going to go use the Mexican public roads and enter their clubs in TJ tonight. I don’t think any of them object to open/semi-open borders, but that’s because they will be taking money from me and not the other way around.
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 3:07 am
Ghertner warns:
Careful, Sabotta, you’re talking to a future lawyer here. As is Holmes. As was Spooner.
Law is still a “center of pestilence” as Uncle Al Crowley* would say. Are you sure you can stand it’s malign influence? After all, look at Kinsella.
*”Do what thou wilt is the hole of the Donut/Donut for lung, where is lung’s donut?” - Liber LU
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 3:23 am
Dennis writes, “Well, I’d consider it far less shameful to be a junkie than a lawyer, Mr. Kinsella.”
What rhymes with “boozer” and starts w/ an “l”?
Someone allegedly named Sabotta writes, “Law is still a “center of pestilence” as Uncle Al Crowley* would say. Are you sure you can stand it’s malign influence? After all, look at Kinsella.”
This is idiotic. He is trying to imply (a) that I am somehow evil; and (b) it’s because of the influence of law (incidentally, “it’s” is a contraction for “it is,” not a possessive). Both propositions are false. As for (a), I suppose he is implying that because I don’t advocate open borders here and now I’m evil. Or maybe because I write on LRC. I have no idea. Losers and cranks usually rant and rail like this.
Ghertner: “Good lord, how do these morons always seem to find their way to No Treason?” I am not sure but maybe he’s referring to me. Only a true idiot or ignoramus thinks I’m a moron, but then, all you people always want to make it about me. It’s not. But to answer your stupid question, how about naming a thread “Stephan Kinsella Ought To Shut His Stupid Cake Hole” –?
Come to think of it, given that title, the very premise of this thread is idiotic. The presumption seems to be that IF one is incorrect, THEN one “should” shut up. But nothing in libertarianism says this. Nothing in libertarianism says that people who are incorrect (even about ethical issues) should be quiet and not discuss or promulgate them. Libertarianism only says that aggression is unjustified. Period.
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 3:29 am
In many cases the arguments for open borders resorted to “But I want the system to crash because it is immoral!”
The only other alternative is to support what’s clearly immoral: attacking peaceful travelers.
This may be true, but completely open borders now might make people more xeonophobic in immigration policy the future.
That’s their problem.
However, when the government monopolizes a job that needs to be done…
What is it that the INS is doing that needs to be done?
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 3:39 am
Kinsella: Losers and cranks usually rant and rail like this.
Like you are now, you mean? Why can’t you answer simple, direct questions?
I am not sure but maybe he’s referring to me.
I’m sure that he isn’t.
Nothing in libertarianism says that people who are incorrect (even about ethical issues) should be quiet and not discuss or promulgate them.
Kinsella, maybe you didn’t read this: “Kinsella needs to drop this pretense about being some sort of radical free-market type and honestly embrace government, or perhaps white separatism. Until then, he’d do well just to simply shut up.”
Why don’t you honestly embrace government? You obviously think that it’s necessary. Are you ashamed of that or something?
Further, if you really are correct, why not just prove me wrong? Why not provide a simple, direct answer to my simple, direct questions?
Libertarianism only says that aggression is unjustified.
Then why do you support initiating force against immigrants, Kinsella?
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 4:25 am
Mr. Kinsella,
No, I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about Michael Bolton. Kudos on your anti-IP work, by the way.
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 4:31 am
Nothing in libertarianism says that people who are incorrect (even about ethical issues) should be quiet and not discuss or promulgate them.
Memories of law review articles about performative contradictions are coming back to me…
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 4:39 am
John Lopez asks Stephen Kinsella, What is it that the INS is doing that needs to be done?
Don’t you get it yet? The answer is “Beating the tar out of some brown people.” It’s a dirty job, but, in Paleo Bizarro World, somebody’s got to do it.
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 5:05 am
Critto says: … And besides, he [Hans Hermann Hoppe] is an immigrant. He should start preventing immigration from himself, by returning to Austria first.
You’re missing the point. White German-speaking immigrants aren’t the sort of immigrants that are going to “devastate America” in Paleo Bizarro World. You see, sitting around and writing economics papers on the government dime is honest, productive work, in tune with the liberal values of Anglo-American culture. Working long, hard hours in meatpacking plants, chicken farms, picking tomatoes, caring for children, etc., privately funded and often under-the-table and tax-free, is a recipe for social disintegration. Why? Because the people who do that work are Mexicans. And that’s enough for Hoppe, Kinsella, and friends such as Jared Taylor or Pat Buchanan to be sure that there goes the neighborhood…
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 6:01 am
HumDood,
HumDan?
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 6:40 am
Lopez: Kinsella: “Nothing in libertarianism says that people who are incorrect (even about ethical issues) should be quiet and not discuss or promulgate them.
Kinsella, maybe you didn’t read this: “Kinsella needs to drop this pretense about being some sort of radical free-market type and honestly embrace government, or perhaps white separatism. Until then, he’d do well just to simply shut up.”"
But Lopez: Libertariansim does not imply this either. It does not imlpy people need to “drop pretences” or to “shut up” if they don’t fulfill certain conditions of cranks and losers on a marginal website. So waht are you talking about?
“Why don’t you honestly embrace government? You obviously think that it’s necessary. Are you ashamed of that or something?”
No, I oppose the state. I’m an anarchist. Like Hoppe. I think the state is unjustified and should be disbanded.
“Kinsella: Libertarianism only says that aggression is unjustified.
“Then why do you support initiating force against immigrants, Kinsella?”
Oh, I don’t, I support abolishing the state. I’m glad to have open borders if we abolish the state. How about you?
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 7:19 am
Stephan,
” BTW, what is wrong with you guys, always looking for things to attack in the Mises Institute crowd?
Personally, I just point out bullshit when I see it. My criticisms of LRC have been sound, I’ll be happy to take any of them up with you. I find it mildly odd thet you put the Mises hat on when this thread has been about an LRC article and and LRC post, especially since immigration is a major topic on LRC that gets very little play on the Mises site.
I really don’t get it. Is it just some kind of weird jealousy of their popularity and success and influence in the libertarian movement?
Not a bit. Though I think you have an inflated sense of the importance of “the libertarian movement”. In any case this is an individualist site, not a movement site.
Is it some kind of self-esteem issue, like junkies and losers and hippies and libertines and relativist types hate those with conservative or traditionalist moral and cultural values because they don’t like to be “judged”, even implicitly, or something?
No. And why does this sound like an echo of Hoppe, has he founded a psychoanalytic school too?
Hoppe: “A second motive for the open border enthusiasm among contemporary left-libertarians is their egalitarianism. They were initially drawn to libertarianism as juveniles because of its “antiauthoritarianism” (trust no authority) and seeming “tolerance,” in particular toward “alternative” – non-bourgeois lifestyles. As adults, they have been arrested in this phase of mental development. They express special “sensitivity” in every manner of discrimination and are not inhibited in using the power of the central state to impose nondiscrimination or “civil rights” statutes on society. Consequently, by prohibiting other property owners from discrimination as they see fit, they are allowed to live at others’ expense. They can indulge in their “alternative” lifestyle without having to pay the normal price for such conduct, i.e., discrimination and exclusion. To legitimize this course of action, they insist that one lifestyle is as good and acceptable as another. This leads first to multiculturalism, then to cultural relativism, and finally to “open borders.”
1) I’m not left-libertarian (Would that be a Ted Rall libertarian?) 2) I’m not an egalitarian. 3) I’m not noted for being particularly tolerant 4) or sensitive. 5) I vigorously defend private discrimination. 6)I reject any supposed right to live at anoter’s expense. 7) I reject the notion that lifestyles are equally good. 8) I’m no moral relativist.
So no Stephan, I say “Judge and prepare to be judged”. Bring all the judgment you’ve got because I’m bringing all of mine. .
Somebody explain it to me. I thought you guys were nominally libertarian; if so, it is simply bizarre you would have such bitterness toward the Mises Institute, which does heroic work spreading the pro-property rights, pro-free market, pro-capitalism, pro-individual rights, Austrian economic message. What is wrong with you guys, you come across as cranks and losers.”
I don’t have any bitterness toward Mises, Rockwell, Hoppe or you. LRC and Mises.org have published many good articles, but heroic? Isn’t that laying it on a little thick?
Anyway, what’s with us is that we’re pointing out to you that it’s wrong to support the targeting of peaceful individuals with deadly force via tha state.
In no uncertain terms.
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 7:20 am
I don’t see any problem with being an anarchist and a lawyer. Laws and therefore lawyers will likely exist in an anarchist society. Just because the state’s in the business of catching crooks and enforcing contracts doesn’t mean catching crooks, enforcing contracts, and getting retribution for wrongs is bad.
Personally, I think the libertarian movement has plenty of economists, philosophers, and historians, and that the place they can do the most good right now is in the legal field.
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 8:03 am
RE:”Here’s what’s simple: The Rockwellians who agree with this are arguing that the state is necessary.”
Wrong. The libertarians who agree with this believe that the state is unnecessary and undesirable. However, they recognize that as long as the state does exist, and as long as it maintains a monopoly on most entrypoints into the country, it allows a much greater flow of non-natives to enter the country than would enter under anarchism. They therefore realize that if the state made it more difficult for non-natives to enter, this would be closer to the natural order of things, and would also decrease the overall level of statism by preventing the parasitical welfare-statism that undesirable aliens inevitably bring with them. However, they would greatly prefer the more radical (and therefore less likely to occur) solution of a stateless society, or of a society in which government did not monopolize entrypoints.
September 26th, 2004 at Sep 26, 04 | 8:35 am
However, they recognize that as long as the state does exist, and as long as it maintains a monopoly on most entrypoints into the country, it allows a much greater flow of non-natives to enter the country than would enter under anarchism.
How do you know? How do you know how many people would enter the country under anarchism? Isn’t a fundamental tenant of Austrian economics that under socialism, without market prices, there is no way to make this kind of judgment? Perhaps under a truly free-market, even more people would come here. Would that be okay with the “paleos”?
They therefore realize that if the state made it more difficult for non-natives to enter, this would be closer to the natural order of things, and would also decrease the overall level of statism by preventing the parasitical welfare-statism that undesirable aliens inevitably bring with them.
What collectivist nonsense! Since when do anarchists try to use the coercive power of the state to simulate the “natural order of things”? And that’s assuming, of course, that you know what the “natural order of things” would be, which you don’t. And how dare you lump all immigrants together as undesirable parasites? Why do you assume that immigrants are a net cost and not a net benefit?
Allow me to quote Don Boudreaux on the subject:
“[I]f it were empirically true that the bulk of immigrants suck on the tit of the welfare state, then the solution most consistent with liberty is to permit a foreigner to enter on condition that he or she not be eligible for government welfare payments.
But I doubt very seriously that immigrants live at taxpayers’ expense. Julian Simon’s research (admittedly now somewhat dated) finds that immigrants are net tax payers. The same is true of George Borjas, here, who is less enthusiastic about immigration than was Simon.
Relatedly, if the concern with immigration were truly that too many immigrants live as welfare recipients, then immigration regulations would not focus, as they do, on forcibly keeping immigrants out of the labor force. (See my earlier post.)
Second, and much more importantly, by lamenting the fact that many immigrants are low-skilled, Hoppe seems to be ignorant of the principle of comparative advantage. When a low-skilled immigrant works, he produces net value – the economy becomes more productive. His employer is better off, he is better off, and consumers are better off. Nothing whatsoever in economic theory suggests that only “well-heeled, hig