An incredible article appeared on Times Live today, authored by Iv0 Vegter, featuring a quote by Per Bylund. The piece addressed the issue of Zimbabweans illegally immigrating to South Africa to escape the economic hardship imposed by their dictator. The piece not only addresses the specific case of South Africa but also migration as a whole.
TEAR DOWN THIS WALL: Zimbabweans queue in Braamfontein, Johannesburg, to apply for legal status to stay in the country Picture: LEBOHANG MASHILOANE
Vegter concludes that free, unrestricted, unconditional movement of labor is in the best interest of consumers and allows for a higher standard of living.
The simple fact is that people are naturally attracted to localities where they can be most productive – that is, where their expenditure in labour and capital attracts the best possible return. This benefits the places that offer such conditions – in this case, South Africa. Its people will find goods and services relatively more plentiful and less expensive, thanks to the productivity of immigrants.
For the same reason that governments should not grant robber-barons exclusive licences to produce their goods and services, or protect big companies from better competitors by means of subsidies or tariffs, it should not grant South African workers immunity from competition. Such competition is good for consumers – a group which includes the workers or producers themselves – by raising the quality and productivity of labour.
Do take the time to read this brief, but insightful article.
{ 107 comments }
The article is right, immigration doesn’t cuase unemployment by the contrary, they raise productivity. The effect that a machine gives to production by lowering cost production, increasing the output and improving its quality, is the same effect that immigration causes as competitors on services (labour). Today many Americans believe that rejecting immigrants will provide jobs for natural american citizens, thats a wrong view, Those politicians in Arizona and those who believe against immigration can give any excuses for their schemes, but they will never have an economic and libertiarian argument, and I’m including Ron Paul and Hans Hope. Ludiwg von Mises explain in his 1928 essay “Monetary Stabilization and Cyclical Policy” that is the Unions, government immigration barriers and those who reject to receive less payment, which causes mass unemployment, because now that exist less money even with a lower interest rate, deflation force producers to reduce wage rates but Unions alwasy keeps high wages at the expense of consumers, and immigration barriers it is also a kind of Union policy, but instead of specific sector they uses a whole nation, it seems that laissez faire is nice untill we realize that someone is competing with us for the same job. Good link Armstrong!
The article leaves some questions begging. People are not interchangeable cogs. They take up space and they generate waste. They have widely divergent views of inherent rights. Thus, a polity may wish to limit ingress to preserve living standards just like individuals limit ingress to their homes and businesses to preserve living standards. More people does not equal more productivity, unless you really think you’d be better off in Bangladesh than, say, Finland.
People don’t migrate unless they expect conditions in the new land to be better enough to expend the effort – places unable to handle immigration are unlikely to attract it in the first place. As for your example, restricting immigration to a country is like restricting new people from entering a neighborhood, whether or not the homeowners would accommodate them.
Neighborhoods restrict by price, or even by express covenants, all the time. There is nothing inherently unjust or uneconomic about restricting entry to a place. In fact, people will pay a premium for a neighborhood that restricts entry and has fewer people per acre.
Limiting immigration is in no way similar to limiting who enters one’s home. Under a free market both immigrants and natives alike can only consume resources for which they have first paid (or have received from those voluntary giving).
Arguing that immigrants take up space is patently absurd. By this logic, communities everywhere should adopt something similar to China’s “One Child” policy.
I get the strong impression that you did not bother to read the article to which the blog post is referring. I encourage you to do so.
Except immigration isn’t happening in a free market. And if you don’t think immigrants take up space, just have a look at that picture. In fact, the US has been voting for lower population density via birthrates and suburban construction for decades. Governments, desperate to enlarge their tax base and justify themselves as the arbiters in the inter-tribal disputes their policies create, are vetoing their own citizens’ voluntary actions.
what about the pre-passport-era? were there mass migrations, destabilizing local cultures (excluding colonization, and other state initiatives)? the ease of migration played a big part in the explosion of capitalism and liberalism in western europe. countless thinkers had to flee countries when their ideas met with disapproval. at least they could do so.
Have you read Hoppe’s position on immigration? I found his logical application of the libertarian principles solid.
TAG,
You beat me to it.
Open boarder advocates are shamefully misleading or hopelessly naive. As you so correctly point out, if open borders don’t work in your own home, why would it work for your country? By the way, I live in California. Do you know that something like 80-90% (my numbers are a little stale) of ALL immigration, both legal and illegal, end up in CA? (At least that used to be the case a short time ago)
So for those reading this in Wisconsin or Delaware, trust me, it looks different when it impacts you directly.
A balancing of immigration from one country to another is possible, provided there is an orderly process that can attempt maximize the positive effect on those of us already here by sovereign rights.
A free-for-all at the boarders would at least be as destructive as turning your own home into a homeless shelter taking all comers. Try that first and see how it works out before you open the flood gates at the boarders.
People are suffering in their own countries because they are oppressed. They need to take responsibility for breaking the chains of their own oppression, not just depend on the assumption that some other benevolent place on the planet can endlessly absorb the disenchanted and “save them” from their misery.
There was a story floating yesterday about the governor of Juarez complaining to the US Government about the deportations of Mexicans who were illegal immigrants because they were criminals and were increasing the violence in Juarez. They wanted us to stop doing that so their lives could be happier. Doesn’t that say it all?
People who advocate open boarders believe somehow they will be immune to the consequences. It is very similar to Statists who impose their will on others because they know as long as they are in power, they will be giving the order and not taking them. People that support them politically believe the same thing, that it will not be them, but the “bad guys” that will have to toe the line, like “rich people” or “big corporations” and so forth.
News flash! No one is immune.
People just don’t bring their mouths and hands over the border. They bring their attitudes, values and character. If that is not aimed at assimilation and integration into their adopted nation, or worse, they have no intention of being adopted, there are consequences to that reality. To think that just opening the boarders will solve the immigration problem is just, well stupid.
Then why should we allow any free migration at all? After all, why should we allow those Californians and their socialist bile elsewhere? As long as they don’t violate nonagression, there’s no reason to violate their rights, no matter how much you hate Meskins.
There’s no such thing as “free migration.” In anarcho-capitalist society, all movement off your own property would require the permission of adjacent property owners. If they don’t grant it, tough toenails.
Bingo. With the simple understanding that the “State” has no right to regulate immigration and that such matters can be fully handled from a private property perspective. There is no need to get into an discussion of whether immigrants are good or bad except to change the try to influence the order of preferences in others.
So long as no individual uses force (usually the State) to impose their view on others, there really is no problem. Anti-immigration people usually bring up the various costs of immigration on public schools, hospitals and welfare etc., even though these problems are symptomatic of the existence of a State. Pro-immigration people (e.g. high tech companies) will often complain about laws which prevent them from keeping talented people. Again, this is a problem stemming from the existence of the State.
Talking about things in perspective of “what is best for the US” or “what is best for California” is counterproductive since it presupposes the legitimacy of the State and its role in providing for immigration “policy”.
In the absence of the State, the category of “immigrant” would not exist. There would only be owners, invitees and trespassers. No more privatizing the profits and socializing the costs by immigrants and their patrons.
Jordon,
Ok, let’s agree statism is bad, and that we agree about what it is and is not.
And let’s also agree with your premise that immigration matters can be handled with private property rights.
What I just don’t get is your concept of “society” and whether it exists or not. Whether private or “public” enforcement, do I have a right to have boarders anywhere beyond my own personal property line? And if so, do you really think you are capable of visualizing the form that “acceptable” enforcement in the anarchocapitalist world view would look like. Do you really think it is necessary to completely re-invent society to discuss this problem?
I truly don’t understand why this topic is so difficult to discuss. A person has a right to protect his legal boundaries. That is an individual right. An individual has a right to associate with others. At some level that is a state. We are discussing the United States in this very limited sense. (don’t get all out there on the other aspects of the US). We, as members of this association have a right to protect our legal boundaries. No one has the right to impose upon me their belief that these boundaries shouldn’t exist, and remove them against my will. That is aggression, whether imposed by the State, or by any other group or individual. No one has the right to break down my door, and no has the right to violate the legal process designed to control access to the interior.
Those who choose to violate those rules are violating my rights. Now, what should I do about it?
Nothing? Something? Doing nothing has consequences. We see these consequences every day where I’m from. Doing something has consequences. I choose doing something. Do I have the right?
How do I express that right? I use those laws and agencies that are available to me as a Citizen. I have done so. There are laws on the books and police on the payroll. Yet someone can just decide administratively to ignore my right? That’s ridiculous.
Yet this blog is full of people who will argue that point of view. That is why libertarianism gets a bad name and is dismissed as a bunch of loony anarchists.
If we cannot demonstrate a rational, sensible, pragmatic point of view on this issue, for example, not many people are going to be encouraged to join up on other issues for fear that it all leads to an abandonment of reason and social order. That is why most people associate anarchy with chaos.
Is there no legitimate point of view that declares, “I am the state” and take responsibility for making it into something good and positive? If so, then that vision is dependent upon sufficient people coming together on basic principles they can organize around. Open borders, in my humble opinion is certainly not one that will gather much support, and for very, very good reasons.
You are confusing your rights with the law. Your right to life and property exist no matter what the law says. Now answer your somewhat disorganized post:
“What I just don’t get is your concept of “society” and whether it exists or not.”
My concept of society includes all voluntary aspects of human interaction. Inasmuch as the free-market and private property exist along with the individuals who interact under such a framework, society exists.
“Whether private or “public” enforcement, do I have a right to have boarders [sic] anywhere beyond my own personal property line? ”
No, you do not have rights to borders beyond your own personal property except as granted to you by the free market. If a large group of individuals get together and agree to buy property somewhere and build a giant wall with armed guards on it, then a single individual would have a kind of right to a border beyond their personal property line. But such a right is not intrinsic to an individual in an anarchocapitalist society IMHO.
“Do you really think it is necessary to completely re-invent society to discuss this problem?”
People can do as they like as regards discussion of the problem. But it is as nonsensical as discussing whether we should subsidize defense industries or the agricultural industry. For an Austrian worth his salt, the discussion ought to be whether there should be subsidies at all and how shall we get rid of them.
“I truly don’t understand why this topic is so difficult to discuss.”
It isn’t once you understand anarchocapitalism.
“A person has a right to protect his legal boundaries. That is an individual right. An individual has a right to associate with others. At some level that is a state. We are discussing the United States in this very limited sense. (don’t get all out there on the other aspects of the US). We, as members of this association have a right to protect our legal boundaries.”
No. We as individuals have a right to protect the boundaries of our property separate from whatever “rights” we have as members of the coercive entity known as the “United States”. The former belongs to those inalienable rights of nature whereas the latter, inasmuch as it is a product of the state, is a false right.
“No one has the right to impose upon me their belief that these boundaries shouldn’t exist, and remove them against my will. ”
Replace “boundaries” with “tariffs” and hopefully you will understand the problem with that thinking. Borders are a right extending from use of private property and not from being a “member of this association” called the United States.
“No one has the right to break down my door, and no has the right to violate the legal process designed to control access to the interior.”
Breaking down your door is a separate issue from the statist monopoly on transportation access. You as an individual have property rights; the state does not.
“Those who choose to violate those rules are violating my rights. ”
Violating the rules of the state is a violation of your rights? A thousand times no.
“Now, what should I do about it? Nothing? Something? Doing nothing has consequences. We see these consequences every day where I’m from. Doing something has consequences. I choose doing something. Do I have the right?”
Sure, and just as the lobbyists for agricultural subsidies argue that “doing nothing has consequences” and they “choose to do something about it” and that “doing something” (even though that act is to employ the coercive power of the state) is is their right, so you too can argue.
I understand if you prefer to take pragmatic approaches to clean up your neck of the woods but don’t pretend that such actions are compatible with anarchocapitalism.
“Is there no legitimate point of view that declares, “I am the state” and take responsibility for making it into something good and positive?”
No. Once you accept and understand the premises of anarchocapitalism, there is no legitimacy (and I use “legitimate” in the common sense and not as it derives from “law”) of the state. It is a dangerous thing to try to make the state “good and positive”. Better is it to proceed ever more boldly against it.
It’s called the Constitution, and the fundamental right of travel. And by the way, who is the “we” that is going to allow or not allow “free migratin”?
What rights to do you think illegals have? Doesn’t the fact taht they are here uninvited make them tresspassers, violating my rights to security and privacy, etc.? You are full on inconsistencies.
Also, notice how quick you are to pull the race card? I really hate that.
Other than that, I can’t think of any reason to argue with you.
Jordon,
I’ll try to be organized. “” “” denotes your resoponse.
“”You are confusing your rights with the law. Your right to life and property exist no matter what the law says. Now answer your somewhat disorganized post:”
The law is the mechanism society employs to define and enforce personal rights. You are confused about the purpose and history of the legal system.
“What I just don’t get is your concept of “society” and whether it exists or not.”
“”My concept of society includes all voluntary aspects of human interaction. Inasmuch as the free-market and private property exist along with the individuals who interact under such a framework, society exists.”"
One of these aspects of human interaction is the creation of a system of self-governance. The fact that this system can evolve negative attributes that can be summarized as “statism” does not make it bad in and of itself. It is an attribute, not the thing itself.
“Whether private or “public” enforcement, do I have a right to have boarders [sic] anywhere beyond my own personal property line? ”
“”No, you do not have rights to borders beyond your own personal property except as granted to you by the free market. If a large group of individuals get together and agree to buy property somewhere and build a giant wall with armed guards on it, then a single individual would have a kind of right to a border beyond their personal property line. But such a right is not intrinsic to an individual in an anarchocapitalist society IMHO.”"
As I have asserted elsewhere on this post, my “property” is anything that I can covenant for, and includes personal property. (sorry, legal jargon. Think “contract), but is not limited to only that form. Therefore, I have a property interest in the powers, property and rights of my form of self-governance. I have a natural right to protect those property interests.
“Do you really think it is necessary to completely re-invent society to discuss this problem?”
“”People can do as they like as regards discussion of the problem. But it is as nonsensical as discussing whether we should subsidize defense industries or the agricultural industry. For an Austrian worth his salt, the discussion ought to be whether there should be subsidies at all and how shall we get rid of them.”"
Yes, this is true, and some things can more helpful than others, and not everything actually advance the discussion. We are our own judge of that.
I don’t know how you got to defense subsidies. I am making the point that the only destination for this discussion cannot be limited to simply rushing to anarchism. The fact that there are things that need to change is a given. The issue at hand is how should they be changed and how are we going to change them? For example, in general I agree that subsidies in a free market are harmful and unnecessary, but on the other hand, I can imagine some unique set of circumstances where it would be desirable in the short run. Even that is open to some rational debate. Such a discussion is only possible if we can establish a basis of principle form which the discussion can rationally proceed.
“I truly don’t understand why this topic is so difficult to discuss.”
“”It isn’t once you understand anarchocapitalism.”"
I am repeating myself now, so I’ll be less polite. Don’t be so arrogant as to suggest that the issue here is my ignorance. And don’t be so quick to rush to your ultimate conclusion without addressing the issues that are raised by other thoughtful, intelligent people, like myself. There is too much of that here, and it ends the discussion. Stop it.
“A person has a right to protect his legal boundaries. That is an individual right. An individual has a right to associate with others. At some level that is a state. We are discussing the United States in this very limited sense. (don’t get all out there on the other aspects of the US). We, as members of this association have a right to protect our legal boundaries.”
“”No. We as individuals have a right to protect the boundaries of our property separate from whatever “rights” we have as members of the coercive entity known as the “United States”. The former belongs to those inalienable rights of nature whereas the latter, inasmuch as it is a product of the state, is a false right.”"
Ah, this is getting tiresome. The U.S. is not just a “coercive entity”, but it has coercive attributes, and they are getting stronger and more pervasive. To put it another way, we are losing the battle for our freedoms. You and other Americans need to wake up and put to good use the tools we have inherited.
“No one has the right to impose upon me their belief that these boundaries shouldn’t exist, and remove them against my will. ”
“”Replace “boundaries” with “tariffs” and hopefully you will understand the problem with that thinking. Borders are a right extending from use of private property and not from being a “member of this association” called the United States.”"
I think I’ve already covered this. Tariffs are not equivalent to illegal immigration. Boundaries are limitations of usage asserted by those holding property rights. I have a property right to everything on this side of our sovereign boundaries. Therefore I have a right, and you do not have a right to impinge upon that right unless you create a law that is supported by the governed to change my property interests. Currently that legal process has resulted in my right to enforce our borders. The failure of the Fed to enforce those rights is a breach of their fiduciary duty to me.
“No one has the right to break down my door, and no has the right to violate the legal process designed to control access to the interior.”
“”Breaking down your door is a separate issue from the statist monopoly on transportation access. You as an individual have property rights; the state does not.”"
See above. It is a metaphore. Transportation is but one form of use, presupposing accesss. Illegal access to one’s property has a name: trespass.
“Those who choose to violate those rules are violating my rights. ”
“”Violating the rules of the state is a violation of your rights? A thousand times no.”"
Don’t be a dummy. These are “my” rules, and so a violation of them is a violation of my rights.
“Now, what should I do about it? Nothing? Something? Doing nothing has consequences. We see these consequences every day where I’m from. Doing something has consequences. I choose doing something. Do I have the right?”
“”Sure, and just as the lobbyists for agricultural subsidies argue that “doing nothing has consequences” and they “choose to do something about it” and that “doing something” (even though that act is to employ the coercive power of the state) is is their right, so you too can argue.”"
Some arguments are right and some are wrong. That is why principles are helpful. Otherwise it can get very complicated. I think you can see the difference.
“”I understand if you prefer to take pragmatic approaches to clean up your neck of the woods but don’t pretend that such actions are compatible with anarchocapitalism.”"
Now pay attention. They appear not to be compatible with anarchocapitalism. That is my point. But nonetheless I am using your own principles to show you that you are wrong, and the fact that your logic leads you to a wrong conclusion is why I believe reaching that conclusion is wrong. Furthermore, deciding that point should not be necessary to reach agreement on some fundamental principles that would be a condition precedent to any outcome that moves us in the direction of smaller government and more individual freedom. But instead you choose to argue about “utopia”. With all due respect, get real.
“Is there no legitimate point of view that declares, “I am the state” and take responsibility for making it into something good and positive?”
“”No. Once you accept and understand the premises of anarchocapitalism, there is no legitimacy (and I use “legitimate” in the common sense and not as it derives from “law”) of the state. It is a dangerous thing to try to make the state “good and positive”. Better is it to proceed ever more boldly against it.”"
“Ever more boldly” means what? There is good, positive, bad, negative and better and worse. It is not necessary to agree about what is “best”. To make a non-supporter of me because I don’t accept your concepts of anarchocapicalism makes us both weaker, not stronger. Therefore, it is necessary for you to define which principles we can agree upon. That will be sufficient to move us down a different road. It is not necessary that I eat the whole enchilada.
“The law is the mechanism society employs to define and enforce personal rights.”
You have to be careful to not treat society as a collective and ignore the fact that individuals make it up. This is one of the key tenets of Austrian thinking and one which you consistently fail to grasp.
“One of these aspects of human interaction is the creation of a system of self-governance. The fact that this system can evolve negative attributes that can be summarized as “statism” does not make it bad in and of itself. It is an attribute, not the thing itself.”
When this “negative attribute” is coercion, it is bad in and of itself. Coercion is not the same thing as the state, of course, but it is a necessary and inseparable attribute. As such, the state is always bad.
“As I have asserted elsewhere on this post, my “property” is anything that I can covenant for, and includes personal property. (sorry, legal jargon. Think “contract), but is not limited to only that form. Therefore, I have a property interest in the powers, property and rights of my form of self-governance. I have a natural right to protect those property interests.”
Great, so you have the right to protect your private property. Nothing new. Just make sure you pay for it yourself.
“I don’t know how you got to defense subsidies. I am making the point that the only destination for this discussion cannot be limited to simply rushing to anarchism.”
By analogy. If you believe in the free-market, you don’t talk of whether Industry A should be subsidized or Industry B. You talk about getting rid of subsidies. Similarly, if you believe in private property and the free-market you don’t talk about whether the government should allow immigration or disallow immigration. You talk about getting rid of the government power over immigration.
Sorry if rushing to the solution offended you.
“For example, in general I agree that subsidies in a free market are harmful and unnecessary, but on the other hand, I can imagine some unique set of circumstances where it would be desirable in the short run. ”
Then you don’t understand the free market. Subsidies are ALWAYS harmful and unnecessary. Unless this understanding is second nature, you are always going to have trouble understanding libertarianism.
“I am repeating myself now, so I’ll be less polite. Don’t be so arrogant as to suggest that the issue here is my ignorance. And don’t be so quick to rush to your ultimate conclusion without addressing the issues that are raised by other thoughtful, intelligent people, like myself. There is too much of that here, and it ends the discussion. Stop it.”
The rest of us have been more patient in tolerating your ignorance. You believe yourself thoughtful and intelligent, and in general you may be, but certainly not when it comes to libertarian thinking. You would do better than to go to the main libertarian site on the Internet and presume to lecture us when you have not even made a good effort to understand our position thoroughly. You don’t go to a militant atheist forum and quote from the Bible and imagine yourself engaged in intelligent debate and then cry when they call you ignorant.
Anarcho-capitalism is not a position arrived at lightly and I would wager most of us have done due diligence in studying political theory (particularly Rothbard) to get where we are now. We ask the same of any challengers.
“The U.S. is not just a “coercive entity”, but it has coercive attributes, and they are getting stronger and more pervasive.”
These coercive attributes are a necessary part of a state such as the US. It is at minimum, and will always be, a coercive entity.
“I have a property right to everything on this side of our sovereign boundaries. ”
You talk about “our sovereign boundaries” as if they were real. They are not. They are the fictitious creation of the coercive state. Then you talk about a property right to everything in the US. You have a property right to your own property and whatever voluntary contracts give you such rights, that’s it. I’m pretty sure that doesn’t include everything in the United States.
“Therefore I have a right, and you do not have a right to impinge upon that right unless you create a law that is supported by the governed to change my property interests. ”
The thing about private property and non-aggression is that I may NOT create a law (coercive rule) to change your property interests. That’s the tyranny of the majority and the problem with democracy. You can lobby and get Congress to enact a law to seize my car. You can get the President to sign it and the Supreme Court to decide it is Constitutional. This car that I bought with voluntary exchange, you now get the police to seize. That’s an infringement of my rights – but according to you, it is not. Do you really believe that?
Also, I (and just about every other person living in America) never consented to be part of the governed.
“Don’t be a dummy. These are “my” rules, and so a violation of them is a violation of my rights.”
Sorry, water finds its own level I guess. Now those rules are “yours” because you’ve chosen to accept that whatever the democratic process decides is a rule also becomes your rule. I do not. When they passed a no-smoking law for restaurants here, that was certainly not “my” rule just because it became law. But the fact that democracy gives the state the power to arrest me for smoking in a restaurant – even if the restaurant owner doesn’t mind – is a violation of his rights as a private property owner.
“But nonetheless I am using your own principles to show you that you are wrong, and the fact that your logic leads you to a wrong conclusion is why I believe reaching that conclusion is wrong. Furthermore, deciding that point should not be necessary to reach agreement on some fundamental principles that would be a condition precedent to any outcome that moves us in the direction of smaller government and more individual freedom. But instead you choose to argue about “utopia”. With all due respect, get real.”
How can you employ principles you do not even understand? Just because you claim to use “my” principles and “my” logic to “prove me wrong” doesn’t make it so. Now we don’t need to agree on anarchocapitalism in order to move towards smaller government and individual freedom. It’s just too bad you were wasting time talking about how we can use our existing government to effect your pet policy … not to mention your risible efforts in trying to convince anarchocapitalists that we need the state.
““Ever more boldly” means what?”
It’s a play on the Mises motto. sheesh.
This is absurd. Open immigration is more like a land developer who cares if you can pay but not where you come from. Closed immigration is a land developer who discriminates based on the prospective buyers origin. The former is more efficient and can extract more profit than the latter.
I think the University of Auburn should practice open immigration. If you can pay the tuition, in you come. Same thing with restaurants: if you can show a wad of cash, that’s that. No shoes, no shirt, SERVICE! After all, as any business owner will tell you, the last thing you care about is fostering a sense of exclusivity among your clientele. People can extend this to their own homes too. The sole criteria would be if you can pay rent. Hey, money’s money, and immigrants don’t take up space.
Well, you’re getting closer to the truth. We have anti-discrimination laws for a reason.
Which underscores the point that ‘open borders’ are government policy, not a market response.
Without the government we would have open borders.
But the issue runs deeper into more fundamental human rights. You like the “No shirt, no shoes no service!” ability… however anyone can change their shirt and their shoes. But no one can change the color of their skin, where they were born or who their parents are. How do you feel about signs that say “No Negroes”?
No,
Open immigration is like the developer who can’t sell what he’s built because all the lawns are occupied by homeless people who came into the country uninvited and no one will help him shoo them back. They might work if they can get it, but if they can’t they live off the generosity of tax payers who feel sorry for their poor condition, or more likely, both.
Get real.
So maybe the problem is not immigration as such, but universal suffrage and welfare.
Great article. Freedom of movement should be a fundamental right for all.
I disagree since an absolute right to freedom of movement may conflict with the right of private property. Freedom of movement, if it is any consolation, is likely to be produced in a free market because it is something people value.
If anything our current immigration restrictions conflict with the right of private property. Those restrictions affect who we can let on our property and who can work for us.
Nelson,
Come on! Do you really feel restricted because you can’t reach out to Zimbabwe to hire someone to wash your car?
What kind of argument is that? Either you believe in property rights or not. If you do, then we have the right to designate usage rules. If we can set rules, we can build a fence. When someone knocks on the door, we can let them in or send them away. What gives?
You seem to argue that we should all take the locks off our doors so everyone can be “Free”.
Doesn’t that sound kind of goofy to you?
” If you do, then we have the right to designate usage rules. ”
How do you designate usage rules for that which you do not own? What can you do about people who land up on hitherto unowned property? How do you justify rules being imposed on them?
.
” If we can set rules, we can build a fence. ”
By all means do so, but please put fences ONLY around YOUR property
” When someone knocks on the door, we can let them in or send them away. ”
Yes. Especially if it is the door of your property.
” What gives? ”
The problem with your position on immigration is that you are trying to set rules for what isn’t your property.
” You seem to argue that we should all take the locks off our doors so everyone can be “Free” ”
You seem to be getting lost in metaphors. What is this thing you call “our doors”? When people in a country use the phrase “our country” it does not imply that they own the country. It only implies that they inhabit the same geographical region and maybe even agree on certain principles.
OK Bala, I’ll give this one last shot.
“How do you designate usage rules for that which you do not own? What can you do about people who land up on hitherto unowned property? How do you justify rules being imposed on them?”
First, why did you assume I have no property rights on public lands. For better or worse, (and taking some poetic license) we live in a representative government that we control. That government has been vested with the power, consented to by the electorate, to use public money to acquire land and put it to use for the public benefit. We call those roads, public libraries, waterways, etc. I justify imposing usage rules because, as a citizen, I have vested property rights in this land. In addition, I may rent or own my own land. I have a right to enter into consensual agreements with fellow land owners to impose usage rules that we, collectively covenant.
Beyond that, how much land here in the US is “unowned property”. (We are talking abou the US, right?) The fundamental principle of property rights and law give me the right to impose usage rules, and to enforce them , as part of my sovereign rights as a citizen.
“By all means do so, but please put fences ONLY around YOUR property”
You do not have the right to impose your rules on me. If for legal reasons (meaning being derived from my property rights, see above), I wish to build a fence from San Diego to Miami, and our form of governance allows such a right to be expressed, then you are stuck. We call this concept “Society”.
“Yes. Especially if it is the door of your property.”
Speaking metaphorically, yes, as I’ve already described it is my property in the sense that I have a vested property right, both personal and public.
“The problem with your position on immigration is that you are trying to set rules for what isn’t your property.”
I think I have already covered this.
“You seem to be getting lost in metaphors. What is this thing you call “our doors”? When people in a country use the phrase “our country” it does not imply that they own the country. It only implies that they inhabit the same geographical region and maybe even agree on certain principles.”
I don’t feel lost. A metaphor can be useful in explaining things. This is where you are fundamentally wrong. When people belong to a country, it does in fact mean that they have a property interest in that country. Thus the phrase “Our Country”. It implies not only ownership, but belonging, and a fiduciary duty and a duty of due care, including protection. One has a right to protect one’s property interests, even under libertarian theory. It is not the geography, as evidenced by the fact that there are big and small countries. It is the common interests. Very large countries have diverse constituencies, many of which are in evidence in this blog.
The question I am intrigued with is not what makes up our differences, but upon which fundamental principles can we agree, and join together in common cause. A disturbing indication of just how disconnected we are as a country is evidenced in this discussion thread.
This is such a fundamental issue, so I have trouble accepting such scattered thinking about what is right and wrong. That fact that we can see the same basic facts and reach entirely different conclusions, especially on a site where we supposedly share a fundamental point of view, is disheartening, to say the least. I think one of us is wrong. You think it is me.
You derived mandatory collectivism from personal property rights in less than three sentences. The communist party would like to thank you for promoting such brilliant insights.
Nelson,
Nice diversion. Try reading again.
I have asserted that I have a right to build a fence around property for which I have a property right. I think you agree with that much.
I have a vested property right to the interior of the US, by virtue of my sovereign citizenship. In theory at least, the government to which I grant authority to build and enforce border rights does so with my consent. Remember consent of the governed?
Going from that to an accusation that I’m a communist is irresponsible demagoguery.
Please try harder.
A state powerful enough to build a wall is a state that’s too powerful for my tastes.
Alex
A state not powerful enolugh to build walls is not a state for long. The more important question is what follows? Do you really think your life will be magically better?
Is there anything you think a state does better than society?
State is a form of social organizatrion, governed by the consent of the governed. The aggregate of the People and the State is what we are calling society. That exists.
Despite the fact that many contemporary Amerians have forgetten this does not relieve one’s responsibility to re-form it, if that is what is called for. It is. But to what? Anarchocapitalism? That is my point. I think I do understand the concepts, and I reject them.
In any case, it is not necessary for us to define an ultimate end-state of society before we can agree that the current trend is in the wrong direction. Upon that we should agree. To dismiss any course of action as long as the State exists is childish. Any improvement is an improvement.
Big problem in aggregations; only individuals act. The state is a concept that (allegedly) legitimizes particular acts by individuals. Now, why is that the concept of state, of political monopoly, exempts individuals from the Golden Rule?
These issues ought to be worked out before action takes place if possible. What kind of human being would cede set-in-stone unaccountable status to another human being? True, it may be progressive to deny a particular person genetic or bloodline status and, instead, have it conferred upon an office– but it still remains an inequality decided on beforehand. Absence of apriori status as a concept does not mean that through action some do not acquire greater wealth, influence and power– and even by inheritance. But how would this power be obtained and managed in an environment of a general agreement that none should have god-given or politically granted social superiority?
Man has suffered thousands of years in a social cage of apriori status. You do not believe man deserves apriori equality? or that it wouldn’t be productive? Taxation, an act dependent on status, is legitimate cooperation?
“A state not powerful enough to build walls is not a state for long.”
But that’s a good thing.
Keith,
In this context, no it is not a good thing. I am talking about protecting my property rights, and you think that is very “libertarian” on one hand, but that I don’t have the surrogate right to create borders on the other. What is the difference? Don’t bring everything you hate about America into the argument.
Actually Ludwig Von Mises argued against having unrestricted immigrant were he wrote in Human Action:
In the absence of any migration barriers whatsoever, vast hordes of immigrants from the comparatively overpopulated areas of Europe would, it is maintained, inundate Australia and America. They would come in such great numbers that it would no longer be possible to count on their assimilation
Gerard Jackson in his article: US Economy, Immigration and Fallacy of Cheap Labor made great point:
There is a peculiar misconception that a belief in free markets must mean support for open borders. It does not. This is like saying that a belief in hospitality means that one should allow any Tom, Dick or Harry freedom to enter one’s home at will. Those who subscribe to this fallacy have yet to explain how a policy that would dramatically drive down wages rates would benefit workers
Very good points, Mr. E.
Sometimes the sloppy thinking and inconsistent positions on this post get me down. I think how ridiculous it must look to the person trying to understand something about how this libertarian thing works, and how is Austrian theory applied, and you get this kind of goofy gibberish.
Some can’t even seem to get the difference between legal immigration and trespass.
Thank you for the sensible input.
“vast hordes of immigrants from the comparatively overpopulated areas of Europe would, it is maintained, inundate Australia and America.”
it’s not at all clear from this excerpt (italics are mine) that mises himself is backing immigration laws. rather it seems he’s merely commenting on some third party’s view.
“The labor unions aim at a monopolistic position on the labor market. But once they have attained it, their policies are restrictive and not monopoly price policies. They are intent upon restricting the supply of labor in their field without bothering about the fate of those excluded. They have succeeded in every comparatively underpopulated country in erecting immigration barriers. Thus they preserve their comparatively high wage rates. The excluded foreign workers are forced to stay in their countries in which the marginal productivity of labor, and consequently wage rates, are lower. The tendency toward an equalization of wage rates which prevails under free mobility of labor from country to country is paralyzed.”
human action, p. 377. a different mises, apparently.
“They would come in such great numbers that it would no longer be possible to count on their assimilation.”
This is a very important point, and one that is lost completely if one looks at immigration solely from the perspective of either economics or rights. The point is, if a (more or less) libertarian society were to take in very large numbers of people from a society that is not libertarian, and these people either refuse or are unable to assimilate, how long will it be before the host society is swamped by them to the point that it is no longer libertarian? This is especially important in a democracy (even if there is no welfare), and if the immigrants tend to reproduce faster than the host society (which they do, nowadays). The Roman Empire basically committed suicide, partially by not controlling the numbers of “immigrants” (i.e. “barbarians”) who crossed their borders. I don’t see why the same thing could not happen to Europe, Canada or the US.
A democracy cannot be libertarian. So long as we maintain the democratic process of coercive majorities, the “problems” of assimilation and maintaining demographic majorities will be an issue. In a libertarian society, i.e., without government, immigrants would only be allowed inasmuch as property owners were voluntarily willing to allow. This voluntary aspect would be a function of several things (not just profit). If some people believed society would be swamped and overtaken by immigrants, then those people could exercise their property right to not only disallow immigrants on their property, exercise their right to not support them in any way and try their best to convince others to do the same.
By and large, however, immigrants from repressive or oppressed nations such as turn of the century Germany and Ireland respectively have tended to flourish in the freer United States.
As for the comparison with the Roman Empire, as far as I’m concerned, the less of an “Empire” the United States is, the better.
Bread, circuses and war finished the Roman Empire.
Jordon my good man. What are you taking about?
If not a democracy, then what? I know your answer, but can you give me one example in history where anarchism or even “libertarianism” has prevailed? Is it because they just didn’t understand? It is more about being conquered, right? Conquest can take many forms. We are witnessing the conquest of socialism in America. No one is forcing us to accept that. What are our weapons to resist? Ideas? Sure. Arms? I hope not.
The beauty of the American experiement is the ability to revolt without bloodshed. That is the essence of democracy. The basic principles of libertarianism not only CAN be incorporated into a democracy, but are incorporated into OUR democracy.The problem is that those fundamental ideas about individual freedom have been conquered. How do you propose we change that? Through this blog? Is that enough?
Anarchism worked in medieval Ireland and medieval Iceland.
Now you are saying that no one is forcing us to accept socialism in America? Seriously? I suppose the progressive income tax, FICA, SUTA, FUTA are all optional.
Our weapons to resist are firstly our ideas and even the democratic process itself. While I don’t think it is appropriate at this time, I don’t think Thomas Jefferson was speaking obliquely when he said that “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”.
The ability to resist our increasingly most powerful and tyrannical Federal government bloodlessly is a joke. All the discussions of states rights and nullification ring hollow after the massive and successful use of force by the Federal government against the Southern states during the Civil War.
Now I have no real beef with Constitutionalists/Minarchists since each acts to decrease and limit the power of government. However, plenty of the suggestions on this page do nothing of the sort and it’s hard to let that stand. The spread and conflict of ideas that takes place on here is valuable and most people get something out of it, sometimes even the truth.
Yes Jordan, the truth is the issue, and whether each of us has the wisdom to recognize it when we see it.
Your best example is medieval Ireland? How did that work out? I beliefe they spent a good deal of their history since then being occupied by the British.
“The ability to resist…bloodlessly is a joke”.
At least I flushed out who you are. What happened to the libertarian principle of non-violence?
As to you your comment about taxes being optional; Of COURSE they are optional!
The fact that we appear to be choosing another option (see elections of 2010) is relevant. What will you do, stand on the sidelines and grumble it is all a big waste of time?
Try not paying your taxes and disobeying the unjust laws of the state and you will see how “optional” they are.
Libertarianism is not a philosophy of non-violence. The right to your own property and the right to resist coercive acts like taxation through violence was a guiding principle in the War of Independence. War and violence may be a last resort but they are certainly not off the table. Congratulations on “flushing” me out, the Loyalists could have used more men like you.
These elections are a waste of time. Certainly it is an avenue for change (good and bad) but necessarily cannot effect the fundamental changes that non-statist libertarians work for. It really doesn’t really bother me, even though it is inconsistent, if someone wishes to employ the de facto tools of state control i.e. the democratic process, to work for some good. However, such solutions are always a temporary fix hiding the symptoms of state power. Anarchism is the only cure.
Wildberry wrote: “Your best example is medieval Ireland? How did that work out? I beliefe they spent a good deal of their history since then being occupied by the British.”
Exactly. Not to mention that medieval Irish and Icelandic society was, well, medieval. And tribal. They were fairly primitive; not exactly an obviously useful model for an advanced technological society.
Russ the Apostate and Wildberry, you have given an opinion on medieval Ireland in which you are apparently not well-read.
http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Saved-Civilization-Hinges-History/dp/0385418493
Jordan Viray wrote:
“A democracy cannot be libertarian.”
Maybe not to your exacting standards, but it can be more libertarian than Shari’a law or Hugo Chavez style socialism.
“So long as we maintain the democratic process of coercive majorities, the “problems” of assimilation and maintaining demographic majorities will be an issue. In a libertarian society, i.e., without government, immigrants would only be allowed inasmuch as property owners were voluntarily willing ….”
Ah, so a minarchist is not a libertarian? Alllllllllllrighty then! *rolling eyes*
Anyway, immigrants in a “libertarian” (i.e. anarcho-capitalist) society would still be allowed inasmuch as property owners would not be able to prevent them from coming in. Immigrants could still swamp an anarcho-capitalist society, and then basically have their say and make it non-anarcho-capitalist.
Reflex wrote:
“Bread, circuses and war finished the Roman Empire.”
The Romans certainly had their fair share of internal problems, but things really started to fall apart after the Huns started invading Eastern Europe, which displaced Goths, Alans, Vandals, and so on, who then looked to the Roman Empire for lebensraum.
“Maybe not to your exacting standards, but it can be more libertarian than Shari’a law or Hugo Chavez style socialism.”
Exacting standards? No, it is a simple conclusion based on what a democracy is and what a libertarian society is. The more the “democratic majority” practice the politics of democracy (essentially coercion against the minority), the more oppressive the state and the less libertarian it is.
But American democracy is great because, hey, at least we’re not Venezuela or Iran, right? Wrong. Our system has been broken since Marbury vs. Madison and has since gotten worse. It’s time to rethink democracy. Mises.org has “Democracy: The God That Failed” available. Read it.
“Ah, so a minarchist is not a libertarian? Alllllllllllrighty then! *rolling eyes*”
Some people classify minarchists as libertarians because they share many of the same views that more or less define the libertarian school. From that perspective, minarchists along with Constitutionalists and the various schools associated with the Kochtopus are libertarian. But they are not libertarians from basic principles.
“Anyway, immigrants in a “libertarian” (i.e. anarcho-capitalist) society would still be allowed inasmuch as property owners would not be able to prevent them from coming in.”
Preventing trespass would be highly desirable in an anarcho-capitalist society. Not only would the free-market provide this security service in the absence of a state, it would do it better. Would there still be trespasser-immigrants in an anarcho-capitalist society? Probably. But considering how porous our borders are and the fact that your precious Federal government has failed in its enforcement of the border for several decades makes your charge somewhat hypocritical.
The Roman Empire:
While the Fall of the Roman Empire is the subject of some pretty hefty books and can’t be adequately covered here, we should add the debasement of the currency and growth in government among contributing factors. This is Mises.org after all.
Jordan Viray wrote:
“But American democracy is great because, hey, at least we’re not Venezuela or Iran, right? Wrong.”
When I see you put your money where your mouth is, and move to Venezuela or Iran, I’ll be impressed. Until then…. Sure, American democracy has a lot to be desired right now, but it isn’t as bad as Venezuela and Iran, and that’s all there is to that.
“Mises.org has “Democracy: The God That Failed” available. Read it.”
I have it in hardcopy, and have read it. I really wasn’t all that impressed, because it’s based on the utopian dream of anarcho-capitalism. An impossible alternative isn’t really an alternative. It’s escapism and mental masturbation.
“Not only would the free-market provide this security service in the absence of a state, it would do it better.”
So you say, but that’s sheer supposition. Hell, the idea that an anarcho-capitalist society could exist at all is sheer supposition.
“But they are not libertarians from basic principles.”
Who says that one has to reach libertarianism from “basic principles” to be a “real” libertarian? As I see it, there are two basic types of libertarians; 1) the deontological/rationalist kind, and 2) the consequentialist kind. The rationalist kind (which includes most, but not all, anarcho-capitalists) is the kind that tries to build an over-arching philosophical edifice that produces rules that tell us what is and is not permitted, and then sticks to those rules come hell or high water, no matter how much those rules happen to mismatch the real world that we actually live in. The consequentialist kind is less concerned with system building, or with a set of rules that will give us Utopia if we but stick to them no matter what, and are more concerned with just getting more freedom. By assuming that all libertarians must be of your rationalist type, you are smuggling a lot of unexamined assumptions into what exactly constitutes libertarianism.
“Would there still be trespasser-immigrants in an anarcho-capitalist society? Probably.”
Assuming for the sake of argument that an anarcho-capitalist society is even possible (which I don’t believe), I think that it’s almost certain there would still be “trespasser-immigrants” in such a society. I can’t see how there wouldn’t be. All it would take is people willing to sell the “immigrants” property.
“But considering how porous our borders are and the fact that your precious Federal government has failed in its enforcement of the border for several decades makes your charge somewhat hypocritical.”
Sure, the Federal government’s coverage of the borders sucks, but that’s not the point. The point is that it is possible to cover the borders and control immigration, with a government that’s not ideologically opposed to doing its job. It’s more or less impossible, if there is no such government. There’s no way a “body politic” can prevent demographic invaders, if it has no skin.
“When I see you put your money where your mouth is, and move to Venezuela or Iran, I’ll be impressed. Until then…. Sure, American democracy has a lot to be desired right now, but it isn’t as bad as Venezuela and Iran, and that’s all there is to that.”
Great reading comprehension skills you have there. Well at least you can spell my first name correctly *ahem, wildberry*. YOU were the one who brought in Sharia e.g. Iran and Chavez i.e. Venezuela as if we should be making a meaningful comparison to them. They don’t even factor into my standards since I’m comparing America to itself historically and how the people in this land can do better under anarchocapitalism. But it seems it is too much to ask you and Wildberry and the other statist cheerleaders to do so much as to read.
“I have it in hardcopy, and have read it. I really wasn’t all that impressed, because it’s based on the utopian dream of anarcho-capitalism. An impossible alternative isn’t really an alternative. It’s escapism and mental masturbation.”
Yes, you just keep telling yourself it is impossible to make up for your lack of cogent criticism. Apologists for the state, from Baghdad Bob to Pravda, tend to be the ones mired in fantasy.
“So you say, but that’s sheer supposition. Hell, the idea that an anarcho-capitalist society could exist at all is sheer supposition.”
Sheer supposition? Well if the historical track record of state-run enterprises and services tells us anything, it is that the free-market would absolutely crush the state provided alternative. Cars, food, news, entertainment, consumer goods, you name it. Your failure to grasp this is understandable since you’ve bought into the state propaganda that tells you it is the only entity capable of providing the service of security. In that respect you are like the Soviet who gets his groceries from the poorly run and poorly stocked state store believing that such a service can only come from the State. But when such people went to the West, they were at incredulous at our supermarkets thinking it was an elaborate hoax because the “free-market” could not possibly create such a wondrous thing.
“Who says that one has to reach libertarianism from “basic principles” to be a “real” libertarian? As I see it, there are two basic types of libertarians; 1) the deontological/rationalist kind, and 2) the consequentialist kind. The rationalist kind (which includes most, but not all, anarcho-capitalists) is the kind that tries to build an over-arching philosophical edifice that produces rules that tell us what is and is not permitted, and then sticks to those rules come hell or high water, no matter how much those rules happen to mismatch the real world that we actually live in. The consequentialist kind is less concerned with system building, or with a set of rules that will give us Utopia if we but stick to them no matter what, and are more concerned with just getting more freedom. By assuming that all libertarians must be of your rationalist type, you are smuggling a lot of unexamined assumptions into what exactly constitutes libertarianism.”
Nope. I already provided for a wider definition of libertarians. You pretend as if so-called “rationalist” libertarians do not care about whether their thinking matches reality and this is utter nonsense. Free-markets and non-aggression cannot coexist with a State. Of course the State exists, but that does not preclude our working towards the anarchic ideal.
“Assuming for the sake of argument that an anarcho-capitalist society is even possible (which I don’t believe), I think that it’s almost certain there would still be “trespasser-immigrants” in such a society. I can’t see how there wouldn’t be. All it would take is people willing to sell the “immigrants” property.”
I said probably and you say certainly. Since such a society does not exist and you believe is not even possible (medieval Ireland and Iceland and the American West not with standing), you are awfully sure that some activities must occur. But ok, I’d rather not discuss different levels of certainty right now so I’ll accept your “certainty” for the sake of argument.
Now an immigrant who bought a piece of property is not a trespasser. That was a voluntary exchange. Don’t confuse such exchanges as trespass.
“Sure, the Federal government’s coverage of the borders sucks, but that’s not the point. The point is that it is possible to cover the borders and control immigration, with a government that’s not ideologically opposed to doing its job. It’s more or less impossible, if there is no such government. There’s no way a “body politic” can prevent demographic invaders, if it has no skin.”
The poor job the government has done with the border is precisely the point. The government can do NOTHING (except waste money and infringe others’ rights) better than the free-market. Just compare the Minutemen, a private organization, and the Secure Border Initiative for a preview of how poorly this state “service” that I don’t want to pay for (but have to anyway along with the bailouts and taxes etc.) is provided. You think better government is the solution and I think markets are.
Jordan Viray wrote:
“They [Iran and Venezuela] don’t even factor into my standards since I’m comparing America to itself historically and how the people in this land can do better under anarchocapitalism. But it seems it is too much to ask you and Wildberry and the other statist cheerleaders to do so much as to read.”
Yeah, I can tell that other parts of the world don’t factor into your standards, since reality doesn’t seem to factor into your standards. How do you know that this country can do better under anarcho-capitalism? Have you ever seen a modern technological society with a decent standard of living that was anarcho-capitalist, by which to make a comparison? And I’m not a “statist cheerleader”, just because I think some government is necessary. First off, a minarchist is not a statist. The word does not mean what most of you anarchists seem to want it to mean. Read Mises for the correct usage of the word. Second, I’m not a cheerleader. I’m more than willing to criticize the government when I think it’s doing something wrong. How about less mindless party-line name-calling, and a little bit more actual reasoned argumentation?
Also, I have read the main anarcho-capitalist literature; Rothbard, David Friedman, the Tannehills, Hoppe, as well as people like Bruce Benson, Anthony de Jasay, Albert Jay Nock and Frank Chodorov. Those are just the ones I have in hardcopy, not counting all the ebooks I have downloaded from mises.org over the years. You may find this shocking, but just because somebody is not an anarcho-capitalist, that does not mean they have not read the Holy Texts. Some people can read them, and yet not have a conversion experience. I, on the other hand, did. I was an anarcho-capitalist for a time, and then over a period of years came to the conclusion that it was a mistaken political philosophy, and so renounced the One True Religion (hence the moniker “Russ the Apostate”).
“Yes, you just keep telling yourself it is impossible to make up for your lack of cogent criticism. Apologists for the state, from Baghdad Bob to Pravda, tend to be the ones mired in fantasy.”
Gee, I’m “mired in fantasy”, yet states exist in the real world, and the best you can do as an example of ancap is dredge up dreams about medieval Iceland and Ireland. Too much time spent at Renaissance Faires, I’m guessing.
“Well if the historical track record of state-run enterprises and services tells us anything, it is that the free-market would absolutely crush the state provided alternative. Cars, food, news, entertainment, consumer goods, you name it.”
The historical track record also tells us that the kick-ass modern “free markets” that produce cars, iPods, PCs, etc., and that have been analyzed by economists and political philosophers, have never been ancap. They have all existed within a framework of law and order and the protection of property rights provided by governments. History, in fact, says absolutely nothing about ancap free markets, because historically, they have never existed!
“You pretend as if so-called “rationalist” libertarians do not care about whether their thinking matches reality…”
To a very great extent, I don’t think they do care. They care more about the ideological purity and “principledness” of their stance than the realism of it. Hell, one of the regular contributors to this site, Stephan Kinsella, wrote an article called “The Irrelevance of the Impossibility of Anarcho-Capitalism” (or something like that). If the impossibility of a political vision doesn’t matter, I can’t see how that is a very reality-oriented vision.
“Now an immigrant who bought a piece of property is not a trespasser. That was a voluntary exchange. Don’t confuse such exchanges as trespass.”
OK, great. So somebody who hates classical liberal values and everything they stand for can come into an ancap society simply by buying a piece of real estate. I’m glad we’ve got that out of the way. Now, let’s imagine that a lot of such people do that. Let’s imagine that they come in very large numbers, bide their time, buy weapons, and breed in large numbers. How is Ancapistan going to defend itself against the eventual threat posed by such a large number of people who hate freedom, in a society in which their own freedom is not curtailed in the slightest? Mind you, Lucy Kropotkin and the Bear Brothers will be otherwise engaged, so no help from them. (See, more ancap literature I have read! *grin*)
“The poor job the government has done with the border is precisely the point. The government can do NOTHING (except waste money and infringe others’ rights) better than the free-market. Just compare the Minutemen, a private organization, and the Secure Border Initiative for a preview of how poorly this state “service” that I don’t want to pay for (but have to anyway along with the bailouts and taxes etc.) is provided. You think better government is the solution and I think markets are.”
So, the government can do NOTHING better than the free market? But you’ve just provided a counter-example! Do you really think that the Minutemen won the War of Independence, and shooed the unwanted Redcoats and Hessians out of North America? No, that war was won by the Continental Army, which was funded by the US under the federal government of the Articles of Confederation. It sure as hell wasn’t won by the Minutemen. Even the state militia weren’t all that; Washington complained about them regularly. The Continental regulars were the ones who won the War of Independence. Governments can fight military invasions better than markets can.
“Yeah, I can tell that other parts of the world don’t factor into your standards, since reality doesn’t seem to factor into your standards.”
A non-sequitur. Unsurprising.
“How do you know that this country can do better under anarcho-capitalism? Have you ever seen a modern technological society with a decent standard of living that was anarcho-capitalist, by which to make a comparison?”
Anarchocapitalism is a society with complete freedom of the market. If you believe free-markets always provide services better than the government, then the only consistent position is anarchocapitalism. The fact that something does not yet exist does not preclude the possibility.
“And I’m not a “statist cheerleader’, just because I think some government is necessary. First off, a minarchist is not a statist.”
If we were living in the ungoverned American West near the Mexican border, YOU would call for bringing in border guards and making me pay for it. That makes you a cheerleader for the state. [my fault on using the word "statist" since it commonly has Randian connotations] You may not want full on complete control by the state, but you would bring it where there is none.
“Also, I have read the main anarcho-capitalist literature; Rothbard, David Friedman, the Tannehills, Hoppe, as well as people like Bruce Benson, Anthony de Jasay, Albert Jay Nock and Frank Chodorov. Those are just the ones I have in hardcopy, not counting all the ebooks I have downloaded from mises.org over the years. You may find this shocking, but just because somebody is not an anarcho-capitalist, that does not mean they have not read the Holy Texts. Some people can read them, and yet not have a conversion experience. I, on the other hand, did. I was an anarcho-capitalist for a time, and then over a period of years came to the conclusion that it was a mistaken political philosophy, and so renounced the One True Religion (hence the moniker “Russ the Apostate”).”
Great, then post your scholarly critique of those texts you claim to have read. If you are right and have, in your own mind, refuted them, then show the world instead of just claiming you have. No doubt Hoppe, Bylund and Kinsella among others would be interested in your special knowledge.
“Gee, I’m “mired in fantasy”, yet states exist in the real world, and the best you can do as an example of ancap is dredge up dreams about medieval Iceland and Ireland. Too much time spent at Renaissance Faires, I’m guessing.”
Nope.
“The historical track record also tells us that the kick-ass modern “free markets” that produce cars, iPods, PCs, etc., and that have been analyzed by economists and political philosophers, have never been ancap. They have all existed within a framework of law and order and the protection of property rights provided by governments.”
“History, in fact, says absolutely nothing about ancap free markets, because historically, they have never existed!”
The free-market is in its nature anarchocapitalistic. Making voluntary exchanges does not require a coercive third party “to provide the framework ” (through the clearly coercive and non free-market means of taxation) for this to happen. The fact that such entities have been a part of society does not make them necessary – a bit like slavery. A citizen of ancient Rome or Greece would point out that a great civilization needs slaves since that was universally the case in the ancient world. Thankfully, and it was no certain conclusion, we moved past that.
“To a very great extent, I don’t think they do care. They care more about the ideological purity and “principledness” of their stance than the realism of it. Hell, one of the regular contributors to this site, Stephan Kinsella, wrote an article called “The Irrelevance of the Impossibility of Anarcho-Capitalism” (or something like that). If the impossibility of a political vision doesn’t matter, I can’t see how that is a very reality-oriented vision.”
Sticking to and working from first principles, oh I don’t know, say something like “human action”, is absolutely necessary to Austrian methodology. It’s the same way with anarchocapitalism.
I had to Google that article by Kinsella but wow, how you use that to support your argument that “rationalist libertarians” don’t care about reality puts your reading comprehension into suspicion. Kinsella demolishes your “ancap societies don’t exist and so are impossible” argument but you somehow believe it supports your case; probably because you only read the title which is seems to be the extent of your familiarity with the other ancap authors you allegedly are familiar with.
“OK, great. So somebody who hates classical liberal values and everything they stand for can come into an ancap society simply by buying a piece of real estate. I’m glad we’ve got that out of the way.”
Yup so long as the property owner allows it.
” Now, let’s imagine that a lot of such people do that. Let’s imagine that they come in very large numbers, bide their time, buy weapons, and breed in large numbers. How is Ancapistan going to defend itself against the eventual threat posed by such a large number of people who hate freedom, in a society in which their own freedom is not curtailed in the slightest?”
We can imagine all kinds of scenarios but if an individual in an ancap society believed this was a possibility, they could do the following themselves and try to convince others to do the same: 1) not sell property to them 2) not support their businesses 3) not interact with them at all 4) work with others to create a neighborhood banning such people 5) buy your own weapons 6) encourage and even help pay for non-crazy people to immigrate etc…
“Mind you, Lucy Kropotkin and the Bear Brothers will be otherwise engaged, so no help from them. (See, more ancap literature I have ‘read!’ *grin*)”
FTFY
“So, the government can do NOTHING better than the free market? But you’ve just provided a counter-example!”
“Do you really think that the Minutemen won the War of Independence, and shooed the unwanted Redcoats and Hessians out of North America? No, that war was won by the Continental Army, which was funded by the US under the federal government of the Articles of Confederation. It sure as hell wasn’t won by the Minutemen.”
This is comical. We’re talking about border protection although I can sort of see how you would have been confused. The Secure Border Initiative is a government program to, well, secure the border. It has cost over $3,700,000,000 and failed spectacularly. Before that, we were paying well over $3,000,000 PER MILE to secure the border and that cost is up past $6,000,000 PER MILE.
The Minutemen I was talking about is a group of volunteers who watch the Mexican American border. They are not only monitoring the border more cheaply and effectively than their government counterparts, they have even gone so far as to start building their own fences and buying land near the border for this purpose. The cost estimated cost? Less than $1,000,000 per mile. Think about it, $13,000,000 in taxpayer money could either build two miles of Federal fencing OR more than thirteen miles of higher quality private fencing. In other words, that $13,000,000 in extorted taxpayer money has the effect of leaving ten miles of border unprotected. But go ahead, keep supporting the government.
“Even the state militia weren’t all that; Washington complained about them regularly. The Continental regulars were the ones who won the War of Independence. Governments can fight military invasions better than markets can.”
No doubt the Continental Army was important but so were the militias. And you are obviously unfamiliar with ancap arguments as to how defense would be provided more effectively in such a society than in one with government.
Russ is my hero…
RTA,
You are correct. Thank you.
It appears that the concept of self determination is lost by some here. We have the right, as sovereign citizens of a nation state, to protect ourselves collectively against invasion, whether by strength of force or strength of numbers.
I do not understand the point of view that the concept of property rights ends at one’s property line, assuming one is fortunate enough to have one in his own country.
In natural property law, one has a property interest in that for which he can covenant. By extension, I have a property right in everything on this side of the US border. It is limited, agreed, but self defense is fundamental to the Constitution.
I think anarchocapitalists often times become blinded by their own lofty thinking about utopia. This is well evidenced on this blog.
Show us this deed you have and then we’ll believe your particular compact with the government. Otherwise it’s you who’s the dreamer.
Reflex,
What are you talking about?
Like it or not, we have a system of governance that we live under. We have lost control of the political process. It attempting to discern the proper course of action, I am attempting to return to fundamental principles.
We do indeed have a compact with government, at the local, state and federal levels. Do you deny that? What we have not done effectively is to drive that compact to outcomes that are acceptable, IMHO.
Some here, perhaps you are among them, seem to believe that they have some magic solution for social success, starting with a complete destruction of everything you label the “State”, and a replacement with something you cannot even describe, much less point to history other than “medieval Ireland” or some such blip in history, and think that is persuasive of anything.
The problem is this: it is a long hard road. You and many others seem to me to be products of modern American consumerism in the sense that you think you can just take a pill or drink some magic elixir and everything that is wrong will somehow be right. Well, history shows it just isn’t that easy.
Given the primary purpose of this site, to explore Austrian economic theory and to apply the work of great scholars to contemporary problems of society, it is disheartening that many discussion ends up with a cry to simply “destroy the State!”
You don’t seem to appreciate the value of the rules of law, yet you hang so much of your thinly veiled arguments on your concept of property rights. Well try this: I have a vested property right as a citizen of the Unites States, of California and the City, to all property, powers and rights vested in each level of that governmental structure.
I therefore have a natural right to protect and assert those property rights. I may do it as a consumer in a free market, or a voter in a free election. The fact that you cannot influence even me, who is quite sympathetic and supportive of the basic principles of Libertarianism and Austrian economic theory, should tell you something.
To be influential on the scale that you and I seem to want will require widespread support. It is the concept of voluntary cooperation that is so central to every human action consistent with Libertarianism that is promoted here.
Yet you fail to recognize that you are not persuasive to me or to a much larger audience that will be required to form sufficient cooperative impetus to transform our politics and our country.
Is it because I am too stupid or ignorant to get your point? I don’t think so. So I think you are wrong to take the argument to the extreme you do. I suspect many others, certainly most, feel the same way. So what, you take your ball and go home and live your comfortable life contributing to this blog? Is that helpful? Are you really hoping that I’ll accept that the only road to salvation is to tear down everything around me, and fight to live in a society most closely described as medieval?
If that is even close to the truth, then it follows that we must determine why, what and how these changes that we DO agree upon, smaller government, lower taxes, less intervention and free markets, sound banking and money, etc. are to take place. But your shallow thinking scares me, and casts doubt upon whether you can be trusted with the future.
That is what we are playing for. Get it?
The fact that I am unswayed by your arguments and vice versa surely should give you pause for thought. Do you really think you are going to have any success changing the majority of the population to accept libertarian principles, when around half don’t even pay tax? I’m under no such delusion. The system will implode, and perhaps there will be some small window for freedom in the mess that follows.
“We have the right…”. Sounds Michael Moore-ish. Gotta love collective pronouns. “michael” speaks the same tongue.
“Countless thinkers had to flee countries…”
Yes, we should be grateful that Marx, Lenin and the Frankfurt school were able to immigrate.
In general, immigrants seek to move in order to obtain economic benefits. This leads to the question of where these benefits come from- in general, every country has enough land to build farms or mines, and barring that, it is not difficult to do work at long distance, such as computer programming. As such, most of these economic benefits that people seek are due to differences in government. Government, is an artificial construct, composed of the use of violence by the people who support it. Taking that into account, we can rephrase “differences in government” to be “differences in the amount of violence committed by the people in the neighboring environments.” or put another way, people have a tendency to move from tyrannies to freer locations. The problem with this, is that tyranny is created by large groups of people who support tyrannical policies, namely the citizens of the countries that people want to immigrate out of- including the immigrants themselves. People are not trying to move from Mexico to America in order to leverage physical benefits. They come here in order to take advantage of our politics- politics that they cannot produce or maintain. It is inevitable that as immigrants enter America, they will wield ever greater political power, and will use this to distribute ever larger portions of wealth to themselves (or just to unnecessary programs they are easily deceived into supporting.) The best way to keep political power limited to those who deserve it, is to close the borders, and only allow immigrants if they can show evidence that they either support our politics (for instance, by at least learning our language) or have a valid physical reason to enter our country (for instance, people with extremely rare skills), in other words, immigration control.
And who, pray tell, “deserves” political power? You? It’s this kind of thinking that feeds the leviathan.
The people who “deserve” political power, is whoever produces the best government. Another way of putting it, is that people who lack proper merit have no right to start dictating things to their superiors. (As for the people who have proper merit, it’s not really a good thing that government exists, in as far as it would be better if everyone implicitly acted in a moral manner with no structure. However, as long as people act in a violent manner, we must organize that violence so that it causes the minimum amount of damage possible, IE we need government.)
What do you think will happen if South Africa has enough immigration that its demographics become average for Africa (south of the Sahara)? The inevitable end result is that the government will become average for it’s demographics, and South Africa will lose all the qualities that made it stand out.
It’s all well and good to say that without government we could ignore problems, but this solution becomes absurd when the addressed problem is the expansion of government.
Finally, it’s silly to think that distribution of power and fascism is inherently linked. The reason America is so much better than the world on average, is that it is a sectioned off “nobility” that wields greater political power than those around us. We do not (as a relative number) use this power to abuse the people around us. Indeed, we give them incredible benefits. Third worlders are inundated in products they could never produce themselves, and revolutionary technologies they could never dream of, all because the third world is not allowed to vote on issues that affect silicon valley.
As long as we control immigration, those who create proper and just governments will automatically be bestowed the political power that they deserve. If we do not control immigration, then people will move to where they can wield the most political power, and eventually all borderless nations will look the same- one giant nation that is average in all ways, including an average government. (Note that the average government on Earth is WAY worse than America’s.)
“However, as long as people act in a violent manner, we must organize that violence so that it causes the minimum amount of damage possible, IE we need government.”
Of course we anarchists value protection just as much as regular folks (hooded teens spray-painting encircled A’s notwithstanding). As such, a market for security will arise in anarchic society and this service will be provided more effectively and likely with less cost as compared with our current situation.
There’s a reason I referenced “leviathan” in my response but apparently you didn’t get it and rehashed Hobbesian theory anyway. His arguments have been long addressed by anarchists so if you want to get into the debate, you should do your homework first.
http://mises.org/daily/3407
It’s all well and good to have your opinion on the matter but you are just making yourself look silly.
That changes nothing in terms of whether or not open borders are reasonable. If we are to assume that we transfer all law creation over to private enterprise, that would just mean that just changes the question over to whether we should allow a private enterprise to block off all traffic that disagrees with their patrons, and tries to cross from certain territories to other territories.
You object to the word government, but don’t really address the issue at hand. People will use violence, and the only way to counter that violent action is more violence. Currently the only way to violently dissuade people from entering certain territories is government. If that changes we should still violently dissuade people from entering certain territories.
The actual issue is not a matter of resolving disputes. It’s a question of whether immigration is inherently an act of aggression. Under my theory the immigrant has already resorted to use of force. It is not that I am afraid that he will in the future commit acts of violence, but that his current actions already are acts of violence.
Any action that leads necessarily from purpose to result, is the same. It doesn’t matter if you hurt someone 5 seconds from when you take action, or after 5 years. If you do something in order to hurt someone else, you are acting in a violent manner. As such, I would far prefer to hire a private firm that promised to stop the majority of thieves before they reached within 1000 miles of my location, rather than a firm that would only take action against people with 100 meters of my location.
Seriously, you need to do your homework first as it’s clear you don’t understand what force, private property, government and aggression really are. It’s like trying to discuss algebra with someone who doesn’t even understand arithmetic.
In an anarchic society, a private enterprise such as a security company can only defend the property to which it has contractually obliged itself. You can hire them to block the road to your property if you like since that is something you have the right to do yourself. There is no “question over to whether we should allow” this to happen because the rights of ownership over private property preclude outside parties from having the power to “allow” or “disallow” such things. There is certainly no need for government “to violently dissuade people from entering certain territories” at all.
You think the issue is all about “whether immigration is inherently an act of aggression”. Nonsense. Do you even know what “inherently” means? You are suggesting that even “legal” immigration with universal consent is always aggressive and violent. Normally this absurd conclusion would be plenty to disprove your argument – but seeing as how poor thinking is a hallmark of your writing, it won’t be enough at all.
Jordon, nice dodge.
I guess I’m too ignorant to understand your lofty thoughts too, but I won’t anwer by just insulting your intelligence.
You got a thoughtful post from Arcayer and he deserves a thoughtful resonse.
Let me leave you with a colorful metaphore of A’s point. If there were no borders between canines, and they were encouraged to breed openly and freely, there would be a world of only short, brown dogs.
I agree with Arcayer above and below, your argument changes nothing.
Wildberry, since when is destroying an argument “dodging”? I addressed what Arcayer believed to be the crux of the matter and showed it to be foolishness.
Frankly, you too are ignorant on the matter. However, it doesn’t mean you are incapable of understanding. Familiarize yourself with Hobbes, Locke and Rothbard at a minimum before wading in. There’s a set of lectures here by David Gordon who covers the major figures from Plato to Nozick that will get you up to speed.
I don’t really see what your dog breeding example has to do with human anarchic society. Are you implying we should force humans to breed such that we get small midget humans with curly white hair and humongous hairy slobbery ones and still other humans bred to fight bulls?
Yes, we should examine all prospective immigrants on the finer points of Human Action, before allowing entry. That’ll make for a free society. Do you have a problem with your philosophical opponents like Marx airing their views?
I have a problem with my philosophical opponents voting. By nature, the only way to have a free society is if the people who are in that society do not attempt to reduce the freedom of those around them. People can easily air their views within their own countries.
In an ideal society, nobody would own a gun- after-all self defense is unnecessary if nobody initiates violent action. However, since there are guns, two options present themselves. The obvious option vouched for by most liberals is the restriction of guns- an expensive policy that isn’t actually possible to implement. The alternative is to have guns be generally available to the entire population, which is cheap, easy and effective. Another way to put it, is that the answer to one person shooting a gun, is for another person to shoot a gun.
Okay, so how does this apply to the issue above? Two ways- that so long as anyone seeks to obtain political power, it is necessary for everyone to seek political power, if only to defend themselves from others who would initiate the use of politics. Secondarily, that actions should not just be measured based on what the action is, but on why it is executed.
IE, if a person shoots a gun in order to obtain resources that he doesn’t own, that is wrong. If a person shoots a gun in order to eliminate someone who is trying to violently obtain other people’s property, that is good.
If we extend this, we find that if people wish to enter our country, we need to be concerned why they wish to enter our country. Despite popular myths, it turns out that most people move from country to country in order to receive free work from the inhabitants of the nation they move into. We are in no way obligated to expend effort for the sole benefit of random strangers, and any attempt at causing us to do so against our will is therefore an act of aggression.
Technically, some people try to immigrate for legitimate purposes, so we need to carefully sort those people out, but that is actually a side issue. The main issue is whether the majority of Mexicans come into our country in order to do work we don’t want to do (as is claimed by most mainstream media forces) or if they come in order to receive socialist benefits from us- which they can still do, even if the welfare state is completely dismantled, by means of voting in new welfare programs.
The issue with immigration in the presence of forceful redistribution by the state is that the more “illegal” immigrants that are let in a country the greater the amount the government will need take from existing residents to provide services to immigrants (who did not pay for them). It is all well and good to say “if there were no government then immigration would not be an issue”, but there is a government so it is an issue.
This forces people into the unfortunate position of either restricting the property rights of those who would want to hire immigrants in order to reduce redistribution from the population as a whole (due to higher taxes to pay for services to support immigrants), or infringing on the property rights of society as a whole (again, due to higher taxes to pay for services to immigrants) in order to allow employers of illegal immigrants greater freedom over their own property.
It is no wonder immigration in the context of a statist society is a contentious issue for libertarians… you are violating rights either way.
“It is all well and good to say ‘if there were no government then immigration would not be an issue’, but there is a government so it is an issue.”
No. Inasmuch as we have the freedom to try to convince people of libertarianism, we can never take the existence of government as a fait accompli. It is fine to argue the merits of a given side given the existence of the state but such a discussion must be a kind of tolerated evil always subordinate to the correct principle that a statist society is an unjust one always to be fought against.
Jordan,
You need to define the difference between Statism and state, meaning voluntary association of government and the governed. It is a concept, not a commentary on present conditions.
As a concept, I support the idea. It is a concept embodied in the Constitution, which covenants considerable more individual freedoms that we currently enjoy. More is better. That’s enough, isn’t it?
It’s probably not that apparent, but even though I disagree with Constitutionalists and Minarchists, that’s not where I grind my axe. I’ve donated to Dr. Paul’s campaign and the Second Amendment Foundation etc. even though I’m an anarchist and would be absolutely elated if Dr. Paul became president and was able to effect the various reforms he’s spoken about for years.
He, as do I incidentally, supports strong enforcement of the borders. He probably believes that protecting the border is one of the few powers delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. This, of course, means that the grossly inefficient Federal Government which has failed to protect the border for many decades would still be wasting money doing that job when the private sector would do a far better job of it.
So that’s my take. But as Per Bylund demonstrates in the article Martin OB links to, that’s not what should be at issue. To quote:
“From a libertarian point of view, it is not relevant to discuss whether to support immigration policy A, B, or C. The answer is not open borders but no borders; the libertarian case is not whether private property rights restrict immigration or not, but that a free society is based on private property.”
Jordan Viray wrote:
“He, as do I incidentally, supports strong enforcement of the borders. He probably believes that protecting the border is one of the few powers delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution.”
Gee, we agree on something! Who’da thunk it?
“This, of course, means that the grossly inefficient Federal Government which has failed to protect the border for many decades would still be wasting money doing that job when the private sector would do a far better job of it.”
Do you really think that the reason the border is so poorly protected is solely because of economic inefficiencies? Don’t you think that a lot of it has to do with the fact that so much of the Federal government has been taken over by socialists and corporatists of various stripes that don’t want the border protected for various reasons? (For instance, belief in multiculturalism, desire to have more immigrants that will vote Democratic, desire for cheap labor, etc.)
“Do you really think that the reason the border is so poorly protected is solely because of economic inefficiencies? Don’t you think that a lot of it has to do with the fact that so much of the Federal government has been taken over by socialists and corporatists of various stripes that don’t want the border protected for various reasons? (For instance, belief in multiculturalism, desire to have more immigrants that will vote Democratic, desire for cheap labor, etc.)”
It isn’t only economic inefficiency of course that has led to the failure of the Federal government to protect the borders. You mention socialists and corporatists, bodies that could not exist without the state and somehow fail to strike at the root of the problem.
It was the government which instituted the massive guest worker program during the Second World War and passed the Immigration and Nationality Act in the name of fighting the Axis and the Reds. Now I’m not a fan of the Nazis or Commies (or Al-Qaeda) but the government still has no right to take my money and use it to fund schemes I don’t want even if the democratic/representative majority believe I should.
So not only has the government failed to protect the borders, it has actively facilitated large scale so-called “legal” immigration into the US. And yet, high tech companies have difficulty retaining highly skilled engineers because of the government monopoly on immigration.
People who believe in multiculturalism can act on those beliefs. If they, and like minded people, decide to form a community on their property with their money and allow people from different cultures on it, that’s their right. Similarly, people who don’t believe in multiculturalism can form a community on their property and forbid people from different cultures in it.
Farmers and meat processors who rely on cheap manual labor can likewise allow immigrants on their own property. If people don’t like these immigrants then they can refuse to patronize those companies and vote with their dollars (or whatever currency an anarchocapitalist society would use) along with trying to convince people who prefer inexpensive produce to do the same.
A policy of large scale illegal immigration only benefits the Democrats because of the unjust power that majorities have in a democracy. Get rid of democracy, get rid of the problem.
Speaking of Per Bylund, has anyone read his article on this very topic? It’s very illuminating:
http://mises.org/daily/1980
I would love to see a world with free movement and it would theoretically give governments more incentive to not push down their own people. The spanner in the works would come from governments who don’t comply and worse don’t let their people out!
Well, there is no clear response to the question if or how many immigrants a country should welcome. It depends on the country, its economy and society. It’s true that immigrants can help to develop a country but it also happens that immigrants become a social burden. Turks in Germany are a very good example of both phenomena. I think each country should have the right to decide what is best for its economy and society.
The biggest most obvious problem regarding immigration is the artificial movement that the State offers through the many tentacles of the State Welfare System.
If this was absent, you would have people who might be a bit more careful in their migration because of the possibility of insolvency.
Now the refugee problem especially on bordering States, is a bit more complicated. I don’t have a perfect solution for that situation, in our current state, but understand that Govt. caused this strife in the first place.
Wildberry,
Their is No Volunatry Association of Govt. and its citizens when Coercion is the Name of the Game.
Good posts Jordan V.!
Like Jordan espouses in his posts, a Stateless society based around “Absolute Private Property” as a mediator of sorts regarding human conflict is the best answer. Even though it may not be a current reality Anarcho Capitalism is a step in the right direction. In our current Sorrow State I wouldn’t look at Govt. as a Defender of Property Rights for individuals and that includes the U.S. As free people we must strive for something beyond a Nation State for Civilization, and Deceny for All Human Beings. Not a Controlled/Ordered Utopia either, like some people have constructed.
I don’t understand why someone would want to uphold/trumpet the current “State of Affairs” as a solution to problems. When you rely on the political for solution it always gets co-opted for more power by the State Structure and its beneficiaries, and goes way off course, regardless of the “Good Intentions” originally cited creating a web of conflict and Loss of Individual Liberty.
Bob,
Thanks for playing.
I don’t recall saying any of the things you attribute to me.
When I think of the state of the U.S., I don’t mean Obama! I certainly don’t look to him to protect my rights. That is the “current state of affairs” you are referring to, right?
But I can look to the Constitution as a source of power to create the form of government that I CAN believe in. The thing that puzzles me is that given the time, I suspect we could agree on many of the attributes that would be desirable, and how the status quo conflicts with those things. We could probably agree that a change from A to B in some limited aspect of our society would be favorable. The right set of changes could be transforming.
But we don’t have THAT discussion because you see in my comments something that conflicts with your holy ideals about some magic “state” of affairs that is the “best” of the better.
It is so boring…like debating whether Catholicism or Buddhism is the best paths to “true” enlightenment. Rather than focus on areas of agreement, there is a strong tendency to sniff out those areas were we might disagree and spend all our time teasing out those issue. This is one reason why we are ineffective as voters, and it is a self-fulfilling prophesy for the degeneration of our governmental system. We have the potential for more.
If we were perfectly informed voters, and had the wisdom to find fundamental principles and form alliances on those, we would be running the joint. Instead we are nearly powerless. That is my beef.
Courtesy of John Seilor:
““The State, in fact, is the greatest of all tyrants, the ultimate tyrant. Kings can be executed, oligarchies can be broken up, millionaires can be despoiled of their money, Popes can be defied and heresies persisted in, but the State is, in principle, ourselves, and how can we put down ourselves? We who are the Leviathan cannot slay it. To try to do so is suicide, not rebellion.”
(Malcolm Muggeridge, “Farewell to Freedom” in “Things Past: An Anthology,” p. 111.)
This is a quote that proves what?
The choice to transform the direction of America is suicide?
Governments of the people can be changed by the people! It is not even rebellion in the sense implied by Muggeridge. It is a change in the consumer preferences of the market. It happens at the same pace.
I have never seen so many lame excuses for absolving oneself of personal responsibilty. Just because you can find someone to support this point of view does not make it right.
I cannot believe that this blog has illuminated so many that believe that the Constitution has no value. Indeed, farwell to freedom!
Good find. I look forward to seeing more people put forth Misesian/Austrian arguments against migratory socialism.
I see some confusion regarding the notion of “borders.” Many commenters seem to feel that they have a right to keep people out of their nation-state by virtue of the fact that they have funded public services therein and/or have consented to the government. This is fallacious. Borders are merely an extension of “that great fictitious entity” the state. Just because the government steals from you and you want “your” stolen money to go to erecting artificial barriers to entry into the labor market does not mean that you have the right to steal from me (or delegate that function to a third party institution like the state) to fund the erection of borders and all the bureaucracy that goes along with them.
Many employers and consumers want new workers to enter the area in which they live (particularly if the area, like the US or South Africa, has a high concentration of capital relative to the surrounding areas). By denying them the right to let others onto their own property, you are aggressing against them.
The abolition of all migratory controls is a necessary prerequisite to the international social cooperation under the division of labor. All capitalists worthy of the name must support free immigration.
I’m not implying Obama started this mess. I guess you missed the point that many on this site don’t agree that the Constitution is the Great Protector you claim it is! If that is not it, what exactly are you saying.
Their is NO govt. by and for the people. Or none that have limited their appetite for power and destruction, and that includes the U.S. The Socialized Protection Racket is a utter failure, just like anything that is that distant from the buyer/taker standpoint. You have no say so in the specifications of your purchase. I use the word purchase sarcastically, for obvious reasons. We know it’s Coercion with threat of violence.
I think you and I and many on here will agree we are no longer even close to a “Constitutional Republic” regardless of the problems with it, that many here, Hoppe, Kinsella, etc. point out, some of our more Jeffersonian Forefathers envisioned. Plain and Simple it is an Empire, guided by a myriad of “Special Interests” Groups, that Intervene on behalf of their interests through the Noble Democratic Noble Process, at the expense of Liberty, Economic or Individual.
Trying to Corral the Political on a piece of paper is really laughable at this point. I am just glad I found folk who lit the way for me away from that “Lets Vote this Nov. and get the Bad Guys Out” mentality that paralyzed my political thinking for so long.
Good post Aquila!
Virtually every argument Russ, Wildberry and some of the others have raised in their posts has been addressed, in far more useful detail, by Walter Block, Hans Hermann Hoppe, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard and others in writings available on this website.
Look fellas, taking into account the shared assumptions held by proper anarcho-capitalist libertarians, the most significant debate is the one between Hoppe and Block, i.e. whether it is consistently libertarian to advocate closed or limited borders as a voter or policy influencer in a modern democratic state.
This is a nuanced and complicated question that requires a studied background in private property theory, homesteading, the nature of the state, ethics and causation (including double effect). Your unsophisticated troll-like posts are not adding to this debate.
Well said Perry! Everyone is free to continue to engage in civil, intelligent debate. However, it is sometimes best to quit quarreling with those who clearly aren’t familiar with Austrian/libertarian theory or philosophy.
“Virtually every argument Russ, Wildberry and some of the others have raised in their posts has been addressed, in far more useful detail, by Walter Block, Hans Hermann Hoppe, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard and others in writings available on this website.”
Gee, if every post was answered by “Read the Holy Text, Book of Rothbard, chapter 3, verse 16″, this would be a real snooze-fest of a blog.
“Look fellas, taking into account the shared assumptions held by proper anarcho-capitalist libertarians…”
Why would I want to debate immigration from within the anarcho-libertarian framework, when I am not myself an anarcho-libertarian, but a minarchist libertarian???
“This is a nuanced and complicated question that requires a studied background in…”
Gee, I notice that you list a lot of abstract philosophical issues, and some proto-economic issues, but nothing about the sociological issues; cultures, how Western culture gave birth to classical liberalism while no other cultures did, assimilation and multi-culturalism and their attending problems, whether or not cultural enclaves with incompatible values can live together in peace, whether a society with classical liberal values can continue to exist as a classical liberal society when the “cultural capital” upon which the society rests has been lost, etc. One of my purposes in spending my time on these posts is to point out that immigration is an even more nuanced and complicated question than you and most anarcho-capitalists seem to suspect.
Russ,
Thank you for being a counterweight to the zealots.
Perhaps not to the extent as you and maybe others on this post, I am however pretty well read in most of the authors being cited here, along with a lifetime of reading in other disciplines, and apparently like you I have reached my own conclusions. I do not support ancap.
Your summary of some of the key sociological issues associated with this topic is precisely the point, which you have made much better than I.
Although I have great respect for many of the great minds that have left such a rich legacy of thought available through this site and elsewhere, even they are not right about everything. Accepting Rothbard’s view on ancap is not a requirement for appreciating the majority of his other works. Even within the Mises community, his views on that subject are not universally embraced. De Soto is another. His book is brilliant, but he loses me when he launches into the “ultimate right answser”, i.e. ancap. But so what, his work is still informative and useful, and I’m not about to throw Rothbard or De Soto completely under the bus because they stretch their thinking to a logical conclusion which I cannot buy.
By definition, a zealot looks for the smallest violation of the pure meaning of things as defined by their world view. (You taught me a new word: deontological. Thanks) As with all fanatics, their world view becomes a closed, self-consistent system of logic that cannot be penetrated by reality or logical inconsistencies, because it depends only upon itself. Therefore anyone not a purist to their view becomes less than themselves; ignorant, foolish, misguided. That in itself is a major inconsistency, since this vision of universal, voluntary cooperation of all people (i.e. ancap) depends on cooperation at many levels. Yet, ironically, there is no “give” in the give and take, and so cooperation with those of lesser enlightenment is foregone. That is quite different from a person of humility, who is open to others on those levels in which they can agree, and foregoes the requirement to “convert to the true way” before extending the hand.
As an example from this blog, anything that implies any level of social organization beyond the single individual standing atop his self-constructed wall with his own weapons defending his own property line (assuming one has the means to accomplish those things, and that there were obtained only by the purest of methods of free-market exchange), is rejected outright by some because it implies a state. And of course, any form of government organization is bad, because governments coerce, and coercion is bad, so the entire view is bad. “But if you’ll just read these proponents of my world view then maybe you can understand the error of your ways…and then we can cooperate following my rules, because now you see they are morally superior…” etc., etc., etc.
I haven’t figured out how to express this yet, but I’m trying. America is a concept. It is embodied by ideals, some of which being openness, cooperation, political self-determination, the ability to discriminate between good and bad, better and worse. It is not a simple thing. The fact that I think many things about contemporary times really sucks doesn’t take away from the attractiveness of the ideal for me.
Some ideas are better than others. Austrian economic theory is better, in my opinion, because it is founded on observations that easily pass the sniff test of reality, and leads to outcomes that are better for people like me, IMHO. The implications of that simple statement are astounding.
That should be enough to create a sense of cooperation and “joining up” among those who understand that. After spending so much time on this one blog, I am wondering where the levels of cooperation around that concept will come from?
Anyway, nice to know you.
So America is an ideal, embodied by a constitution, which you admit has failed, and yet you persist in believing in its magical powers. And you have the hide to call others utopian.
In answer to your question. You’ll get cooperation in all efforts to constrain the state, just not an admission that it is necessary or moral.
Ah….this is tiresome.
I am admitting it is failing, not that it has failed. Yet you have, obviously. Now that the game is over, what do you propose? I mean, really…step 1, step 2….
Wildberry,
Thanks. I think I understand what you’re talking about with respect to America. I got into a discussion quite a while ago, where a person argued with my mentality regarding immigration. My response was that America is more than a place to live. It is a way of life, and a state of mind. Some people get that, some people don’t. Most here probably don’t.
“As an example from this blog, anything that implies any level of social organization beyond the single individual standing atop his self-constructed wall with his own weapons defending his own property line (assuming one has the means to accomplish those things, and that there were obtained only by the purest of methods of free-market exchange), is rejected outright by some because it implies a state.”
Just to be fair, I must say that this isn’t necessarily true. Some ancaps are quite big on “civil society”, which is basically the whole network of voluntary social organizations and civic societies, from churches to unions (where these are voluntary) to the Chamber of Commerce, Lion’s Club, International Order of Odd Fellows, your local Linux User’s Group, what have you. Actually, I’d say that corporations are such societies as well, in a sense, and of course, most ancaps have no problems with corporations. I think you’re falling into a little bit of a big-government trap here; the idea that the only thing standing in between us and atomistic chaos, with each man an island, is the government. Ancaps realize that this is not true. They just go a little too far the other way, and think that government is completely dispensible, instead of just mostly dispensible, like you and I probably do.
Russ, You are right about the trap. I have been speaking in hyperbole to some extent. I don’t think of government as the only barrier between me and utter chaos. But I do think that it is a little bit like common law; you can’t apply the law and decide the case until you hear the specific facts. Therefore, each issue has it’s own unique resolution.
As trite as it may sound, it comes down to an enlightened electorate and a reversal in the centralized focus of American governement. I initially came to Mises because of the economics. I realized the implications of the Austrian model and the rest is history. I am currently searching for the right outlet and the specific catalysts that might lead to a basic transformation from what American has become to something more aligned with what I think it could be.
Abolition of the Fed, repeal of the 17th Amendment, systematic reduction in the size and scope of the Federal government are pretty good starts. In some ways, the more success those ideas find, the more important protecting our borders might become. See you on the next thread.
Very best regards,
“They just go a little too far the other way”
Lucky for you to run into Goldilocks here, “Wildberry”. “This Langley is juuuuust right.”
- – - – - – - – -
Nice job here all (especially Jordan) on these Republicans, the only thing worse than Democrats.
I was wondering when you would show up. I guess the party is over…
“I guess the party is over…”
Don’t leave the party because of him. I find the best strategy is to just ignore him.
Your Utopian “party” was over in 1863.
That’s the strategy these guys are figuring out for you clowns.
I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss centuries of human freedom in Ireland and Iceland on the basis that such societies flourished during a less technologically advanced period in history. Further, there’s nothing that says an anarchic society is immune to invasion. If the Irish had the luxury of an ocean separating them from Britain, perhaps they would have been able to free themselves of British tyranny as Americans did a bit over two centuries ago.
Certainly I would hesitate to lambaste a society that maintained nearly a millennium of liberty (not to mention medieval Ireland’s well documented contribution to civilization noted in the post above) when ours cannot barely claim a quarter of that.
Now why you should think a free society and technological progress are exclusive is a mystery. If anything, freedom is a key factor to such progress and a libertarian society, in fine, is the freest.
Wildberry’s adherence to the Constitution is blinding her on the larger principles of individualism based in the libertarian tradition. Our constitution was merely designed as a means to an end and has proven to have failed in that means.
No one is arguing that a person has a right to come onto your private property. What I would argue vehemently is that one side of a border is your property at all. Simply because the state exists does not make it so.
In my opinion, an open-borders policy in a modern state would only be viable (not leading to social chaos and violent reactions) under the following conditions:
_ Most of the land is shared out among the host country’s citizens before opening the borders, as opposed to being property of the State. Most immigrants would need a land owner’s permission to immigrate. This would prevent immigrants from taking resources that natives were saving for their children.
_ Private fenced cities, covenants and all kinds of de-facto secession schemes are permitted; all anti-discrimination laws affecting private citizens should be repealed. This would prevent the culture clash which results from forced integration.
_ The right to immigrate is not the same as the right to vote. Citizenship should be much more restricted than immigration, even for the immigrants’ children who are born in the host country. Otherwise, an immigrant majority could easily impose its will on the host minority. Blame democracy for the need of this one.
_ No social security or other entitlements for immigrants (ideally, for anyone). That would prevent parasitic immigration.
Comments on this entry are closed.