In this wide-ranging interview, he discusses most of insights that have made him a globally renowned intellectual leader. It is an introduction to Hoppe. FULL ARTICLE by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/16471/the-mind-of-hans-hermann-hoppe/
The Mind of Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Previous post: A Split in the Right Wing
Next post: The Fed Obliterates the Savings Ethic
{ 35 comments }
Suggestion: Bold the ‘Daily Bell’ and ‘Hoppe’ parts…
Done.
One aspect of Hoppe’s theory that was avoided by the Daily Bell, likely for their own prejudicial reasons, is the question of restricting immigration. I’ve tried to follow Hoppe’s theory of private ownership of land as the basis for immigration policy to its fullest detail. It is Hoppe’s most controversial and also the most revolutionary theory, as it would mean ending one of the last barriers that turns people away from libertarian philosophy.
Right. Note that under a true free market regime, there would be no such thing as immigration, which is typically understood to mean *unilateral* entry to a territory (ie, migration is really a better word). Under a true private property regime, there would be entry only by invitation of existing property owners; some regimes would be quite open, others quite restrictive, others (most?) somewhere in between, eg a guest worker-type system, rigorously observed.
It’s also the key to selling libertarianism to conservatives who are not wed to the notion of the state and/or military escapades, to make them understand it supports both restrictive and open communities, not just the latter.
Sadly, the only conservatives this would describe are the paleos, who now seem utterly, irrationally hostile to any form of libertarianism. (To be fair, many libertarians merit such hostility.) Although, Tom Fleming reviewed Hoppe’s book on democracy favorably, and he still speaks fondly of Rothbard.
Agreed. I’ll have to re-read Hoppe’s immigration paper but it made a lot of sense to me when I read it. Hoppe brought the discussion of immigration back to where it belonged: property, and the trespass and availability to trespass that the state forces on its subjects with it’s open borders scam. I had always thought there was something missing from the argument by the “open” libertarians who treated the whole issue as a mere state restriction on the flow of labor.
They didn’t realize that the issue is with property, and the fact that immigration should really only be viewed through this lens. In other words, one would treat immigration as one would treat entrance to private property, etc.
Regards,
Dan
Would you mind posting a link to Hoppes immigration paper?
Here are two that might be useful:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_8.pdf
http://mises.org/journals/jls/16_1/16_1_5.pdf
Thanks!
No advocate of open borders believes that one of the goals is to have newly arrived immigrants trespass private property. That is a strawman that is irrelevant to the whole immigration debate. Please talk about what would be a good policy now, not in Hoppe’s form of anarchism. I also have difficulty ascertaining as to why libertarians, especially ones that read Mises.org, would believe in immigration restrictions as to diminish the impact of the reduction in liberty that would supposedly come if we were to adopt an open borders policy; the American populace is not filled with libertarians.Practically all Americans, with the exceptions of libertarians, believe in the welfare state(only for Americans, generally) and all it’s forms, including: public education, agricultural subsidies, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Social Security, TANF, WIC, and whatever is left. I would rather have a plethora of immigrants, many of whom don’t even speak a word of English, with varying cultural, sociological, etc. backgrounds come into the United States and use up these programs and thereby reduce public support form them; if that were even the most likely possibility( it’s not).
How about Arab immigration to Israel? What do you think of that?
I’m not an expert or too knowledgeable about the whole Isreal/Palestine conflict, but perhaps less belligerence on the Isreali side may do? Didn’t they have a trade embargo on Gaza?
“Please talk about what would be a good policy now, …”
Not allowing the welfare-warfare state to import more constituents.
“Practically all Americans, with the exceptions of libertarians, believe in the welfare state(only for Americans, generally)…”
Outside the elite of the Western social democracies, that’s exactly what everybody believes: their nation-state should serve their interests and not the interests of other nationals. And if you can’t or won’t maintain your nation, there are plenty of other nations to take over the job. Personally, I’m looking forward to the day Mexico no longer has to honor the Treaty of Hidalgo. When executive risk insurers start telling their policyholders in LA and San Francisco to take helicopters to work, I bet they stop lecturing the rest of us on diversity.
“I would rather have a plethora of immigrants, many of whom don’t even speak a word of English, with varying cultural, sociological, etc. backgrounds come into the United States and use up these programs and thereby reduce public support form them…”
I can appreciate that, but what do you think all these newly imported people will do once the USS Gravy Train goes under? Inter-tribal warfare is not a good fate to wish on your children and grandchildren.
“I can appreciate that, but what do you think all these newly imported people will do once the USS Gravy Train goes under? Inter-tribal warfare is not a good fate to wish on your children and grandchildren.”
I was basing that assumption on the idea that all, most, or a great amount of those newly arrived immigrants do in fact “go on the gravy train.” Personally, I just don’t think that is really going to be the case. Most immigrants want to come to the United States for the opportunity of improving their lives, and it’s inhumane to try to restrict their entrance on the basis of a faulty hypothetical as to their unknowable future actions as to how they will go about improving their lives. Most Americans, if they thought and researched about it a little longer, would realize that this influx of immigrants would improve the economy. Think about it, rising home values, a vast pool of unskilled labor that can be utilized for many retiring nationals, rising tax revenues in order to pay for our current shortfalls, etc.
Oh, and I just caught this howler:
“Think about it, rising home values, a vast pool of unskilled labor that can be utilized for many retiring nationals, rising tax revenues in order to pay for our current shortfalls, etc.”
If you think Rio or Mexico City are such nice places you should move there. And what makes you think immigrants are coming here to pay taxes for stupid old white people?
Why is it “inhumane” to restrict their entrance? What “right” do they have to come here in the first place?
Who said they were only doing that? It’s a byproduct, compared to the Third-World slums in which many of them reside, it’s a better deal here. Your comment about Rio and Mexico City aren’t related, try to be coherent in your attacks.
His point was that with a sufficient number of Mexican immigrants, American cities will start to look like Mexico City. Not a pretty sight. This is what you wish for Americans? (I’m assuming you don’t actually believe that people change their character when their environment changes, but perhaps you do.)
Beefcake,
It’s inhumane because you’re using force to make potential immigrants live in their home countries where it’s harder for them to make their lives better due to statist polices. You must realize that “here” is just a territorial monopoly(of final jurisdiction and taxation) of the U.S. government, nothing else. You are(presuming you are an American) just as much of a stranger to me as any immigrant from some backwards village in South East Asia. I don’t have a “right” to restrict your traveling and living and working in a certain designated area because that by itself doesn’t come into conflict with me, likewise you don’t have a “right” to use coercion to restrict immigrants traveling and working and living.
You’re obviously assuming here that the territory the migrants enter is unowned, and this is actually what’s under dispute. Perhaps you should read Hoppe more closely as this is the heart of his argument.
Yes, I’m an American, and saying I’m no different from you than a Mexican makes about as much sense as saying your family is no different from you than non-family members. (Of course, I’m assuming you’re white and not Jewish.)
“You’re obviously assuming here that the territory the migrants enter is unowned, and this is actually what’s under dispute. Perhaps you should read Hoppe more closely as this is the heart of his argument.
Yes, I’m an American, and saying I’m no different from you than a Mexican makes about as much sense as saying your family is no different from you than non-family members. (Of course, I’m assuming you’re white and not Jewish.)”
No, I’m not assuming that the territory is unowned. I’m not making an argument that immigrants should come here and homestead land(of course if there were unowned territory, I would only more than welcome them to come own unowned land). I’m saying that they shouldn’t be arbitrarily restricted to come and be able to work a decent job. If we libertarians believe in globalization and free trade, then this is a necessary part of that.
Secondly, I was trying to demonstrate that you and our hypothetical immigrant from a backwards village in South East Asia are still both strangers to me. I have never met you, and neither have I met him. According to the non-aggression principle, I can not use coercion against him, nor can I use coercion against you unless either of you commit aggression against me. This applies to immigrating, for all of us, wherever we go( unless of course, we’re entering someone’s property without their consent)
Thirdly, I know my family quite well. We quite frequently get into voluntary relationships. We’re not “strangers.”
Look, the more people with many differing social status, cultural status, religious beliefs, and so forth will increase our chances of liberty as opposed to a relatively homogeneous population. Have you ever read any of Rothbard’s essays on the Progressive era? I don’t remember immigrants clamoring for all those state interventions at the time. It was native Americans, mostly from New England.
Rothbard ruefully admitted all his immigrant relations were bolsheviks. And diversity + proximity has historically meant armed conflict once the central government is no longer around to make everybody pretend they love each other. Again, not a good fate to wish on your children.
The racial makeup of the US during the progressive era was fairly uniform, even allowing for tensions between the various tribes of Europe. That is simply not the case with current immigrants.
The Anti-Gnostic,
I still do not understand what you mean by armed conflict? You( a libertarian, I assume) are embracing a Hobbesian argument of sort? That’s interesting.
Beefcake the Mighty,
The racial make-up is an irrelevant abstraction. That certain group of people who originate from New England had much different views on social organization and religion(as Rothbard noted) than say Catholic Irish or Lutheran Germans entering the U.S.
Racial makeup is a statistical characteristic, not an “abstraction”. I assume you mean to say that race is an abstraction? How about a social construct; is that what you mean to say?
A good policy would be to allow states, counties and cities to set up their own residential requirements above the baseline imposed by the Federal Government. But of course these organizations are not under the control of taxpayers, and face the same incentive of expanding egalitarian conflict to give more power to the ruling class, and so to accompany the change in immigration policy, the cities and counties would also need to be privatized.
His point was that with a sufficient number of Mexican immigrants, American cities will start to look like Mexico City. Not a pretty sight. This is what you wish for Americans? (I’m assuming you don’t actually believe that people change their character when their environment changes, but perhaps you do.)
So the reason Mexico City is the way it is(high crime) because of Mexicans? The already existing crime in the U.S. is more likely to be committed by natives than by immigrant workers. Perhaps much of the drug war is to blame for whatever is going on in Mexico City(our policy), and let’s not forget, the Mexican government’s statist policies.
US drug laws (stupid and counter-productive in so many ways) are responsible for the appalling violence that occurs daily in Mexico? You’re a perfect example of what’s wrong with liberalism.
“Racial makeup is a statistical characteristic, not an “abstraction”. I assume you mean to say that race is an abstraction? How about a social construct; is that what you mean to say?”
It’s an abstraction as far as immigration goes. What does the color of the skin of immigrants have to do with anything? What kind of abstract idea would one seem to have that the color of the skin of recent immigrants is what determines immigration policy to be justified or not?
Link “[The Daily Bell, exclusive interview, March 27, 2011.]” to the original interview?
Can that Hoppe poster be offered in the Mises Store?
Or a t-shirt.
Great interview. Hoppe has done a lot of good work in anarcho-capitalist theory, and his insights are always sharp and on point.
Comments on this entry are closed.