It does, in its own way, have a certain logic to it.

However, I still disagree.
What if some taxpayers want open borders and others do not? The taxpayer who is quite happy with endless immigrants using public land (which they legitimately are the rightful owners of a percentage of) are disallowed from this scenario.
Co-ownership is obviously problematic and requires all parties to consent to a co-ownership contract.
I think Hoppe made the mistake of assuming a co-ownership contract in which if only one person objects to the way in which the co-owned property is used, then that use is prohibited.
But a co-ownership contract doesn’t necessarily need to be like this. It could be that 25% of the owners need to object, or 50%, or 75%, or even that any one of the co-owners can do whatever they want with it so long as no other co-owner is currently using it. Once again, it depends on the contract.
Since the tax-payers have not agreed to any contract whatsoever, then favoring closed-borders is just as illegitimate as favoring open-borders.

Ultimately, there is no such thing as an “immigration issue”. There is only a “public land issue”. And the only solution to this problem is the elimination of all public land. Once all land is privately owned, each land owner can then decide for themselves who to allow on their property.

Just my 2 cents.

Um no, open border advocates are saying that they are allowing immigrants to come into the country. They are not saying that immigrants can decide for themselves whether it’s OK to emigrate.

In this context, by “open borders advocates” I mean libertarians who argue against country borders, not pro-immigration politicians.

I don’t get the analogy. In a divorce property is split. There is no collective ownership.

Exactly, property is split, and the splitting is not trivial. People go to court because they don’t agree on how to split it. That’s because there was no agreement about what belonged to whom before divorce, that is, many things were collectively owned.

What Crusoe and Friday examples? What real life people? If one flat mate allows a person to enter the flat, that gives another flat mate the right to shoot that person? I think you should consider some introspective analysis of your position, because it’s not a sensible one.

Google “Crusoe economics”. Thought experiments involving Crusoe and Friday have been extensively used by Hoppe and many others.

If a flat mate is allowing rapist murderers into the flat, and then pointing a gun at other flatmates to prevent them from expelling those criminals, I would think his flatmates are justified in shooting him. But if there’s a peaceful way to prevent him from doing that, there’s no justification to shoot him.

Killing a murderous tyrant can be justified, killing an elected politician who is acting within the law in a liberal democracy is choosing barbarism and death when peaceful dialogue is a viable option. Killing unarmed children, no matter how brainwashed they are, is a monstrous act. That’s not the issue we are debating.

I am being realistic; you are not! We’re talking about whether somebody is justified to attack an immigrant based on whether or not that single individual believes immigration is OK or not. The entire position is absurd.

No, we are talking about whether libertarian doctrine is categorically, intrinsically incompatible with political violence against enablers of dangerous immigration. I don’t think so, but neither do I think political violence is justified, at least not in a liberal democracy.

I thought we were being “realistic”?

What’s unrealistic about what I said?

You forgot the original context of your original comment. You said the right to decide immigration policy should be left to the “original inhabitants”. But now you concede that deciding who the “original inhabitants” are is impossible, and now fall back on the position that we should keep it relevant to present-day. But, in that case then we can talk about an eclectic mix of inhabitants, including people of the race and culture of the immigrants.

Massive immigration is a very recent phenomenon. The indigenous population of a modern country are the descendants of those who were the inhabitants of that country when it was founded.

Oh ok, so the 4th Century is not relevant to “present-day”, but the 8th Century is?

It’s all about the context. Country borders within Europe changed considerably in all those centuries, some countries were created, others disappeared and so on. But there was always a clear distinction between Christendom (Europe) and the land of Islam.

You have yet to come up with a consistent answer of who does have a right to decide whether someone can immigrate or not in a society beset by the public ownership of land. So far, your answer has been woefully twisted, illogical, and plain absurd.

The indigenous population does, no one else. How they should do it is another matter. It’s not that difficult to get, you are just hostile to the idea.

I’m sorry? What does this mean?

Can you measure individual property with your property-meter? A fence is just a piece of metal, whether it marks land boundaries or country borders. Property, whether individual or collective, is not a physical fact, it’s a political concept.

Open-borders advocates do.

Um no, open border advocates are saying that they are allowing immigrants to come into the country. They are not saying that immigrants can decide for themselves whether it’s OK to emigrate.

Ownership is shared among the members of the collective. How it is shared is another matter. Ask anyone who has divorced.

I don’t get the analogy. In a divorce property is split. There is no collective ownership.

I know, but Crusoe and Friday examples are getting old, and people in real life treat flat sharing as if it were common property to some degree.

What Crusoe and Friday examples? What real life people? If one flat mate allows a person to enter the flat, that gives another flat mate the right to shoot that person? I think you should consider some introspective analysis of your position, because it’s not a sensible one.

You are right, it’s awful, but we are stuck with it for the moment, and we will be stuck with it after our countries are chock-full of hostile immigrants and their hostile children with birth citizenship, unless and until the rules are changed. Let’s be realistic.

I am being realistic; you are not! We’re talking about whether somebody is justified to attack an immigrant based on whether or not that single individual believes immigration is OK or not. The entire position is absurd.

The state does, supposedly on behalf of the citizens.

I thought we were being “realistic”?

our examples about migrations during Roman times and before were indeed relevant to the people at the time they happened, but they mean nothing for present-day democratic countries.

You forgot the original context of your original comment. You said the right to decide immigration policy should be left to the “original inhabitants”. But now you concede that deciding who the “original inhabitants” are is impossible, and now fall back on the position that we should keep it relevant to present-day. But, in that case then we can talk about an eclectic mix of inhabitants, including people of the race and culture of the immigrants.

Um, no. I just said that what happened with ancient nomadic tribes is not relevant. Muslim invasions came well after that period; it came in the 8th century, shortly after the birth of Islam.

Oh ok, so the 4th Century is not relevant to “present-day”, but the 8th Century is?

Yes, some Spanish people have some Arab ancestors, no, I don’t think they should be deported to Arabia, and no, that doesn’t mean that every Arab has a right to settle in Spain.

You have yet to come up with a consistent answer of who does have a right to decide whether someone can immigrate or not in a society beset by the public ownership of land. So far, your answer has been woefully twisted, illogical, and plain absurd.

And, individual ownership has no more basis in reality than collective ownership.

I’m sorry? What does this mean?

Let’s not be ridiculous!

Let’s keep calm

Nobody suggested that immigrants had any say, in the first place.

Open-borders advocates do.

What we’re arguing is who has ownership of “collective property” (an absurd concept on its own).

Ownership is shared among the members of the collective. How it is shared is another matter. Ask anyone who has divorced.

We’re not talking about a flat (which, btw, is most likely owned by a single person, not the “flat mates”, all of which are paying rent)

I know, but Crusoe and Friday examples are getting old, and people in real life treat flat sharing as if it were common property to some degree.

Forming an immigration policy based on the preferences of millions is impossibly absurd and becomes worthless to even consider.

Ah, democracy. You are right, it’s awful, but we are stuck with it for the moment, and we will be stuck with it after our countries are chock-full of hostile immigrants and their hostile children with birth citizenship, unless and until the rules are changed. Let’s be realistic.

Collective ownership of public land is absurd, not least of which because nobody actually exercises any control over the property in question.

The state does, supposedly on behalf of the citizens.

And immigration policy is not set by the people of a country, but certain bureaucrats who run that country.

But the people collectively (yes) decide who those bureaucrats are and what their policies will be.

In regards to Europe, you can’t aggregate Europe.

Tell that to the Eurocrats. More to the point, indeed, Europe is diverse and heterogeneous if you watch it closely, but it has a distinct common baggage of traditions, values and blood ties that set it apart as a distinct ethnic group when compared with other societies, such as those from Africa or from the Middle East. Ethnic groups can be nested.

Your examples about migrations during Roman times and before were indeed relevant to the people at the time they happened, but they mean nothing for present-day democratic countries. To begin with, Roman citizenship was not given to anyone who happened to live under Roman rule (not until the fall of Rome was well on its way, that is) and the Emperor was not democratically elected. The current immigration debate is much more about who is part of the electorate than about who gets to own a piece of land as an individual.

And we’re back where we started, since this includes an eclectic mix of races, including Muslims in Europe.

Um, no. I just said that what happened with ancient nomadic tribes is not relevant. Muslim invasions came well after that period; it came in the 8th century, shortly after the birth of Islam. There were Christian kingdoms with clear borders. It’s true that those kingdoms often fought each other as much as they fought the Muslim invaders, but that only means, perhaps, that their rulers were too foolish, short-sighted or greedy, not that they didn’t have much more in common with each other than with the Muslims.

By the way, Islam is not a race. You can’t leave your race, but many people leave Islam (at their own peril).

More to the point, even if ancient nations and cultural identities were challenged, transformed or destroyed by massive migrations, that doesn’t mean this kind of process is harmless and should be allowed to happen with present-day nations and cultural identities.

Yes, some Spanish people have some Arab ancestors, no, I don’t think they should be deported to Arabia, and no, that doesn’t mean that every Arab has a right to settle in Spain.

Maybe someone using the same twisted logic as immigration policy set by collective ownership of public land… which has no basis in reality.

No, someone using the twisted logic of guilt by association, which has nothing to do whatsoever with ownership theory. And, individual ownership has no more basis in reality than collective ownership.

I fail to see what your point is. Before anyone can have a discussion (at least a serious one), we have to define terms. Otherwise, we’re talking about nothing.

Both of your comments to Zeke and DD5 don’t make sense. You disagree with their definitions…so what. Your logic is circular…which means it goes nowhere. Is it not your “pet definition” in which you’re trying to superimpose?

Speaking of property and property rights…

I will argue that property rights do not require violence to enforce. How do I know this? Let’s see….umm…oh yeah …the thousands of people I’ve seen and (a few I know personally) that own property and did not use violence to enforce their rights to that property.

If you wish to look at it statistically, in U.S. urban centers, violent crime affects about 2% of the population. We can generally state that this 2% (potentially) resorts to violence to defend their right to property. Of course, even among victims of violent crime, I would assume a large percentage didn’t resort to violence to defend themselves. (I’m not so sure running, hiding, dodging bullets or blocking punches is a violent act.)

Therefore, we can conclude with certainty that property rights do not “require” violence to enforce.

“Is that not totally obvious?”

Let’s not be ridiculous! The “potential claim” of immigrants is irrelevant here. Nobody suggested that immigrants had any say, in the first place. What we’re arguing is who has ownership of “collective property” (an absurd concept on its own). We’re not talking about a flat (which, btw, is most likely owned by a single person, not the “flat mates”, all of which are paying rent), we’re talking about country filled with millions of people, each with different opinions. Forming an immigration policy based on the preferences of millions is impossibly absurd and becomes worthless to even consider.

Collective ownership of public land is absurd, not least of which because nobody actually exercises any control over the property in question. And immigration policy is not set by the people of a country, but certain bureaucrats who run that country.

In regards to Europe, you can’t aggregate Europe. European history has been full of the movement of people. Italy, Spain, and France, for example, were not Germanic in character before the migration of Germanic tribes. According to mythology, the inhabitants of Rome were not originally Latins, but Greeks! Much of southern Italy, too, was occupied at some point by Greeks. Spain is a mixture of Arab, Germanic, and Gallic immigrants.

We see how deciding who were the “original” inhabitants becomes an exercise in absurdity.

Besides, even in cases where other groups roamed in the area at some point in the distant past, leaving hardly a trace, the first occupancy doctrine only makes sense for settled populations with well-defined borders, when it starts to make sense to speak of “immigration” into some host society that controls a given territory.

And we’re back where we started, since this includes an eclectic mix of races, including Muslims in Europe.

I’m pretty sure some people who comment, or even write articles, on Mises blog would.

Maybe someone using the same twisted logic as immigration policy set by collective ownership of public land… which has no basis in reality.

I think libertarians should stop trying to define fellow libertarians out of the movement.

You, again, entirely miss the point! We’re not talking people, we’re not talking about ideas. Libertarianism isn’t defined by the person, but the idea and its consistency with the political philosophy.

What’s your point? Not every non-immigrant is anti-immigration. There are, in fact, many pro-immigration immigrants.

My point is that potential immigrants have no valid claim on their desired destination, to be weighted along with the claims of the indigenous population, as some immigration advocates seem to believe. Again, you can argue with your current flatmates about whether or not to bring a new flatmate. Your opinion is just as relevant as theirs, because you are co-owners of the flat. The potential new flatmate, for the moment, is not. Also, a distinction should be drawn between temporary guests (what “guest workers” were supposed to be) and new flatmates (citizens).

It goes both ways. What this leads to is an empasse and it shows the weakness of the theory of the collective ownership of public property.

It shows no such thing. It only shows that when collective property is involved, the issue of who has the right to do what with this property necessitates additional considerations beyond establishing who is the owner. In any case, people who are not co-owners clearly have no claim on it. Collective ownership is just problematic, not absurd.

This is absurd. Almost nobody is the “original inhabitant”.

So who was in Europe before the ancestors of the current Europeans? I can only think of Neanderthals, and those are extinct (possibly absorbed to some degree). Maybe you are thinking of the likely fact that every modern human being came originally from Africa. It may well be the case, but, as I said, Europeans didn’t take the European land from anyone else (except, maybe, Neanderthals, who are not here to complain). So they are (descendants of) the original inhabitants.

Besides, even in cases where other groups roamed in the area at some point in the distant past, leaving hardly a trace, the first occupancy doctrine only makes sense for settled populations with well-defined borders, when it starts to make sense to speak of “immigration” into some host society that controls a given territory.

How would you decide whether this is the case or not?

It can be tricky. As usual, it can be tricky to determine whether someone committed a given crime or misdeed. That’s a different issue from whether what this person allegedly did is a crime or not.

This goes back to the original point. Environmentalist terror is not incompatible with Al Gore’s environmentalists. Yet, nobody would blame environmentalist terror on, or link with, Al Gore.

By “nobody would” I guess you mean “nobody should”. I’m pretty sure some people who comment, or even write articles, on Mises blog would. I agree, that would be unfair.

You see, my only issue is with your claim that libertarianism is logically incompatible with violent attacks. Of course, it’s not particularly conductive to such attacks either.

Let’s say there are two libertarians. They posit two mutually exclusive theories. Both can’t be libertarian. I’m not saying the person positing isn’t libertarian, I’m talking about the idea.

I think libertarians should stop trying to define fellow libertarians out of the movement. If they have mutually incompatible theories of what libertarianism is really about, they should pick new labels (such as “anarcho-capitalism”, “classical liberalism”, and so on) for each theory and leave the “libertarian” label alone. Labels are tools for communication of ideas, they shouldn’t be at the center of the stage. People should struggle to refine their theories, not to claim a venerable name for them. That would make a healthier debating environment.

This neatly disguises the fact that property rights do require violence to enforce, just not “unjustified” violence – but that is again an empty statement true by the definitions as you have chosen them. It is merely a reassertion that you support property rights, not an argument in their favor.

Jonathan is correct. Let’s all try to get past arguments that merely invoke favorably chosen definitions. It is the worst habit a thinker can indulge.

Breivik is a good-looking guy…here’s a case where some good old-fashioned libertinism (wine, women, and song) could have made a difference.

And since sophists (I have been instructed not to call them intellectual thugs) have blamed libertarianism, mises.org, and Hoppe for Brevik’s actions…

I suppose the next logical step would be to blame…black metal.

Definitely not the potential immigrants.

What’s your point? Not every non-immigrant is anti-immigration. There are, in fact, many pro-immigration immigrants.

What if you are sharing a flat and one of your flatmates wants to bring someone else to live? In any case, the prospective new flatmate has no say in the matter.

It goes both ways. What this leads to is an empasse and it shows the weakness of the theory of the collective ownership of public property.

I don’t think the main issue is taxes (and I’m not sure Hoppe does, despite the quotes), but who are the indigenous inhabitants, the first occupants.

This is absurd. Almost nobody is the “original inhabitant”.

People are allowed to immigrate under the assumption that they want to contribute positively to the host society, not subvert it, destroy it or transform it against the will of the original population.

How would you decide whether this is the case or not?

Agreed, they don’t lead us to such a conclusion, but they are not by definition incompatible with it.

This goes back to the original point. Environmentalist terror is not incompatible with Al Gore’s environmentalists. Yet, nobody would blame environmentalist terror on, or link with, Al Gore.

The point is, would you describe Hoppe as a prominent libertarian?

Let’s say there are two libertarians. They posit two mutually exclusive theories. Both can’t be libertarian. I’m not saying the person positing isn’t libertarian, I’m talking about the idea.

Let’s look at Daniel’s statement…the one I based my comment on. In fact, let’s deconstruct it because apparently it’s not obvious to you.

His (Breivik’s) argument is consistent with a libertarianism that says (1.) immigrants are aggressors on property holders, and (2.) some action is justifiable against such aggressors because such action would not violate the NAP.

Before we start, let’s make some things clear. Libertarianism is not a political system. It is not an economic system. It is an ethical system albeit a simple one.

Libertarianism: Free will within the parameter of property rights. Respect for property via the principle of non-aggression.

Immigrants are aggressors on property holders

Libertarianism does not distinguish between an immigrant and non-immigrant. Libertarianism does not distinguish the characteristics of people. I repeat libertarianism is standard of ethics.

…some action is justifiable against such aggressors…

There is no action justifiable…because there are no aggressors. The existence of someone, regardless of where they come from, does not imply aggression. Aggression is a purposeful act not someone’s mere presence.

…because such action would not violate the NAP…

I’m sorry this is not apparent but blowing people up and shooting at them from a distance is an extreme violation of the non-aggression principle.

In the end, these guys (Daniel and Gene) are using sophistry to create confusion and self-doubt. The fact that you don’t see this is disappointing to me.

Bottom-line: These guys are making mockery of libertarianism and sadly, you’re allowing them to do it…

Who decides immigration policy?

Definitely not the potential immigrants.

Politicians, by the way, mostly pay taxes as well

Not really, but that’s an aside.

What if some owners favor open immigration and others closed immigration?

What if you are sharing a flat and one of your flatmates wants to bring someone else to live? In any case, the prospective new flatmate has no say in the matter.

Legal immigrants, by the way, surely become taxpayers

I don’t think the main issue is taxes (and I’m not sure Hoppe does, despite the quotes), but who are the indigenous inhabitants, the first occupants. People are allowed to immigrate under the assumption that they want to contribute positively to the host society, not subvert it, destroy it or transform it against the will of the original population. If they do the latter, I’d say the immigration pact is null and void. Taxes or no taxes.

Neither does the initiation of force give the victim a retaliatory blank check. Or, would a libertarian society be characterized by people killing each other for the smallest offenses?

I’ve read opinions ranging between both extremes in libertarian debates. Some libertarians think all punitive justice is un-libertarian, while others believe once you trespass, you relinquish all your rights. Libertarians tend to agree about peaceful coexistence, but not so much about physical conflict.

So, even if we were to accept Hoppe’s premises, these premises don’t lead us to conclude that a violent attack is justified (within the context of libertarianism).

Agreed, they don’t lead us to such a conclusion, but they are not by definition incompatible with it. So a person may well conclude that a violent attack is justified as some kind of retaliation or preemption of an imminent mortal threat, within the bounds of libertarianism, at least in some of its forms.

Does environmentalist theory lead to unibomber attacks? I don’t think so.

Agreed. For instance,a suicidal environmentalist would buy an SUV.

Also, that Hoppe is a libertarian, doesn’t mean we have to accept everything he writes as particularly libertarian. People can be wrong.

Indeed. I disagree with much of what Hoppe says. I just happen to agree with him on immigration. The point is, would you describe Hoppe as a prominent libertarian? If so, some prominent libertarians are against open borders. They may well be wrong, but they are libertarians nonetheless.

Yup. Here’s the way Canadian columnist George Jonas puts it:

“Some lament that Breivik is a rightwing nutcase; others rub their hands in glee. Both are wasting their time. Misdeeds don’t invalidate ideas any more than ideas validate misdeeds. When people who are wrong try to discredit people who are right on the basis of something the lunatic Norwegian said in the days when he was only shooting off his mouth, remember that 2×2=4, even if the Unabomber says so.”

I think the notion that freedom of movement is effectively constrained by private property is legitimate. That public land is owned collectively by a country’s people is questionable, but let’s assume that Hoppe’s logic is sound. Who decides immigration policy? (Politicians, by the way, mostly pay taxes as well, so they — according to Hoppe’s theory — have just as much of a say as you do.) What if some owners favor open immigration and others closed immigration? Legal immigrants, by the way, surely become taxpayers in some fashion. Either through an income tax, taxes on the goods they buy, taxes on their wages, et cetera. They become owners of the land they emigrated to.

Neither does the initiation of force give the victim a retaliatory blank check. Or, would a libertarian society be characterized by people killing each other for the smallest offenses?

So, even if we were to accept Hoppe’s premises, these premises don’t lead us to conclude that a violent attack is justified (within the context of libertarianism). So, if a deranged individual were to conclude that a terrorist attack is justified by Hoppe’s argument it’s not a product of the theory, rather a product of that deranged individual’s mind. I will repeat DiLorenzo’s succinct point. Does environmentalist theory lead to unibomber attacks? I don’t think so.

Also, that Hoppe is a libertarian, doesn’t mean we have to accept everything he writes as particularly libertarian. People can be wrong.