Tinyurl.com/Hoppe-border-W

Doing a Work It Out and Review.  I noticed Dennis Wilson’s tinyurl link gets straight to the issue so I copied it forward from the 89 comments that got elongated in Nico Metten’s Original Post. The comments are also somewhat important, so I copied them in this article format.

The following can be used for those like myself who want to browse more on these issues. Here is Nico Metten’s Article with Comments: To bring a reader quickly up to speed I have highlighted my comments.

Including 2 Main Summary Points, starting at Comment 69# Whats Non Exclusive Ownership; and 83# Re: NAP and Property and Immigration. (Hint: Search for 69# AND 83#).

And I posted a new informal off the cuff comment regarding those who are now following LINOs. Libertarian In Name Only. With an attached further clarification reference on Alleged Liberty Lovers.

After review I believe this following link is far superior:

http://tinyurl.com/Ask-Right-Question-W

In Dennis Wilson’s article “Ask the Right Question, an interview with a Neo-LINO” [1], [he] made the case for immigration control being immoral and UN-libertarian. I [DW] neglected to make the point that it is also UN-Constitutional. During recent on-line discussions with a Neo-LINO, it became apparent to me [him] that many people are unaware of the actual history of immigration in this country and are either unaware of or deliberately ignoring the fact that the Constitution does NOT AUTHORIZE the U.S. government to control immigration. Even Dr. NO, the “Constitutional” Congressman and Presidential Candidate, Ron Paul misses this point. He recently said “Immigration reform should start with improving our border protection”. What happened to his oft repeated position that Congress should obey the Constitution?

http://tinyurl.com/ILLEGAL-LAWS-W

I address the issue of Monarchs (Kings) in comment 85#.

And in the body of Nico’s article I provide a Click Link to how Confusion with Free and Freedom can be used to twist and attack the meaning of Anarcho-Capitalism and Free-Unrestrained–Markets.

Debunking Hoppe on Immigration
By Nico Metten from Liberating Thoughts Jul 23, 2015
Debunking Hoppe on Immigration [Emphasis added]

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is known for his skepticism of open borders. He thinks that open borders are inconsistent with libertarian principals. Therefore, real libertarians have to oppose this policy, at least as long as the state exists. I think Hoppe is mistaken on the issue. His arguments seem deeply confused and I am going to show why. As he claims to be a libertarian and the state is basically illiberal, then in order to make a supporting statement of a very intrusive state policy like immigration, his argumentation just has to be very messy. There is no real case for the support of this policy. To show exactly how this works, let us look at two of his articles on immigration.

Recently, LewRockwell.com re-published two of such articles. The first was entitles “Free Immigration is Forced Integration” and the second “Immigration and Libertarianism”. Let us start with the first, “Free Immigration is Forced Integration”[Emphasis Added].

In this articles Hoppe tries to make essentially one argument. The argument is that “free” immigration violates the property rights of the locals and can therefore not be libertarian. To get to this conclusion, Hoppe needs to distract the reader with a number of argumentative tricks to make it look like, his conclusion follows from his premises.

Let us go through the article systematically. The article is divided into 7 parts. He starts by summarizing what he describes as “the classical argument for free immigration”. I am not sure if there is such a thing as “the classical argument”. There are definitely a number of different arguments in favour of open borders. Hoppe, in a side note even concedes this in the second part of the article. But he makes it incorrectly look like this is another route to dispute the open border claim by calling it a “first shortcoming” of the free immigration argument. No, what Hoppe calls “the classic argument” for free immigration, is merely the economic argument for it. But fair enough, it is an important argument and Hoppe, as far as I can tell summarizes it correctly. He also explicitly agrees with the idea that free immigration does not cause economic problems. He understands correctly that this would be an argument against free markets in general.

In the second part of the article, he then goes on to say that trying to criticise open borders by pointing out negative effects of the welfare state is also not persuasive. These are problems of the welfare state and not of open borders in and of itself. I think this is correct. If the welfare state or for that matter any other state policy leads to negative effects of freeing up markets, then libertarians should attack these policies and not [Restraining/Interefering] the freeing up of markets. So far, Hoppe seems to make the case in favour of open borders. One thing that is important to note until this point is, how he uses the word ‘free’. The word ‘free’ is used in the libertarian sense of “free from constrain[t]s”.

Now, from the third part of the article, Hoppe starts making the libertarian case against free immigration. His argument is that in an anarcho-capitalist society, everything worth owning is already owned. Therefore, there cannot be freedom of immigration. [Emphasis Added] So the property prevents the freedom. Wait a minute, what? Why is property in contradiction with freedom?

This is a strange argument coming from the founder of The Property and Freedom Society. But maybe they serve free alcohol there? But seriously, isn’t the whole point of libertarianism that property and liberty are closely linked with each other? How can Hoppe make the argument that since we have property, there cannot be freedom. That sounds very confused to me. It should be clear that Hoppe at this point has started to use the word freedom in a non libertarian way, as in ‘free of charge’. He argues that we have property, therefore immigration cannot be free of costs. In this sense of the word however, libertarianism is also in contradiction with free markets. A free market would be a market in which everyone can help themselves to everything they like, free of charge. That clearly is not libertarian. That is more a socialist way of using the word freedom. Libertarians explicitly stress that their idea of freedom is to be free from proactive impositions from others. Even more remarkable is that Hoppe just a few sentences earlier has used the word in exactly this libertarian meaning. And now he just changes the meaning of “free” without even telling the reader about it. One wonders why? Is he not smart enough to realise that he is using the word with the different meaning, or is he speculating that his audience won’t be? I don’t know the answer, but I know that at least one of the two needs to be true.

[Google Note that Hoppe is The Mises.Org Argumentation Logic Phd Go To Guy surrounded by Phds!]

[*Click Link Here: Note how SIMILARLY the meaning of Anarcho-Capitalism and Free Markets are Attacked and Twisted by Confusing Free and Freedom CONTEXT (political or economic) AND USAGE (unrestraint or no cost)…]

So let me make clear, what a libertarian like myself means when talking about “free immigration”, or for that matter immigration. Immigration is a collectivist term. It means the movement of people over some form of collectivist borders. These can be cultural borders or state borders. As such it is not always completely clear when to call the long term reallocation of a person to another location immigration and when he is just moving house. Simply moving house from Charles Street a few miles down the road to Summer Lane is usually not called immigration.

In today’s statist world, immigration is usually understood to mean the long term reallocation of a person from one side of a state border to another. Free immigration therefore means that people who would like to make such a move are free from not interpersonal liberty maximising compatible restrains. The biggest of such restrains right now is state immigration controls. These come in the form of state issued passport controls at state borders and visa licensing systems that allow the state to control who is on its territory for how long and what reason.

I am not trying to argue about words. If Hoppe has a problem sticking to a consistent meaning of a word let us just argue about the meaning itself. Can we agree that the state is violating people’s liberty with these types of policies or not? And can we therefore agree that these policies have to go unconditionally or not? Unfortunately, Hoppe seems to really believe that state immigration controls, to some degree are not in violation of liberty. However, as I argue above, the attack on open borders via redefining the word ‘free’ can hardly be taken seriously. So what other arguments does Hoppe have?

[Actually they should be taken “seriously”] [*Indeed Hoppe is saying Same word and Using it Different ways. This makes good puns but piss poor logic in “serious” discussions]

Although, not so fast. At first he seems to continue the article, explicitly rejecting state immigration controls as unnatural in part four. However, immediately after he has done so, he starts to develop a new way of arguing that current immigration is violating the liberty of people. Hoppe says that since we have a state, that state then employs policies like building roads that are not market results. This distorted market will also have a distorting effect on immigration. And this is what he calls forced integration, because we now have more roads than we would otherwise have and therefore the locals have to put up with more immigrants than they would normally get.

This is a really odd argument in many ways. To start with, he seems to contradict himself. In part two of the article, he argued that trying to argue against immigration with the welfare state would not be convincing, as this is a problem of the welfare state, which will have to go. But now he is applying the logic that he himself rejected earlier, to do just that. [Emphasis Added] If immigration leads to problems with other state policies than libertarians need to argue against these policies instead of making themselves advocates of more statism.

But his argument is also not economically correct. [Emphasis Added] Yes, the state is distorting the economy. But it is hard to tell what the exact market result would have been. How does Hoppe know, that we now have more streets [NON-EXCLUSIVE OWNED] than we would otherwise have [Via Hoppe’s Proposal]? If we could figure that out without the market, then we would have a pretty good argument in favour of central planning. Maybe the opposite is the case. Maybe now, we have less roads than we would otherwise have. In that case the same argument would lead to the opposite conclusion of forced exclusion. As a scholar of Austrian economics, he should know that?

[Indeed he tips his hand ]

Next he argues that in today’s world the government and not the market is fully [Emphasis Added] in charge of admitting people. That however, seems simply wrong. Behind the state borders, especially domestic property is still mostly owned privately. So despite the fact that we have state borders, the control over who comes into the country is still to a large degree in the hands of the market of that country. Without anyone renting out or selling a property to the immigrant, the immigrant still has a problem. But there does not seem to be a shortage of people doing that and I cannot see why there would be a shortage without border controls. Quite to the contrary, with the freeing up of markets it is reasonable to assume that accommodation could become cheaper as productivity increases.

Hoppe however argues that immigration controls lead to forced integration–[Nico points out prior para that forced integration is per Hoppe supposedly due to too many streets]–and forced exclusion. I can see how immigration controls are forceful exclusions. If a property owner on the inside of the fence would like to invite someone, the government can prevent this. That is why it is not libertarian. I find it harder to see a case of forceful integration. If the government lets someone through the state border, the people inside the fence can still say no to the person. And if everyone does, then the person would have simply nowhere to go, even in today’s worlds. In order for this to be forced integration, it would need to be the case that someone is invited by the government and the government gives that person an accommodation. This does not seem to happen very often.

[…Mass Migrations caused by Govt Bombing countries into a new stone age AND all that comes from Govt Interference, Immigration etc would appear to be Forced Integration. See Nico’s more recent Link on Immigration in Germany, where I posted in comments.]

If it does however, it is indeed not libertarian. [Emphasis Added] But then again, instead of establishing general border controls and a visa system, the way to deal with that would be to abolish these state programs too. In fact, in this case, border controls and visas are clearly of no importance, as this obviously happens with or without these policies in place as well. So Hoppe is simply wrong if he concludes that it is the immigration controls itself [Emphasis Added] that lead to forced integration.

Up to this point in the articles Hoppe has failed completely to establish an argument in favour of libertarian state border controls. However, in the remaining three parts, his arguments actually get a lot worse. While up until now, he at least tried to make it look like he was making a consistent argument, he completely loses this in what is coming. It is a mixture of wild speculation and false conclusions that is not concerned with [NAP Non Aggression] principles or consistencies. Let us have a look at it.

In part five he argues that if we had an absolute monarch that owned the whole country, then we would get similar results to free market immigration. It is beyond me how he comes to this bizarre conclusion. I guess, his line of thoughts goes something like this: Libertarianism is about property. If we had a single ruler, then the country could be seen as property. Therefore, this would produce similar results to free markets.

Just like in the case of the word ‘free’, Hoppe has probably confused himself with words. [Emphasis Added] He calls both property and therefore it becomes the same thing. He does not seem to realise that a King owning a country has absolutely nothing to do with property as being advocated by liberty loving libertarians. But to be fair, a lot of libertarians do not understand the link between liberty and property [and drop the NAP as a Libertarian distinguishing feature 83#]. They therefore cannot distinguish between liberty maximising and non liberty maximising property. They simply think liberty is property. And Hoppe’s argument is probably a result of that confusion. []

However, at the very least, he should realise that it is very dangerous to even just approximate a head of state to a private property owner. This is an argument often broad forward by statists who want to justify things like taxation and regulations. They will argue that really no one owns anything, everything is owned by the state and therefore the state can tell you what to do with it or even take it away from you.

He continues this strange argument into part six, where he approximates a democratic government as the owner of the country. But since this owner is not a single person anymore, but a changing committee, it will produce very different immigration rules than a king, so he argues. Fair enough, but what does that have to do with libertarianism? [Emphasis Added It has lots to do with LINO Libertarian In Name Only i.e. hatchet job on libertarianism] The state simply should go out of the way. The problems of immigration that Hoppe correctly or incorrectly describes in this part are not problems coming from open borders, but from other state policies. And as he himself argued in part two, that is not a good argument against open borders.

He also takes this ownership analogy way too far, as if the democratic state would directly allocate people into properties. The reality however is, that this rarely happens. Most of the residential properties in the US as well as all the other western countries are owned privately. The state in such an environment going out of the way is just a policy of liberty.

Finally, in part seven, he comes to a conclusion. This is not a logical conclusion. His argumentation so far was all over the place. He uses words in different meanings as it suits him in every given sentence. He wildly speculates about results of all kinds of systems and presents the conclusions of his speculation as market results if he likes them. And he simply is not very bothered with contradicting himself. In one word, his argumentation is a big mess. And so he concludes not what has followed, but what he wanted to conclude all along; that as long as the state exists (and to his credit, he stresses that the state will have to go), libertarians need to support certain state immigration policies, those, which Hoppe thinks are close to market results. [Emphasis Added ] This is nonsense and I cannot see that he has even come close so far to an argument that would justify such a conclusion on libertarian principles.

[Break time]

A similar mess is the argumentation in the second article, “Immigration and Libertariansm”. Here he repeats a lot of the arguments that we have already seen. However, he makes some new ones. [Emphasis Added] But first he start by attacking “left-libertarians”. He suggests that those are not real libertarians. I can see some people who might be called left libertarians that really are not, like Noam Chomsky. However, Hoppe never explains who exactly he means by that. But from the article, it seems that if you believe that the state should get out of the way of immigration unconditionally, then you are a left libertarian as opposed to just a libertarian. A silly attempt of an ad hominem attack. [Emphasis Added]

His new arguments are first, that one could see the state as a trustee of all its citizens (he seems obsessed with constructing arguments that present the government as legitimate property owners. He never talks about liberty, property is clearly all he knows). [Indeed NAP be damned!]On the basis of this argument he then goes on to outline what he thinks a sensible immigration policy would be. By that he means, what he would like to see. It is not at all clear why his proposals have to be the results of a trustee.

Seeing the state as a trustee of its citizens is of course absolute nonsense from a libertarian point of view. Again, this is exactly the kind of nonsense that statists are trying to sell us. The state is not a voluntary and therefore legitimate organisation that can legitimately make decisions on behave of its citizens.

Hoppe actually concedes that seeing the state as a trustee is not a good way of looking at it. But his reason for that is really strange. He does not reject the idea because it violates people’s liberty, no. He think this is a bad analogy because we don’t see the immigration policies that he thinks we should see, that is those policies that Hoppe predicts as market results.

In reality, since the state cannot be seen as a trustee, any policy that comes out of the state restricting the free movement of people on the basis of private property has to be seen as illegitimate, no matter what these policies are. And Hoppe never comes up with an example of the state actually violating the property of domestic people by letting “foreigners” through the state gates. Sure there are plenty of other policies in place that do violate private property rights. But those are separate policies from immigration controls.

Policies like the welfare state, which he goes on to blame for some negative effects on immigration. The welfare state might or might not produce these effects, the case is actually a lot less clear than he might think. But in any case, Libertarians are not advocating welfare, just open borders. And again, Hoppe himself rejected the argument of conflating the two in his other article, so why does he bring it up here?

At one point he actually not only concludes that immigration is bad for the welfare state, but that “a financial crisis of unparalleled magnitude would result”. This is really beneath Hoppe.

There is not a shred of evidence that immigration is causing economic problems. If it did, it would be an argument against free markets in general. And as we have seen above, Hoppe knows this very well.

It is a bit difficult to make a clear conclusion from all of this. Why is Hoppe coming up with such a mess of an argumentation? Is he too stupid to realize what he is doing? He might be, but it is not the impression that I have of Hoppe. I think he knows what he is doing and he is doing it deliberately. It looks to me like that he knows that there is not a case for libertarian state border controls. But he really does not like the outcome of this particular free market policy. So he is deliberately creating a messy argumentation. That way he can suggest to the anti immigration crowd that they are ok rejecting immigration on libertarian grounds. And that crowd seems more than happy to ignore the mess and pick up the ball. On the other hand, if a critic comes along trying to suggest that he is not a libertarian, he will point to the sentences in which he says that he does not like the state and wants to get rid of it. But that does not change the fact that these sentences are in contradiction with lots of other things he writes. He is clearly trying to avoid that critics can easily pin him down. It is easy to pin someone down who has a good argument but is making little mistakes. Then a critic can point to the specific mistakes. But if someone’s arguments are all over the place, criticism becomes more difficult as it is difficult to find a starting point. It is also harder to totally dismantle the mess. And so he can create the illusion that, although he might have made a mistake or two, there still is a case for libertarian state border controls. This is nonsense, as I have shown.

[HH Hoppe has a PhD from Goethe University in Frankfurt presumably in Political Philosophy and Economics…and is surrounded by PhDs who give him a free pass and publish his work at Mises.org]

I don’t like what Hoppe is doing. He makes libertarianism look disingenuous. Libertarianism looks like statist conservatism, an ideology which, like all statist ideologies is only in favour of some freedom, but also has its favourite state programs. We do not have to trick people into Libertarianism. If we cannot argue honestly, this movement will fail.

[As Dennis Wilson points out in his tinyurl link, HH Hoppe commits at least 3 Fallacies. And DW lists them along with others in that link. And requests readers of Hoppe’s work see if he commits others. I have so far only lightly edited Nico’s article and added some supporting explications–I.E. Dennis Wilson’s TinyUrl link, which gets to the heart of the issue.]

2,176 VIEWS
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Facebook462Share to TwitterShare to Email AppShare to More7
23
Appreciate
Written By
Profile picture
Nico Metten

Published On
Liberating Thoughts

This is my publishing side in which I write down whatever I am thinking about at the moment
Next Up
What’s hiding beneath?
What’s hiding beneath?
XII
XII
Live Chat Lead Generation
Live Chat Lead Generation
Recommended by
Join The Discussion 89 Comments

1# Audo
July 23, 2015 , 9:31 pm
Reply
1

Hoppe’s argument in the third part is, that an individual cannot enter private property without permission. A large area of land can be owned by a group of people who live there. They are free to exclude anyone or everyone who tries to enter. They are not initiating agression by doing that.

Because of the freedom for the property owners to exclude some people, it can be said that there is no freedom of immigration. I guess that in theory, the area could be a whole city.

The beauty of anarcho-capitalism is, that people can come together and live the way they like. For example, if there is thousands of communitsts who would want to make their dreams come true and set up a communist city, they could so. Those who perfer capitalism can go and live in another city. I’m sure anarcho-capitalism would spring up very different regions and enrich the culture. On the contrary to a statist world, where everything kind of blends together into a huge grey centrally planned blob.

In my mind, if you disagree with Hoppe’s view, then you must also disagree with the absolute property rights.

To further showcase this point I’ll give two cases, where the other would be considered as a problem while the other is seen as a positive thing.

1) A group of people share a racist or religious belief and get together to form their own community or a city. Thus they don’t allow some people to enter their area based purely on their skin color or a religion.

2) A traditional community that consist of thousands of people living on an area without modern technology. They don’t let any outsider enter the area, because they want to preserve their way of life. For example, amish people or an old african tribe.

The conclusion in both cases: The owners of the private proparty don’t violate the NAP and there is no freedom of immigration to the area.

2# Nico Metten
July 23, 2015 , 9:50 pm
Reply
0

“Hoppe’s argument in the third part is, that an individual cannot enter private property without permission. …Because of the freedom for the property owners to exclude some people, it can be said that there is no freedom of immigration.”

Correct. So he is saying that freedom and property are mutually exclusive. You cannot have freedom, because there is property. That is using the word freedom in a very different way than libertarians use the word when they talk about free immigration. So he is arguing against free immigration by re defining a word. He himself uses the word differently most of the time.

“In my mind, if you disagree with Hoppe’s view, then you must also disagree with the absolute property rights.”

I don’t disagree with Hoppe that property owners can exclude people. But I disagree with his support for state immigration controls. I think Hoppe’s idea that a libertarian society will by and large be conservative and that multiculturalism is purely a product of the state is very questionable. I have written about that here:

There is no justification for libertarians to support state immigration controls. In order to make the case for that, Hoppe needs to revert to very strange argumentation tactics.

3# Audo
July 23, 2015 , 10:14 pm
Reply
0

Yup. I was only commening it from the anarcho-capitalism’s point of view. So I guess we are on the same page on that one.
I didn’t read his argumentation about the current system carefully enought to fully understand his point, and thus I won’t comment that. However, personally I agree with you that the borders should be open and movement of people should be free under the current statism. The welfare state is the problem.
I guess Hoppe is saying, that it would be better to restrict the immigration as long as there is a welfare state?

4# Nico Metten
July 23, 2015 , 10:29 pm
Reply
1

Yes he says that. And no he does not say that. So both. That is the weird think about Hoppe. He is not very clear. He says one think one minute and the opposite the next. You can never really pin him down to something, his argumentation is a mess. But I think he does that deliberately. If he was very clear about what he is saying, he could be pinned down and he would probably lose the argument very quickly. But he does not want to lose the argument, since he has already made up his mind that he does not want more immigrants. And this is his position independent of his libertarian arguments.

Aaron Kahland
June 2, 2016 , 8:30 am
Reply

Hoppe is considered one of the clearest thinkers in the libertarian movement. That you have trouble understanding him is not his problem to resolve. I’d also be careful about labelling his argument a mess given the dog’s breakfast of a criticism you’ve written above.

5# Aaron Kahland
June 2, 2016 , 9:37 am
Reply

Of course freedom and property are mutually exclusive if you wish to define ‘freedom’ as allowing one to do whatever he likes. I don’t have the freedom to use your laptop whenever I feel like it. This is not a restriction on my freedom as far as any libertarian is concerned. He is not using the word ‘freedom’ differently from libertarians but, instead, you are as evidenced in the post above.

You completely misunderstand and misrepresent Hoppe’s position on immigration.

6# Zeroth Position
July 24, 2015 , 1:04 am
Reply
2

The most basic question that needs to be answered here is whether a person may be prevented from moving from point A to point B by a number of private property owners who form a “wall” of private property which they do not allow the person to pass through, thus trapping the person on one side of the “wall.” In essence, this is quite similar to the problem of encirclement, where a number of private property owners form a circular “wall” of private property which they do not allow the person to pass through, thus trapping the person in a confined space.

7# Nico Metten
July 24, 2015 , 1:39 am
Reply
2

I don’t think that is the question when it comes to immigration. Such a private property wall will very unlikely exist. On a market you never have 100% agreement between everyone. That means such a wall can realistically not exist on a voluntary basis. At least not on a relevant scale for immigration. Sure you can have a gated community. But such a community will not be on the scale of a nation or even a city. And there have to be commercial passages so that you can trade with people. Obviously there is a big commercial incentive to make these passages as cheap as possible.

However, the question of whether it is libertarian to trap someone by buying up all the property around him is interesting. I think you cannot. But to understand why you need to have a pre propertarian idea of what liberty is. If we define liberty as not being pro actively imposed on by others, then it becomes clearer. If we then want to maximise interpersonal liberty, I think I can show that we can conclude that certain types of property are libertarian (essentially private property). However, now we have not started with property, but property is merely a consequence out of trying to maximise liberty (so to minimise pro active impositions on people). As such not all property forms are libertarian and there might be limits to property. I would argue that trapping someone inside a property circle is a much bigger imposition on the liberty of the person inside the circle than it is an imposition on the liberty of the property owner to force him to provide a passage out. Both are impositions of course, but in a scarce world we can only maximise liberty and not have absolute liberty. Therefore, demanding from the property owner to provide a passage out is the libertarian solution, as it maximises interpersonal liberty.

This is, as far as I know also the solution in a lot of common law. In England for example, according to common law, big land owners had to provide a passage for people to get to the other side. Seems very sensible.

8# Aaron Kahland
June 2, 2016 , 8:33 am
Reply

You are confusing freedom of movement with freedom of migration. The two are very different. There are libertarian scholars who have analyzed this question very thoroughly. Freedom to move is greater than the freedom to prevent someone from violating trespass. However, that has ntohing to do with your faulty position on immigration.

9# Aaron Kahland
May 25, 2016 , 11:29 am
Reply

I consider this article particularly poorly written so it may be that I have discounted parcels of the argument.

I don’t know why the author considers Hoppe confused let alone wrong on the issue of immigration. Immigration shouldn’t be a difficult subject for libertarians to understand. The state is an illigitimate possessor of property. Any immigrant the state allows onto property that has not been invited by the legitimate property owner is a bad thing. This happens frequently in country’s, particularly in Europe, where border controls are weak.

State borders are not a good thing, Hoppe is not making that argument. Instead, he makes the point that having no border controls is akin to the state engaging in massive property rights violations – which is precisely what we witness in practise.

10# R_Hak R_Hak May 28, 2016 , 8:20 pm
Reply

— I consider this article particularly poorly written so it may be that I have discounted parcels of the argument. —

I think that the truth is that you arrived here from reddit.com after someone linked this article to r/anarcho_captalism. That someone was me (R_Hak). So, it’s not that you just consider the “article particularly poorly written”, you came here biased, with preconceptions already build in you mind, and faulty logic.

.
— I don’t know why the author considers Hoppe confused let alone wrong on the issue of immigration. —

The author has explained it. Others have explained it. There are different reasons. You you want me to repeat the reasons?

.
— Any immigrant the state allows onto property that has not been invited by the legitimate property owner is a bad thing. —

Even in the current state of affairs, the State is not inviting people on your property. The State is not inviting people at all. People are entering in the US because they want to, and economic incentives are the major incentive.

.
— State borders are not a good thing, Hoppe is not making that argument. Instead, he makes the point that having no border controls is akin to the state engaging in massive property rights violations – which is precisely what we witness in practice. —

Hoppe is making the speculation (or speculative “argument”) that, since he thinks that libertatopia wouldn’t want immigrants and Mexicans in, and all property owners of libertatopia would agree (impossible to happen in practice), then we should apply this speculative libertarian state of affair in todays world and legitimise State-enforced borders and State infringements of basic human liberties and basic libertarian principles.
See, the problem is that when a white supremacist like Hoppe (or Rockwell – Yes I think they are racists) wants the State to impede immigrants to enter the US, he really is advocating not only to keep the immigrant out, but also, and most importantly, to impede me to invite the immigrant in my property or trade with the immigrant, or sell my property or part of it to the immigrant.

11# Aaron Kahland
May 29, 2016 , 10:58 am
Reply

To begin with your premise is wrong. I don’t read reddit. Your assumption on bias is, as such, garbage. Not off to a good start.

The author has done a poor job of explaining his position in my view but please, feel free to explain it if you can. I suspect for the reason I’ll give below, you won’t do a very good job of it.

I do not live in the United States. Hoppe is not using the United States as the example. He is talking, correctly as a libertarian should, about principle not your own little microcosm. That you would even think that I would be using the United States as an example of Open Borders is baffling. Perhaps you need to travel more.

Oh, last paragraph is interesting. False representation of Hoppe’s position and then some ad hominem. Someone has some growing up to do.

12# The Usual Suspects
May 29, 2016 , 4:47 pm
Reply
2

[I’m R_Hak. For some obscure reasons I’m not able to access the account I created yesterday.]

Come here again, just to say that I don’t know if I have anything to say to you, since you don’t offer any arguments. Have a good day!

13# Aaron Kahland
May 29, 2016 , 6:55 pm
Reply

You offered to put forth a position on why Hoppe was wrong. You haven’t done so, not accurately in any case, so there is nothing to argue against. Like I said earlier, the libertarian position on immigration is clear. The state is the legitimate owner of nothing. If the state gives, or allows persons to use, property that it possesses but does not own then that is illegitimate. That is necessarily the case with a policy of Open Borders – made dramatically worse with the existence of a welfare state and made worse still in the case of a democracy. That is Hoppe’s principle, and principled, position.

So begone and sulk.

14# The Usual Suspects
May 29, 2016 , 9:23 pm
Reply
1

Lol

15# Aaron Kahland
May 25, 2016 , 11:30 am
Reply

I consider this article particularly poorly written so it may be that I have discounted parcels of the argument.

I don’t know why the author considers Hoppe confused let alone wrong on the issue of immigration. Immigration shouldn’t be a difficult subject for libertarians to understand. The state is an illigitimate possessor of property. Any immigrant the state allows onto property that has not been invited by the legitimate property owner is a bad thing. This happens frequently in country’s, particularly in Europe, where border controls are weak.

State borders are not a good thing, Hoppe is not making that argument. Instead, he makes the point that having no border controls is akin to the state engaging in massive property rights violations – which is precisely what we witness in practise.

16# dL 1337
May 29, 2016 , 6:01 am
Reply
3

The Hoppean position is propertarian; it is not libertarian. It is a bit ironic that Hoppe seems to an intellectual bulwark of much of Austrian anarcho-capitalism because there would be very little capitalism in a Hoppean world. That is because Hoppe’s Invited Contractual Trespass Theory relies on socializing the liability and culpability of crime and fraud as a primary means of enforcement. It literally is: “You did not steal that,” the debit side analog to the “you did not build that” progressive mantra often applied to the credit side of “social accounting.”

The social accounting of “you did not steal that” holds that A,B,C,D… are responsible for the fraud committed by E by way of a liability chain established by the chain of invitation(e.g, if A rents out an office space to B and B commits fraud, A shares in the liability).

The Hoppean scheme may have some limited applicability in the real world, primarily with small religious communities like the Amish that have an innate distrust of strangers and view external culture as a corrupting threat to their way of life. But to extend that model to the real world as a starting point is nonsense.

Typically when arguing with a Hoppean, they will begin with a presumption that the entire world is privately owned and the default condition is “trespass.” Hence, any external movement must come under an explicit contractual arrangement. If an external movement is not invited, then it is a violation. Now, I suppose that would be a valid argument if you accepted the premise. But I deny the premise, both in practice and in theory. I find that starting point to be an injustice.

The “open border position,” the way I would define it, is a boundary constraint, a proviso, if you will. Essentially, it imposes of topologically simply connected boundary constraint on any property rights regime. That is to say, between any two points X,Y in the regime, there is a path from X to Y.

The simple-connected proviso doesn’t give a right to trespass. Nor does it even mean the path is “public” or “free.” However, it does mean that the path is not one of evasion, like a tunnel. And the price of taking such a path is neither your life or your liberty.

If a regime is in violation of the simple-connected proviso, then the regime is unjust. And in all likelihood, it will require a standing army of some sort for enforcement.

Hoope is warping libertarian arguments to justify a moral preference for a christian social conservative world. He is known for the claim that such a conservatism is a necessary cultural condition for liberty. He views uninvited movement is a cultural threat to western civilization and liberty.

Personally, i find such a claim to be laughably bogus. But one thing is not up for debate: that type of culture is not sufficient condition for liberty, evidenced by today’s social con embrace of Donald Trump and that culture’s sudden proclivity for strong man seig heil salutes at his political rallies. To try to use a type of propertarian argument for a cultural lock-in for a culture that may not be one of liberty but indeed could one of authority is to the broach the possibility of of property as means of enforcing involuntary servitude. And that is not liberty…

17# Eric Naville
November 11, 2017 , 6:01 pm
Reply
0

Is the Hoppean “Invited Contractual Trespass Theory” a thing? Google didn’t show me.

18# Cathy Cuthbert
May 30, 2016 , 5:53 am
Reply
0

“In order for this to be forced integration, it would need to be the case that someone is invited by the government and the government gives that person an accommodation. This does not seem to happen very often.”

Clearly, Nico is not paying the slightest bit of attention to world news. Europe is being overrun with migrants that were let in by the government, paid for by NGOs, against the will of the people. The same has been happening in the United States, for the most part unreported, for years. Does the migration of children from Central America to Texas that occurred only a few months ago ring a bell??? How does this kid think these desperately poor children had the resources to travel north?

This is not the first time he has made this mistake and I have pointed it out to him. Migration is a government program. It is being used as political weapon to change the voting characteristics of the host populations. It is also being used as a psyop to beat down the host population into accepting tyrannical changes, such as the integration of countries. It is a stealth act of war. Nico’s inability to understand this makes me wonder what he has to offer by writing these articles?

I also agree with Aaron’s comments. Clearly, the one who doesn’t understand the libertarian arguments is Nico. Defending one’s property rights against trespass is NOT limiting the freedom of others. To say that freedom and property are mutually exclusive or to imply that that is Hoppe’s argument is confused and ridiculous.

But then, I guess anyone can write anything on the internet…

19# dL 1337
May 30, 2016 , 7:32 am
Reply
2

Apparently Cathy is only selectively paying attention to world events. The refugee migration is a direct consequence of American and European aggression. In many cases the refugees are fleeing forced conscription to fight opposition forces backed by the US government. One could categorize the current European migration policy as a “restitution policy,” not an “open border policy.” If you don’t like it, control your governments. If you can’t control your government’s foreign policy, then might want to reconsider expanding the internal police power of an entity you have no control over.

There are no immigrants/migrants personally trespassing on your property “uninvited.” But you know who does trespass on your property uninvited without any repercussion or recourse? The state’s security organs, the state’s police organs.

20# Aaron Kahland
May 30, 2016 , 7:43 am
Reply

Spoken like a true statist. I want to get this straight. An individual in Sweden or Germany is forced to ‘restitute’ a Syrian for US government policy that ‘his’ or ‘her’ government may or may not have supported.

This is exhibit A of the absurdity of the Open Borders ‘libertarians.’

21# dL 1337
May 30, 2016 , 8:06 am
Reply
2

What part of libertarian restitution do you not understand? There is no “may or may not” to it. Germany is a part of NATO. Guess what, so is Sweden(they just recently joined the NATO host country agreement).

I must say, I do find it comical being called a statist by you paleo, Hoppean dimwits. Doug Stanhope pegged you buggers perfectly

22# Aaron Kahland
May 30, 2016 , 8:15 am
Reply

What part of ‘I’m not responsible for the crimes of government’ don’t you understand?

Stop pretending you have the slightest idea of what you’re talking about.

23# dL 1337
May 30, 2016 , 6:59 pm
Reply
1

Well, that’s not what you originally said. You said the governments weren’t responsible. Now you are saying that the people aren’t responsible for their government’s actions. Thus you are merely demonstrating how you self-selectively cherry-pick your government principal agency. To me, there is obviously a principal agent problem here. If you disavowal the government’s agency in its aggressive conduct of foreign policy(because you are not responsible for its crimes or actions) then you have no basis for trusting or asserting its principal agency in the conduct of controlling the borders.

I realize logic may be above your intellectual pay grade(it usually is for HoppeBots) but for those that it is not, the demonstration of who is actually the collectivist here is pretty freakin obvious.

24# Aaron Kahland
May 30, 2016 , 7:26 pm
Reply

You are as bad as wriggling out of your absurd arguments as you are at constructing them in the first place. That you then go on to pretend you have an intellectual advantage is utterly ridiculous. I don’t even think you believe the nonsense you have just written – it is just wounded pride expressing itself.

25# dL 1337
June 1, 2016 , 5:04 pm
Reply
1

Aaron:
Dimwit it is! You are not bright enough to even try to refute the argument(saying it is absurd it is not sufficient to demonstrate that it is absurd). You are not bright enough to even construct your own arguments. You have to link to others to do your thinking for you. Your profile contains no external links or biographical data. For all I know I could be arguing w/ a 12 year old.

When you demonstrate some semblance of an ability to think for yourself, to argue logically, to make logical rebuttals, then get back to me. Until then, sayonara…

26# Aaron Kahland
June 1, 2016 , 6:34 pm
Reply

Yes, that is about what I expected. I’m surprised you think your ‘argument’ warrants a rebuttal given how absurd it is. You stated that there was a ‘libertarian restitution’ – your words – owed to refugees of wars linked to government intervention to be carried by the citizenry under the yoke of that government. Your position is both anti-freedom and collectivist.

But since you are as stubborn as you are poorly mannered – I’ll give you a chance to show here any support your notion of ‘libertarian restitution’ has among any libertarian thinkers. Please provide evidence that you are not alone in your thinking that there is a collective responsibility borne as consequence of a government’s efforts. I already know you cannot so do not post anything that you then misconstrue as supporting your collectivist position – instead let’s see a genuine example of any thinker supporting your point. Good luck.

27# Cathy Cuthbert
June 2, 2016 , 5:15 am
Reply
0

Well, we all have our own taste. I wish I had the three minutes back I wasted on this vid.

Be that as it may, you are completely missing the point. No one who disagrees with the article or your comments has said anything about immigrants not speaking English, taking jobs, any of that. I, for one, am not against genuine migration. As I said below, the current situation has nothing to do with the free movement of people and everything to do with a ruling class agenda.

Now, you may not agree that there is a ruling class agenda here. Ok, but that’s not what you’ve been saying. You have been using a straw man argument and making up some sort of “libertarian restitution” whatever.

28# Cathy Cuthbert
May 30, 2016 , 8:24 am
Reply
0

I know all about USG and European aggression and I of course denounce it. But that is beside the point. The violence has to be understood in the context of the greater plan. The greatest enemy of any government is it’s own citizens. This must be in the analysis.

“Restitution” my foot.

29# Aaron Kahland
May 30, 2016 , 8:29 am
Reply

Doesn’t matter Cathy, the collectivist says you owe ‘libertarian restitution’ – after all, like all good libertarians you surely believe that you’re liable for your government’s policies – don’t you know you’re a part of NATO?

30# Cathy Cuthbert
June 1, 2016 , 6:42 am
Reply
1

Geez, Aaron, thanks. And all this time I thought I was an individual and a libertarian. Whew, you saved me a lot of grief. 😉

This thread is very disappointing. Those who don’t have a grounding in the principles and are really nasty to boot seem new to Liberty.me. I hope we don’t see this getting worse. They should at least be required to take their meds before logging on.

31# Aaron Kahland
June 1, 2016 , 7:04 am
Reply

Certainly there is nothing quite so absurd as a collectivist trying to pass himself off as a libertarian. Except for perhaps thinking they are the smartest person in the room.

32# dL 1337
June 1, 2016 , 2:01 pm
Reply
1

Well, smart enough to know what a logical fallacy is, namely someone like you calling someone like me “a collectivist” as a response to my logical argument which you simply will not address, much less refute.
I leave to the reader whether you lack the intellectual capacity to even realize it is an argument that needs to be addressed(dimwit) or whether “collectivist’ is simply the last resort for scoundrels like yourself(scapegoating bigot).

33# Aaron Kahland
June 1, 2016 , 2:08 pm
Reply

Sure, a ‘logical fallacy.’

You claim that government’s should let folks through their borders because they have caused the refugee crisis to begin with. You even give it a name ‘libertarian resitution.’

Then, presumably because even you have understood the absurdness of your original position, you change track and now claim that people who want government’s controlling borders (I don’t – that’s actually the problem) are inconsistent if they don’t want government creating refugee crises.

Sorry, but that’s not logic. Instead, that’s the worst argument I’ve ever seen a libertine make.

34# Nico Metten
June 1, 2016 , 9:31 pm
Reply
0

“Clearly, Nico is not paying the slightest bit of attention to world news. Europe is being overrun with migrants that were let in by the government, paid for by NGOs, against the will of the people.”

To me it is local news, since I am from Germany and live in the UK. I cannot find anyone being overrun by immigrants here. And the majority of “the people” do not seem to have a big problem with refugees. What they indeed do have problem with is the welfare state giving these people a lot of free stuff. That is unacceptable. And yes, in Germany it has even gone so far that the government is forcing private home owners to house refugees in their property. That is unacceptable and cause a lot of trouble. The government it systematically playing the locals against the foreigners. The problem is that they do not have any right to find work or their own place to live. A lot of these people actually do have money and often relatives in Europe. But since the government considers them to be illegal, they are not allowed to work or to find they own pace to live. They are forced to live on taxpayers expenses.

But it is completely nonsense to believe that these people are only coming because of the welfare state. A lot of them are fleeing violence. Others are looking for opportunities. And European governments are far from having open borders. They are very strictly and even brutally imposing border controls. That is why a lot of these refugees can be seen walking in big flocks through Europe. And worse, that is why so many of them are drowning in the Mediterranean sea. No one is allowed to give them a ride. Normally they could simply catch a cheap flight from Iraq to Berlin or wherever. But that is not allowed. So we see these huge crowds of immigrants walking through Europe. People that would normally not have been noticed by anyone. What is a few million refugees in a population of 450 million.

35# Cathy Cuthbert
June 1, 2016 , 11:53 pm
Reply
0

So now you admit there are violations of property rights, huh? “And yes, in Germany it has even gone so far that the government is forcing private home owners to house refugees in their property. ” And you say Hoppe is confused??????? Amazing.

I NEVER said that immigrants “are only coming because of the welfare state.” I don’t think any of us who disagree with you said that.

I’ll try once more. Migration is a government program. The mass displacement of people today is the result of an agenda by tptb to change the politics and the political form of the western countries by force against the will of the people. The migrants are a club used to beat the host population. What you see is not spontaneous, the result of the hidden hand or anything of the kind. The facilitation of mass immigration into a country is an anti-liberal policy, just as barring immigration is.

This is truly a crazy thread. We have Nico who appears to be deliberately obtuse and dl 1337 who can’t be civil. To what end?

36# dL 1337
June 2, 2016 , 12:41 am
Reply
1

I can be civil. But if someone resorts to personal attacks(and calling me a collectivist is a personal attack) as a rejoinder, I’m going to return the favor. And I’m not going to be kind about it. Particularly on this issue.

37# Aaron Kahland
June 2, 2016 , 8:51 am
Reply

It’s already established that you are a collectivist. You believe government is responsible for refugees because government created the crisis.

38# Nico Metten
June 2, 2016 , 8:23 am
Reply
0

“So now you admit there are violations of property rights, huh?”

I never defended the welfare state. The welfare state is a problem. But it is a separate problem from immigration. These things also apply to locals. And Hoppe says so too. He then just ignores his own inside and mixes the welfare state and immigration as one problem. That is why he is confused. He is contradicting his own arguments.

“I NEVER said that immigrants “are only coming because of the welfare state.” I don’t think any of us who disagree with you said that.
I’ll try once more. Migration is a government program.”

So first you say migration is not a government program and in the very next sentence you say it is. Sorry, but that seems confused. The only government program relating to immigration is that the government is closing the borders. It is trying very hard to keep people out. That is a fact. Otherwise we would not see, people having to walk through Europe or drowning in the Mediterranean. They even now made a deal with Turkey to keep these people out of Europe. And Turkey is literally shooting them at the border at the moment. These are all facts. And yet there is this while conspiracy theory of the government using immigration as a weapon. No, migration is the free market solution to the mess of government central planning. I have written about this here:

But you see Hoppe has convinced people that there would not be much migration on a free market. So since we are seeing migration, that means the government needs to be behind it. It is a circular argument, a theory that cannot be tested.

“The mass displacement of people today is the result of an agenda by tptb to change the politics and the political form of the western countries by force against the will of the people. “

There are lots of people who are more than willing to voluntarily help these people. Friends of mine have spend weeks in refugee camps trying to help them. They did this in their own time and on their own bill. Unless you want to exclude all these voluntary helpers from “the people” this is very much what people want.

“This is truly a crazy thread. We have Nico who appears to be deliberately obtuse and dl 1337 who can’t be civil. To what end?”

Can’t be civil? Come down, I have not attacked anyone personally.

39# Aaron Kahland
June 2, 2016 , 8:54 am
Reply

I think you are genuine Nico but am also certain that you simply do not understand Hoppe’s arguments.

40# Nico Metten
June 2, 2016 , 2:40 pm
Reply
1

You need to be a bit more specific. Where exactly do you think I have misunderstood Hoppe’s argument.

41# Aaron Kahland
June 6, 2016 , 12:56 pm
Reply

I wasn’t sure whether I should respond to this because the most obvious response is simply, ‘read Hoppe’s work again.’ You haven’t understood it, that is evident.

I’ll quote you. You wrote,

‘How can Hoppe make the argument that since we have property, there cannot be freedom.’

He doesn’t make this argument, never. In fact it is so obviously contradictory to the argument that I am all but left with the impression that you are acting in bad faith.

You go on to say,

‘It should be clear that Hoppe at this point has started to use the word freedom in a non libertarian way, as in ‘free of charge’.’

Here it is not Hoppe that uses ‘freedom’ in a ‘non-libertarian’ way but, instead, yourself. Hoppe is absolutely clear here and you are entirely muddled. An immigrant (or anyone else) is not free to travel on or reside on property that the owner doesn’t want used in that manner. Of course property defends ‘freedom’ as you define it – which no libertarian thinker shares with you. Your definition of ‘freedom’ could be straight from the anarcho-syndicalists. I’m not free to use your bike without your consent and you’re not free to travel in my town without the consent of the citizens. How you could confuse the meaning of freedom and then attribute to Hoppe a misuse of the word is simply bizarre. Unless, you are in fact, an anarcho-syndicalist.

You go on to write the following when discussing immigration,

‘Can we agree that the state is violating people’s liberty with these types of policies or not?’

I don’t know who you are addressing here but presumably it is not Hoppe who writes, in the very article you criticize, the following,

‘’Now, if the government excludes a person while even one domestic resident wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion (a phenomenon that does not exist under private property anarchism).’’

Reading the above, how can even you reach the conclusion that your piece is not extraordinarily confused?

This is just the tip of the iceberg of the erroneousness displayed in your article.

42# Nico Metten
June 12, 2016 , 9:57 pm
Reply
1

>>‘How can Hoppe make the argument that since we have property, there cannot be freedom.’
>He doesn’t make this argument, never. In fact it is so obviously contradictory to the argument that I am all but left with the impression that you are acting in bad faith.

Yes he does. In the very piece that I am analysing here. And I explain in detail how his argument works. So simply answering with, he does not make the argument won’t do. You need to show me where my analysis went wrong. But in fact, you seem to agree with me here:

>>‘It should be clear that Hoppe at this point has started to use the word freedom in a non libertarian way, as in ‘free of charge’.’
>Here it is not Hoppe that uses ‘freedom’ in a ‘non-libertarian’ way but, instead, yourself. Hoppe is absolutely clear here and you are entirely muddled. An immigrant (or anyone else) is not free to travel on or reside on property that the owner doesn’t want used in that manner.

Yes exactly. He says he is not free to travel. That is not using the word free in the libertarian sense of ‘free of constraints’, but in the sense of free of charge. And in this sense property and freedom are in contradiction, which is exactly what you just said Hoppe is not saying. But here he is saying it. You cannot have this freedom if you have property. But of course this freedom is not what libertarians advocate when they talk about free immigration. So he uses the word free in two different, opposite ways to deceive the audience.

> I don’t know who you are addressing here but presumably it is not Hoppe who writes, in the very article you criticize, the following,
‘’Now, if the government excludes a person while even one domestic resident wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion (a phenomenon that does not exist under private property anarchism).’’

Yes he writes that. But then he writes that as long as a welfare state exists, the state acts as a trusty for its citizens and so can exclude certain groups of people. That is what I am saying. Hoppe writes one thing and than advocates the exact opposite next. Everyone can then quote their favourite passage to justify his stand. But there is no logic consistency within these arguments. They are all over the place and deliberately designed to be unclear. He needs to be unclear, because there is no way one could justify state immigration control with libertarianism. It simply is not libertarian.

> Reading the above, how can even you reach the conclusion that your piece is not extraordinarily confused?

I am just documenting the confusion in Hoppe’s texts. Most of the confusion you are attributing to me here, is just me quoting Hoppe.

>This is just the tip of the iceberg of the erroneousness displayed in your article.

Maybe go to the core of the iceberg then, because so far I have not heart much convincing. But I am always open for arguments.

43# Aaron Kahland
June 12, 2016 , 10:11 pm
Reply

I know it’s not intentional but I find your comment remarkably ironic. I give you some slack because I realize English isn’t your first language.

I quote Hoppe and then you return with – ‘Hoppe says this then this then that – show me where my analysis is wrong.’ I’m telling you that your premise is wrong. He’s not muddled, you are. If you were right then a Block or another libertarian disagreeing with Hoppe on immigration would have critiqued him on this specific – and yet they haven’t. Hoppe’s argument is a really simple one – property has rightful owners and any State immigration programme – whether it be one of open borders or closed borders is going to violate property rights / liberty.

44# Aaron Kahland
May 30, 2016 , 7:43 am
Reply

..a

45# Conza
May 30, 2016 , 8:43 am
Reply

Nope. The Actual Immigration Solution (https://mises.org/library/libertarian-immigration-conundrum).

46# Aaron Kahland
May 30, 2016 , 8:54 pm
Reply

I agree. The author demostrates that Open Borders is both unethical and a government policy. In fact, it is the reverse side of the closed borders coin.

47# Aaron Kahland
June 1, 2016 , 6:54 am
Reply

Certainly there is nothing quite so absurd as a collectivist trying to pass himself off as a libertarian. Except for perhaps thinking they are the smartest person in the room.

48# Randall Chester Saunders
June 1, 2016 , 7:59 pm
Reply

@michaelconaghan

“The open borders argument provides the libertarian stand on immigration from a macro view, and therefore stresses the libertarian values of tolerance and openness.[2] The private property argument assumes the micro view and therefore stresses the individual and natural rights.”

That’s the answer? Really?
All he did was restate the problem and say there’s no disagreement.

49# Cathy Cuthbert
June 2, 2016 , 5:28 am
Reply
0

I think the author is trying to say that there are two types of abuse via government controlled borders: 1. keeping people from crossing a border and 2. engineering a situation where people cross a border and violate the property rights of the host country’s population. The libertarians who talk about open borders are correct, and the libertarians who talk about engineered migration are correct. Both government sponsored projects are anti-liberal.
Therefore, the answer is not open borders, or migration controls, but dumping the nation state and the ruling class who benefits from it all.

There is a lot of arguing at cross purposes, as this thread shows.

50# Conza
June 2, 2016 , 8:46 am
Reply

@saunders Pretty bloody simple Randall. When the state exists; there is no ‘win, win’ scenario. The solution is no immigration policy; not a “pro” immigration, or “pro” borders approach.

The answer is pro private property. What’s not to get? He brought the focus back on what it should be. Pretty important. The fact you don’t find that convincing isn’t surprising in the slightest.

51# Randall Chester Saunders
June 2, 2016 , 11:51 am
Reply
0

Michael, I agree,

“When the state exists; there is no ‘win, win’ scenario. The solution is no immigration policy…”

Of course the immigration “problem” is the state. I do not see how pointing that out is a solution. If the problem is the state, the only solution is eliminating the probem, i.e., eliminating the state. And you do that …
HOW?

There is another way to look at it. The so-called immigration problem only exists in the context of government. Its only a problem in the eyes of those who see everything in “social” (collectivist) terms. The only “solution” that matters is one that works for the individual, if it is really a problem for that individual. No one is going to fix society. How does the state of travel restrictions affect me and what can I do about it? Everything else is politics.

52# Ross Jensen
June 2, 2016 , 9:37 am
Reply

@michaelconaghan Bylund writes that “[T]he property currently in government control was once stolen from individuals — and should be returned the second the state is abolished since property rights are absolute. There is consequently no unowned land to be homesteaded in the Western world, and so ‘open borders’ is in essence a meaningless concept.” Do you know why be believes that there is “no unowned land to be homesteaded in the Western world”?

53# Conza
June 6, 2016 , 11:07 am
Reply

@saunders Re: “I do not see how pointing that out is a solution.”

= When others lose focus; thinking there is an “answer” beyond that… and i.e. wasting theirs are everyone else time attacking a strawman—then it is a step towards a solution.

Re: “And you do that …HOW?”

= There’s many ways. Thinking there is only one method merely means you’re still afflicted with a statist mentality. Consider the solution akin to guerilla warfare. There are many fronts being fought by libertarian minded individuals following their self interest. For specifics of “how” see: http://conza.tumblr.com/post/13543097332/de-statize-but-how

Re: “Do you know why be believes that there is “no unowned land to be homesteaded in the Western world”?”

= [1] http://conza.tumblr.com/post/6098862162/on-free-immigration-and-forced-integration [2] http://conza.tumblr.com/post/7113089497/since-socialism-cannot-arise-without-the

54# Conza
June 7, 2016 , 11:54 am
Reply

@saunders so you’re old, and blind? Or is that just selective vision?

“For specifics of “how” see: http://conza.tumblr.com/post/13543097332/de-statize-but-how ” – what of that journal article did you not understand? There’s the door… you can either walk through it… or not. Don’t just stand there screaming “where’s the door?!”.

Randall Chester Saunders
June 7, 2016 , 3:05 pm
Reply
1

“… so you’re old, and blind? Or is that just selective vision?

I’m not young, Michael, but my vision is fine. If a collective or social solution were possible I would be delighted, but I’m afraid reality does not agree such a solution is possible. Most people do not want to be free and nothing anyone does is going to change their mind.

Like all other things in life, what any individual truly desires they must earn or produce by their own effort and it is immoral to seek anything any other way. I love society because it provides the greatest opportunity for individual production, but society is not the purpose of any individual’s life.

I have no immigration problems. I have many friends who also have no immigration problems. We solve our own.

As I said earlier, “The so-called immigration problem only exists in the context of government. Its only a problem in the eyes of those who see everything in ‘social’ (collectivist) terms. The only ‘solution’ that matters is one that works for the individual, if it is really a problem for that individual. No one is going to fix society. How does the state of travel restrictions affect me and what can I do about it? Everything else is politics.”

55# Cathy Cuthbert
June 9, 2016 , 3:25 am
Reply
0

One of I’m sure dozens of articles that can be found around the internet that show that Nico is living in a different world than the rest of us.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/673799/Sweden-sex-attacks-migrant-rise-police-report

56# Eric Naville
November 12, 2017 , 2:01 pm
Reply
0

Aaron Kahland has already responded with a great explanation at June 6, 2016 , 2:56 pm, I’ll quickly try to elaborate on what Nico might have overlooked. I haven’t read many of the other comments (there are more than 50), since some seem to be about infighting instead of Hoppe’s work. So I might unintentionally repeat what some have already said.
Nico, reading Hoppe’s book “Democracy, the God that Failed” might be a useful complement to not suspect contradictions at every turn. It is available in German.

Here a quick summary on the 7 Parts:
I. Argument pro immigration
II. Argument against, then argument about indivdual perferences
III. Hypothetical AnCap Society (three freedoms of land owners)
IV. Hypothetical Gov Society (violation of the three freedoms)
V. King Society (Monarchy)
VI. Democratic Society
VII. Summary

I’ve read both Hoppe’s article as well as your assessment of Hoppe’s article, Nico, and the latter is the one that I found confusing. This is also why my comment to your assessment on Hoppe’s article has turned out so complex (and still not remotely complete).

Part I.: Hoppe follows circumstantial logic in which one thing might be good in a certain environment, and bad in another. Yet you attempt to attribute his opinion to one alone, abnegating ambiguity on his part. One could argue that this is bad faith on your part, but lets for now have good faith in you.

Part II.: You get hung up on the word free, altough this could have many meanings in different contexts. The sentence “the word ‘free’ […] in a libertarian sense” does not make any sense in itself, the word is not patented to a certain feature once libertarians have a conversation with each other. Context may wildly change its features. There is however a crucial term in this part, the “virgin territory”. It means land that is not owned by anyone (read Hoppe in: A Short History of Man), which is probably not the case anywhere in our day and age. At no point do you look at this for his article rudimental term.

Part III.: Aaron commented on this already, it is the freedom of movement, not the freedom of immigration. The difference is, that an immigrant has the intention to settle at the place, while freedom of movement concerns travelers, who will after their journey return to their home. Travelers do not change their settlement permanently, immigrants intend to do so.
Yes, he used all the words you accuse him of having used, but if you then see contraditions absolutely everywhere, it may therefore be likely that you have misunderstood the context, which follows that you misunderstand what is meant by one select kind of wording. You yourself state before you talk about part four that you do not want to argue about words. Prove it.
Next, part three is hypothetical, and so is part four, those are meant to lay the groundwork to understand why it is an immoral decision by democratic leaders to impose an immigration policy. Being hypothetical means that you should use his phrasing at these sections with caution. And you claim that Hoppe is using the word free as in “free of charge”. Are you still on part three? I cannot remember that in here.

Part IV.: You may think his argument on roads is odd, I find it fascinating. The government decides above everyones head to build something. The point here is, that the outcome is difficult to gauge, which is why such a decision should not be made by government. You address this yourself. It should therefore be the individual decision of the local residents whether to build or not. This does follow libertarian reasoning. To your next argument is that immigration is regulated by economics and not politics. To this I respond that the bad economics in one country might motivate some people to emigrate, but at least in Switzerland there is no individual I would know of, with an economical interest in taking immigrants into their home, or to rent to them. What would that incentive be, how would such an economical interest look like? I don’t see any upside. In Switzerland it is a major problem to find housing for immigrants (we call them asylum seekers). The locals in villages around where I live are sometimes radically opposed to have civil defense constructions repurposed for the mostly young male asylum seekers – yet it is done. And the villages which refuse, have to pay a fine. I guess your argument would be correct for immigrants with a higher education. But I think my response does, in general, address the argument of forced integration.

Part V. and VI.: The idea of part five is not to idealize a monarchy, but to lay the groundwork to part six. A king has an incentive to look at the good “quality” of the immigrants, while the democratic leader has an interest to get “bums”, as Hoppe calls them, because, he claims, it is easier to get their vote, and they bring social issues with them which a democratic leader strives on (here would the book “Democracy: the God that Failed” serve as a useful tool to further understand what he means). Again: he is not advocating monarchy, but shows how it is better than a democracy to make decisions on immigration, as the lesser evil.

Part VII.: The government (note: not state) does not simply let immigrants “through the gates of the state”, because then they wouldn’t just be immigrants, they would be visitors. There is much more to this on which I disagree with you, but I am running out of patience.

My grandfather once told me that it is very dangerous to think of another person as stupid, after observing them act in a strange fashion, or say things which do not seem to make sense. In your summary it is quite evident how much contempt you show for Hoppe, and I think you make a crass mistake. You miss out on one of the greatest libertarians, one that is even alive today. But more than that, you should think of how you make yourself look. If one were to compare Hoppe’s work and yours, and were to make a decision amongst the two, to which do you think might he be inclined to gravitate to?

One last side-note. I really dislike the way you argue. Amongst a variety of content you pick one thing, and take that apart, ignoring all the rest which might serve as relevant context to have him fit into an easy to understand opposing caricature. How could Hoppe ever hope to make an argument, if he had to consider such a approach to his work every time he picked up a pen? How could a conversation ever even begin to happen, if one were to primarily assume the properties of the others perspective and state how inconsistent and contradictory it all is, before even finishing listening?

57# Mal Roarke is a pseudonym…
November 13, 2017 , 8:56 am
Reply
1

Greetings Nico, my dear friend.

If I may? A Cross Ref Post.

“More arguments FOR Open Borders—this time (unbeknownst to him) from the pen of Hans-Hermann Hoppe!”

https://web.archive.org/web/20161205004608/http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=16.msg58#msg58

Best Regards, Atlas

58# Aaron Kahland
November 13, 2017 , 9:53 am
Reply

@atlasaikido

Right.. well that was simply terrible. What you’ve posted is a terrific example of someone clearly not having the intelligence to understand an argument and then rebutting it with the cry of ‘logical fallacy.’ Remarkable how many folks who do not understand logic but deploy claims of fallacy.

59# Mal Roarke is a pseudonym…
November 13, 2017 , 11:47 am
Reply

@aaronk I’m not an authority on such. Thanks for elucidating…

60# Nico Metten
November 13, 2017 , 12:01 pm
Reply
1

@bawdyness “Part I.: Hoppe follows circumstantial logic in which one thing might be good in a certain environment, and bad in another.”

It could be that something is good in one environment and bad in another. I can think of theoretical worlds, in which liberty is a terrible idea. But I am advocating liberty for the real world, because on earth it works. But Hoppe is not saying that liberty does not work. If he did that, we would not have this conversation. The whole point of my article is to show that Hoppe does not believe in liberty, and yet pretends that he is making a principled libertarian case.

“Part II.: Context may wildly change its features.”

Indeed. That is why I am giving you context. Libertarians, who talk about free migration, use the word in a certain way, as in “the government should leave people alone”. It is Hoppe who deliberately does not acknowledge that fact. It is him who accused libertarians of using it in the sense of “free of charge”, when that is not that case. He has to do that, otherwise his whole case collapses. This straw man is the foundation of his argument. Also, he himself changes the meaning of the word free in the middle of his argument, without telling the reader. So I am not getting hung up on the word ‘free’. It is the central strategy of his argument, to confuse people with different meanings.

“There is however a crucial term in this part, the “virgin territory”. “

There is plenty of virgin territory in the US. Not that that is relevant, as immigrants don’t tend to go their. They tend to make arrangements with owners in already settled areas.

“Part III.: Aaron commented on this already, it is the freedom of movement, not the freedom of immigration.”

This distinction makes no difference in this context. If it is true that using public roads is violating people’s liberty, then it applies to anyone, whether traveling or migrating. But what this distinction shows is that the Hoppe crowd really is about protecting some kind of homogeneous society. And they have to use the government for that, because from all we know about markets, they seem to produce diversity.

“Yes, he used all the words you accuse him of having used, but if you then see contraditions absolutely everywhere, it may therefore be likely that you have misunderstood the context, which follows that you misunderstand what is meant by one select kind of wording.”

Why is that more likely than him not knowing what he is talking about?

“You yourself state before you talk about part four that you do not want to argue about words. Prove it.”

I have. If you disagree with me, than it is your job to show were my arguments are wrong. So far you are not doing that.
“Part IV.: The point here is, that the outcome is difficult to gauge, which is why such a decision should not be made by government.”

Of course, we don’t want the government to make decisions. Roads should be private. But the government should also stay out of licensing people.

“You address this yourself. It should therefore be the individual decision of the local residents whether to build or not.”

It should be the decision of the property owners, not of all local residence. Why should they get a say in who I am renting or selling my house to? Unless of course I have agreed to give them a say.

“To this I respond that the bad economics in one country might motivate some people to emigrate,”

Yes, and people migrating is the free market trying to solve the chaos that these governments have produced. The solution is not even more regulations but less.

“but at least in Switzerland there is no individual I would know of, with an economical interest in taking immigrants into their home, or to rent to them.”

Are you serious? There are lots of people, in any society that are happy to rent out, or sell their property to the highest bitter. And Switzerland is actually a country with one of the highest immigration rates in Europe.

“What would that incentive be, how would such an economical interest look like? I don’t see any upside. In Switzerland it is a major problem to find housing for immigrants (we call them asylum seekers). The locals in villages around where I live are sometimes radically opposed to have civil defense constructions repurposed for the mostly young male asylum seekers”

Yes, because they are asylum seekers. That means they are basically told by the government what to do. This is the failure of government centrally planning migration. Legalise them, which is what free migration means, and they will find their own place to live.

“yet it is done. And the villages which refuse, have to pay a fine. I guess your argument would be correct for immigrants with a higher education. But I think my response does, in general, address the argument of forced integration.”

I am not advocating forced integration. But then let us get rid of that, and not support another layer of regulations by licensing people.

“A king has an incentive to look at the good “quality” of the immigrants, while the democratic leader has an interest to get “bums”,”

It is highly problematic to equate a king to a private land owner. To equate the state as a private owner is basically negating everything that libertarianism stands for. But on the practical observation that monarchies make more libertarian policies, there is very little evidence for that. Most Kingdoms throughout history, and also presently, are run very badly. The best, one could point to are small kingdoms like Lichtenstein or Monaco. But there it is not clear whether they are better, because they are kingdoms, or because they are small and need to come up with good rules in order to compete for capital. And they are mostly only good when it comes to tax rates. After all, there are plenty of small democracies, like Jersey or Andorra, with equally good policies. It is particularly weird that Hoppe likes Austria Hungary. The word Kafkaesque was first used to describe the bureaucracy in that state.

“In your summary it is quite evident how much contempt you show for Hoppe, and I think you make a crass mistake.”

Yes, I do have contempt for Hoppe, precisely because I believe he is not stupid. He does these things deliberately. The goal seems to be to regroup nationalism under the neutral banner of libertarianism, since these ideas have been discredited under all the original banners. Where he is making a big mistake is, to think that we can have a nicer, libertarian nationalism, without all the nasty things that this ideology has produced in the past. That is a terrible illusion. Similar to the illusion when people think that we could have a nicer form of communism. There is a reason why communism and nationalism produced nasty outcomes, every time they have been tried. And a good indicator for that is that we now have ex-libertarians, like Cantwell and Spencer, who not so long ago pronounced loudly that the Hoppe crowd were the truly principled thin libertarians, marching hand in hand with swastikas. Hoppe, and the Mises Institute trying to present this as some kind of unfortunate twist. But in reality it is all here in the arguments that they are making. They are arguing to forcefully keep people separate, under the label of liberty.

“But more than that, you should think of how you make yourself look. If one were to compare Hoppe’s work and yours, and were to make a decision amongst the two, to which do you think might he be inclined to gravitate to?”

It is not my concern to seek approval from Hoppe followers, who seems to have formed a little cult. I am interested in good argument. And for people who have a similar interest, they will see that Hoppe’s arguments are deeply flawed.

“One last side-note. I really dislike the way you argue. Amongst a variety of content you pick one thing, and take that apart, ignoring all the rest which might serve as relevant context to have him fit into an easy to understand opposing caricature.”

Yes, I am picking on the contradictions in an argument. And you only need one contradiction for an argument to fall apart. You can prove any theory, and I mean any theory, if you just focus on the things that seem to justify it and ignore the contradictions.

“How could Hoppe ever hope to make an argument, if he had to consider such a approach to his work every time he picked up a pen?”

By being consistent, and avoid contradictions.

61# Aaron Kahland
November 13, 2017 , 12:05 pm
Reply

@nico

Hoppe sees migration as an issue that can and should be addressed in the context of property rights – just as ‘free markets’ does not mean free stuff – free migration would mean the freedom to migrate anywhere one liked.

You conflate freedom of movement with freedom to settle – this is the core of your misunderstanding of Hoppe.

62# Nico Metten
November 13, 2017 , 12:12 pm
Reply
1

@Aaron Because they are the same from a libertarian point of view. All that matters is, is a person violating someone else’s liberty. How long someone is staying has nothing to do with it.

63# Aaron Kahland
November 13, 2017 , 12:20 pm
Reply

@nico

You have not (and cannot) explain how a restrictive policy of immigration is a restriction of liberty.

64# Nico Metten
November 13, 2017 , 12:26 pm
Reply
1

@aaronk That is self evident, and not even Hoppe tries to deny that. The government is telling people that they cannot take a job, buy a house, rent a space etc, without government permission. It is obviously restricting people’s liberty on both sides of the border. If you cannot see that then you need to go back and start at the very beginning with the question of what liberty is.

65# Aaron Kahland
November 13, 2017 , 12:32 pm
Reply

@nico

First – it is not true that all libertarians believe property rights is the equivalent to freedom. Frank van Dun for one disagrees.

Second, I was not referring to a state policy of immigration – instead I was referring to a legitimate policy of immigration – i.e. a libertarian one of the type Hoppe articulates – which you oppose.

If the state refuses a person the legal permission to buy a house or take a job – then indeed that is a policy of restriction – however, it does not follow that under a system of private law, that person would be able to buy that same house or take that same job.

If you disagree with me all you have to do is ask the question whether or not a gated community has the right to place restrictions on new citizens.

66# Nico Metten
November 13, 2017 , 12:36 pm
Reply
1

@aaronk “If you disagree with me all you have to do is ask the question whether or not a gated community has the right to place restrictions on new citizens.”

That is a straw man. No on argues against that. It is about whether libertarians should support state immigrations controls.

67# Aaron Kahland
November 13, 2017 , 12:51 pm
Reply

@nico

It’s not a strawman Nico – I said clearly ‘if you disagree (with private law enforcing restrictions) then answer this question.’

It is not a question of whether a libertarian should support state immigration controls. It is a question of whether there should be immigration restriction given the existence of the state. Because if you don’t – you are arguing for state-control of immigration – only from the other side of the same coin – Open Borders or the state preventing any restriction.

68# Cathy Cuthbert
November 14, 2017 , 10:55 pm
Reply
0

Good luck Aaron. I tried for weeks to explain exactly your point to Nico and he just can’t (or won’t) get it. None of these left libs can, and that includes Larken Rose, who seems incapable of having a rational debate on the matter and descends into virtue signaling and insults.

Borders are a govt project, whether open or closed. There are no truly “open borders” in the Western countries. Currently, the borders are open only to poor third world people. Doesn’t that make any of these people stop and think? The movement of people from third world countries to first world is unprecedented in scope and scale. Instead of researching cultural marxism or answering some inconvenient questions, Nico chooses to repeat his mantra.

Keep trying, though. Maybe you’ll get through to him.

Hey, Nico, have you been following what’s going on in Hungary, and your boy, the nazi agent Soros?

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/14/hungary-pm-united-states-europe-plotters-using-mass-migration-create-post-national-post-christian-federation/

69# Mal Roarke is a pseudonym…
November 13, 2017 , 1:38 pm
Reply
0

@aaronk

To your point: We all get to USE the Road; no one gets a Veto.

After all, using roads for travel *IS WHY* roads are constructed!! Put gates at your driveway if you want to block off your private property…

More arguments FOR Open Borders—this time (unbeknownst to HH but [“clearly” beknownst to Aarons Kahland]) from the pen of Hans-Hermann Hoppe!”

https://web.archive.org/web/20161205004608/http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=16.msg58#msg58

70# Aaron Kahland
November 13, 2017 , 4:00 pm
Reply

Mal – what road? Are you aware of how many roads were constructed by the government after deploying eminent domain? Are you aware that they were then financed via taxation? Public roads are stolen property.

Taking your position to the extreme – the government could confiscate all land using eminent domain laws and construct roads everywhere. Thereafter all would have access rights and there’d be no more private property. In fact Hoppe makes the argument that the government builds roads in excess in order to force integration by using the very argument you make here i.e. ‘We all get to USE the Road; no one gets a Veto.’

You’re wrong – your argument is bunk – your link is ridiculous nonsensical gibberish. But.. even if you were right – so what? Using roads is movement not migration. So your position is either irrelevant, wrong or a combination of the two.

71# Eric Naville
November 13, 2017 , 4:00 pm
Reply

@nico The word refugee for some reason did not come to mind, People do take in immigrants. I made a blunder.

I admit a mistake. I still exist.

I could not more clearly elaborate on Hoppe’s line of thought than I did. I think it would not make sense for me to further try.

Thanks for your response.

72# Mal Roarke is a pseudonym…
November 13, 2017 , 8:40 pm
Reply
0

Aaron Kahlan,

The link I provided prefaced “what road?”

EXCERPT: “Now, how do we satisfy the very legitimate concerns of (y)our fellow taxpayers who
A) paid for the same roadways, and
B) don’t want them here?”

“Zack Bass” rightly pointed out the following:

“We all get to use the Road; no one gets a Veto.”

After all, using roads for travel *IS* why roads are constructed!! Put gates at your driveway if you want to block off your private property!

…EXCERPT: “The non-sequitur in the last 3 sentences–See Hans-Hermann Hoppe quoted section in prior link–is that there is no grounds presented to DENY them access to what is historically public and clearly NON-EXCLUSIVE property that connects and provides access to all the private, EXCLUSIVE properties. Furthermore, Hoppe implies that EVERYONE inside a country is on his (Hoppe’s) bandwagon to ban immigrants. Indeed–and as I show later in this critique–if only one Austrian, Swiss and Italian taxpayer issues an invitation to all humans in the world, then, by Hoppe’s own logic, there is no “bandwagon” and any and all humans could exercise the invitation to use that public, NON-EXCLUSIVE property”…

tinyurl.com/Hoppe-border-W

73# Aaron Kahland
November 13, 2017 , 10:45 pm
Reply

Sorry, but surely you jest..

you simply repeat yourself as though your position has not already been thoroughly pulled to pieces.

74# Mal Roarke is a pseudonym…
November 14, 2017 , 12:47 am
Reply
0

@aaronk

You need to go look up your teacher’s work and realize he got this fatal flaw in his work. I totally get that you’re not going to do that…

The rest of us who might have read the work already and have excerpted the part, the relevant parts and put them on one page are going to be able to go yeah Hoppe is a Phd, he did make a jump in his logic. Certainly looks like he did! Why deny it?

Oh yeah, Atlas even pulled a couple of excerpts from that link that he prefaced as a “Cross Reference” so that anyone interrested won’t wonder how to have to wade through all of Hoppe’s total work but if they want to they know where to start.

Now we come to this guy this gal this aaron from kahland-whoiski who is throwing a tizzy about someone who makes it perfectly clear what’s going on…

I leave you dear reader with the prior link and another cross reference that uncovers the particular antics of mssrs Aaron Kahland.

Watch “Larken Rose: The Dishonesty of Closed-Border Anarchists” on YouTube

PS I’m certainly not saying Aaron is an anarchist however, well I’ll let Larken step in regarding the rest…

75# Aaron Kahland
November 14, 2017 , 8:38 am
Reply

Mal, if you have a position you’re evidently unable to articulate it. Your writing is terrible which doesn’t help.

76# Mal Roarke is a pseudonym…
November 14, 2017 , 11:05 pm
Reply

@atlasaikido It’s all about what a road is and more (the two different mind sets and attitudes that emanate from either/or embodiements…wow approx 75 minutes in it takes off…)

Enjoy.

Correction:
Watch “Borders & Libertarianism: Larken Rose vs Christopher Chase Rachels” on YouTube

PS Same caveat, same non-imperial non-sir channel, regarding “not saying Aaron is an anarchist however, well I’ll let Larken step in regarding the rest…”

PPS Interestingly, there are others, like Aaron that don’t know what a road is–is it any wonder some–too many ask “but who will build–[control]–the roads–[most especially regarding spontaneous order and methodological individualism]”?

77# Cathy Cuthbert
November 15, 2017 , 4:26 am
Reply
1

Maybe Nico and Mal can understand the “borders are a govt program” thesis by reading Lew Rockwell’s article.

https://web.archive.org/web/20161114190818/https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/lew-rockwell/open-borders-assault-private-property/

In particular: [On freedom of movement] Libertarians do not believe in any such principle in the abstract. I do not have the right to wander into your house, or into your gated community, or into Disneyworld, or onto your private beach, or onto Jay-Z ‘s private island. As with “freedom of speech,” private property is the relevant factor here. I can move onto any property I myself own or whose owner wishes to have me. I cannot simply go wherever I like.”

And “[Murray Rothbard] noted, for instance, the large number of ethnic Russians whom Stalin settled in Estonia. This was not done so that Baltic people could enjoy the fruits of diversity. It never is. It was done in an attempt to destroy an existing culture, and in the process to make a people more docile and less likely to cause problems for the Soviet empire.”

78# Mal Roarke is a pseudonym…
November 15, 2017 , 7:33 am
Reply
0

@ccuthber perhaps you understand that you do not own the road exclusively. And indeed try to understand that you do not have exclusive ownership of the movement of human beings…

Do you? Travel presupposes movement…the road is not your house…without movement you might as well be a plant in a pod.

If you want to live in a world where you need to make a contract with every movement you make then you are asking for more statism. Your Papiers please!

The link I provided is very clear about this. As is the youtube I posted. And indeed it is Hans Herman Hoppe you should take your issues to. Do you care that his logic has a fatal flaw it? Do you need to be duped to get your way?

He is the one who thru sleight of hand has gotten you all tied up in your own libertarian and anarchist in name only panty waists…

Sheesh…Hans Herman Hoppe’s OWN logic supports my position. A position he does not want. He worked it thru and at the last turn made a non sequitur from his OWN LOGIC! See my prior link.

Sit down and think for a minute. Work it thru. It’s not hard. The road is not your house.
|
Hoppe’s logic supports this. Not his last final conclusion. Why because he dropped his own context!! He contradicted himself. It’s in black and white. Simple. When you wake up from the spell you are under you will wonder how the hell you fell for it!
|
If I want to invite someone to visit me that person and I have a right to use the road.

You do not have the right to stop him or me because you have suspicion of your enemy images. If he turns out to be a criminal then you have recourse.

Pre-crime is alive and well on this site. It’s kind of disappointing…

AtlasAikido

79# Cathy Cuthbert
November 15, 2017 , 12:48 pm
Reply
0

@ccuthbert perhaps you understand that you do not own the road exclusively. And indeed try to understand that you do not have exclusive ownership of the movement of human beings…

“Do you? Travel presupposes movement…the road is not your house…without movement you might as well be a plant in a pod.”

Of course I know I don’t have “exclusive ownership of the movement of human beings,” whatever that’s supposed to mean. That is wholly irrelevant to this discussion. No one is trying to discuss that point. In fact, I’ve never heard anyone say such a thing before. You’re out in left field.

There is a distinction between travel for tourism, commerce, etc, ie, just passing through, and travel with the intention of staying permanently. We are not talking about “travel” but of immigration.

Hoppe says that in a anarchist society with inviolable property rights:
1. all property would be owned by private parties, and therefore
2. no one could immigrate without the permission of the property owners.

What is so weird about this? It’s simply common sense.

Hoppe posits that the property owners would require guarantees that the immigrant not be a burden on them. Again, is this so strange? Of course not. Some kind of guarantee in the form of sponsorship by a citizen or proof of sufficient income used to be required for immigration into the US, and is still required by many countries around the world, including most of latin america (income requirement). Why is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander?

Why are left-libs engaging in their idiotic hysteria ponzi scheme about immigration? Have they no knowledge of history, or the common practices around the world? And I have just seen that one of these hysterics has found a new libertarian right, the right to travel (or freedom of movement) which takes precedence over property rights. Really? REALLY? Based on what?

Hoppe also points out, quite rightly, that without the lure of welfare—and I have mentioned without the financial backing of Soros et al paying impoverished people to travel—the level of immigration in general would be very low. The fact is that most people don’t want to move far from family and friends, or to countries with lousy climates or foreign customs or a language barrier.

In a perfect world—to me, that anarchist society with inviolable property rights—there wouldn’t be an immigration problem. There would be no govt borders, but there would be private property borders. Rules for immigrating would develop that would protect the host population. And very few people would immigrate anyway.

But this is not a perfect world. We have welfare states. A welfare state and open immigration are a disastrous combo bc:

1. Immigrants should not be competing for welfare dollars with native people who have been paying taxes.
2. Welfare draws immigrant bums.
3. These bums will vote for the creepy pols who let them in, who are socialist scum.
4. The welfare state will expand. Vicious cycle…

All of these things should be ringing alarm bells in rational people. To anyone who has been alive and paying attention for more than 30 years, the above evinces a design to reduce us under absolute Despotism.

My first choice is to abolish the govt. Hmm, that’s not happening. Second, abolish welfare. Hmm, that’s not happening. Third, abolish welfare for immigrants. Maybe. How about stopping all govt programs that actively recruit third world indigents? Maybe, since those are new under Obummer. How about enforcing the immigration laws that exist today? (If we’re forced to have govt, we should insist it enforce all the laws, esp bad ones. 😉 )

Notice that denigrating rational people who are against being inundated with unwelcome foreign “neighbors” who increase taxes, vote for undiluted socialism and change the culture is not on my list.

80# Aaron Kahland
November 15, 2017 , 8:34 am
Reply

You do realize you’re part of the reason people think Americans are stupid don’t you?

81# Mal Roarke is a pseudonym…
November 15, 2017 , 8:05 pm
Reply
0

@ccuthbert

I hear you…and what is important to you especially

Re: ‘Of course I know I don’t have “exclusive ownership of the movement of human beings,” whatever that’s supposed to mean. That is wholly irrelevant to this discussion. No one is trying to discuss that point. In fact, I’ve never heard anyone say such a thing before. You’re out in left field.’

…you want to ignore what is out in left field for you…?

Transitioning to a named sense of Left field: Where supposedly no man has been before…
———-

Hoppe’s position is suspect and you don’t know why…perhaps you owe it to yourself to know why? That part is simple.

What’s a little harder:

Left Field
———-

You’ve observed *almost* all of your total sense of the universe screams that Hoppe’s conclusion must be so–even if he made a fatal error in his own logic? Perhaps that is where you must look..

Pause…

You are clearly in a good place. You are waking up to the fact something does not sit right for you…

How would you propose I do that regarding your *almost* total sense that left field is out of the question? Is it? I say look there Cathy…

I will tell you from my own experience and process it is the remnant implicit knowledge still in you that has not been stamped out of you!

It calls you, it wants you to know. It wants to be heard. It wants you to know. Forget words like “stupid” used by others on this thread. Those are words taught and passed around to stop you from connecting with yourself…

It is likely murky and it’s a grey wall for you…sit with it. Relax. Look for handles that address it and why it calls you.

Welcome that murky unknown. Every time your mind goes to what you already know bring yourself back and tell yourself you are on a journey to a part of yourself that is hidden, raw, fresh, enlivening and appearing right now.

Treat it as a guest. What does it want to tell you?

You identified it…kind of..now you are gropping…percolating…sitting with it…

Waiting for a shift…a aha, eureka

You have the tools in front of you. Sit down and ask yourself?

What has roads got do with this? I could use prior excerpt posts and insert ellipses where roads pertain…maybe better go to prior link I supplied and look for where the roads go yourself…

…Fortunately you can read the link I provided and listen to last larken rose youtube gets into it hot and heavy 75 minutes in…

I say hot and heavy because one proponent has corporatist, statism pre-crime suspicion in his body, in his spirit and all his machinations scream more of the same.

He literally can’t hear Larken Rose. But what is Larken’s embodiement of the concept and principle of freedom of movement? Is it in left field?

What is Larken saying, how does it play out…

Regarding another “consensus reality”: Holding left field and right field polarities need not split you they can make you bigger…

I am here for you…let me know how this lands in and on you?

AtlasAikido

82# Eric Naville
November 15, 2017 , 9:18 pm
Reply
0

I would like to argue your position, Mal.

This thread is about 1) “Hoppe” and 2) his position on “immigration”. Altough I consider Hoppe consistent, I don’t think that it is vital whether or not one considers him to be in order to come to a conclusion about the argument, and I don’t think that the premise of open- vs closed-border advocates has to be immigration, which is why I’d like to remove the two from the equation, so to avoid a debate that is about something else entirely.

My argument would be about 1) the “freedom of movement” and consequently 2) the “morality” thereof. Neither of them are a primary topic of this thread, which is why I propose to have the argument via e-mail. If you like, you can initiate the conversation with a message to eric.naville@gmail.com.

I’m looking forward to it,
Eric

83# Mal Roarke is a pseudonym…
November 16, 2017 , 4:32 am
Reply
0

@bawdyness

Well, Nico’s article on Hoppe as I remember it makes several references to “movement” as it relates to freedom of movement of individuals compounded…

So, I’m “honestly” not sure the 2 part “equation”–on freedom of movement and NAP moral principle–with caveats as proposed by you is off the table as it relates to Hoppe and Nico’s article…

I agree with Nico: “We do not have to trick people into Libertarianism. If we cannot argue honestly, this movement will fail”. And Hoppe’s not off the hook on that one…

I’m working that thru. Presumably that’s what this is about?

To be able to provide access to all the private, [EXCLUSIVE properties connected via what is historically]
public [and clearly NON-EXCLUSIVE property] as it relates to freedom of movement of individuals compounded.

Which some disagree including its relevance that serious Libertarians and the NAP as a moral principle is under serious attack by clever charlatans, sophists, nihilists and hermeneutists with
PhDs and foreign accents…

So What is a libertarian?

A libertarian is a person who believes that *no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation*.

Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.”

– L. Neil Smith
(The Non-Aggression Principle is *underlined/asterisked* in the statement above.)

It is by ignoring the Non-Aggression Principle that people who pretend to be libertarians–i.e. LINOs, “Libertarians In Name Only” such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe and his followers Lew Rockwell–get away with advocating more and more government intervention in our daily lives.

How can this be? One might ask?

An aside I’m sharing: What I wrote below is where Eric’s interest perhaps lay?

Let Eric try to remove the Hoppe component…as if it does not have a moral component etc etc….

Yes, yes while denying what Hoppe has done as a leader in libertarian movement which has cued confusion to all the penguines who have jumped off the libertarian ice floe because of him and his first followers…(ah yes I hear, but they are free to move…[till they enact Hoppe’s proposal without examining or rebutting that it is a fatal sleight of hand].

Hmm here are some brief excerpts of my AtlasAikido travels as it relates to my position with the above facets:

I agree “…Jeffrey Tucker points out that NON INTERFERENCE with migration–[freedom of movement]–will allow individuals to SORT OUT what Statism deems impossible without command control, social engineering [nor need of sleight of hand].

Ref: Mathew Reece posted this as it relates liberty (dot) me/discuss/t/tucker-vs-cantwell-on-REFUGEES/

I continue …”I have answered you [bionic mosquito] with a post that speaks to examples of methodological individualism and Spontaneous Order–[which is premised on freedom of movement and human ignorance in making calculations for others]–in Germany.

You did not respond to that first post where I answer the following question with such examples as how criminal elements that exist in all populations are being dealt with by women using NAP principle and arming themselves”…

…”Who would have foreseen individual European women Spontaneuosly demanding self protection (from rape) in the form of hand guns (the ultimate NAP solution to victim disarmement) in orders of magnitude [freedom of movement compounded] such that they cleaned out all the retail gun outlet supplies in Germany in response to the flood of migrants in the EU. What started with a few women and outlets apparently affected a whole country!”…

Which led into this:

“Closing private property is a personal choice of the owner. Closing national borders is a violation of NAP. It violates my right to trade with invited vendors (CC Dennis Wilson’s Hoppe article:) and it violates my right to freely travel to visit other people.

When you abandon principles (NAP), you become part of the problem. The NAP is the guide and principle by which you separate the charlatans, sophists, nihilists and hermeneutists.

Serious Libertarians and the NAP is again under serious attack by clever charlatans, sophists, nihilists and hermeneutists with
PhDs and foreign accents. For reasons unknown his peers [and his followers including Eric] will not point out his *logical errors*. I did!

AtlasAikido

Footnotes

More arguments FOR Open Borders—this time (unbeknownst to him) from the pen of Hans-Hermann Hoppe!

https://web.archive.org/web/20161205004608/http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=16.msg58#msg58

Open Borders: Case Study
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2015/11/open-borders-case-study.html?m=1

Larken Watch “Borders & Libertarianism: Larken Rose vs Christopher Chase Rachels” on YouTube

84# Eric Naville
November 16, 2017 , 4:39 pm
Reply
0

Plants are all statists,
No priniciples ingrained.
Pro-borders are sadists
– A Rose in disdain.

After listening Hans-Hermann
Only anger remains.
Let’s purge off the vermin!
This infidel invasion supporting disgrace on the level of Keynes!

Don’t make all these strawmen
And alas! -stop with the slighting hand!
And by the way – have you heard the omen?
Movement is equal to settlement!

I am not making a case,
I am creating a cause.
It is the greatest chase,
Hunting these NAP hating government paws.

Regards,
Eric

85# Mal Roarke is a pseudonym…
November 16, 2017 , 8:32 pm
Reply
0

@bawdyness

See The Demonization of the Other by Marco Den Ouden

‘When Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote Democracy: The God That Failed, he railed against immigration lauding absolute monarchs of yore who not only kept out riff-raff but also got rid of them, something he opined was lacking with democracy.

“Unlike a king, a democratic ruler undertakes little to actively expel [“purge”] those people whose presence within the country constitutes a negative externality (human trash which drives individual property values down).” Human trash!

In a comment on Facebook, one of Hoppe’s acolytes wrote about “shit tier people” [“vermin”]. Others have gone to great lengths to demonize Muslims [“infidel”]’…

https (colon) //jollylibertarian (dot) liberty (dot) me/the-demonization-of-the-other/

I refer to and concur with (Coralyn H) comments on a FEE article by Jeffrey Tucker: ‘Libertarianism does not resolve such conflicts by categorically elevating heterogeneity over homogeneity…

Nor the reverse [homogeneity over heterogeneity].

That’s a chocolate vs vanilla debate. .[although that is a statist position/quagmire is it not? And it causes what? See Eric’s poem]

The preferred degree of heterogeneity vs homogeneity in different areas of one’s own life varies by individual.

Libertarianism merely offers the framework within which each individual can choose…[See AtlasAkido prior post]’.

To Caralyn Herenschrict and Dennis Lee Wilson’s points on Jeffrey Tucker’s “How Much Homogeneity Does Society Need?” on FEE,

Per Dennis: ‘Hoppe is so much more than “embarrassingly sophomoric”…

He commits blatant logical fallacies…

What I find embarrassing is the silence on this issue from his “peers” at Mises.org!’

Footnotes
https://fee.org/articles/how-much-homogeneity-does-society-need/

86# Eric Naville
November 17, 2017 , 8:10 pm
Reply

@atlasaikido “The idea of writing from someone else’s perspective is a contradiction, because one would have to become someone else to do that, this is common sense. It is impossible to exchange one’s own body with someone else’s…”

This is what I, at this point, should expect to be the reponse of the reply I didn’t write down (which I skip entirely). And the thoughtless stream of a logorrhea of quotations and misunderstandings continues, stretching the, once believed infinite, limitations of unintentional irony.

I don’t think I have a way to be made understood, if even a little poem causes nothing but additional confusion. I haven’t made many but more than is wise, it is time for me to stop with the comments.

All the best, Mal, keep up the fight (but maybe change the tone).

87# Mal Roarke is a pseudonym…
November 18, 2017 , 12:03 am
Reply
0

@bawdyness

Eric,

Apparently the nature of poems, even yours, breaks down…

Perhaps your poem is obfuscating?

Poetry is hard to do much with.

Poems? Don’t quit your day job.

Poems are full of allusions and misdirection and tricks with language. A play with language. Very few convey useful knowledge based on reason and logic. At best epic poems convey a sense of history.

Physics and most other subjects are taught thru reason and logic not poetry…

Instead of addressing with poetry, why don’t you address the fallacy issues that Wilson points out?

You’ve ignored the challenge. You’re evading the issue. You “consider Hoppe” to be “consistent” in the face of logical fallacies Mr. Wilson pointed out. So defend your position.

I will take it that if you don’t then you either can’t or won’t?

AtlasAikido

Thoughts? Comments?