Comments (53)

• Jose Ferre

• I agree with the conclusion reached by Mr. Block concerning the radical difference between a libertarism and conservatism. Libertarians should distrust conservatism. The ideas underlying a libertarian have nothing to do with conservatism. To name a few:

  a) Libertarians believe in the individual (as opposed to the collective). Conservatives not necessarily. I know a good many deal of affluent conservatives who always insist that the individual is not an end in itself but should pay heed to the needs of society.

  b) Conservatives tend to be religious. They are rooted in the Christian ideas. And to be true, many of the ideas currently underlying religion (ANY religion) are opposed to considering the individual as an end in himself. A true libertarian who believes in reason and liberty to fulfil the needs of the individual can hardly accept many ideas underlying religion (i.e. accepting the original sin, among countless others). This is why religious people tend to feel more confortable (in spite of superficial disputes) with a socialist than with a true libertarian. If individualism (libertarianism) is pushed to its logical conclusions, most of the teachings of religion are radically at odds with the ideal of liberty.

  I am pretty sure (and I would like to find a book deeping on this issue) that the decline of libertarian ideas in XIX century was due to the betrayal of conservatism. Conservatism should have bitterly opposed the collectivistic ideas that were being bred. In my oppinion even some kind of proportionate violence should have been justified. Why? Because it would have been self defence against the violation of property rights. However, they did not enough on two grounds: (a) Intellectually a conservatist has no idea about the need for freedom. Their goal is preserve the "status quo", not freedom; (b) Their religious creeds prevented them from "destroying" (both intellectually and materially -as self defence-)from the very beginning the spreading of the carcinogenic ideas of socialism. To some extent, deep inside, they were even sympathetic to those very ideas.

  Even now when I talk to affluent conservatists, and they complain about high taxes and I tell them that their suffering is the logical outcome of collectivist creeds and that they should say "ENOUGH", I get stunned when they refuse to blame collectivism. They still thing that some "balance" between social needs and private property can be reached. With other words: Most of conservatists do not give a damn about freedom. What they want is to protect a bunch of interests, being devoid of any intellectual understanding. Full stop.

• Published: May 25, 2004 10:32 AM

• carola solomonoff

• The title of this article is so good, that the article is hardly needed!

• Published: May 25, 2004 10:46 AM

• Steven M

• I too agree with the distinction between libertarians and conservatives.

  The major point of the article, however, is absurd. Although there exist benign monarchies and dictatorships, benign democracies are more common. The only good thing to come out of the radical socialist-nationalist movements (fascism, nazism, communism, ...) was that most of them eliminated the noble class. European constitutional monarchies have an expensive vestigal layer of nobility that the state funds.

  The fact that our representatives have less incentive to propagate the apparatus of the state is on net a good thing. They do, of course, have some incentive to see that the country is not completely destroyed after their tenure because they frequently choose to live in their country and have children who are citizens of their country.

  This is also a minor point compared to the fact that we can (theoretically) throw the bumbs out of government periodically without resorting to regicide, which becomes increasingly difficult as the kings become more adept at averting it.

  
  

• Published: May 25, 2004 11:10 AM

• Aaron Ginn

• Jose,

  I have to utterly disagree with your statement about libertarianism conflicting with many of the tenets of religion. From a utilitarian PoV, that may be correct to some extent, but from a natural rights PoV, it is utterly false.

  Christianity, for example, values the individual over the collective. Each man has to come to Christ on his own terms; no one can make that decision for him. The Bible teaches that God has given each man free will to decide what to do with his life. It is up to that person to decide to follow or reject God. What could be more libertarian than that? The principle of non-agression is espoused in several passages of the Bible, particularly in the teachings of Christ (Love your neighbor and all that).

  I simply do not see any evidence to support your assertion that religious people feel more comfortable with socialists than libertarians. Wasn't one of the primary reasons the U.S. was formed was to insure that peeople had religious freedom (as well as freedom from religion)? Socialism has proven time and again to be the enemy of religion. I do not equate State-sponsered religion with all religion.

  To me, libertarianism espouses Christian principles more closely than any other political philosphy. We each have free will to make our own decisions about our life (although there are consequences for those decisions), and we each should treat one another with love and respect. I'm pretty certain Ayn Rand would have seen it differently, but all libertarians are not Objectivists.

• Published: May 25, 2004 11:22 AM

• Walt Byars

• "The major point of the article, however, is absurd. Although there exist benign monarchies and dictatorships, benign democracies are more common. "

  Congratulations for missing the entire point of Hoppe's argument about the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.

• Published: May 25, 2004 12:00 PM

• Thant Tessman

• Steven M writes "The major point of the article, however, is absurd."

  On the face of it, yes, but read the book. Hoppe's thesis is very rigorously argued and amply substantiated, yet it's one of the most intellectually courageous things I've read in years.

• Published: May 25, 2004 12:15 PM

• Jose Ferre

• I entirely agree with Walt Byars and Tahnt Tessman's comments. And I fully endorse Hoppe's book and Mr. Block's ideas.

  Hoppe's book is full of valuable insight. The problem with humanity is, however, that the most profound truths (derived from reason)are difficult to uncover and require lots of intellectual discipline.We tend to "understand" and agree with ideas that seem "intuitive" and require a relatively short chain of reasoning. Fundamental truths require quite a long chain of reasoning. And there lies the problem, many people due to (a) lack of neurons or (b) lack of intellectual discipline, try to find a shortcut which results inevitably in the wrong conclusion.

  Hence libertarian ideas are very difficult to accept and even among liberarians, when somebody as Hoppe or Rothbard tries to push the line a little bit forward, they meet opposition even within their own ranks. The most fundamental truths are the most difficult to be understood.

  Something similar occured with Ayn Rand. Quoting Reisman (author of the great book"Capitalism"), after reading Ayn Rand: "I trully thought that Atlas Shrugged would convert the country-in about six weeks. I could not understand how anyone could read it without being either convinced by what it had to say or else hospitalized of a mental breakdown"

  However, the contry was not converted and Ayn Rand is even derided among many libertarians.

  By this I mean that very offen understanding an important truth requires intellectual effort and an unbiased mind.

  Hence, I am a bit less optimistic than Rothbard in the future of libertarianism. Either we achieve a critical mass of thinking people or libertarianism will never succeed.

• Published: May 25, 2004 1:09 PM

• Skip Oliva

• Picking up on Jose's point, the reason libertarian "fundamental truths" are not understood en masse is because most people have been educated to think collectively, not individually. Most people are unwilling to consider a radical idea unless others they know and trust already advocate it. While there is no one cause of this, I place a significant amount of blame on public education, which is based on the objective falsehood that education--learning how to think--is ultimately a collective process, not an individual one.

• Published: May 25, 2004 1:59 PM

• Anonymous

• Skip Oliva has made a good point. Listen carefully to the news these days. Pay attention to the use of collective nouns as if an entire heterogeneous group of people were acting as one. The United States, Americans, Iraqis, the French, do not think and do not act. The individual is the fundamental unit of all social, economic and even political interactions. An individual can certainly act on behalf of others. Even so, that action is subject to approval or dissent.

  Not thinking in collectivist terms can be very difficult. Avoiding the patterns of speech that go with that mode of thought can be as difficult, but equally important. If you speak in collectivist terms, people who think in those terms can be excused for hearing what they have learned to hear.

• Published: May 25, 2004 2:35 PM

• Joe W

• To Aaron's comments on Christianity:

  I agree that Christianity (and other religions) is in line with the concept of free will. Each man does come to Christ on his own terms; however after fully accepting Christ he will dedicate his life to something greater than himself. I think Jose's argument concerning religious individuals comes from this dedication. A true Christian will join a church community and tithe to that community. However, when a Christian chooses to become part of the church "collective" it does not necessarily mean that she supports a socialist state forcing all members into a societal collective.

  Christians can logically support various forms of government and political beliefs.
  

• Published: May 25, 2004 3:10 PM

• tz

• Somehow Hoppe & co. cannot seem to make anything out of places like Afghanistan between the Russian withdrawl and the Taliban. When thugs would vandalize and take everything a merchannt had, there was no "dispute resoultion mechanism", and the merchants weren't able to raise a group of protectors until the Taliban ended the chaos.

  Spend some money flying all these AnarchoCapitalists ot Iraq after we pull out on the condition that they stay until they establish their Utopia (apparently it doesn't arise spontaneously), or until they die trying. Or pick any other place currently in anarchy with a lot of armed people that don't want to bother being reasoned with.

  Bob Prechter tends to support libertarian thought, but his entire research is based on the fact that people act on emotion and then rationalize the decisions. Government is irrelevant for Angels, and even coldly rational people. But some libertarians apparently believe in heaven-on-earth and discuss systems that don't involve a fallen (as a Christian would term it) or irrational (as an agnostic might) humanity.

  It isn't in hyperrational societies you find liberty - the Frence revolution threw off all religous restraint and ended in the reign of terror. Communism said it was the rational form of government. You find liberty arising spontaneosly only in societies with a judaeo-christian set of ethics generally after a revival or awakening so people aren't going to try to steal or defraud (legally or otherwise avoiding punishment).

  If my neighbor is emotionally comitted not to cheat or kill me, I don't need police or judges. If it is across an ocean, we don't need as much of a national defense. Otherwise there will always be enough rational people without ethics try to find more efficient ways of cheating and stealing, and enough people who let their emotions rule that they seek revenge against real or imagined enemies and justify that instead of being just and seeking justice for all.

  As to Atlas Shrugged, I maintain socialism would likely work if you had a zero-cost energy supply, a zero-cost invisibility/defense shield, and apparently no shortage of food or silver and gold to coin (with no mines or farms mentioned around Galt's Gulch, they apparently don't import or otherwise trade, severely restrict immigration, yet there is a mint producing specie coins and no one is starving?). Deus ex machina.
  

• Published: May 25, 2004 3:35 PM

• Sprachethiklich

• Good discussion.

  A small point of finery: What's with all the references to "unpublished manuscripts"? I would like to read them, if at all possible. If Dr. Block would either post a link or e-mail them to me privately, that would be awesome.

  "Democracy" was the second of Hoppe's books that I read right after his monograph "Economic Science and the Austrian Method" (esatam) and earlier book "The Economics and Ethics of Private Property" (eaeopp), my personal favorite for collecting a series of powerful essays on ethics, economics, philosophy, and wonderfully mixing them in the Austrian tradition to wonderful effect.

  Hey Walt, wasn't Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc the second or third West Wing episode?

  Thought so.

  And you're right. The Post Hoc fallacy genus is an excellent positive summary for the deep mining that Hoppe undertakes in Democracy to explain that what political structure is best, that governs least. And it ain't democracy. This type of revisionist theoretical analysis is daring, bold, and easy to lampoon if you don't actually engage the text.

  Engage it.

  You won't find it so easy to slipshod dismiss as absurd, ahistorical, preposterous....

  Watching Hoppe develop his a priori foundations for what I see as his particular form of praxeology that began in esatam and eaeopp is a beautiful thing to behold if you're up for it. And Democracy is, simply, a masterstroke of application of this genuinely Austrian logico-praxeological approach to political science and, in this case, revisionist history. A must read.

  Though I would read esatam first, eaeopp second, and this third. There will be repitition and overlap but this is forgiveable.

  See yas!

• Published: May 25, 2004 4:33 PM

• Joe Potts

• I've read this book, and Hoppe's argument has the inestimable virtue of passing what I call "the cocktail-party test."
  This test, applicable to any concept or argument, is, whether a position is susceptible to statement in a sufficiently succinct form that it can have persuasive impact in a conversational setting such as a cocktail party (at most of which, not just economics, but even some politics is considered "too heavy."
  The question it answers is, "What could be REALLY better than democracy, and in what ways?" a question Americans in particular are unaccustomed to considering, but which some of the more-intelligent ones are asking, I hope, with increasing frequency.
  Hoppe's answer, hereditary monarchy, evokes enough surprise to ensure at least a passing interest on the part of many as to the hows and whys. They are considerable, and they're in the book.

• Published: May 25, 2004 4:37 PM

• Jeremy Horpedahl

• Spend some money flying all these AnarchoCapitalists ot Iraq after we pull out on the condition that they stay until they establish their Utopia (apparently it doesn't arise spontaneously), or until they die trying.

  Hoppe has already addressed this issue in Does Iraq Show That We Need a State? The simple absence of a government does not represent the natural order that Hoppe and other anarcho-capitalists have attempted to describe.

• Published: May 25, 2004 4:46 PM

• David Heinrich

• tz,

  quote:

  
  Somehow Hoppe & co. cannot seem to make anything out of places like Afghanistan between the Russian withdrawl and the Taliban. When thugs would vandalize and take everything a merchannt had, there was no "dispute resoultion mechanism", and the merchants weren't able to raise a group of protectors until the Taliban ended the chaos.

  
  That's a poor line of "reasoning", if I ever saw one. After many years very strict Statist control, when the former State has been eliminated, if anarcho-capitalism doesn't spontaneously pop up, that somehow discredits the entire idea. Guess what, a free market hasn't popped up either. That doesn't discredit the fact that the free market is the most efficient way to run an economy. After the violent destruction of one State by another, chaos will result, and the region will be susceptible to the rise of another State.

  To say that, after one State has finished the complete demolition of a society and the mass-murder of it's people, because that society doesn't then spontaneously become anarcho-capitalism, discredits the idea of anarcho-capitalism, is absurd. I would suggest Hans-Hermann Hoppe's article, Does Iraq Show That We Need a State:

  http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1222

  Furthermore, it should be noted that there are three historical examples of anarcho-capitalism or near anarcho-capitalism: Ancient Ireland (anarcho-capitalistic); Ancient Iceland (ancap/minarchist); and the Wild West (ancap/minarchist).

• Published: May 25, 2004 4:56 PM

• Steve Peterson

• Per David's post, we may be getting another such example in Somalia. Currently this is given as an example of why we can't leave Iraq, but the Somali's appear (from what I've read) to have it pretty good in relation to their African neighbors. It didn't happen overnight, it's been over 10 years since the US pulled out, but things are looking up from a libertarian pov. If you're a statist, it looks like a complete disaster: no regulations, no taxes, free trade, cheap phone and internet service, etc.

  I was wondering: has anyone done a comparative study between the modern Somali "state" and the old German Holy Roman Empire of the High Middle Ages/Reformatin period? To my mind they seem to have some similarities.

• Published: May 25, 2004 6:00 PM

• Walt Byars

• I think the idea that Ancient Iceland or Ireland and other primitive societies can shed light on the viability of Anarcho-Capitalism for the present day is dubious.

  When you read about these nations (and others, such as the ones listed in Bruce Benson's book "the enterprise of law"), you see that the main method of law enforcement involved the punishment of ostracization .

  However, In our modern, complex world, it seems as if ostracization would be less of a problem than primitive, communal societies.

  On the example of the old West, I'm not too familiar with this region and time period, but weren't people very prone to moving around and dispersing?

  In his essay "The will to be free" in Hoppe's The Myth of National Defense , Jeffrey Rogers Hummel makes a convincing argument that Bandits turned into states after the agricultural revolution when people became less nomadic. He also pointed out that the fruits of crime are greater when the terrorized populace is less nomadic.

• Published: May 25, 2004 7:03 PM

• JCB

• Are libertarians to agree, then, that monarchy beats democracy? Or is that just Block's take on Hoppin' Hans Hermann? If the former, I expect we ought to hear more of this!

• Published: May 25, 2004 10:45 PM

• David Heinrich

• Walt,

  I'm not suggesting that we import the exact legal form these ancap societies took. I'm suggesting there's some things to learn from them, namely that mutual insurance protection agencies can work. The most interesting thing to learn from Ancient Iceland was that we can sell the right to punish those who aggress against us, giving even the poor person with no crime-insurance the ability to be compensated for crimes committed against him. Furthermore, your example of mainly ostracization is wrong: Ancient Iceland was similar to Kinsella's proportional punishment and restitution.

  In regards to how a modern application would work, see For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto -- The Public Sector, III - Police, Law, and the Courts. Rothbard, Murray N.

• Published: May 25, 2004 11:31 PM

• Lawrence

• I agree with Block that Hoppe's argument on the decline of civilization as being caused by the rise of democracy is very convincing, and as such, it is perhaps a significant contribution to libertarian thought. I also find his account of the failure of "classical liberals" (as proponents of limited states) quite convincing. However, I also believe there are some significant weaknesses that will likely limit the impact of this book outside libertarian circles:

  - first the very style of the book, often aggressive and harsh, is likely to scare many of the uninitiated. As a reviewer put it, this book is "not for the faint hearted". Another stylistic remark: the footnotes are in fact longer than the main text, giving the impression that one is actually reading two books in parallel. Hopefully the two can be merged in a subsequent edition.

  - the section on restricted immigration - in respect of which I agree with Block's position.

  - last but certainly not least, the piece on conservatism and libertarianism as being basically two sides of the same coin. Unlike Block, I think this is a major error, which contradicts basic libertarian principles. In particular, the statement that people with unconventional lifestyles or values should be removed from civilization or altogether eliminated sounds very much like a "constructivist" idea. At most, it may have been legitimate (but not "a priori" true) to say that those with traditional (conservative) values are likely to be successful in a libertarian society. The libertarian position, at least as I understand it, should be to accept any lifestyle or set of values as long as no coercion or infringement of other people's integrity or property rights are involved. Which values will "natural selection" end up favoring is something to be discovered or, at most, predicted. Certainly not something to decide in advance.

• Published: May 26, 2004 5:34 AM

• Walt Byars

• You're right, I got confused about Iceland in regards to ostracization (although I think it still applies to other historical examples). What I consed it with was "outlawry" in which someone is declared an outlaw and can be treated differently than the law requires. I still think this would be different in such a communal or primitive society than today. However, I did read up on Ancient Iceland after posting that, and although they were all things I had read before, I was surprised at how complex their system was.

  One of the things that I haven't seen touched on in the Libertarian literature in Ancient Iceland is this.

  It seems that if someone was accused of a crime, they were compelled to either attend court or be put to death.

  Compelling people who have not been proven guilty to die or be enslaved is not very libertarian, although the state's criminal justice system is, of course, the same way.

• Published: May 26, 2004 9:23 AM

• Brandon J. Snider

• As a libertarian, I agree with the Old Left, for example, Alex Cockburn, as much as the Old Right, say Paul Craig Roberts. Roberts and the like argue for trade barriers, which are insane, while Cockburn argues for free trade. On the other hand, Roberts understands property rights, although still agrees with eminent domain, while Cockburn's crew would view money and property from the collectivist standpoint. I see The Old Left and Right as middle-of-the-road, while libertarians are extreme on one end, with the New Left and Right on the opposite end of the spectrum. The New Left (or neolibs), say, Clinton, and the New Right (or neocons), say, Wolfowitz, are a group that I almost never agree with. They both believe in non-stop militant intervention in private society, Trotsky or Mussolini style. Michael Ledeen may have written "creative destruction has always been our middle name" as a neocon, but it applies to both sides of the "New" political spectrum.

• Published: May 26, 2004 10:52 AM

• melodius

• I totally agree with Lawrence's comments.

  Moreover, can someone explain what the difference is beween the social contract à la Rousseau and HHH's statement that governments should protect us against immigration ?

  "Democracy" would be a even stronger, and probably a much more influential book, if HHH had risen above his personal conservatism and his dislike of immigration.

• Published: May 26, 2004 11:42 AM

• Liberty Lover

• "Because at least this Prince (for that is what we plebeians must now call him) ruled in a reasonably wise and humane manner"

  History begs to differ. Most princes were petty tyrants.

  ", but in the long run he would kill or at least seriously maim the goose that was giving him all those golden eggs."

  A faulty assumption. While I am no fan of the cult of objectivism, I would say Check your premises. Princes and Kings had way too much wealth to worry about more addition. Thats the law of marginal utility. As they got more wealth they cared less about getting rich and more about satisfying their other urges like sadism and power mongering. Many kings took pleasure in oppressing peasantry.

  This book is a libertarian blunder. LRC's Speaking of Liberty and MNR's Ethics of Liberty are far much better.
  

• Published: May 26, 2004 6:15 PM

• Walt Byars

• Don't you think a King would get satisfied with wealth far more easily than a huge populace of "rent seekers"?

  And the Kings of Europe weren't so incredibly exigent in the centuries since the renaiisance. And during the middle ages, as the Historian Henri Pirenne has shown, Kings were able to be tyrannical due to a virtual blockade of the mediteranean (I'm sure I spelled that wrong) by the middle Eastern nations. Cities then shrunk, people became impovershed, and the feudal system was able to exact its control. This wouldn't happen without such extenuating circumstances.

• Published: May 26, 2004 9:21 PM

• Mike

• I think HHH views of immigration are closer to true libertarianism. The right of property is the right of exclusion.

• Published: May 27, 2004 1:36 AM

• melodius

• The right to exclude is indeed a fundamental characteristic of property rights.

  I have no problem with a libertarian society as described by HHH.

  What I do find objectionable is that, pending the advent of a libertarian society, which, let's face it, is not going to happen anytime soon, HHH suggests governments would have a mandate to stop immigration on behalf of property owners. I don't remember ever giving such a mandate to anyone. As a matter of fact, I even favor immigration on certain conditions, so I wouldn't give anybody, least of all a politician, any kind of mandate to stop immigration.

  HHH has basically found a newish justification for state power. I don't think we need important libertarian thinkers doing that.

• Published: May 27, 2004 3:30 AM

• Devin Whiting

• I am libertarian, and I'm very interested in the Austrian school. However, I think Dr. Block is simply out to make the most far-out statement he can.

  "Imagine: a treatise that actually shows democracy in a bad light compared to monarchy, and from a strong property rights and free enterprise point of view."

  (Read: Finally, I have an excuse to advocate something as strange as monarchy!)

  I believe Dr. Block, along with many of my fellow libertarians, wants to appear to have a more nuanced, even kooky point of view.

  Also, from what I see, HHH, Block, and Rockwell seem to be going Randoid (in a negative sense). Anyone left of them is a total pinko and is not an ally.

• Published: May 27, 2004 5:47 AM

• John Brownfield

• I haven't read it yet but I will. How a libertarian could manage to make the case for monarchy over democracy has to be something to behold. The article alludes to the superiority of monarchy over democracy because a monarch for life will take the long view. OK, I'll accept that as far as it goes. And he'll manage things better because other pretenders to the throne will bump him off if he screws things up too badly. I guess it's sort of an ultimate impeachment threat that's supposed to be a better guarantee of good stewardship. I'll take a shot at these two key assumptions.

  Austrians are consumed with sound monetary policy, preferably a 100% reserve true gold standard managed through truly free banking. Presumably a wise philospher-Austrian-king would implement such a policy. And history is devoid of monarchs who fell to temptation in diluting the coin of the realm and initiating widespread inflation in order to deviously obtain financing for their schemes. I think it's a safe assumption that probably sooner rather than later, once our wise king was between a rock and a hard place financially speaking, he'd chicken out and start manipulating the currency (just this once) to get his butt out of a crack.

  And when it comes to the long view, a monarch for life would have the longest view when it comes to his own survival. Saddam Hussein was an absolute master at designing a state which had as its first purpose the enrichment and protection of a single man. He skillfully coopted the military and pit citizen against citizen in a climate of total fear, with the object of making any attempt to organize against him utterly doomed to failure. Any monarch worth his salt would ensure that the military would be organized in such a way that the leadership was well and truly hitched to the monarch's gravy train, with every incentive to ensure the monarch's survival as the surest path to their own success. So who would hold the monarch accountable? The crown prince? The secret service is able to relax and allow George Bush to spend time alone and unmonitored with his wife or his brother on the assumption that they would be the least likely to wish him harm. It's virtually impossible for anyone else to get close enough to do the President harm. In the case of an embattled monarch with a great deal to fear from his siblings I'm not so sure his security detail would just blithely allow him to be assassinated by his dear brother. Perhaps the monarch would be required by law to stand before a firing squad of his relatives every so often. If they opted to pull the trigger then it counted as a vote of no confidence. If not then his steering of the ship of state was sound. It's moot really because a monarch, while not completely unlimited in power, is enough so as to be effectively above the law. Thus legal constraints against him would have little impact.

  I'll grant that in some fairytale Utopia, a wise and benevolent dictator would be better than democracy. The Roman Empire flourished under the leadership of good emporers like Marcus Aurelius, but inevitably a Caligula or Commodus came along and mucked everything up. Yes they got bumped off in the end, but not before doing a great deal of damage. And it was simply easier to bump off the king in those days. Sooner or later the wise and benevolent king would be succeeded by an incompetent or evil dictator (or both at once). Democracy is much superior to that case. Oh, and I very much doubt whether a wise and benevolent king would be able to maintain his benevolence over the long term, the long view being so important here, with power tending to corrupt and all that.

• Published: May 27, 2004 11:48 PM

• Mike

• We should have extreme restrictions on immigration. As long as I am denied the right to secede from this country, I have the right to at least choose who will be my lords and masters.

  When the day comes that all property owners are free to secede, then we can have open borders around the property of those who so desire it.

• Published: May 28, 2004 4:43 AM

• Curt Howland

• The problem with restricting immigration based on property rights is that it creates a conflict with the right to travel. Since rights cannot conflict, something is being overlooked.

  I can travel by established right of ways into the next town, where I can rent or buy property there, if available. Perfectly acceptable actions by any definition of "property".

  What difference is there between a town border "line on a map" and a country border "line on a map"?

  The logic of restricted immigration means none of us could ever leave the town we were born in, or live in any house but the family house.

  Someone who believes in restricting immigration by force is hardly "libertarian", since moving somewhere is not a violent assault on anyone else.

  Curt-

• Published: May 28, 2004 11:49 AM

• Mike

• Curt, if you came home one day and found someone you didn't know on your property, would you interfere with their right to travel?

  The logic of restricted immigration means none of us could ever leave the town we were born in, or live in any house but the family house.

  No. Up until recently, people in enjoining towns and houses were closely related and shared a common heritage and culture. Modern day massive immigration has brought people hostile to the host culture and hostile to anything approaching libertarianism. One need look no further than California when the majority of every ethnic minority voted against the ballot measure abolishing affirmative action. The open borders libertarians' answer to the problem of affirmative action is to allow more immigrants into California so affirmative action can be restored when a sufficient number of immigrants and their descendants become a voting majority.

  Someone who believes in restricting immigration by force is hardly "libertarian", since moving somewhere is not a violent assault on anyone else.

  Libertarians believe you should have the freedom to do anything that doesn't initiate fraud or violence against person or property. Refusing entry of immigrants neither initiates fraud or aggression. Therefore, restricting immigration does not violate libertarian principles.

  There is no more a right to enter a country against the wishes of its citizens than there is a right to enter the Elks Club or the Knights of Columbus against the wishes of its members.

• Published: May 31, 2004 7:57 AM

• Curt Howland

• Mike, please read "by established right of ways, to rent or buy property". I did not say trespassing, so bringing it up is a straw man argument. In fact, each and every example you present is of private property and trespassing, except for the illusionary lines on maps.

  Let's say I, in a town or country or any other arbitrary political designation you wish, have property to rent or sell. By preventing me from renting to someone for the sole reason that they are from some other arbitrary political designation is, indeed, infringing on my rights as a property owner to dispose of my property as I see fit.

  I am not talking about trespassing. I am talking about arbitrarily grouping individuals by force of law.

  I completely agree that if said traveler finds themselves in a place where no one will rent to them, or wanting to go somewhere that there no established public right of way, for whatever reason, they're SOL. To do anything else would be to again violate the right of the property owner to dispose of their property as they see fit.

  I hope this clears up your confusion.

  Curt-

• Published: May 31, 2004 8:55 AM

• Mike

• Curt, maybe this will clear up your confusion. This state, as it now exist, does not acknowledge the right of secession. I'm forced to be a party to this state. As a forced party to this state, I have every right to exclude people who I know cause problems, not for business owners in their gated-suburbs far away from immigrants but for me and everyone else.

  When the day comes that we have the right of secession, then you and anyone else will be free to form a country where anyone can waltz in whenever they feel like it. It would be interesting to see, however, how much enthusiasm remains for massive immigration when the people who want it bear the whole cost and responsibility for it.

• Published: June 1, 2004 7:34 AM

• Shirley Knott

• Mike, I think you're missing the point.
  Your response amounts to "Because I have no right of secession, I have no right to sell my property to whomsoever I wish, regardless of their 'country of origin'." Of course, you might simply be arguing that anybody can sell anybody else any property, but the "rights" of "citizenship" can be restricted on the basis of the existing restriction against secession.
  Otherwise, your position certainly smacks of a libertarian finding yet another justification for government power to intervene in our freedoms.

  Shirley Knott

• Published: June 1, 2004 10:05 AM

• Mike

• Of course, you might simply be arguing that anybody can sell anybody else any property, but the "rights" of "citizenship" can be restricted on the basis of the existing restriction against secession.

  That is pretty close to what I'm saying. Open borders into a country with welfare, affirmative action, and no right of secession amounts to anti-libertarian forced association, and anti-libertarian forced taxation.

• Published: June 1, 2004 10:47 AM

• Shirley Knott

• But then the more appropriate Libertarian response ought to be to reduce if not eliminate the impositions of the state, rather than enlarge them, would it not?
  Is it really the case that you and others making this sort of argument would rather not bother reducing the state's impacts but instead find it easier to enlarge the state in the name of freedom?
  I can make no sense of "anti-libertarian forced association" as a result of my decision to sell my property to someone with whom you would not willingly associate. And that, let us be clear, is the root of the matter -- do I or do I not have a full and proper right to sell my property to any willing buyer, regardless of how unappealing my neighbors might find that buyer?
  If I do, how can you justify wholesale restrictions on immigration?

  Shirley Knott

• Published: June 1, 2004 11:11 AM

• Doug Smith

• Shirley,

  Anti-discrimination laws operate to socialize the cost of immigration, and this is manifested in the extremely high rate of consumption of entry into the U.S.

  In practical terms, it makes no sense in the cause of liberty to import people from cultures which are social democratic at best, and violent kleptocracies at worst.

• Published: June 1, 2004 12:22 PM

• Shirley Knott

• Doug, Your assertion about anit-discrimination laws appears to be historically naieve, and likely irrelevent to questions of immigration. Regardless, I'm not at all convinced that it makes sense to discuss the sale of property under the aegis of 'import[ing ] people from cultures which are social democratic at best, and violent kleptocracies at worst.'
  I fear that we are in the midst of an argument over how to use new actions of government to make the prior actions of government more palatable.
  Its disgusting and inappropriate.
  ANY talk of 'restricting immigration' that puts the state ahead of the interests of the parties buying and selling property is non-libertarian at best, gross evil at worst.

  Shirley

• Published: June 1, 2004 2:19 PM

• Doug Smith

• Shirley,

  I regard the anarcho-capitalist arguments for freedom of contract as perfectly valid. However, in the context of the involuntary nation-state to which I pay taxes, I see nothing wrong with limiting the importation of yet more net tax consumers. I see it as advancing the cause of liberty by depriving the government of another constituency.

  "Civil rights" laws mean that people like me who would prefer to discriminate against certain immigrants are not allowed to do so. We have to bear the social and economic costs attendant with plopping an alien culture down in our midst whether we like it or not. This is why the libertarian argument for immigration is incomplete. Of course you have the right to contract with whomever you wish, but when an externality results in the costs of that transaction being shifted to others, then I see nothing which violates libertarian principles in demanding that such transactions not take place until the costs will be borne solely by the willing participants.

• Published: June 1, 2004 4:19 PM

• Curt Howland

• Doug,

  Then tell me what benefits Massachusetts has to erect barriers to immigration from Alabama? Or how New York must prevent migrant workers from New Jersey coming in and "taking New York citizens' jobs".

  I will go out on a limb and assert that there is NO COST to immigration that is not far offset by the increase in motivated individuals trying to make their lives better.

  The socialist straw-men of "cost of state services" and "public property" are based on the costs THAT THOSE ABUSES incur. Immigrants are merely scapegoats used to shift the blame for that abuse to people who cannot defend themselves.

  Were such "services" voluntary, paid for by the people who use them, immigrants would be welcome for the same reason that shop owners and landlords welcome them. But then, if "state services" weren't paid for by force, they wouldn't be "state services" would they?

  In your final sentence you sum it up well, actually. You finally blame the "services" themselves. So make all state services dependent on citizenship. Where's the argument then against "immigration"?

• Published: June 2, 2004 7:47 AM

• Mike

• Is it really the case that you and others making this sort of argument would rather not bother reducing the state's impacts but instead find it easier to enlarge the state in the name of freedom?

  On the contrary, we would reduce the states impact on our lives by restricting the state's number one supporters, immigrants.

  I can make no sense of "anti-libertarian forced association" as a result of my decision to sell my property to someone with whom you would not willingly associate. And that, let us be clear, is the root of the matter -- do I or do I not have a full and proper right to sell my property to any willing buyer, regardless of how unappealing my neighbors might find that buyer?
  If I do, how can you justify wholesale restrictions on immigration?

  You have an unrestricted right to sell your property to any willing buyer when you bear the whole cost and responsibility for doing so. When I and other third parties are bearing the lion's share of the cost and responsibility for your choices, we have a right to a say in the matter and a right to protect our property and liberty.

  Shirley, you keep mentioning the property owners who want immigration. What about the overwhelming majority of property owners who, according to polls, want less immigration? Is the pro-immigration side entitled to dictate over the rest of us?

  Under pure libertarianism, when all countries are voluntary arrangements made up of individual property owners, there would be, one supposes, countries with open borders, countries with semi-open borders, countries with closed borders, and countries with semi-closed borders. We are, however, not even close to being at that point in history when we live under pure libertarianism. Since we don't have a right of secession (now) and since one country cannot have open, semi-open, closed, and semi-closed borders at the same time, someone is going to be displeased. The idea that only the pro-open borders side is worthy of not being displeased and by divine right is the only side fit to make the rule for everyone is absurd. The pro-immigration side is not on the side of the angels, or even on the side of liberty. As long as my life, liberty, and property is intimately wrapped up in the country that rules over me, and ultimately determined by the demography of that country, I have every right to secure my life, liberty, and property, up to and including restricting immigration.

• Published: June 2, 2004 8:01 AM

• Mike

• Then tell me what benefits Massachusetts has to erect barriers to immigration from Alabama? Or how New York must prevent migrant workers from New Jersey coming in and "taking New York citizens' jobs".

  Maybe when Alabamans coming into Massachusetts start demanding affirmative action, multicultural ecucation, and the institution of an Islamic state there will be a demand on the part of the citizens of Massachusetts for immigrant restrictions on Alabamans.

  The socialist straw-men of "cost of state services" and "public property" are based on the costs THAT THOSE ABUSES incur. Immigrants are merely scapegoats used to shift the blame for that abuse to people who cannot defend themselves.

  Accusing your oponents of scapegoating is the typical ploy of the politically correct. The faith some people seem to hold in immigrants amounts to nothing more than a religion.
  

• Published: June 2, 2004 8:18 AM

• Shirley Knott

• Mike,
  re: "Shirley, you keep mentioning the property owners who want immigration. What about the overwhelming majority of property owners who, according to polls, want less immigration? Is the pro-immigration side entitled to dictate over the rest of us?"
  You misunderstand my position, and, worse, you misunderstand property and liberty.
  My position *HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRATION PER SE*. From an anarcho-capitalist standpoint, there really is no such thing; there are merely property transactions.
  Your complaint, in the most gracious form I can cast it, is that by selling property to those who happen to be 'foreigners', those who might (or might not! -- you've not defended your absurd assertions about the rise of statism in the US) avail themselves of "public" benefits provided by the state, I must perforce approve of 'immigration'. No, I refuse to allow you to drag the extraneous bs of *possible* violations of your presumed rights and comforts by those who chose to do business with me into the question of whether that business is acceptable.
  But no matter.
  The core of the issue seems to be revealed in your remarks as quoted above. It really doesn't matter whether you alone, or you and some number of others, or everybody except me, thinks that it is illegitimate for me to sell my property as I see fit -- you don't own it, you don't get a say in it. I suppose you believe that, were you my neighbor, you ought to have a say in how I keep my lawn, or what color I paint my house? Being a property owner gives no one any rights over the property of any other property owner -- period.
  And my property transactions *AS SUCH* do not, and cannot, harm you in any fashion such that you may pre-emptively apply the power of the state to reduce my pool of potential customers.
  Your beef is not with 'immigration' or even 'foreigners' (as I read you -- I could be wrong), your beef is with the fact that at least some of those who enter this country become burdens on us.
  Fine. I feel equally outraged. But the cure is not to reduce the pool of potential customers. The fix is to eliminate the free-loading, and the theft on which it is based.
  No other approach can be libertarian, ie, commited to and in alignment with, the principle of non-initiation of force.
  To repeat -- neither you nor anyone else has any legitimate grounds for interfering in my transactions -- regardless of your fears that I may be transacting with one who will, in some future and entirely other transaction, take advantage of the fact that the state steals money from you, and gives it away to those who you would rather not see get it. "Don't go after the fence, go after the thief!" And even more so -- don't go after the legitimate businessmen show customers may be thieves or beneficiaries of thievery, go get the thief!

  Shirly Knott

  
  

• Published: June 2, 2004 1:58 PM

• Curt Howland

• Mike says, "On the contrary, we would reduce the states impact on our lives by restricting the state's number one supporters, immigrants."

  Ah. So this is the core of your entire argument, grouping everyone who wants to immigrate into a mass you get to denigrate and use as scapegoats.

  Here I thought the essence of Austrian economics was respect for the individual and their choices, rather than arbitrary groups.

• Published: June 2, 2004 4:32 PM

• Doug Smith

• Curt,

  The essence of Austrian economics is that man acts to substitute one state of affairs for another state of affairs. The economic conclusion to be drawn from state-controlled immigration is that it is a form of rent-seeking. State-controlled immigration is also a form of compulsory association. Switching gears from economics to philosophy, both of these are violations of other people's rights.

  A posteriori, if an individual's exercise of freedom of contract will result in a violation of the rights of other individuals, then that individual should refrain from the contract.

  In terms of practical politics, immigration into a social democracy (which the US is, make no mistake) does nothing to advance the cause of limited government. In fact, it has the opposite effect.

• Published: June 3, 2004 2:03 PM

• Shirley Knott

• Doug,
  Two major errors in your post.
  First, it is inconceivable that a private transaction between private individuals regarding solely their private property can violate the rights of others. It is inconceivable because it is contradictory.
  Second, if you assertions in the second paragraph are correct, the Free State Project is not merely ill-conceived but doomed a priori. The claim that "immigration into a social democracy ... does nothing to advance the cause of limited government" is neither a priori true nor any sort of law of nature. While the statement may be trivially true (movement of persons from location to location does not, in and of itself, impact the form of government, that interpretation renders the statement so obvious as to be puerile, and so useless as to be a waste of breath (or electrons) to utter.
  The forces of "anti-immigration" are the folks who are perfectly happy to initiate the use of force to get their own way. Mike has made that clear using 'arguments' no better than, and pretty much the same as, yours.
  There is no possible libertarian statement of 'anti-immigration' as policy other than "As a matter of historical accident, this group at this piont in time contains no members who are willing to trade their real estate with persons outside the community for any inducement whatsoever."
  Any talk of "communities" restricting "immigration" is inherently collectivist and state-based. And thus wrong-headed at best, and evil at its core.

  Shirley Knott

• Published: June 4, 2004 7:14 AM

• Doug Smith

• Shirley,

  Your statement of my first "major error" is a straw man. State-controlled immigration is not "a private transaction between private individuals regarding solely their private property." If that were the case, immigration would be a matter of you and your immigrant customers or employees paying intervening property owners to get them to your property. If one or more intervening owners did not want to grant them ingress, that would be the end of the journey. That would be immigration in an anarcho-capitalist society. By contrast, the current immigration scheme consists of rent seeking and compulsory association.

  Your attempt to deconstruct my second "major error" is barely coherent. To the extent I am able to interpret it, it appears ignorant of reality. Immigrants are mostly poor and abundantly eager to consume government services. Government of course grows to serve this natural constituency.

• Published: June 4, 2004 9:48 AM

• Shirley Knott

• Doug,
  You have misunderstood. I think you and Mike are trying to make this much harder than it really is (perhaps because that's the only way you can sneak your conclusion into the argument).
  It is really not hard.
  I live in a community and own property.
  The community has no rights to my property.
  The community has no complaint with me if I sell my property to someone else in the community.
  (I assume nothing up to this point is controversial and is agreed to by us all.)
  Now you and Mike are proposing that there is some class of potential purchasers of my property which, because of their characteristics [worse, presumed characteristics], members of the community would rather not see me sell to.
  Whence cometh the purported 'right' to limit my market of potential customers to only those the rest of the community approves? You don't own me, you don't own my property, you don't own any right to restrict my pool of potential customers.
  State control of immigration asserts this right, but no one on this thread has managed to show where it comes from *on libertarian terms*.
  Your only recourse is to purchase the property yourself. You have no right to insert the violence of the state by preventing me from selling to a willing buyer -- regardless of whether you approve of the buyer or not.
  The problems of rent seeking, consumption of government services, etc., are not well addressed by increase of state power. They cannot be.
  You do not reduce the power of the state by increasing the power of the state. (duh)
  If you want to eliminate the rent seeking and consumption of government services, reduce government. Eliminate wellfare for non-citizens. Etc. Elimination of the non-citizens, while attractive to non-libertarian minds, is not a libertarian position.

  How are you going to restrict immigration other than by increasing the scope of gov't intervention in our lives?
  How can you justify that on a strict non-initiation of violence foundation?
  How does the sale of my home (for example) to a foreigner (or a black person) force association in a way that violates your rights? And if I have not violated your rights, how can you claim a right to intervene in my activities?
  That some who enter (even if 'some' is a vast majority) might wind up violating property rights is not something that justifies pre-emptive intervention of the state.

  Shirley Knott
  

• Published: June 4, 2004 11:18 AM

• Doug Smith

• Shirley,

  As has been patiently explained to you, we do not dispute the a priori right to contract with whomever you wish. It should be noted though that in a libertarian society where all property is privately owned, immigrants and those wishing to contract with them would have to negotiate access rights in order for the immigrants to cross property lines to get to your property. Your neighbors would also be free to shun the immigrants, post "English Only" signs, refuse them goods and services, etc. In such a society, the costs of immigration would be borne directly and solely by immigrants and those wishing to deal with them.

  A fact of existence is that we live in a social democracy where the government, through anti-discrimination laws and its monopoly on border control, shifts the costs of immigration to people other than the immigrants and their customers, employers, etc. Libertarian immigration proponents cling to an a priori property right while ignoring the fact that a posteriori, in the United States the exercise of that particular right is going to violate the rights of others by forcing them to associate with people they don't want to and paying the costs for additional net tax consumers.

  Given these facts, it is perfectly moral and reasonable to request of the government that the exercise of this right be prohibited or sharply reduced until such time as the costs attendant with the exercise of this right will be borne solely by voluntary participants to the transaction. Your counter has been that this will expand government. My reply is that it requires a lot less government to post the military along our borders, like other nations do, than to pay for EASL instructors and all the alphabet agencies responsible for enforcing "civil rights" and distributing government largesse to immigrants and other favored constituencies.

  A point which remains unaddressed: you are going to find very few advocates for libertarianism among the ranks of immigrants. On the contrary, you will find most immigrants favor all manner of government services. It makes no sense in the cause of liberty to import such people into this country.

• Published: June 4, 2004 2:33 PM

• Curt Howland

• Doug, you say, "It makes no sense in the cause of liberty to import such people into this country."

  This is your fundamental error. No one is "importing" anything. It is YOU who advocate the use of force to prevent individuals from making peaceful transactions that you do not approve of.

  Each of your negative situations involve abuse of state power. Abusing peaceful people because you do not like the abuses of the state that you live in is not a rational act. The two are not related.

  Curt-

• Published: June 5, 2004 8:45 AM

• Doug Smith

• Curt,

  The federal government (which actually has no Constitutional authority in this area) is importing net tax consumers in order to increase its constituency. Net tax consumers do not read Mises and Rothbard and they do not vote or otherwise act to kill the goose that laid their golden egg. That is the reality that pro-immigration libertarians refuse to face.

  State controlled immigration is not a "peaceful transaction." It is compulsory association and rent seeking.

• Published: June 5, 2004 9:50 PM

• Robert Lucas

• It is very interesting to see the United States decaying due to the Judean immigrants who where forced to left Europe due their anti-social charater and inability to adapt to moder culture of urban entities.

  So, watch out, all you islanders of the new world: The Judean pilosophers', "the economistas", story is just as closed as their models are. The fallacy of the islamist threat has come obvious, and the origins of the crises in the domestic crises in American Judaism is more and more evident. Ya can't help it.

• Published: March 14, 2006 9:23 AM