Comments (35)

• banker

  Below is my personal experience/opinion and not a multiculturalism diatribe (I don't like pc mc):

  Maybe it is the way I was raised or the circumstances in where I grew up, but I don't worry about the collective whole, cultural mass thing that this article seems to be referring to. Where I lived, no one was born in Florida and moved within the last 10-20 years and most people didn't have that much in common.

  My personal opinion is that I don't really care about the cultural stuff (I don't even speak Spanish, my supposed mother tongue). Perhaps it was the fault of my parents for not instilling me a sense of identity with my ethnic/racial group. I am not the only one who has had this experience. I just worry about family friends, family, and, of course, myself. I have no concern for "society as a whole" as I am sure many people don't (of course helping strangers you meet is good too). Wasn't individuality the basis for libertarianism? Why worry about whether people you don't know are reproducing offspring? If you want to have kids, then have kids. It is none of my business, but I would hardly call it the end of the world if some people choose not to procreate.

  To summarize, change is something that scares a lot of people. It is a future that is not known before hand, but it is not a libertarian ideal (IMHO) to use the government to "freeze" things the way they are forever. Find one place on the face of the planet that has had the same homogeneous population/culture since the beginning of civilization (very rare, usually an island). Also, the welfare state is not a very good reason to want to restrict immigration (maybe overcrowding).

  Published: September 15, 2006 6:41 AM

• Mark Brabson

  banker:

  I think you brought up a point which has not previously been made.

  Society/Cultures do not have rights. They don't have property rights. Cultures have come and gone for all recorded history.

  Only individuals are capable of possessing property rights and other rights. While it might be expediant to conform with a local culture, any attempt to force conformity is violence and against Libertarian principles.

  I bring this up, only because on the other thread, it seems like a lot of people were attributing priviledges to society as a whole that it cannot possibly have.

  Published: September 15, 2006 8:18 AM

• Person

  Libertarian restrictionists: reconciling free trade and restricted immigration.
  
  Ordinary Person(OP): Gosh, I don't like how all these immigrants are moving to the place with the same arbitrary political boundaries as me, that really makes me feel bad and no one can judge what I really value but me.*
  So-called Libertarian(SL):Awww, you poor thing, let me implement some state restrictions on immigration, taxation to fund a border guard, and biometric ID/SSN checks to make you feel better.
  OP:Gosh, I don't like all these cheap imports flooding in, it wears down our culture and I think it's going to cost me my job, that really makes me feel bad and no one can judge what I really value but me.
  SL:Suck it up, slacker.
  
  *Hoppe supports immigration restrictions even if there were no public services, on grounds of individuals no liking certain people being near them.

  Published: September 15, 2006 9:51 AM

• Jeffrey

  This guy "person" is not even worth responding to.

  But onward to substance. What makes me crazy about the anti-immigrationist argument is that it never seems to consider the costs associated with the alternative regime of state-enforced restricted immigration, among which are that business people go to jail, we all get national ID cards, and Leviathan rules who we can hire, fire, or visit our shores.

  To me this is like denouncing capitalism without considering the costs of socialism.

  Published: September 15, 2006 11:06 AM

• Reactionary

  Jeffrey,

  The alternative is far worse: social democracy with a global tax base, existing into perpetuity.

  Incidentally, businessmen already can be jailed or bankrupted for hiring or firing the wrong people under the civil rights laws the multicultural empire uses to maintain its existence.

  Published: September 15, 2006 11:15 AM

• banker

  Person made a good point I think; how can one advocate free trade, but support restrictions on immigration? Is shipping boxes of toilet paper across imaginary lines drawn on a piece of paper 200 years ago different from a human crossing said line?

  Published: September 15, 2006 11:17 AM

• Laurence Vance

  How can one advocate free trade but support restrictions on immigration? Easy. I may want someone's goods on my property but not that someone. As Hoppe has pointed out, the issue is property.

  Published: September 15, 2006 11:29 AM

• jeffrey

  Reactionary, our choices are not between the fascism of the anti-immigrant police state and the socialism of the forced-association phoney-rights state. Liberalism is a third way, and that means decentralized law, private property, and free association and disassociation. There is something about this immigration debate that compels people into forgetting about first principles.

  Published: September 15, 2006 11:44 AM

• Reactionary

  "Liberalism is a third way...There is something about this immigration debate that compels people into forgetting about first principles."

  Or, they see liberalism under attack by the importation of non-liberals.

  Published: September 15, 2006 12:20 PM

• Person

  How can one advocate free trade but support restrictions on immigration? Easy. I may want someone's goods on my property but not that someone. As Hoppe has pointed out, the issue is property.
  
  Hey Larry -- thanks for missing the point entirely. Immigrants aren't on "your property". They're on someone else's property. "but but but ... but ... what about the public property I 'really' partly own!!!!". Um, okay, so goods can't be moved on that property either?
  
  Try to maintain consistency, that's all I'm saying.
  
  jeffrey -- yes, people do forget first princples, very easily. On literally EVERY other issue, libertarians say regarding restrictions on freedom of association "forget that law! Just break it! The state has no right to do regulate that! Screw the consequences." But then when it comes to immigration, *suddenly* the lawbreakers are villans. You almost think they're twisting their principles into knots to carve out narrow exceptions...

  Published: September 15, 2006 12:53 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Jeffrey,

  Let me respond just to see if I’m following you correctly:

  "Reactionary, our choices are not between the fascism of the anti-immigrant police state and the socialism of the forced-association phoney-rights state.�

  I’m not sure what you mean by “choice�. We get what we are given based on this system of some shifting mix of social democratic welfare socialism, social engineering and conservative forms of socialism. Liberalism does not seem to be on the horizon and so does not appear to me to be what falls under the category of “choice�.

  “Liberalism is a third way, and that means decentralized law, private property, and free association and disassociation.�

  Liberalism is certainly something to advocate, agitate for and promote. But this third way: is it something we can have if we simply realize it is just? I think rather, the immigration question we are discussing is not “should the state dissolve and allow the market to deal with new-comers�, where the answer to this is simply “yes�. The question is, given the state will not dissolve, and will continue to aggressively monopolize and expropriate, regulate, and dictate, what is the least damaging thing it can do with respect to the immigration question. And the least damaging thing it can do is very far from choosing a policy of completely open borders.

  “There is something about this immigration debate that compels people into forgetting about first principles."

  I think rather, it is merely the specific question that gets forgotten. The question is, given that the state does and will continue to hamper and prevent the market from regulating the volume and nature of new-comers to this region, should the state at least act more, rather than less responsibly to its citizens. The not-open borders camp says “yes (please)�.

  Published: September 15, 2006 1:39 PM

• PR

  I’m not sure what you mean by “choice�. We get what we are given based on this system of some shifting mix of social democratic welfare socialism, social engineering and conservative forms of socialism. Liberalism does not seem to be on the horizon and so does not appear to me to be what falls under the category of “choice�.

  Since it is unlikely that policymakers will consult anyone on this forum regardless, where is the advantage of choosing what's mainstream over what's right? Why raise the question at all if the only accepted answer is "whatever the powers that be decide?"

  Published: September 15, 2006 2:05 PM

• Paul Edwards

  PR,

  “Since it is unlikely that policymakers will consult anyone on this forum regardless, where is the advantage of choosing what's mainstream over what's right? Why raise the question at all if the only accepted answer is "whatever the powers that be decide?"

  Well, if we wish to merely discuss what is right, then I think we can all agree that the state should be disbanded and it should let the market determine new-comer influx. That is a very simple and easily justifiable position. Whatever the problem, chances are a valid solution is anarchy.

  But there is confusion. Some people think that a state enforced policy of open borders is closer to anarchy than any other policy. This is where the disagreement arises, and I think that view is incorrect.
  

  Published: September 15, 2006 2:20 PM

• Reactionary

  Mark,

  The point is not that cultures have rights. The point is that people have a right to their culture.

  Published: September 15, 2006 2:31 PM

• Mark Brabson

  I would insist that people cannot have rights as a group. Not to anything. Only persons, INDIVIDUALLY, can have rights.

  That bit of semantics taken care of. :)

  Culture is not a item. It is not a possession. It cannot be property. It is really just a state of mind. Since it cannot be owned, there can be no right to it.

  I can enjoy my cultural preferences on my own private property, my neighbor's private property or on businesses that cater to my particular preferences.

  If immigrants come in, acquire private property and form businesses, then they should be able to indulge their cultural preferences on their respective private property and businesses.

  Considering that Europeans came in and completely wiped out indigenous cultures and seized private property, I am not sure we have anything to complain about in the area of culture. And also, maybe the fact that California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming were seized in a naked imperial war from Mexico.

  Published: September 15, 2006 3:12 PM

• Reactionary

  Mark,

  The following are all examples of collective ownership of property: agricultural cooperatives, country clubs, mutual insurers, tenants in common, joint tenants, business entities. It is really not much of a step from a business entity deciding who gets on the property (over the dissent of minority shareholders, if need be) to a polity deciding the same thing. I think you recognize this, which is why you throw out that culture is just a state of mind and therefore you have no right to it. But your thoughts are incorporeal and you surely have a right to them. Rights themselves are simply constructs for that matter.

  I am all for Mexicans, Italians, whoever, having their own culture so long as I am free to hook up with like-minded folks to preserve my little slice of heaven too. As the situation currently stands, we do not have that option. Multicultural empires are maintained by force.

  I'm glad you mention the indigenous peoples because their history tells an important lesson: open borders result in the destruction of the native culture.

  The American Southwest was bought and paid for in the Gadsden Purchase. Your "imperial war" is a silly canard. And in any event, it simply underscores my point.

  Published: September 15, 2006 4:10 PM

• Mark Brabson

  The Gadsden Purchase was made in 1853, several years AFTER the Mexican cession. While the Gadsden Purchase was voluntary on the part of Mexico, the Mexican cession most certainly was not. The Mexican cession was obtained under duress at the Treaty of Guadulupe Hidalgo in 1848. They are two separate events.

  As far as the collective ownership of property examples you describe. Again, while the property may be collectively owned, each individual has his specific rights in the property.

  Published: September 15, 2006 4:38 PM

• Anthony Gregory

  How can people have a "right to their culture"? Culture is a complex fabric resulting from billions of individuals' peaceful and non-peaceful choices. People have a right to do whatever they want, within the ehtic of private property, and I've yet to see anyone explain how the state can possibly impose restrictions on immigration without intolerably violating the rights of individuals.

  Published: September 15, 2006 7:51 PM

• Reactionary

  Anthony,

  I don't really agree with the libertarian ethic anyway, but taking your argument at face value, it cannot be denied that restricting immigration culd violate somebody's rights. As a practical matter though, is the state reduced or expanded by importing millions of additional welfare-warfare state constituents whose loyalty is to the central government? Substantively though, since there is no right to travel nor any corresponding right to insist that intervening property owers grant an easement or do business with your invitees, I fail to see the "intolerable violation" of rights.

  Re: your first question, how far are you willing to go with that? Should an Amish farm or Catholic monastery have to abide a group of homosexual exhibitionists who move in next door? By what right do you purport to deprive people of the peace and quiet enjoyment of their property? Again, this is why I think your position is basically disingenuous and Gramscian.

  Published: September 18, 2006 9:50 AM

• banker

  " By what right do you purport to deprive people of the peace and quiet enjoyment of their property? Again, this is why I think your position is basically disingenuous and Gramscian."--

  Since your neighbor must be suffering living next to you, how come he/she has not tried to throw you off your property? I would think someone in their position would want to move you as far away as possible (maybe, Antartica?).

  Maybe the welfare hogging grandparents of yours who came from another continent should have been turned back, for your presence here is a pollution to this great country of mine. At least, you should not have been given citizenship just for being born here because you do not live up to the ideals of this country's great forefathers.

  Published: September 18, 2006 10:06 AM

• Paul Edwards

  Reactionary,

  “I don't really agree with the libertarian ethic anyway�

  You don’t agree with non-aggression? Then your attempts to justify your position represent a contradiction. If you do not object to aggression in principle, it is odd that you should attempt to show to those who do, why a non-aggression principle justifies a property right to exclusion. If you consider your justifications merely idle word games with no weight, and you would aggress against new-comers without justification, then you simply loose any justifiable complaint if someone took up banker’s suggestion and aggressed against you and threw you off your own property, which only the libertarian ethic can allow you to have legitimate and undeniable claim to in the first place.
  

  Published: September 18, 2006 10:33 AM

• Reactionary

  Paul,

  Under the libertarian ethic, I would be unable to do what was necessary to maintain a libertarian social order. It therefore strikes me as a philosophy that can only apply in a theoretical world where nobody need impose any externalities on anybody else. In reality, some level of non-consensual coercion is always going to take place in any society above individual autarchy. Immigration becomes a political question at that point.

  Published: September 18, 2006 11:42 AM

• Stephan Kinsella

  Reactionary:

  Under the libertarian ethic, I would be unable to do what was necessary to maintain a libertarian social order.

  This is confused. The reason to be in favor of a libertarian social order is because one is opposed to aggression. So how could one argue that in order to avoid aggression, aggression must be committed? Are you in favor of, or opposed to, aggression? Both? It seems the latter. Which means you are really not opposed to aggression per se, but only some types of aggression--some types you oppose, some types you favor. Just like socialists and criminals.

  It therefore strikes me as a philosophy that can only apply in a theoretical world where nobody need impose any externalities on anybody else.

  This is confused. What do you mean "that can only apply"? If I say murder is wrong, how does that prescription or norm "apply"? How is its validity affected by whether or not it is "realistic" to "expect" or "predict" that there will "therefore" "never" be murder again? This is a category mistake.

  Published: September 18, 2006 11:56 AM

• Paul Edwards

  Reactionary,

  “Under the libertarian ethic, I would be unable to do what was necessary to maintain a libertarian social order.�

  I think you are confusing the libertarian non-aggression axiom with the NON-libertarian non-defensive-violence and non-defensive-coercion axioms. The latter two concepts play no strict role in libertarian thought. I would certainly agree with you that it would be a most absurd and chaotic position to hold that one has a right to property and yet no right to violently defend it against violent incursion; or a right not to be aggressed against, and yet no right to use violent force to defend against such aggression. It would certainly be a most useless and pathetic ethic indeed. Therefore, it should be a great relief to you to find out that there is room in the libertarian ethic for both the justification of peace, and a justification for violence in defense of property.

  Have you read any of Stephan Kinsella’s libertarian work in the area of justice and in particular, his elaboration of the concept of estoppel?

  Published: September 18, 2006 12:04 PM

• Reactionary

  Stephan and Paul,

  In order to maintain its character, a libertarian society would have to discriminate against non-libertarians and, at that point, violate its own fundamental principle of non-aggression. So either the principle is wrong or rather, it's just not up to the task of explaining reality.

  The NAP also leads to a Gordian knot of conflicting rights. To take an extreme example, do you have a right to masturbate on your front yard? Are you not aggressing on the feelings of others, say, the nice old Baptist lady across the street? Why must her right to her sensibilities give way to your right to engage in sexual deviance on your own property? And if, in fact, we have a right to our sensibilities, then under the non-aggression principle, ANY act that intruded on anybody else's person or their thoughts would have to be proscribed: smoking, dressing in a manner offensive to some, and on and on.

  Best just to let people segregate into like-minded communities so such conflicts can be minimized then. But eventually people are going to be at loggerheads over a particular issue and SOME procedure has to be formulated so one person can carry the day and life can go on.

  Complete non-aggression requires a state of individual autarchy that simply does not exist for anybody but Robinson Crusoe.

  Published: September 18, 2006 12:29 PM

• Vince Daliessio

  Reactionary,

  “Under the libertarian ethic, I would be unable to do what was necessary to maintain a libertarian social order.�

  This is a conflation (deliberate or otherwise) of the libertarian non-aggression principle, which if followed gives rise to a spontaneous peaceful "social" order, with some kind of government force with which one claims to seek to "establish" a "social order". This is an important distinction.

  The non-aggression principle proscribes the use of force except to defend or compel restitution of justly-aquired property. This is not the same as "pacifism", defined as the complete eschewing of force, whether offensive or defensive.

  Lets stick to clean arguments on principles, not clutter them up with confusing or deliberately misleading statements.

  Published: September 18, 2006 12:36 PM

• Stephan Kinsella

  Reactionary, I find your last post evasive and/or still confused. You imply that libertarianism is against discriminating against non-libertarians. This is utterly untrue. It actually implies discriminating against non-libertarians (i.e., criminals). What are you talking about? You seem to think non-aggression means non-discrimination and/or non-violence. It is neither.

  You say the NAP is "not up to the task of explaining reality." Again, confused. the NAP is a prescriptive, normative rule. Not a descriptive/explanatory one. Is the rule "you should not murder people" "up to the task of explaining reality"?

  The NAP also leads to a Gordian knot of conflicting rights. To take an extreme example, do you have a right to masturbate on your front yard? Are you not aggressing on the feelings of others,

  Actually the NAP is the only one that avoids conflicts of rights. The NAP is a condensed way of expressing the normative principle that for a given scarce resource, ownership should be assigned to the homesteader or his contractual transferee in title. It has nothing to do with "rights" in "feelings".

  Published: September 18, 2006 12:41 PM

• Anthony Gregory

  I think Reactionary is being consistent, though, at least in realizing that state immigration controls involve aggression and violate strict libertarian principle.

  If one actually thinks that aggression is never justified, that the state and taxes are never justified, I fail to see how he can think the state's immigration controls, funded by taxation and otherwise involving aggression, can be justified.

  Published: September 18, 2006 12:49 PM

• Vince Daliessio

  Reactionary;

  "In order to maintain its character, a libertarian society would have to discriminate against non-libertarians and, at that point, violate its own fundamental principle of non-aggression."

  Hogwash. For, example, the US to become a libertarian (nation?), the government would simply have to get out of the force monopoly and property-ownership businesses. Individuals and groups could defend their own property. In no way is the non-aggression principle necessarily violated.

  Similarly, as to your theoretical public masturbator, he would very quickly find that his behavior causes complications in peacefulrade with his neighbors. Plus, they could threaten to withold mutual defense from him, a strong incentive for him to masturbate indoors, or at least erect a fence, pardon the pun.

  But in either case, there is no "society" (I submit, simply your code word for government)to enforce anything, simply the peaceful spontaneous order of the market. If that isn't enough for you, then YOU are the offender here.

  Published: September 18, 2006 12:53 PM

• Vince Daliessio

  "your theoretical public masturbator, he would very quickly find that his behavior causes complications in peacefulrade with his neighbors."

  I meant "peaceful trade", of course.

  Published: September 18, 2006 12:57 PM

• Stephan Kinsella

  Teeboy, a couple comments. First, if you assume that immigration controls mainly amount to rules by the state as to who can or cannot use public property, and if you assume the "real" owners are the citizens who have the right to choose not to let immigrants use it, then there is no aggression in the first place.

  And second: let's assume it is aggression to restrict immigration. Do you not concede that there are some situations in life in which one is faced with two or more alternatives, all of which involve rights violations? That is, the non-rights-violating option is just not on the table.

  Published: September 18, 2006 1:14 PM

• Reactionary

  Anthony is correct. I do believe restrictions on immigration would violate somebody's "rights" under the libertarian dialectic, though which rights I'm not sure, since there is no right to travel nor right to demand an easement for your invitees. And again, I fail to see how we're going to arrive at the Mises Institute's libertarian ideal by importing millions of social democrats.

  What likely disqualifies me from the libertarian club is that I do believe people have a right to defend their culture and their way of life, and what happens when people fail or are unable to do so is documented in the history of the American Indians.

  Published: September 18, 2006 1:20 PM

• Anthony Gregory

  Stephan writes, "First, if you assume that immigration controls mainly amount to rules by the state as to who can or cannot use public property, and if you assume the 'real' owners are the citizens who have the right to choose not to let immigrants use it, then there is no aggression in the first place."

  But this can't be determined by collectivist central planning. How's the state to determine who's invited and who's not. Someone is going to have his rights trampled. Any argument that can make an exception for immigration controls has a parallel for making exceptions for welfare—indeed, the "public" can always decide that it, as the "real owners" of the public sphere, can demand that those who use it pay a fee for certain services, or otherwise follow rules as a condition of using the public sphere. Allowing for government immigration controls because of the nature of the public sphere opens the door to all manners of social democracy.

  And fundamentally, immigration controls require taxation to finance. The main libertarian moral argument against any redistributionist welfare program is that it is funded coercively. So are immigration controls implemented by the state. They are at least as unlibertarian as welfare. If it is immoral to take money from me by force for a cause I do not support, this must necessarily apply to government immigration controls.
  I disagree that immigration controls are not rights violations. But even if they are not, their funding is, just as much as welfare funding. So even if it is legitimate to keep immigrants out of the US by force, doing so with the state is illegitimate. After all, it is also legitimate to feed the poor and help the needy—but doing so with the state violates libertarian principle.

  "And second: let's assume it is aggression to restrict immigration. Do you not concede that there are some situations in life in which one is faced with two or more alternatives, all of which involve rights violations? That is, the non-rights-violating option is just not on the table."

  There might be some such situations, but I don't think libertarians should ever trust the state with this calculus. This is one of the biggest reasons we should oppose state wars that supposedly maximize liberty and human rights, taxing and aggressing against some to liberate others. On any given question of whether the state should do something, financed by taxation, the libertarian should err on the side of no.

  Published: September 18, 2006 3:14 PM

• Sione Vatu

  What is the big deal about culture? Culture is merely a collection of behaviours, habits and conventions people exhibit when going about daily activities. The way to look at it is that there are some behaviours that are acceptible and there are some that are not. There may be some variation from place to place. If you want to live there then you'd better be prepared to adapt or face consequences.

  When anyone comes into the locality they better abide by the rules and conventions over here or they'll be ostracised or possibly something more severe may occur. There is no multi-culturalism. It does not exist. People either fit in or fall out. It's all a matter of what behaviour they exhibit.

  The trouble for you guys is that your govt. places coercive barriers in the way of expressions rational self-interest when it comes to dealing with other people. For instance, you are not allowed to discriminate against those you disapprove of, whose values you reject or whose behaviour you discover to be reprehensible. That's a shame because should you be able to express your preferences openly many of the troubles that concern you would be avoided or prevented altogether.

  Forget immigrants, the real threat to your life is expressed by your own govt. Homeland security indeed!

  Sione

  PS I've been practising discrimination against collectivists, socialists and all that dishonest rabble for decades. Most of my associates ahve discovered the advantages of doing likewise.

  As as far as immigration is concerned Hoppe has it right.

  Published: September 18, 2006 9:49 PM

• Anthony Gregory

  I believe in the separation of culture and state. Government immigration controls strike me as cultural protectionism.

  Published: September 19, 2006 10:27 AM