Beautiful Chaos
It is possible, writes P. Gardner Goldsmith, that Jefferson and Madison, Paine and Mason did not go far enough in dismantling the apparatus of the state in its generic sense, but their efforts were remarkable, and one can be satisfied that they made their arguments very clear, set them down in plain text, and tried to insure for us that government would not interfere to a large extent in our lives. It would be nice if both paleoconservatives and neoconservatives would honor their efforts, and expand the defense of individual liberty for future generations. Before they do, they need to understand the traps inherent in supporting even a limited government protecting our "natural rights." FULL ARTICLE
Comments (32)
Easy to read, yet forceful. Well done!
Published: April 27, 2007 7:56 PM
Maybe I missed it, but how would the rule of law be enforced under your system? What is to prevent totally unfettered buying of influence in the media and compromising of watchdog groups? It seems to me that our sorry state of government by, for, and of lobbyists is the result of commercial free speech since 1978, and actually argues against your market theory. How does a truly free market protect itself from coercion and conspiracies? How long can an organism survive with no immune system?
Published: April 27, 2007 9:02 PM
Very good article. Yes indeed, Who is watching the watchers?. There will be those that will look for perfection in all actions of our lives and not finding it will crave those who promise them that, but never see the contradictions involved.
Lets just aim for less government in our lives.
Fortunately for forums such as this one there is hope. Capitalism can prevail for it is Justice in action for all.
Published: April 27, 2007 10:16 PM
"Locke explains that if a man enjoys the protection that the state provides, he is duty bound to give up some portion of his property in the support of it, concluding with this internally contradictory statement: 'But still, it must be with his own consent, that is, the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives, chosen by them [italics added].'"
Only a wooden interpretation of Locke, and ignorance of the context of natural law theory in which he wrote, would claim that Locke contradicted himself. Was Locke so stupid as not to be able to see his own contradictions? Maybe he never proof read or even reviewed his own writings, but I doubt it.
Someone said the consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Not that consistency in unimportant, but that little minds quickly find facile contradictions hoping those will destroy the credibility of their opponent. In reality, those "contradictions" are mere paradoxes, which reveal a much greater truth than little minds can grasp when someone puts in the effort to reconcile them.
Locke assumed that the protection service provided by the state was a good thing shared by all citizens. To enjoy that good without paying for it is a form of theft from those who do pay for it, also known as the free rider problem. Free ridership also threatens the continuation of that service protection, and ultimately the state. He saw the total lack of a state as resulting in mass violence, theft and chaos.
The only way that Locke could contradict himself is if he considered property to be an absolute right. Neither he nor any other natural law writer consider it to be. Underlying all of their writings is the idea that the state is a necessary good and requires the support of citizens from their property. In addition, they believed that only the state has the write to take property and only for very specific purposes. Locke would never have supported the growth of the US government after the Civil War.
Published: April 28, 2007 11:22 AM
"It would be nice if both paleoconservatives and neoconservatives would honor their efforts, and expand the defense of individual liberty for future generations. Before they do, they need to understand the traps inherent in supporting even a limited government protecting our "natural rights." Only then can they warn themselves of the outcomes of policies that might look wise or politically expedient, but which do us all great harm in the end."
I can't agree more! Very nice conclusion!
Published: April 28, 2007 11:24 AM
Great article, but I have yet to hear libertarians address the questions where the market fails. It's great to have a security "opt-in" group, but if you are a child molester, rapist, abuser, etc. it's easy to "opt-out"... and your family and those around (often the poor!) will pay the price.
The defenseless need protection, whether those are children of abusive parents, the poor, the cheap, the unwise, society should not look on as they are attacked and exploited. Look how well lack of government worked in Mogadishu/Somalia, not some arcane example from 100+ years ago... there are lots of current examples of anarchy-laden society for examples of how well they work.
Published: April 28, 2007 12:36 PM
First, THANK YOU to Jeffrey Tucker and the Mises Institute for doing such an amazing job with my article. This was originally intended to be the final chapter for a book which I will soon be completing, called, "Live Free or Die". In it, I had often taken the Lockean/historical approach to many American political issues, and I realized that there was an underlying, unsupportable assumption to the so-called "negative" role of the state. This led to making sure that I did right to the readers, and investigated Locke's paradox.
Your comments are terrific, and I appreciate such thoughtful writing. To Roger M, I would note these brief responses. Roger mentions this:
"Locke assumed that the protection service provided by the state was a good thing shared by all citizens."
The key there, Roger M, is the word "assumed". Locke's assumption is invalid. Police protection is not a good shared equally by everyone. I disagree with you that one has a wooden understanding of Locke when one challenges assumptions such as this, which are so clearly false.
In addition, you mentioned this:
"To enjoy that good without paying for it is a form of theft from those who do pay for it, also known as the free rider problem."
First, it is intellectually difficult to justify the idea that someone must be forced to pay for something because the majority assumes it is helping him, and the majority has voted to provide it. especially if the protective service is promoted to be much more efficient and useful than it truly is. One could tell his neighbor that it is just to take money from him for unemployment insurance, despite the fact that he may never be unemployed. The rationale that could be utlized would be something along the lines of: "provision of unemployment insurance gives us a sense of security, even if we never need it..." This would be much like someone saying, "provision of police services gives us all a sense of security, even if we never use it and even if it has only a limited capacity to actually deter crime. Therefore, we must all pay for it in order to avoid the free-rider problem." I do not find such argumentation compelling.
Functional capitalism within a system of property rules achieved through the market solves the free-rider problem, and eliminates the moral quandary of forcing someone to pay for something he would not choose for himself.
To Todd, I would like to mention that in my article I endeavor to show that many of your worries are unfounded regarding what could happen if private security systems were created to replace government systems. I disagree with you that commerce and the media have corrupted government. I believe it is clearly the other way around. The power of government to influence markets (the media markets and others) in a mercantilist manner has given us a situation wherein the government is corrupting business. Remember, business is not insulated from competition, from the demands of consumers, unless government steps in to protect it from competition. A truly free market protects itself from coercion and conspiracies by its very nature. Under a market paradigm, mercantilist conspiracies cannot find shelter behind non-market forces, behind government forces that are insulated from competition, that cater to political interests rather than consumers, that can play favorites not by having to satisfy the customer, but by passing laws and regulations that retard competition. In market societies, businesses must satisfy the consumers and must remain transparent to the level that the consumers find satisfactory. Government does not have to do that. In fact, it is in the best interest of politicians to eliminate transparency, because that allows them to hand out more favors.
Responsiveness and satisfaction are all consumer driven in a market society. Thus, WE are the watchers in such a system, and we all have a say. Even people with less capital have their market demands satisfied. In a government system, the Watchers are not us, but those who also claim that no one needs to watch them.
As I mentioned in my article, a private security and justice system would not become one run by the wealthiest, and preying upon the poor, because the poor can decide whether they want to participate, just like they can decide whether to buy a product in stores today. It is axiomatic, and empirically clear, that the market attempts to include people of all levels of financial ability, because that maximized profits. Efficiency, productivity, inclusion of various levels of market participation -- all lead to greater profits by private firms.
Private justice systems would operate in the same fashion, without the barely answerable favoritism inherent in the government paradigm.
Thank you for your ideas. This is the kind of excellent exchange that could keep the participants up until late at night around a table in someone's home. Great stuff.
Published: April 28, 2007 12:39 PM
By the way, if anyone can name the source for the title of the piece, you will get a virtual high-five...
Hint: Think post-punk. And don't go Googling to get it! (smile) That would be too easy!
Published: April 28, 2007 12:49 PM
Jason said:
"Great article, but I have yet to hear libertarians address the questions where the market fails. It's great to have a security "opt-in" group, but if you are a child molester, rapist, abuser, etc. it's easy to "opt-out"... and your family and those around (often the poor!) will pay the price.
The defenseless need protection, whether those are children of abusive parents, the poor, the cheap, the unwise, society should not look on as they are attacked and exploited."
A good article addressing this problem was written by Stefan Molyneux a while ago:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux16.html
I would think if that you're worried about the poor going unprotected, a situation wherein no one has any incentive to expand protection or treat people fairly--indeed, one that criminalizes owning foliage like marijuana--would not exactly be your first choice. (Besides, poverty would be basically gone without taxes, and people are naturally beneficent towards people who are genuinely less fortunate.)
As for Somalia, the problem with that country is that outside states (namely, the United States and its satellites, via the massive military budget of the U.S.) have tried to establish central governments more than ten times over the last decade, not to mention that its last central government was a dictatorship. Most of the chaos we are aware of comes from our only brief glances at the country through the media when the government starts a conflict there: most of the time, it is peaceful, and in fact most of the trouble is correlated to areas which receive larger amounts of foreign aid (the south). So while you might argue that anarchy cannot be maintained while large states are around, from what I have read that is not the problem of anarchism itself.
Published: April 28, 2007 2:13 PM
Even a limited government cannot be justified.
The Ethics of Liberty, by Murray Rothbard:
“Secondly, even if an existing State had been immaculately conceived, this would still not justify its present existence. A basic fallacy is endemic to all social-contract theories of the State, namely, that any contract based on a promise is binding and enforceable. If, then, everyone—in itself of course a heroic assumption—in a state of nature surrendered all or some of his rights to a State, the social-contract theorists consider this promise to be binding forevermore.
A correct theory of contracts, however, termed by Williamson Evers the “title-transfer” theory, states that the only valid (and therefore binding) contract is one that surrenders what is, in fact, philosophically alienable, and that only specific titles to property are so alienable, so that their ownership can be ceded to someone else. While, on the contrary, other attributes of man—specifically, his self-ownership over his own will and body, and the rights to person and property which stem from that self-ownership—are “inalienable” and therefore cannot be surrendered in a binding contract. If no one, then, can surrender his own will, his body or his rights in an enforceable contract, a fortiori he cannot surrender the persons or the rights of his posterity. This is what the Founding Fathers meant by the concept of rights as being “inalienable,” or, as George Mason expressed it in his Virginia Declaration of Rights:
[A]ll men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity.”
“(4) that even if any State had been founded immaculately, the fallacies of social-contract theory would mean that no present State, even a minimal one, could be justified.”
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentynine.asp
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 28, 2007 4:22 PM
I couldn't be bothered to read the whole rambling thing (if only I had no obligations other than reading stuff on the internet), but I noticed some things at the beginning that set me off.
1. Fiscally liberal republican and neo-conservative are not synonyms. The latter do not have the same commitment to small government that many republicans (purport) to have, but the former existed long before neo-conservativism did. Big-government bush/"compassionate"-conservativism or "the party of Sam's Club" is not inherently neo-conservative.
2. When you use the word "positivsm" most people will assume you mean "logical positivism". In this piece you seem to be referring to positive rights or the provision of services rather than a philosophy of science. Using words to mean different things than how they are normally used hampers your ability to get across your message.
3. You are right that the paleo-conservatives have (unfortunately) been more supportive of protectionism and (fortunately, in my view) immigration restriction, but you are dead wrong about the Iraq war. Most conservative opposition to it has come from paleos, and I am not aware of any paleos that have supported it or even not harshly criticize it. I have only heard grumbling about rather than support for surveillance among them (I myself don't mind, as I welcome the spread of information and the coming Transparent Society). I have not read much on drugs by paleo-non-libertarians (other than that Taki is fond of using them) and I imagine it is not something they are much concerned about. I don't know of any differences between paleos and neos on pork. It is popular with voters, not ideologues.
Finally, on the question of anarchy vs limited government, my views were best expressed by Randall Holcombe in "Government: Unnecessary but Inevitable"
Published: April 28, 2007 5:53 PM
I agree that paleos hseem to be rather rabid protectionists. I also think that the paleo position on immigration is wrong (for reasons having to do with prohibition theory and the ins and outs of freedom of association). Say what you will about immigration, but the paleo position on immigration boils down to protectionism, plain and simple. Especially those advocating that we go after those who hire immigrants. Furthermore, all aspects of prohibition theory apply to immigration just as much as it does to any other "victimless crime".
I also think Hoppe's position on immigration is wrong, namely, because at the end of the day most people are not separatists. That is, most people have every incentive in a free society to voluntarily interact with others. While it is true that there is always something of a separatist impulse in some people, the way that associations would work in a libertarian society would not live up to Hoppe's dream of culturally separated libertopias. Most people simply are not religious or racial separatists. It is inconcievable to me how a consistant application of freedom of association (which implies freedom of disassociation, of course) can lead to a true ban on immigration.
While Hoppe is perfectly free to form an anarcho-capitalist socity with no gays, pagans or what have you, I see no way of this consistantly being fulfilled without the use of some force to ban people from homesteading or exchanging property; there is nothing to legitimately stop someone in this "separatist" community from voluntarily allowing a pagan or what have you buy their property. I would suppose that even if such a purely separatist community were achieved, it would be much less prosperous then the bulk of more integrated communities that do not put a protectionist block on land ownership and exchange for certain groups.
Yes, I understand that immigrants should not be allowed to trespass on or homestead on other people's private property. But this is not immigration. To define immigration as an inherent case of trespassing makes no sense. Immigration is simply someone moving from land mass A to land mass B, likely in conjunction with the purchase of a home of some sort. So long as this is done at the consent of private property owners, or on unhomesteaded property, I can see no objection. I deny the notion that most people would not consent to people coming from abroad to buy their products, including land ownership and homes.
If I invite someone into my home, there is nothing that can legitimize the idea of banning this in a libertarian society. If I invite an immigrant on my property, hire an immigrant or sell my products to one, there is nothing that can legitimately ban this in a libertarian society. So how exactly can a ban on immigration itself be justified on libertarian grounds? It can't, because it logically must violate countless principles.
So long as there are willing sellers and unhomesteaded land (and there's plenty of both), there will be immigration, and there will be nothing inherently wrong with it, as this is just the market working its magic. To prohibit it through government would be a protectionist market intervention by all proper definitions. Even in an anarcho-capitalist society, to prohibit an immigrant from buying property from a willing seller, being employed by a willing employer or homesteading unused property would be a crime against the property rights of the immigrant (and those trying to employ and sell goods or services to them).
Published: April 28, 2007 7:30 PM
In short, as great credentials Hoppe has as an anarcho-capitalist, why does he simultaneously want to prohibit this market activity known as immigration? In an anarcho-capitalist society, there is no government to ban immigration, the welfare problem does not exist, and the "citezenship" problem does not exist. Immigration would be purely a market activity; of moving from place A to place B and buying a home, essentially. Immigration can only be limited to the extent that people refuse to allow immigrants to buy property and refuse to allow them on their property. They are perfectly free to do this, but in practise, must people would sell property to the immigrants, as they very well should in a market society. It certainly is disingenuous to imply that separatism is the natural order; and it certainly makes no sense that it would be so in a society of free trade, where the overwhelming incentive would be to engage in voluntary and mutually beneficial interactions with others.
Published: April 28, 2007 8:31 PM
Brainpolice
“In short, as great credentials Hoppe has as an anarcho-capitalist, why does he simultaneously want to prohibit this market activity known as immigration?”
Naturally, Hoppe does not want any state restrictions under an anarcho-capitalistic system, this would not either be possible in such a system as the state would not exist. Under the present system which is far away from a pure free market one with democracy, public property and forced integration laws, Hoppe wants immigration to be restricted by the government.
This position might, for example, be similar to the restrictions on labour unions enforced by the Margaret Thatcher government during the 80s. In a pure free market there wouldn’t be any aggressive unions that would interrupt the smooth workings of the market place. Unions prosper and are powerful because of government privileges. In such a political situation when it is not politically feasible, in the short run, to abolish all union privileges, “regulations” might do some good that is if they decrease the significance of the privileges as the ones imposed by the Thatcher government on unions. A quote from Wikipedia regarding those “regulations” on unions in Britain:
“The most significant measures were to make secondary industrial action illegal, to force union leadership to first win a ballot of the union membership before calling a strike, and to abolish the closed shop. Further laws banned workplace ballots and imposed postal ballots”.
I realize that the immigration problem is much more complex but if our governments adopted a “free immigration policy” under current systems that are under our welfare systems it would not work. Our countries would be overrun by foreigners from poor countries.
Hoppe also believes that:
“Under the scenario of a natural order, then, it can be expected that there will be plenty of interregional trade and travel. But owing to the natural discrimination against ethno-cultural strangers in the area of residential housing and real estate there will be little actual migration, i.e., permanent resettlement. And whatever little migration there is, it will be by individuals who are more or less completely assimilated to their newly adopted community and its ethno-culture.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe3.html
In other words, severe state prohibitions against immigration under the current systems might be a very good thing.
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 29, 2007 6:28 AM
Government would have to be a legitimate landowner for this whole debate to even begin to make sense.
"Hoppe wants immigration to be restricted by the government."
Which, again, is in itself a market intervention and thus inconsistant with what preceded this line. The actual act of moving from place A to place B and buying property is how I define immigraton. Hoppe seems to define immigration as an inherent act of trespassing. Trespassing on WHAT? In order to uphold this obfuscation, Hoppe must contradict just about every economic law in the book, all the way down to the distinction between public and private property. I understand that Hoppe's intentions are essentially to restrict citezenship and all the welfarism that comes with it. It nonetheless remains that if the government is restricting immigration, it is restricting alot more than just citezenship: it is restricting ownership of land property and homes, plain and simple. It is restricting my right to sell products to such people. It is restricting trade in every sense. Even in the case of Hoppe: this is protectionism.
Furthermore, in both a society with government and an anarcho-capitalist society, there is always someone willing to rent me a room where I wish to go. There is always someone willing to sell me some space. In other words, in conjunctioning with prohibition theory on everything else, government restricting immigration will only create a black market in immigration. In other words - the illegal immigration problem is in many ways the result of currently existing restrictions on immigration! Even without the government in the picture at all, Hoppe's vision is not realizable, because people have every incentive in the world to sell services to people coming over from abroad. As implied above, I believe that there is such thing as voluntary integration.
That fact that they come here and find work is an indication that there are employers willing to offer them jobs. Such job offers are a de-facto invitation. Someone is essentially saying, "I invite you to come and associate with me. I will give you some of my property (or it's surrogate, money) in exchange for you using your faculties to help me accomplish my objectives." And then, others who have property (to rent) essentially say, "I will allow you temporary use of my property in exchange for you giving me some of your property (which you previously aquired in exchange for the use of your faculties in aiding someone else to accomplish some objective)". Others with property (that can be eaten) will say, "I will exhange some of my property for some of your property". And suddenly, you've got a full participant in the economy.
All of the arguements against immigration I have heard are based on a reoccuring fallacy. First, one points to a situation in which government created a problem. Then, this situation is used as an arguement against immigration itself, when it is really an arguement against government. "They're going to get welfare!". Then abolish welfare, problem solved. "But they're going to get voting rights!". Abolish voting rights, problem solved. This entire issue is already solved. Borders are both open and closed at the consent of private property owners. However, I disagree with Hoppe that the natural of order of things would lead to cultural isolation, nor do I agree with the idea that cultural isolation is per se good. To the contrary, I believe that in an anarcho-capitalist society you would see plenty of voluntary integration and plenty of people would voluntarily offer services to people migrating from elsewhere.
The main counter to this I've seen is for some to claim that, "well, we currently don't have an anarcho-capitalist society, so in the meantime we should support government prohibition on immigration". To me, this is quite a slippery slope indeed. Applying this logic to anything else, gradualism and countless deviations will occur. This extends beyond just opposing voting rights and welfare - there's a certain point where the anti-immigration advocate is simply opposing peaceful exchange.
To me, renting a room to a foreigner, hiring his services is an invitation. What I cannot accept is involving government into the invitation process. I support a no-border approach to immigration with no law whatsoever on immigration. If private ownership is respected, immigration is not an issue. Don't you think that opposing the free-border approach is really supporting a government-managed immigration? Most Libertarians agree that killing, stealing and slavery are crimes and that doing business is not a crime. Why would immigrating be a crime? It is perfectly possible to move from location A to location B in full respect of property rights.
Further, Hoppe is falling back on collectivism of a sort to support his position. What I mean is that he using the terms "community" collectivistically. Ok, what if I'm part of this community and I want to invite a gay person into my home? What if I want to hire a Mexican immigrant? Does the "community" have rights? No, it is everyone but myself, just like "society". How does "the community" have a say in what people do with their OWN property? And that's the rub of this immigration deal: part of the consequence of prohibiting immigration is effectively banning people doing what they want with their own property, wether it be homesteading, buying a home or selling one. There is no way to ban immigration without infringing on individual rights, no matter how much one points to the problems associated with government citezenship.
Does the community at large justly hold a veto power over who I rent to, who I sell my house to, who I offer employment to? This is what immigration restriction as described by Hoppe amounts to. Immigration restriction is illegalizing people from voluntarily allowing immigrants on their land, hiring them and selling them products. This is irreconcilable with liberty and the market. To quote Anthony Gregory: "If a government intervention keeps out a worker that someone here wants to hire, it's an unlibertarian intervention." I further concer with him on this statement: "In a libertarian society, there'd be no such thing as 'illegals.' There'd be trespassers and the invited, and I do think that most persons currently classified as illegals, who have a place to live and work, would fall under the latter category."
Rothbard himself perhaps describes the problem here in much more clear terms than I am (emphasis on the second point):
"There can be no human right to immigrate, for on whose property does someone else have the right to trample? In short, if “Primus‿ wishes to migrate now from some other country to the United States, we cannot say that he has the absolute right to immigrate to this land area; for what of those property owners who don’t want him on their property? On the other hand, there may be, and undoubtedly are, other property owners who would jump at the chance to rent or sell property to Primus, and the current laws now invade their property rights by preventing them from doing so."
In either case, it seems odd that proponents of natural law would ultimately fall back on UTILITARIAN arguements for restricting immigration, as if they make a dime's worth of difference to the non-utilitarian. Odd that this is a matter of pure PRAGMATISM for so many.
Published: April 29, 2007 9:39 AM
The idea that we should support private property rights violation A in the name of avoiding future private property rights violation B is fallicious and in practise will only give the state more power. Wouldn't the consistant libertarian position be to oppose both violations? All of the effort wasted over trying to get the government to ban immigration could have been spent concentrating on abolishing the very things that anti-immigration advocates point to as reasons against immigration.
I would like make something clear one more time: Immigration restriction is a form of protectionism (not to make an appeal to authority, but Mises himself appears to make this case quite eloquently in "Liberalism" and "Omnipotent Government") just like any other. The main motives behind most (I'll grant, not all) anti-immigration advocates is protectionism over fears of "losing our jobs" or "hiking down wages".
Further, if we really want to debate the utilitarian merits of this question, along with this immigration prohibition comes more police powers, more spending, more taxes, a hike in the drug war, national ID cards, an expansion of the prison-industrial complex, etc. The anti-immigration position is an endorsement of a government intervention that requires other interventions to be carried through. It is a fallacy to paint the non-anti-immigration position as an endorsement of the welfare state or anything else; it is opposition to a government intervention. I'd be more than happy to abolish the welfare state. But it takes quite a lot of logical gymnastics to claim that opposing this particular government intervention in the present amounts to support for the welfare state. The anti-immigration policy is an increase in the state's power. The "no borders" policy is a decrease in the state's power, not a blanket endorsement of other things. To assert so would be no better than claiming that those who oppose the Iraq war amounts to support for terrorists.
I would also like to add, on a final note, that the anti-immigration sentiment is a manifestation of a conflict-model of society.
Published: April 29, 2007 10:07 AM
Brainpolice, my reasons for opposing immigration are not protectionist. I am in favor of unilateral free-trade in goods. People are not goods (at least they haven't been since slavery was outlawed). Goods do not have rights. They do not vote. They do not have children. They do not aggress against their neighbors. If you clicked the link above you would have seen my reasons, and if you don't indicate here that you read it I will ignore what you have to say.
Your "slippery slope" argument is pathetic. Since the 1965 immigration act made the border more open we have seen more statism. Building a wall would actually result in lower spending on the drug war (it's a lot cheaper than policing), not to mention all the other net costs immigrants impose on tax-payers.
You obviously don't understand the marginal revolution in economics to believe that the effort spent attacking immigration should be better spent attacking government. The reason we have lots of government is because the voters stupidly want big government. The one area where the voters' opinion significantly diverges from policy is immigration. On no other issue are the views of the party elites so different from the general public. Because the public is irrational, they oppose immigration for many stupid reasons. However, public support for immigration restriction makes it more likely to pass. There is no way we are going to get rid of government. When Californians passed a referendum with-holding welfare from illegals the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. The more immigrants there are and the larger the share of the vote they make up, the more difficult it will be to restrain government.
Published: April 29, 2007 1:09 PM
Bjorn and Brainpolice make very important points about immigration and the rationale behind the calls for restrictions. All one need do is look at Pat Buchanan's speeches from 1996 and 2000 and he will see what is representative of a great portion of the anti-immigrant/anti-illegal immigrant argument. It is economic protectionism. Today, that objective has been hidden behind calls for greater "security", but the core of the anti-immigrant mindset is economic. I tis also unconstititional, based on the original meaning of the clause in Article One that gives Congress power to control naturalization, not immigration. It was not until 1875, when the Supreme Court basically invented a power for Congress to control immigration, that they really had unfettered control over the borders, bringing all the bureaurcracy and inefficiancy that goes with it. Big mistake. I like the Rothbardian approach to immigration, in which he stresses private property rights for the sale and rental of land, and how those trump the importance people might place on "sovereign borders" of a government.
TGGP, while I understand your arguments, I do not think they are as compelling as those of the aforementioned writers. For a person who couldn't bother to read my entire piece, you seem very interested in taking plenty of time to express yourself based on reading just a portion of it. No worries. I would suggest writing your own piece and submitting it for publication somewhere. I would definately read it. I think you have some strong opinions, and would enjoy reading more.
All the best,
G
Published: April 29, 2007 2:42 PM
"There is no way we are going to get rid of government."
"You obviously don't understand the marginal revolution in economics to believe that the effort spent attacking immigration should be better spent attacking government."
These statements sum up my conclusion that this is pragmatism over principle, but we are free to have civil disagreements of course. It also repeats the fallacy of going after immigration with the rationale of government's effects on it. I would think that libertarians would be concentrating on opposing government interventions of all kinds, rather than than supporting a government intervention.
I find the notion that advocating a government intervention (restricting immigration), in the name of preventing future ones, is more productive to the libertarian cause then opposing a government intervention, very akward. I see going after immigration to be going after the EFFECT rather than the CAUSE. Masses of immigrants recieving welfare is not the cause of welfare, welfare is the cause of those people being on it. If it did not exist, those people would not be on it. Conclusion: Abolish welfare!
In practise, all of the CAUSES being complained about do not go away when we merely go after the EFFECT of more people coming over. Immigration is not the cause of out of control welfarism, out of control welfarism itself is what creates subsidized immigrants. You can limit immigration all you want, but the same problems you affiliate with immigrants wall still apply just as much to domestic citezens. Should we therefore outlaw domestic citezens because they drive on public roads that tax payers payed for? Or, would the obvious solution be to privatize roads, and the problem is solved? I see immigration as being no different. Private stuff and the immigration problem goes away. So why divert effort away from privatizing stuff in order to grant the government more power?
"People are not goods (at least they haven't been since slavery was outlawed)."
Actually, I might have a disagreement here: people's labor (not their persons perhaps, but their labor) IS a good to their employer. In either case, land is a good. Preventing me from selling land to an immigrant is denying the sale of a good, and should be treated just like any other protectionist measure. Preventing me from allowing an immigrant into my home is a violation of my property rights. Preventing me from buying a home from a willing seller is a violation of my property rights. We find that the immigration prohibition inevitably means that you must support all of the property rights violations that come with it (and there's more to it than being let on). Surely creating private property rights violations in the name of stopping private property rights violations is oxymoronic.
"The more immigrants there are and the larger the share of the vote they make up, the more difficult it will be to restrain government."
While you might have a point, it also defaults back on you. By advocating immigration prohibition, you are making it more difficult to restrain government because your first course of action is to propose a new government intervention! How in the world is a new governbment intervention, with new regulations, more tax dollars, the whole deal, going to help the cause of reducing government intervention? Why does does Nock's warning about resorting to compulsory cooperation suddenly disspear for immigration? In short - the costs of the anti-immigration legislation roughly equate to the costs of inviting more immigrants. Put in another way, the anti-immigration legislation can be thought of as an equally expensive equivalent to the welfare. Surely, our first course of action should be to eliminate things.
I see this anti-immigration arguement as short-term thinking because it all of a sudden supports bringing everyone nationally into compulsory cooperation in the name of achieving an end in the short-term, without respect for the future consequences. Let's face it - even if you oppose any kind of police state that may come with it, there is nothing to stop the government from using the issue to expand it's power, and that's just what it's doing. There is no reason why anti-immigration legislation will not just have the effect of an increase in spending on police powers. But to even debate this at this point seems unprincipled, because now we are just weighing utility, and principle no longer matters.
I say principle still matters, and at the heart of immigration prohibition is a private property rights violation. Therefore, in order to be consistant with my own philosophy, I must oppose such a measure.
Published: April 29, 2007 3:17 PM
In Sweden we have integration laws too. If a landlord for example discriminates against a foreigner seeking to rent an apartment, he can be sentenced for up to one year in prison.
Sweden has a comparatively “liberal” immigration policy and I can also understand that this promotes, partly because of integration laws, violations of property rights.
I really do not have a firm compromised position on this issue and I can see your points. The firm position I have is a pure free market one. Compromises during the meantime are quite difficult as we do not get what we really want.
Another position might be to immediately abolish all welfare subsidises, integration laws and rights for foreigner to vote and have an open border policy as well. This open border policy would then only be supported and adopted together with this other mentioned political issues. This might be a very good position too.
In Sweden I vote on the Conservative party “Moderata Samlingspartiet”:
http://www.answers.com/moderata+samlingspartiet?gwp=11&ver=2.0.1.458&method=3
This party’s positions are far from libertarian ones, but are closer to those than the liberals, “the greens” (green party) and the socialists positions.
Because of my strong beliefs in libertarianism, I am no longer a member of this conservative party and I do not any longer support it with any money. I just vote on it.
I think that voting on the conservative party is a compromised position and not a clear cut libertarian one, but what to do when the world does not offer any options that correspond to your beliefs? Compromised positions might be better to support than not supporting anything, as the clear cut ones are not there to vote on.
I support a 100% gold money reserve standard, but if I had the option to directly vote and make a little difference, and my alternatives were only a Keynesian or a Monetarist economic policy, I would surely support the Monetarist one. This is also a compromise.
In 1994 I voted against Sweden’s membership of the European Union. This despite of the fact, as Sweden is a much regulated country that a membership might lead to in the short run, fewer regulations. Before deciding on this issue, I did not know what to support. “If we join, we will have fewer regulations because of this and that reason but still we would live under a super state and “short run profits” are therefore of no concern.” Logically I therefore also voted against the adoption of the €. Sweden joined the EU in 1995 but rejected the € in 2003.
Today I am very happy that I voted against a membership of the European Union and I really hate it. I can also see powerful tendencies which this super state is imposing on “big businesses” and therefore, also, on consumers.
Because of the influence of the writings of Hoppe, I voted against the EU.
I work for a landlord and my job is to rent out all commercial facilities, write leases and so on. My last lease is to a company named “Lek & Buslandet”, translated it would be something like “The land of Play & Mischief” (quite sweet, really); it is a play centre for kids between the ages of about 5-13 years:
http://www.lekobus.se/
Anyway, according to the tenant, the range of the facilities, are after the investments have been done by the tenant (of nearly 3 000 000 $), about 5000 square meters (53 819,332 square feet). Mainly the job was done by Polish workers. Once a week during the rebuild I went there to see how the work succeeded, and I saw that they worked very hard. They lived there during the rebuild and I can tell you that, it did not seem to be in accordance with the “Swedish tradition of labour laws and labour unions.” The conditions were good but not as high as the “Swedish standard”. I asked the owner: “How much do they earn on a monthly basis? Well, quite well actually, after tax about 1785 $.” A Swedish carpenter would probably, after tax, make nearly 3000 $. Their union is quite strong. This investment would probably not be done if the owner was forced to hire Swedish workers and the Swedish consumers, workers included, would have suffered. But still this is a very un-Swedish thing to do, to hire Polish workers for less pay, but a very good thing too. Why has this happened? The reason is that a membership in the European Union forces Sweden to live by its rules. So here we have an example why a membership in the European Union promoted a more libertarian approach.
A common currency would also increase trade and decrease calculation chaos.
But there is no doubt that the EU is a very, very bad thing and that this kind of “short profits” for the economy and for individual liberty, are of no real concern whatsoever.
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 29, 2007 3:37 PM
Let me make a caricature of the arguement being made. You are argueing that, if we don't support government prohibition of X (immigration), we will have to foot a higher bill as tax-payers (note that this is an entirely utilitarian arguement). Let me apply this methodology to any other scenario. Let's take, hmm, drugs. The same disingenuous arguement could be made claiming that since those people hurt their health with drugs and later get government medical care because of it, we will have to foot a higher bill as tax-payers. Therefore, under this logic, we should prohibit drugs.
Let's continue this methodology. Let's use, say, prostitution. We might argue that prostitution must be prohibited because the prostitute might use government rape-relief centers or government daycare in the future. But, Oh Nos! The tax-payers have to pit the bill for this person's irresponsible behavior! Therefore, under this logic, instead of getting rid of the public services that effectively subsidize this behavior, we should prohibit prostitution.
Just the other day I was in an arguement over "gay marriage" that parralells this. I took the "privatize marriage" position. The response of the conservative I was debating boiled down to the same line of arguement. They said that gay marriage should be prohibited, and they incessantly harped on the future social welfare costs that might be incurred (coupled with his theory that divorce rates would sky-rocket). Nothing in the world could make it dawn on this person that getting rid of the social welfare solves that objection.
Pointing to the bill that tax-payers have to pay for something does not logically support a prohibition on people's activies in themselves (it does support abolishing the government services). To me, this is the classic "externality" fallacy with relation to prohibition. Pointing to the government services such people might later recieve, or purely emotional effects on others, does not justify prohibition.
To sum up: Immigration (as generally defined by the act of moving from place A to place B and buying a home) should be PRIVATIZED, not PROHIBITED. Just like the fact that libertarian may support privatizing, say, health care, does not mean that they are advocating prohibition of it. Likewise, the libertarian has no compelling reason in my view to favor prohibition over privatization in relation to immigration. To my knowledge, the libertarian can only support prohibition of offensive violence and the threat thereof. But to define immigration as an inherent act of aggression is a massive abuse of language.
Published: April 29, 2007 3:40 PM
Note: I was very tempted to make an analogy to food (we must prohibit fatty foods because these people will impose a tax burden on us to pay for cost of their future medical care!). You get the point.
Published: April 29, 2007 3:51 PM
A nice quote from http://math.furman.edu/~mwoodard/mquot.html
(Mathematical Quotations Server)
Huxley, Thomas Henry (1825-1895)
This seems to be one of the many cases in which the admitted accuracy of mathematical processes is allowed to throw a wholly inadmissible appearance of authority over the results obtained by them. Mathematics may be compared to a mill of exquisite workmanship, which grinds your stuff of any degree of fineness; but, nevertheless, what you get out depends on what you put in; and as the grandest mill in the world will not extract wheat flour from peascods, so pages of formulae will not get a definite result out of loose data.
Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, 25,1869.
Published: April 29, 2007 4:07 PM
Brainpolice
“Let me make a caricature of the arguement being made. You are argueing that, if we don't support government prohibition of X (immigration), we will have to foot a higher bill as tax-payers (note that this is an entirely utilitarian arguement).”
This must not be a utilitarian argument. It could be depending on the trade offs (which no one knows). It could be an argument based on natural rights.
Hoppe is against utilitarianism and so am I.
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 29, 2007 4:13 PM
So am I, but I think, ironically, that Hoppe's arguement against immigration is not grounded in natural rights, but utilitarianism (or, if you'd be more comfortable with another term, consequentialism). The reason I say this is because, while he is correct in maintaining the right of people to expel trespassers, his arguement against immigration appears to boil down to a cost-benefit analysis with respect to the domestic populace at the end of the day.
I also cannot help but get the feeling that Hoppe, to some extent, is putting forth his own value judgements as the natural order. To me, the natural order is whatever comes about spontaneously in the free society. I see a conflict between this and Hoppe's interpretation of what it would look like. While I'm certainly no egalitarian or proponent of forced integration, and I think that Hoppe's views on democracy are very insightful, I do not share Hoppe's estimation of certain minority groups. I see Hoppe as trying to insert a bit of forced segregation into the mix, to be frank.
Published: April 29, 2007 4:31 PM
Sorry some correction of my last post.
“It could be an argument based on natural rights.”
It should be instead: It could be an argument in a compromised political situation where no better alternatives exist, an argument that best supports, in a situation like this, a natural rights position.
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 29, 2007 4:33 PM
Anyways, enough on Hoppe (the Palmer smears against him are despicable). Perhaps we're getting a bit too off topic here.
Published: April 29, 2007 4:39 PM
"Anyways, enough on Hoppe"
I agree.
Björn
Published: April 29, 2007 4:52 PM
Gardner Goldsmith
I apologize for being too eager to debate and in doing so forgetting to thank you for a very professional and excellent article. Your remarks, especially regarding Locke, are of course relevant. Liberty needs people like you. You are extremely important.
You wrote that: “Contemporary leftists claim that it would be impossible to secure market services for things like firefighting, because the "free rider" problem would inspire those who live nearby, and thus pose a threat if their property should catch fire, to simply not pay.”
I do not consider that a free rider problem in a pure free market exist at all as the objective ethical borderline of human action, regardless of being a free rider or not, is that no man or group of men should have the right to violate people’s rights.
As this is true and absolute, it might not be enough for an answer to convince some people that it is the final true answer. As they are not convinced of this final answer, the free rider problem becomes a problem and other arguments are therefore needed.
You have delivered such arguments in your article.
Another one might be that in a true free society, voluntarily communities can and will be established. Because of the “free rider problem” markets will promote the formation of such communities, and costs for example for securing fire fighting will be shared among its members. Those who pay the bills will have an incentive to form or to move to such areas. Naturally, many people because of other values will not do that, but then it is not either a problem that should be handled by the pure science of economics.
T.G.G.P wrote “I couldn't be bothered to read the whole rambling thing.” Bothered? Rambling? This article is very serious and professionally written and to use words like “rambling” is bad even if a person does not agree with the article. Serious people will, of course, ignore statements like this and the author of such statements will be judged accordingly.
Björn Lundahl
Published: May 1, 2007 5:25 AM
The murderer is sentenced guilty before the nature of life
You enter the kingdom of life and believe that you stand above its rules and its very foundation. What right gives you the right to abandon my rules? If you do not like this dimension you can pass away from it any time you want. No one is forcing you to stay.
With the help of reason, consciousness and intelligence, you can see that your fellow men strive to sustain their lives. They do what their nature calls them to do, namely to live. You are a threat against that! You are a threat against this dimension! This dimension would not exist if it couldn’t cope with what is threatening it. You wouldn’t have lived if murdering has been allowed, and despite of this fact, you place yourself above the very cause of your own life. How can you place yourself above the very cause of your existence!?
No organism or life can exist if it is not accommodated to what life demands, and that is partly to eliminate the very things that can cause that life ceases. It is the self-preservation that is the very cause for me to throw out the murderer from my kingdom. You never learn! You are parasites of life! You are saying that you did not choose life because you didn’t create yourself, but no one has, for all men are participants of an eternal process and this fact does not declare your irresponsibility.
The process in nature that created me, demands that I follow its rules or else the process would never have created me and would never have risen, for it would be doomed to die from the very beginning. It is created in such a way that it avoids death, which is the reason for me having self-preservation, for death I else would not have avoided. My nature is thus such that the murderer’s actions shall be rejected and punished until such destructive threats ceases to exist.
My lawbook is the existence’s law, life’s law, our kingdom’s law, this dimension’s law or my nature’s law, because I am the nature, a part of cosmos and I must play by its rules for nothing else exists for me.
With a good conscience I will now consider if you also shall be thrown out from my dimension and return to the unconsciousness. If I judge to not throw you out, I will do it with a bad conscience since I have the insight about this dimension’s utmost playing rules which I then will have denied.
Björn Lundahl
Published: May 3, 2007 2:40 PM
The thief is sentenced guilty before the nature of life.
Men visit my kingdom for a time and then later leave it. I observe this species that with its reason, consciousness and intelligence protects her values and purposes. They cultivates harvest where the wind blow the very least, they build greenhouses to protect the harvest against frigidity; they spray the harvest to protect it from insects. With its reason, consciousness and intelligence some men observe that the harvest can be stolen and out of this reason men defends their harvest with the might of weaponry, for the self-preservation and man’s purposes are then protected.
You can steal due to the fact that man to some extent succeeded to keep down the theft and you can live because man has to some extent succeeded to suppress the theft. Human beings became human beings the day they started to create and you belong to this species. You enter the kingdom of life and believe that you stand above its rules and its very foundation. What right gives you the right to ignore my rules? Since childhood you have learnt that theft is wrong and despite of this, you steal. You are a parasite of life, motives and objectives because theft is a parasite of life, motives and objectives! The day man no longer succeeds in her effort to suppress theft, that day motives, objectives and life ceases to exist.
The process in nature that created me, demands that I follow its rules or else the process would never have created me and would never have risen, for it would be doomed to die from the very beginning. It is created in such a way that it avoids death, which is the reason for me having self-preservation, for death I else would not have avoided My nature is thus such that the thief’s actions must be stopped and punished until they ceases to exist.
My lawbook is the existence’s law, life’s law, our kingdom’s law, this dimension’s law or my nature’s law, because I am the nature, a part of cosmos and I must play by its rules for nothing else exists for me.
In the name of true Justice, as it is built upon the insight about this dimension’s utmost playing rules, you will now be sentenced for the crime you have done and for the compensation to the victim and this to its fullest extent.
Björn Lundahl
Published: May 3, 2007 2:43 PM
Bjorn:"The process in nature that created me, demands that I follow its rules or else the process would never had created me and would never had risen, for it would be doomed to die from the very beginning."
RogerM Interesting posts on murder and theft. But did you really intend to give "the process" human characteristics? The process "demands" and "creates". That sounds very much like a personality. Can forces of nature demand and create? My understanding of atheism is that only physical forces, like gravity, exist. Mankind is a result of random chance, not intention.
A parody of the Desiderata goes "the universe is laughing at you behind your back." The point of the parody was that people assume that life has meaning and purpose when the universe knows differently. In reality, the universe would have to be a person to laugh. It's not. It's rocks and forces of physics, in the atheist view. Mankind is an accident; the universe isn't proud that man appeared and it won't care if he disappears. No one is out there to care. Man cares only because he has deluded himself into thinking he is more than what he is.
Bjorn: "You enter the kingdom of life and believe that you stand above its rules and its very foundation. What right gives you the right to abandon my rules?"
RogerM Who is speaking here? I realize that you're writing poetically and never intended anyone to be speaking in reality. It's like the poets who give human characteristics to inanimate objects, like trees. But when discussing real life, we have to abandon the poetry and realize that, in the atheist view, no one exists inside the material universe, or outside it, to say those things.
Posted by: RogerM at May 4, 2007 9:28 AM
Björn It is, if you like, a poetic way to explain some natural phenomena through a human mind. It might increase understanding and deliver a few insights and it is another way to explain it. We have, for example, eyes to perceive our material universe and this fact of our nature or this organ exists to increase our odds to survive. In the same poetic way we could explain their existence through giving the process of natural selection or evolution life by talking to us and telling us that this organ we have received because of the fact that it gave us better chances to survive. But it is naturally, always we who understand such a fact and it is always we who are talking to ourselves.
I am sorry but no one supposes that the sun or the rocks will cry when we are all dead or supposes that they are talking to us. It is not any part of their natures.
Only man values things and only man pursue ends to realize those values or ends. This is our nature and it is as natural as the rest of nature.
Björn Lundahl
Published: May 8, 2007 5:53 AM