A Libertarian Immigration Policy

[IrishOutlaw]

@Stranger

@IrishOutlaw

The only logical conclusion is that everyone has as much of a right to that property as anyone else, basically putting it in the same category as any other unowned land.

Your logical conclusion has no concern for the material consequences of such a policy, which would be widespread chaos. It is also not logical, since, while homesteaded property is not used by anyone, thus making possible to be homesteaded, public property is used by many people for different reasons, all of whom would immediately be in conflict with one another if your policy were to be imposed.

I disagree that there would be chaos. For property to be owned, you have to be able to use it for something to show that you own it. What good would it do me to own the sewer system if I had no idea how to put it to beneficial (ie, profitable) use? What good would it do me to claim ownership of a road that I have no idea how to maintain? Just because someone uses electricity doesn’t mean they know how to install a transformer or set up a pole. Unless they were a communist, why would they claim ownership or partial ownership of it just because they use it? And lets say they are a communist, if they can’t use the equipment, build the lines, power the homes, than the property is still unowned. Without a central controlling body (which from your posts I think you are in favor of) you could go out into what is now a national forrest and build a home. That is obviously your home. But if you go out an put a fence around some section of land and than go back home, you don’t own that land, you own that fence. Someone that can put that land to use will be able to show they are the owners. There is no difference between that and any other “public” property. You can claim that you own the road, but if your not exercising control of it, you have no claim to it.

Two things would happen if the government disappeared, IMO. First the private companies that do the contract work for the state will claim ownership over the areas they take care of already. Second, in the case of totally government areas, the workers that are doing the work now will claim ownership over whatever it is they currently doing. If they do a good job, nothing will change. If they do a shitty job, the market will replace them.

[IrishOutlaw]

@krazy kaju

The problem is that I don’t think what you’re proposing would really work in our modern society without a dissolution of government.

Government will always be around to fight “discrimination,” “intolerance,” and “racism,” even if the property owners of a certain city or region just don’t want immigrants.

I agree that what I was talking about wouldn’t work with a centralized government. They won’t give up their monopoly easily.

I disagree that government will always be around. They all fail or fall eventually.

[krazy_kaju]

What I was saying was that as long as they’ll around the policy you described would be impossible.

I’m a free market anarchist myself and I definitely don’t think that government will always be around.

[Len_Budney]

OK, Stranger, PLEASE tell me you’re a French Canadian econ student? It took me a while to clue in, but there’s no mistaking your argument–and I pray there aren’t two of you in the world. Jaws, is that you?

Are you going to make the mafia turn in their properties along with the other criminal gang you say doesn’t have property? If you mean what you say, the mafia must be made to give up everything they have too.

“Must be made to give up”? When did I ever say that? You’re saying I’m under a positive obligation to commit suicide? I’m almost certain I never said that… What I said was, they don’t own what they’ve stolen. They might never face justice for their crimes. They might keep their loot all their lives, and hand it down to their great-great-grandchildren, but the fact remains that they don’t own it. It’s stolen property.

One consequence of its being stolen is that, if I do manage to take some of it from them, I’ve committed no crime. They might catch me and wreak horrible vengeance on me, but if so they would be guilty of two crimes–the original theft and whatever they did to me–and I’d be guilty of none.

You keep repeating the theory that crime ceases to be crime when it’s gotten away with. I don’t know where you get this idea from. Do you subscribe to a Machievellian notion of justice? If so, you certainly aren’t libertarian, and I’m not sure what the point of the discussion even is. Or do you have difficulty with abstraction? In other words, do you find the concept of “unpunished crime” incomprehensible, because “crime” is defined purely in concrete terms of punishment received? Or are you simply a moral relativist? I.e., do you simply deny the existence of “right and wrong,” and thus find yourself using them in confusing and ad hoc ways?

The nonaggression principle defines crime in an absolute sense. Initiators of aggression are criminals, even after the last soul dies who believes in nonaggression. They’ll remain criminals after the universe implodes on itself and there’s no observer left, and nothing to observe. Aggressors are criminals. Always. Even when they get away with it.

–Len.

[Stranger]

@Len Budney

The nonaggression principle defines crime in an absolute sense. Initiators of aggression are criminals, even after the last soul dies who believes in nonaggression. They’ll remain criminals after the universe implodes on itself and there’s no observer left, and nothing to observe. Aggressors are criminals. Always. Even when they get away with it.

But what will you do?

[Len_Budney]

But what will you do?

Your question is utterly irrelevant. Criminals are criminals whether or not I exist let alone whether or not I do anything.

The question of fundamental interest here is why you think otherwise.

–Len.

[Stranger]

@IrishOutlaw

Two things would happen if the government disappeared, IMO. First the private companies that do the contract work for the state will claim ownership over the areas they take care of already. Second, in the case of totally government areas, the workers that are doing the work now will claim ownership over whatever it is they currently doing. If they do a good job, nothing will change. If they do a shitty job, the market will replace them.

What you don’t seem to be getting is that lots and lots of people will claim ownership to the same things, not only private companies and workers, which is why homesteading cannot apply in this case.

@Len Budney

Your question is utterly irrelevant. Criminals are criminals whether or not I exist let alone whether or not I do anything.

The question of fundamental interest here is why you think otherwise.

That is false. For someone to be a criminal, there must be a victim to claim that a crime has been committed, and to this victim belongs the right to pursue the criminal. Beyond the repeated claims that the state is a gang of criminals, you have not provided any means for a victim to get justice.

[Niccolo]

@Stranger

Of course it does not. Unowned land is something that holds no value to anyone

Oh… Ok…

[*-)]

[Niccolo]

@Stranger

You are making a lot of assumptions as to what people who desire discriminatory immigration desire. No one refers to Mexican petroleum engineers as wetbacks, or strongly opposes their coming to America, because they bring more civilization with them, not less. The problem with the open borders position, and why it is ultimately incompatible with libertarianism, is that it attempts to make an unjust state policy into a new unjust state policy, that is to say unlimited acceptance of all immigrants, regardless of their quality, by all communities and properties in the country. It is a one-size-fits-all policy. If you were really interested in more freedom, you would agree with the proposal I outlined with this thread, that communities within the country be allowed to admit more immigrants so long as it is only within their own property and that it does not impact other territories.

You know what people I find of really low quality? The people that assign quality to human beings as though they were property.

Plz leeve are commoons.

[Niccolo]

@Stranger

What you don’t seem to be getting is that lots and lots of people will claim ownership to the same things, not only private companies and workers, which is why homesteading cannot apply in this case.

People claiming ownership to the same things negates homesteading…

Uh huh… Another one for “Stranger.”

[Niccolo]

@Stranger

You’re assuming that the good can be reassembled at no cost. It’s tantamount to sawing a car in half and selling off each half under the justification that the market can calculate if it should be welded back together.

Couldn’t care less about the value of the car.

What’s right is right, no matter what the cost.

[IrishOutlaw]

@Stranger

@IrishOutlaw

Two things would happen if the government disappeared, IMO. First the private companies that do the contract work for the state will claim ownership over the areas they take care of already. Second, in the case of totally government areas, the workers that are doing the work now will claim ownership over whatever it is they currently doing. If they do a good job, nothing will change. If they do a shitty job, the market will replace them.

What you don’t seem to be getting is that lots and lots of people will claim ownership to the same things, not only private companies and workers, which is why homesteading cannot apply in this case.

There maybe lots of people who will claim ownership, but how many will be able to take the neccesary actions to prove ownership? I may claim ownership to all the power lines in the US, but since I don’t even have a single bucket truck, I can’t prove that I am the owner of it. I don’t even have the basic neccesities to do anything with them. I believe in this thing called the free market. The concept of the free market is that the best provider of goods or services will rise above the ones that can’t get the job done. Where there is disagreement over ownership, private arbitration will be used to determine who the legitimate owner is. Anyone not willing to arbitrate, that wants to claim something, has to be able to exercise control over the property. If they provide a service, and they suck at it, the costs of claiming ownership over it won’t be worth it. Someone else will step in and do the job. Isn’t that the entire concept of the free market? Or is your argument that the free market can’t provide certain services or goods and therefore we need centralized control over certain areas? Which, if that is the case, I fully understand your argument and simply disagree.

[Len_Budney]

@Stranger

@Len Budney

Your question is utterly irrelevant. Criminals are criminals whether or not I exist let alone whether or not I do anything.

The question of fundamental interest here is why you think otherwise.

That is false. For someone to be a criminal, there must be a victim to claim that a crime has been committed, and to this victim belongs the right to pursue the criminal. Beyond the repeated claims that the state is a gang of criminals, you have not provided any means for a victim to get justice.

Well, at least my tentative ID of you is confirmed.

Right and wrong are defined absolutely, whether or not anyone gets justice. Your assertion to the contrary proceeds from confusing morality, legislation in general and libertarian law in particular. Initiating agression is a priori immoral and against libertarian law. It’s often permitted by legislation. An aggressor is both a sinner and a criminal, whether or not he is ever caught. Sometimes criminals go unpunished for lack of proof, or for lack of accusers. For example, if I murder a man with no heirs, I might never be accused of murder, and hence never convicted or punished–but the objective fact remains that I am morally and legally a murderer.

What I’ve never been able to figure out about you is whether your belief that “you aren’t a murderer until you’re convicted” reflects intellectual confusion, or screwed-up morality. Sometimes I suspect one, and sometimes the other.

–Len.

[Spideynw]

@Stranger

Although the state currently enforces a homogeneous policy across the whole of its territory, immigration policy need not necessarily be all-encompassing. While the U.S. immigration policy imposes upon all territories and sub-territories of the U.S. that whatever candidates fit its requirements be admitted into their property, it is entirely possible for these territories and sub-territories to establish their own admittance policy over and above what is imposed upon them by the state (that is to say, beyond the people they are forced to accept, they can decide to accept more people so long as this is not imposed upon other territories).

And so, while an immigrant would most likely prefer to have a United States of America visa or citizenship, and thus earn the right to settle anywhere in the United States, should that not be possible he could, for example, obtain a visa from the State of Iowa alone in order to work as a farm hand, or a visa from the County of Santa Clara to work as a computer engineer. This would of course not entitle him to any of the rights of citizenship of any jurisdictions above that which has granted his visa, and thus would not threaten the political balance of democracy, while providing the economic benefits of an international division of labor.

A libertarian immigration policy should be no immigration laws, period.

[Remnant]

Stranger

You are right that this is the libertarian position: “A libertarian immigration policy should be no immigration laws, period.”.

However, Hans Herman Hoppe makes an interesting point. Should we get to the point where all land is owned by individuals, and if we adhere to libertarian principles that each individual has the right to determine who may enter his property, then we will be in the position where people will be restricted from entry. He says we will arrive at a situation where some landowners will post signs at the entrance to towns saying "No Bums, Tramps, etc (and possibly No Jews, Catholics, Blacks etc). The positive side to this will be that some landowners may restrict a particular group, other landowners may welcome them.

So, should we arrive at an anarchic libertarian society, we may have more qualification, and possibly even restriction, on the movement of people.

With kind regards

Remnant.

[Stranger]

@IrishOutlaw

There maybe lots of people who will claim ownership, but how many will be able to take the neccesary actions to prove ownership? I may claim ownership to all the power lines in the US, but since I don’t even have a single bucket truck, I can’t prove that I am the owner of it. I don’t even have the basic neccesities to do anything with them. I believe in this thing called the free market. The concept of the free market is that the best provider of goods or services will rise above the ones that can’t get the job done. Where there is disagreement over ownership, private arbitration will be used to determine who the legitimate owner is. Anyone not willing to arbitrate, that wants to claim something, has to be able to exercise control over the property. If they provide a service, and they suck at it, the costs of claiming ownership over it won’t be worth it. Someone else will step in and do the job. Isn’t that the entire concept of the free market? Or is your argument that the free market can’t provide certain services or goods and therefore we need centralized control over certain areas?

The free market is what comes out of ownership, not what defines it. What defines ownership is production. In the case of government property, multiple people all have claims to the same good, which is not the case with homesteading as it is clear under homesteading who has produced what.

You may well say that arbitration will determine ownership of government property, but that doesn’t give us any standard for the arbitrator to rule on, and producing a standard principle of arbitration is exactly the purpose of having laws. The purpose of laws is that we will know, before we act, if our action is socially accepted or not, and thus we will know, before we act, whether or not we will be in conflict with another party. So how does someone know if, by your own standards, they have the right to take control of government property? If the only test for that is to fight it out, you have not produced any solution.

[Stranger]

@Len Budney

Right and wrong are defined absolutely, whether or not anyone gets justice. Your assertion to the contrary proceeds from confusing morality, legislation in general and libertarian law in particular. Initiating agression is a priori immoral and against libertarian law. It’s often permitted by legislation. An aggressor is both a sinner and a criminal, whether or not he is ever caught. Sometimes criminals go unpunished for lack of proof, or for lack of accusers. For example, if I murder a man with no heirs, I might never be accused of murder, and hence never convicted or punished–but the objective fact remains that I am morally and legally a murderer.

Right and wrong are of no importance in economics. What matters is social cooperation and wealth. You are sanctimonious but you provide no solution that will bring about social cooperation. Allow me to congratulate you on your moral purity. Now get out of the way.

@Niccolò

@Stranger

You’re assuming that the good can be reassembled at no cost. It’s tantamount to sawing a car in half and selling off each half under the justification that the market can calculate if it should be welded back together.

Couldn’t care less about the value of the car.

What’s right is right, no matter what the cost.

That is an anti-economic perspective that even the Marxists would have trouble espousing.

[Len_Budney]

Right and wrong are of no importance in economics. What matters is social cooperation and wealth.

The topic of the thread is “A LIBERTARIAN IMMIGRATION POLICY.” Right and wrong are of central importance to a discussion of libertarian policy.

You are sanctimonious but you provide no solution that will bring about social cooperation.

As usual, you approach liberty like a central planner. “Bring about” social cooperation? Social cooperation can’t be unilaterally brought about by your policy prescriptions, because cooperation takes two. Which is what you consistently ignore, by attempting to take freedom back out of the equation so as to retain control over the outcome.

Allow me to congratulate you on your moral purity. Now get out of the way.

Technically, since you insist that government be given title to its stolen property, you’re the one “in the way.” When the revolution comes, you’ll have your back to the wall along with the politicians.

Your suggestion is to “privatize” by declaring that the government is now a private entity. That’s not even wrong; it’s just silly. Your false dichotomy is that the only other way is to abandon all government property tomorrow and declare a homesteading free-for-all. That’s also unworkable for practical reasons, but it’s not the only other choice.

The right way to “bring about” social cooperation is to parcel out government properties, selling them to the highest bidder, and placing the proceeds in an escrow fund for settling successful lawsuits against the municipality. Once the last property is gone, the municipality can be disbanded. Once the last lawsuit is settled, the remaining money can be disbursed to the taxpayers of the municipality in any way you like–equally, pro rata, etc.

–Len.

[Stranger]

@Len Budney

As usual, you approach liberty like a central planner. “Bring about” social cooperation? Social cooperation can’t be unilaterally brought about by your policy prescriptions, because cooperation takes two.

Social cooperation is the outcome of peace. It is brought about by just law and the recognition of mutual benefit from the division of labor. Achieving peace and social cooperation is a rational, purposeful act.

@Len Budney

Technically, since you insist that government be given title to its stolen property, you’re the one “in the way.” When the revolution comes, you’ll have your back to the wall along with the politicians.

Are you hearing yourself brother? You’ve become a caricature of a jacobin. You’re dreaming of a violent revolution that will sweep away your enemies and see them executed by firing squad. I am speaking of peace and looking for solutions to achieve it. My proposal for a libertarian immigration policy I posted in an economics discussion forum because I aimed to discuss its economic consequences. It is libertarian by definition as it is a net increase in freedom of settlement with no net decrease in such freedoms and no net decrease in the freedoms to discriminate. It brings more peace and less conflict.

You are obsessed with correcting past wrongs at the expense of trying to build a better future. That is not libertarian.

@Len Budney

The right way to “bring about” social cooperation is to parcel out government properties, selling them to the highest bidder, and placing the proceeds in an escrow fund for settling successful lawsuits against the municipality. Once the last property is gone, the municipality can be disbanded. Once the last lawsuit is settled, the remaining money can be disbursed to the taxpayers of the municipality in any way you like–equally, pro rata, etc.

You have failed to answer the underlying question - how are you going to get control of the government properties? I suppose your answer will once again be your miraculous violent overthrow of the government. This has no foundation in reality.

How do we go, without violence, from a world of government to a world of private law and peace? That is the economic question.

[Len_Budney]

Are you hearing yourself brother? You’ve become a caricature of a jacobin.

You really have trouble grasping abstraction. For example, vivid language confuses you because you can’t get past the literal meaning. Literally, I don’t advocate violent revolution whereby all aggressors are killed. Don’t be crazy, man.

On the other hand, self-defense is always moral, and aggression is always immoral. If a cop attempts to initiate aggression against me, it would be moral to defend myself, even to the extent of lethal force. I would eventually die in a hail of bullets as every cop in the universe unites to crush me like a bug, but on the level or moral abstraction, I’d be right and they’d be wrong. You not only dismiss this observation; as far as I can tell you don’t even comprehend it, because that level of abstraction is meaningless to you.

If you were capable of abstraction, you’d realize that every time you propose aggression, you are proposing an action that might legitimately be opposed using deadly force. You’d think much more clearly if you kept that in mind: every time you hypothetically make yourself dictator, imagine someone hypothetically giving you the death a dictator deserves, and perhaps you’ll eventually relinquish your napoleonic fantasies.

You have failed to answer the underlying question - how are you going to get control of the government properties?

How indeed! You haven’t answered that question either: you propose to leave it in the hands of the current crop of thieves, but legitimate it by granting them title. In other words, you propose to “get control of” government properties by… not doing so, and saying you did.

The question how best to privatize government properties assumes the decision has already been made to privatize. How THAT comes about is a separate question, and YOU certainly haven’t attempted to answer it either. Apparently, education finally works, and the people agree that government is a criminal organization, so they infiltrate it with thousands of Ron Pauls. Thus we reach day 0 of privatization, and ponder the question, “How best to privatize?”

I answered that question. How best to privatize is to sell off properties and business units, keeping the proceeds for reparations to victims of government aggression.

–Len.