The statist thug points his gun at the homeowner, not the plumber. The licensed plumber collaborates. The state and business’ work together to create a dominating plutocracy. That is, and has been, the paradigm of Western liberal democracy.
“the balance of power shifting … to where statism is abolished”
I would think the abolition of statism is much more than a mere shift in the balance of power. The abolition of statism would be something very big. Opting out might be much more doable.
“It seems to me that you are attempting a reductio ad absurdum of civil disobedience. Namely, that if we are to praise illegal immigrants for violating immigration law, then why not praise thieves and murderers for violating other laws?”
Nope. People living peacefully, respecting each other and their property, trading, etc are simply par for the course, government laws are completely irrelevant. That doesn’t make you a hero though.
“The answer lies with the nature of the law itself. As Bastiat pointed out in The Law, the only just law is that which protects life, liberty, and property. SInce no form of migration does not violate the Non-Aggresion Principle (NAP), using force against migrants of any sort (emigrants or immigrants) is a violation of the NAP.”
That last line be interpreted an infinite number of ways as the NAP isn’t objective. If you don’t think that “aggression” includes trespass on private property then it makes sense. However, any harder stance on property makes it false as many illegal immigrants come to the U.S. by violating people’s private property (sometimes. violently).
"If following the law is everywhere and always the right thing to do, then was it right for people in 1850’s America to follow the Fugitive Slave Act? Was it right for people in NAZI Germany to rat out their neighbor who was hiding Jews in his basement?
Of course not. You are a good person, you know that there is such a thing as bad law, and that resisting bad law–far from being bad itself–is heroic. Morality always trumps the statutes of fallible legislators."
You’ve missed the point completely. It isn’t about “following the law” or morality at all, this is about what makes a hero.
@ Angurse
A hero is one who takes risks for what he holds as sacred, it might be his people, his family, his lover or maybe his principles. The romantic image of the illegal immigrant is one who risks confrontation with the US government so that he might save his family from the perceived hell of his home country.
BTW is your signature quote meant to be ironic?
“A hero is one who takes risks for what he holds as sacred, it might be his people, his family, his lover or maybe his principles. The romantic image of the illegal immigrant is one who risks confrontation with the US government so that he might save his family from the perceived hell of his home country.”
I think that definition of a hero is too broad as everyone takes risks all the time, even illegal ones. I’ve crossed over from my country Québec (a hellhole), to the U.S. and worked “illegally” for profit, does that make me a hero? Personally, I really don’t see anything exceptional or heroic in trying to survive.
“BTW is your signature quote meant to be ironic?”
No.
@ Angurse
There is always a matter of degree. You can broaden it to what ever level you like. It is heroic to get out of bed because one risks falling down. Yet you didn’t fully insert yourself into my definition because you didn’t identify the sacred that would benefit from your heroic act of coming south. Egoists can’t be heros. Heros must be altruists.
How do you define heroism?
“There is always a matter of degree. You can broaden it to what ever level you like. It is heroic to get out of bed because one risks falling down. Yet you didn’t fully insert yourself into my definition because you didn’t identify the sacred that would benefit from your heroic act of coming south.”
I’m actually trying to narrow it. However, I said survival and profit, they are sacred to me, thus I’m a hero! This conception, that all actions are to some degree heroic, make the word utterly meaningless.
“Egoists can’t be heros. Heros must be altruists.”
Then there are no heroes! All of your conscious actions are because of your sense of satisfaction.
“How do you define heroism?”
I’d say a hero is someone who sacrifices his well-being to achieve a noble goal, that is, a goal beyond that of average norms. So survival, getting out of bed, not murdering, drinking a glass of water, working, attending school, providing for one’s family, etc… are all fairly routine activities, not heroic.
So we agree.
<>Heros must be altruistic (“sacrifices his well-being”).
<>Your “noble goal” equates to my “what one holds as sacred.” Neither term can be defined except by referring to that which is worthy of sacrifice.
<> The only point we might disagree on is if the immigrant’s family is noble/sacred enough and does the level of risk justify the title of hero? In the end the argument must end in gradients of heroism. “Honey, I took out the trash.” “You’re my hero!”
Taleb is someone I follow closely. He’s a thinker, I am not sure he is as much a doer, but I do value his thinking greatly. If you really want to get into the mindset of a radical libertarian (not dogmatic and fanatical, but radically unique), read his Twitter channel. It is loaded with interesting nuggets.
Hear, hear.
"Heros must be altruistic (“sacrifices his well-being”)."
No, as I meant material well-being. Altruism is to engage in a completely selfless act, which is praxeologically impossible.
"Your “noble goal” equates to my “what one holds as sacred.” Neither term can be defined except by referring to that which is worthy of sacrifice. "
Nope, you’ve ripped the “noble goal” and ignored what is meant by it - “beyond that of average norms” - whereas “what one holds as sacred” is only dependent on the individual himself (the one). The two obviously aren’t the same, as one could hold survival to be sacred (myself for example) under your definition it could be heroic, however undermine, since its a norm, it cannot.
"The only point we might disagree on is if the immigrant’s family is noble/sacred enough and does the level of risk justify the title of hero? In the end the argument must end in gradients of heroism. “Honey, I took out the trash.” “You’re my hero!”"
Exactly, people take out the trash all the time, its normal behaviour, not heroic at all. To say it’s heroic to a degree is just a mockery.
Immigration isn’t a violation of private property. Immigration laws are. That is, Bob wants to hire immigrants at his farm, Bill wants to lodge them at his apartment complex, Sarah wants to do business with them at her grocery store, and so forth. Immigration restrictionists are calling for the violent intermediary of the state to step in and prevent these parties from engaging in voluntary transactions. Ethically, this cannot be justified since it violates the NAP. From a purely economic perspective, this cannot be justified either since we know praxeologically that it is not conducive to either parties’ ends for a third party to interfere with their exchange. Immigration restrictions, therefore, are not justifiable from either an ethical or an economic standpoint. Immigration should be free.
We were speaking in the context of Block’s Defending the Undefendable. In it, he praises certain disreputable people, such as the gypsy cab driver, for circumventing oppressive government rules and regulations so that they may provide valuable services to people at lower costs than those who “go along to get along.” In this sense, by Walter Block’s criteria for heroism, illegal immigrants are heroes. I was merely proposing that Block include illegal immigrants in his sequel. Whether or not Block is correctly utilizing the term “hero” is a different matter.
“Immigration isn’t a violation of private property. Immigration laws are. That is, Bob wants to hire immigrants at his farm, Bill wants to lodge them at his apartment complex, Sarah wants to do business with them at her grocery store, and so forth. Immigration restrictionists are calling for the violent intermediary of the state to step in and prevent these parties from engaging in voluntary transactions. Ethically, this cannot be justified since it violates the NAP. From a purely economic perspective, this cannot be justified either since we know praxeologically that it is not conducive to either parties’ ends for a third party to interfere with their exchange. Immigration restrictions, therefore, are not justifiable from either an ethical or an economic standpoint. Immigration should be free.”
Are you actually going to address my point? What of the “illegal immigrants (who) come to the U.S. by violating people’s private property?” There are property owners who don’t want them walking on their land, yet they do. Lets say there are no governmental immigration laws, if I own a large piece of land at the U.S. border, and say “no trespassers” how is that not effectively the same thing as an immigration law? Now, immigrants could go over, under or around to get to a welcoming parties property, but I’m not referring to them. What of the immigrants who walk through the property? If you have a hard view of property and view trespass as aggression, then your claim “Since no form of migration does not violate the Non-Aggresion Principle (NAP)” is clearly false. Again, It all depends on how aggression is defined..
“We were speaking in the context of Block’s Defending the Undefendable. In it, he praises certain disreputable people, such as the gypsy cab driver, for circumventing oppressive government rules and regulations so that they may provide valuable services to people at lower costs than those who “go along to get along.” In this sense, by Walter Block’s criteria for heroism, illegal immigrants are heroes. I was merely proposing that Block include illegal immigrants in his sequel. Whether or not Block is correctly utilizing the term “hero” is a different matter.”
Yes, I’m arguing against Block’s criteria for heroism, its poor, as it includes almost everyone. However, I responded to Skyler Collins who said"
“He’s planning a follow-up I understand. Personally, I consider illegal immigrants as partial-exemplars of the libertarian ideal. They live and work where they want, regardless of what the government says is okay”
The part where he says “Personally, I consider…” is a clear break from the context of Block’s personal definition of heroes.
What of the “illegal immigrants (who) come to the U.S. by violating people’s private property?”
We’re talking about illegal immigrants qua illegal immigrants. We could say that any of the other so-called heros like the pimp, might also beat their prostitutes, but so what?
I don’t like the definition of “altruism” as completely selfless acts. It nullifies any valid use of the word because most people often don’t understand the concept of psychic profit. I would define an altruist as “one who performs positively accepted autistic exchange”.
How would you define “hero”? (Sorry if I missed it.)
The primary reason this happens is because, for many foreigners, there are no viable legal avenues for immigration (again, thanks to immigration law). If you are indeed concerned with the trespassing of private property owners then you should join me in calling for free immigration. Punish trespassing as a crime, not immigration, because the two are not one in the same. Indeed, the movement of labor is a crucial element of any economy. It is necessary to alleviate disequilibrium of capital and labor.
Are you advocating immigration controls as a means of preventing the potential violation of private property by immigrants? Do you realize that this is the equivalent of engaging in preventative detention of all teenage males—the guily along with the innocent—on the ground that this group commits a disproportionately high amount of crime?
Because immigration laws are coercive. They allow domestic labor to cartelize the labor market (the real reason for immigration control). I welcome you to put up a “no trespassers” sign on your lawn. I just don’t want you forcing me to put up one on mind (or, to be more accurate, using a band of armed thugs to keep out my potential friends and business-associates).
They should be dealt with like any other trespassers. The property owners has a right to evict them in the gentlest manner possible. If the immigrants refuse, then it is ethical for the forces of law and order to extract them by force.
When I said that migration does not violate the NAP, I meant it does not necessarily violate the NAP. I thought this point obvious and did not think it needed repeating. I considered you capable of discerning this for yourself.
If I was to say that going for a jog or moving to a new house does not violate the NAP, the term necessarily is obviously implied. Of course there are innumerable possibilities of violating the NAP in these two activities—punching a neighbor as you jog by, jogging on a golf course where it is not permitted, or driving your moving truck through the neighbor’s neatly trimmed petunias, for instance. But only a smart-ass would bring up these potentialities.
Yes, thank you, this is another (simpler) way of phrasing my petunia example.
“We’re talking about illegal immigrants qua illegal immigrants. We could say that any of the other so-called heros like the pimp, might also beat their prostitutes, but so what?”
I was responding specifically to this claim: “Since no form of migration does not violate the Non-Aggresion Principle (NAP), using force against migrants of any sort (emigrants or immigrants) is a violation of the NAP.” There are forms of migration that violate the NAP (depending on how you define aggression anyways). Thats a far cry from praising it-in-itself.
I don’t like the definition of “altruism” as completely selfless acts. It nullifies any valid use of the word because most people often don’t understand the concept of psychic profit.
Well, that is the meaning of the word. I think its retains its validity as a conception, but I won’t disagree the sooner people learn about praxeology the better.
“I would define an altruist as “one who performs positively accepted autistic exchange”.”
That would include people who do nothing at all for others, like a fisherman who catches and eats the fish.
“How would you define “hero”? (Sorry if I missed it.)”
“I’d say a hero is someone who sacrifices his material well-being to achieve a noble goal, that is, a goal beyond that of average norms. So survival, getting out of bed, not murdering, drinking a glass of water, working, attending school, providing for one’s family, etc… are all fairly routine activities, not heroic.”
I would define an altruist as “one who performs positively accepted autistic exchange.”
I would define an altruist as “one who performs positively accepted autistic exchange.”
I would define an altruist as “one who performs positively accepted autistic exchange.”
“I’d say a hero is someone who sacrifices his material well-being to achieve a noble goal, that is, a goal beyond that of average norms. So survival, getting out of bed, not murdering, drinking a glass of water, working, attending school, providing for one’s family, etc… are all fairly routine activities, not heroic.”
What is a “noble goal” though? All of the mundane activities we are saying are heroic are such because people pursue these legitimate activities despite the state’s threat of violence. It’s not slaying dragons, but it is still fighting evil at least insomuch as it makes governing more expensive.
“I would define an altruist as “one who performs positively accepted autistic exchange”.”
That would include people who do nothing at all for others, like a fisherman who catches and eats the fish.
That I added “positively accepted” presupposed autistic exchange with an other-directedness, versus solitary action of an individual.
The recipient of altruism doesn’t provide the psychic profit acquiring by the altruist. For it to still be autistic exchange, the smile of the gift-receiver is a result of the psychological episode of being happy to receive the gift. The smile is then not made to communicate gratitude or bring about happiness on the part of the gift-giver.
edit: I think for the action to be altruistic, the intention on the part of the gift giver is twofold. He must speculate that the gift giving will be positively received and he must act without expectation of “mutuality” on the part of the recipient. Whether the result is mutuality or not and the action is autistic or not is purely academic.
Also, you can quote using the " button above the Font and Size part on the menu.
“The primary reason this happens is because, for many foreigners, there are no viable legal avenues for immigration (again, thanks to immigration law). If you are indeed concerned with the trespassing of private property owners then you should join me in calling for free immigration. Punish trespassing as a crime, not immigration, because the two are not one in the same. Indeed, the movement of labor is a crucial element of any economy. It is necessary to alleviate disequilibrium of capital and labor.”
Who cares? The fact that it can (and does) happen is all that matters. Point made! There are forms of migration that violate the NAP (or at least can) as migration and trespassing can be one and the same. However, there definitely are legal avenues for immigration, them being “viable” is really a different story.
“Are you advocating immigration controls as a means of preventing the potential violation of private property by immigrants? Do you realize that this is the equivalent of engaging in preventative detention of all teenage males—the guily along with the innocent—on the ground that this group commits a disproportionately high amount of crime?”
Nope. I’m not advocating any immigration controls (or policies, or ideas on immigration itself) I’m advocating people think before they respond.
“They should be dealt with like any other trespassers. The property owners has a right to evict them in the gentlest manner possible. If the immigrants refuse, then it is ethical for the forces of law and order to extract them by force.”
Effectively, migration control.
“When I said that migration does not violate the NAP, I meant it does not necessarily violate the NAP. I thought this point obvious and did not think it needed repeating. I considered you capable of discerning this for yourself.”
I wondered why you would find the need to say it at all as it didn’t correspond to what I haw written about, or why you would use absolute terms when, you could have typed less and simultaneously been more clear.
“If I was to say that going for a jog or moving to a new house does not violate the NAP, the term necessarily is obviously implied. Of course there are innumerable possibilities of violating the NAP in these two activities—punching a neighbor as you jog by, jogging on a golf course where it is not permitted, or driving your moving truck through the neighbor’s neatly trimmed petunias, for instance. But only a smart-ass would bring up these potentialities.”
Thats not an apt comparison, as immigration frequently does involve trespass, to use absolute terms is to removes any underlying implications. Just as drug dealers frequently “cut” their product and use other forms of violence, one wouldn’t say “Since no form of drug dealing violates the Non-Aggresion Principle (NAP), using force against drug dealers of any sort is a violation of the NAP.”
“What is a “noble goal” though?”
That depends on the surrounding culture.
“All of the mundane activities we are saying are heroic are such because people pursue these legitimate activities despite the state’s threat of violence. It’s not slaying dragons, but it is still fighting evil at least insomuch as it makes governing more expensive.”
I’m saying those activities aren’t heroic just because people do them, what makes an action heroic is the motivation behind it coupled with the surrounding culture. Dragon-slaying isn’t heroic if everyone does it, nor is it heroic if its done for day-to-day survival. Its just a necessity of life. A prostitute doesn’t sell herself because she wants to bring down the state, she does so for money, for survival. She is ultimately at the same level as a coach roach living in someones house.
“That I added “positively accepted” presupposed autistic exchange with an other-directedness, versus solitary action of an individual.”
“Positively accepted” is extremely broad though, I thought you meant that the society found his actions (i.e. fishing for himself) to be good, like a model citizen. I think you can make a better definition. And Mises’ view makes hard to reconcile with altruism.
"The recipient of altruism doesn’t provide the psychic profit acquiring by the altruist. For it to still be autistic exchange, the smile of the gift-receiver is a result of the psychological episode of being happy to receive the gift. The smile is then not made to communicate gratitude or bring about happiness on the part of the gift-giver.
edit: I think for the action to be altruistic, the intention on the part of the gift giver is twofold. He must speculate that the gift giving will be positively received and he must act without expectation of “mutuality” on the part of the recipient. Whether the result is mutuality or not and the action is autistic or not is purely academic.
I’m not sure how the giver’s speculation makes him any less than an egoist. However, if you like this pet definition of altruism, fantastic. It doesn’t contradict my own definition of hero. Remind me next time, and I’ll rearrange it to suit you better.
“Also, you can quote using the " button above the Font and Size part on the menu.”
Next time.
Regarding migration and trespassing, you have pointed out (and I have conceded) the possibility of the action of migration involving the violation of property rights. We agree! Two possibilities follow:
Restrict or totally prohibit all migration
Restrict or prohibit only that migration which involves the violate of property rights
“Free Immigration” is the second policy. I’m still not quite sure what camp you belong in.
The viability of the legal avenues for immigration is crucial! What the US federal government as done is establish a monumental bureaucracy through which potential immigrants must wade if they wish to come here legally. How anyone could be surprised by the phenomenon of illegal immigration is beyond me.
Sounds good, I’m all for thinking before responding.
It seems that we are using the term “migration control” in different senses. I was using it in the sense of national policy that will be coercively applied to all inhabitants of said nation. You are using it to describe freedom of association and private property rights. Well in the sense that you use it, sure, I’m a fan of migration control. I just think that you are using the term in a silly way that it is rarely associated with.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. To use force against immigrants or drug dealers ON THE GROUNDS that they have immigrated or dealt drugs is a violate of the NAP as there is nothing INHERINTLY aggressive with immigration QUA immigration or drug-dealing QUA drug-dealing. Sure, an immigrant might decide to trespass, but the fact that he is an immigrant is irrelevant to why he should be arrested. Non-immigrants trespass too. Similarly, a drug-dealer might decide to commit fraud, but this charge is separate from the act of dealing drugs, for violating the NAP is not a necessary aspect of the profession. Businessmen in other industries commit fraud too.
I thought I had made this point clear, but perhaps I have done a poor job of explaining it. I hope I have made it more clear this time.