Hoppe versus Block

Economics Political Theory
1

I was reading Democracy the God that failed and read Hoppe’s argument about making the case for restricting immigration. Then I read Block making the case for free immigration. Who is right? Block or Hoppe? Rothbard was originally for free immigration, then before he died he called for restricting immigration.

My own take is that if the land is privately owned and somone immgrated from one place to another, then he can’t just come on somebody else’s land since that is trespassing. But if the land is unnowned, then all that is being applied is homesteading.

Any thoughts?

2

The welfare state makes it necessary to control immigration. Once unemployment, minimum wage, corporate & individual subsidies, and all the rest are dismantled… then we can start talking about allowing people to move freely through a free market.

The existence of these programs create the need for millions of people to enter the US, the demand for immigrant labor is artificial. Once these programs are eliminated the demand for cheap foreign labor will be minimal. Those jobs done today by imported labor will be done by locals, who in the past, sat around doing nothing but sucking on Uncle Sams teat.

3

If open immigration causes problems for the welfare state, then too bad for the welfare state. Just because one intervention into the market causes problems doesn’t mean libertarians should support further interventions to “remedy” the problems. This is that “middle of the road” thinking that Mises showed leads to full socialism.

If a city had rent controls, should libertarians support building codes to make sure landlords keep their buildings safe (since landlords can’t really afford to keep the properties safe)? If landlords started converting residential spaces to commercial spaces, should libertarians then support zoning restrictions?

Not that I’m an advocate of open borders given our current situation. It’s just that I’m hard pressed to advocate for any increase in government power such as immigration restrictions. Especially one that isn’t constitutional.

Also Hoppe’s version of restricted immigration in an an-cap society really just consists of private property owners restricting “foreigners” from entering their property. There isn’t any sort of society wide restrictions against citizens of a different region.

4

this doesn’t sound like an economics question.

5

Greater racial diversity seems to rile up a xenophobic nature in the populace, making them less likely to support transfer payments to those other groups, which could be good for liberty.

6

If open immigration causes problems for the welfare state, then too bad for the welfare state.

It causes problems for more than just the welfare state. It causes problems for those who are forced to live under a welfare state as well.

Just because one intervention into the market causes problems doesn’t mean libertarians should support further interventions to “remedy” the problems.

All of these interventions already exist. The welfare state and limits on immigration. I am talking about the order in which the interventions must be repealed.

If a city had rent controls, should libertarians support building codes to make sure landlords keep their buildings safe (since landlords can’t really afford to keep the properties safe)?

Yes. Its not that we support intervention, its that we should understand the problems and thier causes. Then advocate for the removal of interventions in such a way that would limit the harm. Rent controls remove property owners incentive to invest money in their property which, in many cases, result in slums and lack of housing. So I would support building codes if there are rent controls.

If landlords started converting residential spaces to commercial spaces, should libertarians then support zoning restrictions?

Depends is government intervention cleary the cause of the coversions?

It’s just that I’m hard pressed to advocate for any increase in government power such as immigration restrictions.

As am I. However, this is a responsibility that has been taken away from private citizens. To remove those controls without allowing the private citizens the right protect themselves first is ass backwards. Besides, the government already has all the money and power it needs to control the borders, so we need not grant it more power to do so.

Also Hoppe’s version of restricted immigration in an an-cap society really just consists of private property owners restricting “foreigners” from entering their property.

That would be the way I see it as well. But with public property owned by the government and government not protecting the property rights of the land owners along the boarder, there is little to no way for a private citizen to stop it from occurring on thier property. Any attempts to do so can land them in jail or invite reprisal from certain violent factions along the boarder.

Any private means of regulating immigration has been rendered impotent. I would not support a system where government rights violations would be simply replaced government protected/enabled rights violations.

7

this doesn’t sound like an economics question.

It is a political question that primarily arises because of government intervention in the economy. (Creating artificial demand for labor through unemployment, minimum wage, etd.)

8

Heavy immigration from an alien culture can have a huge effect on a nation. Not every country is built on immigration like the US.

9

If open immigration causes problems for the welfare state, then too bad for the welfare state. Just because one intervention into the market causes problems doesn’t mean libertarians should support further interventions to “remedy” the problems. This is that “middle of the road” thinking that Mises showed leads to full socialism.

100% with you here. The government has no right to, and no one has any duty to, stop people from passing through unowned (which includes state owned) land; if the government had a policy where it shot an Irish person for every Chinese kid born in the US that would not give anyone any ‘right’ to restrict Chinese mothers from having children; though it would give anyone a right to stop the government from shooting Irish people.

The anti-immigration argument is pure bunk, some bizarre attempt to infuse nationalism into liberalism.

10

if the government had a policy where it shot an Irish person for every Chinese kid born in the US that would not give anyone any ‘right’ to restrict Chinese mothers from having children

Your analogy is a bit off. The government only violates the right one party in your analogy (the rights of the irish). In the immigration scenario the government violates the right of private property owners and those who wish to move from one place to another.

The question is not whether the government has the right to do this or that. I think we all agree it has no right to do anything. The question is if we could choose to eliminate government control over immigration or end the welfare state (one rights violation or another) which would be better.

The anti-immigration argument is pure bunk, some bizarre attempt to infuse nationalism into liberalism.

So you think that it is bunk that people getting upset about large influxes of people that change the character of their home, town, city, or whatever is bunk? In particular when the reason for the immigration is government policy that creates the demand for the labor and uses their tax money to encourage the immigration.

Misguided as many anti-immigration supporters may be, they have some legitimate complaints.

11

@ Constittuionalist,

“Rothbard was originally for immigration, then before he died he called for restricting immigration.”

Not trying to hijack the thread, but i am very interested in reading where Rothbard said he was for restricting immigration. I did a search for it and found nothing.

12

The question is not whether the government has the right to do this or that. I think we all agree it has no right to do anything. The question is if we could choose to eliminate government control over immigration or end the welfare state (one rights violation or another) which would be better.

The answer is not to make the choice. I refuse to accede to any mafia policy, or to make ‘decisions’ on who ought to be beaten up and kidnapped. As far as welfare goes, anyways, it’s stolen money so better that unemployed Mexicans have it than the government. And I also find it somewhat schizophrenic to say, “the government should have immigration restrictions, and people should do their best to violate them whenever it suits their fancy.” Political libertarianism gives rise to all sorts of crazy nonsense like that.

So you think that it is bunk that people getting upset about large influxes of people that change the character of their home, town, city, or whatever is bunk?

Somehwat, yes. But, more to the point, nobody has any right to stop them. The roads, schools, vast tracts of uninhabited lands and so forth were created or conquered by the State and thus are not really owned by anyone.

isguided as many anti-immigration supporters may be, they have some legitimate complaints.

It was native born white Americans who ruined this country, and continue to. If we’re going to have immigration restrictions, how about this: no one from any democratic, republican or generally welfarist European government should be allowed into the country!

13

I was astounded by Hoppe’s argument back than, but now I’ve come to see some merit there. If there were no state, than all land would be privately owned, and privately ‘regulated’. Does current state regulation provide a good approximation?

Let’s take immigration: if all land in the States was privately owned, perhaps very few places would allow Albanians to immigrate (just a notional example). By restricting the right of Albanians to immigrate, than one comes closer to the state of affairs that would have reigned on a free market, while unlimited immigration would constitute a step away.

In this sense, immigration is just a subset of the socialist calculation issue, and we cannot say with any degree of certainty whether more or less immigration should be allowed, and for whom, and by which standards. It’s a guess. Hence Hoppe proposes to approximate the result by allowing every block or city to decide by itself on the issue. Of course, the true solution would be to fully privatize all land.

Of course, you will appreciate this as an utilitarian, not ethical, argument.

14

Let’s take immigration: if all land in the States was privately owned, perhaps very few places would allow Albanians to immigrate

Are you sure? If I owned a business, wouldn’t I want as many customers as possible? I would be glad to have Albanians look at purchasing my house, if it means a chance of increasing its market value.

Does current state regulation provide a good approximation? Of course, you will appreciate this as an utilitarian, not ethical, argument.

Sorry, I fail to see why something wrong should be acceptable, even if it’s approximately the same as the right thing.

15

Of course, you will appreciate this as an utilitarian, not ethical, argument.

I don’t really see a difference.

16

Are you sure? If I owned a business, wouldn’t I want as many customers as possible? I would be glad to have Albanians look at purchasing my house, if it means a chance of increasing its market value.

Of course not, I just took a notional example to make the point: we do not, and cannot know unless land is actually privately owned in full.

Sorry, I fail to see why something wrong should be acceptable, even if it’s approximately the same as the right thing.

Well, the argument is not interested in ethics. Yet I would be hard pressed to define it as wrong for the state to ban immigration into land IT ownes, not privale land (as it does now).

17

I don’t really see a difference.

Its complicated. The selection mechanism is utilitarian (those who eat more, survive to pass their morals), but the ethical standards being selected might not be.

18

Its complicated. The selection mechanism is utilitarian (those who eat more, survive to pass their morals), but the ethical standards being selected might not be.

I just mean, more generally, that utilitarianism is going to be part of any coherent framework of norms.

19

I just mean, more generally, that utilitarianism is going to be part of any coherent framework of norms.

While I have found that almost no one ever considers utilitarian arguments agains a purely ethical standpoint. Rothbard himself never did.

20

While I have found that almost no one ever considers utilitarian arguments agains a purely ethical standpoint. Rothbard himself never did.

A lot of people here, and Rothbard and Rand, have made statements to the effect that even if capitalism led to everyone starving that it would still be the only moral system. Which is kind of crazy.