What is the official stance of Austrian economist when it comes to “illegal” immigration?
One of my favorite retorts: why do I need permission from the government to have someone on my property?
To my knowledge, the only official stance of Austrians is of praxeology being the basis for economic analysis.
I’m personally for open borders to encourage the exchange of goods and eliminate non-tariff barriers meant to establish protectionist policies.
I agree
Really? I figured that you would advocate for the state’s border patrol to protect us from potential foreign threats. After all, private security fails, according to you.
Can you say strawman?
Yes, I can. However, you are misapplying the term. But out of curiousity, how would my response be a strawman?
Since when are open borders necessary for the exchange of goods? Open borders allow unwanted “bads” into the country without the consent of the private property owners, especially so given that large amounts of land are publicly owned.
And I’d retort to that: why don’t immigrant need permission to enter others property?
Since that is the implication of your position.
It’s not his position
His position is that immigrants are free to enter a “country” (an arbitrarily bordered piece of individually owned land) when, and only when, the owners of the property/land the immigrants are entering have invited them on. Otherwise it is trespass.
I’d be interested to know what you think about Hoppe’s position on immigration in the short- and medium-term (i.e. presuming we are not in a free society).
Oh, and by the way, every answer you’ve heard has been the answer of a libertarian, not an Austrian economist. Austrian economics and libertarianism are not synonymous, although due to basic intuitionist utilitarianism they tend to be mutually complementary.
Austrian economists would have no “ought” opinion, but they would consider the implications of possible human actions.
I’m all for it, because it means the democratic State becomes huge and unwieldly attempting to impose order on criminal gangs, arbitrate inter-ethnic conflict, and dole out favors to various tribes. Thus, when the electoral minority of net producers perceive that the State can offer nothing of value in exchange for their taxes, they will withdraw their support from it and the multi-cultural democratic State will collapse. People will then finally be free to organize themselves into viable, for-profit communities of shared values.
I hope this is sarcasism. There would be hardly anything left.
Not necessariy, neither Hayek nor Lachmann were praxeologists.
What are you talking about? Of course immigrants would need permission to enter others’ property. That’s a horrible retort and of the sort that the OP would use.
Yes. You are correct. But to clarify or prevent further confusion, this does not mean that an immigrants has to right to enter someone else’s property for the purpose of getting to, and then entering, my property.
This.
Well when those ‘bads’ tresspass into the private property they can be bring dealt with.
Well, Hayek did write the robustly praxeological articles “The Facts of the Social Sciences” and “Scientism and the Study of Society.” His “Economics and Knowledge” can be interpreted as rejecting praxeology, but I think that interpretation is a little too strong.
Prediction: this thread will blow up to 150+ posts.
Correct. As it is now, the state has created blockades which are funneling immegrants into the only unguarded places left on the border, primarily Arizona. These places are populated by large ranches, so obviously immegrants are going to trespass, either unaware, or because they see no available alternative.
I’m having some second thoughts on the immigration issue. Couldn’t public property be considered to be owned by foreigners as well as the domestic population, given monetary imperialism?
The official stance depends on what the relevant scale of property is. The state monopolizes all property beyond that of the individual home, so everything beyond that is speculative.