I agree and am sure that Hoppe does. It is just given the existence of them restricted immigration is a sensible policy.
I’d like to respond to this point. I completely agree that any kind of positive obligations would be in contradiction to libertarian principle. I don’t think any agorist is saying that you have a positive obligation to support those particular aspects of the black market. Agorism is not “lifestyle libertarianism” in the sense of equating libertarianism to engaging in particular untraditional lifestyles. When I think of agorism, prostitution and drugs are not what initially comes to mind. On a more important level, finding ways to resolve disputes on the black market is what comes to mind. Dispute resolution and security organizations can be formed to compete with the state, even if they may be illegal or highly discouraged. I’ve seen some post-Objectivists advocate a “subscribed government”, and if they truly wish to attempt to form one it will probably have to initially start out on the black market.
Please then enlighten me on Agorism or left libertarianism.
Well, for one thing, agorism and left libertarianism are not necessarily the same thing. While arguably all agorists are left-libertarians, not all left-libertarians are agorists. Also, the sense in which left-libertarians generally use the term “left” has really nothing to do with the contemporary meaning of “left”. They’re working with an analysis of the political spectrum that was presented by Rothbard himself in his essay “Left and Right: The Prospects For Liberty” in which the classical definition of “left” signifies the revolutionary, libertarian anti-statist tradition, in opposition to the “right” which is the “old order” and the preservation of the status quo. Of course, Rothbard was partially under the influence of the New Left when he wrote that essay, but I think his analysis is pretty spot on, although the use of labels may very well get a bit too far into semantics. I found the essay particularly influential to my developement as a libertarian.
Agorism is a theory of strategy for revolution, as well as a class analysis that tosses away the flaws of Marx while still maintaining that there is a “class struggle” of a sort (very similar to the Oppenheimer-influenced Nockean notion of political power vs. social power). Agorism, as a strategic theory, is indeed about making use of black markets. It involves making use of “social power” in opposition to politics. But you are incorrect in percieving it as imposing any positive obligations. You can be a practising agorist within the confines of your own personal values scale. Agorism does not require you to adopt a particular values scale. Rather, it simply means that the means for reducing and eventually abolishing the state should be persued in terms of external competition, by using the market process itself, which for the most part spells out making use of black and grey markets.
If you agree that taxation is achieved through force or coercion, than anything paid for through taxation is obtained through non-libertarian means. There are some things that, as a “slave” we can not escape. We can’t drive on roads that aren’t built by taxation (for the most part, there are some toll roads that are privately owned, though usually paid for with bonds to begin with). But we can avoid situations that we voluntarily partake in that rely on taxation, like welfare. For the exact reasons that welfare is wrong, so is voting.
Incorrect. Government land is paid by the taxpayer, it is owned by the government. We are not granted a deed to it, we are not allowed to use it as we wish, we can not transfer ownership of it. Those are all neccesary components of ownership.
Immigrants are the victims of the state’s disaster.
Hoppe claims immigrants are the cause of the state’s disaster or at least contribute to it.
Ergo, blame the victims.
Right. I don’t understand this view that treats government land as the common, quotally shared property of the tax-payers. There is no discernable just owner. It would be impossible for the individual tax-payer to exercise their alleged quotal share of such property. You cannot sell your 1/500000th (or what have you) portion of government land. The tax-payer does not directly control it in any way whatsoever. Even granting that it may constitute stolen property, it has been redistributed so many times over and time has passed for so long that it would be impossible to allocate it back to the original just owners.
This reminds me of Walter Block’s own comments on “the bum in the library”. What to do about the bum sleeping in the public library, or by the doorsteps? Treat the public library as if it were private property and kick him out? Or is should the bum be viewed as essentially homesteading it? And, even if the public library is treated as if it were private property, how do we know that a given owner may not very well allow the bum to sleep there? This has a lot of implications for the immigration debate.
Where? As I recall he claims that the way the State handles immigration is a disaster.
I don’t need to, at least not here. Here, it is assumed that governments can not act rationally do to their socialist nature (Mises, 1922). It is also assumed that markets are the perfect mechanism to allocate resources (Rothbard, 2004).
Ergo markets allocate materials more efficiently than government programs to achieve intended goals. Ergo using the government process to afford change is inefficient.
Wasn’t that the guy that permitted his thugs in Ireland to detain poor Irish Catholics for as long as they saw proper? Yeah, great guy. [8-)]
Even so, after that what happened to the British crown? Did it dissolve? Did it evolve into a stateless society? No. So it was a failure.
No, it didn’t. Though why don’t we go to door number two, Hello Mr. Reagan.
Firstly, I didn’t try.
Secondly, I don’t need to. It was implied by Block, just that Block doesn’t believe it matters.
Pirated music, tax evasion, pirated goods, illegal firearms, non-taxed meat goods from hunting, in America, Cuban cigars, and anything that does not involve the state. The counter-economy encompasses a wide range of activities that you probably partake in everyday without knowing it, incorporating the black and grey markets, there’s a lot to cover.
As for “Right Libertarian,” I need to know exactly what you mean before I could say.
A small statist? No. He’s not a libertarian at all. He’s probably a conservative leaning towards less of his state. He’s a house ni… er… slave.
The exclusion of other peoples as unworthy of the same natural securities and negative rights that he possesses.
Government land is illegitimately owned by the government, thus making it unowned land. The argument that the taxpayer owns the land makes the fundamental mistake that you as a citizen are a member of the state, at least more a member than a slave would be considered a member.
Morally illegitimate, and thus unowned.
If Hoppe does not believe immigration contributes to the disaster of the state, whether this is primarily due to the welfare state or not, and thus is unacceptable, then where does he not make it? It’s laced throughout his paper!
Yes, but where does he blame the victim, as you put it?
Where does Hoppe claim that immigrants, as opposed to open border immigration, are the cause of the problem?
Where is there a difference?
GASP [:O] OH NO! They aren’t Swiss! KILL BLACKEY!
Blaming the welfare state does not entail blaming those who are on welfare, at least not necessarily. Similarly, blaming the state for its poor management of public property and lack of discernment in allowing access to it does not entail blaming those who take advantage of this access. This should be clear enough.
Unfortunately that’s not what Hoppe is saying.
Hoppe does not blame the welfare state for potential disaster coming about by the influx of immigrants, he blames the immigrants! He may blame the state as well, but fundamentally in his “natural order” he blames the immigrants for settling on unowned land - and yes, public land possesses no legitimate owner, whether or not the people paid for it is an irrelevancy, as it takes more than paying for something to own it.
Hoppe’s argument stems from a kind of Anarcho-Nationalism, if that makes any sense to a reasonable human being.
Yes, that’s right, immigration = moral outrage.
All he seems to be doing is outlining a consequence of the open borders position - I still have not seen any instance in which he places substantial blame upon the immigrant for the situation at hand.
He is an anarcho-capitalist, pure and simple.
Anarcho-nationalism. Ha.
It seems like the immigration debate and the strategy debate are crossing purposes between two different threads.
Gate keepers from the “invaders” the “intruders” the “unwanted.”
What bullshit. Who’s unwanted? Why? Does it matter? No. (A) Public land is unowned land. (B) The nationalization process by which Rothbard and Hoppe adhere to through dilluting the state and morally fixing people to the public property that they paid for in their region forever in shares is ridiculous and unattainable. You can not own a city unless you homesteaded the very ground you walk on before anyone else could do it. (C) Not all land is owned. (D) You do not own the atmosphere you reside in. You own your property, and your property alone. You don’t like the Zulus coming into Johnson’s store? Then move, you old, German bastard.