A triviality for one with an 8-year-olds understanding of strategy. You can’t beat me if I refuse to play your game; this sums up the agorist’s “strategy,” it is truly genious. Only a poodle walking, blouse wearing, nancy-boy could possibly come up with something so brilliant. I’ll wager there is not an agorist alive who could win a game of chess against your average teenager to save their lives.
As I have always maintained, “guns for show, knives for a pro.”
This asociation of so called ´illegal´ immigration with the welfare state sounds like pure scapegoating to me. So let me point a , uh, fact?
The welfare state was created by WASPs for WASPs. But if the welfare state is a problem, then it doesn´t matter who use it. As far as I can tell, ´illegal´ immigrants are people just like WASPs ? Or is there something that makes them non-human ?
It seems to me that libertarians should be really glad that so called ´illegal´ immigration would mean an earlier demise of the welfare state. But, no. They want to protect the welfare state from immigrants ? That sounds very confused.
Fine, then let us pretend public property doesn’t exist, that it does not result in forced association (roads?), that it isn’t mismanaged and that this is all thus a dream of some nutty German closet racist…
[8-)]
Oh, come on, kdnc. Painting agorism as the route of the “pussy-boy” is strange. The truth seems to me to be quite the opposite. Only the agorists are willing to engage in mass civil disobedience and openly defy the state’s laws. That takes true courage. The reformists, on the other hand, shy away from it because it is too risky for them. The reformists choose the easiest route that involves the least personal risk. Agorism could thus be viewed as more enteprenuerial. An agorist bears the costs themselves, while the reformist externalizes the costs through the political process (considering that voting does effect 3rd parties of people).
Inquisitor, well, no, public property does not exist. Unless you assume that polticos have proper property titles that prove that they own the country.
It exists as legal fiction. It is, of course, unjust and should be voided, but that isn’t what we’re discussing.
You misunderstand. Public property does exist in that it is there. It doesn’t exist in that it is property - i.e. legitimately homesteaded for ownership.
It’s what I’m discussing.
[^o)]
What are you discussing…?
Unexplainable allegories are nice, but liquor is quicker.
See, I can make nonsense too. [<:o)]
Exactly, which is why, I myself, can not find any other correlation between it than some type of nationalism (which I consider to be a form of racism).
This seems to be implied by Hoppes’ lementing (SP?) over the loss of ethno-culture. When he asks this question in his paper, he merely respons, “Yes, the welfare state is gone, but the problem is that the immigrants are still there.”
Yeah, Inquistor, that’s not closet racism, that is racism.
The merits of Dr Hoppe’s argument, given that the state exists and controls substantial amounts of property. My only point of departure from his argument is that he is wasting time and detracting from his radicalism by arguing against open borders; it will suffice to say that the state must be destroyed. He has, though, demonstrated another way in which it is destructive.
I’m also not sure how a desire to preserve certain cultural identities is ‘racist’. Begin by defining what racism is.
Hoppe’s argument is entirely on the legitimacy of a state’s ability to extract citizens it does not desire within it’s borders, and to restrict people from going within those arbitrary borders. He doesn’t put it in these words because he’d be blasted to the stoneage by Anarchists for them, especially given his “libertarian ideology” in other fields that don’t correlate with other ethnicities he doesn’t like.
Preserving cultural identity is not racist. Negating the rights of others in order to do it is. I believe distant relatives of his have certain experiences with this course of action.
The exclusion of other peoples as unworthy of the same negative rights that he possesses on the basis of ethnicity, age, religion, or sex.
Inquisitor says “I’m also not sure how a desire to preserve certain cultural identities is ‘racist’. Begin by defining what racism is.”
Well, as soon as you define ´cultural identiy´ I can define racism 
Really, Hoppe ´s position sounds just like conservatism to me. Yes, the argument that ´public´ property means forced integration is true, but, notice this : I imagine for instance that pacifists find it rather revolting to live in the same country where crazed militarists live. And both groups are indeed subjected to ´forced integration´. So I don´t see how singling out ´illegal´ immigrations changes the big picture. Also, implying that germans or americans are somehow better than africans is a bit naive. Just look at the disgusting crimes of the 20th century and tell me that the West is civilized (hahaha)
God, how this petty aggressive stupidity bores me; I’d expect this of idiots like Tom Palmer, not serious anarchists. Look, some people value homogeneous cultures - whether or not this makes them racist (which it doesn’t on its own) is besides the point. Hoppe’s article is addressed to conservatives who most likely hold these values. He has nowhere advocated violating any negative rights immigrants possess. He has simply argued that the state ought to act like an owner of private property with regard to what it claims to own and be careful in who it admits. I maintain that he is wrong because the State has no property claims that are just. He would respond that this is so, but that the State is nowhere near to coming to terms with this. So if anything, one may accuse him of being overly pragmatic.
Attributions of racism (which is not merely a desire for disassociation, nor has it got anything to do with other forms of discrimination) and other ad hominem attacks are nothing but mere baseless hypothesizing. Attack his argument if you’re so sure that you’re correct… personal attacks are meaningless.
If the state ought to act like the owner of private property, you legitimize statism in all sorts of ways. You legitimize the state’s territorial monopoly as such. I find this odd coming from Hoppe, who generally has made brilliant arguements about the state being an unjust territorial monopolist. Yet on the other hand he is argueing that it should be treated as an owner of private property. There is congitive dissonance here. You’re right that the state has no property claims that are just. Then why then advocate state action as if it were a just private owner? If the state should be treated as a private property owner, then, in effect, we are all slaves. We are within the territory. If the territory is the state’s private property, then everything within it is fair game to be controlled.
So, as far as I can tell, the implications of treating the state as a private property owner spells out absolute totalitarianism. Of course, Hoppe is only using such an analysis in the attempt to justify immigration restriction. Of course he does not apply it in any other case. But this just shows that he is putting himself in a position of cognitive dissonance.
Do you mind pointing out what personal attacks you are refering to ? Thanks.
Oh, wait. That sounds like a personal attack, does it not ?
Want to violate the natural rights of others to property and freedom of movement over land (unowned) on the basis of their birthplace?
Yes, and Hoppe happens to be one of those kind of conservatives, i.e. a racist. How clear does it have to be for you? You’re willing to rationalized irrational statements and illogical formulas from Hoppe in order to avoid the obvious that the man does indeed, conscious or subconsciously, racist/xenephobic elements.
These elements themselves would not be so bad, however, if they didn’t justify the state’s existence to forcefully exclude people from homesteading land and freely trading with others born in different areas. Hoppe’s arguments do service this function, however, and so, we as responsible Anarchists must drag him into the street and correct his mistaken accusations.
Hoppe’s argument comes down to this:
Group X pays majority of taxes for City A
Thus, Group X possesses the moral legitimacy to exclude Group Y from moving from City B to City A.
What absurdities.
A. Group X is not paying for City A directly. Group X is paying Administration Z not to extract or imprison them while they continually reside in City A; furthermore, Group X is not really the only one paying for City A, in many other ways Group Y, Group P and Group O may also be funding some specific, incremental portions of the public property found within City A, thus Group Y, P, and O must logically own City A once Administration Z falls too.
B. Administration Z is an illegitimate owner of City A because they have expropriated the funds from other coercively. The land they possess is not land owned through homesteading, but rather through coercion, thus Administration Z possesses nothing.
C. Does the loss of Administration Z imply City A now comes into ownership by the Group X? No.
Group X, though perhaps some of their citizens have worked on the public land of City A, is merely a collection of individuals with claim to ownership of only the things they themselves have homesteaded, not the things that Administration Z extracted through coercive means, the things created by Administration Z are as illegitimate as Z itself and now return to the position of unowned land.
The question now becomes, what are we to do with this unowned land? My suggestion, homestead it.
Brainpolice, I agree - though to be fair, I think Hoppe is merely building on Rothbard’s position that if the State’s existence is taken as a given and isn’t going anywhere, it ought to be run like a business.
Juan, did you happen to miss all the posts branding Hoppe a racist? Personally I do not care if one is racist or not… though the way the word is intended is as a slur, usually used by ‘progressives’. I don’t believe Hoppe is racist, yet even if he were it would not change my respect for him in any sense.
Niccolo, his point is that if the State continues to exist plus there is open immigration, that the taxpaying populace is made worse off by virtue of increased forced association and a heavier tax load due to those who go on to welfare, and thus that their rights are further violated - one needn’t be a racist to point this out, and one needn’t be a racist to lament the effects forced integration has on cultural groupings; open borders in this context are no more libertarian than closed ones. This is frequently what happens in Europe, if not the USA. The only thing I disagree with is his misplaced solution - like Brainpolice has said, it stands in opposition to his generally radical stance on de-socialization. So what you in fact object to is his insufficiently radical proposal.
I am sure there are many agorists who are courageous. You are mistaken when you think that reformists as a whole are unwilling to engage in civil disobedience. Reformists (I am using your term here though I think you are misusing it) are willing to engage in civil disobedience and they also do not rule out any other reasonable means. There is a diference between buying into the system and using the system against itself; very basic concept. You may choose not to make use of the concept, but its general applicability cannot be denied.
In any case my comments were mainly directed at a specific individual who has shown his inability to follow even the simplest allegory, although I must say he has scared me dreadfully with his talk of gunfights and such. It is diaspointing to me to see the very low level of the discussions on these forums. People cannot even stay on topic, as you have pointed out this thread has been confused with the addition of the immigration discussion. If folks cannot follow the most basic principles of logic, how can they expect to get anywhere productive with their discussions. Practically every discussion gets sidetracked immediately and never returns to the orriginal question. A person makes a point and instead of responding, the next comment addresses something else entirely and includes baseless claims and childish talk you would expect to hear on a grade school playground (i.e. Im warning you boy…don’t bring a knife…bla,bla,bla). How ridiculous to see people having to ask each other what the other is talking about. The discussion is so petty and individuals constantly want to hichjack the line of reasoning because they do not have the capacity to follow the current line any further. They then often resort to lines like “I can make nonsense too.” Go back to college or find an online class in logic and go through it ten times then come back here and see if you can stay on topic and follow the resoning of a simple allegory. This weakmindedness is what I was responding to with the nancy-boy comment.
I don’t know how much relevence this has to this pretty intellectual conversation, but I’ll give you some personal reasons why I agree with Block, and why I’ll be voting for Ron Paul. The most important reason is that I think your plans of the “underground” economy, or black market, eventually ruining the state to be a little far fetched. Call me ignorent (true- I haven’t done a HUGE amount of research on agorism, although I have done some) but I don’t see it happening any time soon, if at all. Hey, more power to you, hope it works. Thats not to say I’m against it, just that I’m not putting a lot of stock into it. Maybe in the future my opinion will change. Who knows.
But I’m concerned with the amount of happiness and prosperity and freedom that I, and my family and friends, can get out life in the here and now, so that we can live our lives as God has called us, or whatever the reason may be. If voting for Ron Paul gives me more freedom than I have now, I’ll be happy (I believe it will). I sincerely hope that your non-voting doesn’t get in the way of those fighting for more freedom. You may be “ungovernable”, but I fear you’re going to make the rest of us quite miserable, as the state becomes more and more socialized and fascist. As it creeps around our necks until we’re living in another Soviet Russia.
That is my fear. Perhaps you wouldn’t rather have a “better” master, than a “bad” master, but I would, and I think the majority of people would as well. That is why I will vote for Ron Paul.