Since this is a heavily debated topic here, I thought this article would be of interest.
I wonder if Gregory and Block did not read Hoppe’s essay carefully enough to pick out this, “if the government excludes a person while there exists a domestic resident who wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion” ? Is that really objectionable?
All of the criticisms I read in the linked article imply that someone inside the country wants the immigrant, but the government is restricting his entry. This is not the kind of restriction Hoppe argued for.
Funny, I just clicked the link to this and started reading it over at the Liberty and Power group blog and then saw this post here just after reading it.
The first “reductio ad absurdum” on the part of Block seems rather flawed if approached in a certain way. His claim is that goods, like labor, make use of roads, highways, etc. Since Hoppe approves of the completely unrestricted flow of goods there then seems to be an inconsistency if he does not approve of such a flow with regard to labor. Are goods and labor not of a different sort? Do goods actually make “use” of roads? I think not. Unlike labor, which implies the human element and thus the ability to make “use” of its surroundings, goods, in and of themselves, do not possess such an ability. It’s as though Block has quite comically given “goods” human character and will.
Moving on. If there is a private club that will no longer take new members dispite the fact that the are many willing, are we to say that the idea of libertarianism has been violated? Surely not. Now, suppose a much larger group of people, through voluntarily collective action were to make the same sort of decision. Have they violated libertarianism? Surely not. Now I agree, if the state has imposed such a barrier, it would seem that such an action has not resulted from voluntary cooperation. But if I am not mistaken, has it not been the case, that in some cities, where the people themselves have collectively decided that they do not want any new members to enter the club, the state has in fact disallowed them from doing so.
Here’s my contention, and it is somewhat hypothetical as some libertarians do not hold the opinion which to me seems absurd. By the state proclaiming immigration to be “free”, in the sense which many people believe it to be, it is utterly distant from the principle of liberty. The state would, in effect, disallow any local groups of people from withholding membership from outside peoples (has alreaey occured), which is itself coercive.
I think many libertarians treat the matter of immigration too simply and cursorily that they ignore the true complexity of the problem. Our borders are controlled by some sort of central authority, that’s not going to change. Now, if that authority does not allow outside people’s through we can certainly consider it coercive with regard to those who cannot come through. But, if the state allows those peoples through we can also consider it coercive with regard to those native peoples who do not wish for the admission of “new” members. The point is, both forms of action on the part of the state are coercive, who’s to say which is more?! I think this was one of Hoppe’s points.
It would be far more “libertarian” to say, not that immigration should be universally free on account of the state, nor completely restricted on account of the state, but rather, utterly distant and completely untied to any decision by the state. But since such is not the case, no libertarian can argue that immigration should be “free” in the sense that they mean “free”, because in our current circumstances it would be by the hand of the state.
Thus, it would be most correct to say that a libertarian can take no position with regard to whether the state should allow for immigration or not, since both are coercive. All that can be said is that the most desirable result would be for the state to have absolutely no hand in the realm of immigration, but since such is not currently feasible, is it not enjoyable and perhaps beneficial to take off our “official” libertarian caps off and argue for what’s most desirable from any number of different perspectives?
That wasn’t really the point. The point was more philosophical - that the existence of goods that one portion of the populous don’t like on “their” roads can equate to the existence of people that one portion of the populous don’t like on “their” roads.
Take that as restrictionist or not, they’re still the same essential thing.
Except the latter is not coercive. I don’t really like that my ex-girlfriend moved into the apartment next to mine. She’s obviously coercing me.
The problem is, however, I don’t own that apartment, like the people of a country don’t own the territory their governments arbitrarily claim.
I’m working on a similar feat, though I plan for mine to be longer, perhaps thirty or forty pages, and more inclusive to the paleoconservative problem as a whole.
Precisely! Because no one specifically owns public land, any action committed with regard to that piece of land is necessarily coercive. Public land is land which is owned by everyone. Further, the only entity which can make decisions about the land is the state. Since the state is not an entity which is individually determined, then any decision it makes will end up coercing someone. If the state decides that anyone shall be able to attend public school, then that is a decision which affects everyone who pays for that school. If the state decides that anyone shall be able to cross the piece of land that is publicly owned by everyone, then coersion necessarily takes place.
Your example of a privately owned apartment building is absurd. It would be far more appropriate to consider the case where your apartment building was owned by all of its members collectively. In your case you merely hold temporary ownership of one sector in that apartment. But if we consider the case where everyone owns every part of the building simultaneously then for the authority that runs the apartment (elected by the tenants) to allow a new tenant to live in the building would necessarily coerce someone, unless everyone agreed to it. It is clearly not the case that ever everyone wants to allow new members into the US.
It’s quite clear what Block’s point was. But his point was made via the use of a method which is flawed. I was not directly critiquing the point he made but rather the tool he used to make it. If in doing so, his tool was revealed as flawed than so too would be his point, whatever that point may be.
Once again, he posits that someone cannot simultaneously hold to the notion that goods should frow freely but people should not. Do goods act? Certainly not. Thus, despite the fact that some goods may not be liked, they do not act and thus cannot ever be coercive in and of themselves. People, which labor consists of, do act and thus, can be coercive in and of themselves. Goods on a road do not, despite the fact that those goods may be disliked, act on that road, and thus, do not coerce all those who jointly own the road. But people do act, and thus it would not be illogical to hold to the notion that their use of that road is coercive to those who own it.
the way i see it, there are two crucial issues w.r.t immigration - forced exclusion and forced integration. i don’t think either hoppe or block disputed that both these problems will be taken care off in a just manner in a world without the state. the problem arises due to the presence of the state and the accompanying presence of public property. as i see it this is where block and hoppe diverge, i.e., in their treatment of public property.
it does seem just that taxpayers have some say over who will and will not enter and make use of public property which, after all, they pay to build and maintain. the best way to solve the problem with the existence of the state is to push for greater decentralization and more local government. but with a big central state with a territorial monopoly over a large area of land such as most nation states, eg.USA, today, huge problems emerge.
the first doubt that i have is - can the state do ANYTHING right? i think not…so won’t giving a state the power to control the movements of people just give the powers that be draconian powers?..that is the reservation that i have with immigration controls…while taxpayers must have a say over the use of public property won’t it just, in practise, just lead to greater power in the hands of the state? thus, should libertarians like hoppe support immigration controls given that it will inevitably lead to increased power in the hands of the state?
Block proposes that these goods are going to a willing taker somewhere. The only reason an immigrant would not be allowed on these roads is if no one wanted to receive the immigrant. The correct analogy is not a good being transported that some people don’t want, but rather a good being transported that no one wants. That’s simply impossible, because goods cannot move on their own - they must be moved by someone. And that someone clearly wants the good, otherwise they wouldn’t be transporting it.
What do you think it does to the power of the state that millions of people move into its territory thanks to the state’s protection against discrimination by the established population? Do you think these people will be dependent on the state?
Not bad.
I think that a letter/article that I wrote on 2006-09-10 addresses one of the important issues mentioned here. The article is **“**More arguments for Open Borders—this time (unbeknownst to him) from the pen of Hans-Hermann Hoppe!” http://tinyurl.com/y393aq
The text is brief and included here:
In conjunction with the views I expressed in previous articles, supporting the libertarian Non Aggression Principle and Open Borders, I was recently reading “Secession, the State, and the Immigration Problem” by Hans-Hermann Hoppe wherein he attempts to justify a rejection of the libertarian view of freedom of travel and open borders.
In an otherwise excellent article, there is a fatal flaw in his logic, just before he presents his conclusion that “the moral status of public property as expropriated private property” is “sufficient grounds for rejecting the open border proposal”. The emphasized portions of Hoppe’s presentation are mine.
“Public property is the result of state-government confiscations—of legislative expropriations and/or taxation—of originally privately owned property. While the state does not recognize anyone as its private owner, all of government controlled public property has in fact been brought about by the tax-paying members of the domestic public. Austrians, Swiss, and Italians, in accordance with the amount of taxes paid by each citizen, have funded the Austrian, Swiss, and Italian public property. Hence, they must be considered its legitimate owners. Foreigners have not been subject to domestic taxation and expropriation; hence, they cannot be assumed to have any rights regarding Austrian, Swiss or Italian public property.”
"The recognition of the moral status of public property as expropriated private property is not only sufficient grounds for rejecting the open border proposal. It is equally important for combatting the present semi-open “affirmative action” immigration policies of the Western welfare states."
If I am a legitimate owner of the public property in the U.S., then I have a say in how it is used and I want unrestricted access! I cannot trade with people who are excluded from reaching my property, especially “foreigners”. As a legitimate owner of the “public property”, and of private property within the territory commonly known as the United States, I issue a standing, open invitation to any and all individuals in the world to use the “public” property of which I am a legitimate owner! Furthermore, I know of other legitimate owners of this public property in the U.S. who hold the same view.
Mr Hoppe’s argument is sufficient grounds for ENFORCING open borders!
Dennis Wilson
DennisLeeWilson@Yahoo.com
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
The quoted paragraphs from Hoppe’s article are the last part of paragraph 6 and all of paragraph 7 in section V.
Except it doesn’t. You would be one of many owners of this property (the real problem with public property is just who owns what, exactly.) Unless there was a majority in favour of immigration, the argument would still not work in favour of open borders. My personal view is that the State should be taken out of immigration completely, but first that it must be taken out of welfare and provision of public goods.
No… No one at ALL owns public land.
No. That’s not it at all. The state decides nothing, but whether or not it will restrict one group from doing what another group doesn’t like.
As public land has no owner, it’s as good as virgin land. If you don’t like it. Homestead it and kick the “dirty” Mexicans out on your own.
Yes, anything not agreeing with you is going to be absurd. Got it. [8-)]
Except the state is not owned collectively. To believe that you have any freedom with a slave master driving you to the cotton fields is the true illusion of humanity.
It is clearly not the case that everyone ever wants to allow the same members into the US.
Please, spare me the speech of the house-slaves.
Yeah, it was that the existence of goods that one portion of the populous don’t like on “their” roads can equate to the existence of people that one portion of the populous don’t like on “their” roads.
So, a flawed method is always coupled by a flawed ideology. Gotcha.
I guess this means libertarianism - in the perverted interpretations of the paleocons that have hijacked the Mises Institute - sucks.
Yes, if existence is an action.
Their existence on the roads are coercive.
Well, you’re wrong, but ok.
Ban smokers from the world.
I agree with you regarding immigration, welfare and provision of public goods, but I see no need or rational for sequencing them, rather just do them.
Hoppe’s article does well establishing private ownership of (formerly) public roads but his argument fails if it depends on “majority rules” for restricting usage.
Property requires one of two things.
One: The property is legitimately homesteaded.
Though the state does possess the extortion fees of legitimate owners of that capital, the use of that capital does not infer anything but illegitimate use, and thus any projects taken up by the government cannot be seen as homesteaded projects, as they involve the potential “homesteader” illegitimately “homesteading.”
Moreover, though the capital is rightly owned by the individual taxpayers, the use of that capital to build X does not mean they own X. It means they have claims to retributions for capital they lost in the extortion process. Perhaps that’s part of the roads, but I feel that it’s probably more apart of just getting rid of the government and having a slew of technically virgin land ready to be homesteaded by anyone - kind of a zero-sum game.
Second: There must be a voluntary contract in place.
Taxes are not voluntary contracts, thus the people do not own land they did not contract for. To deny this would be to deny the illegitimacy of taxes, thus negating the argument ab initio.
In neither case can you deny the premise. Doing so results in support of the state. If you believe that the capital is owned by the people thus the people own the roads, then you acknowledge that ownership can be accompanied by state extortion and reallocation of funds - thus justifying the existence of the state and negating libertarian claims that governments act unjustly.
Which I agree with, but the matter remains that the State has taken and put to use certain funds - I suppose you could maintain it is open to being homesteaded again, because it is extremely difficult to calculate just who contributed to what. The State is probably unable, at any rate, to ever repay all it has stolen, especially if one figures in inflation.
These are good questions. I look forward to the answers.