Immigration is not about movement of people and goods. It is about settlement. Nobody is complaining that Mexicans are causing traffic jams on their way through the United States. People are complaining that they are settling (the english verb moving to may be a source of confusion in this case), permanently, into their communities. That way they come to occupy the public space, to interact with their societies, which they wouldn’t do if they were only moving through the country on their way to Canada or the rest of the world.
It cannot be denied that there exists a right to exclude people from these properties.
Fine, this minor detail has no bearing on the argument.
But to be clear the state does own public land if we are to consider public land that land which is owned by no one and prohibited from being owned by anyone, i.e., all private individuals are prohibited from homesteading that land unless the state allows it. Further, the state possessess its name precisely because it has a set of boundaries. Within those designated boundaries are the state’s members or citizens. All decisions made with regard to which members benefit and which do not are quite obviously coercive in nature. Freedom is gained only when the degree to which the state makes decisions is lessened, resulting in a higher degree of decisions by its members. I’ll come back to this.
I’m impressed with your ability to argue. “No. That’s not it at all.” I’ll remember that for future debates.
So let me get this straight. The state decides nothing. But wait!!! It does restrict one group from doing what another group doesn’t like. Isn’t that a decision in itself and doesn’t it have to decide which group to restrict? Your statement makes no sense.
Back to the beginning. Perhaps we’re defining public land in different ways. But I certainly don’t consider it virgin land ripe for the taking! The state would prohibit such an act since it acts as the owner of that land.
You think Mexicans are “dirty”?! That’s sort of bigoted.
First, whether or not the state is owned collectively bears no obstacle to the argument. Nonetheless, even if the state is collectively owned that does not imply the ability to individually change the direction of the state. You’re still subject to the will of the greater number, in our case, the majority. I doubt many believe they have any individual clout when it comes to the decisions of the state. Nonetheless, this is of little importance.
Let me get to the main point as you do not seem to have gotten it.
First, I admit I was not clear enough with my definition of action. I assumed that you were familiar with Mises and would quite easily understand the particular type of action I was describing. To be specific, the type of action I was describing, is:
Action is will put into operation and transformed into an agency, is aiming at ends and goals, is the ego’s meaningful response to stimuli and to the conditions of its environment.
I suspect you’re familiar with the origin of this definition.
I doubt you’ll argue with the notion that goods do not possess action characterized by purposeful behavior as it is something which we only associate with humans.
This simple yet astronomical difference which exists between goods and labor makes all the difference. The simple fact that goods cannot act on their own means that the movement of goods across borders may only occur as a result of purposeful behavior which necessarily must exist outside of the good itself. This purposeful behavior is manifested in voluntary exchange. In order for a good to cross a border there must be both a supplier and a demander.
Labor is different. It manifests itself in beings which have the ability to act. Thus, it does not require purposeful behvaior which exists outside of itself, i.e., it is not necessary that there be a demand for labor in order for that labor to cross the border.
This fact which cannot be denied possessess the utmost power.
If the state restricts goods from flowing across borders it restricts the ability of private individuals to conduct voluntary exchange. If the state abolishes all restrictions on goods it allows for voluntary excange to take place. But keep in mind, goods only flow as a result of voluntary exchange.
If the state restricts labor from flowing across borders it may indeed restrict the ability of private individuals to conduct voluntary exchange. However, if the state now abolishes all restrictions with regard to the flow of labor, i.e., whom ever pleases may cross the border, it does not simply allow for voluntary transactions to take place, it allows for willful individuals to enter regardless of whether or not there is a demand for their services. If the laborer were not in demand and entered, we would call this invasion. Invasion may be characterized as the intrusion of laborers which have not resulted as a consequence of voluntary exchange.
Here’s the problem with the logic that labor should be allowed to flow freely by the state. It assumes that labor may only be mobile as a result of voluntary exchange. Because labor is manifested in acting people we know such an axiom does not conform to reality. The mere fact that labor may cross without voluntary exchange destroys such an assumption.
As was made clear in the beginning an increase in freedom or a decrease in regulation manifests itself in the ability of the states members or citizens to individually make more decisions than they had before. Does the unrestricted flow of labor by the state exhibit such character? As has been shown, clearly not. There is no requirement which stipulates that labor must be demanded in order for it to cross the border. The opposite is true of goods. Thus, there is no increase in the amount of decisions which individual citizens may make as labor movement does not require individual decision making when it is allowed by the state. It makes no difference whether individuals demand labor or not since those decisions are irrelevant.
The ultimate point is this. The individual citizens of a state do not possess decisions with regard to immigration in the case where it is restricted and in the case where it is not restricted, if conducted by the hand of the state. In both cases, their will has no effect on the flow of labor. Such is not the case with goods as it is dependent on will.
One last point. A good argument in favor of unrestricted immigration is that it would deprive citizens of current freedoms by increasing the degree of rapidity by which the state would grow thus quickening its ultimate demise, and ultimately causing freedom in the long run to increase. I have not converted to this argument as my confidence in the inevitable demise of the state is low. If you however hold to this idea, I apologize as I have been arguing against the wrongly perceived opinion.
Addressing some of your other comments:
Once again, a very eloquet refutation, one which I’m surprised eminent intellectuals do not use more often.
Ban smokers from the world!!! That would be entirely contradictory to my whole argument! You’re silly[8-)]
You have a point. A flawed method may indeed still produce the correct results. But if it is flawed then we cannot know whether the results are true. It is nonsensical to maintain the validity of certain results if the invalidity of that method which produced them is recognized. One may only demonstrate that ideas are true if the method of doing so is sound. You can certainly make claims about anything you like and perhaps some of those claims may be true, but to actually show why such claims are true requires more than a simple belief in them. It requires a sound and consistent method. Come on, you know this.
Libertarianism sucks?!?! Gosh, I’m certainly conviced of its validity. Freedom is the principle which I hold above all else. If you’re implying that I have strayed from the principles of freedom with regard to immigration I would argue that it is in fact you who are guilty of such a crime.
It would then be appropriate for me to say “I guess this means libertarianism - in the perverted interpretations of the social democrats that have hijacked the Mises Institute - sucks.”
Yes, the transportation of goods does make use of roads. When goods are proclaimed to be banned in importation, it’s not the goods themselves but the transportation of such goods that is being banned. “Banning goods” is only a syntactic short-hand.
Citizenship and residence in a particular political geographic region are not private clubs that people voluntarily join. Try refuse draft, try refuse to pay tax, try renouncing your citizenship if you make more than $350k a year and then skip the country and refuse to pay tax. You will not be left alone.
There is no such membership to speak of. You have the right not to sell your house to an immigrant, and you have the right not to rent your house to an immigrant. If everyone does that in your neighborhood, would-be immigrants simply wouldn’t be able to stay because they wouldn’t have a roof over their head. However, your neighbors have no right to tell you that you should receive $100k less in selling your house or $300/mo less in renting your house because the highest bidders for your house are immigrants, and therefore you are not allowed to be paid by them.
Do you then believe that a libertarian can take no position with regard to labor unions either? After all, the introdution of non-union workers would certainly be objectionable from the union members perspective. If you insist on seeing the factory as some kind of collective, I’m pretty sure the workers outnumber the factory owners, hence the collective decision would be banning non-union workers . . . never mind that it’s in effect an outright robbery of the owners of the factory. Likewise, immigration ban is an outright robbery of property owners and employers who would otherwise have derived greater return on their capital. For the same reason, just like unionism, anti-immigration policies would be detrimental to capital accummulation and therefore detrimental to productivity and standards of living in the long run.
I’m sorry, I thought this was a libertarian forum, not a socialist forum. A piece of property proclaimed to be owned by an entity (“every one”) that can not possibly exercise de facto control yet is managed in their name by a selective few is the very hall mark of socialism and feudalism. Whether the titular owner is “god” or “the people” is of no practical difference. The mangers, or in other words the divine or earthly representatives, have all the real control.
What’s next? if anyone is allowed to breathe, it’s a coercion on you? Shoot, I thought banning smoking was bad; let’s ban unlicensed breathing. Where does this statist dream end? There is no coercion in allowing anyone to attend public schools; the coercion is in collecting tax to fund such schools.
In case it’s not obvious, what you are describing is a collectivist nightmare. That’s clearly not how the US economy is run on, for the most part. It’s bloody outrageous to think that your very home is owned by all your neighbors, and that your right to sell it for a profit (or rent it for a profit) is subject to their reviews.
Goods do not flow (freely or otherwise) without human action. Making goods flow at all (in the sense of commerce, not mere gravity) is the result of human action. Sometimes that action does take up public roads. Sometimes that action may even eliminate some other people’s jobs. When automobile was invented, should the government have consulted all the horse buggy makers and see if they were being “coerced” out of business?
The very fundation of libertarianism and freemarket capitalism is based on the intellectual realization that the market place is most efficient and the economy is most prosperous when there are no government-appointed specially privileged actors trying to mold the market according to political whim. In terms of population migration, that means there shouldn’t be government subsidized colonization programs (like you mentioned in regard to Russia’s forced settlement programs), nor should there by government immigration control getting in the way of people searching better opportunities on their own.
There isn’t any legal protection against “illegal immigrant discrimination” (if such a term existed). If “these people” wanted to be dependent on the state, don’t you think they’d have a better chance of getting such state protection where they vote (i.e. their home countries) instead of in place that they are not even allowed to work legally? For what it’s worth, immigrants are remarkably politically incorrect, including Hoppe himself.
Immigrants are not homesteading public land in the US . . . because there is currently no public land in any of the 50 states open to homesteading. To the extent that some immigrants are here to stay, they are either buying or renting from people who own private properties.
It cannot be denied that there is no neighborly right to exclude people from other people’s private properties. Not unless you are in a socialist people’s republic where the neighbohood busybodies rule.
I am not talking about public land, but about public space, i.e. space where people are in public, which are roads, parks, community-owned space. These communities would rather exclude people who run down the value of their community, but they settle there under the protection of the government from discrimination, thus making them fully dependent on the government for their continued presence.
Nobody “settle” on public roads, parks or “community-owned space.” Those are not habitable spaces. There are laws against vagrancy, and those arrested for being vagrants are usually not immigrants.
People who making temporary use of of public roads, parks and “community-owned space” are either tourists or residents. It would be stupid to ban tourism (and quite wrong if businesses caterig tourists are taxed). Residents, whether home owners or renters, by their paying property tax (and gasoline tax if driving), have every right to be seen on public roads, parks and “community-owned space.”
Immigrants are not a legally recognized idetifiable group under anti-discrimination laws, so there is no legal anti-discrimination protection for immigrants. There are plenty Canadian and European immigrants in this country. If existing property owners refuse to sell to or rent to immigrants, they can certainly do that. The fact that such a “solidarity” doesn’t exist means that the few loud-mouths proclaiming themselves to represent the voice of the community don’t have a leg to stand on; all they are trying to do is making a partial claim over someone else’ property. Also, it’s preposterous to claim that immigrants always run down property values. Look around the country for the most expensive towns, you will see them having a very high immigrant ratio. Social mobility is a key ingredient in economic prosperity.
" If existing property owners refuse to sell to or rent to immigrants, they can certainly do that."
No they can’t. Federal law prohibits discrimination in sales or rentals on the basis of national origin. Same w/ any other business activity under Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1867, Fair Housing Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, etc.
Also, there seems to be some real misunderstanding about collective ownership. Corporations, partnerships, condominium associations, joint tenants, etc. are all examples of private collective ownership of property. In fact, such arrangements are essential to an advanced economy, unless everyone wants to go back to the days of everybody scratching out a Stone Age existence on their little plot of ground. From this flows the idea of certain parts of the property dedicated to common usage, such as roads, parks, sidewalks, etc.
To use any example of US immigration which “ostensibly” provides evidence that, for the most part, private individuals are, one the whole, welcoming immigrants with open arms shows a complete lack of sense. The reason for which private businesses are so excited to receive illegal immigrants is precisely because they’re illegal! It has nothing to do with some sort of lack of labor that would exist and thus crumble our economy if they weren’t present. Illegals can always underbid actual citizens (don’t have to pay taxes), and thus, it will always be far more profitable for private businessmen to hire them. You can not make the assumption that in the event of unrestricted immigration private individuals would be equally willing to make use of such labor, the benefit of hiring them would no longer exist.
It’s nonsensical to use any argument that uses our current immigration situation to enhance the argument for legal immigration as it is utterly different from the situation where by immigration would be completely unrestriced.
Do you really deny that completely unrestricting the flow of immigrants would necessarily drive the power of the state to even higher levels? Just from a practical point of view it’s terribly obvious. The reason the US is so extraordinarily attractive is because we give out lots of “free” stuff!! People can come here and practically live for free without ever having to receive the consent of private individuals. They’ve got public schools to hang at, free healthcare to use, lots of states even give them some cash for college, many are even voting, and don’t forget the good old foodstamps! And these are all being given to them while they’re not even official citizens! Just imagine if they were! Their voting power would be incredible. The state would expand so rapidly it’s unimaginable. And you consider this prosperity!!! I suppose everyone defines words slightly differently.
Here’s my philosophical argument. The state confiscates income from its citizens. And that confiscation is coercive, right? Now anything which that income is directed towards is indirectly but equally coercive. Medicare, public schools, public roads, etc are all indirectly coercive in nature. Further, those individuals who make use of such services are also indirectly coercive. Anytime anyone uses something produced by the government they are aiding and abetting coersion themselves. In this sense almost everyone is guilty of indirect coercion since almost everyone makes use of those services which have been produced via coersion. By allowing immigration we are increasing the degree of coercion by increasing the number of individuals which make use of coercively produced services.
We can even look at this from another perspective.
With public land, like with taxes, it is land (instead of income) which is prohibited from being used by individuals. Now, any decision which is made with regard to that land is then indirectly but equally coercive. If that means the prohibition of immigrants crossing the border then it is indeed coercive. But it is equally coercive to allow immigrants to cross that border. They are both decisions made with regard to that parcel of land and are thus both coercive.
You might ask then, how can I possibly defend the movement of goods across such a piece of land with the aforementioned logic? It’s rather simple actually. When the government allows goods to flow across that piece of land it’s not reallyallowing anything. It has withdrawn itself completely from the aspect of land that deals with movement of goods. All decisions regarding the movement of goods are repossessed by the individuals of that state. This is a true increase in freedom. Such is not the case with immigrants as the decision of whether not they shall be allowed to cross is still possessed by the state and not its members.
Both of these arguments provide the case that the proper libertariaran stance with regard to immigration would be to simply not have one.
Then your beef is not with immigrants, is it? but specific kinds of immigrants, based on the perons’s race and national origin. For example, a recent arrival Canadian is better than a third-generation Mexican American, eh While realtors are prohibited by law to turn away people by race or national origin, home owners are not required to give any reason why they refuse a sale or rental . . . on top of that most banks do refuse to make home loans to away illegal immigrants for obvious profit reasons.
No, private corporations, partnerships and condominium associations are not collective ownerships at all. They are shareholding interests. In the case of the condominium associations, the primary interest is even uniquely identifiable. These are real ownerships, ownerships that have market value, which you can readily sell at a significant market price. The same can not be said of citizenship. You can not sell your own citizenship to any other invididual, nor can you sell your supposed ownership interest in roads, parks, sidewalks, etc. These are not real ownerships. “Collective ownership,” i.e. titular ownership by “all” but really in the control of a select few is the basis of tyranny and barbarism, just check out any historical fuedal lordship vested by divine kingship, or any typical 20th century communist people’s democratic republics.
Sigh… You’re misinterpreting what “ownership” means. Yes, sure, the state controls the territory, in fact, the state claims that it controls ALL territories, whehter “privately owned” or not. Does it? No.
Right, and those claims are illegitimate,
Likewise, its borders are equally illegitimate, and thus foreigners do not technically exist. I’ll come back to this. *
Don’t you Americans use little conjunctions anymore? What do you think, ‘but’ means? Why do you think people use it?
“The state decides nothing, but whether or not it will restrict one group from doing what another group doesn’t like.”
Perhaps the wording was too awkward, BUT when people use the word ‘but,’ they tend to do so to make an exemption.
And then its an act of coercion; the statists should be brought to justice - I have 30 friends who can take care of that, and then a couple other magazines after that.
Nah, I was being sardonic.
You misunderstand the point. The people that the state enslave have three choices - sometimes. Either stay slaves, join the slave masters, or break away, be free, and run the risk of being shot. I’ve chosen the third; you’ve chosen the first - I hate the house slave mentality.
Yeah, I was just breaking your balls there.
This requires you to assume borders possess legitimacy. Assuming this, you must assume the state possesses legitimacy in existence and action. Assuming this, you must assume that the state possesses the ability to control and claim an absolute hierarchy over all territory it deems “within its borders.” Assuming this, you negate your own libertarianism.
We’re talking about legitimacy, btw. I couldn’t give less of a sh/it about what governments consider to be within their jurisdiction - mainly because I reject the premise that governments possess legitimacy.
Your invasion comment is especially entertaining. Yes, the free movement of people over land unowned = invasion. Vaffanculu.
First of all this isn’t empirically correct.
Most “illegals” cross borders not through cutting holes in fences, but through contractually purchasing airline tickets that simply go unused the second time around. This is a free and voluntary exchange.
Second, movement requires no exchange. Movement may occur without anyone else around. Why would cutting holes in an illegitimate cage and sneaking across the border be an example of exchange?
Ok, here’s the problem, you’re speaking from a statist mentality. You believe that freedom = security, but you don’t understand that the one can come without the other. You can be free now. I’ve become free because I do what I want without regard for the state. Does this increase my chances of being insecure? Certainly, but the two are separate. Your freedom can come as soon as you want it to. Only you restrict yourself from liberty.
Labour as a good and the labourers as a people are two separate things. Your argument is valid only if you separate the two but note that you can not have one without the other. In any case, the people of the nation have absolutely no say in the transfer of goods either. Unless they own the roads, which they don’t, they can not protest - legitimately - any transfer of anything, whether they feel that it is being “forcefully integrated” into their unowned territory or not. Also, not all immigrants are labourers, but the market position really doesn’t matter when one considers that “domestic taxpayers” do not own who and who cannot be a labourer or an entrepreneur. For the former, it is partially dependant on the employer, but for the latter it is entirely dependant on the individual.
Actually, it wouldn’t. Your argument is that because a certain group of people are undesirable by the “domestic taxpayers” they ought to be violently crushed and oppressed.
Smokers are a certain group of people. Smokers act, and though they may be part of the labour force the fact that they are smokers must be seen as a forced integration of the smokers into the lives of the “domestic, non-smoking taxpayers.”
Your arguments are entirely based on the position that somehow libertarianism is just an ultra form of exclusion. It isn’t.
Yes, property owners possess the right to exclude whomever they desire, however, far more often does government serve as a deterrer of integration instead of a promoter of it.
This is a non sequitur.
Huh? So, if the means are not desirable, then the ends cannot be desirable in and of themselves either?
So you’re the guy on the corner with the tinfoil hat yelling about the alien mothership?
Do you know what satire is?
Yet you’re arguing that it’s valid to violently prevent people from crossing this patch of unowned land,
onto this patch of unowned land,
How? For advocating that the state possesses no legitimacy in action, existence, or control of land? Wow… Your libertarianism must be that Romney variety.
Just from a practical point of view it’s terribly obvious. The reason the US is so extraordinarily attractive is because we give out lots of “free” stuff!!
We can tell you’ve never been outside of the US. Not that the US isn’t a welfare state, but Jesus Christ, dude. Take a trip to Canada.
People can come here and practically live for free without ever having to receive the consent of private individuals.
Do you know the percentage of illegals that work? It’s higher than the percentage of “legals” that work.
They’ve got public schools to hang at, free healthcare to use, lots of states even give them some cash for college, many are even voting, and don’t forget the good old foodstamps! And these are all being given to them while they’re not even official citizens! Just imagine if they were! Their voting power would be incredible. The state would expand so rapidly it’s unimaginable. And you consider this prosperity!!! I suppose everyone defines words slightly differently.
Even Hoppe notes that the influx of immigrants would necessarily cause the welfare state to collapse on itself.
Here’s my philosophical argument. The state confiscates income from its citizens. And that confiscation is coercive, right? Now anything which that income is directed towards is indirectly but equally coercive. Medicare, public schools, public roads, etc are all indirectly coercive in nature. Further, those individuals who make use of such services are also indirectly coercive.
You’re conflating the crime with those that benefit from the crime.
Anytime anyone uses something produced by the government they are aiding and abetting coersion themselves. In this sense almost everyone is guilty of indirect coercion since almost everyone makes use of those services which have been produced via coersion. By allowing immigration we are increasing the degree of coercion by increasing the number of individuals which make use of coercively produced services.
Then ought we also limit the amount of children Americans can have too? How about we kill every first born too? Would you like that, Herod?
We can even look at this from another perspective.
With public land, like with taxes, it is land (instead of income) which is prohibited from being used by individuals. Now, any decision which is made with regard to that land is then indirectly but equally coercive. If that means the prohibition of immigrants crossing the border then it is indeed coercive. But it is equally coercive to allow immigrants to cross that border. They are both decisions made with regard to that parcel of land and are thus both coercive.
You might ask then, how can I possibly defend the movement of goods across such a piece of land with the aforementioned logic? It’s rather simple actually. When the government allows goods to flow across that piece of land it’s not reallyallowing anything. It has withdrawn itself completely from the aspect of land that deals with movement of goods. All decisions regarding the movement of goods are repossessed by the individuals of that state. This is a true increase in freedom. Such is not the case with immigrants as the decision of whether not they shall be allowed to cross is still possessed by the state and not its members.
So your argument comes down to - because the state told me so?
Both of these arguments provide the case that the proper libertariaran stance with regard to immigration would be to simply not have one.
Or to abolish the state completely and live free. Oh… Nevermind, we have Ron Paul to save us. [8-)]
BLARGH Workers of the world unite to destroy the capitalist scum!11
If that’s how you see an-cap… then something is really, really wrong with you. The level of cognitive dissonance here is just astounding. You want to keep immigrants out… to defend the welfare state… and your opponents are… uh… Marxists? Does not compute. Abort, retry, fail?
I don’t want to keep immigrants out. I just want to keep the majority of immigrants out, or at least assure that the costs of immigration are borne by the contracting parties and not by everyone else. Do you ever ask yourself why you are on the side of the social democrats and neo-conservatives on this issue?
Anarchists are brothers-in-arms with the Marxists because the anarchist, to be true to his creed, must seek the permanent levelling of organic society. This endeavour is necessarily at odds with capitalist business pursuits.
While realtors are prohibited by law to turn away people by race or national origin, home owners are not required to give any reason why they refuse a sale or rental . . . on top of that most banks do refuse to make home loans to away illegal immigrants for obvious profit reasons.