I think the that the article ignores Hoppe’s rights-based argument.
Public property rightfully belongs to taxpayers.
Taxpayers have a right to government protection of their property claims.
Foreigners who is not invited explicitly can be assumed to be unwanted.
Therefore, government ought to restrict access to all foreigners who are not invited.
Now, rights based arguments are negative only. They only dictate what people ought not to do. They don’t say what people ought to do. Consequentialist arguments are positive only. They say what people ought to do. In order to make a strong case for something, you really should have both. If you focus on rights only, your case lacks a compelling reason why you should do anything. So, it makes no sense to only examine his consequentialist argument and then say that “We must analyze the problem on libertarian principles, not solely on consequences” when this is not what is done.
So, overall I’d say that this article completely fails to strike the root.
Does this right extend to taxpayers, the legitimate owners of public property, not to have uninvited trespassers come on to their property?
Or, restricting uninvited foreigners from coming onto public property is really enforcement of the NAP. Who is the rightful owner of property under control of the government?
I think if we take a step back from the wonderful utopia of complete anarchism and realize that over time some sort of coercive monopoly naturally evolves then certain situations lend themselves to a “not-so” dogmatic approach.
I personally subscribe to the idea that government entities tend to arise and evolve more quickly the more densely areas are populated with humans. In our current situation, this argument is certainly in favor of closed borders. Of course, if government is illegitimate to begin with then there is no argument in favor of closed borders since it makes no sense. But if we’re to have any sort of practical argument about how things really are and not about some fantastical and unrealizable state where people don’t associate with groups and coercive monopolies never arise, than these sorts of arguments are certainly valid. The fact is that most people implicitly validate their governments actions by not killing themselves so that beginning the argument with saying that the government is illegitimate has not practical weight.
I’ve thought the Soviet Union’s actions following its collapse show how maintaining open borders could be manipulated. By sending people out to former satellites and infiltrating them it made it far more difficult to establish and maintain a free state.
Of course, many will counter by saying that fiat money regimes or public schooling could be legitimized using the same rational, but these cases are clearly different. I think it’s rather clear that their existence maintains, grows, and entrenches the ruling government, where as with closed borders the government finds itself at a disadvantage (hence, the current political situation). Those who typically desire to immigrate are relatively less wealthy in their homeland. Their arrival into, e.g., the states, provides politicians pandering to the takers and not the givers (the most power hungry) with even more backing and thus ability to grow their interests, i.e., more coercion!!
Sure it does. There is a difference between description and prescription. It is descriptive to say that the state is the present owner of land, given that it has possession and control over it and that is what ownership is. It is prescriptive to say that the original owner / taxpayer ought to have possession and control over the land.
They shouldn’t. If you want to invite a foreigner, you should be allowed. Of course, you should also be liable should they commit any crimes since they are your guest.
If A robs B’s wallet, the wallet rightfully belongs to B, even though it is in A’s possession. It would be unintuitive to say that it doesn’t rightfully belong to A.
Well, the whole justification for being compelled to pay taxes is so that we can recieve services from the government. If we are forced to pay, we have a right to the service that we payed for as (at least partial) restitution.
Stephen, you’re just rehashing fallacies which have already been addressed.
It is not. Shooting people who want to cross a political border is a violation of the NAP. And a especially disgusting one, if you ask me.
No. If you were a libertarian, which I take it you are not, then you’d know that for something to be property in the libertarian framework it must have been legitimately acquired. Land usurped by the government is not legitimate property.
The point is that open borders are only a contributing cause of forced immigration. They are not the root cause. Government property and antidiscrimination laws are the root cause. Therefore, advocating closed borders (i.e. addressing the contributing cause) is an inappropriate solution. The libertarian solution is to privatize government property and abolish antidiscrimination laws.
Since when do anarchists accept the theory of government as the “servant” of the people? It is a criminal gang, plain and simple. If the mafia forces you to pay protection money, does that give you a right to their protection services?
Haven’t seen you on the forum in a while. Welcome back.
The closer we can get to an anarcho-capitalist society, the better, whether it is realizable or not. Personally, I don’t think government is inevitable. It is the product of ideas, which can change over time.
I don’t think that continuing to live is a legitimating the government. And I think that government tends to arise and evolve more quickly in areas more densely populated with statist humans.
Agreed. A national identity facilitates the emergence of natural elites, who can lead a sucessionist movement. Destoying that identity reduces that threat to the state.
I think that alot of the time the state gives privileges to the new immigrants at the expense of the current inhabitants, which causes them to become sympathetic to the state and to support it.
It is obvious that public roads/borders/etc are not jointly owned property controlled by the taxpayers, but land usurped by the government. Since it is land usurped by the government, the government can’t claim the right to exclude people from it.
Notice that your position is collectivist (well, no surprise there). Let’s suppose that roads in the US are jointly owned by…what ? 200 millions ? 300 millions ? Now, how are these rightful owners going to decide who can use the roads or not ? Ohh the ‘anarchists’ are going to argue that democracy is not so bad after all ? That’s kind of pathetic, you know.
Who said anything about shooting? And what does your disgust have to do with anything I said? And whether or not they have the right to cross the border depends on whether they intend to trespass on public property, namely, roads and parks built with taxpayer dollars.
I think you have prescription and description completely confused.
I would say that open immigration is an element of forced integration. Addressing immigration is a part of the solution to addressing forced integration. It is not a separate issue. In the same way that sucession brings us closer to anarchy, restricted immigration brings us closer to free integration, especially the more locally it is done.
That’s the thing. It wasn’t the open borders that were being manipulated, but the government property and antidiscrimination laws. It is erroneous to conflate the latter two with open borders. This phenomenon of putting all the causes of forced integration into one “package deal” is hindering the debate. That’s why we need to separate the root causes from the contributing causes, and treat them accordingly.
How are you going to stop people, if not using physical violence ?
As I said, issues such as usage of roads have already been dealt with.
And I don’t.
Well, that may be true for people who believe that might makes right, but I don’t.
So, I think you realize that the state is actually not the owner of public property, just like A is not the owner of B’s wallet. Since the state is not the owner, and is not a legitimate representative of the taxpayers either, but is just a group of criminals acting in their own self-interest, then the idea that the state can legitimately exclude immigrants is flawed.
Indeed open borders are an element of forced integration: they are a contributing cause. But advocating closed borders is unprincipled right-opportunism - trying to achieve short-term gains at the expense of libertarian principles. After all, closed borders violate the right of admission, i.e. they cause forced exclusion.
The way I see it, this is about problem solving logic. Addressing the root cause is the best way to solve the problem, while at the same time not sacrificing our principles.
From the fact that the government can’t claim the right to exclude people, it does not follow that taxpayers can’t claim the right to exclude people and have the government perform that service on their behalf.
Didn’t notice that and still don’t. No surprise indeed.
Joint-ownership is perfectly legitimate. Look @ corporations. Now this situation is a little more complicated, but hardly insoluble. What’s pathetic?
And if there is no forced exclusion, there is no rights violation, hence no sacrifice of principles.
And I think it is good strategy to be open to steps that bring us closer to the final goal, even if it is not immediately achieved. We should limit injustice as much as possible, as quickly as possible.