Foreigners are not agressive.
Migration or not, the welfare state exists, people are taxed anyway. There is no increased burden.
False. Try living in a town built for 2 million that now numbers around 5 million.
Towns, by definition, are not built for any other purpose than for people to live. Towns do not exist in bubbles, they expand, they contract.
This is natural and beneficial for all.
Who cares?
Rothbard was not the greatest libertarian to walk the Earth. I know Rockwell & co. will have you believe this, but it is simply not true.
After the 60’s and early 70’s Rothbard’s worth decreased exponentially.
Certainly, the NAP principle is just the foundation for a libertarian society, it doesn’t follow that people won’t be racists or nationalists, or any other stuff. They will engage in voluntary decisions, and most of this “irrational” discriminations towards other groups should be mitigated by the utilitarian consequences of the market process, let’s say, division of labour, cooperation and competition. I think that a lot of people on this forums try to construct an utopian ideal, based on the NAP principle and reinforcing their love to individual liberty, but the output of that system is, a priori, impossible to predict at least. If we want to build the best society (and ideal one), it is not sufficient to hold only to the NAP and individualism, we should also promote moral values, that’s why objectivism got so many followers (despite a lot of Ayn Rand’s philosophical non-sense). Under libertarianism, people would be free to be part of communities, and they certainly will, despite the fact that most of us want the cosmopolitan model of human being prevailing. However, I think that social evolution will lead to this, considering that we are moving towards a globalization process. I also think that this will lead to a decentralized type of governments (being the most decentralized, the anarcho-capitalist ones (no government), by private-property enforcement only).
Well, Jon. It depends upon what you define as libertarianism. I myself think that anyone who is not only open to multiculturalism, but is accepting and in favor of it, is not a libertarian - at least not a libertarian in my strain.
What do you mean by ‘multiculturalism’ ?
LOL! Multicultural societies only exist because of the central state’s immense “civil rights” bureaucracy and constant drumbeat of egalitarian propaganda via public schooling.
When the state collapses, “multiculturalism” will dry up and blow away faster than you can say blood is thicker than water.
The process by which cultures change through interaction and co-existence with one another so that no person is isolated to one culture.
Ok.
And you are saying that favoring that process is not ‘libertarian’ ?
I am saying the opposite. I am saying that a degree of libertinism is necessary to qualify as a libertarian, as far as I’m concerned.
Ah sorry. I completely mis-read you then.
No worries. I can see how the statement was a bit confusing.
But let’s be clear here that MNR’s reservations about immigration concern the way in which it is used politically. It had nothing to do with economics. Also, note that he offered no solution for the issue. He was only pointing to the way in which immigration can be used to advance state interests. He had not considered this point of view before. I wouldn’t read more into than that. He was still a free immigrationist in principle. What we have now are controlled markets and sometimes the analysis changes in light of that.
I read the Rothbard quote in context, and it’s clear that he can correctly be characterized as anti-immigration. Jeff, you say he’s a free immigrationist “in principle”. Well that’s like saying Alan Greenspan is for the gold standard “in principle”. It seems to me that both stop short of actually applying their principles, and make up some excuse about the current statist society preventing them from doing so.
This is what Rothbard’s argument boils down to: Legally unrestricted immigration is indeed the libertarian position, but it should not be implemented until every other plank of the libertarian program is first put into effect. Walter Block refutes this “postponement libertarian” position here (p.179-182).
“I read the Rothbard quote in context, and it’s clear that he can correctly be characterized as anti-immigration”
Nay, he is against “compulsory opening by the central state.”
“This is what Rothbard’s argument boils down to: Legally unrestricted immigration is indeed the libertarian position, but it should not be implemented until every other plank of the libertarian program is first put into effect.”
That isn’t his position at all. Exact opposite in fact.
"Neither are our middle-class liberals very fond of illegal working-class Mexican immigrants, and so [the ticket] has maintained that illegal Mexican immigration should continue to be restricted until welfare disappears. But then, of course, that has to stay until full employment, etc. So: No Mexicans.
But this is what happens when opportunists begin to sanction the idea of structured destatization, of saying that we can’t repeal Statist Law A until B is repealed, and we can’t repeal B until we get rid of C, etc. To the media, this of course seems very “responsible” and respectable. Sure, it’s respectable; and for the very same reason, it means that we, as libertarians, are advocating the indefinite and hence the permanent freezing in place of the statist structure. The quick victory model turns out, on analysis, to be a quick victory only for the power and income of the opportunists themselves; for the cause of liberty, it means a permanent burial." - MNR
This is what immediately follows the quote of Rothbards “re-thinking”:
"However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as “closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.
Under total privatization [..] With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance with the preferences of each community. Some neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogeneous. Some localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortions, others would prohibit any or all of them. The prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or use of some person’s or community’s land area.
While statists who have the itch to impose their values on everyone else would be disappointed, every group or interest would at least have the satisfaction of living in neighborhoods of people who share its values and preferences. While neighborhood ownership would not provide Utopia or a panacea for all conflicts, it would at least provide a “second best” solution that most people might be willing to live with." - Nations by Consent.
What is wrong with that?
Regardless, Kinsella imo leads the way.
Also: Rothbard Vindicated - Lew
He changed his view of immigration. Actually, Rothbard held the same position his whole life: there is no right to immigrate (as he writes in Ethics of Liberty) but rather immigration should be by invitation, not invasion, as consistent private-property rights economics would dictate. In the exact opposite of what a market policy would be, the state forbids invited people to immigrate, but permits hordes who have no invitation to come on down.
Notice… “rethink my views on immigration”… that does not mean “change” ! OP has it wrong, as do many others. Essentially confirmed by a similar sentence stating (“However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model”). So I’d say JT’s analysis is correct. He previously thought of it in economic terms.
Conza the quote you link to about Mexicans was written in 1980. But Rothbard wrote the ‘Decomposing Nation States’ article in 1994 - by which time he had changed his view on immigration under the current statist system. So quoting an article from 1980, before he had rethought immigration, doesn’t disprove that he was anti-immigration near the end of his life.
The Rockwell quote proves he was anti-immigration so long as the status quo exists, so it’s actually supporting my case: "In the exact opposite of what a market policy would be, the state forbids invited people to immigrate, but permits hordes who have no invitation to come on down.” …i.e. don’t allow free immigration so long as the State exists, because that’d mean “hordes” of people will come without invitation!
Walter Block on the other hand, wants complete open borders despite the existence of the state.
Rethinking his views “on the basis of the” anarcho-capitalist model - that’s an ambiguous statement, given he appears to be adopting the cultural view against immigration (“it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples”). He thinks culture ought to be protected against the hordes of immigrants basically.
Hey Sukrit,
I anticipated the dates of articles would be brought up, hence the Lew Rockwell quote, as you note. Yet I maintain he never changed his position, I think that is clear.
"“In the exact opposite of what a market policy would be, the state forbids invited people to immigrate, but permits hordes who have no invitation to come on down.” …i.e. don’t allow free immigration so long as the State exists, because that’d mean “hordes” of people will come without invitation!”
This, imo is a non sequitur. I don’t think that follows at all from what Rothbard & Lew Rockwell have said. How do the immigrants get there (where ever that is)? By boat, plane, ship etc. They either make a voluntary contract, or they do it themselves (i.e buy a plane and fly in, get a boat and sail, or get a car and drive)… and yet, when they reach land - they are likely going to reach someones private property! Be it a port, dock or airport…!
They need to have permission to land, i.e invitation, or they are uninvited and trespassing, the property owner has the right to turn them (anyone) away. etc etc. Since there would be a myriad of different owners and different avenues, a rejection from one doesn’t entail a rejection all together! (The beauty of no state!)
As clearly stated by Rockwell, "In the exact opposite of what a market policy would be, the state forbids invited people to immigrate [the market allows invited people to immigrate], but permits hordes who have no invitation to come on down [the market would not permit individuals who have no invititation].” I fail to see how that then means: “don’t allow…immigration so long as the State exists, because that’d mean “hordes” of people will come without invitation!” It’s not saying that at all.
“Rethinking his views “on the basis of the” anarcho-capitalist model - that’s an ambiguous statement, given he appears to be adopting the cultural view against immigration (“it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples”). He thinks culture ought to be protected against the hordes of immigrants basically.”
It’s not ambiguous at all. And no he’s not adopting a cultural view against immigration. As he explicitly stated, and repeated by me, he is against: “compulsory opening by the central state.” The Kinsella article fleshes it out more.
“Libertarians who righteously assume that their open borders view is the only principled one can only maintain this stance if they argue that the state should not ever establish any rules on property it asserts ownership of. Once they grant that some rules should be set, then they can not assume that discriminatory rules are automatically unlibertarian; all rules are “discriminatory.” And I do not personally believe it can be convincingly argued that there should be no rules on public property, because this would result in significant costs to citizens who are victimized enough. It cannot be a libertarian requirement to add injury to injury; libertarianism is about vindicating and defending the victim, not about victimizing him further.”
“The later Rothbard took a position similar to the one supported by Hoppe. He reversed field and supported governmental interference with the free movement of peoples”
Anthony Gregory, ‘On Immigration - A Reply to Hoppe’ , p. 27, Journal of Libertarian Studies.
That’d be an assertion. I’m still not seeing anything that is even close to resembling proof of it.
I read the quote of the “early” Rothbard, agreed with all he said. [Good to see Australian mentioned ;o] Same with the “later”. I don’t think Block or Gregory proved their case at all, all they did was assert and make the exact same mistake the OP and others have.
“He reversed field and supported governmental interference with the free movement of peoples”
What an absolute joke. How someone could take that as Rothbards position from reading this…: “I began to rethink my views on immigration when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these people. (Rothbard 1994, p. 7)”… is absolutely beyond me.