Rothbard on immigration?

Economics Political Theory
121

Do you even know what that means? It seems not. It’s actually your own say-so that implies it.

More sophomoric nonsense. All economic theories are not “objective” in this sense, meaning they assume certain values exist, otherwise their consequences are neither good nor bad, just neutral. They’re “objective” nonetheless. I think you need to give The Epistemological Problems of Economics a read, unless you also have a problem with Mises (he advocated conscription, you know!).

Perhaps I ought to.

I also consider it “multiracial” in the sense that the NAP can be put into practice by members of any race - but that is not what I meant. What I did ask was, how is a desire for voluntary dissociation unlibertarian? At best, libertarianism is neutral with regard to it.

-Jon

122

In reference to Brainfreeze’s post about the illigitimacy of state border controls being NAP. I would argue that one cannot argue this in isolation. Access to one own property or border control is one area where the state vis a vis coercion has established a monopoly of such control, just as it has with the enforcement of the law. As with all monopolies the delivery of such controls will not only be expensive, inefficent and contradictory, but will also become a method by which the state further entrenches its power of control and expropriation and consequent destruction of wealth and standards of living of the individuals living under it.

With the contemporary US example, Mexican immigration has involved mass redistibution of wealth from existing property owners through such mechanisms as healthcare, welfare, education and use of public infrastructure. It has also compelled property owners to admit through afirmative action in employment, education and housing unwanted individuals access to their property. Using state border control to secure against such aggressions against the NAP would seem to be a perfectly just action. The only problem is misplaced faith that the state will provide such security and justice.

As a libertarian I have no such faith, as the contemporary centralised state does not provide this security as witnessed by western states refusal to enforce even their own laws against illegal immigrants. As the centralised state by its very nature will not provide this security it is another an important argument in favour of political decentralisation of border controls and ultimately private property anarchism.

Before this thread degenerating into flaming and denoncements I was arguing that the Rothbard/Hoppean/Ron Paul critical analysis of contemporary state-led immigration and their conclusion that is a bad thing will ensure the expansion of the libertarian movement, because it explains and addresses the concerns and fears the masses have of the contemporary immigration problem. The Left-Libertarian on the otherhand as demonstrated by Juan who dismisses anyone who doesn’t think mass immigration is great is a racist bigot will ensure that libertarianism will never be taken seriously by the masses, who in the absence of a known pro-liberty critique of the immigration problem may well be inevitably drawn to more authoritarian statist intervention that Juan presumes to think that right-libertarians like me hold.

123

Human cooperation — division of labor — based on integrated family-households and on separated households, villages, tribes, nations, races, etc., wherein man’s natural biological attractions and repulsions for and against one another are transformed into a mutually recognized system of spatial (geographical) allocation (of physical approximation and integration or of separation and segregation, and of direct or of indirect contact, exchange and trade), leads to improved standards of living, a growing population, further extensification and intensification of the division of labor, and increasing diversity and differentiation. [6]

As a result of this development and an ever more rapid increase of goods and desires which can be acquired and satisfied only indirectly, professional traders, merchants, and trading centers will emerge. Merchants and cities function as the mediators of the indirect exchanges between territorially separated households and communal associations and thus become the sociological and geographical locus and focus of intertribal or interracial association.

It will be within the class of merchants in which racially, ethnically, or tribally mixed marriages are relatively most common; and since most people, of both reference groups, typically disapprove of such alliances, it will be the wealthier members of the merchant class who can afford such extravagances. However, even the members of the wealthiest merchant families will be highly circumspect in such endeavors. In order not to endanger their own position as a merchant, great care must be taken that every mixed marriage is to be a marriage between “equals.” [7]

Accordingly, it will be in the big cities as the centers of international trade and commerce, where mixed couples and their offspring typically reside, where members of different ethnicities, tribes, races, even if they do not intermarry, still come into regular direct personal contact with each other (in fact, that they do so is required by the fact that their respective tribesmen back home do not have to deal directly with more or less distasteful strangers), and where the most elaborate and highly developed system of physical and functional integration and segregation will arise. [8] It will also be in the big cities where, as the subjective reflection of this complex system of spatio-functional allocation, citizens will develop the most highly refined forms of personal and professional conduct, etiquette, and style. It is the city that breeds civilization and civilized life.

124

^These are things precisely what so-called left-libertarians and de Havilland used to criticize and ultimately dismiss as neo-tribalist arguments. And when these theories are refuted then consequently the other half of restrictionist arguments becomes quite moot, even if those were not dismissed as rigorously as they usually are.

125

Actually, the above indicates that there should be no surprise that cities are more multicultural and “diverse”. Using London as an example only confirms this. Now again, why London is used as an example is beyond me. It is the last city I would have chosen to illustrate a point.

-Jon

126

I agree. I think London had to be the worst example of multiculturalism he could have given.

Then again, most people I know who are avid believers in the “virtues” of multiculturalism ignore any bad aspects of it.

127

The damn bourgeoisie! Always having sex with foreigners! Decadent scum that they are!

128

Here : " Latin for “he himself said it.” The term labels something that is asserted but unproved. "

You’re just asserting I’m not qualified to comment on Hoppe’s ‘theories’.

What I meant is that Hoppe’s ‘theories’ are biased - they are not objective. Even his writing style betrays that.

Of course the NAP says nothing about the desire for voluntary discrimination. But that’s not what tribalists focus on. For instance :

You see, the focus is not the welfare state, which was created by WASPs of course, and is used mostly by ‘legal’ citizens. The point is to blame/scapegoat somebody…Why not ‘Mexicans’ ?

129

But you admitted you have no interest in reading his book, wherein he lays out and greatly expands upon his thesis. How is it just an assertion?

Which has not been demonstrated.

And pointing out that immigration can aggravate the redistributive effects of welfarism is now tribalist? I was not aware.

-Jon

130

Yes, it’s also wholly irrelevant - and false anyway. Fact is, it’s not been proven that so called ‘illegal’ immigration “has involved mass redistibution of wealth”.

BUT, if you want to know what massive redistribution of wealth actually is I suggest you take a look at what’s going on in the financial sector. I suppose that the big banks and the fed are run by wetbacks…

131

[8-)]

My point is that there’s nothing necessarily racist about arguing it. And as to the latter bit, I don’t recall anyone saying illegal immigration is the sole cause of the US’ woes, or even a cause to begin with, as opposed to an aggravating factor.

-Jon

132

There isn’t. But if you take away the claims of racism, there isn’t even much of an argument.

The left side of this relies heavily on strawmen and emotional appeals.

133

It’s a perfect example of racism/bigotry. A group of people, ‘mexicans’ according to Mr Lote, is being singled out for allegdely doing something everybody does.

I’d love to see some numbers though. How much money do mexican ‘illegal’ immigrants pay in indirect taxes ? What sort of free lunch do they get ?

How’s the taxes/welfare balance sheet for the respectable Americans running Wall Street, the military industrial complex, and other niceties ?

Aggravating factor ? Ipse dixit.

134

Are you talking about the ‘libertarians’ who want to restrict immigration using the state ? Because they are truly leftists, in the sense that they can’t grasp what the NAP is. Also, they certainly appeal to emotions

Sounds a bit like populism to me ?

135

Learn when to use ipse dixit, first of all. Poor attempts at mimicry don’t do much for your argument, especially when I am describing the position of someone else. Now, if I were faced with a claim like “opponents of illegal immigration are unlibertarian racists who think it causes all of the US’ woes”, then I’d be in a good position to use the phrase.

Personally, I don’t care one way or the other about illegal immigration or second-bests - what I do care about is this constant repetition of words like “racist!” or “bigot”, as if those can deflect from the issue at hand.

-Jon

136

What if they were Canadians? We’re a cultural mosaic (a more insidious version of the melting pot).

I thought Simon’s post was brilliant. Particularly how left libertarians continue to take positions that alienate ever reaching across to unknowing statists and making a libertarian connection.

This tact was inevitable. It’s always, “yeah, but the immigrants pay their way”. The argument isn’t that they pay their way or not. C’mon Juan.

137

Name names and quote specifically. Your use of strawmen is very tiring. Who are the libertarians in this thread who want to use the state to do ANYTHING?

Oh that’s rich. Now populism is an issue.

138

Even the claim that ‘illegal’ immigration is an aggravating factor is just an unproven assertion. So, I believe my usage of the term was correct. All you can do is nitpicking I guess ?

So, why do you bother repeating the errors of other posters ? I imagine Simon Lote doesn’t need you as spokesperson ?

Which is ?

139

All you can do is whine about so-called racists I guess? Snap. You’re an amateur at flamebaiting. The funny thing is: your usage of the term is still incorrect, since it is not I who is making the argument. And which “errors” of other posters do I repeat? Objecting to the conceptual packaging of dissociative preferences/second-best arguments against open borders with “racism” is not “nitpicking”.

The issue at hand is whether it is inherently unlibertarian to be for dissociation, against universal multiculturalism and whether immigration controls are acceptable as a second-best.

-Jon

140

I alredy did. Open your copy of DGF - WHAT you don’t have a copy ?? Read pages 148 - 149.