I’m still waiting for a comparison of the alleged damage done by the combination of the welfare state + so called ‘illegal’ immigration, as opposed to the damage done by, say, the ‘legal’ financial mafia.
Acceptable to whom ?
You used the term libertarians (plural), so would specifically like to know which “libertarians” you are speaking of.
That is, unless you are posting strawmen.
Okay. Self proclaimed libertarian Simon Lote said “Using state border control to secure against such aggressions against the NAP would seem to be a perfectly just action.”
So, there you are. Two ‘libertarians’. Add Paul and you have three libertarians. So, you lose ?
Ron Paul?
I didn’t realize this was about winning or losing, but if you want to be the winner, I will back your play.
Juan, you win. Cool?
Frankly I don’t see the point of your last messages. You know there’s more than one ‘libertarian’ who opposes immigration.
That’s a lot of bobbing and weaving around my point, and if anything you’re only reinforcing my point by refering to the danger of the state further entrenching its power (I could hardly think of anything that will do that more than strengthening its territorial dominion). It’s simple: does state border enforcement and state enforced migration restriction hold up to the NAP and legitimate property criteria? I say nay, nay, nay and have provided the arguments as to why ad nauseum, which have mostly been glossed over completely while people shift to propertarian arguments in defense of restrictionism which are entirely irrelevant to what I’m talking about.
You’re not understanding: state border control is an aggression against the NAP and a vicious violation of legitimate property rights. What’s so hard to understand about the fact that the border is not legitimately owned private property? State border control, by definition, only reinforces this illegitimate ownership. Furthermore, illegal immigrants themselves are not aggressors against the NAP even in such cases, it is the state doing the aggressing through such welfarist measures to begin with and you are conveniently shifting blame completely. As for the cliche referances to welfarism, they apply to domestic citezens just as much if not moreso than immigrants, so it’s a disingenous line of argument. It’s also irrelevant in that the problems associated with intervention X (welfare state) doesn’t justify intervention Y (migration police state) - unless you’re willing to embrace interventionism in this case.
Not only is this argument irrelevant to the principle of the matter (the legitimacy of state enforced migration controls), but its simply wrong. It has ensured the infiltration of the libertarian movement by paleocons and white nationalists, that’s what it’s done. As for the rest of people, it has ensured that they will be turned off by libertarianism because they see it as a bunch of conservatives with L’s next to their names.
There is no such pro-liberty critique, it’s a blatantly conservative position taken by Hoppe and Paul.
I would say that the issue at hand is what distinction there can be made between a personal preferance for free disassociation and subtley if not blatantly advocating forced dissasociation by disingenously misapplying propertarian arguments. And wether or not state-enforced migration controls of any kind are reconcilable with libertarianism, which I think is a futile thing to attempt to reconcile by definition. Another issue at hand is wether Hoppe’s “contributions” in this regaurd have been a good or bad thing for the movement, and I say it’s been a horrible thing, since it has had a tendency to make paleoconservatives and white nationalists think that they are libertarians.
Right, and where did I promise such a thing? In fact, I clarified I am against second-best arguments early on. And the question is, whether they’re acceptable as means to reduce aggression against tax-payers. So one could say the “whom” is the person footing the bill.
-Jon
Do you claim such aggression exist ? Can you quantify it ?
Yeah, a.k.a. second-best arguments and the matter of their justifiability. Already covered that.
-Jon
Well, if at the end of the day the libertarian position with regaurd to the state is essentially that state migration controls and borders are illegitimate to begin with, why would one even go on to try to come up with arguments for “libertarian” immigration restrictionism? Unless, of course, one has so much of a preconcieved vested interest in restricting the migration of such people to begin with and is grasping at straws in the attempt to paint a picture of a libertarian society in which one’s personal preferance for such migration restriction is a norm (which Hoppe seems to do). This is what leads to the suspicions of racism.
Paul doesn’t oppose immigration. That’s where I am confused. Paul is all for immigration in the absence of a welfare state. He’s made the point many times that immigrants are the scapegoats for systemic issues, and that a healthy economy would need and attract immigrants.
You see, you take Paul’s illegal immigration position, and run with it to racism. However Paul’s arguments are utilitarian at worst, not racist.
All that matters at the end of the day, is the NAP. The notion that paleos or white nationalists can’t be libertarians is preposterous as shown in this thread. As long as they do not violate the NAP, ANYONE with ANY BELIEF SYSTEM can be a libertarian.
It’s a big tent, and the left better get used to it.
Are you unable to comprehend what I write? Because I said, I do not endorse second-best arguments. Consequently, it makes no difference to me, and as such, no, I have not been sufficiently motivated to research the matter. Now again, what has this got to do with my argument? Or are you looking for someone to “retaliate” against?
-Jon
Precisely! Paul’s position is that so long as there is a welfare state, he is opposed to immigration and he favors a strengthening of state enforced migration controls. This is an interventionist line of thinking - that so long as intervention X is still there, we must implement or expand intervention Y to offset its negative effects.
Yes, and this is him rhetorically backpeddling from the implications of his actual position, which is that nonetheless the state should crack down on immigration in the present.
You keep refering to the NAP over and over again as a rhetorical device, yet you conveniently ignore that state enforced migration controls and borders violate the NAP. I’m using the NAP to make my case, not opposing it. Furthermore, the NAP is meaningless without context and specification.
It is? It should be quite obvious that there’s a reason that there’s a separate term for them in the first place. There is a clear difference between libertarian and paleoconservatism. There is a clear difference between libertarianism and white nationalists. The moment such people become libertarians, they cease to be paleoconservatives or white nationalists. The reason for this should be blatantly obvious, it’s a matter of fundamentals and definition.
Has it not occured to you that the political belief systems in question essentially violate the NAP by definition or as an inherent part of them? We’re not talking about people, we’re talking about the content of said belief systems - wether they are NAP compatible or not to begin with.
It’s funny that you put yourself foreward as being “big tent” while simultaneously doing practically everything in your power to isolate “the left” (whatever that means to you, I’m not sure). Me thinks it’s perhaps “the right” (whatever that means to you, I’m not sure) who are having troubles being comfortable with the more radical elements in the tent.
Brainpolice, how many times do I have to ask you to stop trolling me?
It’s harassment. Does LvMI have a policy about this?
I’d also like to add, your last post is full of lies and strawmen. This is precisely why I have asked that you stop trolling me on this forum, and stick to conversing with people more tolerant of your debate tactics and obsessive behaviour.
I’m not trolling you. Trolling would be for me to actually not believe in what I’m saying and to be deliberately trying to get a reaction from you. That’s not what I’m doing. I think you simply can’t stand the heat and perhaps should consider getting out of the kitchen then, since the actual content of what I’m saying is apparently unaddressable. This is a message board - welcome to the world of civil argumentation. Civil argumentation is not harassment.
But nobody disagrees with that. The problem is: state lack-of-border-control is ALSO “an aggression against the NAP and a vicious violation of legitimate property rights”. What’s so hard to understand about the fact that the border would be legitimately owned private property if it weren’t for the state making a claim on it? As long as the state exists, either option is “bad”. The question is: which is least bad from a libertarian perspective? And the answer to that is not as clear as you like to pretend.
So every single tract of land touching the borders of Mexico and Canada would owned; and every single one of these owners would refuse to let people cross their land?
I didn’t say that.
Can a State legitimately own property? I believe that the answer is no. Only individuals (or groups sharing title via private contract) can own property.
Who has the right to exclude people from unowned property (in the sense that the property has not been mixed with labor and claimed)? I believe that the answer is no one. To do so is to violate the NAP by coercively preventing the claiming of unowned land. Certainly it would be doubly illegitimate for a State to claim unowned property and exclude anyone from settling it, or to sell the “right” to claim it.
Does a legitimate property owner have the right to include or exclude from their own property, or their own trade, at their preference? Certainly, they can, and bear the cost or profit of their decision themselves.
What I read Brainpolice to be saying is that a State restricting access to clearly unowned property, to prevent the settling of that property by homesteading, is clearly a violation of the NAP and a violation of the right of the homesteader to homestead. That makes a lot of sense to me - exclusion (or inclusion) is based on property rights, and if the land is not legitimately owned then no one has a legitimate claim to exclude anyone from it.
As I read Hoppe (DGF), all of the arguements are prefaced by a “If you must exist in a democracy…”. As I read the book, Hoppe doesn’t advocate the exclusion of newcomers from unowned property. (Obviously I am suseptible to error.) He decrys forced inclusion or exclusion based on State power. His concern with immigration is that a democratically elected government can use immigration policy to effect social change or consolidation of their own power, by creating and catering to a class of parasites (of whatever race). So that “If you must exist in a democracy, (and therefore be subject to said government abuse of power) you should advocate a restrictive rather than open immigration policy to prevent the importation of a bunch of human parasites into your country and onto your back without your consent.”
After reading DGF, I was left with the conclusion that Hoppe 100% viewed private property law as the only valid law, and that the law should be administered by voluntarily contracted agents, and that all else was a compromise with the current reality. And that under private property law, no one has the right to force themselves into another’s owned property, and that the owner of property is liable for both their use of that property and their guest’s use if it negatively impacts someone else’s. And if you want to associate only with (Race A), then that is your deal. As long as you don’t force them on my property.