Yes, that’s a decent enough summary.
A lack of state intervention is not a violation of the NAP. What would specifically be a violation of the NAP is the redistributive interventions. It is a misnomer to blame this on a lack of state border enforcement, which would only be one less intervention in the mix. It also isn’t necessarily the case the it would be legitimate owned private property if it weren’t for the state making a claim on it, since it could also be plain unowned property. There is plenty of unused land all over the place that is within the state’s borders. It does not follow that without the state, literally 100% of this will necessarily be owned by someone. Nor does it follow that to the extent that it is owned by someone, a high degree of exclusion will naturally be a uniform norm.
I also don’t buy into any uber-pragmatic “lesser of evils” kind of thinking. The question is not wether we should have immigration + a welfare state or state immigration restrictionism + a welfare state or state immigration restrictionism - a welfare state. The question is wether state immigration restrictionism and welfare states are legitimate to begin with, and the point should be to oppose both on principle. So, I’m simply trying to be consistant and oppose both welfare statism and state enforced borders. I’m not going to endorse state enforced borders out of fears over the welfare state. The logical position would simply be to continue opposing the welfare state, not to blame immigrants for it and start advocating a police state.
The reason I keep bringing up the NAP is that you and Juan continue to make claims about what line of thinking qualifies as libertarianism, and that is pure bollocks. You’ve been caught out more than once trying to pass your moral perspectives as a definition or standard for inclusion of libertarianism.
And what pray tell is un-libertarian about being a white nationalist? What is un-libertarian about being a paleo-conservative? Specifics shouldn’t be hard for you to provide since you’re so adamant.
For the millionth time, as long as they are willing to adhere to the NAP, their own attitudes and perspectives can be anywhere on the map. It is un-libertarian to put restrictions on people’s thoughts or opinions.
Trying to concoct a defense of “because they have different names” is incredibly LAME. Really, that’s embarrassingly bad.
Since you claim to have some expertise with white nationalism by all means, enlighten us about the NAP violations in belief.
I couldn’t care for left or right. When I came around to anarchism, I understood I was leaving both behind. That said, you’re constantly attacking conservatives or the right, over any number of “bad think” issues you have. And yet I’ve taken some time to check out the libertarian-left, and most of them are incredibly unimpressive. Donny with an A, and David Z are definite exceptions (there are probably more, I don’t know who all identifies themselves as left, because I care so little about it). But most of the self-proclaimed leftists are crybabies with marxist or authoritarian undertones. Maybe they’re just attracted to “left cover”. I don’t know. I’d like to believe that Danny and David are examples of the true libertarian left, and present company are just weak sisters.
So yeah, I am for a big tent. There are a few people on this board who came over from Stormfront. I don’t have a problem with that. Do you?
Anyone who buys into the NAP is my ally. Can you say the same?
I’d say a stormfronter is a lot more radical than you. Don’t confuse talk with action. The world is full of radical thinkers who never amounted to peanuts.
Of course not; but we’re not talking about lack of state intervention - we live in a world in which the state does intervene. The state intervenes to prevent anybody owning some particular area of land, then allows people to use that land in ways that a private owner would not (borders/immigrants are just a side issue; the problem applies to all public land and whatever the government allows/disallows there).
Sure; but Hoppe opposes both on principle too…what’s your argument again?
If you’re offered the choice between being beaten once a month and being beaten twice a day, would you refuse to voice a preference because you don’t think you should be beaten at all? Would you attack someone who did make the choice, accusing them of endorsing beatings? That would be insane.
Paul, you are cheating if you are going to bring the real world into this.
That’s a very misleading analogy.
So what? You keep switching back and forth between these two contexts. Yes, we live in a world in which the state does intervene - and I’m merely sticking to the position of opposing all of it. You seem to want to have it both ways out of pragmatism.
Are you claiming to know or predict how a private owner would use it? Does it necessarily follow that a private owner would be a migration restrictionist? What’s the solution - to disregaurd the state’s claim to ownership as invalid or to treat the state as if it were a legitimate private owner? If we disregaurd legitimacy then the only result can be the traditional libertarian position against migration restriction, not this strange paleoconservative-libertarian fusionism.
Actually he is quite fuzzy and unclear about that, and has continually implied that since we have democratic welfare states in the present they should be regaurded as if they were private owners to minimize the negative effects of the welfare state. This position cannot be held without essentially legitimizing the state’s territorial dominion as such.
No, I don’t know how the private owner would use it, but he’d do something: e.g., either he’d allow smoking or he’d disallow smoking; he can’t do both (in the same place at the same time), and must do one or the other if the issue comes up at all. The state has the same options. The problem is, in the case of a private owner, there would be a multitude of private owners who would all make different choices, and if you wanted to smoke you could go some places, or if you wanted to avoid smokers you could go other places, and if you had strong enough feelings about it you could offer to buy out the owner and change the policy, etc.; there doesn’t need to be a conflict. But the state is just one big owner (illegimately, sure) of everywhere you go, and whatever choice it makes affects everyone. If it allows smoking, tough luck for non-smokers; if it disallows smokers, the smokers are out of luck. Either situation sucks, and yes, the answer is to get rid of the state, but if the government does a poll on “should we ban smoking?”, the options are “yes” and “no”, not “get rid of the state and it won’t even be an issue”. You can refuse to pick one, but one is going to be picked.
(Note: I’m not actually supporting Hoppe’s position here. I don’t really have an opinion on the border issue. I understand and agree with both sides. I just disagree that there is an obviously-correct answer)
I don’t see it that way. If you disregard legitimacy the question is altogether meaningless, so from an anarchist perspective it doesn’t even make sense to say you have a position at all, except from the “as long as the state exists” viewpoint you’re opposing.
That they should act as private owners, not that they should be regarded as private owners. Those are different things.
By excluding aggressors from one justily acquired property, I would argue that the state is engaged in the provision of justice and security for property owners. Whist it holds the monopoly it is the only one property owners can look to provide this service. The state also provides security and justice against domestic criminals, such as Robbers, Murderers and Rapists – albeit with all the monopoly costs factored in.
The point is a foreigner until he or she crosses the state border and becomes an immigrant cannot access welfare. The foriegner clearly cannot be a burden on the tax payer, nor can he vote to have wealth distributed in his favour until he crosses this border. Therefore crossing this border is very much an invasion of the rights of property owners. The fact that there exist many domestic citizens who live at the expense of other citizens does not mean efforts to prevent further injustices is wrong.
And yet you fail to see that in the context of a social democratic welfare state the state decisions of whoom to let in, whether none, some or (in your case everyone) is inescapably interventionist because it implacts upon future political dynamics and levels of coercion and theft). Put bluntly under the statist quo open borders is just another another government policy, and a very harmful one I might add. One that has resulted in police state powers in Europe where criticising immigration can result in imprisonment under Orwellian Race Relations Legislation.
Then why has the Left-Libertarian Party that Rothbard disasociated from in 1989 not made any headway whereas Ron Paul without compromising his principles (and yes I regard opposing amnesty as consistent with the defence of liberty) enjoyed wider support?
Even if this were true, it still doesn’t give the state the right to use aggression to exclude people from a given territory simply because they’re “foreign”.
Do you support a ban of smoking in public place on the grounds that while he have nationalised healthcare we should do everything to reduce the costs done by smokers?
Now I understand this question.
Although I would argue that people should smoke more, so that they die sooner and don’t tax the health care system into old age when they contribute nothing, but consume lots of resources. [;)]
Well, I suppose if all the productive members of society commited mass suicide we’d see and end to the welfare state.
Well, I suppose if all the productive members of society commited mass suicide we’d see and end to the welfare state.
Don’t go all left-libertarian on me Giles!
I’m kidding, I was just sort of disheartened by the failure of my smoking analogy.
Although, on second thoughts, if all the productive members of society began working for the state, would it not collapse?
Or you would have a very productive state!
The smoking analogy was good. After all, one would expect that healthy people would be enemies of the state. The state wants more death, more wealth destruction, more theft.
I disagree, it makes sense that the state would favour healthy people, simply because like any parasite if its host dies, so too does it.
Right, but if the state’s plans and results matched up, it would be invincible.
What the state plans for, and what the results are, more often than not, directly contradict one another.
It can’t be otherwise. That’s just another reason why the ‘libertarians’ who want the state to enforce their preferences on immigration are doomed to failure and are wasting their time.
It does have the right to exclude aggressive foreigners.
I support the right of private property owners to do what they wish with their private property. Do you beleive smokers have a right to force others to pay for their own health care?
Another thought has occurred to me whilst studying the ethics of liberty by Rothbard, that of Life Boat Ethics and the distinction between legality and morality. Legality dictates that one may not aggress against another person. In the life boat situation where one does not have a seat, if one does not violate anothers rights then one will surely drown. Whilst legally speaking trying to throw another overboard so that you might take his seat is an act of criminal aggression, not to do so will mean that one will surely drown. This begs the question whether under such circumstances it is moral to preserve one’s life by violating the NAP.
Taking this to the level of the contemporary immigration problem. The existence of a state border which prevents foreigners from migrating to a consenting property owner in Freedonia is a violation of the NAP - ok point conceded. However Freedonia is a social democracy with an advanced welfare state that will forcibly transfer resources from the natives of Freedonia to the migrating foreigners. This is also a violation of the NAP. Given that someone’s rights are going to be violated in this unhappy state of affairs, the question becomes a moral one in that who’s rights do you think take precedence. The Native or the Migrant. The Left-Libertarian, guilt ridden and always to prove how morally superior he is to those ‘racists’ declares the migrant must be given the liberty even if it means placing greater chains and burdens on himself and the other natives. The conservative minded libertarian on the other hand, like myself, takes the choice of self-interest and is concerned first and foremost with his own rights, that of his family and extended national family. If there is a conflict of interest, he chooses his own interest.