Guest Blog by Walter E. Block
Why do I think of Ron Paul as a libertarian and support his candidacy for president (for purposes of the present discussion I will not distinguish between these) but do not consider Randy Barnett in this way? As Roderick very, very truly says, each of these men hold views incompatible with libertarianism. Why, then, such a sharp distinction between them on my part?
To wit, Paul is mistaken in his views of abortion and immigration, while Barnett is in error on war (I leave to the side federalism.)
There are several reasons for my judgment.
1. I regard questions of war and peace, offense and defense, as far more important to libertarianism than abortion and immigration. The essence of libertarianism is the non-aggression axiom (coupled with homesteading and property rights). I see bombing innocent children and adults as a far more serious violation of liberty than aborting fetuses, or violating the rights of people to cross national borders. If this were my only reason, I regard it is sufficient to distinguish between Paul and Barnett, accepting the former as a libertarian but not the latter.
2. My second reason is that I regard abortion and immigration as far more complex issues than the question of whether a person or nation is committing an offensive act of war or a defensive one. Roderick rejects this as irrelevant. I demur. Suppose we were trying to determine who is a mathematician and who is not. Candidate A does not know that 2 + 2 = 4. Candidate B knows that, but stumbles over the Pythagorean theorem. I regard the latter as far more complex than the former. I consider B more of a mathematician than A. It seems to me that if a putative libertarian (Barnett) cannot distinguish offense from defense in such a simple case as war, while Paul certainly can, even though he stumbles on the far more complex issues of abortion and immigration, then Paul is certainly more of a libertarian, or a better one. But, the difference in complexity between these two issues is so gigantic, this difference of degree is so great that it amounts to a difference in kind, that I am entirely comfortable in evaluating Paul as a libertarian, but not Barnett.
Let me try again on this point. Here are two statements to which all Austrian economists subscribe.
a. Voluntary trade is mutually beneficial in the ex ante sense
b. The Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT) is correct
I regard (a) as exceedingly simple to grasp. The Austrian credentials of anyone who does not see this, that is, agree with it, are nil. I regard (b) as very complex. Austrianism consists of belief in scores of such claims. If someone agreed to all such claims except for (b), I would consider him an Austrian. Heck, even an Austrian in good standing. But, if he rejected (a) but accepted everything else, I’d think he was pulling my leg, so weird would this be.
In other words, complexity is not at all irrelevant to the issues which separate Roderick and me. Indeed, it is very important.
3. My supposed argument from authority: I regard my own views on abortion and immigration to be the correct libertarian positions (if I did not, I would change them). However, in my assessment, Murray Rothbard, Hans Hoppe and Stephan Kinsella are three of the most import libertarian theoreticians in all of history. They disagree with me on at least one and I think both of these issues. Thus, I am a bit more modest in my stance on abortion and immigration than I would otherwise be. However, I know of NO eminent libertarian who thinks that our war in Iraq is defensive.
At first blush, you are of course correct in asserting that this is circular reasoning on my part. For, I readily admit it, if there were some other eminent libertarian (hey, give me a break, I don’t count Randroids) who did take this view, he would be dismissed, forthwith, as a libertarian in my view. Come to think of it, I think that John Hospers takes this view. Well, scratch Hospers from the ranks not only of eminent libertarian theoreticians, but from being a libertarian at all.
And yet, and yet… How else are we to determine issues of this sort? Will you concede to me that Rothbard, Hoppe and Kinsella, completely apart from the present issues under discussion, are more deserving of the title of eminent libertarian theorist than are Barnett, Hospers and the Randroids? If so, does not your position give you pause for reconsideration?
Maybe one way to reconcile our differences is as follows. I am operating from a sort of agnostic point of view: even though I have strong opinions on abortion and immigration, I am assuming, not a God’s eye point of view, but rather the position of a newcomer to libertarianism, who doesn’t know which way to go on this question since libertarian leaders diverge. You, in contrast, adopt a more knowledgeable position.
Let’s try closing the italics one more time.
Better?
The thing that is complicated about immigration from a libertarian perspective is that unrestricted immigration would be extremely harmful to the people living in developed countries. To make matter worse, it is also a serious public relations problem, since it would go against all the accepted standards of behaviour in the civilised world. And yet, libertarian theory inexorably demands unrestricted immigration. Personally, I feel comfortable saying that my position on this paricular issue is simply not the libertarian one; but, clearly, a lot of libertarian writers and philosophers would not be comfortable with that, so the situation is complex for them as they try to reconcile the apparently harmful consequences of their philosophical position.
Hey! Can the administrator delete my last post? Sorry, wrong blog!
Micha — italics fixed.
Otto — post deleted.
Everybody else — obviously the post by Otto that you see just above his deletion request is not the one I deleted.
I’ve now replied to Walter here.
Several comments above take the form, “If X advocates aggression, then X is not a libertarian,” or “If X can’t tell the difference between aggression and defense, then X is not a libertarian.” I agree with Walter in rejecting that position.
The problem with that position, as I see it, is that it would make every dispute about the application of libertarian rights theory into an excommunicating matter. For all such disputes are precisely about whether a given act of force is aggressive or defensive – and so in any such disagreement, one of the two sides is (unwittingly) advocating aggression.
I could take the stand that anyone who applies libertarian rights theory wrongly (which in practice would have to mean: anyone who applies it in a way I disagree with), and so licenses aggression in some instance(s), is ipso facto not a libertarian. But that would mean that I would have to think there is only one libertarian on earth – namely me – since I doubt there’s anyone who agrees with me on every possible minutia of rights theory. (In the immortal words of David Friedman: “There may be two libertarians somewhere who agree with each other about everything, but I am not one of them.”) And being the only libertarian on earth would be kind of lonely.
Hence not just any deviation can count as excluding the deviator from the ranks of libertarianism. So long as the deviator adheres to the non-aggression principle for the most part, and offers some halfway-plausible, not-blindingly-stupid libertarian argument for his or her deviations, I’m willing to grant them the status of libertarians (albeit inconsistent libertarians) – on the basis of a paradigm-case argument if nothing else. (Otherwise I’d have to favour booting Walter Block and Robert Nozick from the camp of libertarians, since they advocate what I take to be a pretty serious deviation, namely the enforceability of voluntary-slavery contracts.)
Now some of the commenters above seem to take Barnett’s defense of the war and/or (usually or, but sometimes and) Hoppe’s defense of immigration restrictions as so obviously, hopelessly confused as not even to meet the “halfway-plausible, not-blindingly-stupid” test. But I disagree. I’ll play devil’s advocate for either of those positions if someone wants me to.
Micha,
Well, I think we may actually be clarifying some points. On one point I should have mentioned before, you earlier wrote:
> So on what basis do you excommunicate Barnett as a fellow traveler but embrace Ron Paul, Hoppe, and Kinsella?
I hope this was simply a rhetorical flourish (we’re all entitled to an occasional rhetorical flourish!) and that you know that I have neither the power nor the desire to “excommunicate” Randy for or from anything – except from the list of people that, in my own best judgment, are useful allies in the struggle to advance liberty.
I am not inclined to the Randian/Peikoffian habit of announcing my ex cathedra judgments as to what other people must do or think on pain of being banned from my august presence. For one thing, no one actually cares about being banned from my august presence. For another, that sort of behavior is stupid.
If you or Rod or Rad Geek or even Walter Block himself chooses to talk with, or be friendly with, Randy Barnett, that is not really any of my d*!@ business, now is it? In fact, should the opportunity present itself, I might choose to talk with Randy. If Randy is a pedophile or convicted murderer (I assume he is not!), I would indeed eschew association of any sort with him, or with anyone who tries to induce me to associate with him, for obvious reasons of personal and familial safety. But, otherwise, I am not advocating “excommunicating” Randy or anyone else.
However, if you or Rod or Rad Geek were to extol Randy as a very model of a modern libertarian thinker, I will speak out against that, not to “excommunicate” Randy but to oppose ideas and policies, that happen to be espoused by Randy and that I think are profoundly inimical to the cause of liberty and to oppose Randy’s attempts to advance those policies. Not excommunication, but simply speaking out for what I think is right.
I hope that clarifies any confusion that might have evoked your “excommunicate” remark.
Apparently, we now agree on the Hoppe quote that it does not show that he is anti-libertarian. It does seem to show that he holds some social views you and I do not hold.
Sometime in the last few months, I had an exchange on the Web with Rad Geek about his views on what might be called “industrial democracy.” He likes it; I don’t. It seemed to me that he was advocating that industrial democracy be coercively imposed: i.e., that workers and managers should not be free to enter contracts that involved hierarchical managerial arrangements.
So, I asked him. He replied, courteously and without rancor, and made clear that I had misunderstood him. So, his views on this are not anti-libertarian.
They still differ from mine: I don’t want to work for a firm that practices “industrial democracy.” (I do agree with Rad Geek that current managerial practice is often authoritarian in petty and silly respects. Indeed, my dad, who spent most of his adult life in management, agrees with that point. As “Fordist” managerial approaches have come to make less sense for reasons of technology, etc., some managers have become increasingly obsessed with maintaining silly distinctions of status. Stupid.)
But, even though my social views differ from Rad Geek’s, you know what? I like the guy. I’m not willing to reject a guy as a political ally or even a friend simply because he holds different social views from me.
Is Hoppe’s “bigotry,” as you say, towards gays any different than my friendly disagreement with Rad Geek?
The world is full of people who are “bigoted” against other people. All traditionally orthodox Christians think that I deserve to go to Hell since I am an atheist. I know a lot of atheists, and even liberal Christians, who are bigoted against evangelical Christians. My Irish grandmother was bigoted against non-Irish; my Baptist grandmother was bigoted against Catholics. My German great-grandmother… well, you get the idea.
If you honestly wish to refuse to associate with anyone at all who is bigoted, by all means do so.
But your circle of acquaintances is likely to become rather small!
I have several gays among close relatives and in-laws. If Hoppe is rigidly determined not to associate with anyone who dares to countenance gays, then he will refuse to associate with me. What I have heard of the man suggests that this is not the case. In that case, I am willing to write off Hoppe’s anti-gay views as just one more example of the phenomenon of the “bigotry” that so pervades the human race.
His view on this is not my view. But then I have yet to find another human being who shares all of my views. Since Hoppe’s views on gays, as you and I now seem to agree, do not involve killing gays or depriving gays of their rights, I’m willing to shrug it off, as I shrug off so much bigotry that makes no sense to me.
You won’t shrug it off? Then don’t. Don’t associate with Hoppe. I don’t think anyone will mind.
Again, the point here is *judgment*. It is my judgment that advocating the bombing of innocent human beings, whatever the supposed rhetorical excuses, as Randy does, is a far more horrible thing than being bigoted against gays.
You disagree with my judgment? Then by all means be part of a political movement that includes Randy Barnett and excludes Hoppe.
You quoted my earlier observation that:
>>On the other hand, the USA contains 7-8 percent of the earth’s land area and less than 5 percent of its population. So, telling someone that he may under no conditions move from Mexico (or Costa Rica or whatever) to the USA is fencing him off from living in 7-8 percent of the earth’s land and from direct personal contact with less than 5 percent of the earth’s people.
and you added:
>I can’t believe a so-called libertarian is making this sort of argument.
Really? Why?
The paragraph you quoted from me is not even an argument – it’s just a recital of certain well-known facts about geography.
I do think those facts are relevant to judging how severe an invasion of rights it is to deny someone entry to the US.
You know, we have to make such judgments all the time. Suppose you had a hundred bucks that you could donate either to a campaign to abolish OSHA or to oppose the War on Drugs. I’ve talked to business managers who have had to deal with OSHA. Occasionally, OSHA inspectors make helpful suggestions; often they make stupid demands or enforce mindless regulations. From the businessmen I have talked with, OSHA is annoying, officious, inefficient, and imposes a significant, though not huge, cost on businesses and consumers. The War on Drugs, on the other hand, puts innocent people in jail, sometimes for the rest of their lives, and has even resulted in the “mistaken” killing of people who had nothing to do with drugs at all.
It would seem obvious that those facts have some relevance in deciding how much effort to devote to fighting OSHA vs. to opposing the War on Drugs.
Similarly, the fact that, for most human beings, being killed by a bomb is a much greater deprivation of liberty than being denied the right to settle in the US is relevant to figuring out how seriously one should oppose US militarism/imperialism vs. immigration restrictionism.
You really can’t imagine any libertarian thinking in this way? I can’t imagine any human being who does not think in this way!
Again, I know I have not proven all this by deductive logic from first principles. That again is my central point – political action, indeed all action, requires making probable, fallible judgments based on experience and empirical evidence.
I think the judgments I have given are rather obvious, straightforward conclusions. But I realize that not everyone will share my judgments: for example, I find bigotry against atheists at least as offensive as bigotry against gays – the historical record of burning non-believers at the stake (and the fact that I am an atheist myself) makes such a view seem sensible to me. Not everyone will agree.
So, if you do not agree with my judgments, by all means do not be part of the same political movement as me.
Dave
P.S. I think we may have fairly fully explored each others’ perspectives on this and may be at the point of agreeing to disagree – as I hope I’ve made clear, I’m not trying to get you to take my view, and I do not think you will. I think we belong in different political movements. It also looks as if the discussion is moving to Rod’s newer post. But if you have further serious questions about my views, I will try to respond here. I think I at least understand my own position better after our exchanges!
Oh, okay, I’ll take you up on your offer.
I’d love to see you play devil’s advocate for arresting people for the act of crossing the border and invading Iraq and killing 600,000 – 1,000,000 people.
Oh, okay, I’ll take you up on your offer.
I’d love to see you play devil’s advocate for arresting people for the act of crossing the US-Mexican border and invading Iraq and killing 600,000 – 1,000,000 people.
Okay, going into devil’s advocate mode:
A1. Those who enter the U.S. acquire the ability to make use of various public (i.e., tax-funded, i.e., stolen) resources — schools, welfare, etc.– and will certainly make use of some of them (e.g., roads), without the permission of the taxpayers.
A2. Use of stolen resources without the permission of the rightful owners is a violation of the owners’ rights.
A3. So long as public services are tax-funded, those who enter the U.S. are violating the owners’ rights. (from A1 & A2)
A4. If X steals from Y, and Y cannot succeed in getting X to return Y’s property, Y is justified in at least getting X to use the property in Y’s interest rather than transferring it to a third party.
A5. If abolishing tax-funded public services cannot presently be achieved, taxpayers are justified in at least getting the government to control access to those services, reserving them to those who funded them rather than allowing newcomers to draw upon them. (from A3 & A4)
A6. Abolishing tax-funded public services is not currently politically feasible, while increased restriction on immigration is.
A7. Therefore, taxpayers are justified in supporting tighter immigration controls. (from A5 & A6)
B1. If a cost is imposed on X as a result of government aggression, and would not have occurred in the absence of such aggression, then this cost counts as a violation of X’s rights.
B2. If X does not wish to associate with Y, and X is nevertheless brought into association with Y, such association is a cost borne by X.
B3. If X does not wish to associate with Y, and X is nevertheless brought into association with Y as a result of government aggression and would not otherwise have been so, such association counts as a violation of X’s rights. (from B1 & B2)
B4. In the context of such examples of government aggression as public roads, anti-discrimination laws, etc., loose immigration laws bring immigrants into association with people who do not wish to associate with immigrants (call such people ‘spigots’ for short), in ways that would not have occurred without the aggression.
B5. Immigrant/spigot contact resulting from loose immigration laws in the context of such examples of government aggression as public roads, anti-discrimination laws, etc., counts as a violation of spigots’s rights. (from B3 & B4)
B6. If a rights violation results from a combination of two factors, one of which cannot effectively be addressed, the victim of the rights violation is entitled in self-defense to take action against the other factor.
B7. If restricting immigration is politically feasible while abolishing public roads, anti-discrimination laws, etc., is not, then spigots are justified in supporting tighter immigration controls. (from B5 & B6)
B8. Restricting immigration is politically feasible while abolishing public roads, anti-discrimination laws, etc., is not.
B9. Spigots are justified in supporting tighter immigration controls. (from B7 & B8)
C1. If X is aggressing and/or threatening to aggress against Y, intervening against X counts as a defensive use of force.
C2. Saddam Hussein was an aggressor and/or a threatener of aggression against his own citizens, against neighbouring countries, and against westerners interested in economic exchanges with which Hussein was wont to interfere.
C3. Intervening to depose Saddam Hussein counts as a defensive use of force. (from C1 & C2)
C4. If one can exercise a defensive of force without becoming responsible for deaths or endangerment caused therein, one is justified in doing so.
C5. Intervening to depose Saddam Hussein was justifiable so long as responsibility for deaths or endangerment caused therein could be avoided. (from C3 & C4)
C6. If X’s aggression creates a situation such that one cannot effectively defend the majority of X’s victims without endangering or killing a minority of X’s victims, responsibility for such endangerment or death lies with X and not with the defender.
C7. Saddam Hussein’s aggression created a situation such that one could not effectively defend the majority of his victims without endangering or killing a minority of his victims.
C8. Responsibility for any endangerment or death in the course of deposing Saddam Hussein lies with Saddam Hussein. (from C6 & C7)
C9. Intervention to depose Saddam Hussein was justified. (C5 & C8)
Do I agree with those arguments? Absolutely not. But are these arguments so clearly insane or so blatantly unlibertarian that no sane libertarian could endorse them? That doesn’t seem obvious to me. If you think otherwise, which steps are the clearly insane or blatantly unlibertarian steps?
I’ll get back to you later on this. This may take a while. (LOL!)
Professor: For the purposes of the discussion, I’ve decided to call your hypothetical “devil’s advocate” ELT, for “Eminent Libertarian Theorist.”
Argument A: ELT is advocating for “illegals” to be locked up and treated as criminals without any proof of actual rights violations—assumption of guilt without proof of an actual violation of anyone’s rights or justly held property hardly seems “libertarian.” Many illegal immigrants actually do pay taxes, such as state and local sales taxes and property taxes, and even payroll taxes, so based on ELT’s own argument he should have no problem with “illegals” consuming “public resources” since they actually are helping to subsidize them, so therefore they should be allowed to grant themselves “permission” to use said public resources. Further, ELT’s implication that “uses” of state socialism can be legitimized by the taxpayer’s “permission” hardly seems “libertarian,” even if it did have any actual referent in reality.
ELT also assumes that government, a coercive monopoly, can act rationally on behalf of the interests of the very people it coerces and robs with the property it has stolen from them. He overlooks the massive costs associated with expanding government bureaucracy for “tighter immigration controls,” not to mention the costs forced upon employers of labor and consumers (in the form of higher labor costs and higher prices), who would perhaps choose a different policy for themselves if allowed the opportunity that ELT would like to deny them.
This country has had government-regulated immigration for some time. If ELT is unhappy with the results of his favored government program—if actual real world experience deviates from his theory—he has plenty of scholarly research under his belt to understand why.
But the most important point is that ELT has charged “illegals” as being guilty until proven innocent, to be locked up and treated inhumanely until being deported against their will, thus never given the opportunity to prove that they’re innocent, that is, net producers rather than net tax consumers. Hardly “libertarian.”
BTW, ELT: I thought libertarians are supposed to argue for the principles of individual rights and property, not for what’s “politically feasible” (whatever that may mean).
Argument B: I’m forced by government to associate with all kinds of people I may not otherwise choose to. I could be working to fund Social Security payments to the Grand Dragon of the KKK, which I would ordinarily choose not to do, while I may very well like associating with immigrants, be they “legal” or “illegal.” Why should ELT be able to get others to bear the costs of HIS chosen dissociations, and deprive me of my valued associations, while forcing me to bear the additional costs of enforcing my deprivation?
Argument C: Again, I would like to invite ELT to descend from atop Theory Mountain and come down to the real world of actually living, breathing, acting human beings: Attacking Saddam could only be considered “defensive” if he presented a clear and imminent threat to the US, and all evidence indicates that he did not. And even if he did, the US would be obligated to attack ONLY Saddam and his fellow aggressors, and only in a manner proportionate to each one’s crimes, and such has not turned out to be the case, which shouldn’t have surprised ELT any.
ELT should ask himself: Has the US gov’t—or ANY gov’t ANYWHERE ON EARTH—EVER exercised force without causing death to many innocents and endangering others? It may have been relatively more possible to avoid the deaths of innocents in the 19th century, but it’s absurd to insist that it’s remotely possible in the 21st. It is simply not possible for any government to wage war without causing deaths to many innocents, as experience has taught over and over, and on these grounds alone ELT should oppose government wars—all of them. Anyone who ever thought invading Iraq was possible without killing innocents is simply not attuned to reality. The technological advancement of taxpayer-subsidized weapons of war has only increased the likelihood of many more innocents being killed.
Further, the Iraqis themselves were never given a choice. Sure, it could be argued that some in Iraq were willing to the bear the risks and costs of the US deposing Saddam, but what about those who weren’t? Why should the wishes of the former be upheld, and not the latter? And what of the massive costs imposed on Americans who would have chosen to abstain from financing such a project? Should they continue to be forced to bear the costs of this war until they’re all broke and destitute, begging in the streets?
As to point C7: ELT would like to shift responsibility for the Iraq War from Uncle Sam—the clear and obvious invader in this case—to Saddam. However, Saddam’s prior aggressions do NOT provide justification for the US gov’t’s own aggression against many innocent Iraqis.
And “Saddam’s aggression made it impossible for the US gov’t’s aggression to avoid killing some of Saddam’s victims, whom the US was trying to defend from Saddam’s aggression”??? Quite frankly, this argument is so patently absurd on its face that ELT disappoints me on this one.
Now, are any of ELT’s arguments “clearly insane”? Well, I don’t know about that. (Though C7 above is an obvious front runner.) “Clearly” insane is frequently quite subjective. But are they “so blatantly unlibertarian that no sane libertarian could endorse them?” Maybe not to someone who just picked up their first libertarian literature the other day, but certainly one would expect an Eminent Libertarian Theorist to see the fallacies and the violations of individual rights in his arguments against free immigration and for war in Iraq, based on his many years of study, research and thought on the issues of liberty.
If ELT insists on supporting any gov’t policy that invades anyone’s rights—and all gov’t policies do to some extent or other—and even after those rights violations have been demonstrated time and time again, then it is not at all unreasonable for another libertarian to question the legitimacy of ELT’s claim to the label “libertarian.”
This whole discussion in the comments thread started when someone said Walter Block simply could not or should not question Randy Barnett’s being any kind of libertarian at all based simply on Barnett’s position on the Iraq War, though Block was doing so based on an objective principle that is the ethical foundation of libertarianism—that of non-aggression. Block therefore has very good reason to express doubt of Barnett. Perhaps Block is being inconsistent in regards to his evaluation of other libertarians, but nonetheless he has very valid grounds on which to doubt specifically Barnett’s libertarian bona fides. It is not a matter of someone claiming to “own” the libertarian label (as some commenters have stated), or claiming ability to “excommunicate” anyone from libertarianism (impossible to do regardless, even if anyone wanted to), it is a matter of measuring someone’s policy proposals against an objective standard of justice and speaking one’s mind accordingly.
I would agree with others commenting here that it is not productive to quibble about who may or may not properly be called a “libertarian,” EXCEPT insofar as such a discussion is derived from a search for a correct application of objective principle. IF such a discussion does involve flushing out objective principles and correct application thereof, then I really don’t see why anyone would get so upset if “X” questions the validity of “Y”’s claim to being a libertarian.
If I’m a communist, and I suddenly come up with a proposal for privately owned roads and highways one day, would not my fellow communists question the legitimacy of my claim to being a commie? Even if I pointed to all the great theoretical works I had written on worker-owned factories and collectivized farms, wouldn’t my fellow commies still question my commitment to communism nonetheless? And wouldn’t they have perfectly valid grounds?
In what follows, ELT’s arguments continue to represent a devil’s advocate position, not my actual position.
Argument A: ELT is advocating for “illegals” to be locked up and treated as criminals without any proof of actual rights violations — assumption of guilt without proof of an actual violation of anyone’s rights
ELT: Actually I didn’t advocate that. I said nothing about the details of enforcement. In fact it would be fine by me if all illegal immigrants received a trial before being deported.
However, suppose a policy of trying all illegal immigrants isn’t politically feasible — so that the taxpayers’ only choice is between no-trials deportations and open borders. In that case the taxpayers are still justified in pushing the government toward the no-trials policy. That doesn’t mean that the government is justified in using such a policy. But if an oppressor is going to impose one of two unjust policies, its potential victims have the right to try to influence that oppressor in the direction of the less unjust one.
Many illegal immigrants actually do pay taxes
ELT: True, they may start paying once they arrive; but U.S. natives have been paying in for decades, and so have a proportionally greater claim on the public resources.
Further, ELT’s implication that “uses” of state socialism can be legitimized by the taxpayer’s “permission” hardly seems “libertarian,”
ELT: Indeed it would, if I’d many such implication, but I didn’t. Trying to influence the oppressor toward the lesser of two evils doesn’t count as giving permission; and the legitimacy of taxpayers’ doing this does not make the oppressor’s own action legitimate.
ELT also assumes that government, a coercive monopoly, can act rationally on behalf of the interests of the very people it coerces and robs with the property it has stolen from them.
ELT: I can’t see how I’ve assumed that. All I’ve assumed is that government can do better and worse things with it (or, if you prefer, less bad vs. more bad things with it), and that it’s legitimate for taxpayers to try to shove the leviathan in the less bad directions.
He overlooks the massive costs associated with expanding government bureaucracy for “tighter immigration controls,” not to mention the costs forced upon employers of labor and consumers
ELT: I don’t deny that such costs exist. But they have to be balanced against the costs imposed on taxpayers by immigrants’ claims on resources.
This country has had government-regulated immigration for some time. If ELT is unhappy with the results of his favored government program — if actual real world experience deviates from his theory — he has plenty of scholarly research under his belt to understand why.
ELT: Sure, it’s no surprise that the government doesn’t manage my preferred policy very well. But under prevailing political conditions, the alternative to my preferred policy is also a government-managed policy — namely a redistribution of resources to immigrants. (Just as “deregulating” an industry counts as de facto intervention to the extent that the industry is the beneficiary of government privilege [e.g.the 1980s savings & loans debacle], so an open-borders policy counts as a form of government intervention when the immigrants are being offered access to stolen resources.) So your question can be directed as much to open-borders advocates as to me.
But the most important point is that ELT has charged “illegals” as being guilty until proven innocent, to be locked up and treated inhumanely until being deported against their will, thus never given the opportunity to prove that they’re innocent
ELT: I’ve already addressed this; see above.
BTW, ELT: I thought libertarians are supposed to argue for the principles of individual rights and property, not for what’s “politically feasible” (whatever that may mean).
ELT: Suppose I’m being attacked and I have a choice of two guns to defend myself — one loaded and one not. Perhaps the unloaded gun would for one reason or another be a better gun to use IF it were loaded; but it isn’t. Under those circumstances, when there’s no time to load it while being attacked, it surely makes sense to use the loaded one. In the same way, if taxpayers have a realistic chance of getting government to do X and no realistic chance of getting government to do Y, then it can be appropriate for them, as a legitimate choice in self-defense, to push government toward X even if Y would be a better thing for the government to do.
Argument B: I’m forced by government to associate with all kinds of people I may not otherwise choose to. I could be working to fund Social Security payments to the Grand Dragon of the KKK, which I would ordinarily choose not to do
ELT: Well, you have the right to defend yourself against that unwanted association too; I never said you shouldn’t.
while I may very well like associating with immigrants, be they “legal” or “illegal.” Why should ELT be able to get others to bear the costs of HIS chosen dissociations, and deprive me of my valued associations,
ELT: You have no right to defend the continued presence of your preferred associates if their continued presence constitutes a sustained rights-violation against others. By analogy: suppose while you’re on vacation some squatters move into your house, and your neighbours really like the squatters ….
while forcing me to bear the additional costs of enforcing my deprivation?
ELT: But I’m not forcing anybody to pay taxes (I assume those are the costs you mean) to enforce immigration laws. If you can find a way to avoid paying taxes, more power to you. The government is already unjustly collecting taxes; I’m just trying to get it to direct them in less rights-violating ways.
Attacking Saddam could only be considered “defensive” if he presented a clear and imminent threat to the US
ELT: You seem to be confusing defense with self-defense. If I see a mugger attacking somebody, I have a right to intervene; my use of force is defensive, although not self-defensive.
And even if he did, the US would be obligated to attack ONLY Saddam and his fellow aggressors
ELT: So you assert, but I’ve given an argument to the contrary.
It is simply not possible for any government to wage war without causing deaths to many innocents
ELT: Exactly — that’s precisely what justifies causing such deaths. If war could be waged without causing such deaths, it would be wrong to cause them.
Look, suppose I strap a baby to my chest and then start shooting at you. Do you have the right to shoot back, or not? I say that in such a case the danger to the baby is my responsibility, not yours, so you have the right to shoot back; my bad action shouldn’t deprive you of the right to exercise defensive force.
Sure, it could be argued that some in Iraq were willing to the bear the risks and costs of the US deposing Saddam, but what about those who weren’t? Why should the wishes of the former be upheld, and not the latter?
ELT: Suppose you see me attacking two people. One screams to you “help! help!” But as you start to wade in, the other one says, “no, don’t help us!” Why should the latter get to veto the former?
And what of the massive costs imposed on Americans who would have chosen to abstain from financing such a project?
ELT: Once again, I don’t advocate taxation. Anyone who can manage to get out of paying taxes in support of this war or any other government project has my blessing. But that’s different from the question of what we should push this already-tax-gobbling leviathan to do. By analogy, I’m against tax funding for the police, but I can’t see that that obligates me not to call 911 if I’m attacked or if I see someone else attacked.
And “Saddam’s aggression made it impossible for the US gov’t's aggression to avoid killing some of Saddam’s victims, whom the US was trying to defend from Saddam’s aggression”??? Quite frankly, this argument is so patently absurd on its face that ELT disappoints me on this one.
ELT: Patently absurd? Really? Please explain, then, your alternative proposal for overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s regime without endangering any civilians.
If ELT insists on supporting any gov’t policy that invades anyone’s rights — and all gov’t policies do to some extent or other — and even after those rights violations have been demonstrated time and time again, then it is not at all unreasonable for another libertarian to question the legitimacy of ELT’s claim to the label “libertarian.” ELT: Well, what counts as “support”? Once again, suppose the government is set on doing either A or B, both of which violate rights, but A violates rights to a greater extent than B does. If you try to influence the government toward B, is that “supporting” B? Or analogously, suppose I tell you “I’m going to kill 100 people unless you tell me to kill just 50 people instead.” Are you “supporting” my killing 50 people if you tell me, “yes, kill the 50 rather than the 100″?
If I’m a communist, and I suddenly come up with a proposal for privately owned roads and highways one day, would not my fellow communists question the legitimacy of my claim to being a commie?
ELT: NEP ring a bell?
Yes, yes, I know those aren’t your actual positions! You really don’t have to keep explaining that.
You, sir, are indefatigable!
Unfortunately, I will have to take up this thread another time. Time is getting scarce. It’s late now, and my head hurts from reading all of ELT’s convoluted answers. (The strapping-a-baby-to-his-chest-while-shooting-at-me scenario was by far the most creative.) But rest assured that I will reply to him in the very near future.
BTW, how long did the NEP last?
____________________________________________________________
ELT: I said nothing about the details of enforcement. In fact it would be fine by me if all illegal immigrants received a trial before being deported.
For what would they be tried? Crossing over unowned land? My point was that you are assuming that the illegals come here to suck off the public teat–collect a portion of the stolen loot, i.e., welfare. You are presuming them to be thieves or parties to theft beforehand. Not sure how you could put someone on trial for that.
As for illegals using other such public resources as roads, we’ll never know if they would be willing to pay a private provider of roads since government monopolizes them, will we? Perhaps illegals—and many of us natives–would be perfectly willing to pay market prices for unsubsidized schools, health care, etc., without government’s interference, but we’ll never know so long as government is allowed to monopolize and/or intervene in these services. It’s perverse to indict immigrants and toss them into the clink because government monopolizes such services.
Oh, and it looks like ELT gets a sneak peek at one of my counter-replies. I neglected to cut out those last 3 paragraphs below that line before I hit the “submit comment” button. Oy.
Yes, yes, I know those aren’t your actual positions! You really don’t have to keep explaining that.
I wasn’t explaining it to you; I was just guarding against the possibility that someone might come across this discussion, read just a bit of it, and conclude that I am a Barnettian on war and a Hoppean on immigration (whereas in fact I’m, more or less, a Hoppean on war and a Barnettian on immigration).
The strapping-a-baby-to-his-chest-while-shooting-at-me scenario was by far the most creative
That’s actually an argument I’ve used in propria persona,though to defend a less extreme position than ELT’s; see here.
it looks like ELT gets a sneak peek at one of my counter-replies
Fear not, I won’t let ELT look at it yet. (I keep him in a cage in my basement.)
BTW, I just want to add something.
I don’t know if ELT’s immigration views are in any way informed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s, but I would like to just briefly point out to ELT (and others here) that, upon my recent (albeit brief and summary) review of Hoppe’s opposition to “open borders” (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/015298.html), I have discovered that Hoppe’s own policy proposal is conditioned upon those Americans who WOULD choose to associate with immigrants being FREE to do so by inviting said immigrants without any interference from the state. Hoppe has explicitly stated that he is opposed to the state forcing or coercing people to exclude those they would not freely choose to exclude.
This is a great degree more libertarian than ELT’s own arguments against immigration, who makes no such provision for those in this country who would choose to associate with immigrants. Considering that Hoppe is one of those eminent libertarian theorists whose reputation for being against open borders is fairly extensive, I’m wondering if ELT has read Hoppe on this. (And I’m wondering why I haven’t read him more on this myself. I certainly should.)
And unlike ELT, Hoppe offers his policy only as a “second best” alternative. Since he readily recognizes that his own proposal has about a snowball’s chance in hell of actually being implemented, his first and foremost policy solution is total abolition of the state.
I also believe this begs to be stated considering that it would appear that others in this comments thread have blatantly and dishonestly (or at the very least, ignorantly) mischaracterized Mr. Hoppe’s views on immigration. (I believe someone claimed that he supported “statist apartheid.” As far as I can tell, this is simply not true. And shame on me for not checking on Hoppe’s actual views at the time that comment was made.)
I would also submit that this gives further credence to Walter Block’s assessment of including Hoppe as properly a libertarian, and Barnett as barely a libertarian at all, based on their respective views.
ELT was not meant to be a carbon copy of Hoppe (or Kinsella) on immigration or Barnett on war, just vaguely inspired by their positions. But why not look at Barnett’s actual arguments also? Or the arguments of other liberventionist-but-genuinely-libertarian writers like Aeon Skoble?
I’ve read other liberventionist arguments for the Iraq War, but not Aeon’s. I’ll read it – thanks for the link. I’ve read Barnett’s Wall Street Journal piece a while back critical of Paul on the Iraq War, and found it severly wanting, but I’ll be sure to read the Barnett stuff you linked as well.
So, BTW, I concede that the upshot of all this is that you’ve got a point.
Also, BTW, per other comments on Hoppe, regardless of what can accurately be characterized as his actual policy views on immigration, his vision of a libertarian society in which assorted certain types, including homosexuals, are to be “physically removed” strikes me as a bit creepy.
Sure, I agree. And as a thicklib I regard such creepiness as not just a generic vice but an actual deviation (albeit not a disqualifying one).