Walter Williams asks (CHT LRC):
There are close to 7 billion people on our planet. I’d like to know how the libertarians answer this question: Does each individual on the planet have a natural or God-given right to live in the U.S.? … I believe most people, even my open-borders libertarian friends, would not say that everyone on the planet had a right to live in the U.S.
Well, that’s an easy one: yes, of course each individual on the planet has the right to live anywhere she chooses, so long as she violates no one’s rights.
All human beings are equal; being a u.s. citizen does not magically confer special rights on some human beings that are not enjoyed by others. Thus immigrants, as human beings, have every right to buy or lease naturally owned property wherever they find a willing transactor, and likewise a right to homestead naturally unowned property (which describes most of the land in the u.s.). Or has Williams decided to reject the concept of property rights?
Williams goes on to say:
What those conditions [for immigration] should be is one thing and whether a person has a right to ignore them is another.
Nope. Those are not two separate questions. If a “law” is unjust, then of course anyone has a right to ignore it. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr.:
One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. … One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.” … An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. … Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.
Williams himself has written elsewhere:
I have a right to travel freely. That right imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference.
If Williams means what he says, then he has just acknowledged his own right to cross the borders of other “nations.” How, then, can he deny the right of other people to cross the borders of the “nation” in which he lives?
I don’t want to nitpick the open borders position (which I’ve done elsewhere on here) but I’m curious: Why are the eastern states generally and Nevada and Oregon in particular almost completely owned by the Fed Gov?
That doesn’t sound like a question at all related to the open borders position.
The eastern states are the least federally owned, the western states are the most federally owned (percentage wise anyway, according to the map).
http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/map-owns_the_west.jpg
He linked the map in the post; at any rate I misspoke, my question was *why* the western states are the most owned percentage-wise?
I suspect that it’s because the newest territories (the western territories) were originally possessions of the federal government, and, despite homesteading, the feds maintained ownership over a lot of land. Designating some things for civilian use, and some things not.
I’m sure someone has a better answer.
The east on the other hand was pretty much all homesteaded (or stolen, or both) before the federal leviathan became what it has been since the middle of the 19th century.
Anon73:
Well, land that was newly conquered by USGov was parcelled into territories, where all empty land was held to be owned by the U.S. government. (This included land that actually was empty, and also a lot of Indian land that the government was happy to seize and ethnically cleanse.) During the first part of the 19th century, the land was typically sold off to politically-connected speculators as a source of revenue; after the Civil War, it was supposedly opened up to homesteading. But the Feds reserved the power to close off federal land from homesteading if they could make up some way of claiming that they were using it, and beginning in the early 20th century the Feds started locking away large sections of the remaining available land in newly-created National Parks, National Forests, set-asides for loosely-defined military purposes, etc.
The Western states have the most federally-controlled land because, among other things, they were among the latest to get state governments; they also were the slowest to have land homesteaded, since Homestead Act specifically called for large-scale planting, but a lot of the land West of the Rockies was marginal to useless for large-scale planting without some fairly massive investments in irrigation, which didn’t exist yet in the 19-oughts. (There were later amendments to the homestead act to better allow for homesteaders to practice dryland farming or grazing, but these weren’t passed until very late in the game.) Anyway, as a result, they were the states with the least land homesteaded, and the most land still remaining under Federal control when the Feds started moving into full lockdown.
This needs saying again and again. Thank you, Dr. Long.
Williams’ article is absurd. It is irrelevant whether anyone has a RIGHT to live in the United States. The fact is that there is NO right by anyone to prevent their free movement. It is a complete waste of time — and destructive — to put it any other way.
One can always take the idea that when one follows an unjust law and he commits an unjust act, then they are should disobey. But what about an unjust law who’s act to follow would not be an unjust act. Like when the government declares it illegal to perform certain actions, or handing over money.
Yes these arguments mostly presupposes the usefulness of government law, but assuming that to be true. How can you say that there is a moral responsibility to disobey an unjust law, where to follow the law requires no injustice?
Yes, MLK’s being a bit sloppy there. I suspect that when he said “unjust law” he was thinking of laws that require one to commit injustice. But of course there are also unjust laws that require one to commit neutral acts, and unjust laws that require one to commit virtuous (but not legitimately enforceable) acts. There’s no moral obligation to disobey unjust laws of the 2nd and 3rd categories.
There are also unjust laws that prohibit one’s performance of entirely licit acts.
My thoughts entirely. When I saw that article on the 18th was was rather surprised. I had recalled him making statements similar to what was quoted as the end of this post. Meant to bring it up on Thinking Liberty but it slipped my mind. Gonna blame it on Black Bloke not being there.
I’ll be there again one of these days…
A rather large exaggeration in the headline.
The guy falls short of libertarian perfection (by one definition of “libertarian”) in one area, and appears to be inconsistent with one of his previously expressed views, and suddenly he “loves the state”?
Well, the headline accomplished its purpose: it got me to visit here.
He falls short of libertarian perfection in more areas than just this one.
I do give him credit for referring to libertarians in the third person, though.
“All human beings are equal..”
Well, see there is your problem. All human beings are not equal. Not in cognitive ability, physical acumen, height, weight, reasoning power, morality, verbal dexterity, will power, etc. All observable evidence points to the inequality of human beings in every way.
So when your premises are wrong, most likely your conclusions will be as they are here.
I think it should be pretty obvious that I meant that all human beings are equal in their rights. Going on and on irrelevantly about height and weight and so on is a pretty silly reaction to the topic.
See also here and here.
Not irrelevant at all. If we’re not equal in any other aspect of humanity what leads you to believe we are equal in rights? Or should be for that matter?
Equal rights should logically extend to equal right to have input on the direction of the society, correct?
People are not iPods. They have ideas, motives and prejudice that they use to determine how they would like to see society operate. And they have the ability to use force to get it.
Open border libertarian hears there are 5 million Socialists with guns coming to steal land from his people by force and he says the defenders of their property have a right to fight to the death for it.
Open border libertarian sees 5 million Socialists coming in saying they are going to steal his people’s property via the ballot box and he goes “Gee willikers Mr. Immigrant, would you like a free copy of Human Action”.
Sir, your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
The newsletter is called “Radical Traditionalist, Socially Conservative, Paleo-Libertarian, Eastern Orthodox Christian Weekly”. But it’s published just bi-annually and we’re not taking any new subscriptions as we don’t wish to dilute the doctrine at this time.
Thanks for your interest though.
If we’re not equal in any other aspect of humanity what leads you to believe we are equal in rights?
Wow, some right triangles are tiny and others are huge! How could the Pythagorean Theorem possible apply to them all?
Rights are a combination of the rights-holder’s liberty to defend herself and other people’s duty not to aggress against her. What do differences among people have to do with that?
Um, noncitizens can’t vote. And illegal immigrants are coming here to get jobs. So what does your imaginary example have to do with anything?
Heh. Sure you’re not Galambosians?
Great argument for campaign finance reform WesternCivMan.
““All human beings are equal..”
Well, see there is your problem. ”
Neither is each individual so alien to another that each individual is a species in themselves. The must be some equality, similarity or commensurability between all human individuals. Almost all adult humans are in possession of two qualities; reason, and it’s converse responsibility. These two qualities are sufficient to allow anyone to be integrated into a moral order and social organization, where any peaceful pursuit of any goal with the various talents of individuals. The equality is general statement about the pursuit, and not a specific statement about the result.
I guess it’s just too bad we live in a result based world then. Once you overcome that we’re golden. Good luck.
What is a “result-based world,” in non-metaphorical language?
Respectfully, I think both authors have circumscribed their arguments and avoided the larger question: “Who gets to go where and raid whose cookie jar in the unfree united States.”
When Mr. Williams addresses the situation in the united States, where illegal immigrants get to take from the cookie jar to which legal citizens are forced to give, he uses words which seemingly contradict his previously-espoused principles, but appeal to the emotions of those who feel overrun.
When Mr. Long writes:
“Thus immigrants, as human beings, have every right to buy or lease naturally owned property wherever they find a willing transactor, and likewise a right to homestead naturally unowned property (which describes most of the land in the u.s.).”
He sets up a strawman argument to which liberty-loving, thoughtful people readily agree.
The result is emotion on both sides. Mr. Long critiques Mr. Williams, while the federal government (federales ;-}) keeps on doing what it does so well.
And legal citizens likewise get to take from the cookie jar to which illegal immigrants are forced to give, right? So what’s the difference?
Roderick:
“And legal citizens likewise get to take from the cookie jar to which illegal immigrants are forced to give, right? So what’s the difference?”
“…right?” Not right, and not correct, but not my point either. (While the federal government may depend on the demographics of illegal immigration to pay future Social Security costs, illegals don’t contribute as much.)
My point is that the talk about immigration and freedom of movement when the state stops its own citizens at roadblocks and in airports seems to be a case of ivory tower talk. The federal government will use all of the controversy to regulate everyone, legal and illegal even more.
Because the state already mandates that its productive citizens must pay for others, many are angry when others come illegally and don’t pay as much. Williams tries to address this and seemingly neglects the spirit of his previously expressed distrust of the state.
But to suggest freedom of movement as long as no one is interfered with:
“…yes, of course each individual on the planet has the right to live anywhere she chooses, so long as she violates no one’s rights.”
doesn’t address the idea that most illegal immigrants are recipients of stolen goods when they benefit from state-supplied education and health care in the US (whatever the value one may put on those). The goods are stolen from taxpayers, and anytime there is a market for stolen goods, it encourages more theft.
Jim Perry:
This is a specific statistical claim. Do you have any evidence for it?
Everyone who benefits from tax-funded government “services” in the U.S. is receiving goods that were ultimately funded by robbery. Most of those who benefit from those services are, in fact, legally-recognized citizens of the United States, not undocumented immigrants. (I don’t know if you’ve heard, but American citizens also often put their kids through government schools, take advantage of government health and human services programs, etc. In fact, they do this much more often than undocumented immigrants, because undocumented immigrants are often legally ineligible for the “services” in question.) If it’s a problem when non-citizens do it, then it’s a problem when U.S. citizens do it, too; if it’s not a problem when U.S. citizens do it, it’s not a problem when non-citizens do it either. (My own view is the latter: the problem isn’t who’s receiving government “services,” but rather who’s robbing people to fund them. Which welfare recipients have no effective control over: you’d still be taxed at exactly the same level whether any individual welfare recipient chose to accept or to reject the money being offered. The people who do have control over it — the tax-men, law-men, Congress-men, et al. — are the ones that you ought to be blaming for your tax problems. But even if there some kind of moral problem with taking money from government “services,” that moral problem, whatever it may be, applies just as much to citizens as to immigrants.)
So why do you keep harping on immigration status? It has nothing causally or morally to do with the problem you’re complaining about.
Jim Perry:
This is completely counterfactual. Undocumented immigrants are forced to pay taxes, too, and “legal citizens” have a great deal more access to tax-funded programs and “services,” which often require proof of citizenship, than undocumented immigrants do.
Even if it weren’t counterfactual, it would be morally irrelevant. It’s true that if you combine something fundamentally moral (free movement from place to place) with something fundamentally immoral (a coercively funded welfare state), that might lead to bad results. But then the thing to focus on is the immoral part of the combination, not the moral part, and the fault lies with those who are doing the coercing — that is, the government that does the taxing, not the migrants (or the citizens) who receive a pittance on the other end.
See also On the Dole.
Jim Perry:
A strawman is the fallacy of refuting a distorted version of your conversation partner’s argument, and then claiming that you have refuted their actual argument. But where does Roderick do that?
Williams directly asserts that individual people don’t have a natural right to live peacefully in the U.S. without permission from the federal government. (This is not very far off a direct quote from his article, although he phrases it as a rhetorical question.) Roderick denies that assertion, based on the libertarian premise that people have a natural right to live peacefully anywhere they want to live. (The only permission required being that of the property owner, if any.)
Maybe Roderick’s premise is true and maybe it’s false; but if the premise is true, then it would follow that what Williams directly asserts cannot be true. And, thus, his argument for government immigration laws cannot be sound.
Where is the strawman? At what point did Roderick misrepresent Williams’s argument?
Rad Geek:
“This is completely counterfactual…”
Don’t think so, but if you say so it must be true. Lucky for me you also said it is “morally irrelevant.” I guess people moving into another place that results in more taxes and more oppression of the residents is “morally irrelevant” to you.
I started to read On the Dole, but it started off with name-calling and I don’t have time for that.
As for a strawman, Roderick talks about freedom of movement in a country that has roadblocks for its own citizens and suggests that illegal immigrants have every right to go places as long as they don’t interfere with others.
My comments suggest that the tax burden of citizens is increased when illegal immigrants come here and increase the tax rate. While I do despise the state, when illegal immigrants come in and piggyback on its oppression, it isn’t right–despite your fact that it “is completely counterfactual.” ;-}
In other words: you and Charles make contrary claims; Charles cites evidence and you don’t; you refuse to read his evidence because you don’t like the tone of voice in which it’s presented. Sounds to me like you just resigned from the argument.
So what’s the strawman? What are you talking about? Yes, both citizens and immigrants have a right to freedom of movement. Yes, the government violates that right for both citizens and immigrants — though it does so more for the latter than for the former. What’s your point?
Is it okay for citizens to piggyback on the oppression of illegal immigrants (by not allowing them to compete for jobs, say)?
Mr Perry:
First, what is the evidence that:
1) Inmigrants don´t pay actually taxes, so they don´t contribute to the welfare state they supposedly benefit.
2) That inmigrants actually have more access or even equall access to welfare state benefits so their arrival will increase the taxes to sustain it as you pretend.
3) That, as a matter of fact, taxes are increased with the arrival of inmigrants.
Nothing personal, is just that I just don´t take your word for it.
Jim Perry:
Undocumented immigrants routinely pay sales taxes, gasoline taxes, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes, property taxes (directly if they own property; or indirectly, as part of the rent they pay), highway tolls, various government licensing “fees,” etc., the same way that you do. Did you think that undocumented immigrants shop at secret underground Wal-Marts that don’t charge sales tax? That they live in special immigrant dirigibles that allow them to avoid being on land subject to property tax?
You might be thinking of Social Security and income taxes; but in fact about two thirds of undocumented immigrants pay those, too (1), either under a forged SSN or else through an ITIN, which isn’t linked to immigration status.
As for eligibility for federal welfare programs, WikiPedia Is Your Friend.
Jim Perry:
How is that a distortion of Walter Williams’s argument? What does Walter Williams say that Roderick is misrepresenting?
In any case, what Roderick is that everyone has a right to move freely. That’s a statement about how people ought to be treated, not an attempt to empirically describe how they are being treated by the government right now. It takes a pretty heroic misreading to suppose that Roderick is unaware of government roadblocks, in an article explicitly devoted to criticizing restrictions on freedom of movement.
So, as far as strawmen go, logician, heal thyself.
Jim Perry:
This is plainly absurd. Do you really think that if undocumented immigrants weren’t coming to the U.S. the IRS would be giving you money back? Why?
Worrying will just caused you so much pain and hurt your feelings. I suggest you stop worrying and let our state does it works. One thing is for sure everyone has the right to live anywhere she wants to.
So everyone has the right to live where they wish; the state is intent on violating this right; so we should “stop worrying and let our state does it works”?
That is … puzzling.
The commenter is attempting to build their website’s search engine reputation via this comment, nothing more.
“Rights are a combination of the rights-holder’s liberty to defend herself and other people’s duty not to aggress against her. ” Roderick
Or rights are a combination of the right-holder’s ability to defend himself and other people’s willingness not to aggress against him. Which one of these is the one with the most observed instances? Hmmm.
“Um, noncitizens can’t vote. ” – Roderick
Oh, so you’re willing to have a two-tiered rights class within the geographical area of the US. One with voting rights and one without. What happened to equal rights? How long do you think these non-citizens are going to tolerate Roderick’s apartheid? And in many of the more corrupted areas they do vote illegally, and don’t kid yourself that they don’t.
Mexico has 4 major parties. Two are Socialist, one is Communist, and the other is a Christian Democrat party. What political direction do you think these future citizens will take us towards? Gee, I wonder.
“And illegal immigrants are coming here to get jobs. ” – Roderick
Sure seems to be an awful lot of these illegal Latino immigrants are robbing, raping, killing, getting public assistance, and sending their children to government run schools. How do I know that’s not what they intended to do when they came?
I feel it’s a better to judge them on their actions than on their stated intentions, but that’s just me.
And if you want to know what their children do in successive generations I would direct you to the archives of Steve Sailer. Ever notice that libertarian and paleo-conservative squabbling is just bickoring between white males? There’s a reason for that. People are not just plug and play software. Culture, race and ethnicity matter to average direction of political leanings. Even if it doesn’t matter to you, it does to them.
The second.
Funny thing to say since Williams is black…
Yeah, Walter Williams and all the other black libertarian writers in America together might make for a cramped Prius.
Looks like you’re committing the fallacy I describe here.
Since rights in the sense I described are normative, it doesn’t make sense to ask to “observe” them. They’re supposed to guide our observable conduct; complaining that you can’t observe them is like complaining that you can’t eat a recipe.
In your fantasies, apparently. You seem to have missed the point of what I said. In my line about voting I wasn’t advocating anything; I was simply pointing out that illegal immigrants who come here can’t vote, know they can’t vote, and thus are not coming here in order to vote.
As for what I advocate, my preferred system certainly doesn’t involve “voting” by anybody.
The u.s. has two major parties, one social-democratic and one fascist. What’s your point?
So what? The crime rate among immigrants is about the same as among the native-born population.
Well, why don’t you apply that reasoning to the vast majority of illegal immigrants who don’t commit crimes?
As a matter of fact, no, I haven’t noticed that, and it doesn’t seem to be true. (It’s certainly not true about my dispute with Walter Williams.)
By the way, for someone named “WesternCivFan” you seem rather hostile to some of the central ideas of western civilisation, such as equality and natural rights. Might want to consider a name change.
No need for a name change, the Eastern Orthodox Christian part of my earlier post just didn’t apparently register with you.
So what? The crime rate among immigrants is about the same as among the native-born population.
Not for Hispanics it isn’t which makes up the vast bulk of our immigration.
http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/100224_nd.htm
.
But that is ignoring the fact that every crime committed by an immigrant is one that is one of the easiest to prevent. If they aren’t here, they aren’t committing crimes here are they? If they aren’t here they aren’t using social services are they?
The u.s. has two major parties, one social-democratic and one fascist. What’s your point?
You just made my point for me. Libertarianism hasn’t even made a dent in the statism of the 320 million already here and you are willing to take on any amount of statists from around the world. Absolutely genius plan.
So let’s say you get your little fantasy, and tomorrow the announcement comes that the Border Patrol, ICE, Customs and the Coast Guard will all be standing down and anyone, anywhere in the world can come here without restraint.
Any Hutu and Tutsi still with a grudge, any Uzbeki Communists, any New Guinea cannibal, AIDs infected Kenyan, any blind crippled or crazy Romanian, it doesn’t matter, they can all come if they can scrape up the airfare or find sea worthy passage.
Any raft from Haiti, any floating 1954 Bel Air from Cuba, any container ship from China, come one come all – do you think the humanitarian crisis on Tueday and the civil war that breaks out Wednesday will be good for liberty?
“As a matter of fact, no, I haven’t noticed that, and it doesn’t seem to be true. (It’s certainly not true about my dispute with Walter Williams.)” – Roderick
Like I stated earlier, get all the black libertarian writers together and you can cramp a Prius. Throw in the Mestizos and you’ve got a VW Microbus full.
Survey after survey, election after election, all around the world the majority of people affirm their commitment to statist policy and you want to battle them on policy direction here at home. Brilliant.
FIGHT THEM OVER THERE SO WE DON’T FIGHT THEM OVER HERE.
I’m fine with people openly proclaiming support for immigration restriction. Heck, I’m fine with immigration restriction. But saying a government should adopt a blatantly statist policy for the sake of avoiding statism is just tortured logic.
Libertarian moralism is annoying; libertarian sanctimony that directly contradicts libertarian moralism is ten times more so.
As far as I know, the Eastern Orthodox edition of the Bible doesn’t omit Matthew 5:44-45, or Matthew 20:25-27, or Luke 10:25-37, or James 2:8-9, or Galatians 3:28. How do you reconcile your views with those texts?
Nope, try again.
That’s an equally good (or bad) argument for a policy of compulsory mass abortions.
Again: that’s an equally good (or bad) argument for a policy of compulsory mass abortions.
Which has what to do with your original claim? You’ve shifted from nonwhites and nonmales to blacks. Why?
Once again: as do Americans! Indeed, America is the world’s chief promoter of statism. So what has that got to do with immigration?
To Louis B.: in WesternCivFan’s “defense,” I don’t think he’s claiming to be a libertarian.
War is about as statist a policy as one could advocate for and I’d have to say any Polish libertarian worth the name was fine advocating continuing a war effort against an invading Soviet Union and Nazi Germany for as long as they could hold out.
People moving in is a game changer. They aren’t Chinese electronics that just sit there when you aren’t using them.
We have a democratic form of government. It’s a fact. It exists and it isn’t going away any time soon. Some representative and in some cases direct democracy. Even if the welfare state is abolished tomorrow, you let enough statists in and it will be right back.
“A stitch in time saves nine”. What do you want, the border patrol, or Belgium’s income tax rate? This isn’t some circle jerk, libertarian symposium.
This is the real world and very important immigration policies are being made right now. What side are you on? The purity test fantasists’, or the one you know is the best course to possibly, just maybe, if we’re lucky, slow even more egregious state advancement in the future?
For some reason elite statists both left and right favor open borders. That should be a big enough hint right there.
You still haven’t explained why you’re more worried about statists immigrating across the border than about statists immigrating through the birth canal, as most statists in this country do.
Anyway, the chief welfare problem in this country, is corporate welfare.
In other words, let’s drop moral principles and just follow short-range expediency. I guess the Eastern Orthodox Bible doesn’t include Luke 4:5-8 or Romans 3:8 either? Not a big fan of purity fantasists like Jesus and Paul?
Bullshit. Elite statists left and right run the country. If they wanted open borders, we’d have open borders. Elite statists want border controls and all the statist power that comes with them — national ID cards, etc.
There’s nothing unlibertarian about resistance to military invasion. And it doesn’t need to involve a state.
There’s nothing unlibertarian about resistance to statist invasion who will exert their will at the ballot box and the government trough. And here on planet Earth we still have to acknowledge the state exists, will exist for our lifetimes, and tailor policies to slow its advance within its framework.
Over and over in this discussion you have glossed over and ignored the fact that you are advocating for the immigration of millions of non-libertarians who will make the natives with less statist leanings ever more irrelevant. Why is this?
Do you think 20 million fundamentalist Muslims immigrating to America this year will make us less free in the future? Just answer the question, yes or no? If it’s yes, your whole argument collapses and you know it, and there is no further need for debate.
Everybody, including you, reading this thread sees the sandcastle of an argument you are making. You just won’t admit it, because of your self-imposed purity test.
So, again: why aren’t you in favour of mandatory mass abortions? All those babies coming into the country to exert their statist will at the ballot box and the government trough ….
Making the government more powerful and more oppressive is not a promising way to slow its advance. If you’re seriously interested in slowing its advance, why don’t you try agorism?
Okay, ONE MORE TIME: how the hell does your argument not apply to mandatory mass abortions?
For reasons I already illustrated, your question is silly and illegitimate. Assume the most extravagantly bad results of your opponent’s position, ignore the possibility of any comparably bad results of your own position, and then point at these bad results you’ve invented and say: “Admit that you endorse this!” Be serious.
Self-imposed? Apparently you think I invented the Golden Rule. Are you sure you’re not from the Eastern Unorthodox Church?
“Okay, ONE MORE TIME: how the hell does your argument not apply to mandatory mass abortions? ” – Roderick
One, my religion forbids abortion while allowing for national borders.
Two, the native born birthrate is barely maintaining replacement level, so the overall amount of statists wouldn’t increase, but more than likely decrease absent immigration.
Three, how large of a state apparatus would it take to make sure no pregnancy ever came to term in the entire country? Would it be larger than what it would take to man the entire length of the border every 1/4 mi, double ICE deportations and triple the Coast Guard. I’m absolutely positive it would. I’m sure you are too.
It would probably take a state apparatus approximately 1/10th the size to terminate all pregnancies than we would end up having after 12 months of your immigration policy though.
WesternCivFan:
Besides what Roderick already said below about the stupidity of this kind of argument-from-a-completely-imaginary-worst-case-scenario, I’d also just like to add that, since I’m not a consequentialist, I don’t believe in assaulting, arresting, imprisoning, or murdering innocent people in order to ward off hypothetical dangers from unrelated third parties. So it doesn’t at all follow that if free immigration leads to bad results, therefore the argument for free immigration “collapses.” It would only collapse if you think that considerations about collective consequences override considerations about individual rights and liberties. But why believe that?
On the contrary — if it turns out that the only way to save myself from the machinations of 20,000,000 Evil Alien Invaders were to violently turn back even one innocent migrant or refugee, who had no intention of violating my rights, then I would certainly not save my skin at the cost of violating the liberties of the innocent migrant or refugee. That strikes me as the most stinking sort of moral and political cowardice.
WesternCivFan:
Hey man, I’m not a Christian, so my apologies if I’m not getting something, but does your religion involve a special Bible that doesn’t include Colossians 3:1-15? Or perhaps you have a special Colossians 3:11 — one which tells you that Christians really ought to pay attention to earthly political distinctions after all, and to treat people differently based on the nation they come from?
That would hardly make american society less statist, wouldn’t it?
If the fallback libertarian argument is that we don’t advocate mandatory abortions, then our case must be doing quite well.
WesternCiv”Fan”:
That’s not much of an argument. I can just assert back “my religion allows abortion but forbids national borders,” and we’re at an impasse. Do you have an argument that doesn’t presuppose the truth of your particular religion?
Not that much. Just put contraceptives and/or abortifacients in the drinking water like they do fluoride.
“That would hardly make american society less statist, wouldn’t it?”
Neither would successfully locking down the borders and throwing all the Mexicans out. That’s sort of the point.
Don’t skip over this one Mr. Long. And I will address each one of your points by tomorrow.
So let’s say you get your little fantasy, and tomorrow the announcement comes that the Border Patrol, ICE, Customs and the Coast Guard will all be standing down and anyone, anywhere in the world can come here without restraint.
Any Hutu and Tutsi still with a grudge, any Uzbeki Communists, any New Guinea cannibal, AIDs infected Kenyan, any blind crippled or crazy Romanian, it doesn’t matter, they can all come if they can scrape up the airfare or find sea worthy passage.
Any raft from Haiti, any floating 1954 Bel Air from Cuba, any container ship from China, come one come all – do you think the humanitarian crisis on Tueday and the civil war that breaks out Wednesday will be good for liberty?
Suppose you get your fantasy, we build big fences all along the borders and empower cops to demand everyone’s papers, and as a result the Nazis get in power and start exterminating everybody, and we can’t hide because the cops have all those powers, and we can’t escape because of the border fence. Would that be good for liberty?
If you get to construct exaggerated doomsday scenarios, so do I.
Well we can leave it at this. Everyone, you got to see the avoidance of two very basic questions posed to the proprietor of this blog. You can clearly see why he avoided addressing them head on.
He can’t answer them. He proposes fantasy world of immigration under our current legal regime (remember he offered no qualifications on that) but can’t answer a hypothetical.
Does anybody reading this not believe there would not be a catastrophe of an exodus and attempted mass immigration within days, weeks and months of a declaration of complete open borders.
200,000 Mexicans within 48 hours guaranteed. You know it, and I know it. Haitians drowning by the thousands in rafts. Container ship decks crowded with Asians in a few weeks. Absolute pandemonium. Planes leaving non stop from Africa day after day headed to La Guardia. Half the people will call for them to be shot and the other half will be screaming for the government to erect temporary refugee cities. And Joe Six Pack in Ohio is just going to sit there and watch on CNN when the 83rd plane from Yemen for the week unloads in front of the cameras 230 women in niqabs towed behind their husbands. Sure he is. And of course the middle class white women will surely say we can never have enough cliterectomy witch doctor specialists from the Sudan.That sure would bode well for liberty.
No one can sincerely deny this would happen, so the open border libertarian feigns dismissiveness. At least you know who was honest in this debate.
Always remember folks, to the open border libertarian, there is no different effect on society between 10,000 Bose Wave Radios and 10,000 illiterate Muslim Somalis.
It’s best just to laugh at them, walk away to keep the blood pressure down.
Which two questions? I don’t recall your asking any questions I didn’t address.
No answer yet, I see. And apparently nothing forthcoming on this:
“any New Guinea cannibal, AIDs infected Kenyan, any blind crippled or crazy Romanian”
I’d just like to butt into this very long winded discussion of which I have played not part to say to WesternCivFan to GTFO with this racist bullshit.
Carry on.
I’m sorry to break up your multicultural fantasy, but they still have cannibals in New Guinea, AIDs is a major epidemic in Kenya, and there are blind, crippled and crazy Romanians. True facts. I guess facts are racist.
To Mr. Mendez:
“First, what is the evidence that:
1) Inmigrants don´t pay actually taxes, so they don´t contribute to the welfare state they supposedly benefit.”
I didn’t say they don’t pay taxes. They don’t pay as much in taxes for schools and health care.
“2) That inmigrants actually have more access or even equall access to welfare state benefits so their arrival will increase the taxes to sustain it as you pretend.”
As they put their children in schools and use health care, they increase the tax burden. More users, higher costs. Would you deny that immigrants go to school? Do you deny that they use health care facilities?
Mr Perry:
It may be true that inmigrants pay less taxes than the ordinary american citizen (yet againt, what is your evidence for that?). But it is also clear they recieve less benefits than the ordinary american citizen from the welfare state (since many of these benefits, as Radgeek pointed, require to demostrate you are a citizen). Therefore I fail to see, at least theoretically (nor in practize, since you haven´t presented evidence for it) how the arrival of inmigrants will imply an increase in taxes.
On the other side…since you are so concerned with the welfare state and taxes…why don´t you and the rest of the anti imigrant folk people use their energies in fighing it, instead of fighting inmigration?
Mr Mendez:
“It may be true that inmigrants pay less taxes than the ordinary american citizen (yet againt, what is your evidence for that?).”
Typically illegal immigrants work at lower paying jobs and have less money to pay taxes.
“But it is also clear they recieve less benefits than the ordinary american citizen from the welfare state (since many of these benefits, as Radgeek pointed, require to demostrate you are a citizen).”
Perhaps you’re familiar with the concept of phony ID? I’ve not said illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes, just not as much. But they do have access to public “services.” By using false IDs they get jobs and access benefits.
Do you deny illegal immigrants in the US have access to health care and public schools?
I don’t consider schools and health care as welfare, as you keep implying: most immigrants come here to work, and many support families.
The “fix” for this by the federal government will be all citizens carrying some form of biometric identification.
“Therefore I fail to see, at least theoretically (nor in practize, since you haven´t presented evidence for it) how the arrival of inmigrants will imply an increase in taxes.”
Do you deny that illegal immigrants enroll their children in public schools?
Do you deny that Hospitals treat illegal immigrants in an emergency in the US?
If you answer yes to either of the two questions I can’t convince you that illegal immigrants increase costs for US citizens.
But if you do not deny either of those two questions, my reasoning follows:
1. As with most government undertakings, the cost for school is socialized over many, including those without children.
2. Even citizens who pay property taxes, which cover much of school costs, do not pay for their child’s education costs–it is spread out over years and other people. So arguing that immigrants pay sales tax, etc. doesn’t mean they pay for the increased costs generated by their additional loading of “public services” (although it may make the advocate of such reasoning feel good).
3. Government, as an inefficient provider of “services,” increases taxes as more people use those “services.”
“…why don´t you and the rest of the anti imigrant folk people use their energies in fighing it, instead of fighting inmigration?”
1. I’m not anti-immigrant; all Americans are either immigrants or descended from immigrants. My first comments pointed out that talking about free movement without acknowledging that illegal immigrants burden residents of the area to which they move is not accurate.
2. How do you know what I spend my energies doing?
Mr Perry:
You continiously ask if I deny that inmigrants have access to public schools or healthcare system in the US. I do not. Yet, as you acknowledged, they also pay taxes, even if they pay them in lower proportions than US citizens. As you also admit, the costs of those are socialized, and since illigal inmigrants pay at least sales and property, they pay for those services too.
On the other side, many illegal inmigrants do not bring their families to the US (they usually send money to them at home). So many illegal inmigrants actually pay for the socialized medicine and education without benefiting from it. Something you haven´t considered in your arguments.
Finally, again, if you are so concerned with the idea that illegal inmigrants will benefit from services for which they don´t pay or pay less than ordinary US citizens, then again, I think you should focus on abolishing those services and the forced payement (via taxes) they require. I do not know on what you focused your efforts, I was simply asking the question.
Mr. Mendez,
“As you also admit, the costs of those are socialized, and since illigal inmigrants pay at least sales and property, they pay for those services too.”
When the cost of services are socialized, I mean whoever uses them is not paying for them in full. When illegal immigrants use them, they’re raising costs for citizens.
“So many illegal inmigrants actually pay for the socialized medicine and education without benefiting from it. Something you haven´t considered in your arguments.”
People who don’t come here also don’t use services: I haven’t considered them either. The many illegal immigrants who do use services are driving up costs for citizens, unless you think there are more illegal immigrants in the US than citizens.
“…if you are so concerned with the idea that illegal inmigrants will benefit from services for which they don´t pay or pay less than ordinary US citizens,…”
I’m not “so concerned” about them: my original comment was that “How Walter Williams Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the State” talks about illegal immigrants as people exercising their right to move wherever they want so long as “so long as she violates no one’s rights” and ignores illegal immigrants raising costs to border state citizens because of their use of socialized services. It seems like “she’s” violating rights by migrating.
“…then again, I think you should focus on abolishing those services and the forced payement (via taxes) they require. I do not know on what you focused your efforts, I was simply asking the question.”
I don’t see a question in “I think you should focus on abolishing those services and the forced payement (via taxes) they require.” Do you? But I agree that the root cause of the immigration controversy are the socialistic policies of state and federal governments in the US.
Mr Long, please indicate any problems you see with the following:
1 Each person has the right to own peacefully acquired property.
2 Each person has the right to form associations with other property owners, and these associations may contain covenants of any kind, provided they do not aggressively threaten others.
3 Associations of property owners are legal, regardless of size.
4 Property associations may exist along the border of a Mexican state and exclude immigrants from that state.
I’m not Roderick, and I’m sure he can give you a better answer, but according to nearly every libertarian theory I’ve seen, such a property regime could certainly prohibit settlement by migrants within its domain, but it would have to offer an easement through which they could pass (the whole donut shaped property around a smaller property example.)
Terry Hulsey –
Dennis correctly anticipates my answer. I have no problem with (1), (2), or (3), assuming the property titles are indeed legitimate. But as for (4), if the land on the opposite side of the border settlement is land open to immigrants (perhaps because it is has no legitimate owner, or perhaps because its legitimate owners are willing to let immigrants in — certainly there’s plenty of land in, say, Arizona meeting both descriptions), then I don’t think the border settlement can refuse an easement to immigrants, just as I can’t legitimately buy up all the land around your house and then keep you a prisoner within it.
But even leaving the issue of easements aside, and assuming for the sake of argument that immigrants have no right to come onto the land for purposes of crossing, even so the border settlements still couldn’t prevent immigrants from passing overhead in airplanes and so accessing the area on the far side of the border. (I assume that ownership doesn’t extend beyond what has been homesteaded, and so that the ad cœlum doctrine that a landowner owns an ever-expanding wedge stretching vertically up to infinity, through which the inhabitants of the Andromeda Galaxy periodically trespass as the earth turns, does not apply.)
Oops, I was wrong to say that “Dennis correctly anticipates my answer.” He actually predicted that I would give a better answer. But I didn’t.
Dennis,
Thanks. Of course we would admit easements. Mr Long has demonstrated that Walter Williams’ reasoning is defective, but, on the basis of the 4 points above, should we, notwithstanding, agree with his conclusion and go home?
If by “his conclusion” you mean “Williams’ conclusion” (which the “notwithstanding” seems to imply), then once you grant easements you’ve given up (4) — the second conjunct of (4), in particular — so I don’t see how at that point you can still accept Williams’ conclusion.
Mr Long,
Oops, missed your reply while typing. Does the admission of easements force everyone to accept Walter Williams’ conclusion ?
Dennis and I were suggesting that it forces everyone to reject Williams’ conclusion.
Mr Long,
Therefore, you would accept his conclusion only if the homeowner’s covenant analogy was universal to the area (state, nation) that wanted to exclude immigrants? In other words, every last property owner would have to agree to the exclusion?
It depends on the details, but yes, unless by excluding immigrants they’re somehow imprisoning them or something analogous (as I suggested was the case with racial segregation here and here), then sure, if each property owner wants to exclude people (whether on their own or as part of a covenant) they’re free to do so.
Mr Long,
I know that you can see the primrose path over the next hill, but here goes anyway:
Suppose that joining this enlarged homeowners’ association was contingent upon each member agreeing to delegate decisions on certain matters, e.g., immigration, to a few high officers; or that certain group benefits of the association were granted only to those members who agreed to so delegate. Universal agreement for such delegation was reached in the association because every member concluded that he didn’t have time to evaluate every issue that came before the association, or because he wanted to enjoy full benefits within the association. Now naturally, because the association cannot enforce the membership of unhappy property owners, members can sell at market value and go somewhere else at any time. The decision to relocate would occur when the inconveniences imposed by the officers exceeded the inconveniences of relocating. How is this arrangement, which seems very reasonable, different from the government of Arizona, seen as an enlarged homeowners’ association?
Well, there are a few differences.
The most obvious one is that in real-life Arizona no such covenant has occurred, and the state government is simply acting as if it had received such authorisation.
Another difference is that most of the land in Arizona is not legitimate property anyway, since it has been claimed through political privilege rather than via homesteading. So even if such a covenant existed, it could not justly exclude immigrants from those lands.
But even if we imagine an idealised Arizona where all the land is legitimately claimed, and all the owners have consented to a covenant, and the covenant isn’t doing anything analogous to imprisonment, and so on — there are still some more differences. Most notably, contract enforcement is different from state law enforcement. If I break a state law, I can be thrown in prison, my property can be confiscated, etc. If I break a covenant, that’s a civil rather than a criminal case, and if I lose the case, then (at least by Rothbardian standards) I simply forfeit whatever the consideration was in the contract.
Now I suppose the contract could specify that what I lose if I allow immigrants onto my property is ownership over my property itself; in effect, I’d be posting my property as bond against my allowing immigrants in. Maybe there would be some property owners imprudent enough to sign such a contract; I wouldn’t bet on there being many, though. And in any case the violators couldn’t be thrown in prison (nor could the immigrants).
Also, inasmuch as the relationship of the association members to their delegates would be different from the relationship of citizens to their government, if I invited in a “permitted” immigrant (say from Texas rather than Mexico) and they were wrongfully hassled by the delegates’ patrol officers, they’d be able to sue the officers, the delegates, and me. So this would be a difficult-to-sustain business model.
Well, I’m a resident of Arizona and never agreed to such a covenant…
Other residents never agreed to let mexicans flooding their state.
It’s not “their” state. They don’t own it.
That’s a very nice libertarian dogma, but it’s just that.
My argument: they didn’t homestead it, they didn’t buy it, they didn’t do anything to earn a claim to it, any more than I have a claim to the moons of Mars.
What’s your counter-argument?
I never “agreed” to have my neighbors cook barbecue for dinner last night. Fortunately for them, I was never asked; because their right to engage in basic social commerce on their own property doesn’t depend on my prior approval.
Mr Long,
Good: I can accept all of your last reply. I would have to agree that my point 4 doesn’t stand up very well. Abandoning the apriorist approach, I can only come away with the accord that the whole issue can be decided on the basis of property rights.
However, in spite of your objection to Williams, there is only an implied argument in favor of open borders. I haven’t searched your views there, but likely it’s more subtle than that.
So let me just ask: From this starting point, do you apply property rights to arrive at an open borders policy, or something quite different? I will save myself a lot of typing and say that, reasoning up from the “real-life Arizona”, I’m in the camp of “something quite different,” as stated here by H.H.Hoppe:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe1.html
I disagree with so many things in Hans’s article that it’s hard to know where to start, but I’ll pick just these two to begin with:
a) The assurance that a monarch would make the same decisions as a market full of private property owners seems akin to the idea that central planners could simulate markets. What happened to the Austrian calculation argument?
b) Even if it were true that a monarch would make the same decisions as a market full of private property owners, it’s not clear why that counterfactual counts as evidence in favour of what the monarch would do. If I owned your food, I wouldn’t let you eat it. But I don’t own it, so why shouldn’t you eat it?
No matter how hard he tries to clarify this point, no one can ever accept Prof Hoppe’s use of monarchy, both in the linked article and in _Democracy, the God That Failed_, as an argumentative foil to show the failings of the democratic total state. His point that a monarch has a lower time preference is meant to provide a real-case historical example of how a regime of property rights would be superior to what we have now regarding immigration. We all agree that property rights offer a solution to the issue; yet when Hoppe, like ourselves, is challenged to provide a real-world example of his theorizing as to how that is so, his critics condemn him.
So, it seems that you embrace a policy of absolutely open borders — is that the case? If so, you can’t willfully ignore the fact that many property owners, while they cherish trade with all peoples, do not choose close association with all peoples, and that this choice is an important part of the value of property. You can’t consistently advocate property when it’s agreeable and dismiss it when it’s not.
That point seems historically false — take a look at Versailles, or Schönbrunn. Do those look like the products of low time-preference to you? (Or look at the Roman Empire, during such time as it was in effect a hereditary monarchy.)
Also, see the point from Aptheker that Rothbard cites here, which seems to undermine Hans’s analysis of monarchy.
At any rate, my point about monarchy was not “ooh, monarchy bad!” (Though, for what it’s worth: ooh, monarchy bad.) My point was that what Hans says about monarchy contradicts the Austrian calculation argument by implying that a central planner can successfully simulate the preferences of a diverse collection of individual economic actors.
But monarchy isn’t a case of (legitimate) property rights, and it doesn’t solve the immigration problem in a just fashion, so it seems like a bad example to use.
In any case, we have good empirical reason to doubt Hans’s analysis, because in the real world there are plenty of property owners who want to deal with immigrants as customers, employees, tenants, or just as friends. Why doesn’t that provide strong evidence against the claim that the closest approximation to what property owners would want (even if that sort of Rawls-style hypothetical could establish what’s just in the actual world) is restrictions on immigration?
Yes. See the “No Borders” tag on this post.
I’m not a Georgist; I don’t think we have a right to the “value” of our property; we only have a right to the property itself. Its “value” consists in the activities and preferences of people over whom we have no legitimate jurisdiction. If I have failed to obtain the lot next door to mine by homestead or purchase, and someone I don’t like does obtain it through homestead or purchase, well, that’s property rights, man.
Roderick,
Well… one could argue that they do.
But anyway, even if they don’t, I don’t think they disprove Hoppe’s point as I understand it. I think Hoppe’s point is that even if a monarch from an earlier age showed high time preference, he would have shown even higher time preference had he been a temporary ruler instead of a monarch.
Like so many propositions in Austrianism, it’s a comparison between a the real world and a counterfactual, which can’t be empirically disproven.
Not to say that I’m convinced by Hoppe’s argument. For one there could be different incentives which work the other way, and second I don’t see that low time preference on part of the ruler should always be beneficial to the general public.
I don’t think it does. The “Hoppean monarch” doesn’t “own” his subjects like a slave-owner “owns” his slaves – the Monarch doesn’t seem to have as much control and – or: because – the subjects are free to leave.
Sure, that’s possible. A democratic Versailles might have been even more opulent than the real one, just as a monarchical Swiss government might be even more frugal than the real one. But thymologically it’s not very plausible.
The problem with Hans’s argument is that even if monarchies have some motives for restraint that democracies lack, democracies also have some motives for restraint that monarchies lack. (The fear of not being re-elected works both ways.)
Yes, but the principle in Aptheker’s analysis is the same. Hans says that a ruler who acts like he owns the products of your labour will behave in a benign fashion; the defenders of slavery that Aptheker is replying say that a ruler who acts like he owns you will behave in a benign fashion. His argument against the latter seems to apply structurally to the former.
Terry:
“So, it seems that you embrace a policy of absolutely open borders — is that the case? If so, you can’t willfully ignore the fact that many property owners, while they cherish trade with all peoples, do not choose close association with all peoples, and that this choice is an important part of the value of property. You can’t consistently advocate property when it’s agreeable and dismiss it when it’s not.”
Well, but I think Roderick has accepted that. On the other side, you and Hoppe types seem incapable of accepting the idea that while some will not chose to associate with “all people” (who will? It seems Hoppe is more concerned not to associate with certain TYPE of people, just for the place of origin or etnic status), many others want and will. And not only you don´t accept it…you want to force your way on the rest of us. So who is advocating property rights when it suits them and dismissing them when it´s not?