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.
Bob Kaercher,
I do think a case could be made that Hoppe and other anti-immigrant libertarians are in no way libertarian, yes. When you support a state action that inevitably destroys innocent human beings who have committed no wrong to anyone, and/or their justly held property, you have effectively surrendered your libertarian cred. That’s WHY Hoppe’s anti-immigrant argument is for sh*t: He barely even acknowledges that perfectly innocent people are killed in the statist apartheid he supports, people who’s only “crime” is the fate of having been born into a country targeted by the US gov’t for “exclusion”. And he barely acknowledges that millions of American who if free to do so would choose NOT to finance such death and destruction are coerced to do so.
I fail to see how the issue of immigration could be seen as “complex,” rather than for what it is: A clear cut case of unjust aggression (and racism, to boot).
So, yeah…Though he’s free to claim the libertarian label for himself all he wants, other libertarians should be skeptical.
Micha: Excellent point. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Wait a minute…DOH!
The point is the principle. An honest search for objective application of principle necessarily demands that it should be applied to everyone’s proposals equally. If someone promotes or condones a violation of the non-aggression principle and still insists on calling themselves “libertarian”, then it’s perfectly reasonable for others to call it out and discuss it, regardless of who it is–if it’s Randy Barnett, Ron Paul, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, or anyone else. If the person in question bristles at being called “unlibertarian” on the basis of a particular proposal of theirs, they can either effectively refute it by pointing to the lack of proof and the flaw in the reasoning of others, or they can admit they’re wrong, or everyone can just agree to disagree and move on. (Or one can simply ignore his detractors.)
As for me, I don’t have any bets on any libertarian horse races.
Micah FTW! Nice job.
Bob – perhaps we could distinguish between “Smith is simply not a libertarian at all” and “Smith advocates X, which I don’t see as consistent with libertarianism.” The latter sounds like an invitation for for further discussion, whereas the former sounds like a way to circumvent discussion, or load it in a circular way.
“perhaps we could distinguish between ‘Smith is simply not a libertarian at all’ and “Smith advocates X, which I don’t see as consistent with libertarianism’.”
Aeon: To advocate any statist invasion of individual rights and property is not “libertarian”. This is not a matter of what anyone subjectively “sees”, it’s a matter of measuring one’s proposal against an objective standard of justice.
Dropping bombs and firing missiles upon people that have committed no crime is a violation of the non-aggression principle. So is locking people away in a jail cell for moving across unowned land. Therefore, anyone who advocates either is advocating a violation of the non-aggression principle, therefore other libertarians would have perfectly valid grounds for questioning either person’s commitment to liberty.
Now perhaps both advocates of the various forms of aggression have published many, many articles and books that celebrate the non-aggression principle in THEORY–and others have praised them as great THEORISTS. But when they call for or condone aggression in PRACTICE–here in the Land of Real, Living, Breathing Human Beings–then it is certainly not unreasonable to question their credibility as libertarians.
I hardly see how this is “circular” or “loaded”. If the person in question is so offended to have their commitment doubted, then they could either a) rethink their position and either attempt to prove how their proposal is consistent with liberty, or admit they’re wrong and revise their position; b) stop calling themselves “libertarian”; or c) continue to call themselves “libertarian” while the rest of us evaluate their proposals against objective principles and pass judgment accordingly.
And by the way, what, really, is the qualitative difference between “‘Smith is simply not a libertarian at all’ and “Smith advocates X, which I don’t see as consistent with libertarianism’”, anyway? Isn’t that just two different ways of saying essentially the same thing?
Scratch my last question and let me ask you this, Aeon:
By what standard or criterion can you rightfully say that a person is not a libertarian contrary to their claim otherwise, and why?
“By what standard or criterion can you rightfully say that a person is not a libertarian contrary to their claim otherwise, and why? ”
I’m certainly not suggesting that there’s no way to say “Smith isn’t a libertarian, even though he claims to be.” I’m saying that when someone has made a career out of scholarly work advancing the case for liberty, and then takes a position which seems surprising, whether that’s Barnett on the war or Hoppe on immigration, it’s at least worth considering the possibility that the person has some argument on which the surprising position is actually consistent with libertarianism, even if it turns out that the argument fails. That’s a case of “Smith, who is a libertarian, has made an error about X” not “Because of X, Smith is not a libertarian.” I think the anti-immigration libertarians are mistaken, but I wouldn’t say they’re not libertarians at all. First of all, I find that tactically and rhetorically useless. But second of all, and perhaps more important, it follows from the principle of charity. I’m willing to recognize that they have reasons, and even the remote possibility that their reasons are sound. And even if I’m right and they aren’t sound, unless I have evidence that they’re ill-spirited and devious, I’ll assume they sincerly _think_ that the reasons are consistent with liberty (even if they’re not) — that it’s error in the application of a principle rather than a renunciation of the principle.
Here’s an example not from libetarianism: Is Trotsky a communist? A dogmatic Leninist would say no, but that’s silly. An more honest Leninist might say instead, “Comrade Trotsky is a Communist, but a mistaken one, having failed to see that ___”
So to answer your question: a self-proclaimed libertarian can rightfully be said to not be a libertarian at all if he or she doesn’t actually agree that individual liberty is the highest value in a political context. In other words, someone might pay lip service to liberty in some contexts, but blow it off in others (as, e.g., all the republicrats in our government do, with the possible exception of Paul).
Well, in my judgment someone who argues for any form of invasion of individual liberty and/or property rights can’t properly be called a libertarian, regardless of how libertarian they THINK their arguments are. If their argument clearly fails the test against the objective principle of non-aggression and they continue to advocate for it anyway, I can’t really in good conscience call them a “libertarian.” (And this is “tactically and rhetorically useless” to whom, exactly?)
Anyone who favors detaining immigrants or bombing innocent people clearly does not “agree that individual liberty is the highest value in a political context,” otherwise they wouldn’t advocate such invasion in the first place. You can call them libertarians if you wish, but I beg to differ.
Just to be clear: I’m not saying all such people should be unequivocally shunned or that all of their ideas and writing should be summarily tossed out or burned or something. They may very well make brilliant analysis and proposals in other areas, and libertarians make alliances with non-libertarians all the time where there is properly common cause to do so. But I still maintain what I assert in the above paragraph.
(BTW, I don’t know why it’s necessary for you to “have evidence that they’re ill-spirited and devious” in order to question their claim to the libertarian mantle. Such “evidence” would be damn near impossible to ascertain. I never claimed that they don’t sincerely believe their unlibertarian positions to be consistent with liberty—how can I tell what they privately believe or not believe, anyway? But what anyone believes and what IS can be two completely contradictory things. I can bomb a perfectly innocent person’s house and sincerely believe it to be “liberation” or “self-defense” all I want–but the reality is that it’s still cold-blooded murder.)
So I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Bob Kaercher,
Both Barnett and Hoppe share something in common; they both argue that their proposed “deviation” (Iraq war and border restrictions) are second best solutions, not ideal if we happened to already live in their favored fully free societies, but a necessary, least-bad evil in the present one. I disagree with both of their assessments, but I don’t doubt that both of them truly and honestly “agree that individual liberty is the highest value in a political context,” they simply think that their deviation is the least bad alternative with respect to liberty.
These two examples, the Iraq war and immigration restrictions are, unfortunately for the sake of this present argument, poor examples of what I take to be a more general observation: the “principle” of non-aggression is not as simple as you make it out to be. I say these examples are unfortunate because I find both of them fairly easy questions; on the other hand, I can conceive of much more difficult questions. Aeon indirectly mentioned one of these difficult questions above:
“Bleeding-to-death-in-the-woods Smith is justified in breaking in to Jones’ cabin to obtain bandages and antibiotics, but does not have a “right to break into cabins.”
Now, Aeon used this example to make a point about the distinction between justifications and rights, in turn to make a point about the distinction between states and individuals, but this example also just so happens to touch on a fundamental difficulty in libertarian ethical theory: the relationship (and potential conflict) between deontological justice (“don’t break into people’s houses and take their stuff without permission”) and good consequences (“don’t let yourself bleed to death if you can avoid it without causing even greater suffering elsewhere”).
Now, libertarians like David Friedman and the late R.W. Bradford can and have come up with all sorts of scenarios similar to the cabin one, in an effort to tease out the relationship between deontology and consequentialism, and to argue that (at least in Friedman’s case, I can’t recall offhand what Bradford’s motivation was) the principle of of non-aggression is problematic if taken alone as a sufficient justification of libertarianism, since most of us libertarians would at some point abandon the principle of non-aggression if we were sufficiently convinced that the heavens would fall as a result. If total commitment to the principle of of non-aggression, whatever the consequences may be, is the defining factor of being a libertarian, I suspect the number of actual, existing libertarians throughout the course of human history could be counted on one hand. Walter Block, of course, would be one of the five. 🙂
Micha: I fail to see how the issue of immigration could be seen as “complex,” rather than for what it is ….
I think the short answer is this: calling border laws and internal immigration policing a “complex” issue for libertarians primarily serves a social function, not an intellectual one, in the Mises Institute / LewRockwell.com circle.
The issue is actually, obviously, extremely simple, and Hoppe’s and Ron Paul’s positions are actually, obviously, completely wrong. I suspect that most of those who criticize their positions but pass of the issue as a “complex” one realize this, but also reckon that it wouldn’t go over well in mixed company to say so in as many words.
Rad:
“I suspect that most of those who criticize their positions but pass of the issue as a “complex” one realize this, but also reckon that it wouldn’t go over well in mixed company to say so in as many words.”
Fascinating! Does Rod creep about the Mises institute mincing his words and being mealy-mouthed about the ‘complexities’ of immigration too?
Micha:
How in the WORLD can the “Smith-bleeding-in-the-woods” scenario be even REMOTELY analogous to the U.S. government’s IRAQ WAR and TOSSING IMMIGRANTS INTO JAIL????
And Barnett’s and Hoppe’s “solutions” are “second best” to WHAT, exactly? Having a million more living, breathing Iraqis than there are now and not having innocent people rot away in “detention centers”?
Bob, you’ve missed Micah’s point. He’s not saying he agrees with Barnett and Hoppe, he’s saying (confirming my argument) that they do in fact have some rationale on which (even if it turns out to be false) their position is compatible with the other thins they think about liberty. As to the specifics of your question, have a million Iraqis been killed? If that’s so, how many were killed by the US Army? How many by the Iranian army? How many by the Iraqi government? It’s not self-evidently false that overthrowing the tyrannical Baathist regime was a net plus for Iraqis. Let me reiterate, though, the point isn’t whether Barnett is right about Iraq; the point is whether it’s right to say he’s “simply not a libertarian at all” because of his stance on Iraq. So to with Hoppe: I think he’s wrong about immigration, but I wouldn’t say he’s “simply not a libertarian at all.”
“Uncle!” I’m done. Anything I would say now would be to simply repeat what I’ve already said.
I’m slightly bemused by this talk of who is a “real” libertarian. If Randy Barnett wishes to call himself a “libertarian,” no one can stop him: no one owns the word.
Surely, the real issue here, and what Prof. Block was really addressing, is who we should view as our allies and as members of the same political movement as ourselves. That is not an argument over the meaning of words: that is a real moral choice, which we can, and indeed unavoidably must, make.
This is not an issue simply of verbal logic but an issue of personal moral choice.
Even though Rod Long and I have slightly different perspectives on, say, the Ron Paul campaign, I have no trouble considering him and me as members of the same political movement. To the best of my knowledge, Rod is an honest person, his errors, such as they may be, do not involve condoning the murder of innocent people, etc. I am morally comfortable being a member of the same political movement as Rod Long, Walter Block, Stephan Kinsella, etc. even if I know we have disagreements among ourselves. Those disagreements are not central to the goals I would like to see a political movement attain, or to my own moral judgments of them as human beings.
Randy Barnett may be a very bright guy who is kind to his wife, kids, and dogs. But someone who supports the aggressive and murderous actions of the USG’s war in Iraq is not someone I feel morally comfortable associating with politically and is not someone working for the same political goals I am working for.
This is not just an abstract theoretical argument about the non-aggression principle. It is about making a personal moral choice. Anyone who honestly cannot see the murder of war as a more morally significant issue than the issue of abortion or immigration is a person who has demonstrated moral judgment that makes me wary of associating with him. And to not see the centrality of war to the growth of government and its intrusions on individual liberty betrays an ignorance of history and an insensitivity to human life that I do not want in members of a political movement with which I am willing to be associated.
Politics makes strange bedfellows, and the day may come when I am reluctantly willing to be associated with Prof. Barnett.
But, for now, Barnett does not meet my minimum standards of being a human being whom I can truly respect morally or comfortably associate with politically. It is not a matter of arcane debates about the non-aggression principle; it is a matter of Barnett’s lack of a sense of simple humanity.
Dave Miller in Sacramento
This has nothing to do with this particular blog post, but what has happened to all-left.net? It’s been replaced by stock spam. Could someone do something about that?
To the best of my knowledge, Rod is an honest person, his errors, such as they may be, do not involve condoning the murder of innocent people, etc. I am morally comfortable being a member of the same political movement as Rod Long, Walter Block, Stephan Kinsella, etc. even if I know we have disagreements among ourselves. Those disagreements are not central to the goals I would like to see a political movement attain, or to my own moral judgments of them as human beings.
To the best of my knowledge, Randy Barnett is an honest person, his errors, such as they may be, do not involve condoning the murder of innocent people in his eyes, since Randy honestly believes that the death of innocents in Iraq is an unfortunate but unavoidable side-effect, but not the primary intent or goal of the military action there, a military action which Randy (mistakenly, in my view) believes is necessary and justified. So too, anti-immigration libertarians like Kinsella and Hoppe do not believe they are condoning the murder of innocent people by advocating restrictions on immigration; the death and suffering of innocent non-native-born Americans (as well as the costs placed on native-born Americans who are prevented from associating with them) are necessary and justified, in their (mistaken) view.
I’m still unclear why you would treat your disagreements with Kinsella and Hoppe (assuming you do disagree with them on immigration) as not central to the libertarian movement, nor why you wouldn’t let this disagreement effect your own moral judgments of them as human beings, when you would let your disagreement with Barnett effect your moral judgment of him as a human being. Both policies – war in Iraq and immigration restrictions are horrific, leading to the death, suffering and poverty of countless people. I have no idea why you think the human costs of war in Iraq are so significantly more than the human costs of immigration restrictions (or the death of human fetuses, if you happen to be anti-abortion) that it should be considered as a separate category. If we are taking the interests of non-U.S. citizen’s lives into account, and treating them as equal in value to U.S. lives, a strong case could be made that immigration restrictions impose a much higher human toll than all of the suffering resulting from the war in Iraq.
Incidentally, I do have a very negative judgment of Hoppe as a human being, given his semi-public bigotry against gays, poor people, and dark-skinned foreigners, among others. That’s a much greater indication of a lack of a sense of simple humanity than anything Barnett ever said or wrote.
Micha,
Thank you for making my point for me: you and I probably do not belong in the same political movement.
I mean that as no disrespect to you: You may be a great guy.
But the larger point I am trying to make here (and I fear I did not make it clearly in my earlier comment – it was late at night) is that involving oneself in a political movement is not simply a matter of settling on some apodictic principle (e.g., the non-aggression principle) and then signing up with anyone else who happens to claim adherence to that same apodictic principle.
Rather, associating with others in a political movement is more like accepting a job, choosing a city in which to live, or getting married. It involves making a complicated judgment, a judgment that cannot be performed simply by mechanical use of some apodictic principle(s).
For those of us interested in individual liberty, this means making judgments as to what issues are in fact the most important in terms of their impact on human beings and what issues and principles are most important in terms of the long-term prospects for liberty and for bringing about the abolition of the state.
It also means, crucially, figuring out what liberty actually means in the real world, given the actual facts of the real world. Facts matter, and matter crucially. Someone whose grasp of reality is so tenuous that he consistently advocates the violation of rights, not intentionally, but because he is deluded about what is actually happening in the real world, is no asset to a movement fighting for liberty.
Put concretely, it does no good to assert in the abstract that all human beings have certain rights if you are so deluded as to believe that only you and your wife are human and therefore that you are entitled to kill all the rest of us!
You wrote:
>To the best of my knowledge, Randy Barnett is an honest person, his errors, such as they may be, do not involve condoning the murder of innocent people in his eyes, since Randy honestly believes that the death of innocents in Iraq is an unfortunate but unavoidable side-effect, but not the primary intent or goal of the military action there, a military action which Randy (mistakenly, in my view) believes is necessary and justified.
Perhaps. But if so, then Randy is so out of touch with reality, that his grasp on reality is comparable to George W. Bush’s. Perhaps in some ultimate sense, we should judge him as morally innocent on account of his, to steal a term from theology, “invincible ignorance.”
But considering Randy’s grotesque empirical errors (as you hypothesize them) in dealing with the war in Iraq, and the near certainty that such issues will continue to arise in the future, it is, I think, poor judgment to view Randy as a valuable comrade in the struggle for liberty. Whatever his inner motives may be, objectively he is inimical to human life and liberty.
This judgment of course partially hinges on a broader judgment about the relevance of war to the struggle for liberty. First, it is empirically true that war causes enormous suffering to human being, far greater, say, than OSHA. Secondly, someone with a reasonable knowledge of history, or an astute observer of the events of the last six and a half year, should be able to recognize that war is a “hinge” issue used by the enemies of liberty to deny civil rights, economic freedom, etc., quite aside from its devastating results on those caught up directly in the war.
Recognizing these facts, again, requires judgment, judgment that Randy Barnett evidently lacks.
Perhaps, Randy is just stupid (although he clearly has a high IQ, high IQ people can indeed sometimes be remarkably stupid). I am inclined to suspect that he has “sold out” for self-interested reasons.
But whatever the explanation, again, Randy’s failure to grasp the pivotal point of the centrality of war and militarism means that he is not an asset in the struggle for liberty.
I realize that I have not proven this apodictically from first principles. I also did not prove from first principles that my wife was the right person for me to marry or that California was the right place for me to live.
It can’t be done. All such decisions, like the decision of whom to ally with politically, must be the result of fallible human judgment.
We may be able to improve our judgment through checking our factual information, seeking out new factual information, etc. E.g., I am skeptical of your claims about Hoppe: if by “semi-public bigotry against gays” you mean the big brouhaha about gays in his class at UNLV, Hoppe’s point was exactly the sort of point Posner, Becker et al. constantly make – it is simply standard economic analysis (it might turn out to be wrong, but that does not make it bigotry).
Similarly, I think you are factually mistaken in referring to Kinsella as an “anti-immigration libertarian.” What I have read of Stephan’s work on immigration indicates that he refuses to be either pro-immigration or anti-immigration: as an anarcho-capitalist, he rejects the idea of “immigration” as an anti-concept. The private property owner should have the right to declare that immigration is totally prohibited, completely open, or anything in between onto his own property. In a free country, it is a non-issue. And, I recall Stephan arguing, in the existing semi-socialist system under which we live, there is no right approach to “immigration”: any governmental solution will necessarily violate someone’s rights.
Perhaps, I am factually mistaken and Stephan deeply hates all immigrants and wants them all shot. Show me I’m wrong and I’ll change my opinion about him. But, facts matter. Whether or not I should associate with Stephan depends on which of these two alternatives accurately describes his views.
I hope this make a little bit clearer my central points: in the real world politics rests on judgments, and in the real political world, real empirical facts matter.
And that is why I do not think you and I belong in the same political movement. Your judgment, to which you are certainly entitled, seems to be that Randy Barnett is just as valuable an ally in rolling back the state as Stephan Kinsella.
In my judgment, you are mistaken. But all we can do is make the best judgment we can and then move forward with the allies that we have chosen.
I do not wish to be allied with Randy Barnett, based on my judgment of him as a person and of his evident lack of contact with empirical reality. If you do wish to be in the same political movement as Randy, I fear you and I will simply not be in the same political movement.
Dave Miller in Sacramento
what evidence do you have that Barnett has a high IQ? I’ve never felt that reading his work.
Dave,
Regarding Hoppe’s bigotry against gays, no, it is not only the incident at UNLV that indicates his moral failing, but yet one more among many pieces of evidence. Take this statement from one of Hoppe’s books:
They — the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism — will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.
Does that statement effect your own moral judgments of Hoppe as human beings?
What I have read of Stephan’s work on immigration indicates that he refuses to be either pro-immigration or anti-immigration: as an anarcho-capitalist, he rejects the idea of “immigration” as an anti-concept.
You are sadly mistaken. Kinsella is an anti-immigration statist. Taken directly from the LRC blog:
How about this compromise: we remove all barriers to immigration except one: we charge a fee. I propose we charge somewhere between $1 million and $10 million per family. That way you guarantee you get fairly decent (non-criminal, educated, successful, civil, etc.) quality immigrants.
If, say, 100,000 families (about 400,000 people, say) immigrate per year and pay $1 million each, that’s $100 billion per year.
This is horrible on three levels; besides being anti-immigrant, it is also anti-poor and pro-state-revenue generation. A fine anarchist indeed, that Kinsella.
You also mentioned in this thread, and elsewhere, that you are a supporter of Ron Paul and consider him a fellow traveler in your movement, despite his explicit endorsement of immigration restrictions (and anti-abortion restrictions).
Yet you have failed to answer the question I asked you in my previous post. Allow me to repeat myself:
Both policies – war in Iraq and immigration restrictions are horrific, leading to the death, suffering and poverty of countless people. I have no idea why you think the human costs of war in Iraq are so significantly more than the human costs of immigration restrictions (or the death of human fetuses, if you happen to be anti-abortion) that it should be considered as a separate category. If we are taking the interests of non-U.S. citizen’s lives into account, and treating them as equal in value to U.S. lives, a strong case could be made that immigration restrictions impose a much higher human toll than all of the suffering resulting from the war in Iraq.
So on what basis do you excommunicate Barnett as a fellow traveler but embrace Ron Paul, Hoppe, and Kinsella? On what basis are restrictions on immigration okay while war in Iraq is not?
anon,
Since I disagree strongly with Prof. Barnett, it is tempting to take you up on this.
But, look. Although I am not an expert on his work, I have read some of it. Randy can put words together according to grammatical rules to form sentences and paragraphs that, generally, are understandable to other people and that convey in an organized fashion fairly complex ideas. Those ideas may be right or wrong, but you can usually understand what he is saying.
I have a friend with an IQ of 70: she can’t do this. I’ve known lots of people with IQs around 100: they can’t do it either when dealing with highly abstract ideas.
I have no idea whether Randy Barnett’s IQ is 120 or 180. But it is above average. Whatever his problems may be, they really are not due to low IQ.
Incidentally, I’ve only alluded to his “problems” to point out that even if one gives some sort of psycho-babble “excuse” for his mistaken views, from a practical political viewpoint that does not matter. Whatever the reason for his views, they diverge sufficiently from mine that I do not view him as a political ally.
In fact, there is no need to figure out why he holds views that are wrong. We’re not God, judging Randy Barnett. All that’s needed is to understand that his views are wrong on a matter of critical importance so that he is not a useful ally in the struggle for liberty.
Dave
Just got back in town. More replies later.
Michael Palmer asks:
what has happened to all-left.net? It’s been replaced by stock spam. Could someone do something about that?
I have no idea what’s gone wrong, but I’ll look into it. Thanks for telling me! In the meantime, the page is still accessible at its “real” address: praxeology.net/all-left.htm.
Micha,
You haven’t given the references for your two quotes so that we can check the sources for context. However, I have read enough of both Hoppe’s and Kinsella’s writings, and I think you have too, that I am pretty sure that these are taken out of context.
For example, I believe that the quote from Hoppe relates to his belief that proprietary communities commonly will (and in his judgment should) exclude the sort of people you listed. If you will provide us with the full cite, I think it will show that by “society” he means something like “all right-thinking people of the sort who live in the proprietary communities of the sort that Hoppe would like to live in.” “Society” is a slippery term: it does help to know how an author is using it.
If I’m correct, and I’ve seen a lot of stuff by Hoppe that confirms what I just said, then any libertarian would have to agree with Hoppe that proprietary communities would indeed be entitle to exclude the sort of people he wishes them to exclude. This really should not even be controversial among libertarians – it is the same right of a nudist colony to exclude the clothed or a restaurant to post “No shirt, no shoes, no service.”
Is Hoppe correct that most proprietary communities would follow his advice? I sincerely doubt it. At least, I’m not interested in living in such a proprietary community myself. But that is just a matter of my differing with him on the economics of proprietary communities and as to which community we would ourselves like to live in. It is not an issue of libertarian principle.
Of course, if I am wrong and Hoppe really wishes to coercively prevent any of us from interacting with gays, then he is indeed no libertarian, by my standards (or, I think, Prof. Block’s). But I’ve read enough of Hoppe’s stuff to be almost certain that this is not the case.
As to Stephan, he clearly labeled the proposal a “compromise.” In some ways, it would indeed actually be better than the present system – some people could get in who cannot get in now, and there are some respects in which it would clearly benefit current residents of this country. In some ways, his “compromise” would clearly be worse than the current system. But clearly it is not his ideal view, or he would not have called it a “compromise.”
I think my description of Stephan’s full position in my earlier post was accurate. But if you really care about this, rather than just trying to score points against Stephan, why not just cut-and-paste my description of his position from my earlier post and ask him via e-mail if I characterized his views correctly or not?
At any rate, let us suppose, contrary to fact, that Stephan really is a hard-core immigration restrictionist. I would still view him as an ally in a way I would not view Barnett as an ally and for some very simple reasons.
First, hard-core immigration restrictionism, while not a good thing, simply does not have the dramatic ramifications for the future of liberty in the US and the world that US imperialism and militarism do. If the US continues on the current imperialist path, we will eventually create a grand coalition against us, and we will precipitate a world war that will devastate America – American cities may be nuked, etc. History is rather clear on this: the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, the Thirty Years War, WW I and II, etc. Powers that are determined to create and maintain global hegemony eventually face very bad consequences.
Aside from such ultimate catastrophes, we all know how militarism and imperialism are incredibly destructive economically, in terms of civil liberties, etc.
On the other hand, there have been numerous countries that have very restrictive immigration policies and have not faced devastating results as a consequence in terms of their economies, their civil liberties, etc. (although I do agree that such policies are not optimal). Hard-core immigration restrictionism is not a good thing, but it simply does not have the level of “systemic” consequences that militarism and imperialism do.
I know that my last statement cannot be proved deductively from apodictically true premises. That has been my central point all along: empirical judgment based on an empirical knowledge of human history and human society is crucial here. And, I think that anyone with reasonable judgment, at least anyone with whom I am willing to be allied politically, will agree with the points I have just made about imperialism/war/militarism vs. immigration restrictions.
Secondly, as a factual, empirical matter, it is just silly to say that immigration restrictions directly destroy human lives and liberty in the way that war does. War kills people, often in astonishingly huge numbers – killing someone pretty much takes away *all* of his rights.
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.
It’s hard to see that as a life-destroying restriction. It is nothing like the complete destruction of someone’s rights that comes when you drop a bomb on him and kill him.
Now, I do understand that logically someone could say “No, not for me – I’d rather die than be prohibited from immigrating to the United States!” And it is a matter of judgment for me to reply that I am sure that very, very few human beings honestly feel that way.
Which is, again, my central point: you have to use judgment here.
(I may partially disagree with Prof. Block here. While he is correct that immigration is a more convoluted issue than war – there are issues of “welfare rights,” anti-discrimination laws, etc. – still, I would consider that of little consequence if immigration restrictionism really were enormously more destructive of human lives and liberty than war and militarism. But, in my judgment, that is empirically simply not the case, and this fact should be obvious to anyone who honestly thinks about the matter.)
If you honestly believe that restrictions on immigration to the USA are more destructive of human liberty and impose more suffering on human beings than war, imperialism, and militarism do, then you really should eschew political alliances with Ron Paul (and with me) and should seek to ally yourself with Randy Barnett.
I’ve already suggested that you do just that.
However, if that truly is your considered judgment, then I find your judgment ill-considered and eccentric.
But you know what? I can’t make your judgments. You have to decide for yourself who your political allies are, based on your own considered judgment. And that’s the point I’ve been hammering on all along.
Dave Miller in Sacramento
Dave,
I provided a direct link to the Kinsella quote; it is a blog post quoted in full. I’m not sure what more “context” you are looking for.
The Hoppe quote, I believe, is from his book Democracy: The God That Failed. I don’t have a page cite handy and I don’t really feel like looking it up. It is the most notorious quote from the book.
Nor do I need to. Your interpretation of Hoppe’s quote is the same as mine. I am not disputing the libertarian principle that “proprietary communities would indeed be entitle[d] to exclude the sort of people [Hoppe] wishes them to exclude.” A proprietarian neo-Nazi community would be entitled, according to libertarian principle, to exclude Jews, gypsies, gays and blacks, if it so desired. That would still be a bigoted thing to do. The point of the quote is not to challenge Hoppe’s libertarian bonofides, but to give evidence of his bigotry. As you yourself acknowledge, “all right-thinking people of the sort who live in the proprietary communities of the sort that Hoppe would like to live in” would exclude gay people. In other words, Hoppe is an anti-gay bigot. Q.E.D.
As to Stephan, he clearly labeled the proposal a “compromise.”
Right. Which has been my point about Barnett all along. The war in Iraq is not Barnett’s ideal solution; it is the least bad alternative “compromise” given the unfree world we live in. Yet your allow Kinsella to make these sorts of “compromises” with statism, while still considering him part of your movement, but you don’t extend the same courtesy to Barnett. My question is why.
First, hard-core immigration restrictionism, while not a good thing, simply does not have the dramatic ramifications for the future of liberty in the US and the world that US imperialism and militarism do. If the US continues on the current imperialist path, we will eventually create a grand coalition against us, and we will precipitate a world war that will devastate America – American cities may be nuked, etc.
But Randy Barnett is not advocating (to my knowledge) that the “US continues on the current imperialist path.” Rather, he is merely advocating the present action. You cannot fault him for what you think other war supporters might one day in the future advocate; you can only fault him for what he himself advocates. Otherwise, using your same logic, I could say of anti-immigration libertarians like Hoppe, Paul and Kinsella that they not only wish to maintain the status quo, and perhaps even increase border controls, and perhaps even forcibly expel any undocumented immigrants currently in the country, but I could also fault them for the more extreme positions taken by other anti-immigration proponents, and other possible (nay, likely) consequences if their views were implemented: a system of national ID cards, destruction of personal privacy, government tracking of all US resident’s movements, a reduction in current levels of legal immigration, increased racism towards poor brown people, and, as mentioned earlier in this thread, if Hoppe’s argument is taken to its logical conclusion, a government mandated license to breed.
Now tell me again, with a straight face, that these policies do not have equal or greater dramatic ramifications for the future of liberty in the US and the world as the war in Iraq.
On the other hand, there have been numerous countries that have very restrictive immigration policies and have not faced devastating results as a consequence in terms of their economies, their civil liberties, etc.
And as many Iraq war supporters have argued, there have been numerous historical cases of foreign intervention similar to the war in Iraq that have not resulted in devastating consequences in terms of economics or civil liberties – they usually point to the Marshall Plan as what they consider the closest Iraq reconstruction analogy. Again, this is not my view, but this minimization for the Iraq war seems on par with your minimization for restrictive immigration policies.
Secondly, as a factual, empirical matter, it is just silly to say that immigration restrictions directly destroy human lives and liberty in the way that war does. War kills people, often in astonishingly huge numbers – killing someone pretty much takes away *all* of his rights.
Denying someone the freedom to trade their labor – their livelihood – often results in their death; killing someone pretty much takes away *all* of his rights. Not to mention the many that die trying to get into the U.S., deaths made all the more likely by border controls. Shall we attempt to compare the number of people who have died as a result of U.S. immigration restrictions since they have been enforced (which goes back many, many decades – are you familiar with the SS St. Louis incident?). Let us count all of the people that have died over the years due to U.S. immigration restrictions – from poverty that would have been alleviated had potential immigrants been free to trade their labor, to those who died as a result of their voyage here – a trip made significantly more dangerous as a result of immigration restrictions, to political refugees like the Jews on the SS St. Louis who were sent back to die at Hitler’s hands by anti-immigration libertarian’s favorite president, FDR.
Does anyone seriously doubt that this number is orders of magnitude greater than the number who have died (and will die) as a result of Iraq? Seriously?
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.
I can’t believe a so-called libertarian is making this sort of argument. It sounds just like the sort of arguments made by statist environmentalists and redistributionists who say things like, “The US contains just 5% of the world’s population but uses 40% of its energy reserves,” or, “The US contains just 5% of the world’s population but controls 40% of its wealth.”
Why should it matter, on libertarian grounds, how big or how small US territory, population, wealth, or energy consumption is relative to the rest of the world? If every human has a right to trade and travel freely (while respecting private property, of course), regardless of arbitrary and unjust political boundaries created by governments, then it completely irrelevent if there are lots of other land masses and people out there, and it is completely irrelevent if other countries besides the US also restrict immigration. Neither of these facts justifies US aggression towards immigrants, nor do these facts let the US off the hook in taking blame for immigrant’s misfortune. Suppose I see an infant drowning in a lake, but refuse to save it, on the grounds that there are lots of other people who also see the infant drowning but, like me, refuse to save it. Is that a valid excuse? Suppose I steal a piece of fruit from a fruit vendor – just one piece – but so do 50 other people. Together, all 50 of us small-time thieves have deprived this fruit vendor of her entire inventory, and, as a result, the fruit vendor is unable to provide for her family. Am I in the clear on the grounds that one piece of fruit really wouldn’t have made much of a difference?
It’s hard to see that as a life-destroying restriction.
Look harder.
Oops. Sorry about the italics.