Roderick, a few things. First, note that I provided earlier “A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders“. Giving one possible argument for a position does not mean I agree with it. Second, my argument was very narrow: it essentially boiled down to this claim: citizens are the proper owners of public property that the state holds; the state ought to disband and return property, but so long as it doesn’t, it ought to minimize the harm it does and one way to do that is to let the owners use the property in useful ways; and that it does not violate the rights of immigrants if they are not permitted to use the property, since they are not its owners. But I have never supported the INS or state action to stop immigrants.
I’ve also been accused many times of being a “rightwing paleo”… I do not self-classify that way, and indeed think the left-right distinctions are largely useless; and in any event would probably be called “left” for many of my positions and views, including some of my personal preferences and beliefs regarding religion (atheist) and drugs (if only they were legal…) and other matters; my views on gay marriage and affirmative action, not to mention IP.
Thanks for the immigration clarification. (Hey, that rhymes.)
I agree that you’re not a paleo; and while I still find a use for the terms “left” and “right” I think it’s often better to talk about having a left-libertarian or right-libertarian view on a certain issue rather than talking about someone being a left-libertarian or tight-libertarian per se (unless they realy are). For example, although Walter B. is on the right-libertarian side of the issue we’re currently debating (and some others as well) he’s certainly not a right-libertarian across the board.
Roderick: “I agree that you’re not a paleo; and while I still find a use for the terms “left” and “right” I think it’s often better to talk about having a left-libertarian or right-libertarian view on a certain issue rather than talking about someone being a left-libertarian or tight-libertarian per se (unless they realy are).”
Sure, I agree with this in principle.
“For example, although Walter B. is on the right-libertarian side of the issue we’re currently debating (and some others as well) he’s certainly not a right-libertarian across the board.””
Well, I am not so sure it’s right-libertarian to–in a non-vulgar way–disagree with the leftish complaints about corporations. Of course all of us agree the state ought not to charter corporations or grant limited liability–we are anarchists! But we disagree with the predictions some of you make about what would happen absent state involvement; and we differ about how we classify certain ownership arrangements as being presumptively legitimate or not. My main argument is one about causation and responsibility–it’s a view about when a person ought to be liable for another person’s actions. I don’t see that this is rightist at all. It might be leftish to be so focused on issues such as corporate inefficiencies and “injustice”, alienation of labor, etc., that one lets this dominate an unemotional, clear, objective analysis of the issue at hand; but I don’t see it as rightist or paleo not to suffer from this obsession. (Heh, putting things very neutrally, I am, see? 🙂
Does this mean what I think it means? My opinion of Stephan Kinsella has been lowered during this whole conflation argument, but maybe he’s not all that bad! 😉
That is weird… or maybe he read this.
Roderick, a few things. First, note that I provided earlier “A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders“. Giving one possible argument for a position does not mean I agree with it. Second, my argument was very narrow: it essentially boiled down to this claim: citizens are the proper owners of public property that the state holds; the state ought to disband and return property, but so long as it doesn’t, it ought to minimize the harm it does and one way to do that is to let the owners use the property in useful ways; and that it does not violate the rights of immigrants if they are not permitted to use the property, since they are not its owners. But I have never supported the INS or state action to stop immigrants.
I’ve also been accused many times of being a “rightwing paleo”… I do not self-classify that way, and indeed think the left-right distinctions are largely useless; and in any event would probably be called “left” for many of my positions and views, including some of my personal preferences and beliefs regarding religion (atheist) and drugs (if only they were legal…) and other matters; my views on gay marriage and affirmative action, not to mention IP.
I’m more puzzled by the phrase “good piece by the Ayn Rand Institute” — isn’t that an oxymoron? 😉
Stephan,
Thanks for the immigration clarification. (Hey, that rhymes.)
I agree that you’re not a paleo; and while I still find a use for the terms “left” and “right” I think it’s often better to talk about having a left-libertarian or right-libertarian view on a certain issue rather than talking about someone being a left-libertarian or tight-libertarian per se (unless they realy are). For example, although Walter B. is on the right-libertarian side of the issue we’re currently debating (and some others as well) he’s certainly not a right-libertarian across the board.
To Joel —
Well, as you know, Stephan is a hardcore Randian. 🙂
Roderick: “I agree that you’re not a paleo; and while I still find a use for the terms “left” and “right” I think it’s often better to talk about having a left-libertarian or right-libertarian view on a certain issue rather than talking about someone being a left-libertarian or tight-libertarian per se (unless they realy are).”
Sure, I agree with this in principle.
“For example, although Walter B. is on the right-libertarian side of the issue we’re currently debating (and some others as well) he’s certainly not a right-libertarian across the board.””
Well, I am not so sure it’s right-libertarian to–in a non-vulgar way–disagree with the leftish complaints about corporations. Of course all of us agree the state ought not to charter corporations or grant limited liability–we are anarchists! But we disagree with the predictions some of you make about what would happen absent state involvement; and we differ about how we classify certain ownership arrangements as being presumptively legitimate or not. My main argument is one about causation and responsibility–it’s a view about when a person ought to be liable for another person’s actions. I don’t see that this is rightist at all. It might be leftish to be so focused on issues such as corporate inefficiencies and “injustice”, alienation of labor, etc., that one lets this dominate an unemotional, clear, objective analysis of the issue at hand; but I don’t see it as rightist or paleo not to suffer from this obsession. (Heh, putting things very neutrally, I am, see? 🙂
“drugs (if only they were legal…)”
Does this mean what I think it means? My opinion of Stephan Kinsella has been lowered during this whole conflation argument, but maybe he’s not all that bad! 😉
You mean you think it’s really the drugs talking?
At this point, I hope so. Kinsella’s latest blog post title from LRC: “Left-Libertarians: Pro-Corporate Tax”