I want to do the following in this paper: First to present the theses that constitute the hard core of the Marxist theory of history. I claim that all of them are essentially correct. …
Marx … gives a historical account of the emergence of capitalism that makes the point that much or even most of the initial capitalist property is the result of plunder, enclosure, and conquest. Similarly … the role of force and violence in exporting capitalism to the – as we would now say – Third World is heavily emphasized. Admittedly, all this is generally correct, and insofar as it is there can be no quarrel with labeling such capitalism exploitative.
I love that quote so much. Every time someone cites him in an argument, I get to feign confusion and then create real confusion with: “Oh, sorry, I didn’t know I was debating a Marxist.”
What happened to him? It’s like Anakin Skywalker becoming Darth Vader.
Nothing happened to him. He was educated under Jurgen Habermas at Frankfurt, home of cultural Marxism. Presumably he figured (correctly) that libertarianism was a niche where he would have less competition than in Marxist academia and could get by with cheap parlor tricks like “Argumentation Ethics” instead of having to work at it.
I don’t see much evidence of insincerity on his part, and I don’t think he’s changed that much. The issues he was good on he’s still good on; he doesn’t emphasise them as much, but I don’t think he’s abandoned them. The alt-right stuff I suspect is stuff he’s always believed too, but has gradually gotten bolder about letting it show. I don’t think he’s an alt-righter in libertarian clothing; my guess is that he really believes it’s possible to fuse libertarianism and alt-right concerns together. I could be wrong of course.
Btw, I think “cultural marxism” is to the right what “social darwinism” is to the left — a phrase that gets used in attacks but that mashes together and distorts a bunch of distinct and complicated positions, not all of them bad.
RL,
I very seldom reference “cultural Marxism” for precisely the reason you state. But if there’s any one thing that all parties can be said to agree on vis a vis “cultural Marxism,” that one thing is that it originated at Hoppe’s alma mater. Which I think is worth referencing in the context of discussing Hoppe as Marxist.
True — though also the parts of Marxist class theory he agrees with were mostly pioneered by classical liberals pre-Marx.
I have a difficult time believing Hoppe is not bright enough to see the incompatibility of his invitation-trespass torts with capitalism.
The capacity of intelligent people to slide their mental gaze quickly and smoothly over contradictory portions of their philosophical systems without feeling undue cognitive dissonance seems to have few limits.
Compare Rand on the permissibility of killing the innocent: http://praxeology.net/unblog11-05.htm#09.
Hmm, the permissibility to kill “innocent” people is different genus of question than say, “taxation on capital goods creates deadweight loss in the shifted supply & demand curves.” Just sayin…
I’m pretty sure Marx himself would have a problem with “cultural Marxism,” given that he avoided making moral judgements on the things he wrote about. He never called capitalism unjust. And never commented on the justice of communism. It’s almost as if he saw himself merely as a social scientist who viewed capitalism as a (necessary) development in a (materialist) historical dialectic that terminates at communism.
I’d be interested in RL’s attitude to this piece. Does he agree with this analysis?
I wouldn’t endorse everything in the article, but the overall thrust I agree with.
“the parts of Marxist class theory he agrees with were mostly pioneered by classical liberals pre-Marx.”
Also true. But … shhhh.
A bit too late for shhhh.
(Sigh) It’s just so much more fun to yell “Marxist! Physically remove him! Helicopter ride line forms here!” than to plumb the pre-Marx libertarian roots of his Marxist holdings.
There’s a commonality between laissez faire and Marx vis a vis class theory, but there is marked divergence on the historical progression. Libertarianism is in no way the Marxist progression of history.
The inventor of helicopter rides was gay:
“Compare Rand on the permissibility of killing the innocent”
I finally gave up on the Objectivists when Robert James Bidinotto patiently explained to me that it was impossible for invading US troops to violate the human rights of Iraqis because Iraqis wouldn’t have human rights until US troops gave them those rights.
Having an intellectual discussion with Bidinotto is pretty nigh impossible. See this bizarre exchange he had with the heroically patient Charles back in the day. And one time in a debate with me, he embraced the position that nothing logically follows from a false premise (which would incidentally render impossible the Randians’ favourite argument form, i.e. the reductio). He backed down from that one only because David Kelley told him he was wrong.
Ironically, the first time I met Bidinotto was at a 1997 ISIL conference (the good ISIL, not the bad ISIL) where he gave a talk arguing that Objectivists needed to engage on friendlier and more civil terms with their opponents, and in particular with libertarians.
Note that Hoppe’s quote is correct. Who among us would disagree with his point that a great deal of the initial capital was obtained from plunder due to conquest? Hoppe is an anarchocapitalist and remains a consistent one because there is no contradiction for anyone to point to. Left-Anarchists have a problem with Hoppe because he shows that one cannot deny property rights and still be considered to be a libertarian. The Left-Anarchists are a great deal closer to Marx than Hoppe could ever be.
Well, depends which left-anarchists you have in mind. There are plenty of left-anarchists who are fans of private property.
There are plenty of left-anarchists who are fans of private property.
Really? The ones I read tend to hate capitalism and property rights. They seem to have a problem with people getting rich through voluntary transactions in a free market and see any difference in status or wealth as coercion. I do not see how you can be a Left-Anarchist and still believe that protecting property rights will not lead to a capitalist system.
Forgive me if I am missing something but it seems to me that someone is trying to change the meaning of words again. I cannot see how people who talk about ethics in pricing and have trouble with free market capitalism can claim to be supporters of property rights.
Capitalism is a term coined by Thackeray and popularized by Marx to refer to a state-managed mixed industrial economy (Marx was its biggest fan because it was the stage of socio-economic development culminating in revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat, and eventually communism in his theory of history; he was the first of the major right-deviationist from libertarian class theory).
You can have free markets and property rights or you can have capitalism, but you can’t have both.
You don’t support free market capitalism. For the Hoppeans, “anarcho-capitalism” is just a ruse for an agrarian social order of the patriarchal clan which in practice is really just a ruse for ethno-nationalism.
For some reason, I can’t respond to Thomas because there is no reply button. So let me do it this way.
Thomas writes: “Capitalism is a term coined by Thackeray and popularized by Marx to refer to a state-managed mixed industrial economy (Marx was its biggest fan because it was the stage of socio-economic development culminating in revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat, and eventually communism in his theory of history; he was the first of the major right-deviationist from libertarian class theory).”
Actually, we can define capitalism as an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners pursuing their own interests, rather than by state actors. Note that does not mean that some private owners of capital cannot collude with the government to keep competition from taking place in a free market. When I write about the benefits of capitalism I mean the same thing as people like Rothbard did; capitalism in a free market system where the government cannot meddle for the benefit of sponsors.
You can have free markets and property rights or you can have capitalism, but you can’t have both.
Sure you can. Walmart cannot force you to buy its products over those of Target or Sears. For it to get you to patronize its stores, it has to give you a deal that is better than the alternative. What kind of anarchists are you guys anyway? You seem to ignore the fact that capitalism is built on the idea of property rights and that it thrives in unhampered markets where the government gets out of the way.
“Hoppe is an anarchocapitalist and remains a consistent one because there is no contradiction for anyone to point to.”
Well, except for the part where the state is a criminal gang in all cases except with respect to its gang turf lines, which Hoppe wants us to treat as legitimate property lines demarcating property held in common for which the state should be used as a benevolent manager. Except for that part there.
There are plenty of contradictions to point to, and it is easy to critique Hoppe’s property torts from a purely capitalist point of view. In the context of the State, the Hoppean conception of invitation-trespass torts makes private property impossible. In the context of anarchism, the same makes capitalism impossible.
“There are plenty of contradictions to point to, and it is easy to critique Hoppe’s property torts from a purely capitalist point of view. In the context of the State, the Hoppean conception of invitation-trespass torts makes private property impossible. In the context of anarchism, the same makes capitalism impossible.”
I am sorry but I do not read a coherent or convincing argument. Why isn’t a society with property rights possible? And if we respect property rights, why do you think that it is impossible for people to accumulate capital and engage in voluntary trade with others?
Well, I was making a statement, not an argument. If you want an argument, you can refer to this rather lengthy comment in another post.
https://aaeblog.com/2018/01/26/alt-white-karma/#comment-505676
I think that you are confused about what Hoppe is really saying. If you present a specific citation that supports your claim I would be more than happy to deal with it. I do not think that looking at the state as a criminal gang is out of line. After all, the state has a monopoly on the ‘legal’ initiation of force and takes income from those that earned it. Looks like a criminal gang to me.
If you are talking about Hoppe’s borders and immigration argument, I would still side with Hoppe. As long as you have a welfare system, allowing unhindered access to it by anyone who is willing to cross a border leads to a massive burden on the productive class that is expected to pay for the welfare system. Why would we want to harm the productive class so that those on the Left can virtue signal about how generous they are with other people’s money?
You seem to be mistaking the statement “I side with Hoppe on this” for the statement “there is no contradiction anyone can point to.”
Treating the state as a communal property manager / security guard “until anarchy” and “because welfare” contradicts any kind of anarchism.
It’s also fucking stupid, but that’s a different argument.
“You seem to be mistaking the statement “I side with Hoppe on this” for the statement “there is no contradiction anyone can point to.”
Treating the state as a communal property manager / security guard “until anarchy” and “because welfare” contradicts any kind of anarchism.
It’s also fucking stupid, but that’s a different argument.”
I do not think that is what Hoppe is doing. He sees a welfare state that already does many things. He points out that as long as it gives benefits to people that have not earned them, it is best to keep the borders tight so that the productive class that pays the taxes that support the welfare state is not burdened any further than it already is. Hoppe clearly favours anarchy and would rather have no government doing anything.
As I said, there is no contradiction with Hoppe. You are manufacturing one by taking things out of context. How would you protect the taxpayers in a welfare system that has open borders and rules that do not prohibit newcomers from getting benefits that were never earned? Imagine the parasite class exploding in numbers and those that work have no incentive to do so any longer.
That’s exactly what he is doing. “Treating the state as a communal property until anarchy” is exactly why the Hoppean conception of invitation-trespass torts makes private property impossible with the State. Why Hoppean property torts makes capitalism impossible even in a condition of anarchy is another argument, one I linked to above.
Hoppe is an anarchist who hates the State. He simply recognizes that the State does exist and that when you bring in immigrants that have access to ‘public goods’ you are hurting the taxpayers whose earnings were confiscated from them by the State.
“Hoppe is an anarchist who hates the State. He simply recognizes that the State does exist”
All anarchists recognize that the state exists.
Real anarchists don’t use that as an excuse to pretend that what it does is, or can be, legitimate.
Is this you…
https://www.quora.com/profile/Vangel-Vesovski
You work for Boeing? Is that accurate? If so, you are pretty shameless to be lecturing others about living off taxpayer money.
“How would you protect the taxpayers in a welfare system that has open borders and rules that do not prohibit newcomers from getting benefits that were never earned?”
By smashing the state, of course.
And trying to save it from its own folly by insisting that making it “work” by supporting action to keep its depredations viable is at best the not any way to go about smashing and at worst is exactly the opposite of smashing it.
Meanwhile, you ask dL:
“Why isn’t a society with property rights possible?”
A society with property rights IS possible. Just not Hoppe’s way. Demanding that gang turf lines be treated like legitimate property boundaries is the negation of property rights.
“And if we respect property rights, why do you think that it is impossible for people to accumulate capital and engage in voluntary trade with others?”
dL doesn’t think that. He just points out that Hoppe opposes voluntary trade if it means letting people travel over gang turf lines or homestead the the “public” property, which is neither public nor property, that is being violently withheld from homesteading by a criminal gang.
“By smashing the state, of course.”
But the state is not smashed and you have people paying taxes to the welfare state. How do you protect them until you and Hoppe get what you want and smash the State?
“And trying to save it from its own folly by insisting that making it “work” by supporting action to keep its depredations viable is at best the not any way to go about smashing and at worst is exactly the opposite of smashing it.”
Trying? What happens in the meantime when you bring in people who support authoritarianism? Will your “trying” be more effective or less effective?
“A society with property rights IS possible. Just not Hoppe’s way. Demanding that gang turf lines be treated like legitimate property boundaries is the negation of property rights.”
Hoppe keeps arguing for property rights. I see no evidence to the contrary and your out-of-context claim will not take you very far. Go and READ Hoppe’s actual position and try to deal with anything that you consider is wrong. I know that you want to imagine that we live in a free society but that is not the case. Hoppe knows that is not the case so he argues about a way to protect the productive class until it is the case. Your imaginary state does not exist.
“dL doesn’t think that. He just points out that Hoppe opposes voluntary trade if it means letting people travel over gang turf lines or homestead the the “public” property, which is neither public nor property, that is being violently withheld from homesteading by a criminal gang.”
This false claim is getting a bit tired. Hoppe has stated his argument clearly and thoroughly. I suggest that you become familiar with it and stop doing the out-of-context waltz as the Left-Anarchists usually do. c
” I know that you want to imagine that we live in a free society ”
You sure do think you know a lot of things that happen to not be true.
Yes, Hoppe has stated his argument clearly and thoroughly, and I am quite familiar with it. Familiar enough to assert that Hoppe is calling authoritarian horseshit “libertarian” or “anarcho-capitalist” and that calling it that doesn’t make it either, any more than calling a dog’s tail a leg means that the dog has five legs.
“You sure do think you know a lot of things that happen to not be true.”
You argue against Hoppe because he has made it clear that uncontrolled immigration will harm the productive class that pays the taxes which fund the welfare programs. How can you justify that unless you can claim that we can stop those that never earned benefits from collecting them? You don’t have to make an explicit claim for it to be true.
“Yes, Hoppe has stated his argument clearly and thoroughly, and I am quite familiar with it. Familiar enough to assert that Hoppe is calling authoritarian horseshit “libertarian” or “anarcho-capitalist” and that calling it that doesn’t make it either, any more than calling a dog’s tail a leg means that the dog has five legs.”
Again I see no specific arguments; just the typical ad hominem attack that I usually get from Left-Anarchists or people who think that Gary and Wild Bill were suitable representatives of the Libertarian Party.
“You argue against Hoppe because he has made it clear that uncontrolled immigration will harm the productive class that pays the taxes which fund the welfare programs”
No, that’s not why I argue against Hoppe, and my argument on that point would center around that issue even if he was right (he isn’t — in the US, at least, immigration subsidizes the welfare programs as immigrants pay more to the state in taxes and take out less in transfer payments per capita than the native born).
I argue against Hoppe because he uses that claim, along with a fraudulent property rights schema that treats the state as a legitimate owner and/or agent in one and only one area, to argue for an authoritarian response to the alleged (but actually non-existent) problem.
“How can you justify that unless you can claim that we …”
Ah, there’s your problem — you’re a collectivist. So far as I know, there is no “we” that you and I are both part of other than species homo sapiens sapiens.
All those arguments are arguments for restricting welfare (which is already very restricted for immigrants as against citizens). They are not arguments for restricting immigration per se. I think I recall Hoppe himself conceding this in his 1998 paper (Free Trade and Restricted Immigration), i.e. it’s not enough to argue that immigrants can use welfare, since that is only an argument against welfare.
The question you have to answer is this: How is it a crime, under libertarian law, for someone to be merely present in this country without state authorization? The question is not whether it is a crime to take public money or use public services, but simply whether it is a crime to BE in this country. We can get to whether it is a crime to take public money or use public services later, but first we have to determine why border control is itself a legitimate function (assuming such a thing exists) of the State.
True. The crime in this instance would be a crime against the state, a genus of crime that anarchists and libertarians do not recognize.
“All those arguments are arguments for restricting welfare (which is already very restricted for immigrants as against citizens). They are not arguments for restricting immigration per se. I think I recall Hoppe himself conceding this in his 1998 paper (Free Trade and Restricted Immigration), i.e. it’s not enough to argue that immigrants can use welfare, since that is only an argument against welfare.”
Sorry but illegal immigrants get plenty of benefits that they do not help to pay for. The burden falls to the productive class, which supports not just the domestic poor who get the benefits but the illegals and legal immigrants who also line up at the trough. I, like Hoppe, have no problem with the type of immigration where those that come into the country have some type of contractual arrangement and are not permitted to live off the taxpayer. If I want to bring in a foreign nanny to look after my mother, I should be allowed to enter into a contractual arrangement. But not if she comes in and gets free health care, food stamps, or any form of welfare that other taxpayers have to pay for.
“The question you have to answer is this: How is it a crime, under libertarian law, for someone to be merely present in this country without state authorization?”
It isn’t a crime. But when you get free goodies that are extracted from a productive class via taxation you can see the problem with the type of immigration that Hoppe objects to.
“The question is not whether it is a crime to take public money or use public services, but simply whether it is a crime to BE in this country.”
I am sure that the answer would be trespassing. An immigrant can be welcomed to a libertarian society only by those that own the property on which they are present.
“We can get to whether it is a crime to take public money or use public services later, but first we have to determine why border control is itself a legitimate function (assuming such a thing exists) of the State.”
In a libertarian society, there is no state and anyone can invite immigrants to come and live or work with them. But we don’t have that. What we have is a welfare state which places the burden on a small productive class that pays for those that get goodies that are handed out by politicians. That was Hoppe’s primary objection and I see nothing wrong with it.
“Sorry but illegal immigrants get plenty of benefits that they do not help to pay for. The burden falls to the productive class, which supports not just the domestic poor who get the benefits but the illegals and legal immigrants who also line up at the trough.”
Illegal immigrants are part of the “productive class.” In terms of how taxes work, the top 10% pay 50% of the total taxes (and if you only look at income tax, the top 1% pay as much as the bottom 90%). So, unless you’re extremely high income ($200k per year to be in the top 10% and $400k to be in the top 1%), you’re one of those feeding at the trough. Perhaps looking at things that way is not the best way, but if that’s your preferred standard, you may not like the result.
Illegal immigrants are part of the “productive class.” In terms of how taxes work, the top 10% pay 50% of the total taxes (and if you only look at income tax, the top 1% pay as much as the bottom 90%). So, unless you’re extremely high income ($200k per year to be in the top 10% and $400k to be in the top 1%), you’re one of those feeding at the trough. Perhaps looking at things that way is not the best way, but if that’s your preferred standard, you may not like the result.
I am sorry to point this out Nathan but when we look at the total burden on a middle-class individual we get a total tax rate that rivals that of slaves. The productive class does not feed at the trough. It is the parasites who are in the public sector that do that.
I’m not supporting the current tax system. And I agree that it is the public sector that is the real problem. So, identifying illegal immigrants as part of the “parasite class” rather than the “productive class” doesn’t seem justified. (And as pointed out by at least one commenter above, immigrants generate a net subsidy to the welfare programs in this country rather than drain them.)
But as long as immigrants can come in and get free stuff paid for by taxpayers they are parasites. Note that I do not have an issue with the mobility of individuals. My issue is when that mobility comes attached to free benefits that have to be funded by others.
The libertarian response is to get rid of the free benefits.
The authoritarian response is to suppress the mobility of individuals.
Libertarianism, including its anarchist varieties, is not authoritarianism or vice versa.
Sorry Thomas but I have no idea why there is no button. Hoppe, you, and I all agree that we should get rid of the free benefits. But that is not the situation so as long as the productive class is paying for the welfare state there has to be a mechanism that protects them. One such mechanism is to stop letting people from taking advantage of the lax rules by limiting movement.
Note that I have always argued that even if we accept the US Constitution as binding on those that never signed it, there is no authority for the federal government to restrict immigration. My solution is simple. Get the federal government out of the welfare business and permit voters on the local level to decide on how to fund whatever benefits they want to enact. If San Francisco wants to give free goodies let its voters pay for those goodies. Actually, even that is going too far because there is no reason why the decisions cannot be made at lower levels still. Let individual neighbourhoods decide what they will pay for people who want to take advantage of those programs.
My argument is very simple. As long as taxpayers are forced to pay for free goodies one way to protect them is to restrict access to foreigners who have no right to them. If the only way to do that is to stop them from coming into the country without personal guarantees by citizens I have no problem with that action.
There’s no reply button because our threaded comments is limited to four levels, and this is level four. If i extended that beyond four levels, eventually the comments could thin out to one or two words per line, and nobody wants to read that.
Just pick the nearest reply button in the thread, as I just did.
Vangel,
No reply button for me, either. Odd.
The problem here is that we’re defining capitalism differently. I’m defining it as it was defined historically and has been understood by 99.9% of humanity to mean for close to 200 years, you’re defining as it was re-defined by Austro-libertarians (and other types of libertarians) to encompass free markets.
Which is just another way of saying that while we agree on property rights and free markets, we don’t agree on whether or not a particular word refers to that.
I see a button on this reply. I disagree with your definition. All capitalism has meant is the private ownership of the means of production. End of story. The collusion between the government bureucrats who rule over the productive class and some capitalists is not required. I argue for free market capitalism and detest crony capitalism as much as anyone here. So does Hoppe.
I see no position that can argue for property rights and free markets yet deny the ability of individuals getting together and using their capital to trade voluntarily. You argue against the failure of government intervention, not free market capitalism.
“All capitalism has meant is the private ownership of the means of production.”
That’s not what Marxists mean by it (which matters, since Marxists have been among the chief popularisers of the term in the first place). See the ABC of Communism:
“The mere existence of a commodity economy does not alone suffice to constitute capitalism. A commodity economy can exist although there are no capitalists; for instance, the economy in which the only producers are independent artisans. …. In order that a simple commodity economy can be transformed into capitalist production, it is necessary, on the one hand, that the means of production (tools, machinery, buildings, land, etc.) should become the private property of a comparatively limited class of wealthy capitalists; and, on the other, that there should ensue the ruin of most of the independent artisans and peasants and their conversion into wage workers.”
See also “POOTMOP!” and “POOTMOP Redux!”
And to point out: Hoppean invitation-trespass torts would prevent any mass division of labor economic conversion from occurring.
The popularity of welfare programs is inversely correlated with the diversity of the population. IOW, people are more likely to support welfare when the recipients seem more similar to them. If anything, having a large influx of outsiders would tend to decrease support for welfare programs in general, which seems to be one of your main aims. So, it seems quite counterproductive to try and avoid that.
Sorry Nathan but I do not see that. In the US the majority is a net recepient of beneifts so it will continue to vote for a welfare state. Perhaps your argument should be that letting more people in will bankrupt the corrupt system faster. But then you would have to assume that after the collapse the move would be towards a more peaceful and freer society. And I just don’t see that.
You have a bit of self-selectivity when it comers to mobility and “welfare benefits.” DHS/ICE/CBP are employees of the state who derive their salaries from “taxpayers.” Hence, they too should be deprived of any mobility; hence, the enforcement against mobility cannot be enforced because the enforcers would likewise be immobile. I would also point out that in the United States, ~90% of population over 65(SS and Medicare) would have to be immobile.
As a general principle, the proposition that the authority of the state to redistribute economic rent(and/or income) thusly confers it the authority to regulate voluntary association, freedom of association and the liberty of movement is a suicide pact. The only ones who would dispute that obvious conclusion are those who think they and their group allies can gain control of the state to control others–and only those– whom they don’t like. And that is an utter delusion. What is done to them will eventually be done to you…
You have a bit of self-selectivity when it comers to mobility and “welfare benefits.” DHS/ICE/CBP are employees of the state who derive their salaries from “taxpayers.” Hence, they too should be deprived of any mobility; hence, the enforcement against mobility cannot be enforced because the enforcers would likewise be immobile. I would also point out that in the United States, ~90% of population over 65(SS and Medicare) would have to be immobile.
I am with you about the parasiste class in the public sector. But I also note that it grows along with the population of th benefit recepients that the productive class is asked to support. Theft is theft and I would like to see less, not more of it.
As a general principle, the proposition that the authority of the state to redistribute economic rent(and/or income) thusly confers it the authority to regulate voluntary association, freedom of association and the liberty of movement is a suicide pact.
I see the State as a collection of thugs that have no moral authority to do any of the things that they do.
The only ones who would dispute that obvious conclusion are those who think they and their group allies can gain control of the state to control others–and only those– whom they don’t like. And that is an utter delusion. What is done to them will eventually be done to you…
I dispute the idea that the Sate has any legitimate authority to steal from taxpayers so that the politicians can buy off potential voters by hading out goodies. The more such people are let into the country the worse it is for the productive class.
Well, I’m confused as to what your actual position is. I thought you supported state thugs patrolling imaginary lines on a map(actually, anywhere within 100 miles of said imaginary line). If you don’t, that’s great. If you do hold to that position, despite what you just wrote above, then the kindest interpretation would be that you operate with a dizzying level of cognitive dissonance.
Vangel,
You write:
“My argument is very simple. As long as taxpayers are forced to pay for free goodies one way to protect them is to restrict access to foreigners who have no right to them. If the only way to do that is to stop them from coming into the country without personal guarantees by citizens I have no problem with that action.”
Yes, I understand that that is your position. I disagree with it, but to me the most important thing about this discussion of it is not its correctness or incorrectness but the fact that it is neither a libertarian nor an anarchist position, but rather an authoritarian/statist position. Which makes those who hold it either non-libertarians/non-anarchists, or libertarians/anarchists in severe error as to the content/implications of the theories they claim to subscribe to.
Hoppe made it cear that a welfare state is incompatible with a libertarian society. But as long as goverments rob workers to pay for goodies that go to people who do not earn them, he makes is also clear that stopping those who get the handouts from coming into the country is peferable to increasing the burden on those being robbed.
Exactly. He positions it as being a choice between one of two authoritarian positions — either limit freedom of movement or increase robbery.
Recommending one authoritarian solution over another instead of an anarchist solution is not anarchism, it’s authoritarianism.
But there is no anarchist solution in a welfare state. You need to stop living in a Utopian construction and see what the real world is like at this point in time. Once you do, you need solutions that make sense. I would say that it is far more likely that we can reduce the number of freeloaders by limiting immigration or demanding a system that guarantees their behaviour than we can roll back the welfare system that the majority of voters support. In the former you are using the greed of the latter to reduce the burden on future taxpayers. In the latter you are hoping that the freeloaders who voted for the parasitic system to see the light and act against their own interests.