What is the official stance of Austrian economist when it comes to "illegal" immigration?
One of my favorite retorts: why do I need permission from the government to have someone on my property?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
To my knowledge, the only official stance of Austrians is of praxeology being the basis for economic analysis.
I'm personally for open borders to encourage the exchange of goods and eliminate non-tariff barriers meant to establish protectionist policies.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
I agree
edfchv1: I agree
Really? I figured that you would advocate for the state's border patrol to protect us from potential foreign threats. After all, private security fails, according to you.
Can you say strawman?
edfchv1: Can you say strawman?
Yes, I can. However, you are misapplying the term. But out of curiousity, how would my response be a strawman?
Laughing Man: I'm personally for open borders to encourage the exchange of goods and eliminate non-tariff barriers meant to establish protectionist policies.
Since when are open borders necessary for the exchange of goods? Open borders allow unwanted "bads" into the country without the consent of the private property owners, especially so given that large amounts of land are publicly owned.
Daniel:One of my favorite retorts: why do I need permission from the government to have someone on my property?
And I'd retort to that: why don't immigrant need permission to enter others property?
Since that is the implication of your position.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: And I'd retort to that: why don't immigrant need permission to enter others property? Since that is the implication of your position.
It's not his position
His position is that immigrants are free to enter a "country" (an arbitrarily bordered piece of individually owned land) when, and only when, the owners of the property/land the immigrants are entering have invited them on. Otherwise it is trespass.
I'd be interested to know what you think about Hoppe's position on immigration in the short- and medium-term (i.e. presuming we are not in a free society).
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
edfchv1: What is the official stance of Austrian economist when it comes to "illegal" immigration?
Oh, and by the way, every answer you've heard has been the answer of a libertarian, not an Austrian economist. Austrian economics and libertarianism are not synonymous, although due to basic intuitionist utilitarianism they tend to be mutually complementary.
Austrian economists would have no "ought" opinion, but they would consider the implications of possible human actions.
Byzantine:I'm all for it, because it means the democratic State becomes huge and unwieldly attempting to impose order on criminal gangs, arbitrate inter-ethnic conflict, and dole out favors to various tribes. Thus, when the electoral minority of net producers perceive that the State can offer nothing of value in exchange for their taxes, they will withdraw their support from it and the multi-cultural democratic State will collapse. People will then finally be free to organize themselves into viable, for-profit communities of shared values.
I hope this is sarcasism. There would be hardly anything left.
banned: To my knowledge, the only official stance of Austrians is of praxeology being the basis for economic analysis.
Not necessariy, neither Hayek nor Lachmann were praxeologists.
GilesStratton: Daniel:One of my favorite retorts: why do I need permission from the government to have someone on my property? And I'd retort to that: why don't immigrant need permission to enter others property? Since that is the implication of your position.
What are you talking about? Of course immigrants would need permission to enter others' property. That's a horrible retort and of the sort that the OP would use.
Thedesolateone: It's not his position His position is that immigrants are free to enter a "country" (an arbitrarily bordered piece of individually owned land) when, and only when, the owners of the property/land the immigrants are entering have invited them on. Otherwise it is trespass. I'd be interested to know what you think about Hoppe's position on immigration in the short- and medium-term (i.e. presuming we are not in a free society).
Yes. You are correct. But to clarify or prevent further confusion, this does not mean that an immigrants has to right to enter someone else's property for the purpose of getting to, and then entering, my property.
Thedesolateone: Oh, and by the way, every answer you've heard has been the answer of a libertarian, not an Austrian economist. Austrian economics and libertarianism are not synonymous, although due to basic intuitionist utilitarianism they tend to be mutually complementary. Austrian economists would have no "ought" opinion, but they would consider the implications of possible human actions.
This.