Re: Immigration: where is Block's smackdown of Kinsella?

Sukrit — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 12:55:49 GMT

Kinsella personally opposes immigration restrictions, sure, but in his article he provides an argument for the anti-immigration camp to use. He does them a favor in essence, by saying "I'm pro-immigration. But being anti-immigration isn't necessarily unlibertarian".

Thanks for the links, I agree with Block's critique of Kinsella in Section 3 of that article. SMACKDOWN

I left a comment on Kinsella's blog.

Re: Immigration: where is Block's smackdown of Kinsella?

Conza88 — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 09:17:44 GMT

http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_3/21_3_2.pdf

Section 3.

"where he argues a closed border policy isn't necessarily contrary to libertarianism"

Eh? A lot of people need to stop reading into things based on their previous conceptions /assumptions of what someone is not, or getting stuck in false paradigms. Anyway, the issue of immigration is not a big one for me at all, naturally I'm open to reason, but really haven't invested too much time into bothering in taking an absolute definitive position on it. At the moment I'm only really interested in defending Rothbard's name against strawmen, resulting from misconceptions.

I’m Pro-Immigration and Pro-Open Borders by Stephan Kinsella on April 27, 2010

My comment to Michael Barnett’s post Anti-immigration libertarians are treading in dangerous waters, where he linked to my article “A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders“:

Mike, my article was to provide a simple argument against unrestricted immigration. I did not imply that I agreed with it. I was trying to emphasize a few points: that the real owners of public property in (say) the US are the taxpayers, not outsiders; that there is no way for the state to manage the property in a way that satisfies all owners, short of returning it; that if an outsider is prevented from using the public property held by the state but owned by US citizens, this does not violate the rights of the outsiders, any more than if the natural owners were to forbid them use of it. But it’s an argument about second- or third-bests, and one meant to focus on the main point: some private people (victims of the state) are the natural owners of or claimants to the property; the state is the legal owner, but should not be. Ideally it should dissolve itself and return the property to the real owners; but if it does not, the question arises as to what rules it should set if and so long as it does legally control the resource. I sought to tie in some implications of this notion to the immigration issue.

In any case, let me be clear that I completely oppose any state laws or action that restricts immigration.

I'd also suggest check this out: http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/05/12/switzerland-immigration-hoppe-raico-callahan/

And the rest of the entries; http://www.stephankinsella.com/tag/immigration/

Immigration: where is Block's smackdown of Kinsella?

Sukrit — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 03:06:52 GMT

I read this article by Kinsella where he argues a closed border policy isn't necessarily contrary to libertarianism. Has anyone seen Walter Block's response to it? Block is the key open-borders immigration advocate in libertarian circles, I believe, but I was unable to find his response from the lewrockwell.com archives.

Political Theory

Re: Immigration: where is Block's smackdown of Kinsella?

Re: Immigration: where is Block's smackdown of Kinsella?

Immigration: where is Block's smackdown of Kinsella?