Hoppe is correct that the problems with the state’s unjust socialization of resources can be compounded when numerous immigrants enter the country as part and parcel of “forced integration.” No case can be made, however, for the state restricting immigration, at least not on grounds compatible with libertarianism. One way to see the flaw in his position is by use of the argument reductio ad absurdum. Hoppe says that free immigration means that unwilling taxpayers are forced to finance the living expenses of the new entrants. They use roads, for example. But what if we applied such a standard to free trade? Goods that are imported into America under provisions of free trade are also driven around on roads, and otherwise move through socialized sectors of the economy. Many of the same folks who are forced to fund roads and consider their now-stolen private property to be “invaded” by immigrants, would also consider free-flowing goods from China and Mexico, trucked around on public roads, to be “invasive.” In accepting Hoppe’s argument that once private property has been stolen, the state compounds the injustice when it allows immigrants to use the property, thus further “invading” the private property rights of the original owners, we are certainly entitled to draw similar conclusions about free trade. The point is, what is sauce for the immigration goose is also sauce for the free trade gander. Hoppe cannot be allowed to have it both ways. He (correctly) favors complete free trade, but opposes equally open immigration. He takes this latter stance on the grounds that the long-suffering taxpayer is in effect forced to subsidize the newcomers’ use of highways and streets. Well and good. But then the same argument can be used against eliminating all tariffs: imported goods are also trucked around on taxpayer-financed thoroughfares. If he can object to immigrants using roadways, he is compelled by logical necessity to make the same objection to shipping these imported goods on streets and highways.
Both are right. Thats the problem with state owned property. You screw over someone who wants immigrants in and you likewise screw over someone else who doesn't. No one wins with public property.
I see the argument as being sidetracked from the main issue.
The immigration debate only shows how vital economic calculation is. With no market in roads we can’t know how restrictive or free entry would be at its optimal level, so we discuss endlessly on what our take is. Still, there is no substitute for a free market in roads, and both Hoppe’s and Block’s arguments are only personal opinions.
The same is true with regard to free trade, in that we don’t know how trade would flow on a fully free market. There has been an assumption that ‘barriers’ would be much, much lower than they are now, but we have no way of knowing. Still, Block’s reduction is moot, as Hoppe doesn’t have to be against free trade simply because he is against free immigration: Hoppe thinks that communities setting their own immigration rules would be the best approximation of a market result under the current conditions with regard to immigration, while full free trade would be the best approximation with regards to the trade pattern.