Recently on LewRockwell.com, Walter Block added to the "Open Letter Series," with this little jewel. Finding it almost comically ironic that he would challenge the Anarchists with not being "true libertarians," I called him out in a blog just written tonight, here.
I just found it too odd that he could claim we Anarchsits are not libertarians while he compromises with the rightist, paleo-cons and the Paul cult on his own.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
I found that particular part of the open letter disturbing as well. Supporting a particular politician, Ron Paul included, should not be (correction: is not) a valid criteria for being a libertarian.
I read your blog. Wow, very poor arguments throughout. Your attempts to respond to Block’s points miss his points altogether. I’ll touch on only one example to save readers the monotony of repetition. His comment regarding choosing between two masters is obviously not about whether such a choice is better or worse than choosing no master at all, as you seem to take it. His point is that in making such a choice the slave has said nothing about his hatred for slavery. Further, any thinking person would have to admit that by choosing the “nicer” master the slave has increased his chance for liberty since; all other things being equal, any reasonable person would understand that the slave and any of his fellows would stand a better chance of freeing themselves from a “nice” master. To think otherwise is to fail to use reason. It then follows that the slave’s strategy for freeing himself is better than your “strategy” of refusing to make a choice for fear of contaminating yourself with the pestilence of your master. Your misguided attempt at purity defeats your own ultimate goal. Your strategy is seriously flawed. The “corrupt” slave who, according to you, does not understand the proper strategy for achieving liberty will in fact achieve it before you.
Wow, you ruled out the possibility of any kind of civil disobedience as a choice from the get go. There's nothing that bothers me more then the choice not to vote being mischaracterized as "doing nothing", as if there are no alternatives to voting as a vehicle of change.
*sits back, lights a cigar and watches*
This is going to be interesting.
This paper of Walter Block's is probably good for context: http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/block15.pdf
Brainpolice: Wow, you ruled out the possibility of any kind of civil disobedience as a choice from the get go. There's nothing that bothers me more then the choice not to vote being mischaracterized as "doing nothing", as if there are no alternatives to voting as a vehicle of change.
I absolutely hate this argument. This voting/non-voting garbage makes me want to vomit. Anyway, I couldn't help but throw in my two cents. However I will make the attempt to avoid replying to so-called refutations. I may or may not be successful.
Nobody ruled out civil disobedience. You can vote (or not vote) and still perform civil disobedience. If you are caught up as a slave in the machine there is nothing morally wrong with voting from the libertarian perspective. Voting for someone who is promoting liberty isn't imposing anything on anyone. Nor are you consenting to the system because nothing you do counts as not consenting. This includes not voting. Voting in the manner of which we speak is an act of self-defense. Yes, in many if not most cases pragmatism does become an issue on whether or not to go through with the act itself. However, if there is a situation where there is a chance that it could actually make a real difference, I think it is a strategic mistake to rule it out.
Niccolò: Recently on LewRockwell.com, Walter Block added to the "Open Letter Series," with this little jewel. Finding it almost comically ironic that he would challenge the Anarchists with not being "true libertarians," I called him out in a blog just written tonight, here. I just found it too odd that he could claim we Anarchsits are not libertarians while he compromises with the rightist, paleo-cons and the Paul cult on his own.
Niccolo you barely lay a glove on Block. Firstly your attempt at refuting his morality point does not work. To be consistent you should cease all use of anything state owned or state subsidised. If you were to do so you would starve since walking out of your house to buy bread requires the use of state owned roads. Secondly the idea that you either support top down political change or under ground and educational change is a completely false dichotomy. We should use any means we can to abolish the state. Block I am sure supports educational change (I'll address the underground economy later) as part of a two pronged attack to dismantle to the state. Your complete failure, along with Mr Trembley, to see that Maoist China is worse than pre-Lincolnian US and that the latter is preferable and any effort to be towards that than Mao's is surely a more desirable state of affairs. As long as the top down change does not conflict with libertarian principles these two stratergies can be complementary.
Now to the underground economy. This may well be a place to conduct voluntary exchanges which should be legal and do undermine the state; it does not follow that we should support it. A lot of the underground economy though consists of things such as drugs and prostitution which though should be legal I refuse to support engaging and to say that an anarchist should support this is to give him positive obligations which is in contradistinction to libertarian principles. This is the heart of your attack. You believe the only true anarchists are of the left variety and that those on the right, which include Block and Hoppe, are impure and not real anarchists. Your position is well summed up in Hoppe's Natural Order, the State and the Immigration Problem , and most consumatley in On Libertarianism and Conservatism in DTGTF.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
pazlenchantinrocks: Brainpolice: Wow, you ruled out the possibility of any kind of civil disobedience as a choice from the get go. There's nothing that bothers me more then the choice not to vote being mischaracterized as "doing nothing", as if there are no alternatives to voting as a vehicle of change. I absolutely hate this argument. This voting/non-voting garbage makes me want to vomit. Anyway, I couldn't help but throw in my two cents. However I will make the attempt to avoid replying to so-called refutations. I may or may not be successful. Nobody ruled out civil disobedience. You can vote (or not vote) and still perform civil disobedience. If you are caught up as a slave in the machine there is nothing morally wrong with voting from the libertarian perspective. Voting for someone who is promoting liberty isn't imposing anything on anyone. Nor are you consenting to the system because nothing you do counts as not consenting. This includes not voting. Voting in the manner of which we speak is an act of self-defense. Yes, in many if not most cases pragmatism does become an issue on whether or not to go through with the act itself. However, if there is a situation where there is a chance that it could actually make a real difference, I think it is a strategic mistake to rule it out.
Well said.
Physiocrat: Now to the underground economy. This may well be a place to conduct voluntary exchanges which should be legal and do undermine the state; it does not follow that we should support it. A lot of the underground economy though consists of things such as drugs and prostitution which though should be legal I refuse to support engaging and to say that an anarchist should support this is to give him positive obligations which is in contradistinction to libertarian principles. This is the heart of your attack. You believe the only true anarchists are of the left variety and that those on the right, which include Block and Hoppe, are impure and not real anarchists. Your position is well summed up in Hoppe's Natural Order, the State and the Immigration Problem , and most consumatley in On Libertarianism and Conservatism in DTGTF.
I don't want to get into the debate, I actually agree with what Block says although, from a strictly libertarian point of view I don't see why one libertarian will not want to vote another libertarian in office simply because...well, because he doesn't like his face ! It's foolish? idiosyncratic? childish? stupid ? capricious ? Sure ! But is libertarianism about all that ?!
Anyway, I wanna comment on Hoppe's argument against immigration because I think somebody has to say something about this. It's thoroughly anti-libertarian. It's one thing to say that you, I or an association between the two of us, our friends and relative have exclusive control over our own land property and can decide to invite guest or not, and it's an all together different thing to say that it is permissible for the state to ever restrict the movement of people ! Once you accepted that the state can ever legitimately restrict the movement of (peaceful) people, then there is absolutely no reasons for you to agree to restrictions in the movement of capital goods, price controls etc. Block is correctly in favour of free emigration, as was Rothbard tough during the last part of his lifetime when he became increasingly associated with the conservative movement started talking about "nations by consent"...(has anyone seen one ?) But I think it's very, very sad that Block gives some sort of credit to the anti-libertarian anti-immigration position of Hoppe by exalting his status of all-around libertarian expert. And the saddest thing is that Hoppe, who describes himself as a misesian, can quote Ludwig von Mises at lenght on price controls etc while totally disregarding his continuous and thorough defense of free movement of people, i.e. labour force, and nobody from the Mises Institute faculty, not even his admirer Block, dares to remind him the logical contradiction in which he engages when he defends free movement of goods but unfree movement of people !
Bogdan: Anyway, I wanna comment on Hoppe's argument against immigration because I think somebody has to say something about this. It's thoroughly anti-libertarian. It's one thing to say that you, I or an association between the two of us, our friends and relative have exclusive control over our own land property and can decide to invite guest or not, and it's an all together different thing to say that it is permissible for the state to ever restrict the movement of people ! Once you accepted that the state can ever legitimately restrict the movement of (peaceful) people, then there is absolutely no reasons for you to agree to restrictions in the movement of capital goods, price controls etc. Block is correctly in favour of free emigration, as was Rothbard tough during the last part of his lifetime when he became increasingly associated with the conservative movement started talking about "nations by consent"...(has anyone seen one ?) But I think it's very, very sad that Block gives some sort of credit to the anti-libertarian anti-immigration position of Hoppe by exalting his status of all-around libertarian expert. And the saddest thing is that Hoppe, who describes himself as a misesian, can quote Ludwig von Mises at lenght on price controls etc while totally disregarding his continuous and thorough defense of free movement of people, i.e. labour force, and nobody from the Mises Institute faculty, not even his admirer Block, dares to remind him the logical contradiction in which he engages when he defends free movement of goods but unfree movement of people !
Not wishing to digress too much on this issue here is what I wrote a while back on this:
Now with public land immigration is not voluntary; it becomes forced intergration since immigrants enter areas without consent by using public parks and especially public roads. They can thus skip from one place to the other and infringing on property rights. These "public" lands are not state owned but owned by the net taxpayers. So in essence the UK is a sort of forced residential golf club. Nobody else has any right to be there unless they are invited or buy one plot of the Golf club- buying real estate- and since they latter needs to parties to agree then this is invited immigration. In the former case however the immigrant would have signed in the guest book and becuase I was willing to take him in I would have to take responsibility of him for wages, housing and crime: if he smased up the club house I would be responsible because I was the one who invited him in; this does not however preclude me then taking legal action against my guest. With free trade both parties invite reciprocally the trade and bear the costs of their actions. With immigration this does not happen and the only way to make it comparable to it is to introduce the Hoppeian pass system: a current resident issues a pass to a foriegner without which they would not be allowed entrance; this would detail the length of stay and would gurantee that I the invitor would bear the full costs of the immigrant.
On Rothbard's Nations by Consent he was referring to the natural association of similar peoples which would voluntarily create a discernable geographical area known as a nation. A nation does not necessarily mean a nation state.
Hoppe and Block generally criticize each other politely. However, Hoppe's position is not entirely devoid of merit; the State provides many socialized goods, amongst them roads and the like, making it easier for undesirable individuals (from the POV of the citizenry) to associate with the citizens of a country. Hoppe argues that private owners would exercise a degree of discrimination, in accordance with how much immigration (better yet: movement) they (or in the case of firms, their clients) are willing to tolerate - some will be far more welcoming than others. With state ownership of goods such as the roads, the result is forced association, as anyone can utilize these goods, even though the ultimate owners of these goods would prefer them not to. Hoppe thus notes that open borders coupled with a welfare state and substantial public ownership of goods is unlibertarian and a recipe for disaster; he is not against actual free movement of individuals. Agree with him or not, he has a point. The problem arises in that many people who utilize his arguments do not share his rationale, and probably do not even understand it.
Inquisitor: Hoppe thus notes that open borders coupled with a welfare state and substantial public ownership of goods is unlibertarian and a recipe for disaster; he is not against actual free movement of individuals. Agree with him or not, he has a point.
Hoppe thus notes that open borders coupled with a welfare state and substantial public ownership of goods is unlibertarian and a recipe for disaster; he is not against actual free movement of individuals. Agree with him or not, he has a point.
i'm one of the agreers. strangely, i don't recall seeing hoppe squeezed into the "immigrant hate" forum.
kdnc:I read your blog. Wow, very poor arguments throughout. Your attempts to respond to Block’s points miss his points altogether. I’ll touch on only one example to save readers the monotony of repetition. His comment regarding choosing between two masters is obviously not about whether such a choice is better or worse than choosing no master at all, as you seem to take it. His point is that in making such a choice the slave has said nothing about his hatred for slavery.
I read your blog. Wow, very poor arguments throughout. Your attempts to respond to Block’s points miss his points altogether. I’ll touch on only one example to save readers the monotony of repetition. His comment regarding choosing between two masters is obviously not about whether such a choice is better or worse than choosing no master at all, as you seem to take it. His point is that in making such a choice the slave has said nothing about his hatred for slavery.
Though Block attempts to portray the issue as merely one of “choosing the nicest master,” naming the “nice master” (if such a thing exists) ‘goody,’ he misses the subject matter clearly. The issue has never been about the nicest master and the issue is not about the most “reasonable path to reform,” but rather the issue is about one underlying flaw within the system of any government, small, reformist, or big and radical – the people are wrong, they’ve always been wrong, and they’ll always be wrong as long as the state exists with no legitimate revolutionary movement to challenge it on the level of justice and morality without the compromise of the reformists and without the fear of prison time for righteous acts of violence against a violent hegemony.
I'm going to warn you just once, boy: Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
kdnc:Further, any thinking person would have to admit that by choosing the “nicer” master the slave has increased his chance for liberty since; all other things being equal, any reasonable person would understand that the slave and any of his fellows would stand a better chance of freeing themselves from a “nice” master. To think otherwise is to fail to use reason. It then follows that the slave’s strategy for freeing himself is better than your “strategy” of refusing to make a choice for fear of contaminating yourself with the pestilence of your master. Your misguided attempt at purity defeats your own ultimate goal. Your strategy is seriously flawed. The “corrupt” slave who, according to you, does not understand the proper strategy for achieving liberty will in fact achieve it before you.
Further, any thinking person would have to admit that by choosing the “nicer” master the slave has increased his chance for liberty since; all other things being equal, any reasonable person would understand that the slave and any of his fellows would stand a better chance of freeing themselves from a “nice” master. To think otherwise is to fail to use reason. It then follows that the slave’s strategy for freeing himself is better than your “strategy” of refusing to make a choice for fear of contaminating yourself with the pestilence of your master. Your misguided attempt at purity defeats your own ultimate goal. Your strategy is seriously flawed. The “corrupt” slave who, according to you, does not understand the proper strategy for achieving liberty will in fact achieve it before you.
Spoken like a true house ni... er.... slave.
Again, the issue is not about choosing the "nicest master" (if such a thing exists) and choosing the nicest master will NOT bring about any liberty. Certainly, people have thought they were choosing the "nicest master" every time they chose. What's come of it?Thanks for playing, but this seems to have gone completely over your head.
Another knife fighter...
Physiocrat:Niccolo you barely lay a glove on Block. Firstly your attempt at refuting his morality point does not work.
Niccolo you barely lay a glove on Block. Firstly your attempt at refuting his morality point does not work.
Physiocrat:To be consistent you should cease all use of anything state owned or state subsidised. If you were to do so you would starve since walking out of your house to buy bread requires the use of state owned roads.
To be consistent you should cease all use of anything state owned or state subsidised. If you were to do so you would starve since walking out of your house to buy bread requires the use of state owned roads.
Indicating that we live in a world that is unfortunately pervaded by government, Block implies that everyone qualifies as guilty of a degree of statism, whether it means pointing a proverbial gun in the face of a man for refusing to be extorted, or simply existing within the boarders of a state like a slave having to exist on the land of his master. Knowing that most men that contend against Block’s position probably live and eat within the state, thus being forced to involve themselves with it, Block accuses them of hypocrisy and suggests that this degree of hypocrisy contained within the constructs of his oblivious logic invalidates their questions concerning Paul’s morality and the actual degree of libertarianism Block and men like him support. The foolishness of Block’s artificial constructs and the ridiculousness of his fallacies aside, the issue of hypocrisy does actually present some level of interest I’m willing to go into. Block does actually make a point here, is it not also immoral to accept expropriated funds, subsidies, credit, services, and scholarships that would not have existed without the state? To a certain extent, yes! Does that suggest that the recipients of said subsidies have attained positive attributes that are not morally legitimate? Again, the answer must be yes! Does that mean that all institutions and people involved are thus inadequate or shall be shunned and purged along with the state in our great revolution? For some, yes, for others, not unless they acknowledge their actions and desist in the pursuance and perpetuation of them in the future. Furthermore, does the state of man’s immorality and ungodliness imply any fault on the subjugated? Not unless we want to blame the rape victim for that sexy dress she was wearing! Contrary to Block’s assessment, not only are the moral arguments still valid whether hypocrisy is involved or not, but the level at which people live day to day does not further validate Paul’s violent actions in regards to state acceptance, promotion, and legitimacy. Furthermore, though the extent to which Paul advocates libertarianism and the effectiveness of his assumed, policy propositions may possess are questionable, the question of Paul’s desire for an institution of inherent evil and subjugation of people through taxes or tariffs, welfare slavery or homegrown coercion is not. Hypocrisy presents a problem for some of the most principled libertarians, yes, but that does not change to any extent Paul’s true nature as an instrument of statism and an invention of weak men trying to justify the straws they grasp on as they struggle with their own inadequacies as individuals and the comfort they will be forced to abandon once the state dies.
Indicating that we live in a world that is unfortunately pervaded by government, Block implies that everyone qualifies as guilty of a degree of statism, whether it means pointing a proverbial gun in the face of a man for refusing to be extorted, or simply existing within the boarders of a state like a slave having to exist on the land of his master. Knowing that most men that contend against Block’s position probably live and eat within the state, thus being forced to involve themselves with it, Block accuses them of hypocrisy and suggests that this degree of hypocrisy contained within the constructs of his oblivious logic invalidates their questions concerning Paul’s morality and the actual degree of libertarianism Block and men like him support.
The foolishness of Block’s artificial constructs and the ridiculousness of his fallacies aside, the issue of hypocrisy does actually present some level of interest I’m willing to go into. Block does actually make a point here, is it not also immoral to accept expropriated funds, subsidies, credit, services, and scholarships that would not have existed without the state? To a certain extent, yes! Does that suggest that the recipients of said subsidies have attained positive attributes that are not morally legitimate? Again, the answer must be yes! Does that mean that all institutions and people involved are thus inadequate or shall be shunned and purged along with the state in our great revolution? For some, yes, for others, not unless they acknowledge their actions and desist in the pursuance and perpetuation of them in the future. Furthermore, does the state of man’s immorality and ungodliness imply any fault on the subjugated? Not unless we want to blame the rape victim for that sexy dress she was wearing!
Contrary to Block’s assessment, not only are the moral arguments still valid whether hypocrisy is involved or not, but the level at which people live day to day does not further validate Paul’s violent actions in regards to state acceptance, promotion, and legitimacy. Furthermore, though the extent to which Paul advocates libertarianism and the effectiveness of his assumed, policy propositions may possess are questionable, the question of Paul’s desire for an institution of inherent evil and subjugation of people through taxes or tariffs, welfare slavery or homegrown coercion is not. Hypocrisy presents a problem for some of the most principled libertarians, yes, but that does not change to any extent Paul’s true nature as an instrument of statism and an invention of weak men trying to justify the straws they grasp on as they struggle with their own inadequacies as individuals and the comfort they will be forced to abandon once the state dies.
ME: "Voting Ron Paul is not moral."GUY 1: "Hmmm..."YOU: "Oh don't trust him! He drives on a ROAD!!!"
Physiocrat:Secondly the idea that you either support top down political change or under ground and educational change is a completely false dichotomy. We should use any means we can to abolish the state.
It's not a false dichotomy if we can prove that by doing this scenario of the ballot with the bullet then we are being allocatively inefficient.Let's look at history to demonstrate this: How many times has the government actually shrank in aggregate side thanks to the ballot? How many times has government been overthrown? The latter certainly doesn't happen often, but better than never happening at all.
Physiocrat:Block I am sure supports educational change (I'll address the underground economy later) as part of a two pronged attack to dismantle to the state. Your complete failure, along with Mr Trembley, to see that Maoist China is worse than pre-Lincolnian US and that the latter is preferable and any effort to be towards that than Mao's is surely a more desirable state of affairs. As long as the top down change does not conflict with libertarian principles these two stratergies can be complementary.
Block I am sure supports educational change (I'll address the underground economy later) as part of a two pronged attack to dismantle to the state. Your complete failure, along with Mr Trembley, to see that Maoist China is worse than pre-Lincolnian US and that the latter is preferable and any effort to be towards that than Mao's is surely a more desirable state of affairs. As long as the top down change does not conflict with libertarian principles these two stratergies can be complementary.
What does Mao have to do with anything? Red-herring?
Physiocrat:Now to the underground economy. This may well be a place to conduct voluntary exchanges which should be illegal and do undermine the state; it does not follow that we should support it. A lot of the underground economy though consists of things such as drugs and prostitution which though should be legal I refuse to support engaging and to say that an anarchist should support this is to give him positive obligations which is in contradistinction to libertarian principles.
Now to the underground economy. This may well be a place to conduct voluntary exchanges which should be illegal and do undermine the state; it does not follow that we should support it. A lot of the underground economy though consists of things such as drugs and prostitution which though should be legal I refuse to support engaging and to say that an anarchist should support this is to give him positive obligations which is in contradistinction to libertarian principles.
Physiocrat:This is the heart of your attack. You believe the only true anarchists are of the left variety and that those on the right, which include Block and Hoppe, are impure and not real anarchists. Your position is well summed up in Hoppe's Natural Order, the State and the Immigration Problem , and most consumatley in On Libertarianism and Conservatism in DTGTF.
This is the heart of your attack. You believe the only true anarchists are of the left variety and that those on the right, which include Block and Hoppe, are impure and not real anarchists. Your position is well summed up in Hoppe's Natural Order, the State and the Immigration Problem , and most consumatley in On Libertarianism and Conservatism in DTGTF.
I'm certain Block and Hoppe are Anarchists on some issues, but on others they're mistaken, or at least weak and ineffective at this time. As for that particular paper, it more or less just demonstrates Hoppe's preconceived racism than it does any logical formula of "immigration problems."Sorry, bucko, the right to move anywhere on unowned land is a libertarian ideal, the right for businesses to pick and choose who they wish to serve without government reigning over them and telling them that this *** "ain't no good 'cause he's from dat 'det mehico," is not a libertarian argument. Is the immigration debate unsettled between libertarians? No. Just many libertarians happen to be wrong on that issue.
Trianglechoke7:Not-voting is no more likely to lead to the abolition of the state than voting. I honestly just do not see the point of anarchists not voting.
The point is that as Anarchists we make more of a statement by "not voting" and raising the issue of "not voting" than we do of "voting." If your excaliber on the argument is, "well voting is just the way you voice your opinionz... hyuck, hyuck," then by not voting you're doing the same thing and as Anarchists we're doing it on a principle, not on a whim to see the fastest little bit of unsubstantial change in the most inefficient way.
It's put quite well here,
Inquisitor:Hoppe and Block generally criticize each other politely. However, Hoppe's position is not entirely devoid of merit; the State provides many socialized goods, amongst them roads and the like, making it easier for undesirable individuals (from the POV of the citizenry) to associate with the citizens of a country. Hoppe argues that private owners would exercise a degree of discrimination, in accordance with how much immigration (better yet: movement) they (or in the case of firms, their clients) are willing to tolerate - some will be far more welcoming than others. With state ownership of goods such as the roads, the result is forced association, as anyone can utilize these goods, even though the ultimate owners of these goods would prefer them not to. Hoppe thus notes that open borders coupled with a welfare state and substantial public ownership of goods is unlibertarian and a recipe for disaster; he is not against actual free movement of individuals. Agree with him or not, he has a point. The problem arises in that many people who utilize his arguments do not share his rationale, and probably do not even understand it.
What point? Blame the rape victim for the rape? Give me a break!
Niccolò:It's not a false dichotomy if we can prove that by doing this scenario of the ballot with the bullet then we are being allocatively inefficient.Let's look at history to demonstrate this: How many times has the government actually shrank in aggregate side thanks to the ballot? How many times has government been overthrown? The latter certainly doesn't happen often, but better than never happening at all.
You have failed to prove this point. For example the Gladstonian government in the 19th century reduced the size of the state and was voted in. Also the Thatcher government in the 80s stemmed, though didn't really reverse, the advance of statism which continued quicker before and after her time in office. Further the costs, to me of voting are tiny. I walk to the station and vote; hardly much of an allocative efficiency; further standing for election allows a high profile propagandising opportunity.
Secondly you have failed to show that voting is immoral or compromises libertarian principles.
Niccolò:Guilt by association? Also, you're correct in the sense that drugs and prostitutes do constitute a portion of the underground economy, but you're incorrect in your analysis that (A.) They make up the majority, and (B.) The current state of the black market is the state Agorists wish to pass on into the second stage of the revolution.
Please enlighten me on the second stage of the Agorist revolution and what main other things constitute the black market. Also do you consider right libertarians to be impure?
Niccolò:I'm certain Block and Hoppe are Anarchists on some issues, but on others they're mistaken, or at least weak and ineffective at this time. As for that particular paper, it more or less just demonstrates Hoppe's preconceived racism than it does any logical formula of "immigration problems."Sorry, bucko, the right to move anywhere on unowned land is a libertarian ideal, the right for businesses to pick and choose who they wish to serve without government reigning over them and telling them that this *** "ain't no good 'cause he's from dat 'det mehico," is not a libertarian argument. Is the immigration debate unsettled between libertarians? No. Just many libertarians happen to be wrong on that issue.
Again we see Niccolo the Pure. It is actually quite reminisent of the factionally in fighting of the communists arguing that they were purer than the others; France has four communist parties!!
"Hoppe's racism"- that is a rather unsubstansiated claim. What evidence do you have for this? Also before you do please try to define "racism"? It is as nearly as undefinable as homophobic or sexist.
Government land is owned by the taxpayer; it is not unowned. What are the floors of the forced residential golf club analogy?
Inquisitor:I don't recall Hoppe blaming the victim - I recall him arguing that the State is incapable of acting as a responsible private property owner when it is in favour of forced association. Trying to pin this on some sort of 'racism' or other such nonsense does little to discredit Hoppe. My only point of divergence from Hoppe is that I think that closed borders are silly; better to just melt the welfare state - and the state more generally - down.
I agree and am sure that Hoppe does. It is just given the existence of them restricted immigration is a sensible policy.
I'd like to respond to this point. I completely agree that any kind of positive obligations would be in contradiction to libertarian principle. I don't think any agorist is saying that you have a positive obligation to support those particular aspects of the black market. Agorism is not "lifestyle libertarianism" in the sense of equating libertarianism to engaging in particular untraditional lifestyles. When I think of agorism, prostitution and drugs are not what initially comes to mind. On a more important level, finding ways to resolve disputes on the black market is what comes to mind. Dispute resolution and security organizations can be formed to compete with the state, even if they may be illegal or highly discouraged. I've seen some post-Objectivists advocate a "subscribed government", and if they truly wish to attempt to form one it will probably have to initially start out on the black market.
Brainpolice:Now to the underground economy. This may well be a place to conduct voluntary exchanges which should be illegal and do undermine the state; it does not follow that we should support it. A lot of the underground economy though consists of things such as drugs and prostitution which though should be legal I refuse to support engaging and to say that an anarchist should support this is to give him positive obligations which is in contradistinction to libertarian principles. I'd like to respond to this point. I completely agree that any kind of positive obligations would be in contradiction to libertarian principle. I don't think any agorist is saying that you have a positive obligation to support those particular aspects of the black market. Agorism is not "lifestyle libertarianism" in the sense of equating libertarianism to engaging in particular untraditional lifestyles. When I think of agorism, prostitution and drugs are not what initially comes to mind. On a more important level, finding ways to resolve disputes on the black market is what comes to mind. Dispute resolution and security organizations can be formed to compete with the state, even if they may be illegal or highly discouraged.
I'd like to respond to this point. I completely agree that any kind of positive obligations would be in contradiction to libertarian principle. I don't think any agorist is saying that you have a positive obligation to support those particular aspects of the black market. Agorism is not "lifestyle libertarianism" in the sense of equating libertarianism to engaging in particular untraditional lifestyles. When I think of agorism, prostitution and drugs are not what initially comes to mind. On a more important level, finding ways to resolve disputes on the black market is what comes to mind. Dispute resolution and security organizations can be formed to compete with the state, even if they may be illegal or highly discouraged.
Please then enlighten me on Agorism or left libertarianism.
Physiocrat: Brainpolice: Now to the underground economy. This may well be a place to conduct voluntary exchanges which should be illegal and do undermine the state; it does not follow that we should support it. A lot of the underground economy though consists of things such as drugs and prostitution which though should be legal I refuse to support engaging and to say that an anarchist should support this is to give him positive obligations which is in contradistinction to libertarian principles. I'd like to respond to this point. I completely agree that any kind of positive obligations would be in contradiction to libertarian principle. I don't think any agorist is saying that you have a positive obligation to support those particular aspects of the black market. Agorism is not "lifestyle libertarianism" in the sense of equating libertarianism to engaging in particular untraditional lifestyles. When I think of agorism, prostitution and drugs are not what initially comes to mind. On a more important level, finding ways to resolve disputes on the black market is what comes to mind. Dispute resolution and security organizations can be formed to compete with the state, even if they may be illegal or highly discouraged. Please then enlighten me on Agorism or left libertarianism.
Brainpolice: Now to the underground economy. This may well be a place to conduct voluntary exchanges which should be illegal and do undermine the state; it does not follow that we should support it. A lot of the underground economy though consists of things such as drugs and prostitution which though should be legal I refuse to support engaging and to say that an anarchist should support this is to give him positive obligations which is in contradistinction to libertarian principles. I'd like to respond to this point. I completely agree that any kind of positive obligations would be in contradiction to libertarian principle. I don't think any agorist is saying that you have a positive obligation to support those particular aspects of the black market. Agorism is not "lifestyle libertarianism" in the sense of equating libertarianism to engaging in particular untraditional lifestyles. When I think of agorism, prostitution and drugs are not what initially comes to mind. On a more important level, finding ways to resolve disputes on the black market is what comes to mind. Dispute resolution and security organizations can be formed to compete with the state, even if they may be illegal or highly discouraged.
Well, for one thing, agorism and left libertarianism are not necessarily the same thing. While arguably all agorists are left-libertarians, not all left-libertarians are agorists. Also, the sense in which left-libertarians generally use the term "left" has really nothing to do with the contemporary meaning of "left". They're working with an analysis of the political spectrum that was presented by Rothbard himself in his essay "Left and Right: The Prospects For Liberty" in which the classical definition of "left" signifies the revolutionary, libertarian anti-statist tradition, in opposition to the "right" which is the "old order" and the preservation of the status quo. Of course, Rothbard was partially under the influence of the New Left when he wrote that essay, but I think his analysis is pretty spot on, although the use of labels may very well get a bit too far into semantics. I found the essay particularly influential to my developement as a libertarian.
Agorism is a theory of strategy for revolution, as well as a class analysis that tosses away the flaws of Marx while still maintaining that there is a "class struggle" of a sort (very similar to the Oppenheimer-influenced Nockean notion of political power vs. social power). Agorism, as a strategic theory, is indeed about making use of black markets. It involves making use of "social power" in opposition to politics. But you are incorrect in percieving it as imposing any positive obligations. You can be a practising agorist within the confines of your own personal values scale. Agorism does not require you to adopt a particular values scale. Rather, it simply means that the means for reducing and eventually abolishing the state should be persued in terms of external competition, by using the market process itself, which for the most part spells out making use of black and grey markets.
Physiocrat:Secondly you have failed to show that voting is immoral or compromises libertarian principles.
If you agree that taxation is achieved through force or coercion, than anything paid for through taxation is obtained through non-libertarian means. There are some things that, as a "slave" we can not escape. We can't drive on roads that aren't built by taxation (for the most part, there are some toll roads that are privately owned, though usually paid for with bonds to begin with). But we can avoid situations that we voluntarily partake in that rely on taxation, like welfare. For the exact reasons that welfare is wrong, so is voting.
Physiocrat:Government land is owned by the taxpayer; it is not unowned. What are the floors of the forced residential golf club analogy?
Incorrect. Government land is paid by the taxpayer, it is owned by the government. We are not granted a deed to it, we are not allowed to use it as we wish, we can not transfer ownership of it. Those are all neccesary components of ownership.
Inquisitor:I don't recall Hoppe blaming the victim -
Immigrants are the victims of the state's disaster.Hoppe claims immigrants are the cause of the state's disaster or at least contribute to it.
Ergo, blame the victims.
IrishOutlaw: Physiocrat:Secondly you have failed to show that voting is immoral or compromises libertarian principles. If you agree that taxation is achieved through force or coercion, than anything paid for through taxation is obtained through non-libertarian means. There are some things that, as a "slave" we can not escape. We can't drive on roads that aren't built by taxation (for the most part, there are some toll roads that are privately owned, though usually paid for with bonds to begin with). But we can avoid situations that we voluntarily partake in that rely on taxation, like welfare. For the exact reasons that welfare is wrong, so is voting. Physiocrat:Government land is owned by the taxpayer; it is not unowned. What are the floors of the forced residential golf club analogy? Incorrect. Government land is paid by the taxpayer, it is owned by the government. We are not granted a deed to it, we are not allowed to use it as we wish, we can not transfer ownership of it. Those are all neccesary components of ownership.
Right. I don't understand this view that treats government land as the common, quotally shared property of the tax-payers. There is no discernable just owner. It would be impossible for the individual tax-payer to exercise their alleged quotal share of such property. You cannot sell your 1/500000th (or what have you) portion of government land. The tax-payer does not directly control it in any way whatsoever. Even granting that it may constitute stolen property, it has been redistributed so many times over and time has passed for so long that it would be impossible to allocate it back to the original just owners.
This reminds me of Walter Block's own comments on "the bum in the library". What to do about the bum sleeping in the public library, or by the doorsteps? Treat the public library as if it were private property and kick him out? Or is should the bum be viewed as essentially homesteading it? And, even if the public library is treated as if it were private property, how do we know that a given owner may not very well allow the bum to sleep there? This has a lot of implications for the immigration debate.
Hoppe claims immigrants are the cause of the state's disaster or at least contribute to it.
Where? As I recall he claims that the way the State handles immigration is a disaster.
Physiocrat:You have failed to prove this point.
You have failed to prove this point.
Ergo markets allocate materials more efficiently than government programs to achieve intended goals. Ergo using the government process to afford change is inefficient.
Physiocrat:For example the Gladstonian government in the 19th century reduced the size of the state and was voted in.
For example the Gladstonian government in the 19th century reduced the size of the state and was voted in.
Wasn't that the guy that permitted his thugs in Ireland to detain poor Irish Catholics for as long as they saw proper? Yeah, great guy.
Even so, after that what happened to the British crown? Did it dissolve? Did it evolve into a stateless society? No. So it was a failure.
Physiocrat: Also the Thatcher government in the 80s stemmed
Also the Thatcher government in the 80s stemmed
No, it didn't. Though why don't we go to door number two, Hello Mr. Reagan.
Physiocrat: Secondly you have failed to show that voting is immoral or compromises libertarian principles.
Secondly, I don't need to. It was implied by Block, just that Block doesn't believe it matters.
Physiocrat: Please enlighten me on the second stage of the Agorist revolution and what main other things constitute the black market. Also do you consider right libertarians to be impure?
Phase 2: Mid-Density, Small Condensation Agorist SocietyAt this point the statists take notice of agorism. While before libertarians could bemanipulated by one ruling faction to the detriment of another (sort of anti-market"competition," played with ballots and bullets rather than innovation and pricing),they will start to be perceived as a a threat. Pogroms (mass arrests) may even occur,although that is unlikely. Remember, most agorists are embedded in the rest ofsociety and associating with them are partially-converted libertarians and countereconomists.In order to reach this phase, the entire society has been contaminated byagorism to a degree. Thus it is now possible for the first "ghettos" or districts ofagorists to appear and count on the sympathy of the rest of society to restrain theState from a mass attack. [7]These communities, whether above or underground, can now sustain the NewLibertarian Alliance, NLA acts as spokesman for the agora with the statist society,using every chance to publicize the superiority of agorist living to statist inhabitingand perhaps argue for tolerance of those with "different ways." In this phase, the agorist society is vulnerable to statist regression of the populace.Thus the agorists, whether visible or not, have a high incentive to at least maintainthe present level of libertarian consciousness among the rest of the populace. Thisbeing done most expertly by the NLA (one way to define who the NLA is at thisphase), the NLA has its sustenance and its mission. But in addition to "defending" theagorist sub-society, it can work towards accelerating the next evolutionary step. New Libertarian Manifesto, SEK3
Phase 2: Mid-Density, Small Condensation Agorist Society
At this point the statists take notice of agorism. While before libertarians could bemanipulated by one ruling faction to the detriment of another (sort of anti-market"competition," played with ballots and bullets rather than innovation and pricing),they will start to be perceived as a a threat. Pogroms (mass arrests) may even occur,although that is unlikely. Remember, most agorists are embedded in the rest ofsociety and associating with them are partially-converted libertarians and countereconomists.In order to reach this phase, the entire society has been contaminated byagorism to a degree. Thus it is now possible for the first "ghettos" or districts ofagorists to appear and count on the sympathy of the rest of society to restrain theState from a mass attack. [7]
These communities, whether above or underground, can now sustain the NewLibertarian Alliance, NLA acts as spokesman for the agora with the statist society,using every chance to publicize the superiority of agorist living to statist inhabitingand perhaps argue for tolerance of those with "different ways."
In this phase, the agorist society is vulnerable to statist regression of the populace.Thus the agorists, whether visible or not, have a high incentive to at least maintainthe present level of libertarian consciousness among the rest of the populace. Thisbeing done most expertly by the NLA (one way to define who the NLA is at thisphase), the NLA has its sustenance and its mission. But in addition to "defending" theagorist sub-society, it can work towards accelerating the next evolutionary step.
New Libertarian Manifesto, SEK3
Pirated music, tax evasion, pirated goods, illegal firearms, non-taxed meat goods from hunting, in America, Cuban cigars, and anything that does not involve the state. The counter-economy encompasses a wide range of activities that you probably partake in everyday without knowing it, incorporating the black and grey markets, there's a lot to cover.
As for "Right Libertarian," I need to know exactly what you mean before I could say.
A small statist? No. He's not a libertarian at all. He's probably a conservative leaning towards less of his state. He's a house ni... er... slave.
Physiocrat: Again we see Niccolo the Pure. It is actually quite reminisent of the factionally in fighting of the communists arguing that they were purer than the others; France has four communist parties!! "Hoppe's racism"- that is a rather unsubstansiated claim. What evidence do you have for this? Also before you do please try to define "racism"? It is as nearly as undefinable as homophobic or sexist.
The exclusion of other peoples as unworthy of the same natural securities and negative rights that he possesses.
Physiocrat: Government land is owned by the taxpayer; it is not unowned.
Government land is owned by the taxpayer; it is not unowned.
Government land is illegitimately owned by the government, thus making it unowned land. The argument that the taxpayer owns the land makes the fundamental mistake that you as a citizen are a member of the state, at least more a member than a slave would be considered a member.
Physiocrat: What are the floors of the forced residential golf club analogy?
What are the floors of the forced residential golf club analogy?
Morally illegitimate, and thus unowned.
Inquisitor:Where? As I recall he claims that the way the State handles immigration is a disaster.
If Hoppe does not believe immigration contributes to the disaster of the state, whether this is primarily due to the welfare state or not, and thus is unacceptable, then where does he not make it? It's laced throughout his paper!
Inquisitor:Yes, but where does he blame the victim, as you put it?
Immigrants are the victims of the state's disaster.Hoppe claims immigrants are the cause of the state's disaster or at least contribute to it. Ergo, blame the victims.
Where does Hoppe claim that immigrants, as opposed to open border immigration, are the cause of the problem?
Inquisitor:Where does Hoppe claim that immigrants, as opposed to open border immigration, are the cause of the problem?
Where is there a difference?
Hoppe wrote:The first error in this line of reasoning can be readily identified.Once the welfare states have collapsed under their own weight, themasses of immigrants who have brought this about are still there. Theyhave not been miraculously transformed into Swiss, Austrians, Bavariansor Lombards, but remain what they are: Zulus, Hindus, Ibos,Albanians, or Bangladeshis. Assimilation can work when the numberof immigrants is small. It is entirely impossible, however, if immigrationoccurs on a mass scale. In that case, immigrants will simplytrans-port their own ethno-culture onto the new territory.
Inquisitor:Blaming the welfare state does not entail blaming those who are on welfare, at least not necessarily. Similarly, blaming the state for its poor management of public property and lack of discernment in allowing access to it does not entail blaming those who take advantage of this access. This should be clear enough.
Hoppe does not blame the welfare state for potential disaster coming about by the influx of immigrants, he blames the immigrants! He may blame the state as well, but fundamentally in his "natural order" he blames the immigrants for settling on unowned land - and yes, public land possesses no legitimate owner, whether or not the people paid for it is an irrelevancy, as it takes more than paying for something to own it.
Hoppe's argument stems from a kind of Anarcho-Nationalism, if that makes any sense to a reasonable human being.
The recognition of the moral status of public property as expropriatedprivate property is not just sufficient grounds for rejecting theopen border proposal as a moral outrage.
All he seems to be doing is outlining a consequence of the open borders position - I still have not seen any instance in which he places substantial blame upon the immigrant for the situation at hand.
He is an anarcho-capitalist, pure and simple.
Anarcho-nationalism. Ha.
It seems like the immigration debate and the strategy debate are crossing purposes between two different threads.
Inquisitor:All he seems to be doing is outlining a consequence of the open borders position - I still have not seen any instance in which he places substantial blame upon the immigrant for the situation at hand.He is an anarcho-capitalist, pure and simple.
Indeed, the modern State’s legitimacy is derived fromits claim to protect its citizens and their property from domestic andforeign invaders, intruders, and trespassers. Regarding foreigners,this would require that the state act like the gatekeepers in privategated communities. The State would have to check every newcomerfor an invitation and monitor his movement while en route to his finaldestination.
Gate keepers from the "invaders" the "intruders" the "unwanted."What bullshit. Who's unwanted? Why? Does it matter? No. (A) Public land is unowned land. (B) The nationalization process by which Rothbard and Hoppe adhere to through dilluting the state and morally fixing people to the public property that they paid for in their region forever in shares is ridiculous and unattainable. You can not own a city unless you homesteaded the very ground you walk on before anyone else could do it. (C) Not all land is owned. (D) You do not own the atmosphere you reside in. You own your property, and your property alone. You don't like the Zulus coming into Johnson's store? Then move, you old, German ***.