I’ll tell ya. It’s cool how after a time of holding a standard of belief there is still more to learn to make one refine and rethink said beliefs. Great talk!
Thank you for coming out in support of Nationalists on this particular topic Lew. We do appreciate that you took the time to speak openly about this to clarify to Libertarians why some of the positions they hold are untenable to us Nationalists. While we don't all agree on everything, we are still all in this together. A free prosperous society can not exist if it's being used to fund it's own destruction.
+Joe11Blue Although I gave you a thumbs up, be advised that by no means does Lew support "nationalism." He supports PROPERTY RIGHTS in an anarcho-capitalist society. He is saying that only through the process of decentralization can this problem ultimately be solved and completely new societies be formed which will deal with this issue in any way they choose. In case there are any doubts, this means peaceful secession from the STATE.
Nationalism in the traditional sense is absolutely supported by right libertarians. The idea of unifying a nation under one democratic state has been, however, extremely destructive
Mr. Rockwell, you nailed it. I do think, though, that towns, counties and even states can come about organically in a private property libertarian environment.
They can, if we do not consider the monopolization of force a prerequisite for these, and usually i do consider it to be that for a state, a town or “city” may not have that which would be great
At 2:30 Rockwell shows a complete misunderstanding of free speech (and consequently free travel.) He mistakenly portrays it as speech *regardless of property rights,* when Rothbard and me and most libertarians see freedom of speech as meaning: You should not be prevented from speaking in any place you are *entitled* to speak. Property rights are built into the concept. Or as Rothbard put it, free speech and property rights are two sides of the same coin. Similarly, freedom of travel means people should not be prevented from traveling anywhere they are entitled to. But this objection is only semantic. If Rockwell and Hoppe want to say there is no freedom of speech, only property, that is the same as saying freedom of speech assumes property rights are respected. Rockwell> “The regime of open [turf] borders that exists de facto in the United States and Western Europe today, really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central State - in charge of all streets and public lands and public buildings - does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors. In the current situation, on the other hand, immigrants have access to public roads, public transportation, public buildings, and so on. Combine this with the State’s other curtailment of private property rights, and the result is artificial demographic shifts that would never occur in a free market.” I agree with all that. States fuck things up. Drug prohibition, frequent overseas wars, high taxes, and regulation of the market all have caused some demographic shifts that would not have occurred in a free market. What he’s saying is quite obvious, and applies generally to all government intervention. Rockwell 7:24> “A transaction between two people should not occur unless both of those people want it to.” Right on! The nub of the matter comes at 7:42. Hoppe> “There are two positions we must reject: that public property is owned by the government, or that public property is unowned, and is therefore comparable to land in the state of nature, before individual property titles to particular parcels of land have been established. Certainly we cannot say public property is owned by the government, since government may not legitimately own anything. Government acquires its property by force, usually via the intermediary of taxation. A libertarian cannot accept that kind of property acquisition as morally legitimate, since it involves the initiation of force (the extraction of tax dollars) on innocent people. Hence government’s pretended property titles are illegitimate. But neither can we say that public property is unowned. Property in the possession of a thief is not unowned, even if at the moment it does not happen to be held by the rightful owner. The same goes for so-called public property. It was purchased and developed by means of money seized from the taxpayers. They are the true owners.” Hoppe got it wrong here. Rothbard and I got it right. Hoppe assumes that the thief’s stolen loot has an identifiable owner. But most of the State’s loot is in a more fungible form, where an unknown number of people were robbed and extorted at different levels - where there is no title. Furthermore, there is statist non-property which was never homesteaded, or its original homesteaders are gone or unknown. The US did not homesteading western lands so does not validly own it. Why should existing taxpayers (or whatever the gang) receive something that was only claimed, but never properly owned? The Rothbardian theory, with which I agree, is that all but titled loot (such as homes and land taken by eminent domain, where the rightful owners are known) should be considered de facto unowned, and open for homesteading. Maybe if the State were gone and we were gleefully divvying up the carcass, the taxpayer shares idea might apply. But the State is still at large, and the Rockwell/Hoppe argument amounts to supporting State aggression in order to preserve your share of the State’s carcass when it dies. Note that Rockwell has said nothing for or against open borders. Ninety-nine percent of the listeners interpret him as being against open borders. But Rockwell cannot openly say he wants the government to arrest people without papers, because that would contradict the NAP, his libertarianism, and his cred as an anarcho-capitalist. So he hints, and everyone knows he supports the current closed border policy of acutely restricting immigration. At ten minutes in, Rothbard starts citing utilitarian reasons for his closed border policy preference, forgetting the NAP altogether. Then Rockwell gets back to talking about all the costs imposed *by the State* but which benefit immigrants. Does he blame the State? If so, he never says so. All he talks about is how the immigrants, innocent third parties, impose costs. Talk about blaming the victim! Then Rockwell talks about possible bad effects of too rapid demographic change. How Switzerland used relatively voluntary means to limit immigration. This stuff is true, but diverts from the question: Should people or governments initiate force against peaceful people to limit immigration? Should libertarians look at more direct means, like *limiting the State.* Rockwell and Hoppe are basically saying, since we are helpless against the State, we’ll kick the dog.
Thank you! The NAP / ZAP does not require us to support open borders any more than it requires us to open the doors of our home to anyone who wants in. We have too many uninformed Libertarians out there doing harm to the party by supporting open borders without proper consideration of the consequences.
+BladeforgerKLX If I want to invite a non-citizen only my private property, do you have the right to tell me I can't? If you don't, then why does the government have this right?
+Jesse Fortner Well, I live here. If you wanted to invite a person into your home, and your family objected, then you would probably go visit that person elsewhere. If it were a terrible problem, then you would be free to change your living conditions. Likewise, if you want to invite a bunch of other people to our country, then you have to fit that parameter into the immigration laws supported by the rest of the country and its citizens. Again, if that is a terrible problem, then you are free to expatriate or to go visit those people in some other country or obtain for them a travel visa to come visit for a finite period of time. That should all be common sense. If it doesn't seem so, then we might have radically different beliefs.
You may live near me, but you don't own me or my property. To what extent can my property rights be restricted by your preferences? Can you prevent me from planting trees that you don't like, for example?
You have mischaracterized the issue in the very first sentence. Libertarians are not "anti-immigration." We are against the state importing people for social and political purposes. We know very well that this is a leftist agenda aimed at amassing power via the Democrat party, increasing the welfare state, altering the culture, creating conflict, etc. The most ironic thing about these phony libertarians claiming that every society must be totally and completely open to mass immigration is that such a policy would not exist under ideal libertarian conditions. That is what Hoppe was talking about. It is absolutely absurd to suggest that some little libertarian hamlet would allow non-libertarians to walk right in. That is nonsensical in the extreme. You could never even have such a society if "open borders" was a "libertarian" principle. That "principle" destroys the whole idea of a self-governing community. People like you would give outsiders and enemies power over you and the rest of the society. This is why we understand the leftist "open borders" policy to be subversive. It is actually a leftist policy. They are always looking for new and creative ways to get people to give up their rights and to destroy their culture and civilization. This little gem strikes at the root of civilization and nationhood as it removes the ability to self-govern.
Borders around cities would be more appropriate. Cities closely resemble what a free society would look like: occupied land that was bought or homesteaded. However, the billions of acres of empty land that the govt claims as its private property is not appropriate to put a border around.
+Michael P. Shipley Upon first take I thought Lew was advocating for nationally closed borders. But I re-examined.. It seems Lew was careful here to not advocate this. People are making a mistake if that what they perceive him to be advocating. "The correct way to proceed, therefore, is to decentralize decision-making on immigration to the lowest possible level, so that we approach ever more closely the proper libertarian position, in which individual property owners consent to the various movements of peoples." - 9m49s
+Michael P. Shipley It might help to stop calling them "borders" and start calling them "property lines." In an anarcho-capitalist society, which is what Lew advocates, there WON'T BE any State, so no "borders" either. But there WILL certainly be private property, the owners of which will defend their property rights vigorously. In the end, it is all about abolishing the State and defending property rights.
Excellent talk. Why even have a country if you want open borders? A nation state is there to keep people out. The worst possible state of affairs would be to have open borders, a welfare state and no way to discriminate against people.
@Cain FAKE LIBERTARIANS DON'T BELIEVE IN ANYTHING, BECAUSE THEY'RE DUMBER THAN FUCK, REAL LIBERTARIANS UNDERSTAND THAT FOR LIBERTARIAN VALUES ARE TO THRIVE, THEY MUST BE DEFENDED ALONG WITH THEIR ENVIRONMENTS OR THEY WON'T......DUHH
Funny how Lew would never use the same principle to rationalize gun control on public property....or speech limitations, or any other regulation. His argument is, "..because private property rights would allow exclusion in Libertopia, we endorse (or at least ignore) exclusion policies enforced by the state." But ask Lew if he supports "local" gun control on public property just because a private property owner would have the right to do so. Neither Lew nor Tom Woods or Robert Murphy will answer me.
I believe in border control as a protection of private property. It's common sense. Unless there is no private property there needs to be vetting of individuals entering. But if there is no private property, that would mean no one lives there because bodies are private property also. I'm with Hans Hermann Hoppe that we need private law societies. And mutual aid societies that are subject to free markets and contractual obligation unlike the state. The state does far more harm than good.
Tucker's gone full retard. i've noticed that the closer he's gotten to DC think tanks (Mises Institute isn't one) the more he advocates politically correct positions. Sellout prick.
Absolutely. My own ideal would be to have everyone sign the rule set document before gaining entry to the region of my choice. Only in this way can I be sure that I am living among those who share my values and have voluntarily accepted the consequences of breaking the rules. The problems here come from the state giving an illusion of safety, disarming the population, and other stupidities that invite the recent problems of mass murder. Free association is the heart of libertarianism, but the NAP must be enforced to have liberty and justice. The enforcement of the NAP in this case failed terribly... poor service as expected from an enforced monopoly on force.
Public property is the property of the people of a country. Therefore the body responsible for maintaining that property has the right to protect its borders.
there'd by far less land scarcity in a rothbardian world. it'd take thousands of years for it all to be homesteaded, assuming none of its abandoned. by that time, there'll be more planets to homestead.
Why should the people of a nation not have the choice to exclude from their society, anyone without citizenship? I don't want terrorists, socialists, criminals, or unskilled laborers to live and work in my community. Is it so wrong to task the government with enforcing that wish? It isn't about public property or private property. It is about the people of the United States collectively bargaining for the entrance of those people whom they desire to associate with as a national community. I understand wanting the freedom to employ whoever you want to employ, but America is a very desirable place to live. Wouldn't it be better to keep shitty people out at the border before they become impossible to deal with? I view it as a matter of national security.
2:55 If you believe in property rights that means I can invite whomever I want onto my property and the government has no right to do anything so long as that person remains on my property
@@ericrodwell8706 why would I want to restore something that ended up here? I’m no anarcho capitalist, but that idea has been called the definition of insanity.
@@ericrodwell8706 that kind of phases me now. By if I had to get to it, some sort of Balkanization and self rule would be ideal. I don’t think we’ll have any of that and governments and mega corps will strip away at our freedoms and people will be too compliant to care
Say I'm an ancap, I buy a large number of roads which can be used to move from north to south America. I allow anyone to use it but I have cameras and methods of fining or banning people for littering or loitering, etc. That allows freedom of movement for anyone who can access the road.
Outstanding exposition of this most critically important subject, Lew! Well done. This is a beautifully reasoned discourse on a tough and controversial area of thought which has the potential to divide a lot of Libertarians, but shouldn't.
While living in se Asia, I was always asked for a passport to cash a check & had to get my Visa documents to open a bank account. The only way I could work in Thailand was to be 1, a business owner, 2. A engineer, doctor or teacher, 3 or ne retired. Labor jobs I. Most nations are for the indigenous populations of each perspective nation. In America you need to incorporate the low tech banking controls & you end most illegal entry because banking & labor jobs will not be available to illegal workers who entered illegally. It's too easy ... problem is establishment politics in both parties. Corruption fuels this illegal entry.
I don't think anyone means you have to drop all borders including private property. This is an obfuscation of the argument in favor of open federal borders.
5 років тому+1
As a liberatarian individual, while I partially agree with the welfare programs being issue in a case of mass migration, I am in profound disagreement with regards to the "cultural issues" of immigration. In essence, culture is a collection of ideas, music, food, taste in color, cloths, and personal expression. For as long as there will be human logic at work (always), the better ideas will be followed regardless of where they come from; and that is a good thing. Mr. Rockwell assertions presume that the habits and ideas within a society need time to "mature" before they can be challenged. However, if we are truly logical beings, then a logical challenge would only improve the ideas within a society, and if there is such a maturation, migrants and their fresh ideas would only hasten this maturation, and not impede it's progress. This is the same reason why we have discussions and debates in the prestigious universities, so long as the debates are civil, there will be positive outcomes one way or another. Aside from the aforementioned aspects of the "culture" of a society, what remains would be the religious and ideological beliefs of a migrant individual. Considering the diversity of a migrant population, these ideological beliefs would generally be in disagreement with each other, and, again, constructive debates would occur which improve things for the better. In short: Mass migration is not going to occur any time soon, a step-by-step liberatarian approach would go hand in hand with economic relief. As the welfare state shrinks there would be more growth, and more space for migrants. The migrants will bring new perspectives and new ideas to a society that is receptive to any good logical solution to any problem, logic will prevail and the society will improve by leaps and bounds.
The fundamental flaw in everything you said is your assumption that all humans are fundamentally equal or are rational beings who are capable of constructive debate. It's pie in the sky hippie nonsense. Tabula rasa is not true, there are differences between ethnicities and races and I don't think you grasp how alien your ideas are to most people on the planet. Welfare or no welfare, do you know what would happen if Western countries ceased to defend their borders? Chaos and conflict. Most humans are collectivist and have fierce ingroup preferences, they will seek to dominate others and control resources and they will absolutely chew up and spit out atomized individuals. No one would actually give a shit about your private property rights or the NAP.
"migrants and their fresh ideas, new perspective, improve leaps and bounds" you assume their ideas and perspectives are not thousands of years backwards.
Right, but open borders don't mean migrants are allowed to occupy your private property, just like open borders between florida and texas doesn't mean texans can occupy private properties in florida.
Literally no libertarian advocating for open borders as a means to end the state would be in favor of keeping the anti-discrimination mandates of the state with them. To suggest that open border libertarians want forced association like this is a straw man, period.
MillionthUsername false. True libertarians advocate for the LIBERTARIAN idea of open borders because it destroys the welfare state. If you're talking about "control of the state" then you are a statist and know fuck all about libertarianism.
***** I have been a libertarian for over 25 years. I know what it is. You do not. Open borders is not a libertarian idea. It's a socialist, globalist idea. Please educate yourself. You're telling me that Hillary Clinton and George Soros are pushing "LIBERTARIAN" ideas? Destroying the American system in favor of a globalist socialist order is "LIBERTARIAN"? You think the state is going to shrink due to millions more statists of a socialist bent invading and altering our political system? Pure nonsense. How does allowing massive unchecked immigration "destroy the welfare state"? It does the very opposite. It causes it to grow. We've had a southern border that has been essentially open for decades. I missed how it destroyed the welfare state. Show me. Are you specifically talking about purposely overloading the system in order to create chaos? How is that libertarian and not statist? You want MORE people on welfare in order to further TAX people, right? Because destabilizing a country is always a good thing and leads to libertarian bliss? "If you're talking about "control of the state" then you are a statist" So you want instant anarchy achieved through mass immigration from the third world and the Islamic world - and that is going to "destroy the welfare state" for you and allow a free society to develop? How does that work? Are you not advocating "control of the state" when you advocate that Americans be swamped by non-American freeloaders?
MillionthUsername no, you haven't. You've been a Republican wearing the label. Open borders is a libertarian idea because a true libertarian would say that the only legitimate borders are private property lines, with anything else being open to anyone and everyone. Nope, they aren't pushing libertarian ideas. A true libertarian idea would be destroying an American system for a stateless one, not defending the American political system that is ALREADY socialist (another thing you'd know if you were libertarian). Easy: more takers than makers, with more and more people refusing to contribute. It can't grow when you get more and more takers. No, I'm talking about more people taking in such a way that the state CANNOT tax people to fund it (because doing so would create unrest). Government isn't society, and destroying the welfare state won't wreck our society. I haven't advocated for "mass immigration" at all. You're putting those words in my mouth. Nope. I have no desire to control the state. I have an interest in dismantling it. I see that happening faster as more and more people give up on funding it. Protecting the welfare state isn't libertarian at all.
***** "Open borders is a libertarian idea because a true libertarian would say that the only legitimate borders are private property lines" Did you even read what I wrote? The world is not set up that way. We do not live in a worldwide stateless property-rights anarchy. Try addressing the actual issues.
Government "owns" unused, untouched land, and it "owns" public resources. The untouched land is truly unowned and available for the first homesteaders. The public resources are owned. People use the public resources and hard working men built them and maintain them. Public resources are obviously owned by someone. But who legitimately? Obviously it can't be the thieves who stole money to pay to have those resources built. Nor should it be those proud taxpayers who support those politicians who steal money from people (criminal accomplices). But those tax victims who were stolen from deserve restitution from the (government) thieves. The only loot the government can give without stealing more stuff is the loot it currently has, i.e., the public resources. (Printing more money is theft by inflation). Government agents are obviously thieves.* Proud taxpaying, eminent domain supporting, welfare distribution supporting voters are complicit to government crimes and don't deserve government loot. Now the immigrants, they are innocent third parties and more deserving of government loot than proud taxpayers. Innocent, that is, as long as they don't actively support politicians who oppose free markets, which is practically all politicians. In the private sector if a gang is caught with stolen goods the goods are rightfully taken from the gang and given to the victims. If the victims can't be found the loot doesn't stay with the gang members. No matter how minimal of a role an individual gangster played in the theft, no gang member should get any of the loot. The loot will be given to some innocent third party. *It's possible a government agent could be as minimally destructive as possible. That he could be less destructive than any of his replacements would be if he was to quit, and it's possible this agent never supported bad politicians (which, again, is essentially all of them). This theoretical state agent is the best kind of state agent we could have. But this is all besides the point. Also, a citizen who is a net tax consumer isn't necessarily undeserving of government property. There's nothing wrong with depleting a gang of their resources. It would only be wrong if the welfare recipient supports government theft. It could be argued that tax victims (not proud taxpayers) who are net tax "contributors" are the ones who should get rights to public property because the tax victims who get welfare are already getting some restitution.
I have two points with what I'm saying: Not all net tax "contributors" are deserving of public property. Many of them, I'd assume most, are complicit in government theft. Also, some net tax recipients can be deserving of government loot, as long as they don't support government theft. There's nothing immoral with depleting a gangs resources. Those two are similar points. My other point, more related to the border issue, immigrants who don't support government theft are more deserving of public resources than American citizen voters who support government theft.
Very disappointing talk. Would have not expected this from the Mises Institute. At 6:06 he is saying that open borders force property owners into doing business with immigrants. Sorry, there is no logical link here. Yes, the government is handing out goods to immigrants/tourists, like access to streets etc., that are funded by taxes which are maybe in part payed by permanent residents (solution being to privatize the streets etc.). But business owners can still discriminate against immigrants/tourists if they want to. If they can't, then because of nondiscrimination laws, not because of open borders. Under his logic, there should be a closed border around each state, city, neighbourhood. Because obviously a New Yorker moving to California inevitably leads to aggression against private property rights. It seems that Rockwell and at least Hoppe are just presenting their own personal preferences under the guise of libertarian principles.
No he is NOT saying that. Listen to the whole talk. He said that IN THE CURRENT POLITICAL SITUATION, ie the way it is now, open borders combined with the evil laws that forbid freedom of association, forces property owners to do business with immigrants. Lew specifically stated nondiscrimination laws. Are you purposely misrepresenting what Lew said, or are you that unable to pay attention for a mere 17 minutes? This is the kind of bs against the Mises Institute people that is so damaging to the libertarian movement.
There has always been a segment of libertarians that have been of the belief that Libertarianism only really applies or appeals to Europeans and the supremacy of European or Western culture, usually these are the "Conservative Libertarians." They are more committed to the supremacy/superiority of the West over other nations, continents, racists and maintaining it, than they are to the ideas and principles of liberty and libertarianism. Rockwell and Hoppe are definitely "Conservative Libertarians."
On the bit about roads, I heavily think that most people would allow use of the road to any passersby just as is now, because most people don't have an issue with passersby, as well as those who seek to not harm people. Being a car enthusiast, it at first make me think "Wouldn't every road be a toll road?" But then I think about the reality of things, and how most people don't wish to profit in such a manner, and cause more traffic. As well as back when drift culture was large in japan, it was illegal, but since they were peaceful and did not tarnish the community with their acts, they were celebrated for being good at a hobby. It's really funny to think that a libertarian future can be more free AND more restrictive in various ways, and I'm eager to see how this would come to fruition
If the streets were private, the owners wouldn't want marijuana to be smoked, so let's make it illegal. I agree with the basic idea, but the realization doesn't convince me.
The state makes enemies out of perfectly peacefully coexisting neighbors by subjecting them both to being taxed to support each others' socialized needs and imposing conflicting political identitied upon them based on something as arbitrary as geography. Then the same state uses this political opposition to grow itself by constantly presenting each group as an existential threat to the other. Good job giving fodder to the state for it's agenda Lew.
Open the borders, ALL the borders worldwide, not only the US borders, and we will have peace like we never had before. Just my opinion, I might be wrong, often I am.
+ZeroDebtInvestments You would just have endless wars until new ethnic borders are drawn, open borders is a recipe for the collapse of the current iteration of civil society.
This whole line of argument only works if you treat non-citizens and citizens as morally distinct. Jose is using our roads is bad, but native-born Joseph using them is not? Government forcing people do interact with those they don't like is bad, but government prohibiting them from doing business with those they like is not?
+butt shutter Afraid not. Lew references Hoppe in saying that immigrants should be made to pay taxes to compensate for their welfare if "allowed" to live in a country. He also references Switzerland's immigration policy of immigrants proving themselves useful and stated they would be culturally destroyed if they allow free immigration. At minute 6 he explains that an open border policy forces people to do business with people they wouldn't otherwise. Deist is a Trump supporter as well. This isn't the Mises Institute I used to know.
In the current system Immigrants should pay taxes if they are "allowed" to live here. But this is not what lews speach is about. Lew is a anarchist discussing private property, which includes no taxes, no forced migration, no gov welfare programs. It would be moving I havent heard lew support trump, however even if lew or deist have supported trump it is irrelevant to if what lew says is valid. Mises has many people with varying views. I think you had your mind set before watching because you seem to be mentally blocking what lews actual arguments are.
property is a cultural idea it is not universal, our idea of property comes from the roman empire. cultures that never came in contact with the roman empire have different views.
How is property a cultural idea? every culture in the world believes in property as each has a home, clothing, furniture or other things that are property.
I don't get it. All land is fenced from piece to piece and you cannot travel across the land? I subscribe to the Bible teaching. You own land and the production on that land but the borders of your land give to the traveler and the hungry. If you have an apple orchard, leave some fruit along the edges of your property for those hungry or passing through. There also needs to be a way for people that want to cultivate land that is not being cultivated to do so. Banking land and not allowing access is immoral.
The problem with prive property is that any one can claim whatever they want. The people claim their homes, the communities claim their homeland, and the state claims everything. But then the new comers can't claim anything? Why should the immigrants respect the private property laws invented y the inlands anyway? The owners of any given land took it out from someone else at some point in history. So why should we expect someone else to abide to the new rules of property we're putting forward?
Private property is a good idea as it gives you the ability to claim someone stole from you. Communities claiming their homeland is not an example of private property, it is a socialist idea.
You are fighting one evil with another evil. End the first evil, the welfare state. I am against forced immigration by the gov as we are witnessing. Yet, Rockwell goes well beyond this. And how can you speak for "the will of the people"? Sounds rather collectivist, no?
JC Webb it's not evil to restrict who can enter a place. You have the right to travel, but not the right to be accepted. In a pure libertarian society, immigration would actually be quite restricted. With the state in the mix, immigration becomes inherently nonlibertarian
+Paul von Oberstein It is evil for the gov to restrict who enters a place. The gov does not own land. They have no right to restrict who comes & goes. Private citizens, Yes. Gov, No.
JC Webb It's more than not wanting them on my property. I would want a society of people like me who value the same things as me. Because of this, the state's open-borders program (don't you ever wonder why the states are so quick to support open borders if they're supposedly libertarian?) I can't do this. If secession was allowed, then you could justify open borders in your country, but then you'd have to recognize that open borders are not a universal principle to be followed.
What if an individual want to let someone the government doesn’t want in the country onto their property? To believe in property rights means that I can invite anyone I want to on my property and the government has no right to tell me I can’t. You are not a Libertarian (big L) you are a libertarian (small l), meaning you’re a statists who agrees with some libertarian ides but are too afraid to go all the way
You are either a statist or not. Statist want to pick and choose what roles the government should feel based on their own sensitivities. I might not like open borders but I'd elect to live in an open border society if there was a guarantee that there was no state aggression of any kind. Statists like Lew Rockwell have exposed their hypocrisy complaining about everything the state does yet (through implication) advocating a state to control the movement of people across imaginary state drawn lines on a map.
How can you have norms of western Europeans if you invite in hordes of barbarians? A state's property, public property, is the rightful property of the tax payers as opposed to tax consumers. Foreigners are not tax payers. Left libertarians rely on egalitarianism which is not congruent with reality
"I'd elect to live in an open border society if there was a guarantee that there was no state aggression of any kind" How easy do you think it would be to get that guarantee from every state on the Earth? And if you did get such a guarantee, how would you prevent any states that arose after you got your guarantee from committing aggression?
+AnCap77 While I wouldn't compare it to national socialism, some of this sounds difficult to defend. The Hoppean argument that immigrants differ from imported goods in that goods, unlike immigrants, are openly invited seems stellar. What does it really mean, however? I'm European, so currently I can go live anywhere in the EU. If I can't find work, I get to go to, say, the UK. In Hoppe's world, I'd have to find a job or at least a person in the UK that would be willing to vouch for me and pay any expenses I might impose on the country before I could go there. I may have a poor imagination but it seems to me that under such a system immigration would come to a screeching halt, to the detriment of all. Merely excluding immigrants from government benefits seems much more reasonable.
+Rockownz5150 That won't work, as the US system has proved beyond any doubt. You cannot predict what will happen with immigration like that. Some individual property owners will allow it, others will not. That's the way it should be. Nobody has the right to trespass. The EU does not respect property rights. Nobody should be allowed to wander about wherever he wants like that. In an anarcho-capitalist society, you would certainly not have that right because you would soon find yourself trespassing. Do you want people trespassing on your property? Of course not! Look at the horror story taking place in Europe right now. Those hordes of foreigners trespassing on the properties of Germans (public property belongs to the people, NOT to the government) show clearly that ALL LAND NEEDS TO BE OWNED by someone. That someone should be able to prevent this unlawful, destructive type of invasion with force if necessary, but the Germans, et al., do nothing to stop them.
+Rockownz5150 I think your track is more actionable, but I'm still unsure would you ground the European style migration to obey Private Property restrictions?
+tabletalk33 Private property alone cannot prevent immigration. Private roads will have an incentive to allow immigration if the immigrant pays. Likewise, buses, trains, etc. will have an economic incentive to allow immigrants.
I’ll tell ya. It’s cool how after a time of holding a standard of belief there is still more to learn to make one refine and rethink said beliefs. Great talk!
Thank you for coming out in support of Nationalists on this particular topic Lew. We do appreciate that you took the time to speak openly about this to clarify to Libertarians why some of the positions they hold are untenable to us Nationalists. While we don't all agree on everything, we are still all in this together.
A free prosperous society can not exist if it's being used to fund it's own destruction.
+Joe11Blue Although I gave you a thumbs up, be advised that by no means does Lew support "nationalism." He supports PROPERTY RIGHTS in an anarcho-capitalist society. He is saying that only through the process of decentralization can this problem ultimately be solved and completely new societies be formed which will deal with this issue in any way they choose. In case there are any doubts, this means peaceful secession from the STATE.
tabletalk33 Modern Nationalists are pretty polycentric, and we are not dumb enough to let terrorists in our borders...
Nationalism in the traditional sense is absolutely supported by right libertarians. The idea of unifying a nation under one democratic state has been, however, extremely destructive
PROMOTE THE UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME TO REPLACE THE UNWELFARE STATE.
Mr. Rockwell, you nailed it. I do think, though, that towns, counties and even states can come about organically in a private property libertarian environment.
They can, if we do not consider the monopolization of force a prerequisite for these, and usually i do consider it to be that for a state, a town or “city” may not have that which would be great
At 2:30 Rockwell shows a complete misunderstanding of free speech (and consequently free travel.) He mistakenly portrays it as speech *regardless of property rights,* when Rothbard and me and most libertarians see freedom of speech as meaning: You should not be prevented from speaking in any place you are *entitled* to speak. Property rights are built into the concept. Or as Rothbard put it, free speech and property rights are two sides of the same coin. Similarly, freedom of travel means people should not be prevented from traveling anywhere they are entitled to. But this objection is only semantic. If Rockwell and Hoppe want to say there is no freedom of speech, only property, that is the same as saying freedom of speech assumes property rights are respected.
Rockwell> “The regime of open [turf] borders that exists de facto in the United States and Western Europe today, really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central State - in charge of all streets and public lands and public buildings - does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors. In the current situation, on the other hand, immigrants have access to public roads, public transportation, public buildings, and so on. Combine this with the State’s other curtailment of private property rights, and the result is artificial demographic shifts that would never occur in a free market.”
I agree with all that. States fuck things up. Drug prohibition, frequent overseas wars, high taxes, and regulation of the market all have caused some demographic shifts that would not have occurred in a free market. What he’s saying is quite obvious, and applies generally to all government intervention.
Rockwell 7:24> “A transaction between two people should not occur unless both of those people want it to.”
Right on!
The nub of the matter comes at 7:42.
Hoppe>
“There are two positions we must reject: that public property is owned by the government, or that public property is unowned, and is therefore comparable to land in the state of nature, before individual property titles to particular parcels of land have been established.
Certainly we cannot say public property is owned by the government, since government may not legitimately own anything. Government acquires its property by force, usually via the intermediary of taxation. A libertarian cannot accept that kind of property acquisition as morally legitimate, since it involves the initiation of force (the extraction of tax dollars) on innocent people. Hence government’s pretended property titles are illegitimate.
But neither can we say that public property is unowned. Property in the possession of a thief is not unowned, even if at the moment it does not happen to be held by the rightful owner. The same goes for so-called public property. It was purchased and developed by means of money seized from the taxpayers. They are the true owners.”
Hoppe got it wrong here. Rothbard and I got it right. Hoppe assumes that the thief’s stolen loot has an identifiable owner. But most of the State’s loot is in a more fungible form, where an unknown number of people were robbed and extorted at different levels - where there is no title. Furthermore, there is statist non-property which was never homesteaded, or its original homesteaders are gone or unknown. The US did not homesteading western lands so does not validly own it. Why should existing taxpayers (or whatever the gang) receive something that was only claimed, but never properly owned?
The Rothbardian theory, with which I agree, is that all but titled loot (such as homes and land taken by eminent domain, where the rightful owners are known) should be considered de facto unowned, and open for homesteading.
Maybe if the State were gone and we were gleefully divvying up the carcass, the taxpayer shares idea might apply. But the State is still at large, and the Rockwell/Hoppe argument amounts to supporting State aggression in order to preserve your share of the State’s carcass when it dies.
Note that Rockwell has said nothing for or against open borders. Ninety-nine percent of the listeners interpret him as being against open borders. But Rockwell cannot openly say he wants the government to arrest people without papers, because that would contradict the NAP, his libertarianism, and his cred as an anarcho-capitalist. So he hints, and everyone knows he supports the current closed border policy of acutely restricting immigration.
At ten minutes in, Rothbard starts citing utilitarian reasons for his closed border policy preference, forgetting the NAP altogether.
Then Rockwell gets back to talking about all the costs imposed *by the State* but which benefit immigrants. Does he blame the State? If so, he never says so. All he talks about is how the immigrants, innocent third parties, impose costs. Talk about blaming the victim!
Then Rockwell talks about possible bad effects of too rapid demographic change. How Switzerland used relatively voluntary means to limit immigration. This stuff is true, but diverts from the question: Should people or governments initiate force against peaceful people to limit immigration? Should libertarians look at more direct means, like *limiting the State.* Rockwell and Hoppe are basically saying, since we are helpless against the State, we’ll kick the dog.
Remember, there's a difference between illegal and and legal immigration.
Thank you! The NAP / ZAP does not require us to support open borders any more than it requires us to open the doors of our home to anyone who wants in. We have too many uninformed Libertarians out there doing harm to the party by supporting open borders without proper consideration of the consequences.
+BladeforgerKLX If I want to invite a non-citizen only my private property, do you have the right to tell me I can't? If you don't, then why does the government have this right?
+Jesse Fortner Well, I live here. If you wanted to invite a person into your home, and your family objected, then you would probably go visit that person elsewhere. If it were a terrible problem, then you would be free to change your living conditions. Likewise, if you want to invite a bunch of other people to our country, then you have to fit that parameter into the immigration laws supported by the rest of the country and its citizens. Again, if that is a terrible problem, then you are free to expatriate or to go visit those people in some other country or obtain for them a travel visa to come visit for a finite period of time. That should all be common sense. If it doesn't seem so, then we might have radically different beliefs.
You may live near me, but you don't own me or my property. To what extent can my property rights be restricted by your preferences? Can you prevent me from planting trees that you don't like, for example?
Agree. Hoppe to me is a right wing social contract theorist.
You have mischaracterized the issue in the very first sentence. Libertarians are not "anti-immigration." We are against the state importing people for social and political purposes. We know very well that this is a leftist agenda aimed at amassing power via the Democrat party, increasing the welfare state, altering the culture, creating conflict, etc.
The most ironic thing about these phony libertarians claiming that every society must be totally and completely open to mass immigration is that such a policy would not exist under ideal libertarian conditions. That is what Hoppe was talking about. It is absolutely absurd to suggest that some little libertarian hamlet would allow non-libertarians to walk right in. That is nonsensical in the extreme.
You could never even have such a society if "open borders" was a "libertarian" principle. That "principle" destroys the whole idea of a self-governing community. People like you would give outsiders and enemies power over you and the rest of the society. This is why we understand the leftist "open borders" policy to be subversive. It is actually a leftist policy. They are always looking for new and creative ways to get people to give up their rights and to destroy their culture and civilization. This little gem strikes at the root of civilization and nationhood as it removes the ability to self-govern.
Borders around cities would be more appropriate. Cities closely resemble what a free society would look like: occupied land that was bought or homesteaded. However, the billions of acres of empty land that the govt claims as its private property is not appropriate to put a border around.
+Michael P. Shipley Upon first take I thought Lew was advocating for nationally closed borders. But I re-examined.. It seems Lew was careful here to not advocate this. People are making a mistake if that what they perceive him to be advocating.
"The correct way to proceed, therefore, is to decentralize decision-making on immigration to the lowest possible level, so that we approach ever more closely the proper libertarian position, in which individual property owners consent to the various movements of peoples." - 9m49s
+Michael P. Shipley It might help to stop calling them "borders" and start calling them "property lines." In an anarcho-capitalist society, which is what Lew advocates, there WON'T BE any State, so no "borders" either. But there WILL certainly be private property, the owners of which will defend their property rights vigorously. In the end, it is all about abolishing the State and defending property rights.
Excellent talk.
Why even have a country if you want open borders?
A nation state is there to keep people out.
The worst possible state of affairs would be to have open borders, a welfare state and no way to discriminate against people.
@Cain FAKE LIBERTARIANS DON'T BELIEVE IN ANYTHING, BECAUSE THEY'RE DUMBER THAN FUCK, REAL LIBERTARIANS UNDERSTAND THAT FOR LIBERTARIAN VALUES ARE TO THRIVE, THEY MUST BE DEFENDED ALONG WITH THEIR ENVIRONMENTS OR THEY WON'T......DUHH
"Why even have a country if you want open borders? "< indeed, libertarians dont have countries.
Close all borders
Funny how Lew would never use the same principle to rationalize gun control on public property....or speech limitations, or any other regulation.
His argument is, "..because private property rights would allow exclusion in Libertopia, we endorse (or at least ignore) exclusion policies enforced by the state."
But ask Lew if he supports "local" gun control on public property just because a private property owner would have the right to do so.
Neither Lew nor Tom Woods or Robert Murphy will answer me.
I believe in border control as a protection of private property. It's common sense. Unless there is no private property there needs to be vetting of individuals entering. But if there is no private property, that would mean no one lives there because bodies are private property also.
I'm with Hans Hermann Hoppe that we need private law societies. And mutual aid societies that are subject to free markets and contractual obligation unlike the state. The state does far more harm than good.
6:08 how can these “artificial demographic shifts” be corrected?
Could somebody please show this to Jeffrey Tucker?!
And Ben Powell
Tucker's gone full retard. i've noticed that the closer he's gotten to DC think tanks (Mises Institute isn't one) the more he advocates politically correct positions. Sellout prick.
Walter Block also needs to watch this.
Mr. Rockwell is one of my heroes. A true intellectual giant among us. His point about free speech and private property rights is absolutely brilliant.
Absolutely. My own ideal would be to have everyone sign the rule set document before gaining entry to the region of my choice. Only in this way can I be sure that I am living among those who share my values and have voluntarily accepted the consequences of breaking the rules. The problems here come from the state giving an illusion of safety, disarming the population, and other stupidities that invite the recent problems of mass murder.
Free association is the heart of libertarianism, but the NAP must be enforced to have liberty and justice. The enforcement of the NAP in this case failed terribly... poor service as expected from an enforced monopoly on force.
The only borders you should be able to enforce are the ones around your property.
Public property is the property of the people of a country. Therefore the body responsible for maintaining that property has the right to protect its borders.
Your right to exclude ends at your property line.
Even in the private property world, most of the land will not be homesteaded yet.
there'd by far less land scarcity in a rothbardian world. it'd take thousands of years for it all to be homesteaded, assuming none of its abandoned. by that time, there'll be more planets to homestead.
@@gabrieleberle4422 Yep. So, human mobility will not be and cannot be limited by property owners, by far.
Why should the people of a nation not have the choice to exclude from their society, anyone without citizenship? I don't want terrorists, socialists, criminals, or unskilled laborers to live and work in my community. Is it so wrong to task the government with enforcing that wish? It isn't about public property or private property. It is about the people of the United States collectively bargaining for the entrance of those people whom they desire to associate with as a national community. I understand wanting the freedom to employ whoever you want to employ, but America is a very desirable place to live. Wouldn't it be better to keep shitty people out at the border before they become impossible to deal with? I view it as a matter of national security.
Why is he keeping my friends and family {international} from visiting me on my property? Or am I misunderstanding him?
Can I get an answer?
@@jgreaders2451 non
This is fantastic
Very good speech. I hope to make a video about this soon.
2:55 If you believe in property rights that means I can invite whomever I want onto my property and the government has no right to do anything so long as that person remains on my property
Brett Mcclain nope because it’s my property and as long as I’m not violating the non aggression principle I should be able to do as I please
Neil Stone libertarians that think libertarianism ends with the NAP are the worst kind and will make libertarianism extinct in my lifetime
@@ericrodwell8706 constitutionalism failed already
@@ericrodwell8706 why would I want to restore something that ended up here? I’m no anarcho capitalist, but that idea has been called the definition of insanity.
@@ericrodwell8706 that kind of phases me now. By if I had to get to it, some sort of Balkanization and self rule would be ideal. I don’t think we’ll have any of that and governments and mega corps will strip away at our freedoms and people will be too compliant to care
This is really good intellect. Thanks, Lew!
Say I'm an ancap, I buy a large number of roads which can be used to move from north to south America. I allow anyone to use it but I have cameras and methods of fining or banning people for littering or loitering, etc. That allows freedom of movement for anyone who can access the road.
No open boarders!
Outstanding exposition of this most critically important subject, Lew! Well done. This is a beautifully reasoned discourse on a tough and controversial area of thought which has the potential to divide a lot of Libertarians, but shouldn't.
I don't get why some libertarians think that every third party has the right to step on private property.
It's actually statists like Democrats and Republicans who believe that
@@GonzaReformado plenty of self-identifying left-libertarians on Twitter have no concept of property rights either.
While living in se Asia, I was always asked for a passport to cash a check & had to get my Visa documents to open a bank account. The only way I could work in Thailand was to be 1, a business owner, 2. A engineer, doctor or teacher, 3 or ne retired. Labor jobs I. Most nations are for the indigenous populations of each perspective nation. In America you need to incorporate the low tech banking controls & you end most illegal entry because banking & labor jobs will not be available to illegal workers who entered illegally. It's too easy ... problem is establishment politics in both parties. Corruption fuels this illegal entry.
I don't think anyone means you have to drop all borders including private property. This is an obfuscation of the argument in favor of open federal borders.
As a liberatarian individual, while I partially agree with the welfare programs being issue in a case of mass migration, I am in profound disagreement with regards to the "cultural issues" of immigration. In essence, culture is a collection of ideas, music, food, taste in color, cloths, and personal expression. For as long as there will be human logic at work (always), the better ideas will be followed regardless of where they come from; and that is a good thing. Mr. Rockwell assertions presume that the habits and ideas within a society need time to "mature" before they can be challenged. However, if we are truly logical beings, then a logical challenge would only improve the ideas within a society, and if there is such a maturation, migrants and their fresh ideas would only hasten this maturation, and not impede it's progress. This is the same reason why we have discussions and debates in the prestigious universities, so long as the debates are civil, there will be positive outcomes one way or another.
Aside from the aforementioned aspects of the "culture" of a society, what remains would be the religious and ideological beliefs of a migrant individual. Considering the diversity of a migrant population, these ideological beliefs would generally be in disagreement with each other, and, again, constructive debates would occur which improve things for the better.
In short: Mass migration is not going to occur any time soon, a step-by-step liberatarian approach would go hand in hand with economic relief. As the welfare state shrinks there would be more growth, and more space for migrants. The migrants will bring new perspectives and new ideas to a society that is receptive to any good logical solution to any problem, logic will prevail and the society will improve by leaps and bounds.
The fundamental flaw in everything you said is your assumption that all humans are fundamentally equal or are rational beings who are capable of constructive debate. It's pie in the sky hippie nonsense. Tabula rasa is not true, there are differences between ethnicities and races and I don't think you grasp how alien your ideas are to most people on the planet.
Welfare or no welfare, do you know what would happen if Western countries ceased to defend their borders? Chaos and conflict. Most humans are collectivist and have fierce ingroup preferences, they will seek to dominate others and control resources and they will absolutely chew up and spit out atomized individuals. No one would actually give a shit about your private property rights or the NAP.
"migrants and their fresh ideas, new perspective, improve leaps and bounds" you assume their ideas and perspectives are not thousands of years backwards.
He couldn’t have just boiled it down to: “Let localities decide their own immigration policies”?
Right, but open borders don't mean migrants are allowed to occupy your private property, just like open borders between florida and texas doesn't mean texans can occupy private properties in florida.
Open borders is not a left libertarian position.
2:28 who owns the church?
> Be an anarchist
> Defend political lines
Pick one, statist
^
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This was extremely helpful.
Very thought provoking.
Literally no libertarian advocating for open borders as a means to end the state would be in favor of keeping the anti-discrimination mandates of the state with them. To suggest that open border libertarians want forced association like this is a straw man, period.
So-called "libertarians" who advocate for the leftist policy of open borders are simply enabling the anti-capitalists to gain control of the state.
MillionthUsername false. True libertarians advocate for the LIBERTARIAN idea of open borders because it destroys the welfare state. If you're talking about "control of the state" then you are a statist and know fuck all about libertarianism.
***** I have been a libertarian for over 25 years. I know what it is. You do not. Open borders is not a libertarian idea. It's a socialist, globalist idea. Please educate yourself.
You're telling me that Hillary Clinton and George Soros are pushing "LIBERTARIAN" ideas? Destroying the American system in favor of a globalist socialist order is "LIBERTARIAN"? You think the state is going to shrink due to millions more statists of a socialist bent invading and altering our political system? Pure nonsense.
How does allowing massive unchecked immigration "destroy the welfare state"? It does the very opposite. It causes it to grow. We've had a southern border that has been essentially open for decades. I missed how it destroyed the welfare state. Show me.
Are you specifically talking about purposely overloading the system in order to create chaos? How is that libertarian and not statist? You want MORE people on welfare in order to further TAX people, right? Because destabilizing a country is always a good thing and leads to libertarian bliss?
"If you're talking about "control of the state" then you are a statist"
So you want instant anarchy achieved through mass immigration from the third world and the Islamic world - and that is going to "destroy the welfare state" for you and allow a free society to develop? How does that work?
Are you not advocating "control of the state" when you advocate that Americans be swamped by non-American freeloaders?
MillionthUsername no, you haven't. You've been a Republican wearing the label. Open borders is a libertarian idea because a true libertarian would say that the only legitimate borders are private property lines, with anything else being open to anyone and everyone.
Nope, they aren't pushing libertarian ideas. A true libertarian idea would be destroying an American system for a stateless one, not defending the American political system that is ALREADY socialist (another thing you'd know if you were libertarian).
Easy: more takers than makers, with more and more people refusing to contribute. It can't grow when you get more and more takers.
No, I'm talking about more people taking in such a way that the state CANNOT tax people to fund it (because doing so would create unrest). Government isn't society, and destroying the welfare state won't wreck our society.
I haven't advocated for "mass immigration" at all. You're putting those words in my mouth.
Nope. I have no desire to control the state. I have an interest in dismantling it. I see that happening faster as more and more people give up on funding it. Protecting the welfare state isn't libertarian at all.
*****
"Open borders is a libertarian idea because a true libertarian would say that the only legitimate borders are private property lines"
Did you even read what I wrote? The world is not set up that way. We do not live in a worldwide stateless property-rights anarchy. Try addressing the actual issues.
Government "owns" unused, untouched land, and it "owns" public resources. The untouched land is truly unowned and available for the first homesteaders. The public resources are owned. People use the public resources and hard working men built them and maintain them. Public resources are obviously owned by someone. But who legitimately? Obviously it can't be the thieves who stole money to pay to have those resources built. Nor should it be those proud taxpayers who support those politicians who steal money from people (criminal accomplices). But those tax victims who were stolen from deserve restitution from the (government) thieves. The only loot the government can give without stealing more stuff is the loot it currently has, i.e., the public resources. (Printing more money is theft by inflation).
Government agents are obviously thieves.*
Proud taxpaying, eminent domain supporting, welfare distribution supporting voters are complicit to government crimes and don't deserve government loot.
Now the immigrants, they are innocent third parties and more deserving of government loot than proud taxpayers. Innocent, that is, as long as they don't actively support politicians who oppose free markets, which is practically all politicians.
In the private sector if a gang is caught with stolen goods the goods are rightfully taken from the gang and given to the victims. If the victims can't be found the loot doesn't stay with the gang members. No matter how minimal of a role an individual gangster played in the theft, no gang member should get any of the loot. The loot will be given to some innocent third party.
*It's possible a government agent could be as minimally destructive as possible. That he could be less destructive than any of his replacements would be if he was to quit, and it's possible this agent never supported bad politicians (which, again, is essentially all of them). This theoretical state agent is the best kind of state agent we could have. But this is all besides the point.
Also, a citizen who is a net tax consumer isn't necessarily undeserving of government property. There's nothing wrong with depleting a gang of their resources. It would only be wrong if the welfare recipient supports government theft. It could be argued that tax victims (not proud taxpayers) who are net tax "contributors" are the ones who should get rights to public property because the tax victims who get welfare are already getting some restitution.
I have two points with what I'm saying:
Not all net tax "contributors" are deserving of public property. Many of them, I'd assume most, are complicit in government theft. Also, some net tax recipients can be deserving of government loot, as long as they don't support government theft. There's nothing immoral with depleting a gangs resources. Those two are similar points.
My other point, more related to the border issue, immigrants who don't support government theft are more deserving of public resources than American citizen voters who support government theft.
What the fuck happened to Lew Rockwell? :(
Very disappointing talk. Would have not expected this from the Mises Institute. At 6:06 he is saying that open borders force property owners into doing business with immigrants. Sorry, there is no logical link here. Yes, the government is handing out goods to immigrants/tourists, like access to streets etc., that are funded by taxes which are maybe in part payed by permanent residents (solution being to privatize the streets etc.). But business owners can still discriminate against immigrants/tourists if they want to. If they can't, then because of nondiscrimination laws, not because of open borders. Under his logic, there should be a closed border around each state, city, neighbourhood. Because obviously a New Yorker moving to California inevitably leads to aggression against private property rights.
It seems that Rockwell and at least Hoppe are just presenting their own personal preferences under the guise of libertarian principles.
No he is NOT saying that. Listen to the whole talk. He said that IN THE CURRENT POLITICAL SITUATION, ie the way it is now, open borders combined with the evil laws that forbid freedom of association, forces property owners to do business with immigrants. Lew specifically stated nondiscrimination laws.
Are you purposely misrepresenting what Lew said, or are you that unable to pay attention for a mere 17 minutes?
This is the kind of bs against the Mises Institute people that is so damaging to the libertarian movement.
There has always been a segment of libertarians that have been of the belief that Libertarianism only really applies or appeals to Europeans and the supremacy of European or Western culture, usually these are the "Conservative Libertarians." They are more committed to the supremacy/superiority of the West over other nations, continents, racists and maintaining it, than they are to the ideas and principles of liberty and libertarianism.
Rockwell and Hoppe are definitely "Conservative Libertarians."
On the bit about roads, I heavily think that most people would allow use of the road to any passersby just as is now, because most people don't have an issue with passersby, as well as those who seek to not harm people.
Being a car enthusiast, it at first make me think "Wouldn't every road be a toll road?"
But then I think about the reality of things, and how most people don't wish to profit in such a manner, and cause more traffic. As well as back when drift culture was large in japan, it was illegal, but since they were peaceful and did not tarnish the community with their acts, they were celebrated for being good at a hobby.
It's really funny to think that a libertarian future can be more free AND more restrictive in various ways, and I'm eager to see how this would come to fruition
This would not work in practice.
Close the borders, open the bar.
🤣
If the streets were private, the owners wouldn't want marijuana to be smoked, so let's make it illegal. I agree with the basic idea, but the realization doesn't convince me.
The state makes enemies out of perfectly peacefully coexisting neighbors by subjecting them both to being taxed to support each others' socialized needs and imposing conflicting political identitied upon them based on something as arbitrary as geography.
Then the same state uses this political opposition to grow itself by constantly presenting each group as an existential threat to the other.
Good job giving fodder to the state for it's agenda Lew.
Open the borders, ALL the borders worldwide, not only the US borders, and we will have peace like we never had before. Just my opinion, I might be wrong, often I am.
+ZeroDebtInvestments You would just have endless wars until new ethnic borders are drawn, open borders is a recipe for the collapse of the current iteration of civil society.
Left Libertarians....lolz
They're even more annoying than Left Progressives.
Thank you !!
I’m in favour of open borders for all non-criminals once the welfare state has been abolished
I see what you did there lol
And when those immigrants outnumber the natives and vote to re-establish the welfare state??
Why does he continue to use the word "libertarian"?
I have lots of respect for Lew. But, how can you blame the human right to mobility on the problems created by the state?
*YES!!!*
excelent
Long live democratic socialism and freedom
This whole line of argument only works if you treat non-citizens and citizens as morally distinct. Jose is using our roads is bad, but native-born Joseph using them is not? Government forcing people do interact with those they don't like is bad, but government prohibiting them from doing business with those they like is not?
+Jesse Fortner citizens of what? he is advocating private property. government would "own" no land or roads. Lew is a anarchist
+butt shutter No, Lew is blaming immigrants for the welfare state culture destroying the U.S. rather than the government.
He never said anything even close to that. you are creating a hell of a straw man.
+butt shutter Afraid not. Lew references Hoppe in saying that immigrants should be made to pay taxes to compensate for their welfare if "allowed" to live in a country. He also references Switzerland's immigration policy of immigrants proving themselves useful and stated they would be culturally destroyed if they allow free immigration. At minute 6 he explains that an open border policy forces people to do business with people they wouldn't otherwise. Deist is a Trump supporter as well.
This isn't the Mises Institute I used to know.
In the current system Immigrants should pay taxes if they are "allowed" to live here.
But this is not what lews speach is about. Lew is a anarchist discussing private property, which includes no taxes, no forced migration, no gov welfare programs. It would be moving
I havent heard lew support trump, however even if lew or deist have supported trump it is irrelevant to if what lew says is valid.
Mises has many people with varying views. I think you had your mind set before watching because you seem to be mentally blocking what lews actual arguments are.
property is a cultural idea it is not universal, our idea of property comes from the roman empire. cultures that never came in contact with the roman empire have different views.
Gimme your phone then. I need it more than you.
How is property a cultural idea? every culture in the world believes in property as each has a home, clothing, furniture or other things that are property.
Only to the extent that theft is a cultural idea
oo
I don't get it. All land is fenced from piece to piece and you cannot travel across the land? I subscribe to the Bible teaching. You own land and the production on that land but the borders of your land give to the traveler and the hungry. If you have an apple orchard, leave some fruit along the edges of your property for those hungry or passing through. There also needs to be a way for people that want to cultivate land that is not being cultivated to do so. Banking land and not allowing access is immoral.
Why should I want a immigrate walk on the sidewalk my tax dollar paid for . It's the same as a immigrate walking into your house .
The problem with prive property is that any one can claim whatever they want. The people claim their homes, the communities claim their homeland, and the state claims everything. But then the new comers can't claim anything? Why should the immigrants respect the private property laws invented y the inlands anyway? The owners of any given land took it out from someone else at some point in history. So why should we expect someone else to abide to the new rules of property we're putting forward?
Because immigrants are moving to a developed land, the people who originally took claim had to develop it. Even land taken from native Americans.
Private property is a good idea as it gives you the ability to claim someone stole from you. Communities claiming their homeland is not an example of private property, it is a socialist idea.
I just cannot get behind legitimizing the state's aggression. Very disappointing...
You are fighting one evil with another evil. End the first evil, the welfare state.
I am against forced immigration by the gov as we are witnessing. Yet, Rockwell goes well beyond this. And how can you speak for "the will of the people"? Sounds rather collectivist, no?
JC Webb
it's not evil to restrict who can enter a place. You have the right to travel, but not the right to be accepted. In a pure libertarian society, immigration would actually be quite restricted. With the state in the mix, immigration becomes inherently nonlibertarian
+Paul von Oberstein It is evil for the gov to restrict who enters a place. The gov does not own land. They have no right to restrict who comes & goes. Private citizens, Yes. Gov, No.
+Paul von Oberstein If you do not want them on your property. Don't invite them.
JC Webb
It's more than not wanting them on my property. I would want a society of people like me who value the same things as me. Because of this, the state's open-borders program (don't you ever wonder why the states are so quick to support open borders if they're supposedly libertarian?) I can't do this. If secession was allowed, then you could justify open borders in your country, but then you'd have to recognize that open borders are not a universal principle to be followed.
What if an individual want to let someone the government doesn’t want in the country onto their property? To believe in property rights means that I can invite anyone I want to on my property and the government has no right to tell me I can’t. You are not a Libertarian (big L) you are a libertarian (small l), meaning you’re a statists who agrees with some libertarian ides but are too afraid to go all the way
The State owns everything by definition.
You are either a statist or not. Statist want to pick and choose what roles the government should feel based on their own sensitivities. I might not like open borders but I'd elect to live in an open border society if there was a guarantee that there was no state aggression of any kind. Statists like Lew Rockwell have exposed their hypocrisy complaining about everything the state does yet (through implication) advocating a state to control the movement of people across imaginary state drawn lines on a map.
Do you close your door at night or are you a statist too?
How can you have norms of western Europeans if you invite in hordes of barbarians? A state's property, public property, is the rightful property of the tax payers as opposed to tax consumers. Foreigners are not tax payers. Left libertarians rely on egalitarianism which is not congruent with reality
"I'd elect to live in an open border society" you assume you could live in one. that is one mighty assumption.
"I'd elect to live in an open border society if there was a guarantee that there was no state aggression of any kind"
How easy do you think it would be to get that guarantee from every state on the Earth? And if you did get such a guarantee, how would you prevent any states that arose after you got your guarantee from committing aggression?
Those times when an AnCap sounds more like a NatSoc.
+AnCap77
While I wouldn't compare it to national socialism, some of this sounds difficult to defend. The Hoppean argument that immigrants differ from imported goods in that goods, unlike immigrants, are openly invited seems stellar. What does it really mean, however?
I'm European, so currently I can go live anywhere in the EU. If I can't find work, I get to go to, say, the UK. In Hoppe's world, I'd have to find a job or at least a person in the UK that would be willing to vouch for me and pay any expenses I might impose on the country before I could go there. I may have a poor imagination but it seems to me that under such a system immigration would come to a screeching halt, to the detriment of all.
Merely excluding immigrants from government benefits seems much more reasonable.
+Rockownz5150 That won't work, as the US system has proved beyond any doubt. You cannot predict what will happen with immigration like that. Some individual property owners will allow it, others will not. That's the way it should be. Nobody has the right to trespass. The EU does not respect property rights. Nobody should be allowed to wander about wherever he wants like that. In an anarcho-capitalist society, you would certainly not have that right because you would soon find yourself trespassing. Do you want people trespassing on your property? Of course not! Look at the horror story taking place in Europe right now. Those hordes of foreigners trespassing on the properties of Germans (public property belongs to the people, NOT to the government) show clearly that ALL LAND NEEDS TO BE OWNED by someone. That someone should be able to prevent this unlawful, destructive type of invasion with force if necessary, but the Germans, et al., do nothing to stop them.
+Rockownz5150 I think your track is more actionable, but I'm still unsure would you ground the European style migration to obey Private Property restrictions?
+tabletalk33 Private property alone cannot prevent immigration. Private roads will have an incentive to allow immigration if the immigrant pays. Likewise, buses, trains, etc. will have an economic incentive to allow immigrants.
SocialCreature That's true. That's why each sovereigns needs the ability to stop trespassers.
GO TRUMP.