Alex, I like Bob and listen to his and the SOHO podcasts. I also have read Hans a little on this issue ("Democracy: the god that failed", etc.) and was not convinced by his arguments, but agree with David Bier and your take on immigration. I enjoyed your debate with Dave, but I agree with you that Bob got sloppy on his research and critique for his podcast episode, and was wrong. I did not envy you in the debate with a comedian who is a tough debater and was clearly popular with that audience, but you did well. At least it was not as hostile as some of David and your congressional committee appearances that I have watched. Keep up the good fight!
I assume Dave’s argument re: public roads is extrapolated from Block (1998; https://cdn.mises.org/13_2_4_0.pdf), who argued that public property is de facto unowned for homesteading purposes.
> In our debate, Smith made the point that believers of free immigration must let people camp in the middle of the public roads to be logically consistent. Why? It’s a little hazy, but something about how the government must allow anybody to go on public property at any time to do anything. Well, as a supporter of free immigration, I can tell you that we do not support that, and it doesn't follow that we must.
You should try to understand the argument before waving your hand and dismissing it.
I guess that something that someone should ask Dave Smith and Bob Murphy is, if they think that nations are , somehow, a sort of public property collectively owned by taxpayers, why shouldn’t that imply that all of the land, factories and productive property in general is also collectively owned and, therefore, taxpayers “have a say” in how to administer it and if the vast majority says that that public property has to be administered this way or that one, then the government must follow the majority’s opinion.
Alex fancies himself to be the principled torch-carrier for libertarian principles, but in fact it turns out that either he doesn't really understand the implications of those principles, or he is happy to simply dispense with them when they don't produce the (immigration) outcomes he desires, rendering him to be not quire the torch bearer he thinks himself to be. The right to freedom of association is a cornerstone of libertarian principles, and while Alex would undoubtedly make the claim that what he calls "free immigration" is the logical consequence of that principle, given the fact that the vast majority of his fellow citizens oppose it, his insistence that a failure to adopt it represents a violation of his rights is in fact a rejection of the principle.
The question we need to ask is a very basic one: Do two or more people have the right to form an association together, and to govern that association in whatever manner they see fit? The libertarian answer to that question is an easy and obvious one: Yes. Once we accept that simple libertarian principle, it is impossible to logic oneself into Alex's position that restrictions on immigration represent a violation of the rights of citizens, much less the absurdity that they violate the rights of would-be-immigrants themselves.
The US is, in libertarian terms, simply an association of people, much like, say, a private golf club. No libertarian worth the name would say that the members of Augusta National have no right to decide who they will and will not accept into the club as members, nor that they have no right to establish restrictions on who members are allowed to bring in as guests. Nor would they argue that the membership has no right to establish a means of making the rules (like, for example, electing a membership committee) or to enforce those rules, by force if necessary.
But somehow, Alex thinks that this principle that applies to associations like Augusta National are somehow not applicable to associations like the United States. Why?
One reason, I suspect, is that he doesn't find the solution to his disagreement with the rules of membership very palatable. Of course not everyone in a given association is going to agree with or approve of every decision made by their fellow members, a truism that only grows with the number of members. But mere disagreement with those decisions does not render them to be a rights violation. The libertarian solution for a member of Augusta National that finds himself adamantly opposed to the new members or guest rules is not to go around accusing his fellow members of violating his rights. It is to try to convince his fellow members that the club would be better off if the rules were changed or, if that fails, to withdraw from membership, form his own club, and establish whatever rules he desires.
Of course, this same libertarian solution applies to those US citizens who do not like the new members or guest rules that the vast majority of their fellow members have established. And to be fair to Alex, he does spend some time trying to convince us all that we would be better off if we adopted his "free immigration" policy. But, failing the success of that effort (and it is destined to fail), the proper libertarian solution is to either accept the cost/benefit tradeoff, or withdraw from membership, ie secede, and form his own nation - er, country - with like minded individuals, and have whatever immigration policies he desires.
The problem, it seems, is that, although Alex is unable to convince his fellow members of the ostensible benefits of "free immigration", he also isn't willing to avail himself of the principled libertarian solution to his dilemma, ie either accept the cost/benefit tradeoff of being a member, or quit and join/form an association with rules more to his liking. And that, I am afraid, makes his claim to principled libertarianism a rather weak one.
The case for free immigration is very simple. If I want to hire someone or rent out a property to someone, I should be able to do so regardless of the nation they are from. I don't care about what "my fellow citizens" have to say about it, because they are not the property owner.
And I am not sure why you put "my fellow citizens" in scare quotes. Are you disputing the fact that you are in an association, known as the United States, with other people? Or that the term we use for members of such an association is "citizen"?
In any event, you aren't actually addressing my argument. You are ignoring it. I don't dispute your right as a sovereign individual to hire or rent out your property to anyone of your choosing. What I dispute is your right, as a voluntary member of an association, to flout the rules of that association. You have every right to do whatever you want with your property. But the rest of us have every right to form an association that restricts what its members do with their property.
If you are not willing to accept the conditions of membership, then the solution
is to give up the benefits of membership and cease being a member. But you have no right to ignore the conditions of membership while also claiming a right to the benefits of membership. I fully support your right to secede from the US and establish whatever rules of immigration to the land of Sai that you desire. This is how libertarian principles apply to the situation.
I never formed a binding restrictive association with you. This is my property and we have never agreed to anything. You telling me to leave doesn't change this
I never said you "formed" anything with me or anyone else. I don't know whether you are a US citizen, or, if you are, exactly how you became a US citizen, but if you are you most likely you were born into it. And the fact that you acquired membership into the association naturally as a consequence of your birth rather than having chosen to be a member is neither here nor there. I fully support your right to disavow membership and to cease to avail yourself of the benefits of membership any time you want. But as long as you remain a member, and as long as you continue to accrue the benefits of membership, then you have no right to ignore the requirements and restrictions of being a member.
Alex, I like Bob and listen to his and the SOHO podcasts. I also have read Hans a little on this issue ("Democracy: the god that failed", etc.) and was not convinced by his arguments, but agree with David Bier and your take on immigration. I enjoyed your debate with Dave, but I agree with you that Bob got sloppy on his research and critique for his podcast episode, and was wrong. I did not envy you in the debate with a comedian who is a tough debater and was clearly popular with that audience, but you did well. At least it was not as hostile as some of David and your congressional committee appearances that I have watched. Keep up the good fight!
Terrific and thorough takedown of the PPC argument. I did enjoy the debate, despite imperfections on both sides haha
I assume Dave’s argument re: public roads is extrapolated from Block (1998; https://cdn.mises.org/13_2_4_0.pdf), who argued that public property is de facto unowned for homesteading purposes.
> In our debate, Smith made the point that believers of free immigration must let people camp in the middle of the public roads to be logically consistent. Why? It’s a little hazy, but something about how the government must allow anybody to go on public property at any time to do anything. Well, as a supporter of free immigration, I can tell you that we do not support that, and it doesn't follow that we must.
You should try to understand the argument before waving your hand and dismissing it.
I guess that something that someone should ask Dave Smith and Bob Murphy is, if they think that nations are , somehow, a sort of public property collectively owned by taxpayers, why shouldn’t that imply that all of the land, factories and productive property in general is also collectively owned and, therefore, taxpayers “have a say” in how to administer it and if the vast majority says that that public property has to be administered this way or that one, then the government must follow the majority’s opinion.
Alex fancies himself to be the principled torch-carrier for libertarian principles, but in fact it turns out that either he doesn't really understand the implications of those principles, or he is happy to simply dispense with them when they don't produce the (immigration) outcomes he desires, rendering him to be not quire the torch bearer he thinks himself to be. The right to freedom of association is a cornerstone of libertarian principles, and while Alex would undoubtedly make the claim that what he calls "free immigration" is the logical consequence of that principle, given the fact that the vast majority of his fellow citizens oppose it, his insistence that a failure to adopt it represents a violation of his rights is in fact a rejection of the principle.
The question we need to ask is a very basic one: Do two or more people have the right to form an association together, and to govern that association in whatever manner they see fit? The libertarian answer to that question is an easy and obvious one: Yes. Once we accept that simple libertarian principle, it is impossible to logic oneself into Alex's position that restrictions on immigration represent a violation of the rights of citizens, much less the absurdity that they violate the rights of would-be-immigrants themselves.
The US is, in libertarian terms, simply an association of people, much like, say, a private golf club. No libertarian worth the name would say that the members of Augusta National have no right to decide who they will and will not accept into the club as members, nor that they have no right to establish restrictions on who members are allowed to bring in as guests. Nor would they argue that the membership has no right to establish a means of making the rules (like, for example, electing a membership committee) or to enforce those rules, by force if necessary.
But somehow, Alex thinks that this principle that applies to associations like Augusta National are somehow not applicable to associations like the United States. Why?
One reason, I suspect, is that he doesn't find the solution to his disagreement with the rules of membership very palatable. Of course not everyone in a given association is going to agree with or approve of every decision made by their fellow members, a truism that only grows with the number of members. But mere disagreement with those decisions does not render them to be a rights violation. The libertarian solution for a member of Augusta National that finds himself adamantly opposed to the new members or guest rules is not to go around accusing his fellow members of violating his rights. It is to try to convince his fellow members that the club would be better off if the rules were changed or, if that fails, to withdraw from membership, form his own club, and establish whatever rules he desires.
Of course, this same libertarian solution applies to those US citizens who do not like the new members or guest rules that the vast majority of their fellow members have established. And to be fair to Alex, he does spend some time trying to convince us all that we would be better off if we adopted his "free immigration" policy. But, failing the success of that effort (and it is destined to fail), the proper libertarian solution is to either accept the cost/benefit tradeoff, or withdraw from membership, ie secede, and form his own nation - er, country - with like minded individuals, and have whatever immigration policies he desires.
The problem, it seems, is that, although Alex is unable to convince his fellow members of the ostensible benefits of "free immigration", he also isn't willing to avail himself of the principled libertarian solution to his dilemma, ie either accept the cost/benefit tradeoff of being a member, or quit and join/form an association with rules more to his liking. And that, I am afraid, makes his claim to principled libertarianism a rather weak one.
The case for free immigration is very simple. If I want to hire someone or rent out a property to someone, I should be able to do so regardless of the nation they are from. I don't care about what "my fellow citizens" have to say about it, because they are not the property owner.
I think "simplistic" is a more appropriate word.
And I am not sure why you put "my fellow citizens" in scare quotes. Are you disputing the fact that you are in an association, known as the United States, with other people? Or that the term we use for members of such an association is "citizen"?
In any event, you aren't actually addressing my argument. You are ignoring it. I don't dispute your right as a sovereign individual to hire or rent out your property to anyone of your choosing. What I dispute is your right, as a voluntary member of an association, to flout the rules of that association. You have every right to do whatever you want with your property. But the rest of us have every right to form an association that restricts what its members do with their property.
If you are not willing to accept the conditions of membership, then the solution
is to give up the benefits of membership and cease being a member. But you have no right to ignore the conditions of membership while also claiming a right to the benefits of membership. I fully support your right to secede from the US and establish whatever rules of immigration to the land of Sai that you desire. This is how libertarian principles apply to the situation.
I never formed a binding restrictive association with you. This is my property and we have never agreed to anything. You telling me to leave doesn't change this
I never said you "formed" anything with me or anyone else. I don't know whether you are a US citizen, or, if you are, exactly how you became a US citizen, but if you are you most likely you were born into it. And the fact that you acquired membership into the association naturally as a consequence of your birth rather than having chosen to be a member is neither here nor there. I fully support your right to disavow membership and to cease to avail yourself of the benefits of membership any time you want. But as long as you remain a member, and as long as you continue to accrue the benefits of membership, then you have no right to ignore the requirements and restrictions of being a member.