Nowrasteh Appears on The Bob Murphy Show
Follow up discussion on libertarianism and immigration
Bob Murphy of the Mises Institute was gracious enough to have me on his show this Monday to discuss his commentary on my debate with Dave Smith and libertarian views of immigration more generally. We covered many important issues but spent the middle of the segment about the Hoppean “public property criticism” (PPC). Recall that the PPC argues that immigrants violate property rights because the government owns public property that immigrants must use. Thus, the government should act as a private property owner by somehow channeling the desires of the median voter or citizen to kick immigrants off private property and otherwise behave like a landowner. In practice, this means immigration restrictions. That section will interest libertarians most, but this paper by Anthony Gregory and Walter Block also contains many of the arguments I use if you want to skip the audio.
My main arguments here are that channeling the median voter is impossible, there are unavoidable principal-agent problems, and adhering to the PPC would massively increase state control over society, whereas I think libertarians should seek to diminish state control. Bob had some good responses because he was playing devil’s advocate — which is why his podcast is so useful. Ultimately, this podcast with Bob is more informative than the debate that Dave Smith and I had on immigration. Smith and I had a civil debate, but debates are an ineffective format for persuasion or learning. Too much rhetoric, pathos, and style in debates to get at the truth.
What I like about The Bob Murphy Show, besides Bob himself, is that he asks tough questions, but it’s not a debate. It’s like an old-fashioned talk show where the host channels critics, admirers, and his own interests to let the host explain his position or hoist himself on his own petard. I hope the result is less hoisting and more explaining, but you’ll hear a more informative and interesting discussion nonetheless.
Enjoy.
I really enjoyed your interview yesterday—it was both insightful and thought-provoking. Your point about the spectrum of property rights, where the state holds some but not to the extent of a private citizen, was particularly clarifying for me. It highlights how people often fall into the false dilemma of viewing state authority as either absolute or nonexistent, when in reality, the gradations matter.
I also appreciated your caution against expanding state power in that domain—it's a classic slippery slope, and history shows that once granted, government authority tends to expand rather than contract. Like Dave and Bob, I lean more toward anarcho-capitalism or voluntarism over minarchism, but pragmatically, I believe any reduction in the scope of the state is generally a step in the right direction.
In particular, I see removing federal management of non-immigrant visas—except for screening health risks, public charges, or criminals—as the most constitutionally compatible solution. This shift would streamline the process, reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies, and align better with principles of individual and market autonomy.