I am no fan of any type of centralised government, but what bothers me is what seems to be an attack on the principles of freedom of movement. Basically saying that a vote to limit immigration is a good thing (a vote by a non EU member that has nothing to do with ending the EU fiscal and legislative powers). I believe that freedom of movement is very important and that any move by the state to limit people’s movement should be viewed as negative.
Throughout history, people have used their ability to relocate as one of the most direct ways to increase their personal freedom. Relocation and renouncing citizenship is something that is often promoted by the sovereign man blog for example, as a way for citizens to avoid the problems the US is facing. In fact, I am of Estonian descent and during the second world war, my family relocated to Canada in order to escape the soviets and communism. I also have family who have spent a large part of their lives in the gulags because they lacked the opportunity to move out of harms way. Now I don’t want to bore you with why I place such an importance on freedom of movement, so my question is this: What is the correct libertarian or free market anarchist perspective on freedom of movement in an unfree world?
I understand that in a private property society, we would have the right to deny people onto our property for any reason whatsoever, and no rights what so ever over other people and how they choose to use their property, so long as it doesn’t violate our rights, but how can we say that stopping immigration and freedom of movement would improve anything in today’s world, even if this was part of decentralising the state. I am all for the destruction of the EU, but with the side note that we should maintain this freedom of movement that it created and the opportunities for millions of people to improve their lives. Could you imagine if all of a sudden the central government of the US collapsed (great!) but all of a sudden you could not longer move freely between states?
Dear Erik,
I believe you have touched on two important points with regard to immigration. First, it is mostly viewed from the perspective of governments and their setting the rules on immigration. Second, it is very true that the problem would go away in a fully private property society. People could allow whomever they want on their property and deny access to whomever they choose, for any reason, beginning and end of story.
When governments get involved, things get a lot messier, since "immigration rights" often also mean access to government handouts. The last thing an over-taxed citizenry needs, and every penny of tax is an over tax, is seeing tax money being paid out to immigrants scrambling into a country. Thus, when government is involved, the immigration question gets diluted with questions as to what "rights" and payouts should these people be entitled to. The answer is, of course, none--as they should be eliminated for all current citizens anyway.
The libertarian answer should, thus, be, "I am for allowing anyone in the country, as long as they have a place to stay and they are never given support of any kind from the government, including education, food and healthcare support."
The irony is of course, that if we ever live in a society where Govt allowed greater access into the country and taxes and Govt support were eliminated the Hispanic immigrant majority would just vote for them all back.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that immigrants gain the right to VOTE is why it's entirely within libertarian principles to support government restricting immigration, because the majority of immigrants today are hardcore statists. The enormous amount of aggression that they impose upon us is much greater than the violence of restricting immigration for the minority who would support liberty and don't deserve to be kept out. They're just a minority, the majority of people coming are coming to impose violence upon us so border security is legitimate self-defense more so than it's aggression. Just like voting for Ron Paul was more an act of self-defense than aggression.
DeleteGood start but where are do you address the slave labor pimps?
ReplyDeleteThe USSA is a slave labor camp. Although maybe we should be greatful. We get to keep almost half of what we earn.
Delete"I understand that in a private property society, we would have the right to deny people onto our property for any reason whatsoever... but how can we say that stopping immigration and freedom of movement would improve anything in today’s world, even if this was part of decentralising (sic) the state."
ReplyDeleteAbiding by the NAP doesn't mean the world is suddenly perfect, only that it is more just. And, at least the NAP offers a steadfast system of justice.
This is why decentralization of the State into smaller chunks is not a libertarian goal, per se. The monopoly over the use of force by governments can never be defended, regardless of the size of the government. in other words, a sin is a sin...The only position consistent with the NAP is the disappearance of all coercive governments- of any size, and anywhere one can be found.
"Could you imagine if all of a sudden the central government of the US collapsed (great!) but all of a sudden you could not longer move freely between states?"
A government is the organization which has a monopoly on the use of force over a certain geographic area, and this is true of state governments, as well. This is why state nullification and secession are problematic. Consider Colorado's recreational drug laws as an example- people are not being locked up for possession of pot, but if you want to sell pot legally you have to pass on enormous taxes to your customers! So, although the state flouting federal prohibition of Cannabis is superficially a good thing, the ultimate result is grabbing more money from the mulcted taxpayer- especially when considering the black market trade of Cannabis yielded zero tax dollars during the trade. All of those tax dollars (formerly used in the marketplace on goods and services) will now be used by politicians to feed the political entrepreneurs.
Thus, the libertarian position regarding state governments nullifying federal laws or succeeding must be one of skeptical optimism. And, a state government limiting movement over public land is just as abhorrent as the federal government doing so. Fortunately, one can just be steadfast on the NAP to avoid entangling political philosophies such as "state's rights" or decentralization- just because one opposes federal monopoly on force, doesn't mean one has to support the same injustice via the states, counties, or cities.
This is all well and good, but the central issue (that nobody seems to have put their finger on) is how to deal with "money power" that has accumulated through force and fraud (corrupt government) and concentrated in a few hands. All of the disagreements between various factions stem from this.
ReplyDeleteI have held that the only solution to this is to reduce all taxes to one: A progressive land tax with a high minimum threshold, and one where if the land is titled to anyone other than an individual it is taxed at the maximum rate (to prevent oligarchs from using legal vehicles to hide ownership).
This allows the little guy/homesteader to not pay any tax. He can just utilize his land (whether rural or urban) as efficiently as he can, and thrive as best he can. Structures shouldn't be taxed, as that is an improvement on the land.
However, someone who has accumulated hundreds of millions (or perhaps billions) of dollars in land gets to fund government. This is fair, as the generations of oligarchs have used that government to amass their fortunes.
There will have to be details worked out (at what percent does the tax start, what percent do the Feds, the States, local, etc. get from it, etc.) but it will solve the central issue.
"This is all well and good, but the central issue (that nobody seems to have put their finger on) is how to deal with "money power" that has accumulated through force and fraud (corrupt government) and concentrated in a few hands."
DeleteThis is not really topical to immigration, per se, but must be addressed due to the fallacious conclusions exhibited in your analysis...
First, no libertarian advocates taxation. It is a violation of the NAP, obviously. Granted the "oligarchy" makes themselves an easy target for libertarians, by utilizing the government to violate the NAP ad nauseam! However, mulcting them is by definition not a libertarian solution to that problem- the solution is the abolition of government. Advocating such taxation is a sanction for the evil state. Only then will the deplorable oligarchs lose their grip on the reins of power.
Immigration is a distraction from the central issue, which is that government has been corrupted by money power, and uses force and fraud to maintain that money power. Like anthropogenic global warming is used to distract from ground water contamination via fracking or mishandled industrial chemicals, it is a sideshow.
DeleteThe oligarchs got there by force and fraud. Force is the only way to return their ill-gotten gains. It is completely permissible under the NAP as it allows for force in defense of property, and the oligarch's property was obtained via force.
A land tax with a high minimum threshold is the necessary first step towards a no-taxation state, if that is what is desired. It is also the only way to sort out the inter-generational theft that has taken place. Since there is no way to sort out who stole what from whom and return it, the only way to cut this particular "Gordian knot" is by the means I just outlined.
Many libertarians are too lazy to address the central issues and fall back on platitudes, which makes them easily dismissed by people who having to deal with the demands of their current reality. I understand it's hard work coming up with solutions. It took me a long time to come up with this one. But if we don't present workable alternatives *that make sense*, we will continue to be marginalized and ineffective.
Also, abolition of government is not a libertarian principle. Minimal government is. Abolition of government is the position of anarchists and while I sympathize, most anarchists I've met are not very rational.
DeleteAlso: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#Taxation
DeleteSo, check your principles.
A progressive land tax would require a government.
DeleteGovernment by very definition is immoral.
Let's take this "logic" further. Government if formed by contracts. Contracts therefore are immoral.
DeleteLogical fallacy much, Tony?
Apparently you never heard of non-sequiturs. Or you wouldn't have indulged in one.
DeleteGovernments are monopolies of force and are imposed on non-compliant individuals. Monopolies of force are immoral. If they aren't monopolies of force they wouldn't be governments. The notion that governments are formed by contracts is absurd in the extreme. Have you seen any signatures on pieces of paper in the last 10.000 years? Have you been ASKED if you want government? Surely you're not going to bore us with "social contracts" or "majorities" or "if you don't like it you can leave", are you?
The fact that a progressive land tax would have to be imposed clearly indicates we are talking about force against innocent civilians. Not to mention that the government itself including its bureaucracy would have to be funded through taxation, itself no more than robbery. And of course minimal governments *never* grow, as the U.S. has show, or the history of the world for that matter.
There is also nothing rational about governments. Either you accept its "right" to impose rules on non-compliant innocent peaceful civilians or you don't. If you do, you have no rational argument left to claim a libertarian version is justified while a socialist version is not. In the end any reason for why a monopoly of force is justified is subjective and arbitrary.
And the very fact that it has a monopoly and would outlaw competition for its "services" is itself another form of force.
Pro-government types whether socialists or minarchists can't avoid internal logical contradictions for more than 1 single minute.
"There will have to be details worked out (at what percent does the tax start, what percent do the Feds, the States, local, etc. get from it, etc.) but it will solve the central issue."
HAHA. There would have to be details worked out. And how is that? By committee? By democratic majority? A board of accountants? Please tell me how this decision is made in your so-called "libertarian" society. The same voter that does NOT get a vote to decide if they don't want libertarianism after all, but pure statism?
It's is rather amusing how you talk about logical fallacies when you can't even keep your own logic consistent.
If it took you a long time to come up with this "solution", may i suggest you spend your time on something else entirely? Trust me, with "solutions" like yours you will be marginalized and ineffective. It's "minimal government" with a class warfare twist. Try finding an audience for that.
"Let's take this "logic" further. Government if formed by contracts. Contracts therefore are immoral.
DeleteLogical fallacy much, Tony?"
Yes, you did. It's a strawman.
Saying "Government if formed by contracts. Contracts therefore are immoral." is like saying "criminals use guns. Therefor guns are immoral."
That's called a non-sequitur. Of course you were the one using it since i am not so insane as to think governments have ANYTHING to do with contracts. But then again, you implied it by committing a strawman.
Immigration isn't a libertarian issue and "freedom of movement" doesn't exist in libertarianism. There is no such right. Just as in a society where most property is privately owned, freedom of speech would also be a virtually non-existent concept (after all, when all property is privately owned you don't get to decide what to say or where to move except on your own property)
ReplyDeleteIn a truly libertarian society, all property would be private, and movement thus restricted without the owner's consent. In theory this could be so limiting, in fact, as to turn the current government setting into a utopia of "free movement".
Even in the current setting, freedom of movement isn't libertarian. While some people may want immigrants to come in, others may not. BOTH camps are forced to pay taxes and live by the government's rules and therefor one camp does not have the superior position over the other. One camp cannot be forced to pay for a position on immigration they do not support. If immigrants can come in, aren't ALL tax payers paying for the justice system that has to deal with criminal immigrants? Isn't the welfare system still in tact? Would there no longer be a bureaucracy that needs paying for? Aren't certain systems ever getting clogged up even though tax payers can resort to no competitive alternatives? You can not present a bill for these things to tax payers who don't want open immigration. The reverse is also true.
This is the problem with collectivizing consequences. And the only solution is to privatize consequences. Until then, there is no libertarian position on immigration.
Holy muddled thinking Batman! I'm really glad you don't speak for libertarians in general.
DeleteThat's a great counter-argument. I'm impressed. I must revise my views immediately.
DeleteAnd no, i don't speak for libertarians in general. One type of libertarian i don't speak for is people who think government can be moral for the purposes of imposing a progressive land tax (but not a progressive income tax, of course. Right, Dave? Right?).
Open borders is something that is enforced by the state over the objections of the people. Welfare just exacerbates the tensions.
ReplyDeleteLibertarianism doesn't mean that people can get along all of a sudden.
Open borders are enforced by the state over the objections of SOME people.
DeleteClosed borders are enforced by the state over the objections of OTHER people.
That is why libertarianism cannot have a view on the matter of immigration where ever and whenever it is enforced by the state. Because some innocent tax paying person's rights end up getting violated.
The only libertarian view on it can be: privatize all property, and privatize and individualize the consequences of immigration, and then property owners decide whether anybody is allowed on his or her property.
This is why "freedom of movement" is a meaningless concept within libertarianism. Such freedom is either meaningless because it simply doesn't exist (in an anarchistic society), OR it exists at the expense of other people's property rights (in a minarchist society where people are forced at gunpoint to pay taxes for "public" property).