Walter Block has written one last response in his debate with Robert Wenzel about the primacy of property rights over all.
Although In my view Block has certainly made a better attempt at stating his case this time around, he still makes several mistakes. Continue Reading
“A kidnapper and rapist holds a couple hostage. The kidnapper repeatedly rapes the wife, then brings in an desperate, sex-starved outsider who would like to have a go. The husband says: “Well, he’s going to keep my wife hostage and keep raping her anyway whether you stay or leave; so you may as well have a turn. Bring your friends too, a lot of them. I’m not against strangers using my wife for their benefit. That would be bigoted,” — progressive Libertarian victim.
Some pro-immigration commenters (such as this one) may suggest that it is simply wrong from the libertarian standpoint to expect government to “fix” the problem of (mass) immigration, on the ground that immigrants are innocent (at least until proven guilty). Because, after all, stopping their travel is to commit aggression.
Sounds fair at first glance… But are the poor migrants and refugees innocent?
Do libertarians not insist that private property DOES exist? Is this fact changed because government violently confiscates it, renders it virtually null and void with laws and otherwise change the legal reality of property ownership? Do libertarians insist that government is right in what it does because, hey, the law says that it is?
Of course not.
Libertarians base their moral opinions on how things ought to be on the basis of libertarianism’s two main principles of private property rights and non-aggression. Not on the way things are.
But if libertarians fight “reality” with their own moral standards as based on the two principles mentioned above, where then does the argument come from that immigrants are innocent and non-aggressive when they enter property, and USE property, that libertarians believe is private in the libertarian sense, and legally ought to be private in any sense? Why is it, that suddenly the *reality* of not legally owning property is good enough reason for them to argue that immigrants have a right to enter or use property that government has confiscated from people?
If immigrants do NOT have such a right, then entering or using such property should be seen by libertarians as both immoral and – by libertarian standards – illegal.
But here, once again, the libertarian progressive wants to have it both ways. Rant against the government for violating what ought to be; yet excusing immigrants for violating what ought to be — private property rights.
To say that government should not act against people who make use of what is someone else’s private property in moral libertarian terms, is to say that government should also not act against criminals that commit acts that would be illegal even in a libertarian society. After all, the state is evil, and ought not to decide what is legal or what is illegal, and use force against what it deems illegal. This must be the logical conclusion of it.
Yet, what libertarian goes so far as to say that the police should leave murderers, rapists and thieves alone?
The fact of the matter is that immigrants are using and/or accessing property without permission from the legitimate owners, just as the state does. Whether the state does or does not give these immigrants permission to do so is entirely irrelevant from the libertarian standpoint. It is, then, no stranger for the government to do something about this, than it is that they actually apprehend criminals, despite being a bunch of criminals themselves.
As libertarians, we are not allowed to use private protection services against crime; we are forced to use the government monopoly on the service and so we do because we have no other choice. We are also not allowed to deny immigrants access to funds that rightfully belong to us, or property that rightfully belongs to us. We are forced to use the government monopoly on the “service”; so as libertarians why can’t we?
Of course no libertarian pro-immigration screed would be complete without the ad hominems of xenophobia, racism and all the other usual epitaphs that are easy tools for leftists. By their fruit shall you recognize them.
Again, it seems arguments in favor of (mass) immigration are made simply because of a (mass) immigration stance, and not from any libertarian principle. The writer of the piece i linked to above tries to make a case that, yes, in a libertarian society, private property owners would rule supreme, but one can’t help but notice the picture he uses in his article, of a fence dissolving into free, flying birds.
And that, if the author was honest, is his real stance. Not the one about private property rights being the decisive factor. Saying how things would be in a libertarian society is easy if you don’t believe it will happen any time soon anyway. It is how you feel about non-property owners violating the rights of property owners now that shows your true colors.
What is the libertarian position on immigration? Violation of private property rights is immoral, and using someone else’s stolen property for your own benefit is also immoral.
THAT is the libertarian position on immigration. Not using the reality of the government’s violent confiscation of private property as an excuse to say that, oh well, what does it matter that immigrants enjoy the spoils.
Arizona senator Jeff Flake (R) is touted by some to be “libertarian-leaning”. See here, here and here. Libertarians know, of course, that this means virtually nothing. Especially when it comes to defending libertarianism on principle rather than utility.
One of the most important staples of the libertarian philosophy is private property rights, without which most other staples would fall. So if you do not have a right to freedom of association, one can basically say that: (a) one is not allowed to associate, or dissociate, oneself with or from whomever one wishes, and (b) one does not actually own one’s property, if the state can decide who you should do business with.
Without freedom of association, there simply cannot be private property rights. If someone else can dictate the terms under which your business, or any other property you own for that matter, operates, then you simply do not truly own that property.
Jeff Flake, held by many to be a “libertarian leaning” conservative Republican, is against freedom of association by wanting to see an “anti-gay” bill, which would allow businesses to choose not to do business with gay people, vetoed. In other words, he wants the state to dictate terms to businesses on whom they should be forced to do business with. This not only violates private property rights and freedom of association rights; it is also an anti-free market position period. These are three extremely important staples of libertarian philosophy without which many other libertarian positions cannot hold.
It should be said that it may very well be true that the motive behind this anti-gay bill is precisely that; it is anti-gay and therefore discriminatory. But libertarianism does not deal with motives. It does not matter for which reason you wish to have liberty. It merely states you ought to have it and that neither the government, nor anyone else, ought to have the right to take it from you. So as revolting as someone’s motives may be to exercise his decision-making over his own property, he should have the right to exercise it. Flake’s reasoning is based in legislating morality over supporting individual liberty. The only proper libertarian response from a pro-gay standpoint would be to boycott these businesses and spread the word on their business conduct to impel others to also boycott them.
Also, Flake argues that this bill would be bad for Arizona’s economy. You know what we call someone who puts money over individual liberty? We call that a corporatist; not a libertarian.
So Flake proves to be another one of those examples of politicians that is regarded in a moderately favorable light for having some positions that are good and thus held to be “libertarian leaning”, while being an utter failure on others. It is high time to get rid of this meaningless phrase “libertarian leaning” as it is too often applied to those who would alternate some good positions for other ones that just cement the state’s coercive power in matters that should be personal business.
The Individualist 