If Mexico is going to pay for the wall, why does Trump need money from Congress?

[Speaker to Animals]

Yeah, I am sure that's it. It's not all the nonwhites looking to rob/rape/plunder white people. I mean.. if you want to live amongst them so much, just move to their countries. Why shit all over my country?

[Fife]

Great discussion. Lots of new and novel arguments.





Since you want people to move to where you think their ideologies are realized, why don't you move to a trailer park in Ohio?

[Speaker to Animals]

Yes, great discussion. I just aim to give you what you want, and it seems far more effective to transport you to the third world than to transport half the third world to America.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Great discussion. Lots of new and novel arguments.





Since you want people to move to where you think their ideologies are realized, why don't you move to a trailer park in Ohio?

Southern Ohio has a place for that. He wouldn’t cut it up on the lake shore.

[heydaralon]

good point. Thanks for clearing that up.

I don't mind useful exchange; I live for it. However, I don't get off on middle school "gotcha" crap, which makes up about 90% of what goes on around here. I was rereading this thread this morning and I feel dumb for even responding to your trolling.

But, since I opened the door on myself, here's yet another piece on the topic, from HHH. I've probably posted this before here somewhere.

If you want to know about the state's legitimate obligations to protect the private property rights of its own citizens, read the whole thing.

The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration

However, with respect to the movement of people, the same government will have to do more in order to fulfill its protective function than merely permit events to take their own course, because people, unlike products, possess a will and can migrate. Accordingly, population movements, unlike product shipments, are not per se mutually beneficial events because they are not always —necessarily and invariably—the result of an agreement between a specific receiver and sender. There can be shipments (immigrants) without willing domestic recipients. In this case, immigrants are foreign invaders, and immigration represents an act of invasion. Surely, a government’s basic protective function includes the prevention of foreign invasions and the expulsion of foreign invaders. Just as surely then, in order to do so and subject immigrants to the same requirement as imports (of having been invited by domestic residents), this government cannot rightfully allow the kind of free immigration advocated by most free traders. Just imagine again that the U.S. and Switzerland opened their borders to whomever wanted to come—provided only that immigrants be excluded from all welfare entitlements, which would be reserved for U.S. and Swiss citizens. Apart from the sociological problem of thus creating two distinct classes of domestic residents and thus causing severe social tensions, there is also little doubt about the outcome of this experiment in the present world. The result would be less drastic and less immediate than under the scenario of unconditional free immigration, but it too would amount to a massive foreign invasion and ultimately lead to the destruction of American and Swiss civilization. Thus, in order to fulfill its primary function as protector of its citizens and their domestic property, a high-wage-area government cannot follow an immigration policy of laissez-passer, but must engage in restrictive measures.

From the recognition that proponents of free trade and markets cannot advocate free immigration without falling into inconsistency and contradiction, and hence, that immigration must —logically—be restricted, it is but a small step to the further recognition of how it must be restricted. As a matter of fact, all high-wage-area governments presently restrict immigration in one way or another. Nowhere is immigration “free,” unconditionally or conditionally. Yet the restrictions imposed on immigration by the U.S. and by Switzerland, for instance, are quite different. What restrictions should then exist? Or, more precisely, what immigration restrictions is a free trader and free marketeer logically compelled to uphold and promote? The guiding principle of a high-wage-area country’s immigration policy follows from the insight that immigration, to be free in the same sense as trade is free, must be invited immigration. The details follow from the further elucidation and exemplification of the concept of invitation vs. invasion and forced integration.

I wasn't trying to draw you in to shit. I asked you a question and in this case you posted a link. My gripe with you is not your ideology man. It is the fact that you will often disagree with a thread or post, and then refrain from expanding on your idea. Or you will just make a short deliberately mysterious response. If you feel that the quality of talk on this forum, or that my posts are beneath you, that is one thing. But it seems like you get something out of posting here (because you do), and in this case, I was giving you a chance to discuss your ideas.

I read the article and frequently read the stuff you link btw.

Here are my questions:

In your mind, how would this system have stopped a large foreign caravan like the ones that are frequently at our border consisting of thousands of people? What is the plan when you have a large armed one like those that rush the border at Gibraltar and Hungary frequently?

The article mentions the idea of minimizing public space and maximizing private space. In this hypothetical model, would any physical barriers be implemented? Would there be a border patrol of any kind?

The idea of having each immigrant strictly coming via invitation from the owner and the owner buying liability insurance if the immigrant leaves their private property would require some kind of large database and a huge amount of paperwork. Would this also not lead to an enormous bureaucracy and a need to have government workers monitoring the insurance and mediating the damage claims?

If an immigrant leaves the private property, will he have to be checked to ensure that his initial host has the appropriate paperwork? Who will do the checking? Other private property owners? What sort of measures can be taken if the immigrant will not leave the private property?

In this society, will there be any kind of central authority in place monitoring who comes in? For instance, what would stop someone from inviting in a immigrant who is a terrorist or child molester? Do you envision any kind of governmental oversight over the process?

Lastly, it discusses the idea of Switzerland having a system where if someone sells property to an immigrant, he still has to get all of his neighbors who could be affected to sign off on it. Do you think that is a restriction of liberty? A sort of "tyranny of the Homeowners Association?"

Anyway, these are my questions to you. The article mentions the government's role is to protect its citizens, but it does not specify beyond the contracts and expansion of private property, what specific actions can be undertaken to ensure the contracts and liability are upheld.

[Fife]

First, I'd like to restate some of the relevant parts of the piece we're discussing (not so much for you but in the hope that some of the trollers and peanut gallery might read some of it):

However, with respect to the movement of people, the same government will have to do more in order to fulfill its protective function than merely permit events to take their own course, because people, unlike products, possess a will and can migrate. Accordingly, population movements, unlike product shipments, are not per se mutually beneficial events because they are not always —necessarily and invariably—the result of an agreement between a specific receiver and sender. There can be shipments (immigrants) without willing domestic recipients. In this case, immigrants are foreign invaders, and immigration represents an act of invasion. Surely, a government’s basic protective function includes the prevention of foreign invasions and the expulsion of foreign invaders. Just as surely then, in order to do so and subject immigrants to the same requirement as imports (of having been invited by domestic residents), this government cannot rightfully allow the kind of free immigration advocated by most free traders. Just imagine again that the U.S. and Switzerland opened their borders to whomever wanted to come—provided only that immigrants be excluded from all welfare entitlements, which would be reserved for U.S. and Swiss citizens. Apart from the sociological problem of thus creating two distinct classes of domestic residents and thus causing severe social tensions, there is also little doubt about the outcome of this experiment in the present world. The result would be less drastic and less immediate than under the scenario of unconditional free immigration, but it too would amount to a massive foreign invasion and ultimately lead to the destruction of American and Swiss civilization. Thus, in order to fulfill its primary function as protector of its citizens and their domestic property, a high-wage-area government cannot follow an immigration policy of laissez-passer, but must engage in restrictive measures.

From the recognition that proponents of free trade and markets cannot advocate free immigration without falling into inconsistency and contradiction, and hence, that immigration must —logically—be restricted, it is but a small step to the further recognition of how it must be restricted. As a matter of fact, all high-wage-area governments presently restrict immigration in one way or another. Nowhere is immigration “free,” unconditionally or conditionally. Yet the restrictions imposed on immigration by the U.S. and by Switzerland, for instance, are quite different. What restrictions should then exist? Or, more precisely, what immigration restrictions is a free trader and free marketeer logically compelled to uphold and promote? The guiding principle of a high-wage-area country’s immigration policy follows from the insight that immigration, to be free in the same sense as trade is free, must be invited immigration. The details follow from the further elucidation and exemplification of the concept of invitation vs. invasion and forced integration.

For this purpose, it is necessary to assume first, as a conceptual benchmark, the existence of what political philosophers have described as a private property anarchy, anarcho-capitalism, or ordered anarchy: all land is privately owned, including all streets, rivers, airports, harbors, etc. With respect to some pieces of land, the property title may be unrestricted, that is, the owner is permitted to do with his property whatever he pleases as long as he does not physically damage the property of others. With respect to other territories, the property title may be more or less restricted. As is currently the case in some developments, the owner may be bound by contractual limitations on what he can do with his property (restrictive covenants, voluntary zoning), which might include residential rather than commercial use, no buildings more than four stories high, no sale or rent to unmarried couples, smokers, or Germans, for instance.

Clearly, in this kind of society, there is no such thing as freedom of immigration, or an immigrant’s right of way. What does exist is the freedom of independent private property owners to admit or exclude others from their own property in accordance with their own restricted or unrestricted property titles. Admission to some territories might be easy, while to others it might be nearly impossible. Moreover, admission to one party’s property does not imply the “freedom to move around,” unless other property owners have agreed to such movements. There will be as much immigration or non-immigration, inclusivity or exclusivity, desegregation or segregation, non-discrimination or discrimination as individual owners or owners associations desire.

The reason for citing the model of an anarcho-capitalist society is that by definition no such thing as forced integration (uninvited migration) is possible (permitted) within its framework. Under this scenario, no difference between the physical movement of goods and the migration of people exists. As every product movement reflects an underlying agreement between sender and receiver, so all movements of immigrants into and within an anarcho-capitalist society are the result of an agreement between the immigrant and one or a series of receiving domestic property owners. Hence, even if the anarcho-capitalist model is ultimately rejected—and if for realism’s sake the existence of a government and of “public” (in addition to private) goods and property is assumed—it brings into clear relief what a government’s immigration policy would have to be, if and insofar as this government derived its legitimacy from the sovereignty of the “people” and was viewed as the outgrowth of an agreement or “social contract” (as is the case with all modern, post-monarchical governments, of course). A “popular” government which assumed as its primary task the protection of its citizen and their property (the production of domestic security) would surely want to preserve, rather than abolish, this no-forced-integration feature of anarcho-capitalism!

In order to realize what this involves, it is necessary to explain how an anarcho-capitalist society is altered by the introduction of a government, and how this affects the immigration problem. Since in an anarcho-capitalist society there is no government, there is no clear-cut distinction between inlanders (domestic citizens) and foreigners. This distinction appears only with the establishment of a government. The territory which a government’s power extends over then becomes inland, and everyone residing outside of this territory becomes a foreigner. State borders (and passports), as distinct from private property borders (and titles to property), come into existence, and immigration takes on a new meaning. Immigration becomes immigration by foreigners across state borders, and the decision as to whether or not a person should be admitted no longer rests exclusively with private property owners or associations of such owners but with the government qua domestic security producer. Now, if the government excludes a person while there exists a domestic resident who wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion; and if the government admits a person while there exists no domestic resident who wants to have this person on his property, the result is forced integration.

Moreover, hand in hand with the institution of a government comes the institution of public property and goods, that is, of property and goods owned collectively by all domestic residents and controlled and administered by the government. The larger or smaller the amount of public-government ownership, the greater or lesser will be the potential problem of forced integration. Consider a socialist society like the former Soviet Union or East Germany, for example. All factors of production, including all land and natural resources, are publicly owned. Accordingly, if the government admits an uninvited immigrant, it potentially admits him to any place within the country; for without private land ownership, there exist no limitations on his internal migrations other than those decreed by government. Under socialism, therefore, forced integration can be spread everywhere and thus immensely intensified. (In fact, in the Soviet Union and East Germany, the government could quarter a stranger in someone else’s private house or apartment. This measure—and the resulting high-powered forced integration—was justified by the “fact” that all private houses rested on public land.)

Socialist countries will not be high-wage areas, of course, or at least will not remain so for long. Their problem is not immigration but emigration pressure. The Soviet Union and East Germany prohibited emigration and killed people for trying to leave the country. However, the problem of the extension and intensification of forced integration persists outside of socialism. To be sure, in non-socialist countries such as the U.S., Switzerland, and the Federal Republic of Germany, which are favorite immigration destinations, a government-admitted immigrant could not move just anywhere. The immigrant’s freedom of movement would be severely restricted by the extent of private property, and private land ownership in particular. Yet, by proceeding on public roads, or with public means of transportation, and in staying on public land and in public parks and buildings, an immigrant can potentially cross every domestic resident’s path, even move into anyone’s immediate neighborhood and practically land on his very doorsteps. The smaller the quantity of public property, the less acute the problem will be. But as long as there exists any public property, it cannot be entirely escaped.

A popular government that wants to safeguard its citizens and their domestic property from forced integration and foreign invaders has two methods of doing so, a corrective and a preventive one. The corrective method is designed to ameliorate the effects of forced integration once the event has taken place (and the invaders are there). As indicated, to achieve this goal, the government must reduce the quantity of public property as much as possible. Moreover, whatever the mix of private and public property, the government must uphold—rather than criminalize—any private property owner’s right to admit and exclude others from his property. If virtually all property is owned privately and the government assists in enforcing private ownership rights, then uninvited immigrants, even if they succeeded in entering the country, would not likely get much farther.
The more completely this corrective measure is carried out (the higher the degree of private ownership), the less there will be a need for protective measures, such as border defense. The cost of protection against foreign invaders along the U.S.–Mexico border, for instance, is comparatively high, because for long stretches no private property on the U.S. side exists. However, even if the cost of border protection can be lowered by means of privatization, it will not disappear as long as there are substantial income and wage differentials between high- and low-wage territories. Hence, in order to fulfill its basic protective function, a high-wage-area government must also be engaged in preventive measures. At all ports of entry and along its borders, the government, as trustee of its citizens, must check all newly arriving persons for an entrance ticket—a valid invitation by a domestic property owner—and everyone not in possession of such a ticket will have to be expelled at his own expense.

Here are my questions:

In your mind, how would this system have stopped a large foreign caravan like the ones that are frequently at our border consisting of thousands of people?

To the extent that public property and welfare continue to exist in the US, sufficient border security to prevent trespassers/invaders from gaining entry are necessary. The discussion of what kind of security to implement is driven by specific facts. What walls can't accomplish, armed guards might, &c., &c.

What is the plan when you have a large armed one like those that rush the border at Gibraltar and Hungary frequently?

We have lots of guns in the U.S., and the industrial capacity to make a bunch more.

The article mentions the idea of minimizing public space and maximizing private space. In this hypothetical model, would any physical barriers be implemented? Would there be a border patrol of any kind?



Yes and yes.

The more completely this corrective measure is carried out (the higher the degree of private ownership), the less there will be a need for protective measures, such as border defense. The cost of protection against foreign invaders along the U.S.–Mexico border, for instance, is comparatively high, because for long stretches no private property on the U.S. side exists. However, even if the cost of border protection can be lowered by means of privatization, it will not disappear as long as there are substantial income and wage differentials between high- and low-wage territories. Hence, in order to fulfill its basic protective function, a high-wage-area government must also be engaged in preventive measures. At all ports of entry and along its borders, the government, as trustee of its citizens, must check all newly arriving persons for an entrance ticket—a valid invitation by a domestic property owner—and everyone not in possession of such a ticket will have to be expelled at his own expense.

The idea of having each immigrant strictly coming via invitation from the owner and the owner buying liability insurance if the immigrant leaves their private property would require some kind of large database and a huge amount of paperwork. Would this also not lead to an enormous bureaucracy and a need to have government workers monitoring the insurance and mediating the damage claims?

I disagree that just another federal disaster of an agency is necessary; none of those agencies are necessary as configured. Insurance is insurance. Keep any required monitoring/dispute resolution as local and decentralized as possible. A large database usable across the country is hardly novel in 2019. As public property and gibs are eliminated, the need for state enforcement is diminished.


If an immigrant leaves the private property, will he have to be checked to ensure that his initial host has the appropriate paperwork?

If on private property, trespass law controls. On public property, to the extent it exists, credentials will be necessary. (See how public property sucks?)

Who will do the checking? Other private property owners?

If on private property, trespass law controls. On public property, to the extent it exists, credentials will be necessary. You'll have to rely on Barney Fife to check out people seeking entry onto public property. (See how public property sucks?)

What sort of measures can be taken if the immigrant will not leave the private property?

English/American trespass law has a history going back multiple centuries. What measures would you take if an uninvited stranger showed up at your house and said he was going to start camping in your back yard and started digging a slit latrine?

In this society, will there be any kind of central authority in place monitoring who comes in?

To the extent that public property and welfare continue to exist in the US, sufficient border security to prevent trespassers/invaders from gaining entry are necessary. I'm not sure what you mean by “central” authority, but I'd be in favor the absolutely most local authority possible regarding any given border region. If one state or region turns into a sieve, the rest of the country could address how to shape them up.

For instance, what would stop someone from inviting in a immigrant who is a terrorist or child molester?

This begs the question of how terrorism and child molestation is considered generally. Any voluntary group of citizens can definitely decide by agreement what kind of undesirable types are kept away from civilized people. I don't see how invading terrorist / molesters would get any better treatment than native-born ones.

Do you envision any kind of governmental oversight over the process?

Which process? As to the border, to the extent that public property and welfare continue to exist in the US, sufficient border security to prevent trespassers/invaders from gaining entry are necessary. As to dealing with terrorists / molesters, the question is the same whether we are dealing with foreign offenders or native offenders. That doesn't mean a required equality of outcome, just that the “process” shouldn't necessarily be different.


Lastly, it discusses the idea of Switzerland having a system where if someone sells property to an immigrant, he still has to get all of his neighbors who could be affected to sign off on it. Do you think that is a restriction of liberty? A sort of "tyranny of the Homeowners Association?"

I'm not really down with how you phrased the question, but I'll answer “no.” A full definition and discussion of Voluntaryism is beyond the scope of the Hoppe piece, but assume that I'm in favor of voluntary associations regarding property use, &c.

Anyway, these are my questions to you. The article mentions the government's role is to protect its citizens, but it does not specify beyond the contracts and expansion of private property, what specific actions can be undertaken to ensure the contracts and liability are upheld.

It is important to understand the scope and purpose of Hoppe's piece:

I will argue that this thesis and its implicit claim are fundamentally mistaken. In particular, I will demonstrate that free trade and restricted immigration are not only perfectly consistent but even mutually reinforcing policies. That is, it is not the advocates of free trade and restricted immigration who are wrong, but rather the proponents of free trade and free immigration. In thus taking the “intellectual guilt” out of the free-trade-and-restricted-immigration position and putting it where it actually belongs, I hope to promote a change in the present state of public opinion and facilitate substantial political realignment.

We're talking about immigration here, not protectionism as a stand-alone. (I know the trolling is coming from the usual suspect(s) defending mindless protectionism, but whatev.) The point is to understand the fundamental difference between capital and consumer goods moving around the world because of mutual agreement and human beings with agency moving around unilaterally.

I've answered your 11 questions within the context of the piece; if you want to discuss any of the issues more generally, let me know.

Yes the wall is dumb. But, until we have sufficiently removed the incentives for and toleration of unwanted invasion, the wall is a legitimate tool. IMNSHO, it's not the solution -- far from it. But without a real solution, I'm not in favor of being overrun by invaders itching to vote for and receive the Gibs.

Plus, the country voted for a wall in 2016. If we're going to continue the democracy delusion, giving people what they vote for might eventually lead them to vote away the gibs and the evil of democracy. That part *is* a bit of fantasizing, but one that doesn't necessarily include wholesale bloodshed at least.

[Montegriffo]

Point of order.

What is the plan when you have a large armed one like those that rush the border at Gibraltar and Hungary frequently?

What armed mobs have ever rushed the Gibraltan border?

Gibraltar's only border is with Spain and the majority of those crossing it every day are Spanish workers legally travelling to jobs there.
As far as I know, there have never been any armed mobs rushing the Gibraltan border.

Is this just a case of poor geographic knowledge or have some R/W blogsites been spreading lies again?

[Speaker to Animals]

[DBTrek]

Byron York: In border fight, Democrats want 'technological wall' that won't keep anybody out

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California says a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border would be "immoral." Instead, she favors something she calls a "technological wall." Another top House Democrat, Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, calls it a "smart wall."

Instead of building an actual physical barrier of steel, concrete, or some other material, Pelosi, Clyburn, and other Democrats advocate employing an array of high-tech devices — drones, infrared sensors, surveillance cameras, and more — to keep track of activity at the border without physical impediments to discourage illegal crossings.

"We cannot protect the border with concrete," Clyburn said recently. "We can protect the border using the technology that is available to us to wall off intrusions."

The problem is, a smart wall would not actually wall off intrusions. Indeed, the main feature of a smart wall — in past debates, it was often referred to as a virtual fence — is that it will not stop anyone from crossing the border into the United States. It can detect illegal crossers and alert authorities to their presence. But it does nothing to keep them from entering the country. . . .

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... nybody-out

Dems are on board for a wall ... that counts their new voters as they cross illegally, but does not prevent entry. C'mon America, let's all fund the new Democratic illegal vote-counter "smart wall".

[Montegriffo]

Still not Gibraltar.
The Republic of Congo is in central Africa.
Gibraltar is a large rock owned by the British on the other side of the Med.