Whereas responding to lunatics and the economically illiterate on the topic of immigration is generally easy...responding to an economically literate anarcho-capitalist such as Hans Herman Hoppe is a bit trickier. Here's his starting
position:
The classical argument in favor of free immigration runs as follows: [...large snip...] In addition, traditionally labor unions, and nowadays environmentalists, are opposed to free immigration, and this should prima facie count as another argument in favor of a policy of free immigration.
As it is stated, the above argument in favor of free immigration is irrefutable and correct. It would be foolish to attack it, just as it would be foolish to deny that free trade leads to higher living standards than does protectionism.
It would also be wrongheaded to attack the above case for free immigration by pointing out that because of the existence of a welfare state, immigration has become to a significant extent the immigration of welfare-bums, who, even if the United States, for instance, is below her optimal population point, do not increase but rather decrease average living standards. For this is not an argument against immigration but against the welfare state. To be sure, the welfare state should be destroyed, root and branch. However, in any case the problems of immigration and welfare are analytically distinct problems, and they must be treated accordingly.
Awful close, on all points, to my economic position on free immigration. Then he goes all AnCap on me:
For the purpose of illustration, let us first assume an anarcho-capitalist society. Though convinced that such a society is the only social order that can be defended as just, I do not want to explain here why this is the case. Instead, I will employ it as a conceptual benchmark, because this will help clear up the fundamental misconception of most contemporary free immigration advocates.
[...snip...]
Clearly, under this scenario there exists no such thing as freedom of immigration. Rather, there exists the freedom of many independent private property owners to admit or exclude others from their own property in accordance with their own unrestricted or restricted property titles. Admission to some territories might be easy, while to others it might be nearly impossible. In any case, however, admission to the property of the admitting person does not imply a "freedom to move around," unless other property owners consent to such movements. There will be as much immigration or non-immigration, inclusivity or exclusivity, desegregation or segregation, non-discrimination or discrimination based on racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural or whatever other grounds as individual owners or associations of individual owners allow.
Note that none of this, not even the most exclusive form of segregationism, has anything to do with a rejection of free trade and the adoption of protectionism. [... snip ...]
In an anarcho-capitalist society there is no government and, accordingly, no clear-cut distinction between inlanders (domestic citizens) and foreigners.
[... snip ...]
Now, if the government excludes a person while even one domestic resident wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion (a phenomenon that does not exist under private property anarchism). Furthermore, if the government admits a person while there is not even one domestic resident who wants to have this person on his property, the result is forced integration (also non-existent under private property anarchism).
The left libertarian anarchist type (myself) agrees, but would furthermore advocate treating many types of discrimination (most of those listed) like one treats lack of personal hygeine: as indicating a person to be avoided, and perhaps made fun of in polite company.
As a note...when you hear anti-immigration (and anti-integration) libertarians talking about immigration, they're usually focusing on the forced integration aspect, which most reasonable people find unjust. Similarly, when you hear pro-immigration libertarians talking immigration, we're always focused on the forced exclusion aspect, which most reasonable people also find unjust. It's nice to hear both in an argument.
But now, Herr Doktor Hoppe and I part ways. Here he is on Monarchic government:It is now time to enrich the analysis through the introduction of a few "realistic" empirical assumptions. Let us assume that the government is privately owned. The ruler literally owns the entire country within state borders. He owns part of the territory outright (his property title is unrestricted), and he is partial owner of the rest (as landlord or residual claimant of all of his citizen-tenants real estate holdings, albeit restricted by some kind of pre-existing rental contract). He can sell and bequeath his property, and he can calculate and "realize" the monetary value of his capital (his country).
Traditional monarchies – and kings – are the closest historical examples of this form of government.
What will a king's typical immigration and emigration policy be? Because he owns the entire country's capital value, he will, assuming no more than his self-interest, tend to choose migration policies that preserve or enhance rather than diminish the value of his kingdom.
As far as emigration is concerned, a king will want to prevent the emigration of productive subjects, in particular of his best and most productive subjects, because losing them would lower the value of the kingdom. Thus, for example, from 1782 until 1824 a law prohibited the emigration of skilled workmen from Britain.
I find this a clearly odious practice. It is a serfdom law, which (going all Kantian on your behinds) treats men as other than ends in themselves. As even Moldbug says...serfdom and slavery were all but the same thing. Any state attempting this is evil. Continuing with Hoppe:
[...]
On the other hand, as far as immigration policy is concerned, a king would want to keep the mob, as well as all people of inferior productive capabilities, out.
Fiddlesticks and nonsense. Yes, this is a common wrong position. No doubt many Kings thought as much as well. That makes it a common mistake, not a correct position.
Issue #1: Productive capabilities may be putting me on tilt here, so I'll address that first. The actual issue is production, not capability...and despite the fact that we know some things, we also don't know a lot of things. As a teacher, I'm solidly in the camp: Motivation beats Practice beats Talent. If we note that it's actually productivity, not productive capability that we're looking for...the rest of the conclusions here don't actually follow.
Issue #2a: Quantity has a quality all it's own. China is a poor, barely ex-communist country. Had it ONLY 100M people, like, say Mexico...it wouldn't be part of the geopolitical discussion for another 50-100 years. ONLY the quantity of people in China makes it relevant at all. Ditto India. Even
300 200M people, like Indonesia, would make it barely worth talking about.
Issue #2b: Julian Simon, goddamit. Ceteris Paribus, more people is better on every axis we know how to measure.
Summary of my disagreement. The decision to keep out folks who are (judged to be) less productively capable is at the very least a non-obvious conclusion, and in my estimation, an obviously wrong conclusion.
Moving on to democratic government. Our disagreement is comparatively low here:
Migration policies become predictably different, once the government is publicly owned. The ruler no longer owns the country's capital value, but only has current use of it. He cannot sell or bequeath his position as ruler; he is merely a temporary caretaker. Moreover, "free entry" into the position of a caretaker government exists. Anyone can, in principle, become the ruler of the country.
Democracies as they came into existence on a world-wide scale after World War I offer historical examples of public government.
What are a democracy's migration policies? Once again assuming no more than self-interest (maximizing monetary and psychic income: money and power), democratic rulers tend to maximize current income, which they can appropriate privately, at the expense of capital values, which they cannot appropriate privately. Hence, in accordance with democracy's inherent egalitarianism of one-man-one-vote, they tend to pursue a distinctly egalitarian – non-discriminatory – emigration and immigration policy.
As far as emigration policy is concerned, this implies that for a democratic ruler it makes little, if any, difference whether productive or unproductive people, geniuses or bums leave the country. They have all one equal vote. In fact, democratic rulers might well be more concerned about the loss of a bum than that of a productive genius. While the loss of the latter would obviously lower the capital value of the country and loss of the former might actually increase it, a democratic ruler does not own the country. In the short run, which most interests a democratic ruler, the bum, voting most likely in favor of egalitarian measures, might be more valuable than the productive genius who, as egalitarianism's prime victim, will more likely vote against the democratic ruler. For the same reason, a democratic ruler, quite unlike a king, undertakes little to actively expel those people whose presence within the country constitutes a negative externality (human trash, which drives individual property values down). In fact, such negative externalities – unproductive parasites, bums, and criminals – are likely to be his most reliable supporters.
In the last while, this as seemed pretty clearly to be inaccurate. Governments know that the genius is lootable, while the bum is not...hence the growing attempts to re-impose evil emmigration policies.
As far as immigration policies are concerned, the incentives and disincentives are likewise distorted, and the results are equally perverse. For a democratic ruler, it also matters little whether bums or geniuses, below or above-average civilized and productive people immigrate into the country. Nor is he much concerned about the distinction between temporary workers (owners of work permits) and permanent, property owning immigrants (naturalized citizens). In fact, bums and unproductive people may well be preferable as residents and citizens, because they cause more so-called "social" problem," and democratic rulers thrive on the existence of such problems. Moreover, bums and inferior people will likely support his egalitarian policies, whereas geniuses and superior people will not. The result of this policy of non-discrimination is forced integration: the forcing of masses of inferior immigrants onto domestic property owners who, if they could have decided for themselves, would have sharply discriminated and chosen very different neighbors for themselves. Thus, the United States immigration laws of 1965, as the best available example of democracy at work, eliminated all formerly existing "quality" concerns and the explicit preference for European immigrants and replaced it with a policy of almost complete non-discrimination (multi-culturalism).
[...snip...]
The call about wanting extra social problems is a good one. The call about forced integration is unpleasant. The important thing to note is that the government is schizoid, tyrannical, and insane. The south went from having legal requirements to segregate to having legal requirements to integrate in the space of about 5 years. If that doesn't constitute insanity ... Gahh. Why don't we remove the F'in law mandating discrimination, and see what happens. Oh, right...the government must be seen to be the solution to a problem, not the core of the problem itself.
Hoppe Concludes:
The current situation in the United States and in Western Europe has nothing whatsoever to do with "free" immigration. It is forced integration, plain and simple [...snip...]
I disagree with the strong form of the statement, and agree with the weak form.
There are two issues at play here...
1. Mario from Mexico wants to come up to the farm near my house and pick Corn, working long hours in bad conditions, for low pay, with no health insurance. I want Mario up here picking corn. He's working his ass off, and deserves every penny he can make, and any law keeping him from doing so is evil.
2. Chun-li from China wants to come here, vacation at an American hotel, and have her baby while staying in the USA, thus granting him American Citizenship. F! that.
3. Remember that at the beginning, Hoppe agreed with me that the problem is the welfare state, NOT immigration...we can't invoke the welfare argument here.
Hoppe continues:
More specifically, the authority to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and re-assigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners and their voluntary associations. The means to achieve this goal are decentralization and secession (both inherently un-democratic, and un-majoritarian). One would be well on the way toward a restoration of the freedom of association and exclusion as it is implied in the idea and institution of private property, and much of the social strife currently caused by forced integration would disappear, if only towns and villages could and would do what they did as a matter of course until well into the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States: to post signs regarding entrance requirements to the town, and once in town for entering specific pieces of property (no beggars or bums or homeless, but also no Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, etc.); to kick out those who do not fulfill these requirements as trespassers; and to solve the "naturalization" question somewhat along the Swiss model, where local assemblies, not the central government, determine who can and who cannot become a Swiss citizen.
So long as there are furthermore no prohibitions against boycotting businesses that work in towns that prohibit Gays or Hindus...huzzah. And I'm towards the front of the line to organize the boycotts. At the same time...I think Swiss decentralization is 100% correct for almost all problems.
And then the final paragraphs...
[...snip....]
[Sane immigration policy] means distinguishing strictly between "citizens" (naturalized immigrants) and "resident aliens" and excluding the latter from all welfare entitlements.
Huzzah. I've argued this before, and I claim it would resolve the immigration debate in a way that makes everyone (except the politicians, who would lose an issue to posture about) happy.
It means requiring as necessary, for resident alien status as well as for citizenship, the personal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumption of liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant.
If you'll recall, I've personally argued this as well. I hadn't previously mentioned a surety bond would do just as well...just as a sufficient bond will substitute for Auto Insurance in some states.
It implies requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen;
This is insane. It assumes an employer-employee relationship as the basic approach to work, rather than an entrepreneurial model. This can do nothing but strengthen the corporatist state. Also...many/most immigrants who wish to work work far too hard and too long of hours to be stuck in a job. Hoppe here grants too much of the current pro-state structure as given. If we modify that to a properly open, non wage-slave structure, we might agree, though: An employment contract, or a surety bond, or guaranteed financial support...or even potentially an expectation of financial independence for the Visa's time-frame. When I visited Russia for 6 months, I took a credit card. Am I prohibited from visiting without financial documentation? Am I prohibited from teaching my landlady better English in exchange for lunches? What kind of prohibition do we wish to impose?
And his final sentence:
moreover, for both categories but especially that of citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only (English) language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values – with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias.
Complete and utter fabricated bullshit, with no support whatsoever, except in his own pre-built prejudices.
Illegal immigrant lawnmowers in Houston, Austin, Chicago, and California have no cause whatsoever to speak good English, be geniuses, or agree with me on more than the price of a mowed lawn. So long as there's no welfare, and no vote, there's no issue.
Further...it shocks me that Hoppe with his economics training is trapped into believing such central-planning silliness. You need NOTHING more than a lack of welfare for resident aliens, and advantages to learning English. Sure, there are still 3rd generation Russians in Chicago who don't speak English...but there's only about 3 of them.
Hoppe's academic bias blinds him to the fact that for trade with others, value comes from work, not capability.
Overall...Hoppe's argument is pretty strong, except in discussing people owning other people, in misunderstanding what makes a country better off, and in his completely unrelated conclusion.
Posts
