Wedlug butnego Hoppe'go jestem lewakiem (jak i wiekszosc forumowiczow)

[libertarianin.tom]

8) You also stated that governments allow more free immigration than it’s “necessary” because heterogeneous society is easier to rule and more difficult to spread libertarian principles there. However in my opinion it’s quite the opposite. As we could witness during the history of the world the most homogenous countries were the most aggressive, nationalist and imperialist (e.g. Japan) and secessionist movements (very important for anarcho-capitalism) are/were almost non-existent there. Homogenous societies easily turn to strong nation-states, not libertarianism (only few libertarians in Japan or Germany, am I right?)

9) You’ve also stated that some foreigners might decrease the value of houses placed nearby. Well, according to Austrian Economics people has the right to the property not its value. The value is totally subjective. Besides, people have no right to tell their neighbours who they can sell their houses to, and they can’t forbid foreigners to occupy free land either (if there’s such a land nearby). If somebody doesn’t want to live near a foreigner (or a drunkard or a Satanist, etc.) he can buy neighbouring parcels to have “more space” or sign specific contracts with neighbours (e.g. against selling of their land to some particular group of people). But they have no right to use state’s violence to achieve this goal!

10) Anti-immigration law has a double impact because it also makes other countries impose the same kind of regulations. So effectively country that severely restricts immigration, effectively also makes the emigration very difficult. If many countries impose immigration restriction the whole world will rather look like a bunch of totalitarian states, not libertarian paradise, because governments would become much bolder (higher taxes, less freedom) in the absence of the freedom of movement (nowhere to run away…).

Overall I think that immigration is a serious issue and I suppose that it’s not a good idea to treat this problem as the most important problem that divides libertarians into right and left-libertarians. Actually in my country (Poland) libertarians often view themselves as right-wingers as we usually regard the right to be in favour of private property rights and left in favour of state-owned or communal ownership. Libertarians in Poland despise cultural Marxism, anti-discrimination laws, democrats, anti-racist campaigners, political correctness, anti-gun activists, anti-death penalty idealists, feminists, aggressive pro-gay rights propagandists and so on. Actually most of Polish libertarians are very “hard-cored” and view themselves as “libertarian brutalists”, so calling them “leftists” only because they also support free immigration (based on propertarian not “humanitarian” values) is not only misleading but also unfair and totally wrong. Actually calling somebody per “leftist” has a very pejorative meaning among Polish libertarians.

Besides many famous libertarian and classical liberals like Mises, Hayek, Nock, Rand, Caplan, Neapolitano, Block, Schoolland, Rothbard (almost whole life – up to 90s - supported open-borders policy, just like Ron Paul) and Rockwell (not so long time ago he said that he prefers “illegal” than “legal” immigrants and that the state can only mess up the issue even more) were/are pro free-immigration and I don’t think you’d call all of them left-libertarians, “leftists” or – God forbid! – cultural Marxists….

In general I believe that libertarians should focus on privatization and dissembling of the state instead of quarrelling what the state should do as long as it exists. Giving the state more power in the immigration field can only strengthen it and prolong its life. The problem of undesirable immigrants can be solved easily through private discrimination: if you don’t sell to a foreigner, don’t buy from him, don’t rent him a house, etc. finally he has to go back to the place he came from (or become a criminal, but in this case we can solve the problem easily by shooting him if he attempts a robbery…). In my (and most of Polish libertarians) opinion it’s enough to completely remove the welfare state and anti-discrimination laws, after that the immigration “problem” will be practically solved (and privatization of roads and sidewalks will solve it completely of course, but this we both now I guess).

I hope I can receive your reply to my e-mail soon. I’d really like to know what you think about my arguments supporting free immigration.

Please be informed that I plan to post your reply to this e-mail on Polish libertarians’ forum: https://libertarianizm.net/. I hope that’s alright for you.

P.S. Please do not disclose my name to other people because right now I live in China so I’d prefer to stay anonymous…

Best Regards,
Yours sincerely.
Tomasz _____________
_____________, China

 

[libertarianin.tom]

Odpowiedz Hoppe'go, ze tak powiem niezbyt satysfakcjonujaca:

"I do not have the time or patience to clear up all of your confusions. My impression is that you fail (or are unwilling) to even understand the fundamental issues involved.

Only this:

1) There is no right to free immigration, unless a place is unowned or you have been invited by the present occupant of a place.

2) Public goods are not unowned. They are neither owned by everyone, nor by the state, but they are owned by the taxpayers of these goods in proportion with their tax payments.

3) If the state permits tax-eaters to use public goods owned by tax payers (and prohibits the latter to discriminate against the former), then the state assists in trespassing.

4) This applies to domestic tax-eaters as it applies to foreign tax-eaters.

5) To be a tax-eater is not the same as a non-payer of taxes.

6) Even if tax-avoiders may be heroic, tax-payers are not guilty - after all they payed under duress."

"a non-payer of taxes" jest jak dla mnie tym samym co "tax-eater", bo widzial ktos kiedys nie placacego podatkow czlowieka co to nigdy z domu nie wyszedl i nie zdeptal paru chodnikow?!

Ale co tam, nie chce mi sie juz do niego wiecej pisac skoro odpowiada tak zdawkowo.

 

[szeryf2]

Hmm dobrze zrozumialem ? Hoppe uważa, że jeśli urodziłem się w polsce oraz nie płace podatków to mam prawo tu żyć i korzystać z dóbr publicznych, a ktoś kto urodził się gdzie indziej i płaci w polsce podatki już nie tego prawa nie ma? Mam nadzieje, że coś pokręcilem...

 

[pikol]

Odpowiedz Hoppe'go, ze tak powiem niezbyt satysfakcjonujaca:

"I do not have the time or patience to clear up all of your confusions. My impression is that you fail (or are unwilling) to even understand the fundamental issues involved.

Only this:

1) There is no right to free immigration, unless a place is unowned or you have been invited by the present occupant of a place.

2) Public goods are not unowned. They are neither owned by everyone, nor by the state, but they are owned by the taxpayers of these goods in proportion with their tax payments.

3) If the state permits tax-eaters to use public goods owned by tax payers (and prohibits the latter to discriminate against the former), then the state assists in trespassing.

4) This applies to domestic tax-eaters as it applies to foreign tax-eaters.

5) To be a tax-eater is not the same as a non-payer of taxes.

6) Even if tax-avoiders may be heroic, tax-payers are not guilty - after all they payed under duress."

"a non-payer of taxes" jest jak dla mnie tym samym co "tax-eater", bo widzial ktos kiedys nie placacego podatkow czlowieka co to nigdy z domu nie wyszedl i nie zdeptal paru chodnikow?!

Ale co tam, nie chce mi sie juz do niego wiecej pisac skoro odpowiada tak zdawkowo.

Przypomina mi się Kolonko, który kiedyś narzekał, że jakiś nielegalny imigrant wygrał w loterii USA. Chuj z tym, że sam kupił los. ..

 

[Rebel]

Ja Hoppego i jego zwolenników nie lubię - http://premislaus1988.deviantart.com/journal/O-retoryce-484180709

Konserwatyzm polityczny to czystej wody etatyzm (bo naród, bo bóg, bo chuj wi co). Choćby dlatego, że liczy się z czymś takim jak społeczne przyzwolenie, co jest sprzeczne z tym, że społeczeństwo to tylko suma jednostek i ważne są tylko poszczególne relacje pomiędzy ludźmi - umowy. Przede wszystkim promuje zachowania sprzeczne z wolnościowością (o czym w linku wyżej). Dlaczego tak się stało, że zawiązano taktyczny sojusz z nimi?

Libertarianie za mało napierdalają w konserwy!

Najpierw rozróżnijmy dwie kwestia. Jeśli ktoś kto określa siebie mianem konserwatywnego libertarianina powie na przykład że jest zwolennikiem prhibicji to nie znaczy że prohibicja jest postulatem konserwatyno-libertariańskim bo to jest po prostu postulat nie-libertariański.

Ja jestem w penym sensie konserwatywnym libertarianinem, tutaj napisałem dlaczego https://libertarianizm.net/threads/co-slychac-u-libertarian-na-zachodzie.4952/#post-96695
Nie ma czegoś takiego jak zachowania sprzeczne z wolnościowością. Albo jakieś działanie łamie aksjomaty i wtedy jest nielibertariańskie albo nie łamie aksjomatów i wtedy może być pogodzone z libertarianizmem.

 

[Eruantalon]

Ale Hoppe dał dupy.

 

[libertarianin.tom]

Ostatnio troche zasmiecilem temat o islamizacji bo zmienilem go w temat ogolny o imigracji. Sorry. Wiec postanowilem odswierzyc ten temat bo ostatnio przeczytalem kupe dobrych arykulow udowadniajacych, ze Hoppe (a teraz takze Rockwell) nie ma racji.

Za dlugo czytalem LewRockwell.com, ktory od conajmniej pol roku nie opublikowal niczego co by popieralo open borders. Teraz zaczalem czytac liberty.me, gdzie argumenty obu stron sa prezentowane. Chwala im za to.

Po za tym w komentach na tronie Instytutu Misesa tez mozna zobaczyc, ze wiekszosc libkow ma juz dosyc anty-imigracyjnego pitolenia i wrzucaja tam ciekawe posty.

https://nico.liberty.me/debunking-hoppe-on-immigration/

https://nico.liberty.me/lew-rockwells-problem-with-freedom/

https://studentsforliberty.liberty.me/i-want-lew-rockwell-to-be-libertarian-on-immigration/

https://jakedesyllas.liberty.me/immigration-controls-are-socialist-some-libertarians-have-forgotten/

best fragment:

The argument is that since monarchs “own” their countries, they behave more similarly to private property landowners than democratic states do.

Well, if you believe that the State should act like a private landowner with regard to immigration, look at what the monarchs of the nineteenth century did. They did zip. They didn’t even ask to see your passport.

The monarchs who ran Europe in the nineteenth century allowed completely free migration. And they did so in a time of far higher violent crime levels, when there was objectively more to fear from strangers. The monarchies were far more open to migration than the welfare state democracies that followed them.

The liberal economic system of the nineteenth century collapsed with the First World War, which was the beginning of the new era of democratic welfare states, and all the interventionism that went with it. The wars and protectionism of the interventionist states in the twentieth century destroyed much of the economic integration and progress of the nineteenth century liberal age.

Immigration controls were just one aspect of this wider regression— from economic freedom into socialist protectionism. The damage was huge. World trade as a share of world output did not recover to its pre-1913 level until the 1970s.

So, closed-border libertarians have got it backwards. Interventionist states do not promote immigration, in fact the opposite is true. It was the rise of the democratic welfare states, with all their controls and permits, that created immigration controls in the first place. The European monarchs who reigned before them maintained open borders.

Immigration controls are an integral component of the interventionist State—it cannot survive without them. As Harry Browne said, “Libertarians know that a free country has nothing to fear from anyone coming in or going out, while a welfare state is scared to death of poor people coming in and rich people getting out.”

In the early stages of interventionism, the emphasis is on keeping immigrants out. When State interventionism gets more intense, the emphasis switches to preventing citizens from leaving- as was the case in the USSR and all the Eastern European socialist countries.

http://triblive.com//x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/boudreaux/s_526907.html

 

[libertarianin.tom]

i moj ulubiony:

http://fff.org/2016/05/19/open-borders-libertarian-position-immigration/

fragment z powyzszego:

And that’s what the proponents of government-controlled borders never ever talk about — the fact that government enforcement of their paradigm necessarily consists of grave violations of the libertarian non-aggression principle.

Consider the following hypothetical. Ever since I presented it many years ago, there has not been one single libertarian advocate of government-controlled borders who has ever been able to refute the principles set forth in the hypothetical. Unless and until any libertarian advocate of government-controlled borders successfully refutes the principles set forth in this hypothetical, the government-controlled borders paradigm will continue to stand as fatally flawed.

Two brothers own adjoining ranches in New Mexico, one on the Mexican side of the border and one on the U.S. side. There is no fence dividing the ranches. There is only an imaginary line known as the U.S.-Mexico border, which also demarks the property line between the two ranches. There is a U.S. highway that runs east-west and abuts the northern border of the U.S. brother’s property. The highway is located 10 miles from the border.

One day, the American brother invites the Mexican brother to come to his home for dinner. The Mexican brother accepts.

Under libertarian principles, do they have the right to do that? Of course they do. Their actions are entirely peaceful. They’re not burglarizing, stealing, murdering, or otherwise violating the libertarian non-aggression principle.

Is the Mexican brother guilty of trespass? Of course not. Trespass is when a person goes onto another person’s property without the owner’s consent and permission. The Mexican brother is going to where he has been invited.

Enter the libertarian advocate of government-controlled borders. He proclaims, “Not so fast, Mexican brother. You haven’t secured the permission of the U.S. government to cross the border to have dinner with at your brother’s house. Until you do, you cannot cross the border onto your brother’s property.”

Suppose the Mexican brother responds, “I have the fundamental right to go wherever I am invited and welcomed. I have the right to associate with my brother. I have a right to eat dinner at his home when he invites me. I intend to exercise my liberty by traveling onto my brother’s property, enter his home, and have dinner with him.”

Now what? Now come the enforcement measures, a subject, as previously noted, that libertarian proponents of government-controlled borders never ever discuss. The reason they never ever discuss them is because immigration enforcement measures involve grave violations of the libertarian non-aggression principle.

To enforce the immigration controls, the federal government must send Border Patrol agents to the border to stop the Mexican brother from proceeding with his plans. But wait a minute! In order to do that, the agents must cross onto the property of the U.S. brother in order to get to the imaginary line that separates the two tracts of land. But the American brother won’t give them that permission.

That then means trespass. Yes, trespass by the government’s Border Patrol. Yes, trespass that violates the libertarian non-aggression principle. If there are locked gates or no gates, the Border Patrol will just shoot them off or cut open the fence. If there is no road from the highway to the border, they will just make one, even if it destroys the natural habitat on the ranch.

And there is absolutely nothing that the American brother can do to stop it. If he tries, they will arrest him, prosecute him, convict him, incarcerate him and fine him for obstructing justice and interfering with a law-enforcement officer in the performance of his duties. In other words, they will initiate force against him.

What happens with the agents reach the border? They will order the Mexican brother to stay right where he is and direct him not to cross the border. What happens if the Mexican brother crosses anyway and attempts to travel to his brother’s house? They will arrest him, prosecute him, convict him, incarcerate him, fine him, and then deport him. If he resists with violence, they will meet force with force. In other words, in their enforcement of border controls, they will violate the libertarian non-aggression principle.

Or they will construct a government-owned fence between the ranches. How do they do that? They use eminent domain to steal part of the U.S. brother’s ranch — enough land to build their fence on. And if the fence doesn’t work (and it won’t), they will build a wall, similar to the Berlin Wall.

They will also establish government-run permanent checkpoints along that east-west border, where domestic travelers are required to stop, show papers, and submit to total searches of their persons and automobiles — without judicially issued warrants. And they’ll have roving Border Patrol agents, which stop cars at random and search people’s vehicles. All to make certain that the Mexican brother and other Mexican citizens aren’t traveling north to get jobs, visit, tour, of engage in other peaceful activity.

And they’ll start raiding privately owned businesses in the northern part of the country to search for illegal immigrants who have succeeded in bypassing the enforcement measures along the border. Yes, businesses that have knowingly invited the immigrants to work in their businesses. Where are the immigrants living? In privately owned edifices that have been voluntarily rented or sold to them.

Or the government will encourage American citizens to become snitches by reporting people who they suspect of not being in the country legally.

While the scenario set forth above is hypothetical, the immigration enforcement measures are not. They are reality. They have converted the American Southwest into a border-control police state. It’s that police state that libertarian proponents of immigration controls implicitly defend and implicitly claim is consistent with libertarianism.

i ladny fragment z Misesa:

Ludwig von Mises on the true reasons of anti-immigration laws | Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War

However, it would be a serious omission not to mention the fact that immigration barriers are recommended by many contemporaries without any reference to the problem of wage rates and farm yields. Their aim is the preservation of the existing geographical segregation of various races.

They argue this: Western civilization is an achievement of the Caucasian races of Western and Central Europe and their descendants in overseas countries. It would perish if the countries peopled by these Westerners were to be overflowed by the natives of Asia and Africa. Such an invasion would harm both the Westerners and the Asiatics and Africans. The segregation of various races is beneficial to all mankind because it prevents a disintegration of Western civilization. If the Asiatics and Africans remain in that part of the earth in which they have been living for many thousands of years, they will be benefited by the further progress of the white man’s civilization. They will always have a model before their eyes to imitate and to adapt to their own conditions. Perhaps in a distant future they themselves will contribute their share to the further advancement of culture. Perhaps at that time it will be feasible to remove the barriers of segregation. In our day—they say—such plans are out of the question.

We must not close our eyes to the fact that such views meet with the consent of the vast majority. It would be useless to deny that there exists a repugnance to abandoning the geographical segregation of various races. Even men who are fair in their appraisal of the qualities and cultural achievements of the colored races and severely object to any discrimination against those members of these races who are already living in the midst of white populations are opposed to a mass immigration of colored people. There are few white men who would not shudder at the picture of many millions of black or yellow people living in their own countries.

The elaboration of a system making for harmonious coexistence and peaceful economic and political cooperation among the various races is a task to be accomplished by coming generations. But mankind will [122] certainly fail to solve this problem if it does not entirely discard etatism. Let us not forget that the actual menace to our civilization does not originate from a conflict between the white and colored races but from conflicts among the various peoples of Europe and of European ancestry. Some writers have prophesied the coming of a decisive struggle between the white race and the colored races. The reality of our time, however, is war between groups of white nations and between the Japanese and the Chinese who are both Mongolians. These wars are the outcome of etatism.

 

[Violinovy]

Sporo po czasie, ale skoro temat został w jakimś stopniu odświeżony, to napiszę tylko, że poglądy HHH na sprawę osiedlania się w ramach migracji zawarte są w książce "Wielka fikcja. Państwo w epoce schyłku". Moim zdaniem Hoppego nie czyta się najlepiej, bo jako pracownik akademicki ma tendencję do ciężkiego wodolejstwa. We wspomnianej książce opisywał też jakby widział proces prywatyzacji "własności" publicznej. Też się opierał na odprowadzonych podatkach, jako wyznaczniku potencjalnego wymiaru udziału. moim zdaniem, to chyba gdzieś sobie przyjął odprowadzone podatki, jako punkt wyjścia do pokojowego zaprowadzenia pełnej prywatyzacji i teraz się mota wokół tej konstrukcji w innych kwestiach...

 

[libertarianin.tom]

Sporo po czasie, ale skoro temat został w jakimś stopniu odświeżony, to napiszę tylko, że poglądy HHH na sprawę osiedlania się w ramach migracji zawarte są w książce "Wielka fikcja. Państwo w epoce schyłku". Moim zdaniem Hoppego nie czyta się najlepiej, bo jako pracownik akademicki ma tendencję do ciężkiego wodolejstwa. We wspomnianej książce opisywał też jakby widział proces prywatyzacji "własności" publicznej. Też się opierał na odprowadzonych podatkach, jako wyznaczniku potencjalnego wymiaru udziału. moim zdaniem, to chyba gdzieś sobie przyjął odprowadzone podatki, jako punkt wyjścia do pokojowego zaprowadzenia pełnej prywatyzacji i teraz się mota wokół tej konstrukcji w innych kwestiach...

Koncepcja ta nie jest taka zla. Problemem jest to, ze HHH chce aby panstwo udawalo rynek i staralo sie zgadywac "jakby sie zachowal wlasciciel danej drogi gdyby mogl nia uzytkowac". Tylko, ze takie gdybanie jest z gory skazane na porazke bo panstwo nie jest wstanie nasladowac rynku. Gdyby tak bylo to centralne planowanie dzialaloby jak splatka... To tez Hoppe'owe oranie centralnie sterowanej gospodarki przy jednoczesnym popieraniu centralnie sterowanej imigracji wogole nie trzyma sie kupy. Klasyczny przyklad samo-zaorania.

 

[Violinovy]

To tez Hoppe'owe oranie centralnie sterowanej gospodarki przy jednoczesnym popieraniu centralnie sterowanej imigracji wogole nie trzyma sie kupy. Klasyczny przyklad samo-zaorania.

Prawdę pisząc, to nie mam pojęcia, czy to co pisze w tym temacie Hoppe to jego poglądy, czy też dywagacje wolnościowego akademika nad niewolnościową praktyką polityczną... Jak dla mnie to też się nie trzyma kupy. HHH zanim się na studiach zliberalizował, był kiedyś marksistą, co sam przyznaje. Może taka blizna intelektualna zostaje do końca życia, cholera go wie.

 

[GAZDA]

Koncepcja ta nie jest taka zla.

jest chujowa, bo oznacza to "płaćcie dużo podatków a bedzie wam wynagrodzone kiedyś w akapie"

 

[Hanki]

Jeśli kogoś to interesuje, to wkrótce powinno ukazać się tłumaczenie tego tekstu Hoppego, A Realistic Libertarianism, które popełniłem uznając, że ten tekst jest po prostu arcyciekawy

 

[Staszek Alcatraz]

Najwyższy Czas! przeprowadził wywiad z Hoppe. Ktoś przetłumaczył na angielski i wrzucił do sieci -> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-18/hans-hermann-hoppe-put-your-hope-radical-decentralization

 

[Hanki]

Najwyższy Czas! przeprowadził wywiad z Hoppe. Ktoś przetłumaczył na angielski i wrzucił do sieci -> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-18/hans-hermann-hoppe-put-your-hope-radical-decentralization

Nie do końca. Cukiernik robił wywiad po angielsku rzecz jasna, ukazało się to na lewrockwell.com i na mises.org a następnie przełożyli to na polski i opublikowali w "NCZ!".

 

[Hanki]

Tak, jak zapowiadałem, rzeczony tekst Hoppego w wersji polskiej:

http://libertarianin.org/realistyczny-libertarianizm/