Immigration is a controversial subject in libertarian and anarcho-capitalist circles. Usually when there is a question of what people should be allowed to do or what policies we should support we can turn to property rights. We can ask “who owns this?” Unfortunately, the borders of a nation are not that clear cut. Governments specifically prevent individuals from exercising full ownership of the property along the border, and even seize additional property through eminent domain or similar programs.

Both open and closed government borders are not free market answers. Restricting movement of people over property that you do not own infringes on their rights. Alternatively, the government disallowing private acquisition and thus private decision-making of the land surrounding a nation distorts the amount of immigration that would otherwise occur.

Borders, in part, define the nation-state. It is within those borders that the coercive territorial monopolist of ultimate arbitration exists. So while the strict libertarian/anarcho-capitalist position on borders is to privatize them, to do so means to end the state. Until that happens we are forced to choose a 2nd best option as an immigration policy.

The federal government setting the rules for the entire border is the worst possible route for people who care about respecting the wishes of individuals. It amounts to a few politicians and bureaucrats setting the immigration policy for millions of square miles and hundreds of millions of people.

Outside of full privatization, there is another option which can unite libertarians of many stripes: decentralization.

We don’t all need to have the same immigration rules. By allowing individual states, and preferably localities to set their own immigration program, we can get closer to what individuals would decide under privatization.

This is also the Constitutional position. The extent of the federal government’s Constitutional powers concerns naturalization. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 declares “Congress shall have power… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States” Naturalization is not immigration. It is synonymous with citizenship. That means, constitutionally speaking, the power to allow or disallow the movement of non-citizens rests with the states and the people, as pointed out in the Tenth Amendment.

Thomas Jefferson reinforced this position in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: “Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States …An Act concerning aliens, which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.”

There is potential for a broad coalition on this subject ranging from constitutional conservatives to minarchist and anarchist libertarians. Many more people can have the immigration policy they desire if these decisions are made at a more local level.

For more content like this, please check out the Principled Libertarian on Facebook. Give them a like and tell them Actual Anarchy sent ya!

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

The post Another Take on Immigration appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

If your first thought is “well libertarians surely care about green!”, I’ll concede and state that this is the point of this article.

Humans, each with their own individual goals and interests, seek a better life for themselves and other people they care about. We are born into an impossible situation though, having signed a supposed “social contract” at birth which guilts us into thinking we owe something to future generations because of the sacrifices made in the past.

And thus lies the root of the problem: the confusion between positive and negative rights. Negative rights, justifiably, state that you as an individual have the right not to have force initiated against you and not  to have your property confiscated from you, while positive rights, which state that things are owed to you or other people, is a fallacy of the highest degree and should be abhorred by anyone familiar with logic.

The logic for positive rights proceeds as follows:

Person A of the past, did something to help or to hurt person B in the past, and therefore person C in the present who either gained or lost because of person A and B’s interactions in the past, owes something to or gets to take away something from person D in the present or the future.

It should be obvious why this doesn’t make sense, because if it’s true that I’m a user today of say the internet and its true I’m a benefactor of this past invention, then it would seem to imply that I “owe” something to the internet. But I pay for my internet services because I value its use, so in what sense am I a free rider?

And furthermore, any argument could be thought up to imply I owe something to somebody or I get to take away something from somebody, because of someone’s actions in the past. Its so nonsensical that’s its difficult to sum up into words, because it can imply almost anything.

Libertarianism however gives the individual a voice though because they are not responsible for things of the past, only their actions in the present. It allows for people to be judged by their character, and not by a collective (namely the state). The core aspect of communism is egalitarian in nature, seeking total equality in horrors that’s have been lived through by millions in which attempts to banish individualism not only goes against human nature (people having dreams and goals) but specifically uses violence to achieve its means, an impossible means to achieve at that.

There have been several articles circulating stating that white nationalism (which I won’t be facetious and leave out that some were written by an Asian guy) isn’t incompatible with libertarianism, which on the surface of it appears to be true in that libertarianism does not tell you that you can’t exclude people from your own private property, whether it be a business or your private home. The reasons for exclusion can be grim or nonsensical even, but the logic still follows that private property allows for inclusion and exclusion.

But then comes the question of, is racially motivated nationalism, hence a nation that wishes to have a private society based on some arbitrary traits unrelated to how a person conducts themselves (such as how tall you are, what color your eyes are, what your skin color is, etc.), able to be accomplished in a manner that is not contradicting to the main principle which is to not harm anyone else? How do you go about removing all the people who don’t look like you, and where do you draw the line? This argument only has plausibility in theory, in which we have a small private society that started from homesteading land and allowed people in one by one.

Society, in its present state, would have to use violence to create a nation of a single race, and even worse, it would have to utilize state functions itself.

On a simpler and more hysterical level, we can imagine the complications that would occur with mixed people, that is people that have different shades of skin tone in their own race; would a half black person be allowed in a white only society if they at least appeared white? It would be an odd and humorous question on the contract being signed entering into the private society that requires you to be 100% white, and many would lie their way in if they thought they could have a better life there.

From the perspective of private businesses, the question that needs to be asked from time to time is, what is more greedy: being racist and catering to the most amount of people you can, or being racist and limiting the amount of profits you earn to constrict your business?

If being greedy in business means that all you care about is profit, surely the former scenario is more greedy, as they are overlooking their racial bias to achieve more profit. The private business owner who chooses to exclude certain groups from their stores are limiting their profits, and hence being less greedy.

Finally, there is a reason why the Mises Institute and their senior fellows don’t use all their energy putting out information in opposition to white nationalism: because when something is so clearly the opposite of what you believe in, why even acknowledge the absurdities? As if people who spend their time thinking about how government harms the individual, also wishes to group the individual into collectivist classes. It just doesn’t make any sense to promote this line of thinking.

Putting people into classes is what collectivists do, while libertarians recognize the importance of a person’s actions versus their appearance.

Racism is collectivism at its core, and though it’s such an obvious facet of the libertarian mind that it hardly needs to be restated, collectivism is antithetical to individualism. It’s not that a private society couldn’t be formed in which only one race exists, but it seems to be problematic that it’s impossible to do that without violence.

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

The post True Libertarianism Is Colorblind appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

By Anarcho-Viking

The meme warriors from 4chan have revolutionized the art of meme warfare, and in the process of doing so; prominent libertarian scholars have appeared frequently together with fascist leaning military dictators, in what I would call the “alt-right meme circus”.

Memeing Gone Rampant

The helicopter is warmed up, photoshoped into the image are the faces of Augusto Pinochet (the former Chilean dictator) and Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Austrian economist and libertarian theorist) replacing the original caricature faces. Loaded onto the helicopter are a few communists or antifa social justice activists. Pepe the frog furthermore drags the commies onto the helicopter, and the helicopter carries the flag of Kekistan (an invented kingdom).

The text on the meme reads, “Hoppe’s physical removal service”, or “The Hoppean helicopter ride”, or “Free Kekistan!” Does this scenario sound familiar to you?

If you identify yourself as an anarcho-capitalist libertarian then you have certainly been exposed to the literature of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and you might laugh in amusement at this type of weaponized autism put forward by the alt-right internet trolls.

While the perversion of Hoppe’s argumentation ethics is entertaining in a warped sort of way, it is understandable that some people could be deceived by this distortion of Hoppe’s arguments, and as a consequence obtain a twisted interpretation of one of the greatest heroes for the cause of liberty.

Physical Removal

In order to clear up the confusion regarding the controversy around Hoppe, we need to look closer at his argumentation ethics, and frame the issue given the presumed conditions from which Hoppe derives his reasoning. In his masterpiece, Democracy – The God That Failed, Hoppe famously claims that:

“in a covenant…among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists”

because some people might promote ideas that would disturb the naturally established covenant and destabilize the covenant’s asserted protection of private property, concepts such as “democracy and communism”.

Hoppe furthermore goes on to argue that “there can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order” and the conclusion is that the alleged enemies of private property preservation “will have to be physically separated and removed from society”, so to speak.

The idea of “physical removal” is coming from the aforementioned statements. These statements, when taken out of context can be widely misunderstood.

The “Hoppean” proviso

It therefore becomes crucial to understand from what framework Hoppe delivers his bold rhetoric. People who have never even read a line in Democracy – The God That Failed, will think that Hoppe believes it is acceptable from an anarcho-capitalist stand-point to physically remove socialists by the use of government force, i.e., initiate aggression.

This is obviously not the case, and anyone who has had the opportunity to read Hoppe’s work, knows that the proviso for removing people is the understanding and contractual agreements of property rights in a free society.

The “Hoppean” proviso rests on the presumption that the notion of private property in a covenant society is the rule of law. It is therefore not controversial at all to say that a property owner has every right to exclude anyone from his/her property, for any reason, at any time. The natural right to discriminate is fundamental to maintain a peaceful and prosperous society, and it is nothing more controversial than your own right to decide whom you invite to come to your house for dinner.

In other words, when framing the issues by looking at them through the lens of self-determination, property rights, and voluntary association, it becomes crystal clear that the right to exclusion is a high necessity and a defense against moral decay and high time-preference. On the other hand, if one looks at the issues through the statist lens of government coercion, collectivism, and nationalism, like factions of the alt-right, then they are easy to become grotesquely contorted.

Migration and Borders

The anti-state mentality of the “Hoppean” proviso can be applied to the question of immigration and borders as well. In a free society no such thing as state borders would exist restricting the movement of individuals. However, there would be private borders instead driven by market forces, and private borders of property owners spanning geographical territories can exclude and discriminate freely.

We can therefore conclude that no such thing as “freedom of immigration exists” between private borders of different property titles. How could there be free immigration if highly selective homeowner associations and property owners determine admission to a specific territory?

The property titles may vary in their restrictive nature. We could have areas where there would be “no sale or rent to Jews, Germans, Catholics, homosexuals, Haitians, families with or without children, or smokers”, and at the same time there would be areas where the selectivity and discrimination would be less restricted due to more relaxed covenants on immigration.

Even in the case of immigration the “physical removal” part is not justified with state action, but it is justified by the notion that property owners ought to have the right to do as they please with their respective property titles. When immigration occurs without the consent or invitation of property owners in a specific area, by the force of the government iron fist, we have a case of forced integration. In a free society, a case of forced integration would be called trespassing, and thus “physical removal” is without any doubt warranted.

When the “Hoppean” proviso is not satisfied and the state carries out deportations despite there being an agreement between property owner and migrant, we have a case of forced segregation.

The “physical removal” by forced segregation, and hence not in line with the “Hoppean” proviso, is not warranted and it violates the ethics of private property.

Freedom From The State

This piece should have cleared up some of the confusions involving the phenomenon of “physical removal” contained in Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. All the arguments derived from Hoppe are rooted in the basic notion of negative rights as opposed to positive rights.

Namely freedom in the sense that you are free from the compulsion of the state, but not freedom to impose yourself and violate property rights of individuals who simply and peacefully refuse to associate with you in any way.

Discrimination is not an act of violence, and as individuals we choose to discriminate every day, from the food we eat, to where we buy our clothes, to who we rent from, and so forth.

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

The post Physical Removal – Separating the Facts from the Perversions appeared first on Actual Anarchy.