Postscript: Immigration

A Simplistic Argument 12.31.05 - Originally posted on Eric Sundwall.com copy it if you want to. Of course this was before all the politicking nonsense.

Sometime in early September I got up early and read a piece against open immigration by Stephan Kinsella on LRC. While it may be fashionable amongst various libertarians to dismiss Lew and his minions, I generally enjoy the site and actually thought I might submit something to them someday. My usual four paragraphs for fun about whatever I'm thinking about had to be stretched to five in my rather quick response to his effort. Preferring to delve into what I consider more original and unique Libertarian perspectives, I none the less threw down the gauntlet by letting Mr. Rockwell & Kinsella know that I was 'out' there. While I never heard anything back from Lew (this was right around the time of Katrina so I'm sure he was busy marshalling the anti-statist troops for the aftermath of poor government action), Mr. Kinsella did me the courtesy of responding; - thanks but I cannot at all tell what you are trying to say. However I nowhere claimed the state is the legitimate owner of anything, much less infrastructure; in fact I specifically stated the opposite. Without spending too much time on the matter, I pressed on. Some things still bothered me about the whole affair, thus I'm taking some quality time to respond to him. While I'm not sure if I have any letters after my name that matter very much, logic and reason are by no means the province of those who do.

My first reaction is that no where did I say that Mr. Kinsella said the state was a legitimate owner of anything. My assertion was simply - I believe the basic argument is this; despite the fact that I don't believe in the machinations of the state, the reality is that we as citizens of the state, own the roads and can thus make the rules of it. Hence the H.L.A. Hart quote, right ? The implication is that while the state does in fact own the roads, it may be unjustified considering the injustice of its imposition on the victim, i.e. the legitimate owner. The assumption seems to be that eminent domain is incapable of producing a fair commensurable price for the former owner. If an owner is given as much for his property as he or she asks, does it really matter to him who buys it ? If 99% of the community is in favor of the proposition and one percent exists in libertarian defiance , who is the real victim here? Perhaps just the fragile libertarian who feels their contribution is nothing more than compliance at gunpoint. My point was simply that once stated as such, no problem seems to be found in the capacity of the 'owner' to limit usage. I furthermore implied that the natives may have been the ultimate victims of the Occidental state, thus under such strictures, compensation was due, even though they may never have had a 'market' concept on land.

Now to the tortured pool analogy. A well read person might conclude this is a classic example of The Tragedy of the Commons. As the Wikipedia links states - when individuals use a public good, they do not bear the entire cost of their actions. If each seeks to maximize individual utility, he ignores the costs borne by others. The resource becomes depleted and thus of no use to anyone. Despite the fact that the state has stolen the resource from some noble private owner(s), we are asked to get beyond the simple injustice and accept the fact that the extra cost of non-residents is another form of compensation to the aggrieved owner(s). The local residents are justified in asking a higher user fee for outsiders based on the idea they are entitled to a resource not crowded by outsiders seeking cheap swimming. He states; It would be virtually worthless to me and most of my fellow residents of the City if there were no rules on entry, or no discrimination against outsiders. Its not clear what the rules might apply if all 10,000 residents suddenly decided to take advantage of the pool on a really hot day. Presumably the higher fee would be a market mechanism which reduced demand by higher pricing for outsiders. Once again, if the other 4 million residents or outsiders can all afford the higher fee and want to swim, what's the additional criteria for discrimination to protect the local owners ? Somehow the original owner/owners suddenly become equated with current local residents. If there were two or even two hundred original owners, why do the rest of the residents immediately have ownership/rights/preferences in the original illegitimate land grab ? The only explanation is the public/governmental aspect of ownership. Thus it does become like a government owned entity, otherwise only the original two or two hundred owners have a legitimate claim to preferences.

This becomes the bridge for the immigration argument. Owners (despite the fact that they may never have had a share or stake in the original property) are justified in determining use of their resources, even if it is the 'state'. Thus, if ' only citizens and certain invited outsiders are permitted to use these resources, this would in effect radically restrict immigration.' De facto immigration standards are established when the state (and/or the victims of its theft ) restricts use of its roads and ports. Thus, even if illegals are permitted on private property, they'll have a hard time getting there. Once again its not clear why this restriction would even be implemented. Presumably a super highway might run from Mexico to Canada and still accommodate both countries entire populations and simply impose a users fee which is capable of maintaining the costs of the road, perhaps even producing a profit. If they are not allowed to exit and simply just pass through the country, what harm to private individual occurs ? Let's go so far as to say they will pollute the common, un-owned, resource of the air and thus effect private citizens. A new criteria might be that all such foreign commuters are thus required to use electric cars for the trip. Technology and economy might continue to facilitate the entire transference of populations.

Rules of the road, literally, and the acceptance thereof, become the common denominator. Kinsella goes on; ' Even libertarians who say the state has no right to make any rules at all regarding property it possesses – even speed limits etc. – really advocate the following rule: allow anyone to use it, and/or return it to the people.' It's really not clear to me why this is the case. My point returns; I have no problem with the idea that once I am on the road no rules of traveling should apply, unlimited speeds, swerving etc. In the event of an accident, a private court system could adjudicate the responsibilities of each party. Presumably insurance companies would make 'accident' cameras more readily available in the event that unregulated driving caused a disproportionate amount of accidents. Bring it on. Why does it follow that if the state and/or the 'owner' has no right to make usage rules, than the resource must revert back to 'the people' ? The 'objective' libertarian isn't supposed to accept any state ownership, right ? Despite the lack of a tight syllogism here, the point being sought here is a 'secondary' rule. The original flaw stands. Back to the people is a collectivist reflex. A libertarian of this ilk must submit that back to the 'original owners', not the people. Otherwise I would submit the original owners are simply those who asserted force over that area not so long ago. Native people did not have a concept of market ownership. Thus while they may have been the original occupiers, until the Christian folk showed and started waving their guns around, ownership wasn't an issue. The idea of cordoning off a specific rectangle of land was absurd.

He states, "Where we differ is on what second-best rule is more libertarian, or more preferred ... A rule that generates more restitution for more people is, other things being equal, probably preferable to other rules." Is this the argument for utility or equality ? At this point we are told that no solution is optimal in terms of a libertarian because either you support no rules or you advocate returning to stolen property. This Either/Or premise is also flawed. The character of the ownership again takes on a very statist or collectivist attitude. If you restore ownership to the original owners it does not follow that the people can suddenly determine policy. Following the Rockwellian logic of private ownership there would be no 'state' or benefits derived for the 'people' based on restitution. The 'people' are not the owners. Conceivably, private forces or enterprises could by the property from individuals and build their own roads to all the jobs that they're willing to work for. Thus a foreign interest would have every right to legally purchase land for this purpose, taking away the restitution in the form of a benefit to the 'people' to essentially make policy. There is no gray area here. Either you whole heartedly support private ownership or you allow the state to have functions that private ownership cannot accomplish. The degree to which private ownership can replace the perceived need for government function is the game that libertarians have to play.

Given a 'privatist' paradigm where only those victimized are given restitution, why does it follow that restitution can be given in the form of benefits (ie. a nice, un-crowded pool) to the non-victimized ( in this case the 'people' ) ? Following the logic, nobody but those primarily affected by the state's theft of their personal property, residency would not be sufficient in terms of benefits, only those victimized, unless we are to assume all of us are victims when an individual's property is appropriated for the state. If the state in question is Texas, who is the original legitimate owner of the aforementioned property ? Is it Spain, Mexico or the Republic of Texas ? Were the Indians inefficient squatters ? If the state established the idea of personal property can it not as easily take it it away ? This seems to be the weak link in the Rothbardian influence. Rothbard couldn't deal with any idea of an original injustice in terms of land acquisition. The squatter or best use of the land was the premise for ownership. All too often the 'state' is the propagator of private acquisition of land. Vested interests supply the state with adequate incentive to allow acquisition based the coercive nature of the state, factors beyond noble, enterprising individuals seeking the best use of a particular parcel.

The bottom line is that this case is a subterfuge for keeping people out based on traditional and very English notions of property rights. Remember the Island was a small place and all the best spots were scooped up quick . Once the open air and frontier was possible, those who controlled the law, controlled the vast resources. It is possible to conceive of land that is not taken yet. If the moon is ever colonized by private concerns, it is possible to conceive of a commons ahead of time. This commons might have perfect utility, efficiency and no victims in the form of state coerced previous owners. Indeed there would not be a class of victim either. Mr. K states, " Private property is the only way to objectively and efficiently allocate capital." Therefore we are to assume that all state ownership is morally corrupt and serves no purpose. What this statement fails to account for the possibility that sometimes there are other purposes for land or property which do not have a private function. Sometimes there are no overt victims or need for restitution.

Given these considerations, it seems obvious to me that, just as my neighborhood pool discriminates against outsiders, and just as a private pool also does this, so the state owner-caretaker of federal property might also establish rules that discriminate against some immigrants. It is obvious that the overwhelming majority of citizens do not want open borders; which means almost every American taxpayer would prefer that public property not be open to everyone.

This statement seems like the analogy to the state is being made. If all property were private than no uniform set of rules need apply. The pool simply has a greater fee for outsiders. If they all can afford it, than what other discrimination is justified or utilized ? Why is it obvious that open borders are not wanted ? No empirical evidence is provided or alluded to. The argument for discrimination based on an accepted notion of libertarian illegitimacy of a state function seems very flawed in this instance. I'm for open immigration, cheap labor will simply let us build our emerald cities.

This is the primary reason I don't blog or take up the attack on others ideas. You simply spend too much time nitpicking and arguing over something that will never see the light of day. For some reason this was a popular piece in my small readership and responding seemed appropriate. It basically represents some end of the year house cleaning. I will admit that Mr. Kinsella annoys me. He's seems narcissistic and obsessed with his own brilliance. He viciously attacks people in forums and other formats and his often the focus of hostile dispute. Being a lawyer is a state license to steal. If engaged and intelligent citizens were allowed to use the knowledge of law without the anointed priesthood that guards it we would all be better off without reason based on its own simple and brutal power over others.