Saturday, June 17, 2017

Reset with Anonp

A more complete reply (and clarification) to Anonymous June 15, 2017 at 7:53 AM, aka “anonp.”


I have assumed a certain context both in this post and in my dialogue in general regarding immigration and open borders.  My context is one of examining libertarian theory on these topics and attempting to apply the theory in this world, the world as it is today.

As you have been here often and commented often, I assumed you understood this; further, this specific post is in reference to a real-world example – the Jewish immigration into Palestine during the British Mandate period

Admittedly, I will write new posts as a continuing dialogue – a dialogue with myself and with regular readers; I feel no obligation or benefit to resetting the foundation and context every time I discuss a topic.

Now, with feedback from an individual who is new to this site – or someone I don’t recall – I am (or try to be) patient in my response.  With feedback from anonymous commenters (not you, as I recognize “anonp” that you include), depending on the nature of the feedback, I almost always initially assume I am being trolled.

With those who have commented often, I assume a certain context – that the foundation I have previously laid is understood.  This is the case with you.

Now, I also recognize that it is incumbent upon me to remember the foundation that regular commenters have laid.  Alas, I may not be perfect at this – better with those who are a) here regularly, and b) have offered something that really stayed with me.

With that out of the way, I would like to start over with your various feedback.  Call it a reset.

You can do everything you want, to show your disagreement.

You will understand now, I hope, the reason for my reaction.  In this world, I cannot do this – and this world is the context of both the subject post and my writing.  Further, part of the foundation is my extensive dialogue with Walter Block – the relevant portions of which I have written about publicly (here, and much more importantly, here).  To apply the NAP to this topic in this world requires full private property – and all that this implies.

So…I cannot do everything I want – within the context and given the foundation that I have built over at least 50 posts and hundreds of interchanges in the comments sections of these.

Are you calling for State intervention?

First of all, I hope you understand why the fact that you asked this question confirmed my belief that you understood the context and foundation.  In a world that respects the NAP, there are no states; in this world, there are.  So when you ask if I am calling for state intervention, in which world is your question relevant?

More importantly, I have written several times that I do allow myself to be boxed into a false choice: either open borders in this world or state intervention in this world.  At minimum, I had – and believe I have completely achieved – one objective: to demonstrate that application of the NAP on this topic in this world is not possible.  Absent full private property rights, every possibility is a violation of the NAP.  Just ask Walter Block!

My further objective is to demonstrate why managed borders – even if managed by the state (as if there is any other choice in a world of states) – is a reasonable second best alternative.  I will not here go into all of the reasons why; I have written on this too much already (read the fifty posts if you like).

If you bring one million people here to live on the welfare, you are not privately financing anything; you are using tax dollars, so you are violating the nap.

I should not have overlooked so quickly this line of reasoning from you, and the natural implications of this and other similar statements of yours.

That tells us something about the culture, the morals, the habits, the mentality that a society more coherent with the nap will produce.

Admittedly, I reacted strongly to this statement.  This time, I will merely ask: do you mean to say that the NAP will produce a culture?  This is unfathomable to me.  But, if this is truly what you mean, please expand on why you believe it.

Many here seem to love the state but only want a different orientation of statism.

Yes, there are some who comment here that have a view of the state not consistent with the NAP.  I do not stop them from commenting, and have learned much from their comments.  As long as comments are respectful and not vulgar, I allow these.

With that said, I never like such statements as the one you wrote.  To whom do you refer?  If we want true dialogue at this site, we have to talk to each other individually, not to “many here.”

My point being that the NAP is not so poor as you picture it, but that your example is misleading.

But this is my point, and consistent with my entire dialogue on this topic: we live in this world.  In the reality of this world, how do we apply the NAP?  In some things it is easy – robbery, murder, etc.  In some things, it is not so easy – in this case, immigration and open borders.

So my example is not misleading at all.  What would have been the proper libertarian response by Palestinians to the massive Jewish influx during the British Mandate?  They protested, they boycotted, they did all of the NAP-consistent measures that you offered (and, of course, some that were not consistent).

This wasn’t enough.  They left a failed legacy for themselves and their grandchildren.

If this is acceptable under the NAP we should ask ourselves: what are the implications?  Is the NAP a bad political theory or is it simply that we have not properly defined it?  Or, maybe, the NAP just doesn’t answer every single relationship question we might ask.

To this, I offer one portion of my response to Unhappy Conservative, from the same thread:

We want to think of aggression in three dimensions: height, width, depth. Perhaps Rothbard is suggesting we might want to think about a fourth dimension - time. To do so, we must consider human nature in the equation.

Where along that fourth dimension did Jewish immigration into Palestine turn into aggression? We cannot pick a moment, we only see the result - the reality that it happened.

Maybe libertarian theorists just haven’t yet properly defined aggression.  At least Palestinians at the time of the Mandate would say so.


  1. Thanks for your attention, BM. I don't think I can give a full answer. I'l try to say something.

    I don't know enough of Israel and Palestinians to detail who, when, where, why, have violated the NAP. I think that generally speaking Israel is the aggressor and Palestinians are defending, and the use of force for defence is libertarian. But this is only a superficial opinion on the situation. I'm not at ease speaking of what I don't know.

    This seems to me to be just right: "Where along that fourth dimension did Jewish immigration into Palestine turn into aggression? We cannot pick a moment, we only see the result - the reality that it happened." But it's not so clear where it brings us.

    "What if Soros privately financed one milion people to come here?" I answer that in this world he isn't really privately financing anything. Maybe he pay for the journey, but after that what? welfare? than he is using tax dollars and making political maneuvers.

    So my point (for those who see the NAP as an inadequate principle) is that we can use the NAP to frame the situation. If he is really privately financig than we must be in a NAP world, if we aren't there he isn't privately financing. The libertarian way is to procedd toward that NAP world.

    What can we do to go in that direction? Of course everything that enlarge the State is in the wrong direction. I offer abolition of welfare. It's to much? than, exclusion of immigrants from it. And then abolition or shrinking of democracy. It's to much? than, exclusion of immigrants from vote. Let them pay for themeselves, they will have to work, to live in the market, they will have to learn how to live with locals. And no more cronysm: I have nothing against the rich, but one must get rich in the market. And end the wars abroad, that cause mass migrations.

    And I agree with you that managed borders are the second best for this world. But what kind of management? I would say an invitation system. But how can we avoid it becoming a monstrous apparatus? a black hole for tax dollars? an ungovernable bureaucracy? a totally discretionary system? a further step toward police state? It's important to understand that the State is a problem if it does one thing, but also if it does its opposite.

    Where can we find solutions than? In the market, it is from the market and private initiative that comes solutions. The more you entrust the management of immigration to the market the better. I have difficulties to go down in more details. But every step I offered is in market directions. It may seem like an indirect answer, but I think there are not many straightforward ways to tackle the problem. If we can't do that - go in market direction - than, honestly, we can't solve the problem.

    If I put you in a situation where you are free, but also responsible for what you do, you will learn - to some extent - from your experience (as a mouse learn from shock, so to speak) to be free and responsible. If you try it and see that liberty can be good, you will shift your vision toward it. If you have freedom around you , you will learn from what you see. I'm not marxist, but I think that the material, legal, institutional, economic conditions contribute to shape a culture. I think that a change in material conditions can produce a change in culture. As a change in culture can produce a change in those material conditions.

    To expand on this is for me too difficult and time consuming (I'm sorry, maybe I'm not so smart:). But if there are cultural consequences caused by the FED, there must be also cultural consequences caused by it's abolition. And in general cultural consequences caused by every step in one or other directions.


    1. Anonp, perhaps you and I are more aligned than I previously accepted. I will touch on only a couple of your points:

      “I don't know enough of Israel and Palestinians to detail who, when, where, why, have violated the NAP.”

      I only know only a little, and this is why I generally avoided this issue in my post. My overriding purpose was to look at the before and the after – not the in-between, not who did what to whom and who started it. I looked at the time before the Mandate and the time at the end of the Mandate. Somewhere in between these two points, it is reasonable to conclude that immigration turned to aggression – and ultimately destruction for countless hundreds of thousands by death, injury, and refugee status.

      “What can we do to go in that direction?...I would say an invitation system.”

      I agree with your points and restrictions. I have in the past offered that some kind of formal invitation is required: a letter of employment, a letter from a potential landlord or regarding the purchase of a house by the immigrant, a letter from a sponsor (who is a citizen) guaranteeing that the immigrant will not be a burden to the community and will not make criminal acts – with penalties to the sponsor for violations by the immigrant.

      “But how can we avoid it becoming a monstrous apparatus?”

      I think we cannot, but at least a real human being – a citizen – will be liable for all costs and bad acts by the immigrant. As long as there are state borders, the state will manage the borders. For a state to not manage the borders is a logical impossibility – only the most air-headed theorists could conceive of such a possibility (I am NOT including you in this), and minarchist libertarians are the most air-headed of all on this. In any case, given state borders, for the state to not manage the borders also could be considered a dereliction of duty.

      “But every step I offered is in market directions. It may seem like an indirect answer…”

      As long as we have states, there are only indirect answers. The only direct answer is full private property rights (with all of the discrimination that this implies). After this, a more peaceful immigration paradigm can be imagined.

    2. In reference to the invitation system, what of hotels, shops or tourist attractions? What if a week of vacation turns into a job offer and a willing rental for housing? What if it isn't an offer per se, but the mere application and acceptance? Is this not adequate in the world as it is today? I see no obvious NAP violations, even if the employment and housing are under the table.

    3. Anonymous, then advocate for those things first and open borders last. To the extent that you advocate open borders under the current conditions your advocacy delegates aggression to these migrants. That may not be your intention, but that is the fact of the matter.

    4. Patrick

      Each of your questions can be dealt with via the framework I have outlined, except, perhaps, the under the table stuff. In any case, that my framework is not totally perfect I have already admitted.

      In the end, every solution to this question, as long as there are states and state borders, will violate in some way or another the NAP.

      We are left with second best choices.

    5. Patrick,

      While I personally have problems with even the sort of individual work-based migration that you describe, in the context of this discussion that is ultimately a straw man.

      The issue of our time is *group* migration, the migration of entire population groups, also known as colonization. Migrations of this sort have lasting and permanent effects as evidenced by history. Specifically we are dealing with non-white mass migration into white countries. This processed is sponsored both by the States and NGOs for the purpose of white genocide.

      The problem is not economic migration of individuals, the problem is the genocide of European ethnic groups.

      Much of the discussion of the states role in this centers around welfare and rent-seeking. While this is obviously a problem, the more serious problem is the political implications.

      >have a state hostile to the native population
      >import racial strangers that are hostile to the native population
      >state advantages foreigners at the expense of natives
      >foreigners allowed to participate in the state and use it to further marginalize the native population
      >low birth rates of natives vs. high birthrates of foreigners
      >criminalization of native self-defense (both verbal and physical)
      >decriminalization of foreigner crimes against natives
      >rhetorical dehumanization of natives

      This is a shake and bake recipe for genocide.

    6. "This is a shake and bake recipe for genocide."

      Yes, and an interesting way to put it. Not all genocides require bullets.

  2. for some people history do not start yesterday.

    jewish people are one with history going back ( input years ).

    for Palestinians history goes back at least to 1945 if not 1920.

    in my opinion mess was made with british policy divide and conquer.

    USA just continue british policy.

    and by the way all this what is happening now is very good for Israel.

    all neighbors fallen states and number of people living there decreasing and more mix population in france,germany... with similar problem like Israel vs Palestinians .

    1. Anonymous @ June 18, 2017 at 6:05 PM,

      Are you anonp? And for that matter, is anonp the anonymous commenter that used to write anonpoof at the end of his comments?

    2. "... for Palestinians history goes back at least to 1945 if not 1920"

      Try a little harder. It goes way further back than 1920.

  3. With this post, Bionic appears to have solved the mystery of the open borders position. Their perspective of existing circumstances (their context) is that of unlimited immigration into a non-existent political system in which wealth is derived exclusively from aggression-free trade. In such a country, in order to thrive, immigrants must assimilate into the existing productivity, the result being cooperative social circumstances and increased prosperity.

    From this context, the opposition, not to immigration, but to welfare dependent immigration into a welfare state, then appears to be and is demonized as xenophobic. The actual result has been an overgrowth of non-assimilated reliance on welfare, additional tax dependency ensuring a permanent welfare state, with many of the arrivals hostile to native welfare state opposition, because it is mistaken for anti-immigrant sentiment.

  4. "Preventing racial strangers from colonizing your society makes sense in practice but how does it work in THEORY???"

    - paraphrase of anonp

    I will leave the arguments regarding libertarian theory to BM since that is his forte, but this is a clear instance of letting theorizing obstruct actualization.

    Sometime back I asked BM what the social preconditions would be for the actualization of a libertarian order. This precipitated further discussion and proved beyond all doubt that BM is someone sincerely interested in what it would take for the ideas he ascribes to in the realm of abstraction to take form in the real of flesh and blood.

    At this point I can confidently state that if you are a libertarian and unwilling to follow BM's very clear reasoning, then something is wrong with you. Either you are insincere, have a very different view of the purpose of libertarian ideas, or are just thick in the skull.

    How many times does he have to make the point that applying libertarian theory to an un-libertarian world leads to confusion on either theory or reality (or both)?

    I reject the NAP because from my perspective it is simply an impotent platitude that exists only in the world of libertarian intellectuals. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with some of its implications serving as rule of thumb for civil law in a glorious NEW ORDER, but if you can't find in it a justification for preventing a camp of the saints scenario then it is objectively useless from a civilizational perspective. Ultimately the men who are going to solve the crisis of the west will not be adherents to NAP, because we are not going to ask permission from anyone or anything to do what needs to be done. No existing authority, civil or religious, is on the side of European man. European man must choose his own side and we must throw out anything or anyone who gets in the way of this. The moral imperative of our time is white survival.

    If whites cannot survive the 21st century discussions like this will not even have a place in the history books of our colonizers.

    (BM, I hope you understand that my dismissal of the NAP is not a dismissal of your admirable attempts to place it in a relevant context. If anything I feel vindicated by the fact that a lot of professed libertarians can't follow your logic).

    1. “Sometime back I asked BM what the social preconditions would be for the actualization of a libertarian order.”

      One of the most important questions anyone has posed at this site. While my journey through these issues began before the question was asked, the question helped bring my further thinking into focus.

      “(BM, I hope you understand that my dismissal of the NAP is not a dismissal of your admirable attempts to place it in a relevant context….)”

      I do not take it this way at all. While you and I still have some meaningful differences in thinking, it seems to me that we each at least respect the work and depth taken by the other.

      My intellectual journey – plainly visible for all to see at this site – has, at least to this point in time, demonstrated a few things to me regarding libertarian theory and many of those who are its advocates:

      1) Rothbard is taken as the last word. While I will be first in line to recognize his pre-eminent position, this seems to me an unfair burden, in my mind, given that he basically invented the philosophy from many disparate pieces.

      2) More specifically for some, the early Rothbard is good; the later Rothbard, not so much. It seems to me fair that the founder of so many ideas is allowed to modify these as his thinking develops.

      3) The non-aggression principle is a religion. We can achieve perfection – meaning, we will have exactly all choices as we want them; if not…well, this is the initiation of aggression.

      4) The consequences are irrelevant; perhaps, more precisely, there is a faith that if we snapped our fingers and created a libertarian political order, things will all work out fine…and this will be true for all people everywhere in the world.

      It strikes me that the NAP, fully developed, offers more answers consistent with my views about common culture (and a specific type of culture) than is generally accepted by many who are adherents of this political philosophy.

      At least for me, so far, this has proven to be true.

    2. Yes, the early Rothbard vs the late Rothbard. The early Rothbard had some theories, and the late Rothbard had those theories tested against actual practice.

      Thus it was the late Rothbard that revised his opinions on mass immigration because it didn't work out how is was supposed to, and not just because of the welfare state, although the welfare state makes it worse.

      What Rothbard realized is that libertarianism is a white male thing (and a minority of them at that), and that other people, like women and non-whites are effectively opposed to libertarianism, unless they are complete outliers. Thus every non-white that comes into America reduces the likelihood of a libertarian program being implemented. This is one reason why Rothbard basically endorsed David Duke and called for an libertarian alliance with rednecks.

  5. Let us ask why injured ISIS fighters are treated in Israeli hospitals?

    Let us ask if the Syrian Air Force is defending its territory from foreign Jihadis, why MAD DOG shoots their jet?